HomeMy WebLinkAbout43- Public Services CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
F, James R. Howell Subject: Progress and status report on the
Waste Disposal Agreement
Dept: Public Services
Date: August 25, 1997
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
Norcal 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 filed; and request this item be continued to Council meeting of
October 6, 1997.
g ature
Contact person: Lynn Merrill Solid Waste Manager Phone: 5140
Supporting data attached: Memorandum dated Auggst 20 1997 from James Howell and letter dated
August 19 1997 from County of San Bernardino Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount N/A
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
Previously
Continued to /l 10VI7
Agenda Item No..
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Common Council
FROM: James R. Howell, Director of Public Services
BY: ��,�p�
L Merrill, Solid Waste Manager ft'c& -
y�
SUBJECT: Progress and Status on the Waste Disposal Agreement
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 5h. 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 6t' Council meeting. Staff is
therefore requesting that discussion regarding the Participation and Service Agreement be
continued.
AUG-20-1997 10 16
WASTE SYSTEM DIV1510N yd7 �)otD o.00 -
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PUBUC SERVICES GROUP
NASTE SYSTEM DIVISION Now
`
GERRY NEWCOMBE
22 ospltallty Lane.Second flow • San Bernardino,CA 92415-0017 Contract Admm+Strator
909)",7.8722 • Fax (909) 386-8788 —
August 19, 1997 ttr ne t Mr.John Davis x"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 team 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 Nalas ofliceloo review and finalize model assumptions
• August 27 - 10:00 A.M. meeting @ Nore
August 29 - Hold date for continued meeting on model assumptions, if necessary
September 2- 1:00 P.M. meeting @ Fontana Performing AM Center
ier to negotiate WDA rate
p agreement language
structure and amounts and finalize remaining agr
• September 3 - 9:30 A.M. meeting @ Fontana to resolve any open items from September 2
meeting complete negotiations by September 5.
Schedule additional meetings as necessary
continued progress tings is encouraging and we are all looking
----� The coat p gr ess that has been made at our previous mee
forward to bringing this process to a successful conclusion.
Sincerely,
`10 ¢
�
4, v ewc be
Contact Administrator
GN-JS
cc: Robert L. Jocks,County Counsel
Marty Czerniak,NORCAL
Conway Collis,Collis Associates
1At.IES J HLAY`:EK Board of superv.sors Trurd Distric
Cuu+ay Ah+t� +`+�tr�t''�e u1ticrr KATHY A DAMS.. . . .. .... . . .. First District DENNiS HANSBERGER Fourth D+strlc
SucOnd DI-ttrict LARRY WALKER . • ••.
Ti%l KELLY JON D.MIKELS . . . Filth District
JERRY EAVES .•• � � 14�ra�.rhr
ajyisl.v�l Cuun!y lulmint,traUr TOTAL P.01
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Mayor Tom Minor Subject: That the Common Council table
further consideration of PSA
?t: Mayor's Office and direct discussions with County
on Waste Disposal Agreement.
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.
Tom Minor, Mayor
Contact person: James Howell, Director of Public Services Department Phone: 5140
Supporting data attached: N/A Ward: ALL
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount N/A
Source:—
Finance:
Council Notes:_ Previously - # 7
Previously - # 07/0 2197
Agenda Item No. //y�
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 extremely difficult
to terminate 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 translate 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 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 agreement as presented 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.
�m
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: Ju1Y 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.
Si nature
Contact person: Director of Public Services Phone: 5140
Supporting data attached: Memorandum dated July 16 1997 Ward: ALL
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount N/A
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:_ Previously - # 5"5 0/#//y-1
Previously - #d 3 d f/oq h 7
Previously - #�� �q1p zh 1
Agenda Item No._
�y3
ti
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR TOM MINOR;MEMBERS OF THE COMMON CIL
FROM: JAMES R.HOWELL,DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVIC,\Y
BY;
LYNN MMERRILL,ACTING SOLID WASTE MANAGER��/ate/
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO NORCAL PROPOSAL OF JUNE 26, 1997
DATE: JULY 16, 1997
CC: FRED WILSON,CITY ADMINISTRATOR;JAMES PENMAN,CTIY ATTORNEY
Staff has prepared the following information as follow-up to staffs 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 haulers Gack'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 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 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 currently have. The County is the sole owner of the landfill
system and contracts with Norcal/San 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-county waste. For
example, Riverside County has proposed offering rates as low as S27.50 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 Norcal/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 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 RCRA/CERCLA 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; entering into the
PSA agreement as presented would increase this exposure.
7. While the Counry/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 S 1.55 million per year.
s
k
2
1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PUBLIC SERVICES
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Tom Minor and Common Council
FROM: Jim Howell, Director of Public Services
BY: Lynn Merrill, Solid Waste Manager`
DATE: September 30, 1997
SUBJECT: Status and Update on Waste Disposal Agreement
COPIES: James Penman, City Attorney
Fred Wilson, City Administrator
The following is the status and update regarding the negotiation process on the Waste
Disposal Agreement between the consortium of cities and the County.
Seven meetings were held during the month of September between the County and the
consortium of cities. After an initial offer by the County of$31.00 per ton effective January
1, 1998 that was rejected by the consortium of cities, the County returned with a rate of
$28.50 per ton, effective January 1, 1998 and a term length of fifteen (15) years. Savings in
tipping fees for the remainder of the fiscal year are estimated at $250,000. Additional cost
analysis was performed by the County and reviewed by the consortium of cities. During the
week of September 29`h, both parties will be directing their respective attorneys to revise
language of the Waste Disposal Agreement to reflect the current offer. Minor negotiating
points remain to be discussed.
Staff is recommending that this item be continued to the November 3`d Common Council
meeting, at which time it is expected that a Waste Disposal Agreement will be available for
formal presentation by staff.
JH/LM/jj
9Y3
10/6197