HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06281994 - H.4 I \
f
H.4 and 2 . 7
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 28, 1994 by the following vote:
AYES: (See below for vote)
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Interim extension of the Keller Canyon Franchise to
December 31, 1994 , rate requirement at the Acme
Transfer Station and Keller Landfill, and related
rate setting processes .
Following the presentations by Phil Batchelor, County
Administrator, and Val Alexeeff, Director of the Growth
Management and Economic Development Agency, and discussion by
Board members, the Board heard testimony from the following:
Frank Aiello, '1734 Bridgeview, Pittsburg;
Lance J. Dow, 2232 Concord Drive, Pittsburg;
Michael Woods, City Attorney, City of Pittsburg;
Tom Bruen, Bruen and Gordon, Walnut Creek, representing
Browning Ferris Industries;
Randall Morrison, representing Waste Management .
At the conclusion of the discussion and testimony, the
following are the. -synopsized actions and vote taken by the Board
on this subject : (A transcript relative to these actions is
attached. )
1 . EXTENDED the Keller Canyon Landfill franchise Agreement for
two months with amended language; DIRECTED staff to devise a fee
setting system as stated; DIRECTED staff to prepare a proposal
for a lump sum County surcharge; and DIRECTED that the Land Use
Permit be re-opened for hearing on the fees set in the LUP
Conditions of Approval .
The vote was as follows :
Ayes : Supervisors Smith, DeSaulnier, Powers
Noes : Supervisors Bishop and Torlakson
Absent : None
2 . DIRECTED staff to report to the Board on the closure costs at
Acme and the possible need to implement a closure fees, the rate
setting at Acme particularly as it related to the non-contract
users at Acme, and the possibility of host mitigation fees at
Acme; and DIRECTED staff to work with the cities in preparing bid
proposals and dealing with those other issues that are necessary
to reduce fees .
The vote was as follows :
AYES : Supervisors Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Powers
NOES : Supervisor Bishop
ABSENT: None
cc : Director, GMEDA
Director, CDD I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
County Counsel an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
County Administrator Board of Supe sors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: ?
PHIL B TCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
upervi and Count Administrator
0
By Deputy
Text related to motion on items on Keller and Acme from 6/28/94
Supervisor Powers : Thank you very much for your testimony. Let
me make a suggestion at this point unless there are other
questions . That we put something on the table here for
discussion and I' ll do it in the form of a motion, if necessary,
that I think is going to address the public needs and that may
address many and most of the needs that Keller and Acme have.
Number one, that we declare our intent within the next month to
reduce fees, namely anywhere from 2 to 4 dollars on the open
space and transportation fees, and set a hearing within that time
to deal with that land use permit, that we also direct the staff
to eliminate the household hazardous waste mitigation fee of
$2 . 12 if in fact we find another source in cooperating with the
cities . Then that we also consider eliminating the part or all
of the . 35 rate review fee and mitigation monitoring fee
depending upon activities that we need to do. And that we make
long term commitments on that in cooperation with the cities in
putting together a bid for long term disposal . So, that there is
no question about increasing those fees in the future . But only
if we can work with the cities in successfully creating a bid
package that would meet all of the needs of the cities as well as
the County in terms of fees . Furthermore, that we direct staff
to regulate the transfer station in order to regulate the gate
rates for household disposal, then that we consider assessing
local mitigation fees on the Acme Transfer Station in order to
address those directly related problems that are associated with
high gate rates and with the existence of a transfer station.
How much I'm not sure.
Supervisor Bishop: Could you repeat that .
Supervisor Powers : Assess some local mitigation fee to address
the local impacts on Acme Transfer Station not on the landfill .
Now we also consider assessing a fee on the transfer station not
the landfill for closure. I only say consider that because we
may not have an obligation but we ought to consider it . Now I
think that likewise that we only extend the franchise of Keller
for one month and consider doing it on a month to month basis
depending upon how they respond to the decrease in rates .
Supervisor Bishop: Do I hear a second to that motion?
Supervisor Smith: I agree with parts of it .
Supervisor Powers : That' s fine . If we can' t get a second, let' s
have another motion.
Supervisor Torlakson: I did have some questions for Mr. Bruen
but it would take Board discussion on the motion and alternatives
but I had some follow up questions there and I agree Chairman
Powers that you have outlined a number of steps that I think
1
, l
should be taken and I also believe that we should be shorter
rather than longer in getting things out on the table . The one
month, if you' re talking about one month in trying to get
proposals back, I think enough' s been said and people been
sharpening their pencils and we should be able to get from the
companies and parties some real bonafied proposals start to look
at and not a six months process as outlined by staff is far, far
too long and a short process is something more desirable but I
was wondering in terms of some of the issues I had trouble with
and voted against the franchise agreement when we first did it
because it was a lot of paper and came fast and there were some
concerns I had and I'm learning more I think of some of the
traps . I'm trying to ask if you could define what you think the
size of the traps are and later County Counsel or Vic Westman and
Phil could discuss the points that Lance Dow and Frank Aiello
brought up. Are you saying under the franchise if we continue to
rate regulate, that the issues that they' re raising about
deferred cost, there are a lot of costs you haven' t billed into
the rate obviously because we haven' t had a rate process but
under the franchise agreement either on a cost plus basis or rate
of return utilities formula, you' d be able to bill those and get
return. I guess the question I have is if they' re not billed
today, if they' re not billed into the current climate of
competitiveness, can they be billed later so what we think might
be a low rate today, is something that you' ll later on build in
the cost and try to bill at a subsequent time for things that are
a cost to you and claim under the franchise agreement that you
have a right to bill those and get the rate of return in the
future.
Tom Bruen: Well, I' ll try to answer that question the following
way and tell me if I'm close . To the extent the Board of
Supervisors acts as a rate regulating authority and uses those
powers, it is required by law in my opinion to not only cover all
the reasonable costs of operation of the facility that it' s
regulating plus allow that facility a reasonable profit and what
this Board has under it' s past practice done is to analyze the
amount of reasonable profit by reference to what other similar
facilities are earning. So, that to look at industry averages or
what the norm' is for profit levels and that' s basically the
approach that Deloitte Touche has taken in setting the rates at
Acme and Keller Canyon. Yes, there is a in my view a very
substantial liability when a public entity seeks to regulate
rates and does so in a way the facility loses money or does not
earn a reasonable profit . With respect to Mr. Dow' s comment,
that the County would be taking on some liability under the
proposal that Acme and BFI had jointly made of reducing the
private portion of rates from $61 . 00 a ton to $29 . 00 a ton which
I think is more than 3 percent if my math is right . Under that
proposal, the County would have no liability because that was a
voluntary proposal by the company acting as a private entity and
that rate would be set by private contract not by rate regulation.
2
Supervisor Torlakson: If we drop rate regulation which is one of
the issues that Supervisor Powers raises I think in your package
motion or if we consider that,
Supervisor Powers : drop the ceiling, I mean drop the floor. .
Supervisor Torlakson: if we drop the floor and define, how
quickly could BFI/Acme bring a proposal in to reduce the rates
and are you willing to reduce them to that level you just
indicated.
Tom Bruen: Well, let me answer that in two ways . First of all,
dropping the floor but keeping the cap is not the same as
removing rate regulation. Because the action of dropping the
floor is something you've done by resolution, you can change it
next week. We can' t commit to a 20 year rate with someone
without having a proviso that says the Board can change our rate
at any time . The gap accounting rules require us to write off
the landfill over a truncated period of time because we' re
subject to that power of rate regulation so dropping the floor is
not the same thing as dropping rate regulation. With respect to
dropping the floor which was the second part of your question,
how fast would BFI or Acme respond and what would the rate be, I
have to tell you that the $39 a ton rate is good through 5 p.m.
today. That I've been asked by BFI to communicate to the County
that after today, that proposal will be withdrawn. Their intent
I believe is to revisit the whole question and make a proposals
to individual cities in the County. If the County wants to adopt
some kind of RFP process for its own wastestream, we' d have to
visit it then. But as I told Supervisor Smith at the last
meeting, the $39 rate was a negotiated rate involving the
cooperation of both Acme and BFI . It was a very low rate . It
was a rate that was so low that not only did it not provide for
the return of capital invested in the Keller Landfill but it was
marginal as to whether in the near term it would even cover the
full interest charge on the debt needed to buy the landfill so, I
think that from BFI standpoint, that rate was as low as it was
ever going to get and I don' t frankly see that proposal being on
the table in the future . I think the rate proposal will be
higher.
Supervisor Torlakson: The most favored nation clause that was in
that proposal, do you have any , can you briefly describe and do
you have any objection to releasing that language .
Tom Bruen: No, not at all . The most favored nation proposal
basically said that if another jurisdiction in the County
obtained a better contract for the disposal of . (?) . .that had a
minimum term of seven years, that involved a transfer station and
a landfill, that BFI and Acme would either drop their rate to
meet that competition or would allow the public entities to
cancel or terminate the contract on something like 60 days
3
notice. That was designed to give City councils, the Board of
Supervisors some assurance that if somebody ultimately came up
with a better deal, we would either meet it or they could cancel
the contract and take that better deal .
Supervisor Torlakson: And you have no objection to releasing any
details of the proposed agreement .
Tom Bruen: Not at all .
Supervisor Torlakson: Finally, you' re suing us and that puts us
in an uncomfortable position. Acme Fill Corporation. Are you
representing Acme Fill and BFI today?
Tom Bruen: For purposes of the proposal, which was a joint
proposal of Acme and BFI, I was representing both entities . I'm
not representing Acme currently in the circle litigation. That' s
being handled by a law firm in San Mateo.
Supervisor Torlakson: Because I was going to ask the question.
I think we should have an answer from both you if you would be
caring to answer it because it was part of the package deal and
from County Counsel and staff as to what our exposure is what the
liability is in that law suit . I understand it' s somewhere
between 40 and 70 million dollars and I'm trying to get a handle
on it . What is the county at risk for if we can' t find a way to
settle that and the cost of continuing to litigate it .
Tom Bruen: Well, the cost for closure and post closure for the
north parcel under the existing approved closure plan are
estimated to be in the general range of 80 million dollars .
There is considerable hope on our part that over time, we can get
those costs down but we' re still looking at maybe .
Supervisor Torlakson: And you have 20 million set aside for
that . Is that approximately. . .
Tom Bruen: 23 million dollars has been set aside by Acme for
closure and post closure for all three parcels .
Supervisor Torlakson: So, the balance is to be shared by
municipals including us and including the industrials .
Tom Bruen: Or by Acme itself over time .
Supervisor Torlakson: And by Acme itself over time.
Tom Bruen: The proposal that we put on the table called for the
public entities to put in $2 . 00 a ton which I think was
calculated to yield about 16 million dollars over a 20 year term
and if you were to discount that present value it would be
considerably less . I did one calculation on the part of the
4
County and came to the conclusion that the total cost to the
County of the settlement would probably be less than what the
County will ultimately expend in attorney' s and engineering fees
on the litigation. And we think the reason that the cities were
interested in the proposal is because looking at just the costs
of litigation, we felt that this proposal compared favorably with
just avoiding those costs, putting aside the fact that they'd be
avoiding a considerable downside liability.
Supervisor Torlakson: Well, I just wanted to point out Mr.
Chairman, we' re in sort of an adversarial position in terms of
litigation and it' s very complicated, a lot of issues have been
discussed in closed session which I think we should get more out,
but I would like to urge BFI/Acme not to use five o' clock as a
deadline but to keep that offer alive and that some motion that
Supervisor Powers and the Board might construct would get
something on the next agenda where we could look at this more in
the open with other proposals that other operators might have and
compare them side by side .
Supervisor Powers : The only way we can do that is work with the
cities . That' s the problem. Because we don' t have any waste .
Supervisor DeSaulnier: We' re falling into the pattern again of
completely marrying litigation and rates and from what I
understood I voted on last week was separating the litigation
from rate setting, that the majority of the Board wants the rates
set in public and by committing the waste stream for seven years
because of the threat of litigation, we were basically setting
rates to certain degree behind closed doors and putting our
future to a certain degree in the hands of other public entities .
My question to you is separating the litigation, can you stand
before me today and say that Keller as a separate entity is not
going to lower its rates in order to get more waste stream into
there . Don' t they have to to get more waste stream into Keller?
Tom Bruen: BFI will be making proposals to the cities on both
the collection front for collection franchises that are coming up
to bid in the near term in the waste management area and other
areas and we' ll be making disposal proposals but I think the
question I was trying to address is the $39 rate is that a rate a
combined rate for Keller and Acme that' s going to hold and I
don' t think it will to be honest with you because that rate
involved the cooperation of both Acme and BFI and Acme was giving
up a lot in terms of its own revenue stream in order to put the
package together and what was in it for Acme were the benefits of
the settlement, securing some funding for its closure cost . So,
because Acme was a necessary party to that rate proposal, the
settlement was part of the package. Yes, we can separate them
but what I'm saying is when you separate them, you don' t get as
good a rate as you would otherwise .
5
Supervisor DeSaulnier: So, the rates going to be higher than the
rates that those cities are going to be offered from waste or
other entities .
Tom Bruen: Well, I think the calculation and the analysis will
be different . In the case of those cities that are putting their
collection and disposal business up for bid, BFI will be able to
look at both sides of the ledger. The revenues that the
collection company would earn as well as the revenues that would
be generated under this disposal agreement and their analysis
will be completely different . So, I can' t tell you right now
what proposal they' re going to make. All I can tell you is what
I 've been told and that is that since this deal has been rejected
by the County, we' re going to have to go back and look at our
proposal but because the rate they were offering was so low,
because they basically didn' t even cover their fixed cost of
investing in the landfill, I believe they' re going to look long
and hard at making a proposal for an individual city because what
really drives rates down for any solid waste facility is volume .
The more volume, the lower the rate . Like K Mart .
Supervisor DeSaulnier: So, listening to Don Blughbaugh from
Walnut Creek and him saying that well he sort of wanted us to
make a commitment, but he was going to hold the competition from
waste so that that rate may be lower and he may choose that
anyway. So, forgetting what we have done, what you have to do as
a private entity in terms of BFI and Keller, you have to go back
in order to get that volume to Walnut Creek and you have to at
least equal what waste is offering them, do you not?
Tom Bruen: We have to give them a package which is as good as
what Waste Management is offering for both their collection and
disposal business .
Mark De Saulnier: And Waste will do that without a transfer
station?
Tom Bruen: Well, see Waste has offered a pod system.
Supervisor DeSaulnier: I'm just trying to clarify the apples and
oranges .
Tom Bruen: Okay, so the problem with that kind of analysis is if
you make a pod offer, are all the costs of that system in the
disposal contract or are some of them on the collection side . If
we can bid both sides of the contract, we can look at the costs
and revenues, and we think we can make a competitive proposal to
those cities . But yes, we have to go through that process . I
can' t tell you what the proposal will be right now.
Supervisor DeSaulnier: I guess my only point is that you' re
going to have to compete as a private entity with these other
6
agencies anyways given what this Board has done and what we need
to do is make it as fair for you as possible . I empathize with
what you' re saying because we can' t regulate you on the one hand
but on the other hand tell you to compete evenly as a private, so
that' s something that we have to do.
Tom Bruen: Yeah, if you do what' s being suggested today, we' re
not going to be able to make an effective proposal . And I think
that' s where this . . .
Supervisor DeSaulnier: I understand. But on the other hand
volume is the key and you have to go out aggressively. Keller
and BFI has to go out aggressively just as your competitors to
get the volume. And the County needs to do that as well because
we want to keep the $800, 000 plus that' s going to the Sheriffs
and District Attorneys right now.
Tom Bruen: Well right, what I'm suggesting in short is in a nice
way, you' re really .putting us out of business right now if you
tell us to go compete under the current regulatory environment .
Supervisor DeSaulnier: Okay, thank you.
Supervisor Bishop: Please don' t leave . I have some questions
and then I think I have a motion. My question is this . The $39
that you, that was proposed last week. How does that relate on
the sheet that I have on current fees and rates Acme/Keller.
Where is the reduction coming?
Tom Bruen: If you take the $38 .48 at Keller Canyon Landfill and
add to that the rate for Acme which I think is $23 . 08 . . . .
Phil Batchelor: 23 . 08 It takes the 61 . 56 and reduces it down to
39 .
Supervisor Bishop: I have a problem with someone' s math. That
looks like 30 percent to me not 4 percent . Is that . . .
Tom Bruen: Roughly in that vicinity.
Supervisor Bishop: Roughly 30 percent . My question is this and
it' s a comment . Mr. De Saulnier' s last comment about we really
want you to have the ability to compete, what I'm hearing you say
is all of these fees that are discretionary that are part of rate
regulation put you in an un. . in a non-competing situation. It' s
as simple as that . I you know I have had many communications
with Mr. Dolan, Mr. Blughbaugh, Mr. Moniz and I can' t remember
who the other person is . My understanding is they want the best
rate and they want us to take some leadership in saying we have
pegged a price . $39 is coming down. That is a place that we can
start and get a good rate. And I probably am not going to say it
as well as anybody else . I was the only person that voted for
7
settlement last week and I don' t think I've had an opportunity.
Supervisor Torlakson has tried to air some of those issues .
We' re in some really murky water here as to what we can talk
about and what we cannot, but when you mention the 16 million
dollars paid out over time for closure of Acme, you know, that' s
what we' re talking about .
Tom Bruen: And that' s not just the County. That' s all of the
cities . . .
Supervisor Bishop: And present discounted value of 16 million
dollars is substantially less than 16 million dollars . Maybe its
8 million.
Tom Bruen: It' s roughly half of that .
Supervisor Bishop: 8 million. And the offer of litigation.
I've heard people talk about threatened litigation and linking
this to litigation. We are linked to litigation. We are in
litigation. We aren' t under the threat of litigation, what we
are under is a way of getting out of litigation. That' s my
understanding is we want out of litigation and that what was
offered to us last week was not under the threat of litigation
but was offered as a promise .to get out of litigation, a
settlement offer.
Tom Bruen: Well, really what it was was a mechanism to fund,
partially fund Acme' s closure and post closure . Just as is
happening in West County where the County and the cities have
gotten together and put the $2 a month charge on customers even
though this charge is much less, the idea was this was a rate we
negotiated with the cities and with County staff that we would
take in lieu of litigation. Because the only reason Acme filed
the litigation to begin with was because the County and the
cities got into a stalemate over funding Acme' s closure . And the
regulatory agency said to Acme why aren' t you funding closure and
we've said well we' re under rate control . The County Board won' t
let us charge a component for closure anymore . And they said
well what are you going to do about it and we said well the only
thing we can do if file a lawsuit . So, there are mandated
federal and state requirements that require Acme to raise the
money to close itself and absent the voluntary agreement of the
County and the cities to provide a component for closure and
post-closure, Acme is forced to file the law suits . It' s not
something they want to do. This proposal was a means for not
just settling the litigation but if you want to look at it
differently for closing Acme which I think is in the public
interest irrespective of the litigation. It' s near the City of
Martinez and it should be in the public interest to close
landfill sites properly in accordance with state and federal
regulations which is what Acme .is trying to do.
8
Supervisor Bishop: It was a long answer to a very short
question. I have to share with you. I look at what the
recommendations are here from our staff and I really want to go
back again. I think Mr. Bruen I have no more questions of you
but I do want to get a motion on the floor. Mr. Powers has
attempted to get a motion on the floor that failed for lack of a
second but I'd like to take part of your motion which is 1, 2 and
3 where number one, you say that within a finite period of time
say two weeks to four weeks, that we look at the land use permit,
pursuant to which the mitigation fees were levied. Now, I
understand that' s only for a portion of those, is that correct?
Mr. Torlakson, that' s only for the host mitigation fee .
Supervisor Torlakson: I think the question would be in the LUP
to look at the transportation/open space fees and to see if
there' s a possibility of suspending those and keep the cash flow
up somehow and I would like to try to limit that . . .
Supervisor Bishop: Right . And I think the operative word there
is suspend. That we only look to suspending a portion of those
fees but that we make that a part of the public hearing. The
second part I would make a part of the motion and that is to
eliminate the 2 . 12 and cooperate with the cities on the hazardous
waste fee and I think we are on pretty firm ground with respect
to that . The third part of the motion with respect to the . 35
fee for rate review, eliminating that, consider elimination of
that . And I think that' s where we separate. Then I would
propose that eliminates a portion of the regulation of the
County. Yes, Mr. Batchelor.
Phil Batchelor: We would concur. The 2 . 12, let us recommend
that we eliminate that if we can get concurrence from the cities
that they pick it up. We think you can dump the . 10, the . 35 .
We think that it' s possible to look at reducing the LEA and the
resource recovery by . 75 . There' s $2 now. Let' s reduce between
the two of them down to $1 . 25 . Then that will bring it down to
the fees down to $12 . 00 . Then if you can get 2 out of the 6, of
the 2, 2 and 2 , then you' ll be down to $10 .
Supervisor Bishop: And that' s what we wish that is part of my
motion, a wish to explore that . As to the balance of my motion,
I would like once again to move what we attempted to do last week
and I don' t know if this is the appropriate place to do it or
not, but I would like to move for the $39 that we peg it at that
price, subject to the most favored nation,
Supervisor Smith: You' re moving a settlement?
Supervisor Bishop: I don' t think I can do that . Yeah, I'm
moving the settlement . Can I do that in open session?
Supervisor Powers : Okay, is there a second. Sure you can do it .
9
You can make any motion.
Supervisor Bishop: That would include payment, substantial
payment of attorneys' fees and that would cap our liability on
closure and I'm getting a lot of smiles here. Am I really in
dangerous, am I going to be hacked off . But then again I'm
probably not going to get a second for the motion.
Supervisor Smith: You can do it . There' s no requirement that
you have to do settlement in closed session. You can do it in
open session if you want .
Supervisor Bishop: Great . I would like to move that motion as
stated.
Supervisor Powers : Is there a second?
Supervisor Torlakson: I would second it if in the context of
putting it on the public agenda two weeks from now so it can be
looked at by everybody and we' d have a chance to look at
alternative proposals by other operators . So, I would second it
if it would be to 'put it on the agenda the total settlement
package.
Supervisor Powers : That' s really different . I gotta. . .
Supervisor Bishop: Can I ask one other thing be added onto it,
that we extend the franchise agreement for a 30 day period. We
cannot . . .
Supervisor Smith: You can' t do those. Those are mutually
exclusive. The settlement envisioned a 7 year commitment . . Then
the franchise agreement is no longer effective if the settlement
is passed.
Vic Westman: Well, if I understand and your motion isn' t
finished. Supervisor Torlakson was proposing to amend your
motion to in effect list this as an item two weeks from now for
further consideration. Though I . . .
Supervisor Bishop: So we need an extension of the franchise
agreement at least until that time . I would consider that as an
amendment but we need to operate under a franchise agreement, do
we not .
Vic Westman: Yes, I would say you are well advised to extend the
franchise . I think something we said earlier at some point, we
do need some structural instruction from the Board as to where
you ultimately want to be on the franchise in our relationship
with Keller. As you may remember, we have never actually gotten
to the point of completely implementing the franchise but the
Board two or two and a half years ago to some extent gave up its
10
wide discretion to regulate rates and that if we ever agree to
rates under the franchise formula, there are certain givens even
in that formula and I don' t want to confuse your current motion
but you have a number of items in front of you.
Supervisor Powers : Okay, let' s cut it off right there . Is
everyone clear on the motion?
Supervisor Torlakson: Yes, and to speak to the motion, I want to
pass out what I think are positive goals and I think actually the
Board shares all these positive goals . It' s just a matter of
different strategies . We' re trying to figure out how to get to
them.
Supervisor Powers : I don' t want you to start talking again
because I recognize Jeff after you and I just want to know do you
second that motion.
Supervisor Torlakson: All I wanted to do is say. On the motion.
Yes, I understand, yes .
Supervisor Smith: I just want to try to get myself clear. I
think this motion is a very good argument for why it' s important
to keep issues separate and I was a very strong advocate and
still am a strong advocate for separating litigation from rate
setting number one and separating Keller from Acme number two.
Once you try to put everything into a big stew, you end up with a
Mulligan Stew and nobody knows what they' re eating and that' s a
real problem because these are complex issues . It takes many
hours of study to understand what' s already happened. It takes
many hours of study to understand the legal issues involved and I
think we do a disservice to ourselves and the citizens if we try
to lump everything together and run. I just think it' s really
important to keep things separate . I have a motion that I' d like
to make after this particular motion is acted upon, so I' ll
reserve the right to step in after that .
Supervisor Torlakson: On the question, I did want, I seconded it
but I didn' t have a chance to say my reasons for it . I want it
to be out in the public so we can have this examined carefully
because I think the principles that are in the package are ones
if we could get it all together and there were really no better
deal out there that the Board would want to accomplish. If
there' s a better deal out there, it should emerge and come
forward and be compared side by side . I think one issue is the
immediate ability to drop the rates . A significant two dollars
per household per month or more and the pod system or other
proposal, we should find out how long it would take to drop rates
under comparative proposals . The other issue is frankly one in
terms of the mitigation to the community and in terms of
protecting the community around Keller and also in terms of
assuring environmentally sound closure of Acme . In addition,
11
there' s a question, do we want to have a system, we should
compare them where our revenues, our rate payers are paying
millions of dollars a year to go to another County. Or is there
a way to keep those monies in Contra Costa County. The budget
impact of this is about. four million dollars a year potentially
guaranteeing a revenue stream, otherwise on top of our 12 million
dollar to twenty million dollar budget deficit, we add another
four for programs that would be evaporating that are in front of
us in the handout given by staff that are vital programs that are
helping not only the solid waste system but helping the
community. So, those are my reasons for wanting to get this out
in the open on the agenda in two weeks .
Supervisor Powers : Sure . Good. Well it sure is out in the
open. It' s okay any more comments .
Supervisor Bishop: I did have one additional comment . I think
underlying all this last week we had city representatives come
here . We've had city representatives at the Mayor' s conference
and I think sort of a sub rosa agenda here is getting along with
the cities better. The cities were really looking and are really
looking to us for some kind of direction that we are able to move
forward. With respect to the linking litigation to rate setting,
we have not, we are starting at a certain point on a rate, that
rate has the ability to come down. So, we aren' t locked in. We
aren' t locking cities in and I think we are showing some real
leadership if we support this motion and we are doing something
as far as mending fences with the cities and I really hope to
have the support of the Board. I think yes, itis very complex
and we need to continue this discussion in two weeks from now but
I think we need to send out a very clear message as to where
we' re going.
Supervisor Powers : Okay, all in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye . (Supervisors Bishop and Torlakson) . Those opposed.
(Supervisors Smith, De Saulnier and Powers)
Supervisor Bishop: Could I hear the three votes? That were no.
Supervisor Powers : Yes, one two three.
Supervisor Smith: I have another motion. I'd like to get us
back to dealing with the issue at hand which is the franchise
agreement at Keller and this is separate from Acme. Separate
from litigation. It is due to expire and I think we need to
extend it but I think we need to make it clear where the Board is
going to in the future. So, I'd like to make a motion that we
extend the franchise agreement with Keller for a period of two
months, that we amend the language that we have currently in
front of us to indicate that we intend to enter into a final
franchise agreement in two months which will be for the term of
the landfill, defined by the total capacity, which is 36 . 6
12
million tons, that we devise a fee setting system during that two
month period that will be part of the final franchise that will
not involve either a floor or a ceiling for the proprietary
component of the rate but will only involve the fees that are
County fees, that that fee system be reviewed on a two year
basis, that the fee or the Keller Corporation is free to contract
for the term of the franchise with any individuals or parties at
which point the fees that are in effect at that time will carry
throughout the entire term of the contract, that we ask that the
current fees which are charged at what I think is ACME, which are
the LEA and the resource recovery, the $ . 15 for 939, the $ . 45 for
rate review and the $ . 05 for landfill development, plus the $2 . 12
of hazardous waste, be coupled into a surcharge fee and that the
surcharge percentage be set at an amount to pay for those
services and that we reopen the land use permit at Keller in
order to investigate the propriety of changing the two, two and
two. As a separate part of the motion, I' d like to also suggest
what Mr. Powers suggested which is that we ask staff to
investigate rate setting at Keller and particularly as it relates
to the non-contract users of Keller, I mean Acme sorry, as it
relates to the non-contract users at Acme and that we investigate
the possibility of host mitigation fees at Acme and have that
report back to us at a separate time within three months .
Supervisor Torlakson: Can you separate part of that like the
last part . Make some sense that I can support . The other parts
I' d like to think about and also have us debate it further but . .
Supervisor Powers : Well, we can split it into two motions if you
want .
Supervisor Smith: Split it into two.
Supervisor Powers : Okay, that alright .
Supervisor Smith: So, the first part is all Keller and the
second part is all Acme.
Supervisor DeSaulnier: Jeff is it included somewhere the part of
Tom' s motion in terms of household hazardous waste and if the
cities agree to pick that up. Was that included in there?
Supervisor Smith: Well, I think that we don' t have, personally I
think we don' t have enough information to know that they' re
willing to do that at this point . And what I'm suggesting is that
it seems to me from our perspective, the wisest thing to do in
terms of setting fees is not to pick a particular number because
if we pick a particular number, that discourages Keller from
decreasing their fees because the lower they decrease their
proprietary portion if we have a fixed number per ton, the higher
our percentage
13
Supervisor Torlakson: What are you defining as proprietary
portion.
Supervisor Smith: The portion that' s not related to governmental
fees . So, the lower they reduce their fee, our percentage of the
take goes up, so it' s a disincentive for them to lower their
fees . If on the other hand, we take a full a certain x
percentage which the franchise agreement allows us to go vary
between ten and thirty percent and we leave it -at a fixed rate,
then there' s an incentive for them to lower their rates because
as they lower their rates, our percentage. . .
Supervisor DeSaulnier: I was only interested in the one, the
household hazardous waste and whether that was going to get lost
in the process . We just have to have a clear position either
that we' re going to leave it that way with the condition that
we' d like County Administration to pursue it with cities or not .
Supervisor Smith: Let me be clear. If we can find another way
of funding household hazardous waste with the cities' cooperation
or through the stormwater assessment, we should move the funding
to those alternate modes .
Supervisor DeSaulnier: That' s what I was looking for.
Supervisor Powers : Is there a second to motion.
Supervisor DeSaulnier: Yes, second.
Supervisor Powers : Okay, there' s a second to both parts of the
Acme one and the Keller one?
Supervisor DeSaulnier: The first one first then. . .
Supervisor Powers : Okay, let' s do the first one first .
Supervisor Torlakson: On the question, Mr. Chairman, I'm not
clear exactly Jeff . You' re saying lump all the fees into it' s
like a percentage formula rather than the individual
identification. If that' s the case then I . . .
Supervisor Smith: Except for the land use permit fees . I'm
asking they be reviewed separately.
Supervisor Torlakson: But host community mitigation would be
lumped into that then and not identified separately.
Supervisor Smith: Or it could be if the land use is reviewed,
the two dollars could be changed from transportation mitigation
to host community mitigation as an amendment to the land use
permit . So, there would be a total of four dollars that would be
mitigation fees that would be part of the land use permit but
14
differently identified than they currently are.
Supervisor De Saulnier: That' ll be part of public hearing.
Supervisor Torlakson: I'm not clear of the total consequences of
the import of the motion so I can' t support it but I think you' re
probably well intended and have a good idea of an approach that
might work, but it doesn' t seem to specify enough guarantees to
the community that I can' t see the nexus .
Supervisor Smith: Let me clarify. All I'm saying is for the
moment anything more than four dollars of the mitigation fees
would be coupled into the percentage franchise fee and that we
will separately have a review of the land use permit and a
modification of that and those four dollars could be by mutual
agreement changed to be used for different mitigations than
they' re currently mandated. But we'd have to do that at a
separate time .
Supervisor Bishop: I have one question. The mitigation fees at
Acme that you' re talking about for those who do the direct haul .
What was your direction with respect to that .
Supervisor Smith: Just to have a report back to us letting us
know what kind of discretion we have with regard to that .
Supervisor Bishop: Are they mitigation for closure of Acme or
mitigation for host mitigation.
Supervisor Smith: I'd like a report about Acme, specifically
Acme, letting us know what authority we would have with regards
to mitigations and what need we have to implement a closure fee .
Supervisor Torlakson: And that' s in the second motion?
Supervisor Smith: That' s in the second motion.
Supervisor Powers : I' ll second the second motion too.
Supervisor Torlakson: And under the second motion, are you
including a full cost accounting, Jeff, of the interim transfer
station? I think that was brought up a couple of times today and
I think that' s very important to get a full cost accounting of
what money' s been collected and account of what was spent on the
interim, so that we' re not, we haven' t collected from the rate
payers .
Supervisor Powers : Yeah, we can get that separately.
Supervisor Smith: Yeah, that' s second motion with regard to
Acme . So, with regard to Keller, we extend the franchise for two
months, we specifically state our intention to reduce our fees,
15
to get our hands off the regulation of proprietary rates and with
respect to Acme, we ask for report back regarding closure fees,
mitigation fees and non-contract users fees .
Supervisor Powers : Okay, you know, one thing that I included in
was to direct staff to work with the cities to go through a bid
process and it really, we' ll never see any other proposals unless
that' s done.
Supervisor Smith: Okay, let' s make that number three.
Supervisor Powers : Okay, number three . Good. Okay, on the
first motion, the Keller motion, all in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye . Those opposed. (Supervisors Torlakson
and Bishop) . Okay, on the Acme motion, all those in favor,
signify by saying aye . Those opposed. (Supervisor Bishop) and
on referral of this matter to the cities to work with them in
terms of preparing bid proposals, and dealing with those other
issues that are necessary to reduce fees, on that motion, all in
favor of that, signify by saying aye. (various ayes)
Supervisor Torlakson: What was the question, I thought you added
that into the first motion?
Supervisor Powers : Well, he separated it into a third motion.
Supervisor Smith: We separated . . .
Supervisor DeSaulnier: . . .the cities and vote on it twice .
Supervisor Torlakson: Okay, well under the question, I had a few
questions in terms of the process . What kind of a time frame
because the sooner the better and in terms of . . .
Supervisor Powers : Within the two month period of time to come
back, I would assume, of the franchise . . .
Supervisor Torlakson: There' s two other things I think should be
brought out and I . . .
Supervisor Powers : Well, this is a motion, you want to add to
it?
Supervisor Torlakson: This is related. This is related to the
motion and one of the questions working with the cities is how
are the actions we took today to lower some fees, small as it
were with that . 80, and how will any other reductions be
reflected. How quickly can they get them into the rate payers
bills and I also want to ask. . .
Supervisor Powers : That' s totally up to the cities and the
franchisers .
16
}
Supervisor Torlakson: Partly, but since we' re taking an
initiative to lower the fees, I think there' s a question. Right
now, some cities are taking their waste out of the County and are
they still charging the $77 a ton cost factor into the bills and
I think all the haulers are doing this to some degree and to what
degree are the rate payers not seeing that reflected in their
household monthly bill . So, if we' re talking to the cities about
a package, I think we should include that . The other thing is I
Supervisor Powers : We can talk about that . That' s no question
that that' s relevant in discussing with the cities . Okay.
Supervisor Torlakson: And finally, there' s another issue that I
wanted to share with the Board. There was one big potential
additional cost factor at Keller BFI that was the home valuation
or property valuation study that was supposed to come out I think
in the next few weeks, or the next month or so. I wanted to
share a report from the University of Wisconsin that indicates it
could be a major cost factor. A study was done in a comparable
situation and I think we should have staff review that and tell
us what they think the financial consequences are of those
potential costs and get . . .
Supervisor Powers : I'm not sure that that' s appropriate for this
situation Tom, because it does relate to potential litigation
with homeowners and I'm not sure that we want to get into. . .
Supervisor Torlakson: Well, it relates to a public study that
we've asked to come back to the Board and next month is going to
be reported to us I guess as a study by Sonoma State.
Supervisor Powers : Well, that isn' t on this motion, so if you
want to make a separate motion.
Supervisor Torlakson: Well, I' ll submit it to the Clerk for
review and for staff for review.
Supervisor Powers : Okay. all in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye . alright .
Supervisor Torlakson: Well, I' ll support the motion in light of
the fact that we didn' t get the other process where we could've
had it in two weeks .
Supervisor Powers : Four ayes and one no. (Supervisor Bishop)
Okay, I think we've gone far enough on this . I really think you
know in response to some of the comments that were made by the
representatives of Acme and Keller, I think you really strain the
word uncredible . This Acme Company has collected millions in
dollars in public money to support the landfill, to charge the
people, it hasn' t saw enough to set aside money on its own to
17
close its own dump and it' s really strained to say that the
public is supposed to do that . At the same time, they' re suing
the County for millions of dollars, they failed to pay a bill for
hazardous household protection until we threatened to sue them.
Over a year ago, they submitted an exorbitant rate request .
Charges the public in an unregulated atmosphere, outrageous gate
fees, higher than anybody, anywhere that I know of and I can go
on and on and frankly, to say that we' re at fault for those kind
of things really strains the term incredible . So, I just needed
to say that in response to some of the comments that were made.
So, shall we have more comments .
Supervisor Bishop: Yes, my comment following on your comment,
the comment that was made I did not hear, I just saw a brief
portion of it in the newspaper by Mr. Bruen and I think I had to
concur with him.- I think who lost last week were the rate
payers in Contra Costa County, who won were competing interests,
who have an interest in seeing Contra Costa County continue
regulating and put one company in an uncompetitive position. I
think you know we can all .go back and do a post mortem on
something that happened before three of us who are on this Board
are on this Board about the rate setting at $77 . I don' t
understand that but I do understand that we are talking about
cutting it 30 percent . My understanding is that only one person
that' s on the Board now and I think just spoke who supported that
$77 some dollars fee setting or the rate and I think what' s
really incredible is when our cities came before us . It' s not
just Acme or BFI that' s blaming us or saying things about the
County' s responsibility. It is the cities as well and we
continue whether it' s in the garbage arena, whether it' s in the
libraries or whatever else, we continue throwing up those
roadblocks with the cities who want to get on with delivering to
the consumer in their communities a better rate for garbage .
That' s where we' re all headed. And I really wish we could stop
talking about particular companies . It' s seems like certainly
the second part of the motion is really directed at bashing Acme.
And I think we need to stop bashing landfill companies and
collectors and just get on with what is the best rate . But let' s
talk about apples and apples and let' s give some people that we
have sort of tied both hands behind their back in going out there
and getting a competitive bid and with the cities .
Mark DeSaulnier: I just one. .Obviously we disagree here . Gayle,
one thing about the cities, having been a former city
representative . I don' t think we talked about universal city
acceptance in terms of what we proposed last week. Basically,
what I heard, and we may disagree, we had two and a half city
managers speak to settlement . Don Blubaugh being fairly
ambivalent over . . .
Supervisor Bishop: That' s your interpretation Mark. Having
spoken to him, I disagree with you.
18
Supervisor De Saulnier: Right . I acknowledged that in what I
said. I think in what we did and the proof of the pudding will
be whether rates come down lower than what' s been offered by BFI
and Acme and Keller and I don' t see where the situation has
changed dramatically for them in so much as they're still
competitors . They can compete with the other corporations
whether they be local corporations or the multi-national
corporation waste and as far as the most favored nation, my
interpretation of that was that by it going through a transfer
station and from what Don Blubaugh said, they were still going to
try to go for the best offer. So, I think what we've done in
effect the majority has and the only way to prove this will be
time and I've taken that risk personally politically as I believe
rates are going to come down lower and that will be the proof .
Not today, we can' t prove that . But that' s why I voted the way I
did and I believe we have made progress and that unanimously all
of us have said that that' s where we' re motivated. So, given
what the majority' s done today, I hope we collectively put as
much pressure as is allowable to us on the cities and on the
garbage companies to lower the rates, so that the rates get
lowered, so all that money stay within the County and that' s one
thing that one of the folks who came up and said a lot of this
money' s going way out of the County to corporate entities that
don' t serve the local economy or our constituents . So, where we
are now is completely different from where we have been and we
have great opportunities and I hope we work towards lowering the
rates and that' ll be the ultimate proof .
Supervisor Powers : Tom and then Jeff .
Supervisor Torlakson: Just briefly, obviously there' s different
strategies on how to get there. I do believe we have a common
goal and I wanted to clarify something in the motion that was
made Mr. Chairman. Your comments raised the thought . The good
news again is I guess the situation has changed from what the
Board had originally when we set the rates under the original
interim franchise agreement . We have an open market and
competitive situation so the garbage wars are on and the rate
payer will be the beneficiary in the end. I hope it goes as low
as we had an opportunity to get potentially in one offer that was
on the table . I think it may even be able to go lower. We' ll
see. But one thing just to clarify, I am really worried about
our liability exposure . In the motion that was made referring
the package of issues to the cities for a joint bid proposal,
does that also include, because the original proposed motion had
an item of dealing with a transfer station or some kind of
closure charge, setting up some kind of a fund, that' s what I
thought I heard in your original and that' s what . . .
Supervisor Powers : Yeah, that was in the first part of the
motion.
19
Supervisor Torlakson: And that' s in the motion because somehow
we need to cap that liability and get out from under I think over
a million dollars of attorney' s fees have been paid already by
all the attorneys from all the jurisdictions fighting this out
and I don' t want to spend a lot more money on attorneys . I'd
rather cap our liability and get out of that mess .
Supervisor Powers : Actually, that was in the second motion
related to Acme instead of the first motion. I'm sorry. Jeff,
your comments .
Supervisor Smith: Well, I just think that this action makes it
clear that we' re moving out of the rate regulation business . We
still have valid community, municipal, countywide issues with
regard to the operation of Keller and those valid issues need to
be addressed by implementing programs which monitor the usage at
Keller and mitigate some of the detrimental effects to the people
in the surrounding community. We also have legal obligations to
make sure that it' s safe and healthy to live and breath in the
Pittsburg area. I also think that it' s clear that separating
Acme and Keller is in the best interest of the County and the
people because there are different issues involved. Having lived
not so far away from Acme for many years now and understanding
the concerns the people in Martinez have, they' re vastly
different issues and the operations of the transfer station there
and the closure of the landfill are issues that should not be
held captive to the rates and should not be linked to the rates
because as a County interest, we need to reduce rates countywide
but from the perspective of the community that deals with Acme
and its closure, and the safety of those concerns, we need to be
sure that there' s funding and there will continue to be funding
to make sure that that closure happens in a fair and equitable
and safe manner and that the operation of the transfer station
happens in a fair and equitable manner so I think we've come a
long way and we have a long way to go but we' re indicating
clearly that we' re interested in making sure that the rate payers
pay the least amount of money but the communities that host these
facilities have the most protection possible.
Supervisor Powers : Okay, I made a big mistake in not calling a
gentleman who has remained very quiet here in the front row and
before we made a decision and I apologize for that . I know your
first name looks like Randall . The way you spelled the last
name, I can' t really tell what it is . Randall Morrison.
Randall Morrison: I'm Randall Morrison and I'm the attorney for
waste management in the Acme lawsuit and I didn' t plan to speak
today until Mr. Bruen started describing BFI' s perspective on the
issue . Yes . I represent Waste Management and I'm one of the
attorneys on the steering committee for what we call a municipal
defense group in the Acme suit so that means that my interest is
not just in representing Waste Management but in representing all
20
the different cities and the County and in fact, I work quite
closely with Collin Leonard and with Sylvano and with the
representatives from each of the different cities so I' d like to
correct I think some important misconceptions that Mr. Bruen may
have fostered in his discussion of the Acme suit . Now, I realize
that your focus today is not the Acme law suit . But I don' t
think it was a surprise to anybody to have the issue of linkage
between Acme and rates come up again today and even reach the
form of another motion. This may come up again. So, I think it
is important for you to get at least my perspective as an
individual and as an attorney representing Waste Management . One
of the things that struck me about Mr. Bruen' s comments was the
notion that the rate reduction of $39 which he described as a
contract rate would only be on the table till 5 p.m. today and
when I heard that, I thought this sounds very familiar because
this is what we've been hearing in the Acme law suit since it
began. Acme would make one offer, make a new offer but these
were offers always designed to put pressure on the public
entities to make some kind of a quick deal . So, what you heard
from Mr. Bruen and from BFI today is completely in character and
I think as you have rightly have done you have to beware of these
drop dead deadlines, where if you don' t act precipitously, the
deal' s off the table. That' s never going to be the case . What
we do have here in Contra Costa now is an opportunity for all the
citizens to benefit by free competition in the market place . Now
despite Mr. Bruen' s comments about the rate regulation that
Keller and BFI are subject to, you should be aware that they are
not unique in that respect . The Altamont Landfill in Alameda
County is subject to some $14 in County fees, county and state
fees, it is within the scrutiny of the Alameda County Waste
Authority on a regular basis . So, Keller and BFI are not the
only parties who are subject to public regulation. Nonetheless,
Altamont was able to come to your cities, to Walnut Creek, to San
Ramon, and to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and
offer them a disposal rate of $18 . $18 versus what you've heard
today from BFI . Now on top of that, there are $14 in County fees
and transportation charges which for San Ramon added up to about
$45, for Central San and Walnut Creek about $47 . So, my company
is able to compete in the market place despite the obvious need
for public regulation to some extent . There' s no reason that BFI
can' t do the same thing. So, don' t succumb to the notion that
because an entity has some public regulation involved, that they
are somehow unable to compete in the market place . That' s simply
not the case . What you've seen is that through the competition
that Waste Management has fostered and that Richmond Sanitary has
fostered, now finally BFI is starting to move on the rate and
you've taken the right step last week in separating the issue of
rate and the issue of settlement . Keep that process going, keep
that separation clear and I guarantee you you will see BFI' s
rates come down because they have no choice . If they' re going to
compete with us, they' re going to have to reduce their rates and
that' s going to benefit all of the taxpayers and rate payers in
21
Contra Costa County. Now if I . . .
Supervisor Powers : Thank you very much for your comment .
Supervisor Bishop: I would like to respond to his comment .
Supervisor Powers : Can we move on.
Supervisor Bishop: Well, you have done this before with prior
speakers, it would seem appropriate that I be able to. . . .
Supervisor Powers : Okay, go ahead we' re going to go forever
here.
Supervisor Bishop: I would just like to assure you of something.
That when we last week talked about settlement and linking the
two together that you spoke of Collin Leonard and I think it' s no
secret that the attorney to whom we've paid close to $750, 000
which is three quarters of a million dollars recommended that
particular linkage . That is one of the reasons that I was
motivated to move in the direction of settlement . Because he
linked it to capping exposure for liability for closure to
litigation cost which will substantially, you know, we will be
cutting off future litigation costs whether or not there' s merit
on either side. I don' t know how much Waste Management has spent
in this pursuit, but we have spent an inordinate amount that I
think we really have a need to cap that . So, we were looking at
linking and getting out of some rather expensive obligations .
So, that was my particular motivation and I am in disagreement
with you.
Randall Morrison: I understand that and for Supervisor Powers'
benefit, if you' re putting up with me a little longer today,
maybe an excuse I can offer that I did not speak last week but
what Supervisor Bishop has said is very important and that is
obviously the County and the cities have to make some assessment
of the Acme law suit and that in fact was the next point I wanted
to address . I don' t understand as a party representing . . .
Supervisor Bishop: I find it interesting that Mr. Powers has
time to listen to you but not to me .
Supervisor Powers : Well, Mr. Torlakson want to talk too and I
guess everybody wants to and we can start all over again I guess .
Randall Morrison: Well, let me just say a word about the Acme
lawsuit and its merits .
Supervisor Powers : You asked him a question and he is responding
to it .
Randall Morrison: As I understand the proposal that was made and
22
voted down last week, it was essentially to provide 16 million
dollars in public funding for closure of Acme . I understand,
Supervisor Bishop, your concern that liability be capped and that
there are attorney' s fees that are being expended but I think
what you have to ask is what is the relationship between that 16
million dollars and the ultimate exposure in the Acme case . Now,
Mr. Bruen said the closure costs are 80, million. That' s not
right . They' re estimated right now between 41 and 56 million and
they keep coming down all the time as Acme finds better ways to
approach some of the closure issues that Acme' s actually been
working with our consultants on and consultants for other parties
on. In terms of the exposure, what you' re essentially doing if
you pay 16 million dollars is paying one third of the current
estimated closure cost for Acme and I think the first question
you have to ask is why should the municipalities pay one third.
Where is Acme' s money in this whole equation. We've heard about
$22 being paid on the interim transfer station per ton for five
years, some 40 million dollars according to Mr. Dow and I don' t
know if that' s correct but I can tell you this, in the law suit
itself, we have been unable to get hard core financial
information from Acme. We have asked them since the inception of
the law suit . We are working with a special master to prepare a
letter and ultimately an order that will require production of
that information. There is a piece of money here that is not
accounted for, I believe . And I think you' re on the right track
in demanding a full accounting from the interim transfer station
of where those revenues have gone.
Supervisor Powers : Thank you.
Randall Morrison: Alright, I think I'm getting a hint here .
Supervior Powers : Appreciate it .
Supervisor Torlakson: My questions, I' ll keep them very brief .
Representing Waste Management, you've approached other
jurisdictions . Have you, you haven' t approached the County to my
knowledge . We have two franchises, one in Bay Point and one in
Discovery Bay with your offer. How soon could you present an
offer of the kind of components you were talking to Walnut Creek
and Central San about .
Randall Morrison: I believe they' re discussions underway right
now, Supervisor Torlakson with between Waste Management and the
County and we have made proposals to all of the other
municipalities, although there are different circumstances since
we are not currently the franchisee for the other municipalities
besides the three I mentioned.
Supervisor Torlakson: So, you've put that offer in writing to
the County at this point?
23
Randall Morrison: Yes, we'd be pleased to and I appreciate your
concern of getting these offers on the table . Good. Thank you.
Supervisor Torlakson: Okay, and finally on the issue . Does this
include a pod system and are you proposing to do a negative dec
or CEQA or how would you go about implementing the lower rate .
I think it assumes the pod system is that correct?
Randall Morrison: Well, the pod system is what has been offered
to the three jurisdictions that we' re currently dealing with. I
think we' re going to have to look at CEQA issues in terms of what
jurisdictions we' re talking about and what CEQA issues there
might be . I don' t think you can generalize about what CEQA
approach would have to be taken. We' d have to do that on a
jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis .
Supervisor Powers : Thank you very much for your testimony and
maybe we can move on try to help those people sitting in the
audience who've come here to testify on issues . Maybe we can try
to get most of them before we adjourn.
24
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AMENDMENT NO. 10 TO LANDFILL FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
1. PARTIES. This Amendment No. 10 to Landfill Franchise Agreement is made and
entered by and between the County of Contra Costa ("County") and Keller Canyon Landfill
Company ("Operator").
2. BACKGROUND. On December 4, 1990, County and Operator entered a Landfill
Franchise Agreement ("Agreement") for the operation of the Keller Canyon Landfill (described
in Exhibit A to the Agreement). Subsequently, County and Operator entered amendments,to
the Agreement.
3. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Amendment No. 10 is to further extend
Amendment No. 1, to August 31, 1994, and to amend the provisions On an intern base rate,
subject to any applicable requirements.
4. INTERIM RATE. Effective June 28, 1994, and continuing to and including August
31, 1994, the Base Rate at the Keller Canyon Landfill shall be as established by Operator, not
to exceed $38.48, based upon market and economic conditions and/or factors found relevant
by Operator. The Gate Rate shall.be the Base Rate plus applicable fees, as previously
agreed to and last set forth in Amendment No. 9, subject to applicable requirements and
agreements between the parties.
5. EXTENSION. Amendment No. 1 is hereby extended to and including August 31,
1994.
6. EFFECT. Subject to the provisions herein, Amendment No. 1 remains in full force
and effect.
7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This agreement is effective on June 28, 1994 and shall remain
in effect until August 31, 1994. This agreement replaces Amendment No. 9 for the period
commencing June 28, 1994, to June 30, 1994.
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL OUNTY F CO T STA
COMPANY, a California
corporation
By
Ch , Board of Supervisors
�� -
� FA�NT Attest: Phil Batchelor,
Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County
Ad 'strat
B
By a
Dep ty
LTF
FORM APPROVED 5.kc1camd.10f
VICTOR 1 ES tnAN,ltou y ounsel
By Depu
DATE:
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT
Complete this form and place. it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board. /
NAME: / `!� G G14 PHONE:
ADDRESS: CITY:
I am speaking formyself OR organization:
NAME OF ORGANIZNTION)
Check one: .7
I wish to speak on Agenda Item it
My comments will be: general I/' for against
I wish to speak on the subject of_ , ,f
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
DATE:
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board. 11 p
NAME: O�M '�. IBJ PHONE:
ADDRESS: (-,&t,0C l CITY: LAD ,
I am speaking formyself OR organization: &E��
Check one: (NAME OF ROANIZ-\TION)
I wish to speak on Agenda Item #
My comments will be: general 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.
DATE: .Z
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board.
NAME: C1fer-, A/M S PHONE:
ADDRESS: CITY: OG
I am speaking for myself OR organization: Ci ��rY�gCi.1
(NAME OF ORGANIZNTION)
Check one:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # �. 4 ,6 2,
My comments will be: genera 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.
DATE: _(17
REgUEST To SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT
Complete this. form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board. PHONE:
MwE: LAI,)C(-: -7, DOW
CITY:ADDRESS: -�,D 9-c - (f0AJ'!f01ZD
I am speaking formyself --Y OR organization: (NAME OF ORGANIZNTION)
Check one:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item #
t.-�-'
My comments will be: general X 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.
DATE: ��✓T- ��
IlE+fg. UEsT To SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board.
NAME: (�JIUAZ_ _ PHONE: _-
.ADDRESS: L�� _ I^ `���������A� CITY: I 1 �V►�1
I am speaking formyself OR organization:
(NAME OF QRGA'.V17NTtC7\}
Chtec one:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # V
My comments will be: genefi_�__a_ 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.
2.7
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - Contra
FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR-GMEDA Costa
DATE: JUNE 28, 1994 County
SUBJECT: KELLER CANYON FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT AND ACME RATE PROCESS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPROVE an amendment to the Keller Canyon Landfill Franchise
Agreement to remove the minimum rates and extend the term; and
AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to execute such an
amendment.
AUTHORIZE Acme to set rates at the Acme Interim Transfer Station at
this time, subject to applicable fees. (LUP 2122-86, § 8.7)
FISCAL IMPACT
.1'
Changes may occur in General Fund revenues as a result of this
amendment.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On March 1, 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment No.
9 to the Keller Canyon Franchise Agreement, continuing an interim
rate and allowing more time for discussions on further amendments
to the Franchise. Amendment No. 9 expires on June 30, 1994 .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATU
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECO ION 0# D COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
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: Val Alexeeff (646-1620)
Orig: GMEDA ATTESTED
cc: County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
County Administrator THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
KCLC (via GMEDA) AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
939u\bo\KCL-FA10.amd
1. ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AMENDMENT NO. 10 TO LANDFILL FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
1. PARTIES. This Amendment No. 10 to Landfill Franchise Agreement is made and
entered by and between the County of Contra Costa ("County") and Keller Canyon Landfill
Company ("Operator').
2. BACKGROUND. On December 4, 1990, County and Operator entered a Landfill
Franchise Agreement ("Agreement") for the operation of the Keller Canyon Landfill (described
in Exhibit A to the Agreement). Subsequently, County and Operator entered amendments to
the Agreement.
3. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Amendment No. 10 is to further extend
Amendment No. 1, to December 31, 1994, and to amend the provisions on an interim base
rate, subject to any applicable requirements.
4. INTERIM RATE. Effective June 28, 1994, and continuing to and including
December 31, 1994, the Base Rate at the Keller Canyon Landfill shall be as established by
Operator, based upon market and economic conditions and/or factors found relevant by
Operator. The Gate Rate shall be the Base Rate plus applicable fees, as previously agreed
to and last set forth in Amendment No. 9, subject to applicable requirements and agreements
between the parties.
5. EXTENSION. Amendment No. 1 is hereby extended to and including December 31,
1994.
6. EFFECT. Subject to the provisions herein, Amendment No. 1 remains in full force
and effect.
7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This agreement is effective on June 28, 1994 and shall remain
in effect until December 31, 1994. This agreement replaces Amendment No. 9 for the period
commencing June 28, 1994, to June 30, 1994.
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
COMPANY, a California
corporation
By
Chair, Board of Supervisors
By
Attest: Phil Batchelor,
Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County
Administrator
By
By
Deputy
LTF
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AMENDMENT NO. 10 TO LANDFILL FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
1. PARTIES. This Amendment No. 10 to Landfill Franchise Agreement is made and
entered by and between the County of Contra Costa("County") and Keller Canyon Landfill
Company ("Operator").
2. BACKGROUND. On December 4, 1990, County and Operator entered a Landfill
Franchise Agreement ("Agreement") for the operation of the Keller Canyon Landfill (described
in Exhibit A to the Agreement). Subsequently, County and Operator entered amendments to
the Agreement.
3. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Amendment No. 10 is to further extend
Amendment No. 1, to December 31, 1994, and to amend the provisions on an interim base
rate, subject to any applicable requirements.
4. INTERIM RATE. Effective June 28, 1994, and continuing to and including
December 31, 1994, the Base Rate at the Keller Canyon Landfill shall be as established by
Operator, not to exceed $38.48, based upon market and economic conditions and/or factors
found relevant by Operator. The Gate Rate shall be the Base Rate plus applicable fees, as
previously agreed to and last set forth in Amendment No. 9, subject to applicable
requirements and agreements between the parties.
5. EXTENSION. Amendment No. 1 is hereby extended to and including December 31,
1994.
6. EFFECT. Subject to the provisions herein, Amendment No. 1 remains in full force
and effect.
7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This agreement is effective on June 28, 1994 and shall remain
in effect until December 31, 1994. This agreement replaces Amendment No. 9 for the period
commencing June 28, 1994, to June 30, 1994.
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
COMPANY, a California
corporation
By
Chair, Board of Supervisors
By
Attest: Phil Batchelor,
Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County
Administrator
By
By
Deputy
LTF
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y
Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 10th Floor
Martinez, California
DATE:June 28, 1994
TO: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
FROM: Linda Bulkeley, Management Analyst✓.-���✓✓�-2:�`f� �,-
SUBJECT: CURRENT FEES, RATES @ ACME/KELLER and RELATED
EXPENDITURES
Attached are the expenditures for franchise and mitigation fees
for FY 93/94 . Also included is a breakdown of State mandated and
County programs and base rates at Keller and Acme. The gate
rates were confirmed today.
Attachments
1 i 1
FRANCHISE FEE (SURCHARGE) 1993/94
Expenditures: SSI Advocacy 60,000
Recycling Center 210,000
Career Dvlpmt for -GA Workcrews 15,000
Offset Shortfall in State Revenues
(Prop 172-Sheriff, District Atty) 876,200
Expenditure Total 1,161,200
Page 1 6128/94
t I I
TRANSPORTATION 1993/94
Expenditures: Bailey Road Widening 29,204
Traffic Signs 6,000
Evora Road 147,000
Litter Pickup 202,000
Route Restriction Enforcement/
Litter Control 70,000
Transp & Congestion Relief 100,000
Rdside Hazardous Clean-up 12,000
Expenditure Totals 566,204
Page 1 6/28/94
OPEN SPACE/AGRICULTURE 1993/94
Expenditures: Rodent/ThistleControl 60,000
Tree Planting 100,000
EBRPD trail mntce 90,000
Ambrose Open space 90,000
Wetlands Mitigation 50,000
Delta Env Science Center 35,000
Audobon Cnsvtn Outrch 10,000
Farm Bureau 5,000
Soils Bank* 250,000
Expenditure Total 690,000
*Includes carryover from previous years.
Page 1 6/28/94
HOST COMMUNITY 1993/94
Expenditures: Code Enforcement 60,000
Property Cleanup 90,000
Patrol/BayPoint Res Deputy 140,000
Commty Mitigation Contracts* 162,815
Pittsb Lib, Homewrk Help Ctr 51,000
Family Svc Integration 46,185
Expenditure Totals: 550,000
*See detail below:
Boys and Girls Club of East County 9,000
West Pittsburg Youth Football 7,500
Center for Human Development 2,000
Operation Bootstrap 5,000
Pitts. Preschool Coordinating Council 10,000
First.Baptist Church 25,000
The In-Reach Foundation 5,000
W. Pittsburg School Linked Ping. Coalition 5,000
Delta Adult Day Care Prgm 8,500
Bay Point MAC 10,000
Bay Point Pride-Grafitti Abatement 2,815
Bay Point Pride-Safe Streets Now 13,000
County Building Inspection Department 10,000
Community Services Department 15,000
Contra Costa Conflict Resolution Panels 2,000
Suroptimist International (Pittsburg) 3,000
United Council Spanish Speaking Orgs. 10,000
YWCA of Contra Costa County 20,000
Total 162,815
Page 1 6%28/94
J
CURRENT FEES AND RATES - ACME/KELLER
rrEM cvxxENT
STATE - EASTIN .75
STATE MANDATED PROGRAMS
AB 939 PLANNING .15
COUNTY .80
CITIES *1 1.00
LEA 1.00
RESOURCE RECOVERY
COUNTY PROGRAMS
.35
RATE REVIEW *2 .10
MITIGATION MONITORING *2 2.00
OPEN SPACE/AG 2.00
TRANSPORTATION 2.00
HOST COMMUNITY 3.85
FRANCHISE FEE 2.12
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE *3
16.47
TOTAL FEE
ACME 22.33
KELLER 38.48
TOTAL TIPPING 77.68
*1 To be dropped from rate this agenda.
*2 Lump sum amount prorated by tonnage to be dropped if not needed.
*3 On agenda for review.
vn:dg (rccs.tbl) (6/28/94)
r,
. . . . . .. ...
Waste Management& Research(1992) 10,471-484
the editorial team discussed the future
ird suggested the preparation of more
(cfthe special issues on incinerator
or 1993, we plan to prepare an issue on ASSESSING THE TRUE COST OF LANDFILLS
management. In many cases, such
tagement takes. We are encouraging * Stephen Hirshfeld*, P. Aarne esilindt and Ernie I. Pas$
is special issue of WM&R. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin,-Madison,
Wisconsin,53706, U.S.A., tDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Duke
University, Durham, North Carolina, U.S.A.and tDepartment of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Duke University,Durham, North Carolina, U.S.A.
Paul PI. Brunner
Associate Editor
(Received 31 May 1991, accepted in revised form 3 February 1992)
The most common means for disposing of municipal solid waste is burial in a sanitary
landfill. However, many landfill owners significantly underestimate the total cost of
landfill disposal by considering only land and operating costs, ignoring external
physical and social costs associated with landfills. This paper proposes an approach
to estimating(in monetary terms)the external costs arising from the development and
operation of a landfill. All cost information is based on typical U.S. landfill cost
structures. The approach is illustrated by applying it to a case study of a proposed
landfill in Durham, North Carolina(U.S.A.). This case study demonstrates that the
method can be applied easil and yields reasonable results.
Key Words—Refuse,landfilling,costs, U.S.A.
1. Introduction
Sanitary landfilling is currently the most common means of disposal for municipal solid
waste (MSW) in the United States. When landfill costs are calculated, however,
environmental and social costs are usually ignored(Dunbar& Berkman 1987, Gunner-
son & Jones 1984). Ignoring such costs may underprice landfills, which in turn may
inhibit the development of other waste management options, such as waste reduction,
recycling and resource recovery. These options are frequently perceived as being more
expensive than landfilling.
Little effort has been made to quantify the costs of the environmental and social
impacts of landfills, and most published studies focus on only one of the many external
costs.Perhaps the paucity of work in this area is a result of the subject's elusiveness;any
generalized study of external costs will necessarily be inexact and lacking complete
objectivity. Nonetheless, as Freeman (1979) notes, it is crucial to attempt to value
externalities in real monetary terms, because economic analysis is usually the basis for
evaluating activities which bear on the natural environment.
The objective of this paper was to propose an approach to evaluating monetarily the
costs of externalities that are likely to arise from the use of MSW landfills.The true cost
of a landfill is defined as the sum of these external costs plus standard landfill costs.The
true cost thus represents the full economic cost borne by the host community as a result
of a landfill's existence and usage.
Since most U.S. landfills are publicly owned, external landfill costs are herein
evaluated from the perspective of the public landfill owner. The valuation techniques
discussed,however,are equally applicable to privately owned landfills.In either case,the
costs,are ultimately borne (equitably or inequitably) by the landfill users.
The approach presented in this paper could improve the accuracy of landfill cost
0734-242X;921060471 + 14 508.00/0 r 1992 ISWA
472 S. Hirshfeld et al.
assessments. In turn,improved cost assessments may encourage improved environmen- they may present a car
tal protection and energy conservation, partly due to the accelerated development of landfill gas, such as h
non-landfill waste management alternatives. unpleasant odours asst
The next section describes the external impacts of landfills, separating them into Landfill fires are not
physical and social impacts. Subsequently, an approach is proposed to evaluate the a landfill's active lifetim
physical and social impacts of landfills,and to illustrate the application of this approach of burning loads or fro
a case study is presented for a proposed landfill in Durham, North Carolina. Note that to elevate temperature..
all cost information appearing in this paper is based on typical U.S. landfill cost erupt during gas abstra
structures. equipment(Knowles I�
landfill fires, unpleasan
2. External impacts of landfills
Landfills exert two types of external impacts on their surroundings, i.e. physical and
social impacts. These impacts are described further. Social impacts are thos
landfill produces any pl
pollution, noise, aesthe
2.1 Physical impacts Refuse collection an
Physical impacts are those resulting directly from the products generated by the landfill. landfill. The increase b
Contamination of groundwaters and surface waters by landfill leachate, migration and roads may also become
atmospheric release of landfill gases and fires are all physical impacts associated with The construction ant .
landfills. discussed previously:
Leachate contamination of groundwater and surface waters is one of the gravest risks delivering waste, and
associated with landfill operation. Most new landfills are equipped with some type of operation and wind ere
leachate containment and/or collection system. However, these systems provide no been identified as a haz
guarantee that contamination of water resources will be avoided. As Robinson (1987) Noise at landfills car
states, leachate problems persist despite"a plethora of advice and exhortation in recent notes that excessive not
years" on how to avoid them. most cases, however, tl-
The difficulty in preventing leachate production stems from the impossibility of Increased traffic,loca
completely denying water access into the landfill. All solid waste placed in a landfill reduction in aesthetic c
contains moisture. Several modes of failure exist for caps and final covers, the most roads leading to the lar
common being erosion(Johnson 1986). Freeze-thaw and wet-dry cycles also encourage In general,a landfill'.
cracking of the cover and cap (Johnson 1986). When freezing conditions exist, cracks site and surrounding k
will propagate through frozen soil covers and exposed liners until tensile stresses caused years and will require c
by the freezing are relieved (Andersland & AI-Moussawi 1987). Subsidence and any substantial structut
differential settling provide other mechanisms for failure,including collapsing of the cap Emberton & Parker
into the void. Finally, objects which tend to "float" in landfills, such as tyres,can move including the migration
upward until they breach the cap (Johnson 1986). Synthetic caps are also subject to waste on which a struct
accidental puncturing(Tchobanoglous et al. 1981): Both earth and synthetic liners tend into parkland or other
to lose compressive strength and may succumb to environmental degradation (Wilson generally viewed as ass
1981). temporarily, the comms
Landfill gas, typically 45-55% methane.and 40-50% carbon dioxide. represents a It is also likely that
potential environmental,hazard in many ways. In some incidences. methane migrating example of this compor
from landfills has caused explosions,resulting in loss of life and property. Both methane Love Canal incident in
and carbon dioxide may cause damage to vegetation. In addition. landfills make a buried in the canal leac
measurable contribution to atmospheric methane. which is a greenhouse gas (Augen- near the canal to relo
stein 1990).Thus,it is argued that any release of methane from a landfill must be viewed properties in Love Car
as pollution, regardless of whether any terrestrial damage occurs. nonetheless real) if the
Non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs) contained in landfill gas are also under agriculture, but not for
scrutiny. Some of these compounds are regarded as toxic, and under certain conditions
Assessing the true cost of landfills 473
ge improved environmen- they may present a cancer risk to specific groups of individuals. Trace components in
:celerated development of landfill gas, such as hydrogen sulfide and organosulfur compounds, can cause the
unpleasant odours associated with landfills.
.11s, separating them into Landfill fires are not believed to arise spontaneously but may occur at any time during
proposed to evaluate the a landfill's active lifetime where operations are run improperly resulting in the placement
plication of this approach of burning loads or from aerobic microbial reactions in buried waste. These both serve
4orth Carolina. Note that to elevate temperatures within the landfill (Wilson 1981). Fires can also occasionally
typical U.S. landfill cost erupt during gas abstraction(Emberton&Parker 1987)or from the sparking of landfill
equipment(Knowles 1987).The use of daily cover may limit the undesirable impacts of
landfill fires, unpleasant odors and visual affront.
un dings, i.e. physical and 2.2 Social impacts
Social impacts are those inflicted upon society.by the landfill regardless of whether the
landfill produces any physical impacts. Such impacts include increased traffic,visible air
pollution, noise, aesthetic degradation and limited land utility.
Refuse collection and transfer vehicles increase the traffic on roads leading to the
venerated by the landfill. landfill. The increase becomes more pronounced on roads closer to the site. Affected
11 leachate. migration and roads may also become noisier and degrade more quickly once the traffic increases.
.l impacts associated with The construction and operation of landfills generates two types of air pollution not
discussed previously: (1) exhaust, from both equipment at the landfill and vehicles
is one of the gravest risks delivering waste, and (2) fugitive dust from the site, resulting from both equipment
.tipped with some type of operation and wind erosion of cover material. Dust, particularly respirable quartz, has
hese systems provide no been identified as a hazard at landfill sites (Mozzon et al. 1987).
ded. As Robinson (1987) Noise at landfills can be noticeable in nearby residential areas. The USEPA (1975)
and exhortation in recent notes that excessive noise can have many undesirable effects on those exposed to it. In
most cases, however, the noise is simply regarded as an annoyance.
'rom the impossibility of Increased traffic,localized air and noise pollution and land clearing all contribute to a
waste placed in a landfill reduction in aesthetic quality for properties near a landfill. In addition, the littering of
nd final covers. the most roads leading to the landfill is a serious social concern in many communities.
-dry cycles also encourage In general, a landfill's presence affects the present and future uses of both the landfill
g conditions exist. cracks site.and surrounding land. After closure, a landfill may continue to settle for several
.ntil tensile stresses caused years and will require continued aftercare. Settlement may prevent the construction of
i 1987). Subsidence and anv substantial structures on the site for many years.
iding collapsing of the cap Emberton & Parker (1987) cite other problems associated with building on landfills,
s. such as tyres. can move including the migration and odor of landfill gas and the chemically aggressive nature of the
caps are also subject to waste on which a structure would be built. For these reasons, landfills are often restored
i and synthetic liners tend into parkland or other "passive" public facilities after closure. While these facilities are
ntal degradation (Wilson generally viewed as assets by a community, the landfill's existence pre-empts, at least
temporarily, the community's full range of development options for the land.
bon dioxide. represents a It is also likely that a landfill will impact upon the use of surrounding land. An
ences. methane miuratine example of this component of the land utility impact is provided by the well publicized
d property. Both methane Love Canal incident in Niagara Falls, New York. Hazardous waste which had been
ddition. .landfills make a buried in the canal leached into nearby soil, forcing residents whose homes were built
t greenhouse gas (Augen- near the canal to relocate. After the soil contamination occurred, the abandoned
t a landfill must be viewed properties in Love Canal had no value. The impact would have been lessened (but
:urs. nonetheless real) if the contamination somehow had rendered the land useful for e.g.
landfill gas are also under agriculture, but not for human habitation.
i under certain conditions
474 S. Hirshfeld et al.
3. Proposed approach to evaluating the external impacts of landfills known, the cumulative
aesthetics) may be fou;
3.1 Physical impacts To obtain an estimat
survey was conducted
Consider a rectangular hole in the ground;perhaps 100 feet(30 m)long by 50 feet(15 m) provided a map of a h
wide by 50 feet 05 m) deep, which exists to provide for the ultimate disposal of clean, neighbourhoods with }.
uncontaminated glass bottles. The hole is filled 30 feet (9 m) deep with the bottles, and details of the survev us;
then covered with 20 feet (6 m) of cover dirt and soil. 1989).The series of gra
The costs associated with this "landfill" might include: engineering fees, excavation of a landfill and reside
costs, machinery rental or purchase and wages. Due to the nature of the material being professionals.
buried, no preventive devices such as liners or leachate collection systems need be The scenario preser.
installed (ignoring the dictates of existing regulations). analvsis of the manv fz
One must consider whether, after closure, this landfill might impart any physical time consuming and is
impacts on the surrounding environment. The argument that it would not is quite survev such considerate
defensible, because glass is regarded as inert and non-degradable. This argument, then, amenities and disamen
suggests that the physical impacts associated with the landfill arise not from the existence
of the landfill itself, but from products of the landfill's operation which escape from its
boundaries.
This argument is applied to the computation of physical impact costs. Ideally,
physical impacts on the surrounding environment could be eliminated by sealing the
entire landfill structure with a perfectly impermeable material. Such a seal is, in reality,
non-existent. Even if it were, its cost might be prohibitive. Hence, the costs of the
physical impacts are evaluated as the costs of the best reasonable technologies available
for containing, collecting and treating the potential pollutants. The word "reasonable"
is used to suggest that a boundary exists beyond which reasonable people would agree
that the marginal preventative cost does not justify the resultant increase in environmen-
tal protection. For instance, the state of New York currently requires double composite
liners, and several other states appear to be moving towards the same requirement; but,
there seems to be general agreement that additional composite liners add little additional
environmental protection and are unnecessary. In this paper, the phrase "best reason-
able technology" specifically refers to the most effective control technology which is
currently required by at least one state.
Costs evaluated in this way do not reflect the total physical external costs, because no
existing systems are capable of perfectly containing and collecting all of the leachate or
methane that a landfill produces' One advantage to this approach, however, is that it
circumvents the difficulty of predicting the magnitude of the physical impacts of leachate
and methane. The costs.to the environment, which are difficult to quantify monetarily,
are calculated using costs for existing environmental control systems.
3.2 Social impacts
The social impacts cost has three components. They are: (1) the cumulative decrease of
surrounding property values;(2)the cost associated with land utility effects,also known
as an "opportunity cost"; and (3) a "hastening cost".
3.2.1 Surrounding property depreciation
It may be assumed that the impact of a landfill on surrounding_ property values reflects
the local effects of altered traffic patterns,air pollution,visual unattractiveness and noise
pollution(USEPA 1975).Thus,if property values prior to the landfill's existence are well Fig. 1. Map o
Assessing the true cost of landfills 475
pacts of landfills known, the cumulative dollar value of most landfill social impacts(i.e. traffic,air, noise,
aesthetics) may be found by measuring the decreases in property values.
To obtain an estimate of the potential effect of a landfill on adjacent property values,a
survey was conducted on eight professional real estate appraisers and agents who were
0 m)long by 50 feet(15 m) provided,a map of a hypothetical town, in which a landfill was placed among several
iltimate disposal of clean, neighbourhoods with homes of pre-determined value. The map is shown in Fig. 1. The
deep with the bottles, and, details of the survey used in this portion of the study can be found elsewhere(Hirshfeld
1989).The series of graphs shown in Fig. 2(a-0 relate distance from the outer boundary
gineering fees. excavation of a landfill and residential property values, based on the responses of the real estate
iture of the material being professionals.
)llection systems need be The scenario presented to the respondents was necessarily simplified; a rigorous
analysis of the many factors contributing to a property's worth would be prohibitively
tight impart any physical time consuming and is beyond the scope of the study undertaken. Therefore, in the
:tat it would not is quite survey such considerations as predominant wind direction and relative locations of other
tble. This argument, then, amenities and disamenities besides the landfill were ignored. Furthermore, as the EPA
rise not from the existence
.ion which escape from its
:at impact costs. Ideally,
eliminated by sealing the
Such a seal is, in reality,
Hence, the costs of the
s
.ble technologies available3.
s
The word "reasonable"
nable people would agree
it increase in environmen-
-equires double composite
he same requirement; but. S
liners add little additional
the phrase "best reason- S
itrol technology which is
external costs.because no e
:tins all of the leachate or
roach, however, is that it
tysical impacts of leachate
It to quantify monetarily,
systems.
he cumulative decrease of
utility effects.also known
tg property values reflects
tnattractiveness and noise
.andfill's existence are well Fie. L Map of a hypothetical town with the landfill at the centre. D=Homes.
476 S. Hirshfeld et al.
40 ■ —■—■—■— —■s-■_■—■ 250
-■ ■ 200 ■ ■
30 ■ ■ ■ ■
■ 15° '1i
20 ■ ■
0 100
0
10 O
'9 so
X
O
n 0
70 ■—,—■—■—_ ,—■'�_■ m 400
■ -■-- ■--■ ■ ■ ■
(b) -
60 ■ 1�-■- a
0 350
SO 41 ■ = 300 ■ ■
o �
40 ■ -250 ■�■
a
O 30 > 200 -
0
00 O
O
150
20
-- 100 ■
V 10
m
a 50
y, 0
= O
v 100 ■—■—■—,—_�—_■�,�-■ .
e 80 ,1 M 0 ■ ■ Fig. 2. Property values rs. dis
■ (d)$150
0
60-
40- (1975) suggests, due to
property values, the res
20 confidently to areas othe
This survey, however.
n I approximated. Furtherm
so ■—_ __■--_■—■—�—_■ values are affected by th(
■— , ■ ■ ■ ° • Properties closer to a
126 ■ V ■ ■ ■ • The amount of proper
100 i�i ■ • At a given distance fr(
■ ■ lose a greater percenti
75 • Landfills can depress
50These observations sugf
property depreciation in
zs distances between adjace
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 In Fig.2(a—f),a graph
of curves can be used
Distance of property from landfill (mdes) locations.'For instance,
miles(0.8 km)from a lar,
Assessing the true cost of landfills 477
—:—■ 250 ■ ■ --7 =— ■�+■—■
200 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
150
■
100 ■
0
o_
°' 50
m
0
b
(b) = 400 ■ ; : :�■ :��. ■ (})
0 350 , ���■��■ ■ ■ ■
moi■ ■ ■
300 ■ //i■ ■ ■ ■
250 I'■ ■ ■ ■
o ■ ■
200 ■ ■
150
100 ■
50
0 I 2 3 4 5 6
'�—■ (c) Distance of property from landfill (miles)
Fig. ?. Property values 1•s. distance from landfill. Original values: (a) $40,000: (b) 870,000; (c) 8100,000;
(d)S150.000;(e)8250,000;(f)5400,000.Note: t mile�--1.6 km.
(1975) suggests, due to the uniqueness of each property and the dynamic nature of
property values, the results of a similar study, using real data, cannot be applied
confidently to areas other than those from which the data were obtained.
This survey, however, provides a general methodology by which these costs can be
approximated. Furthermore, the trends reflected in Fig. 2 argue strongly that property
_�_■ values are affected by their proximity to a new landfill. Specifically:
(° ) • Properties closer to a_landfill lose more value than properties further away from it.
• The amount of property depreciation decreases with distance from the landfill.
• At a given distance from a landfill up to 2 miles (3.2 km), more valuable properties
lose a greater percentage of their worth than do less valuable ones.
• Landfills can depress the values of properties up to 3 miles (4.8 km) away.
These observations suggest that a landfill is likely to inflict the greatest cumulative
property depreciation in high density urban areas, where property values are high and
distances between adjacent properties are small.
5 6 In Fig.2(a-0,a graph curve has been drawn through the data points.The resultant set
of curves can be used to approximate impacts for a range of property values and
,les) locations. For instance, a residence in a neighbourhood of$400,000 homes, located 0.5
miles(0.8 km)from a landfill site,is worth approximately$275,000 after the landfill is in
478 S. Hirshfeld et al.
place. A S 150,000 home at a distance of 1.25 miles (2 km) from a landfill decreases in worth of property. Thi.
value to 5130,000 after the landfill is built. by the landfill's presen
Our results differ from several previous studies which have focused on rates of
property appreciation (Gamble et al. 1982, Anon. 1983, Pettit & Johnson 1987, Price
1988). Most of these studies suggest that properties developed near a landfill have 3.2.3 Hastening cost
comparable rates of appreciation to those for similar properties far from the landfill. In addition to propert
However,Price found that in some cases properties near landfills appreciate more slowly hastening cost on its o•
and in these instances more expensive homes are impacted to a greater degree than less the moment at which a
expensive ones. commodity with limits
Our study differs from the above studies in two respects. First, it focuses on actual could be earned on th;
property values not rates of appreciation. Second, it assumes that a landfill is to be period by which dispos
situated near an established neighbourhood and the loss in property value is then hastening cost concept
directly felt by the owners at the time the landfill is sited. Our scenario no doubt causes
greater community reaction and loss of property values, and it is less realistic than 3.2.4 Allocation of soci
allowing development to occur around a landfill. Our results may .therefore be The proper allocation
considered the "worst case" in the loss of property values. are borne by the gover:
The depreciation curves describe the losses experienced by homeowners who live near equitably)by all citizen
a landfill. Depreciations experienced by property owners could be alleviated by in the form of taxes or
governmental compensation. Various compensation strategies are considered by Lang community, because it
(1990), Zeiss & Atwater (1987) and O'Hare (1977). lost taxes.
On the other hand.-t!
3.2.2 Land opportunitt, cost affected and is not shz
An opportunity cost is the value of goods or services foregone by the production of some opportunity costs mus-,
other goods or services with the same resources(Atkinson 1982).Thus,any reduction in course also be reduced
property value caused by a landfill's presence is an opportunity cost. The land utility redirect property value
effects discussed above may be represented by opportunity costs. everyone uses the land:
The landfill opportunity cost has two components: (1) that of the landfill site itself,
and (2) that of any surrounding area whose future use is somehow affected by the
presence of the landfill (Dunbar& Berkman 1987, USEPA 1975).
Publicly owned landfills sit on publicly owned (i.e. government owned) land. The above methodolof
Typically,a government must either purchase or condemn (and then purchase)the land North Carolina (see a
on which it builds a landfill. Once the government owns the property, no property taxes (304 ha)site,200 acres
are collected on it for its entire duration under public ownership. Thus, the first of 50 feet (15 m) and i
component of the landfill's opportunity cost is the sum of the annual property tax tons (5.9 million ton:
revenues that the government will fail to collect for the land as long as it is publicly composite liner, a leas:
owned.Considering the typical reuse options available for landfill sites,this period could not be pretreated on
be 50 years or more. treatment are figured ii
Evaluating the site opportunity cost in this way provides only its lower bound. This per ton (535.20 per for
approach assumes that, were the property not used for a landfill, it would remain reflect the costs of Ian(
undeveloped. However, if the property were developed, its value would increase, The proportions of
increasing the tax revenue that the government would receive. control (as one cost
This approach therefore also neglects the potential secondary revenue which might be reported by Glebs (19
generated by any such structures. An example of secondary revenue is the sales tax that these numbers to the
would result from patronage of stores built on the land parcel in question. would be about S10 F
The cost of surrounding areas may be evaluated similarly to the site opportunity cost, assume that, as is typ
as the property tax lost due to property depreciation caused bN- the landfill's presence. If costs and hastening c
a property worth 5200,000 a priori is devalued to 5100,000 by-a nearby landfill, the percentages correspon,
landfill causes-the state and local governments to lose property tax revenue on 5100,000 over a landfill's lifetim
Assessing the true cost of landfills 479
from a landfill decreases in worth of property.This cost will persist as long as property values are adversely affected
by the landfill's presence.
t have focused on rates of
'ettit & Johnson 1987, Price
ed near a landfill have 3.2.3 Hastening cost
cloped
In addition to property depreciation and land opportunity costs, a landfill imparts a
)erties far from the landfill.appreciate more slowly hastening cost on its owner, because each ton of waste deposited in the landfill hastens
to dfills a greater degree than less the moment at which a new landfill must be opened. Landfill space, like gold or salt, is a
commodity with limited availability. The hastening cost is defined as the interest that
;. First, it focuses on actuttl could be earned on the initial investment required for a replacement facility, over the
mes that a landfill is to be period by which disposal of the current ton of waste hastens that investment. While the
in property value is then hastening cost concept is useful, the cost itself is usually negligible.
ur scenario no doubt causes
and it is less realistic than 3.2.4 Allocation of social costs
results may therefore be The proper allocation of social costs is not obvious. Some costs associated with landfills
are borne by the governmental body owning the landfill,and thus are borne(it is hoped
1 homeowners who live near equitably)by all citizens within that community.These costs must be paid by the citizens
rs could be alleviated by in the form of taxes or fees. The reduction of taxable land values results in a cost to the
!ies are considered by Lang community, because it must increase other sources of revenue to compensate for those
lost taxes.
On the other hand,-the loss of property values is-borne directly by the property owners
affected and is not shared equally by all of the citizens of that community. Likewise,
e by the production of some opportunity costs must be borne by the property owners, although tax revenues will of
)82). Thus,any reduction in course also be reduced if a lower level of development occurs. It may be reasonable to
unitv cost. The land utilitv redirect property value losses and opportunity costs to the entire community, because
costs. everyone uses the landfill.
iat of the landfill site itself,
i somehow affected bv_ the
1975). 4. Case study
government owned) land. The above methodology is applied to a proposed MSW landfill for the city of Durham,
ind then purchase) the land North Carolina (see appendix 1). This future landfill would be located on a 750 acre
property, no property taxes (304 ha)site,200 acres(81 ha)of which would be actual fill area. With an average depth
ownership. Thus, the first of 50 feet (15 m) and typical compaction, landfill capacity would be about 6.5 million
)f the annual property tax tons (5.9 million tonnes). Preliminary plans call for this landfill to have a single
nd as long as it is publicly composite liner, a leachate collection system and a gas collection system. Leachate will
adfill sites.this period could not be pretreated on-site, and it is assumed that no provisions for off-site leachate
treatment are figured into the tipping fee. An initial estimate of the tipping fee is$32.00
only its lower bound. This per ton ($35.20 per tonne). The tipping fee is calculated by the City and is intended to
i landfill, it would remain reflect the costs of land, construction, operation, closure and post-closure activities.
its value would increase. The proportions of tipping fees generally attributable to leachate control and gas
ve• control (as one cost item) and to associated environmental monitoring have been
ary revenue which might be reported by Glebs (1988) and SWANA (1989) as 31 and 3%, respectively. Applying
revenue is the sales tax that these numbers to the estimated tipping fee, expected leachate and gas control costs
cel in question. would be about S10 per ton, and monitoring costs would be about $1 per ton. We.
to the site opportunity cost, assume that, as is typically the case, surrounding property depreciation, opportunity
by the landfill's presence. If costs and hastening costs are not included.in the tipping fee. Note that the above
0 by a nearby landfill, the percentages correspond to leachate control, gas control and environmental monitoring
IV tax revenue on S 100,000 over a landfill's lifetime.
480 S. Hirshfeld et al.
TABLE 1
Case study cost estimates
Anon.(1983)Ei9'ects of su
Tipping fee 532.00/ton Research Planning C
Leachate, gas and monitoring costs $22.00/ton Andersland, O. B. & AI-
Property depreciation S 1.10/ton thermal contraction.
Opportunity cost,landfill site $10.90/ton Atkinson, L. C. (1982) E
Opportunity cost,adjacent properties S 0.40/ton Augenstein, D. C. (199
Proceedings from the
Total S66.40,ton($73.00/tonne) 29, 1990, Chicago, I
Baccini, P., Henseler, G..
solid waste landfills.
Carter, C. P. (1989) A rc
Assessor and Analrsr
Dunbar,F.C.&Berkma
Applying our methodology to the future landfill yields the cost estimates shown in 91-99.
Table 1. Our calculations indicate that the largest component of the external cost is the Emberton,J.R.&Parker
Management& Rese
physical cost of leachate generation. For other landfills, the relative magnitudes of the Freeman,A. M.(1979) T
different external cost components may vary and the total external costs almost surely Johns Hopkins Uni-,
will. Gamble, H. B., Downine
The sum of the external costs is significant compared -to the tipping fee, and sites on community de
particularly significant compared to the estimated leachate and gas control cost (510/ and Water Resource.
Glebs, R. T. (1988) Subti
ton).This suggests that the tipping fee does not reflect the landfill's true cost.According Gunnerson, C. G. & Jo-
to Table 1,the tipping fee for the new Durham landfill should be about S66 per ton.This recycling. Waste Ma
fee would more accurately and equitably cover the true cost of the landfill described in Hirshfeld,S.S.(1989)As!
this study. N.C., U.S.A.
Johnson, D. I. (1986) Cat
Knowles,G. D.(1987)Sa
4. Conclusion 51.
Lang, R. (1990) Equity it
Although landfilling is a well established waste disposal method, many municipalities Mozzon, D., Brown, D.
(and_ other landfill owners) significantly underestimate their landfill costs. This is respirable quartz and
primarily a result of failure to place reasonable costs on the physical and social impacts Industrial Hygiene A.-
associated
:associated with landfills. O'Hare, M. (1977) "Not
compensation. Publi,
Physical impacts result from the natural generation of products, particularly leachate Pettit,C. L.&Johnson, c
and landfill gas, which have the potential to cause environmental damage. Social Age 18(4,April),97
impacts are a consequence of the landfill's existence. The important social impacts are Price,J. R.(1988)Report
adjacent property depreciation(which reflects the adverse effects of noise pollution, air &Research 6(4), 39:
pollution,visual unattractiveness and increased traffic to and from the landfill)and land Robinson, H. (1987) De:
opportunity Landfill Site, Wiltshi
costs.The opportunity cost has two components,one relating to the landfill SWANA (1989) Training
site and the other to surrounding properties. Maryland, U.S.A.: S
Losses in property values typically are borne unfairly by residents living close to new Tchobanoglous, G., Thie
landfills. In fact, public opposition to the siting of new landfills is due largely to management issues.
U.S.A.: McGraw-Hi
anticipated losses in property values. Given the typical strength of such opposition,and USEPA (1975) Measuril
the equal utility that a municipal landfill provides for all users,regardless of proximity to Ramanathan, W. Ra
the landfill, it seems reasonable that the community consider compensating property Vesilind,P.A.&Rimer,
owners living near a proposed landfill site. Cliffs, New Jersey, L
Although it is difficult to assessa landfill's true cost accurately,an effort must be made Wilson, D. C. (1981) Wu
Oxford University P:
to do so.This paper offers one approach for making such assessments and demonstrates Zeiss,C.&Atwater,J.0
that its application can yield reasonable results. For use in a practical evaluation of Journal of Urban Plc:
waste management options; the true cost of a landfill should be compared to those of
other waste treatment options.True costs for each alternative waste management option
should be determined using an analogous approach.
Assessin the_true_cost of landfills 481
References
Anon.(1983)Effects of sanitary landfil s ue of r_esi entral property.Austin,Texas,U.S.A.:
)/ton Research Planning Consultants, Inc.
Vton Andersland, O. B. & Al-Moussawi, H. M. (1987) Crack formation in soil landfill covers due to
/ton thermal contraction. Waste Management&Research 5(4),445-452.
'/ton Atkinson, L. C. (1982) Economics. Boston, U.S.A.: Irwin Publications.
1/ton Augenstein, D. C. (1990) Greenhouse effect contributions from U.S. landfill methane. In
Proceedingsfrom the GRCDA 13th Annual International Landfill Gas Symposium,March 27-
!/ton (573.00/tonne) 29, 1990, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Baccini, P., Henseler, G., Figi, R.& Belevi, H. (1987) Water and element balances of municipal
solid waste landfills. Waste Management&Research 5(4),483-499.
Carter, C. P. (1989) A review of sanitary landfill impacts on property values. The Real Estate
Assessor and Analyst Spring, 1989.
Dunbar, F.C.&Berkman,M.P.(1987)Sanitary landfills are too cheap! Waste Age 18(5, May),
the cost estimates shown in 91-99.
nt of the external cost is the Emberton,J.R.&Parker,A.(1987)The problems associated with building on landfill sites. Waste
Management&Research 5(4),473-482.
e relative magnitudes of the Freeman,A. M.(1979) The benefits of environmental improvement. Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.:
external costs almost surely Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gamble, H. B., Downing, II R.,Shorte,J. S. &Epp, D. K. (1982) Effects of solid waste disposal
:d to the tipping fee, and sites on communit},development and residential property values.Institute for Research on Land
and gas control cost ($10/ and Water Resources, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, U.S.A.
Glebs, R. T. (1988) Subtitle D: How will it affect landfills? Waste Alternatives 1 (3), 56-64.
.ndfill's true cost. According Gunnerson, C. G. & Jones, D. C. (1984) Costing and cost recovery for waste disposal and
d be about 566 per ton.This recycling. Waste Management&Research 2(2), 107-118. ,
t of the landfill described in Hirshfeld,S.S.(1989)Assessing the true cost of landfills.M.S.Thesis,Duke University,Durham,
N.C., U.S.A.
Johnson, D. I. (1986) Caps: the long haul. Waste Age 17(3, March), 83-89.
Knowles,G.D.(1987)Sanitary landfill problems.ASTM Standardization News 15(4,April),48-
51.
Lang, R. (1990) Equity in siting solid waste management facilities. Plan,Canada 30(2), 5-13.
ethod, many municipalities Mozzon, D., Brown, D. A. & Smith, J. W. (1987) Occupational exposure to airborne dust,
heir landfill costs. This is respirable quartz and metals arising from refuse handling,burning,and landfilling.American
physical and social impactsIndustrial Hygiene Association Journal 48(2, February), 111-116.
O'Hare, M..(1977) "Not on my block you don't": facility siting and the strategic importance of
compensation. Public Policy 25(4, Fall),407-458.
)ducts, particularly leachate Pettit,'C. L.&Johnson, C. (1987)The impact on property values of solid.waste facilities. Waste
:ronmental damage. Social Age 18(4,April), 97-102.
nportant social impacts are Price,J. R.(1988)Report:the impact of waste facilities on real estate values. Waste Management
ffects of noise pollution, air & Research 6(4), 393-400.
1 from the landfill)and land Robinson, H. (1987) Design and operation of leachate control measures at Compton Basset
Landfill Site,Wiltshire, U.K. Waste Management& Research 5(2), 107-122.
s,one relating to the landfill SWANA (1989) Training course manual: managing sanitary landfill operations. Silver Spring,
Maryland, U.S.A.: SWANA.
'esidents living close to new Tchobanoglous, G., Thiesen, H. & Eliassen, R. (1977) Solid wastes:engineering principles and
landfills is due largely.to management issues. Water Resources and Environmental Engineering Series. New York,
gth of such opposition, and U.S.A.: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
3. USEPA (1975) Measuring external effects of solid waste management. R. Schmalensee, R.
regardless of proximity to Ramanathan,W. Ramm&D. Smallwood,eds. March 1975. NTIS, PB-251161, U.S.A.
ger compensating property Vesilind.P.A.&Rimer.A. E.(1981) Unit operations in resource recovery engineering. Englewood
Cliffs,New Jersey, U.S.A.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Lely,an effort must be made Wilson, D. C. (1981) Waste management:planning evaluation, technologies.New York, U.S.A.:
Oxford University Press.
essments and demonstrates
Zeiss,C.&Atwater,J.(1987)Waste facilities in residential communities:impacts and acceptance.
n a practical evaluation of Journal of Urban Planning and Development 113(1, May), 19-34.
d be compared to those of
waste management option
482 S. Hirshjeld et al.
Appendix 1 • Usable landfill volume
Assumptions and calculations for case studs, (16,133,330 yd')x(0.80
• Final landfill tonnage
Basic data-and assumptions (12,906,660 yd')x(100(
• Total land area 750 acres(304 ha) • Total land cost
• Fill area 200 acres (81 ha) (750 ac)x($10,000/ac)
• Average depth 50 feet (15 m) • Length of landfill side
• Landfill assumed to have square area [(200 ac)x(43,560 ft'-/a
• Assumed volume of cover 20% of total volume • Landfill surface area
• Assumed in-place refuse density 1000 lb/yd' (590 kg/m') [(200 ac)x(43,560 ft2)]
• Land cost $10,000/acre ($24,700/ha) • Landfill lifetime
• Average annual rainfall in Durham, NC 40 inches (102 cm) (12,906,660 yd')x(100
• Leachate/precipitation ratio (once field 0.4 x(day/750 ton)x(year
capacity is reached) • Annual leachate gener
• The landfill has reached field capacity
• Twenty years after closure, leachate [(40 in/yr)x(ft,/12 in)),
generation is negligible x(0.4)x(7.48 gal/ft')
• Rate of filling 750 tons/day (682 t/day)
• Period for which landfill property will be 60 years
publicly owned after closure Leachate costs
• Real annual appreciation of land 4% Because the study landf
(excluding inflation) include the cost of one a;
• Annual property tax rate $1.50 per$100 of assessed value (a.v.) • Clay liner(1)
• Typical value of residences within 3 miles $70,000 (54.00/yd')x(9.302,40
of the landfill • Synthetic liner (1)
• Property value depreciations end when ($0.01/mil-ft2)x(70 mi
landfill is closed • Geotextile (] layer)
($0.15/yd2)x(yd=/9 ft'
• Drainage net (1 layer)
Unit costs ($0.25/ft2)x(9,302.40(
• Clay liner $4.00/yd' ($5.23/m') • Lift station
(assuming 2 ft depth) • On-site treatment faci
• Synthetic liner $0.01/mil-ft2 ($0.]I/mil-m2). Capital
• Geotextile $0.15/yd2 ($0.16/m2) O & M
• Drainage net $0.25/yd2 ($0.27/m2) (86,887.680 gal/yr)x ('
• Lift station $30,000 each • Leachate hauling and
• Leachate storage tank $30,000 each (86,887,680 gal/yr)x
• On-site leachate pretreatment facility, $150,000 each Total
capital -Total per ton
• On-site leachate pretreatment facility, $0.005/gal ($0.001/1) ($142,724,540)/(6,453
operations
• Leachate hauling and treatment $0.03/gal ($0.008/1)
Landfill gas costs
Because the landfill will
Basic calculations landfill gas generation.
• 'Landfill volume 16,133,330 yd' (12,334,890 m') Total
(200 ac)x(43,560 ft2)x(50 ft)x(yd'/27 ft')
Assessing the true cost of landfills 483
• Usable landfill volume 12,906,660 yd' (9,867,910 m')
se study (16,133,330 yd')x(0.80)
• Final landfill tonnage 6,453,330 ton (5,866,660 t)
(12,906,660 yd')x(1000 lb/yd')x(ton/2000 lb)
(304 ha) • Total land cost $7,500,000
(81 ha) (750 ac)x($10,000/ac)
5 m) • Length of landfill side 2,952 ft (890 m)
[(200 ac)x(43,560 11=/ac)]12
)tal volume • Landfill surface area 9,302,400 ft2 (864,220 m'-)
1' (590 kg/m') [(200 ac)x(43,560 ft2)]+4 x[(50 ft)x(2952 ft)]
cre (524,700/ha) • Landfill lifetime . 23 years
(102 cm) (12,906,660 yd')x(1000 lb/yd')x(ton/2000 Ib)
x(day/750 ton)x(year/365 day)
• Annual leachate generation 86,887,680 gal/yr
(329,304,3101/yr)
[(40 in/yr)x(ft/12 in)]x((200 ac)x(43,560 ft2/ac)]
x(0.4)x(7.48 gal/ft')
:lay (682 t/day)
Leachate costs
Because the study landfill will have one composite liner, leachate cost calculations
include the cost of one additional composite liner.
5100 of assessed value (a.v.) • Clay liner (1) $2,756,270
(54.00/yd')x(9,302.400 ft')x(2 ft)x(yd'/27 ft')
• Synthetic liner (1) $6,511,680
(50.01/mil-ft2)x(70 mil)x(9,302,400 ft2)
• Geotextile (1 layer) $155.040
(50.15/yd2)x(yd 2,`9 ft=)x(9,302,400 ft'-)
• Drainage net (1 layer) $2,325,600
(50.25/112)x(9,302,400 ft2).
($5.23/m3) • Lift station $30,000
• On-site treatment facility
ft2 ($0.11/mil-m'-) Capital $150,000
($0.16/m2) O & M $18,680,850
($0.27/m=) (86,887,680 gal/yr)x(50.005/gal)x(43 yr)
ich • Leachate hauling and treatment $112,085,100
tch (86,887,680 gal./yr)x($0.03/gal)x(43 yr)
:ach Total $142,694,540
Total per ton $21.95/ton ($24.15/t)
(50.001/1) (5142,724,540)/(6,453,330 ton)
;50.008/1) Landfill gas costs
Because the landfill will have gas control equipment, there is no physical cost related to
landfill gas generation.
)yd (12,334,890m Total $0
� w
484 S. Hirshfeld et al. Haste Management & Re
Property depreciation
Residences about the proposed landfill site are distributed as follows:
Distance from site boundary(miles) A LYSIMET
Relative location Within 0.25 0,25-0.5 0.5-3
West 99 55 1
South 17 12 15 *Department ojCivil,
East 54 127 83 33620-5350, U.S.A. and
North 5 6 46
Totals 175 200 145
(Receirf
Property depreciations are obtained by referring to Fig. 2(b). A $70,000 home that is
within 0.25 mile of a landfill boundary depreciates, on average, by $18,000. A home An investigation w:
between 0.25-0.5 miles from the landfill depreciates by$15,000. A home between 0.5-3 landfill. Degradatic
miles from the landfill depreciates by about$7,000. leachate and the ad
Total $7,165,000 quantities of moist.
[(175 homes)x($18,000/home)]+[(200 homes) involved applicatio;
x $15,000 home + 145 homes x $7,000 home sig,combined with
( 5,000/home)] [( ) ( / )] significantly faster r.
Total per ton $1.11/ton ($1.22/t) In conclusion, some
($7,165,000)/(6,453,330 ton)
Key Words—Land
aerot
Opportunity cost for landfill site
Site opportunity cost is dependent on rate of appreciation; for instance, if 0% real
appreciation were assumed, the opportunity cost would be $I.45/ton ($1.60/t). In this
case, as noted above, a real appreciation rate of 4% is assumed. In the United States,
Total $70,109,690 becoming ever more ex
($10,000/ac)x[En=0.82 (1.04)"]x($1.50/$100 a.v./yr) around formerly dense
x(750 ac) sparse the population, c
Total per ton $10.86/ton ($11.95/t) NIMBY, or not in m,
($70,109,690)/(6,453,330 ton) demands upon the desi
monitoring of the site, F
Opportunity cost for adjacent properties siting exercise becomes
Total $2,471,925 consuming;haul distanc
($7,165,000)x($1.50/$100 a:v./yr)x(23 yr) operation; and legal liai
Total per ton $0.38/ton ($0.42/t) In the U.S., these fac
($2,471,925)/(6,453,330 ton) energy facilities (WTEI
United Kingdom and F
location for a WTEF
concerns and the need
value, these facilities ar
world in disposable pt
efforts have not been as
continued presence of 1,
This work arose fro
environmentally friendly
degraded material, a hu
suitable soils were scare:
to recover other materia
0734-242X/92/060485 + 19