Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06091998 - D2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: DENNIS BARRY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: June 9,1998 SUBJECT: CONSIDER PROPOSAL FOR VOTING MEMBERSHIP ON THE WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECON ATION$ 1. Accept the staff report review of background; and 2. Determine that the risk of an additional fine is an acceptable risk in exchange for membership in the Authority; and 3. Accept the attached Principles for County Voting Membership in the Authority which reflect the following modifications to the Principles approved by the WCCIWMA. . a) agree to a"buy-in" cost of$98,2213, thereby matching the investment of the. other member jurisdictions; and b) "buy-in" cost to include the new cost to be incurred in providing for the additional voting seat for the County (document review'and modification, etc.); and c) payment period of 4.5 years to allow the same time period for the County as provided to the other member jurisdictions; and d) payment of the"buy-in" cost to be accomplished through a'surcharge on the IRRF rates for the 4.5 year period; and 4. Direct staff to present the proposal to the Authority for their consideration or a. Accept the staff report review of background; and a. Determine that the risk of an additional fine is not an acceptable risk in exchange for membership in the Authority; and a. Direct staff to notify the WCCIWMA that the County withdraws' its request for a voting membership at this time. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE J " ACTION OF BOARD ON JUNE 9, 1998 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_OTHE SEL AMENDUM FOR BDAW ACTION VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND XUNANIMOUS (ABSENT} AYES: CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND NOES:-ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORSTHE DATE SHOWN. Contact: MaryFleming (335-1230) QN Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED . 4 cc: PHIL BATCH LOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY .4-nL �­_ r -- , DEPUTY EaCAL IMPACT The cost of obtaining membership would be $98,220 to be paid by the residents of the unincorporated County area served by RSS, through Solid Waste Fees over a period of 4.5 years. The cost per 32 gallon can would increase approximately $ 13 per month with equivalent increases in bins and boxes over a 4.5 year period. BNS EOR REDO MFNQATIONNSS The County provides for solid waste services in the West County areas served by RSS through two separate mechanisms. The County has entered into a Franchise Agreement with RSS to provide for collection of solid waste in the residential and commercialareas of the unincorporated county. The County has also entered into an Agreement with the West Contra Costa integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA) to provide for disposal of the solid waste. The Authority has been responsible for providing for financing and guiding the development of a transfer station (iRRF) which will provide a method of consolidating and transporting solid waste from the West County area to an out- of - county landfill after the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill reaches capacity. The Authority Board of Directors sets rates for the IRRF and IRRF-Related Collection Rates which represents the cast of processing of recyclable materials and solid waste disposal. The rates set by the WCCIWMA Board are passed through to ratepayers. The County sets rates for RSS collection services. The rate set by the County and the IRRF-Related Collection Rate set by the Authority are combined to determine the total residential and commercial solid waste rates. California Assembly Bill 939 requires that the County reduce the amount of waste disposed by 50% by the year 2000. If the County does not accomplish this goal and/or does not implement the programs described in the Source Reduction and Recycling Element, it is subject to fines of up to $10,000 per day. Staff from the California Integrated Waste Management Board have brought to county staff's attention the fact that membership in the WCCIWMA would increase our exposure to these fines. The County would potentially be exposed to the possibility of an additional cause for AB939 fines. The County is currently exposed to the possibility of AB939 fines for the entire unincorporated County area. If the County becomes a voting member of WCCIWMA, the County would also be exposed to AB939 fines for the portion of the unincorporated area that would be within the WCCIWMA boundaries. The Board should consider this risk and additional liability that would arise from County voting membership in WCCIWMA prior to forwarding a counter proposal to the Authority Board. In addition, in order to accommodate the process of measuring unincorporated solid waste separately for the Authority area the County will be required to develop a new base line amount for the specific area served by the Authority. The State does not have a set method for this process and will need to approve any County methodology developed for the west county area. An additional factor to consider is that the landfills that receive any waste from the west county unincorporated area will be required to report the Authority waste as a separate amount. This extra reporting requirement will further complicate the disposal reporting process which is already beset with inaccuracies. This process will be simplified somewhat by the fact that most of the waste from the subject area is delivered by the hauler(RSS) to a landfill owned by the same company. The self haul material going to WCCSL and to Marin County will be the most problematic. These are not insurmountable problems, but it should be noted that they will require time and attention from staff in order to solve. On the other hand, voting membership in WCCIWMA will mean that achievement of the 50% mandate would be measured for the entire area within the boundaries of the WCCIWMA and not for each city and the unincorporated area and WCCIWMA would handle the State reporting requirements. Additionally, the AB939 services needed for the unincorporated area that would be within WCCIWMA closely parallel the AB939 services needed for balance of the WCCIWMA area. WCCIWMA has developed and the State has approved a Regional AB939 Plan. County staff has reviewed this plan and believes that it can readily be adapted to the unincorporated area. The Authority appears to be committed to making good faith efforts to implementing the programs it has committed to in the Regional AB939 Plan. The remainder of the unincorporated area, has minimal funding at this time and has not been able to implement many of it's programs and may have a higher risk of being assessed AB939 fines by the State if this condition continues. On July 8, 1997 the Beard of Supervisors determined that they were interested in pursuing a voting membership for a Board of Supervisor member on the Board of Directors of the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCtWMA). At their meeting in October the Authority Board directed their staff to develop and submit recommendations regarding the principles for full County membership in the Authority. The Beard of Directors of the WCCEWMA met on November 13, 1997 and considered principles submitted by staff. The resolution that was approved by the Baird of Directors is attached. On December 16, the Board of Supervisors reviewed the Authority proposal and expressed concern regarding the cost of membership and how it would be paid. The Board of Supervisors directed staff to further review possible funding sources and the possibility of negotiating a reduction on the proposed Trost of membership and to further review the documents that would require modification . Staff has completed it's review and recommends a counter proposal that would reduce the total additional cost to the County to $98,220 which would bringthe County contribution to the same level as the other member jurisdictions. With this proposal the approximately $50,000 cost for document review and modification would be included in the total $98,2201. The roost of obtaining membership would be paid over a period of 4.5 years which is also the time frame that the ether jurisdictions had in which to pay their share. The cost would be paid by the rate payers by adding approximately $.13 per 32 gal can per month, by increasing bin service by$.09 per cubic yard and by increasing box service by $1.56 per ton for a four and one half year period. .............................. Counter Proposal Principles for County Voting Membership in WCCIWMA 1. The County reaffirms its proposal to make no other changes to the currently existing arrangements and circumstances other than to provide the County with a voting seat on the WCCIWMA Board of Directors. The County understands that this proposal will require that the existing WCCIWMA - Authority Contract be incorporated into the WCCIWMA joint powers agreement without substantive change or re-negotiation of previously settled matters. 2. The area represented by the County consists of the area covered by the exclusive collection franchise agreement between the County and RSS (the "County Area). This is the area covered by the existing WCCIWMA- County Contract and waste and recyclable materials collected from this area is required to be delivered to the IRRF. The County would occupy one (1) seat as a voting member of WCCIWMA. The existing ex-officlo non- voting seat would be converted to a voting seat. 3. The County believes that the appropriate "buy in amount" is $98,220 less the new costs actually incurred to provide the County a voting seat at this time and the "buy in amount" should be paid over a 4.5 year time period. If the County had accepted the November 1991 offer to assume the one (1) voting seat vacated by the West County Wastewater District, the County would have contributed an additional $98,220 to the funding of WCCIWMA during the period beginning April 2, 1991 and ending January 1, 1996, a period of approximately 4.5 years. If such had been the case, the County would not now incur the new cost associated with the County's acquiring a voting seat at this time. Inasmuch as the Member Agencies of WCCIWMA paid their obligations over a 4.5 year period and not in a lump sum, and Member Agency payments followed execution of the Joint Powers Agreement, the County would pay the buy-in amount over a 4.5 year period following conceptual approval of the sufficient numbers of member agencies necessary to the amendment of the Joint Powers Agreement. 4. The County approves the proposal contained in Principle No. 7 set forth in Exhibit A to WCCIWMA Authority Board of Directors Resolution No. 97-17 for a "County Area IRRF Surcharge"to be established based upon collection of $98,220 over a 4.5 year period with allowance for an interest payment for any amount of "new costs" that are not paid by the surcharge in the first year of collection. The County acknowledges that it is reasonable that the costs associated with the County obtaining a voting seat should not be paid by the ratepayers within the currently existing Member Agencies of WCCIWMA. The County also recognizes that WCCIWMA is not able to reliably predict these costs because of the involvement of Uniop Bank, the issuer of the letter of credit for the IRRF financing and the California Integrated Waste Management Board. 5. The County recognizes that the IRRF Service Agreement and IRRF Financing are constraints which may only be changed with the mutual consent of all signatory parties and Union Bank. The County recognizes that these arrangements were subject to full public disclosure prior to their adoption, as is the case with IRRF rate setting by WCCIWMA and, therefore, believes that the scarce resources of WCCIWMA and the County can best be expended by working together on WCCIWMA Board of Directors rather than by seeking changes in past decisions. 4 ............................................... _ _ _ _ .................. ......... .. .................. ......... .._...... ...._... . .. 11 .. ...... ......... ..............__.._... . ........ ......... ......... ........................................................................................ The County has, however, received requests from ratepayers within the unincorporated areas that the County audit the IRRF. Rather than undertaking a duplication of the work of WCCIWMA, the recognized public entity responsible for oversight of the IRRF, the County will refer these ratepayers to WCCIWMA and request that WCCIWMA give due consideration to the comments provided. 6. The County believes that the currently existing Regional AB939 Plan is largely adequate for the unincorporated area to be included within WCCIWMA boundaries and proposes that, since the revised Joint Powers;Agreement and Regional Plan must be submitted to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for approval, any needed Plan modifications be developed by County staff and WCCIWMA staff and submitted at the time that the revised Joint Powers Agreement is submitted to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for approval. 7. The County understands the need to have identical languagein the collection franchise agreements of 1H WCCIWMA Member Agencies and agrees to Principle No. 6 in Exhibit A to WCCIWMA Board of Directors Resolution No. 97-17. Presumably RSS, as the other signatory party to the County collection franchise agreement, is agreeable since it has agreed to the same language in the collection franchise agreements for Hercules, Pinole, Richmond and San Pablo. 1f RSS is not agreeable, the County does not have the unilateral right to modify the existing collection franchise agreement. 8. The County concurs in the desire of WCCIWMA to avoid protracted delay and accordingly agrees with Principle No. 8 in Exhibit A to WCCIWMA Board of Directors Resolution No. 97-17. 5 ................................................... ............................... ADDENDUM nEM D.2 JUNE 9, 1998 On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered a proposal for voting membership on the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA) Board of Directors. Public testimony was received from the following persons: Reva Clark, representing the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Committee, 4556 Appian Way, El Sobrante; Milt Ketter, representing the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Committee, 4 Oak Creek Road, El Sobrante; Rick Gulledge, representing the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Committee, 650 El Centro Road; John Wolfe, representing the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, 820 Main Street, Martinez. After receiving testimony, the Board took the following actions: REQUESTED the Director of Community Development to draft a letter to WCCIWMA for the Chair's signature, conveying the proposals in the staff report dated June 9, 1998, submitted by the Director of Community Development relative to a proposal for a voting membership on the WCCIWMA Board of Directors, and requesting that a response to the Board of Supervisors also include any expression of interest in participation on a sub-committee consisting of two Board of Supervisors members who represent West County and two members of the WCCIWMA Board of Directors and if such interest is indicated, DIRECTED that staff prepare for Board consideration a process to establish such a subcommittee. I RESOLUTION NO. 97-17 2 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 3 WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 4 APPROVING PRINCIPLES FOR COUNTY VOTING MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY 5 AND AUTHORMIA G THE COLLECTION OF A COUNTY AREA IRRF SURCHARGE 6 AND SPECIFYING CERTAIN CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO SAID SURCHARGE 7 WHEREAS,the Joint Powers Agreement establishing the West Contra Costa Integrated 8 Waste Management Authority ("Authority") in April 1991 provides that the Contra Costa County 9 Board of Supervisors may appoint a member of the Board of Supervisors to be an ex officio non- 10 voting member of the Authority Board of Directors; 11 WHEREAS, at the election of Contra Costa County("County"),the West Contra Costa 12 Integrated Waste Authority("Authority") and County have entered into the "Contract Between 13 West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority and Contra Costa County"dated 14 May 25, 1993 as amended on December 1, 1995 ("Authority-County Contract"); 15 WHEREAS, County by letter dated August 27, 1997,("County Proposal")has requested 16 that the Authority Board of Directors consider the matter of the County becoming a voting 17 member of the Authority Board of Directors; 18 WHEREAS, amendment of the Joint Powers Agreement by the Authority Member 19 Agencies is necessary in order for the County to become a voting member of the Authority Board 20 of Directors; 21 WHEREAS,the Authority Board of Directors has considered the Authority Staff Deport, 22 "Full County Membership in the Authority"dated November 3, 1997 and attached hereto as 23 Exhibit C; �6 WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLU"T"ION Na.97-17 1 WHEREAS, the Authority Board of Directors desires to establish principles under which 2 County would become a voting member of the Authority Board of Directors and to determine the 3 acceptability of said principles to the County prior to submitting the matter to the Authority 4 Member Agencies for approval in concept; and 5 WHEREAS, the next Regular Meeting of the Authority Board of Directors is on February 6 12, 1398, and the Authority Board of Directors desires to provide for timely response to actions 7 by the County Board of Supervisors. 8 NOW,THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the West Contra Costa integrated Waste 9 Management Authority resolve as follows: 10 Section 1. The"Principles for Full County Membership in the Authority" set forth in 1 I Exhibit A attached hereto are approved. 12 Section 2. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is hereby requested to 13 consider the Principles set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and to advise the Authority of the 14 acceptability of said Principles as the basis for further consideration of the County Proposal by 15 the Authority and its Member Agencies. 16 Section 3. The Executive Director shall transmit a copy of this Resolution to the 17 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and communicate the request of the Authority Board 18 of Directors set forth in Section 2 of this Resolution. 19 Section 4. The IRRF Operator and Richmond Sanitary Service,Inc. are authorised to 20 collect a County Area IRRF Surcharge in the amounts specified in Exhibit B hereto subject to all 2 WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION NO.97-17 1 of the following conditions: 2 (a) The UW Operator shall convey all amounts collected as a result 3 of the County Area IRRF Surcharge to the Authority according to the time schedule for 4 transmittal of other amounts collected in IR12F Rates for conveyance to the Authority. 5 (b) The IRRF Operator and Richmond Sanitary Service,Inc. shall 6 begin collection of the County Area IRRF Surcharge upon receipt of written notification from the 7 Authority and shall terminate collection of said Surcharge only upon receipt of written 8 notification from the Authority. 9 (c) It is the intent of the Authority Board by this Resolution to 10 authorize the Executive Director to provide written notification to the IR'R.F Operator and 11 Richmond Sanitary Service,Inc, to begin collection of the County Area ER-RF Surcharge after the 12 Authority's receipt of(1)notification of the approval of the County Board of Supervisors of said 13 Surcharge and(2) notification of approval in concept by the required number of Member 14 Agencies necessary to amend the Joint Powers Agreement so that the County can become a 15 voting member of the Authority Board of Directors and that,insofar as possible,the start of 16 collection of the County Area DW Surcharge be co-ordinated with the start of other rate 17 adjustments for the County Area,provided that the Authority Board retains the right to start 18 collection of said Surcharge at any time after receipt of the notifications required by this 19 paragraph (c). 20 (d) It is the intent of the Authority Board by this Resolution to 3 • ............................................................ ............................................. .............................-... ................................. WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION NO.97-17 1 authorize the Executive Director to provide written notification to the WM Operator and 2 Richmond Sanitary Service,Inc.to cease collection of the County Area DW Surcharge either 3 (1)upon the Authority Board's determination that all required approvals of affected documents 4 have been obtained and all costs incurred by the Authority and its Member Agencies,costs 5 associated with securing Union Bank consent, and costs incurred with securing the approval of 6 the California Integrated Waste Management Board have been paid and there are no remaining 7 unpaid costs arising from implementation of the County Area Proposal or(2) upon the Authority 8 Board's determination, made following receipt of written notification from County that it desires 9 to abandon efforts to implement the County Proposal,that all costs incurred by the Authority and 10 its Member Agencies,costs associated with securing Union Bank consent, and costs incurred 11 with securing the approval of the California Integrated Waste Management Board have been paid 12 and there are no remaining unpaid costs arising from implementation of the County Proposal. 13 (e) Any amount collected by the Authority, HZRF Operator or 14 Richmond Sanitary Service,Inc. which is in excess of costs shall be returned to County Area 15 ratepayers by means of a reduction in IRRF Rates and MRF Related Collection Rates beginning 16 the next January 1st,(i.e. the next ensuing DW Rate adjustment)following termination of 17 collection of the County Area IRRF Surcharge. is (f) The Executive Director shall periodically report to the Authority 19 Board the amounts collected via the County Area IRRF Surcharge and costs paid from funds 20 collected via said Surcharge. X 4 .............. ....... ............. WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION NO.97-17 1 Section 5. Upon receipt of a response to this Resolution from the County Board of 2 Supervisors, the Executive Director shall arrange for a meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on 3 County Membership for the purposes of(a)the Committee's review of the response of the 4 County Board of Supervisors, and(b)the Committee's decision to either(1)call a Special 5 Meeting of the Board of Directors to further consider said response,or(2) schedule consideration 6 of the matter at the next Regular Meeting of the Authority Board of Directors, or(3)to determine 7 that said response is satisfactory and the matter is ready for submittal to the Member Agencies 8 for approval in concept. 9 Section 6. This Resolution shall be immediately effective upon adoption by the 10 Board of Directors. 11 Section 7. The Secretary shall certify passage of this Resolution and cause it to be 12 distributed to all Directors and Alternates,Authority Members,Contra Costa County,Authority 13 Officers, West County Resource Recovery,Inc.,Richmond Sanitary Service,Inc.,El Sobrante 14 Municipal Advisory Council and other interested parties. 15 AT'T'EST: CHAIN OF THE BOARD 16 Bill Davis,Executive Director Maria Ale is DaD 5 ........................-............... WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION NO.97-17 1 hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Board of Directors of the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority at its meeting on November 13, 1997,by the following vote: AYES: Directors: Ale ria, Evans, Gomes, Jellison NOES: Directors:-- none ABSENT: Directors: Corbin, Griffin, Paras Bill Davis,Executive Director A:109res9717 Attachments: 1. Exhibit A, Principles for Full County Membership in the Authority 2. Exhibit B, County Area UZRF Surcharge Rates 3. Exhibit C, Authority Staff Report,"Full County Membership in the Authority" ................. EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION 97-17 PRINCIPLES FOR FULL COUNTY M WERSHIP IN TIM AUTHORITY 1. The area represented by the County consists of the area covered by the exclusive collection franchise agreement between Contra Costa County and Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. dated October 12, 1993. This is the area covered by the Authority - County Contract (County Area) and waste from this area is required to be delivered to the IRRF. 2. The County would occupy one (1) seat as a voting member of the Authority Board of Directors. This is the County Proposal. 3. A financial contribution by Contra Costa County in the amount of x$98,220 is needed to ensure equitabl* sharing of the costs of the Authority incurred prior to start of IRRF operation and paid by Member Agency contributions. Prior to the start of operation of the IRRF on 'January 1, 1996, revenue to fund the activities of the Authority were obtained from (a) Member Agency Contributions, (b) a one- time contribution by Contra Costa County at the time of execution of the Authority-County Contract in May 1993 , and (c) Transition Surcharge Revenues. Table I on page 8 of the Staff Report provided as Exhibit C to Resolution No. 97-17 lists the amounts contributed for each of the three revenue sources. The information in Table 1 is taken from Authority financial records provided by the Authority Treasurer. Section 9 of the Joint Powers Agreement provides that revenue contributions to the Authority prior to start of IRRF operation are to be an equal amount per voting Director seat to a maximum of $64, 000 per voting Director seat per year. Applying this principle to the total revenue contributions made over the 4-3/4 years since the formation of the Authority ($1, 625, 549)results in $203 ,194 per voting Director seat if there are 8 voting Director seats. Subtraction of theltotal revenue contribution from the County Area {$104,974} from $203, 194 leaves $98,220 as the EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUT ON NO.97-17 PRINCIPLES FOR FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY financial contribution that would have been made by the County had the County been a voting Member of the: Authority from the beginning in April 1951. The Authority Board of Directors would determine the appropriate use of the funds received after receipt of funds from the County. 4. The County should affirmatively express recognition that IRRF Service Agreement and =RRF Financing are constraints and may only be changed with the mutual consent of signatory parties and anion Sank in all cases. tf the County believes that changes are needed, the County should identify such changes for the Authority prior to submittal of the matter to the Authority Member Agencies. While County staff were provided the information as part of Board of Directors Meeting Agenda packets, completion and approval of the IRRF Service Agreement and IR.RF Financing occurred without the County representative having an opportunity, as a voting member of the Authority Board of Directors, to cast votes on these matters in 1993 and 1994 . If the County identifies changes, the Authority Board of Directors will need to determine if the Authority should pursue said changes through negotiation with appropriate parties and Union Bank. S. The County should affirmatively accept the Regional AS 539 Plan as being satisfactory for the County Area or advise the Authority of changes which the County believes are needed in order for the Regional Plan to be satisfactory for the County Area prior to submittal of the matter to the Authority Member Agencies. The Regional Integrated Waste Management Plan and Regional Education & Public Information Program (Regional Plan) were approved by the California Integrated Waste Management Board in December 1995 . The Regional Plan is also incorporated into the Joint Powers Agreement by reference. Although County staff had the opportunity to review the Regional Plan during the preparation and approval process, A-2 E)aMIT A TO RESOLUTION NO.97-17 PRINCIPLES FOR FULL.COUNTY ME.MI3ERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY the County representative did not have the opportunity, as a voting member of the Authority Board of Directors, to cast votes regarding the approval of the Regional Plan. Additionally, the Authority has received no communication from the County as to the acceptability of the Regional Plan for implementation in the County Area. Since the County Area would become a part of the State-approved' Regional AB 939 ,area, the County should determine and advise the Authority if the Regional. Plan is satisfactorywith respect to the County Area or advise the Authority of changes which the County believes need to be made in order for the Regional Plan to be satisfactory. if the County identifies changes, the Authority Board of Directors will need to determine if such changes should be made and how the costs of such changes will be paid. Any such changes will also need to he prepared and submitted to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for approval.. 6. Provisions in the Collection rranchise Agreement between Contra Costa County and RSS need to be made identical with the collection franchise agreement amendments executed by the Authority Member Cities in connection with the tRRr financing in order to eliminate a source of potential future conflict. The County and Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. (RSS) completed work on a final collection franchise agreement in October 1993 during the final stages of completion of the IRRF financing. This franchise agreement was prepared against the requirements ret forth in the May 1993 Authority - County Agreement. Member City collection franchise agreements were amended in December 1993 and January 1994. As a result, the provisions of the County - RSS' collection franchise agreement and the Member Agency collection franchise agreements are not identical with respect to the amendments completed by the Member Agencies in December 1993 and January 1994. In order to eliminate a potential source of difference that could give rise to future conflict, all Member Agency collection franchige agreements should incorporate the same A•3 EXHIBIT A. TO RESOLUTION NO.97-17 PRINCIPLES FOR FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY amendment as enacted by the Member Cities in December 1993 and January 1994 in connection with the IRRF financing. 7. The County agrees that the Authority may levy the surcharge on SRRF Rates for the County Area as specified in Authority Board of Directors Resolution leo. 97-17 to pay the costs associated with implementation of the County Proposal and that said Surcharge may begin to be collected upon the approval of the County and shall be terminated in accordance with Authority Board of Directors Resolution No. 97-17. Because of the number of parties involved (5 cities, Contra Costa County, Union Bank and California Integrated Waste Management Board) and .the fact that it is not possible to predict the responses of Union Bank or California Integrated Waste Management Board, it is not possible to forecast with accuracy the costs of implementation of the County Proposal. The County has recognized that it will be expected to pay all costs associated with implementation of the County Proposal. Approval of the Surcharge by the County would avoid further financial demands on the County and result in costs being paid by the ratepayers directly affected. The Surcharge Amounts set forth in Exhibit B to Resolution No. 97-17 are based upon an assumed dollar amount (i.e. $50, 000) to be collected over a 1-year period as described in the Staff Report provided as Exhibit C to Resolution No. 97-17 . However, the Surcharge would continue to be collected until all necessary approvals have been obtained and all costs paid. The Authority would (1) establish the Surcharge rate and receive the funds collected via said Surcharge, (2) pay costs incurred by the Authority and Member Cities, costs associated with securing Union Bank consent, and costs associated with obtaining CIWMB approval, and, (3) provide a full accounting of the amounts received and the amounts paid. Any excess amounts would be rebated to County Area ratepayers through a reduction in IRRF Rates. The County would be afforded the opportunity to abandon the implementation effort in which case all work would be halted and the surcharge terminated after all costs have been paid and no unpaid costs remain. A-4 EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO.97-17 PRINCIPLES FOR FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY 6. Member Agencies of the Authority would be afforded a maximum of 1-ysar after the Authority Board refers the matter to the Member Agencies to complete action with respect the arrangements under which the County would become a full Member of the Authority. Daring this 1-year period, Authority Member Agencies would need to consider (&)conceptual approval of the arrangements prior to preparation of necessary document(s) and (b) approval of and authorization to execute documont(s) necessary to implementation of arrangements. At the conclusion of the 1- year period, all document(,$) would be fully executed by all Member Agencies and the County. This principle provides certainty with respect to the time frame for action and is intended to avoid protracted delay in resolving the matter. However, if sufficient conceptual approvals are obtained, but delays arise during document preparation due to actions by Union Sank or they California Integrated Waste Management Board or ether matters beyond the control of the Member Agencies, such delays should not preclude continued favorable implementation action by all parties. A:IIOres 9717 A- 5 ZXIiIHIT B TO RESOLUTION NO. 97 - 17 COUNTY AREA IRRr SURC# MOZ RATES The following amounts are approved for collection and expenditure in accordance with the provisions of Authority Board of Directors Resolution No. 97-17 : County area IRRr Surcharge Rate $4.42 1 Per Ton of Solid Waste from County Area County IRRF Related Collection Rates Associated 'With County Area IRRr Surcharge Can Service $0.30 Per Month per 32-Gallon Can Equivalent Bin Service $0.21 Per Cubic Yard Sox Service $4 .42 Per Ton A:109res9717 $ - 1 4, EXHIBIT C TO RESOLUTION NO. 97-17 WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY STAFF REPORT FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY November S, 199'7 T. CONTENTS Page Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 Current Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 Prior Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 County Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2 County Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2 Proposal * . . . . . . . . . . . C-2 Implementation of Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3 Authority - County Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3 overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3 Landfill Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4 Contract Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4 Additional Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4 Covenant by County and Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5 Host Mitigation Fee Maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5 Amendment of Joint Powers Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5 Union Bank Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-6 California Integrated Waste Management Board Approval . . . . C-6 Collection Franchise Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7 County Financial Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7 Revenue Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7 County Financial Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-9 County Area IRRF Surcharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-9 Costs to Implement County Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . C-9 County Area IRRF Surcharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-10 List of Tables Paae Table 1, Revenue Contributions to Authority Prior To Start of IRRF operations on January 1, 1995 . . . . C-$ Table 2, Calculation of County Area Surcharge Amount . . . C-12 Attachment Letter dated August 27, 1997, from Mr. Val Alexeeff, Director, Contra Cost GMEDA to Mr. Bill Davis, WCCIWMA. r k WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY STAFF REPORT Ft3Lx, COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY November 13, 1997 County staff, at the direction of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and by letter dated August 27, 1997, (Attachment No. 1) , requested that the matter of the County becoming a voting member of the Board of Directors of the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (Authority) be placed before the Board of Directors at its meeting on October 9, 2997. The Authority Board of Directors, at its meeting on October 91 1997, considered the matter and directed Authority Staff to develop and submit to the ,Authority Board recommendations regarding terms and conditions for County Voting membership on the Authority Board. BACKGROUND Current Arran2ements. Since the formation of the Authority in 1991, the County has been represented on the Authority Board of Directors by a member of the County Board of Supervisors who serves as an ex officio non-voting member of the Authority Board. This provision for County representation was included in the Joint Powers ,Agreement at the time the Authority was formed and continues to be in the Joint Powers Agreement. Whip a non -voting member, the County representative is afforded full opportunity to otherwise participate in Authority Board meetings. The Authority Board of Directors, at its meeting on October 9, 1997, directed that the vote of the County representative be recorded but not included ,in the tally of votes by the Board. Prior Actyitilks. At the time of formation of the Authority in April 1991, the west County Wastewater District was the solid waste franchising agency for the County Area and a voting member of the Authority. Subsequently, the District elected not to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Contra Costa County to continue the District' s role as the franchising agency for the County Area and as a result the District withdrew from membership in the Authority effective October 31, 1991. Proposed arrangements for County membership in the Authority were submitted to Contra Costa County in early November 1991. These arrangements provided that Contra Costa County would become a voting member of the Authority by assuming the seat vacated by the District and assume all obligations of Authority membership on the same basis as other parties to the Joint Powers Agreement. STAFF REPORT FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN TIRE AUTHORITY In December 1992, the County Board of Supervisors considered the alternatives of (a) full voting membership in the Authority and (b) a separate contractual arrangement with the Authority. The Board of Supervisors, in April 1993, directed County staff to meet with Authority staff to resolve outstanding issues related to the County entering into a separate contractual arrangement with the Authority and in May 1993 declared the County' s intent to enter into a contractual arrangement and approved execution of the Authority - County Contract dated May 25, 1993. Cough Areca. The geographical area involved consists of the unincorporated portion of West Contra Costa County served by Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. (RSS) under the exclusive collection franchise agreement entered into by the County and RSS and dated October 12, 1993 (County Area) . The County Area consists of those areas called El Sobrante, Tara Hills, Bayview/Montalvan, East Richmond Heights, Rollingwood, North Richmond and three unincorporated Census Tracts. Total reported population for the County Area from the 1990 Census was 28, 709 persons. Approximately 34% of the total reported County Area population resided in E1 Sobrante, 17% in Tara Hills, 14% in Bayview/Montalvan, 11% in East Richmond Heights, 8% in Rollingwood, 8% in North Richmond and 8% in the unincorporated Census Tracts. Total 1990 population for the County Area is about 14% greater than the City of San Pablo and about 33% of the City of Richmond. Based upon IRRF data for Calendar Year 1997 through September 1997, the County Area contributes approximately 9% of the total waste required to be delivered to the IRRF (i.e. the amount from all five Member Cities and the County Area) . Total solid waste from the County Area is about the same as El Cerrito or Pinole. COUNTY PROPOSAL anal . As evidenced in the County letter provided in Attachment No. 1 to this report, the County: (1) Proposes to make no other changes except to obtain voting membership on the Authority Board of Directors, (2) Recognizes that the County would be expected to pay any costs of modifications of currently existing documents, and West Contin Costa November 3, 13+97 Integrated Waste Management Authority C -2 A:109Caunry STAFF REPORT FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY (3) Recognizes that the boundaries of the Regional AB 939 area may need to be changed with the approval of the California Integrated Waste Management Board. ImImantatim of E r=2sa1 In order to implement the County Proposal it will be necessary to.- (a) o:(a) Amend the currently existing Joint Powers Agreement to provide for County Voting membership on the Authority Board of Directors and to incorporate, without substantive change, the provisions of the existing Authority - County Contract, (b) Secure the approval of the amended Joint Powers Agreement by. (1) Union Bank, the 'issuer of the letter of credit securing repayment of the IRRF Bonds issued by the California Pollution Control Financing Authority, (2) A sufficient number of the currently existing Authority Members (Cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond and San Pablo) necessary to amend the Joint Powers Agreement and the approval of Contra Costa County, and (3) The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) . (c) Provide that the collection franchise agreement between Contra Costa County and Richmond Sanitary Service contains identical language as was included in the Member City franchise agreements at the time of the IRRF financing in January 1999. Additionally, if the currently existing Regional AB ,939 Plan is not satisfactory with respect to the County Area, it may be necessary to prepare and submit an amended Regional 'AB 939 Plan to the CIMS for approval. AUTHORITY .. COUNTY CONTRACT aryiew_ The Authority - County Contract provides that (1) regulation of IRRF Rates is by the Authority and not the County Board of Supervisors and the County maintains land use and police power authority, (2) tit there will not be a franchise agreement for the IRRF, (3) specific requirements and procedures governing West contra Costar November 5,1997 Integrated Waste Alcanagement Authority C-3 A:I09County STAFF REPORT FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORn"y the establishment of Host Mitigation Fees, (4) specifies the amounts to be included in IRRF Rates for County solid waste program fees, (5) the Authority determines what services are to be provided at the IRRF, (6) the Authority is to select the most cost effective landfill, whether inside or outside of Contra Costa County, for disposal of waste, and (7) the rates set by the Authority must be the same for Member Cities and the County Area. landfill fielection. With respect to selection of the landfill for disposal of waste, the Authority - County Contract provides that: (a) Contracts for landfill disposal service executed by the Authority must provide the Authority with the sole discretion to terminate said contracts every five (5) years, (b) If total costs for use of landfill disposal service outside of Contra Costa County is 95% or more of the total costs for use of in-County landfill (s) , the in-County landfill (s) shall be afforded adequate opportunity to match or better the proposal by out-of-County landfill (s) . (c) The Authority is to make the necessary determinations, including Item (b) preceding, and select the most cost effective landfill not less than 90--days prior to the expiration of each 5-year period. Contract Te.rminR ton. The Authority - County Contract specifically provides that the Contract is to automatically terminate upon the County' s becoming a voting member of the Authority. In the absence of the Authority - County Contract, the provisions of the County' s Land Use Permit would govern and the result would be that the Authority would have no responsibility for the IRRF. However, the Contract specifically provides that the Contract shall not be terminated if such termination would conflict with or violate the terms and conditions of IRRF Bonds or related documentation including letter of credit or loan agreements. If the County does not become a voting member of the Authority, the Authority - County Contract remains in force. AWition&I GontraCtr, The Authority - County Contract also provides that the Authority and the County may enter into additional contracts regarding other matters. The currently existing contract for services by the County Mobile Household West Contra Costa mber S, 1997 lntegmad Waste kt'anagement AwhoWy C-4 A.lWounry STAFF REPORT FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHIP IN THE AU HORrff Hazardous Waste Collection Program is one such example of an additional contract. CoyAnant„ by County and.AUth2ritX.. At the time of IRRF financing in January 1994, bath the County and the Authority have covenanted to Union Bank that both parties would abide by the terms of the Authority - County Contract. Host Mitigation F.ft+S...X&ximum• The Authority - County Contract caps the amount of Host Mitigation Fees at $2.00 per ton of waste received at the IRRF annually adjusted by the change in the Consumer Price Index from July 1992. For the 1998 IRRF Budget, the maximum Host Mitigation Fee rate is $2.26 per ton of waste received at the IRRF. Since nearly all waste is direct hauled to West County Landfill and will not be received at the IRRF until start of IRRF waste transfer, Host Mitigation Fee Revenue has not been substantial. However, when waste transfer operations start in 1999, all waste will be received at the IRRF and the maximum Host Mitigation Fee Revenue amount is estimated to be about $300, 000 per year in 1999 assuming start of waste transfer operations on January 1, 1999. It :should be noted that the Authority - County Contract provides that first priority for use of 50% of Host Mitigation Fee Revenue shall be given to use for mitigation of impacts occurring in the unincorporated area. AMENDMENT OF THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Section 19.1 of the Joint Powers Agreement provides that the Agreement may only be amended by "a written instrument approved by a majority of the member agencies representing a majority of the [voting) Director' s seats." Consequently, in order to implement the County Proposal, the amended Joint Powers Agreement must be submitted to each Member City for approval. The amended Joint Powers Agreement must also be submitted to Contra Costa County for approval by the Board of Supervisors since Contra Costa County has not heretofore approved the Agreement. There are currently five Member Cities and seven voting Directors with the City of Richmond having three voting Directors and all Cather Member Cities having one voting Director each. Accordingly, the approv ,l of either (a) the City of Richmond and two other Member Cities or (b) all Member Cities except the City West Cantna Costa Nowmber 5.1997 Integrated Waste!ManagementAuthority C- 5 AJ09County STAFF REPORT FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHU"IN THE AUTHOR1 Y of Richmond is required in order to amend the Joint Powers Agreement. UNION BANK APPROVAL Tax exempt bonds to finance the IRRF (IRRF Bonds) were issued by the California Pollution Control Financing Authority in January 1994 . Union Bank, as part of the financing, has provided a letter of credit which secures repayment of the IRRF Bonds. Under the terms of the Consent and Agreement of the Authority executed in connection with the IRRF financing in January 1994, the Authority has covenanted to Union Bank that, among other things, the Authority shall: (1) Preserve and maintain its legal existence, rights, powers, franchises and privileges, and (2) Not permit any "amendment, modification, cancellation or termination" of the Authority - County Contract or Joint Powers Agreement or agree to "any deviations from the terms thereof" or "give any waiver with respect thereto" which would impair the ability of the Authority to perform its obligations under the Authority - County Contract, Joint Powers Agreement or IRRF Service Agreement without the prior written consent of Union Bank. CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD APPROVAL The Joint Powers Agreement was approved by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) in December 1995, thereby establishing the Authority as a Regional AB 939 Agency for the area within the fire Member Cities. The Regional Integrated Waste Management Plan and Regional Education & Public Information Program (Regional Plan) was also approved by the CIWMB in December 1995. Section 11.5 (c) of the Joint Powers Agreement incorporates the Regional Plan in the Joint Powers Agreement by reference and authorizes the Authority Board of Directors to make amendments to the Regional Plan. This provision was included in order to comply with State law related to formation of Regional AB 939 Agencies. Under the County Proposal, the County Area would become a part of the Regional AB'939 Area and would be subject to the West Contra Costa -- — -- November 5, 1997 Integrated Waste Management Authority C-6 k l Wounty STAFF REPORT FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHM IN TIE AUTHORITY Regional Plan. While it is not clear that merely providing the County with voting membership on the Authority Board of Directors will require major revisions to the Regional Plan, it is clear that the amended Joint Powers Agreement, and any Regional Plan revisions arising from incorporation of the County Area, would be subject to the approval of CIWMB. It should be noted that while the County Area is not currently subject to the Regional Plan, the Authority provides the same services to residents of the County Area as it provides to residents within Member Cities. COLLECTION F "CHISE AGREEMENTS The Authority -- County Contract provides that collection franchise agreements entered into by the County for the County Area shall include provisions which materially conform to the provisions contained in Exhibit A to the Authority-County Contract, The provisions set forth in Exhibit A to the Authority w County Contract were developed nearly a year prior to the date that amendments to collection franchise agreements were developed for the Member City franchise agreements. While it has previously been determined that the provisions of the currently existing collection franchise agreement between the County and Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. (RSS) were satisfactory for purposes of the IRRF financing, the Member City franchise agreement amendments executed in connection with the IRRF financing are not identical to the currently existing franchise agreement between the County and RS5. COUN'T'Y FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION RfgnUg Contributi2na, Prior to start of operation of the IRRF on January '1, 1996, revenue to fund the activities of the Authority were obtained from (a) Member Agency Contributions, tb> a one--time contribution by Contra Costa County at the time of execution of the Authority-County Contract in May 1955, and (c) Transition Surcharge Revenues. Table 1 is a listing of the amounts received for each revenue type and has been prepared from Authority financial records maintained by the Authority Treasurer. Exhibit A to the Joint Powers Agreement was a part of the Joint Powers Agreement forming the Authority in April 1991. Exhibit A specifies that each voting Member was to contribute $25, 000 per voting Director seat. The amount contributed by the West Contra Costa November 5,1997 Integrated Waste Management Ascthortry C- 7 A:109Cotrnty f c Is z t3. .= U. CCa CC C o F in tow c~ca Ln cc z is will ivi E9p-1 U . !STAFFREPORT FULL COUNTY MENDER IM IN TIM AUTHOR]TY Nest County Wastewater District upon its withdrawalfrom membership in the Authority in October 1991 is listed in the County Area column in 'Table 1. Member Agency contributions in subsequent year were made in accordance Authority Board of Directors resolutions ' and Authority Budgets approved by the Authority Board of Directors. The amounts shown in liable 1 as Transition Surcharge Revenue resulted from the levying of such Surcharge at a rate of $2.02/can per month during the period June 1, 1995 to January 1, 1995. Ccsmty_ uncia C.2ntrjbuti2n. Section 9 of the Joint Powers Agreement provides that revenue contributions to the Authority prior to start of IRRF operation are to be an equal amount per voting Director seat to a maximum of $54,1000 per voting Director seat per year. Applying this principle to the total revenue contributions made over the 4-3/4 years since the formation of the Authority ($1, 525, 549) results in $12030154 per voting Director seat if there are 8 voting Director seats. Subtraction of the total revenue contribution from the County Area {$104, 974} from $203, 194 leaves $98,220 as the financial contribution that would have been made by the County had the County been a voting Member of the Authority from the beginning (i.e April 1991) . COUNTY AREA YRRF SURCHARGE Costs to IMMIsment, County Proposal. . In view of the number of parties involved and the involvement of union Bank and the California Integrated Waste Management Board, it is not possible to forecast with accuracy the matters that may be raised during the course of implementation of the County Proposal. In an effort to be responsive to the County's request for information regarding costs associated with implementation of the County Proposal, cost estimates were requested from Member Cities and the Authority General Counsel using the assumptions that: (1) The Authority General Counsel will incorporate the Authority - County Contract into the Third Amendment and Restatement of the Joint Powers Agreement and distribute one review draft to Authority,,Staff, County Staff and each 'Member City Attorney for review, West Contra Costa November 5, 1997 Irate,gutta'Waste Management AuthirW C-9 A:109Cauaty STAFF REPORT FULL COUNTY MEMBERSHM IN THE AUTHORITY (2) The review by Authority Staff, County Staff, and Member City Attorneys will not involve any negotiation of any new terms and conditions but will only be for the purpose of ensuring clarity and adherence to existing documents, and (3) The Authority General Counsel will prepare a revised final draft based upon comments received and transmit the revised final draft to Union Bank for the purpose of obtaining the written consent of Union Bank. As can be seen from the preceding assumptions, the request cost estimates do nQt include any costs resulting from Union Bank review nor any costs associated with securing the necessary approvals of the documents. Such costs will be in addition to those identified in the estimates as will any costs which may arise in the event that issues are raised which involve re- negotiation of previously settled matters. The Authority General Counsel estimates, subject to the above stated assumptions, costs on the order of $2, 500 - $3, 000. The City of Hercules has advised that it estimates costs on the order of $750 as does the City of Pinole. No other Member Agency has provided a cost estimate. Authority Staff, by Letter dated September 4, 19970 also requested Union Bank to (1) identify any issue, matter or condition which Union Bank may have with respect to implementation of the County Proposal and (2) provide an estimate of the costs that Union Bank expects to incur in providing the required written consent. No response has been received from Union Bank. West County Resource Recovery, Inc. , the IRRF Operator reports that Union Bank costs associated with the Agreement Regarding Recyclables and Project Revenue Disbursement Agreement amendment were about $20, 000. Inasmuch as the Joint Powers Agreement is a fundamental document to the IRRF financing, it is reasonable to believe that amendment of the Agreement will be closely scrutinized by Union Bank to be certain that nothing occurs which weakens the rights of the Authority and Union Bank. Q2Unty AxB,a IBM fiurchaX2&. In view of the uncertainty regarding the total costs associated with implementation of the County Proposal, use of an IRRF Surcharge on waste from the County Area would provide funding for payment of costs, avoid West Contra Costa Noroember 5,199 7 Integrated Waste Mwogement Authority C- 10 A:109Coumy STAFF REPORT FULL COUNTY MEMBLISHIP IN THE AUT HORJTY further financial demands on the County and result in costs being paid by the ratepayers directly affected. Based upon previous experience with Union Bank and in view of the above described cost estimates, it is believed reasonable to establish the subject IRRF Surcharge based upon '$50, 000 to be recovered over a 12-month period. Using the same solid waste quantity as used for the 1998 IRRF Budget results in a County Area IRRF Surcharge amount of $4 .42 per ton of solid waste. In terms of IRRF-Related Collection Rates, the County Area IRRF Surcharge would add $0.30 per month per 32-gallon can equivalent to the County Area can rate, $0.21 per cubic yard to the County Area bin rate and $4.42 per ton to the County Area Box Rate. Table 2 sets 'forth the calculation of the County :Area IRRF Surcharge and the impact of the Surcharge on County Area collection rates. It should be noted that while the County Area Surcharge is based upon recovery of an assumed dollar amount over an assumed 12--month period, the Surcharge would need to continue to be collected until all approvals are obtained and all costs have been recovered. The Authority would (1) receive the funds collected via the IRRF Surcharge, (2) pay costs incurred by the Authority and the Member Agencies, costs associatedwith securing Union Bank approval and costs associated with obtaining CIWM'B approval and (3) provide a full accounting of the amounts received and amounts paid. Any excess funds would be rebated to County Area ratepayers through a reduction in IRRF Rates. The County should be afforded the opportunity to abandon the implementation effort in which case work would be halted and the surcharge terminated after all costs have been paid. West Comm Costa Nowmber s.1997 Integrated Waste Management Authority C- 11 A;109County . cn i C W t- - - Growth Management and ��- Contra-- Economic Development Agency FILE CCosta Valentin Aiexsetl, Director County August 27, 1997TH ��!i E SEP - Bill Davis,Executive Director West CC Integrated Waste Management Authority nJy One Alvarado Square � . San Pablo CA 94806 �'' � Attacbment #i Dear Bill: ., At the request of unincorporated County residents served by the West County UW,the Board of Supervisors has requested that the question of the County becoming a voting member of the Authority Board be presented to the Authority Board at it's next meeting. The purpose is to determine the level of acceptance of the cities prior to their making a complete proposal for membership. Our Board members have indicated they feel the Authority Board is doing an excellent job in providing direction and oversight of the IRRF development and operation, but they have expressed a desire to play a more active role in the decision making process. The Board of Supervisors is interested in obtainutg a voting membership on the Authority Board with no other operational or procedural changes proposed. The Board of Supervisors would like to have one member of the Board of Supervisors as a voting member, with another Board of Supervisor member serving as an alternate. The Board recognizes that numerous consequences could arise as a result of changes in membership. It is the intent of the Board to avoid any changes in procedure or operation of the Authority. They understand that modification of the Regional boundaries may need to be changed with the approval ofthe California Integrated Waste Management Board and that the bank must approve the modification to the Joint Powers Agreement and may require modifications to the UW financing documents. We anticipatethat the County would be expected to cover any costs related to the requested modifications. We would appreciate any projections of costs that you or the bank could provide. Si ly Val Alex fl; Director vAMt 651 Pins Street, No.Whg, Second Floor, Marbrwaz, C 1ftnia 845&3.1213 T"phone: (510)646-IMO FAX. (310)646.1599