HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06251996 - D13 ti
4
D. 13
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Adopted this order on June 25, 1996 by the following vote :
AYES : Supervisors Rogers, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Smith
NOES : Supervisor Bishop
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Finance Committee Report on Use of Keller Canyon
Mitigation Revenues and Review of Keller Valuation
Study.
Supervisor Torlakson commented on a revised report on this
matter which was not properly noticed on the agenda which he
proposed be brought back to the Board for consideration.
The following persons presented comments on the Finance
Committee report on the Use of Keller Canyon Mitigation Revenues
and a review of the Keller Valuation Study:
Lance Dow, 2232 Concord Drive, Pittsburg, representing
Citizens United;
Frank Aiello, 1734 Bridgeview, Pittsburg;
Joe Canciamilla, 2020 Railroad Avenue, Pittsburg,
representing the City of Pittsburg;
Warren Rupf, Sheriff-Coroner, Contra Costa County; and
Tom Bruen, Bruen and Gordon, representing Browning Ferris
Industries .
Supervisor Torlakson expressed that he would like to proceed
with this item today.
Victor Westman, County Counsel, advised that the Board
should not take any final action today, but bring the matter back
for consideration in two weeks .
The Board discussed various issues including intent on the
allocation of the Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund, the Keller
Canyon Landfill Valuation Study, and implementation of a
compensation program.
Supervisor Torlakson moved that this report be placed on the
agenda for July 9, 1996, for Board consideration, and he
requested to also agenda at the same meeting, an air monitoring
report from the Community Development and Health Services
Departments, and a report and recommendation on legislation that
would protect new designated waste from coming to the Keller
Canyon Landfill or an agreement from Browning Ferris Industries
that they would not take such designated waste .
Supervisor Smith seconded the motion with the inclusion on
the July 9, 1996, agenda of setting a time certain to make a
final decision about how the valuation study will be resolved.
Supervisor. Bishop indicated she could not support the motion
at this time because there were so many loose ends .
Following further discussion of the issues, IT IS BY THE
BOARD ORDERED that the Community Development Director is DIRECTED
to relist on the July 9, 1996 agenda, the matters listed in the
revised Finance Committee report on the Use of Keller Canyon
Mitigation Revenues and Review of Keller Canyon Landfill
Valuation Study dated June 25, 1996, as well as Supervisor
Torlakson' s requested reports on air monitoring and designated
waste; and the Community Development Director is DIRECTED to list
PO
as well on the July 9, 1996, agenda the Keller Canyon Landfill
Valuation issue for Board consideration and determination.
CC : Community Development Department
Health Services Department
1 hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of S rvisms on the dataTr
ATTESTED:
PHIL BAITCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
end Cou ministrator
By o ,Deputy
REVISED D.13
• ��'� . E
" '• Contt ra
s
Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ;:,— , ti�4o County
oos
T`4'COiJty�
FROM: Finance Committee
DATE: June 25, 1996
SUBJECT: Use of Keller Canyon Mitigation Revenues and Review of Keller Valuation Study
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. COMMIT $1.25 of the $3.00 Keller Canyon Mitigation Fee to the City of Pittsburg to finance
mitigation programs in fiscal year 1997-98 and thereafter.
2. REQUIRE an additional $.25 to the $1.25 commitment for fiscal years 1997-98, 1998-99 and
1999-2000 for a total of$1.50 of the $3.00 in Keller Canyon Mitigation Fees. Offer this amount
to the City of Pittsburg to make up for the revenue they had planned on and budgeted for this
coming fiscal year, 1996-97.
3. REQUEST that the City, County and BFI continue to examine the valuation study and
formulate a fair method to compensate citizens in the target area. SET June 25, 1996 for a
full discussion to consider a status report on the valuation study and the options and precise
time table to resolve the valuation study and complete a compensation program. SET August
6, 1996, as the date for presentation and decision on the final details of the compensation
plan.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD 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
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Tony Enea,646-4094
ESTED
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
cc: City of Pittsburg AND NTY ADMINISTRATOR
GMEDA
County nsel
CA BY ,DEPUTY
FISCAL IMPACT
Without any additional sources of revenue included in this proposal, the future funding of mitigation
projects will be reduced by $426,000 to $520,000.
BACKGROUND/REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATION(S):
On June 4, 1996, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Finance Committee, the issue of Host
Community Mitigation to the City of Pittsburg and the issue of financing the results of a Property
Valuation study involving property owners in close proximity to the Keller Canyon Landfill site in
Pittsburg (see attached board order). On June 17, 1996, the Finance Committee discussed the issue
with representatives from the Administrative Office, Growth Management Agency, County Counsel
and the City of Pittsburg. Supervisor Torlakson noted the long history of attempting to resolve a fair
share of mitigation funds for the City of Pittsburg to directly administer. He suggested that the
County offer Pittsburg $1.25 per ton as a "base" fair share and that a surcharge of$.25 for 3 years be
added to compensate for revenues Pittsburg had anticipated this fiscal year. The City of Pittsburg
was not aware that the mitigation fund had been allocated and budgeted through fiscal year 96-97.
As it relates to the valuation study, possible options to finance property owner mitigation discussed
were:
1. Raising County fees at Keller above the current rate of 25% of the total per ton charges;
2. Earmarking incremental revenues from increases in refuse tonnage in future years;
3. Redirecting a portion of current revenues allocated for community, transportation and
open space mitigation; and
4. BFI itself to pay for the compensation program.
The Board of Supervisors should receive public comment and review these options on June 25 and
make a decision on which way to proceed. This issue has not been resolved since the landfill
opened four years ago. Therefore, the Board of Supervisors should set the first meeting of August
as the deadline for presentation of the final details of the compensation plan and push for actual
implementation this summer/fall..
2
P13 .
Attachment D
z z
0 0
N 00 00000000000 >
-� -� -i@
> > > 0 0
^ > > = O ==
— 3
0 0 O O O O O m 6) D O 'v n n Cl) 0 r O O Co 6)
0 0 0 0 0 Co M O o C O 0 = to a 0 0 ? tp
v=ic'n 3333 , x ° °. 3 QcccDO Ric cv °
3 3 3 3 M -DM c 3 0 — CD
'D
mt�o 2� 0 N � o as Vi n Un O
c� co �c rc •c o co 3 3 f9 3 °
Z. z
4 t� < < < < �a < [Zp < Co 3
tD O tD tD N N 0 O O N M O N �p
WW as � a
3 3 3 3 3 3
CD CD
0 CD CD CD CD
6) ODO * O -ixxw ;o ;oXM ;o '0 = 0 ;0 -0
° o -i - c c� 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0
O � a � :° c� °'• c C N• O m m d c w O N $a � N °
,,i _. c d O O W ffl ...� a a a a Q 0 a
pn�i 'U j W rD- a c a F- o 3CD �
O ,�'D � � � �- cD r ° 0 r r 3 o p O
0 O tD N f9 N <D G1 > d
rD. :i ? to 0 O In d -� ^C.0 CD
O �O
0
co v ego
T d 1
y� O
O
n
;o2
tM0 N � nw 04NAtl1Vi4' W , 0 "00
dlEAEA � W 3 O
� O y N �q W O O N t � N N O � W N 000 O 0 O cr 30
p 0 o o 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 W W O O O $ O
oao 000a a000 -Loo o Q
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M o CD o 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0
N O
O
N o M
7
C
X (D
M
�
to (A �Na W CO ° < a
n A .OD A N 3
C
(0 O O O to
O O 0 aJw
3
tcn A� O J
;oo
N � 3
tD O N _ O t9
O O O O tCD/1 EL N
T
c9 �.
r �f 0o wH vjf wN wjW � 3
tV N O N tJ 0 .O o fD
O y O O y 0 0 N C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O G O O a C O coo O O O
o $ om ooco goaco 0 0000 000000 oCL
O 4
O to
N t9
404
y± i T � > ; �
N -4 o o c CD
w cn � ( 3
S o o -4 0
0 0 ° 0
PL
c
y ;ov
W o twJ V
r0 CD 3
O O O O c W
CD 3
O O O O 0 0
O
N a N
S7'9 COU1'�'
Tonntg of (Mantra Tosta
(Office of t48 4Priff
Warren E.Rupf
Sheriff
June 25, 1996
It is my understanding that Board agenda item D.13 brings a recommendation from the Finance
Committee that would reduce by 50 percent the amount of money my office derives from Keller
Canyon mitigation fees.
I cannot overstate my opposition to such a reduction. We are currently allocated $210,000 of
these monies that fund one full-time Resident Deputy and two per diem employees that perform
litter control functions. The elimination of this funding would lead to the elimination of these
employees and the services they provide. Most importantly it would violate the trust between
this County, my Office and the good people of the Bay Point community.
I strongly urge the Board of Supervisors to vote against any reduction in public safety funding.
Hand Delivered to Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
cc: Mr. Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
Deputy Louis Kroll, President, Deputy Sheriffs' Association
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
Post Office Box 391 • Martinez, California 94553-0039
(510)646-2402
4.
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
_
FROM: Finance Committee ', "� �; Contra
,
p, „dlmrol S
DATE:
Costa
June 25, 1996 County
�Osrq.COU>y�
SUBJECT: Use of Keller Canyon Mitigation Revenues for Property Owner Mitigation Purposes
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. COMMIT$1.25 of the$3.00 Keller Canyon Mitigation Fee to assist in financing the property owner
mitigation program beginning in fiscal year 1997-98 and thereafter.
2. REQUIRE an additional $.25 to the$1.25 commitmentfor fiscal years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-
2000 for a total of$1.50 of the $3.00 in Keller Canyon Mitigation Fees.
3: REQUEST that the City and County continue to examine the valuation study and formulate a fair
method to compensate citizens in the target area.
FISCAL IMPACT
Without any additional sources,of revenue included in this proposal, the future funding of mitigation
projects will be reduced by$426,000 to $520,000.
BACKGROUND/REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
On June 4, 1996, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Finance Committee, the issue of Host
Community Mitigation to the City of Pittsburg and the issue of financing the results of a Property Valuation
study involving property owners in close proximity to the Keller Canyon Landfill site in Pittsburg (see
attached board order). On June 17, 1996, the Finance Committee discussed the issue with
representatives from the Administrative Office, Growth Management Agency, County Counsel and the City
of Pittsburg.
The Committee proposed the new revenue allocation formulas be established for fiscal year 1997-98 as
presented in the recommendations.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE: '2n.a-+`�.
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD 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
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Tony Enea,646-4094
ATTESTED
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
cc: City of Pittsburg AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
GMEDA
County Counsel
CAO BY DEPUTY
MAY-30-1996 14:10 5104278142 P.01
Contra
To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS QO Costa
FROM. Supervisor Tom Torlakson County
DATA~ June 4, 1996
SUBJECT: CITY OF PITTSBURG AND THE KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDAT)ON(S)AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION;
1. Support and encourage legislation which would forbid landfills approved by the electorate from accepting
additional types of materials formerly classified as hazardous materials that are now potentially acraptable In Class Il
landfills under the broadened definition recently adopted by the Department of Toxic Substance Control.
2. Direct the County Local Enforcement Agency to work with the City of Pittsburg In an effort to establish an air
quality monitoring program at the Keller Canyon Landfill.
3. Reaffirm the county's policy and condition of approval that Contra Costa County is committed to resolve the
property valuation Issues with neighbors to the Keller Canyon Landfill and consider a precise timetable for public hearing
and resolutions of propertyowner mitigation issues.
4. Consider host mitigation fees. the City of Pittsburg, and a good neighbor agreement between BFI and the City
of Pittsburg.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The City of Pittsburg will be addressing on June 3, 1996, issues at their council meeting relative to matters
concerning the Keller Canyon Landfill. The City of Pittsburg would like the Board of Supervisors to reaffirm and give
assurances on matters that relate to the landfill that it has addressed in the past. Some of the matters were addressed in
the Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit and the Keller Canyon Property Valuation Study. Others have been discussed
by the Board and are in reports from county staff(Opposition to Keller Canyon Landfill taking new categories of waste and
air monitoring).
We have attempted to resolve differences between the Board and the City of Pittsburg over the Keller Canyon
Landfill. Endorsing the above four recommendations will go a long way toward settling these differences and improving
the relationship between the Board of Supervisors and the City of Pittsburg.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:__YES SIGNATURE: ! /
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIG iATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED: OTHER:
VOTE OF'SUPERVISORS:
UNANIMOUS(ASSENT )
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN-
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY
OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATF SHOWN.
ATTESTED
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY
DEPUTY
Attachment D
zz
N000000000 " >-{
WMQ) OOOOOD D 0M CD
CD
N N N N 0 0 N N ami ami obi ami > > > p
> >
ooQM7Dn -000tC00CoO nnO O O O O M M 0O
O C O o =r M a O O = CD
v=i tpn 3 3 3 3 x > >. 3 Cr c c ro M @ 3 c CD p
33 3333 � � � a n .�^ K3 � � � � d
C c c c _ " r2 D D — �_ D v
c �
CD (D Cl) � �, o as Cl) _
o •c �c �c �c cD cD 3 3 co
Y'CD v �Dvvv �
W W W f`D o y o Co (A CD o
ww 3 � � 3 3 33 33
CCD .Op. .00. Op. .00..
xxxmm
--i - c cD cD 3 0 0 -, o 0 0 = o -� O CD o
O � a � _ c� c � - pcv m o, p m Oy $1 N
Z � _. c m o 0 — � CD y � aaa � a -� Q o ac�
ywa X ocDCD3cD r3o 0
p �c D K2 M 3 o r 2 � - 0 3 CCD
O y CD Co
� @ O
cD c n c
aCDi 'v 4�
T �
t`q
n
of
Co
NO pp QOOOpN 0O N N O O N WN 0VO wO .9b. 0
l � � WOOp
�npNO O LO0 0 o y 0000 W W O 0 O
0oao 000a 0x0000 -► 0000 @ C=L OOOM 0cD000
O o o o O O
N O M
N CD tD
7
C
:Z7 O
D o
t�0 w N w tOD o �' a
aODD +rev c
0 0 0 o c� oCD M
cn
W o 0 0 0 = a
cin CD v
C m 3
400 4* < 3
O
r C
O O O NCA
_T
l�9 O
j wNnn4A -40 � n NA � � � to� W � w � 4A M
o 3
D O C!+ CT = O O j A N O p N N O O p O -r
O y O O y O N O O O O O ' O O p
CD o o a 0 0 CA. a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =a 3
c $ om oom 0 C 0 0000 000000 Co w 3
4
NCD
cD
�w+± .'t7
N -4
OC O O O v
CD
Cl
v
N f9
W W y CD
� 3CD
N a w
Request to Speak Form
( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' roetrum
before addressing the Board.
Name:
I am !l eaking for myself�or organon:
6utne of orpnEs�dtioN
CHECK ONE:
1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #,L-L Oat
My commarts will be: general for nst.�..
�. 1 wish to speak on the subject of
_ 1 do not wish to speak but leave these am w tslor the Board
to consider:
Speakto Re uest Form -3q
( THREE t3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place It In the box near the speakers' rostrum
before addressing the Board.
Name: -r*.��Z Czx; k'SC` �{-C)
AddressC&L:�CC=_ off' 'N City. \A
I am spea{cing for myself_, or organizatiom C-'C— _ tF- -Q
Ora w of or1
CHECK ONE:
1 wish to speak on Agenda Item #� Oat
My comments wilt be: genera! ,�tor,�gai
1 wish to �pealc on the nibj o of
w
I do not wish to speak but leave these Comments for the Board
to COO: - - -