HomeMy WebLinkAbout23-Mayor's Office
r C~~:OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR C~UNCIL ACTION
.
~ ,
.
From: Mayor Tom Minor
Subject:
That the Common Council table
further consideration of- PSA
and direct discussions with County
on Waste Disposal Agreement.
Dept: Mayor's Office
cg(Q) fFJ \t1
Date: July 29, 1997
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
Recommended Motion:
That the Common Council table further consideration of the Participation and Service Agreement and
direct staff to continue discussions with the County on the Waste Disposal Agreement.
~~)tte4~
I Tom Minor, Mayor
Contact person: James Howell. Director of Public Services Department
Phone:
5140
Supporting data attached: Nt A
Ward: ALL
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount Nt A
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
Continued to
01/0Z-/97
Agenda Item No.
#)0
<1/1191
...
"'
"
.
, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Discussion with the County of San Bernardino regarding a long term waste flow agreement has
been ongoing with the City for the past two years. I have closely monitored this issue in
consideration of the significance of such an agreement.
I recommend that the Council table further discussion regarding the County's Participation and
Service Agreement (PSA) and direct staff to continue the current negotiation process on the
proposed Waste Disposal Agreement (WDA). The first discussion meeting between the cities and
the County occurred on July 30, and participants are confident that this process will result in an
agreement acceptable to all parties. It is the goal of the participants to finalize negotiations in
September, and for City staff to present this agreement for Council authorization soon thereafter.
The following are some of the significant differences between the two agreements:
TERM OF AGREEMENT
The County PSA is for twenty-five (25) years while the City WDA is for ten (10) years.
The longer term is unreasonable in consideration of the continuing advances/changes in
the solid waste industry.
MOST-FAVORED NATION CLAUSE
The County PSA requires a lengthy meet and confer process in order to terminate the
agreement, with special considerations to the County. Therefore, it is "",tn.oldy diffiadt
to tern>;n.rt.. this agreement once executed. Additionally, once the PSA agreement is
executed, any incentive on the County's part to continue negotiating the WDA agreement
in order to obtain a "better deal" would be non-existent once the PSA is executed.
COST
The rate proposed in the PSA, $30 per ton, would be the highest disposal rate paid in
Southern California. Riverside County charges $27.50 per ton, Los Angeles County
charges $17.57 per ton and Orange County charges $28.25 per ton. It is the goal of the
WDA to establish a rate of $26 per ton, which would tr-onc1.rte into a annual savings of
$770,000.
LIABILITY
The PSA agreement only agrees to indemnify the City for liability resulting from
"Acceptable Waste" received by the system. Acceptable waste is defined as normal trash.
However, the greater liability exposure occurs from hazardous wastes already disposed of
within the system, or inadvertendy disposed into the system without either the City or
the County's knowledge. Gerry Newcombe stated in his letter of July 21, 1997 that "the
County agrees to accept the liability for the landfill system, no matter what any court
would decide". The County currendy is liable for the system without the cities entering
into a PSA agreement. Execution of the agreement as presented by the County places the
City on the hook for liability it currendy doesn't have. The WDA agreement provides
adequate safeguards to minimize this liability.
-;;m ~
Tom Minor, Mayor
crtv OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR CbUNCIL ACTION
.
From:' James R. Howell
,
Subject:
Response to Norcal Proposal of June
26, 1997
'pt: Public Services
Date: July 16, 1997
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
Recommended Motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council receive and file Memorandum dated July 16, 1997 from James Howell,
Director of Public Services, subject: Response to Norcal Proposal of June 26, 1997.
AL-
Si nature
Contact person: Director of Public Services
Phone: 5140
Supporting data attached:
Memorandum dated Julv 16. 1997
Ward: ALL
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount
N/A
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
Previously - 156 - In /~I J., 7
-:# ,;(3
CJ ?jt 'If 7
...,
-- .'. .
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
BY;
SUBJECT:
DATE:
CC:
MAYOR TOM MINOR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMON l\=TCn.
JAMES R. HOWELL. DIRECTOR OF PUBUC SERVJC~ J //?
LYNN MERRILL, ACTING SOLID W ASTE MANAGE.R'~ /IIlvw..€l
RESPONSE TO NORCAL PROPOSAL OF JUNE 26, 1997
JULY 16,1997
FRED WILSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR; JAMES PENMAN, CITY A TIORNEY
TO:
FROM:
Staff has prepared the following information as follow.up to staff's verbal presentation to
the Mayor and Common Council on Monday, July 14....
1. The City has used the County Landfill system since approximately 1960.
2. While the total amount of wastes generated within the City's corporate boundary is
approximately 205,000 tons, the City's Refuse Division only handles approximately
110,000 tons per year for which the City pays a tipping fee. The remaining 95,000
tons of waste is handled by the franchised private haulen crack's Disposal, Cal's
Disposal and Curran's) and individual businesses which self.haul their own wastes to
the landfill. Norcal inflated the amount of tonnage directly under the City's control
to make this offer appear anractive. The City's tonnage is estimated at 110,000 tons for
FY97.98, and is expected to continue to decrease to approximately 80,000 tons by the
year 2000 in response to increased recycling and waste divenion efforts. The City
would see a reduction of approximately 5330,000 per year in FY97-98 under the
Norcal scenario at current tonnage. .
3. The City has no financial interest in the ownership, management and operation of the
County landfill system. The City is only a user of the system. Implying that the City
is a "stakeholder/investor. in the County's system may imply liability/responsibility
that the City does not currendy have. The County is the sole owner of the landfill
system and contracts with NorcallSan Bernardino for it's operation.
4. The City, in cooperation with other cities within the County and the Waste Systems
Division of the County, has been involved in on-going discussions related to the
Participation and Service Agreement oudined to the Council by Norcal. Staff was
recendy authorized by the Mayor to expend 52,000 in order to participate with twelve
other cities in preparing the Waste Disposal Agreement. The Mojave Desert and
Mountain Solid Waste JPA has coordinated the hiring of a negotiator to prepate an
agreement acceptable to the cities, and to have this negotiator represent their collective
.......p'
.
interests at the negotiating table. The cities felt this action was necessary due to the
extreme lack of the responsiveness of the County/Norcal regarding issues of concern
for the cities.
5. While Norcal represents that this agreement is a "win.win" for both parties, the
proposed reduction in tipping fee rates and the length of term are inconsistent with
those offered in both Orange and Riverside Counties for in-county waste. For
example, Riverside County has proposed offering rates as low as 527.50 per ton for a
ten year period. Given this rate, the proposed Riverside County rate represents a
rate reduction of 55.50 per ton less than the existing Norcal/San Bernardino rate of
5ll.00 per ton. Staff has continually maintained that further savings are available to
the City, however the County refuses to acknowledge this cost pressure. Additional
downward pressure on rates will occur as large landfills such as Eagle Mountain and
Mesquite landfill.
6. A recent court decision in San Diego has established that the only contractual
relationship between a city and a county operating the landfill, absent of a formal
agreement, occurs at the scalehouse. While the County of San Bernardino has agreed
to assume full liability for any environmental damage resulting from the operation of
the landfills, this liability, as determined by this court decision, already rests with the
County. While RCRAlCERCLA liability (Federal regulations) extends through to
the users of the system, this liability exposure only occurs when the financial resources
of the principal responsible party have been exhausted. At the present time, the City
does not appear to have liability exposure from the County's system; enterin~ into the
PSA a~reement as presented would increase this exposure.
7. While the County/Norcal Participation and Service Agreement (PSA) contains a
"most favored nation" clause, such a clause was intended only to cover more favorable
terms such as a lower tipping fee that may be secured by other parties at a later date. If
the City adopted the PSA as presented, it may not be possible to unilaterally replace
the PSA with the proposed WDA without concurrence of both parties. Staff
continues to believe that the present course of negotiations will result in an agreement
which is acceptable to both parties and which will result in a tipping fee in the range of
526 perton.
8. While the savings proposed by Norcal would result in an estimated savings of
approximately 5HO,ooo per year by lowering the tipping fee from Sll.OO per lon, to
5l0.00 per ton the combination of a reduction in the tipping fee to 526 per ton and
aggressive commercial recycling which reduces the amount of waste delivered to the
County system from 110,000 tons to 80,000 tons may result in a total annual savings
potential of approximately 51.55 million per year.
2