Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2.1 Solid Waste Review Survey (2) -411) 0 CITY OF DUBLIN `} AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE : April 11 , 1983 • SUBJECT Solid Waste Review Coordination Committee Survey. EXHIBITS ATTACHED . Survey; Survey completed by DSRSD; Background Memorandum • RECOMMENDATION Discuss & Complete: Survey FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Additional revenue might be available pending the outcome of this survey and subsequent action by the Solid Waste Management Authority. Y DESCRIPTION At its meeting of March 28, 1983, the City Council agreed to hold a study session for the purpose of discussing and responding to a survey prepared by the Solid Waste Management Authority ' s Rate Review Coordination Committee. The Committee has requested that Cities respond to the survey no later than April 25, 1983. Since the survey addresses several items for which the City of. Dublin has no responsibility, a copy of the survey completed by the DSRSD has been attached for. City Council information. It appears that the primary issue which underlies the survey is one of local control . This is particularly important in the solid, waste field. It should be pointed out that the County Solid Waste Management plan has, ' as one of its policies , the following: "Local jurisdictions are responsible for collection services and franchising for that service; collection rates and franchise fees are a local prerogative. Local jurisdictions may benefit by recognizing the goals of :the Joint Refuse :Rate Review Committee and by participating in the area-wide evaluation of common problems. .....Cities and special districts shall retain the right to dispose of or utilize their solid waste to their best advantage, provided each proposal for disposal or utilization is in conformance with .the P lan.'' It is important to keep this issue in mind when discussing the surrey. COPIES TO ITEM: NO. ALAMEDA CO (i) NTY SOLID BASTE M ANAGEM ENT AUTHORITY 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415) 881-6401 • DATE: TO: Mayors of Alameda County Cities and Presidents of Oro Loma, Castro Valley, and Dublin San Ramon Services Districts FROM: William H. Fraley, Secretary Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority SUBJECT: RATE REVIEW COORDINATION COMMITTEE SURVEY Background At its January, 1983 meeting, the County Solid Waste Management Authority (SWMA) formed a Rate Review Coordination Committee to examine and make recommendations regarding the relationship between the Authority and the Refuse Rate Review Committee (RRRC). In particular, the Authority Committee is to make recommendations concerning the collection and disbursal of surcharge monies from importation of San Francisco solid waste. The Authority Committee requested staff to prepare this survey in order to get the input of City Councils and Boards on issues of concern. The Committee will appreciate your response to the survey no later than April 25, 1983. Please return the Survey to William H. Fraley at the letterhead address. In answering this survey, please consider that there may be other proposals to import waste that would not apply to the present franchise arrangement with Oakland Scavenger Company. A separate sheet containing background material relating to the Authority is included for your information. Your representatives on the SWMA can assist in providing background material relating to this request. The SWMA appreciates your assistance in completing the survey. Alternatives to Existing Refuse Rate Review Committee (RRRC) (1) No change. RRRC would remain responsible for making recommendations to local jurisdictions (cities/special districts with solid waste franchises) on refuse rates to be charged by Oakland Scavenger Company. RRRC would continue to depend on staff of local agencies and Price Waterhouse. S • Comments • (2) Eliminate RRRC, with current responsibilities assumed by County SWMA. Under this proposal, local control over franchises and rates would be retained, the services of Price-Waterhouse would be retained, and the assistance and input of local (finance) staff would be retained. However, the reports and recommendations of Price-Waterhouse and staff would be made to the SWMA rather than the RRRC, and approved and released by the SWMA as recommendations to the local franchising jurisdictions. Comment (3) A "two-tier" approach, with the RRRC responsible to franchise jurisdictions for recommendations regarding refuse collection rates and the SWMA responsible for disposal rates. • Under this proposal, the SWMA would be responsible for reviewing local disposal fees, setting fees on imported solid waste, and for reviewing the equity base. Comment -2- v Nod (4) Expansion of RRRC membership to include Berkeley, San Leandro and Pleasanton. • Issues regarding solid waste disposal are of concern to the entire county. Berkeley, San Leandro and Pleasanton are .involved and affected by decisions concerning county landfill capacity, truck routes, and the like. Comment Surcharge on Imported Solid Wastes The following questions relate to both the existing surcharge agreement with San Francisco and possible future surcharge agreements. (5) Should the SWMA, RRRC or local franchising agencies (if franchises were amended) be parties to the contract with San Francisco? Only Oakland Scavenger Company, the City and County of San Francisco, and San Francisco scavenger companies are parties to the existing contract to import wastes. Comments (6) What agency/group should determine the amount of surcharge to be charged? The RRRC is currently responsible for setting the surcharge; the matter was referred to the RRRC by the SWMA. -3- • 'Nero *ad Comments (7) What agency/group should be responsible for distributing the surcharge revenues? Although San Francisco has a contractural agreement to pay a $3/ton fee to Oakland Scavenger Company that is intended for local jurisdictions, no agency or group is currently responsible for collecting this money from Oakland Scavenger Company. There is no provision to reflect the surcharge revenues through franchise fees or collection rates. Comments (8) Should the SWMA collect the revenue from Oakland Scavenger Company, and have the money held for disbursal? (as provided for under question No. 7) Comments (9) Who should hold the collected surcharge money? (a) bank (b) county treasurer (c) , other -4- 14141101 NNW Comments (10) Who should receive surcharge revenue and who should make this determination? Some representatives favor distributing the funds to: 1) local franchising jurisdictions that dispose wastes at Altamont landfill; 2) local franchising jurisdictions with contracts with Oakland Scavenger Company; 3) local jurisdictions that suffer environmental impacts from importation; 4) all local cities/franchising agencies; 5) the SWMA for its countywide activities, 6) the County of Alameda. Comments (11) To what uses should surcharge revenues be put and who should make this - determination? Some SWMA representatives believe that, since the purpose of the surcharge is to mitigate a solid waste impact, the uses of revenue should be restricted to a solid waste-related area such as lower collection rates, local or countywide resource recovery and recycling programs, or support of SWMA activities. Other representatives favor disbursing the funds to cities/franchising agencies for any use, as determined by the city or agency. -5- 'Nipowe 'NNW Comments (12) How should the SWMA be funded? ( ) Current system of local agency contributions ( ) Part of the $3/ton surcharge on San Francisco (1983-88) ( ) Additional surcharge on San Francisco ( ) Option money from San Francisco for future use of landfill (after 1988) ( ) Levy per ton fee on all landfill operators (proposed State legislation would limit this to per ton, or about $10,000 per year for Alameda County) ( ) Other or combination, please specify (13) Additional Comments: Please add any suggestions that might assist the Committee. Comments City or District Name of Official Date Please note: The Committee requests that the Mayor or Board President sign this survey. 0063P 4 , ALAMEDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY In July, 1982 the Government Code was amended to require each county to prepare, subject to the approval of the plan by a majority of the cities within the county, containing a majority of the population within the unincorporated area of the County, a comprehensive, coordinated solid waste management plan for all county waste to be disposed in or outside the County. In June 1972, the County Planning Commission was designated by the Board of Supervisors to handle solid waste management planning in the ,County. In December, 1972, the Board of appointed a 23-member Solid Waste Management Plan Advisory Committee consisting of elected officials, operators, the public and representatives of the Health Planning Council. The County Planning Director and staff served as staff members to the Committee and to the Technical Advisory Committee since formation of both groups in early 1973. The County Planning staff prepared the first Solid Waste Management Plan. That plan was approved by the County and 92% of the cities representing 97% of the incorporated population in 1976. The cities and the County informed an Interim Council composed of the County, thirteen cities and the Castro Valley, Oro Loma, and the Valley Community Services District to address solid waste management issues. A Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to work together on mutual solid waste problems was signed by all seventeen entities. The seventeen-member Solid Waste Management Authority, formed in 1976, has been responsible for all solid waste management activities for the past seven years. The Planning Director is Secretary to the Authority and the planning Department provides staff support. The County Health Services Agency is responsible for enforcement activities. The Planning Director, William H. Fraley's is Secretary to the Authority and Clem Shute is Authority Attorney. In early 1983, the City of Dublin became a member of the Authority, enlarging the Board to eighteen members. Responsibilities of the Authority are described in the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and the Rules of Procedures, both available from the County Planning Department • The Solid Waste Management Plan was revised and approved in 1980 by the Authority and the California Management Waste Board. The Authority and the State have approved two subsequent amendments in 1981 and 1982. The most recent amendment provided for import of San Francisco waste to Altamont for the five year period 1983-1988. The enclosed questionnaire relates to the five year import as well as proposed future San Francisco import following the initial five year period. -7- ALAM EDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415) 881-6401 DATE: March 16, 1983 TO: Mayors of -Alameda, County Cities and Presidents of Oro Loma, Castro Valle And Dubl n San Ramon Services Districts FROM: Wil ila� :. F aley, Secretary Alameda County Solid Waste Management FROM: SUBJECT: RATE REVIEW COORDINATION COMMITTEE SURVEY Background • At its January, 1983 meeting, the County Solid Waste Management Authority (SWMA) formed a Rate Review Coordination Committee to examine and make recommendations regarding the relationship between the Authority and the Refuse Rate Review Committee (RRRC). In particular, the Authority Committee is to make recommendations concerning the collection and disbursal of surcharge monies from importation of San Francisco solid waste. The Authority Committee requested staff to prepare this survey in order to get the input of City Councils and Boards on issues of concern. The Committee will appreciate your response to the survey no later than April 25, 1983. Please return the Survey to William H. Fraley at the letterhead address. In answering this survey, please consider that there may be other proposals to import waste that would not apply to the present franchise arrangement with Oakland Scavenger Company. A separate sheet containing background material relating to the Authority is included for your information. Your representatives on the SWMA can assist in providing background material relating to this request. The SWMA appreciates your assistance in completing the survey. • Alternatives to Existing Refuse Rate Review Committee (RRRC) (1) No change. RRRC would remain responsible for making recommendations to local jurisdictions (cities/special districts with solid waste franchises) on refuse rates to be charged by Oakland Scavenger Company. RRRC would continue to depend on staff of local agencies and Price-Waterhouse. Comments Absolutely no change - the Refuse Rate Review Committee it doing a good job representing the local jnriedirtione who "take the flack" over garbage collection and disposal rates, and giving that responsibility to an agency the public cannot reach is unfair. (2) Eliminate RRRC, with current responsibilities assumed by County SWMA. Under this proposal, local control over franchises and rates would be retained, the services of Price-Waterhouse would be retained, and the assistance and input of local (finance) staff would be retained. However, the reportsand recommendations of Price-Waterhouse and staff would be •made to the SWMA rather than the RRRC, and approved and released by the SWMA as recommendations to the local franchising jurisdictions. Comment Absolutely not. (3) A "two-tier" approach, with the RRRC responsible to franchise - jurisdictions for recommendations regarding refuse collection rates and the SWMA responsible for disposal rates. Under this proposal, the SWMA would be responsible for reviewing local disposal fees, setting fees on imported solid waste, and for reviewing the equity base. • Comment Absolutely not -2- (4) Expansion of RRRC membership to include Berkeley, San Leandro and Pleasanton. Issues regarding solid waste disposal are of concern to the entire county. Berkeley, San Leandro and Pleasanton are involved and affected by decisions concerning county landfill capacity, truck routes, and the like. Comment No objection to their being on it: however, they have no connection with Oakland Scavenger, and are not parties to rate review negotiations. Surcharge on Imported Solid Wastes The following questions relate to both the existing surcharge agreement with San Francisco and possible future surcharge agreements. - (5) Should the SWMA, RRRC or local franchising agencies (if franchises were- amended) be parties to the contract with San Francisco? Only Oakland Scavenger Company, the City and County of San Francisco, and San Francisco scavenger companies are parties to the existing contract to import wastes. Comments No change (6) What agency/group should determine the amount of surcharge to be charged? The RRRC is currently responsible for setting the surcharge; the matter was referred to the RRRC by the SWMA. -3- Comments Nn thing, • • (7) What agency/group should be responsible for distributing the surcharge revenues? Although San Francisco has a contractual agreement to pay a $3/ton fee to Oakland Scavenger Company that is intended for local jurisdictions, no agency or group is currently responsible for collecting this money from Oakland Scavenger Company. There is no provision to reflect the surcharge revenues through franchise fees or collection rates. Comments The Refuse Rate Review Committee • • • (8) Should the SWMA collect the revenue from Oakland Scavenger Company, and have the money held for disbursal? (as provided for under question No. 7) • Comments No. Revenue should be collected by Refuse Rate Review Committee and disbursed to participating agencies. • (9) Who should hold the collected surcharge money? (a) bank (b) county treasurer (c) other Participating agencies. -4- . Comments (10) Who should receive surcharge revenue and who should make this determination? Some representatives favor distributing the funds to: 1) local franchising jurisdictions that dispose wastes at Altamont landfill; 2) local franchising jurisdictions with contracts with Oakland Scavenger Company; 3) local jurisdictions that suffer environmental impacts from importation; 4) all local cities/franchising agencies; 5) the SWMA for its countywide activities, 6) the County of Alameda. Comments Local franchising jurisdictions with contracts with Oakland Scavenger Company that dispose wastes at Altamont landfill, as determined by Refuse Rate Review Committee. (11) To what uses should surcharge revenues be put and who should make this determination? Some SWMA representatives believe that, since the purpose of the surcharge is to mitigate a solid waste impact, the uses of revenue should be restricted to a solid waste-related area such as lower collection rates, local or countywide resource recovery and recycling programs, or support of SWMA activities. Other representatives favor disbursing the funds to cities/franchising agencies for any use, as determined by the city or agency. -5- k. Soo Comments Surcharge revenues should he restricted to a solid waste-related area such as lower collection rates - give the money hack to the constituents. Use of the surcharge revenues should be determined by the local jurisdiction. (12) How should the SWMA be funded? (xx() Current system of local agency contributions ( ) Part of the $3/ton surcharge on San Francisco (1983-88) ( ) Additional surcharge on San Francisco ( ) Option money from San Francisco for future use of landfill (after 1988) ( ) Levy per ton fee on all landfill operators (proposed State legislation would limit this to 1 per ton, or about $10,000 per year for Alameda County) ( ) Other or combination, please specify (13) Additional Comments: Please add any suggestions that might assist the Committee. Comments Responses to the questions of the Rate Review Coordination Committee Survey represents the consensus of the Board of Directors of Dublin San Ramon Services District, resulting from its regular meeting of April 5, 1983. Addition- al comments: Responses would be the same if San Francisco waste went to another landfill in the County. Solid Waste Management Authority seems to be attempting to build an empire -- legal costs have soared since hiring an outside legal counsel -- now talking about hiring an independent staff. City or District DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICFS DISTRICT Name of Official RON NOBLE. President of Board of Directors Date April 8, 1983 Please note: The Committee requests that the Mayor or Board President sign this survey. -6- fift- vole SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND REFUSE RATE COMMITTEE BACKGROUND SUMMARY The rate review committee was established in November, 1972 . The purpose of establishing this committee was to enable cities who are customers of Oakland Scavenger to act together in determining those garbage rates which each respective jurisdiction was charged. The agreement that established that committee states that the committee use unitary accounting concepts , review and determine the reasonableness of operating and maintaining expenses of the Oakland Scavenger Company, and recommend the operating ratio which would provide a fair return on the investment to the company. The committee , which is staffed by financial officers and city managers from the various jurisdictions which were included, recommends garbage rates to their respective governing bodies . In the past , Price Waterhouse , an accounting firm, was hired to review the Oakland Scavenger ' s rate application. The solid waste management board was created in September, 1976 , for the purpose of planning solid waste facilities throughout the county. One of its main purposes was to address the problem of landfill space which was beginning to run out . A plan was to be developed to accommodate the solid waste needs of Alameda County. Concurrently, the State Legislature required adoption of a countywide solid waste management plan for all counties throughout California. Solid waste management board is staffed by city councilmembers and representatives from the various sanitary districts within the county. In way of background with respect to how the various cities and sanitary districts within the county are presently disposing of their solid waste , a description of each agency' s collection and disposal process is identified below: The City of Berkeley pays for its garbage service as part of its tax bill . The City owns and operates its own collection system. The City of Berkeley has a landfill at the Berkeley Marina which will close and Berkeley will then transport its garbage to the West Contra Costa Landfill Enrichment . The City of San Leandro also operates its own garbage company. They charge a service fee similar to a private company. The City of San Leandro dumps its garbage at the Davis Street Transfer Station. The Davis Street Transfer Station is owned by Oakland Scavenger. Oakland Scavenger charges San Leandro a "tipping fee" . San Leandro' s garbage is then transported to the Altamont Landfill . Tri-Cities , (Union City, Fremont & Newark) are customers of Oakland Scavenger. They use the Durham Road Landfill located in Fremont . The Tri-Cities are now developing a refuse-to-energy burn plant . The City of Alameda at one time owned its own garbage service. However, in 1982 , it sold its garbage service to Oakland Scavenger which uses the Davis Street Transfer Station and the Altamont Landfill . Livermore is a customer of Oakland Scavenger and uses the Vasco Road Landfill . Pleasanton is served by the Pleasanton Garbage Service , and they have a transfer station in Pleasanton which is used to collect garbage for transportation to the Vasco Road Landfill . The Cities of Albany, Emeryville, Hayward, Piedmont, Oakland, Castro Valley Sanitary District and Ora Loma Sanitary District are customers of the Oakland Scavenger Company. These agencies use the Davis Street Transfer Station and their garbage is then deposited in the Altamont Landfill . The Dublin San Ramon Services District has jurisdiction over refuse collected in Dublin. The refuse is collected by Oakland Scavenger Company and deposited directly in the Altamont Landfill .