The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7.3 Solid Waste Rate Review Study CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: March 28, 1983 SUBJECT Solid Waste Rate Review Coordination Committee Study EXHIBITS ATTACHED Memorandum from Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority dated March 16 , 1983 RECOMMENDATION Designate special study session to respond to survey t FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time DESCRIPTION The Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority has requested that each of its members respond to the Rate Review Coordination Committee survey which is directed to the City Councils and governing boards of each member. I have attached a copy of the survey and some background material for your information. It is recommended that the City Council hold a study session to discuss the issues addressed in the survey. The Council may wish to consider such a session immediately prior to its next meeting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: ITEM NO. 7 ALAMEDA CC .JNTY SOLID WASTE L _JAGEMENT AUTHORITY 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415) 88 1-6401 REC; LIVED MAR 2 4 11983 CITY OF DUBLIN DATE: March 16, 1983 TO: Mayors olf -Alameda County Cities and Presidents of Oro Loma, Castro Valle ,/and Dubl n San Ramon Services Districts FROM: Wil a F aley, Secretary Alameda County Solid Waste Management Au o ity 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. (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— 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- ALAMEDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY A 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-