HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03221994 - 2.2 f Contra
TO.. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
-
FROM: VALENTIN ALEXEEFF, GMEDA DIRECTOR County
DATE: MARCH 22 , 1994
SUBJECT: ACCEPT REPORT ON CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY'S COMPLETION OF
TASKS OUTLINED IN COUNTY/AUTHORITY AGREEMENT
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION($) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Accept report from Growth Management and Economic Development
Agency Director on completion of tasks outlined in the Memorandum
of Agreement between the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority and the
County;
Approve the attached report for Task #1--"Roles and
Responsibilities for Solid Waste Management" and its
recommendations that all agencies having AB 939 responsibilities or
solid waste franchising responsibilities voluntarily participate in
a Solid Waste Management Coordinating Council to be formed for the
purpose of information sharing and education on solid waste
management issues; and,
Approve the attached report for Task #2--"Model Waste Collection
Franchise and Waste Collection Rate Review Model" which presents
and analyzes alternative franchise agreements and rate setting
methodologies.
FISCAL IMPACT
None to the County General Fund. Staff and materials costs for
participation in cooperative activities between the County and the
Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority have been covered by the
Resource Recovery Fees.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: xx YES SIGNATURE V
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON March 22, 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
The Board APPROVED the above recommendations, and in addition, EXPRESSED its
appreciation to the Community Development Department and County Counsel's staff for their
work on the report.
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.
Contact: Louise Aiello (510/646-1550) ATTESTED March 22, 1994
cc: GMEDA PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Community Development Department (CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County Counsel, Lillian Fujii AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Avon Wilson, CCSWA (via CDD)
BY , DEPUTY
VA:LA\
939u\bo\CCSWA-1a.sks
Accept Report On CCSWA's Completion of Tasks
Outlined In County/Authority Agreement
Continued - Page Two
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
In April, 1993 , the Board of Supervisors and the Contra Costa Solid
Waste Authority approved a Memorandum of Agreement and Work Plan
which addressed three (3) key solid waste management issues--
(1) delineation of roles and responsibilities for solid waste
management among agencies within Contra Costa County; (2) analysis
of alternative waste collection franchise agreements and rate
setting methodologies for consideration by public policy makers;
and, (3) development of a method to evaluate the number and costs
of proposed transfer stations. Though Task #3 was overtaken by the
actual construction of transfer stations, Tasks #1 and #2 were
completed.
Attachment #1--"Roles and Responsibilities for Solid Waste
Management" resulted from the input of elected officials who
participated in two Workshops held in July, 1993 and in September,
1993 and whose comments were obtained following presentations to
the city councils, regional agency board, and/or other legislative
body. The report details the activities, deliberations, and
conclusions related to the process by which cities, franchising
agencies, regional agencies, the County explored organizational
structures for solid waste management in Contra Costa County.
Also, the report presents the recommendations resulting from this
process.
Specifically, the report on "Roles and Responsibilities for Solid
Waste Management" recommends that a countywide Solid Waste
Coordinating Council be formed and that
(1) membership be voluntary and open to all agencies with
AB 939 and/or solid waste franchising responsibilities;
(2) one elected official from each agency will serve as
represented to Solid Waste Coordinating Council;
(3) meetings will be held quarterly or at the request of
two or more members;
(4) members shall elect a Chair and Co-Chair;
(5) location and staffing for the quarterly meetings
should be rotated among the member jurisdictions;
(6) staffing for any additional activities would be
provided voluntarily by one of the member jurisdictions;
(7) the Coordinating Council shall have no by-laws or
formalized organizational agreement among the members;
(8) no member assessment will occur except as agreed
upon for member identified activities; and,
(9) activities of the Coordinating Council will focus
generally on those areas discussed in the Workshops
including, emphasizing local control; assuring minimal or
no cost to participating agencies; coordination of
programs and reduction or elimination of duplication of
activities.
The CCSWA, at its meeting on March 2 , 1994, unanimously voted to
accept the report and the above outlined recommendations.
Additionally, the CCSWA voted to include in the report the
recommendation that the current Chair and Vice Chair of the CCSWA
should sponsor and convene the first meeting of the Coordinating
Council which would, as its first order of business, select a Chair
and Vice Chair and determine a course of action.
Accept Report On CCSWA's Completion of Tasks
Outlined In County/Authority Agreement
Continued - Page Three
Attachment #2--"Model Waste Collection Franchise and Waste
Collection Rate Review Model" fulfills Task #2 of the Work Plan
agreed to between the County and the CCSWA. Part I of the document
analyzes the various components of waste collection franchising
from a public agency perspective. Part II of the document provides
an overview of four (4) different waste collection rate setting
methodologies. These analyses are provided for information and
consideration of public agency officials and elected officials to
assist them with policies within their own jurisdictions.
The Work Plan agreed upon between the County and the CCSWA included
Task #3 which was to develop a method for evaluating the number and
costs of proposed transfer stations. Following consultation with
the Steering Committee for the Work Plan and with other solid waste
agencies, completion of Task #3 was dropped by the CCSWA Board due
to the changing circumstances related to transfer stations.
At its meeting on March 3 , 1994 , the CCSWA Board of Directors voted
to dissolve the CCSWA effective June 30, 1994 . Consequently, your
Board's action on these reports completes the County's role in the
Tasks established as part of the Work Plan between the County and
the CCSWA.
939u\bo\CCS WA-tn:sks
DATE:
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
adddreesssin Board.
( /�� / PHONE: ,Z"
)1813 1610,;� -- _ CITY: •+�
I am speaking formyself OR organization:
(NAME OF ORGANIZ-V ION)
Check one:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item it
My comments will be: general Y for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
v '
Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
March 22, 1994 '
Avon M. Wilson
Executive Director
473inez,CImhoff P4553Suite 4 Honorable Chair and Board of Supervisors
Martinez,CA 94553 p
(510)229-9113 Contra Costa County
FAX(510)229-9 1 14 651 Pine Street
Antioch Martinez, California 94553
Brentwood
Byron Sanitary District Subject: Request Board of Supervisors' Concurrence and Approval
Central
ryDistric[osta of Roles and Responsibilities for Solid Waste Management.
Clayton . the Model Waste Collection Franchise and the Waste
Crockett Valona Collection Rate Review Model. - Contra Costa County -
Sanitary District Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority Memorandum of
Danville AgreemenbWork Plan, Tasks #1 & #2.
EI Cerrito
Hercules Ladies and Gentlemen:
Ironhouse Sanitary
District
Lafayette The Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority is pleased to present to your
Martinez Honorable Body the attached reports which comprise completion of
M°raga. Tasks #1 & #2 of,the Contra Costa County - Contra Costa Solid Waste
orinda Authority Memorandum of Agreement/Work Plan: Roles and
Pinole Responsibilities for Solid Waste Management and the Model Waste
Pleasant Hill Collection Franchise and the Waste Collection Rate Review Model. The
Richmond Authority Board of Directors approved the model franchise agreement at
San Pablo its meeting on January 5, 1994, the rate review model at its meeting on
San Ramon February 2, 1994 and the recommendations contained within Roles and
Walnut Creek Responsibilities for Solid Waste Management at its meeting on March 2,
1994. All approvals were formalized in the attached Authority Resolutions
94-2 and 94-3. Both reports are now forwarded to your Honorable Body
with recommendation for concurrence and approval and for distribution
to franchising and other interested entities.
Task #1 stipulates a careful process for seeking the widest possible input
necessary to developing consensus for a solid waste organizational
structure. Every effort was made to seek input through the workshop
process and then to test the product of that consensus through a variety
of follow-up interviews with council, sanitary district and and JPA
members. We believe the recommendation for a countywide
coordinating council, meets the consistently articulated criteria of local
control, cost effectiveness, lack of duplication and potential for future
coordination of planning and programs.
Task #2 requires the development of two models: the Model Waste
Collection Franchise and the Waste Collection Rate Review Model.
These have been so developed and are bound together as one report
with the intent that both documents shall be used in tandem. It was the
March 22, 1994
Request Supervisors'Concurrence and Approval of Memorandum of
Agreement and Work Plan Tasks #1 and #2 Completed Work Products.
Page Two
goal of the task force which developed these models that they represent
the most current thinking on issues/methodologies which any solid waste
franchising entity should consider in tailoring a solid waste collection
franchise and rate review process to its community's needs and priorities.
Development of Task #3 - "development of a method to evaluate the
number and costs of proposed transfer stations" was abandoned after it
became apparent that the siting and development of transfer stations/
material recovery facilities was rapidly proceeding ahead of the study.
This circumstance, in combination with the ongoing transfer station
development dynamics in east and central county, renders any attempt
at meaningful analysis irrelevant.
The Authority would like to acknowledge, with the greatest appreciation,
the staff persons from the cities, sanitary districts and JPAs, who assisted
the County and Authority staff in developing both Task #1 and #2 work
products. In particular, a considerable amount of research, time and
commitment are represented in the Task #2 models. When both our
bodies have formally approved both documents it would be appropriate
to thank these good people for their generous contribution to what we
believe will be useful documents.
Sinc
f
tchen Mariotti
Chair
Attachments
cc: Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
Valentin Alexeeff
Donald Blubaugh
David Rowlands
Colette Curtis-Brown
Peter Dragovich
Arlene Hildebrand
Sherry Kelly
Janet Schneider
Bill Davis
Fred Davis
z J ► Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
Avon M. Wilson RESOLUTION NO 94-2
Executive Director
47371Suite 4
Martinez,ez,CA 9454553 A RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF
CA
(510)229-9113 AGREEMENT/WORK PLAN TASK #2: A MODEL WASTE
FAX(510)229-9114 COLLECTION FRANCHISE AND A WASTE COLLECTION
Antioch RATE REVIEW MODEL
Brentwood
Byron Sanitary District
Central Contra Costa
WHEREAS,Sanitary District a majority of the cities in Contra Costa
Clayton County, along with a number of special districts which franchise for
Crockett Valona the collection and disposal of solid waste did jointly create the
Sanitary District Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (hereinafter "Authority") and
Danville enter into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement; and
EI Cerrito
Hercules WHEREAS, those cities and special districts entered into a
o°jhctseSanitary solid waste planning, coordinating and implementing partnership
Lafayette with Contra Costa County (hereinafter "County") for the betterment
Martinez of cost effective county wide solid waste management; and
Moraga
orinda WHEREAS, as part of that partnership the Authority and
Pinole County formulated .a work plan which specified certain planning
Pleasant Hill tasks addressing issues of common concern to both entities; and
Richmond
San Pablo WHEREAS, one of the planning tasks enumerated in
San Ramon subject Work Plan was the development of a model. waste .
Walnut Creek collection franchise and a rate review model; and
WHEREAS, the following city, sanitary district, Authority
and. County staff members were appointed as a task force to
develop these models: Colette Curtis Brown - Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District; Peter Dragovich - City of Concord; Sherry
Kelly - City of Martinez; Arlene Hildebrand and Janet Schneider -
City of Walnut Creek; Belinda Smith - Contra Costa County; and
Avon Wilson - Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority; and
WHEREAS, said Task Force has completed development
of subject models and has presented these models for approval
and adoption for use by the Authority and the County; and
WHEREAS, the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
approved the Model Waste Collection Franchise on January 5,
1994 and the Waste Collection Rate Review Model on February 2,
1994;
Resolution 94-2
Approving a Model Waste Collection Franchise and a Waste
Collection Rate Review Model
Page Two
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the
Board of Directors of the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
hereby adopts both the Model Waste Collection Franchise and
the Waste Collection Rate Review Model, enumerated in the
Contra Costa County - Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
Memorandum of Agreement and Work Plan as Task #2, and
attached hereto as Exhibits A and B; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Contra Costa
Solid Waste Authority forwards these model documents to the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, with recommendation
for concurrence and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this second day of February,
1994, by the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority, by the following
vote:
AYES: Antioch, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
Clayton, Crockett Valona Sanitary District, Danville,
EI Cerrito, Hercules, Ironhouse Sanitary District,
Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Pinole, San Ramon,
Walnut Creek
NOES: None
ABSENT: Byron Sanitary District, Brentwood, Orinda, Pleasant
Hill
l
Chair
E
eri ExXive� or
Z
Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
Avon M. Wilson RESOLUTION NO 94-3
Executive Director
473inez,CImhoff Place,
4553Suite 4 APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COUNTYWIDE -
Martinez,CA 94553
(510)229-9113 SOLID WASTE COORDINATING COUNCIL
FAX(5 10)229-9114
Antioch
Brentwood WHEREAS, a majority of the cities in Contra Costa
ByyronronSSanitary District District County, along with a number of special districts which franchise for
Sanitary District Central Costa the collection and disposal of solid waste did jointly create the
Clayton Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (hereinafter "Authority") and
CrockettValona enter into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement; and
Sanitary District
Danville WHEREAS, those cities and special districts entered into a
EI Cerrito solid waste planning, coordinating and implementing partnership
Hercules with Contra Costa County (hereinafter "County") for the betterment
Di tricCseSanitary of cost effective county wide solid waste management; and
Lafayette
Martinez WHEREAS, as part of that partnership the Authority and
M°raga County formulated a work plan which specified certain planning
orinda tasks addressing issues of common concern to both entities; and
Pinole
Pleasant Hill WHEREAS, one of the planning tasks enumerated in
Richmond subject Work Plan was to delineate, in cooperation with sub-
San Pablo regional solid waste joint powers authorities, roles and
San Ramon responsibilities for solid waste management; and
Walnut Creek
WHEREAS, two informational workshops were held which
invited and were widely attended by elected officials and staff from
cities, sanitary districts, joint powers authorities and the County;
private sector representatives and members of the public-at-large;
and
WHEREAS, said workshops focussed on a variety of
organizational alternatives, staffing levels, financing needs and
concerns; and
WHEREAS, workshop attendees directed the Authority
and County to develop a countywide coordinating council
organizational structure with minimal staffing; and
WHEREAS, further input on staffing levels was solicited
from members of City Councils, Sanitary Districts and joint powers
authorities and refined by Authority and County staff; and
Resolution 94-3
Approving the Establishment of a Countywide Solid Waste
Coordinating Council
Page Two
WHEREAS, the Authority Board of Directors at its meeting
on February 2, 1994 refined the parameters for a countywide solid
waste organizational structure;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the
Board of Directors of the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
hereby adopts the recommendations contained within its attached
report, entitled Roles and Responsibilities for Solid Waste
Management, for the establishment of a Countywide Solid Waste
Coordinating Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Contra Costa
Solid Waste Authority forwards this proposal to the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors, with its recommendation for
concurrence and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this second day of March,
1994, by the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority, by the following
vote:
AYES: Antioch, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
Clayton, Danville, Hercules, Ironhouse Sanitary
District, Martinez, Moraga, Orinda, Pinole, San
Ramon and Walnut Creek.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Brentwood, Byron Sanitary District, Crockett-Valona
Sanitary District, Lafayette and Pleasant Hill,
jp
{ Chair
AT
ri Exec ui`,�Ve"rb hecto
Clerk of the Board
Attachment #1
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Prepared by
THE CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
' and
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
March 1994
ST'4 COUNA
Printed on Recycled Paper
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT
'
Prepared b
P Y
' THE CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
' and
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
March 1994
�a1fr.._ •A,a
COOK
Printed on Recycled Paper
1
1
1
1
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SOLID
1 WASTE MANAGEMENT
1 Prepared by
1 THE CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
and
1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
1
1 With Assistance from
1 Bill Davis, Executive Director.........West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority
Fred Davis, Executive Director....................................Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
Advisory Body
Valentin Alexeeff, Director - GMEDA.........................................Contra Costa County
Donald Blubaugh, City Manager................................................City of Walnut Creek
David Rowlands, City Manager..............................................................City of Antioch
1
1
i
1
Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
4737 Imhoff Place, Suite 4
Martinez,California 94553
' (510)229-9113
f:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY REPRESENTING
' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Gretchen Mariotti, Chair City of Pinole
' Mary Rocha City of Antioch
Bill Doheney City of Brentwood
Richard Erickson Byron Sanitary District
' Sue McNulty Rainey Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
Peter Laurence City of Clayton
' Douglas Tubbs Crockett Valona
Sanitary District
' Dick Waldo Town of.Danville
Jane Bartke City of EI Cerrito
Beth Bartke City of Hercules
Ivor Powell Ironhouse Sanitary District
' Ivor Samson City of Lafayette
Barbara Woodburn City of Martinez
Jim Sweeny(Chair, May, 1992-July, 1993) Town of Moraga
Aldo Guidotti City of Orinda
Kimberly Brandt City of Pleasant Hill
' Mary Lou Oliver City of San Ramon
Gene Wolfe City of Walnut Creek
' CONTRA COSTA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Tom Powers, District I -Chair
Jeffrey V. Smith, District II -
Nancy C. Fanden, District II (Retired)
' Gayle Bishop, District III
Robert I. Schroder District III (Retired)
Sunne Wright McPeak- District IV
Tom Torlakson, District V
1
FORMER AUTHORITY BOARD MEMBERS
Rosemary Corbin, Chair- December 1991-April 1992 ,
Avon Wilson, Chair-July- December 1991
Diana Angela ,
Eduardo Manuel
Mary Erbez '
Joseph Gomes
Karene Gottfried
Cathie Kosel
Norman La Force '
Matt Mattson
Dwight Meadows
Dennis Nunn '
Nancy Parent
Russ Perkins ,
Barbara Price
Susanna Schlendorf '
Michael Shimansky
CITY COUNCILS
City of Antioch
Mayor Joel Keller, Mary Rocha, Elizabeth A. Rimbault, Cathryn R. Freitas, Ralph A. Hernandez
City of Brentwood
Mayor Arthur Gonzales, William Hill, Bill Doheney, Karene Gottfried, Barbara Guise '
City of Clayton
Mayor Pete Laurence, Julie Pierce, Robert Kendall, Gregg Manning, Rich Littorno
Town of Danville
Mayor Don Richey, Mildred Greenberg, Mike Doyle, Michael Shimansky, Dick Waldo
City of EI Cerrito
Mayor Jane A. Bartke, Norman La Force, Norma Jellison, Cathie Kosel, W. Mae Ritz
City of Hercules
Mayor Eduardo G. Manuel, Beth Bartke,Alexander C. Sample, III, William Simpson, Darrel"Jay"Tucker
City of Lafayette
' Mayor Anne Grodin, Gayle Uilkema,Judy Garvens, Ivor Samson, Don Tatzin
City of Martinez
Mayor Michael Menesini, Barbara Woodburn, Harriet Burt, Timothy J. Farley,Julian Frazer
Town of Moraga
Mayor AI Dessayer, James J. Sweeny, Cherie T. Grant, Michael Harris, Susan L. Noe
City of Orinda
Mayor Bobbie Landers, Aldo Guidotti, Bill Dabel,Joyce Hawkins, Gregg Wheatland
City of Pinole
Mayor Mary Horton, Peter Murray, Maria Alegria, Gretchen Mariotti, Daniel Purnell
' City of Pleasant Hill
Mayor Terri L. Williamson, W.D. "Bill" Landis, Kimberly N. Brandt, Paul L. Cooper, Sherry M. Sterrett
City of San Ramon
' Mayor Hermann Welm,Gregory L. Carr, Patricia Boom, Curtis Kinney, Mary Lou Oliver
' City of Walnut Creek
Mayor Ron Beagley, Ed Dimmick, Evelyn Munn, Gwen Regalia, Gene Wolfe
SANITARY DISTRICTS
Byron Sanitary District
President Bob Byer, Ken Botte, Alison Clegg, Richard Erickson, Mike Nisen
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
President Susan McNulty Rainey, John B. Clausen, William C. Dalton, Barbara Hockett, Mario M. Menesini,
Crockett Valona Sanitary District
' President Douglas Tubbs, Rod Butler, Carl Heller, Peter Milcovich, John Wolthuis
Ironhouse Sanitary District
' President Lenny Byer, Robert Gromm, Richard IGrkman, Dwight Meadows, David Mickelson, Ivor Powell,
William Trice
REGIONAL SOLID WASTE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
President John Clausen, Susan McNulty Rainey, Mary Lou Oliver, Gregory Carr, Evelyn Munn, Gene
Wolfe
West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority
President Beth Bartke,Jane Bartke, Daniel Purnell, Rosemary Corbin, Richard Griffin, Lonny Washington,
Joseph Gomes '
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT
tTABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
' INTRODUCTION 1
' RECOMMENDED ACTION 1
FISCAL IMPACT 3
' BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 3
' APPENDIX A - Authority April 13, 1992 Letter to
Board of Supervisors
APPENDIX B -Contra Costa Solid Waste Management
Transition Proposal
' APPENDIX C - Memorandum of Agreement and Work Plan
Between the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
and Contra Costa County
IAPPENDIX D - Workshop I Study Materials
APPENDIX E - Workshop II Study Materials
APPENDIX F - Workshop II Supplementary Materials
APPENDIX G - Issues to Consider in Selecting Staffing Options
APPENDIX H - Council/JPA Presentation Study Materials
APPENDIX I - Presentation Materials
' APPENDIX J - NPDES Model
APPENDIX K - February 2, 1994 Staff Report: Task I - Roles
and Responsibilities for Solid Waste Management -
Progress Report and Preliminary Recommendations
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
1 In March, 1993, the Board of Directors of the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
(Authority) and Contra Costa County (County) Board of Supervisors agreed to enter
into a three year partnership agreement which had as its goal the development of solid
waste policies, planning and programs. As a part of that partnership, the two entities
also agreed to a six month probationary period during which they would jointly
accomplish three tasks:
Task #1
Delineate, in cooperation with subregional solid waste joint powers
' authorities, roles and responsibilities for solid waste management;
Task #2
1 Develop a model waste collection franchise and a rate review model; and
' Task #3
Develop, in cooperation with the subregional solid waste authorities, a method
for evaluating the number and costs of transfer stations proposed and suggest
criteria.
The purpose of this report is two-fold: to detail the deliberations, findings and
conclusions of the County-Authority study on Task #1 and the activities associated with
that study, and to present recommendations which have resulted from that study and
which support the formation of a countywide solid waste coordinating council. It is the
intent of both the Authority and the County that the recommendations which follow be
viewed as a starting point; adhering to the guidelines established by the study
workshops and follow-up city council /subregional joint powers authority discussions.
' RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Approve the formation of a countywide solid waste coordinating council which
functions within the following organizational parameters:
' a. Membership is voluntary and is open to all agencies with AB 939 and/or
solid waste franchising responsibilities in Contra Costa County;
b. Representation on the coordinating council will be comprised of one
elected official from each participating franchising entity;
' 1
C. The membership meetings are on a quarterly, or as needed basis, ,
depending on the scope of agreed upon coordinating council activities;
d. The members shall elect a chair and a vice chair; '
e. The chair and vice chair shall set the agenda and call meetings; '
f. Any two coordinating council members may also call a meeting of the
membership;
Meeting locations and staffing for meetings would be rotated among the '
9 9 9 9
member jurisdictions;
h. Staffing for those additional coordinating council activities which have '
been agreed to by the members would be provided voluntarily by a
member jurisdiction; '
i. Activities which the coordinating council undertakes will generally
adhere to the-general guidelines established by the Task #1 Workshops; '
1) maximize local control,
2) cause minimal cost to all participants,-
3) avoid duplication of activities within a region or countywide; and '
4) coordinate local and regional planning and programs when such
coordination will produce improved efficiency, cost effectiveness
and excellence;
j. There will be no bylaws or formalized organizational agreement among
the member jurisdictions; and '
k. There will be no member assessment, except as agreed upon for
member chosen activities. '
2. The current countywide solid waste organization, the Contra Costa Solid Waste
Authority, shall be dissolved, effective June 30, 1994. Prior to its dissolution, the
Authority recommends the following formational process for the new
coordinating council:
As a last act of the Authority, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Authority should
sponsor and convene a meeting of interested entities for the purpose of forming
a coordinating council. The group assembled should select a chair and vice
chair, decide on.a process for hosting and staffing future meetings and decide
on the new coordinating council's next course of action.
e
2
4v zt,:
' FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impact on those jurisdictions which choose to join the coordinating council
should be minimal, except for those costs of hosting and staffing the infrequent
meetings. With the specific provision that there shall be no bylaws or assessment for
the coordinating council support, there is no need for monies at this time to support
staff, legal council, etc. Special projects may at some time in the future require
member assessment, but for the time being, will be handled on as needed basis. If
1 funding special projects needs more organizational structure than is envisioned for the
outset, that will require future consideration of a more formalized organizational
structure.
' BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
' On April 13, 1992, the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (Authority) a newly formed
solid waste joint powers agency requested formally that the Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors join the Authority. (See Appendix A ) This request came as the
' result of long time efforts by the county's cities and sanitary districts to develop a
countywide solid waste forum and/or agency which would change the process by
which countywide solid waste decision making was accomplished. The genesis for
these efforts came out of the mid 1980's landfill disputes and the lack of shared
leadership inherent in the then enabling legislation, SB 5:
• County government was responsible for developing the County Solid Waste
' Management Plan (CoSWMP); which was primarily oriented to,
related to siting landfills.
• Complicating the County's management was the multiplicity of players and
division of responsibilities: 22 franchising public agencies and 8 different
haulers.
• Franchising agencies, guided by SB 5, deferred to the County for siting the
necessary landfills, and, based upon practice and lack of consensus among
' agencies for a publicly owned landfill, the County deferred to the private sector
to provide landfills.
' While the cities and sanitary districts were developing a joint powers authority
structure to provide for their objective of shared leadership, the State Legislature,
responding to what it perceived as a state wide crisis in solid waste leadership,
enacted into law AB 939, which set forth a prescribed program for source reduction,
recycling and composting for each city and county in the state. It identified specific
diversion goals for the years 1995 and 2000 with fines of up to $10,000 per day levied
against each jurisdiction which failed to comply with the Act and its subsequent
' legislative provisions:
• A city or county failed to submit any of the requisite elements: Source
Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), Household Hazardous Waste
Element (HHWE), Siting Element (County only) and Non Disposal Facility
Element (NDFE).
' 3
• A city or county failed to implement its elements.
• A city or county failed to prepare adequate goals. '
• A city or county flailed to reach its goals. ,
It was attested by those developing the legislation that the State Waste Management
Board would not levy fines until extensive due process has been observed. '
After consideration by the Board of Supervisors' Internal Operations (10) Committee,
comprised of Supervisors McPeak and Schroder, of a solid waste transition proposal ,
submitted by the Authority, (See Appendix 8 ) the Board of Supervisors and the
Authority Board of Directors approved commencement of negotiations between the 10
committee and Authority representatives. It was finally agreed to by both entities and
ratified by Authority member jurisdictions, that a three year contract, renewable to five
years, be entered into by the two entities. This contract was negotiated as a
Memorandum of Agreement with a six month probationary Work Plan (See Appendix
C ). The Work Plan consisted of three tasks; one of which- was to delineate, in '
conjunction with the regional joint powers authorities, the roles and responsibilities for
solid waste management, including consideration of staffing and funding.
This determination would be effected through the workshop process. Workshop I: '
would seek to answer the following questions:
• Identify ways to streamline the different aspects of solid waste management to ,
eliminate or reduce overlap/duplication. In what ways could public agencies
and private sector work to streamline, reduce costs, work together more '
effectively?
• In what ways can independent/individual jurisdiction decision making be ,
provided for while building an interdependent and cooperative solid waste
management organizational structure?
Workshop II, building on the direction and organizational alternatives selected by the ,
workshop I participants, would seek to answer the following questions:
• How can cost savings to member agencies and to rate payers result from
changes in how and under what organization solid waste management
activities are handled?
• What is the optimum organizational structure for solid waste activities to obtain
efficiency and be responsive to:individual jurisdictions and rate payers?
• What staffing and funding levels are necessary for alternative organizational
structures and which structure(s) provide the most cost-effective use of staff?
. 4
Workshop 1
On July 29, 1993, representatives from Contra Costa County, the various city and
sanitary district solid waste franchising agencies, the regional and countywide solid
waste joint powers authorities, the AB 939Task Force, private sector representatives
and members of the public met to consider alternative structures for assigning roles
and responsibilities for solid waste management in Contra Costa County. At this
meeting, participants were briefed by Authority and County staff. That briefing
1 consisted of the following elements and materials (See Appendix D ):
• A review of State Solid Waste Requirements - AB 939 et al;
' Goals/Objective/Activities of the Various Solid Waste Entities;
' Potential Areas of Opportunities for solid Waste Cooperation and/or
Coordination;
' Funding Sources; and
• Possible Organizational Structures for Countywide Solid Waste Management.
During the last briefing item, five organizational structures were presented:
' I. The Current System
County
• AB 939 Countywide Plan, Siting Element
• Potential Contracting with JPAs, cities for programs and/or planning
' Multi-jurisdictional Organizations
• West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority
• Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
' Delta Diablo Global Agreement
• (Potentian Pittsburg - Concord JPA
Cities
' Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), Household
Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE), Non Disposal Facility Element
(NDFE) Mitigation Monitoring
• Plan and implement Programs individually or in cooperation with other
jurisdictions
' 5
• Potential members of facility-based joint powers authorities.
11. Autonomous Regional Solid Waste Authorities '
Membership
• WCCIWMA - West County cities contract with County for AB 939 planning
and programs ,
• CCSWA - San Ramon, Walnut Creek, Central San., representing
Lamorinda and Danville (Clayton, Martinez and Pleasant Hill not '
members)
• Pittsburg - Concord (Potential Regional Agency) ,
• Delta Diablo S. D. Global Agreement - Pittsburg, Antioch and County
Mission - Responsibilities '
• Facility development; management ,
• Facility-related program implementation
• Regional AB 939 related planning and monitoring '
• Coordination of programs within region
III. Regional Agency Coordinating Council ,
Coordinating Council '
• 2 representatives from each regional agency
• Countywide AB 939 planning (If County is a Member)
• Addresses countywide solid waste issues
Regional Agencies Functions
• Facility Development and Management
• Regional AB 939 Planning
•
Regional Program Implementation
eg g p
6
i;
IV. Countywide Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority
' Membership
• Each city, franchising agency and the County has a seated representative.
Responsibilities
1 • Policy development
• AB 939 Countywide Plan and Siting Element and mitigation monitoring
(assumes County membership)
• Reporting on diversion to State
• Development of model ordinances, i.e. franchising, rate regulation
government procurement, etc.
• Coordination of SRRE, HHWE, NDFE preparation;Assist regional
agencies-cities with implementation
Regional Agencies (WCCIWMA, CCSWA, Pittsburg/Concord, Delta Diablo)
• Facility development and management
' Facility related program implementation
V. Transportation Authority Model
Representation
' 2 representatives from each region
' 1 Mayors' Conference representative
• 2 Board of Supervisors representatives
' Responsibilities
• AB 939 Countywide Plan, Siting Element mitigation and monitoring,.
reporting to State
• Resolve countywide/inter-regional solid waste issues
' Coordinate countywide programs; implementation
1 Develop model ordinances for rate regulation, franchising, procurement,
etc.
1
7
Regional Agencies Responsibilities '
• Facility management '
• Review/comment AB 939 Countywide Plan
• Implement regional/facility based programs
• Coordinate AB 939 regional plans/programs
After much discussion on the merits of each structure, there was a growing consensus
to not retain the status quo as represented by the current organizational status, or to
support autonomous regional agencies which do not interact with each other. Some
interaction was felt necessary. However, a structure which was developed needed to
respond to the following fears regarding a countywide organization:
• Loss of local control over rates, quality of programs, etc.,
• Duplication of solid waste meetings; '
• Quality of service to the citizens;
• Loss of constituent control; '
• Adding another layer of government; duplication; '
• Loss of unique programs and responsibility;
• Potential for inter-regional conflict; ,
• Loss of local revenue; '
• Potential for over-regulation; over-managing; over-control;
• competition between regional JPAs and cities for control; ,
• May become unwieldy;
May plan and never implement;
• Concern regarding its impact on the private haulers;
• Fear by local government that it would be left out of the loop; and
• Lack of trust among all agencies. N
After further discussion on what the next workshop should consider, the participants
directed that Alternatives III - V (See above ) be refined and scheduled for further
consideration as follows:
8
I. A second workshop be held as soon as possible at which participants could
evaluate revised solid waste organization alternatives.
2. The minutes of Workshop I and revised alternatives be distributed to all
franchising jurisdictions, organizations, private sector members and other
Workshop I participants prior to Workshop II. These entities are to discuss the
alternatives, come to consensus and provide direction to their representatives
' attending Workshop II.
Workshop II
' Workshop II was convened on September 29, 1993, attended by representatives of
cities, sanitary districts the County, regional JPAs, industry and the public at large. The
attenders had received briefing materials (See Appendix E ) which they were to review
I and share with their respective constituencies, as instructed by Workshop I. The
attenders then considered the following Agenda items:
• Update on State solid Waste Legislation and new requirements (AB 440 - See
Appendix F)
• Revised Organizational Alternatives for Countywide Solid Waste Management
which included cost Implications of each alternative and its staffing needs.
' A round table discussion by Authority members considering the proc and cons
of Alternatives III - V.
After.much discussion the panel and participants felt that some aspect of Alternative III,
the Regional Agency Coordinating Council, should be explored, with the
understanding that as experience with this alternative develops, it might make sense
to eventually move into an organizational structure as represented by Alternative IV or
V. Within this context, the workshop attenders recommended to the Authority and
Board of Supervisors that the Coordinating Council alternative be pursued, with
' consideration given to the following staff options - No Staff and Contract Staff: (See
Appendix E )
Option B - Contract Staff
' Staffing by contract with cities, regional agencies or County
' Full time solid waste coordinator
Full time secretary
Contract with County, city or regional agency for legal counsel
• Other work by contracts as needed
9
Option C - No Council Staff
• No staff would be provided. All staffing needs would be met on an "ad hoc" basis. '
• A city, regional agency or the County would be designated as the Lead Agency for
purposes of administration and responsibility for Coordinating Council meetings. ,
• Work would be identified as the need arises and be accomplished'by contracts with
member jurisdictions, other agencies or private sector. ,
• Responsibility for administration of work contracts would be assigned at time of
contract.
At the request of Supervisor Bishop, the result of the Workshops were to be also
referred to a Board of Supervisors meeting for the Supervisors' direct input.
October 6 Authority Board of Directors Meeting
At this follow-up meeting discussion to the Workshop II, the Board of Directors agreed '
with the direction provided by the Workshop attenders. Prior to developing the
Alternative 111 model with with the Contract Staff/No Staff Options, the staff for the
County and Authority developed a list of issues (See Appendix G ) which they felt
should be addressed as part of the Regional Agency Coordinating Council model.
Staff recommended that it schedule a series of discussions with member jurisdictions
_ and subregional JPAs to get their input to the issues raised and the staffing options. It '
was directed that the staff would return at the January Authority Board meeting with the
result of those discussions and staff recommendations.
Issues to Consider
° Composition of the regional agencies and the role of non-member jurisdictions; '
• Under each option how the proposed coordinating council's activities could be
funded; '
• Management and operating procedures between all participating jurisdictions
and agencies;
• Suggested focus and work plan for the proposed coordinating council; a
• Resolving interagency differences;
Parameters of contracting and the contractual relationship;
• Time needed to get documentation ready for dissolution of the Contra Costa i
Solid Waste Authority.
10 1
October 26 1993 Board of Supervisors Meeting
iAt this meeting, Supervisor Bishop presented the results of the two workshops and the
direction provided by the Workshop attenders and the subsequent Authority meeting.
Supervisors present seemed less concerned by the organizational structure for solid
waste management as much as the issues which they hoped the two other Work Plan
Tasks would address: Solid waste franchising and rate review, control of the
wastestream and analysis of the various transfer stations options. Their direction was
to develop answers to those issues.
Presentations
As directed by the Authority Board of Directors, Authority and County staff scheduled a
series or presentations to selected councils and one regional JPA. The purpose was
' to verify the direction directed by the Workshops and Authority, assuring that support
was firm for the coordinating council concept as well as to ascertain the level of
staffing that the elected officials could support for such an organ ization.Presentations
' were made to the following bodies:
• City of Pinole
• City of Pleasant Hill
• City of Antioch
• City of Clayton
• City of Martinez
• City of Brentwood
• Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
With the exception of the City of Pinole, where staff followed the outline of the materials
provided in advance (See Appendix H ). The presentation followed the format of the
attached overhead transparencies (See Appendix I ). The change in presentation was
' motivated by the need to get more definitive input. Staff felt that the issues and ,�
options appeared to be too complex and confusing and tried this more clearly defined '
sequential approach. While the jurisdictions may have understood the presentation
I better, with the exception of one jurisdiction, they did not feel comfortable in providing
more definitive direction. With one exception, none addressed the issue of staffing.
In general, the issues raised by the subject elected officials were the same raised by
the Workshop I & II participants. Council and JPA members were very guarded about
the merits of a countywide solid waste organization. If there were to be such an
organization, it should
• be cost effective - cost the ratepayer as little as possible;
• preserve and enhance local control;
• provide coordination which doesn't sacrifice local control or programs; and
' avoids duplication.
' 11
Individual remarks included '
• Regional JPAs are sufficient - if countywide solid waste coordination should '
ever be needed, it can be handled over lunch;
• There might be loss of local control over the waste stream; '
• Competition should be encouraged. Competition has produced negotiations
with Acme Keller regarding the transfer disposal rates;
• Having a common voice has been helpful; the organization should focus on
solving common concerns; '
• We need to be able to comply with AB 939 effectively;
• It is not certain that we can develop a structure which can help us meet the AB ,
939 diversion goals...would be willing to work regionally;
• We need to keep bureaucracy to a minimum; we must not duplicate the '
example of the Transportation Authority;
• We have enough agencies and layers of government already;
• We need to find economical ways to promote composting and to develop
markets; and '
• Implementing AB 939 by oneself could be expensive.
• Autonomy might be lost; One jurisdiction feared that the strides made by their
jurisdiction and its active volunteers would be lost if their programs were joined
with those of other jurisdictions less aggressive (competent?). They would be '
willing to.join with others if it is proved that there would be economy of scale, but
not if local efforts are diminished in the process.
• An organizational structure to look at would be that of the Contra Costa Cities -
County • District • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES -
See Appendix J ) because
it provides for local autonomy;
payment is based on each jurisdiction's percentage of the population;
it provides economy of scale and has ability to capture large scale
economics; and
it provides a contract staff.
• The coordinating council concept should be supported, with the Authority
providing the structure and the transition process to get the Council organized.
12 ,
' February 2 1994 Authority Board of Directors Meeting
' At the subject Authority Board of Directors meeting, Authority and County staff
presented their findings based on discussions with the various member jurisdictions
over the previous month of meetings. (See Appendix K ) It was staffs' opinion that the
NPDES model could be adapted to meet the general guidelines developed at the
Workshops; accommodating the overall desire to have policy makers continue to have
a forum for solid waste issues. After much discussion, the Board of Directors approved
a motion to recommend to the Board of Supervisors and the Authority member
jurisdictions that the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority be dissolved, and that a
countywide solid waste coordinating council be formed, with-those specific provisions
' as enumerated in this report's recommendations.
1
13
r �
AN
j/
`/ i �� <-r� 7.., l-, � - ,�� \ _ 11 /Y - � "+ �r'• '�..��/ 1 E � ,moi ����� i �,.
�_ 1 ri U D � , ! w' � a.t � I ! .✓,, y� „' a. ;�1 fry, Y-/- t 7 � ^� t ;;
.�'? `� � �.� l ( (' r f,� , vvv tial t t 4 -'_'/, ✓� Yf„% r t -;A `�� � ' ,y s'
I'4
\ �...,,�<,•7 tia � / '.f---," i frt�,k i T� (� <n / ,_s / � ,t,?s �. /.t' V � t � .� � ��.
� X ✓ �Vp/yV v�_��.,tr � �r 's -(. � � -. � `* i *)' ^1F, � � 1 ¢ � �-. t s^��\ 7� �1 � � r
� \ :o-�i � -r� q. /�.\ :) (j �-.. �,• 'r/ .1. \\,;,_` .!'�j�-t G -,c` .,f � ..,- _r �� � a �h 1 ,a� t
a r !
1 _ { -_ �' .r ��. _.� � /i. -�•�� r� � � ^. .�/ � y--�l., i �" �V� �`�l -� ( � •' , rte �- // ��r -v �r � -, ,
-
��.L ` vet= i� _ x`_l �� '- ; y �".i �,. •. � �\ `�. � _'r t 7J�p-#7��, �,� � r• / .: .�• - - ��,I
, r i_ V � �. A ,�. .A- 7 (. I C -! �-i r _1, + 11.,,`s.✓ � t�k rk k. 1 �:»/..1 •i � ` -
+�ILI
-1 � � � ,-� �1 •�/ 1 n�" < s f i. s �� `f �' 1{ Q;F✓ �,' 7 'C 'C�A�i� , ,� ,�` � t � f �,_ � � � "+�� 1'f.
� �'� -:(� ! t '+� a. it 1 ,*.. , •�,.. r ,'" L � ,� -<,! r , ^... } J � •1
�} \ ty„ i.,- ,,l ,;�� � s (. �� ik - ,�e � �. icy 1 � i� � �r� v {`_ - / .� ,( i�r.! r \�:A! � �•
\. ! P .--. t?� _ t /� �'.t �, �T \moi - r K S•j,� y ,�,�. !.
V '•I1 \� � '�� \ t, j, s A,� /" � , � ,,�, � � I, ! jVfit / , f a � �
,
v � - � - ��w✓j,' C`� /r + i�r ' Pry _ e� .
'�: ➢ � � .'- i / �r .t :i.t \ i•� � i-,{moi 1_ � � ` ''S r,i )'' �, 'j J..
- a t➢. 4`"C,t, ' � ✓;fit`'' i> ��.i, - " �I a r �ryy� / ��r>,- '7. .J�.`(^ _ ,-.4
+ „� � �""..�. t...t�„t \a I"1 - l ."� l r. '�� I `�'_A��•. f ' )F, / �.- \' r � .r t '' ij i _ t
Al
b+ � �� t �' {1\ J- !t t t `, fv z,f;,� .§r , � .; ,, •�`r f..,,. 3 l _- �}, r s� �
� �\i. \� I, tJ,��.� 'i' i j ; � (r { l .t`f .fit ,' � .s � ,� ➢ ,,l. � r �.. '',:�,
�� - � �.,, 1y ' 1 ' A ,�- --� :t -"' V) -_r j.� t L � � V. � � >r y.., ➢',l r v
� ,. .�i ,!� fLl'�. aY, � /,1 t;, E >,^^! '- ri �..i., ,. �:. �\ ,:/`>. r •�. � 't% ; t i � y
raA R E_ NDIX
i ./ i �, i r ! _ 1 'C i a _ '.. .„f`➢�-, ., � �� yr �� / - r .� r t� )` -``'\ � ; t } ,\ \ ',... � 1.
41.
y- ➢ � t ,��� .,� 1 �`� �-�C,� r '�� ;` ”`�r;� -�a_� C �r ^-.� t t� i�r! �+ r�i �, .� � a� �. /t� i
` `A;.UTH�� RI 'Y+ AA �;1w3`, .h1992 -L=ETT,E�R / .
t➢,/ \y.y:{� � ` (t-1 t. ` !L 's � �/ '} � iirr ,'� � y�i �
r^
�-� i`V.•tx (E.`r1� �+�111I•k`\� �i�i, t F \ � R I( �
� � �➢ r �^ ,l �. -y 7 r 1 t r, tr l 1. y '� �l � i �.rj �l r � 1,� Fi�s C � i
tYiT
:;. ".. ,� ,1 I ' ✓' _/ �.t.I �.>✓� � �t p t 1 t :r � a. rr > s � rte' "/
� -.r' ' + +' 1 � �.l ✓k( .:".!i- r r�. � �,i r y wl '> \ � -; "°".t :1/'v ��k - �. r.- :}i �
err i�. '°` �➢�,� �. / � •�- 1>`"' t1 � 1r /2 � r � ��'+.'' r+'.� 1>tir,^- { � l,- � �,� ,�1 f.�I t. t 't 1 /� \�( ��{,.� J`� .
/C1 � ��� f/ I➢'. Cti �� t t '��:.11 l .�, } 7-r �' � �, ` y r�. /' 1 t t YY
\?- �.: l "xi J r h -� / s •i �\/ � r)' �r .I ,*. v � ,� .,(a ���� 1 '0 r1� (
` � ��� t � ' ➢ � ''EV` �''� _x{ � '.� '� 1A, I! .� �`�� �(1 I �-t: r �; 1 'oma t,z -- 3 �� ,�
�-
`��
h+." � ( -. �. 1� "1 /�r.` �¢T ��` r �k,�-"```l �� f / _ i l � - (�VI.�V �-�( �f"`�t'�� �' ,� 2 �`,' �-) � �➢yf�f1 t. ..: 1�. .5�.
\.` - ,! jr t\ `�' ^-�'>' �•� / ,p')� } .t r. f.�
h rr �YI 1 I"1 A A✓ .a �} ., "➢ ..A \. ^: t�� / " ➢rte f ,� Pt r .��`� '� .�
,k -'._ 'tel 'ti -➢' t^cr r. �:. � � �- i _ �>t>, �4.,ri Y trT, :i � /�� i 1`, f.t; t � i / . �' � "\.
` �t �_�➢�` ~l...wf ' ➢�-- :.til rt '�'.�...1. �'. :�r r y. ` - �=,, `�v'i rb -�r` .. �� ➢ r ��
.i,�.v \ l r-y�'�: t ) /�'�V .� � �.:" �. f--,' .J,,r / \ � t' 1� � �'� ��>1. r� � �� /�y, `! ✓�' I
\�� \�,. 1'"` J +r-.�- t �.�R I .7 Y � t � i t,. { +/ h�.=.r 'e � >�; `� � •�" '�' � ' r � ':., \ C�. x ' '���`(
+ J
�\ J,r `, "r r r rit �''�, ,� Al Nt \�t ./�\' >f � .X ' ' �k }r e ➢`1� �'�\ J. i� 'J t q
ai t y r{' .{ t ,�• � izT. �. /� ^�tf t k: ,/� �`.('> ➢ g i .f r( �JA � ��t' ri/:. � h�*t��{ t t 1 .V � ,{rte.
+ k ;l. .\ .;i,' .. ,� ." '. � i� I �/� r �� \ 1' `\�t {`� I� rJ rt /�i �\ r � �.f}.• � � - w r, r. {ti r
►�, Contra Costa solid Waste Authority
' Avon M. Wilson
Executive Director April 13, 1992
=737 Imhoff Place,Suite 4
'4ortinez.CA 94553
5 10)229-9113
' =X(5101229-9114
°ch Honorable Sunne Wright McPeak, Chair
,enivxcd Board of Supervisors
ron Sa:rta:.DiSMC, Contra Costa County
°`ial °""a °S`a 2301 Stanwell Drive
;ani[an•Cistiic:
avion
Concord, CA 94520
Subject: Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
`anville
�;Z,4,_��
' _Cern° Dear Supervisor eak:
evades
The Board of the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority, wishes to
�a[i is
ayette convey to the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors its continued
' arinez commitment in having all solid waste franchising entities in Contra
°raga Costa County become partners in a solid waste joint powers
authority. Believing that solid waste management and the interest
' �;nolo of citizens would be better served if all such entities sat down at
-'ieasancHiii the same table to plan together,- we would like to begin new
inn°rp dialogue with representatives of Contra Costa County, with this
' oaUl° objective in mind. Because escalating economic pressures on all
11 an Ramon
levels of local government mandate better coordination and
ciefficiencies in planning and program delivery, the Authority
JinuL believes the time is right to look at how this proposed partnership
can benefit the County, cities, sanitary districts and private sector
alike. Within a positive and productive framework, we would like
' to begin discussions anew; looking for areas of commonality
rather than differences; opening the door to creative solutions for
institutional obstacles; accommodating our respective concerns
' and needs.
As you well know, the need to work cooperatively and speak with
' one unified voice was painfully clear when representatives of
Contra Costa jurisdictions were forced to negotiate export of
Contra Costa garbage to neighboring counties. Our failure to
successfully negotiate a plastic collection agreement with a plastic
' processor was due in part to having too many voices. While the
formation of a Memorandum of Understanding for export. of
garbage sufficed in the short-term, it did not carry the same clout
as that wielded by our colleagues on the Alameda Solid Waste
Authority. We need that ongoing clout and unity.
April 13, 1992
Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
Page 2 '
If you agree that unity and coordination of solid waste activities '
has merit, we request that you define the process by which you
would like discussions to begin. We are sensitive to the need for
building mutual respect and understanding for each other's ,
priorities and constraints. We are committed to providing that
openness as the.foundation for fruitful dialogue.
Sincerely, '
JMv . Wilson
Interim Executive Director '
cc: Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority ,
Contra Costa County Board'of Supervisors
Phil Batchelor
Louise Aiello '
1
A- 2
r .��t. �`_ �. � l r r� ,. � r -�, v.; r ✓ y ,. Al
ly
air
is
•6 � i� r '1 �` i'.- � �� ��.\( \r� ° ..- y ' � a t._ -�t `t 7��i ll...� �.'v r t 5 �t � r
�� � .! urn � r ��•\ r .. .fit ��, ! '-i .9l �� v� '-f+ � \ \ t
� , � - t '. .- Yr� V- t-C \, t, j V• 11.E A�`� (,'
� > i- r 1 �� tom` - r { ;, a` t � r � �t� 'v �, � � � ��, 1r- � �•� '\ t I ...v�
a����\\rAr///�
'_,,`�, .y( � .�l .� - r � - -r. :�, •t. 1 I ,\. � �'"` � \,f,
;,� � erhF� - \ 1 rte` } � ��ri i � '. i t �. 1� ',r" ' �•.. \ •` `�`, s.
( 3� � v ,
r Plt'
\ t Y i- ` ` 1 v 6r, }, R �. } 5n•�` i ���, � tx } �^. c�_r (,\,,> �t �"v.. r i. t f � �` `-`.�" �
''" �.t � � "�.. i �v �,.J',�' '� � i lr `,.,A '�•tc.V � ` J I' t t _ � 1 .i',\ry -.�. •�5r• � rr 1
.. - r `' . v s.r - �. � b '�iF r �� r �'". �. i t'r \v1 .,�I i,�, � _-:. ka.�t V -zc• -
( � t' �ti�v ",:. � v�, 1 •e '� ''` t�'�,` � \ 1� < r' 1'`, 1 v V`� '`� t ° �,� � rr � /� f vv ,.
v• �; � �Y +?ver( � -� .a -✓ � ,,A , v �''� :�+�� .� y �,� ' �� < ,i, - _ �✓ .r/ �1."� ;s �,' ���.�•.
- ��� r��l t., .t �' �. 1 V ;� *.4 �.! )� �f ,(• r � _ A\� .R. 1 X 1{ \ y r { y t � —b -
NA
r - J: y:�'�i� ' h �iA �.,\kik � rl a' '�+ cr � �:- A r`, F� �- ♦ � ,f 'V...�— .{ �� �� '
r � �. ,; ,. 1 F_ k t t ...}Jf � _ I` ,C�� - �. �,Y, •.4 Ott� � \. � �` � f` '_
�r � �,l•'�, ri �,- ,?� r � -,. ' -``'S\�1 T� "\;�Ld � \ (' ,� ...� -. V � :..A"'r/ y�. ��\�s/ :v 5•�� It "E. { ."
�<`'� — � �r >>,� yr l� v. .�t -t �'v' '� r�. � ! \ ii f ' � `rt ! "•t . 1 �
-
.� r� rr s"': +� � � t' �f �x� �'� � �'� � �,,,,,A ,- 7 ` i�,v � r �,i{,�. �•��Yi 1``�i V _ �t �
4.
✓ x �� � �•r �- �. r \ h- �, � ��_, �l ,�Y x � 1'r' �. .�v\,V ��. ,x�2�t,/ 'r'- f c.
�73
Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
Avon M. Wilson November 30, 1992
Execurive Director
4737Imhoff Place,Suite 4
Martinez,CA 94553
(510(229-9i 13 Board of Supervisors' Internal Operations Committee
' FAX(510)229-9 114 Contra Costa County
nt;o,n 651 Pine Street - 11 th Floor
Bren Martinez, CA 94553
' Syron Sanuar'_.
Senora"
Sanicary Dc,
5[nr.` Attention: Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak
Clavzon Supervisors Robert I. Schroder
' CroCReC-Valcr:a
San i;aryDts.r:_: Subject: Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Transition
Danville Proposal
ercules Dear Supervisors McPeak and Schroder:
Ircni•'ouse Stv�. .`
Discr'cc
' araye[[e As your Committee requested, the report which follows details the
Martine, Authority's response to your request for a proposal which
Moraga discusses some options for transitioning solid waste activities
Or,nda currently being administered by Contra Costa County to the
Pinole Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority. This is a follow-up to
Pleasant-ill discussions which your Committee has had with members of the
R;chmonc Authority pursuant to the Authority's request for the County to join
San Pablo the Authority.
San P.dn'�C n '
San Pa nonCreIn responding to your request, the Authority has tried to suggest
options sufficient to provide a variety of approaches to a
partnership between our two bodies. As we have previously
stated to your Committee, the Authority is not wedded irrefutably
to any one option, although our preference for membership in a
joint powers' authority permits all franchising entities to be sitting
down at one table and working together in developing policy,
' planning and implementing programs together. We believe such
an approach is of immense long term benefit, not just for wise solid
waste management, but for cooperation in other ventures.
' Si rely,
mes J. S eeny
' Chair
JJW:amw
Attachment
' B- 1
CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ,
TRANSITION PROPOSAL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Issue ,
On April 13, 1992, the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (Authority) requested
that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors join the Authority. After '
consideration by the Board's Internal Operations (10) Committee, the Board
declined to join at that time, but referred the matter back to the 10 Committee for
further discussion with representatives of the Authority and information '
gathering.
Since then, the 10 Committee has met with representatives of the Authority and '
it has been agreed that the Authority will prepare a proposal for the transition of
solid waste activities currently managed by the County to the oversight of the
Authority. Of primary interest would be the transition of the AB 939 activities-
once
ctivities once the Draft Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan is approved by
the California Integrated Waste Management Board.
Recommended Action 1
In a three stage phased transition program, spanning 3-20 years,. transfer '
appropriate County administered county wide solid waste programs to the
oversight of the Authority.
Fiscal Impacts
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors would be asked by the cities
and sanitary districts to levy a fee at the landfill/transfer stations necessary to
support the agreed upon solid waste activities. It is expected that.the financial
impact on the ratepayers would be offset by reduction in the cost of current
duplicative programs which can be coordinated by the Authority.
Discussion
Background
The most recent of the proposals for a Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority had
its genesis in the 1988 county wide landfill disputes. The landfill crisis came out
of the lack of shared leadership inherent in the then enabling legislation, SB 5:
• County government was responsible for developing the County Solid
Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP); which was primarily oriented to
goals/policies/objectives/criteria related to siting landfills.
B - 2 '
' Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Transition Proposal
Page Two
• Complicating the County'smanagement was the multiplicity of players
and division of responsibilities: 22 franchising public agencies and 8
' different haulers.
• All franchising agencies deferred to the County leadership which
' deferred to the haulers to provide necessary landfills.
Responding to a need for shared leadership, in August, 1988; the then Solid
' Waste Commission, a County advisory body, initiated a feasibility study of a
county wide solid waste joint powers authority; gathering support from a
majority of the Board of Supervisors, the cities, sanitary districts and the public
' managers. After an agreement was prepared and agreed upon by 17 cities and
4 sanitary districts, the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority was formed in July,
1991. With the goal of membership by.all the garbage franchising agencies in
the county, its mission was to become the county wide solid waste policy
making, administrative, coordinating and implementing body for Contra Costa
County. Complicating its effectiveness in fulfilling this charge were an imposing
number of duplicative County and sub-regional agencies:
' Contra Costa County Directed Activities
' Contra Costa County Community Development Department
• Board of Supervisors' Internal Operations Committee
• Board of Supervisors' Environmental Affairs Committee
' Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Commission
• Plastics Recycling Task Force
• Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Task Force (AB 939 )
• AB 939 Market Development Zone Technical Advisory Committee
Sub-Regional Agencies
' West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority
• Central Contra Costa Joint Powers Authority
' Delta Diablo Sanitation District/Antioch/Pittsburg/Contra Costa County
Joint Powers' Authority
' County wide
Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
' OrcLanizational Alternatives
The thrust of the alternatives proffered is to provide some organizational options
' for discussion which can lead to County/Authority consensus for County
membership in the Authority and the degree/pace to which County administered
solid waste activities get transferred to the Authority:
' B - 3
Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Transition Proposal '
Page Three
• Option 1. No Change. '
• Option II Local Task Force Administered Program.
• Option III AB 939 Contractual Coordination by County Staff.
• Option IV Sub-Regional JPAs Directed Solid Waste Programs. '
• Option V Special District.
• Option VI. County/Authority Contractual Equal Partnership for AB 939.
• Option VII Phased in County wide Joint Powers Authority. '
Major Considerations
Key to success of the proposed shared leadership is understanding the ,
benefits/obstacles of this partnership. They. include shared responsibility, cost
effective programs, reduction of political conflicts; responding to the challenges ,
of building trust, divergent agendas and organizational barriers.
Recommendation '
An incremental process for shared leadership should begin as soon as
possible, utilizing a combination of Options VI and VII. '
. 1
B - 4
Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Transition Proposal
Page Four
ISSUE
On April 13, 1992, the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority, requested that the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors join the Authority. After referral to
' and consideration by the Board's Internal Operations (10) Committee, the
Board of Supervisors declined to join at the present time. However, the Board
authorized the 10 Committee, on behalf of the Board, to continue to meet with
representatives of the Authority, to discuss the relative advantages and
disadvantages of joining the Authority. At present, the matter is to remain on
referral to the 10 Committee with the direction to the Committee to report back to
' the Board as events dictate further reports.
Accordingly, at its follow up meeting on August 10, 1992, the Authority
representatives met with 10 Committee staff and members. After discussing the
merits and barriers related to joining the Authority, the 10 Committee requested,
and the Authority representatives agreed, to develop a report for the 10
Committee to review. This report would discuss options for the transition of
' certain solid waste activities currently under the aegis of the Contra Costa
County to that of the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority. This transition would
assume County membership in the Authority. The report is to include, but not be
' limited to:
• A plan for how the role and activities of the AB 939 Task Force could be
' incorporated into the responsibilities of the Authority once the Draft
Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan is completed and
approved by the California Integrated Waste Management Board.
• A discussion of how the three sub-regional Joint Powers Authorities
could interface with the Authority, once all franchising entities are
' members.
• A discussion of the role of the non-franchising local jurisdictions in the
overall organization of the Authority.
It was also understood by both the Committee and the Authority representatives
that the transition report would be developed with input from County staff which
' would include the work plan and budget for the County's solid waste activities.
This report responds to the Committee's request.
' RECOMMENDED ACTION.
In a three stage phased transition program, spanning 3-20 years, transfer
' appropriate County administered county wide solid waste programs to the
oversight of the Authority.
B- 5
Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Transition Proposal '
Page Five
FISCAL IMPACTS ,
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors would beasked by the cities '
and sanitary districts to levy a fee at the landfill/transfer stations necessary to
support the agreed upon solid waste activities. It is expected that the financial
impact on the ratepayers would be offset by reduction in the cost of current '
city/sanitary district/County programs transferred to the Authority. The Authority
is in the process of analyzing budget information requested of the County and
the cities. Upon receipt and analysis of all requested data, and presenting it in '
an understandable format, it will be made available for consideration.
DISCUSSION '
Background
The most recent of the proposals for a county wide solid waste joint powers '
authority had its genesis in the county wide landfill disputes which culminated in
the Board of Supervisors' landfill' deadlock;, imperiling the approval of the
County Solid Waste Management Plan and necessitating the export of Central '
County's garbage. The disputes came out of a crisis in leadership,related to the
lack of shared leadership inherent in the then enabling legislation, SB 5:
• Up until the passage of AB 939, SB 5 was the prevailing solid waste
legislation. Under its provisions, County government was held
responsible for the County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP). ,
While the CoSWMP superficially touched-on other aspects of solid waste
management, such as recycling, the primary thrust was establishing
criteria, goals/policies/objectives which related to the classification, siting
and use of landfills. A. frustrating and complicating overlay on this
circumstance was the multiplicity of players - both public and private in
the Contra Costa solid waste arena:
Solid waste facility permits were required from a variety of public
agencies.
22 different public agencies in the county franchised garbage
collection. Each was independent and autonomous. In their June,
1988 joint letter to the Board of Supervisors, relative to the lack of
landfill space left.at Acme Landfill and the need to export Central
County's garbage, County Administrator Phil Batchelor ands
Community Development Director Harvey Bragdon decried the
"lack of one single public agency or private enterprise empowered
to have control and authority over solid waste collection and
disposal; to be able to unilaterally dictate a solution to the
problem". Their recommendation for the short term was for the
Board of Supervisors to invite one elected representative plus the
B - 6
Contra Costa Solid Waste Mana ement� Transition Proposal
9 P
Page Six
city manager of each city in the county and one elected
representative plus the general manager of each of the eight
' sanitary districts in the county to join a representative of the Board
of Supervisors and the County Administrator to form a working
group would meet, identify steps needed to insure a solution to the
1 short term problem of depleted landfill space.
The haulers, all of whom had a financial interest in at least one of
' the county's three existing and nearly built out landfills, by and
large had been granted control of the wastestream in exchange
for the assurance that they could and would provide for where they
1 would dispose of all the solid waste which they collected.
• With the exception of the West County, most jurisdictions deferred to
' County leadership, trying to stay as uninvolved as possible. Except for
those requirements of SB 5, the cities and the County deferred to the
haulers as controllers of the various waste streams to provide the
necessary landfills.
• After two comprehensive landfill studies and recommendation by a
county wide landfill siting task force and a succession of landfill
' applications, all of which had opposition from various constituencies, the
Board of. Supervisors deadlocked on all potential landfill sites to be
included in the CoSWMP; landfills necessary for its approval by the then
' California Waste Management Board.
• With no one entity authorized to act on behalf of the various franchising
entities, the County and the haulers, it was necessary to develop an MOU
among the County, the cities and the franchising sanitary districts to
enable a joint jurisdictional negotiating team to negotiate export of
' Contra Costa's solid waste to an out of county site.
In August, 1988, urged by its West County representatives and responding to
' the need for some new form of shared leadership authorized to speak with one
unified voice, the then Contra Costa County Solid Waste Commission, a County
advisory body representing the County, cities, sanitary districts and the public,
' requested the County, the cities and sanitary districts to support the concept of a
joint powers agency.
With support from the Board of Supervisors, the Mayors' Conference, the Public
Managers Association and. the Sanitation and Water Agencies' Association, a
draft agreement was developed along the lines of that which governs the
Alameda Solid Waste Management Authority. After extensive review, involving
' prolonged negotiation with the County Environmental Affairs Committee and
staff, amendments and modifications by all affected agencies, the joint powers
authority Agreement (See Appendix A) wasapproved through resolution by
' B - 7
Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Transition Proposal. '
Page Seven-
17 cities and 4 sanitary districts. The Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority '
held its first meeting in July 1991, formulated and approved its Mission
Statement (See Appendix B ) in September 1991, its budget and member '
assessments in February 1992, hired its interim staff in March, 1992 and
finalized its Goals, Objectives and Action Plan in July 1992 (See Appendix B )..
In order to put the County's consideration of Authority membership in '
perspective a review of current County, subregional and local solid waste
committees and their overlapping activities follows: '
Contra Costa Agencies Involved in. Solid Waste Planning and
Programs ,
Contra Costa County Directed Activities
Contra Costa County Community Development Department '
This department has traditionally provided county wide solid waste planning-
and program implementation. With the advent of AB 939 and its requirement '
that each jurisdiction assumes that responsibility within its boundaries and with
the formation of subregional and county wide joint powers authorities, the
County's administrative/ policy setting/planning and program development is in ,
transition.
At present, its solid waste activities includes staffing the Local Task.Force and '
responsibility for preparation- of the unincorporated area Source Reduction and
Recycling Element (SRRE), its Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE),
the Siting Element and the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan '
(CoIWMP). It also provides the staffing for all other County directed solid waste
committees, including the Recycling Market Development Zone Council. Other
activities in which the Community Development Department staff is influential
include facility siting, facility enforcement, Recycling Hot line, franchising in:the
unincorporated area and some elementary school recycling coordination..
Board of Supervisors'Internal Operations Committee
Along with the Finance Committee, is one of the two original Board of Q
Supervisors' standing committees. Until the formation of the Board's
Environmental Affairs Committee in 1990, this two person committee was
interfaced on all solid waste issues with the then Solid Waste Commission, an
advisory body.comprised of elected officials from cities and sanitary districts.. In
tandem with the the Solid Waste Commission,. the Hazardous Materials
Commission and other solid waste committees, it made recommendations
regarding both solid and hazardous waste management to the whole Board.
Currently, solid waste activities are usually restricted to interviewing candidates
and recommending appointments to the AB 939 Local Task Force. However, at
B - 8
1
Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Transition Proposal
Page Eight
the Board's referral, or if the Committee is particularly interested in an issue, it
may elect to consider an issue outside its ordinary scope of interest or purview.
Board of Supervisors' Environmental Affairs Committee
Formed as a new committee by the Board in 1990, this two person Board
committee assumed all environmental review responsibilities previously held by
the Internal Operations Committee and supplanted the Solid Waste
' Commission as the County's primary voice regarding solid waste management.
Until the State mandated AB 939 Task Force was formed in April, 1991 , this
committee and staff were shaping a majority of the solid waste management
' recommendations affecting the entire county. Until the formation of the Contra
Costa Solid Waste Authority in July, 1991, it was the only forum available for
those solid waste issues outside the purview of the AB 939 Task Force.
' Despite the broad expertise and perspective on the Task Force, the Committee
sometimes functions as another Board of Supervisor review and recommending
layer inserted between many of the Task Force' recommendations and the
' Board's decisions.
Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Commission
' In 1983, the Board of Supervisors created the Hazardous Waste Task Force
which met for three years to develop policies and recommendations to guide
hazardous waste management in Contra Costa County. All of the the
recommendations of the Task Force, including that of establishing a County
Hazardous Materials Commission, were adopted by the Board. The
Commission is comprised of representatives from the Board, the cities, fire
' districts, sanitary districts and representatives from both the public and private
sectors. The Commission has been charged with the responsibility of
establishing model policies and programs for uniform adoption throughout the
' County dealing with hazardous wastes or with the storage and transportation of
hazardous materials. Recognizing that household hazardous waste was more
of a solid waste disposal issue, a joint committee comprised of representatives
of both the Solid Waste and the Hazardous Materials Commissions met to
develop special programs aimed at alleviating this problem. One example of
this committee's work was the very popular and successful BOP DROP day
when citizens all over the county could drop off used motor oil, latex paint and
car batteries. With the requirement that a household hazardous waste element
be added to comply with meeting AB 939 planning goals, this function of the
Commission has been transferred to the AB 939 Task Force, assisted by the
County Department of Health Services staff.
Plastics Recycling Task Force
' On August 15 1989 f
g , h Board the oa d o Supervisors approved the establishment of a
Plastics Recycling Task Force to implement programs and goals recommended.
' B - 9
m ,
Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Transition Proposal'
Page Nine ,
by the Plastics Committee of the Solid Waste Commission in its report,
Reducing Plastics in the Wastestream. These policies support the collection
and recycling of mixed waste plastic in the county's wastestream as preferential '
to ultimately banning such materials. The objective of the Task Force is to work
with representatives of the plastics industry to achieve the goal of being able to
sort and recycle plastic waste in an economical manner and help stimulate a
market for recycled plastic products which will make it financially advantageous
for industry to recycle such wastes. The Task Force has been comprised of
former Plastics Committee members, Board members, resin producers, garbage ,
haulers, recycling collectors plastics processors, a city invoived-with recycling,
environmental organizations and the public. The Task Force has been
influential in motivating the industry to provide curbside pickup and collection of
a variety of plastic resins, notably, HDPE and PET. The Task Force has been
instrumental in the development of a Materials Diversion Ordinance which
would mandate time lines by which all jurisdictions must have recycling '
programs for designated materials or they will be prohibited at County
controlled landfills and transfer stations.
Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Task Force (AB 939 Local Task '
Force)
Formed in April, 1990 per the requirements of AB 939, the. Task Force is t
responsible for:
• Identifying solid waste management issues of county-wide or regional
concern;
• Determining the need for solid waste_ collection systems, processing
facilities and marketing strategies that can serve more than one
jurisdiction within the region;
• Facilitating the development of multi-jurisdictional arrangements for the
marketing of recyclable materials;
• To the extent possible, facilitating a resolution of conflicts and
inconsistencies between or among city Source Reduction and Recycling
Elements and Household Hazardous Waste Elements; and
• Developing goals, policies and procedures to guide the development of
the Siting Element.
Th Task Force is an arm of the Count and is comprised of members of the
The y p
following: 2 Supervisors, 2 members of solid waste industry, 2 members of.
environmental groups, 3 public members representing the three geographical
regions of the county, 1 Central Sanitary representative, 1 Delta Diablo
Representative, 1 West County Sanitary District Representative, 1
B - 10
Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Transition Proposal
Page Ten
representative from the remaining small sanitary districts, 2 council members
representing West County cities, 2 representing East County cities, 2
representing Central and South Central cities and 1 representing the City of
Concord. Elected officials from cities and sanitary districts are endorsed by the
Internal Affairs Committee and appointed by the Board of Supervisors upon
' nomination by their member agencies; all other representatives are appointed
by the Board of Supervisors upon their nomination by the Internal Affairs
Subcommittee of the Board of Supervisors.
' AB 939 Market Development Zone Council
' The Market Development Zone Council has been formed to oversee and
recommend implementation of the provisions of the Recycling Market
Development Zone Plan for the shoreline of Contra Costa County. The Plan and
its program concentrates of recycling market development within the Zone for
' four materials: plastics tires tin and yard waste. The goal of the program
through the development of recycling industries within the Zone - guaranteeing
supply of sufficient feedstock to the industries, demand and the supply for end-
use products made from the four recyclables.
The Council is comprised of representatives of Contra Costa County - which
' will act as lead agency and staff the Council - Delta Diablo Sanitation District,
West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority and the Cities of
Antioch, Pittsburg, Brentwood, Martinez, Hercules, Pinole,. San Pablo,
Richmond and EI Cerrito.
Sub-Regional Agencies
' West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority
Established on April 1991, it was formed by the cities of EI Cerrito, Hercules,
Pinole, Richmond, San Pablo and the West Contra Costa Sanitary District. The
Authority is currently negotiating with Contra Costa County to join as a member.
' Its objective is to develop an Integrated Resource Recovery Facility (IRRF); key
to achieving diversion goals set forth in AB 939. With the exception of the City
of EI Cerrito, members of the agency have jointly hired a consultant to prepare
common Source Reduction and Recycling Elements and Household Hazardous
Waste Elements. A function of the agency will be to coordinate all activities -
public information, marketing, etc. - relevant to implementation of the
participating entities' SRREs. The Authority reviews closure and post closure
' plans for the current landfill and oversees the West Contra Costa Sanitary
Landfill Closure Trust Fund. As part of the Authority's Agreement all entities
have agreed to direct their wastestream to the IRRF. Current financing for
' operational activities is provided by a yearly flat fee assessment of $25,000 per
vote given to each entity plus any additional assessments necessary for
operation until the IRRF is operational. When the IRRF is constructed and
B - 11
Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Transition Proposal-
Page Eleven
operational, capital and operating costs will be financed by tipping fees and,
ultimately, grant monies. It hopes to have the IRRF operational in 1994. It may
need an interim transfer station at the landfill.
Central Contra Costa Joint Powers Authority
Formed on August 3, 1990, the Authority has broad exercise of powers which '
gives it purview over transfer stations, resource recovery facilities; recycling
facilities, including composting, household hazardous waste facilities and
landfills. It allows for public ownership of said facilities and it allows for other
joint efforts as regards handling and disposal of the solid wastestream. While
membership in the Authority is open.to all jurisdictions in Central County which
franchise the collection and disposal. of solid waste, its current membership is ,
comprised of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (which franchises for
Danville,. Lafayette,. Moraga, Orinda and the unincorporated areas of Alamo,
Blackhawk, Pacheco/Clyde, Roundhill and Walnut Creek), the City of San ,
Ramon and the City of Walnut Creek. The Central County cities of Concord and
Clayton have not joined but the cities of Martinez and Pleasant Hill have
recently expressed interest in membership. Prior to the recent sale of the Acme
Transfer Station to Browning Ferris Industries, it was negotiating a membership
agreement with Contra Costa County in. concert with potentially acquiring the
Acme Transfer Station to use as a Materials Recovery Facility. This facility was ,
intended to facilitate meeting the diversion requirements of AB 939 and AB
2707..
Delta Diablo Sanitation District/Antioch/Pittsburg/Contra Costa County Joint '
Powers' Authority
Formed in June 1991 by the above entities, the purpose of the Joint Powers '
Authority is to provide for meeting the recycling goals of AB 939 and AB 2707 as
follows: performing all services relatedto disposal of solid waste; to recycle
materials that would otherwise be landfilled; to construct and operate a transfer
station which may include facilities to receive solid and hazardous wastes; to
temporarily store, separate, convert and process materials from solid waste;,and
to transfer remaining materials for disposal and/or transformation. In
addressing the requirements of AB 939 and AB 2707, the JPA has broad
powers which can permit it to become involved in implementation activities such
as rate regulation, market development, etc. With the recent signing of a A
secondary MOU agreement by the City of Pittsburg, the JPA has begun the
environmental process for a planned Materials Recovery Facility, which will
serve the member communities in East County . It is expected that the City of
Brentwood will be allowed to use the facility under contract. Under the global
agreement, jurisdictions retain their franchising rights. All start up costs are
being paid by Delta Diablo Sanitation District.
B - 12
Contra Costa Solid. Waste Management Transition Proposal
Page Twelve
County wide
Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
Initiated in May 1988 and established in July 1991 , the Contra Costa Solid
Waste Authority operates under a joint exercise of powers agreement currently
between all Contra Costa cities, excepting the City of Concord and the Mt. View,
Rodeo Sanitary Districts and the Kensington Community Services District.
Membership is open to all solid waste franchising agencies in the county. It is
' the only solid waste forum in Contra Costa County where all franchising entities
are equally represented and have a voice. Formed with the goal of being the
county wide solid and household hazardous waste agency for the county, it has
i broad and comprehensive powers which encompass every aspect of solid
waste management. With one representative from each member agency
deliberating at the same table, its objective is to put solid waste planning and
' implementation under one roof, providing a cohesive, coordinated, responsive
and unified cost-effective program consistent with the general public good and
the protection of the environment. Its scope is as broad or as restricted as the
' members may direct, such as development of facilities, programs in waste
reduction, facilitating market development, technical assistance and public
education; ultimately encompassing the activities of the Local Task Force into its
' programs by overseeing the development of the Contra Costa County
Integrated Waste Management Plan and its implementation. However, its intent
is not to preempt any current programs, projects or agreements entered into by
' its current or potential member agencies.
Organizational Alternatives
' The thrust of the alternatives proffered is to provide some organizational options
for discussion which can lead to County/Authority consensus regarding'.-
the
egarding:the County's membership in the County wide JPA.
• the extent and pace for the potential transition of County administered
' solid/household hazardous waste programs and/or staff to the Authority.
In considering these options, a broad based sampling of perspectives was
' sought from County, sanitary district and city elected officials and staff,
environmentalists, recyclers, attorneys, Local Task Force members and haulers.
The question posed to each of those interviewed was: "!f you had the power to
' create the solid waste picture for Contra Costa County what would it look like?
What problems would there be in buying into the program in your region? How
would you sell it to the County, the ratepayers?'Their comments and consensus
' on alternatives potentially possible were of significant influence in shaping the
options which follow:
B - 13
Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Transition Proposal
Page Thirteen
Option I - No Change
• Individual jurisdictions are responsible for meeting all their AB 939 '
requirements which include staffing levels and programs necessary to
set those plans in action.
• The Local Task Force maintains its advisory role to the sanitary districts,
the cities and the Board- of Supervisors, researching, recommending
policy and brokering coordination strategies to be considered by the
various individual and sub-regional entities. The Local Task Force role
will continue to be constrained by the existing statute unless the Board
and a majority of a majority of the cities vote to expand its role and title to
something more than that prescribed by law.
• Members of the Local Task Force will be nominated by their member ,
constituencies or the Internal Operations Committee and approved by the
Board of Supervisors.
Option 11 - Local Task Force Administered Solid Waste Management Program '
Under the provisions of AB 939, this type of oversight, or line responsibility
would necessitate an agreed upon name and job description change from that '
delineated in the law. It would have to be approved by the Board,and a majority
of the cities with a majority of the population. Current organizations/interest
groups represented could be retained or altered to respond to the technical '
expertise/broadened political participation necessitated by its expanded super
agency role which includes policy making, supervision, administration,
implementation, appointments, etc, in all areas of solid waste. Members would '
have to be selected by both the Board of Supervisors and the cities upon
recommendation, by the Board 10 Committee, the sub-regional JPAs and the
Mayors Conference. Staffing would have to be expanded to provide for '
expanded responsibilities, with the AB 939 tipping fee/Resource Recovery Fee
increased accordingly.
Option 111 - Contractual Coordination by County Staff ,
The Authority, with Contra Costa County as a member, would assume oversight ,
for all AB 939 related responsibilities. Instead of hiring its own planning staff, it
could contract with. Contra Costa County Community Development and Health
Services Departments to staff the Local Task Force and other AB 939 related
activities. The Local Task Force would serve as a subset of the Authority, '
performing those responsibilities ordained by the statutes and regulations. If
the Authority members chose, the Local Task Force role could be expanded to
provide advice on other solid waste issues of interest to Authority members. '
The Local Task Force expertise/constituency makeup could be altered to
replace elected officials with technical experts in various solid waste related
8 - 14 '
' Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Transition Proposal
Page Fourteen
' disciplines. The Authority's role would be to recommend strategies/programs
for coordinating multiple jurisdictional efforts and to broker partnerships which
' better utilize various jurisdictions' leadership/expertise to reduce costs.
Option IV- Sub-Regional Joint Powers Directed Solid Waste Programs
' Under this option, the Board of Supervisors and the Mayors' Conference would
agree to set up three to four geographically oriented districts, which include the
' unincorporated segments. At least one representative of each city and the
County should sit on the sub-region's JPA.
' The sub-regional JPA would have autonomy and staffing necessary to
handle all sub-regional solid waste matters: administration, preparation
and implementation of all AB 939 activities.
' In conjunction with the other JPAs, its representatives would form the
membership interface with a county-wide JPA which would
' be comprised of the chair and vice chairs of all sub-regional JPAs.
would have staff sufficient to oversee its administrative, financial
' and clerical activities and to implement its programs.
deal with coordination of issues/programs, etc., which overlap
more than one region.
provide coordination which doesn't cost much money.
be supported by a tipping fee surcharge/grant monies.
' The sub-regional JPAs could be empowered through the County wide
JPA to interface with the Local Task Force as follows:
Oversee/administrate the AB 939 advisory functions, hiring staff
' necessary to develop, coordinate AB 939 COIWMP plans,
implementation.
' Contract with Contra Costa County for AB 939 staffing as
described in Option 111. This would be similar to County personnel
who staffed Transportation Measure C in its formative months.
' Option V - Special District
' In conjunction with the cities and franchising sanitary districts, support the
formation of a special district which functions much the same way as a public
utility commission. It could
1
B - 15
Contra Costa 'Solid Waste Management Transition Proposal '
Page Fifteen
• be appointed by the cities, franchising sanitary districts and Board of '
Supervisors much the same way as the Local Task Force; with the
individuals professional qualifications, areas of expertise and '
geographical representation voted on.
• be directly elected as a separate special district. '
• have power to site facilities, set facility rates, develop- and exact plans
and programs. '
• have county wide jurisdiction.
• be able to act autonomously within set- parameters. '
• be required to weigh all issues within the regional framework.
•
regulate solid waste as any other public utility. '
OQtion VI- Authority/County Contractual Partnership for AB 939 '
This option would allow a more gradual transition of administrative oversight
from Contra Costa County to a county wide organization, such as the Contra '
Costa Solid Waste Authority, by creating an interim partnership responsible for
administering and implementing AB 939. The guiding premise of such an option
would be the absolute equality of both bodies working together - The Board of '
Supervisors and the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority. Created by an
appropriate legal agreement, such as a Memorandum of Understanding, it
could have some, all or more than the following provisions: ,
• A steering committee comprised of 2 representatives each from the
Board of Supervisors and from the Authority who could be empowered '
to:
Determine staffing needs and to select staff - regular and contract -
either from existing city/County staff or hire new staff.
Provide oversight and direction to staff in the implementation,
coordination, and responsibilities necessary in complying with
AB939.
Provide policy direction and supervision to the Local Task Force 1
within the parameters agreed to by both jurisdictional bodies.
Enter into contractual agreements necessary to meet the
requirements of AB 939.
1
B - 16
' Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Transition Proposal
Page Sixteen
' Prepare a budget.
' At the behest of the cities and sanitary districts, would request the Board
of Supervisors to levy fees at the transfer stations/landfills necessary to
financially support the AB 939 activities of the steering committee.
' Option V!l - County Wide Joint Powers Authority
' This option envisions a county wide organization comprised of one
representative, each from every city, franchising sanitary district and the
County. It would have powers broad enough to allow it, if the members so
' chose, to develop policy, plan and site facilities, regulate rates and
control/administer/direct the development/coordination/implementation of AB
939 activities, as follows:
' Full representation by each franchising entity and non franchising city,
with weighted vote keyed to population within the franchise area (See
Authority Agreement, Appendix A - page 10).
' As an alternate - Use the ABAG voting process by which County wide
JPA and County representatives would vote each as separate blocks;
' with a given majority of affirmative votes from each group necessary for
passage. As with the current weighted vote provided for in the Authority's
Agreement, this bipartite majority vote could be reserved for certain types
' of issues, i.e. approval of the budget, etc.
• Its representatives would also serve on sub-regional JPAs, providing
' continuity for overlapping activities.
• Sub-regional JPAs could be determined by areas of service, response or
' watershed:
* Could administer/set rates for the regional facilities
* Could respond to special needs, with assistance by the county ,
wide JPA staff, as needed within the parameters set by the county-
wide JPA.
* Could oversee implementation of all subregional AB 939
responsibilities within broad framework of county wide policies,
' goals and objectives.
* Could initiate and sponsor development of county wide programs
' which fit within the larger framework.
* Would handle sub-regional issues; facilities only.
' B - 17
Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Transition Proposal
'
9 P
Page Seventeen
• Could direct the wastestream in an organized fashion. ,
• Could set regular time for rate increases. '
• Could seek economies in handling the franchises and territories through
common franchise agreements and/or new hauling areas. '
• Could share fees.
• Could consider blending commercial/residential/ industrial franchise fees '
to equalize rates.
• Could consider public ownership of all facilities. ,
• By adoption of recommended policies, could oversee all AB 939 related '
activities, including composition and membership of Local Task Force.
• Could realize, on- behalf of its members, where appropriate, efficiencies
in plan development by letting one overall contract for studies and '
programs.
• Could initiate and award grants for development of programs. '
Major Considerations
Benefits '
• Shared responsibility, leadership with no one entity taking the sole '
blame for necessary, but unpopular, decisions.
• Coordinated/cost-effective strategies, lower costs for local government '
and ratepayers
• Minimization of conflicts generated by distrust, misunderstandings, ,
misinformation.
• Better communication/education with-the public. '
• Opportunity to form other equally beneficial partnerships; i.e. permanent
source of funding which doesn't pit cities against the County.
• Success at working together.
B - 18
Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Transition Proposal
Page Eighteen
' Trust
' Critical to the choice of option in county wide solid waste management and
certainly other areas needing county wide cooperation and coordination is the
building of trust. It is generally conceded among those interviewed that
' concomitant with developing a new process or option for cooperative, shared
leadership in solid waste planning is putting all the baggage of past or current
animosities and perceived injustices behind us; finding some process or forum
' for success that will allow us all to move forward, together. Central to our being
able to move forward is a willingness by all participants to relinquish some
degree of individual authority and power; including being out voted from time to
time. That willingness must be based on a recognition and agreement that
serving the general public good and environment takes precedence over the
advantages/disadvantages to one or more jurisdiction/individuals. Even now
' when everyone tries to do the right thing we still step all over each in our efforts
with duplicative and costly programs.
' Divergent Agendas
The County, sanitary districts, cities, sub-regional JPAs and the private sector
each have different agendas, philosophies, land-use policies, regional issues
' and styles; often over and above those of the rate payer.
Organizational Barriers
' Between the Authority's sponsorship by the Solid Waste Commission in 1988
and its final formation in July 1991, AB 939 was passed. The comprehensive
' legislation generated the formation of JPAs, planning of facilities, hiring of new
staff and contractual agreements oriented to meeting AB 939 goals:
' Many jurisdictions hired staff to oversee the development/implementation
of AB 939.
• Regional JPAs were formed to facilitate AB 939 requirements through
Development of transfer stations/ Material Recovery Facilities.
' Common AB 939 plans and programs.
• The Local Task Force was formed and staffed per statutory deadlines.
' The County decided to take over the franchising of garbage collection in
the unincorporated part of the county.
' B - 19
Transition Pro ,
Contra Costa Solid Waste Managementosal p
Page Nineteen '
Any process for county wide solid waste management which has as its objective
a cooperative, coordinated non-duplicative process must consider how to
overcome those institutional barriers of turf, power, money and jobs. '
Private Sector Objectives
The private sector, which in the past has sometimes been influential in local
elections and pivotal in local decision making and policies needs to be brought
more openly into the process in a more positive partnership, which challenges ,
and- excites their ingenuity, entrepreneurship and ability to get the job done
effectively. It should give them recognition for a key role in meeting our solid
waste management goals.
RECOMMENDATION
After weighing the alternatives against the issues and institutions which impact '
each particular alternative, it is our recommendation that an incremental.
process of cooperative leadership begin as soon as possible. Given the '
various degrees of partnership represented by the existing subregions,
Selection of a combination of Options VI'and VII provides the best opportunity
for moving ahead with a phased program. Such a program might be as follows:
Short-term - 0 to 3/5 years '
This cycle would represent a transition period between the current '
administration by Contra Costa County of AB 939 related activities to that of a.
more centralized county wide organization, such as the Countywide Solid
Waste Authority/subregional JPAs.. It would incorporate the provisions of Option '
VI which provides for the creation of an Authority/County AB 939 Steering
Committee which is answerable to the Board of Supervisors, the Sanitation.and
Water Agencies and to either the Countywide Solid Waste Authority or the
Mayors' Conference. The Steering Committee should be empowered to have
the authority to assure that all AB 939 requirements are implemented in a cost
effective manner. Care must be taken to assure that its activities do not infringe '
on those AB 939 activities which are subregional in nature, but rather to
provide the authority and responsibility currently exercised by Contra Costa
County in preparing the County wide Integrated Waste Management Plan. It
should provide the bridge between the various local/subregional AB 939
activities to assure coordination and non-duplication of efforts. For that reason,
its members should represent the three geographical areas of the county and
should, at the same time, serve as members of.the three subregional JPAs. As
long as sanitary districts continue to franchise solid waste in the
unincorporated/incorporated parts of the county, there must be representation
by the sanitary districts on the Steering Committee, as well.
B - 20
' Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Transition Proposal
9 P
Page Twenty
' Mid-Term - 3/5 to 7/10 Years
' All franchising agencies within Contra Costa County would join together in one
common county-wide agency which could, as a beginning, incorporate all or
most of the provisions of the Authority's enabling agreements, goals, objectives
' and action plan. (See Appendices A and 8). This would presume that every
jurisdiction would be a participant in a subregional JPA, as well, with the same
representatives serving on both subregional and county wide JPAs for
' continuity. Every effort would be made to assure that each jurisdiction would be
fairly and equally represented. The county wide JPA would assume the
implementation of the CoIWMP once it is approved by the California Integrated
' Waste Management Board at the end of the second planning cycle. The JPA
would then, as soon as a stable funding source was established through the
tipping fee and staff necessary and qualified to manage the new JPA and its AB
' 939 activities was hired, would assume administration, planning, coordination,
policy development and implementation of all aspect of the AB 939
responsibilities in concert with the subregional JPAs. As an option to hiring new
staff, existing County staff, those of other jurisdictions or the steering committee
discussed under Option VI, could be transferred to the Authority.
The Local Task Force, its members and membership categories approved by
the voting members of the JPA, will be advisory to the JPA on all aspects of AB
939 as allowed by the Statutes. If the JPA wishes to broaden its advisory role, it
should so direct, by resolution, reconstituting the Local Task Force under a
' different name. The Local Task Force working through a JPA committee which
is charged to provide particular oversight to the Task Force' activities should
work with the various jurisdictions to make every effort in facilitating the sharing
of staff, expertise, consultants and programs for cost savings. In this regard. it
should broker the use of individual jurisdictions' established expertise and
programs to enhance cost savings and coordination. The cities, sanitary districts
' and subregional JPAs should continue their AB 939 related activities as
autonomously as now with the added charge to size their programs and
facilities to complement and be part of a county wide coordinated system.
' Existing programs and projects would remain under the aegis of current
jurisdictions unless other arrangements were mutually agreeable.
' Cooperative programs with frequent team building, workshops, joint meetings,
etc, should be instituted as a way to get past the barriers to better partnership.
Success at small joint planning efforts, such as backyard composting or the
' household hazardous waste mobile collection program can begin to build the
attitude of respect and trust necessary to the success of the JPA.
' In this cycle, the monitoring of the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements
and the Household Hazardous Waste Elements will continue, with the second
revision of the CoIWMP completed.
1
' B - 21
Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Transition Proposal
Page Twenty One '
As trust and success build, more centralized planning and implementation can
be phased in with awarding grants for waste reduction projects, public
information and education programs or any special facilities. '
Expanded involvement moving toward overall centralized policies, goals and
objectives and coordination should be in place in '
• Public Education
• School curricula development/refinement and recycling
• Legislation development/support '
• Closer interface with the State Integrated Waste.Management Board.
• Market Development '
Long term - 10-20 Years '
With coordination of efforts now matured and in place and with experience
garnered from planning and implementing at least two cycles of AB 939 ,
activities, the JPA is now ready-to consider the extent to which it wishes to
facilitate county wide activities. For instance, it could
• Establish and reconfigure the waste shed areas. '
• Assume county-wide rate regulation
• Integrate the subregional JPAs with the county wide Authority sufficient to '
create a county wide system The trick will be to avoid creating another
level of indifferent bureaucracy, beset with inertia and indifference to.the ,
needs of the public we serve. Any system should rest lightly on the
shoulders of local and subregional' efforts, facilitating their doing a better
job, but not getting in their way. '
• Control rates at transfer stations, landfills.
• Permit solid waste facilities in tandem with planning staff of local '
jurisdictions.
B - 22 '
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
' ARTICLE 1 : PURPOSE
' A. Purpose of Agreement: It is the purpose of this Agreement to
establish, pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, a public
' entity separate from each of the agencies. This public entity is to be
known as the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority, hereinafter
referred to as the "Authority."
' B. Purpose of Authority: The purpose of the Authority shall be to
exercise certain powers set forth below in a manner which will
' assure the citizens of the agencies that solid waste activities in
Contra Costa County will be conducted in a manner most consistent
with the general public good and the protection of the environment.
' B - 23
ARTICLE 2: DEFINITIONS ,
1 . Contra Costa Waste Management Authority '
The "Contra Costa Waste Management Authority" shall be the name '
of the separate public entity created by this Agreement, which entity
may also be hereinafter referred to in this document as the
"Authority." '
2. Hazardous Waste
Hazardous waste means a waste or combination of wastes which, '
because of its quality, concentration, or physical, chemical, or
infectious characteristics, may do either of the following: '
a. Cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality
or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating ,
reversible illness.
b. Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health '
or the environment when improperly treated, stored,
transported, or otherwise managed.
Unless expressly provided otherwise, hazardous waste includes ,
extremely hazardous waste and acutely hazardous waste, and any
waste defined as hazardous by applicable federal or state statutes
and regulations. '
3. Household Hazardous Waste
Household Hazardous Waste includes all chemicals and other '
products commonly used in daily life, and commonly found in
domestic households which contain hazardous substances when ,
such chemicals or other products are disposed of as worthless,
whether such substances are disposed of as a part of the normal
domestic solid waste or discarded in some other manner. For the '
purposes of this definition, "hazardous substance" means a
hazardous substance as defined in Section 25316 of the Health and
Safety Code. '
1
B - 24
' 4. Member Agency
' A member agency for purposes of this Agreement shall mean each
city, county, or special district that is a signatory to this Agreement.
' 5. Recyclables
Recyclables include all solid waste, other discarded materials, or
' materials that would otherwise become solid waste which may be
recycled. Recyclables, for the purpose of this Joint Power Authority,
include, but are not limited to, aluminum and tin cans, plastics, glass,
' green waste, and paper products.
6. Recycle or Recycling
"Recycle" or "recycling" means the process of collecting, sorting,
cleansing, treating, and reconstituting materials that would otherwise
' become solid waste, and returning them to the economic mainstream
in the form of raw material for new, reused, or reconstituted
.products which meet the quality standards necessary to be used in
the marketplace. "Recycling" does not include transformation, as
defined in Section 40201 of the Public Resources Code.
' 7. Regional Facility
A regional solid waste facility shall mean a facility that provides solid
' waste handling services, including disposal, and/or composting for
the constituents and/or the collector for the constituents of more
than one member of the, Authority.
8. Regulation of Rates
' The "regulation of rates" as used herein shall be defined to be the
whole of the process of reviewing costs of operation and the fixing
of rates to be levied and collected at facilities or by enterprises which
' provide regional solid waste handling services to users within the
jurisdictions of the member agencies. Regulation of rates shall be in
accordance with Attachment "A" which is appended to this
document. The regulation of rates as used herein does not include
the regulation of garbage collection rates under franchises held by
member agencies unless such individual member agencies specifically
' delegate or assign such responsibility to the Authority.
B - 25
9. Solid Waste ,
a. Except as provided in subdivision "b", "c" and "d" below,
solid waste means all putrescible and non-putrescibie solid,
semisolid, and liquid wastes, including garbage, trash, refuse, ,
paper, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, demolishing .and
construction wastes, abandoned vehicles and" parts thereof, '
discarded home and industrial appliances, dewatered, treated
or chemically fixed sewage sludge which is not hazardous
waste, manure, vegetable or animal solid and semisolid
wastes, and other discarded solid and semisolid wastes. Solid '
waste includes commonly discarded recyclables such as glass,
aluminum, paper, and plastic products.
b. Solid waste does not include hazardous waste and/or liquid '
petroleum waste products, excepting household hazardous
waste as defined elsewhere herein. '
C. Solid .waste does not include low-level radioactive waste
regulated under Chapter 6.7 (commencing with Section. '
25800 of Division 20 of the Health &Safety Code.
d. Solid waste does not include medical waste which is regulated '
pursuant to the Medical Waste Management Act (Chapter 6.1
{commencing with Section 25015} of Division-' 20 of the
Health & Safety Code),. provided that the medical waste,
whether treated or untreated, is not disposed of at a solid
waste facility which is subject to the powers invested in this
Authority. Medical waste which has been treated and which '
is lawfully deposited into the normal solid waste stream shall
be considered solid waste for purpose of this Agreement and
shall be regulated. '
B - 26 '
ARTICLE 3: POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY
A. General Powers: The Authority shall have the powers common to its
member agencies and may:
1 . Advise the member agencies on issues related to regional solid
' waste facilities and programs.
2. Advocate the interests of the member agencies related to
' solid waste facilities and programs with local, state, and
federal agencies.
1 3. Maintain comprehensive County Integrated Waste
Management Plans by preparing and presenting proposed
revisions and amendments to same.
' 4. Plan for regional solid waste facilities and programs.
' 5. Regulate rates of regional solid waste facilities. Member
agencies may, by separate agreement,delegate rate regulation
for the collection of solid waste within their boundaries to.the
' Authority.
6. Advise member agencies on matters of solid waste rates and
charges.
7. Undertake such planning and related activities as may be
required of member agencies in order to comply with- the
directives of the California Solid Waste Management, Source
Reduction, Recycling, Compacting and Market Development
Act of 1989 (AB 939), as amended as the members may
' direct.
'
S. Develop and implement a financial plan to provide for closure
and post-closure of landfills containing wastes generated by
residents and businesses whose solid waste is franchised by
the member agencies as the members may direct.
9. Perform such other solid waste activities as the members may
' direct.
10. Develop regional solid waste facilities and programs subject to
separate agreements with participating agencies.
i
' B - 27
i
1 1 . Operate and/or contract for the operation of regional solid
waste facilities and programs subject to separate agreements ,
with participating agencies.
12. Develop a system of standardized franchise agreements and '
uniform procedures governing the franchising of solid waste
collection and disposal for consideration by the member
agencies. '
13. Develop rate review procedures applicable to the franchising
of solid waste collection and disposal for consideration. by '
member agencies.
B. Specific Powers: In carrying out its general powers, the Authority is '
hereby authorized to perform all acts necessary and proper to the
exercise of said powers, which. may include, but are not limited to, .
the following: ,
1 . To make and enter into contracts including contracts of
insurance. ,
2. To apply for, and accept grants, advances, and contributions.
3. To employ or contract for the services of agents, employees, '
consultants, and such other persons or firms as it deems
necessary. '
4. To conduct studies.
5. To- review the Contra Costa Integrated Solid Waste '
Management Plan, and prepare and propose revisions or
amendments thereto, for approval by the appropriate bodies. ,
6. To acquire, construct, manage, maintain, operate, and control
any disposal sites, solid waste facilities, buildings, works, or ,
improvements.
7. To acquire, hold, or dispose of property.
8. To incur debts, liabilities, or obligations, subject to limitations
herein set forth.
9. To levy and collect fees and charges.
10. To issue bonds, subject to the provisions and limitations of
the statutes of the State of California.
B - 28
1 1 . To annually adopt, by April 1, a fiscal year budget to
commence July 1 and run through June 30, setting forth all
administrative, operational, and capital expenses for the
Authority, together with the apportionment of such expenses
' by levy against each agency and other entities, to the extent
necessary.
12. To develop, construct, operate, and/or regulate regional
landfill disposal site(s), regional transfer facility(ies), or other
regional solid waste facilities, or to contract with a public
' agency(ies) or private person(s) or corporation(s) to perform
such functions.
13. To represent the interests of Contra Costa County and/or the
member agencies in discussions and negotiations with other
entities outside Contra Costa County on matters of solid
waste.
' 14. To take the necessary actions to sponsor, support, or P PP oppose
legislation affecting the solid waste interests of member
' agencies and Contra Costa County.
C. Limitation on Powers: Notwithstanding the general and specific
powers set forth in this Agreement, nothing in this Agreement shall
be read to:
' 1 . Prevent member agencies individually, or by agreement with
other agencies, from owning or operating solid waste handling
facilities for their regional area, or from implementing solid
' waste management programs within their regional area
including, but not limited to, programs concerning closure of
facilities.
2. Limit a member agency's use of its discretion and authority
regarding land use matters.
3. Preclude any member agency from continuing to franchise for
the collection and disposal of solid waste or from levying a
reasonable franchise fee, or using such other lawful cost
recovery methods, as it may deem appropriate within its
jurisdictional boundaries.
' B - 29
ARTICLE 4: ORGANIZATION OF AUTHORITY ,
A. Membership in the Authority: Membership in the Authority shall be '
open to 1) all cities within Contra Costa County; and 2) any special
district or sanitary district within Contra Costa County which '
franchises collection of solid waste, providing they agree to enter the
Authority under the terms of this Agreement. In addition, the County
of Contra Costa shall be entitled to membership.
B. Policy Board:.The Authority shall be governed by the Contra Costa
Solid Waste Authority Policy Board, hereinafter called "Board," which '
shall exercise all powers and authority on behalf of the Authority.
1 . Duties of the Board: The Board shall perform all acts which it
determines to be necessary and proper to the carrying out of
the purpose of this Agreement and shall have the authority to
exercise all powers provided for in.this Agreement, which may '
include, but are not limited to:
a. Preparing. and recommending action on the Contra '
Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan, and
revisions or amendments thereto, to the County Board
of Supervisors and cities.
b. Preparing and recommending joint or cooperative action
with regard to compliance of member agencies with ,
the requirements of the California Solid Waste
Management, Source Reduction, Recycling,
Compacting and Market Development Act of 1989 (AB- '
939), as amended.
C. Considering, modifying, and approving the annual work '
program and budget.
d. Levying fees and charges, as may be provided for in
this Agreement.
e. Authorizing, reviewing, and accepting reports and
studies.
f. Regulating rates for regional solid waste facilities and '
programs which provide services to the member
agencies..
B - 30
' g. Accepting agencies as subsequent parties to this
Agreement, and members of the Authority, and
' admitting their representatives to the Board.
2. Board Members: The Board shall consist of one member of the
' governing body of each of the member agencies. Upon
execution of this Agreement, the governing body of each
agency shall, by resolution, appoint one of its members to
' serve as a member of the Board and another individual to
serve as an alternate member of the Board, who may be an
elected official of the member agency,to serve in the absence
of the regular member. The governing body of each member
' agency shall review its appointee to the Board every two
years. There shall be no limit on the number of terms of a
' Board member.
3. Subsequent Board Members: Any agency which franchises
solid waste collection in Contra Costa County, including
agencies formed after the effective date of this Agreement,
may become members of the Authority by presenting an
' adopted resolution to the Board requesting membership in the
Authority. Membership in the Authority shall be. contingent
upon a majority of affirmative votes cast by members of the
' Board accepting the agency, and upon payment of any
charges established by the Board as a prerequisite for
membership.
' 4. Board Officers: The Board shall elect from its members a
Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson. The Chairperson shall
preside over all meetings according to the Rules of Procedure
' adopted by the Board. The Board Chairperson shall represent.
the Authority and execute any contracts and other
documents, as required by the Rules of Procedure. The Board
' shall designate a Secretary who shall notice all meetings and
cause minutes to be taken of all meetings, and serve as
custodian of the official records of the Authority.
' 5. Board Rules:. The Board is empowered to establish Rules of
Procedure, and may do any and all things necessary to carry
' out the purpose of this Agreement. All actions taken by the
Board in carrying out the powers of the Authority may be
exercised by a majority vote of all members present, except
as to the following, which will require an affirmative vote on
behalf of a majority of member agencies, which agencies total
weighted vote constitutes a majority of all votes available:
B - 31
a. Adopting a Budget Plan and Work Plan.
b. Levying fees against member agencies.
C. Authorizing the acquisition or construction of a solid
waste facility. '
d. Recommending amendments to the Contra Costa
County Integrated Waste Management Plan. '
6. Vo in : The Authority shall cause the number of votes
assigned each member agency to be determined each year,so '
as to provide for weighted voting based on the current
population of the franchised service area, as more fully set
forth below: '
a. Cities where a special district franchises solid waste
collection within said city shall have half the votes '
otherwise assigned to the city as determined by the
population set forth.below, and the franchising special
district shall have the remaining half of the assigned '
vote(s).
b. Large cities or agencies having a minimum of 40,001 '
population within the franchised area will receive three
votes.
C. Medium cities or agencies having between 20,001 and -
40,000 population within the franchised area will.
receive two votes. ,
d. Small cities or agencies having less than a 20,001
population within the franchised area will receive one '
vote.
e. The County shall be granted two votes immediately, '
upon membership. However, if the County at any time
franchises for an area with a combined population
within the franchised area of 40,001 or greater, the ,
County shall receive three votes.
T. Meetings of the Board: '
a. Regular Meetings: The Board shall hold monthly
meetings. '
B - 32 '
' b. Soecial and Emergency Meetings: Special and
emergency meetings of the Board may be called in
accordance with the provisions of Sections 54956 and
54956.5 of the California Government Code.
' C. Notice of Meetings: All meetings of the Board shall be
held subject to the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown
Act, Sections 54950 et. seq. of the California
' Government Code, and other applicable laws of the
State of California governing the notice requirements
applicable to the meetings of public bodies.
' d. Minutes: The Board Chairperson shall cause minutes of
all meetings, excepting closed sessions, to be kept and
' shall, as soon as possible after each meeting, cause a
copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each member
of the Board and each member agency.
' 8. Committees and Staffing
a. Technical Advisory Group: A Technical Advisory Group
may be created by the Authority. The Technical
Advisory Group may be composed of appointed staff
from member agencies with approval of the member
agencies' board or council and/or consultants, as
determined by the Authority, and shall advise the
' Authority as to matters of concern to the Authority.
b. Ad hoc Committees and Task Forces: Ad hoc
' Committees and Task Forces may be created by the
Authority. Ad hoc Committees and Task Forces may be
composed of appointed staff from member agencies,
' with approval of the member agencies' board, and/or
council members, consultants, or citizen volunteers, as
determined by the Authority, and shall advise the
' Authority as to matters of concern to the Authority.
C. Executive Committee: The Authority may appoint an
' Executive Committee among its membership to manage
the affairs of the Authority. The composition and
authority of the Executive Committee shall be
' determined by the Authority.
d. Regional Subcommittees:Regional Subcommittees may
' be created by the Authority. Regional Subcommittees
may be composed of elected officials and appointed
' B - 33
staff from member agencies with approval of the
member agencies' board and councils. The Regional
Subcommittees shall advise the Authority as t
appropriate.
e. Staffing: During the interim period prior to the '
contracting for or hiring of professional staff, the
agencies may provide staff, including County staff, to
the Authority as may be necessary for the Authority to '
fulfill its duties. As necessary, the Authority may
contract with, or employ firms and/or individuals, to
perform such tasks or duties as deemed necessary by '
the Authority, including a General Manager who shall
have such duties and authority as the Authority may
delegate to such General Manager, subject to the terms '
of this Agreement.
B - 34
1
' ARTICLE 5 TERMS OF AGREEMENT
A. Effective Date: This Agreement shall become effective on the date
of its execution by one-half (1/2) of all of the eligible entities
' representing a majority of Contra Costa County's population.
' B. Amendments: This Agreement may be amended by the affirmative
vote of the governing bodies of not less than two-thirds (2/3) of all
member agencies casting votes equaling not less than two-thirds
' (2/3) of all votes available, in accordance with Article 4, Section 6.
C. Withdrawal: Any party may withdraw from this Agreement upon one
year's notice given prior to June 1 of any year to the Chairperson of
' the Policy Board. The withdrawing agency shall be liable for its share
of any operating expenses incurred up to the effective date of its
withdrawal, which shall be July 1 of the year following the giving of
' notice. The Notice of Withdrawal shall be in resolution form and
approved by a majority vote of the governing board of the
withdrawing party. The withdrawal. of a party from the Authority
shall not relieve that party from paying its share of any debt incurred.
while said party was a member;. nor will such withdrawal affect
separate agreements between member agencies pursuant to Section
B, Article 6 herein. The withdrawal of such member agency shall
not terminate such member agency's responsibility for any liability of
such member agency incurred while a member under Title I Division
3.6 of the Government Code, and further provided that the
withdrawing agency must pay to the Authority on the effective date
of withdrawal, all money which may be owing to the Authority for
the withdrawing agency's proportionate share of liability under this
Agreement, as set forth in Section-B, Article 8 herein. If the amount
of the liability is not yet reasonably fixed on the date of withdrawal,
' the withdrawing agency shall pay its proportionate share of said
liability promptly thereafter when such sum can be reasonably fixed.
1
B - 35
ARTICLE 6: AUTHORITY FINANCING
A. Financial Accountability: Books of accounts will be maintained by the
Authority to enable issuance of financial statements which present ,
its financial condition and results of operations. The financial
statements will be issued to all member agencies quarterly and will
be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting ,
principles. An annual audit of the Authority's financial statements
will be performed by an independent Certified Public Accountant.
B. Separate Agreements: Financing and commitment of waste stream '
for solid waste facilities and programs related to the transfer,
disposal, or recovery of resources from solid waste shall be subject
to separate agreements between the Authority and agencies. '
Financing of specific capital projects, such as the acquisition,
construction, or operation of solid waste facilities by the Authority '
shall be subject to separate contracts between the Authority and
member agencies which intend to participate in the specific facility.
The contracts shall set forth each agency's responsibility for capital '
expenditures and operating expenses, as well as such other terms as
may be appropriate.
C. Debt: The Authority may issue or cause to be issued bond and other '
indebtedness, and pledge any property or revenues as security to the
extent permitted by law. ,
D. Operating Income: The Authority shall adopt a budget annually and
fix the allocation of operating costs to be borne by each franchising '
member agency. The franchising member agency's allocated share
of said costs shall be paid by the franchising member agency. The
Authority shall have the right to fix and impose such allocated shares '
of operating costs as a fee or charge against the franchising member
agency to the extent permitted by law. The franchising member
agency may derive such cost, fee, or charge from any source '
acceptable to the franchising member agency, including the franchise
fees associated with the collection operations. It is the intent of the
parties to derive operating revenue for the Authority from fees and '
charges at facilities; however, any short fall in Authority operating
revenues will be imposed on franchising member agencies as set
forth herein. '
1 . Programs of General Interest: In general, the programs of the
Authority shall be for the general benefit of all member
B - 36
agencies. To the extent possible, the cost of such programs
' shall be prorated so that the charge per franchised household
is uniform among all members.
' 2. Programs of Special Interest: From time to time the Authority
may conduct programs, the benefits of which fall dispropor-
tionately among the members. If this is the case, such
' programs of special interest, and a decision to undertake or
continue such programs, must be made by a two-thirds (2/3)
majority vote of all member agencies casting total votes
' equaling not less than two-thirds (2/3) of all votes available.
The proration of the cost of such programs must be decided
upon prior to making the decision to conduct the program.
t
1
1
B - 37
ARTICLE 7: EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY'S POWERS
This Agreement is entered into under the provisions of Article 1 of Chapter
5, Division 7, Title One of the California Government Code concerning Joint ,
Powers Agreements. As to those powers vested in the Authority pursuant
to Section 6508 of the Government Code, they shall be exercised in the
same manner and subject to the same restrictions as those applicable to a '
sanitary district pursuant to the statutes and laws of the State of California.
8 - 38 '
ARTICLE 8: OBLIGATIONS .OF AUTHORITY
A. Other than as set forth below, any and all debts, liabilities, and
' obligations incurred by or imposed upon the Authority shall be the
debts, liabilities, and obligations solely of the Authority and no capital
or administration debt, liability, or obligation shall thereby be imposed
' upon any party to this Agreement or the collective parties hereto.
B. The tort liability of the Authority, all members of the Board, and all
' officers employed and employees of said Authority shall be controlled
by the provisions of Division 3.6 of Title I of the Government Code
of the State of California. Any tort and contractual liability incurred
by or imposed upon the Authority shall remain the sole liability of the
Authority, rather than the liability of member agencies, to the full
extent such allocation of liability is permitted by law. In the event
' tort liability is required by law to be imposed on the member
agencies, the allocation of liability among the member agencies shall
be in proportion to each member agency's relative contribution to the
waste stream. Each member agency's share shall be in the same
proportion as each member agency's allocated share of operating
costs for the year out of which the claim arises.
' The provisions of said division relating to the indemnification of
public employees, and the defense of actions against them arising
out of any act or omission occurring within the scope of their
' employment, shall apply to all Authority directors, officers, and
employees.
Notwithstanding the specific terms of this section, the Authority and
the member agencies shall retain the power to allocate liability
between the Authority and the member agencies, or among the
' member agencies, in a manner other than as set forth above,.
pursuant to written agreement to do same for specific projects or
undertakings of the Authority.
' B - 39
ARTICLE 9: TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY
A. Termination or Dissolution of the Authority: This Agreement shall
continue in force until rescinded or terminated, as specified by this '
section. This Agreement may be terminated at the end of any
Authority fiscal year by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of all then-
existing members of the Authority.
B. Division of Property on Dissolution or Termination: Upon termination
or dissolution of the Authority as a legal entity, all debts of, and '
advances to, the Authority shall be paid. Upon payment of all debts
and liabilities of the Authority, every then-member of the Authority
at the time of said termination shall be entitled to receive such '
property and surplus money of the Authority as may lawfully be
distributed in proportion to the most recent apportionment of
expenses as described herein among all of the agencies who are
parties to this Agreement at the time of its dissolution. In the event '
that liabilities under Division 3.6 of Title I of the Government Code
of the State of California exceed or have the potential to exceed the
assets of the Authority,, the member agencies shall assume those '
obligations remaining upon termination, as general obligations of the
member agencies; provided, however, as between member agencies,
said liabilities shall be allocated between said member agencies as '
defined in Section B of Article 8.
C. Sale of Assets: At such time that a termination decision is adopted ,
by the Authority, the Board shall expeditiously sell, or otherwise
dispose of, according to applicable law, all of the lands, rights-of-
way, easements, equipment, public improvements, works, and '
facilities of the Authority.
The monies received by the Board from such sale or disposition, to ,
the extent they would otherwise be credited to the Capital Reserve
Account, together with the monies in the Capital Reserve Account,
shall be distributed among the then-members of the Authority in '
proportion to the most recent apportionment of expenses among the
then-member agencies, to the extent that such reimbursement has
not previously been made. '
D. Successor/No Successor Agency
1 . Successor Agency: In the event of termination of the
Authority where there is a successor public entity which will.
carry on the activities of the Authority and assume its ,
B - 40
1
' obligations, Authority funds, including any interest earned on
deposits, remaining upon termination of the Authority and
' after payment of all obligations, and its real and personal
property shall be transferred to the successor public entity.
' 2. No Successor Agency: If there is no successor public entity
which would carry on any of the activities of the Authority or
assume any of its obligations, Authority funds, including any
' interest earned on deposits, remaining upon termination of the
Authority and after payment of all obligations, and its real and
personal property, shall be returned to the member agencies
' as determined by the Board.
3. Partial Successor Agency: If there is a successor public entity
which would undertake some of the functions of the Authority
and assume some of its obligations, Authority funds, including
any interest earned on deposits, remaining upon termination
' of the Authority and after payment of all obligations and its
real and personal property, shall be allocated by the Board
between the successor public entity and member agencies.
' E. Board Allocation Final: In the event the Authority is terminated, all
decisions of the Board with regard to determinations of property and
funds to be transferred to member agencies or any successor made
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement shall be final.
' ADS/JPA/0003344.09
' B - 41
Attachment A
RATE REGULATION OF SOLID WASTE FACILITY ,
The features of rate regulation described below shall be a guide for the ,
Authority to follow in regulating rates at solid waste facilities.
o The initially established landfill disposal or transfer station fee should ,
be changed no more frequently than annually on the basis of the
submission of an application for fee increase. '
o Application for fee increase should be submitted to the regulatory
agency three months prior to the effective date of the change. '
0 Application for fee increase should be submitted on a pre-printed, pro
forma rate application designed to elicit the financial, operating, and '
other related information to permit analysis of the bases for the
requested fee increase.
o The fee increase requested should be supported by actual and '
forecasted operating statements, balance sheets, and statements of
retained earnings.
0
Audited financial statements for the landfill or transfer station '
operations, on, a separate entity basis, for the immediate preceding
reporting year should be submitted as.a required component of the '
rate application.
o Applications for fee increases should be analyzed by the regulatory '
agency and the fee adjustment determined on the basis of the
established rate-setting methodology, e.g. Operating Ratio, Return on
Equity, Return on Fixed Assets. '
0 Controls on funds collected for landfill closure and post-closure costs
should be established. Such funds should be deposited in a separate '
bank account and made subject to the shared control of the
regulatory agency. An annual summary of receipts and
disbursements should be audited by the external auditors and ,
submitted to the regulatory agency with the audited financial
statements.
ADS/JPA/0003344.09
B - 42 '
' CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND ACTION PLAN
' MISSION STATEMENT
' The mission of the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority is to coordinate solid
waste activities, to undertake comprehensive long and short term solid waste
planning, to be a resource in the area of solid waste, and to represent the solid
' waste interests of member agencies. The Authority shall, on behalf of its
member agencies, advocate, advise, develop, oversee, study and analyze solid
waste issues, in order that the member agencies interests are best represented.
' I. Goal - Through a joint exercise of power agreement to unify the County and
all franchising cities and sanitary districts into one overall county wide
' solid and household hazardous waste agency for Contra Costa County;
the purpose of which is to assure responsible, coordinated and cost
effective planning and implementation.
A. Objective. To recruit the remaining city, sanitarydistricts and the
County of Contra Costa to become members.
1 . Action - Negotiate membership with the County of Contra
Costa.
2. Action - With promising milestones in negotiations with County
representatives, begin negotiations with City of Concord.
3. Action - Following resolution of the sanitary districts' role in
franchising solid waste in the unincorporated area of the
County, negotiate membership of remaining sanitary
districts.
B. Objective - Finalize an equitable and agreed upon method of member
assessment.
1. Action - (Short term) Develop some formula - possibly keyed to
' population or number of votes assigned to each entity as
basis for assessment.
' 2. Action - (long term) With County's membership, provide for
permanent funding through tipping fees. "
' 3. Action - Revise Fiscal Year Budget for 1992-1993 in accordance
with revised assessment process.
B - 43
Goals, Objectives and Action Plan
Page Two
C. Objective - Act as ombudsman (sentinel), coordinator and resource
on county wide issues for cities, sanitary districts, County,
business community and citizens.
1. Action - Coordinate and implement activities to enhance the
Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRREs),
Household Hazardous Waste Elements (HHWEs), Siting
Element and overall Integrated Waste Management Plan
(IWMP) - assuming County membership - goals county
wide. * I
a. Resource Speakers
b. Workshops
1) Composting
2) Household Hazardous Waste/Small Quantity
Generators/NPDES
3) Procurement processes * '
4) Market Development
5) Rate Regulation Issues
c. Support for federal or state solid waste legislation which
enhances source reduction and recycling efforts.
Some examples might include: * ,
1) Product bans
2) Product disposal fees
3) Post consumer waste content
d. Innovative locally based programs which can be used as
a resource or model for similar local, regional or
county-wide programs
2. Action - Coordinate and disseminate information for purpose of
keeping membership informed.
6 - 44
1 Goals, Objectives, Action Program
Page Three
a. Action Alert notices
' b. Newsletter
1 c. Structure for keeping links of information continuous
1) Orientation
' 2) Status Reports
' 3) Public Information program
3. Action - Through Authority appointed representatives, on an as
needed basis, serve as the sanitary districts' and cities'
' representatives on the county-side MOU export negotiating
committee.
4. Action - Serve as the ongoing clearinghouse/forum for
communicating/sharing information between franchisors
and solid waste industry representatives to enhance quality,
' cost-effectiveness and coordinating of programs.*
II. Goal - Using a local community oriented approach to solid waste planning
and implementation, develop local, sub-regional and county wide
structure and coordination of overall solid- and household hazardous
waste activities. *
' A. Objective - With local community-based solid waste activities as its
broad foundation, an organizational structure should be
' developed which encompasses local cities/County/ sanitary
districts sub-regional and county wide activities. *
1. Action - Where none exists, encourage formation of city
' advisory committees to enhance local planning and
implementation.
' 2. Action - Encourage all cities and sanitary districts not currently
part of a sub-regional Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to join;
broadening and enhancing coordination of programs and
' facilities. *
3. Action - Consider broadening membership on the Local Task
Force to include more business and community
participation; possibly replacing elected officials.
' B - 45
Goals, Objectives, Action Plan '
Page Four
4. Action - Form a technical advisory committee to the Task Force
and the Authority comprised of AB 939 project managers
and other agency staff; other interested or corollary public
agencies and business/industry solid waste resources. "
5. Action - County wide JPA - Retain membership of elected '
officials .representing each franchising agency. Utilize
representatives and alternates as members of standing
committees responsible for policy development and/or '
coordination, etc., in the areas of:
a. Administration/legislation '
b. Budget/Finance
c. Personnel '
d. Planning
e. Programs '
f. Misc. '
B. Objective - Develop programs for combining and coordinating
facilities and programs.* ,
1 . Action - Consider development of sub-regional household
hazardous waste, yard waste, etc., facilities which promote ,
efficiencies; utilizing the most appropriate and qualified
agency.*
2. Action - In conjunction with local agencies, develop overall '
coordinating programs for schools, general public and
business community; eliminating waste and duplication."
* Denotes those items which are long-term objectives or based on Contra '
Costa County participation.
B - 46
I l'<..ic�I1. `} � y Ott i/ "• V.1 `y{� r -_.' a' -
�' _ vl ,Y Y ti � ! J '��� � � - �� L ,.' h-� �.i ✓r } ;11 d -�\, � �!� t r��V \j �
},� V �/yr V .p,.� .Al t}/r.(. ���� \, t, �.. � :'✓ ,�•r F/�,'1 ". _�� r ) y.) l� -�,� � / .� i. , qtr -�r �r ��J � d l�t �
� (� Y�/ ./ `,S� ���+ i [ , _ k .� � ,�. 1 <� iv,� r _r� '�,,r ), � /•.. t � f.A t,.? t� -
YV
`:it
AVI
r. /�" �..+' Y,/r.'�� �.. - '�,.k\ l !. +"'t t '_ �.�i 1 /i`�L � `� f \� _ ,� \ X�•r \ 7, �
' l �l / r { t� r \fi +, }� �� '- .� r �R•4-0
� ��
i v�, / z avYf •a f. r/, a• -F t NY ��t
11C � f..r�.' ry •�, r= r
{ � � ''�• "�� "" '� .ter'� y��y. } ��,� "" �� ;�„-.S �\\ �`! �.'' ��, ?�`� h �! � / �L � i t� { ��� V '
,� �.- •!r! �� ,.._ f �� ;i,. ���!/ h.�;..' ry gib-- :cu, �f.;" �.� ,: � '� , i, �. r. .�/r,t��; K�,i ''\+,� �/�l .
„j � �'m i �iur ,.� �, \tir/�V�/ .� :� � � � t -� v L{•'' {\,��l{t� y r` ,A �' ��' ) .fi.Ir,�, �t
'). � 1, I _ � .V - � �i t -,�� ±,.Y 1�. t, .1/ .!. .� �� \t , '� ,�.. y „�t '- ('' �1•
��_•/ ./ i '',.fir ``� !it �^ .t \t•, � � t t .' 1 J'1 f 1 •\� .�L. a \;. }>: �� ,!f� 1\ �� ..i i ,1'
� � ! ���\ )�� 'tv\�4 `v it +Y'` i1 - -t � '� ✓ fr\� Y - �..f' 1f �'�. �. �`. A•A�'.' ' ,_ i�C ,�,.'.
r �\ '}r\-, ,t.� r \.'. ( _ t j f =,`;' \ 'r ,� r . T?-fr„\� �-_ } �/.�. �.. r•� �. F f --� 1f /�;. 1. l K.
9 t
1
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
t OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
' SUBJECT: A Resolution Ratifying a Memorandum of )
Agreement and Work Plan for a Solid Waste )
Partnership between the Contra Costa Solid T
Warta Authority and Co a Costa County )
RESOLUTION NO. M10-3
1
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT:
' WHEREAS, a majority of the cities in Contra Costa County, along with a number of Special
Districts which franchise for the collection and disposal of solid waste did jointly create the Contra
Costa Solid Waste Authority (hereinafter "Authority") and enter into a Joint Exercise of Powers
' Agreement;and
WHEREAS, those cities and special districts desire to enter into a solid waste planning,
coordinating and implementing partnership with Contra Costa County(hereinafter"County'),for the
betterment of cost effective countywide solid waste management;:and
WHEREAS,,the Authority.and County have formulated a partnership agreement and work
plan which:specifies the terms.by which the two entities will jointly engage in solid waste planning,
coordinating and implementing,activities; and
WHEREAS,.it is desirable and appropriate to have that agreement and work plan ratified by
all member agencies of the Authority; the Board of Supervisors and'the subregional joint powers
' authorities;
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Contra Costa County Board of
' Supervisors=hereby ratifies the attached Solid Waste Memorandum of Agreement and the Work Plan
betweemthe Authority and the County_
' PASSED AND ADOPTED by the following vote of the Board of Supervisors on the 9th day of
March,.1993:
' AYES: Supervisors Smith,,, 3ishop, McPeak,. Torlakson
NOES.- .,lone
' ABSENT.-. Supervisor Powers
ABSTAIN- 1:one
' 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of
the Board.,of Supervisors on the.date aforesaid.
' Contact:-Louise Aiello (510/846-1550)
cc: Community Development Department(CDD) Witness my hand and the Seal of the
Board of Supervisors affixed on this
' 0th day of '+arch 1993.
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County Administrator
By:
Deputy Clerk
aaw:�w res RESOLUTION NO. 931—l-08
2 4 ��fp''��� '''
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON - Costa
'
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C`"" µ7
DATE: MARCH 9, 1993
SUBJECT: APPROVE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AM WORE PLAN BETWEZT CONTRA COSTA '
COUNTY AND THE CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S): OR RECOMMENDATIOB(S). 6 BACEGRODHD AND JUSTIFICATION '
RECOMMENDATIONS
Accept report from Community Development Director on memorandum of
Agreement with the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority and ,
1. Approve, and authorize Chair to execute, attached
Memorandum of Agreement and Work Plan between Contra Costa
County and the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority; '
2. Approve attached Resolution ratifying Memorandum of Agreement
and Work Plan for a Solid Waste partnership between the County
and the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority; and, '
3. Designate Supervisors McPeak and Bishop, as the 1993 County
representatives to the AB 939 Local Task Force, as the
County0s representatives to the meet with the Contra Costa
Solid Waste Authority. '
FISCAL I"ACT
As part of Task 11 in the Work Plan, the County, and Authority will '
address staffing and funding- At this time, staff costs will be
funded by current County share of the AB 939 Tipping Fee and by
Resource Recovery Fee funds.
BACRGROMM/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS ,
On December 22, 1992, the Board approved twelve conceptual points
to serve as the basis for a formal agreement between: the County and '
the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority for a partnership in solid
waste management. At that time,. Supervisors McPeak and Bishop were
authorized to negotiate this agreement. The attached Memorandum of.
Agreement and Work Plan represent the successful completion of
those• negotiations_ '
CONTINUED ON ATTACEMENr: YES SI®TURE
ACTION OF BOARD OX .f' "PROVED AS ED V OTHER
1
VOTE OF SUPERQISCM
X I HEREBY CERTIFY TEAT THIS IS A '
U aM MOUS (32a P!v 7 TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES- ACTION TRJ39N ARD ENTERED Off THB
ABSENT: ABSTA=: M33FUTM OF TIM BOARD OF
SUPZRVISORSL Olt THE DATE SHOWN. '
Contact: Louise Aiello (510/646-1530) ATTESTIM
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK. OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS '
AM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
C - 2 DEPUTY
BY 'A41M
memorandum of Agreement and Work Plan
' between County and the Contra Costa SWA
Continued -- Page Two
The Agreement and Work Plan call for cooperation on solid waste
management issues on the part of the County,. cities, and other
franchising agencies_ Additionally, the Agreement and Work Plan
seek to build the trust necessary for a viable solid. waste
' management organization representing all parties.
LA=S
1 "
C - 3
1
' MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
' AND
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
FOR
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
AN INTERIM PARTNERSHIP
IN THE
' PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
This Memorandum of Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into on, S- q
1993, by and between the CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AtFTHORITY (hereinafter
' -Authorky"). a public entity Joint Powers Authority and the COUNTY OF CONTRA
' COSTA (hereinafter "County"), a political subdivision of the State of California. It
establishes an interim partnership for the planning, development and implementation
of solid waste management policies and programs.
' RECITALS
WHEREAS, the. California Integrated Waste Management Act of. 1989 ("Act")
' requires each city and each county in the State to divert solid waste from landfills and
' specifies diversion goals of 25% by January 1, 1995 and 50% by January 1 , 2000-
or
000or face administrative penalties of up to- $10,000 per day; and
C - 4
WHEREAS, the planning, development and implementation of policies and ,
programs aimed at achieving the State mandated diversion goals may have high
short-term costs to local governments and to ratepayers; and
3
WHEREAS cooperative efforts by cities and counties in the planning,
development and implementation of solid waste management policies and programs '
may assist in reducing. costs for and increasing the efficiency of such solid waste '
management efforts and consequently accommodate the undertaking of more
aggressive waste diversion programs; and '
WHEREAS, the Authority was formed on July 31, 1991, pursuant to the laws
of the State of California by the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, El Cerrito,
Hercules, Lafayette. Martinez, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond,San ' '
Pablo, San Ramon and Walnut Creek, the Towns of Danville and Moraga, and. the
Byron, Central Contra Costa, Crockett-Vaiona and Ironhouse Sanitary Districts for the
purpose planning, coordinating and implementing solid waste activities county-wide;
and
WHEREAS, the County,.as part of its General:Plan, has committed to assuring '
the development of waste transfer, processing and disposal facilities which meet the
highest established environmental standards and providing for cost effective solid
waste management practices; and '
C - 5
WHEREAS,the Authority and County seek cooperative approaches to both solid
waste management activities and the costs of such activities, resulting in wise and
cost effective solid waste management, responsive to solid waste diversion goals and
the welfare of the environment; and
' WHEREAS, representatives of the County and Authority have met and
' developed conceptual points of agreement for cooperative activities between the
County and the Authority, attached as Exhibit A; and
' WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County and the Board of Directors
of the Authority have concurred by vote with the conceptual points; and
' WHEREAS, the Authority and the County intend this Agreement to be the
framework for solid waste management planning and implementation between the
County and the Authority,.
' AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County and the Authority do
hereby agree as follows:-
C - 6
SECTION 1_ COUNTYWIDE INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN '
1.1 The County and Authority-agree that the Countywide Integrated Waste ,
�Y 9 tYw g
Management Pian (CoiWMP) will include provisions '
(a). for export of solid waste
(b). for mechanisms within any solid waste export agreements to
(1) monitor the location and costs of disposal, and '
(2)_ pass onto the ratepayers any cost savings resufifng from '
lower export rates for disposal_ '
1.2 County and Authority recognize and agree that if franchising agencies '
within Contra Costa County export solid waste,agencies outside of Contra Costa may '
be allowed to dispose of solid waste at Keller Canyon Landfilt, and that as a result the
County shalt have no obligation to provide capacity for jurisdictions which have '
entered into such export agreements. Any importing entity-shall gay landfill rates at ,
least as higfy as those charged Contra Costa users and abide by all the landfill
requirements imposed upon Contra Costa users. County and Authority will comply ,
with all applicable laws, including the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. '
C - 7
' Constitution, the Land Use Permit #2020-$9, Conditions of Approval #5.2 and #9.3,
and the daily tonnage limitations in the applicable Solid Waste Facilities Permit.
' 1 .3 The County will respond to all comments on the CoIWMP from the cities
and will include modifications in the ColWMP on issues where
' a). concurrence between the County and cities has been reached,and
' b) the requested modification(s) will not jeopardize State approval of
' the ColWMP.
1-4 The County will,complete the CWWMP and seek final approval by the
' Califomia Integrated Waste Management Board
SECTION 2 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
2.1 Within six months from enactment of this Agreement by the County and
' by the Authority, the County and Authority, together with the subregional solid waste
' joint powers authorities, will
(a) delineate their respective roles, functions and responsibilities for
' solid waste management, and
C - s
e
(b) develop a method for evaluating the number and cost of transfer ,
stations and suggest criteria to assure the most cost effective and
efficient system for agencies as well as for ratepayers. ,
2.2 Within six months from enactment of this Agreement by the County and
by the Authority, the County and the Authority will develop a model solid waste '
collection franchise agreement and a rate review model. '
SECTION 3. COUNTY MATERIALS DIVERSION ORDINANCE '
3.1 The Authority, and its member agencies acknowledge the right of the
County to enact the Materials Diversion- Ordinance and the County will review '
comments from the cities regarding the Ordinance and use these comments to modify ,
or amend the Ordinance with six months of enactment of this Agreement by the
County and by the Authority. '
SECTION 4. STAFF RESOURCES AND RNANC1NG
4.1 During the six months following enactinent of this Agreement by the ,
County and by the Authority, the County and the Authority will discuss staff
resources and financing. '
C - 9
1
4.2 The County and the Authority agree that funding for the Authority shall
continue to be based on population and paid by each member agency either directly
or via a tipping fee which may be levied, pursuant to the Act, by the County or other
appropriate entity at transfer station(s) or landfiil(s). The levying of a tipping fee to
fund the Authority shall require the request of a majority of the public franchising
agencies using the transfer station or landfill and shall apply only to those agencies
which are members of the Authority.
SECTION 5. SU6REGIONAL SOLID WASTE .JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
5.1- Nothing herein is intended to be in conflict with. any agreement currently
being negotiated by the County, any subregional joint powers authority, or any
individual franchising agency. Furthermore,subregional joint powers authorities will
be consulted on a regular basis during the course of negotiations between the
Authority and the County.
SECTION 6- TERM OF AGREEMENT
6.1 The County and Authority agree to work together on solid waste
management issues for a period of three (3) years, renewable for five (5) years
following review and affirmation at the end of six (6) months by the County, the
' Authority and its member agencies, and the subregional solid waste joint powers
authorities_
1
C - 10
1
SIGNATURES. THESE SIGNATURES ATTEST THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT HERETO.
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA. CALIFORNIA ,
By: Date:
Tom Torlakson, Chair '
Contra Costa County Board'of Supervisors
FORM APPROVED:
VICTOR J. WESTMAN, County Counsel '
By:
1_iilian Fujii, Deputy Vounty Counsel" '
ATTEST:
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of '
Supervisors and County,Administrator
By. 'Deputy Clerk
C - 11
CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY MEMBERS
BY:
Date: ~- s - 93
City of Antioch
1
Date: 1-24--13
' City of Brentwood V'
' 1 Date: Z - ( _ / 3
Byron Sanitary District
Date: -
entral Contra Costa Sanitary Distriai-
Date:
' City of Clayton
Date:
&247 /1N
' Crockett-Valona Sanitary District
Date: ` 4
T wn.of Danville
Date: J
' f El Cerrito
Date: S S 93
City of Hercules
Date: y�� T7
lronhouse Sanitary District
' C - 12
Date:
1 ,
City of Lafayette
BatibCtno- J . WOCOL ,-,,,, Date: s 0s �3 '
City of Martinez
�7
Date:
wn oraga
Date:
City of Orinda
of Pinoie
Date:
^' Date: 2
Clijlof Please-ht Hill '
'City of Richmond Date:
Date: '
City of San Pablo
4- -y-� Date: -�1-7�S'
City `an Ramon ,
17
�� - 7- t3
Date: ,
City of Walnut dreek
A ,
C - 13
CONCURRENCE PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 93-2
WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
8Y: Date:
Title
ATTEST:
C - 14
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT JOINT POWERS '
AUTHORITY
gy, Date:
i
Tale
ATTEST.
L
t
LA:gms
139wAl0U-JPA
i
C - 15
\ i,/ �n� ) ..� L�� � ..� \, t�.l",� � 1` �lY �"�,r` i`°`- J. ,�,I „�..,• 'fir-;-.\f / -'-! `si '�xr'f '".',,4
t. .� .�X ,< � r { ).`� {✓7, r /\{ ;, ' 'v fit-
,/" :'.x.``x; \ r '� r` �. � ." �� �'�� �}.t`- 1,'. � ` 'y` _.�'•�ir .` t-'s" i "1, �' 1- x~,;'!J /! `�` _ �Y 1 ./
I � �_+ 1 ��i 7 l•! fi ^• r(}! �� \ � \ - � tet,; ,t! 'w.� '� / t x;. / J \� !
�` �.� � 9 x, �xr 1 `",�-. r i r7/-: /. � 1.; :.i ) 1 .-" � �,�,i 1 a `.✓t� . r �- r /�y, i�, '\ ,r�
{
/
v'-' 1 � � r{ � "�r �"� \ al;,p V1 / ,`�k s l � l\ 4 �• 7 � !'.C 1 �a A��Vr
;A_P;PE�:N. .Q�IXc.'T xD��, f
lrr ..` �. / rl �+:�r ,,� .� �/, #� ..�r' ,,1' .. � Y\. 1•-•�r .���., x Rz t \h �r�y�� -,
W,tR K f �0vP I �ST U�D Y- �.M ATERIALS�` , .
I —Vf. w.�,, 1.� i ,
4.
t '7` �, §� •� 1 �"yy -,.T ,i } � �,ti,= p y,�, A, } � . ' � � s t i.� -�.,
11
A;"
' �I )A ,• V``e 4 "._/'-•I ° �/ � l U C nyrT: �� � - -�� .,.'ar x dV ! '� x re-,
�E� ;., l�� �' � ��} moi" ! ���./ �-r�_� r'. ..��1 � /i Yrs✓.' ���' -- � 1 �ri.` )x`/� r '�'.x �V r, � �-`'`e
. E ._�,` � !y_ r � `�T '•� .� s ��,�.Y � r % �,v �, / r � �k ,�� l 11 / � r.. � I , A �.
Al'•_)i „0.`..�i'r• �'` ` t V/ ='r - j-� r ��� _`e t ^,-� kf: r " / x'
4 ".' \ F�`. - may/ /^ \ I/� r `' ` �� `Y � y `,^') � ;x r r�-•
`,` _ T 1 I /,/ � xy .' -^' ( /.h\ , �,,.,V l �A� r ✓ -�- 1 - / r'•yr -' \� •� - � v / �� 1 \// `k
1,' ,t } :*, � - ,� / `�• ^ �.', � 'i 1 ,� \ , ( '_ fi. � \ �-
�'�1.-�t 1 t.:�-+- .�.� ,� �`'r r. r '�i V '•i�9 tix y. '��� �rr -/, �_ , ' "r..,.� ��;'
�, J> .rj fi -\' .i f J ,� ,j 'Ifr - `- * � ` � j� y\ y r `{ !• - � ~ ��iL_
t � rw l �r, '- � r 1 ,: t1-� r �rY✓'l i 'tr� .( � t � f: t�/ i 1. � J \ �1 �. ,'!i'� -1- S
c �r .� •/ \ f / � F 7.tx r/ '1 t�` r \ =4} r.x', �, s.�- .e .,gid` V,,
.� x t `,1 '_ , v 1 \ , .� - l.. ,,� .�,t`r. •,� - r ,. / < <,.- aro, - t .C� .��_. -
%sta
rasta Solid Waste Authoritgy
Contra Co
Vurty
July 14, 1993
r
TO: HONORABLE BOARD MEMBERS
' • Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
• Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
' • Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
• West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority
' FROM: GRETCHEN MARIOTTI, Chair
Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
SUBJECT: WORKSHOP STUDY MATERIALS For -
' ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT
' Thursday, July 29, 1993
4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
' Golden Gate Room
George Gordon Center
' Martinez, CA 94553
***PLEASE BRING STUDY MATERIALS***
' TO WORKSHOP
' Attached for your review and consideration are study materials for the Joint
Contra Costa County/Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority/Central' Contra
Costa Solid Waste Authority/West Contra Costa Integrated Waste
' Management Authority Workshop on July 29, 1993.
July 14, 1993
Solid Waste Workshop Study Materials '
Page Two
These attached materials are intended to be reviewed prior to the '
Workshop and used for referral during the Workshop. They contain
background information as well as current solid waste issues which
pertain to the Workshop Topic: t
"Roles and Responsibilities for Solid Waste Management in Contra
Costa County" t
• Background Information
I. State Solid Waste Requirements '
H. Goals/Objectives/Activities of the Various Solid Waste ,
Entities.
-Solid Waste Issues and Opportunities for Consideration
III. Potential Areas of Opportunities For Solid Waste '
Cooperation and/or Coordination.
IV. Funding Sources. '
V. Possible Organizational Structures for County-wide Solid '
Waste Management.
Please pian to attend this key solid waste planning meeting. '
Please remember to bring your study materials to the
Workshop on July 29 ! '
If you cannot attend, please make sure your Alternate is
present to represent your Board; and be sure your. Alternate '
receives the study materials in advance of the meeting.
1
D - 2
1
� Section I
' State Solid Waste Requirements
(AB 939 et al)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATE SOLD WASTE REQLTRIEMIENTS
AB 939
' • Requires each city and each county to reduce disposal of waste by 25% by 1995
� ty
and 50% by 2000.
' • Requires each city and county to and implement Source Reduction and
eq ty ty Pie
Recycling Elements and Household Hazardous Waste Elements as part of the
' efforts to reduce waste and waste disposal
• Requires County and a majority of cities having a majority of population to
prepare, approve, submit Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans and
Solid Waste Facilities Siting Element
' AB 3001
• Added requirement that each city and each county prepare a Non Disposal
Facilities Element, removed such facilities from the Countywide Siting Element
and granted autonomy to each city and each county in approving NDFE's
AB 2494
• Altered diversion requirements from "amount of diversion" to "amount of
reduction of disposal"
• Provided for formation of solid waste JPA's and rural regional solid waste
agencies
' AB 440 (Pending in Legislation)
• Expands provisions for formation of regional solid waste agencies by allowing for
' formation of such agencies in any area and through either joint powers
agreements or Memoranda of Agreement.
' • Specifies methods for counting reduction in disposal
• Directs Emergency Regulations to be established by December, 1993
• Delays submission deadlines of SRRE's, HHWE's and NDFE's until April, 1994
' • Appears to allow early submission of SRRE's, HHWE's, NDFE's and
Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans
' • Lifts imposition of fines for two years
D - 3
� Section II
� Goals, Objectives, Activities
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
II. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS
In considering opportunities for multi-jurisdictional/countywide organizational structures,
a review of the goals, objectives and programs advanced by the county's various entities is
helpful.
' The information which follows was excerpted from Part IV of the Draft Countywide .
Integrated Waste Management Plan, "A Summary of County/Cities Source Reduction and
Recycling Elements and Household Hazardous Waste Elements". As such,it represents a
snapshot in time of the various entities solid waste plans for waste reduction,diversion and
disposal of solid and household hazardous waste. It is not intended to be the definitive,
current source document, but,rather, to reflect those areas where commonality exists and
' which, therefore, suggest opportunities for cost effective coordination consolidation. If
key components of any jurisdiction's elements have been omitted, it has been done
inadvertently and corrections will be included in the next workshop materials.
' Because of the vast array of information to be compared,the various goals,objectives and
programs have been consolidated into chart form. These charts are as follows:
' Table 1: Summary of Solid Waste Goals
• Table 2: Summary of Source Reduction Objectives
• Table 3: Summary of Recycling Objectives
' Table 4: Summary of Composting Objectives
• Table 5: Summary of Special Waste Objectives
• Table 6: Summary of Education/Public Information Objectives
' Table 7: Summary of Household Hazardous Waste Objectives
• Table 8: Summary of Source Reduction Programs
• Table 9: Summary of Recycling Programs
• Table 10: Summary of Composting Programs
• Table 11: Summary of Special Waste Programs
• Table 12: Summary of Education/Public Information Programs
• Table 13: Summary of Household Hazardous Waste Programs
Areas which a large number of entities have selected for implementation are as follows:
Source Reduction
• Variable Can Rate
• Government Programs including procurement standards
' Waste Audits
• Backyard Composting
• Precycling
Rggycling
• Single Family/Multi-Family Residential Collection Programs
• Commercial Collection
• Buy back/Drop off Programs
• School Recycling/Curricula Programs
• Mixed Waste Processing
' Zoning to Facilitate Recycling
1
D - 4
C— m osting
• Curbside Collection of Yazd Debris ,
• Collection and Processing of Food Wastes
• Centralized Processing of Yard Debris,Wood and Other Organics
• Co-Composting With Sewage Sludge
Special Wastes
• Bulky Goods;Salvaging
•
BZ
Goads;Pickup
EducationfPublic Information
• School Programs
• Print Media
• Newsletters
• Festivals&Booths '
• Direct Mail Notices
Household Hazardous Wastes
' County Mobile Collection
• Hub Storage for Mobile Collection
. Load Checking
• Eaickson Hazardous Waste Facility
• Waste Exchange
D - 5
min{ � � ,
>! ej
-ag
_� ui
cn
03
LL
0
ca
ca
ci
C-5 1
E1
x
uj
auj
am
4n
ff 0 ds
N Oil 0
ds r)
,cz
1
1 _
V]
7I m
G51TI > � x i
.= 3 I • � I �
of p x X�
1 I
I
acn
Its x X' x
O
c7
LU
Q _
1 y aj m e x x x X
1 0 N
ui
c Q
x
c x
1 QI p a
1 0
xxxx, x
y � s
farm i
a i
�I 9 :3 a of v TI c " '� m o) _I p m <
! r p U
1 D - 7
m `y
� I t
o;
3
°
y O
cE
x cn
i I
u m k of c x O
0
e
el m
1som
'�I u v v aEi aT epi�
u p g m �� � w
» » ,. » » » » �► » a
06
0CL
! E X x x X Xco
k X X k X X X
of G
E 1
'c �m
a eo •� X X '
'� U 'tj U
°o
c
s
CM
� •� U LV � C� v1 U � � U U G ,� "� � m Q � S U
i
1
1 � �) �I •� 1 I � I I I
U �
x x x x x x x
a s
ai ai x x x`x x x x x x x) x x
p x x x x x x x I x x x
0
CO
1 cuLU
cis
I iLij
� a �
i o
x x x x x x x x x xxxxxx' xlxx zz
cc
g r.
c U
1 m g 8 x x
o ,I3 g o
cct
^ 0 x x
a = I CD
N
1
n I � xTx CD
x x x x xxxx xxxxxx
F3CY I ~
1
`I x x x x x x xxx' xxx x x
s . x x x x x x xl x
LI ° o; � { 3
1 D - 9
f '
x Ix
'°I r
x x x
uj
c LUp
II t-
> I �
� xxx o
x I4 �
cu'.� ,
4A 15 al
j Q
x x42
m m
9I
es
v, 3 ca
i
31v 3 �
Ilia
9 m-�rs m
'a m
00 ��•o a t ��, 7t x
w '
ya m e m t 1
m 1 i x
o-
� t ,a of � ° ;• � ,1` U
,.. i !3
' Q rr'••i tp`� � .�, �, � c moo,�'� o,'� � U U , sn
' , a
. 1
m E
?i ILI I X
01 -� m I x x X x
al
y oI � C
V 4!i X x X X X x x x XI X
W
x' xLLJ
( x
U
X X X X x x x X X V
H � � � ► I I O
CA ani -10 Xf �
X X X
m o
C I '
XI III x{ x x x
�
I
Xl X X X X X x x
cc
gal _ x� xXx xx xxx X1
K � z► � 1
r G E
:r i1
X x x X x x x x X XI X
m m m
.a ma s u 9 e z e < u l m o 3 = o Q
o o cl 3 3 u m $ E U o o
U U y a p m U ago o �► c U
D - 12 1
4
1 �
I
1 � '
x x
1 � �
LU
1 .g ikk I t LUO
Z
x x
Q
I � x
o2
f
> c c4
w a'
1 x;x
9 y
oa
o L u u p G
c a n t) a
1
m � I
SS c
o IO I f �
� e
L�I o
` Qn
I � I
� � a
ii
" x x x x x x x W
>
w
m x I x x z
�
OCL
UD i x xx U
I
Baai Q
1 x
m 9 m d
x -x
o y>> x x x x x m
La y •2 B '
` ' I
X
x x x x x
E
V
> x x x
a
x x xxxxxxxxxxxx xx ( xx
a,
i3 o U U 5 cissm °�° V
� Rc 'm °2O s CG c`a ams
i
. ma
1 � +
y
x x I �'
m
x x
C U I rA
LLI
X X x, co
UI ! I >
' � a I W
O
' s 0
T3 j z
o x I j a
LL
x X 0
Q a a = �
! I a
m �
cn
xXIX x x i a
e SIX Xlx x x X x
G x
� � I
' g x x x x x x
'y Q
c 3a� saci �
I = a I ly a Im
I
' - 15
a# } u x x x x x
x x
1 z
x x X xxxxxx x
iAoc
o! XXXxx xx x ,
>
v
x x x x x x{ XI X x w
x� xxxx xx ►-
� � Q ,
d.
x x x x x x x x w
O a Q
m � •� a3i
xj�
eo
o " X x X x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x
a � v
y c a x x x x x x x X x x X x x
az .4cc�
U 5 tca
D - 16
1
c
1
x x .
m
N
LU
w
LLI
O Lf{}2
j auo o`�o d tom!)
qq m
U w' 0
1
}
u
Ute, CD
"Q c�
CG �
a x x x
� m
a�
x x
i
a y s o w iL
jurs to
� U
�I1 of
sl E
�I m x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
W
VLU
53
s x x x x x x x Z
o E� Q
ti O '
h °I N� x x x x
U
in
a.
� Q
W
TU.
p c Al O
306 '
x x cc
O Q
c
.o a C ,
x x x x x m
c
uC C
� O O
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x '
x x
W U
J
•� 3 0 � � g c � s 3 - °' � � Q � o ° � 3
� U U � a � c c � W m U � ;r o � a 3 •� � _g � v�
� ^ a 3CUx
� 3
D - 18
m: vi v
>1= i l
I
� v XXX rn
uj
�4 w
m
X X Z
X
ui
l �
' > U.
U
O
lQ
!I �
cA
y C O
���•= X ?tX St
.� 4 � = � a � o c � 3 y •� �, � � m � ° �� ��, � vii
or
1 2
� c 3w =d
D - 19
x X x x x x x x x xI xl x x x' ( X
ai , a
l u
U °1 m I '
UI I 3
3 N a
Ul
a c+ x x x x X x x) X x X1 x X x x x x x x
m x X x x X x x x x x� x x x X x X x X xl
7Z1 a = >
cz a U
u W '
r a C4 o '
c
U " C7 X X x x x x x x x x X X x X x x x X X X x
e
c
=I E CI)
¢I
x x x x x x x x x x x xx X X X x x x x = '
c vt m
� al A o
U r �
0
x x x x x x x X x x X x X x x x x x x x
C4 Gn >- '
a
o
v X I in
i m
el3 € •� x
x x x x x XxXx XxxxXx x ,
U
i
o � �
3 d s 3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x '
x
1
1
Iyl � I x x
Ulu
o x xxlxxxx xxx LU
1 U � m = -
a
�' •'i � m I j � o
' m
x x x ixxlxx I � xCO
CY 3
cr
0o
�I >I N
�I �► U m Q
a U x x x x x x x I x x S
m 5 •� I 0
o a a a I i W
i U oo E i •. O
5 m I S
1 m �
r
xxxxxxxx I a
•E I U e ,� I �
co
oN x x x x x x x x x xIx x x x x x
i
x x x x x xxxx xxxco
x x x
a
v a rR
cu W
1 � i I
c 3 u _°' cl o
V G• O U C H I •> T m a •O (F' 3
ti r^
' � O U U !"j '�S C O q m � V m► 'm^ O � � C G C � "� U
3 c U y x a
ti h U U U Al m m a a v
- a 3 a. "' 3
1
a
LLI
>
I \| \ / I--
LU
k
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
. � \| /' � ` �
LU
cn
. 0
« | LL
9x X x 0
cr
<
PL
x x
3
\ _| 2 \ap
x x
2 | .
\ . � 22k � � 04
� � / � � \ \ � e � � � � ) / $ \
D - 22
i
Vc-Variable can rate; GS -Garage sales and swap meds;GT-Government; SV Salvage yards; . . Disposable
library-.JM-Junk mail; PR-Precycling;PL-Plans of
large generators;TF-Tipping -- -
t - - studied.
Jurisdiction t CS AP CM BB DO HO SC YP Int tN OP U. Cr BZ M Zo '
west county .
El Caritas X X E X X X E X E X X '
Hiles X X . X F X X E X
Pinole X X X F X X E X '
Richmond X X X F X X E X
San Pablo X X X F X X X ,
Unincorporated X X X X X X X X X X E X X
Cabal.Nortlt -
mX rd X X E E X E E E X
Martinez X X X E E E X X E X ,
Pleasant Hill I X I X X E E E X X E E X
Unincorporated X X X X X X X X X E X
Cantrai.: outh . <:
Clayton X X E E E
Danville X X X E E X E X E X '
LJAyeUC X X X E I E X E X E X
Monags X X X E E E X X X X X ,
Oma X X X E E X X X X X
San Ramon X X X X X X F. E X F X '
Walnut Crock X X I X X X X X F X X X X..
Unincorporated X X X X X X X X X E X
East
mooch X X E X E E X E X X F X F
Btaqtwood X X X E X X X X X
Pittsburg X X X X X X X X X X '
UnincorporatedX X X X X X X X X X E X
KEY: CS-Curbside;AP-Apartments;CM-Commercial fianehise;BB-Buy-back;DO-Drop-off-,BG-Plastic bags and
other plastic drop-off; SC-Schools;PP-Public places;MX-Mixed waste processing;IN -Inerts;OP-Office paper,LZ- '
Lais=faire commercial; GT-Government;RZ-Market Development Zone; SH-Self4mul; ZO-Zoning. .
X- Program selected;E-Existing program,not further developed; F-Feasibility to be studied.
Table 9 SUMMARY OF RECYCUNG PROGRAMS
May 1993
Contra Cass Cowuy
Cowaywide AW system D - 24 Cotouywide 1wM Plan
. i
F
Jurisdiction WW CS DO FW WR I IV VM CO MR
f�'ouary
West :.
El Cerrito X X X X X X
' Hercules X X X F X X
Pinole X X X X X
' Richmond X X X F X F X
San Pablo X X X X F X
Unincorporated X X X X X F X
.Le�ntrdl hlorth:
' Concord X X X
Marti,= X X X X
Pleasant Hill X X X X
Unincorporated XX X X X F X
Centrsli South..
i
' Clayton X X X
Danville X X X X X
' Lafayette X X X X X
Moraga X X X X X
' Orinda X X X X X
San Ramon X X X F X F
' Walnut Creek X X X X X F
Unincorporated X X X X X F X
East
Antioch X X X X X F
' Brentwood X X X X X F
Pittsburg X X X X F
Unincorporated X X X X X F X
' Key: WW-Wood waste;CS-Curbside collection; DO-Drop-oM FW-Food Waste;
WR-Windrow; IV-In-vessel;VM-Vcrmicomposting;CO-Co-composting;
MR-Materials Recovery at u=fer station.
X- Program selected;E Existing program,not further developed; F-Feasibility to be studied.
' Table 10 SUMMARY OF COMPOSTING PROGRAMS
' Coram Cana Corney D - 25 May 1993
Cowuywids IW Plan Cowuywide AM 4item
1
JurisdictionBS BP i so LsL mD .Lso I Av .a Lm.....Ln JIN Im I AG In
West County
El C=rito E E E E I E E
Hercules E E E E
E
Pinola EE E E E '
Richmond E E E E
San Pablo E E E E
Unincorporated
..........
..........
.........
........... . .... .........
... . OEM1
F X
Concord x I I E
Martinez X' x I- I
Pleasant Hill x x
Unincorporated F I x y V F X
..........
.... ... ....
Clayton x X,
Danville x x
LA&YCW x x
Momp x x
Orinda. x I x
F
San Ramon x I x F x
'Walnut Crock x x F F x
Unincorporated F x E x F
....... ......
East .. .... ---
Antioch x F E E E x E
Brentwood x F E x E
Pittsburg X X F E E E x x
Unincorporated F x J E X F x
KEY: BS-Bulky.goods,salvage;BP-Bulky goods,pick-up;SD-Foundry and sandblast sand;SL-Sludge co--
composting;MD-Medical waste; SO-Contaminated soil;AV-Abandoned vehicles;AS-Asbestos;GI-Grease impeller
pumpinp;71-7'nw;IN-Inerts;AH-Ash;AG-Agricultural wastes;SB-Shipboard and port was=.
X-Program selected;E-Existing program,sit further developed;F-Feasibility to be studied.
Table 11 SUMMARY OF SPECIAL WASTE PROGRAMS
May 1993 conva co= cowuy
Cowirywide AVM 4sum D - 26 Coiuuy%4d*[W Pim
1
ix ix ix ix Ix 1 IxIxI I I ix Ix
19 1 >%I
ix
X1 xjxj I I
1XI ix ix Ix x.,I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14.
xjxI ix x I
1
Ixlx XIX
I 1XI I I 1 1 1 1XI I I I I C- m cn
1I1 2
IxIx x(x 1X XX Xa
x I x x1x1
Ix I I I I I I I I I I
I a i—= E 2 0
�
:12
XIXOx, X1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 k—!.
I , — a.
' OU4 Ix Ix
Mi z
itziM 0 cc 0
lix I -H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i T�;� �. a. —
I I
0 1 1 1 1XIX X1 Ix I Ix x i�%.I a ;S
a 0LL
xlxI z
x lx Ix
Tx I I I
a 1IE3
-6
1 H 1 1
z
0
Won.- Ix,
&- X
U1
1
0
#x .=Ix Ix 11 Ix Ix ICc
xII ;x x Xx EI
I I 1A > e.
Ix,x x1XI Ix x x1Xx v
wl� - 9 —
n
Ix Ix
I ixi I i I I
> xlxxx I = A
I xx
jx1xjx x!xI 1XI
I x x 101 . To
!x,X x X,
xl>< xxlxl II Ix ix I I I I I
Ix x xI I I O& M
'X II I I Ix
x lu
4—HXXX xxXx x! x,calzom,
! 1! VE. >
C: ,U(!= o
—0 12 0 = >1
>1 J!
S.4- O .r
0
0
-9cc 2
.120 C: i
a Igo
1
D - 27
c
,
x
lye�x x!?t x ix`x I 1
i � 's; 4
t w � ?4rn
,
x x x:fix�x a4 m 4k
o aC
` x x w
cl
cc
` �w r t,
{ I oa pt _
Ix x;>t! C�� 'i�- a
x � ' ° ''" =,ole z
Fi. p'd»iy LU
[ F3
d
x >1 x
cn x m
U xxXIX x x'XI ix � jyi
x ` a�ca31C'�
i xxx y�Q 1-
a x xxxxx
x x x x ora (zCN
Isz,,i
�
X4 x�x 1 xxx�x �e
1
p - 28
' PROCESSING FACILITIES
' Processing facilities include Transfer/MRFs, transfer stations, IPCs, and composting facilities.
Solid Waste Facilities Permits (SWFP) would be required from the CIWMB for all
Transfer/MRFs, transfer stations, and composting facilities. The SWFP is not presently required
for an IPC, although this type of facility may be subject to new regulations in the future.
' Existing Facilities
' Richmond Sanitary Service is an IPC operated by Richmond Sanitary Service (RSS) and located
on its corporation yard on Garden Tract Road in Richmond. This facility receives materials
collected in curbside recyclables collection programs serviced by RSS in West County and
' prepares them for secondary materials markets (see discussions in Section 3.3 on recycling
centers and materials recovery). This is a temporary facility which will be closed upon
implementation of the West County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility (see below).
El Cerrito Recycling,Center is an IPC located in El Cerrito that also accepts the drop-off of
materials by area residents. Approximately 2,400 tons of recyclable materials were received at
this center in 1990.. El Cerrito indicated in its SRRE that it plans to expand this facility by
adding a baling system and loading dock. The City of El Cerrito also intends to add a variety
of plastic polymers to the materials accepted as markets for these materials become available:'
The impacts of the expansion of the El Cerrito Recycling Center are addressed in this EIR at
' a programmatic level.
Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal (PHBD) operates an IPC on its corporation yard in the*
unincorporated community of Pacheco. The facility is located on North Buchanan Circle,.
approximately one-quarter mile southwest of the intersection of Interstate 680 and State Highway
4. The PHBD facility receives and processes recyclables from PHBD's curbside collection
programs in Central County. This facility is open to the public for drop-off of recyclables and
automotive batteries, used motor oil, and latex paint. The cities of Martinez and Pleasant Hill
have proposed in their HHWEs for the expansion of this facility to accept a full range of HHW.
The generic impacts of this proposed expansion are addressed in this EIR. Additional project-
specific
rojectspecific environmental documentation may be required by the County prior to implementation
of the expansion.
' Mt. Diablo Paper Stock is an IPC owned and operated by Concord Disposal Service (CDS).
Located on CDS's 10-acre corporation yard on Mallard Drive in Concord, the facility receives
collected and dropped off recyclables from Central County.
' D - 29
Pacific Rim Recycling is an IPC owned and operated by Pacific Rim Recycling, Inc. Located
on a medium-sized site in the Benicia Industrial Park, the facility receives source separated
recyclables from the cities of Clayton and Walnut Creek.
1!a=sed Facilities
Erickson Hazardous Waste Transfer—/Treatment Facility is in the unincorporated North Richmond
area of the County. This facility, primarily a small-quantity industrial generator facility, will
also accept for processing HHW collected in drop-off and collection programs at various
locations in the County. Erickson is presently approved and awaiting operating permits from
the California Environmental Protection Agency. The project-specific impacts of the Erickson
f3cility.have been assessed in the Erickson Hazardous Waste TreatmentlTransfer Facility EIR,
which was certified by the County Board of Supervisors in October 1990 (State Clearinghouse
(SCH)# 89021421).
West County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility (WCIRRF) is a proposed facility that would
establish a multi-purpose solid waste processing center, including materials recovery,
composting, wood chipping, transfer, HHW processing, and buy-back operations partially in the
City of Richmond and partially in the unincorporated North Richmond area of the County. IT
would have a capacity of 1,200 TPD of solid waste. Residuals. from the facility would be-
transferred to Keller and/or Marsh Canyon for landfill,disposal- Expected to.be on line in 1993,
this facility will receive and process waste currently being disposed of at the West Contra Costa
Sanitary Landfill, which will be closed in late 1993 or early 1994. A project EIR was prepared
on this facility and certified by the County Board of Supervisors is anticipated in June 1993
(SCH# 90030940).
Acme Fill Waste R = and Transfer Station is situated on a 22-acreparcel within the
boundary of the Acme Fill Landfill, located in an unincorporated area, within the City of
Martinez sphere of influence. The permanent Acme facility, currently under construction and
expected to supplant the nearby existing Interim Transfer Station in the Fall of 1993, will have
a maximum daily throughput of 1,900 TPD. Waste diversion programs proposed for this facility
include load sorting for recovery of cardboard, paper, metals, plastic; and glass; composting on
an adjacent portion of the former Acme Fill Landfill (currently, a composting demonstration
project is under way at this site); and a permanent HHW collection station. Residuals will be
hauled from this site to the Keller and/or Marsh Canyon landfills.
The Acme Interim Transfer Station is on the 97-acre east parcel of the Acme Landfill site. Solid
waste from Central County and portions of East County is processed daily (based on a 7-day
week) and transferred to Keller Canyon Landfill or Potrero,Hills Landfill in Solano County.
A limited amount of waste is disposed at the Acme Landfill.
D - 30
ro
' The potential environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the
permanent Acme facility are examined in the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station
' EIR, which was certified by the County Board of Supervisors in December 1987 (SCH#
86090906).
' Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (CCCSWA) Regional Household Hazardous Waste
Facility is a combination mobilelpermanent facility proposed by the CCCSWA to serve Central
' County. The CCCSWA is a joint powers authority of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
(CCCSD) and the cities of San Ramon and Walnut Creek. A mobile trailer would collect HHW
several times per year at temporary sites in each jurisdiction that is a member of CCCSD, which
' includes, in addition to the member cities of the CCCSWA, the cities of Lafayette and Orinda
and the towns of Danville and Moraga. Collected material would be delivered to a building for
' consolidation, storage, and transfer to an appropriate disposal or recycling facility. The location
and size of the proposed HHW facility has not yet been determined. The program-level impacts
associated with this facility are addresser) in the CCCSWA's Program EIR on the SRREs and
' HHWEs of CCCSD's member agencies; that EIR was certified by CCCSWA's board of
directors in April 1992 (SCH# 91123014).
East County Community Collection Center (ECCCC) is proposed to be located just east of
Antioch near Highway 160 and Wilbur Avenue and to serve as a Transfer/MRF for East County
twastes previously taken to the Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill. This facility, which would be
operated by the Delta Diablo Sanitation District(DDSD), would perform the same functions as
the WCIRRF, described above. A project EIR is currently being prepared on this facility; the
program-level impact analysis is included in this EIR.
' CCCSWA Regional Comvost Facility is a proposed compost facility to serve the member
agencies of the CCCSWA. The facility would probably receive source-separated leaves, brush
' trimmings, and lawn clippings delivered for composting. Although the location and size of the
facility have not yet been determined, a site in a portion of the unincorporated county east of
the City of San Ramon (known as Highland Ranch has been considered as a specific potential
site. Another potential composting site is at the Acme Landfill in Martinez. The program-level
impacts of this project are addressed in CCCSWA's program EIR, discussed above.
Contra Costa Station for Materials RecQY= and Transfer (SMR- 7) is a proposed facility that
would establish a transfer station and material recovery facility. This would be located on a
17.5-acre site on Loveridge Road in the City of Pittsburg. The facility would accept up to 1,800
TPD of mixed commercial and residential use; C&D debris, non-hazardous industrial waste,
self-hauled waste, and separately-collected yard waste.
t
D - 31
t
CCCSWA Transfer Station and Materials Recover is a proposed facility that would establish a
transfer station and material recovery facility to serve the member agencies of the CCCSWA.
The location and size of the facility have not yet been determined. The facility may include the
CCCSWA Regional Household Hazardous Waste Facility previously described. A composting
facility may also be included at the facility. '
City of Martinez Transfer Station/Material Recovery and Compost Facility is a proposed facility
that would establish a transfer station/materWs recovery facility and composting facility that '
could accommodate a minimum of 750 TPD. The location and size of the facility have not yet
been determined. '
939v:E=crpL EM
D - 32
� Section III
� Potential Areas for
Cooperation/Coordination
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
AREAS OF POTENTIAL COOPERATION/COORDINATION
In addition to the items depicted in the charts in Section II, there are three basic area in which
' all jurisdicitons share interests and efforts: planning, program implemenation, and facilities.
' Planning.
All jurisdictions must prepare Source Reduction and Recycling Elements, Household Hazardous
Waste Elements, and Non-Disposal Facilities Elements. Additionally, all jurisdictions must
' conduct waste characterization analyses and reports on diversion amounts resulting from program
implementation. Also, all jurisdictions are involved in planning for various types of facilities
which will assist in further diversion of materials from the wastestream and transfer of waste for
' disposal. Lastly, all jurisdicitions must plan for at least 15 years disposal capacity--whether
such capacity is provided locally or by export out-of-county.
' Cooperation/coordination of such planning efforts could assist in reducing costs for consultants,
staffing, brochures and other program-related supplies/materials.
' Program Implementation.
Two areas of program implementation must be considered; first, individual jurisdictions have
' proposed various programs such as curbside collection of recyclables or backyard composting
as means to reduce and divert solid waste; second, facility-based programs have been proposed,'
or are being considered, to assure further diversion of materials and to reach the mandated 50
' diversion requirements of the State.
Cooperation/coordination in implementing programs has already begun among a number of
' jurisdicitons. Continuing such efforts can further reduce implementation costs.
Facilities.
' Presently, a number of materials recovery/transfer facilities are planned under the authority of
multijurisdictional agencies--
' • the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority will be managing the
West County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility (IRRF);
' • the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority is exploring the siting and managing
of an integrated resource recovery system which would provide for material recovery,
composting, household hazardous waste holding, and waste transfer;
• the Delta-Diablo Sanitation District is proceeding with plans for an East Contra Costa
Community Collection Center (EC4);
' • the Cities of Pittsburg and Concord are proceeding with activities in support of the
Contra Costa S.M.R.T.
' D - 33
• the County y is currently reviewing final plans for the permanent Acme transfer and ,
material recovery facility;
• the Ci of Martinez is exploring the feasibility of a material recovery/transfer facility. '
City P g tY
The costs, sizing,
and administration of these facilities remains an issue which must be '
addressed. ,
1
D - 34
t
t
� sectNOn �
1 Sp°Yces
��naiog
1
1
1
1
1
Waste Collection Franchise Fees
' (Information was obtained in 1992 and
needs updating by each agency)
FRANCHISE AGENCY 1989 1991 FORMULA
Antioch $100,000 $126,580 flat rate
' Brentwood 21,293 30,000 5% of receipts
Clayton 11,197 13,500 flat rate
' Concord* 361,033 606,568 5% of receipts
El Cerrito N/A 116,880 6.5%of receipts
' Hercules 21,120 30,000 flat rate
Martinez 60,000 70,000 5% of residential
' Pinole 25,692 30,000 flax rate
Pittsburg 55,032 84,178 5% of receipts
Pleasant Hill 200,000 309,000 7% of receipts
Richmond 126,000 262,555 flat rate
San Pablo 36,408 33,000 flat rate
' San Ramon 189,116 560,000 10% of receipts
Walnut Creek 349,503 350,000 5% of receipts
iMt. View Sanitary N/A 15,000 N/A
Oakley Sanitary 10,000 21,702 2% of receipts.
' West CC Sanitary 45,336 48,240 N/A
Kensington Comm 2,000 2,000 flat rate
Central Sanitary* 31,949 199,000 (Oanda Marj
80,450 535,000 (Valley Waste)
1.990 1.990 # (PHBD)
ESTIMATED TOTAL $1,728,119 $3,443,649
*In 1992, Concord charged 6.4% on residential receipts, 1.4% of which is dedicated to solid waste planning. Central
Sanitary dedicates all of its monies to solid waste management.
#These figures were not available but were assumed to be the same as 1989 to provide an estimated total.
FACILITIES FEES
' Agena Facility F rmul
County Keller Canyon Landfill 10% of Base Fee
Acme Interim TSF Station Resource Recovery Fee
WCCIMA IRRF Per Contracts
Delta-Diablo S.D. EC4 Unknown
' (Global Agreement)
Pittsburg/Concord S.M.R.TD - 35 Unknown
' 939v:W&*cCd.Fw
AB 939 TIPPING FEE AND DISTRIBUTION
(Based on Agreed Upon Formula) '
FY 91/92FY 91/'92
% 3rd Qtr. 4th Otr. TOTAL '
96.620.80 92.481.60
AN,nCCH 13% 12.850.56 12300.05 25.150.61 '
CONCORD 23.80% 1 22.995.75 22.010.62 45.006.37
DANVILLE 6.70% 1 6,473.59 6.196.27 12669.86
LAFAYETTE 5.00'/. 4.831.04 4,624.08 9.455.12 '
MARnNEZ 6.80% 6.570.21 6.288.75 12858.96
MORACA 3.40010 3.285.10 3.144.37 6.429.47
ORNDA 3.60% 3.478.34 3.329.34 6.807.68
F417SBUF G 10.20% 9.855.32 9.433.12 19.288.44 '
PLEASANT HILL f.BQ'1'i &,��.2! .,2w.?_ '2..°:�°.�
SWAN RAMON 7.W% 7,240.90 0,990.12 14,10&00
WALNUT CRS( 1290% 12.464.12 11,930.13 24.394.25 ,
BRENTyyCOQ 2500.00 2500.00 5.000.00
CLAYTON 2500.00 2500.00 5.000.00
Total Distributed To Cities 101.620.81 97.461.60 199,10241 ,
cotmy Share(30.15/Ton)- 29.361.00 28855.95 58216.95
TOTALS FOR QTRS. 130.981.81 126.337.55 257.319.36 '
CY 1992 CY 1992 CY W23.60Z363
1992
% 1 st Qtr. Znd Qtr. 3rd Ah Qtr. TOTAL
98,604.00 105,456.00 88,908.00
ANTIOCH 130/6 13:114.33 14,025.65 11,824.76 52,184.30
CONCORD 23.80'/6 23.467.75 25.098.53 21.160.10 93.328.75 ,
DANVILLE d.70y6 6,606.47 7.065.55 6.644.36 5,956.84 25.273.22
LAFAYEI•TE 5.00% 4.930.20 5,27280 4.956.48 4.445.40 19.606.86
MARTINEZ 6.800/6 6.705.07 7.171.01 6.743.53 6,045.74 26,665.36 ,
MORAGA 3.400/6 3.35254 3.585.50 3.371.77 3.022.87 13.332.68
NDA 160% 3.549.74 3,796.42 3.570.11 3.200.69 14.116.95
PITTSBURG 10.20% 10.057.61 10.756.51 10:115.30 9,068.62 39.998.04
PLEASANT HILL 6.80% 6,705.07 7,171.01 6.743.53 6,046.74 26,665.36
SAN RAMON 7.500/6 7.395.30 7.909.20 7.437.72 6.668.10 29.410.521 1
WALNUT CREEK 12906/6 12719.92 13,603.82 12,79288 11.469.13 50,585.75
BRENTWOOD 2500.00 2500.00 2.500.00 2,500.00 10.000.00 ,
CLAYTON 2500.00 2.500.00 2500.00 2500.00 10,000.00
Tatal Distributed to Cities 103.604.00 110.456.00 104.169.60 93,908.00 412137.60
County Share 30.1S(Tan) 27,700.05 29,523.90 28.625.85 25.385.25 111.235.05 ,
TCTAL.SFOR CTRS. 131,304.05 139.979.90 132,795.45 119.293.25 523.372.65
I�
D - 36
MINE
i
CY 93 CY 93 '
1st Ctr. 2nd Qw.
ACME FILL 11&19235 0.00
CCWS 0.00 0.00
Total 11&192.35 0.00
County Portion-Acmo 18,661.95 16% 0.00 0%
VNCC 7,635.15 0.00
Tota!County Share SYVMF 26297.10 0.00 i
i
1
1
1
1
D - 38
� Section V
1 Possible Organization Structures ,
� for
Count . wide Solid Waste Management
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
This Page Leff
Intentionally Blank
i
I. CURRENT SYSTEM
County
• AB 939 Integrated Waste Management Plan Preparation and Mitigation Monitoring
' • Contractual agreements with solid waste authorities/individual cities for programs
and/or planning
1
' Multi-Jurisdictional Authorities
• West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority
• Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
' • Delta-Diablo Global Agreement
• (Potential) Pittsburg-Concord JPA
i
i s
1 • SRRE, HHWE
• Implement action of programs individually or in cooperation with other jurisdictions
1 • Potential members of facility-based joint powers authorities
1 D - 39
yT, "' �O r G w•
vp%
ta
G•
rr
le Q
-ri
A I I
3"1
C o .
3 Ow � w m 44 'a �po
t11 � �' T ✓ �% O $ O
U
a
✓�+ ✓ 050 v G
s
rtri 3 w • •
Q � �
44
�d
r
o. o»
1 � Ca � -y,•� c.
r
w .
Q C e0 aiD a, 0. , • •
G
r"'.► �" �Q "C3 W
r l • •
N
O G
00
G G
go
r � w
rp 41
r
� G a
C4
tin lk 1 9
G '
G 3 w
°
�. l
06.
� o
yQ
V ,
0 . 42
4
na
O d o�
N *� 0, .
w. st as a' 4
c+ E3
A ',w � Ilk
..+
' y
•
CIO
go
an
ca
' � vs3g3
a
e� a► c �. o 0
y Q y w TS. 00
40"2 VVL a�E 4
.0 .G Gs. ti. o■ 8 c a%
a �
Ott: ca
O Q 3 y C N o>i CrA
u tS.
44-1
00 a U
I.
t U
w �
a
yQ V • • � ,a aOOi � w ci
�U ., (,� a.
G G WOGoa
"� r
H y.
U
w
W
a'o'c
17'
p - 43
1 I
✓ ,1L�;
�1
t� _ .
� "
," -+
., `v
�f r :
\'3'° -_.� r_
A - A y r'r
�C . /
rti r , -`V,;. r�l,� - y Z r .,�. C�\f �.,� �\ 1 . '', d`1
\ , �1 t - _] � �.
,f E r r % ` +
y/ 1. f 1 ItA \ \l ! 4 ,
z' , , u]}, > ttu. \��, ��! y1\ � .."< p .�.` \ ]' -S\ / X'_it ,�-�.y,, '{ r ,t a°r 1 i �\ j r� -
J \ \ \ `} '/ -11 1 , sr ( )
H
� i , a. 1 ,r -". f k�.- �` t ' , Rrt \ CS 4 _ - y r .�[� '� �:
1 )\ , --
r jj% \-,tf. r r l t s 'l 1 �` t 7 --..� ('»A. �``�:_ _ \ '' A b , t� -;' ' ' i f'{,' ` , tr' 1 I l],
11 ��..;%/ _-. l/ t, r, I- .. z!-, >, .�. 1� +}\ b - \ r %� '4''� ',, r- {. tl r a'C�'( "r r' Jt t � 7.
r.
11 I
11
] � i, t ? �v �-� ( l k f t- 1 Y �— Aice 1, t\�t� r t,, A'. �.
, V
t vZ ti a t ' `tire ' t- i 7i.,C � r J<1, r r 4 � 1 ,`\ -/' f.2 i , ' ,� f � 'y P A r,rV
- ��( eta k','d ��lx�� rt r � � ( ��t' �c�. � " � ,- �' -1 i "1, ��Jf��} \'
tl-�-
- -� � \ !>, ( ti 2 1 y - , 3
�- . t �.r 1, f pIN �
I ,, t' / )✓ , � �, mac.I 11 1� , rJ.1'I t �'r ] )�� t v - )lilI �i' i � �t
baks r / / , / .�.,')�kA ., n t .1`� ,r�r .l' r i r r 'f , rS
i ".l �( G 1 ��. 1� V ,.f F f �]� \t 4 `,-h t 4�x/ \ Y 11. 11 ,vtf t �}} � i > rl 3
X_ `
V l - c t { '% '�4 if y` ' V'. - (t' 1/ i� .1r �..r� I r,x
ti y}x Y C I �'1. y r ) ! I ta ,� 1'
w
I VV I �A A � -� � I k � � 1 �� f I v -1 � _ �y r '�,� i 1 v] , - }� "4, ��
k
- ' , S -" ( �,; � ( , �.� j , ' h) b .,�v
X /
(t 11, I !�f. 'i / � { , J IN 1, rte , 'll . r d,_' I]/ fi� t` V � ✓ , r -� / v. � ,
'e I ✓ ■` �V 7
1 .
rAp, 1 % t
Y , f .,, / ( j % \_.. ,
f I t `' * f } f t t ,f J i `rY' v a� l ] g! 1) � I �N� ^I. ,IJ'' T;-, y 4
f,r: f, z /kt�,A:¢�, i k� IV \,} �g 1 , r r 1 i � , � g w� r �,t. A'
, , , -\ , I e -,<� - - I . �t',,-� -,--,, 11 �-.r f, � I X
.'', -/ ' - A, -"r �'."-� ,� I ' '; , - / D7 , , �
-i-�- -'��Pl '�� '- L"/i�-� -�-'- " - "
11 ' ' -1, -, " i \ , --0 \,,,-' ��
" , I N\ - �-j
- '."
"t 'r\, 1 �' /
./ ' I - I -1, i - I �
T \ 1 4 �4 ,,, --1,R7 ,_ tti r,-��-'- ��' J��, - j'�-' . '� , ? ,A- '/ )r " I 1." .,- :\ f�. r
1- - � - I .
' '
, I_ - - I � �
!( -Yll� '�l
11 -� .I , , - J1 -""l t, ��"' ,.i -1, �' -, ,`, � Il. If k.I I-\ \ '
.� I
.� �" ,
k-
'�.
"�-''/" -,
�-" I
- "
\11
i.
.1
N/ - ,I
v � �' ` -' - _l� ti v 1"\, N Iv r-�'-- r .1��. `yy'
I -'/ '� '
1
I , - .'.Ic il--^� V cl ��' I
5"� w \ � v^ �� �_ l Y � = F j _..
k •.+ t 1 �- ..,� ,; e "V ,w :--r.. i , ( , �, r Iii
�. A'', , 4/�r f 1 i.(
�\ V' - / t` . - ��
e 3 k
r, k L �ti A
_ / h a L)` 1 _may' }%
t:,, kV, .fir �.�/�� •\ .r.�i�� -... f., jti I' .}r:f:/ r _ r Y. y' ' \ ,i s ,t`� ,V - , `.,I j�„" ( r ,
:h- 3t _r r .d -., 4` {'+{ �..,�'�i.� h ..(f �' \ ( 4�r'�'J \\ '� '' ;/ � ..,. }° \-,� r J,' l rrtn' ' y '.'.. ). . i�'^E r.
1 ) �.' t� i .t, \.�, J jar . , r -y C 1 `
o j T ; r Ai z y C / / V z 'ITSv F / 11% l., r
.
j' �, `.I _�, �' 1( " 'jt�r T -4 r.` l ./� ". , - ) l .\ �` t. �. i,:,\ xt .:.j� ,� C 1.Yn r./ �•�•, '.\
I 11
\ \ / � k� -
{ ..11, I4� l O F a \ ) f C. ,t _ ,i
r "y S _ u'tJ<„ ' /� ;h �s< ry "- r i ( .•'`-`k`�`yr �r ], :1 \ � - '( ' ,�` k c \,��r T ,
k i X e 1 '\L _ \ k t 6 t -' Y'
,��] .1` a; 1/,6s'� f '.A r i \.. (. �/ ti.] ` �� x .7 1 :,j I'� \ �r...�P.t,."�`'� / ]1.A /. '`.� r
�_
1-1
�, 1� Z t �r .� ( a t y. z� `:T�,. �.� '�' �" ) ,'��`%f t( ✓� �-'k, -�}l"�. }.� :.� , ) i.'� F \(t t , r r
�/ a. �� A q 1" A 1, �I), .. \ "� ,� \s y. e i], v Z f \11 - -
' h 1 4 r t .j� I �, 1v1. ]. /. ,. ,
f 4..r'.•P !. A� tb t i, k\ 7 a /- t /,^ �, -Fi.,_ 4.,'r f �1 ] P o- ..1 V r \}.-✓ lr�'/-f t "r" A" I '
�, , \ .',"k 1� 1 •_i/- ]/ �( r ' a,�'� V �'/ -x 4 /�<->. l r � r, t�ti ,•. '\t ,I v -
,A f i r l t
t r /, / - .�,,� i ,,,.) t.rF tAt yf, ", , Vt/ , 4 ,).
A', Y _ / Al /, 11
'y ,`y f Vj , r� _rte. A ��l .� —'. ;
Ua*a
UA�; Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority„
1*4W
_ tember 10,1993
TO: HONORABLE BOARD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
' Contra Costa County Board of. Supervisors
• Contra Costa Cities and Sanitary Districts
• Contra' Costa Solid Waste Authority
' Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
• West ContraCosta Integrated Waste Management Authority
• Delta Diablo Sanitation District.
' WORKSHOP I Participants
FROM: GRETCHEN MARIOTTI, Chair
Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority.
' SUBJECT:. SOLID WASTE WORKSHOP STUDY MATERIALS and Request. for
Your Review of. Organizational Alternatives and. Consensus For
' ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
WORKSHOP Il
Wednesday, September 29, 1993
4:00 p.m. • 7:00, p.m.
' Golden Gate Room
George Gordon! Center
500 Court Street, Martinez
Attached for review and discussion with your council/boardforganization
are study materials for the Roles and Responsibilities Workshop 11
sponsored by Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa Solid Waste
' Authority.
At the July 29, 1993 Workshop 1,,the participants directed each participant to solicit
1 his/her governing, body's,consensus as to which alternative organizational structure
best responds to the criteria listed in the summary report/minutes and the concerns of
that governing body. Representatives are expected to report their findings at the
1 September 29, 1993 Workshop 11.
PLEASE SCHEDULE YOUR GOVERNING BODY'S REVIEW PRIOR TO
,;SEPTEMBER 29. 1993
L
i
e
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY -
CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
WORKSHOP 11:
Roles and Responsibilities a
for Solid Waste Management
On July 29, 1993, representatives from Contra Costa County, the various city and
sanitary district solid waste franchising agencies, the regional and countywide solid
waste joint powers authorities,.the AB 939 Task Force, private sector representatives
and members of the public met to consider alternative structures for assigning roles
and responsibilities for solid waste management in Contra Costa County. After much a
discussion, the participants directed that the alternatives be refined and scheduled for
further consideration as follows:
1. A second workshop be held as soon as possibleat which participants could a
evaluate revised solid waste organization alternatives. The workshop has been-
scheduled
eenscheduled for Wednesday, September 29, 1993 at 4:00 p.m. It will be held at
the Golden Gate Room at the George Gordon Center - 500 Court Street,
Martinez
2. The minutes of Workshop l and revised alternatives be distributed to all-
franchising
ilfranchising jurisdictions, organizations, private sector members- and other
Workshop I participants prior to Workshop 11. These entities,are to discuss the
alternatives, come to consensus and provide direction to their representatives
attending Workshop 11. These study materials, as well as applicable materials .
from Workshop 1, are attached.
RECOMMENDATION
Prior to September 29.1993 Workshop 11: 8
1. Review the attached minutes of July 29, 1993 Workshop I.
2. Analyze the revised alternative structures within:the context of State Law and
the following criteria, developed from goalsiconcerns expressed by Workshop f
participants. D
What are the characteristics or what would the. structure have to look like in
order to best address the issues raised at Workshop-I?
a. The most cost-effective solid waste body possible-c oordinated/cost-
effective strategies, lower costs for local government and ratepayers
b. Avoids duplication of meetings, services, programs.
C. Retains local controVrate control/local accountability
E - 2
September 29, 1993
' Roles and Responsibilities for Solid Waste Management - Workshop II
Page Two
' d. Promotes cooperative and shared leadership
' e. Avoids another layer of government
f. Retains flexibility for customizing local programs
' g. Retains local control over franchise revenues
h. Minimizes unwieldy and excessive regulation, management, control
' i. Addresses private sector concerns; entitlements
' j. Responds to local concerns; avoiding disproportionate impact on any
one jurisdiction/neighborhood.
' k. Promotes cooperation and trust
I. Responds to short term/local needslissues while providing for global
issues and long term objectives or vision.
t
Considerations
' In narrowing down the various alternative structures, the following "givens" must be
considered:
' The current system is not satisfactory.
• The alternative structure must be able to function even if all franchising entities
' are not members or participants.
• Unless the participating entities request and the governing entity(s) agrees to
' levy an additional tipping fee at the transfer station(s) / landfill for financial
support of the chosen alternative, there will be no new money to- support the
alternative's solid waste planning and programs. Existing funds will have to be
' pooled and/or redistributed from
AB 939 Tipping Fees
Garbage Franchise Fees
' General Fund Assessments
E - 3
e
September 29, 1993
Roles and Responsibilities for Solid Waste Management - Workshop II a
Page Three
• Regardless of the alternative selected, each city and the county will, individually
and/or in concert with other jurisdictions, be held responsible for meeting its AB
939 diversion goals.
FISCAL IMPACT
Several entities have not yet submitted cost figures for their solid waste activities.
Therefore, cost analysis of the various alternatives, including the current system, is
unavailable at this writing. It is our intent to provide those figures upon submittal by the
cities and/or selection of a preferred alternative by Workshop II participants.
BACKGROUND/REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
On April 13, 1992, the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (Authority) requested
formally that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors join the Authority. This
request came as the result of long time efforts by the cities and sanitary districts to a
change the process by which countywide solid waste decision making was
accomplished. The genesis for these efforts came out of the mid 1980's landfill
disputes and the lack of shared leadership inherent in the then enabling legislation, a
SB 5:
• County government was responsible for developing the County Solid Waste a
Management Plan (CoSWMP); which was primarily oriented to
goals/policies/objectivestcriteria related to siting landfills.
• Complicating the County's management was the multiplicity of players and a
division of responsibilities: 22 franchising public agencies and 8 different
haulers.
• All franchising agencies deferred to the County leadership which deferred to the e
haulers to provide necessary landfills.
While the cities and sanitary districts were developing a joint powers authority a
structure to provide for their objective of shared leadership, the State Legislature,
responding to what it perceived as a statewide crisis in solid waste leadership, a
enacted into law AB 939, which set forth a prescribed program for source reduction,
recycling and composting for each city and county in the state. It identified specific
diversion goals for the years 1995 and 2000 with fines of up to $10,000 per day levied
against each jurisdiction which failed to comply with the Law and its subsequent
legislative provisions:
• A city or county failed to submit any of the requisite elements: Source
Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), Household Hazardous Waste
a
E - 4
D
September 29, 1993
Rotes and Responsibilities for Solid Waste Management - Workshop 11
Page Four
Element (HHWE), Siting Element (County only) and Non Disposal Facility
Element (NDFE).
• A city,or county failed to implement its elements.
• A city or county failed to prepare adequate goals.
• A city or county failed to reach its goals.
' It should be pointed out the the State Waste Management Board would not levy fines
until extensive due process has been observed.
' After consideration by the Board of Supervisor's Internal Operations (10) Committee
and approval by the Board and Authority of negotiations between the 10 committee
and Authority representatives, it was finally agreed that a three year contract,
1 renewable to five years, be entered into by the two entities. This contract was
negotiated as a Memorandum of Agreement with a six month probationary Work Plan.
The Work Plan consisted of three tasks; one of which was to delineate, in conjunction
with the regional joint powers authorities, the roles and responsibilities for solid waste
management, including consideration of staffing and funding.
This determination would be effected through the Workshop process. Workshop I
' would seek to answer the following questions:
• Identify ways to streamline the different aspects of solid waste management to
' eliminate or reduce overlap/duplication. In what ways could public agencies
and private sector work to streamline, reduce costs, work together more
effectively?
• In what ways can independent/individual jurisdiction decision making be
provided for while building an interdependent and cooperative solid waste
management organizational structure?
Workshop 11, building on the direction and organizational alternatives selected by the
workshop I participants, would seek to answer the following questions:
• How can cost savings to member agencies and to rate payers result from
' changes in how and under what organization solid waste management
activities are handled?
• What is the optimum organizational structure for solid waste activities to obtain
' efficiency and be responsive to individual jurisdictions and rate payers?
• What staffing and funding levels are necessary for alternative organizational
structures and which structure(s) provide the most cost-effective use of staff?
E - 5
September 29, 1993 '
Roles and Responsibilities for Solid Waste Management - Workshop II
Page Five ,
MATERIALS ATTACHED '
• Minutes of July 29, 1993 Workshop I.
• Work Plan Task #1 Outline '
• State Solid Waste Requirements
• Revised Solid Waste Organizational Alternatives ,
. 1
_ 1
1
E - 6
1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
and
CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
X I N U T E S
July 29, 1993
A Special Workshop presented by Contra Costa County and
the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority was held on Thursday,
July 29, 1993 , at the George Gordon Center, 500 Court
Street, Martinez. Due notice had been mailed and published.
1 1. WELCOME
Chair Mariotti welcomed everyone in attendance to the
workshop and called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m.
2. INTRODUCTIONS
Introductions were made and attendance was as follows:
Contra Costa County:
County Supervisor Sunne McPeak
Val Alexeeff, Director of Growth Management &
Economic Development
Louise Aiello, County Solid Waste Program Manager
Belinda Smith, County Integrated WasteProgram
Specialist
Lillian Fujii, Deputy County Counsel
Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority:
Mary Rocha, Antioch
John Clausen, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Mike Shimansky, Danville
Beth Bartke, Hercules
Ivor Powell, Ironhouse Sanitary District
Ivor Samson, Lafayette
Jim Sweeny, Moraga
Cherie Grant, Moraga
Sherry Kelly, Martinez
Aldo Guidotti, Orinda
Gretchen Mariotti, Pinole
Dan Purnell, Pinole
Kim Brandt, Pleasant Hill
Mary Lou Oliver, San Ramon
Gene Wolfe, Walnut Creek
Avon Wilson, Executive Director
Alan Waltner, CCSWA Counsel
E - 7
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop July 29, 1993
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority:
Gene Wolfe, Walnut Creek
Mary Lou Oliver, San Ramon
John Clausen, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Don Blubaugh, City of Walnut 'reek
Herb Moniz, City of San Ramon
Fred Davis, Executive Director
Kent Alm, CCCSWA Counsel
West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority:
Beth Bartke, Hercules
Dan Purnell, Pinole
Gretchen Mariotti, Pinole
Bill Davis, Executive Director
Kent Alm, WCCIWMA Counsel
others in Attendance:
Elaine Jacobs, Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District
George Schmidt, AB 939 Task Force, West Contra
Costa Wastewater District
Roy Swearingen, AB 939 Task Force
Harriette Heibel, Valley Waste Management
Susan Kattchee, AB 939 Task Force,
City of El Cerrito
Peter Dragovich, City of Concord
Don Bradley, City of Pinole
The Rev. Curtis A. Timmons, Pittsburg
Glen Williams, West Pittsburg Municipal Advisory
Council
Kevin Carunchio, City of Pittsburg
Dorothy Sakazaki, Mt. View Sanitary District
Jane Bartke, Mayor Pro 'Tem, El Cerrito City Council
Bart Carr, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Barbara Hockett, Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District
Rachel McDonald, East Bay Regional Park District
Neil Cutler, Pacific Rim Recycling
Greg Baatrup, Delta Diablo Sanitary District
Paul Causey, Delta Diablo Sanitary District
Joel Corona, Richmond Sanitary Service
Patty Mehaouchi, BFI-Pleasant Hill Bayshore
Roger Dolan, Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District
Mark Armstrong, Attorney, for Contra Costa Waste
Services
Marilyn Leuck, City of Hercules
Ron Proto, Valley Waste Management
Deborah Mason, West Pittsburg Municipal Advisory
Council
Mario Menesini, Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District
E - 8
94 F
G
Yr 1t S
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop July 29, 1993
3. DISCUSSION OF WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES AND PROCESS
Chair Mariotti, acting as Workshop Chair, expressed
enthusiasm about everyone joining together in today's
workshop. She encouraged everyone to stay positive, noting
this is an important step in moving forward. She referred
to the Workshop Study Materials which were distributed in
advance of the meeting, noting today's workshop would focus
on items I and II, and items III, IV and V would be
addressed in the second workshop. She also encouraged
people to write down questions and suggestions about things
they feel should be included in the workbook for the next
workshop.
' I . State Solid Waste Requirements (AS 9.39, etc. ) .
Ms. Aiello reviewed the State's solid waste requirements
as outlined in the workbook materials in relation to AB 939,
AB 3001, AB 2494 and AB 440.
Ms. Kelly asked for clarification regarding the
imposition of fines, and whether this relates to ( 1 )
implementing the programs, or (2) meeting goals. She felt
this was an important distinction, noting she is seeking a
legal interpretation of this issue.
Mr. Bill Davis understood if AB 440 passes the way it
' currently is written that the fine essentially applies to
failure to submit an SRRE, and a jurisdiction would not be
subject to fines by operation of the bill for implementing
against the '95 goal. In other words, the bill requires
reporting what is being done in relation to SRRE's and
HHWE 's by October of 194; however, that report is not to be
used for any enforcement purposes.
Ms. Aiello agreed with Ms. Kelly that this issue has not
yet been resolved by the State. She understood the fines
relate to compliance with submitting the documents and
reaching the diversion or reduction and disposal goals. Ms.
Kelly felt the fact this is unclear signals a need to be
aware of this issue.
II. Goals/Objectives/Activities of the Various
Solid Waste Entities.
Ms. Wilson referred to this section in the workbooks,
noting the enclosed charts provide reference information
about the program. She highlighted some of the source
reduction program activities which most of the regions and
indeed Countywide people have selected as the programs that
they want to institute, e.g. , variable can rates,
government programs, waste audits, backyard composting and
' E - 9
i
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop July 29, 1993 ,
recycling. She also referred to recycling programs, noting
two or more regions and the County have selected programs to i
address recycling such as curbside collection, buyback/
dropoff programs, etc. It was noted the information on the
charts was obtained from the SRRE and HHWE summary in the '
Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan which provides
summaries of all the goals, objectives and programs selected
by cities and the regional and countywide JPA's.
III. Potential Areas of opportunities for Solid '
Waste Cooperation and/or Coordination.
Ms. Wilson referred to the programs in the workbook, .
noting one of the issues before this group to discuss are
things which have commonality and make good sense to i
consider doing together in relation to source reduction,
recycling, composting, etc. For. example, the Central County
JPA is now coordinating a backyard composting program. It
was noted that education and public information programs i
afford a significant opportunity for people to talk about
commonality in relation to some kind of print media
programs, e.g. , newsletters., developing curricula for school
grades R to 12 , etc. Regarding household hazardous waste,
it was noted that integrated pest management is a high
priority by the County's health department as an alternative
to using pesticides and some of the products now being ,
collected in the mobile collection program. For example,
using ladybugs, praying mantis, marigolds or soap instead of
strong pesticides. ,
Ms. Wilson referred to processing facilities, noting
four different kinds of facilities which are in people's
plans: IPC's (intermediate processing centers) ; Transfer/ ,
MRF's; transfer stations; and composting facilities. She
discussed the existing facilities as noted in the workbook.
It was noted that an IPC is an intermediate center where ,
recyclables can be brought, source separated, and then
shipped off to a market.
Ms. Wilson discussed the various proposed facilities as '
outlined in the workbook and estimated time lines. It was
noted there are several possibilities for cooperation for
programswhich are suggested in the SRRE's and the HHWE's in i
which people could collaborate administratively in terms of
planning, implementation, etc.
Ms. Wilson pointed out one of the issues that the County '
and the Countywide JPA are looking at is the development of
guidelines to make sure that we are thinking in terms of
cost effectiveness in the development of facilities, e.g. , 1
are they being sized reasonably as. opposed to being
oversized.
E - 10
i
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop July 29, 1993
Mr. Purnell asked if any studies have been undertaken to
determine whether facilities are being sized properly and
what is being done in that area. Ms. Wilson stated that is
Task 3 between the County and the Authority, and they will
be developing this material as well as some guidelines .
IV. Funding Sources.
Ms. Aiello presented charts and reviewed the information
in Section IV in the Workbook regarding Waste Collection
Franchise Fees (by franchise agency) as well as AB 939
Tipping Fee and Distribution. She noted three areas of
funding: ( 1) waste collection franchise fees, although the
County does not have those at the moment (this data is
somewhat old, and if incorrect information is noted, it was
requested to contact either Ms. Wilson or Ms. Aiello to
update the information) ; (2) facilities fees ( some of which
are known, some of which are in the process of development
and some of which are unknown) ; and ( 3) AB 939 tipping fees
(percentage based on population) .
V. Possible Organizational Structures for Countywide
Solid Waste Management.
Ms. Aiello pointed out the primary question of how to
organize everyone to pay the least for the most. She
referred to five organizational charts displayed ,around the
room, noting this information is also outlined in Section V.
in the workbook. She pointed out this information is not
cast in concrete, and the components can be modified or
carried over from one chart to another.
Ms. Aiello reviewed the five organizational charts:
Model 1 basically describes the current structure; Model 2
provides for autonomous regional solid waste authorities,
whereby regional agencies may have nothing to do with each
other and just go their own way; Model 3 provides for
regional solid waste authorities and a coordinating council,
with two representatives from each regional authority,
whereby groups could communicate with each other and work on
AB 939 planning and address Countywide solid waste issues;
Model 4 provides for a Countywide solid waste joint powers
authority with representation by all cities and the County
as well as other franchising agencies to address policy
development, AB 939 planning and mitigation monitoring,
coordination of SRRE, HHWE, NDFE, etc. ; and Model 5 provides
for a similar organizational structure as the current
Transportation Authority model with two representatives from
each subregion, one Mayors' Conference representative and
two Board of Supervisors' representatives, with
responsibilities for AB 939 planning and mitigation
E - 11
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop July 29, 1993
monitoring, development of model ordinances, coordination of
Countywide program implementation, etc.
5. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION BY PARTICIPANTS
Mr. Blubaugh referred to Model 2 and asked if it was
possible under AB 939 to have subregional plans without a
Countywide integrated waste management plan. It was noted
that would be possible under AB 440 but not under AB 939 .
Mr. Bill Davis noted that assumes the landfill is within
that jurisdiction. Ms. Aiello stated it was necessary to
demonstrate 15 years, disposal, but it does not say where.
For example, waste could be exported via a contract to
Potrero, Keller or Altamont with verification that they have
the capacity to take an additional, 15 years ' disposal.
Chair Mariotti asked if AB 440 overrules AB 939 . Mr.
Bill Davis stated it amends it and changes those sections.
Mr. Dragovich asked once a regional agency demonstrates
15 years' of disposal capacity whether that would relieve
the County from needing to provide 15 years' disposal
capacity for those jurisdictions in that regional agency.
Ms. Aiello stated that would require a legal opinion, noting
she was not sure the County was obligated except to provide
for 15 years.
Ms. Kelly felt it should be clarified that not . all
cities in the County and not all franchising agencies are
members presently of these organizations.
Ms. Wilson noted that Model 4 was slightly different
from the Alameda model in that they don't have regional
JPA's, and this acknowledges the existence of regional JPA's
whereby they would have the same responsibility for facility
management, and their activities would be facility related
with program implementation for their region for regionally
oriented issues.
Supervisor McPeak asked about the difference between
Models 4 and 5 except for the composition of the
representatives. Ms. Wilson referred to Model 5, noting
this does not have franchising agencies other than the
cities, and it restricts the number of representatives.
Model 4 is the only model that has one person from every
franchising agency. Supervisor 'McPeak inferred in terms of
responsibilities under Models 4 and 5 that they would be
essentially the same. Ms. Wilson stated that was correct,
noting there was concern expressed by -some of the smaller
entities that they would not have a permanent seat at the
table, and that is why both options are presented.
E - 12
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop July 29, 1993
Mr. Bill Davis asked about the process in terms of SRRE,
HHWE and NDFE preparation, where the decision-making is made
at the city level. In other words, will the cities decide
what they will do with each of those documents, and how does
each of these organizational models relate. Mr. Blubaugh
' stated it doesn't force an individual city to work with a
local regional JPA, but if there is a natural affinity this
provides for that regional JPA to work with the cities.
Mr. Bill Davis referred to the Coordinating Council, and
he asked about its role and duties in relation to this
process which is a bottoms-up process. He also referred to
' Model 4 and expressed concern about the term "policy
development, " asking if that means a bottoms-up process is
going to hit a top-down policy. Ms. Wilson stated this was
' similar to other regional JPA agreements where they have the
potential to do as much as the members decide they want to
do or not to do. For example, the Central County JPA and
the Countywide JPA have almost the same words, whereby they
have the potential to get into facility development and
oversight, etc. She presumed that the coordination in
Models 3, 4 and 5 would all be done by the centralized body,
but to the extent it is allowed by the regional JPA's.
Mr. Samson felt Models 4 and 5 were very much top-down
models. He noted a need for staffing for Models 4 and 5 ,
whereas there may not be for any of the others. Ms. Wilson
noted Model 3 could be done by borrowed staff from the
various entities. Mr. Samson presumed Models 4 and 5 would
' require a staff where they are centralized. Mr. Clausen
noted the possibility for a contract. Ms. Wilson noted all
of the models have the potential to contract.
Mr. Causey referred to Model 4 and the assumption
regarding other franchising agencies, noting there are some
people who are handling direct collection with the
franchisor. He pointed out that Delta Diablo has a global
agreement. Ms. Wilson noted that Delta Diablo would be
related through the two cities which represent their
interest. Ms. Aiello noted an assumption on all of the
charts of going a little beyond the global, agreement at some
point if the facility is done, whereby Delta Diablo would be
an operating entity in running the facility.
Mr. Causey clarified an agency that began franchising of
some form of solid waste would then be represented in Model
' 4 , He noted a limitation on Model 5 in obtaining input only
from cities and the County, but not other agencies that may
have responsibility,
Supervisor McPeak asked what happens to the Countywide
Solid Waste Authority under Models 1 through 3 . Ms. Wilson
E - 13
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop July 29, 1993
noted it wouldn't exist. Mr. Blubaugh pointed out the
attempt to work on a system which didn't have duplication.
He felt there was a coordinating role and system which could
be acceptable to the group. Mr. Clausen noted it could
become 4, but with the addition of other people.
Supervisor McPeak referred to Models 1, 2, and 3, noting
there is no specific reference to this organization. Ms.
Aiello stated that was a conscious decision so that people
could take a look at what other alternatives might be.
Chair Mariotti stated the intent was not to create a model
to keep this group in business, noting she understood the
intent was to find a way of handling solid waste to avoid
duplication of effort and to control costs for ratepayers.
Mr. Sweeny concurred. Chair Mariotti stated the Authority
agreed with that concept, and that is how this workshop came
together.
Supervisor McPeak noted that is why the work program for
the first six months includes looking at how best to carry
out the function, not just what the shape of the table is.
She felt there is a lot more work to be done to fulfill the
commitment which everyone entered into than just looking at
.
organizational structure.
Ms. Jane Bartke noted reference is made to subregional
authorities in models 1, 2 3, and 5, but only Model 4 takes
in all the cities. She noted there are some cities which do
not belong to any subregional group, and she asked what
would happen with them. Ms: Wilson stated they would have
the option to stay out, noting they don't have to be a
member, which was true for all of these.
Ms. Jane Bartke asked about the makeup of the
representation in Model 4. Ms. Wilson noted the assumption
it would one be representative for every city and one
representative for every franchising agency, and that would
include Contra Costa County as well.
Glen Williams of the West Pittsburg Municipal Advisory
Council asked about representation for the unincorporated
areas. Ms. Wilson noted this should be clarified to
indicate this is the County.
Roger Dolan of Central San pointed out the alternatives
being discussed are alternatives to the status quo which is
this body. He felt there was an implied consensus that
there are deficiencies in the present system, and since
we're looking at ways to solve the problems, he suggested
trying to identify the problems specifically. He asked Ms.
Wilson's opinion about which one of these solutions would
best fit this problem.
E - 14
' Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop July 29, 1993
Ms. Wilson did not express support for one alternative
over another. She cited a problem of duplication of effort,
noting a number of entities doing the same things through
their SRRE 's. She felt there could be economies of scale,
either through the administrative structure or administering
a program, e.g. , Martinez overseeing a backyard composting
program because they have considerable expertise in this
' regard. She noted a question of whether or not to have
commonality of approach relative to policy. Is there an
advantage to having the same overall approach to solid waste
' management rather than three different approaches? She
stated those are considerations to be decided; however, as
Chair Mariotti noted earlier, the ratepayer doesn't care how
it's done as long as it costs them less and it works well.
Ms. Wilson noted the ongoing plethora of legislation
that keeps changing, where everyone is trying to respond to
' it. It might be helpful if there was a forum, such as the
project managers which the County has been administering,
and the County could continue to do that. She felt with
' better coordination there could be less duplication of
effort, resulting in a more effective program, spreading the
dollar further and doing a better job.
Supervisor McPeak noted all of the models presuppose the
existing regional JPA's, noting there may be duplication
because of that very fact. She asked about eliminating
' duplication and possible consolidation. Ms. Aiello noted
most of the JPA's are facility-based, and she suggested
possible consolidation of facility administration, leaving
policy development to a different arena as one way to
' approach it.
Mr. Bill Davis referred to the bottoms-up process,
' noting ultimately each city is free to choose, and AB 440 is
going to leave that in place. He noted potential decisions
at the regional level, e.g. , backyard composting which is
done out of one location by utilizing a trailer to take it
around the County.
Ms. Rocha referred to the voting process in relation to
' each of the models, how it is weighted, etc. Ms. Wilson
noted Model 3 would be similar to the Transportation
Authority with two representatives from each region, and,
generally speaking, the two representatives from each region
' vote similarly.
Mr. Alexeeff felt the question comes down to how much
' control each jurisdiction is comfortable with, noting each
city is different.
E - 15
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop July 29, 1993
Mr. - Blubaugh felt Models 3, 4 and 5 appear to be more
top-down. He cited Mr. Bill Davis' comments about AB 939
focusing this so that nobody is in charge except individual
agencies; therefore,. the success of whichever model is
chosen will be in whatever it does to satisfy its members.
He pointed out the reason everyone is sitting here today
talking is because some people did not join the body, so
some key components are missing. He noted the organization
cannot be absolutely effective unless everyone is part of
it, so the key is to find organizational arrangements which
provide appropriate comfort levels. He felt there was not a
lot of difference between Models 3 and 4 other than how it
is organized and who sits on the governing board; Model 2 is
acknowledgement that one does not need to talk to the
various regions; and Model 5 is ' the Transportation Authority
model which is a variant of Model 3.
Ms. Aiello felt there was a real essential difference
between Models 3 and 4, noting there is a big difference
between a top-down and bottoms-up approach.
Mr. Bill Davis referred to Model 5 and asked if makes
sense for a different group of people to try to resolve
problems as opposed to having those five board of directors
trying to resolve such problems.
Mario Menesini of the Central San Board of Directors did
not favor any of the proposed models, noting he felt a
combination of some of those models might be more
appropriate. He pointed out that a lot of people are
uncomfortable about rates going up, and he felt
decision-makers need to investigate where they can make the
best possible inroads into a system where there are multiple
layers of government and no one knows who's in charge or
what's happening. He supported some kind of system where
the people -- the ratepayers, the voters, the
constituents -- have an opportunity for input and not where
there's a layer of government which they no longer can
penetrate.
Chair Mariotti reiterated if anyone has an alternative
to suggest they are encouraged to write it down so it can be
incorporated for consideration at the next workshop. She
felt if there are deficiencies it was important to actively
work towards solving them.
Supervisor McPeak felt one piece of information that
might be helpful for the next workshop would be to have an
assessment of what is now being spent by everyone ( 1) in
AB 939 or AB 440 compliance, and (2) in facility-related
efforts. She noted some differentiation between JPA's that
started out facility-based to operate a facility which might
E - 16
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop July 29, 1993
end up also being responsible in part for source reduction
and assisting in AB 939, but they did not form as a policy
body or for the purpose of complying with AB 939 .
Ms. Aiello noted this information may be difficult to
obtain. Ms. Wilson noted a considerable amount of money in
this County alone is being spent on AB 939 compliance as
well as a considerable amount of money on facilities that
are to facilitate compliance with AB 939.
Ms. Oliver pointed out the proposed alternatives
presented on the charts are not the only alternatives. It
was hoped that the Countywide JPA would become the forum for
solid waste issues throughout the County. If the question
is coming up with a method to reduce duplication, obtain AB
939 compliance and keep rates down for ratepayers, and
another organization takes over and this body disappears,
then we have done our job. She emphasized that self-
perpetuation was not the goal of any of the JPA's, and she
felt that should not color anyone's thinking in this regard.
Mr. Dolan felt Ms. Oliver makes an excellent point. He
acknowledged the need for increased efficiency which leads
to compiling figures and facts about how much is being
spent. He felt this process could be more efficient if more
centralized, but he agreed with Mr. Blubaugh that the
problem is that everybody isn't on the team and isn't
playing with the same rules. However, there are people who
perceive that the body is already potentially too strong and
may interfere with whatever plans they might have on their
own, and they prefer decentralization and keeping things
spread out with a loose coordinating body. In other words,
there are two sets of agendas here: one in support of high
efficiency .or centralizing everything; and another saying
"don't mess with my project, " in support of decentralization
and just having a coordinating body.
Mr. Dolan felt there are already some sustained teams
that are able to work in the various small JPA's. He stated
he had been a proponent of the big JPA before its inception;
however, he now believes it probably is the second best
plan. He felt the best future would be for the small JPA's
to maximize whatever efficiency they can within the teams
that are currently cooperating and displacing the large JPA
with a coordinating committee. He suggested perhaps the
function of the AB 939 plan is a big enough job in itself,
and for the coordinating committee to work on that would be
quite an accomplishment.
Mr. Purnell concurred with Mr. Dolan about the various
roles between the various JPA's. Upon listening to the
discussion, he would argue that this is prima facie evidence
E - 17
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop July 29, 1993
of efficiency, noting no one joins a JPA unless it was felt
there was efficiency and benefit which would accrue by
joining together as opposed to working independently. He
felt the question is not whether the JPA's are working
efficiently as to each other, but are those JPA's working
efficiently as to the next level of government which is the
County. He felt the County needs to decide how it wants to
deal with the JPA's because they are not going to go away,
and they are independently working on plans within their
geographic area.
Mr. Purnell noted the possibility of the County going
with a regional approach if it wants to divest and turn this
over to the regional JPA's. He also noted if AB 440 passes
as currently written, it divests a lot of this planning
power to the JPA's; therefore, it would seem that a
coordinating council is a more appropriate vehicle because
the JPA's would be vested with more regional authority.
However, he noted some of this may be premature until it is
known what the State is going to do.
Mr. Alexeeff noted one of the issues before the County
is that it has multiple roles, e.g. , the County has
ratepayers and franchises, and the County began with AB 939
responsibilities. So, the County winds up being a different
level player depending on the rules of the game in various
parts of the County.
Mr. Purnell as a member of WCCIWMA was not so concerned
about what kind of arrangement the County may have with
another JPA, so long as the relationship with the West
County JPA was mutually acceptable. He felt it was in the
County's lap as to how it wants to deal with JPA's.
Supervisor McPeak did not agree this was entirely in the
County's lap, noting in looking at the four JPA's that most
of them are pursuing facilities. She questioned whether
that was the best- and most efficient way to use ratepayers ,
money, noting the duplication of cost for capital
development. Supervisor McPeak noted the second issue
whereby the cities and the County are assigning to the JPA's
responsibility for AB 939 or it successor, and she asked
about integration and whether coordinating and streamlining
of that would occur. Mr. Purnell stated that decision has
not yet been reached by the West County board.
Mr. Purnell felt the JPA model was effective. For
example, they are contemplating a facility in West County,
and it might be the choice of those agencies as a result of
various environmental mitigation factors to build a facility
which is acceptable to the residents of the area, possibly
making extra expenditures to make it more environmentally
E - 18
~ f
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop July 29, 1993
' and socially acceptable to the area. However, another JPA.
might want to go with the slab approach. He pointed out the
fact that money may be spent on a more environmentally
acceptable facility is not necessarily an argument that it
is being spent inefficiently or contrary to the desires of
the ratepayers.
' Mr. Bill Davis noted since the inception of AB 939 in
1991 that AB 939 plans were already going through the
process of being developed and going down their individual
paths. There was the landfill closure and need to get a
transfer station, so the focus of individual cities has been
on getting a facility in because of the landfill closure.
SRRE's were written saying, "Yes, there's going to be
something out there in Richmond. " He felt once that
facility is established, the individual cities will realize
they need to do something, and the natural_ evolution may be
' at the authority level.
Mr. Samson noted in listening to the discussion about
' the role of the different jurisdictions, he got the
impression the tail is wagging the dog. He felt it was
fairly self-evident from the makeup of Model 3 what the
different regional organizations would do, noting that would
' be subsumed by a Countywide organization under Model 4. He
was focusing on the regional planning program
implementation, noting whatever happens with the .Legislature
' those are the things to focus on in the long haul. He felt
for representatives of city government and different
agencies it was important to figure out over the long period
what is the best way to implement programs and what is the
' best way to plan programs, and whether or not to do it in a
way that recognizes the diversity in the County, whereby
there are different needs in different sectors of the
County. He felt this led him towards going to something
along the lines of preserving more of a regional entity. .
If, on the other hand, it is assumed the way the Legislature
' is going that it is going to require more of a program of
consistency, and that the differences and needs between
geographic regions in the County are not going to matter so
much any more, then it mitigates going to something like a
' centralized model. However, he felt it was important to
focus on what are we going to be doing and how do we want to
be doing it as opposed to looking at the role of different
' organizational structures.
Mr. Samson felt planning to address the long-term
problem is where to focus first, rather than worrying about
the structure. He felt more of a philosophical underpinning
was needed about what the direction was going to be on a
region-by-region basis. Are we going to allow more
diversity in planning, recognizing there may be some
E - 19
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop July 29, 1993
inconsistency, which may not be the worst thing in the
world, or do we want to be looking at a more consistent
centralized approach?
Chair Mariotti felt this workshop was a start to getting
to that broader viewpoint.
Mr. Bill Davis concurred with Mr. Samson's comments,
noting it was important to think of these as evolutionary
concepts which may start as one thing and wind up as
something else down the road. Chair Mariotti noted if the
right thing is done for the ratepayer, it can change its
shape any way we want it to. She reiterated the serious
concern expressed by constituents about raising rates.
Ms. Wilson echoed the above comments, noting
philosophically everybody involved in this issue has to
decide what will meet their local needs as well as
Countywide .-needsIt was noted the Countywide JPA came into
being out of frustration over the landfills and how the
decision-making took place and a dissatisfaction that there
was not unanimity. Maybe or maybe not that issue can be
laid to rest. She felt it was important to look at what it
is everyone is trying to accomplish, and what are our
objectives. She noted these models were arbitrarily chosen
and were not intended to be definitive. As Mr. Menesini has
indicated, these could result in something that 'was a blend
which philosophically and logistically met what isneededin
order to get the job done better.
In response to Mr. Purnell's comments, Ms. Wilson
pointed out what might be appropriate in terms of
expenditures for one region might not be for another. She
suggested that residents in both regions perhaps would want
to pay the least amount of money to get the job done, and
whether a region pursues a slab approach versus a Class A
project should be done with the knowledge and support of the
ratepayers of that region.
Mr. Blubaugh suggested something for consideration
between now and the next meeting in regards to the County's
role in relation to Model 3 . He felt the County sees itself
as an entity of the whole more than just a part of four
different groups, which is not addressed in Model 3.
In response to earlier comments, Mr. Blubaugh stated he
did not anticipate from a practical reality that there is
going to be a lot of facility duplication. He doubted there
would be four, five or six transfer stations around, just as
we wound up with one landfill, not two. He saw a real role
for subregional JPA's. He struggled with the concept that
everything is at the bottom, and, hopefully, this will come
E - 20
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop July 29, 1993
together in terms of local orientation. He suggested that
the entire solid waste issue is more than the sum total of
three or four regions, and that was his fear about the
bottoms-up approach; however, as a political reality he
understood that was probably how it is going to be to start.
He felt the whole system was dependent on everybody wanting
to be at the table.
' Chair Mariotti emphasized the importance for everybody
to be at the table talking in spite of their differences .
Ms . Beth Bartke agreed that everyone should be at the table,
but that's not happening, and that is a very real concern.
Unless all the cities are represented, we are not achieving
our goal in that area.
' Mr. Dolan pointed out the vast majority of the money is
in collection of solid waste, then transfer and disposal.
He noted that planning is probably the smallest component of
all, the components. He recalled a joint study undertaken by
the County and Central San back in 1984 in relation to
collection and disposal, noting the recommendation that
there be three separate transfer stations and that there
probably would be only one landfill. He- felt this was a
practical way to think about the jurisdictions based on a
' service area for these transfer stations in the three areas.
He cautioned against having an extra transfer station,
noting the charts refer to four lobes. He questioned
whether Concord and Pittsburg would be part of Central
County or East County; however, he felt between Acme and .
Delta Diablo there probably is not room for all three of
them. He felt that Model 3 should shrink down to three
separate entities, whereby Concord and Pittsburg and the
Central JPA and Delta Diablo would get together and figure
out what to do.
Barbara Hockett of the Central San Board asked if this
group has ever really listed their fears. She questioned
even talking about change in a new entity until everyone as
' an individual and/or agency lists their fears so that
everyone in this room knows what those are. She noted
everyone has their own agenda and some level of anxiety
about things which are near and dear and which may be
relinquished to an unknown.
Mr. Causey responded to earlier comments by Mr. Dolan,
noting the construction of facilities is a significant cost
.item. He suggested the possibility of a planning structure
whereby the building of those facilities is turned over to a
' uniform group that is responsible for developing and
constructing those facilities and developing expertise for
development of facilities to ensure they are cost effective.
E - 21
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop July 29, 1993
This could also help in the rate process in relation to
facility development costs.
Supervisor McPeak referred to the 1984 study and asked
Mr. Dolan now knowing the location of the landfill site in
the County whether there is anything that would need to be
changed about the analysis that was done, e.g. , is there a
break-even point between direct hauling with packer trucks
and using transfer trucks in terms of distance. Mr. Dolan
noted, if anything, , the tendency would be to say instead of
needing two for Central and East Counties, it might be done
with one. He also pointed out that a significant thing has
happened since the study was done in the mid- 180 's when
there was a virtual barrier around every County, and they
had to solve every problem within that County. He noted as
a result of SB 5 that barrier has been broken down, thus
providing for free competition for anyone who has solid
waste to dispose of. He felt it was important to support
the planting efforts with fees that are not dependent on
accepting all the garbage and recreating a monopoly.
Ms. Wilson sought direction from the group in relation
to proceeding to the next workshop, e.g. , having a committee
work on a specific issue or exploring further one of the
alternatives.
Mr. Clausen did not support breaking up into, committees
yet. He felt this group should continue working -through
even if it's tedious or boring in order to identify what it.
wants to accomplish. Do we want to just implement State
law, or do we want to get into the actual creation or
operation of facilities or leave that to someone else? He
felt these are things to sort out in order to know what kind
of organization is wanted.
Chair Mariotti summarized items discussed above. She
cited Ms. Hockett's suggestion to list everyone's fears, '
noting she felt this is a ,valuable exercise that needs to be
done. She felt there was consensus in support of
considering the bottoms-up approach. She also noted Ms .
Kelly's suggestion to look at the issue of fines, noting
that appears to be a gray area. How do landfills get locked
in, and how does that get incorporated into this whole
scenario? It was noted that some other agencies are not
listed on the charts, and how can these be addressed in the
proposed models.
Chair Mariotti asked for the group's preference in
having a second workshop. She noted the Mayors' Conference
is going to have a one-hour study session on solid waste
issues before its October meeting, and the workshop could
E - 22
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop July 29, 1993
possibly be folded into that process. There was majority
agreement there should be another workshop.
Mr. Menesini felt that input was needed from the Mayors
and city governments. Mr. Blubaugh agreed input is needed
from the cities; however, it was felt that the Mayors '
Conference was not the appropriate forum for getting this
kind of work done at this time.
The Reverend Timmons from Pittsburg reiterated Ms .
Hockett's suggestion about listing fears, noting he felt
there are some clear-cut fears and apprehensions among the
various cities and specialized concerns within those
regions. He felt some of those fears are the very reason
why some cities are not participating as they probably
should be. He felt those fears should be put out there and
dealt with, noting the bottom line is having something that
is workable. He acknowledged that some of the fears might
be a little difficult to deal with, but they need to be
dealt with.
Mr. Menesini felt it was important for the minutes of
this meeting to be utilized to assess where we're going with
the next meeting and to prepare the agenda on that basis.
Chair Mariotti recalled the focus of today's workshop was to
address items I and II on work plan, and to try to address
items III, IV and V at the next workshop, folding in what
has been discussed here today.
Ms. Jane Bartke stated before deciding on what to look
at in the second workshop that she needed to go back to her
City Council and discuss some of these issues with fellow
Councilmembers in order to reach a consensus in making a
decision. She reported they have discussed variations of
Models 3, 4 and 5; however, she felt it would not hurt to
have a few more ideas for consideration. She expressed
concern about Model 4 in relation to representation and 'how
the vote breaks down, noting that is a big concern in her
city.
Ms. Aiello noted three questions left to be answered in
the next workshop in relation to funding, looking at ways to
reduce duplication, and a potential organizational
structure. She suggested going back to respective governing
bodies to discuss this further, and then getting back to
either her or Ms. Wilson in the next month or so, and they
could go from there with what the majority indicated.
Ms. Wilson stated the minutes from today's meeting would
be transmitted to every governing body which has an interest
in solid waste issues. Questions could be formulated for
individual governing bodies to answer relative to
E - 23
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop July 29, 1993
organizational structure, how can cost savings be realized,
etc. This information could then be compiled for the next
meeting.
Ms. Brandt was not prepared to give an answer on any of
the models today. She anticipated. her fellow Councilmembers
asking about respective cost, noting the idea is to keep the
cost down; therefore, it would be helpful if each of the
models were assigned a quantitative number for
consideration. She also noted there are some real political
issues about the formulation of any coordinating council or
something similar to the Transpac model. She noted the
County and the Authority staff may have some opinions, and
she would like some kind of comparative analysis as to which
of the models works best for the constituency they are
working for today. She felt the voting issue is a serious
one, although she acknowledged potential advantages for
managability with the Transpac model versus having so many
voices speaking for all of the cities and the County.
. Ms. Oliver felt breaking into subcommittees at this time
is premature. However, she felt it was important before the
next workshop for the JPA's and other groups to be
discussing these issues as bodies and bringing their
thoughts forward.
Ms. Rocha asked for clarification about voting, noting
this was a key issue.
Roy Swearingen of the AB 939 Task Force stated he has
seen various issues at various meetings, but he has not seen
them all grouped together before like this. He felt
something definitely needs to happen to reduce government
cost which means right now there is more government cost in
this area than there should be. He pointed out that as
elected officials it was important to take action. He hoped
at the next meeting to see positive action, not necessarily
meaning a decision has to be made, but building on the
groundwork established today. He felt this should be
progressive in doing something about the layers of
government, noting if something can be done to reduce the
tax dollar cost then everyone will be heroes.
Mr. Samson strongly recommended that the next workshop
be scheduled in the near future while this discussion is
fairly fresh in mind. Secondly, to the extent there's a
feeling that the fears or concerns may be the parameters
within which to work, he felt it would be helpful to know
what the pitfalls and deficiencies are of the present system
in order to work towards an improved system. He suggested
taking a few minutes to share major concerns so that people
E • 24
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop July 29, 1993
can be thinking about them in relation to the various models
and planning efforts in advance of the next workshop.
Ms . Brandt stated her major concern was rates, rates,
rates. She felt garbage rates were the biggest fear, noting
a goal should be to establish the most efficient solid waste
body possible. Using that as a criterion, she felt Model 2
could be eliminated right now. She pointed out Model 1 is
not working now, so that leaves Models 3, 4 and 5. She also
expressed concern about duplication of meetings.
Mr. Sweeny expressed concern about quality of service.
Ms. Hockett expressed concern about loss of agency
control .
Mr. Bill Davis expressed concern about being held
accountable for rates without being able to decide what
those rates will be.
Ms. Rocha expressed concern about duplication of
service.
Ms. Beth Bartke expressed concern about being able to
justify the rates to ratepayers and constituents, noting
they would be willing to pay if they understand what it is
for.
Ms. Jane Bartke expressed concern about adding another
layer of government.
Ms. Hockett stated Central San has allocated time,
materials and money in relation to composting programs,
noting educational materials have been duplicated and plans
have been made with organizations to provide composting
courses; and she expressed concern that all that effort may
be lost and somebody else may be delegated to take that on.
It was noted that some unique programs could be lost.
Mr. Wolfe expressed concern about city staff time in
relation to preparation and work for three different solid
waste bodies. He felt that duplication of work and layers
of government should be reduced.
Mr. Samson noted a potential for both intra- and
inter-regional conflicts, depending on how this is
ultimately structured in relation to facility siting, etc.
Mr. Alexeeff expressed concern about loss of revenue.
Mr. Dolan noted at Central San he deals with a natural
monopoly which is the sewer system as well as an unnatural
E - 25
r
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop July 29, 1993
r
7 . ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Mari.otti
adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. to the next CCSWA Board
meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday, September 8th.
Gretchen Mariotti, Chair '
Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
~''minty of Contra Costa
State of California
ATTEST:
Karen A. Sanders
Hearing Reporter
1
1
. r
r
r
r
. r
r
r
r
E - 26
r
WORKPLAN
' TASK #1 - CONCEPTUAL POINTS #6 AND #9
A. (#6) Delineate, in cooperation with sub-regional solid
' waste joint powers authorities, roles and responsibilities for solid
waste management.
' B. (#9) Discuss staff resources and financing.
STEERING
' COMMITTEE: Don Blubaugh (Central); Dave Rowlands (East); Bill Davis (West);
Val Alexeeff (County) with Avon Wilson and Louise Aiello
' STAFF: Avon Wilson and Louise Aiello
PROCESS: Two workshops using staff preparatory work to focus on key
' policy/organizational/financing.matters
First workshop would be held in late June
' Final workshop would be held in September
Workshops would include Authority Board Members, Board of
' Supervisors, members/staff from subregional jpa's, and other key
staff/policy makers as appropriate.
DELIVERABLE
PRODUCT: Recommendation(s) for one or more organizational structure(s)
and financing/staffing delineating roles, authority, responsibilities
STAFF
PREPARATORY
' WORK: 1. What are the current requirements of State law?
How does current law delineate roles, responsibilities,
authority?
' 2. What are the defined purposes, goals, activities related to
solid waste for the County, cities, subregional jpa's, Contra
' Costa Solid Waste Authority, Countywide AB 939 Task
Force, Public Managers Solid Waste Committee, and AS
939 Project Managers?
E - 27 IM
938w:DOU-Wrk.Pep
3. Identify the areas of overlap and/or duplication including
areas where overlap may be needed. ,
Key areas to be addressed should include —
IWMP Monitoring '
(a) Co g and Revision
(b) SRREs and HHWEs update, revision, implementation
(c) NDFEs and facilities development and operations ,
4. What are current funding sources and levels for the '
organizations and programs identified in #2 above?
5. What mechanisms are available for funding? '
WORKSHOP
FOCUS: Review #1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 ,
Answer the following:
1 . Identify ways to streamline the different aspects of solid ,
waste management to eliminate or reduce overlap/
duplication. in what ways could public agencies and
private sector work to streamline, reduce costs, work '
together more effectively?
2. In what ways can independent/individual jurisdiction '
decisions making be provided for while building an
interdependent and cooperative solid waste management '
organizational structure?
3. How can cost savings to member agencies or to rate payers
result from restructuring how activities are handled and/or ,
under what organization activities are handled?
4. What is the best structure to organize solid waste activities
in an efficient, responsive manner in Contra Costa County?
5. Based upon #4, what staffing and funding levels are ,
necessary?
i
1
_ 2 -
E - 28
939w:DMOU-Wrk ft
STATE SOLD? WASTE REQIT IE.NfENTS
AB 939
• Requires each city and each county to reduce disposal of waste by 25% by 1995
eq
and 50% by 2000.
• Requires each city and county to prepare and implement Source Reduction and
Recycling Elements and Household Hazardous Waste Elements as part of the
' efforts to reduce waste and waste disposal
+ Requires County and a majority of cities having a majority of population to
t -prepare, approve, submit Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans and
Solid Waste Facilities Siting Element
AB 3001
+ Added requirement that each city and each county prepare a Non Disposal
Facilities Element, removed such facilities from the Countywide Siting Element
and granted autonomy to each city and each county in approving NDFE's
AB 2494
+ Altered diversion requirements from "amount of diversion" to "amount of
reduction of disposal"
+ Provided for formation of solid waste JPA's and rural regional solid waste
' agencies
AB 440 (Pending in Legislation)
• Expands provisions for formation of regional solid waste agencies by allowing for
formation of such agencies in any area and through either joint powers
agreements or Memoranda of Agreement.
+ Specifies methods for counting reduction in disposal
+ Directs Emergency g en Regulations to be established b December, 1993
'� Y
i + Delays submission deadlines of SRRE's, HHWE's and NDFE's until April, 1994
+ Appears to allow early submission of SRRE's, HHWE's, NDFE's and
Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans
+ Lifts imposition of fines for two years
E - 29
v
z
1 0
1 �
z
' a W
0 momZ
awo
-' gig
0
U
� a
1 0
swoW
1
i
1
1
1
• m m ? C:� C; C: �t C
.li o y o� ms •.i', of of of�; a r�
CL
71 p C: 71 Of
W} �_ W O O O p m c O c a
C - �J CIS Or O
F' ? a m co co O o O OI �i
U c ° "C a d v s9 d ti �i pyt=i e:� ■
S ov ►- m ; d_ mfI ° 01 mic� f
C
O
CL Q a o 0 c p 0 m m i
F� ifi Q 4 O' J O a ::t,:: J
a UJ ; s 1
i(
Q Q n o W p o W Q v O_ t rw•r
_ �{
h- LL
° ° U U O i
a a > o
" On
0 E c
C p >
n n �
:.::.:.......:.......•:::n?•.'„v:::::^::...,.:..,.i:.:.::..rnY,..rf.,v:::...:.,...............�..,......)....v*:............. .:4i Ci:•iii:•+:ti•:�:i?+:i?-
U. Fm 0
-
�" o U c
Zg 3 oW mcc°'c o ¢ U ri cls c
v v c `p
i. us
ID
Qo ag omo �icio � m .>:
J ui it v a m >
n. ai c >1 C
zd ° rs n o o f >
Om E d o O
C a C m Im
4 it
a12
c
c o -
i-
W
0
O
O
—
3
— m V ri
ui
LL a c e6 C .. aim
Gi I 1 m E ' io m a U c mid m
� f Zia u c m � c c ¢ U of
tw i W 1 z c p o L t} u a)3 _ a0 (r� '
Q p 10 pIS > p m 9 ` i O +°
Qiyi a a m U m M
O a
Q Im V JiCC c m c E O� > n c ? =
ac 1 i(a z c i ac a - p m „ o m _
CL
I m O z v� d - is aa�
o I� i- m c o
v o E ai o
cry W
O# c
m
td 'pi c c ¢ �
m
Us 1.2
CM
W r�. :: _ d i
U. c c oa o 03 c c c omal=� CL
cn
ma' tea :::
W W p o m ac o c. d _
0
c
0 0
t) t3 r2
m
c
C -
W ,Z C p -
Q Q 3 n m Q O
CD Em78
LL
Wo o E o o m m U G m e c
a¢ m a = m W
o
a nE
e m 2
0 o
,qrt V a 0 m m m m
o U��� -
us -
t
E`^
_ m o m c m
z �y."r2 0 p Q O f� CL N ° -
La VA CL CL
10
n as p = � o � � L m . m�r.2 m 'c ;
> of m
Q W ° C of c .a >
W E m _ c •.
e
ID
-
p
0
d p
m
y +�
O t.? {/} d p C .D Q •fir � ° 0 J ,/Giii�'i��`s'i; ��+'i�i- G
ui
_ _ a c
W O m O m .a d p
°� o o_ ttaip Ea Q
0
v1—
� L
�t
O
c
Uy o ...d
0-1 cclU)
O "+�
z = c
0
o
o — 30 p - d
W
` 13
sa:W 0 oz110-
au`
N
OCG.
D,
• 0
w e . • o MONO
O L C
U of u • o ►' '� e ¢ = Q LL$
♦7 IY4 O sC
In
` WHO �� C —��U6d�a N
rZ mi LU
/ Q3 bg m
i � z
1 •
i d W
i cr
t
( Z
i t V m c w
gcc
ar
wsoaO
o136
oda• o 0 o J
! V I U U �L7ddd a.
► O
t U
t
o
o a
°= ---- R
p e
a o a p
' O e
Is 4 to O of t w i �¢ • o V zg a F5
D' O IG pap, bi E u' a C $ 3 ° °
Q • o`. E of ° ° O S -.1 W Gt d t q � E E v E q • o e q
z N .'.°. • °° r t i .� a tX Q - 6 v3 u z
f on. o o o C7
cc
t'Z
a w e o a o o a i W
o e
C C g •�f 'q �` QY�U y O
iL
rm
NNU U °. 6. ZCUC
d 3"r " �' � ` 'P S Off'Q S eC6 ip •gyp O Q q � ,�L 3i
uaticcCtgU
t)Woz! UU
Z
130
O Y S •q C
tYS In
C
C
s E
E � �. a�' C • C .•n O ?
< a 3ee�:� V z it�
vi U*
<aggwla 0 � 3 >
' o 0 0
� E ,�y� � o • U U .�C�. d d d
U w U a d
r
c r
ra
W
M
Qo a
3 L N Asa � � 'S e�t •
r
c tbtt
t
44 +
O O • r�� O tat r
�
so
zZ s Z o r
rA Q C� r 3 0 > Z. i��ra $ V
• s
All , Z
.01
00
d T, it i -O�r a N S
O .p �i • o a �, .3R �+
i
t
N
t
H
O
H
� Q
y
W
O W
E5
Z �
W
0
1 �
1 �
0
t U
r
r
m ra
6
r
r
r
r
r
r
G �
UA
0 C4
N 0 3- So
w
� m
�s 03 0
40- Z3 lio 100
0 41
0 m rGZ 10
coo 00 -g
O
c0 V L r o a3cc o
W t O V G m y .p �_ G ✓ w U. 0
3 W W (°} U- cc
0
7' +� m ? ww Ce r.
° to a�
p G m O °t, ° { N
c �
{
r
r
r
E - 33
g �
W
M < • p •4 n+
s 6
i 'yL •a ° p
t i •. �aaiamo
{ { U 8
t {
1 1 •
t 1 O < 3� •U�'� <
1 i
1 1
1 S t
—
<
�$ ; Utp • i 3 Mise
Y�[p 1 Tui `•1��� qu. oG Sg6�p
° { W
0
W w a f 1 i • �
y 5
46
dIL
• �i s '
<
t
t �
1
a �
e A .,�l m • e s
p" � a 3 °' n �'� fi e• d�w u
<<
1►
s a
o
•
� - 3 W,a
of
LU
'r- C460
.1 5 7
cc
com
co Im—
i:`S a _ E a .1t a '
4c
10
> 0
ui
O ui
U,
'A
CA,
R.—V
Z
1=
CD a CL
CC
us
-i
4 . 2 Z a ..........
—..............
CL
. ........
UA
G
14
:.,..... . .............
cm 73
E 75 C
0 w
z0
LU r- a
W uj
cr w
O Q
E
LU
vi Lul a
W 44 1 M (D c C i
1 w E
....... .....
z Lj Li ..............
0ad a 7j
tj
c
Z M LtCC
4k o E
w E
E 05 0> 72
z ox
us z
uj
E
it A V
> C; U,
...................
...........................
cm
LL
MA
..............
S
4cCE 0
uj a U a � „iy'�?�` '
a lal.
a,r Ulf
0
uj S rL tL to
z
Z 44
to, 4E
O z roO = ,
-
CLCL 0 IL
oo IO9 .2
U. so Jo
H
O
z
1 �
1 Z �
0 0
� a
N
Z
a
1
1
1
1
1
r
. r
>e r
:r
r
7
1
W
r
r
r
2
c N a u) 0
N O .aS o W d m
CA
Y i 7 •;>.•., ° tib N O � m m � � C �
p v a m O G
d m m m ar o m 3Q, m E m o
OS
3 >i49
too ao
w w y. ✓
N
tw6 p V m
O 19
r
. r
r
E _ 36
� > �
) } ! � � J ; l , ■ `
�
� |° - } �! • ! ) ; # | ■ ■ ■ !- !
tiJ � � � Ij
31
. . `
� |
� � |
. ! ! :
� � � ; ■ � � � �� " `
� .. l k22 $} s
/ a } # ° f!� § « ;
■ ■ j � = 2 _ � !
95 .
� ' !
IL
� . | � ` �! ■ .
� � \
. ■ s
!
$ � • � ) � ! ! �` ' }
, -- l � , .� ■
�
° � ; i ` ■ e § .
! - � ■ ! ` { � | | `
) � ■ � � § � ` $! k ■ ) $ . � %�� .
---- lea ; - ■ a �
� 2 ■ a ■ !
I � lIc. �
' ! -
.
| ' Ia ■ a § $ . 2
■
-
�
■ 2 � � $ ■ ,
2
E . 37 - ,
� ■ �
o m c c mi c o '
.� • o <::>: of 3�—°
at
LiJ o V • e > n v� 3i • c • 3
o c o c d o c = >: n. o d Q
H m O/ m m
.30
a <
O Q LL
o o
F Q C
} O } p Q C C O O :'•: 91
a e
V m O C O O > i::`-:% C I o
o 5•>:�> m''i _ 01 L
H ° ¢ ui O 2 W O Q U ¢ ; Q vti; Q :'.;:: J I O L J O
O • a m U 'a m O a '� O O r ''> O �Y, I C
O C V N C y y ¢ y ; M 6-0.
1
z o. � a
V
0 7 p y
av -9v o
LiT::??•W.v.\Wn.i ........ m.<•.xf/.: '':•i::{iW:J:?•iYx?•Y •:•::::.n:9S:•Y}ri{W'.?<?�i� :•i::•ri:Kh}i{4iiYiiin:
oa 10 00
o e c �{ o -.......:..
U, d c e E g L o o w m e
to J m C ` C > > 92
u7 QQ p O O O O J
Q p m o Q co
WO L O4c S
........rn-vn\�YivvYA:\n:YYi:?::Y::i:i:4::::...Y:..\•.x•Y .. •�::
....... ':.�y:::::::.}'.....
O
O mC6 o V c m a
1 E
0.
W 1 V m¢ O C U GLto
cc
C ¢�
cc 10 0
O d ¢ Em o s o o >
O IHto us I t- U O c E
1 O O d � •Y:.'��c K .. '
u CL
G O .mr irfm
> 1 p « :•r,'.':-}}Yrs,{ /
Z ,.::._;,e,, ,.,. ...:::::. t,•::.�.,... ................,,••:::.:: -ntt..Y•..,!«:.}Y}}}:•»••: aY. :Y;x.,.}w c:f•}Yr}:v:r}•::
O a C as C m O C Y m O
zo 1;
CL
v D,¢ e c v LL o C 1= u .
m `o o
J fL d O r o L • ` O O • C iX' 'h:
Q O o a O o o ¢ U o
z Q V o o a G
It
W z V 07 L Y C
O c E Q aCL
CL
Em m m o e . a ft In J
CL q
E aCL
xk<�� i :
rnvr..:?4x+/. .... A ::::::::.w,•.',Vil Y:' ..t n n
. .ti .
Q m Eo p n ¢ H O 3 O
CL
zV e d+ AlQ E L tf,
C O
W m p m o r• +
1 o C
W 1= O. ¢ CID
i:i4r �:v�fy
z +� CL
a
V a e n C Z O o
a = o ao. a C p 5 I-O C7 T
qsaL o - 1 o • p V d O s z
1
i
DISCUSSION PAPER
1
This Discussion Paper was prepared at the request of the Contra Costa Solid Waste
1 Authority to provide additional detail regarding the Options for administration of solid
waste management activities in Contra Costa County which were originally presented at
the Workshop in July, 1993.
The concepts described do not necessarily reflect the views of any City, the County nor
any joint powers authority.
The Discussion Paper is organized into the following sections:
' o Background
' o Regional Co-ordinating Council Structure
o Goal
1
o Discussion of Organizational Structure & Staffing
1 o General Discussion
1 o Countywide Solid Waste Authority
o Goal
o Discussion of Organization Structure & Staffing
g
i
i
1
1
1
i
1 E - 39
BACKGROUND
1
Discussion of roles and responsibilities for solid waste management needs to recognize
the structure established by State law. '
1. Revisions to State Law made by AB 440 provide that cities and counties may ,
create regional agencies to develop and implement SRRE's, HHWE's, NDFE's for
those jurisdictions which are members of the regional agency.
(a) Countywide Siting Element requirement continues to be the responsibility
of the County and to need approval of the County and a majority of the
cities having a majority of the population.
(b) Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan continues to be required ,
and must have approval of the County and a majority of the cities having
a majority of the population.
individual cities and ,
2. State law assigns responsibility for solid waste management to i
county for unincorporated area: ,
(a) Development and Implementation of SRRE's which define:
(1) Programs to be implemented to divert waste from landfills '
(2) Needed disposal capacity . I
(b) Development and Implementation of NDFE's which define non-disposal
facilities consistent with implementation of SRRE's i
(c) Development and Implementation of HHWE's which define programs to be
implemented for reduction, collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of '
HHW.
(d) Review and revision as necessary not less than every 5-years '
3. State law assigns responsibility to County for: '
(a) Development of a Countywide Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Siting
Element which identifies areas for landfill, transformation facility sites, ,
i
E - 40
and/or export of waste for disposal and total available disposal capacity and
' needed capacity.
(1) Based upon disposal capacity identified in each SRRE
(2) Areas must be consistent with City h'and County General Plans
' (3) Approval by County and majority of cities containing majority of
incorporated area population
' (4) Review and revision as necessary not less than every 5-years
(b) Processing Amendments to Countywide Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
Siting Element:
' (1) Persons or agencies proposing amendments to Siting Elements must
submit site identification and information to County Board of
Supervisors
(2) County to submit site identification and information to cities within
20-days of receipt
(3) Approval of amendment by County and a majority of cities
' containing majority of incorporated area population.
(c) Development of a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan which
' includes:
(1) All SRRE's
' 2 All HHWE's
' (3) Countywide Siting Element
' (4) Summary of significant solid waste management problems facing the
county
' (5) Overview of specific steps to be taken by local agencies, acting
independently and in concert, to reduce, recycle and reuse solid
waste
E - 41
(6) Statement of the goals and objectives of the Local Task Force
(7) County and majority of cities containing majority of incorporated '
area population must approve except
a Individual SRRE's, HHWE's and NDFE's are not subject to
approval of the County or a majority of the cities containing
a majority of the population within the incorporated area. '
(8) Review and revision as necessary not less than every 5-years
t
E - 42
LSSION PAPER
REGIONAL CO-ORDINAM40 COUNCM OMON
rM, 1993
' REGIONAL CO-ORDINATING COUNCIL.
GOAL
establishment of a process which:
1. Provides maximum local control of decision making.
�. Assigns responsibility for decisions regarding planning and implementation of the various
features of the solid waste management system (e.g. solid .waste collection, transfer,
disposal, source reduction, recycling and composting) to the level of government closest
to the ratepayers.
'. Recognizes the jurisdictional rights and responsibilities of each unit of government.
Provides a means for resolution of differences in a timely and cost effective manner.
5. Avoids and eliminates redundant activities.
�. Ensures co-ordination of programs so that opportunities for elimination of duplication are
seized and resulting cost savings realized.
�. Enables compliance with State law and regulations in a timely ma
p gu e y neer with the lowest
' possible cost.
E - 43
DISCUSSION PAPER
REGIONAL CO-ORDINATING COUNCIL OPnON
ANBUM 20, 1993
REGIONAL AGENCY STRUCTURE,, FUNCTIONS
AND RESP ONSEBILITIES
FIGURE 1
1 Figure I outlines the structure, functions and responsibilities for Regional Agencies FOR
PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION ONLY.
2. Assumptions underlying Figure I are as follows:
(a) Pending legislation�(AB 440) will be enacted an allow regional agencies to prepare
regional SRRE's, HHWE's, and NDFE's instead of individual plans by Members
and thereby reduce duplication and achieve cost savings.
(b) Members of the Regional Agencies will delegate to the Regional Agencies
responsibility for preparation of SRRE's, HHWE's and NDFE's.
(c) Pittsburg and Concord form a Regional Agency and Pittsburg does not participate
in the Delta Diablo Global Agreement.
(d) Cities which are not now members of a Regional Agency would become members
of the Regional Agency as indicated in Figure 1.
(e) County, Cities and Regional Agencies will determine if the County is to be a
member of the respective regional agencies or contract with the regional
agency(ies).
(1) Matters related to Regional Non-Disposal Facilities and Disposal
Arrangements are assumed to be addressed as part of these discussions.
(2) This has been determined for the West County Regional Agency. The
County and the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority
have entered into a contract.
E - 44
LISCUSSION PAPER
REGIONAL COORDINATING COUNCIL OPTION
20. 1993
'2. The concepts described in Figure 1:
(a) Envisions joint powers agreements which would provide Regional Agencies with
' authority to:
(1) Prepare and implement single Regional SRRE's, HHWE's and NDFE's.
(a) Those portions of Regional SRRE's, HHWE's and NDFE's
' applicable to each Member of the joint powers authority would be
subject to the approval of the respective Members prior to approval
by the Regional Agency.
(b) Approval of Regional SRRE's, BHWE s and NDFE's needed to
' reflect provisions of current state law which requires the provisions
of AB 939 to be binding and enforceable against individual Members
of a Regional Agency.
' (2) Develop and implement Regional Non-Disposal Facilities and Non-Disposal. .
Facilities for individual Members or groups of Members.
' (a) Rates at Regional Non-Disposal Facilities regulated by the Regional
' Agency
(b) Rate Regulation at Non-Disposal Facilities for individual Members
or groups of Members as provided in the joint powers agreement.
1
(3) Arrange for disposal of solid waste for all members of the Regional
' Agency.
(4) Authorizes the Regional Agency to review and approve the Countywide
Integrated Waste Management Plan and Countywide Siting Element on
behalf of the Members.
E - 45
DISCUSSION PAM
REGIONAL CO-ORDINATING COUNCIL OPTION
A8909 20, 1993
(b) Reserves to each City and the County responsibility for the following within their
respective jurisdictions:
(1) The terms and conditions contained in their respective collection franchise
agreements,
(2) Regulation of collection rates,
(3) Land Use regulation and control,
(4) Permitting which is the responsibility of the respective cities and the county,
and
(5) Where applicable, the freedom to delegate any or all of the above.
(c) Reserves to future decisions County participation in Regional Agencies and, where
agreed to, shared Facilities.
(d) Places primary responsibility for co-ordination of activities with the Regional
Agencies.
(e) Provides for review and approval of the Countywide Integrated Waste
Management Plan and Countywide Siting Element by Members.
(1) Current State lawrequires approval by cities and counties.
E - 46
1
1
DLSCUSSION PAPER
kEGIONAL CO-ORDINAMNG COUNCIL OPTION
20, 1993
1
REGIONAL CO-ORDINATING COUNCIL
1 FIGURE 2
Figure 2 outlines the structure and responsibilities of the Regional Co-ordinating Council
FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION ONLY. Figure 2 is envisions:
1 (a) An agreement among the Cities, Regional Agencies and the County establishing
the Regional Co-ordinating Council. The agreement would:
1 (1) Provide for the establishment of the "Management Advisory Committee"
and "Technical Advisory Committee" shown in Figure 2.
1 (2) Assign to the Regional Co-ordinating Council the responsibility for:
1 (a) Preparation of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan
and Countywide Siting Element.
1 (b) Administration of the Contra Costa Industrial Shoreline Recycling
Markets Development Zone.
(c) Co-ordination of interaction with the State
(3) Authorize the Regional Co-Ordinating Council to make recommendations
regarding:
' (a) Co-ordination of Regional Programs
(b) Co-ordination of Disposal Arrangements
' (c) County proposals regarding Disposal Facilities
1
1
1 E - 47
DISCUSSION PAPER
REGIONAL COORDINATING COUNCIL.OPTION
August 20. 1943 ,
STAFFING OPTIONS '
FOR
REGIONAL CO-ORDINATING COUNCII. '
FIGURE 3
tions for staffing the Regional Co-ordinating Council FOR '
1. Figure 3 outlines four op g gl g
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY.
would be employees of the Regional Co-ordinatin '
Option A: All staff wougi g Council
Option B: Staffing would be provided by means of a contract between. the '
Regional Co-ordinating Council and the County. The agreement
creating the Co-ordinating Council could include such provisions. '
Option C: No permanent staff would be provided. The agreement creating the
Co-ordinating Council would designate a Lead Agency. The Lead ,
Agency would provide administrative services for the Co-ordinating
Council, arrange for Co-ordinating Council meetings, execute
contracts approved by the Co-ordinating Council on behalf of the '
Council and other functions which would be enumerated in the
agreement creating the Co-ordinating Council.
Option D: One full time staff person employed by Regional Co-ordinating
Council with a Lead Agency designated to provide administrative '
support. The Co-ordinating Council would approve and let all
contracts and the full-time employee would administer the contracts.
2. OtherOp tions, or a combination of the options presented, may evolve as discussion
progresses. -
E - 48
LCUSSION PAPER
REGIONAL CO-ORDINATING COUNCIL OPTION
rg=20, 1993
1
DISCUSSION
1. The Regional Co-ordinating Council concept focuses on Regional Agencies for co-
' ordination and administration of solid waste management activities.
Regional Agencies would provide the means for cities to co-ordinate activities with
respect to:
' (a) Development and implementation of:
(1) Source Reduction, Recycling,Composting and Household Hazardous Waste
Programs for the region.
(2) Development and implementation of Non-Disposal Facilities needed to
' implement the regional programs.
(b) Regulation of rates at Regional Non-Disposal Facilities and other Non-Disposal
' Facilities if authorized in the joint powers agreement creating the regional agency.
' (c) Input and determination of acceptability of the Countywide Integrated Waste
Management Plan and Countywide Siting Element and other Countywide issues.
' (d) Development and implementation of arrangements for disposal of waste, whether
in-County or out-of-County.
' (e) Actions by individual Member Agencies to implement Program Features unique
to each Member Agency.
(f) Actions within the region with other regional agencies and the County.
3, The concepts described earlier reserves to the Cities and the County their rights and
responsibilities with respect to:
' (a) Land Use Regulation
E - 49
DISCUSSION PAPER '
REGIONAL CO-ORDINATING COUNCII.OPTION
A"=20, 1993 ,
(b) Local Permitting '
(c) Collection Franchising and collection rate regulation
4. "Balkanization" of the County is avoided by the Regional Co-Ordinating Council" which ,
brings regions together to address inter-regional and Countywide issues and resolution of
differences in a timely and cost effective manner. '
5. The Regional Co-Ordinating Council would provide the means to:
(a) Discuss opportunities for sharing.of programs to eliminate duplication and develop '
arrangements for implementation of shared programs. . I I
(b) Co-ordinate development and implementation of disposal arrangements.
c Provide co-ordinated recommendations to the County regarding the development ,
and implementation of disposal facilities located within the unincorporated area and
the establishment of rates at such facilities. ,
(d) Resolve issues necessary to the preparation of the Countywide Integrated Waste
Management Plan and Countywide Siting Element: ,
(1) Countywide Plan is expected to be a compilation of the individual Regional
Plans and County Plans for,the unincorporated area if the County is not a
participant in the regional agency plans.
(a) Interregional issues (e.g. movement of waste or recyclable materials '
across the boundary of a region) will need to be identified and
resolved. '
(b) Goals and Objectives of the Local Task Force will need to be
reviewed for acceptability. '
(c) Recommended policies will need to be reviewed for acceptability.
E - 50
DISCUSSION PAPER
REGIONAL CO-ORDINATING COUNCIL.OPTION
August 20. 1993
(2) Countywide Siting Element would address disposal facilities only and be a
compilation of information (i.e. quantities requiring disposal and planned
disposal facilities) identified in the individual regional plans.
(a) Interregional issues (e.g. use of common disposal facilities) will need
to be identified and resolved.
(b) Land Use control and local permitting would be preserved.
(3) Amendments to Plan and Siting Element would be reviewed and
recommendations regarding approval provided.
5. The Regional Co-ordinating Council avoids and eliminates redundant activities.
(a) Membership would be representatives from each of the Board Directors of
Regional Agencies and County Board of Supervisors. These are the same
' individuals who will be malting decisions regarding the respective regions.
(b) Quarterly meetings would be scheduled but meetings would be held only as
needed.
(c) A structure for management and technical staff input is provided which should
' eliminate need for meetings and focus staff efforts.
(d) Duplication of staff efforts and resource expenditures should be limited.
7. The.concepts described above are consistent with State law which assigns responsibility
' to cities and counties and would allow for formation of regional agencies to achieve cost
savings.
1
E - 51
DISCUSSION PAPER
REGIONAL CO-ORDINATING COUNCIL OP77ON
Aura&20, 1993
COLTNTYWEDE SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
GOAL
Establishment of a process which:
1. Provides maximum local control of decision making while ensuring integrating and
coordination of countywide solid waste activities and programs.
2. Assures consistency for ratepayers throughout the county by bringing all franchising
entities and countywide issues into one organization.
3. Recognizes the jurisdictional rights and responsibilities of each unit of government.
4. Provides a means for resolution of differences in a timely and cost effective manner.
5. Avoids and eliminates redundant activities by delineating local responsibilities for
facilities and countywide responsibility for solid waste policies and planning.
6. Ensures co-ordination of programs so that opportunities for elimination of duplication are
seized and resulting cost savings realized.
7. Recognizes the continuing State requirement for a Countywide Solid Waste Facilities
Siting Element and a Countywide Solid Waste Management Plan and enables compliance
with State law with the least possible cost to jurisdictions and ratepayers.
E - 52
LISC
IJSSION PAPER
ONAL CO-ORDINAnNG COUNCIL OP71ON
August 20, 1993
COUNTYWEDE SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
(ORG STRUCTURE IV AND V)
' FIGURE 1
Figure 1 outlines the structure, functions and responsibilities for Org Structures IV and
V-- Countywide Solid Waste Authority for discussion purposes only.
�.
Assumptions underlying Figure 1 are as follows:
P yl g �
' (a) AB 440 will be enacted allowing regional agencies to prepare regional SRRE's,
HHWE's, and NDFE's instead of individual plans by Members and thereby reduce
' duplication and achieve cost savings.
(b) Members of the Regional Agencies will delegate to the Regional Agencies
' responsibility for preparation of SRRE's, HHWE's and NDFE's.
(c) Pittsburg and Concord form a Regional Agency and Pittsburg does not participate
in the Delta Diablo GIobal Agreement.
(d) Cities which are not now members of a Regional Agency would become members
of the Regional Agency as indicated in Figure 1.
(e) County, Cities and Regional Agencies will determine if the County is to be a
member of the respective regional agencies or contract with the regional
agency(ies).
(1) Matters related to Regional Non-Disposal Facilities and Disposal
Arrangements are assumed to be addressed as part of these discussions.
E - 53
DISCUSSION PAPER
REGIONAL CO-ORDINATING COUNCIL OPTION
Anguli 1A, 1993
(2) This has been determined for the West County Regional Agency. The
County and the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority ,
have entered into a contract.
(f) All franchising entities will want to have a voice and a vote in countywide solid waste ,
planning and policy development (Org Structure IV)
(g) Consolidation of solid waste staffing into regional agencies and countywide authority ,
2. The concepts described in Figure 1: '
(a) Envision joint powers agreements which would provide Regional Agencies with
authority to: ,
(1) Prepare and implement single Regional SRRE's, HHWE's and NDFE's. '
(a) Those portions of Regional SRRE's, HHWE's and NDFE's
applicable to each Member of the joint powers authority would be ,
subject to the approval of the respective Members prior to approval
by the Regional Agency.
(b) Approval of Regional SRRE's, HHWE's and NDFE's needed to '
reflect provisions of current state law which requires the provisions
of AB 939 to be binding and enforceable against individual Members
of a Regional Agency.
(2) Develop and implement Regional Non-Disposal Facilities and Non-Disposal ,
Facilities for individual Members or groups of Members.
(a) Rates at Regional Non-Disposal Facilities regulated by the Regional ,
Agency
Rate Regulation at Non-Disposal Facilities for individual Members '
or groups of Members as provided in the joint powers agreement.
E - 54
LISCUSSION PAPER
REGIONAL CO-ORDINATING COUNCIL OPTION
20. 1993
(3) Reserves to each City and the County responsibility for the following within their
respective jurisdictions:
' (1) The terms and conditions contained in their respective collection franchise
agreements,
(2) Regulation of collection rates,
(3) Land Use regulation and control,
' (4) Permitting which is the responsibility tyof the respective a cities and the county,
and
(5) Where applicable, the freedom to delegate any or all of the above.
' (c) Reserves to future decisions County participation in Regional Agencies and, where
agreed to, shared Facilities.
' (d) Provides for review and approval of the Countywide . Integrated Waste
Management Plan and Countywide Siting Element by Members.
' (1) Current State law requires approval by cities and counties.
(e) Provides for policy development and planning for countywide solid waste issues
' and required countywide plans
' FIGURE 2
,1. Figure 2 outlines the structure and responsibilities of the COUNTYWIDE SOLID
WASTE AUTHORITY FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION ONLY.
figure 2 is envisions:
E - 55
DISCUSSION PAPER ,
REGIONAL CO.ORDINAMNO COUNC L OP nON
Aupst m. 1993
(a) An agreement among the Cities, Regional Agencies and the County establishing ,
the Countywide Solid Waste Authority. The agreement would:
(1) Provide for the establishment of the "Management Advisory Committee" ,
and "Technical Advisory Committees" shown in Figure 2.
(2) Assigns to the Authority the responsibility for: '
(a) Preparation .of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan
and Countywide Siting Element. '
(b) Administration of the Contra Costa Industrial Shoreline Recycling
Markets Development Zone.
(c) Co-ordination of interaction with the State ,
(d) Development of policies/programs which have implications
countywide such as procurement policies, franchise model ,
agreements, rates
(3) Authorize the Regional Agencies: '
(a) Co-ordination of Regional Programs '
(b) Co-ordination of Disposal Arrangements
( )c Consider proposals regarding Disposal Facilities
STAFFING OP'T'IONS '
1
1. Figure 2 shows staffing for a Countywide Solid Waste Authority.
E - 56
h� : < 1"
V 's �/ .t f/ , 4 `L�
, s �,11 � < /` v v r } it /
tF, �T Y �' �, ) k `3' - ,
� . >v J r � �� t 1 , . � a �� '.t � PI, �'.� I' �f �f
, = (Y P�C � �,� A X A Gt.
I _ (- t "Y .x �/4 \ z r. )�) Ott * - � '\ r t�
I
� ) 1A- -f t 3. r r1 1f,I 1 r,, - �= J v) �., , _ _ Jr
( ',�{� V:, t� - ,- ,, � 4 / �F. A la ""+ � L t(''" \c- . 64 ;l qt ,ut. (r -� -{t,1
'\ r < <� ( t }' \ } \,' til ". �� �� t^t -� �j , :. I t t"� 1, it :v
y r r , a- y 1 � I J- i, A 1 F � A
r ? i �r
"� �r-; 1 .\ Y a "" -; V `mac' i t + ^ C ,J, -
-n 't a r t! t \ Y .'c
/ F.�` 4 , L. 1 J i! t e
,I . n4i y- , '-, 4, ,`.- - l .�`, _ 4 ti , - ,4 r4i � -`�,
,� \, d' { 4- ,t a r r"1 ,. At '. / ,( - �y �t t , tvY\ ,` t ,
\ i ,�
j /. l v (j� e y _ gr-ltr �. .,.. ��4 ', .-, ,.. A t \5 \�.�A
�. .J- \.1. , `1 •� Ar E , �7 \ i s [ 4 f f 5 -+t { v , 4i� i \ . K i
,S.1 J F tom.A .� A b < /'Y t. I rt _ r � `/ , �rS t t+' i� } ''` ! S `-i ),f �` Y ); r i „":- , - /',�
�- / � 'X/ �Jr • ��� \ �� ` , Y� �'' rty l�- ,Jr' - ,. r,%� t` .."� t;'1 , Y� t f
�� i �-� r', �� __ {�a° ��it�' '�. -�`V t '� 1 �}�l! ���` 3'' ,yam < .� y _'',� \'���
r v . 7 f ./ x 1➢ -r 1�+ r't t 1 ) i�' ` —�� � }l t -,y � t�.r
.ll,�� ,- , -
\ �- t:,t�' >« n; i 1`� -, is / / r t { 75a) -1 . �� 'F\ -',,, -n,p r
' J -ate ,� t .� `/( i.
< d j d .r ;vJ' }) , ;� Fb 4 't.1 .-j V - .�. ,, t -7 `.�/ ,
}1! J�/ �`��s - A _ ( 1 - y � I(`. 1 (/Y� Y /t V \ t �s S }s
i " "4 C � � f, / 'l
i - / t V� --'ti v 4 t: \ �F ',\7 tj', (! / �� �'* i' S r i 4.�h� , , F : �,I ✓4 vA t- 4 ).'
1. P
.�} / ( `. ..I- c, / S { �/� '' + "t A J /" zr t Ci� v <. �\ �� ai l ,. t ��>
_ r1 ,r r r I�
:i .,, may; �V 4�. A - fY �F �'� � V1.` r! � �^� .A, y : r ;' l S �-r-•, n .t
11 4 \ , C� M' J� � � �r ;a 4ti ,/ w
.f ,'V �, `'t A � - / ■■ T V'„� r/ ke) \t, , 3, X v � 1 .F,z f A'
:L,fti l -�'L / ., ,C 1r , I / V- ) t 1 SX 1 j ,,t r./r , C r
`"4 I[ w., , ,i�/ ��"4�■■l �. 1t 1'' y.'i,^� ` / ;� �"'+:\ F.. f j.. i r t t 9 t �, �t
� A '� '< t- .-1 .v I I s �YF- t.,, / L ,.� i Y- � _ , �,� /,VfJ Ny\. t,f r} °" ). .�f, ti.� :,
1.
,11 I
Y
f r , 1� ir;" 1tr�4 / ( r �tx .. S , t 't s .� �;11
j -,� � i F \D X (J,: v_) Y �:): 7v't v } q �t n2 k.3 \ P
� rt
11
� 14
t.r 4 Ye a,. �'� y_ \1 -- v �;:,, A 1 - ,/ ) V.,.-� (S' /�`_ 'l,.. " .t �t� ,,j . .1
��� j Y , f,}1 - . t �- Yl t� < o- 1 l k T7.t/ <
t t ` < t 4_C v t/1 i. °Py M"�` Y% r� �w -�� Ar WWOr/ -.A (t '�v ~<- \i" tf'
\0 I y S Yd y p '' ' t / J _ r �
I .1
W
�a :AR� �, Ka �.
I,�� '
a r 1 ., 4. A \ ..
��1 f=-Y-, f .)�c 't f �i --� /. ` f, .�,nX .. `^� { ,� c v i �t, 'y, ��
I - '( \ .,) `5' f ` �l ��,- `�, �'\ ✓ w tit Y }7 V.4 Y ua J �.11� .��r
�' r•.. �k' } I"' �, �.;a. { J.7q 1/14{�`� .r�' /,ft.L rt_$, r. , { a, ,�.{i �F * ev:. `'}t,v ! {- �. ,1 / r
1 ? C I' ` 1v `� ( t fi }7 t -� 4 J �y��, 4 1, ,, f l A��j �e � , ��?
F I. kX Y % r -.Y _ <, >4 '\.r j y Y,�f /'. �' X 5 z`` - / ! _..'X / j 1 `�' / - ,.
a , > r r, \ -, t t ',< s- ' ^,-,�' ,r' t - ,>r I I ./ l ,tr r, t\ O t "'�/•``
19-j 11 - , � . J X ,'i rX t �, "�,. y. /�, ,' k'jl � '., t ' " , 1 ( j ,/ �, � _ _ 1 \"� \ ' \
J ,. < ,- t sl" i. ,..y t .} >,r r .. r� '� tX 1"., ' t( S ".. '
X ��, ti. � v j t ,. S,� ^, t\ t 1�t y,z /_"1, < i ! M r 1.�?^ ., f t .t
1 s �-y t h� l��t J^{ �. _.e J 1- ':� i i 't 1 s F r� It 11 �� �� F, \ %'�;''�h `. f ,t z's`'1 n" ,. -� (�: i,- , �i..
/ �Yt,`\- �f�`. � o VS 'Y' < �4, h'' �+., iJ � .r �',t X,,1t " , -,. , i h"', - ` f / r - . .
i 1 r
a I > ,
/ 7, �1 p 4, - x\ ,�j .j-t t is tj 1/ g\< r J �� x' - I 1 a ,� jkf
4
1 ' v , )t' > a7 �a� tV. , J fs
y, tk "X' " � r 4� ti- vt'y �r r, f '' � 1v { i -�Y�� y \ y
r� / , t\ f a t f re:A r -. < �-. t\: i- '. t �11l Ir' ) , 1 S ( - 4
��f f /;l" j d�yr 1,I
-1 0 w i' 1,V !y �T / 11 J Jjt,, � , t _- /
< r ,-A\ , i r 4 .- {' 1 .`�' 3 A l c t t'..r 1� t ,� � �? ,It ._v '- , ;
/ 4r.. 1 ✓` . , �_ / t Y r -� yJ
ytI / \ �\ t \ �} t r,�. Av, _. '\. , ti r:< `C ��f t �t5�,
�� y i v � , V l L i s rtJ �
'ems r .Gi \ 9 tr ` � ( 4, G M' / d }+ }° i - "I� 3 / ). � l v r t L`
,� J r. / , < \ t , a y �'
7, �- a 1';, t V4 / /t / i.� t „ , ,,.,�/4 d-' ? "� / "I j i)s.`i y, ^0. } �t <. -.� Q, /I,"-/Y A. 1�.
1 t i l L � rt C 1 r' _`-- - , ,
{ t i *S _ -< 4� < ,
.''� �---
A 1. /' �/ !'� . },,'. F -'` C _ rl� J> t 'F J ;� 1 \' t / �/ Y -#
fit' tir i
s /•�' J C ( / � yI "I ,, 1- - ti 1. ,. Y r / . f �.`'
4 .Ji' r 1 ./, 5th-'-�C .-'� / 1 /'r4 r. r7r \/ ^-� 1 t Y.J/� .� ./ 2`' d.:. 1 4 "V '7-i',) r.
e r r � f I k / i, I r' r Y';
i t --r /{ y J 'fit '* 4Z\.,'„ / y\ ., (" F x-+_ " ,,,,,.�
e 'V t/r[ / ,'i �} ar S k f;s� 9 r "l 7 \"\R {^-� t,` r,7 /'rl— -
�' / - / �4
\ ��� d -_ , . t, / � ,-.f '+� x t.. finV A.Pr r -�. ! T ,r ! Ji I t 1V -� 1 4 _ �� �� �t�t 1;�.
�/� :YF � .�i�', ( r�,\ ,rye._ r }v, , - k u -.\/ 4 \ )s.,r .� `�J-5\t y :, i,1,' / 1 ,_ `•3_
. 4
A +t /l i A t 1 r ice `S 1 A .. :) t X t /
t � } '\)\ ` �, / 4 ` r ' l t I:tib,` \ t k -f ( �'
�, 1_ ' . \'Y -/1 �r'� 4- _- —t - t' f .'km / .I
t. f� { � 1 t� J /.'" �' ,. ;� /' ( ` �( ': f 'tet ,4,- ), ,/�.4
er }�
f,I.\\ �7,..t . 4 :r 'i- r- J �,� !\r , .V,''.
_! f -7- ,,
,
^? w t/ �l _, F ,, t
`
, l
' SEP-28-103 TLE 22:41 ID:A65r7'®I.YMAN S'HER-' TEL hO:916 324 6974 #249 P01 _
i
ft'
•► •
�2��t���it� ��t��2��1Y�� • ��,TaT�
' BYRON O. RHER
"sawrwuatwoir�r+.is►oa*wet � Q
' STATE CAPITOL, ROOM 2136
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
9161445-7632 FAX: 916/324-6974
as
A39 440 (Sher) - As Amendeds Septaaber S, 1993
ABBMMT VOTE 73-0 sane I& SZNATf TM
' Original committee Inferences 3'.s, IM
JaQZST
' Urgency statute. 2/3 vote requIxedo
istia4 JILV, Under the California Zategrated Waste Nonagesunt Act:
1) requires the California Integrated Taste Nanagessent Board (clams) to
adopt emergency regulations for the adoption of countywide and regional
agency siting elements and integrated waste- mans ement plane,
2) Does not expressly authorize local agencies to enter into umoraada of
understanding or joint powers agreements to establish regional agencies
' for the Compliance with the Act..
i) Requires local agencies to adopt and implement plans which show that
the City or county will divert, through source reduction, recycling or
composting, 23Z of solid vast* disposed by 1003 and 3oZ by the-year
2000.
4) Requires count7vide integrated waste sanogement pians, and the elements
contained in those plans, to be submitted to the CIMM for r*viev'and
Approval or disapproval within 12 or la months after the adoption of
specified regulations, depending upon the amount of remaining landfill
' capacity of the county submitting the plan.
ipassed JZ ? o Asselabl2s, this bills
1) On or before August 31, 1903, required the CIMM to adopt emergency
regulations for the preparation and submission of various elements of
Integrated waste management plans. The bill also provides that the
emergency regulations shall be in effect until the board revises thea.
2? Authorised local agencies to eater into memoranda of understanding to
forst joint powers agencies to implement the planning and implementation
requirements of the Act.
3) Authorised local ag,aacies to revise at any time specified elem sts of
integrated waste management pLaas to Incorporate now .data or
information an source reduction. recycling or composting programs.
4) specified a schedule under which local agencies shall submit souses
reduction and recycling elements to the CIM for review and approval
or disapproval.
3) Required local aganciss, at the, time they submit their sources
rsducttaa and recycling element to the bosrd, to also submit a report
sammarisiag the jurisdiction's progress in achieving their diversion
roquireonts of the Act.
�' ate due t
l� Duke technical changes to provisions of solid taste plaswi S
requireoents In current laz.
21 make c,onforring ;changes nscsssary ,ta bring California law into
compliance with federal landfill standards.
nsCAL U
Absorbable state costs for CIM to report an statewide progress in waste
diversion.
Unknown local costs to most certain reporting requirements. ?hese costs
ars offset b7 existing fee revsnuss..
According to the author's office, this. measure is intended to re-orient dw
Satsgratsd Taste seaagement Act to ensure that the 1993 data for compliaaoe
with the 232 diversion requirements is ast. This measure seeks to ensure
that regulations necessary for local jurisdictions to complete their glans,
schedules for submittal of pians and elements, and informatim on which the
board may judge whether or not plans Are in compliancy with the law, all'
ars is place,
!N 006149
F 2
Lmw Q
V
'41 U Y
CA a
C
> as 3
(D (D co (X)
CO h ty c0 M M M CID v h M O G
to d N ol
N h M TJ O } Ln r N r
(� r r r M C31 h 0 +� <O X Lo Ln h h h
r Un 4& 40 � M Lo r f h Lq N0 N N CO) M
sq" 4A —t ..I no- as U. rA N 44. J HD" 6A
1 r
! a
` Ly F" M h
' O O w M O to h M O r- r
CD O cO CID 0 LO M h M O c0 .— Ln r N
+ O r h cO '- O O cal OI c0 N M
Up
'Zi 00 r r M Lo CV O O 0 co Lo h Ln
M r r d r M Cal N OL? O O N v +y
r CO Ui ih 46 CO 0 r N 00 M M M d• 'Ct
a
a
Lps w
� a
a
M M
UGI N 00 CID h
d' O M Lo to Lo v 0 0 co = M O (0 Lo to 00 O c0 LO
Z Z to O M ca " N to et O O h CO) to O r h . 00 u7 CO r
d 0Ln r d• a h L CD to 00.' N Ln O to r h cQ 0
CO to .n r to a) N .- .- Lc; .- N h N N N 4' N
vD• lA. " " f/Jw trs td �o- ► yy vy u> tts - vs +93- +A 4XI' 4&
a
(n
aOo ` o aQi o a o o c�0 000 o N O o 0 co 0 LO o o 0
to O al C3 GA O _ LLl UD O O O O 0 0 - h 0 m O O 0 I -. .
CO ' C? Lc CA M tis Lo ` c0 C6 . o r. 0 0 0 0 , �. C : 0 0
Cv O- M to M 0 r = O .— O O LO ; O ., o t0 M w Lo
W ,— M N '. N h r- cel co M N M Ln M
.a ao. : vt aL• 4& m 40- yr w" 4& 4& 40• +A as 16 a►
a a y
CL N C3. G CS a a Cl m a
m i (D m CD ' cc as m U a-L
U O U U — U U Q U ; m U
U. m U mCD
m
.> a a a a
C8 q` U pS `Qt SQ fl. 4A ae
' U- ko Q to Ln M CO Li Ln U'., h h Ln ul
}
L21
Qa m (13 sw
o c U x ~
Uo C > o cn _ aCo. CD
CO 0 0 03 03 03
LL q La. h
CCP �} CL LO W �+ C .. (IU d7 m O
CO v v v tv LiL ° Y 2 2 te. n. a. it cn 0 s ,.
I oI aoiN wo oo N ao 001 �"rI5�1 aJ r ri en� en
00
w3 4*a w cue a. a ao ao 1 oo i e•si eT, -. -., � w3+ N rn:oo as rcn,
..7E Ey ooi ev mE -�; O� aoI e+(ao — �t(rI ria i :n ena of o+ tt4 ao1 ao! wt e+1
rz I O 1 to co ao, ell i ml (i ^a�I en i N3 r�I �T, et ( a0, N i V�{do
o( ess d3 w3 �3 w3 d3 w3,d3I iso i I v� Y3 1A( M31 O 1 N 14A III
1 ; a I}
_ " lilli
+n 0oi �oJ A� Ai A Ai �. r� poi N
N r1 r in int En ini r en 0o er
at -' UI Ui Q1 u er tT oo
v1 N �i et —i r� UI U U UI o r, 'A I
i w3 w3 w3 w3 E w► wa is l U i t3 I U U!e+s 6s3 wt I ( vrei
1 N N{ N w
�; Ii sal C e, in {,yCA iOCL C't
nl I wl
N( N N r- N U UI U UI ern !��� ( I
B CL C w3i 63 w3 w3 63 U U U U wi w>I!
N� Ni
i 1
I iI I �
33
�
i I all w
en
I r t4 ErCL
w
w
w
.5 I eri i kn
4ON'3 4 i u09.
it co
en of v eo Ai Ai A A� o o �o U.O 00 N CA in iA in
c�33 ao�ao!! �1 o�
CIL -»i U� U� U UI
p + N l �t ''o i vi I co eo E co r; to r;i U U U U I o 1 III U N
w31 w31 w3 as3 o &0 vi en �n I A A i uo
U U U U-
c is3
,
I
AAiAAi I ien
443. co u
m es w3 U U U U{ i
rn
� I
I 1
5Q2 �o g f
�i25� t �jr '� o'iii c: oi
°°o ! c_ia; o' I vw
Ti i +a
ate. e0 f O I Oe O .1 O e0 ri I en O en! 00
cn i w3 aD N!v1 d3 t"� en a f w3 rt 1 4 N w!I I
era �3 w3 ; wl
' Ijj °
c
C. 3� ., o N �I Q =2�
w v uI At
� o) QI
`-
a.cjb
AI I I � Il
F - 4
I 'm'c�1 mm
� Cf)ito a) =;r: �tlolr 00
CD f CD 1 Ln I N i 0!CD ICD Cl Cn i r, 1 v Ln N i rq l*r O)
r: as j o}00 r- cf)100 CO 0)1 cv)1 O us (3) CN v Ch
Ln 'Rt I V V CD N O r- N I— Ln a)(h Ch I O) LO
' ( cn 1 CT} r- O O`I In [t i Cts co CD{r- v r j S¢ r f r Cr}
"'t N 0 106,N�,rYfrh1C71N�C701C� CD 1ChjtoICD!rh co
t*) r
icy) 0 1 cf)I CC of vt 4&I CO i N d'
r 1 rlr I r .9> t!r l r,t/r CD if i71 iJf r'"r
Q ar l+n � � � <rr I ar � i w►
1 1
ai 1N 0 N
co
cr) O
O
i i r
Cr1 CS} !C7 r i v pD
N c c c 1 ;
LL (!r r/r to LII! cC l tC
{ c0 ft)1 l4 I f'0
` I cn mlmjm j
n v I N f M r` O co O I CD 1 co
� r
CV) N i CA)CA at N C*1 Ln j r N C*)
(n C) r 1N 106 r CD CD N N In r
�.
to O i N 1 W mt i CD O c•) Ln i at r`
N Cil C*1 i 0 1 Ln tD N 00 N r i C7 N
CM} tJr N{N ems- ar ar i3){ tD I
LL. ttr ar i yr pr ar ar iN
1 li(
' CD tD 1r CIO CD Ln Cf co 010 st i {
O to N(�- 0 1 to C0 er r (AR
r-z 1 cD r r'I d C r• cD Nm r• ,
C*) it I CD r r r�`O �t Cr) N In
V- O I It 1 N N r� v r� a)
I c d' �-
CD d !O 1 Co r 1 `t*a I
Cr) CD N CY)
' >- N r i Ln r r N I ar as [f N C'7
LL str ar ar ar itr CN ar yr N
I .U> O
0 10 t 0 0 (D CD O co O
. 0I o
°) 1 1!co 0 F- 11.0 1�N Cep 1 coo O
0 IMP N
O CD i 0 j tD N a)j ar Ln C•) In O "r
m Ci j CD!Ct ar CD atr Ln 0 O O)
W yr lII vii i yr vNr O p O e
-U),I CO E o I cr
r O
CR#t ar d i N
tD r` C71 r cwt a Ct##
�r cD O c*) c I c
a`a j cri 1 C6 ai cn p O a
v co co ICD r E
CD �tn!Ln CA (r r Q �' Ei<
_� EC14 O�
'Im? 6{LL c
0
Q
I—
m H
7 m a
w CDIm
I
co EMu
cr) E i a_s1 p
1 c m V Micnn!
� �
m
z C. o Q Q
y l I < as l cc
oma. ! as o m `> 3 f 1 w 1 z a2f 'o CO CL
inti yiaj > m co U mf;II D1 �Em O
a�U-ia I t7)1� E mI�t O UJ <
IY1 Cf_� C CA{ C2, z_
Q C I E 1 a1' 1__ t6 i c CL c. LA i
CGI OImlmlml-= 611O �� O' -� O ich
c.> r--jm wlcn (� — z EOQ101• INlco vlLn cD r�it�o6 4 E 01 � �
' CG {n1atAIC)ImIatlrnEm C){C)Iat O U) ) U1—+ <
Cl. c*y 1 r)j c�i co i cry i co I co 1 r) c*y 1 c*�i m��1 to t/� to;�i iv .�
(n I 1 O)1 a)!c)1 a)t at 1 ct 1 ai i cn c)I m!0 , t—
c*) m�mImlmlmlmlmIm Mimlmlc� DIS: a-!.1-- O
O) tri Ln(u1 1 Ln! C)i Ln 1 In Ln 1 Ln i=1 LL){cn O LLL l LLL!t1 l Q{ }•-
F - 5
REGIONAL JOINT POWERS AGENCY COST FIGURES
ALL COORDINATING COUNCIL ALTERNATIVES
PROPOSED TASKS
• Plan Regional SRRE, HHWE,NDFE
• Approve ColWMP and Siting Element
• Implement, Manage and Rate Regulate Regional NDFE's and Diversion
Programs
• Plan, Implement and Manage all Disposal Arrangements
• Coordinate with Other Regional .Agencies and Contra Costa County
• Franchises and Regulates Rates for Garbage Collection
• Prepares and Approves Regional Plans: SRRE's, HHWE's, NDFE's
• Implement Diversion Programs identified in SRREs, HHWE's NDFE's
• Regulate Land Use and Issue Permits Regarding Non-Disposal Facilities Within
Region
POTENTIAL COSTS
Staff Executive Director $75,000
Administrative Secretary 35.99
$1107000
Benefits @ 35% 38,500
$148,500
Professional Services
Legal Counsel 45,000
Facility Consultants 250,000
AB 939 Planning-(Every five Years - Amount to be
determined based on Lead Agency)
Audit 3.00
$298,000
Interagency Costs 25,000
General' Expenses 60,000
Programs (amount to be determined based on programs
selected
Cagital Outlay: Computers, Copier, Fax, Furnitureetc. 18,000
Total $549,500
Re erve @ 100 54,950
Estimated Cost $604,450
F - 6
REGIONAL COORDINATING COUNCIL
STAFF OPTION A
' COORDINATING COMMITTEE PROPOSED TASKS (Same for ail Options)
• Coordination of Regional Plans & Programs
' • Coordination of Disposal Arrangements
• Preparation of Countywide Siting Element (Presumes County Membership)
• Preparation of Countywide Plan (Presumes County Membership)
' • Recycling Markets Development Zone Administration
• Coordinate interaction with State
• Recommendations Regarding Disposal Sites
' POTENTIAL COSTS
' Staff
Solid Waste Coordinator $ 55,000
Secretary 35.000
$ 90,000
Benefits @ 35% 31.500
$121,500
Professional Services
' Legal Counsel 25,000
AB 939 Planning (Amount based on Lead Agency Seiected)
Audit 3.000
' $28,004'
General Expense 60,000
Interagency Suggort 25,000
Provrams (to be determined based on programs selectedt
Capital Outlay Computers, Copier, Fax, Fumiture,etc. 16,000
' Total $250,000
Reserve @ 10% 25.050
' Estimated Cost $275,050
F - 7
REGIONAL COORDINATING COUNCIL
STAFF OPTION S - CONTRACT STAFF
COORDINATING COMMITTEE PROPOSED TASKS (Same for all t)pfons)
• Coordination of Regional Plans & Programs ,
• Coordination of Disposal Arrangements
• Preparation of Countywide Siting Element (Presumes County Membership)
• Preparation of Countywide Plan (Presumes County Membership) '
• Recycling Markets Development Zone Administration
• Coordinate Interaction with State
• Recommendations Regarding Disposal Sites
POTENTIAL COSTS
County Staff ,
Full time Coordinator $55,000
Full time Secretary 35,000 ,
County Counsel 22.000
$112,000
Benefits @ 35% 39.00
$ 151,000
G & A Overhead @ 75% 85,000E
Contract Fee @ 10% 23.620
Total Contract Cost � 259,62t ,
Subcontractors
Planning Services (to be determined)
Audit 3.
$262,620'
Programs (amount unknown; to be determined)
Reserve @ 10% '
$26,262
Estimated Cost $288,882 ,
F - 8
REGIONAL COORDINATING COUNCIL
STAFF OPTION C - NO STAFF
COORDINATING COMMITTEE PROPOSED TASKS (Same for aH Qg#ions}
• Coordination of Regional Plans & Programs
• Coordination of Disposal Arrangements
• Preparation of Countywide Siting Element (Presumes County Membership)
' • Preparation of Countywide Plan (Presumes County Membership)
• Recycling Markets Development Zone Administration
• Coordinate Interaction with State
• Recommendations Regarding Disposal Sites
POTENTIAL CSS
' Setting Goals
• Coordinating Council decides the level of activity of the organization:
Do nothing. Coordinating Council meets on an as desired basis.
Coordinatiory identical to OPTION It.
' Commits to accomplishing some or all of the above tasks. Acknowledges
that staffing will be provided as follows:
Lead Agency Staff
® Lead Agency is appointed by Coordinating Council.
■ Lead Agency assumes administrative responsibility for assigning tasks.
• Coordinating Council evaluates Lead Agency staff capability to achieve tasks.
• City ManagerlRegional Executive Director utilizes existing support staff, absorbs
' additional staff demands.
Staff time donated; similar to formative period of Regional JPA's.
' Bills Coordinating Council for staff time, G & A overhead, supplies, etc.
Hires additional staff as needed; bills Coordinating Council.
' Contract Staff
• Contract Staff (Contra Costa County) is hired to perform Coordinating Council
tasks as above. (See Staff Option B). Lead Agency Coordinates.
F - 9
REGIONAL COORDINATING COUNCIL
STAFF OPTION D - MINIMAL STAFF
COORDINATING COMMITTEE PROPOSED TASKS (Same for all Oations� '
• Coordination of Regional Plans & Programs
• Coordination of Disposal Arrangements '
• Preparation of Countywide Siting Element (Presumes County Membership)
• Preparation of Countywide Plan (Presumes County Membership)
• Recycling Markets Development Zone Administration '
• Coordinate Interaction with State
• Recommendations Regarding Disposal Sites
POTENTIAL COSTS '
Staff '
Full time Solid Waste Coordinator/Clerk $55,000
Benefits @ 35% 19.250 '
$74,250
Professional Services ,
Legal Services $1.5,.000
AB 939 Planning (to be determined)
Audit 3.0
$18,000
Interagency Sugport (Secretarial, Bookkeeping, Controller
Rent, Utilities, etc.) 20,000
General Expense 30,,000
Programs (to be determined)
Capital Outlay Computer, Printer, Copier, Fax, Furniture, etc. 10,000
Total $152,250
Reserve @ 10% 15,225
Estimated Cost $167,475
F - 10
REGIONAL JOINT POWERS AGENCY COST FIGURES
OPTIONS IV & V
PROPOSED TASKS
' Collection Franchises
• Collection Rates
• Land Use Regulations
' Member Permits
• Approve Regional Plans
• Approve Siting Element
' Approve CoNVMP
POTENTIAL COSTS
' Staff
Manager: Variable - Level of Activity in each Region $70,000 - 85,000
' Secretarial Support: In house or Interagency 5,000 - 35,000
Benefits @ 35% 24,500-- 42,000
$94,500— 162,000
' Professional Services
Legal Services (as needed) 15,000
AB 939 Planning (to be determined)
' Interagency Costs 20,000
General Expenses 30,000
Programs (to be determined)
Capital Outlay ( Computers, Copier, Fax, Furniture, etc) 10,000
$169,500 - 237,000
' Reserve @ 10% 16,950 - 23,700
' Estimated Cost $186,450 - 260,700
F - 11
COUNTYWIDE SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
OPTIONS IV & V
PROPOSED TASKS
• Preparation of Countywide Plan, Countywide HHWE (Presumes County,_ ,
Membership). -
• Preparation of Countywide Siting Element (Presumes County Membership)
• Coordination & Reporting to CIWMB/State '
• Recycling Markets development Zone Administration
• Development of Solid Waste Policies:
I. Franchise Agreement Policies: ,
2. Rate Review Models
a) Collection
b) Facilities ,
3. Procurement Policies
4. Facilities development & Siting
5. Diversion Programs & Goals
• Resolve Countywide & Inter-regional Solid Waste issues '
POTENTIAL COSTS
Staff
Executive Director $85,004
Secretary 35,OOG
Recycling/Market Development Coordinator 55.000
$175,000
Benefits @ 350% 61.250
$236,250
Professional Services '
Legal Counsel 50,000
Facility Consultants 250,000
AB 939 Planning (Every five years, to be determined}
Audit 3.000 '
$303,000
Interagency Contracts (Controller, Purchasing, Rent, etc.) 25,000
General Expenses 60,000 ,
Programs (to be determined)
Caoitai Outlay 18.000
Total $642,250 '
Reserve @ 10% 64.225
Estimated Cost 706,475 '
F - 12
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
and
CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
M I N U T E S
September 29, 1993
A Special Workshop presented by Contra Costa County and
the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority was held on
Wednesday, September 29 , 1993, at the George Gordon Center,
500Court Street, Martinez. Due notice had been mailed and
published.
1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Chair Mariotti welcomed everyone in attendance to the
workshop and called the meeting to order at 4: 10 p.m.
Introductions were made and attendance was as follows:
Contra Costa County:
County Supervisor Gayle Bishop
Louise Aiello, County Solid Waste Program Manager
Belinda Smith, County Integrated Waste Program
Specialist
Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority:
Mary Rocha, Antioch
John Clausen, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Sue Rainey, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Peter Laurence, Clayton
Douglas Tubb, Crockett-Valona Sanitary District
Beth Bartke, Hercules
Ivor Powell, Ironhouse Sanitary District
Ivor Samson, Lafayette
Jim Sweeny, Moraga
Cherie Grant, Moraga
Gretchen Mariotti, Pinole
Dan Purnell, Pinole
Kim Brandt, Pleasant Hill
Mary Lou Oliver, San Ramon
Gene Wolfe, Walnut Creek
Avon Wilson, Executive Director
Marice Ashe representing Alan Waltner, CCSWA Counsel
F - 13
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop September 29, 1993 ,
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority:
Gene Wolfe, Walnut Creek '
Mary Lou Oliver, San Ramon
John Clausen, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Don Blubaugh, City of Walnut Creek '
Herb Moniz, City of San Ramon
Fred Davis, Executive Director
West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority: '
Beth Bartke, Hercules
Gretchen MariottiI Pinole
Dan Purnell, Pinole '
Gretchen Mariotti, Pinole
Others in Attendance: '
Elaine Jacobs, Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District
Peter Dragovich, City of Concord
Kevin Carunchio, City of Pittsburg '
Dorothy Sakazaki, Mt. View Sanitary District
Jane Bartke, Mayor Pro Tem, E1 Cerrito City Council
Barbara Hockett, Central Contra Costa Sanitary ,
District
Rachel McDonald, East Bay Regional Park District
Greg Baatrup, Delta Diablo Sanitary District
Paul Causey, Delta Diablo Sanitary District ,
Patty Mehaouchi, BFI-Pleasant Hill Bayshore
Mario Menesini, Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District
Kent Peterson, Crockett-Valona Sanitary District
April Gray, City of San Ramon
Kelly Sills, City of Orinda '
Karen Stein, City of Lafayette
Dennis Mesick, City of Pleasant Hill
Jim Pezzaglia, Law Offices of Gordon, DeFraga,
Watrous & Pezzaglia '
Gregory Rueb, Law Offices of Gordon, DeFraga,
Watrous & Pezzaglia
Paul Morsen, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District '
Wendy Belvedere, City of Clayton
Ren Graunstadt, Delta Scrap & Salvage
Don Bradley, City of Pinole
Kathleen Nimr, Martinez resident '
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None. '
F - 14
rr
' Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop September 29, 1993
3. DISCUSSION OF WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES AND PROCESS
' Chair Mariotti announced that today's workshop would be
addressing roles and responsibilities for solid waste
' management.
4. WORKSHOP MATERIALS AND ISSUES
' A. Update on State Solid Waste Requirements (AB 440)
Ms. Aiello referred to a handout summarizing AB 440
' which was received from Assemblyman Sher's office. It was
noted that AB 440 is still on the Governor's desk, and he
has until October 11th to sign it. As an urgency measure,
' it would go into effect when signed.
Ms. Aiello briefly discussed AB 440, noting what it
provides for at this point is still somewhat confusing. It
' was noted this provides for the formation of a regional
agency, but it is not clear whether a regional agency can be
one jurisdiction simply by declaring itself a regional
' agency. Implied in the law is that a regional agency
consists of multiple jurisdictions, but it doesn't
necessarily preclude only one jurisdiction. This provides
for delegation of authority by franchising jurisdictions to
' a regional agency for planning, essentially to do a regional
agency plan for a regional source reduction and recycling
element. Where the law becomes unclear is if entities .
' within a County's boundaries are not members of regional
agencies, then what do we do?
Ms. Aiello pointed out on the other hand that there is
still required a Countywide siting element, and it is not
clear who is responsible for the Countywide siting element.
She felt there needs to be more consistency between regional
agency plans, Countywide regional agency plans, and
Countywide siting elements.
' Ms. Aiello noted when the State legislature last year
did the cleanup of 2494, they dropped the language about
special districts that do franchising. AB 440 adds that
back in and provides for memorandums of agreement with
' special districts. She noted this was a concern to a number
of people in attendance today.
F - 15
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop September 29, 1993 '
B. Organizational Alternatives for Countywide Solid
Waste Management '
1) III -- Regional JPA's with Coordinating
Council and Staffing Alternatives ,
Ms. Wilson referred to Model III and discussed this
alternative which refers to the regional coordinating
council. She acknowledged considerable assistance. from Bill '
Davis in preparing this information. She referred to a ,
handout entitled "Discussion Paper" which discusses the
different alternatives outlined. '
Ms. .Wilson recalled the direction from the last workshop
was that whatever is developed should be able to stand on
its own feet and not be dependent upon every single agency ,
being a member. She also pointed out that these
alternatives are recommended models only, and nothing is
cast in concrete. This provides 'a good shopping list of '
responsibilities, and how it is implemented depends on the
amount of staff this organization would have.
2) IV and V -- Countywide Solid Waste Authority '
with Regional JPA's; Transportation Authority
Model for Countywide Solid Waste .Authority
with Regional JPA's '
Ms. Aiello referred to the charts on display around the
room, noting copies of these charts were included in the '
packets. She recalled that five options were laid out at
the first workshop, and based on the discussion from the
last workshop this has been narrowed down to three. It was
noted there had previously been. Option 1, basically ,
continuing to do as currently being done (everyone doing
their own thing essentially; and Option 2 was autonomous
regional agencies that had no linkage in any way (which '
apparently would be allowed under one interpretation of
AB 440) .
Ms. Aiello stated as a result of the first workshop that '
staff has concentrated on the three organizational
structures presented. She emphasized these are staff's
attempts to develop alternatives based on comments from the '
last meeting; they are not cast in concrete by any means,
and the group can pick and choose any organizational
structure.
Ms. Aiello felt Options 4 and 5 are quite similar with a '
top-down or more centralized structure, whereas Option 3
seemed to be a bottom-up structure. She noted Option 5 is '
similar to the Transportation Authority model, and 4 is
one-voice, one-vote for everyone because everybody's at the
F- 16
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop September 29, 1993
table, which was one of the things discussed at the last
' meeting.
Chair Mariotti asked whether or not the County would be
' joining as a full member of the JPA. Supervisor Bishop
stated that is a policy issue, noting on the West County
contract there were some divergent points of view. She
acknowledged there may be some of the Board that would like
' to be members, noting as one Board member that would be her
preference.
Ms. Rainey asked about 939 planning, noting the 939
committee had consisted of a very active and helpful group
of individuals providing assistance, and she suggested this
continuing on in a technical advisory capacity. Ms. Wilson
' stated a Countywide JPA or regional coordinating committee
would assume responsibility for respective plans, and a
task force comprised of people from a broad spectrum of
' interests would be advisory to the elected officials.
3) Cost Implications
Ms. Wilson presented the information with a disclaimer.
In response to strong interest expressed about which
approach is the least costly, it was noted there was not a
' good cost/benefit analysis available, which is really beyond
the scope of staff. Therefore, a request was made of City
staff, sanitary district staff and County staff to provide a
' snapshot in time of their respective cost figures for solid
waste. The year 1991-92 was picked because that year
generated possibly the greatest degree of solid waste
activity except for West County which did their SRRE and HHW
Iwork in 1990-91.
Ms. Wilson reviewed the cost figure information as
outlined in the cost figures handout. With the information
provided, it was noted that even in these narrow categories
(this doesn't represent overhead or other costs) , there is a
significant amount of cost involved in complying with State
' law. In looking at the different options in terms of cost,
she noted it was important to understand that in program
costs and planning costs -- regardless of whether a regional
' agency does it or a coordinating committee does it or a
Countywide committee does it -- there will be a cost
benefit. Therefore, the more people join a plan, the more
potential for savings. For example, Alameda County (with
the exception of two cities) hired the same consultants to
do their SRRE's and their HHWE's, noting under such an
arrangement it's going to be more cost effective.
Mr. Causey asked if the costs shown include program and
planning and rate-making costs. It was noted that only
F - 17
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop September 29, 1993 ,
Pleasant Hill provided rate-making costs. With the short
period of time available for figuring costs, staff attempted '
to zero in on AB 939 planning.
Mr. Blubaugh questioned the costs cited for Walnut '
Creek's program implementation. It was noted that cost
information was reported for Walnut Creek's recycling and
composting program as solid waste costs. Mr. Blubaugh
stated that was not City money which was spent, noting this '
was an apples-and-oranges situation. Ms. Wilson noted there
was no indication this was City money, only how much was
spent by the -ratepayers. It was acknowledged this appeared '
to be an anomaly. Mr. Wolfe suggested eliminating that
column because it was irrelevant.
Ms. Wilson reiterated the earlier disclaimer, noting '
this information is based on what data was available in
trying to ascertain what the reasonable costs for these
various activities would be. Furthermore, the level of '
costs really depends on what the agencies decide their tasks
will be.
Ms. Wilson referred to the next page in the handout ,
which addressed proposed tasks and potential cost figures
for the different options. She discussed the projected
budgets, noting some of the figures are based on '
speculation. For instance, capital outlay for setting up an
office on a one-time basis could come to $18,000' for the
first year; however, this could be significantly reduced by '
using donated services. She pointed out these are the
nuts-and-bolts costs, and what is not included is planning
and program costs. If one were to have regular ongoing
programs, those would have to be selected, and then those
cost figures would have to be inserted.
Mr. Tubbs asked about G & A costs. Ms. Wilson stated '
this is for general and administrative costs, noting if one
enters into a contract it . pays G & A overhead, and also a
contract fee. '
Ms. Wilson noted the costs are really not too much
different except for programs and planning. Going full
scale in meeting AB 939 requirements those costs are going ,
to be pretty much the same depending on how much those
activities are combined and coordinated -- the real issue is
the organizational framework which meets one's needs as an '
entity. She recalled at the last meeting there was
discussion about concerns that different people felt should
be met, and those are shown in a variety of different ways.
Each of these options has a positive spin to it in terms of
meeting local needs and meeting Countywide needs.
F - 18
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop September 29, 1993
Kathleen Nimr asked about the relationship between these
1 costs and the ones that the local jurisdictions are already
incurring -- are these complementary to or in place of
those? Ms. Wilson stated with the minimal amount of
information obtained in such a short time, staff was not
able to correlate the relationship between such costs.
Ms. Nimr asked if the local jurisdictions would actually
be delegating to the region and not doing the local kinds of
things they're now doing. Ms. Wilson noted if there is a
strong regional agency that assumes such responsibilities,
it could be assumed that the local agency would not have the
need for the support services or the staff. However,
whether or not they choose to do so is their own local
decision.
Ms. Brandt questioned whether full implementation could
be done under Option D. Ms. Wilson felt it could, but it
would be difficult. She felt it was likely this would have
to be contracted out.
Ms. Rainey referred to the first page of costs, noting
the reference to facility consultants at $205,000, and she
asked if that wouldn't be in the same category as planning
and programming, noting if this is a bare bones budget it
would depend on that is being done. Ms. Wilson noted if
there is going to be a MRF there are going to b,ethose kinds
of costs. She assumed that each regional JPA is p'robably
going to be facility-oriented with facility contracts, etc.
Ms. Brandt noted the facility costs are not included in
all of the options for comparison purposes. Ms. Wilson
stated this would be included and noted this would raise
costs.
Mario Menesini pointed out the job description isn't
really apparent, and he questioned where we are in terms of
looking at what the consultants are going to do and how much
they're going to get paid.
Ms. Wilson agreed, noting everyone in making a decision
needs to approach these costs after deciding the frame work
within which to operate. This provides a very bare bones
kind of idea about some of the costs.
Mr. Samson expressed concern about evaluating the
organizational structure. He felt the differences, pros and
cons of the structure, were not clear. He noted there are
different program elements that would fit in depending on
how the program is structured, and there are too many
variables.
F - 19
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop September 29, 1993 '
Kathleen Nimr asked about the relationship between these
costs and the ones that the local jurisdictions are already '
incurring -- are these complementary to or in place of
those? Ms. Wilson stated with the minimal amount of
information obtained in such a short time, staff was not '
able to correlate the relationship between such costs.
Ms. Nimr asked if the local jurisdictions would actually
be delegating to the region and not doing the local kinds of '
things they're now doing. Ms. Wilson noted if there is a
strong regional agency that assumes such responsibilities,
it could be assumed that the local agency would not have the
t ,
need for the support services or the staff. However,
whether or not they choose to do so is their own local
decision.
Ms. Brandt questioned whether full implementation could '
be done under Option D. Ms. Wilson felt.,it could, but it
would be difficult. She felt it was likely this would have '
to be contracted out.
Ms. .Rainey referred to the first page of costs, noting '
the reference to facility consultants at $205,000, and she
asked if that wouldn't be in the same category as planning
and programming, noting if this is a bare bones budget it
would depend on that is being done. Ms. Wilson noted if '
there is going to be a MRF there are going to be. those kinds
of costs. She assumed that each regional JPA is probably
going to be facility-oriented with facility contracts, etc. '
Ms. Brandt noted the facility costs are not included in
all of the options for comparison purposes. Ms. Wilson
stated this would be included and noted this would raise
costs.
Mario Menesini pointed out the job description isn't '
really apparent, and he questioned where we are in terms of
looking at what the consultants are going to do and how much
they're going to get paid.
Ms. Wilson agreed, noting everyone in making a decision '
needs to approach these costs .after deciding the frame work
within which to operate. . This provides a very bare bones '
kind of idea about some of the costs.
Mr. Samson expressed concern about evaluating the '
organizational structure. He felt the differences, pros and
cons of the structure, were not clear. He noted there are
different program elements that would fit in depending on
how the program is structured, and there are too many '
variables.
F - 20
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop September 29, 1993
Chair Mariotti stated she took a nuts-and-bolts approach
' to the future in relation to the County's solid waste
issues . She felt this helps in leading this group to where
it wants to go as an organization.
4) Pros and Cons of the Organizational
Alternatives
' Ms. Oliver felt one of the problems the group is
experiencing is exemplary of some people's worst fears when
AB 939 was first passed. She pointed out there are
' different jurisdictions in the County that have grouped
together because of their respective special needs. What
this is an attempt to do- is to look at everything to see
what can be fit together for better coordination.
' Ms. Oliver discussed the background of the Countywide
JPA, noting that envisioned all jurisdictions working
' together on equal footing with the County to try to solve,
solid waste problems. She recalled after the JPA was formed
that jurisdictions began to perceive if the County did not
belong to the JPA that it would have no real future. So
there was great focus in trying to get the Board of
Supervisors to come on board. She felt this brought West
County together in an attempt to find something that would
' work for them, and then Central County, etc. Whether or not
this can be tied together with coordination among the
regions remains to be seen; however, she pointed out that,
' frankly, much of this depends on whether or not the County
will come in.
County Supervisor Gayle Bishop stated she was one of the
new members on the Board of Supervisors. She noted the
Board is rather diverse; however, from one person's point of
view, she felt the County has to be a player. She stated
she needed more information to take back to the Board of
' Supervisors in order to obtain more feedback. She stated .
she was here today to listen and learn.
Mr. Menesini felt there was considerable commonality
between the garbage issues in one area of the County and
another area of the County. He felt it was important to
define what we're all about in terms of our approach to
garbage, and to develop a unified approach in looking at the
garbage stream as an entity rather than as diverse kinds of
characteristics coming from each part of the County. So,
' No. 1, it was important to look at the commonality of all
our interests rather than the diversity of interests. And
No. 2 , it was important to seek solutions to solid waste
' problems not as a diverse body, but as a unified body.
F - 21
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop September 29, 1993
Supervisor Bishop pointed out today's discussion was
about structure, goals, and how to achieve those goals. She
expressed frustration in relation to the surcharge and
mitigation fees.
Ms. Oliver concurred with Mr. Menesini that our goals
are the same, noting a somewhat more local approach to
solving some problems which are not necessarily in conflict
with other areas. From the perspective of San Ramon, she
stated one important issue is continued control of the waste
stream. Secondly, they seek minimal bureaucracy which is
needed to involve the AB 939 people and get everyone working
together, such as a . regional approach with Countywide
coordination for legislative purposes in resolving the
issues involved with AB 939. She also felt no member or
region should be able to profit from the rate structure of
other regions, as alluded to by Supervisor Bishop above
regarding mitigation fees.
Ms. Rainey provided additional historical background of
the JPA, noting this was started approximately five years
ago; however, they couldn't get the County to participate.
Perhaps they should have just gone ahead and had the
structure in place because then there would have been a more
coordinated Countywide organization in place to do the 939
planning and possibly some other functions before a lot of
subregional agencies were set up.
Subsequently, the West County formed a successful and
workable JPA; Central County has been doing the same thing;
and East County is still deciding which way it is going to
go, e.g. , Delta Diablo or Pittsburg or Concord. In
discussing pros and cons, there may be people who are not
ready to now give up their powers to a large agency. Ms.
Rainey referred to Model 3, noting this provides for a
coordinating body which can exchange information and explore
ways of working together. Furthermore, she felt No. 3 was a
positive in allowing for local control and being the least
costly, and at least providing for some coordination.
Ms. Aiello did not want to dredge up ancient history,
but she felt it was important for the record to reflect that
in the mid-1980's the Board of Supervisors did make an offer
to the cities about forming a joint powers authority, and
for a variety of reasons that did not work out. She felt
there has been considerable effort during the last two or
three years to try and work together to give and take. She
noted that different regions are doing different things to
address their specific concerns, and there are still strong
differences of opinion, e.g. , the issues of power and the
financing that goes with all of this.
F - 22
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop September 29, 1993
Chair Mariotti reported she recently attended a Local
' Government/Commissions Conference, and she was asked to
speak regarding JPA's. She expressed surprise that this
group within Contra Costa County is further along than many
other areas up and down the State where they are just
learning how to come together to cut their costs.
Ms. Wilson underscored Ms. Aiello's comments, noting
' when the offer was made by the Board of Supervisors in the
1980 's to the cities to form a JPA, they were turned down
royally by the cities. One of the reasons for that was that
State law at that time put the responsibility of solid waste
management in the hands of the County, and a lot of the
cities took the attitude, "It's your responsibility. Why
should we get involved?" Unfortunately, that "why get
' involved" attitude still pervades with some people, not
necessarily so much public officials, but that it's still
someone else's problem.
' Ms. Brandt acknowledged Ms. Rainey's comments about why
Option 3 would work;. however, she was also considering Ms.
Oliver's comment that there should be no financial advantage
to one region over another. She asked if that might make an
argument for Option 5 in resolving Countywide solid waste
issues. She felt these two options almost compete.
Ms. Rainey noted the Alameda JPA analyzes rates within.
the individual jurisdictions that set them, and she
' questioned whether any agency is going to want to give up
rate-setting. Ms. Brandt stated she was not just talking
about rates, but also MRF's, transfer stations, etc. , that :
could affect rates.
Ms. Oliver felt this could be done with either Option 3
or 5 . She felt 3 would give more control to a local entity
in relation to what best fits its own customer needs which
are different throughout the County, e.g. , development areas
versus residential areas.
Ms. Aiello pointed out that different items can be added
or deleted from any of these proposed structures.
' Mr. Laurence acknowledged Mr. Menesini's comments about
everybody looking at the total picture; however, the reality
is that there are different powers and different contractual
arrangements that have to be considered. He felt we have
come a long ways in getting everybody here around the table
to this point. He felt this is an opportunity to go on to
the next step, and whether or not we can go to Model 4 or 5
was down the road in the future.
F - 23
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop September 29, 1993 '
Mr. Laurence felt this entity needs to do what it can in
terms of regional cooperation and proving itself to the ,
various entities. He pointed out that AB 939 has been
mandated upon everyone, and if we can do a good job with a
structure like that then we can evolve to something bigger. '
But Model 3 is the only one that has a bottoms-up approach,
noting the other two are top-down. He stated his Council
was concerned about not emulating the Transpac version with
a large overhead attached to it. So, from Clayton's '
perspective it appears that Model 3 would be the one it
would prefer to work with.
Mr. Laurence felt the ratepayers' first goal was to make i
it affordable, so it was important to effect a cost savings
and to maintain local control over important local issues. '
He acknowledged there are some areas with significant
industrial issues to deal with and others such as Clayton
which are strictly residential. : He felt it was important to,__
look for ways to save money and still retain local control ,
and work together, then maybe a year or so from now we can
take the next step. But at this point, he favored starting
at the bottom of the ladder.
Ms. Oliver noted one of the hardest things for staff to
grapple with in relation to financing was what to do about
programs. On closer analysis, she noted that some of the ,
small JPA's will probably want to implement programs on
their own. Once those are up and running and successful,
then it becomes far less expensive for other JPA's to pick '
up similar programs; therefore, she felt the small JPA's
should not be limited from being innovative. So, no matter
how the numbers for programs are massaged, they will not be
based on reality until we know what our direction is.
Ms. Rainey referred to Model 3 which the majority seems
to be leaning towards, and she noted the most important '
thing to do, whichever form is picked, is to have good work
programs. So if this group picks No. 3 it has to have some
sort of a purpose, and there has to be a work program.
Otherwise, people are not going to pay money to be a part of
it, and they're not going to feel their time is worth it.
Therefore, with No. 3 a program has to be established, not
simply a coordinating council meeting on a quarterly basis.
Chair Mariotti noted there appears to be general
consensus leaning in the direction of Model 3, although '
perhaps the program isn't well enough defined
5. DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS BY PARTICIPANTS
Mr. Menesini stated there is a whole spectrum of
fragmentation -- from each individual city doing their own
F- 24
i
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop September 29 , 1993
thing, all the way to a Countywide program. However, before
' giving up a Countywide plan, he recommended doing a systems
analysis of what it would take at each level.
Mr. Samson was not sure what all a system analysis might
entail, but he was not sure he wanted to give up on a
Countywide approach either until he had some understanding
operationally of what it means to his jurisdiction and all
the others. He wanted clarification in terms of
implementing programs and how this is going to work
vis-a-vis the more top-down models.
iMs. Rainey cited the formation of the local JPA's.
Therefore, she questioned spending the kind of money and
having the kind of meetings it would take to be able to
coordinate all of the solid waste activities within the
County, noting, politically, this may not be feasible any
more. However, she stated she would be very pleased if this
group eventually got to Models 4 or 5 from Model 3 .
Mr. Laurence questioned the practicality of hassling
over the voting, etc. , in relation to Models 4 or 5, whereas
something like Model 3 could incorporate some elements of
autonomy over here or some elements for future control over
there. He felt something needs to be done that will take
' advantage of regional cooperation in relation to garbage
issues, noting Model 3 provides a more pragmatic approach
upon which to build.
iMs. Oliver acknowledged Nos. 4 or 5 may be the eventual
goal, but she felt they were a bit premature at this time
because of what else is happening. She agreed it was
important to find what the common interests are and where
the different groups can work together as a goal. She felt
the individual entities may be more resistant to stepping
into a top-down situation with the amount of work they have
done thus far than they would be in stepping into Model 3 .
Ms. Oliver felt the group was moving forward in taking
the different elements and bringing everything together,
noting there had been Options 1 and 2 before, and the
previous information has now been distilled into three
' options.
Mr. Sweeny pointed out the fact that most entities are
getting involved or have been involved regionally, noting it
makes sense to continue down that road. Therefore, he felt
some aspect of No. 3 is the logical way to start off.
Regarding earlier comments about having a work plan for this
coordinating council or committee, he felt initially it
should be limited to those things that legally are required
to be done on a joint basis and those which logically fall
F - 25
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop September 29, 1993 '
into a Countywide or regional type of approach, then let the
coordinating group work on those aspects and any kind of ,
cost savings they need to come up with. As other events
actually evolve, then it would make sense to go into one of
broader models. ,
Ms. Beth Bartke referred to page 18 of the discussion
paper, citing four very good reasons to go with No. 3. She
noted membership would be representatives from each of the '
boards of directors of the regional agencies and the County
Board of Supervisors, with quarterly meetings scheduled only
as needed. She felt this approach addresses duplication of
staff and resources. Therefore, she felt No. 3 would be a
good approach.
Ms. Rocha concurred in support of No. 3.
Ren Graunstadt represented Delta Salvage, and he felt
this was drifting away from AB 939 and creating a diversion '
to it. He felt this was breaking away from the elements
that were created, and he didn't know how that was going to
reflect on 939.
Ms. Aiello noted one of the pending issues was to deal
with an overall organizational structure, so actually this
would be a step forward in addressing that. Ms. Wilson
referred to the draft .regs and Countywide plan which
underscore doing everything to encourage people 'to find a
framework to work together and meet AB 939 goals. She did
not see this discussion in relation to finding alternative
structures as inimical to that process. She felt people
understand they have to comply and they have to meet the
spirit and intent of AB 939; it's whatever process makes
them most comfortable and which they feel is most
responsive.
Ms. Rocha noted in dealing with AB 939 there were quite i
a few people at the table. She noted the possibility of
eliminating certain avenues of input, e.g. , from Ironhouse.
It was noted the frame work could possibly be structured in
such a way that would allow input from the franchising
sanitary districts. Ms. Aiello noted the charts are
depicted as shown
because Ironhouse is not a member of a
regional agency; however, were they to become one, they
would be up there.
Chair Mariotti relayed a concern from Kensington because
they don't belong to a JPA and they have no representation. '
It was noted this would also affect Crockett-Valona.
Motion by Ms. Brandt that staff fully develop the i
concept behind Model 3, reviewing the options for local
F - 26
' Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop September 29, 1993
control issues (that may not be included here) as well as
the regional coordinating elements (which are not included
here and which might be in the other ones) leading to a
staff report for review which can ultimately be sent on to
' respective councils and boards; second by Ms. Jane Bartke.
Ms. Aiello asked about staffing level options.
' Ms. Brandt felt there was general agreement for minimal
staffing, noting possible exploration of Option B or D.
Mr. Laurence suggested voting on the motion, then
dealing with staffing alternatives. He agreed it should be
minimal, but enough to be effective. If it's not more than
quarterly meetings and more than a meet-and-greet, he felt
it could unravel and not accomplish anything. So he felt it
should be approached with a staff of sorts, and even though
' it would be a bare bones staff it has to be the kind that
can get something done.
Ms. Oliver suggested one perspective: to begin getting
' together the staffs of the existing bodies to see how that
works -- the staff for each JPA, perhaps the County and
perhaps Delta Diablo, etc. -- so that they could look at
what they feel would be the minimum coordinating body. She
suggested that every potential entity be involved, but not
necessarily with a paid staff off the top.
Mr. Purnell, on the motion, noted in preparing something
like this that the issue of staffing support needs to be
determined -- not now, but later down the road. He pointed
' out in the West County regional agency's case it is a
separate governmental entity, and this issue has not come
before that board. He felt as to each of the regional
agencies there would have to be a vote whether or not to
participate. Until that decision has been made, he felt the
discussion of staffing levels was premature.
Ms. Aiello requested a direction as far as preference in
developing Options A, B, C or D further, or was there some
other preference on staffing level. She emphasized this was
' not casting anything in concrete, simply requesting staff to
develop some information for further review.
Mr. Purnell pointed out that will also be a factor in
determining which of these four options to do.
Mr. Laurence also felt it was important in analyzing
' various things to know if it's going to be a Chevy or a
Buick with respective costs, etc. He also noted if one or
two entities don't come in, it was still important to go as
far as we can.
F - 27
1
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop September 29, 1993
Ms. Rainey noted this is aiming at some sort of a
Countywide body and basing it on existing regional agencies.
While the Central County agency is talking to Clayton,
Martinez, and Pleasant Hill, they have not yet joined, and
they are grouped in there. She noted the sanitary districts
are a concern, and that will have to be worked outwith the
County. Furthermore, we still do not know what is happening
with Concord and Pittsburg. She suggested when staff is
looking at this that there should be some sort of mechanism
or thought as to what is happening to those entities that
don't belong or an alternative.
Ms. Wilson noted this goes back to some of the things
that were being discussed earlier, that in developing
further information, whether it is Option B, C, D or
whateverr, the frame work has got to stand alone and not
dependent on a given entity being a member.
Ms. Rainey assumed from the above discussion that staff
would not be looking at Option A, but at this point Options
B, C and D would be the ones to begin with. Ms. Aiello
suggested probably B or C. She noted in talking about B in
discussions with Ms. Wilson and Mr. Bill Davis that it was
envisioned as perhaps rotating.
Ms. Brandt amended the motion to include exploring staff
Options B and C, and this was acceptable to the seconder of
the motion.
County Supervisor Bishop pointed out the agenda refers
to Contra Costa County and the County Costa Solid Waste
Authority, and she pointed out she is only one Supervisor.
She stated there should be at least the exercise of bringing
these alternatives and options before the full Board of
Supervisors.
Chair Mariotti noted that Supervisor Bishop also sits at
the Countywide JPA as this is being discussed in a workshop
between the County and the Big JPA. Ms. Aiello clarified
this was only giving direction to staff to pursue further as
opposed to taking an official action. In this context she
would not be voting for the County, it would be further
direction for staff to explore these issues.
Ms. Wilson noted as we move toward these refinements and
things are being eliminated, as well as being asked to come
back with options B and C, that at some point in time
everybody should understand before getting too far down the
road they may need to check back with their respective
entities which they represent to see that we are on the
F - 28
Contra Costa Solid Waste Workshop September 29, 1993
right track so we haven't spent a lot of time on something
that the majority may not support.
Ms. Brandt stated the aforementioned was intended as
part of the motion, and this was concurred in by the
seconder. The motion as amended was passed unanimously with
the exception of Mr. Samson who voted against.
Mr. Samson stated he heard operationally why the County
model is going to be cumbersome, but he was still not sure
if he heard operationally the advantages of one over the
other; however, he understood we have to move forward.
6. DIRECTION AND SUMMATION
Ms. Wilson noted this matter would be going to the JPA,
and she presumed those members of the JPA would convey to
their respective agencies what the consensus here was. It
was noted the above direction to staff would be coming
before the JPA at its November meeting.
Supervisor Bishop requested Ms. Aiello to agendize
discussion regarding the above for consideration by the full
Board of Supervisors.
Chair Mariotti thanked everyone for coming and
participating. She commended the efforts of the County and
JPA staff in working together so cooperatively.
7 . ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Mariotti
adjourned the meeting at 6: 15 p.m. to the next CCSWA Board
meeting whit h duled for Wednesday, October 6th.
Greechetr,-,Mariotti,' Chair
Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
County of Contra Costa
State of California
ATTEST:
Karen A. Sanders, CSR, RPR
Hearing Reporter
F- 29
Y(r,S
f f,
,� .r ,'l, r �. •:fir..,. � �, (�v._ r \f E l / \}.,��� ,�. � .. . �r ... ... ),-• .i �.�, _ \ Ja��. }�\,�. `'\ r�,•`•�.�
'\ , t �. / �'} � r '.� � Y/i � r � '.'ij .^ tt� r k� `r 1 - r .,tit � ✓ .�� t _
}t�.•�A �� 'h" - E { - ' ���`�� % rf r �� i ri"� s � �'V` r -.._/ t .tit 1.�, ',,i,. {_. \ rl „'�
' Lt�i '` r� t ' ,✓ � r I � � t` � t7 � ,,� 1rt , � � ,, —v
� r r / �, �r or �fi l V �k ���( lr w-1 � ��� �.✓}: -� � \} �.t A. �; k� \ �.k( � ,r
{� �F'�.' } v-� �\ � !� ./i .ya k� =fit ..�,.. i f -�_qr -� v'-' �•�, A v�f'�x � - y��"rte-y �_ t ��"� � ) t �,i'
�: f j� ��
kr - 1 ;, l •� v . (. � .) 1 1? �r /l .A �f`f'� r; �� —.; t �<� , .�
•��_ � �, �, v� f �_�� � , � � •t- �� ��, �� �y D'1 ��'
1
;�. ., -I�.r.�•, _,• .rt",. ,•��.'( < � �� �� ,. '`, �-:•,V!����t ,>;f may''_ ,,� ` , ��/ .;
17
� r '`t, .�.v i 'fir/ •_{' 1 �� � ,_" a •i `k• k � .}, (i l..�; Y ,. �� r
tf � f � ` i��i "• ,` 3t� r / ' ,/ {' { _.f� .,, r . �. � ,�ti. � 7vI' V � A 1i r - \� / ,
i. �. (t°rte 1 t _ � ��F � r•.� ( '1 � A� j r ,l, � tt � I fi: h. .*' s y� K",'
\-' ! � ' , � i�� r '� ' t �',fes �r '/ ``i �'� >- t r � \ � •'� f r j < T- .�y_,}
(. � ;,� �•�" �- t `%�,t. 4 ..-Ir: ,� t..�� A �. °S �`� `.,� y .`r�i r �.. � /� 5�r r ,�A r �_i
r t, 1 -, '.:/ ) Lti .• �?`+`� Y. J 1 �.��,. � _. ��`' h },j rr /' % r , r�(i "`1 }. `._
t
t '>-� ;♦ �/ f \r x r` �- tr t. r7 �1 ..� a _ ��\ � Y .� '�.` ,� r"'fir \ -1 F (\ ✓ f. r� L,` �_}
'w r + �\�rryy�� ��� �, r,� ,�.. t -- \>: 1� .,(�f. ✓k, •� ,) �/�.� i� k rJr J�,. w J�, 1y � r+ _
��� /� / l � 1. �r iyr l�. ;� .\I :. ��`\�Y},rte. (r,.(.,�k� �`.r..ti /� � \r �,�tiv� \ � •y l' jr <�. / j. / '�� .1 '� �rr;�a
�•- �r>t rIrr' `v r`} r l'f �,���'^ � i. �,'-`.�' � v v-.. � f ('�' � `x.1 � t� .F.. >- ,. 'T`, a
� -A � ' r �{1,fi�' 1`sr�'.-.tJ'/ 'r" "9 ,t �r r � � �� I � �-� \ �� f .}=/ 1 ✓ k � .� �\L � �� ��< r�,� .
r r � J h1 �.�'•` � � �r .., .* i�r �r `i r �� rte.. "t �� � �i.`N" � r\r; f ,l ;l -°�'
Z r t.1.Y'} � /. '.1. �'� - -t r -r `4 �+:'' .. / � � � ; -� •n i s." r r ,`T;I :l.' j !.
t j '.r"•X t � G� ,� ,�lf„rxl. 7 tt o ` y �1 r �1., :.y }'' '� "' I:r��1 �� ,. :.� f_ :h. ��T.ir { }.`� .'�JY Y 1 ,.� 1 ';,.
c- r � r -�• Hr \
} \f \r.t. `X t/. r 7- t , T`�• , r \ t, � -� rJ / r.,� \ '� I
' CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
' October 6, 1993
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
' FROM: AVON WILSON AND LOUISE AIELLO
SUBJECT: ISSUES TO CONSIDER IN SELECTING OPTIONS
In responding to the Authority's direction there are critical details which will need to be
' fleshed out. Your Honorable Body may have some additional details which should be
addressed. In order to accomplish our assignment we would like to go to each of the
jurisdictions to get their input. In order to accomplish this, we are proposing to come
back to you in December or January with a report which would include, but not be
limited to, the following information:
• Composition of the regional agencies and the role of non-member jurisdictions;
• Under each option how the proposed coordinating council's activities could be
' funded;
• Management and operating procedures between all participating jurisdictions
' and agencies;
• Suggested focus and work plan for the proposed coordinating council;
' • Resolving interagency intera enc differences;
' • Parameters of contracting and the contractual relationship;
' • Time needed to get documentation ready for dissolution of the Contra Costa
Solid Waste Authority.
G - 1
. '!
� -
:�q , A_ ,� / ;f , "
� � n: t, � f'1 � I _ -.
/ � i ''t.
v_ � t, f `� ,
I n r � 1\ �; �, r
,a r y It> v �' �-j T , I ,' �
I, V k. 1� t I, f +,, x, / . It '� ,i I r
tI 1,
_ M
11,
^� * 7,1 " ',� \-~ f,,� I-r 1 `r \ .✓rn \ " 1,` ` `i - S J � r t r, . `r �' `
v , �� _r \ / �S}
1 / 7 �1
s r t \ - �''. / ! a J t r r r r �
,fin q..�".. ti '} < .l r! '��r „' ,( 3 f \ 7 I` i. {. r \ 1 .\'T .1 I.. .��t 1•
,{ f r , i f
1 , ' V ",k * -, / ' ✓I e F } �: ter/
1` T: ,TI { { 1I \`f - J :fr i - r.k`,+ r\ \, i-`
jy. `<i I �.\' t t �. LeyI1 I "` �,f! t� t ie r .Y-J i }f1xT<,. y1�r 14�� i-"�1� �\ \ l � \� �~�C ^ f\'- ��
ti\ r 1"S1 , t�.,, ; � Wit/ r\.z �� i I� yV � �t /�,�1 I Z�Jl'�ti l� k �iy i�.:�.
I-,V,�-���:�-/ I,- -'14 . f", ,- , , � 4,, , , I O I ��-, ,� ,-,.
-7 5 ST ",� A ' 1" e-�'
A
rk �, .`r _w t1I, � '. A ..; 1^' t -tN < ,-t .' _ / (- 1 .`k V �� ��A Yir�y , -� v
! c,.� v. 1 ` r/� c d� ,�I av / :7 , .' .yr ' \ ! :: a 1 3ry �'1 t v�(` ^� "J L ,�` K
f �,1' h -f , / f k1�111 I �,' E, �� �V y r\Y _
-'t �\ .. � , , , . , - �l I I , , � ,�, '�",�, I ,, ,- , - , I ,,� I I )
\ w- s�r. v i -7- I I A t ti
✓ TA
/ `,, .mac,: r ��,--`
-f'�. - „� �r . � v r "_ �v ,. (, I
, A ' 11-jl11 I
i \ 'i- .` r 't t ,�- -. \- //ta �I, , �`� 1 ✓z..- T v, ;r .�. Y '~° 7�,,s \ r
�vIt/X , - v 1, Y'
\ _rf l y �
9
y. -' i j" aV ,, ti r , l �{ , k y� ,} 3 /'" ' 1 (- r-, j �k
6
e� ��"
f > p �.
1. \�` t ? - , '�1 p �1 �r t� �1 s
G
., 'lF' ( .`'i ,�.1' l \. .:�111, ,Ii L�'AS \; �/', t �.e S'y o-� r i f l tv 'v:p / L.. k\
�' „( �. I -� 6 ,r 'Ift ��, -- � .� ( x._•1 , ' '.,�a. i - - ' t Y �- "v rl _l
— -� ,�, ll�".1 (1; >o
""
I
S :) /d. �t _ � �- �� C`?� d ��,
'� "'�-.
� -,1,
��,�
� (. .,L i �:. `I- I �,�� I - 1. �� d 11 I e",�, ` 4,I }� t '� ( / 1" -� --��,�,i .I,' ,, , C. ' f � a,/, - " �,:..5} .:? ^�- �f �� V.', �-,-�,k .,_ -`I I��, "'. ��l
I ?„� \ � Vie v �, .�l t-t, \I. I f` t A ( ,' l l � �� l �� X�\4. V. ,,, 1� '\ 1 k l :y. v� V-'1�1 a--,- ,� � �1 ,
”.�� - \ -iK- 1 �-, / a i r /�\ �I t. k ��.
' 1(�,
�� lfr3 �` y,";-I ,61.Ji r - -.L- 1 r V ' t' r '' 4 �� --� / v 1,t r Y `4- 'L�, - k rtf yk .
,, ,
I 1-�- �
, ,
A,-, / ti t.-- 3 r ,�,>i� k ` ---.(, �X'�v i \t l: .-, /,i I , , A
�1- -" �,,�- I
-�l, �
I I -
FIA. 0+ -t
- 1-:, } ---1 l Tt�,�<r .v y G�"-- ��,,�,�,' JI ,r:� M1 t ,.:-r } --,v t f,� N- 1- `.)' y h " .'..A- , '.f V..'I, , -r I,-jJ.
� . .
y.,/, -\
.C ,''
� "\
I. I 1,
--
-, :
" ,
1.
I'I,
! - - I
-��
,,
k1 I f / " -:-� - \ f a 5-\ .l !l Iel . c - , "', I 9
,� �';fl,�I I;v -.- .a- f. � f I ;Ct --- t ,�
�- --,�/'.0 j'�:-;' .y r r - ,,�. .ice. ) k t ..�t`,,fi�, 'lk-,�-,",*�, y I� t f " . ,t ` h
�11 A 1*,17�'j-,- � ",, _ � ,%�,,,,
,1,
�V-I- �,`-,.�
1,-,-
-I 1',�,-
�� I
,� " I J - -,I�-
, ,,, ,
�',
I -
I ,
, -
,\ I I
� ,
, �
Al�"_4 \( ( -ii- ,,-,�..I I�! F(v;r i1:r� r,\ t 7--� ,Y(1 .c'T `�''�- �.' y !-1 ry.." I� �� Y, -I V
r1.
I ,,
. - /�Gf, i 1: 1. r <j �,-�I " f i 'DC7 jt �,I%'t - l "\'. , t � � I I'y '* � s� �`�T, .1 "1d.1.1��.r.,\ \ �.;.�`� ti '.t/,,,-,
,�
��,
f `,./ r 1 "I . /,"
-,
"��
-,
V-,'
- -�,,,
-- I
-�;<,
. !�
,,_
I r�'
t, f,._ f' _ '.v�� dr� ,.--. �L�-fiy $ l (4��, f. y ��l� >k,,i- \t t,t,,- ��"-r t _ i 0 -rn
- , --, '��-, s4 ��
�-
--
Q4,�
. �
, ,,
+.� dS'" v, �11- V. ,>
f,>t 1� �' '\ �:..'� y,)�\. !``,`-A' \ (� Ott '- .� �� e .���' _i. ✓� \1 Fl �'.(rf- , � -= r ,•. �:..
-."
/ { --I
r V ,,. r K .✓ Y, F �,
C �v r �r r } kit a j �w T N k w� .^.� w4� f
I
�' l 1 l I } - 1 ,a`.`.-�.- FI}' 11 �' 1." -y = r'<' ( t/ 't r T. �� -1) ✓f, � I �,
;.} 1\� r y
f ;i r- s. \ ', LTi. tf l' X`_.x f F.+ { �\✓ f _�✓z'�i_> `;\' '`� ..� , �,V.i i� kr,I .1 ' ^1t \ �' ," r 1y1 q
, il
I/ 1 .� f I F-r/ \,t- 1.yl 1'(' r�r �, f - ^.j t r te, y� .ti ,'r � �/ �� "Y I \ 1 \ ,S11 I ( F
x,I
1.
,, l ti ro .�'�� �` a �.,_ Y � (�; T� '\ .1 r� ` .} \_1 F�t�:
of ``+ / } .�ti .1 �f( / i ( > Itl` V.i * x, A. �: _e
\ ,ir / ( - 6 / ��,� '
i �" ,j , `.,{\ ...I,f - r,4 F/�" ,.1r�-1 ,}` Y T \-/ `tom J;.;'r \t +.+� J"T ,, \'(} i .� -7 v ' a f 1 t1
". r '�' - _ ". "I ,`, �!� 1� (� ,A -p' ;;" V}'fes
rr- fir` \r i� ' �,.ta h� "A 1��lt:.:�f( r,(.`- /I 1 E;� \ ' -r ,Y v .l' I r, t:f1,r `� i � ,
�'- r-.�'' a« p r`I l� ..k'��'�r r' t I l r k v :: I -" t- -\ K�- y `�y �/ - �\ ti�•�- t t)ld,. f ..� \ ��Z.
r. Jr l:,. ! f. :.n A 'y r f A t t /.a ` '� h \- C t� ls-a \k�ki n r �„a
r, t _ c „-. 'l 1 3 �' v `Sy \ 5 ` T, r \ } y ..\ t r .
A 1L1 ,\�;; \ \ l g r ll k t Ll i 4` ~ ti a i' r .7Y. f, t 7 j l^1� % i. \ n ,- t r�`t f ,
^ N ,� k r's f^ - ,1 , !-,''r V, (,t ,.l1 A r r r
V11
��{ >4' �` vti i-r t`\� �`' !l �� f n-� y� ��' }P,�� r {�, �'. ( .�fry, a tr r� a2. �} Y _
(:., /V.}. y f,l \ V"" Tti ,ti /,,„A�",,, r i �,-,,-i 7?. F I➢ ,, Y � f ti� 7 s.A �;.� . , ° r t-, z.-� 1. _
`t<-�' I � \ .,F'T .r 'Y` 1( l ... / _A �Ir. _h. - r r �f r V; t-
"'�' J
V<.� t( e. eta` � v r v� A e'" �✓ -"i'J'' r f i�•A`� 'l� -t' . ` .
'I .�-' S V( r -I � / , �- CS
l t' �, 6 ,�_ i ! -�,, f.
b - ,�} 1 r �A �- �n�" ,)
��: f 1� f `�,2v.
\ '' t
'k
L r -�
,� ►� Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
Avon M. Wilson January 19, 1994
' Executive Director
4737 Imhoff Place.Suite 4
Martinez,CA 94553
FAX(510)22i3 Honorable President and Board of Directors
'
FAX(5101229-91?4
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
4737 Imhoff Place, Suite 4
Martinez, CA 94553
Ce-':r a costa
Attention: Joyce Murphy
' °` "vi );S-,v Subject: PRESENTATION BY LOUISE AIELLO AND AVON WILSON
Dan,,,;. TO THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE
,. . AUTHORITY ON JANUARY 27, 1994 - SOLID WASTE
REGIONAL COORDINATING COUNCIL STAFF OPTIONS
Say,_
Ladies and Gentlemen:
On January 27, 1994, your Honorable Body will consider staffing options
for a solid waste regional coordinating council. Your consideration and
' input will provide direction to the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority and
Contra Costa County as they formulate their recommendations for how
easE,17 solid waste planning and programs shall be managed and funded in
Contra Costa County.
- As you will recall, both entities, as part of a Memorandum of Agreement
-a'k and Work Plan, agreed to delineate, in cooperation with the sub-regional
' solid waste joint powers authorities, roles and responsibilities for solid
waste management. To facilitate this discussion and study, two
workshops were held in July and September, which included citizens,
' policy makers and staff from cities, sanitary districts, the Board of
Supervisors and the Authority. Participants from both workshops
considered a variety of county wide solid waste concerns and
' organizational structures which would best respond to those issues.
The first sheet of the attached materials describes the structure which the
' workshop participants believe best provides for local control as well as
county wide coordination and cooperation in solid waste management.
In their recommendations to the Authority and Board of Supervisors,
workshop participants also recommended that two staffing options be
considered in greater depth: Contract Staff and No Staff. Out of its
follow-up to the workshops, the Authority Board of Directors has directed
that County and Authority staff develop additional information on these
options and solicit input from Authority member jurisdictions and regional
JPAs as part of their final report to the Authority.
H - 1
January 19,1994 ,
Presentation for January 24, 1994 Council Meeting -
Solid Waste Coordinating Council Staff Options '
Page Two
The attached packet of information is intended to facilitate dialogue with '
your Body on these options and the issues which they raise; further
refining the development of an organizational structure for county wide '
solid waste management.
We look forward to your input. ,
4eAon
ly,
vM. Wilson
Interim Executive Director '
Attachments
cc: Fred Davis, CCCSWA Executive Director '
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Town of Danville
City of Lafayette
City of Orinda
Town of Moraga '
City of San Ramon
City of Walnut Creek.
Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority '
Louise Aiello, County Solid Waste Programs Manager
H - 2 ,
c
vm
cc
Q-m
d�
m<t
a
a cts Eos
O rma
Ct
�i
m 1
r
• , l
� 1
t It
t <
l
l
� f
3 • y,
4 f ~ t
i S t i1 y
0
a
I
y
` uj
U
r �
c
Z
3j
.U
Y �
a
„ c � a „
L o
U
C
� H
BASiC ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT WITHIN COUNTYWIDE SOLID WASTE '
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES '
R4n •i n i Jp6s/Regional Agency RA '
Under AB 440, enacted in 1993, two or more jurisdictions may form a Regional ,
Agency for the purpose of, solid waste management planning and program
ion- the Regional Agency may be formed as an official joint-powers
implementation; g 9 Y J
authority, or by using a memoranda of agreement or contractual agreement. The ,
members of the Regional Agency must identify exactly what solid waste management
respo n i ilities have been delegated by the individual jurisdictions to the Regional '
s b 9
Agency, how the waste generation/disposaildiversion amounts are split among the ,
members of the Regional Agency. The Regional Agency must be officially recognized
by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. The Regional Agency may '
prepare one SRRE, one NDFE, one HHWE which fulfill both the individual member's
requirements for these plans and comprise the Regional Agency's Integrated Waste
Management Plan. AB 440 continues to require a Countywide Plan and a Countywide
Solid Waste Facilities Siting Element which, apparently, may be based on both
Regional Agency Plans and individual jurisdiction documents. '
A. Geographically prescribed ,
B. Does not have to be formal JPA but can be contractual constituted body. '
C. All should have some common thrust, mission objectives, action related to the
goals of AB 939. ,
H - 4
' D. AB 440 responsibility.
1) Regional Agency SRRE, NDFE, HHWE;
2) County - a) Countywide Plan based upon SRRE's, NDFE's, HHWE's of
' Regional Agency and/or individual jurisdictions; b) Countywide Solid
' Waste Facility Siting Element based upon 15 year disposal capacity
identified by each Regional Agency and/or each individual jurisdiction;
and
' 3) Individual jurisdictions - Non Regional Agency members - responsible for
own jurisdiction. SRRE, NDFE, HHWE.
' E. enc Regional Agency/Non-Member Relationships.
9 9 Y
' 1) Operate and plan.separately;
2) Identify mutually beneficial.activities for programs and cost savings;
3 Developa forum, for discussion of regional solid waste issues which
9
involves Regional Agency and non-member jurisdictions; and
4) Provide opportunities for non-member jurisdictions to participate in.
selected programs on,a pay=as-you-go basis-
I� OPTIONS FOR STAFFING COUNTYWIDE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
- NO STAFF
A. No Staff - Lead agency provides:
t1) Secretary/minutes;
2) Financial staffing (budget; finances);.
i
3) Administrative direction by agency executive director, city or district
' manager;
4) Contract for special work; and/or
F+-5
1
5) Rotate among Regional Agency.
B. Activities
1) Limited by lead agency ability to staff;
2) Meets quarterly to monthly; i
3) Special projects divided among elected officials and staff from member ,
jurisdictions (i.e., backyard composting);
4) AB 939 activities coordination dependent on number of members;
5). Could contract total AB 939 work to consultant using AB 939.staff as '
advisory council;
6) Couid utilize AB.939 staff as support staff/review body,.to coordinate '
common programs - devised by policy makers. Lacks continuity for '
overall AB 939 implementation.
C. Non-agency oarticioation.
1) Same as Regional Agency;
2) Encourage to join Regional Agency;
3) invite to participate on specific activities
- staff level
- policy maker level;
4) Invite as ex officio to participate in discussion; and
51 Would be provided limited information materials, as Coordinating Council
budget permits.
D- R n in
1) Assessment from franchise fees to pay for activities;
2) When transfer station built, can use tipping fee;
H - 6
' 3) Lead agency paid by member jurisdictions for addition support;
and
4) individual agencies pay for specific projects/program,
' administration.
' contract Staff - Coordinating Council/JPA
A. Coordinating Council contracts with agency to provide staff/administration to
' accomplish desired work project; an RFP process could be used. RFP or
' contract should specify parameters of what Coordinating Council wants to
accomplish.
' B. Contract staff may do ail administration; program developments or
' C. Contractor may under specified provisions of contract,subcontract part of work
such as:
' a) waste generation studies;
' b) mitigation monitoring;
c) annual reports to C1WMB;
' d) program deveiopment/diversion programs; and
' e) depending on membership, i.e., County — could do Siting/CoIWMP --
' contract out.
3l. FOCUS/WORK PLAN
' Discussions in the two workshops resulted in no clear-curt decisions on the
role/responsibiiities of the Coordinating Council.. - Differences of opinion remained
t
regarding rdin the degree to which local autonomy, dispute resolution between individual
g
' jurisdictions or Regional Agencies, and/or coordinated planning and program
timplementation should -be provided in the organizational structure. AB 440, as
H - 7
enacted, provides significant autonomy to both Regional Agencies and individual
jurisdictions resulting in direct responsibility and linkage between the State and '
Regional Agencies or between the State and individual jurisdictions.
The degree of coordination desired may be, as a result of AB 440, strictly a question
of local preference. Thus, further discussion among cities, Regional Agencies, and the '
County seems necessary to focus the role/responsibiiity of a Regional Coordinating
Council. '
The roie/responsibilities outlined for the Regional Coordinating Council require your '
further consideration, input, discussion are:
• Coordination of Regional Plans & Programs '
• Coordination of Disposal Arrangements ,
• Preparation of Countywide Siting Element (Presumes County
Membership) '
• Preparation of Countywide Plan (Presumes County Membership) '
• Recycling Markets Development Zone Administration (Presumes
membership of all Recycling Market Development Zone Jurisdictions) '
• Coordinate Interaction with State '
• Recommendations Regarding Disposal Sites
• Resolution of Disputes ,
IV. PARAMETERS OF CONTRACT AND/OR ROTATION OF STAFFING '
In establishing a Regional Coordinating Council, the first step for all entities to take
seems to be the determination of the role/responsibilities of the Coordinating Council.
Based upon decisions, the parameters for either contract staff or rotation of existing ,
staff will, in large part, result from the work that needs to be done. General
H - 8 '
' "operating" guidelines or parameters do seem to be appropriate for consideration at
' this point. The following "operating" parameters are suggested for consideration
(your input and additional ideas are needed):
1) The degree to which AB 440 responsibilities are assigned to a specific
' entity;
2) The staff expertise and time available;
' 3) The ability to provide the staff on an in-kind basis rather than at an
' additional cost to other agencies;
4) The degree to which the contractual/Lead Agency role is consistent with
' (or nct in conflict with) a coordinating role.
938u:JPA.RA
H - 9
t r � \✓"• 114- _�. x a ,- .� +- , 1 r+ `�' 1 t \
;
�
'` \�„kt t "'ir �� � i �1 � � �,' 1 r ,�-,� a< k .t j ,v � •, i i \ J r, � ,} '.1 r t�: / -
V F••a - �y It`i'� �� , i \ �. .� �`K '. '� r ' 'z i f
fti�
W \
At
� Iv ` r r� t ,'-� ` i = 3 j �\t .; r tai � � \ ; } t� f{ 0�` \ ,�'`• S af.�.r ,1`- � t�.
� "•�'r .•�a,r.\\ r�+,L. ��'""�'� q_' �r ) � t�.� r� '`. �.:�ja ht�-t°. A'-•�� t ,��� i� �' � t;v) �� t •.i �
.V ^? x \„n\ `�\ l d� r �� t sa I ti l .� 1 �t A) `' ���� `• ,A'1 ^r j1 � �t� + � \��
` �•-•+\lt �:..,,�1 .1�-r-.,,� � tom` _. 1 •� 1 ( �\ .(1 .,f N\ 'L. �-'\ 14 la \11 , � r ra'F u�x" � +.
•� v' + ( iso l —ti� iA. �.0 t t � 'l � /
.'14'7 l �• 1 f i \ .� i' t`'\ n '•C
i�:r i - v V � t ��_ 1 '1 r ' v -�� t .,,`: yr- Ft` �/{� -..✓'� y l � ����, 9 � '
1�"'.�L ,�.`. � } iw'(.� y''• t..� J• ^'(�.A`.
.. ✓ t ti 1 1.�" f> j� ���-�,- �,f � \ �, ,h3:���r� rfl{! �- 2;l� l�,
+ `�'� � '_ t t.r �\ ..... r t,��`a �-,c•�� � t:_.� r, � r ` �x � n } - 'V+ �;;1� r � ai�`� �
l N r c
a
� �c li` � V 4�I� � �: r� )�',- 'r% r �\ \t.,l, j..,� K l r� <.r r�" •f�-� ♦ �f' �.,r 1-„�>r'1 ''�
./ >, � � t F>� ) t t.•�� �` ? \ - r / V• {'
>, : - f 1�;. 1 A l_. (c';�; i ,� C �'� r. ,�. :i ��� ,,a ,Y�t ” -,,, •,. _ �+ f ,' _i ;y
�t� .„} t _''/”- .! •.1't ,%.� l�t�.. - r l...'� Ti1...t Y '-'1 .`am
1
a4, � ` x .I, F"\ .1 I` r r!,� +, � ��• �,1" rt" 'L v \ �� � i-� � 1r �� \l• V nr \
,
r r i
(• �4t t rn s 't�� `1'� �r` .. I 1 1 t 'h {I� tr.y: t -
�y.. + �`1 t . � ..» 1,; r t ,- .. - t '�' `� 1 =�� '• (,v? �, 4 v"��� :i"�. r,'; ` f� 1r ,•;r � i�. x ,f,l.
\ _ 1 k \ ^r
�` �� ���t� �I"�� ����! r •A•. � ,'l(� .:� 'r `�_ t � t; � ,'� '� A�_ )�A..4 ( - - `( 4� ��`�- � Hwy { \: `' ( l�"".
�i. 1 .. '• .. 1 �,�.j�'� r^.- err:: ,� ! 1• / :�;`' , r ,t 'w ��V _ i�>✓ A�,. � ��\ � /a.;-yr" .-{ Y \�
•\ .l�:Y i,` !r .it-��" �1,r �t '��.\ ! :� �.la;� \ Ir„ 3".'\ _ �l >\ f" -L, t< .'�. �.. �. , _
nC.,•
'l�r. �` ������• �., _,�� :r � o �� t .'' I r',t... � _.�_ �'• V ��I { �� �� �t< • `.�i. .� `�� d\1 • .•\,�t V` 3 f r 1�.��
,jl
� 1 �� 1%� � \i Yi>. � rt/`t � a � .. 1 r':� , _�C 't �^ � � 1y �,`,� r_ C•�, \��� +-�� � )..: �+.n �, �• .� �,i
A 21
) '� +ter t) � �L?. �� • �` :r V � r .� �' �,r ;-�` � ., z ;" i �:`, tl ..-, tr >�.
r ,\ t- -`\� ; I. ; ✓ r f! 1., r, 7 r�- `� � �.-, r � a1 \4- r.,1 r +
t �; "� .f t c't•�- f ,, / \.l a \, f f \ /'�)f �� �, � �l � `. .� �.��� r t�./`��, rl, '! ,�.�
1
r i / r s� Yri� �� ��, � .J�� �• t F Y � k t -� � i i n �y I(v � r \ E '�` A.. -.r,� r r r '"
+� �,� ' t ;. t ,- -�r r \F j.:. ' �; 1: �. _ t " d r I � �, ✓ .�" ,J � r, 1 /� 'v:, t ++�t � f
1 .� f ��r ����, r4 •t' t + 7 � t ta. .1_� i. � ��� �� ti( I'r� Y � `1 #�� � ,�' ti'� -�
rr �'� a ✓, _. t r A ,( y � l,Ar �t� A � I �.��-t ..,�y� \ �wi'i.t - is
.l A l . � � '1 t\t .a I ��. r t • . r A\ .a. ...; � l,tt /f
�r l rt � �. 1 � 't � ' � � � \ z1•, t� {, t .... fYt t r , �. .� E. .�/. � t� � t .
it
n P
� ALTERNATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL
� STRUCTURES FOR COUNTYWIDE
' SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
CONSIDERED BY WORKSHOP I
' I . CURRENT SYSTEM
� II. AUTONOMOUS REGIONAL SOLID
� WASTE AUTHORITIES
III. REGIONAL SOLID WASTE
AUTHORITIES COORDINATING .
� COUNCIL
V. COUNTYWIDE SOLID WASTE
� JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
� V. TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
TYPE SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
I . CURRENT SYSTEM �
County'
• AB 939 Countywide Plan, Siting Element, ,
• Potential Contracting with JPAs, cities for
programs and/or planning �
Multi jurisdictional Organizations �
• West Contra Costa Integrated Waste �
Management Authority �
• Central Contra Costa Solid Waste
Authority �
• Delta Diablo Global Agreement '
•
(Potential) Pittsburg - Concord JPA
Cities �
• Source Reduction and Recycling Element t
(SRRE), Household Hazardous Waste
Element (HHWE), Non Disposal Facility ,
Element (NDFE) Mitigation Monitoring
• Plan and implement Programs individually �
or in cooperation with other jurisdictions
• Potential members of facility-based joint �
powers authorities. '
i 2 ,
� II . AUTONOMOUS REGIONAL
� SOLID WASTE AUTHORITIES
� Membership
� 0 WCCIWMA - West County cities
� contract with County
� 0 CCSWA - San Ramon, Walnut Creek,
' Central San., representing Lamorinda
and Danville
� 0 Pittsburg - Concord (Potential)
• Delta Diablo S. D. Global Agreement -
� Pittsburg, Antioch and County
� Mission - Responsibilities
' 9 Facility development; management
' 0 Facility-related program implementation
� 0 Regional AB 939 related planning and
monitoring
• Coordination of programs within region
' I - 3
III. REGIONAL SOLID WASTE �
AGENCY COORDINATING �
COUNCIL '
Coordinating Council '
• 2 representatives from each regional �
agency
• Countywide AB 939 planning (If '
County is a Member)
• Addresses countywide solid waste '
Issues �
Regional Agencies �
• Facility Development and Management �
• Regional AB 939 Planning '
• Regional Program Implementation ,
� IV . COUNTYWIDE SOLID WASTE
� JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
� Each city, franchising agency and the
' County has a seated representative
� Responsible for:
� o Policy development
' o AB 939 Countywide Plan and Siting
Element and mitigation monitoring
� (assumes County membership)
o Reporting on diversion to State
� o Development of model ordinances,
' i.e., franchising, rate regulation
government procurement, etc.
� o Coordination of SRRE, HHWE,
NDFE preparation;Assist regional
� agencies-cities with implementation
�
Regional Agencies. (WCCTWMA, CCSWEI,
Pittsburg/Concord, Delta Diablo)
� Facility development and management
� 0 Facility related program implementation
V . TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY �
MODEL �
Representation �
• 2 representatives from each region �
• 1 Mayors' Conference representative �
• 2 Board of Supervisors representatives
Responsibilities ,
• AB 939 Countywide Plan, Siting Element �
mitigation and monitoring, reporting to State
• Resolve countywide/inter-regional solid �
waste issues '
• Coordinate countywide programs;
implementation '
• Develop model ordinances for rate
regulation, franchising, procurement, etc. �
Regional Agencies
�
• Facility management �
• Review/comment AB 939 Countywide Plan �
• Implement regional/facility based programs
• Coordinate AB 939 regional plans/programs �
WORKSHOP I CRITERIA FOR
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
� Cost effective
� Non-duplicative- not another layer of govt.
• High quality of service to rate payers
� Local control
' Local constituent involvement; control
•
Retains unique local programs
' Resolves intra/inter-regional conflict
• Retains local control of revenues
� Avoid excessive rmanagement, control,
regulation; top heavy or unwieldy_
� organization
' promotes cooperation- not competition -
between regions/cities for control
� Efficient - Not top heavy or unwieldy
• Assures Countywide/Local Plans will be
� implemented
' Avoids impact on local haulers
• Assures that no entity will be left out of the
� loop
• Provides a system which builds trust.
� Addresses current lack of trust of other
' agencies.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE '
SELECTED BY WORKSHOP II
III. REGIONAL SOLID WASTE AGENCY �
COORDINATING COUNCIL �
Coordinating Council �
• 2 representatives from each regional �
agency '
• Countywide AB 939 planning (If �
County is a Member)
• Addresses countywide solid waste ,
Issues
Regional Agencies
om_ ,
• Facility Development and Management '
• Regional AB 939 Planning �
• Regional Program Implementation �
i -s '
� STAFFING OPTIONS SELECTED BY
� WORKSHOP II
�
Option B - Contract Staff
� Staffing by contract with cities, regional
� agencies or County
o Full time solid waste coordinator
� o Full time secretary
o Contract with County, city or regional ,
agency for legal counsel
� Other work by contracts as needed
� Option C - No Council Staff
� No staff would be provided. All staffing
' needs would be met on an "ad hoc" basis.
• A city, regional agency or the County would
� be designated as the Lead Agency for
purposes of administration and responsibility
� for Coordinating Council meetings.
t Work would be identified as the need arises
and be accomplished by contracts with
� member jurisdictions, other agencies or
private sector.
� Responsibility for administration of work
contracts assigned at time of contract.
ISSUES TO CONSIDER IN �
SELECTING STAFFING OPTIONS �
• Composition of the regional agencies and �
the role of non-member jurisdictions; �
• Under each option how the proposed �
coordinating council's activities could be '
funded;
• Management and operating procedures '
between. all participating jurisdictions and �
agencies; '
• Suggested focus and work plan for the '
proposed coordinating council;
• Resolving interagency differences; and '
• Parameters of contracting and the '
1 relationship.
.p
O
O c N O W
CL o LU .o ca
' c 0
r
C1 � tr CO CD
cc c
c N O_
1
D Lt)
LO LU
U-
t3 0 Q
LU
M cc C ❑-
cts O
...1 c -0
LO 1 W N C
E - w co
O #= on
(n a)
LL cc o CO min —_
�.} cC O 0 a3
1co (n
� cc
CLM U— cc o 0
cnw- i c. M
(j c c +O'' p. C +w-' E c
-p cn ni W M O V
C7 i p LO cov C3 F— 2 U co
0 .0
luzca!
U—
Lid1 ++.aO
cc LO -0 -0U- N
~ z c ?. 3.3 0
d} u3 o a c c n
cr- cn
v > o
(n U-1
0 Lu W
d �C U— .. >
o U c c z ° CO
�#" o c
CII U O t1.
W
C, U ...
� ! ! !
1 - 11
✓ 1 `_�� \ � � � S: )�?I `. ,�J . t\' ",1 "�:, � �+ � cif_ �_ ./,� ., _ ,'_�.\, 't:� -.�' �. .+�. .��. - ,l
\ y,}•' `1�� \Cl}..l F °� � I •/� �._ -s ��r t 5.F ':r' .fir< } $ ( /- � ,i' f ;�"\ �\F'.. /, .^ r- '" -1
-
\.Y, Il ,1 ,� •C`e �/ .'r! a J'b �.;r?y �Y< _ \ , 1 � i-�,l l/j� \i..` y s� r ,`
rd1 �.'t� V• '� ' F��� '�A °�; F ,_A �- .r!�: ( t; xtyf a —x� e; -./t�. rY � .1 .� �� ��
�I f',x,. �'`, ` �/ �' \ ti< i /i \ \,If 1 -r4�_ `( ems '✓ , (" r��v ���� \ � -\^ � J - \ �,
• ,� •:�� - ' , -�� � \ p\ / -a C; _ `i v 1 �'_ �,� -� b, } it �,,�; qv� r
1
App-EN � 1 IX
.\ i -� �. � t � 1' � � _� a.../�� �Y y. ,� '� / \,! ,��� .� 1. lrl•�,�, \ 7 � \?� r�.�i
r', .. �r r.• � \ (f��(,� �.�, ,� r \{/���; '✓ \ `. ,�\- � ter, i �. � � J l�
cL
N ■ DES,1 ■\{ O D E'L'
i
fj
_{ti} li `\� -- v�' �` 't� ,,: .f��'' [ ° 1 - !�` 'i'iJ/ r >` }' -1. /y, �. •./'`'%+ � > ''�� ^ / .y\`. \\I- `�
!-
�s. r. � v q 1 /,� 'V.it /,r x -r ,'i_ rh\ x �'�, i .F1 1 �j �1 ` 1• `I } —i /
,• it � }- �r� _ Ir :� ' •°, -t' � � ;..` \ _ �. � ( t-1
-
�`�
, r, ` �� .� .1 � S F x iI �..1't x r ♦ �� � S � ' Jr T
'_ IFS '`-� !`- �1 * \ \ y •\r } ,"�4' r / -� r � ;?.. .`.� '��.:l d ..� �`,. -,.\ J `I,
(� �_ y .I.,1 /\C > \," \ ✓ ��(•�, ��-; { \ alr l�r�'/d � "- .� \ ,�\ ' /� I'( , {" \\'I r',Jt ` j \ '+7'- \� 1�
/" .T t � •/ I lr��` /,� \ x ,� d i'.. ,I 1— t�.J 1 �` l.z � ,` ,\ ,�- ^ -l. i' r, r. r r� �_�` .r 4 '` '1
' �'f<.:; ,. 1� /,f1 -•>•:/ f• r� 'r/''i�� �' �/�rJ � t. _`.� ,�- \,j�/ q_ %}• ^F l�f ��.C/ 1 \ A j� } 'r,,--••'. � `'�\r
tel'/
a
S
O
a:
r
n S s
OR
ISO
an t
U Ct On� � Q N '3� N •f e> J i � v as N
A r, �41 ,eGj raj � y � O i✓ y+ Q � �"�
�� F%tea' 'Cy ono 7s u
6. 0
G
r Ga •��i °' U G � o"� � "y �
°14 C+ G p• oa
i a rte/ A y N
QUW
at
S5
J
W W
d3 ° a4ra c ,
•� '7 � SS„Z � ,,,, 3 et
_ � �n
d T U
is U .a G
� aog .a
r
o a
= u
y
r °
G ,TUU
1
x ,
a
NN,
� d
� w �_ � �-' 3 � •s ood G
„ $ m
ti � � � � •�, s o N N N ,.
es
V y�
ea 4
S w a s 5a4 a a 4 .C, •;
i
O
cam'•+ � �0 3 ° � •� � '4 •s epi •�o � m E� °3 f' ,`�
d
E'd
9
use nU .�
o� Y •'
U � ,
h
�'E
.. c
u a
9
W �
� do.
0
X
Fj
d
a o
and Nx3
3 v G G `G
r � r
gE a. 12 o
��
rN° O y1 1
V
o v
T, ea may+U
O J A SY'oa y d
'•� d may,.
N o T T• u G y E
la
u o
0
12qr�
3 ° -a
V o � •° ✓ U G
� •x g o
° o
U y � o
�- 3
r2'w.� 3siY u
r •aa o) �� �' m �'� � ^ v
d
O B
G M
G N
I
u� s
0
v aA
r
r
i
i
..fir...
x -
L
3Tx ice• -!-'-�..�;f..i;:::Qi:t::Ql::•`:G:;:
-
`i:i`
:.::...........
Ra
L
R
y
T f`n
. o
R
o
.t
f':'�'fji?j::$�i:i''�i`•:4
0
t�ic
_ U
:n
- _."GLS.;:;.;•:::.
N
...........
C .
dr
R
U
�.f r
r
C!]
�:::'::.,,.;.�.}::.r....; '.y:.:::::::n ':::vv}:^:.::::::.::.�r::::}::::::-::•ii:3}T:};•ii}i:?::'iii:is
u _
3�::...._....:..-...`.6#a£r`.':�::i:::::$ '$3 .`ci' ::isvi::moi%?::J�,::?::::i:i:>� ii :Y:::::;.............::. ....::.�::. .:. ::. .:, :::::r.....:.. ,•--� o c
0 U0 U0
�/
.:- .:;:-;..::..::.;•::::......:........
R
U
'LS
-..........
��.// 'W:-:_i`:'yy"�iiiii:-ii: :•}:::•:i}}ii::•i::v}'::::.:::."`:iv
U
R
R
C
b
- C
oU a cc`as
R a a .�......::.
i�0 -- - {::��-Y:�:•_..-.:v:i:::-:':i:: ::i::::i::_::i::::is
...........
:. .:.
115.
..........:.. ::::.
w -
CJI
0
U
�` - tr"`r-�:��::i,-0:'::+vvti'••����•:::}:}i<'�}'r::•:"'.{r::.:::tiii:�::%::•:i•:-.'••'::r-::
_W w
<::M':•ist:;tf::i_?i.�.;:>�::?ryiiii:ii:4iiry::i.L+;i:
O
r
r .
o:
.................
-
dill
'GO:
Com::
`i:.
:r•..;:;'.;'`: %:i�3Si;i;;y9r::i:.%%`;'t:�?ik'`?ra:%��r%'<:::<:�Ei
`,<�"*i•:;t•>:•rroa::.;�k;;_y�yr:4;:;1�.'-zi•};tr;};`:z=r�'-:;iy:�
J - 4
i
r
+
V �
)'' y i !t v ,, 17 .
� V., j r -`/ �,� �.
-. v J 'I } �- -, v f ' ry } v
1�.,,r. L t \ _.,V y, t
7F� { F it z � �� �.�`� -f"), , ,5 / f yeti }
;t-- -/r �` �", t •. \��' � �� �. /� \� 7�s rlr , ', , _�% �. �.,.�ti t`_;; t� ,-_ 1 j �'p �R\/ �� i` ��'
.'�1f � :+ �1/.tr` {� y \ 1 C I t i 1 \ tet' �f ��. r �Z \ '4y C
c r i V �)� ., /� ,) V )i `-, a ,t( _i, 1 v I J )- -\I� `„ i : , i .:
;,` ,• t Sr` -3" ,,,: ;\rte V.T , i �.� , ij / '� - "t 1. I1"
, t, ttf�t% , % ,.,'�� -- � � ' 1� ; !
CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
February 2, 1994
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
' FROM: AVON M. WILSON, INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRE R
SUBJECT: TASK I ROLES AND RESPONSIBLIITIES FOR SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT - PROGRESS REPORT AND PRELIMINARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this report is twofold: to report on the presentations made by County
' and Authority staff to selected cities and regional JPAs and to present our preliminary
recommendations for a solid waste organizational framework. The recommended
framework is one which staff believes has the potential to address the criteria which .
came out of the two workshops and the input provided at the subsequent x.
presentations. If the organizational framework which staff proposes is generally ,.
acceptable to the Board, staff will refine its components further as directed, with the
' final Task I product - report and attachments - to be presented to the Board for
approval and transmittal on March 2, 1994.
It was our intent to have the final product ready for the February 2 Board meeting.,
However, a majority of the jurisdictions contacted wished to delay providing specific
input, pending a staff report from their managers. These should be available this
month. More detailed information regarding the recommended organizational
structure will also be available..
' RECOMMENDATION
• Consider the staff report on presentations and input received from contacted
jurisdictions.
• Review the staffs' preliminary organizational recommendation that the NPDES
model be developed, responding to the organizational and policy issues raised
' at Workshops I & II and the city/JPA presentations; indicating if this overall
direction is acceptable and what additional information should be included.
• Direct staff to return with a compete organizational structure which can be
recommended to County jurisdictions and which provides for a formation
process which is not dependent upon current Authority participation.
At the March meeting the Board will be making its final recommendation to member
jurisdictions and the Board of Supervisors on the preferred organizational structure
and staffing, Authority dissolution requirements and post Authority organizational
strategies for the recommended organizational structure.
K- 1
February 2, 1994 '
Task i - Preliminary Recommendations
Page Two ,
PRESENTATIONS
As of February 2, presentations will have been made before the following bodies:
• City of Pinole '
• City of Pleasant Hill
• City of Antioch
• City of Clayton
• City of Martinez
• City of Brentwood
• Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority ,
With the exception of the City of Pinole, where staff followed the outline of the materials
provided in advance (see Attachment A). The presentation followed the format of the
attached overhead transparencies (See Attachment 8). The change in presentation
was motivated by the need to get more definitive input. Staff felt that the issues and
options appeared to be too complex and confusing and tried this more clearly defined
sequential approach. While the jurisdictions may have 'understood the presentation
better, with the exception of one jurisdiction, did not feel comfortable in providing more
definitive direction. With one exception, none addressed the issue of staffing.
There is one more scheduled presentation: on February 10 before the West Contra
Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority. The input which follows includes
comments made by all. above jurisdictions except the two JPAs.
In general, the issues raised by the subject councilmembers were the same raised by '
the Workshop I & Il participants. Councilmembers were very guarded about the merits
of a countywide solid waste organization. If there were to be such an organization, it
should
• be cost effective - cost the ratepayer as little as possible;
• preserve and enhance local control;
• provide coordination which doesn't sacrifice local control or programs; and
• avoids duplication. ,
Other comments included
• Regional JPAs are sufficient - if coordination should ever be needed it can be
handled over lunch;
• There might be loss of local control over the waste stream;
• Competition should be encouraged. Competition has produced negotiations
with Acme Keller regarding the transfer disposal rates.
• Having a common voice has been helpful; the organization should focus on
solving common concerns.
• We need to be able to comply with AB 939 effectively.
i
K- 2
' February 2, 1994
Task I - Preliminary Recommendation
' Page Three
' It is not certain that we can develop a structure which can help us meet the AB
939 diversion goals...would be willing to work regionally.
• We need to keep bureaucracy to a minimum; we must not duplicate the
example of the Transportation Authority.
• We have enough agencies and layers of government already.
• We need to find economical ways to promote composting and to develop
markets.
• Implementing AB 939 by oneself could be expensive.
• Autonomy might be lost; One jurisdiction feared that the strides made by their
jurisdiction and its active volunteers would be lost if their programs were
' joined with those of other jurisdictions less aggressive (competent?).
They would be willing to join with others if it is proved that there would be
economy of scale, but not if local efforts are diminished in the process.
' An organizational structure to look at would be that of the Contra Costa Cities -
County • District • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System r
(NPDES) because
' it provides for local autonomy;
payment is based on each jurisdiction's percentage of the population;
it provides economy of scale and has ability to capture large scale
' economics; and
it provides a contract staff.
USING THE NPDES MODEL
Summary
' Staff has preliminarily investigated the NPDES model (See Appendix C) and believes
that it is a viable alternative to the five models considered at the two workshops; in that
' with some modifications or in combination with the Regional Agency Coordinating
Council (See Appendix D), it can accommodate most of the aforementioned issues or
concerns which have been raised. For instance:
' It provides one representative for each member jurisdiction
• Programs are divided into both local programs and group programs which are.
iof countywide interest and can be conducted on a countywide basis with
economies of scale.
' Each fiscal year a budget is approved by all participating jurisdictions which
includes monies for staff, administration and countywide programs with
additional monies designated to fund each individual jurisdiction's local
1 programs.
K- 3
February 2, 1994 t
Task I - Preliminary Recommendations
Page Four
• Non-participating jurisdictions can apply for a stormwater permit individually, '
and be responsible for meeting the law's requirements individually, but most
have chosen to work cooperatively because the ease of administration and
economies of scale. ,
• Each parcel is assessed according to both the cost of the locally approved local
programs as well as its percentage of the costs for the countywide programs.
• Assessment of individual jurisdiction's for therou administrative costs and
9 P
programs is based on each jurisdiction's percentage of the total population of
the participants. The funding is through a special assessment levied by the
county tax collector.
• The principal staff - program manager and assistant, are employees of the ,
consortium of`jurisdictions. Office space, supplies, administrative support are
provided by one of the agencies which bills the consortium for its costs. After
the programs organization was formed, the staff was hired by members of the '
program's steering committee.
Discussion '
Because goals and programs associated with the NPDES program are technically
driven, the staff members who originally set it up specifically provided that all members '
would be technical staff- either city engineers or public works directors. If this type of
structure interests the Authority, provision would. have to be made to ensure
participation of elected officials. One, could have a coordinating council or steering
committee comprised of elected officials with a technical advisory committee
comprised.of staff to provide guidance on the technical issues; perhaps AB 939 project
managers, city/district/County managers, or a combination of both. The Regional
Coordinating Council- model provides for this option. '
Because the Authority Board at its last meeting expressed concern that policy makers
continue to be directly involved in countywide solid waste policy development, some ,
thought needs to be given to this issue. Most staff members would generally prefer to
make both policy and implementation decisions unencumbered by the participation of
elected officials. Unless policy makers specifically make an effort to be involved in the ,
myriad and sometimes very complex solid waste issues, creating some type of
countywide organization which provides for policy maker direction, solid waste policy
issues, by default, will be decided by staff in the future. The recent negotiation '
process for the reduction of transfer and disposal rates is a case in point.
i
K- 4
1
Clerk of the Board
Attachment #2
1
' MODEL WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE
AND
WASTE COLLECTION RATE REVIEW MODEL
Prepared by
THE CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
AND
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
February 1994
r.
sr'9 COU
Printed on Recycled Paper
-Alo�v
f,P,�,7 )
MODEL WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE
AND
' T .
WASTE COLLECTION RATE REVIEW MODEL
Prepared by
' THE CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
AND
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
February 1994
.s
CLQ y�
sr'1.COUt1'��
Printed on Recycled Paper
MODEL WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE
AND
' WASTE COLLECTION RATE REVIEW MODEL
Prepared by
THE CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
' and
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
With Assistance from
Colette Curtis-Brown..........................Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
' Peter Dragovich..........................................................................City of Concord
Arlene Hildebrand............................................................. City of Walnut Creek
SherryKelly.................................................................................City of Martinez
' Janet Schneider.................................................................City of Walnut Creek
Advisory Body
' Valentin Alexeeff, Director - GMEDA.............................Contra Costa County
Donald Blubaugh, City Manager.....................................City of Walnut Creek
David Rowlands, City Manager..................................................City of Antioch
Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
4737 Imhoff Place. Suite 4
Martinez,CA 94553
(510)229-9113
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY REPRESENTING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Gretchen Mariotti, Chair City of Pinole
Mary Rocha City of Antioch
Bill Doheney City of Brentwood
Richard Erickson Byron Sanitary District
Sue McNulty Rainey Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
Peter Laurence City of Clayton
Crockett Valona
Douglas Tubbs Sanitary District
Dick Waldo Town of Danville
Jane Bartke City of El Cerrito
Beth Bartke City of Hercules
Ivor Powell lronhouse Sanitary District
Ivor Samson City of Lafayette
Barbara Woodburn City of Martinez
Jim Sweeny(Chair, May, 1992-July, 1993) Town of Moraga
Aldo Guidotti City of Orinda
Kimberly Brandt City of Pleasant Hill
Mary Lou Oliver City of San Ramon
Gene Wolfe City of Walnut Creek
CONTRA COSTA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Tom Powers, District I-Chair
Jeffrey V.Smith, District 11-
Nancy C. Fanden, District 11 (Retired)
Gayle Bishop,District III
Robert I. Schroder District III(Retired)
Sunne Wright McPeak-District IV
Tom Torlakson, District V
FORMER AUTHORITY BOARD MEMBERS t
Rosemary Corbin, Chair- December 1991-April 1992
Avon Wilson, Chair-July- December 1991 '
Diana Angela
Eduardo Manuel '
Mary Erbez
Joseph Gomes ,
Karene Gottfried
Cathie Kosel '
Norman La Force
Matt Mattson
Dwight Meadows ,
Dennis Nunn
Nancy Parent r
Russ Perkins
Barbara Price ,
Susanna Schlendorf
Michael Shimansky '
CITY COUNCILS
City of Antioch '
Mayor Joel Keller, Mary Rocha, Elizabeth A. Rimbault, Cathryn R. Freitas, Ralph A. Hernandez
City of Brentwood
Mayor Arthur Gonzales,William Hill, Bill Doheney, Karene Gottfried, Barbara Guise ,
City of Clayton '
Mayor Pete Laurence, Julie Pierce, Robert Kendall, Gregg Manning, Rich Littorno
Town of Danville ,
Mayor Don Richey, Mildred Greenberg, Mike Doyle, Michael Shimansky, Dick Waldo
City of EI Cerrito
Mayor Jane A. Bartke, Norman La Force, Norma Jellison, Cathie Kosel,W. Mae Ritz ,
' City of Hercules
Mayor Eduardo G. Manuel, Beth Bartke,Alexander C. Sample, III,William Simpson, Darrel "Jay"Tucker
City of Lafayette
' Mayor Anne Grodin, Gayle Uilkema,Judy Garvens, Ivor Samson, Don Tatzin
' City of Martinez
Mayor Michael Menesini, Barbara Woodburn, Harriet Burt,Timothy J. Farley, Julian Frazer
' Town of Moraga
Mayor Al Dessayer,James J. Sweeny, Cherie T.Grant, Michael Harris, Susan L. Noe
City of Orinda
Mayor Bobbie Landers, Aldo Guidotti, Bill Dabel,Joyce Hawkins, Gregg Wheatland
City of Pinole
Mayor Mary Horton, Peter Murray, Maria Alegria, Gretchen Mariotti, Daniel Purnell
' City of Pleasant Hill
Mayor Terri L. Williamson,W.D. 'Bill' Landis, Kimberly N. Brandt, Paul L. Cooper, Sherry M. Sterrett
City of San Ramon
Mayor Hermann Welm, Gregory L. Carr, Patricia Boom, Curtis Kinney, Mary Lou Oliver
City of Walnut Creek
Mayor Ron Beagley, Ed Dimmick, Evelyn Munn, Gwen Regalia, Gene Wolfe
' SANITARY DISTRICTS
Byron Sanitary District
' President Bob Byer, Ken Botte, Alison Clegg, Richard Erickson, Mike Nisen
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
President Susan McNulty Rainey, John B. Clausen, William C. Dalton, Barbara Hockett, Mario M. Menesini,
1
Crockett Valona Sanitary District. 1
President Douglas Tubbs, Rod Butler, Carl Heller, Peter Milcovich, John Wolthuis
use Sanitary '
Ironho y District
President Lenny Byer, Robert Gromin, Richard Kirkman, Dwight Meadows, David Mickelson, Ivor Powell ,
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
� PART 1
� MODEL WASTE COLLECTION
� FRANCHISE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
February 1994
MODEL WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS 3
SECTION 2. SCOPE 13
' 2.1 Term, Options, Whose Option 13
2.2 Exclusive, Non-Exclusive, Exceptions 13
' 2.3 Residential, Commercial, Multi-family, Industrial 14
2.4 Solid Waste, Recycling 14
2.5 Franchise Service Area 14
2.6 Annexation 14
2.7 Waste Stream Control, Ownership, Flow 15
2.8 Sale of Recyclable Material, Salvage Rights, Ownership 15
SECTION 3. SERVICE PROVISIONS 16
3.1 General Provisions 16
3.2 Implementation Plan 16
3.3 Franchise Area and Service Types 16
3.4 Recycling 17
3.5 Yard/Green Waste 18
3.6 Aid to the Elderly and Handicapped 19
3.7 Special Materials Campaigns 19
3.8 Franchisor Facilities/Events 19
3.9 Holidays 19
3.10 Missed Pickup or Failure to Provide Service 19
3.11 Transportation of Solid Waste 20
3.12 Household Hazardous Waste Program 20
3.13 Removal of Hazardous Waste 20
3.14 Illegally Dumped Bulky Waste 20
3.15 Removal of Dead Animals 20
SECTION 4. OTHER COLLECTION SERVICES 21
4.1 Customer Service 21
4.2 Billing and Payment 21
4.3 Public Access 22
4.4 Nondiscrimination Clause 22
' 4.5 Changes in Schedule 22
4.6 Emergency Procedures 22
4.7 Rights of Franchisor to Perform During Emergency 22
i
SECTION 5. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 23 '
5.1 Systems and Services Review 23 '
5.2 Maintenance of Collection and Processing Equipment 24
5.3 Sanitary Operations 25
SECTION 6. RATES 26
6.1 Franchise Fees 26
6.2 Compensation/Rates 26
6.3 Reviews 26
6.4 Affiliated Entities 37
SECTION 7. RECORDS/REPORTS 28 ,
7.1 Financial Reports 28 ,
7.2 Operational 28
7.3 Confidentiality/Customer Privacy 28
7.4 Customer Notification 29
7.5 Adverse Information 29
SECTION 8. LEGAL 30
8.1 Intent to Regulate 30
8.2 Compliance 30
8.3 Insurance 30
8.4 Faithful Performance Bond 31
8.5 Indemnity (Legal Liability) 32
8.6 Independent Contractor 32
8.7 Termination (Default) 33
8.8 Notices 34
8.9 Permits 34
8.10 Penalties 34
8.11 Attorney Fees 34
8.12 Severability 35
8.13 Assignment 35
8.14 California Integrated Waste Management Act Requirements 35
8.15 Miscellaneous or General Provisions 36
8.16 Franchisor Responsibility 37
SECTION 9. REFERENCES 38 ,
9.1 Solid Waste Franchises 38
9.2 Periodicals 39 ,
9.3 Unpublished Works 39
9.4 Miscellaneous 40
ii
I MODEL WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE
' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In April, 1993, Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
approved a Memorandum of Agreement and Work Plan which had as its goal a
partnership which could address the challenges and high costs of complying
' with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939). As part
of that work plan the two entities agreed to develop a model solid waste
collection franchise agreement; recognizing that a collection and/or recycling
' franchise is one of the single most important contracts which an entity can
award - representing the potential for significant profit to the contractor over the
life of the agreement. The model development would be staffed by both entities
assisted by staff from franchising entities representing cities and sanitary
districts; each having hadsome experience in developing and negotiating solid
waste and recycling franchises.
Drawing also upon a wide variety of existing franchises and studies, the
committee has developed an extensive list of topics, which are divided into
subject categories. While the model document is not all inclusive, it offers a
tfranchising entity a menu of provisions from which to choose in tailoring a
franchise agreement to its own particular concerns and interests.
1. Definitions
Recognizing that solid waste nomenclature is becoming more complex and
extensive, a list of definitions commonly used in more recently drafted
franchises is included. Definitions are not always generic, but are sometimes
presented verbatim as they might appear in a collection or recycling franchise.
Where there is more than one definition available, both are included.
2. Scope
The scope of a franchise deals with the parameters, or breadth, of the franchise.
It generally covers such issues as the term or length of the franchise,
exceptions, what wastestreams are to be collected, geographical boundaries of
the area to be serviced, who controls the wastestream and any other special
rights which are reserved by the franchisor.
3. Service Provisions
The primary customer services and services to the franchising agency which
are required of the contractor are discussed in this section. Service provisions
should address basic services: residential, commercial and industrial,
provisions for collection, processing and marketing of recyclables and green
waste, special material/events campaigns, such as phone book pickup and
festivals, hours and frequency of pickup, holidays and hazardous waste
collection.
1
4. Other Collection Services
This section deals with those services which relate to customer service, '
education, and public information. It also provides for non-routine types of
services or situations to which the contractor is expected to respond positively:
emergencies, aid to the elderly and handicapped, etc. ,
5. Performance Standards
This section is divided into three areas by which the performance of the '
contractor can be regularly measured: Systems and Services Review,
Maintenance of Collection and Processing Equipment and Sanitary Operations.
Properly developed, the provisions in this section should offer incentives for
innovation and high 'performance. Performance is then evaluated through
studies, reports and programs prepared by the contractor, and a regular
customer feedback process through surveys, public hearings and technical
evaluation.
6. Rates
Recognizing the interrelationship of the franchise and rate regulation, this
section sets guidelines for those areas which affect rates: franchise fees,
compensation, rate review process and handling of contractor affiliated entities.
7. Records/Reports '
This section outlines records which may. be required by the franchisor and
which are to be provided by the contractor. They may include financial and
operational reports, AB 939 reporting requirements and provisions for
confidentiality or reporting of adverse information regarding the contractor.
8. Legal
This section reviews the legal issues which should be considered by the
franchisor and the contractor. These types of provisions are intended to protect
the legal and economic interests of the customer and franchising agency,
assuring that services will be provided as stated. Some of this section's ,
provisions include: definition of the authority and responsibility of the franchisor,
rules which govern the contractor, provisions for assuring performance,
indemnification, termination, timely notification, penalties, conflict of interest and
purchase of equipment.
i
2 '
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS
' A majority of the definitions within this section were taken verbatim from existing
franchise agreements within Contra Costa County. As such, they are not always
generic definitions, but are sometimes specific to the agreements from which they
have been excerpted. Previously, the majority of agreements did not include a section
for definitions. Instead, terminology was defined within the language of the
agreement. Franchise agreements developed within the last five years tend to have
an explicit definition section. In this document, more than one definition has
sometimes been included for the same term to show the range and differences
between definitions as presented in different franchise agreements.
The definitions listed below are not intended to be all inclusive. Definitions are
grouped into two areas: general terminology and waste types.
' General
1 .1 "Affiliated Entity" is any entity which provides products or services to a
contractor and in which the contractor owns a ten percent (10 %) or greater
interest.
1 .2 "Agreement" means an agreement by and between the franchisor and the
contractor for the collection, removal, and disposal of solid waste and the
recycling of material.
' "Agreement" This agreement for the collection, removal , recycling and
disposal of garbage by and between the and the Contractor entered
into as of the date first written below.
1 .3 "Allowable Expense" means those expenses which under the terms of the
agreement are permissible and stipulated in the Rate Regulation Methodology,
except and until the franchisor and the contractor agree to adopt some other
Rate Regulation Methodology. Should the franchisor and the contractor adopt
such another Rate Regulation methodology, "Allowable Expense" shall have
the meaning accorded it in the new methodology.
1 .4 Allowable Revenue" means those revenues as deemed allowable and as
set forth in the Rate Regulation Methodology, unless and until the franchisor
and contractor agree to adopt some other Rate Regulation Methodology.
Should the franchisor and contractor adopt such another Rate Regulation
Methodology, "Allowable Revenue" shall have the meaning accorded it in the
tnew methodology.
1 .5 "Authorized Recycling Collection Program" A recycling collection
program operated by an authorized recycler under contact, franchise
agreement, or license with the franchising entity.
- 3
1 .6 "California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939)" '
means Sections 40000 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code and all
rules and regulations adopted under any of those sections, as such sections, '
rules and regulations may be amended from time to time in the future.
1 .7 "CERCLA" means the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act and the rules and regulations adopted under
that legislation by the EPA, as that legislation and those rules and regulations
have been and in the future may be amended from time to time.
"CERCLA" (Su erfund) Provides the primary federal legal structure for the
cleanup and remediation of contaminated sites. It imposes liability for and
permits private parties, including government entities such as cities and ,
redevelopment agencies; to bring civil action for the recovery of their expenses
in cleaning up contaminated property.
1 .8 "City Limits" shall mean the boundaries of the City together with all
amendments and changes thereto, which current boundaries are shown by
maps incorporated herein by reference and which are on file in the office of the ,
Clerk off the City Council.
1 .9 "Closure Surcharge" means the surcharge established for closure, post- ,
closure and additional regulatory costs for a Class II/III Site, as approved and as
may be amended from time to time, by the franchising agency and any
successor, and which may subsequently be adopted by any member '
jurisdiction of the franchising agency.
1 .10 "Collection" means the collection of recyclables and the collection and I disposal of garbage and rubbish.
1 .11 "Compost" means the product resulting from the controlled biological
decomposition of organic wastes that are source separated from the municipal
solid waste stream, or which are separated at a centralized facility. "Compost"
includes vegetable, yard, and wood wastes which are not hazardous waste.
1 .12 "Compost Operation" A process whereby the biological decomposition of
organic wastes is controlled so as to yield a safe and nuisance free product. '
1 .13 "Compostables or Compostable Materials" shall have the same meaning
as "compost".
1 .14 "Contractor" means the entity which has been granted an exclusive franchise
pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the franchise agreement. (In
franchise agreements, the terms "franchisee" or "grantee" are also used to
mean the same as "contractor".)
"Contractor" shall mean the entity granted the Franchise to arrange for the t
collection of solid wastes pursuant to this Franchise Agreement.
r
4
1 .15 "Curbside Recycling Collection Program" The franchisor's curbside
recycling program by which recyclables are picked up from single-family
' residences without payment of any redemption value to the property owner.
1 .16 "Customers" means those who have contracted with the contractor for the
collection, removal, recycling, or disposal of garbage as provided herein, or
who may be required to accept and pay for said service by local ordinance.
"Customers" means those who have contracted with the contractor for the
collection of materials for recycling and/or for the collection, removal, or
disposal of discarded materials, pursuant to this Agreement and applicable
ordinances, including mandatory subscription ordinances.
1 .17 "Development Project" means a project for which a building permit will
be
required for a commercial, industrial, or institutional building, marina, or
residential building having five or more living units, where solid waste is
collected and loaded and any residential project where solid waste is collected
and loaded in a location serving five or more units.
"Development Project" means any new public facility where solid waste is
collected and loaded and any improvements for areas of a public facility used
for collecting and loading solid waste.
1 .18 "Disposal Facility" means any facility or location where disposal of solid
waste occurs.
1 .19 "Disposal Site" includes the place, location, tract of land, area, or premises
in use, intended to be used, or which has been used for the landfill disposal of
solid wastes. "Disposal site" includes solid waste landfill.
1 .20 "Franchise Agreement" means this franchise agreement between the
contractor and the franchisee.
' 1 .21 "Franchise area" means the geographic area generally described and
depicted in graphic exhibits to an agreement, which exhibits are attached and
incorporated by reference, and more particularly are set forth in six hundred
(600) scale maps maintained and available for inspection at the franchisor's
offices. Said six hundred (600) scale maps shall reflect changes of boundaries
of the franchise area in such a manner as to identify each alteration to the
franchise area and the effective date thereof.
1 .22 "Franchisee" (See Contractor)
1.23 "Franchise Fee" means the fee or assessment imposed by the City on
Grantee solely because of its status as party to this Franchise Agreement, and
which, inter alia, is intended to compensate City for its expenses in
administering this Franchise Agreement and for damages to its roads, curbs,
sidewalks and other parts of the City's infrastructure.
5
1 .24 "Franchisor" the entity, agency or jurisdiction which grants, through a
contractual agreement, the right or privilege to exercise the duties and perform
the functions related to the collection, processing, marketing and disposal of '
recyclables and other solid waste.
1 .25 "Grantee" (See Contractor )
1 .26 "Gross Rev '
enues means any and all revenue or compensation m any form
derived directly or indirectly by Grantee, its affiliates, subsidiaries, parents or
any other person or entity in which Grantee has a financial interest, in collecting,
transporting, arranging, selling, recycling, handling and/or diverting recyclables
generated in the Franchise Area.
1 .27 "Hazard" includes any condition, practice, or procedure which is or may be
dangerous, harmful, or perilous to employees, property, neighbors, or the
general public.
1 .28 "HDPE" means High Density Polyethylene.
1 .29 "Landfill" means a disposal site employing a method of disposing of solid
wastes on land without creating nuisances or hazards to public health or safety,
by utilizing principles of engineering to confine the wastes to the smallest
practical area, to reduce them to the smallest practical volumes, and to cover
them with a layer of suitable cover material at specific designated intervals.
1 .30 "Local Legislation" means any code, ordinance, resolution, or other formal
enactment of the governing body of the franchising agency which now exists or
which may hereafter be adopted which constitutes law or regulation governing
the operations of the contractor within or about the political boundaries of the
franchise area.
1 .31 "Multi-Family Unit" A dwelling which includes two or more individual living
units with common walls and which receives communal refuse and/or recycling
services.
1 .32 "Nondisposal Facility" means any solid waste facility which is neither a
landfill or transformation facility.
1 .33 PETE" means Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET).
1 .34 "Prospective Funding Mechanism" means a mechanism for funding costs
of closure or post-closure of a Class II/III Site of surcharges which may be
assessed for solid waste disposal at the land fill, or a Transfer facility or other
solid waste disposal facility.
r
. 6 �
1 .35 "Rate Regulation Methodology" means the methodology agreed upon by
the franchisor and contractor for calculating, setting and adjusting collection
rates. Unless and until the franchisor and contractor agree to adopt some other
methodology, Rate Regulation Methodology shall mean the methodology set
forth regarding financial disclosure requirements, including requirements for
audited financial information and documentation of intercompany transactions,
and rate regulation for collection of recyclables, yard waste and solid waste
collection and disposal operations.
1 .36 "Residential Unit" includes any occupied premises having bathroom or
toilet, and kitchen plumbing facilities, suitable for residential occupancy by a
number of persons living together as a single family, including single family
dwellings, and each group of occupied rooms constituting living quarters for a
single family duplex, triplex, flat, court or other common wall multiple dwelling
structure, but excluding any living or sleeping quarters in hotels, rooming
houses, motels, or auto courts where kitchen facilities are not provided.
1 .37 "Recycle" or "Recycling" means the process of collecting, sorting, cleaning,
treating, and reconstituting materials that would otherwise become solid waste,
and recovering them so that they may be used in the form of raw material for
new, reused, or reconstituted products.
"Recycle or Recycling" The process of separating and collection of used
materials which would otherwise become solid waste, for the purpose of
reprocessing them to create new materials to be returned to the economic
mainstream.
1 .38 "Recyclable Material" includes all waste materials which may be
commercially reprocessed for beneficial use which are disposed of for recycling
purposes. These include, but are not limited to cardboard, metals, plastics,
paper-based materials, glass and oils.
"Recyclable Material" means discarded material generated or collected at
' place or premises, and in a condition such that it can be re-manufactured or
reprocessed into usable materials or new products.
"Recyclable or Recyclable Material" shall have the same meaning as
provided in the City's municipal Code and includes material which can be
reused or processed into a form suitable for reuse through reprocessing or
remanufacture, consistent with the requirements of the California Integrated
Waste Management Act. The term "Recyclable or Recyclable Materials"
includes paper, newsprint, printed matter, paste-board, paper containers,
cardboard, glass, aluminum, PET and other plastics, beverage containers,
compostable materials, used motor oil, automotive batteries, anti-freeze, latex
paint, brick and stone in reusable size and condition, and such other materials
designated by the California Integrated Waste Management Board, or other
agency with jurisdiction.
7
1 .39 "Salvage" means the removal of material from the waste stream following
collection and refurbishing such material so that it may be reused.
1 .40 "Single Family Unit" means a dwelling which receives individual refuse r
and/or curbside recycling service.
Waste Types
Definitions of "solid waste" varyfrom very general definitions encompassing the whole
rY 9 P 9
waste stream to very specific identification of waste types.
1 .41 "Bulky Material or Waste" means large items of solid waste such as
appliances, furniture, large auto parts, trees, branches, stumps and other
oversize wastes whose large size precludes or complicates their handling by
normal collection, processing or disposal methods.
1 .42 "Commercial Solid Waste" means solid waste routinely originating from 1
stores, business offices, commerciai warehouses, hospitals, educational, health
care, military and correctional institutions, non-profit research organizations,
and non-exempt government offices. Commercial solid waste does not include
construction or demolition waste,industrial waste or septage.
"Commercial Solid Waste" includes all types of solid wastes generated by
commercial, industrial, governmental and other sources which have been
placed in an authorized solid waste container used for the temporary storage of
solid waste awaiting .pickup. The term "Commercial Solid Waste" does not
include hazardous wastes generated by commercial, industrial, governmental
and other sources and which are placed in separate containers and which are
covered by hazardous waste manifests.
1 .43 Construction and Demolition Wastes includes the waste building
materials, packaging and rubble resulting from construction, remodeling, repair '
and demolition operations on pavements, houses, commercial building and
other structures. They are removed from a site during the razing or renovation
of a structure as part of a total service offered by a duly licensed demolition
contractor (C-21 license).
1 .44 "Dead Animals" include those animals whose carcasses require removal.
8 ,
1 .45 "Designated Waste" shall mean any designated wastes as defined in 23
CCR, No. 2522, and special handling waste generated by industrial facilities or
' processes, but shall not include "hazardous waste" as defined herein. Special
wastes shall also include those wastes which are bulky or difficult to transport.
Special wastes shall include sewage sludge, water treatment sludge, infectious
wastes, dead animals, medical wastes, geothermal waste, demolition debris,
drilling muds, contaminated soils, shredder waste, agricultural wastes, filter
cake/dewatered sludge, spent catalyst fines, refinery ash and byproducts;
except where any such waste are deemed to be hazardous. (In franchise
agreements the term "special wastes" has the same meaning as "designated
wastes".)
1 .46 "Garbage" includes all animal and vegetable refuse and household waste
resulting form the preparation of food, and all animal and vegetable refuse from
places where foodstuffs intended for human consumption are handled
commercially, and all cans, bottles, or other receptacles used as food
containers, not disposed of for recycling purposes.
"Garbage": (1) animal, fruit and vegetable refuse; (2) offal; (3) leaves and
cuttings, trimmings from trees, shrubs and grass; (4) inorganic refuse and
rubbish; (5) anything thrown away as worthless; provided, however, that
garbage shall not be defined as or include Hazardous Waste, Demolition
Debris or abandoned automobiles.
1 .47 "Hazardous Waste" means a waste, or combination of wastes, which
i because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious
characteristics may either:
' a. cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an
increase in serious.irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or
b. pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed
of, or otherwise managed.'
The term hazardous waste" is intended to include all waste which is defined as
being a hazardous waste pursuant to any federal, state or county laws, statutes,
ordinances or other regulation currently in effect or as may be enacted or
amended in the future.
9
"Hazardous Waste or Materials" means any waste materials or mixture of
wastes defined as such pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., or the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq., and all
future amendments to either of them, or as defined by the California
Environmental Protection Agency or the, California Integrated Waste
Management Board, or either of them. Where there is conflict in the definitions
employed by two or more agencies having jurisdiction over hazardous or solid
waste, the term "Hazardous Waste" shall be construed to have the broader,
more encompassing definition.
1 .48 "Industrial Solid Waste" means all solid waste and semi-solid waste which
results from industrial processes and manufacturing operations, excluding ,
recyclables.
"Industrial Waste" Non-sewered liquid waste and solid waste produced as
by-product of industrial processes, or other refuse produced or accumulated as
a result of industrial processes, or other refuse produced or accumulated as a
result of industrial processes, including waste produced by the District and other
public entities as a result of treatment or other processes .undertaken in
providing public utility services.
"Industrial Waste" means solid waste originating from mechanized
manufacturing facilities, factories, refineries, and publicly operated treatment
works.
1 .49 "Infectious Wastes" include:
a. Equipment, instruments, utensils and other fomites (any substance that ,
may harbor or transmit pathogenic organisms) of a disposable nature
from the rooms of patients who are suspected to have or have been
diagnosed as having a communicable disease and must, therefore, be t.
isolated as required by public health agencies;
b. laboratory wastes, including pathological specimens (i.e., all tissues,
specimens of blood elements, excreta and secretions obtained from
patients or laboratory animals) and disposable fomites attendant thereto;
C. surgical operating room pathologic specimens - including recognizable
anatomical parts, human tissue, anatomical human remains and
disposable materials from hospitals, clinics, outpatient areas and
emergency rooms, as is also defined in Section 314(d) of the California
Administrative Code, Title 17.
1 .50 "Litter" means all improperly discarded waste material, including, but not
limited to, convenience food, beverage, and other product packages or
containers constructed of steel, aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, and other
natural and synthetic materials, thrown or deposited on the lands and waters of
the state, but not including the properly discarded waste of the primary
processing of agriculture, mining, logging, sawmilling, or manufacturing.
10
1 .51 "Municipal Solid Waste" means all solid waste generated within a city
which is designated for collection under a franchise agreement.
' 1 .52 "Putrescible Wastes" includes wastes that are capable of being
decomposed by micro-organisms with sufficient rapidity as to cause nuisances
because of odors, gases or other offensive conditions, and include materials
such as food wastes, offal and dead animals.
1 .53 "RCRA" means Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - Federal legislation
tto improve solid waste disposal methods and environmentally sound
management practices.
1 .54 "Refuse" means garbage and rubbish.
1 .55 "Residential Solid Waste" means solid waste routinely originating from
single-family or multiple family dwellings. Residential solid waste includes
household hazardous waste, but does not include septage.
1 .56 "Rubbish" includes all refuse other than garbage, including' paper, rags,
leaves, grass, vines, sawdust, cans, ashes, and tree trimmings, but does not
include rocks, bricks, dirt, concrete, and similar solid materials, not disposed of
for recycling purposes.
1 .57 "Septage" means non-sewered liquid or semi-liquid waste which may be
trucked to treatment facilities for disposal, to include, but not be limited to, waste
from residential septic tanks, commercial grease cleanouts, and industrial waste
holding facilities.
1 .58 "Solid waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid, semisolid, and
liquid wastes, including garbage, trash, refuse, paper, rubbish, ashes,
demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles and parts thereof,
discarded home and industrial appliances, dewatered, treated, or chemically
fixed sewage sludge which is not hazardous waste, manure, vegetable or
animal solid and semi-solid wastes, and other discarded solid and semisolid
wastes. Solid waste does not include infectious, designated, and hazardous
waste, except household hazardous waste.
'
Solid W _
Waste" means putresable and non-putrescible solid and semi-solid
material. The term "solid waste" includes garbage; refuse; trash; rubbish;
kitchen or table wastes, animal or vegetable wastes; tree, shrub or brush
trimmings; newspapers or magazines; ashes; paper or cardboard; tin or
aluminum cans; yard clippings; wood; glass; bedding; crockery; plastics or
rubber by-products; litter; animal excrements; disposable diapers; vegetable or
animal sewage; industrial wastes; demolition and construction wastes; and
discarded home and industrial appliances.
11
"Solid Waste" shall have the same meaning as provided in the City's
Municipal Code, and shall exclude recyclables placed in an approved recycling
container. Solid Waste under the municipal code is defined as follows: ,
a. "Solid waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid, semisolid,
and liquid wastes, including garbage, trash, paper, rubbish, ashes,
industrial wastes, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned
vehicles and parts thereof, discarded home and industrial appliances,
dewatered, treated, or chemically fixed sewage sludge which is not
hazardous waste, manure, vegetable or animal solid and semisolid '
wastes and other discarded solid and semisolid wastes, provided,
however, that solid waste does not include recyclable materials.
b. "Solid waste" does not include hazardous waste low-level radioactive
waste regulated under Chapter 7.6 (commencing with Section 25800) of
Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code.
C. "Solid waste" does not include medical waste which is regulated
pursuant to the Medical Waste Management Act Chapter 6.1
(commencing with Section 25015) of Division 20 of the California Health
and Safety Code, provided that the medical waste, whether treated or
untreated, is not disposed of at a solid waste facility. Medical waste
which has been treated and which is deemed to be solid waste shall be
regulated pursuant to this chapter.
1 .59 "Special Wastes" (See Designated Wastes)
1 .60 "Waste stream" means the solid waste to be collected under this Agreement
from the time of its collection by the Contractor to its disposal at a landfill or
delivery to a transfer facility or other.facility by Contractor.
1 .61 "Yard Waste" Organic material from trees, shrubs, grass and similar t,
vegetation. Yard waste may also be designated as recyclable by the City.
i
1
12
SECTION 2. SCOPE
2.1 Term, Options, Whose Option
The term of a franchise agreement should be of sufficient length to warrant and
protect significant capital expenditure by the refuse collection and/or recycling
company (i.e., 10+ years). The length of the term, however, should not be
excessively long so that the contractor becomes complacent or too few
opportunities become available to amend the agreement to account for
significant changes such as new legislation or changing public priorities (i.e.,
20+ years). Franchise agreements generally compromise on these extremes
and it is not uncommon for agreements to be made for 15 years with several 5
year options, either at the franchisee or franchisor's election. Within this
structure there exist numerous options for addressing the special needs of the
parties. For example, in an agreement between the City of Hercules and Pinole
Garbage Service (a division of Richmond Sanitary Service), the contractor is
granted an exclusive franchise for garbage collection for a 15-year term. If at
any time during the 15-year term, the contractor is required to refinance for
capital improvements or participate in a bond issue for capital improvements in
which the total funds involved exceed $4,000,000, the City of Hercules agrees
to extend the term of the agreement for an additional 10 years with a cap to any
extension of 25 years from the commencement date of the franchise.
In general, it is recommended the initial term of the agreement be relatively
short (i.e. 10 years or less), that renewal options be tied to measurable
performance standards to be met by the contractor, and that discretion for
granting renewal options be retained by the jurisdiction issuing the franchise.
2.2 Exclusive, Non-exclusive Exceptions
IBy definition, an exclusive franchise implies the contractor has acquired the
sole right to collect, remove and dispose of all garbage (residential, commercial,
industrial and/or recyclables) as defined within the agreement. Exceptions to
exclusivity may be granted, as indicated by the following example:
"the generator is able to collect, remove, and dispose of their own
garbage in a sanitary manner and in conformance with applicable
laws."
This would appear to be a significant exception that could defeat the use and
value of the franchise. This exception promotes competition within a franchise
arrangement, i.e. contractor is constantly pressured to provide as good or better
service than the generator is able to perform for themselves. Monitoring and
responding to issues arising from such an exception can draw significant
resources from the jurisdiction.
13
2.3 Residential, Commercial, Multi-family, Industrial
As an alternative to stating "all garbage generated within the City" is included by
the franchise agreement, specific service within each land use, as desired and
approved by the franchisor, may be defined. For example, residential service
may provide for backyard, sideyard, or curbside collection, recycling service,
and annual clean-up events. The service interval (State law requires at least
once a week - 14 CCR, Article 5, No. 17331) should be specified. Commercial
and industrial garbage collection may allow extended intervals for pick-up if the
waste is non-putrescible. Commercial, multi-family, and industrial recycling '
programs may specify goals for tonnages to be collected and a reporting system
with verification.
may also wish to explore excluding hazardous wastes as a waste
Jurisdictionsy p 9
covered by the franchise agreement.
2.4 Solid Waste, Recycling
Solid waste and recycling franchise agreements may be combined in the same
document or treated as separate agreements. In general, if the contractor, term
of the agreement and service area are identical for each, there is adequate
justification to combine the agreements into one document. Variation in one or
more of these areas would appear to be best handled through separate
agreements which could be revisited, amended, or extended without disturbing `
or opening up the terms of the other.
2.5 Franchise Service Area.
Unless the jurisdiction grants multiple service area franchises within its
geographic boundaries, it is recommended the definition of service area be
described as the incorporated limits of the jurisdiction as they exist on the
effective date of the agreement and as they may "hereafter be changed by
reason of annexation, de-annexation or rezoning" (March 1986 Franchise
Agreement Between the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and Valley
Disposal, Inc.). It is useful, as included in the Martinez - Pleasant Hill Bayshore
Agreement, to include an exhibit showing these boundaries as of the effective
date of the agreement. While these boundaries may change, the extent of the
initial service area is made clear.
2.6 Annexation
There should be a provision in the franchise agreement for future annexations
of land by the franchisor to the franchise area. This provision would include a
hold harmless statement indemnifying the franchisor against any claims by
another franchise holder which attests that the former franchise holder
continues to have any right to service the area so annexed.
14 ,
2.7 Waste Stream Control, Ownership, Flow
Waste stream ownership and control is a critical issue to be negotiated in a
tfranchise agreement. The need to meet waste division mandates, control
direction of the waste stream to desired transfer station(s) and to market and
process recyclables requires waste stream control. Indeed, designating
environmentally safe disposal option(s) at a comfort level required by a
jurisdiction necessitates this control. Indemnification from environmental
liability is an elusive goal which can be argued is not achievable. The
' advantages of waste stream control are great and this control should be
included in the franchise agreement. While franchising entities currently have
the right to include waste stream control within their franchise agreement,
rdevelopments in federal law should be watched closely over the next several
years. Federal legislation may affect a jurisdiction's rights to specify waste
stream ownership and flow control. Current RCRA/CERCLA liability
considerations suggest that a jurisdiction might want to relinquish control of the
waste stream to the contractor as a part of a larger strategy to arrange
�+ indemnification for environmental responsibility.
■ 2.8 Sale of Recyclable Material, Salvage Rights, Ownership
The sale of source separated materials by the generator is generally
recognized as a right occurring to the generator.
Salvage refers to removing and refurbishing materials once they have
entered the waste stream; following collection.
Salvage rights and the sale of recyclable material are subject to change.
In late 1993, the .California Supreme Court is expected to hear the
Rancho Mirage case. SB 450 (Dills) - a two year bill - may also affect
rights in this area.
r
15
211
SECTION 3. SERVICE PROVISIONS
f3.1 General Provisions
There should be a general statement that all provisions and any changes are
' subject to revision and approval by the franchising agency. This section should
further state that except for those sections which indicate otherwise, the
contractor shall provide the specifically enumerated services as requested. It
should contain a provision which states that if the contractor is unable to provide
the enumerated services that the franchisor can seek service elsewhere. It
should also articulate franchisor's policy regarding the subcontracting of certain
' contractor responsibilities to consultants.
3.2 Implementation Plan
If the franchise is with a new contractor, a provision requiring a curbside solid
q 9
waste implementation plan for Residential/ Commercial-Ind ustrial/Recyclables/
Green waste to be submitted by the contractor should be required within a given
time frame.
3.3 Service Types
This section should specify the service types: Residential - single family, multi-
family; Commercial/Industrial; to be serviced. There should then follow a
detailed description of duties for each service type:
a. Residential
The franchisor has the right to dictate the type of residential service to be
provided. This section should include a statement indicating whether the
collection is curbside or backyard or both, depending on terrain or
agreed upon collection type, such as automated pickup. It should
indicate the type and size of container and who provides the container(s).
It should include frequency of pickups beyond the State required
minimum of one pickup per week, routing and limits on hours/days of
collection. It should specify any other residential solid waste collection
events and number per year; indicating any special provisions which
relate to those events. It should indicate whether the contractor is
required to recycle any materials picked up at those events.
b. Commercial/Industrial Solid Waste Collection
This section should include general guidelines which relate to pickup,
hours of collection, frequency of pickup (particularly, in picking up of
putrescible waste). It should specify appropriate receptacles and
locations where materials may be disposed other than landfills.
i
16
3.4 Recycling
This section articulates the franchisor's requirements and the contractor's plan ,
for collection, processing and marketing of recyclables. Whether recycling is
included in the same document with solid waste collection, or as a separate
franchise, with different provisions and/or with a different collector/recycler, the
following information should be included: '
a. Single Family Residential Recycling
1 The franchisor's AB 939 diversion9 oals and the contractor's
reporting requirements in meeting those goals.
2) The size, number, color (if applicable) of containers for the '
collection of recyclables. Provision for replacement of stolen or
destroyed containers should be included. It should specify the
ownership of the containers during and at end of contract term.
3) Materials to be collected and provision for adding materials in the
future.
4) Contractor's responsibility for dissemination of education/public
information regarding all aspects of the recycling programs.
5) Hours and days of pickup and regulations specifying appropriate
transport to processing facility and disposition of materials.
Permission to landfill or other waivers should be discussed. If the
franchisor participates as a partner/JPA member in a non-disposal
facility development, specific direction to utilize the facility should
be included.
b. Multi-Family Residential Recycling
1) AB 939 diversion goals and the contractor's responsibility in
meeting these goals.
2) Collection containers, enclosures and replacement provisions.
3) Materials to be collected and provisions for adding materials.
4) Education of complex managers and resident regarding the
program; enumerating services to be provided to the complex.
C. Commercial/Industrial
1) The contractor's programs for collection, processing and
marketing of all recyclables.
17
2) The franchisor's AB 939 diversion goals and the contractor's
responsibility in meeting those goals. Reporting requirements, as
detailed in the AB 939 Reporting Section should be referred to.
3) The materials to be targeted.
4) The franchisor's or approved contractor's plans for recycling
should be detailed in this section. It should include provisions for
collection methodology, equipment, labor requirements,
containers to be used, publicity, education, marketing, financial
forecasts and diversion projections. If this is a contractor-
developed plan the franchisor should retain approval/modification
ability to ensure program can meet goals. Provisions for
utilizing/paying consultants to assist in the plan development
should be included.
5) The contractor's responsibility to conduct bi-annual waste audits of
all commercial/industrial customers for the purpose of identifying
the volume and characteristics of commercial solid waste
generated; providing the basis for diversion programs provided to
the franchise area.
3.5 Yard/Green Waste
This section should include the AB 939 goals and the contractors' responsibility
in meeting those goals. Reporting requirements as specified in Section 7,
should be referred to.
a. This section should present either the franchisor's requirements or the
contractor's plan for the collection, processing of green waste. The
franchisor should retain approval/modification powers to assure that
�. goals are being met.
' b. The plan should include equipment, labor requirements, type of
containers - rigid, bagged or loose, ownership and placement of
containers, frequency of collection, exact type of materials allowed to be
collected, composting facilities, restrictions; publicity, education and/or
marketing, financial forecasts and diversion projections.
C. The franchisor should also reserve the right to direct the yard/green
waste to a given facility or to one in the future, if appropriate.
18
3.6 Aid to the Elderly and Handicapped
Most franchises include a provision for assisting residents with pickup,
particularly where there is curbside pickup of solid waste, recyclables and/or
green waste. This provision would require the contractor to make separate
arrangements with any resident who claims special treatment, due to age or
physical handicap. The provision can specify a certificate from a licensed
physician or proof of date of birth.
3.7 Special Materials Campaigns
One or more sections should be devoted to special materials collected on a
once a year basis, such as telephone book recycling, cleanup days and
Christmas tree pick-up. It should include any special details for planning and
implementing these events as well as the disposition of materials.
3.8 Franchisor Facilities/Events '
This section should specify those franchisor-sponsored events and facilities,
locations and materials to be collected which the contractor is to service free of
charge to the franchisor. It is generally the practice that the cost of these "free of
charge" services are passed onto the ratepayers. It should specify the collection
hours/frequency and location and types of collection containers. If many
facilities and containers are to serviced, that list should be provided in an exhibit
attached to the franchise. Special events collection general guidelines should
also be attached.
3.9 Holidays
This section should identify those holidays on which waste and recyclables are
not be collected; with provision for alternate days when usual collections days
fall on a holiday.
3.10 Missed Pickup or Failure to Provide Service
This provision sets the process by which the franchisor provides service if the
contractor defaults. It sets the fees which the franchisor may collect from the
contractor in such circumstances.
19
3.1 1 Transportation of Solid Waste
If not included in another section, this section usually contains a statement
requiring the contractor to provide for the transportation of all solid waste
transported to a disposal site, transfer station and/or materials recovery facility
(MRF). It further requires that the contractor shall maintain records of all
' materials disposed and cooperate in any audit or investigation of such records,
consistent with the reporting requirements for AB 939 or other franchisor record
keeping. It can require the contractor to cooperate with the operators of transfer
station s/MRFs/disposal sites in unloading materials in designated areas. It
requires the contractor to cooperate and provides compensation for only
extraordinary transportation costs, such as hauls outside the service area.
3.12 Household Hazardous Waste Program
The franchisor may wish to include a provision for collection of household
quantities of those household hazardous waste products which are recyclable,
such as used motor oil, latex paint and lead acid auto batteries. The provision
can include curbside collection or establishment of a drop off center which is
centrally located within the franchise area. It should provide for adding other
items in the future as circumstances and facilities permit.
3.13 Removal of Hazardous Waste
The contractor should be empowered to conduct inspections to discover any
waste which is defined by State or Federal laws as hazardous and/or to refuse
any hazardous waste which is placed in any collection container or is delivered
to the contractor's facility. It details the process by which the contractor refuses
the material; alternately disposing of the materials; notifying the franchisor
and/or other agencies having jurisdiction. It provides for reimbursement of any
contractor disposal costs.
3.14 Illegally Dumped Bully Waste
There should be a requirement for the contractor to provide on-demand pickup
of illegally dumped bulky waste, such as refrigerators, chairs, abandoned auto
parts, etc. The provision should specify notification and response time
requirements.
3.15. Removal of Dead Animals
This type of provision Y
specifies conditions b which the contractor will remove
P
all dead small domestic and wild animals found on the right-of-way within the
ffranchise area. It should provide notification and response times for removal.
M
20
SECTION 4. OTHER COLLECTION SERVICES
' 4.1 Customer Service
Customer service requirements are a necessary part of the solid waste
franchise. Within this section should be included provisions for public
information which relates to rates, fees, charges, service options, payment
options, discounts (if any), days of collections, the amount and manner of refuse
to be collected, service level, and inquiry/ complaint procedures; including the
name, address and local telephone of the contractor. In concert with Section 5.
Performance Standards, it should
a. set standards for level of service, efficiency and customer satisfaction;
b. provide mechanisms for determining performance: surveys, customer
complaint log, specific reports, time and motion studies;
C. establish procedures for receiving, processing and tracking complaints,
including an arbitration and/or appeal process. The contractor may be
required to keep records of all complaints, submit records to the
franchisor and provide records of the contractor's response. There
should be time limits set for the contractor's response and the franchisor
should require that all complaints should be reasonably resolved;
id. designate a liaison between the franchisor and contractor and establish
a standard meeting time;
' e. specify the contractor's responsibilities to provide, with franchisor
approval, consumer information regarding various programs and the
preparation of materials for recycling and green waste; and
f. direct the contractor to prepare and distribute information to insert with
billings as well as provide direct-mail information letters.
4.2 Billing and Payment
This section should require the contractor to provide regular billing of all
customers. It should also indicate the method of billing. This billing should
provide an itemized list of all services. It should specify the frequency of billing
as well as any other special provisions required by the franchisor for billing
inserts and refunds.
' 21
4.3 Public Access
This provision should require the establishment of a local office and telephone '
response service within the franchise area for the purpose of meeting customer
obligations. It should further specify the establishment of regular office hours for
the public; where the public can pay bills and have access to the contractor's
representatives, such as a customer liaison.
4.4 Nondiscrimination Clause
This rovision should require that the contractor will not discriminate in the
P
provision of services or the employment of persons based on race, color,
religion, sex, age, physical handicap or medical condition or any other
conditions as specified by State or Federal law. The contract should detail how
the contractor will respond to any special needs represented by these
circumstances.
4.5 Changes in Schedule
There should be a provision for public notification of customers prior to any
change in service. It should provide for specific number of days advance
notification.
4.6 Emergency Procedures
The franchise should provide for emergency call out procedures due to man 1
made or natural disasters or labor strike. This agreement should also provide
for any necessary suspension of services or other emergency measures for the 1
duration of the emergency.
4.7 Rights of Franchisor to Perform During Emergency
This provision would set the parameters by which the franchisor assumes
responsibility to collect, transport and dispose of all solid waste controlled by
the contract. In the event the contractor is unable or unwilling to perform, it
would set the notification process, time limits, health, safety and welfare
justification and reimbursement of costs to the franchisor.
1
1
22 1
1
' SECTION 5. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
' With the goal of a cost effective collection system, responsive to customer needs,
responsive to the ever changing Federal and State mandates, and technological
changes, franchisor and contractor should negotiate collection performance standards
which also respond to health, safety and environmental responsibilities.
' 5.1 Systems and Services Review
' a. Efficiencies in Operation
Under this process a contractor would be expected to develop a
routing/service plan, including implementation which must have a regular
' evaluation by the franchisor which considers alternatives for improving
efficiencies and cutting costs. The franchisor might want to include a
clause which reserves the right to perform an independent inspection or
review. It might also stipulate the conditions by which the routing
plan/times might be altered. For instance, such a plan and review might
consider
' 1) the number of stops per truck and/or operator(s);
2) the cost per stop; per truck; per disposed ton;
3) the total community cost for collection, transportation; for transfer;
' for disposal;
4) Waste projections, using waste audits or professional projections;
' 5) the impact of union contracts/labor relations;
' 6) complaints;
7) customer satisfaction survey results; and
' 8) recycling and yard waste collection participation rate.
b. Comparison With Comparable Communities
To provide for periodic technological and economic changes, the
' franchisor may require a periodic report from the contractor which
compares operational standards with those in similar communities.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District does this through a quarterly forum
of elected officials, contractors and community representatives.
' 23
C. Capital and Equipment Purchasing and Improvement Plan '
The contractor is required to submit a purchasing and improvement plan
for a specific time period - 2-5 years - the nature of the capital and
equipment to be acquired and an estimate of the costs and impact of the
rates. ,
1) The franchise may require the contractor to initially provide one
container to each participating household. The contractor is then t
permitted to sell additional containers to residents upon request.
There should be a provision for who owns them when the
franchise is terminated. '
2) The franchisor may reserve the right to include in the rate base the
reasonable cost of equipment and review the expenses of major
purchases. ,
3) The franchisor may require use of the franchisor's jurisdiction as
PTI the point of sale with the franchisor's sales tax number.
d. :Inspection
The franchise stipulates the right of the franchisor to inspect facilities, ,
equipment, daily operation and records upon reasonable notice.
5.2 Maintenance of Collection and Processing Equipment
This category establishes requirements for a collection system which is
sufficient to regularly - in a safe and sanitary manner - collect, process and
dispose of the franchise area's solid wastes; consistent with all applicable
ordinances, laws and regulations. It can include '
a. reports on type, mileage, expected life, value and use of the equipment;
b. establishment of standards for types of equipment utilized and '
purchased, maintenance of equipment, including proper licensing,
registration, noise levels and other health and safety issues and reports '
and inspection;
C. standards for methods of collection, processing, transporting; and '
d. equipment inventory list, including backup vehicles in the event of
breakdowns.
1
24 ,
' 5.3 Sanitary Operations
' This provision details requirements for healthy and safe collection and
processing of solid waste. It may include
a. personnel standards for behavior, customer relations and competence;
b. standards for employees relating to wellness, drugs, alcohol, cleanliness,
' training and supervision;
C. required reports related to citations and other adverse reports;
' d. financial responsibility of the contractor to ensure safe, clean and proper
operation and maintenance of all facilities and equipment; and
' e. inspection schedule and process.
' 25
SECTION 6. RATES
6.1 Franchise Fees
' The franchise should set guidelines for establishing the franchise fee. Many
agencies set a specific percent of revenue the contractor will pay to the
franchising entity. Example: "Contractor shall pay to City ten percent (10%)of
gross revenue..." One agency sets the franchise fee based on reimbursement
of actual expenses incurred to regulate/manage the franchise. A non-public
utility type model would be a contractual agreement which could simply indicate
that future rate changes would be made by an amendment to the agreement
that was mutually agreed to by both parties.
6.2 Compensation/Rates
' This section should discuss allowable profit. Some agencies spell this out in
detail, setting a method of calculation and an allowable ratio. Example: "The
City shall select an operating ratio for collection operations after reviewing the
information required from the hauler. The operating ratio shall be no less than
86 percent and no more than 90 percent."
' This specific definition does not allow the regulator to adopt better methods of
regulation if desired. One regulator was able to replace the operating ratio
calculation with an equivalent unit calculation because of the less specific
wording in the franchise agreement. Example: "Approval off the rate increase,
or other action by the Board on the application; shall occur only after the District
' has had sufficient time to review the application and financial statement, and in
no event will a rate increase take effect before of the year in question." No
mention is made of how rate increases will be determined. Other approaches
would be to specify allowable compensation in the Request for Proposal (RFP)
or simply to be determined during the contract negotiations.
6.3 Reviews
a. Rate Request and Review
' 1) Number and.frequency of reviews should be stated.
2) The franchisor should be able to specify the format the rate
application will take.
3) The document should state if audited financials are required.
' 4) There may be a need for some type of appeal process, such
arbitration.
26
b. Performance '
Performance is sometimes used in rate setting. The franchisor may want ,
to provide a mechanism by which good/excellent performance will
positively affect contractor's profitability.
C. Systems and Services ,
This section should specify the procedure for reviewing systems and
services for the purpose of "providing technological, economic, and '
regulatory changes in solid waste collection, to facilitate renewal
producers, to promote competition in the solid waste industry, and to
achieve a continuing, advanced solid waste collection system."
d. Operating Efficiencies
This section of the agreement might discuss incentives for the hauler to '
operate more efficiently. Would a larger percent of profit go to the hauler
for new innovations? Again, it is probably advantageous to keep this
wording non-specific so the regulator has flexibility.
6.4 Affiliated Entities ,
This section should discuss the handling of entities affiliated with the waste
hauler. Sample wording follows: "The Contractor shall provide information '
necessary to satisfy the City that the charges made by an affiliated entity are
reasonable. 'Affiliated entity' shall be defined as any entity which provides
products or services to the Contractor and in which the Contractor owns a ten ,
percent (10 percent) or greater interest. The City shall have the right to inspect
the financial records of any affiliated entity."
The contractor can sell recyclable materials to any company wholly or partially '
owned by contractor but at a price not less than fair market value. Its
relationship must be known to the franchisor.
27 ,
SECTION 7. RECORDS/REPORTS
In general, this section should outline all records that are required by the regulator to
be provided by the hauler.
7.1 Financial Reports
a. Books and Records
Sample wording might be: "Contractor shall maintain a proper set of
books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting
' principles, accurately reflecting the business done by it under this
Agreement."
b. Audits
This section should discuss the type of audited financial statement
' required. It might also discuss the need for audits that will be performed
by the franchisor and the frequency by which they will be conducted.
' 7.2 Operational
a. AB 939 Requirements
This topic may also be covered in more depth in Section 9 - Legal. The
franchise will need to state the format, content and frequency required for
reporting tonnages of material handled by the hauler such as material
type, origin of waste, waste source and tonnages. Other information may
be requested in order to comply with AB 939.
b. Other Reports Necessary for Rate Review
It might be appropriate to state that reports of tonnages deposited in the
landfills, recycling tonnages, detail revenue statements, etc. are required
for rate review and should be supplied willingly by the hauler. This same
' date must be provided for compliance with AB 939 requirements
7.3 Confidentiality/Customer Privacy
' This section should discuss privacy issues as they relate to the hauler's
customers. Example: "... Information identifying individual customers, or the
composition or contents of a customer's refuse shall not be revealed to any
' person, private agency or company ..." While the hauler should protect their
customers' privacy, privacy should not preclude them from preparing waste
characterization studies or waste stream analyses which may be required by AB
939.
i
1 28 .
7.4 Customer Notification '
The contractor should be required to notify customers, within a defined time '
frame, of the date and time of the public hearing for its rate increase request.
7.5 Adverse Information '
Sample wording: "Contractor shall provide City two copies of all reports, or
other material adversely reflecting on the Contractor's performance under this
Franchise Agreement, submitted by the Contractor to the California or U.S. EPA, '
the California Integrated Waste Management Board or any other federal, state
or county agency."
r
29 ,
SECTION 8. LEGAL
' 8.1 Intent to Regulate
a. Both parties agree that the City has jurisdiction to regulate the collection,
removal and disposal of all garbage and/or the recycling of all material
within the franchise area.
b. A statement should be made as to what is not regulated by this
agreement, i.e. recyclable material, removal and disposal of industrial
waste, hazardous waste, infectious material, etc.
' C. Deciding whether a particular solid waste activity is covered or regulated
by the agreement should be within the sole determination of the
' franchisor. A dispute resolution section of the agreement may be
referred to in the event that the contractor disagrees with the franchisor's
determination.
8.2 Compliance
' The franchise should include a provision which states that the "Contractor shall
comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations that are now in effect or
may be promulgated or amended from time to time by the Government of the
' United States, the State of California, the County of Contra Costa and any other
agency now authorized or which may be authorized in the future to regulate the
services to be performed herein regarding the collection, removal and disposal
' and/or recycling of solid waste." This section could also include a provision
which states those issues over which the franchisor's authority extends, i.e.
size of garbage cans, use of plastic trash bags, etc.
8.3 Insurance
' a. The contractor should maintain and continue in force during the term of
the agreement, public liability insurance, property damage insurance,
automobile liability and workers' compensation and employee liability
' insurance in amounts as determined by the franchisor. (recommended
amounts of liability insurance range from $1 to $5 million per occurrence;
Workers Compensation: $1 million; other contracts give the franchisor
the right to set insurance limits on an annual basis)
b. The franchisor should require that insurance be obtained from a
company admitted to do business in the State of California and
' acceptable to the franchisor.
C. The franchisor should reserve the right to examine all policies to ensure
' appropriate conformity to prevailing practices and standards of the
insurance industry.
30
d. The franchisor should require that the insurer on any type of policy ,
cannot cancel or decrease the insurance coverage without first giving
thirty day notice in writing to the franchisor. '
e. The franchisor should require that a certificate of insurance be provided
to the franchisor any time the contractor alters .a policy or changes
carriers.
f. The franchisor should require that a copy of the certificate for each policy,
be provided to the franchisor by a date certain of each year. '
g. The franchisor should require that the franchisor be named as an
additional insured on the public liability and property damage policies. ,
8.4 Faithful Performance Bond
a. Simultaneously with the execution of the agreement, the contractor '
should be required to submit to the franchisor a corporate surety bond.
(in the contracts reviewed, the amount of the bond varies from $10,000 to 1
$100,000.)
b. A statement may be added, but was not found in all contracts, that allows
the amount of the bond to be increased periodically (3-5 years) based on '
an agreed upon index.
C. The bond should be executed by a surety company licensed to do ,
business in the State of California and acceptable to the franchisor.
d. The bond should be payable to the franchisor.
e. The condition of the bond should be that the contractor will faithfully
perform the duties imposed by ordinance, the agreement and, if '
applicable, the rules and regulations of the franchisor.
f. A statement allowing that any action by the franchisor to proceed against ,
the bond should not limit or affect the right of the franchisor to use other
remedies available to the franchisor under the agreement, or in courts of
law or equity. ,
g. In lieu of a corporate surety bond, but not withstanding the foregoing
provisions, the contractor may provide a letter of credit, cash bond or '
other security in a form acceptable to the franchisor.
h. The franchisor may want to consider other provisions under which it can ,
redeem the bond.
31
8.5 Indemnity (Legal Liability)
In this section the contractor accepts all risk associated with the work and
performance covered by the agreement and agrees to hold the franchisor
harmless from any liability.
' a. Sample statement (Each franchisor's attorney will certainly have a
recommended version). Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and
hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and assigns
against any and all liability, claims, judgments, or demands, including
demands arising from injuries or deaths of persons and damage to
property, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations here
undertaken or out of the operations conducted by the Contractor, save
and except claims or litigation arising through the sole negligence or
willful misconduct of the City."
' b The franchisor may want a provision whereby the contractor reimburses
Y P Y
the franchising jurisdiction for legal expenses incurred in taking action
against people who do not have service, or who are violating the
exclusive right of the contractor to haul garbage.
'
C. The franchisor should require a provision whereby upon request of the
franchisor, the contractor shall defend the franchisor in any action which
challenges the validity or procedures of the franchise agreement, the
procedures by which the agreement was entered into, or any ordinance
authorizing the agreement. Defense of the franchisor shall be provided
by counsel satisfactory to the franchisor. Costs for litigation should be
borne by the contractor. The franchisor shall determine if costs
associated with such litigation can be charged as an operating expense
of the contractor or against the contractor's profits.
td. If a challenge to the conditions listed above is successful, the contractor
should have no course of action for damages or any other relief against
' the franchisor.
8.6 Independent Contractor
This provision should state that
a. the contractor is an independent contractor and not an officer, agent,
servant or employee of the franchisor. The contractor will at all times
remain an independent contractor in the relationship with the franchisor,
and
b. the contractor shall not represent himself s n
p a a agent or employee of the
franchisor and has no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of the
tfranchisor or to bind the franchisor to any obligation whatsoever.
32
r
8.7 Termination (Default) r
This section sets out the conditions under which the franchisor may seek r
remedies for a breach of the agreement by the contractor. The items below
should be considered for inclusion.
a. Establish which franchising entity official (suggestion is city/district r
manager or his or her designee) has the authority to determine whether a
breach of any provisions of the franchise agreement has occurred.
b. Determine the procedure for advising the contractor that an action or ,
P g (
deficiency ) is not in conformity with the provisions of the agreement.
This is generally done in writing. In some contracts reference is made to r
specific items that must be contained in the written notice (time frame
within which correction of all deficiencies is to be made, statement of the
performance requested, right of appeal). Other contracts simply state that '
written notice must be provided;
C. State a specific time frame in which to remedy deficiencies (not to exceed
60 days was commonly used);
d. The contractor should be required to respond to notice of deficiency '
within a specified time period (not to exceed 10 days was commonly
used).
e. If the designated franchising entity official determines that the contractor '
has failed to satisfactorily cure the breach or deficiency within the allotted
time frame, the default may be considered to be material and subject to ,
termination of the franchise agreement.
f. In the event that a material breach of the franchise agreement has been
determined to have occurred, an appeal process may be established. '
The governing body of the franchising entity is generally the body
hearing the appeal.
g. Some contracts have language that allows the franchisor, at the expense
r
of the contractor, to take or cause actions necessary to cure the breach or
default. This is common when the breach or default is one which ,
interferes with the health or well-being of the franchising entity's
residents, and/or disrupts the normal operations of the franchising entity
or its residents. '
h. In the event of a termination prior to the natural expiration of the term of
the agreement, the franchisor shall have the right to temporarily assume S
the obligations of the contractor. This is a lengthy section and should
address the following: possession and value of trucks and other
equipment, distribution of gross revenue during this period, ,
indemnification of contractor from liability claims, employment of persons
who were employed by the contractor.
r
33
r:3
i. Some contracts specifically list actions that would be considered a
material breach of the agreement.
j. State that upon the occurrence of a material breach and the declaration
of such that termination of the agreement shall be considered; that the
agreement and the franchise granted thereunder shall be of no further
force and effect, excepting those provisions concerning franchisor's right
to temporarily assume contractor's obligations and to use contractor's
facilities upon early termination as provided in the agreement.
k. In the event of default or material breach b the contractor, the franchisor
or
should have the right to terminate upon 10 days notice.
8.8 Notices
' Notices should be in writing; personally delivered or by certified mail. There
should be proper addresses and a named person to receive correspondence.
8.9 Permits
The contractor must secure all permits necessary to operate and dispose or
' divert materials at facilities which have all required permits.
8.10 Penalties
Penalties may be imposed under the following conditions:
a. the establishment of performance standards and liquidated damages for
failure to perform;
' b. if the franchise fee is late;
C. if the contractor is found to underreport gross receipts; and
d. if there are costs included in the rate base in excess of acceptable
percentage.
' 8.11 Attorney Fees
Attorneys' fees may be awarded depending on who is likely to breach or prevail
in a law suit.
a. In the event of litigation, the prevailing party should recover its
' reasonable costs of litigation, including attorneys' fees and costs as
determined by the Court; or
b. Each party should pay its own litigation expenses, including attorney
fees.
34
8.12 Severability ,
a. If legal action brought by others who are not party to the franchise ,
agreement challenges any provision, each section and paragraph of
agreement is severable from the remaining terms, conditions, sections,
etc.
b. If a non-materialp rovision of thea9._ reement is deemed to be invalid or
unenforceable, it does not affect other provisions of the agreement.
8.13 Assi nment
Assignment means the transfer, sale or exchange of assets related to the '
service of the franchise agreement. Common provisions relating to assignment
follow.
a. Neither party shall assign its rights or delegate or transfer obligations ,
without written consent of other party.
b. The franchisor may assign or transfer this agreement to another legally
authorized public entity.
C. This section may include "consent will not be unreasonably held".
d. Criteria must be delineated for the proposed transferee.
e. A payment of a transfer fee is required.
f. The franchise should address changes in control or ownership.
g. An involuntary assignment shall constitute a material breach of this '
agreement and the franchisor shall have the right to terminate.
8.14 California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) Requirements
These are necessarythe franchisor against to protect ga penalties imposed by the
California Integrated Waste Management Board.
a. The contractor is required to maintain accounting and statistical records '
q 9
necessary to provide reports requested by the franchisor.
b. The contractor must record on a daily basis materials diverted, materials
disposed, yard waste collected, and report to the franchisor on a monthly
basis in a form acceptable to to the franchisor.
C. The franchisor may require the contractor to achieve a specified percent
reduction in the waste stream by 1995, and a specified percent reduction ,
in the waste stream by 2000.
35
d. The contractor may be required to submit data on computer discs.
e. The franchisor may require the contractor to perform waste audits of
commercial customers annually and identify volume and waste
characteristics and require the contractor to provide information and offer
incentives for source reduction or ways to divert commercial waste.
f. Failure to report or provide requested information is deemed a material
breach.
g. The contractor should hold the franchisor harmless from any fines,
penalties, and assessments levied against the franchisor for the
franchisor's failure to meet AB 939 requirements
8.15 Miscellaneous or General Provisions
a. The franchisor may obligate the contractor to comply with all legal
requirements-laws, ordinances, orders, regulations of any governmental
entity which has jurisdiction.
b. The agreement should state that it is governed by, construed, and
enforced in accordance with laws of the State of California.
C. The agreement should state that the franchise agreement, including
attachments, represents full and entire agreement between parties with
respect to matters covered herein.
d. All references in the agreement to laws shall be understood to include
such laws as may be subsequently amended or recodified.
e. There should be a statement that the agreement may not be modified or
amended in any respect, except in writing.
f. It should state that any lawsuits arising out of this agreement shall be
brought and concluded in the Courts of of the State of California in
Contra Costa County.
g. The agreement should state that it will be interpreted and construed
reasonably and neither for or against either party.
h. The agreement should state that a waiver by either party of any
provisions in the agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of other
provisions in the agreement.
i. The agreement should state that it does not modify any agreement with
another contractor.
36
j. Force Majeure (A superior or irresistible force) The agreement should
provide that the .contractor shall not be in default under the following
circumstances: riots, wars, strikes (Some thought needs to be given to
whether the franchisor wants to include strikes as a legal excuse for non-
performance.), acts of God, etc. This does not include financial inability to
perform or failure to obtain permits or licenses.
k. The franchise should require that in the case of property or pavement
4 P P Y
damage, the contractor is responsible for any extraordinary damage to
franchising area's driving surfaces due to vehicle use. The contractor ,
should also be responsible for physical damage caused by negligent or
willful acts.
I. Right of Entry - The contractor should have the right to enter any private
street for purpose of collecting solid waste or recyclables.
M. The contractor should not demand or accept any compensation or '
gratuity for the collection of solid waste required under the agreement.
8.16 Franchisor Responsibility ,
In this provision the franchisor agrees '
a. to take reasonable steps to protect the contractor's ownership of all
recyclable materials placed at the curbside or designated collection ,
location. A franchisor ordinance will provide remedies to secure
protection.
b. that If there are separate recycling and solid waste collection
agreements, the franchisor acknowledges that it would be helpful to
coordinate agreements.
37 '
SECTION 9. REFERENCES
9.1 Solid Waste Franchises
a. Aareement Between the City of Hercules and Pinole Garbage Service. a
Division of Richmond Sanitary Service, September 10, 1986, 15 pp.
b. Aareement Between the -City of Livermore and Livermore Dublin
Disposal and Oakland Scavenger Company for Collection and
Processing of Solid Waste and Collection and Processing of Recyclable
Materials, April 22, 1993, 86 pp.
C. Agreement Between Contra Costa Counly-and Pleasant Hill Bayshore
Disposal, Inc., for. Solid Waste, Collection and Recycling in West
Pittsburg, March 5, 1991, 18 pp.
d. Agreement for Collection and Disposal of-Refuse in the City of Beni
October 25, 1989, 36 pp.
e. Agreement for Residential Curbside Recycling in the City of Benicia,
November 1, 1990, 19 pp.
f. Aareement for Collection, Removal and Disposal of Garbage Between
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and Valley Waste Management.
Zone 2, March 1, 1986, 20 pp.
g. Amendment to Agreement for Collection and Disposal of Refuse in the
City of Benicia, September 4, 1991, 3 pp.
h. An Aareement Between the City of San Bruno- and the San Bruno
Garbage Company for the San Bruno Recycling Program, December 1,
1987, 22 pp.
i. City of San Ramon - Valley Waste Management Agreement for
Collection, Removal and Disposal of Garbage, April 3, 1986, 36 pp.
j. Contract for the Performance of a Five-Year Curbside Collection of
Recyclable Materials in Castro Valley in the Eden Township of Alameda
County jBetween Castro-Valigy Sanitary District and Browning-Ferris
Industries of California, Inc./Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal, Inc.),
January 8, 1991, 7 pp.
k. Draft SummaU of Franchise Agreement Between the City of Walnut
Creek and Valley Waste Management, Inc., for the Collection and
Disposal of Solid Waste, undated, 12 pp.
38
I. Draft Summary of the City of Walnut Creek Revision of Recycling
Collection and Processina Agreement with Pacific Rim Recycling, April
14, 1991, 15 pp.
m. Franchise Agreement Between Contra Costa ,County and Richmond
Sanitary Service, Inc., October 12, 1993, 30 pp.
n. Franchise Agreement Between City of Martinez and Pleasant Hill
Bayshore Disposal Inc.. (Solid Waste), March 22, 1993, 54 pp.
o. Franchise A reement Between City of Martinez and Pleasant Hill
Bayshore Disposal. Inc. (Residential Recycling), March 22, 1993, 53 pp.
p. Franchise Agreement Between the City of Richmond and Richmond '
Sanitary Service, Inc., September 6, 1991, 38 pp.
9.2 Periodicals
a. Hornig, Constance. "Laws Give Shape to Solid Waste Contracts and
Finance", Solid Waste & Power, October 1991.
b. Pferdehirt, Wayne; O"Leary, Phil; and Walsh, Patrick. "Planning a High
Performance Collection System", Waste Age, February 1993. ,
9.3 Unpublished Works
a. Deloitte & Touche. "Regulation" (Part of a larger work presented at
Pacific Recyclers Expo), 1992, 14 pp. '
b. Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson. "Presentation of Issues and Options
Regarding Model Franchise Agreement - Contra Costa Solid Waste
Authority", June 2, 1993, 10 pp.
C. Hornig, Constance. "Key Recycling Clauses for Garbage RFP's and
Contracts: Transfer Stations, Rail Haul and Landfilling" (California
Resource Recovery Association Workshop), December 11, 1992, 10 pp.
d. Young, Rufus C. and Ki htlin er, Jeffre "Financing Strategies for '
9 9 9 Y 9 9
Integrated Waste Management Programs; Answers for Communities";
"Financing Issues in Establishing Service Agreements" (League of '
California Cities Workshop), May 1992, 16 pp.
39
9.4 Miscellaneous
a. Castro Valley Sanitary District. Specifications for Performance of a Five-
Year Curbside Collection of Recyclable Materials in Castro Valley in the
Eden Township of Alameda County, September 1990, 40 pp.
b. City of Saratoga. Request for Qualifications to Perform a Refuse
Collection and Disposal Performance Audit, December 4, 1992, 16 pp.
C. County of Santa Clara. Garbage Collection Districts 1 & 4 - Request for
Proposals, February 1, 1993, 47 pp.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
40
i
1
� PART II
� WASTE COLLECTION RATE
a REVIEW MODEL
Q
1
1
1
i
t
February 1994
WASTE COLLECTION RATE REVIEW MODEL
TABLE OF . CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS 3
SECTION 2. RATE SETTING METHODLOGY OVERVIEW 6
SECTION 3. OPERATING RATIO METHODOLOGY 8'
3.1 Definition 8
3.2 Advantages 8
3.3 Disadvantages 8
3.4 Range 8
3.5 Cost to Administer 8
3.6 Mitigation Strategies 9
3.7 Balancing Account 9
3.8 Operating Ratio Sample Calculation With No
Balancing Account 9
SECTION 4. ALLOWABLE PROFIT USING RESIDENTIAL
CUSTOMER EQUIVALENT UNITS NET OF
CAPITAL USE CHARGE METHODOLOGY 10
4.1 Introduction 10
4.2 Quality of Service 10
4.3 Cost of Service 11
4.4 Revenue and Expense Balancing Account 11
4.5 Capital Use Charge 11
4.6 Profit Calculations 12
4.7 Advantages 13
4.8 Disadvantages 13
4.9 Cost to Administer 13
SECTION 5. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION METHODOLOGY 14
5.1 Rate Making Process 14
5.2 Rate Making Formula 14
5.3 Cost of Service 15
5.4 Return 15
5.5 Rate Base 16
5.6 Deferred Income Taxes 16
5.7 Working Capital 17
5.8 Rate of Return 17
5.9 Advantages/Disadvantages 18
SECTION PAGE
SECTION 6. INDEXED RATE METHODOLOGY 19 f
6.1 Purpose 19
6.2 Guidelines for Use 19
6.3 Benefits 20
6.4 Disadvantages 20
6.5 Cost to Administer 20
SECTION 7. REFERENCES
7.1 Rate Regulation Methodologies and Rate Structures 21
9 g
7.2 Rate Application Analyses 21
7.3 Miscellaneous 22
SECTION 8. APPENDICES
A Memorandum of Agreement and Work Plan Between
the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority and Contra
Costa County
B APCUC Sample Calculations
C Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Example Calculations
D Indexed Rate Sample Rate Adjustment Formulae
t �.
WASTE COLLECTION RATE REVIEW MODEL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In April, 1993, Contra Costa County (County) and the Contra Costa Solid Waste
Authority (Authority) approved a Memorandum of Agreement and Work Plan which
had as its goal a partnership which could address the challenges and high costs of
complying with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939).
One of the tasks set forth in that work plan was the development of a waste collection
rate review model which could assist solid waste franchising agencies in effectively
regulating the solid waste and recycling collection rates of the various collection
companies. By doing so, the two entities acknowledged the need for informed staff
and elected officials capable or responding to the challenge of rising cost and
mandated recycling requirements. The model is intended to be a companion
document to the Model Waste Collection Franchise, also prepared as part of the Work
Plan.
The model does not advance one rate regulation methodology over another but
presents four models for consideration. The Operating Ratio and Allowable Profit
Using Residential Customer Equivalent Units Net of Capital Use Charge
methodologies are methods currently being used in Contra Costa County. The Public
Utilities Commission (PUC) type model is used by the State of California and the City
and County of San Francisco. The Indexed Rate methodology is used by the cities of
Benicia, Suisun and San Jose. The City of Sunnyvale uses a modified Index Rate
methodology, also incorporating a biannual review.
1. Definitions
Terminology utilized in the three methodologies has been included, as well as
nomenclature commonly used in the rate review process. Definitions are
generally generic. Where definitions differ, depending on the source of the
methodology, both are included.
2. Overview
The complexities of managing both disposal collection and recycling services
and keeping up with state diversion mandates have made franchise
agreements and accompanying rate review process a dynamic process which
requires greater attention by both staff and elected officials. A rate review
should not only assure that the customer receives cost effective services but
provides an understandable and measurable formula for future increases.
Issues which the rate setting entity needs to address are need for a common
methodology, waste stream control, subsidizing of residential rates by
commercial customers, pass through costs, frequency of rate reviews, AB 939
requirements, franchise fees, etc.
1
3. Operating Ratio Methodology
The Operating Ratio Methodology is utilized in some form by a majority of the
franchising entities in Contra Costa County, as well as the State of California.
The methodology presented is that used by the City of Walnut Creek, which is a
modified operating ratio. It is easy to calculate; however, profits are based on
expenses so that higher costs result in higher profits.
4. Allowable Profit Using Residential Customer Equivalent Units Net of Capital
Use Charge ( PCUC)
In an effort to provide a methodology which provides incentives for cost cutting
and efficiency by the 'hauler while providing reasonable profit the APCUC
method was devised. It is comprised of four major components - Quality of
Service, Cost of Service, Revenue and Expenses Balancing Account and
Capital Use Charge, - which are folded into the fifth component: the Profit
Calculation. Quality of Service is measured by customer satisfaction surveys,
which assign a letter grade ranking. Cost of Service is determined by surveys
of other jurisdictions single can rate and rate increase percentage. Revenue
and Expense Balancing Account is used to account for the difference between
the forecasted and projected actual result of operations. The Capital Use
Charge compensates the hauler for the use of capital, owned, rented or lease
equipment. The profit calculation considers all of these factors and determines
the necessary revenue increase.
5. Public Utilities Commission Methodology
The utility rate making process sets rates by estimating a utility's reasonable
expenses and revenues, then adding a "fair and reasonable" return on its
investment. No utility is guaranteed a profit, however, merely a reasonable
opportunity to earn one. The amount of revenue that a regulated company
should be allowed to earn is calculated as follows:
Revenue requirement = cost of service
Cost of service = operating expenses + return
Return = rate base x authorized rate of return
6. lndexgd Rate
Indexed Rate is becoming more and more attractive to entities which wish a
more uniform formula for handling rate escalation in a systematic and less
costly manner. 'Guidelines are presented which discuss all elements which
should be present in a contract's rate requirements if this methodology is to be
used. Appendix D contains excerpts from the Cities of Fremont and San Jose
franchising contracts which utilize the indexing methodology for annual rate
adjustment.
2
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS
1 .1 Above-the-line refers to revenues collected and expenses incurred in
performance of a utility's primary functions and which may be reflected in the
rates its customers pay.
1 .2 "Affiliated Entity" any entity over which the contractor or one or more of its
�- shareholders exercises substantial control.
1 .3 "Allowable Costs" contractor costs agreed to by the franchisor to be
recovered through the rates. It can include collection/disposal of garbage and
curb side recyclables. They must be adequately documented and supported by
financial statements.
1 .4 "Allowable Profit" the amount of profit which the contractor may be allowed
on operating costs such as trucking, tipping fees, office charges, etc.
1.5 "Balancing Account" a reserve account use d to "balance" the difference
between anticipated and actual financial performance. Any excess revenues
received by the contractor are deposited in the account. Payments are made to
the contractor if there are unanticipated shortfalls in revenue.
1 .6 "Below-the-line" expenses of a utility which cannot be recovered through
rates.
1 .7 "Bi-Annual Review" a detailed review of revenues and expenses every
other year with indexed costs in the intervening years.
1 .8 "Capital Use Charge" the amount of net tangible fixed assets plus 1/2 the
cost of capital additions, divided by the two year Treasury note interest rate
(See Appendix B-1).
1 .9 "Consumer Price Index" a series of numbers, one for each period, that
represents an average price for a group of goods and services, relative to the
average retail price of the same group of goods and services at the beginning
date.
1 .10 "Cost of Service" a method of using utility cost in rate design; a cost of
service study measures a utility's cost incurred in serving each customer class,
including a reasonable return on investment.
1 .11 "General Accepted Accounting Practices" (GAAP) the conventions, rules
and procedures necessary to define accepted accounting practice at a
particular time.
1 .12 "Indexed Rate" prior year rate multiplied by one plus the change in a
selected index.
3
1 .13 "Modified Operating Ratio" expenses (excluding certain pass-throughs)
divided by revenues
1 .14 "Operating Ratio" the ratio of operating expenses to operating revenues.
"Operating Ratio" (PUC) the total of operating expenses, interest, expense
and taxes divided by the total of operating revenues, interest income and '
dividend income.
"Operating Ratio" expenses (excluding interest and taxes) divided by
revenues
1 .15 "Performance Audit" an independent survey of the contractor's general
operational efficiency with the objective of lowering costs and therefore, rates.
1 .16 "Public Utilities Commission Review" a detailed review of revenue and
expenses as needed when utility profits fall below a designated level.
1 .17 "Rate Base" a calculation by which the accumulated depreciation and the
deferred income tax is subtracted from the combined physical assets.
"Rate Base" the value of a regulated company's plant and equipment used
to serve its customers.
1 .18 "Rate Change Application" a detailed application for a rate change which
includes detailed operating and financial information.
1 .19 "Rate of Return" reflects the utility's weighted cost of capital. The capital
structure components are multiplied by the costs associated with the various
forms of financing. It includes interest on borrowed funds, plus dividends on
preferred stock and a reasonable allowance for a return on equity.
1 .20 "Residential Customer Equivalent Units" the amount reached by
dividing total residential and commercial revenue by the average revenue per
residential customer.
1 .21 "Return" the profits made by a company
1 .22 "Return on Assets" net income divided by owners' assets
1 .23 "Return on Equity" net income divided by owners' equity
"Return on Equity" the profits distributed to common shareholders after all
expenses, interest, costs and preferred stock dividends have been paid. It is the
level of revenue needed to earn a fair return on investment.
1 .24 "Return on Rate Base" net income divided by total investment (both debt
and equity financing) in productive assets.
4
1 .25 "Tipping Fee" transfer station and landfill disposal costs imposed by owner
and/or regulatory jurisdiction.
5
1
SECTION 2. RATE SETTING METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
The complexities of managing both disposal collection and recycling services as well
as keeping up with state mandates has made franchise agreements dynamic
documents that require attention by both staff and elected officials. Franchise
agreements and rate setting methodologies have undergone reevaluation in the face
of rising collection costs and mandated recycling requirements.
The end result of a solid waste franchise agreement is to provide service that is
dependable, meets health and safety requirements and serves the public's needs.
The primary reason for a rate/performance review is to determine if service, detailed in
the franchise agreement, is in line with costs. A rate review should result in not only
providing the services you need, efficiently, and at the least cost, but should also
provide a formula for future rate increases and reasonable profit to the collection
company.
Since no public entity within the County provides garbage collection services, rate
reviews are performed within the context of public review of a privately owned
company. Therefore, many rate review methodologies are a compromise between the
collection company and the franchising jurisdiction. Further complicating the matter is
public perception that garbage collection is a public service much like water or
telephones that must be regulated under public scrutiny.
Sometimes the franchise agreement will detail the type of procedure to be used in
performing a rate review. However, inclusion of detailed rate setting methodologies
within the franchise agreement is the exception rather than the norm. Within Contra
Costa County several jurisdictions have completed or are in the process of developing
comprehensive rate setting methodologies. The implementation of various rate setting
methodologies on haulers that serve multiple jurisdictions, could affect overall rates if
methodologies are not similar or one methodology requires more detailed information.
Garbage collection rates can be broken down by collection costs, transfer and/or
disposal, profit and mandatory fees. Key issues that could be examined within
collection costs are productivity, equipment or leasing costs, maintenance, safety and
training, insurance, labor costs, and regulatory compliance. Financial and accounting
issues may include audits, financial reporting, system documentation, affiliated
entities, contract compliance and/or financial incentives.
In addition, several policy issues may need to be considered in the development of a
rate setting methodology such as: waste stream control of garbage and recyclables;
underwriting of residential rates by commercial customers; transfer/landfill tipping fees
as pass through costs or costs applied to profit; frequency of rate reviews; retroactive
reimbursement, responsibility of AB 939 requirements; in lieu services; franchise fees;
etc. Decisions on policy issues will have a direct impact on the rate setting
methodology developed.
6
Overviews of four different rate setting methodologies are provided below. The first is
the method currently used in the City of Walnut Creek; the second is the methodology
used for jurisdictions franchised by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District; the third
is an overview of a public utility model; and the fourth discusses using the Consumer
Price Index and its components.
7 ��
SECTION 3. OPERATING RATIO
3.1 Definition
One method for calculating profit when setting garbage and recycling rates is
ithe operating ratio. Rates are determined by projecting expenses, revenues
and allowed profit. The operating ratio determines the level of profit.and is
calculated by dividing operating expenses by revenues excluding interest and
taxes.
The City of Walnut Creek uses a modified operating ratio, and thereby excludes
profit on disposal expenses (which are beyond the control of the contractor thus
considered pass-through) and are also excluded from expenses. Walnut Creek
excludes disposal fees of more than $25.13 per ton whereas current disposal
fees are now $75.97. Therefore, the allowed. profit is set on a pre-tax, pre-
interest basis which should provide a return to the company and allow for
interest payments on future investment in capital assets.
3.2 Advantaaes
The primary advantage if the operating ratio method is that it is easy to calculate
and is widely used for solid waste rate regulation allowing for relatively easy
comparison across jurisdictions.
3.3 Disadvantages
The primary disadvantage is that profits are based on expenses so that higher
costs result in higher profits. Therefore, there is often little incentive for the
contractor to control costs which may result in higher rates.
3.4 Range
Most operating ratios in the solid waste area range from 90%-95%. The
revenue requirement (expenses plus profit) which is determined after expenses
are reviewed and the operating ratio calculated, serves as the basis for the
rates charged.
3.5 Cost to Administer
Most entities hire a financial consulting firm to verify the contractor's figures in
the rate application. This typically can cost upwards of $ 15,000 in 1993-1994
dollars. Staff time, spent on the rate review process is approximately 40-80
hours
8
3.6 Mitigation Strategies
One way to analyze the effect of this method is to review the contractor's
expenses over time and compare increases in the rate of inflation and look for
unreasonable cost increases. Walnut Creek has done this consistently on an
annual basis and has concluded that use of the operating ratio has not resulted
in unreasonable expense increases. Additionally, up until 1993, Walnut Creek
had a 95% modified operating ratio which defines the high end of the range,
lowest contractor profit. Consequently, the contractor has consistently asked for
a lower operating ratio which the City finally granted after the contractor cut
operating costs significantly. In 1992, re-routing saved the rate payer $300,000
and as a result, the contractor received an adjustment in its operating ratio to
93%.
3.7 Balancing Account
This method is also used with a balancing account which protects both the City
and the contractor from the projected differences in revenue to actuals.
Revenues collected in excess of those required by the contractor are credited to
the rate payer and lower than anticipated collected revenue is credited to the
contractor. The City takes this deficit or credit balance into account when setting
the next round of rates. This has been particularly useful in addressing the
uncertainty surrounding disposal costs and the impact of curb side recycling
programs on disposed tonnage.
3.8 Operating Ratio Sample Calculation With No Balancing Account
Expenses as projected by company $10,079,800
Expenses as adjusted by the City 9,981,900
Less
Franchise Fee (5%) 550,972
Profit Basis 9,430,928
To calculate pre-tax profit at 93% operating ratio:
pre-tax profit at 93% _ (profit basis/operating ratio) - profit basis
9,430,928/0.93 = X
X - 9,430,928 = 709,856 i
Pre-tax profit at 93% _ $ 709,856
9 t�
SECTION 4. ALLOWABLE PROFIT USING RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER
EQUIVALENT UNITS NET OF CAPITAL USE CHARGE
4.1 Introduction
In the past, the District used several rate-setting methodologies including
Operating Ratio, and more recently, Return on Assets (ROA) and Return on
Equity (ROE). These methods provide no incentive for cost-cutting; in fact, profit
is allowed for each dollar spent so there is an incentive to spend as much as
possible as a way to raise profits. Because of this deficiency, an alternative
approach was devised. This method is called Allowable Profit Using
Residential Customer Equivalent Units Net of Capital Use Charge (APCUC).
The APCUC method has five major components which provide for the
calculation of reasonable profit and promote cost-cutting and efficiency by the
refuse hauler. The first four components are Quality of Service, Cost of Service,
Revenue and Expense Balancing Account, and Capital Use Charge. These
four components fold into the fifth major component which is the profit
calculation.
4.2 Quality of Service
The District conducts surveys to measure the level of customer satisfaction with
the services provided by the franchised refuse collectors annually. The survey
results are summarized in terms of a grade ranking, based on the following
numeric scale:
Grade Numeric
Ranking Scale
A+ 1.20
A 1.15
A- 1.10
B+ 1.05
B 1.00
B- .95
C+ .90
C .85
�\ C- .80
D .40 - .80
F .00 - .40
In settingthe Quality of Service modification factor, the responsiveness and
Y p
cooperativeness of the refuse collector is considered.
10
4.3 Cost of Service
Surveys of other jurisdictions with similar service levels are performed to obtain
collection rate information to determine the comparative ranking of the
franchised refuse collectors. The ranking is based upon the single can rate
amount and the percentage increase in the rate over the preceding three years.
Sampled rates are adjusted for differences in services provided, and major
differences in the topography of the service area.
In setting the Cost of Service modification factor, the degree of control the
franchised refuse collector has over disposal charges, refuse collection
expense control, and other related factors, is considered.
4.4 Revenue and Expense Balancing Account
Given the uncertainties inherent in operating a business in as volatile a field as
solid waste, extreme precision in the franchisees' ability to operate exactly on
budget cannot be expected. Without a Balancing Account, budgetary surpluses
have been retained by the franchisees. The Balancing Account is used to
account for the difference between the forecasted and projected actual results
of operations for the preceding rate-setting year and applies such excess or
shortfall in operating income to decrease or increase the revenue requirement
of the current rate-setting year. Because the audited financial statements for the
preceding rate-setting year are not available until after the current year rate-
setting process is completed, a final adjustment to the projected actual results of
operations is made in the subsequent rate-setting year.
4.5 Capital Use Charge
This charge is necessary to include a sum of money in the calculation of the rate
adjustment to compensate the franchiser for the use of capital. This sum is
calculated by multiplying an interest rate times the depreciated value of the
franchisee's Net Tangible Fixed Assets (NTFA). The NTFA is computed on the
basis of the original acquisition cost to avoid mark-ups resulting from changes
in franchise ownership being passed on to the rate paying public. The average
yield of High Quality 10-Year Corporate Bonds is used as the interest rate. This
rate is not used on the basis of the cost of borrowed capital. Rather, it is used as
a realistic rate of income which the franchisee could expect to realize from an
alternative secure investment. Return on capital greater than this amount is
considered to be part of the owner's profits.
With this approach, the franchisee realizes an income stream direct) related to
PP Y
his capital purchases. Rented or leased equipment is added to the NTFA
(capitalized) and both a depreciation allowance and an imputed interest
allowance (use of capital charge) are calculated in the rate adjustment. Rent
payments are disallowed. This approach puts owners and renters on a
common economic basis.
11 '�
4.6 Profit Calculations
After reviewing the rate application and the hauler's financial records, rate
adjustments are made as necessary to determine actual expenses that will be
allowed for rate setting purposes. Projected revenues are also analyzed. Profit
is then calculated as follows: .
a. The Capital Use Charge is calculated using the approach outlined in the
preceding section, using the average High Quality 10-year Corporate
Bond interest for the year under consideration multiplied by the book
value of the Net Fixed Tangible Assets in that year. The Capital Use
Charge is subtracted from the actual gross profit leaving a net profit
before income taxes. This method uses the practice of setting before-tax
profit. Hence, no allowance needs to be made for income taxes.
Appendix B-1 shows an example of a Capital Use Charge calculation.
b. Residential Customer Equivalent Units are calculated to establish a
common profit base. First, the average revenue per residential customer
is calculated by dividing total residential revenue by the number of
residential customers. Equivaient Units are arrived at by taking total
revenue, including commercial, and dividing by the average revenue per
residential customer.
In the first year this method was used, six years of profit were analyzed.
An average Equivalent Unit was obtained after first omitting the highest
and lowest year's calculations. In subsequent years, the Customer
Equivalent Unit calculated in the base year is incremented by the
Consumer Price Index.
C. Actual profit, net of Capital Use Charge, per residential unit is determined
by dividing actual profit by the Residential Customer Equivalent Units. In
the base year, multiple years of data are analyzed. The new profit figures
are adjusted by the Consumer Price Index to inflate them to current
dollars. The high and low years are rejected to determine an average
mean of the remaining years.
Appendix B-2 illustrates the computation of allowable profit, net of Capital
Use Charge, resulting in Customer Equivalent Units of 48,357 and
allowable profit per equivalent unit of $11.87. Applied Quality of Service
and Cost of Service Modification Factors are illustrated in the
computation of allowable profit on B-4. This attachment illustrates the
calculation in the year following the base year.
d. The Percent Increase in Revenue is calculated based on allowable
expenses, Capital Use Charge, and allowable profit. Appendix B-3
illustrates how these components fold together to produce the required
revenue increase.
12
iJ
e. The Revenue and Expense Balancing Account is prepared, comparing
projected versus actual operating results, as discussed previously.
Appendix B-5,6 shows a sample of the Balancing Account calculation.
4.7 Advanta es
The APCUC model is a rate-setting method that promotes efficiency. Ratings for
Quality of Service and Cost of Service are applied to the profit calculations.
Increased efficiency and customer service can result in greater profit to the
hauler. The Revenue and Expense Balancing Account allows for adjustments
to be made for inconsistencies between projected and actual expenses and
revenues. The Capital Use Charge fairly compensates the hauler for the use of
capital and treats owned, rented or leased equipment in the same manner. The
profit calculation takes into consideration all of these factors and determines the
necessary revenue increase.
4.8 Disadvantages
While this methodology is intended to promote efficiency and does avoid the
higher collection costs associated with the operating ratio methodology, its rate
review process is fairly expensive to administer. The Quality of Service
component, because it is based on customer survey evaluation of
responsiveness and cooperativeness is more subjective than other
methodologies.
4.9 Cost to Administer (In 1992-93 dollars) .
Consultant to verify the contractor's figures and to
evaluate the rate application $ 55,000
Customer Satisfaction Survey 19,000
Staff Costs 24.000
98 750
13 ,�
SECTION 5. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION METHODOLOGY
The following is an overview of the rate making process, for utilities in general. The
concepts apply directly in the telecommunications industry.
The rate making process determines the selling price of services provided by a
regulated company; it specifies the overall level of revenues, the types and amounts of
rates that may be charged, and the various classes of users to which the different rates
apply., Rate making also influences the application of accounting principles by a
regulated company, because the regulatory body often prescribes, accounting
methods for regulated companies under its jurisdiction, which may or may not conform
.� with General Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP) appropriate for non-regulated
business.
5.1 The Rate making Process
The rates that a regulated company charges its customers are a matter of
administrative law; its revenues are predetermined and subject to the scrutiny of
interested parties and the approvai of regulatory bodies. The regulated
company proposes rates designed to cover its costs, and provide a return on its
investment, to the federal or state regulatory commission having jurisdiction.
The regulatory authority then reviews the rate proposal and allows interested
parties such as consumer groups or major industrial customers to respond to,
and often challenge, the proposal. After the commission has considered the
arguments of the regulated company and interested parties, it determines the
amount of revenue the regulated company should be permitted to receive
(usually less than the regulated company's original proposal) and approves the
corresponding rates (the tariff) to be charged to various classes of customers.
The rates of public power agencies usually are set by their own governing
boards, which are empowered by statute or contract to establish-rates.
5.2 The Rate making Formula
Determining the amount of revenue a regulated company should be allowed to
earn (the revenue requirement) can be summarized in the following equations:
Revenue requirement = cost of service
Cost of service = operating expenses + return
Return = rate base x authorized rate of return
14
5.3 Cost of Service. '
Cost of service is the amount that will permit the regulated company to meet all
expenses properly chargeable to current regulated operations and incurred to
provide regulated services, plus provide a return on amounts invested in assets
necessary to provide such services. Operating expenses include salaries,
materials, supplies, miscellaneous expenses, taxes, and depreciation of plan. '
Developing the operating expenses component of cost of service begins with
the regulated company's historical accounting record of operating costs
incurred, recorded in accordance with .the prescribed Uniform System of
Accounts (USDA). The regulated company selects a test period to be used in
the rate application. Ideally, the test period selected should be as close as
possible to the period for which the rates to be fixed will be operational; in most .
instances, the test period will not coincide with the regulated company's fiscal
year. Normally, test-period costs are adjusted for anticipated or known changes
(normalized) in expenses during, or after the test period. For example,
annualized union wage increases during the test period and any contracted
future cost increases would be taken into account in determining cost of service.
In some jurisdictions, regulated companies have been allowed to use a
projected future test period. In these instances, the regulated company applies
for rates to go into effect at a future date and projects the cost of service at the
effective date.
If a regulated company develops a cost of service study that is reasonable in
relation to costs incurred (or to be incurred) and is able to justify those costs,
and if the regulatory commission agrees that the costs are reasonable, the
regulated company should receive adequate revenues to operate successfully.
That means that if the regulated company is operated efficiently, it should
provide adequate service and be able to attract additional capital as needed.
Unexpected changes in cost or sales volume, however, may preclude the
regulated company from achieving the results anticipated in the rate
application.
The terms "above the line" and "below the line" are commonly used in rate
making. the "line" is net operating income (i.e., operating revenues net of
operating expenses, including income taxes). Costs above the line are
operating expenses that are part of the cost of service and are reflected in the
revenue requirement. Other revenues and expenses, referred to as non-rate
items (e.g., income or expense resulting from non-regulated activities), do not
constitute operating income or expense and therefore are not part of the cost of
service; they are shown below the line as other income or expenses and are
borne, in effect, by the common stockholders.
5.4 Return.
Return is the amount that should induce investors to invest in, or retain their
investments in, a regulated company. The first step in calculating the amount of
a regulated company's return is determining the regulated company's rate
base.
15
r
5.5 Rate Base.
The rate base represents a regulated company's total investment in facilities
used to provide service, generally measured at its original cost. This is the base
to which a rate of return is applied to arrive at the level of operating earnings
(e.e., return) at which the regulated company should be able to operate
successfully. The principal components of rate base are as follows:
a. Plant in Service. Plant in service includes the cost of facilities used and
useful in providing service to the public, net of accumulated depreciation
b. Plant Under Construction (PUC). Although it appears that the "used and
useful" principle would automatically eliminate PUC from inclusion in the
rate base since PUC will not be used or useful until some time in the
future, some commissions include all or part of PUC in the rate base. In
some cases, PUC is included to allow a regulated company that has
significant construction projects to remain financially viable. This is a
sensitive issue since the inclusion of PUC in the rate base forces current
customers to pay for a plant that generally is considered to benefit future
customers.
In many jurisdictions, PUC is excluded from the rate base. From the regulated
company's viewpoint, however, the investment in PUC is no different from any
other investment and therefore merits a return. This is recognized, in those
jurisdictions in which PUC is excluded from the rate base, through capitalizing,
as a cost of construction, an estimated return commonly referred to as
construction IDC (interest during construction). The effect of recording an IDC is
to recognize that the regulated company has sacrificed the alternative use of the
funds invested in PUC and that the return on amounts invested in construction
represents part of the cost of completed construction. While the regulated
company tends to view the IDC from a return perspective, capitalizing the
carrying costs of construction projects is a generally accepted account principle.
5.6 Deferred Income Taxes.
Since a regulated company recovers the full provision for income taxes from its
customers as an operating expense, net deferred tax credits generally are
deducted from the rate base. This is done to recognize that the positive cash
flow resulting from deferred taxes provides the regulated company with cost-
free capital that is supplied by the rate payers. Not deducting deferred income
tax credits would have the effect of providing the regulated company's investors
with a return on a portion of the rate base for which they did not provide the
capital.
16
r
5.7 Working Capital. 1
Regulators recognize that a regulated company cannot operate without
continuously available funds and therefore permit an allowance for working ?�
capital to be included in the rate base. This allowance may represent a specific
number of days of a regulated company's cash requirement; however,
regulators may require regulated companies to submit a study to justify the
amount of working capital claimed.
The rate base, as determined through the rate making process, is the total value ,
on which the regulated company is permitted to earn a return.
5.8 Rate of Return.
The authorized rate of return is the return expressed as a percentage of the
regulated company's rate base, and it is based on the regulated company's cost
of capital. (Cost of capital is calculated as a weighted average of the cost of the
various components of the regulated company's capital structure --- its debt,
preferred stock, and common shareholders' equity. Most corporate and
managerial finance books discuss at considerable length the concept of the
cost of capital, how to calculate it and the factors that affect it.) A regulated
company's actual (realized) rate of return is the amount it earns expressed as a
percentage of the rate base after deducting operating expenses, including
depreciation and taxes. The authorized rate of return may differ from the actual
rate of return attained because of delays in the rate making process (regulatory
lag) and revenues and expenses that vary from expected levels. In the
landmark case Bluefield Water Works and Improvement Company v. Public
Service Commission of West Virginia (262 U.S. 679, 672 (1923] ),the U.S.
Supreme Court discussed rate of return as follows: .
A public utility is entitled to such rates as will permit it to earn a
return on the value of the property which it employs for the
convenience of the public equal to that generally being made at
the same time and in the same general part of the county on
investments in other business undertakings which are attended by
corresponding risks and uncertainty, but it has no constitutional
right to profits such as are realized or anticipated in highly
profitable enterprises or speculative ventures. The return should
be reasonably sufficient to. assure confidence in the financial
soundness of the utility and should be adequate, under efficient
and economical management, to maintain and support its credit
and enable it to raise the money necessary for the proper
discharge of its public duties.
17 '
In determining the authorized rate of return, an appropriate cost for each of the
regulated company's various sources of capital - long-term debt, preferred stock
and common equity, including retained earnings--is identified. For long-term
debt and preferred stock, the coupon interest rate or dividend rate, appropriately
adjusted for premiums or discounts, is the cost of capital. Determining an
appropriate cost of capital for common equity (including retained earnings) is
usually more subjective. The overall cost of capital is the weighted average
return on all sources of capital. (See Appendix C for sample calculations)
5.9 Advantages/Disadvantages
This methodology is generally not recommended for use by franchising entities
in regulating collection or disposal costs. It is regarded as too cumbersome and
unnecessarily complex. Cost figures on its administration are, therefore, are
unavailable.
r
18
SECTION 6. INDEXED RATE METHODOLOGY
This methodology incorporates an escalation provision into collection and disposal
contracts to adjust future rates based on changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
6.1 Purpose
The general purpose of escalation mechanisms is to adjust payments for
' changes in prices. The CPI is the most widely used measure of inflation and is
frequently used for escalation purposes. Although such adjustments are
sometimes called cost-of-living adjustments (COLA), the CPI is not strictly a
cost-of-living index. The CPI measures the change in the prices of a fixed
market basket of consumer goods and services purchased on an average, by
the population covered by the index.
6.2 Guidelines for Use
The following are general principles to consider when developing escalator
clauses. Appendix C provides two examples taken from the City of Fremont and
the City of San Jose, showing how the following guidelines can be utilized in a
collection contract.
i
a. Clearly define the base rate or other value which is subject to escalation.
b. Select and identify the specific index components to be used for
escalation:
1) Title of index
2) Subtitle (e.g., All Urban Consumers[CPI -Up
3) Geographic Coverage - National or Bay Area
' 4) Index component - Motor fuel, residential rent, etc.
5) Index base.
C. Specify the reference period from which changes in the price index will
' be measured. It may be an average of several months or an annual
average.
d. State the frequency of adjustment. Adjustments are usually made at
fixed time intervals, such as annually, biannually, etc.
e. Specify the precise formula for the adjustment calculation - (40% of the
annual December to December percentage change in the National CPI-
U).
19
f. Define the upper and lower limits of the agreed upon escalation
agreement
g. Provide a built-in method for handling corrections or changes in the
index.
6.3 Advantages '
The advantage to using an indexed rate is its simplicity and ease of
administration. It negates prolonged and expensive rate regulation processes ,
in that the rate base is established at the time the contract is awarded, based on
competitive bidding. The City of San Jose has been using an indexed rate and
is very satisfied with the results. All contractors for both yard waste collection
and -for municipal solid waste are selected through the competitive bidding
process, which includes the proposed initial collection rate, with the rate
thereafter escalated as illustrated in Appendices D1 and D2.
6.4 Disadvantages
As with any of the various rate regulation methodologies, franchisors should key t
any increase in profit to pre-established service and performance standards set
forth in the franchise agreement (See Model Waste Collection Franchise). In
utilizing the indexing methodology, franchising agencies must assure some
method of oversight on behalf of the rate payer as equally important to the
perceived enhanced ease of administration.
6.5 Cost to Administer
This methodology is the least costly to administer, needing only one staff person
to annually check the CPI. It is estimated that a maximum of 20 staff hours per
year for the entire process, as described in Appendix D1-2, will be needed. ,
1
20 '
i
iSECTION 7. REFERENCES
i7.1 Rate Regulation Methodologies and Rate Structures
ia. California Public Utilities Commission Handbook on the Regulation of
California's Public Utilities and Transportation Companies, May, 1991 ,
i 27 pp .
b. City of Concord Rate Setting Process and Methodology Manual for
Residential Solid Waste Fees, Ernst & Young, February 1993.
i
C. Cily of Fremont - Request for Proposals for Garbage, Recycling and Yard
Waste Services for the City of Fremont, City of Fremont Public Works
iDepartment, November 2, 1993, 31 pp.
d. City of Richmond Solid Waste Collection Rate Application and Review
iProcedural Guide, Barakat & Chamberlain, Inc., October 30, 1990, 46 pp.
e. City of Walnut Creek Alternative Rate Regulation Methodology and Rate
iStructures, Hilton, Famkopf & Hobson, September 26, 1990, 27 pp.
f. Relative Importance of Components in the Consumer Price Index, U.S.
Department of Labor , Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1990, 37 pp.
g. The Consumer Price Index, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
iStatistics, 1992, 58 pp.
h. Using the,Consumer Price Index for Escalation, U.S. Department of
iLabor Bureau of Labor Statistics, Revised July 1991, Report 761, 8 pp.
7.2 Rate Application Analyses
ia. Acme Fill Corporation Interim Transfer Station Rate Application to the
County of Contra Costa for the Year Ending May 31, 1993, Austen Lew -
iCertified Public Accountant, 54 pp.
b. Analysis of Acme Interim Transfer Station, Fiscal Year 1992-93 Rate
Application. Deloitte & Touche, November 18, 1992, 24 pp.
C. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Analyses of Orinda-Moraga
i Disposal Service Application for Refuse Collection Rate Increase,
Effective January 1. 1994, Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, 32 pp.
d. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Analyses of Valley Waste
' Management Application for Refuse Collection Rate Increase, Effective
January 1. 1994, Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, November 24, 1993, 46 pp.
1
21
1
e. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Workshop Presentation - 1994 1
Rate Review, Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, December 16, 1993
f. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Presentation - 1994 Refuse ,
Collection Rate Hearing, Valley Waste Management, December 16,
1993, 17 pp. 1
g. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Analysis of Valley Waste
Management Application for Refuse Collection Rate Increase Effective
January 1. 1992, CCCSD Staff, 59 pp. 1
h City of Concord Review of Concord Disposal Service's Residential Rate
Increase Request, Ernst & Young, June 1, 1993, 24 pp. 1
i City of Pleasant Hill Draft 1993 Refuse rate Review for Pleasant Hill
Bayshore Disposal Inc.. (Refuse Rate Policy Discussion Outline - 1
SummaryVersion), Deloitte & Touche, December 7, 1992
j. City of Pleasant Hill 1991 Refuse Rate Review for Pleasant Hill Bayshore,
Deloitte & Touche, December 13, 1990, 17 pp.
k. Contra Costa County 1992 Refuse Rate Review for Discovery Bay & West 1
Pittsbura, Deloitte & Touche, October 1992, 30 pp.
I. Contra Costa County - 1992 Refuse Rate Review for discovery Bay and
West Pittsbura, Deloitte & Touche, October 1992, 30 pp.
M. County of Contra Costa Keller Canyon Landfill Landfill Rate Analysis ,
Board of Supervisors Presentation, Deloitte & Touche, May 5, 1992,
37 pp.
7.3 Miscellaneous '
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Garbage and Recycling Customer
Satisfaction Survey Summary Report, Marketing Connections, Inc.: Computers
for Marketing Corporation, November 1992, 116 pp.
1
1
22 ,
1 APPENDICES
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 APPENDIX A
1
� MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
AND WORK PLAN
� BETWEEN
� THE CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE
AUTHORITY
1 AND
' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
i
1
1
1
1
1
' IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SUBJECT: A Resolution Ratifying a Memorandum of )
Agreement and Work Plan for a Solid Waste )
Partnership between the Contra Costa Solid )
Waste Authority and Centra Costa County )
RESOLUTION NO. 93/10.
' The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT:
WHEREAS, a majority of the cities in Contra Costa County, along with a number of Special
Districts which franchise for the collection and disposal of solid waste did jointly create the Contra
Costa Solid Waste Authority (hereinafter "Authority") and enter into a Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement; and
fWHEREAS, those cities and special districts desire to enter into a solid waste planning,
coordinating and implementing partnership with Contra Costa County(hereinafter"County")for the
betterment of cost effective countywide solid waste management; and
' WHEREAS, the Authority and County have formulated a partnership agreement and work
plan which specifies the terms by which the two entities will jointly engage in solid waste planning,
' coordinating and implementing activities; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable and appropriate to have that agreement and work plan ratified by
all member agencies of the Authority, the Board of Supervisors and the subregional joint powers
' authorities;
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors hereby ratifies the attached Solid Waste Memorandum of Agreement and the Work Plan
between the Authority and the County.
' PASSED AND ADOPTED by the following vote of the Board of Supervisors on the 9th day of
March, 1993:
AYES: Supervisors Smith; 'Wishop, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: Hone
ABSENT: Supervisor Powers
ABSTAIN: done
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of
the Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid.
Contact: Louise Aiello (510/646-1550)
icc: Community Development Department (CDD) Witness my hand and the Seal of the
Board of Supervisors affixed on this
9th day of "arch , 1993.
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County Administrator
By:
Deputy Clerk
' 93&v-%*"oA n RESOLUTION NO. 93/-!'3
2-4
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS , Contra
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON Costa
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COLM
DATE: MARCH 9, 1993 ���! ++�t��
SUBJECT: APPROVE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ANTS WORK PLAN BETWEEN CONTRA COSTA '
COUNTY AHD TIE CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
SPECIFIC REQUEST(8) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) A BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Accept report from Community Development Director on Memorandum of
Agreement with the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority and ,
1. Approve, and authorize Chair to execute, attached
Memorandum of Agreement and Work Plan between Contra Costa
County and the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority;
2. Approve attached Resolution ratifying Memorandum of Agreement
and Work Plan for a Solid Waste partnership between the County
and the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority; and,
3. Designate Supervisors McPeak and Bishop, as the 1993 County
representatives to the AS 939 Local Task Force, as the
County's representatives to the meet with the Contra Costa
Solid Waste Authority.
FISCAL IMPACT
As part of Task 11 in the Work Plan, the County and Authority will
address staffing and funding. At this time, staff costs will be
funded by current County share of the AB 939 Tipping Fee and by
Resource Recovery Fee funds.
BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On December 22, 1992, the Board approved twelve conceptual points
to serve as the basis for a formal agreement between the County and
the Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority for a partnership in solid
waste management. At that time, Supervisors McPeak and Bishop were
authorized to negotiate this agreement. The attached Memorandum of
Agreement and Work Plan represent the successful completion of
those negotiations.
CONTINUED ON ATTACZMZNT: YES SIG=TURE
01 , W—
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS ED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
Z HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS is A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED an TIE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPZRVISOJ^ ON TRE DATE SHOWN,
Contact: Louise Aiello (510/646-1550) ATTESTED 3
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
TIE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ,
ff �AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
A- 2 BY L�,!'L��JL � ��5� , DEPUTY
LA:gms
939V**VPA-MM
' Memorandum of Agreement and Work Plan '
between County and the Contra Costa SWA
Continued -- Page Two
The Agreement and Work Plan call for cooperation on solid waste
' management issues on the part of the County, cities, and other
franchising agencies. Additionally, the Agreement and Work Plan
seek to build the trust necessary for a viable solid waste
management organization representing all parties.
' LA:gms
"O.roeww-U►
r
A - 3
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
AND
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
FOR
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
AN INTERIM PARTNERSHIP '
IN THE
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION '
OF
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
This Memorandum of Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into on
1993, by and between the CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY (hereinafter
"Authority"), a public entity Joint Powers Authority and the COUNTY OF CONTRA
COSTA (hereinafter "County"), a political subdivision of the State of California. It
establishes an interim partnership for the planning, development and implementation
of solid waste management policies and programs.
RECITALS ,
WHEREAS, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 ("Act")
requires each city and each county in the State to divert solid waste from landfills and ,
specifies diversion goals of 25% by January 1, 1995 and 50% by January 1, 2000
or face administrative penalties of up to $10,000 per day; and
i
A- 4
WHEREAS, the planning, development and implementation of policies and
programs aimed at achieving the State mandated diversion goals may have high
short-term costs to local governments and to ratepayers; and
r
WHEREAS, cooperative efforts by cities and counties in the planning,
' development and implementation of solid waste management policies and programs
may assist in reducing costs for and increasing the efficiency of such solid waste
management efforts and consequently accommodate the undertaking of more
aggressive waste diversion programs; and
WHEREAS, the Authority was formed on July 31, 1991, pursuant to the laws
Lof the State of California by the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, El Cerrito,
Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San
Pablo, San Ramon and Walnut Creek, the Towns of Danville and Moraga, and the
Byron, Central Contra Costa, Crockett-Valona and Ironhouse Sanitary Districts for the
purpose planning, coordinating and implementing solid waste activities county-wide;
and
WHEREAS, the County, as part of its General Plan, has committed to assuring
the development of waste transfer, processing and disposal facilities which meet the
environmental standards and providing for cost effective solid
highest established e P 9
' waste management practices; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and County seek cooperative approaches to both solid
waste management activities and the costs of such activities, resulting in wise and
cost effective solid waste management, responsive to solid waste diversion goals and
the welfare of the environment; and
WHEREAS, representatives of the County and Authority have met and '
developed conceptual points of agreement for cooperative activities between the
County and the Authority, attached as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County and the Board of Directors ,
of the Authority have concurred by vote with the conceptual points; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the County intend this Agreement to be the
framework for solid waste management planning and implementation between the
County and the Authority; '
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County and the Authority do
hereby agree ree as follows:
A - 6
SECTION .1 . COUNTYWIDE INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
1.1 The County and Authority agree that the Countywide Integrated Waste
Management Plan (CoIWMP) will include provisions
(a) for export of solid waste
(b) for mechanisms within any solid waste export agreements to
(1) monitor the location and costs of disposal, and
(2) pass on to the ratepayers any cost savings resulting from
lower export rates for disposal.
1.2 County and Authority recognize and agree that if franchising agencies
encies
within Contra Costa County export solid waste, agencies outside of Contra Costa may
be allowed,to dispose of solid waste at Keller Canyon Landfill, and that as a result the
County shall have no obligation to provide capacity for jurisdictions which have
1 e
entered into such export agreements. Any importing 2ntitv shall pay landfill rates at
Fast as high as those charged Contra Costa ugers. end abide by all the Ian fill
it m nts imoosed ul2on ContEa
County and Authority will comply
rwith all applicable laws, including the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S.
A- 7
Constitution, the Land Use Permit #2020-89, Conditions of Approval #5.2 and #9.3,
and the dais tonnage limitations in the applicable Solid W
Y 9 Pp ante Facilities Permit.
1.3 The County will respond to all comments on the CoIWMP from the cities
and will include modifications c ude mod fications to the CoIWMP on issues where
a) concurrence between the County and cities has been reached;and
b) the requested modification(s) will not jeopardize State approval of
the CoIWMP.
1 .4 The County will complete the CoIWMP and seek final approval by the
California Integrated Waste Management Board.
SECTION 2 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
2.1 Within six months from enactment of this Agreement by the County and
by the Authority, the County and Authority, together with the subregional solid waste
joint powers authorities, will
(a) delineate their respective roles, functions and responsibilities for ,
solid waste management, and
A- 8
' (b) develop a method for evaluating the number and cost of transfer
stations and suggest criteria to assure the most cost effective and
efficient system for agencies as well as for ratepayers.
2.2 Within six months from enactment of this Agreement by the County and
by the Authority, the County and the Authority will develop a model solid waste
' collection franchise agreement and a rate review model.
SECTION 3. COUNTY MATERIALS DIVERSION ORDINANCE
3.1 The Authority and its member agencies acknowledge the right of the
County to enact the Materials Diversion Ordinance and the County will review
comments from the cities regarding the Ordinance and use these comments to modify
or amend the Ordinance with six months of enactment of this Agreement by the
' County and by the Authority.
i
SECTION 4. STAFF RESOURCES AND FINANCING
4.1 During the six months following enactment of this Agreement by the
County and by the Authority, the County and the Authority will discuss staff
' resources and financing.
i
' A - 9
4.2 The County and the Authority agree that funding for the Authority shall
continue to be based on population and paid by each member agency either directly
or via a tipping fee which may be levied, pursuant to the Act, by the County or other
appropriate entity at transfer station(s) or landfiil(s). The levying of a tipping fee to '
fund the Authority shall require the request of a majority of the public franchising
agencies using the transfer station or landfill and shall apply only to those agencies '
which are members of the Authority. ,
SECTION 5. SUBREGIONAL SOLID WASTE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES,
5.1 Nothing herein is intended to be in conflict with any agreement currently
being negotiated by the County, any subregional joint powers authority, or any
individual franchising agency. Furthermore, subregional joint powers authorities will ,
be consulted on a regular basis during the course of negotiations between the
Authority and the County.
SECTION 6. TERM OF AGREEMENT
6.1 The County and Authority agree to work together on solid waste
management issues for a period of three (3) years, renewable for five (5) years
following review and affirmation at the end of six (6) months by the County, the '
Authority and its member agencies, and the subregional solid waste joint powers
authorities.
A - 10 ,
SIGNATURES. THESE SIGNATURES ATTEST THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT HERETO.
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, CALIFORNIA
By: x �OY12 �� f�� '� Date:
Tom Torlakson, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
FORM APPROVED:
VICTOR J. WESTMAN, County Counsel
By:
Lillian Fujii, Deputy Vounty Counsel
ATTEST:
' Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County, Administrator
By:
Deputy Clerk
r
A - 11
r
CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY MEMBERS
r
BY:
r
Date: r- s - 93 r
City of Akioch
Date: -j�-24-- 3
City of Brentwood
Date: `� _ I 9 3
Byron Sanitary District ,
Date: r
!ventral Contra Costa Sanitary Distrid,
Date:
City of Clayton
V-a,+ C, 1 Date:
Crockett-Valona Sanitary District r
Date: 7 19 r
T wn of Danville
r
Date:
S
i f EI Cerrito
Date: S�s�93
City of HerculesL_4� //,'� I
,
Date: y "'
Ironhouse Sanitary District
r
A - 12
i
Date:
City of Lafayette
430n.60.na. J, lnlOod Date:
City of Martinez
1-7
Date: �—
7',.Moraga J
Date: '? _7
City of Orinda
Date: 1/s-A�
;.
of Pinole
N Date: 2
City f Pleassht Hill
Date:
City of Richmond
' Date:
City of San Pablo
Date: L / 7
City Ramon
Date: - 7- '?_3
City of Walnut Creek
ATT
r
A - 13
CONCURRENCE PURSUANT
TO RESOLUTION NO. 93-2
WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
By. Date:
Title
ATTEST:
A - 14
' Step 3 Calculate the tax adjustment
• Since the increased required return is an after tax amount, there is a tax effect
that must be computed. For our purposes here, we will use a straight forward
approach, which simply assumes that the tax effect is the difference between
' the unadjusted return and the calculated return.
• The test period income statement shows an unadjusted return (operating
income) of $32,000 (See C-2)
• The calculated return, based on the above steps, is $33,470. The tax
adjustment is then the difference in the two amounts $33,470 - $32,000 =
' $1,470.
• This number is then added to the unadjusted income tax amount and increases
' the amount of operating expenses used to determine the cost of service.
• Although this is an over simplification of the tax adjustment, it demonstrates to
' the participants that an adjustment is a component of the calculation.
r
C - 5
Step 4
Add the required return plus the tax adjustment to your operating expenses to
determine the total cost of service which equals the revenue requirement.
COST OF SERVICE ,
Test Year '
Amount Adjustments As Adjusted
Plant specific expenses $57,000 $57,000 '
Plant non specific expenses 39,000 39,000
Pro forma wage increases $2,000 2,000
Depreciation 12,000 12,000 '
Taxes other than income 9,000 9,000
Income taxes $17.000 1.470 18.470
Operating Expenses 134,000 3,470 137,470 '
Return 32.000 1,470 33.470
Cost of service $166,000 $4,940 $170,940 i
r
C - 6
� APPENDIX D1
1
CITY OF SAN JOSE
� INDEXED RATE
SAMPLE RATE ADJUSTMENT
� FORMULA
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
EXCERPT FROM CITY OF SAN JOSE WASTE COLLECTION AND
RECYCLING CONTRACT
' 14.05 Annual Adjustment
On July 1 of each year of the term of this Agreement, beginning July 1,
' 1994, the base rate per Service Recipient (Section 14.01), the rate per
ton recycled (Section 14.02), the compensation for Garbage overage
collection (Section 14.04.1), the compensation for Garbage Containers
and Recyclables bins (Section 14.04.3), the compensation for
' emergency services (Section 14.04.4), and the compensation for Bulky
Goods services (Section 14.04.5) shall be adjusted upward or downward
as described in this Section 14.05. The adjustment shall be applied to
the compensation payable in each of these categories as of the February
1 immediately preceding the effective date of the adjustment. For the
purposes of this Section 14.05, "compensation payable" does not include
' any amount paid or payable as temporary adjustments such as, but not
limited to, adjustments to correct any overpayments or underpayments
which may have occurred. The annual adjustment shall be a percentage
' of the compensation payable determined by the sum of:
1. forty percent (40%) of the annual December-to-December
' percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (National CPI-U); and
' 2. ten percent (10%) of the annual December-to-December
percentage change in the Motor Fuel Component of the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers (National CPI-U).
' The annual percentage changes shall be calculated by the following
formula:
Net percentage change = [V (i) - V (i-1)] /V (i-1)
Where: V (i) = Index value for the first December immediately
preceding the effective date of the adjustment
and
V (i-1) = Index value for the second December
immediately preceding the effective date of the
adjustment.
Example: For the Jul 1994 adjustment V i = the index f
P Y 1 ( ) or
December 1993, and V (i-1) = the index for December
' 1992.
D1-1
The indices used shall be those published by the United States
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Should any such index '
be discontinued, a successor index shall be used. Successor indices
shall be those indices which are most closely equivalent to the
discontinued indices as recommended by the United States Department
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Should any such index not be ,
published in December of any give year, the calculations shall be
performed using the index values of the November immediately
preceding the December contemplated by this Agreement. ,
Annual adjustments shall be made only in units of one cent ($0.01).
Fractions less than one cent ($0.01) shall not be considered in making '
adjustments. The indices shall be truncated at four (4) decimal places for
the adjustment calculations.
No annual increase or decrease for a compensation category shall '
exceed seven percent (7%) of the compensation in effect on July 1, 1993,
as set forth in Sections 14.01, 14.02, 14.04.3, and 14.04.5; and the '
aggregate increase or decrease through June 30, 1999, shall not exceed
thirty-five percent (35%) of the compensation for the category in effect on
July 1, 1993. In the event the term of this Agreement is extended ,
pursuant to Section 2.02 for an additional one, two or three years, the
aggregate increase or decrease for a category over the full term of this
Agreement shall not exceed forty-two percent (42%), forty-nine percent '
(49%), or fifty-six percent (56%) respectively.
On or before March 1 of each year of this Agreement in which an annual '
adjustment is to be made, City shall submit to contractor a Rate
Adjustment Statement setting forth the compensation payable, the
applicable index values, the percentage change in the applicable
indices, the calculation of the annual adjustment, and the new '
compensation rates. Within thirty (30) calendar days of City's submittal of
the Rate Adjustment Statement to Contractor, Contractor shall notify the 1
City Representative of any exceptions to the Rate Adjustment Statement.
If Contractor does not submit written exceptions to the Rate Adjustment
Statement within said thirty (30) days, Contractor shall be deemed to 1
have accepted the Rate Adjustment Statement submitted by City.
1
i
1
D1-2 '
� APPENDIX D2
1
CITY OF FREMONT
INDEXED RATE
� SAMPLE RATE ADJUSTMENT
� FORMULA AND COST PROPOSAL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4.14 CoNWENSAMON FOR SERVICES
4.14.1 Basb for Inid2l Annual Payment
The conwactor(s) will perform all responsibilities and semces specified in the sm-Ace contract(s) in
return for the proposed cost in the annual cost proposal farm(s). This con will be adjusted annuafly
to regect (--Iang= in costs subject w tailanon as noted m Section 4.14-2. 'This annual cm will be
expresmd on a monthly basis and billed according to the procedure outlined in Section 4.9.
4.14-2 Annual Cog Adjustment Formulae
The City anticipates an annual cost adjustment in accordance with a pre-established formula. The
City acknowledges that c== costs (such as leases and depre=tIon) are not subject to inflation,
while Od=s (such as matetials and supplies) are. Furdur, the ffiqim cost components fm services
are fuel and Libor. Accordingly, the formula will be based an a combination of published fuel,
labor, WA general (such as the CPI)int ices applied to the appropriate portion of the youlor's COSM
A=Ordingiy, cow am broicen out into the fallowing fotw categories:
W = Cam not subject to inflation
X . COW ubject to a feed indent
y = Costs subject to a labor index
Z = Costs subject to the CPI
Where;
W — X + Y + Z = 100% of service pwiap cost
Demas of dirt con adjustment formula are provided is Appmdm EL The con proposal kw=
specify the cuegories (Le., W, X, Y, and Z) the artrrtlal costs are bmifem amts.
4.14-3 Payment for Special Se YkW
In aWiftm go ft proposed con specified in The annuai cost proposal. ftn(s), the commcor may
wa=gs at recenve fees for pmfarmmg spemai services at ram agmed to by the cMUWM and each
cl torlux requesting such speaW services,and as approved in writing by the City Manqw or hisiber
designee, in accordance with the Conn-Act..
4.14.4 Payment for Additional Incremental Levels of Service
For each service component, a baseline defining the standard number of accounts or Manage to be
will be established over the Umof the COOMM The CODUW= Will, receive additional
compatsmon based an the ma mental levels of service provided above the baseline(s). 7be
baselines are defined herein:
Resfdajtial city customer count (SFD) 45,860 hmnehold
Residential. city customer count (NIFD) 19,,074 Units, 774 complcws
CommndustriaL pickup-runt 2,750 accoum
ReddeadaL recycling cuswmer count(SFD & WD) 64,934 bousehords
Comma Tial racycLing mummer com 2,300 accounts
Recycling &:Mty ftoughput 25,000 tons per yen
Yard -"rr cm5U)mW COM 45,360 bousebaft
Yard wam ftc9hy ftLdgftpUE 22,000 OM per year
For each serimr., the baseline and the x=21 emu doting the narm of the contract will be ft basis
for dcmwmmwg payment to the contractor for ail kcrememsal kvcb of service above the baseline
The payment for each additional accourit or wrimp will be equal to the mcremeamL con per
additional X=mt or tonnage served per year specified in Form 8 of the cost proposal..
In the evair that the actual count should fag below the baseline du3dng the nest of the exmiacx, the
mondily payment w the contra=win be reduced by an ammm equai to the kKmonewal con per
additional accMint or wrinap semced per year muftiplied by the Mawm between the baseline and
the xmjai obum calculated for each fiscal quatur.
D2 -1
ANNUAL COST ADJUSTMENT FORNIULA
A total annual payment to the contractor will be made in accordance with the following formula
and the payment schedule specified in Section 4.9 of the RFP:
Annual payment to contractor
M + (X * [MFI-A/MFI-1]) + (Y * [LI A/L1-rD + (Z [CPI-A/CPI-I])
Where:
W = Base costs not subject to inflation (expressed in 1/1/94 dollars)
X = Base costs subject to a fuel index (expressed in 1/1/94 dollars)
Y = Base costs subject to a labor index (expressed in 1/1/94 dollars)
Z = Base costs subject to inflation (expressed in 111/94 dollars)
MFI-A = Motor Fuel Index of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All. Urban Consumers
(U.S. City Average CPI-U) as published by the Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, in effect on the first day of each new 12-month period of the
service contract
NM-I = Motor Fuel Index of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers
(U.S. City Average CP1-U) as published by the Deparunent of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, in effect on the first day of the service contract
LI-A = Labor Index will be Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers (U.S.
City Average CPI-U) as published by the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, in effect on the first day of each new 12-month period of the service
contract.
LI-I = Labor Index will be the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers
(U.S. City Average CPI-U) as published by the Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, in effect on the first day of the service contract-
D2 - 2
CPI-A = Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers (U.S. City Average CPI-U)
as published by the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, in effect on the
first day of each new 12-month period of the service contract.
CPI-I = Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers (U.S. City Average CPI-U)
' as published by the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, in effect on the
first day of the service contract.
The base costs for variables W, X, Y, and Z are those set forth in the cost proposal forms of
the contractor's proposal for services. No changes to these base costs will be allowed over the
life of the service contract. These base costs and the corresponding indices will form the basis
for determining annual payments to the contractor over the life of the service contract.
Additional payments to the contractor will be made for Special Services and Incremental Levels
of Service as defined in Section 4.14 of this RFP.
The annual CPI adjustment shall not exceed 7 percent per year, and the aggregate increase or
decrease over the seven-year term shall not exceed 42 percent of the first year's payment. If the
City extends the contractor's term of contract by one, two, or three years, the aggregate increase
or decrease shall not exceed 49, 56, or 63 percent, respectively.
' Adjustments to the contractor's payment will be made in units of one cent($0.01). Fractions less
than one cent ($0.01) will not be considered in making adjustments.
Downward Adjustments
The City reserves the right to adjust the compensation awarded to the contractor for failure to
comply with the terms included in the service contract.
tIt is the City's intent to execute a service contract with the selected proposer that specifies the
monthly payment to the contractor be withheld or adjusted should the services performed by the
' Contractor not conform to the requirements of the RFP, the proposal, or the service contract_
The City may adjust compensation downward for specific failure to provide service that is not
corrected within a reasonable and agreed time period outlined in the draft contract as defined
in the service contract. The bases of downward compensation adjustments may include, but are
not limited to:
• Start collection prior to approved time
• Missed pickups not collected within 24 hours of notice
D2 - 3
• Residue left at curbside '
• Failure to deliver carts or recyclables containers within the time period specified in
this RFP
• Reporting requirements
1. Monthly, quarterly reports:
- failure to provide ,
- falsification of data
2. Annual reports
a. Route audits '
- failure to provide
- falsification of data
b. Financial reports
- failure to provide
- falsification of data ,
• Vehicle specification and performance:
v v '
Noise levels above acceptable levels
- Emissions above acceptable levels
- Vehicle not clean
- Driver not in uniform
- Vehicle not passing CHP Biannual Inspection of Terminals (BIT)
• Other performance-related adjustments
Other Compensation Adjustments
(1) Review of Records. The contractor shall reimburse the City for creation of adequate and
separate records if the contractor has failed to maintain adequate and separate records as set
forth in Appendix A.
(2) Credit to City. If the downward adjustment to the contractor's compensation to be provided
under terms specified in this RFP exceeds the City's monthly payment due to the contractor, the-
D2 - 4
he-
D2 - 4
excess adjustments will be carried over as a credit in favor of the City against the next monthly
payment, and succeedingly until the City is paid in full. If credit is due to the City at
' termination of the service contract, the contractor will pay in full the credit due to the City at
termination.
(3) Uncontrollable Circumstances. The service contract will provide a mechanism to allow
the contractor to seek a rate increase in the event the contractor incurs increased costs due to
' reasonably unforeseeable, uncontrollable circumstances (to be defined in the service contract).
Upon the contractor's request for such a rate increase, the contractor and the City will conduct
' an extraordinary rate review to determine the contractor's right to a rate increase, the amount
of the increase, and the period during which such rate increase may remain in effect.
r
D2 - 5
"COST PROPOSAL '
Appendix C contains a set of blank forms which the proposer must use to show cost data for the ,
proposed services. The City will use the data from these forms to project a life-cycle cost for
each proposed service through the term of the contract. ,
Any costs or savings (other than those due to growth) expected to occur in later years must be
accounted for in the line items as an annual cost. All capital costs must be annualized. For '
example, if a new vehicle will be needed in the fourth year, its cost should be treated as though
it will be defrayed by a fund which receives a constant (in 1994 dollars) amount from 1994
through the term of the contract. Anticipated variations in fuel consumption, parts costs, or any ,
other line items must be accounted for in the same way. In short, the City expects to pay only
the costs shown on the forms, escalated by their respective indices, for all required services.
Responses should be based on the assumption that the number of customers remains constant
throughout the term of the contract. Projected growth of the residential or commercial customer
base will be accounted for by the City using Incremental Costs from Form 8.
All cost entries must be in January 1, 1994 dollars.
Proposers will note that for each group of costs (non-escalating, fuel-escalating, etc. the form '
Po a P g g, )
lists particular line items (wages, tires, bins, etc.) which the City believes will escalate according
to the index for that group. Each line item should be costed, if applicable; but proposers may
shift a line item to a different group if they have reason to believe that a different escalation
index applies. For example, the line item "Tires" appears in the CPI-escalated group; but if a
proposer believes that the cost of tires will escalate with the fuel index, they should strike it ,
from the CPI-escalated sheet and enter it on a blank line in the fuel-escalated cr
group.
The costs presented in these forms and the actual indices will form the basis for determining cost '
adjustments over the life of the contract. It is, therefore, required that ALL line item costs for
each of the service packages be provided. Any costs (or costs items) not included as part of
these forms will not be considered as part of any future cost adjustments.
In developing the disposal cost item, the proposer shall assume the tipping fee is $23.76 per ton.
In addition, if the proposal provides for recycling or compost collection services and does not
propose a specific processing site for these materials, the proposer shall calculation tranportation
costs assuming that the processing facility is located within the City limits.
D2 - 6 '
1 °f'
c
m
r
N
Q
m
a o
' N �
G
oZ o0
o Soso
o inO_ G o p O T d p 8
' G � . n Gta , m O G SS
O jpS�
01 O eD o O O O G
r1 ° ° TT n Gd it
N o
7 O w
O_ sy t'7 �p Gj,S7 R1 fi
k o ? V C?
r p 0 �4
07-
dt m V40.
Z D
G e d G
So.e V
00
O 0 c7' ,� g .� pec ;_ 3 a'
3
� 7r d O
m o 00 voi o �$s+ ey o m C G3
r o
c p
O� �, � �, ry� m $sod •csD � � >� t� Z
m o ''.� "" d tG t
Q� V cr. za
U r O
rCO OCA
t!f N d �
sa, co
� O � NN ZZ
r °� � �
r
FORM 2A
CITY OF FREMONT
COST PROPOSAL
MS'vv COt I F—CmON - ANNUAL COST PROPOSAL
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL COLLECTION COSTS ONLY
Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost
No. Category Description of cost Reside"dw Commercial
(t/tJ94 sj (tJtl94�
NON-ESCALATING COSTS
1 w Long-term lease
2 w Depreciation ,
w One–time equipment purchases
3 w
5 w
6 w
7 w
w Other (specify)
a w
9 w
10 w
11 w
12 w
w Revenue from salvaged materials
13 w
15 w ( k t )
18 w ( 1 )
FUEL ESCALATING COSTS
18 X Fuel
19 x Oils and lubricants
x Other(specify)
20 x
21 x
22 x
23 x
24 x
LABOR ESCALATING COSTS
Y wages_
Y Collection
25 Y Drivers
25 Y Helpers
27 Y Clerical/administrative
28 Y Management
29 Y Other(specify): --
30 Y Other(specify):
31 Y Other(speciiy):
D2 - 8
FORM 2A (continued)
CITY OF FREMONT
' COST PROPOSAL
MS*vV COLLFC;tON — ANNUAL COST PROPOSAL
RESMENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL COLLECTION-COSTS ONLY
' Cost Annual Cost Annual Cost
No. Category Description of cast Residential Commercial -
Y Vehicie Maintenance
32 Y Supervisors
33 Y Mectianim welders, etc.
34 Y Clerical
35 Y Other (specify):
Y General and administrative
' 36 Y Legal
37 Y Data processing
38 Y Other professional services
39 Y Security
40 Y Custodial
41 Y Corporate management fee
42 Y Other(specify):
43 Y Other(specify):
' Y Benefits
44 Y Workers compensation insurance
45 Y Social security tan
46 Y State unemployment tax,
47 Y Federal unemployment insurance
48 Y Disabffiity instaance
49 Y Medical, health.and hospital,insurance
Sir Y Employee stock ownership program
51 Y Pension fund
52 Y Other(specify):
' Y Other(specify):
53 Y
54 Y
55 Y
CPI—ESCALATING COSTS
56 Z Disposal casts
' 57 Z Parts, repair supplies —_
Sa Z Tires
59 Z Licenses
60 Z Interest expense
t 61 Z Insurance
62 Z UUTrties
63 Z BuBdng expense
' 64 - Z Bui3dng repair and maintenance
65 Z Offte equipment
66 Z Office supplies
67 Z Rent
68 Z Professional services
69 Z Vehicles
70 Z Taxes
1 71 Z Permit/regulatory fees
D2 - 9
FOAM 2A (connnued)
CITY OF FREMONT
COST PROPOSAL
MSW COLLECTION — ANNUM COS+PROPOSAL
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL COLLECTION COSTS ONLY
Cost Annual Cast Annual Cost
No_ Category Description of cost Residential Commercial
(1/1/94 $) (1/1/94S)
72 Z Collection containers(new or replacement)
73 Z Swbcantracted repairs(Inaiuding towing)
74 Z waste od/$O VM service
75 Z Bad debt and coilection cost
Z Ottw3r(specityr):
76 2
77 2
78 Z
79 Z
TOTAL COST PER YEAR
D2 - 10
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT JOINT POWERS
AUTHORITY
By
Date:• —��
Title
ATTEST:
1w u t
LA:gms
93*v- 4OU-JPA
A- 15
WORK PLAN
TASK #1 - CONCEPTUAL POINTS #6 AND #9
A. (#6) Delineate, in cooperation with sub-regional solid
waste joint powers authorities, roles and responsibilities for solid
waste management.
B. (#9) Discuss staff resources and financing.
STEERING
COMMITTEE: Don Blubaugh (Central); Dave Rowlands (East); Bill Davis (West);
Val Alexeeff (County) with Avon Wilson and Louise Aiello
STAFF:
Avon Wilson and Louise Aiello
PROCESS: Two workshops using staff preparatory work to focus on key
policy/organizational/financing matters
First workshop would be held in late June
Final workshop would be held in September
Workshops would include Authority Board Members, Board of
Supervisors, members/staff from subregional jpa's, and other key
staff/policy makers as appropriate.
DELIVERABLE
PRODUCT: Recommendations) for one or more organizational structure(s)
and financing/staffing delineating roles, authority, responsibilities
STAFF
PREPARATORY
WORK: 1 . What are the current requirements of State law?
How does current law delineate roles, responsibilities,
authority?
2. What are the defined purposes, goals, activities related to
solid waste for the County, cities, subregional jpa's, Contra
Costa Solid Waste Authority, Countywide AB 939 Task
Force, Public Managers Solid Waste Committee, and AB
939 Project Managers?
A- 16
i
3. Identify the areas of overlap and/or duplication including
areas where overlap may be needed.
Key areas to be addressed should include --
(a) CoIWMP Monitoring and Revision
(b) SRREs and HHWEs update, revision, implementation
(c) NDFEs and facilities development and operations
4. What are current funding sources and levels for the
organizations and programs identified in #2 above?
5. What mechanisms are available for funding?
WORKSHOP
FOCUS: Review #1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
Answer the following:
1 . Identify ways to streamline the different aspects of solid
waste management to eliminate or reduce overlap/
duplication. In what ways could public agencies and
private sector work to streamline, reduce costs, work
together more effectively?
2. In what ways can independent/individual jurisdiction
decisions making be provided for while building an
interdependent and cooperative solid waste management
organizational structure?
3. How can cost savings to member agencies or to rate payers
result from restructuring how activities are handled and/or
under what organization activities are handled?
4. What is the best structure to organize solid waste activities
in an efficient, responsive manner in Contra Costa County?
5. Based upon #4, what staffing and funding levels are
necessary?
1
A - 17
TASK #2 CONCEPTUALP INT #7
Develop a model waste collection franchise and a rate review '
model.
STEERING '
COMMITTEE: Don Blubaugh (Central); Dave Rowlands (East); Bill Davis (West);
Val Alexeeff (County) with Avon Wilson and Louise Aiello
STAFF
COMMITTEE: Key rate setting personnel from a cross-section of franchising
agencies-- Walnut Creek, County, Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District, Antioch, and Concord or Brentwood
PROCESS: Staff Committee will prepare two reports for review with the
Steering Committee; the reports will be submitted to the Authority
and County by August 30 for consideration/recommendation to
franchising agencies I
DELIVERABLE
PRODUCT: Report which identifies key public agency considerations and
provisions for solid waste franchises
Report which identifies public agency considerations and key
components in solid waste rate setting
Reports should be consistent internally and with each other
INFORMATION TO
BE INCLUDED
IN REPORTS: 1 . Identify issues which the public sector needs to know/
address in framing a franchise
2. Identify issues which the public sector needs to know/
address in setting rates
3. Identify all component parts of costs and related reasons
(justifications) for costs ,
4. Compare various approaches/models to consider in setting
rates
A - 18 ,
TASK #3 - CONCEPTUAL POINT #8
Develop, in cooperation with the subregional solid waste
authorities, a method for evaluating the number and costs of
transfer stations proposed and suggest criteria
PROCESS: Prepare a preliminary report by May 15, 1993
STEERING
COMMITTEE: Expand Steering Committee comprised of Don Blubaugh (Central);
Dave Rowlands (East); Bill Davis (West); Val Alexeeff (County)
with Avon Wilson and Louise Aiello, to include other key public
agency representatives handling transfer station development
DELIVERABLE
PRODUCT: Preliminary Report which addresses the appropriate combination
of local government and private sector responsibility/authority for
transfer and material recovery facilities including recommendation
for further action(s) by the County, Authority, subregional jpa's
with regard to criteria for the numbers and costs of
transfer/material recovery facilities
INFORMATION
TO BE INCLUDED
IN REPORT: 1 . Identify concerns of cities, county, jpa's
2. Consider AB 3001
3. Identify number of proposed facilities and related costs
4. Consider market place impacts on numbers/costs
5. Identify ways to encourage cooperation and/or reduce costs
6. Recommendations) for further action(s) such as use of
consultant to evaluate numbers, locations, sizing, costs of
facilities
I
A - 19 .
This Page Left
Intentionally Blank
� APPENDIX B
APCUC SAMPLE
CALCULATION
1
1
1
1
r
SAMPLE CAPITAL USE CHARGE
Forecasted Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1991
Net Capital fixed Assets, June 30, 1990 $ 828,000
Capital Additions 852,000
One-half of Net Capital Additions in 1990 - 1991 561,000
tCapital Use Base $ 2,241,000
Interest Rate (Based on 2 - Year T Note) 8%
Capital Use Charge $ 179,000
i
B - 1
SAMPLE COMPUTATION OF ALLOWABLE PROFIT, NET OF CAPITAL USE CHARGE i
Forecasted Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1991
EQUIVALENT UNITS
RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
RESIDENTIAL
AVERAGE TOTAL CUSTOMER
TOTAL NUMBER OF ANNUAL ALL EQUIVALENT
YEAR REVENUES CUSTOMERS REVENUE REVENUES UNITS M
1990 $6,619,000 28,179 $ 235 $ 11,092,000 47,200
1989 5,500,000 27,349 201 8,700,000 43,284
1988 4,388,000 26,511 166 7,752,000 46,699
1987 3,591,000 25,457 141 6,370,000 45,177
1986 3,600,000 27,908 129 6,805,000 52,752
1985 3,465,000 .26,224 132 5,873,000 44,492
FORECAST 1991 6,792,000 28,179 241 $ 11,654,000 48,357 <A>
HISTORICAL PROFIT, NET OF INTEREST
ACTUAL PROFIT,
NET OF CAPITAL
PROFIT, NET OF USE CHARGE,
PROFIT,NET OF CAPITAL USE CHARGE PER RESIDENTIAL
CAPITAL USE CHARGE ADJUSTED BY CPI CUSTOMER
------________----____-- -------------------_____-_-- EQUIVALENT
YEAR ACTUAL FORECASTED ACTUAL FORECAST UNIT --
1990 $ 655,000 $ 463,000 $ 665,000 $ 463,000 $ 13.88
1989 456,000 453,000 476,000 472,000 11.00
1988 476,000 295,000 522,000 323,000 11.18
1987 (119,000) 288,000 (136,000) 330,000 (3.01)
1986 513,000 287,000 603,000 338,000 11.43
1985 762,000 215,000 924,000 261,000 20.79
Average of four years after eliminating lowest and highest figures $11.87 <B> ,
COMPUTATION OF ALLOWABLE PROFIT, NET OF CAPITAL USE CHARGE
----------------------------------________-________________________- __-----___---
1990 - 1991 Forecasted Residential Customer Equivalent Units 48,357 <A>
Allowable Profit, Net of Capital Use Charge, Per Equivalent Unit $11.87 <B>
Allowable Profit, Net of Capital Use Charge $573,998
B - 2
SAMPLE RATE ADJUSTMENT CALCULATION
Forecasted Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1991
' Allowable Expenses (From Analysis of Rate Application)
11 ,238,000
Capital Use Charge (See Page A - 1) 179,000
Profit (based on recent average of 11.87 per customer
per year (See Page A - 2) 574,000
Total Revenue Required 11,991,000
Forecasted Revenue Without
Rate Increase (From Analysis
of Rate Application) 11,657,000
Required Revenue Increase
$ 334,000
Percent Increase in Revenue Required
2.87%
B - 3
SAMPLE COMPUTATION OF ALLOWABLE PROFIT
Forecasted Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992
EQUIVALENT UNITS
RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
RESIDENTIAL
AVERAGE TOTAL CUSTOMER
TOTAL NUMBER OF ANNUAL ALL EQUIVALENT
YEAR REVENUES CUSTOMERS REVENUE REVENUES UNITS
1992 $ 7,422,000 28,977 $ 256 . $ 12,630,000 $ 49,336.00
PROFIT PER RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER EQUIVALENT UNIT FOR 1990-1991
BASE YEAR 11.87
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (APRIL 1990-APRIL 1991 =3.9%) $11.87 X 1.039 12.33
MODIFICATION FACTORS:
QUALITY OF SERVICE .95
COST OF SERVICE .85
COMPOSITE MODIFICATION FACTOR .95 X.85= .8075 �.
9.96
COMPUTATION OF ALLOWABLE PROFIT
1991 1992 FORECAST RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER EQUIVALENT UNITS 49,336.00
PROFIT PER RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMRER EQUIVALENT UNIT 9.96
ALLOWABLE PROFIT $ 491,000.00
B - 4
r
SAMPLE BALANCING ACCOUNT
<000 OMITTED>
1991 Balancing Account
Allowed Profit $ 168
Actual Expenses 4.753
Revenues ,
Required 4 921
4
rActual Revenues 4.807
1991 Balancing Account 114
Interest $ 4
$ 118
1
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
B - 5
BALANCING ACCOUNT
Projected 1991 to Adjusted Audited 1991
RATE ADJUSTED FORECASTED VARIANCE
AUDITED SETTING AUDITED CALENDAR INCREASE
12-31-91 ADJUSTMENTS 12-31-91 1991 (DECREASE)
Revenues $ 4,807<1> 0 4,807 5,299 492____
Disposal Expense 1,336 0 1,336 1,383 47
Driver& Helper Expenses 1,533 (70) <A> 1,463 1,576 113
Truck& Equip- Fixed 231 (31) <B> 200 240 40
Truck& Equip-Variable 664 (13) <C> 651 582 (69)
Vehicle Repair Expenses 36 0 36 95 59 '
Other Direct Expenses 384 (132) <D> 252 445 193
General&Administrative 665 (42) <E> 603 594 (9)
Franchise Fee 174 (16)<F> 158 155 (3)
Operating Expenses 5,003 (304) 4,699 5,070 371
Operating Income/(Loss) (196) 304 108 229 128 ,
Other Income & Expenses 52 (120) (68) (61) 7
(144) 184 40 168 128
PRIOR YR AUTH EXPENSES:
CORPORATE ID PROGRAM 10 10 (10) '
COMPUTERIZED BILLING 4 4 4
Income Before Taxes $ _—(130) 184 54 _------168 114
Rate Setting Adjustments: ,
<A> To adjust for Workers' Compensation refund received.
<B> To exclude lease expense of $178,000 and replace with depreciation expense of $147,000.
<C> To exclude voided check included in audited figures. '
<D> To exclude key man life insurance $ (42,000)
To exclude consultant payment (90,000)
$ (132,000) '
<E> To exclude newsletter $ (4,000)
To adjust professional fees (20,000)
To reduce travel and entertainment (18,000
$ (42,000)
<F> To adjust franchise fee to actual amount. ,
To adjust capital use charge 50,000
To adjust for Workers' Comp. refund received 70,000
$ 120,000
Note<1>: Includes auditor's write-off of$123,000 of customer receivables due to unreconciled '
difference in formerly maintained manual records.
B - 6
I APPENDIX C
� PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
' EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
A
1
1
1
i
1
i
1
1
Example Calculation
ABC TELEPHONE COMPANY
Balance Sheet
Assets
Current Assets
' Cash $ 25,000
Accounts Receivable 20,000
Materials and Supplies 7,000
Prepaid Insurance 10,000
Other Assets
Miscellaneous deferred debits 26,000
Plant
' Telephone plant in service $535,000
Telephone plant under construction 52,000
587,000
Less: Accumulated Depreciation 240,000
347,000
Total Assets $435,000
Liabilities and Capital
' Current Liabilities
Accounts Payable $ 40,000
Accrued Liabilities 20,000
' Other
Accumulated deferred income taxes 30,000
' Long-term debt 120,750
Capital
Common Stock $150,000
Retained earnings 74,250
' 224,250
Total Liabilities and Capital 435 000
C - 1
ABC TELEPHONE COMPANY ,
Income Statement
Operating Revenues
Local $ 66,000
Toll 100.000
166.000
Operating Expenses
Plant specific 57,000
Plant nonspecific 39,000
Depreciation 12,000
Taxes - income 17,000
- other 9.000
134,000
Operating income $32,000
Other income, net 7.000
39,000
Income deductions:
Interest on debt 16,000
Amortization of debt discount 3,000
Interest during construction (4,000)
Amortization of debt discount 15,000
Net income $ 24,000
Assumptions
1) Allowance for working capital is 45 days of the company's net cash operating
expenses exclusive of taxes.
2) Average interest rate on long-term debt is 9.5%.
3) Allowable rate or return to investors is 13%.
4) Operating expenses are expected to increase due to wage increases of $2,000.
5) Telephone plant under construction (TPUC) is not included in rate base.
C - 2
' Step 1 Calculating the rate base
• The rate base is calculated using telephone plant, accumulated depreciation,
inventory, and accumulated deferred income taxes directly from the balance
sheet plus an adjustment for working capital
iRate Base
Telephone plant, original cost $535,000
Accumulated depreciation (240,000)
Net plant 295,000
Materials and supplies inventory 7,000
Working capital 12,250 (a)
Accumulated deferred income taxes (30,000)
' Rate base $284,250 (b)
' The working capital adjustment is made to determine the amount of cash required to
meet plant expenses for a designated period of time, in this case, 45 days.
Working Capital
' Plant specific expenses $57,000
Plant nonspecific expenses 39,000
Pro forma wage increase 2.000
98,000
Working capital formula (45/360) x 1/8
Working capital $12,250 (a)
C - 3
Step 2 Calculate the required return '
• First you must calculate the required rate of return using a rate of the long term '
debt to common equity expressed as a percent of the combined total
• Then multiply the debt percent component by the interest rate on long term debt
and the equity percent component by the allowable rate of return to calculate
the average rate of return
• Then multiply the rate base by the average rate of return to arrive at the required ,
return
Note that since long term debt is considered to be part of capital for ratemaking
purposes, it must be included in the calculation. As a result, you must calculate an
average rate of return.
Return
Long-term debt $120,750 35% 9.5% 3.325% '
Common equity 224.250 65% 13.0% 8.450%
$345,000 100% 11.775%
Rate base $284,250 (b) '
Required return $33,470
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C - 4