HomeMy WebLinkAbout34-Public Services
I . C~1~' OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Frem: James R. Howell
Subject:
Progress and status report on the
Waste Disposal Agreement
Dept: Public Services
Date: August 25, 1997
~(C ~=~l
>ynopsis of Previous Council Action:
Noreal proposal of June 26, 1997 was continued from August 4, 1997 to September 2, 1997.
Recommended Motion:
That the progress and status on the Waste Disposal Agreement from the County of San Bernardino dated
August 19, 1997 be received and ftled; and request this item be continued to Council meeting of
October 6, 1997.
Contact person: Lynn Merrill. Solid Waste Manal!:er
Phone: 5140
Supporting data attached:
Memorandum dated AUl!:Ust 20. 1997 from James Howell and letter dated
AUl!:USt 19. 1997 from Countv of San Bernardino
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount
N/A
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
Continued to
/0 j()t; /97
.
. .
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Mayor and Common Council k- ~
James R. Howell, Director of Public Services IJf:'
Lynn Merrill, Solid Waste Manager ~ ~
Progress and Status on the Waste Disposal Agreement
TO:
FROM:
BY:
DATE:
August 20, 1997
CC:
Fred Wilson, City Administrator; James Penman, City Attorney
We received the attached letter from Gerry Newcombe, Contract Administrator
for the County Waste System Division which provides a revised timeline and milestones
regarding the Waste Disposal Agreement currently being negotiated by the consortium of
17 cities and the County. As presented in the letter, it is the intent of both parties to
complete negotiations on the Waste Disposal Agreement by September 5th. The County
has requested this additional extension of time in order to determine the lowest
possible rate which would be available to the cities who sign the WDAs.
Based on the proposed timetable, it is anticipated that the final Waste Disposal
Agreement will be placed on agenda for the October 6th Council meeting. Staff is
therefore requesting that discussion regarding the Participation and Service Agreement be
continued.
"' ALl(;. 20-1997 10: 16
WASTE SYSTEM DIVISION
S0~ ~oo 0'00 r.~.~.
NAsrE SYSTEM DIVISION
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PUBUC SERVICES GIIOUP
!22 Well Hospitality LAne. second FI_ . &en Bernardino. CA 12415-0017
909) 386-8722 . Fax (909) 386-ll7&e
GERRY NEWCOMBE
Contrac' Adminl$tr.tor
Poet-II' Fax Note 7671 Dol' I
To F
Co.
PIlOI\O . Phone .
Fa. . C FIl' .
August 19, 1997
Mr. John Davis
Mojave Desert & Mountain Solid Waste JPA
700 E. Redlands Blvd., Suite 311
Redlands, California 92373
Dear John,
During our meeting yesterday regarding the development of Waste Delivery Agreements (WDA) between
the County and the consortium of 17 cities, the city negotiating tearn concurred with the County's request to
extend the schedule for one week. The extension is necessary to allow sufficient time to run the Solid
Waste System Financial Model to determine the lowest possible rate available to the cities who sign WDAs.
The revised schedule is as follows:
. August 21 _ WSD to send list of model run assumptions to city negotiating members for review
. August 27 _ 10:00 A.M. meeting@Noreal's office to review and finalize model assumptions
. August 29 _ Hold date for continued meeting on model assumptions, if necessary
. September 2 _ 1:00 P.M. meeting@FontanaPerformingArts Center to negotiate WDA rate
structure and amounts and finalize remaining agreement language issues.
. September 3 _ 9:30 A.M. meeting @ Fontana to resolve any open items from September 2
meeting
. Schedule additional meetings as necessary complete negotiations by September 5.
"7" Tbe continued progress that has been made at our previous meetings is encouraging and we are an looking ~
forward to bringing this process to a successful conclusion.
Sincerely,
~1l~
Contract Administrator
GN:js
ec: Robert L. Jocks, County Counsel
Marty Czerniak, NORCAL
Conway Collis, Collis Associates
t_ t .' ~~
JAMes J H\.AWEI\
eQUI~t.,. ...,m,rl!,,1t31I'/e Oltlc~r
TIM "J:\.lV
A~~i$t.'I't County Ao'ln,.nHlilfat,r
1J,lhh.~ ~.."...ir:'" l.,'l'U;)
\
Boord 01 SUpC'rvilan
IC.ATKV A DAViS..... . .. Il"s\ District DENNIS HANSBERGlR ..... . Tt'uttl Distri,
JON O. MIKElS ............. SuconCl Ol,lrlct LARRY WALKER ......... Fourth Dillitr\c
JERRY fAVES ... ... ..' ..... t:'ifth Districl
-'"
TOT~ P.01
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
.
From: Mayor Tom Minor
Subject:
That the Common Council table
further consideration of- PSA
and direct discussions with County
on Waste Disposal Agreement.
. "t: Mayor's Office
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.
/,-
~~)M4~
I Tom Minor, Mayor
'---
Contact person: James Howell. Director of Public Services Dq>artment
Phone:
5140
Supporting data attached: N/ A
Ward: ALL
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount N/ A
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:_ Previously - .0/3 - d3'/o'I/?7
Agenda Item No.
P.yp
:F3f
,
cm OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCn. 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 ~ll--ely difficult
to teron;......P this agrcc:ment once aecutcd. 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 trmt~lne into a annual savings of
$770,000.
UABIUTY
The PSA agreement only agrees to indemnify the City for liability resulting from
"Acceptable Waste" received by the system. Acceptable waste is defmed as normal trash.
However, the greater liability exposure occurs from hazardous wastes already disposed of
within the system, or inadvertently 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 currently is liable for the system without the cities entering
into a PSA agreement. Execution of the agrcc:ment as praented by the County places the
City on the hook for liability it currently doesn't have. The WDA agreement provides
adequate safeguards to minimize this liability.
--:-- 7A J ",:'"
/ f)m. I~~
Tom Minor, Mayor
". "
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL 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.
~6L-
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 - .55 .- t7/.z1 /<77
Previously - f 013 - &'05'/0'1/"17
,
Agenda Item No._ #7
7/3'/
. .
.~.'.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR TOM MINOR; MEMBERS OF THE COMMON ~Cn..
FROM: JAMES R. HOWELL. DIRECfOR OF PUBUC SERVlC~ ./
BY; LYNN MERRILL, ACTING SOLID W ASTE MANAGER~ /fIlv.J1
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO NORCAL PROPOSAL OF JUNE 26, 1997
DATE: JULY 16, 1997
CC: FRED Wll.SON,CITY WMIN1STR^TOR;J~PENM~.CITY A1l0RNEY
Staff has prepared the following information as follow-up to staff's verbal presentation to
the Mayor and Common Council on Monday, July 14m.
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 haulers (Jack's Disposal, Cal's
Disposal and Curran's) and individual businesses which seU-haul their own wastes to
the landfill. Norcal inflated the amount of tonnage directly under the City's control
to make this offer appear attractive. 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 diversion efforts. The City
would see a reduction of approximately $330,000 per year in FY97.98 under the
Norcal scenario at current tonnage. .
3. The City has no fmancial 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 currently 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 outlined to the Council by Norcal. Staff was
recently authorized by the Mayor to expend $2,000 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 prepare an
agreement acceptable to the cities, and to have this negotiator represent their collective
- .
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<ounty waste. For
example, Riverside County has proposed offering rates as low as $27.50 per ton for a
ten year period. Given this rate, the proposed Riverside County rate represents a
rate reduction of $5.50 per ton less than the existing Norc2l/San Bernardino rate of
$33.00 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 scaleho~. 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 fUlancial 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
$26 per ton.
8. While the savings. proposed by Norcal would result in an estimated savings of
approximately $330,000 per year by lowering the tipping fee from $33.00 per ton, to
$30.00 per ton the combination of a reduction in the tipping fee to $26 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 $1.55 million per year.
2