Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 08/25/1994
LEE PRICE CITY CLERK F22115-7- JOINT CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITIES OF EL FASO de ROBLES AND ATASCADERO THURSDAY, AUGUST 25, 1994 7:00 P.M. ATASCADERO LAKE PARK PAVILION l 9515 PISMO STREET i ATASCADERO i This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 54954.2. ray lis;)ng a topic on this aganda, the City Council has expressed its intent to discuss and act on each item. In addition to any act.on identified)r, the ,~rief general description of each item, the action that may be taken shall include: A referral' to staff with specific requcs tc ta-information;continuance,specific direction to staff concerning the policy or mission of the item; discontii-wance, Of consideration; authorization to ante/ into negotiations and execute aq!-eemenfs pertaining to the itern; adoption, or approval; and, disapproval. Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to P»ch item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk(Roerr 208)and in the information Office (Room 103),available for public inspection during City gall business hours. The City Clerk will answer any questions regarding the agenda. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,ll'you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City,please contact the City Manager's Office ((805)461-50 10)or the City Clerk's Cf;cB ((805) 461-50)4). Notification at leas* 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will a.sis, the City staff in assur;ng that reasonable arrangements can he made to provide accessibility to the meeting or se.-ti ice. RULES'. OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: * Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. * A person may speak for five (5) minutes. * No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had a,,, opportunity to do so. * No one may speak more than twice on any item. * Council Members may quwstion any speaker; the speaker may respond but, after the allotted time has expired, may not initiate further discussion. * The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CiTY COUNCIL COMMENTS: WELCOME SELF-INTRODUCTIONS BY BOTH CITY COUNCILS COMMUNITY FORUM: The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from you, the citizen. The Community Forum period is provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum, the following rules will be enforced. * A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless Council authorizes an extension. * All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof. * No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any elected official, commissions and staff. A. JOINT CITY COUNCILS STUDY SESSION The City Councils of the Cities of EI Paso de Robles and Atascadero will meet in a joint session to discuss the following: 1. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE NORTH COUNTY 2. SOLID WASTE ISSUES AND PLANNING 3. PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE SALINAS RIVER DAM B. ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS The following items were continued by action of the Atascadero City Council at its regular meeting of August 9, 1994: 1. RESOLUTION NO.80-94-Adopting the Source Reduction & Recycling Element 2. RESOLUTION NO. 81-94-Adopting the Household Hazardous Waste Element 2 4 � • Goals: o Stabilize Landfill Rates for North County Customers o Avoid North County Customers subsidizing South County expenses o Comply with applicable State Mandates i o Insure consistency with environmental requirements Introduction: A major impetus for forging ahead with a "North County" summit was a continuing concern that the mutual benefiting interests of the citizen-customer of the North County and the South County may not always be the same. If true, then at a minimum, in order to better represent the views of North County's interests, the two north County Cities may wish to take an expanded lead to coordinate efforts of the citizen-customers of the North County. Paso Robles and Atascadero are responsible for providing their citizens with cost effective collection and disposal of solid wastes. This responsibility includes identification of opportunities to stabilize landfill rates (see Exhibit A) . • Citizens of Paso Robles and Atascadero do not want to subsidize landfill related expenses outside the North County area. Concern that a subsidy might occur has resulted in North County cities not signing a Joint Powers Agreement with the County and South County cities. In order to meet their local responsibilities, and at the same time comply with State mandates and environmental requirements, the Cities may wish to coordinate their efforts. A partnership in Solid Waste Management could be mutually beneficial. THE NORTH COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT: THE FOCUSED DISAGREEMENT The disagreement over solid waste management issues actually started almost three years ago. At the time all of the cities and the county entered into a memorandum of Agreement (MOA) designed to draft the planning documents mandated by the State: "The Integrated Waste Management Plan" . At the time, the purpose and the intent for joining into the agreement, as explained to all of the cities and the county, centered on drafting the "planning documents" (e.g. the Source Reduction Recycling Element, etc. ) . However, the decision for who would implement the "Plan's" programs, how, and by which funding mechanism, the programs contained in the document would actually be implemented • was reserved for later. The responsible agency designated for coordinating the drafting of the "Plan" was the Council of Governments (COG) ; both cities are members of the "COG" . 1 , r I The "participants" agreed to have the "landfill owners" (two • private one public) collect fees from our respective customers for this planning effort (see Exhibit B) . Approximately, two years ago, when it became apparent that given the amount of money being collected would readily cover the cost of the "planning documents" , the COG began considering using some of the money for program implementation. Some in the COG went so far as to say that the COG could go ahead and use the customers money (tipping fees) so as to implement anticipated programs rather than await for a new agreement. In light of the language of the original agreements Paso Robles had signed, because it was clear that planning funds might become available for implementation and after contributing over $ 90, 000 of the City' s customers money to the COG, Paso Robles stopped sending COG money. The money, which the City has continued to collect, has been held in trust pending the final accounting for the cost to complete the "planning documents" . Additionally, as detailed in the attached newspaper articles, "market conditions" have added a new dimension to the how North County may perceive its role in solid waste management. By not joining the South County's Joint Powers Authority, the North County may be able to assure its customer lower cost for service, while still achieving State mandates (see Exhibit C) . • When taking the summarized version of three years of dialogue into consideration, and the findings of the draft Source Reduction Recycling Element' s "Disposal Facility Capacity" chapter (see attachment D) and a decision on the part of North County Cities to postpone joining the new Joint Powers Agreement, which neither Paso Robles nor Atascadero have joined, a new opportunity may avail itself to the North County. THE COUNTY'S CONCERN'S Attached as Exhibit E are a series of correspondence between the City and the County regarding the City's move to stabilize North County' s Landfill cost to our customers. The County has requested that the Summit be used as a forum to address their concerns which include but are not limited five main issues: i 1. The assumption that the County will lose a major asset in Chicago Grade; 2 . The assumption that all the impacts associated with the City's action were not considered; 3 . The assumption that there may be insufficient landfill capacity for North County customers beyond 2000; � t • 4. The assumption that the City is violating the original agreement regarding the collection and remittance of the tipping fees; 5. The assumption that the items outlined in the May 23, 1994 County staff report (exhibit A) are accurate and the Board of Supervisors is still operating on theses initial assumptions. Hence, the Summit has been requested to review the attached Exhibit E regarding the County's concern's. SUMMARY The North County may have a unique opportunity to explore ways to more effectively achieve the earlier stated goals. Key to such an effort would be the creation of a North County Task Force to evaluate how best to move forward; provided a desire exists to consider formalizing a North County Solid Waste coordinating effort. I i OO cd 04" s J O a t0> cd O v� ten. v Q O cl, � b 0143 od o" � cts...r, f �, 4. 00 � � O � v d O Y 0 cd 0 4+ O cd . v, ��"w "ow0 y d p O cd O pcn 0 con ca op O 10� •.+ 30 w— aoi us �i S ocodoaiv cd � r' p°'o`=� °°da�iO4 Eo w d > c. O a S.' d �,. +,, ,� Q ° 3o � r, +� � cd �' '000 acd00co " `"� �0•�R� 0 0 0 00 cd app 09 0 00 Q a; 3 a 3 H cd j Ate,, o Ac�a30 Oma' 30 ' O3: o W U m co MC � ca cd o a> at r� S. r'' �" b cd r, v "O r, co • 0 >;cNb r0D Z d rc:> ,,YL,"r0'b d 4� O^' a T A v Cd pOiD'O U y � cn 0 � cid^.•� y r0 4, 4, bpm ^' O.0 ��., cd cd .o �=� >aCD c c U.— m aoE.0 `� rn G 0 cd Ucca c� O '' O W &ncvsOv , riy rA ►' �' d I '>� � coay 0yo w Ora, cd..n v r.., YO O.O y d O ]� .O>i ca U .0 o r-' y pp 0 a U cd ca app L OY a w A cd > O = &. y.0 cd r. O s. = O U v P44 O T7 O a° O Ei sew � V 0 y a� . O == O 0 W Ww c� c. cd cn ® � (Wco o acd 'sZ+' vxcl o o tia>, a ciss.� ai IS E cd 3 NU c0� w° cd co, b 3 _ra .> It cd.;, pp ii pp •0 d 0 �+ +' o.0 o cOd cid +- co ® r�'O ., � rn,v � v►� 0 y cOa O� Q)> C) v ca cu cu c.) � � 0 0 3 � � o � cd cd cc m *, qz rna; ;, 1� �� �.o �w0+ cd cd � . Q, o� o :, o ca C/2 04 w r, 3 m M w cd W t..'L9 , O O A ci pip a>^O id co.fir +•�•+ cd O cd cd V N ca It cd 01 ya>�a> a0ia> cdcd � t0. r,.ClTJ � i",� 00 cd cr^�"�, ¢' y O '�' y y C Li ca O ra w p �clsa d r0.,� y y0" O rp co d— 0� • •��v w C cdO� O O H r C cd rcis A Ow— wU cTsw O 0 O a Y p td cd .r Ly co e,. O R > cd y a ,q cd'0 O � oc,3 y c`s �>'o Mcodpa'p .� cu sb 3 c� r�.� c. r� a a c a cd "7 t � • cz 'b � y O y ' U,C w O •p s a) E. a to a ~ �C� y � o ��✓ p r.•-� sem. �.� o yU c� a,� 0 o � v .� ti°3'a°�i >i En V. �3 �a � � Baa Ct iC �y.0 O +te M p a ice. dm a> 3 m to • oto c.d~ p api o'> b s. t�,y°: y g p y p=: cC 3 0 o a >,a,m a s °�°, 0 3 �' >� d sa a� � ss 3 y a> wa� a caaai � a' aia ZJ Cd Nes „”{ c°a U-2 a v;; y A.0 ti a> =0 4.1 a' � ov ca � ow ;cz. yaxyGap�, tcsoaticzss.�p�o°°c.o v� 3orr-;+ oOfic. O � :�ai > °o czvy Waai.d°A o i i MAY 17 '94 01:3epK, �,,....., . ... .�+a,�taad9co �roalcic . 101m _ Su p1rerne our't n va idates -a w on , T r sh . rn "1 think-this meane'it-will-be flow of commerce. Washington Impassible to enforce a flow con• ,( The Supreme Court, insistingtroy,ordinance," said Betty Jo �Discrimination agaiM inter. ,.once again that the free markt Christian,.the attorney.-;for,the cal &��commerce in favor of a lo "must control the flow of garbage, New Jersey trash hauler who won ,busizm or investment is invalid" yesterday struck down -a New Yesterday's ruling, in almost alliustancea,be wrote in York town's ordinance requiring -At least 28®fates allow munlcl• ` l� Carbone vs. Clarkstown, Z Private haulers to take-trash to a •palities to adopt flow control"or- dtyowned processing plant, - dinances that restrict shipments of 1. Ass legal matter, the ruBri The 6403 ruling deals a setback solid waste. These measures have .comms as no'gurprise, In rulings to municipalities that.have sought been particularly popular In the dating to IM, the high court has to finance costly trash-handlingfa• Northeast, where local govern. :said that garbage is a commodity, rllities by forcing haulers to take meats have builtrecycling cir trash Just like beef,cantaloupes or fresh an their garbage to the plants. burning plants as an alternative to .fish. Kennedy cited past rulings Haulers say they can often save landfills. Often, the financing of 'that said states cannot use laws to money by shipping trash to other these plants is based on a guaran• force companies .to process or states or iaunicipalities, teed clow of trash. package'these food items before TWO years ago, the court said The case arose In 1991 when a_they leave the area, states•and counties cannot refuse private hauler was caught trying .The Environment&i Industry arflous to wast f•town trash or haz. to sneak out of town with a truck. Association, which represents by imposing laws or load of trash,-The city of Clark- trash haulers called the ruling a special fees. stowh"N.Y.,charged$81 per ton at "clear victory for consumers" be- "Yesterday Its facility.The hauler,C&A.Car- cause it will drive down prig, 's decision also bone,said it could save money by makes clear that titles cannot use shipping the trash to'landfillsas The eters, Chief Justice laws to retain trash that could oth• far away as Indiana, lllinois or WUliam Rehnquist and Justices erwise be shipped elsewhere. West Virginia. David 5uuter and Harry Black. 1n both instances, the mus, said the court should have said waste instances, s,the pat c s• �W t1n for the court, Justice upheld Clarkstown's law because criminate against the free flow of .'ed the ccity's lAW a $ c C - �allowed local of,finance a to use 10- . interstate commerce, int" mosure which res�trictsCtt a improvement.,,to "finance a public Provement.,, . Paso Robles Landfill recognized ' eco nezea By Steven Busselen directive to begin installing mental and technical stan- The Daily Press composite liners came a dards, Ramirez said. Rather month later from the Regional than waiting for new stan- The Regional Water Quality Water Quality Control Boards. dards to be handed down froin Control Boards recognized the Essentially, the City of Paso state and federal agencies, the Paso Robles Landfill for being Ilobles managed to meet a re- City decided two years ago to the first landfill on the Central quirement from the Regional invest more than $300,000 in Coast to complete a Water Quality Control Boards the landfill facility, aecordin,; "composite-lined module" at before tile requirement was to Ramirez. Ile said that he its landfill. Landfills are lined ON'-' hrou;ht into effect. believes that investment has to try to protect ground water We knew that «e were go paid off. from contamination by solid ink to be looking at ... nes: en- waste. vironn!enl;il and technical re- "The City is operating at or Work was completed ;lt the quircme!!t." Citi Alanaf ger below tilt, cost oanyone e!se Paso Itobles Landfill on tile Richarcl .l. Ramirez ;aid. in Iho count•." l;;!nlirei. said first composite-lined module The 1';!so Robles City Colin lic added that Ihe, 1%iso Ilobies in early September, accorcli!! cif h;!s .. ,l rc;!I con!nlitn!ent I„!ncif•ill is ;!Irr;!c1� meetin� ;Ili to Jay Cano, the senior eeatel 04.... to l�rin in t1w ('ilk's I;!ndl'ill s;fale ;111,1 frcirr:!I cm iron 70.... I'csour'e•os control cngine•('r \ !11) (o II lii ,tic ,i omiron nu•nl;!I n.w,�.�____ -_�..� ...•..«u..w..,.,...,.NlNwl NMxM O!R1Y!)YfP1µ�w r, •••� � 0 � ��.______ _ 1 Count' s' Ist on rba eissues?p a g By Maggie White concerns there; there will be more other cities,McCarthy said. t Telegram-Tribune major expenditures than in the North "That was the one glitch the City County." Council could not live with,"he said. NORTH COUNTY — Paso Robles The lifespan of the one landfill When Paso Robles stalled at joining and Atascadero may create their own south of Cuesta Grade isn't as long as the group, Atascadero took a second partnership to reduce garbage and the two in the North County. look. "It just doesn't make sense, support recycling, instead of joining McCarthy said the Paso Robles Citv since Paso isn't participating, to join the county's partnership that is al- Council wants the money generated the JPA when everyone else is over ready in the works. in Paso Robles to benefit programs in the Grade," said Atascadero City The San Luis Obispo Council of the North County, rather than the Manager Andy Takata. Governments (SLOCOG) has been county in general. An extra S3 fee is Also. Atascadero's garbage compa- working with local cities for almost being collected from tipping fees at ny,Wil-Mar Disposal,recently started three years to create a Waste Man- each landfill to pay for the waste dumping its trash at Paso's landfill agement Authority. management authority, instead of the one near Atascadero. The group would cooperate on Paso Robles residents could end up So Paso Robles is collecting almost all county%vide education programs, spe- subsidizing recycling programs in of the money for the North Countv. cial recycling days and other methods of meeting the state's requirement to reduce the amount of trash going into landfills. But Atascadero and Paso haven't joined the waste management group and may form their own. That has some people worried that the countv's efforts may not be as effective as it could be. The state requires that cities and counties reduce their garbage by 25 percent by 1995 and by 50 percent by 2000 or face hefty fines. "The North County's non-participa- tion threatens the integrity of the iagreement between the cities." said Susan Mullen, the Waste Manage- ment Authority chairperson. "The agreement was created for economy e of scale and to show that solid waste is a regional concern.when you begin Q to split the county up, it affects those programs." "A key component of the plan was it was based on regional cooperation," t said Ron DeCarli, the executive director of SLOCOG. i He explained that education,house- hold hazardous waste collection and composting programs could be done more affordably through the group than by separate entities. But Paso Robles, which has been reluctant to join the county group, says the North County can serve itself better than a management authority concerned about the county south of the Cuesta Grade. I don t know if the JPA (the county-wide waste authority) is more focused on the South County," said Paso Robles Public Works Director Join McCarthy. `But they have more � 1 L • San Luis Obispo County(Calif.) TELEGRA Past to buy 100 acres Fr ��ccOraing to a report rrom narm- near landfill the existing 80-acre landfill had a life•expectancy of another 58 years. City seeks 4th Atascadero's trash being hauled bS�'Wil-Mar Disposal to the Paso Robles Landfill, that estimate was flexi b i I ity f r Tutu re, retfuced to about 29 years. Wil-Mar is sDtiding about 12 trucks per day to says manager Paso Robles,Ramirez said. r�ohn McCarthy,Paso Robles direc- By Steve Whiteley tOr of public works, said there have Telegram-Tribune Se been no studies to determine how ® long the life of the landfill could be `PASO ROBLES — The purchase of eitended with the acquisition of the 160 acres of land south of the Paso 100 acres, but under current operat Robles Landfill X011 Rive the cite _ iiig conditions it would seem likely flexibility in planning for the future. t3at doubling the size of the facility according to City Manager Richard cpuld double its life to sixty years. Ramirez. -McCarthy said the city is also "But there are no immediate plans considering the purchase of a com- fot the property,he said. mercial compactor that could further- The urther`the City Council voted unanimous- inrease the landfill's life expectancy. 1yTuesday to buy the land contiguous Ramirez said negotiations for the to the landfill, but declined to state ptirchase of the property began be- wlfat it will be used for. iaee the expansion of the city's service "There are a number of possibIli- aj�ea and the acceptance of Atascad ties," Ramirez said. "It could be used etv s trash. He said the council's for.open space, recreation opportuni- dqision was not a reaction to accusa- tiss or other related purposes." tis from opponents of the expansion Ramirez said the land could also be �Kq claimed Paso Robles was endan used as a sight buffer for the existing geeing the Chicago Grade Landfill in landfill,pointing out that the Highway *.hpleton where Wil-Mar previously 46 location of the property is directly took Atascadero garbage. across the road from the Tobin James ;`This is something that has been in Winery tasting room, the first tasting t6el works for a long time," Ramirez room tourists encounter when ap- proaching p preaching Paso Robles from the east. The land may also be used for expanding the landfill, an eventuality that may be more immediate with the recent expansion of the city's solid ;vaste service area to include all of San Luis Obispo County and the subsequent acceptance of garbage from Atascadero. C, ^p°^mrF CITY OF IEL PASO DE ROBLES 09AZ 9�aa.s Of d=Loa e OFFICE OF THE June 28, 1994 MAYOR San Luis Obispo Council of Governments 1150 Osos Street, Suite 202 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Chairman Brackett and Members of the Board: It is my understanding that during the June 23, 1994 Mayors and Manager's meeting, as well as its last C.O.G. meeting, concerns were expressed over the City of Paso Robles' failure to abide by the Memorandum of Understanding on Solid Waste Management. Comments were made indicating that the City was violating the agreement to forward "tipping fees" to cover the cost of implementation of the Integrated Waste Management Plan. This same concern has been previously expressed. Several times the alleged "violation" • has been verbally placed in the context of "bad faith" and mismanagement. The City is willing to pay the COG any and all funds due with regards to the Agreements entered into in 1990 and 1991 as amended (see Exhibit A & B). We have tried yet failed to secure from COG staff a bill for services rendered under provisions of the enclosed exhibits. Oral history on any given matter can be easily lost. We have taken the liberty to copy and highlight the written history --as we understand it-- associated with what was and was not agreed to regarding tipping fees for undertaking the drafting of an Integrated Waste Management Plan. Accordingly, we have included the following documents: a) Summary of legal use of tipping fees; b) Related documents of the use of tipping fees; and c) Exhibits: (1) Highlighted Agreements. (2) Points and Authorities relevant to the action being sought by Chicago Grade Landfill against the City of Paso Robles. • Recognizing that our documents may be in error or we may be missing some action by g g Y Post Office Box 307 • Paso Robles, California 93447-0307 • (805) 238-0400 f • ( 1 June 28, 1994 Page 2 the City/COG, we would like an opportunity to address the COG Board on: 1) Our belief that we are not in violation of the MOU; and 2) Provide you with the factual data behind the City's action to lower our tipping fees (see Exhibit Q. We look forward to clarifying and resolving any confusion that may still exist regarding the purpose and intent of our actions regarding the Integrated Waste Management Plan and the means to pay for said document. Sincerely, r hristian E. Iversen, Mayor cc: Paso Robles City Council a Bob Hendrix, County Administrator file SUMMARY DOCUMENTS FOR LEGAL USE OF $3.00 TIPPING FEE BY: STEVE DEVENCENZI MIKE COMPTON JOHN McCARTHY l� { ' .. SAN LUIS OBIPPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL 1007 Monterey Sleet, San Luis Obispo Ca. 93401 (805) 549-4662 r SOLID WASTE: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DATE: NE 18, 992 TO: SWTAC FROM: STEVE DEVENCENZI SUBJ: ZLLOCATEED POSAL T . OD1FY EXISTING MOU TOAL,,LQW TIPPING FEES TO FOR IMPLEMENTATION PURPOSES The existing MOU provides for the collection of tipping fees "... to fund the preparation 71+1,S of the SRREs and the PLAN." And further provides "...That the tipping fee surcharge be 15 apportioned among all of the residents of the County of San Luis Obispo in an equitable manner." The amounts collected to date from the existing$3.00 per ton tipping fee, along "OT with the return of unspent funds, have repaid the County General un for the monies originally allocated to the program. The upcoming fiscal year bud et will be covered from 1 the total tipping fees collected by about er of this a onies that accrue eyon the point w ere eac landfil as paid their fair share could be set aside for the purpose 'uY 07' of various implementation measures. ly A modfication of the MOU to include allow,' ,,g tipping fees that are collected to be allocated to implementation of the programs contained in the SRREs and the HHWE would be appropriate. The funds could be set aside for the IWMA that is currently under discussion and could also be allocated to the member jurisdictions for implementing their CP C, in-house programs. 44 The SWTAC should discuss the various considerations that would be a part of the §,J P, proposed modification to the use of the tipping fees and give direction to staff on formulating a more concrete pro osal for consideration by the SWTF. 6/92 modimpl IF &,�� City of EI Paso de Robles N f q t N \\ pp �(� _ -79c J Rii O f EiLE I:JRfa„ ' O m v�! 4, 44CH 11. yO�J13 May 20, 1992 TO: John McCarthy, Director of Public Works FROM: Mike Compton, Director of Administrative Services — - SUBJECT. AB 939 - Landfill Surcharge In May, 1990, the City Council approved a memorandum of understanding with the County of San Luis Obispo and the other cities within the County to levy a tipping fee surcharge equivalent to $1.00 per ton for the specific purpose of funding the preparation of the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRRE's) as well as the Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP). • It was known at the time that the $1.00 per ton levy would not be sufficient to cover the costs of preparing the SRRE's and IWMP. Everyone agreed that after the consultant bids were received and a contract awarded, the levy would be adjusted accordingly. Thus, in July, 1991 the tipping fee surcharge was increased to $3.00 per ton. Contrary to calculations prepared by Steve Devencenzi, the Solid Waste Program Manager, the City has not underpaid its obligation by $1,278.00. Due to a reporting error by the City's landfill operator, the City over-reported deliveries to the landfill. Thus, the City overpaid AB 939 tipping fee surcharges to the County. The appropriate correction was made on the check mailed in February, 1992 for tipping fee surcharges paid for November and December, 1991. Since implementation, the City has paid a total of$70,835.00 to the County for preparation of the SRRE's amd IWMP. Payments and tonnage are detailed in the attached Schedule "A". It should be noted that the City was unable to adopt and implement the increased tipping fee surcharge from $1.00 to $3.00 per ton as quickly as the privately operated landfills due to public noticing, hearing and adoption requirements for public entities. Thus, payments were made to the County for the months of July and August, 1991 at S1.00 per ton rather than $3.00. It should also be noted that the Cold Canyon Landfilll still owes $20,243.18 for the month of August, 1991 and the Chicago Grade Landfill has yet to increase the tipping fee surcharge to the $3.00 per ton rate and hasn't made any payment whatsoever since October, 1991. • Administrative Services • Post Office Box 307 9 Paso Robles, California 93447-0307 9 (805) 237-3999 0 FAX (805) 238-4704 e 013 Z If the City chose to "cover" the months of July and August, 1991W, 2. e increased tipping fee surcharge, the cost to the City would be $1 Chicago Grade Landfill's unmet obligation is calculated at $39,074. Tipping fee surcharges collected to date are detailed in the attached Schedule "B". As the schedule indicates, assuming all landfill operators make good on their obligation for tipping fee surcharges, the total to be collected through 2/29/92 since implementation would be $595,161. The contract with Brown, Vence &Associates (BVA) for preparation of the EIR and SRRE's is $343,730. It is anticipated that the Solid Waste Program Manager will prepare the countywide IWMP inhouse since it is merely a task of integrating in a coordinated fashion the various SRRE's for each public entity being prepared by the consultant into a single countywide plan. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 1991, total County Integrated Waste ' Management Program costs excluding the siting element and the consultant . contract with BVA were $80,637. The total budget for fiscal year 1992 excluding the siting element and BVA contract is $99,000 of which only $50,130 has been expended through 4/30/92 with only two months to go. For the purpose of this analysis, the larger of the two, $99,000 was used. BVA Contract $343,730 FY 1991 Actual 80,637 FY 1992 Budgeted 99,000 $523,367 109/6 "Fudge" Factor — 52,337 • Total estimated Expenditures $S75,704 Total Estimated Revenues 595,161 Net Surplus/(Deficit) $ 19,457 It would appear that if each landfill operator made good on its obligation for collection and remittance of the tipping fee surcharge, sufficient funds would be collected through February 29, 1992 to adequately fund the BVA contract for preparation of the SRRE's and the IWMP. This was the extent of the City's obligation for assessing the tipping fee surcharge under the terms of the memorandum of understanding. Without commenting in detail on the draft SRRE's at this time, for your information the finance officers of each City within the County met a couple of weeks ago with Steve Devencenzi, Solid Waste Program Manager, to discuss the fiscal ramifications of the SRRE's and IWMP. After reviewing the draft, it was clearly the concensus of the finance officers that the costs identified in the SRRE's were not credible. This could taint both the elected officials and the public's perspective with regard to the SREE's and IWMP and the quality of work performed by BVA. Irvine Jenkins, a financial consultant to the private solid waste sector who previously worked in the County Auditor-Controller's office, also has some very strong concerns with regard to the work by BVA and • the draft SRRE's. 1 Schedule "All CITY OF PASO ROBLES AB 939 Tipping Fee Surcharges Life to Date Schedule of Tonnage and Fees Paid Month Tons Ems* September, 1990 2, 984 $2,984 October, 1990 3,038 $3,038 November, 1990 2,186 $2,186. December, 1990 2,145 $2,145 January, 1991 2,059 $2,059 February, 1991 2, 603 $2,603 March, 1991 2,258. $2,258 April, 1991 2,725 $2,725 May, 1991 3,044 $3,044 June, 1991 2,776 $2,776 subtotal FY 191 25, 818 $25,818 July, 1991 2, 988 $2, 988 August, 1991 3,053 $3,053 September, 1991 2, 627 $7,881 October, 1991 2, 937 $8, 811 November, 1991 2,796 $8,388 December, 1991 2, 170 $6,510 January, 1992 2, 462 $7,386 subtotal FY 192 19, 033 $45,017 *Beginning in September, 1991 surcharge was increased to $3.00 per ton • 1 /�`r Schedule "B" COUNTYWIDE COLLECTIONS AB 939 Tipping Fee Surcharges Life to Date Schedule of Tonnage and Fees Paid Amount Amount Amount Tonnage D-we Paid owp(i Fiscal Year 1991*• Chicago Grade Landfill 21,196 $21,196 $21, 196 -0- Cold Canyon Landfill 142, 979 $142,979 $142, 979 -0- Paso Robles Landfill 25,818 $25,818 $25, 818 -0- Fiscal Year Total 189, 993 $189, 993 $189, 993 -0- * an eleven month year - surcharge implemented 8/1/90 Fiscal Year 1992 thria 2/29/92• - Chicago Grade Landfill 15,802 $47,406 $8, 332 $39,074 Cold Canyon Landfill* 97, 909 -$293,727 $200, 053 $93, 674 Paso Robles Landfill** 21,_345 $64,035 $44, 367 $19, 668 Fiscal Year Total 135,056 $405,168 $252, 752 $152, 416 * as of 3/2/92 data for January & February not available - tonnage and amounts due are estimated ** tonnage for January & February are available but amount due has not yet been remitted Total: 8/1/90-2/29/92 325,049 $595,161 $442,745 $152, 416 TO: RICHARD J. RAMIREZ, CITY MANAGER FROM: JOHN R. MCCARTHY, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WOR S SUBJECT: AB 939 LANDFILL SURCHARGE INFORMATION EMO DATE: MAY 11, 1993 1. Tipping Fees at the Landfill. Why does the City charge a $3.00 per ton tipping fee at the Paso landfill over and above the City' s normal expenses? In May of 1990, ,,the City Council approved a memorandum of understanding with the County to levy $1. 00 per ton for the specific purpose of funding the preparation of the Planning efforts required under AB 939 . These efforts included the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRRE) , and the Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP) . In July, 1991, the tipping fee was increased to $3 . 00 per ton to pay for the same above studies but at an • accelerated rate. This was done at the request of the County with concurrence by the City. 2 . What does the M.O.U. agreement state regarding Paso participation with the County? The MOU states that Paso Robles will participate in the PLANNING PROCESS only for this project. The exact language is as follows: "1. That the County of San Luis Obispo, the cities located within the County of San Luis Obispo, and those special districts located within the County having Jurisdiction over the removal of solid waste, will collectively pursue a countywide approach to the problems of solid waste management, and that the entities shall collectively engage a consultant and a project coordinator to prepare the individual Source Reduction and Recycling Elements and the Integrated Waste Management Plan required under Assembly Bill 939" No other language is present in the MOU that commits the City of Paso Robles to any other obligation for payment. • CITY COUN(VN i L .MAY 181993 V77MII /S C r 3. What is the County' s current contention regarding the document? The current contention is that the City- of Paso Robles should continue to pay into the County funds the $3 per ton charge even though it can be shown that ample money has already been deposited to complete the work as outlined in the MOU. 4. What is Staff's stance relative to status of agreement and why no money is to be sent in? The City has already contributed $89 , 852 . 50 to the County as of February 1992 . Contributions to the fund --were stopped as of that date. The total fees contributed by all landfills as of March is $958 , 039 . 10 . The projected total cost of the BVA _contract plus COG staff budgeting nF for the SRRE' s is $646, 140. Cog staff is to complete the � IWMP. This leaves a fund balance of approximately $300,1000 with the County. QLJS tip)A6 - Staff' s opinion is that per Council approved MOU, the 5 y 4 City has contributed its fair share to the fund and no additional contributions should be made at this time. 4 5. Does the County have the authority to demand fees from Paso Robles? The legal authority to demand fees from a City owned landfill by the County is questionable. The Public Resources Code Section 41901 does allow for the imposition of fees to pay for the costs of preparing, adopting and implementing a countywide integrated waste management plan. The question relating to imposition of fees on a City owned landfill by the County has not been clarified. However, the Code makes it clear that the provisions of Government Code 66106 must be followed. This has not been the case up to now. x:\mad\ccreport\ab939.mem .� - -�-'v c-�,.� 1J1 11 1 1��.. ••'--��•-'••• 1 V J1GJ1 VJC7J r,.YJG §41850 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE c°wtw Rera`"e� PU1 Rcriew of 1949 L"411141446n.21 1`"Ise U 300. Q 41831.Ptera cam of city or county land use authority Nothing In this chapter Shall infringe on the esitting authority of eoun6-and chici to eonlrol land u use make land use dceiaions,acid nothing in this chapter provides or transfers new authority over use to the board. k or Srcti� Added Slav 1919 eh 1093 see 22. Y er lila!land _ 41, Collateral Refersaccs; - 411 Review of 1989 LXidLtioa.21 Pacific U 300, 41 41, CHAPTER g 411 411 Local Fee.4u(hd.;p, colt.: (Added Stals 1989 eh 1095 sec 22.1 keit Section1419 41900. Demonstration Of funding source (a)n 41901. lm position of(M*Use of fundsi Determination of fee Amount cardt 41902. Collection of fixe Stgre 41903. Special foes on im rnll,r fmrlatinn of Waste; G)+ort reui yrc:l:enl] (:oualaral Rdemttaa: (bl T keview of 1989 Lesislulon.21 Pacific LJ 300• rea_cn 4 41900.Demonstrationfor n Of fandlnS source - recyc Each City and county Shall demonstrate a funding source, or sources, a. fr1 f, adopting,and implementing the element Or plan,at required by this p:n. ailnhlc to pay for preparing, for a Added Stats 1919 M 1093 we 22.Amoadad Slab IM th IIS b 49 t.n 1 a?o),�Rn.,,,c/ul,c IK, Ivyp. #rare, Alicesdulestw: A die FA1990 A•MdmellL Sub6lituled •this pin for"Scclion 141003,41210,4130),and 41430"rt Site end. Amt 1.IatpoSitloa o[fees;UseoffundsDNertalastion of for■tnuant "toil , county,or city and county Duly im ta1.■1 ng. and implementing a culcolywideinptgrtted ttw�s eontrtna cncntxufficiclt lanpa� the echctx of prgwring. utero #l,The fees Shall be bated on the t R p p elrarcd punwant to till% lwrts talus incurred bythe city or coun�p�efcpari rataof the solid taste,and shall be ukd to pay the ('octal ing and collecting the log,letsInddcrmiag the an nuni Kaf h fimp�ertc lyturgc huuhy shall incluc)elait.ux well u% % •�hose costs dirtetly related to the preparation, adaption, rad implmtenlrtiaci of the plan and tilt and collectionof the local fees.A till.,county,el. irr rad t...atv:Ao!/lm(iof,r thehtaxlan an actto415 66altAe Gape ymeal Colt. ante Stpts 1919 ch 1095 sec 22.A alum me rded Stats 1992 ch 4A7!}2(AB 2367). at til 4 41902.Collection of kea •6nj1 A local agency may directly collet(the fees authorized by this chapter or may,by agrecDncnt•rrnnge fiv histo the faze to bt eolketed by a solid watt hauler providing solid waste ealkction far the city nl county. form Added Stats 1919 ch 1095 sac 22. 4 4190 •Special fees oa ItttporUtloa of wash;Export reyulrcmeota g 415 A city or county tray assess Special las of a r M-6 of the county to public) owned eaaoltabit amount on Lite imporlatio:l of o city Of rouniy&hall waste from outaidc recyc an other jurisdiction unless the es�vmrieilWoracounity facilities. within one year follow export olidatd waste LspocifieIWe y s 1'�• 8 Y Y in Section 41791 or a later date established or permitted by the board,an approved city or county household For", hazardous waste clement and a source reduction and recycling element which have both or have submitted a Countywide integrated waste ma __ been implemented. ¢all howboard.ever, that, unfit one year fo(btilinS the date specified intSectionlid in 1791 of attatcr datelifince lteltablithed by. the require nothing herein Shall be eoaslrued In a, the requirements of this section if the hoard determines that ail additional Of ressonablc source rredueuan and en recycling programa are being impkmcnlod in tete city err county or if the board determines that the system �a to capon waste auppOrls of enhances the city or county source recovery #vire element. ery and recycling element.recyelinj Adde Added Slats 1989 eh 1093 sec 22,Aoseaded Stas 1990 ch 1406 S 13 LAD 2701), 11101111A �famixt thou 1990 Aa,ea4me t Amended the umod ustewe by(1)6"as"oc county household h+rardous waste ekmrnt and a` Hen. "count approved,a city (1) sutatitutiaS -whkb have both been imptanented. or ha.e tubrnitted a" for •'err' bdo,= Poor (est and(31 addiftS the nonwna&A_-"uu ata,neal plan". 141. CHAPTER 9 Not) Unlawful Acis on tl (Added Sub 1989.ch 1095 see 22,1 074 Anicic Add. 1. Generally,141950 Arte 2. Trash Baia•4 41970 S1"I 1119 For; 134 1 la 1992, — 1sa(is htdiuee ck.,,p el..aditio.n •••io0katc omisiona N rt sb teras Cl TOTAL P.02,:�PC) wC�VED MEMOAMRE ARDINGN SOLIOD WASTER MANAGEMENT (�A`� 2 f� ���U - . Envi;orment: al f-I��t�it; RECITALS WHEREAS, the California Legislature has enacted the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989; commonly referred to as Assembly Bill 939; and WHEREAS, Xssembly .Bill 939 mandates that certain solid waste planning be undertaken by the County of San Luis Obispo and the cities located within that county (the "Local Cities") , and that these actions must be taken in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the county and the local cities to prepare and•adopt a Source Reduction and Recycling Element which shall include a program for the management of solid waste generated within the cities and the unincorporated areas of the county; and WHEREAS, it is the County's responsibility to prepare and adopt a countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo and the Local Cities have convened a Solid Waste Task Force . to study issues related to solid waste management and to make recommendations to these entities in the area of solid waste management and to assist in coordinating the development of the city and county Source Reduction and Recycling Elements; and WHEREAS the Solid Waste Task Force has convened a Solid Waste Technical Committee to advise ,the Solid Waste Task Force on matters pertaining to the development of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element and the countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, and the funding of the costs of preparing these plans; and WHEREAS the Solid Waste Technical Committee has- considered various ways in which to meet the requirements set forth under Assembly Bill 939; and WHEREAS the Solid Waste Task Force has considered the recommendations made by the Solid Waste Technical Committee, and the Task Force had determined that 1) it would be more cost- efficient to adopt a countywide approach to prepare the County and City Source Reduction and Recycling Elements, and the countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, 2) the governmental entities having jurisdiction over solid waste management within the county should cooperate jointly to achieve a timely completion of their responsibilities under Assembly Bill 939, by engaging the services of a consultant to draft both the County and City Source Reduction and Recycling Elements, and the Integrated Waste Management Plan; and 3) that these entities should develop a proper method of funding the preparation of the plans required under Assembly Bill 939, as codified in California Public Resources Code section 41901, and adopt a mechanism for equitably funding the preparation of the Source Reduction Recycling Elements and Integrated Waste Management Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, it is understood and agreed by and between- the governmental entities which are signatories to this document, as follows: 1. That the County of San Luis Obispo, the cities located within the County of San Luis Obispo, and those special districts located. within the County having jurisdiction over the removal of solid waste, will collectively pursue a countywide r approach to the problems of solid waste management, and. that these • entities shall collectively engage a consultant and a project coordinator to prepare the individual Source Reduction and Recycling Elements and the Integrated Waste Management Plan required under Assembly Bill 939. 2. That' the necessary ordinances and resolutions be adopted, levying a tipping fee surcharge equivalent to $1. 00,_ per ton at all public landfills in the County of San Luis Obispo, to fund the preparation of the Source Reduction and—Recycling Elements and the Integrated Waste Management Plan. 3. That the tipping fee surcharge be apportioned among all of the residents of the' County of San Luis Obispo in an equitable manner. r Passed and adopted by the signatories hereto on the dates indicated below. City of Grover City Dated: By: DAVID EKBOM, Mayor of Grover City City of Arroyo -Grande Dated: By: " MARK MILLIS. Mayor of Arroyo Grande ' 1 • RELATED BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS ON THE PAYMENT AND USE OF THE $3.00 TIPPING FEE BY: MAYOR CHRIS IVERSEN MIKE COMPTON JOHN McCARTHY °FS""` O City of EI Paso de Robles W Pe�M W � O O Pasa o f t4F- Oafa' • N � v1d 4�RCN .•�°,1a0 y0*117 -VINE°�\ June 24, 1991 TO. Streets and Utility Committee Bob Grogan, City Manager FROM: Mike Compton, Director of Administrative Servicesm SUBJECT: Various Utility Rate Adjustments Recommended Action: That the streets and utility committee recommend to the City Council adoption of various utility rate increases as proposed below: Discussion: AB 939 Solid Waste Management Plan Preparation The Solid Waste Task Force has recommended and the Board of Supervisors has adopted an additional $2.00 per ton surcharge on solid waste deliveries to every landfill in the county in order to generate the monies necessary to adequately fund the cost of preparing the AB 939 solid waste management plan. This additional $2.00 is in addition to the $1.00 surcharge already in place. The estimated cost of compliance is approximately $5,000 monthly. It is expected that the surcharges may be rescinded July 1, 1992 when the AB 939 solid waste management plan is completed. The effective date of the surcharge was supposed to be July 1, 1991 but due to lack of notification by the County that the additional surcharge was being considered until after it was adopted it is impossible for the City to implement the surcharge until September 1, 19.91. The reason for the delayed implementation as a public agency, the City must hold at least one public hearing and implementation must coincide with the billing cycle of Paso Robles Waste Disposal. -Paso Robles Waste Disposal bills bi-monthly and their next billing is mid-August. Based upon a 4:1 conversion ratio for compacted yards to tons and 7:1 conversion ratio for uncompacted yards to tons, the surcharge on solid waste deliveries is $0.50 per compacted yard. and $0.28 per uncompacted yard. The uncompacted yard amount was rounded to the highest fifty cents due to easing and simplifying change making at the landfill. Attached for your review and consideration is Exhibit "A" representing a revised landfill rate schedule. Please note the following special changes: Administrative Services P.O. Box 307, Paso Robles, CA 93447-0307 • (805) 238-1515 • FAX (805) 238-4704 j i'CEI•!ED M E M O Tl Or- P —(-)R1 i= TO: RICHARD J. RAMIREZ, CITY MANAGER MIRE COMPTON, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FROM: JOHN R. McCARTHY, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WOR SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITT JUNE 18, 1992 DATE: JUNE 22, 1992 At the Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee a number of issues came up which you should both be aware of. The County will be proposing to hold a recycling event for household hazardous waste sometime in the fall. The County will be paying for this event. The Source Reduction and Recycling Elements are now in the final stages and need to be scheduled for public hearing with individual city councils. Two public hearings must be scheduled. The first will be a workshop with the consultants so the Council can understand what the document is all about. The second public hearing will be a true "public hearing" so that the public may have input. The final comments are then incorporated into the plan and the plan will be shipped back to Sacramento. I understand there is a thirty day advertising period required for these public hearings so we need to schedule a day as soon as possible. Rich, please get back to me with the appropriate times and dates for these meetings. They would like to have them in late July/early August if possible. They must also coordinate with all the other cities so we may not get the dates we want. Another discussion of interest to us is related to the tipping fee surcharge for AB 939 Planning Activities and I have attached the staff report for your review. At this- time it is important that the City continue to send to the County our portion of the tipping fee so. that we do not get out of sync with the other communities. There are still a number of planning activities that must occur through `this year. The longer term that must be seriously considered is the continuation of the tipping fee to fund the implementation of the regional projects. It has been the consensus of most of the solid waste task force members that the tipping fee shallremain in place to, on a regional basis, implement programs. I understand SLOCOG recently voted to establish a JPA separate from the SLOCOG as the entity to carry out the solid waste programs. This will take some time to unfold and there needs to be much more discussion on the tipping fee situation. As it stands now I have recommended that SLOCOG staff come back to = • the advisory committee with a simplified summary of the regional projects that need to be accomplished, an estimate of the regional implementation budget and the estimated revenues that would accrue at $3/ton. That information will be forthcoming within the next month. Please call me should you have any questions. mp Attachment sWtac.mem Wile- • • June 26 , 1992 MEMO To: Mike Compton From: Chris Iversen Re: AB 939 Surcharge - May 20 Memo Thanks for a copy of your well prepared memo regarding AB 939 fees and position on the SRRE and IWMP. We need to take a position relative to the COG and a proposed joint powers agreement on the county-wide program. At the last COG meeting I stated that Paso Robles' position regarding a joint powers agreement could very well be substantially different than other cities due to our unique situation of owning our landfill . I agree that if other communities have not paid their fees and/or the AB939 fees have now paid for the needed studies for the SRRE we should quickly make our position known about future payments. From the rough work on the siting element I think its clear Paso Robles will not receive any benefit. It is a given that our landfill will serve our needs for many years to ;come. We don't need to spend money for a study to tell us this. I agree that keeping the fees in place for our use as to closure costs, etc. is a good plan. This will help us maintain our independence. Please let me know if you have any questions. cc: Rich Ramirez John McCarthy Council c SAN LUIS OBI, 10 AREA COORDINA1 AG COUNCIL. 1007 Monterey. Street, San Luis Obispo.Ca. 93401 (805) 549-4662 SOLID WASTE TECHNICAL ' ADVISORY COMMITTEE DATE: JUNE 18,1992 TO: SWTAC FROM: STEVE DEVENCENZI SUBJ: ALLOCATION OF JURISDICTIONAL SHARES OF PROGRAM COSTS RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMEND COMBINING A TIPPING FEE "REBATE" FOR SOME USERS ATCOLDCANYON WITH A TIPPING FEE INCREASE AT CHICAGO - GRADE TO DEVELOP PARITY AMONG FACILITY USERS FOR FUNDING THE AB 939 PLANNING PROGRAM DISCUSSION: As discussed at the May 21, 1992 meeting of the SWTAC, tipping fee surcharge for AB 939 has not been "evenly" collected so that all jurisdictions have participated on an equal basis to date. In order to equalize financial participation among all jurisdictions the various payments coming thru the landfills would require additional payments as follows: COLD CANYON $20,243 CHICAGO GRADE $29,635 PASO ROBLES $14,010 TOTAL $63,888 The payment"shortfall"from Cold Canyon are payments covering the three South County Cities. The Chicago Grade collection of the $2.00 per ton increase adopted by the Board of Supervisors to be effective July 1, 1991 was not implemented until mid February of 1992 and effects'the City of Atascadero and the unincorporated County areas served by that facility. The Paso Robles Landfill payments were not collected in July and August of 1991 and effect the City of Paso Robles and the unincorporated areas served by that facility. Options to equalize financial participation include: * cash payments to the Trust Fund in order to establish parity * increase the tipping fee at Chicago Grade to accelerate the repayment period. * extending payment of the tipping fee for "planning" an appropriate period of time to establish parity * •directly "rebate" payment to jurisdictions that havb'paid more than others to.defray expenses incurred for solid waste planning - for example; 1 1. Cold-Canyon users could be credited for their payments In July and 1 August of 1991 -- equalizing them with 'users of the'Paso Robles Landfill -thus.leaving users of Chicago Grade 51/2 months behind ($20,956.93) the rest of the County 2. Cold Canyon and Paso Robles users could be credited for all payments thru,February 1992 thus equalizing all users. As fiscal conditions are not likely to result in offers for cash payments, it would appear that the concepts of extending payment and increasing the tipping fees at Chicago Grade are the most viable approaches. Extending the payment schedule only could result in the following extended schedule: *Cold Canyon 2 months - (for the So. County Cities users only) *Cold Canyon 0 months - (fully paid users - SLO, Morro Bay, SLO County) *Chicago Grade 7 1/2 months = (Atascadero and uninc. County areas) with no fee increase *Paso Robles 2 months - (Paso Robles and uninc. County areas) . By combining the extension concept with"rebates"and increased tipping fees at Chicago Grade the following arrangement could result: * Cold Canyon users from SLO, Morro Bay, and SLO County receive a "rebate" from July 1991 ($53,062 total) . no impact to users from Pismo Beach, Grover City, Arroyo Grande �^ * Paso Robles no impact * Chicago Grade rate increase - amount to be determined - resulting in 1i12 L4d a reduction of the 51/2 month period that the Chicago Grade users need to reach parity with the rest of the ratepayers in the county. The SWTAC should discuss these (or other) options to develop parity amongst the various facility users and make a recommendation to the SWTF. 6/92 erre$shr 1 1 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 91 -91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR THE COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF THE AB 939 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN PREPARATION FEE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the agreement attached herewith between the City of EI Paso de Robles and the County of San Luis Obispo regarding the collection and remittance of the tipping fee surcharge for the preparation of the AB 939 solid waste management plan is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute said agreement on the behalf of the City. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Martin, Picanco, Reneau, Russell and Mayor Iversen NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Christian E. Iversen, Mayor Deputy City ,ate. AGREEMENT FOR INCREASE IN COLLECTION OF TIPPING— $' FEES FOR PLAN PREPARATION, PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 939 (PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 40000 et seq. ) This Agreement is entered into this 16th day of July, 1991, by and between the Council of San Luis Obispo (hereinafter referred to as "County" ) and City of Paso Robles (hereinafter referred to as "City" ) . WHEREAS, the California Legislature has enacted - the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 , commonly referred to as Assembly Bill 939 , which is codified at Public Resources Code Section 40000 et seq; and WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 41901 provides that the County may impose fees in amounts sufficient to pay the costs of preparing, adopting and implementing the Integrated Waste Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the Cities and the County of San Luis Obispo entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which, inter alia , provided for the levying of a one dollar ( $1 . 00 ) per ton tipping fee at all public landfills in the County to fund the preparation of the source reduction and recycling elements and the Integrated Waste Management Plan. In accordance with MOU, the seven cities have adopted the one dollar ( $1 . 00 ) per ton tipping fee; and WHEREAS, this agreement shall supercede all previous agreements for the tipping fee increase for plan preparation pursuant to AB 939 ; and WHEREAS, Paso Robles Landfill is located within the City of Paso Robles and is also owned and operated by the City, which provides solid waste disposal services to the general public . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing the parties agree as follows : 1 . Fee. Effective September 1 , 1991 , the City will implement and collect an additional two dollars ( $2 . 00) per ton fee on its general refuse and automobile rates . The one dollar ( $ 1 . 00 ) per ton tipping fee shall continue to be in effect until each city adopts the two dollar ( $2 . 00 ) increase . However, the two dollar. ( $2 . 00 ) fee shall not be collected until prior agreement of the cities to increase their hauling rates by a like amount . 2 . Collection. On November 15, 1991, and the 15th of • each month thereafter (hereinafter referred to as the "Payment Date" ) , the City shall deliver to the County Auditor' s Office the additional funds which were collected, based on the increased rate, during the month ending forty—five (45) days prior to the Payment Date. For example, on November 15, 1991, the City shall deliver all of the funds collected during the month of September, 1991 to the County; on December 15, 1991, the City shall deliver all of the funds collected during the month of October, 1991, and so on. 3 . Adjustments . The county shall allow the City to adjust payments based on the amount of bad check tonnage, which the City may incur. 4 . Records . All records , accounts, and documentation - regarding the calculation and payment of the above referenced fee shall be accessible during normal business hours to be authorized representatives of the County or State government, on reasonable prior notice, for the purpose of examination or audit . 5 . Indemnification. In collecting the fee referred to above, the City is acting on behalf of the • County. the County shall indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless against and in respect of any and all claims , demands , losses , costs , liability, damages and expenses of any nature that the City may incur or suffer, which arise, result from or relate to any legal challenges regarding the collection, disbursement or use of these fees . 6 . Modification. This agreement shall be amended or modified only upon written agreement signed by both parties . IN WITNESS WHEREOF the County and City have executed this Agreement on the date and year hereinabove set forth. CITY OF SO ROBLES COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BY: iw BY: ristian E . Iversen, Mayor Chairman of the Board of Supervisors ATTEST • Clerk of the Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT: 2 EXHIBIT B-1 • MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS -OBISPO AND THE CITIES OF ARROYO GRANDE, ATASCADERO, GROVER CITY , EL PASO DE ROBLES , MORRO BAY, PISMO BEACH, AND SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR PREPARATION OF COUNTY AND CITY SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENTS , AND THE COUNTYWIDE INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN This Memorandum of Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "MOA" or the "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY") and the cities of ARROYO GRANDE, ATASCADERO, GROVER CITY, EL PASO DE ROBLES, MORRO BAY, PISMO BEACH, and SAN LUIS OBISPO (hereinafter collectively refereed to as the "CITIES") . This Agreement seeks to define and delineate solid waste management planning responsibilities during a limited time frame loor the subject COUNTY and CITIES under the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council ' s (hereina-fter referred to as AREA COUNCIL) Joint Powers Agreement which was entered into the 17th day of January, 1976 , and amended on November 4, 1982, September 19, 1984, and August 28, 1990, and thereafter ratified annually. RECITALS : WHEREAS , the Cali.fornia Legislature has enacted the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, commonly referred to as Assembly Bill 939 ; and WHEREAS , Assembly Bill 939 mandates that a new integrated waste management planning process , including compliance with specified recycling and source reduction goals , be undertaken by the COUNTY and the CITIES Located within that County, and that • these actions must be taken in a timely manner; and WHEREAS , each CITY in the COUNTY and the COUNTY for the unincorporated area, shall prepare, adopt, and implement a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (hereinafter referred to as "SRRE") ; and WHEREAS, the AREA COUNCIL shall prepare and the COUNTY shall adopt and submit to the California Integrated Solid Waste Manageme-nt--Board; --for -approval-, -a-Countywide Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (hereinafter referred to as "PLAN") which shall consist of the aforesaid SRREs, a Countywide Siting Element and a statement of countywide goals and objectives ; and WHEREAS, the Countywide PLAN and any amendments thereto must be approved by the COUNTY and by a majority of the CITIES within • the COUNTY which contain a majority of the population of the incorporated area of the COUNTY; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITIES have convened a mandated Countywide Solid Waste Task Force to assist in the preparation of the Countywide PLAN, and individual city and county SRREs in a manner consistent with- the guidelines and regulations adopted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board ; and WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Task Force is comprised of representatives from the COUNTY and each of the CITIES , solid waste industry, recyclers, environmental organizations , and the general public and others ; and -2- • WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Task Force has convened a Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee to advise the Solid Waste Task Force on matters pertaining to the development of the SRREs and the PLAN, and the funding of the costs of preparing these plans ; and WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee has considered various ways in which to meet the requirements set forth under Assembly Bill 939; and - -- -- WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITIES have -considered and acted--- - - upon a recommendation of the Solid Waste Task Force to execute a Memorandum of Understanding in which all signatories agreed as follows : 1. That the County of San Luis Obispo, the cities .ocated within the County of San Luis Obispo, and those special districts located within the County having jurisdiction over the removal of solid waste, will collectively pursue a countywide approach to the problems of solid waste management , and that these entities shall collectively engage a consultant and a project coordinator to prepare the individual SRREs and the PLAN, as required under Assembly Bill 939. 2. That the necessary ordinances and resolutions be adopted, levying a tipping fee surcharge equivalent to $1 .00 per ton at all public landfills in the County of San Luis Obispo, to fund the preparation of the SRREs and the PLAN. -3- ,3y 3. That the tipping fee surcharge be apportioned among • all of the residents of the County of San Luis Obispo in an equitable manner. WHEREAS, it is the intent of the COUNTY and the CITIES that the consultant hired to prepare the PLAN shall coordinate with- County Planning Department staff and their consultant who are preparing a Countywide siting study; and WHEREAS, the County Board of Supervisors passed Resolution No. 38 > mandating a $1 .00 per ton--tipping- fee surcharge at two public landfills to be remitted to the County Auditor to be credited to the AB 939 Trust Fund, to be expended for and in conjunction with the preparation and adoption of the SRREs and the PLAN pursuant to Assembly Bill 939. WHEREAS , the COUNTY has entered into agreements with the operators of the Cold Canyon and Chicago Grade Landfills, in the unincorporated area of the County, for the collection of the surcharge commencing on August 1, 1990, and payment starting October 15, 1990, and monthly thereafter, for the month beginning 45 days before ; and WHEREAS , the City -of Paso Robles , a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to a $1 .00 per ton surcharge and the owner of the Paso Robles Landfill , has also agreed to collect the surcharge commencing on September 1, 1990 and payment starting October 15, 1990, and monthly thereafter for the month beginning 45 days before ; and -4- • WHEREAS , it may become necessary to increase the tipping fee = surcharge to pay for unknown costs to prepare the Countywide siting element and the PLAN as regulations have not yet been adopted by the State which define the required scope of work; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITIES wish to develop SRREs and a- PLAN which conform to the statutory requirements set forth in Assembly Bull 939 subsequent legislation and select regulations thereunder; and WHEREAS, the ACT provides that a city or county may enterinto a memorandum of agreement with a regional planning agency for the purpose of preparing or implementing SRREs or the PLAN; and ; WHEREAS , the AREA COUNCIL was established by the COUNTY and *he CITIES, through an executed and annually ratified Joint Powers Agreement , as a forum for planning , discussion and study of areawi_de problems of mutual interest, and for the development of studies and the adoption of regional plans which could include Solid Waste Management Planning ; and WHEREAS, the AREA COUNCIL' s staffing and support services are provided, as specified- in said Joint Powers Agreement, through the County Department of Planning and Building , in accordance with an annual budget and work program adopted by the AREA COUNCIL; and WHEREAS , the AREA COUNCIL at its meeting of July 11 , 1990 considered and approved a recommendation by the Solid Waste Task • S 'J Force that it act as the lead agency to provide staff, execute • and administer a single contract for consultant services to prepare the SRREs and the PLAN pursuant to AB 939. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND MUTUALLY AGREED: ` 1. The sole purpose of this Agreement is to facilitate the preparation of the SRREs and the PLAN utilizing the existing AREA COUNCIL as coordinating body and lead agency in the contract with a consulting firm, and that no party to this Agreement intends or does hereby assume any of . the debts_, li_abili.ti�_ or obligations of any party hereto. 2. The COUNTY and the CITIES J ocated within the COUNTY, through the AREA COUNCIL, will collectively pursue a countywide approach to the problems of solid waste management, and in the preparation of SRREs and the PLAN as required under Assembly Bill 939. 3. The AREA COUNCIL, upon execution by all parties of this Memorandum of Agreement, is hereby designated and empowered as the party to select, negotiate and execute a contract with a Consultant for the preparation of said SRREs and PLAN. 4. Personnel• in the County Planning and Building Department, in a specified classification, serve as staff to the AREA COUNCIL. The Director of the County Planning and Building Department, based upon the recommendation of the AREA COUNCIL Program Manager, shall hire a Senior Planner, under the supervision of the Program Manager, to staff said planning effort as Project Coordinator to manage the consultant contract and -6- serve as a liaison between the Consultant and the COUNTY and the WITIES , the AREA COUNCIL, and provide related support services as required. S. The funding of the costs for staffing and support , including the consultant contracts , and the Project Coordinator to prepare the SRREs and the PLAN, shall be generated by the COUNTY and CITIES adopting the necessary ordinances, regulations , laws and resolutions to impose a tipping fee surcharge equivalent to a minimum $1 .00 _-per ton at the- three above cited landfills located within the COUNTY. 6. Commencing on October 15, -1990, the Auditor of the COUNTY shall receive and receipt all money generated by the a tipping fee surcharge pursuant to this Agreement. These monies �i_11 be maintained in a trust fund (hereafter referred ;to as the "AB 939 Trust Fund") by the County Auditor and transferred to the County Planning and Building Department' s budget upon direction kg,Pkt p of the Program Manager, until such time as all aforementioned costs are fully reimbursed by said tipping fee surcharge. Amounts due on the Contract referred to herein shall be drawn upon warrants of the- Auditor of the COUNTY. After termination of this Agreement as provided for in Paragraph 12, any remaining funds in the AB 939 Trust Fund shall be utilized as mutually agreed upon by the parties . 7 . The COUNTY agrees to provide services related to the preparation of SRREs and the PLAN through the County Planning and -7 - Building Department to the AREA COUNCIL for the accomplishment of • said work., The consultant' s fees, staff salaries, and support shall be reimbursed from the AB 939 Trust Fund as provided herein. The up front monies shall be obtained from a COUNTY FY 1990-91 budget adjustment to the Planning and Building Department in the amount of $ as recommend and approved in an AREA COUNCIL budget for Integrated Waste Management Planning. Subsequent budget appropriations shall be provided as necessary to complete said planning effort as recommended by the-- - -- - AREA COUNCIL and the County Administrator and approved by the County Board of Supervisors . Until a Project Coordinator is hired and assumes the position, the County Engineering Department staff, in coordination with the AREA COUNCIL Program Manager, shall act as Project Coordinator and be reimbursed for said costs . 8. Additional costs for work tasks beyond those specifically set forth in a budget and work program to be approved by AREA COUNCIL and in the Contract between the AREA {(/ COUNCIL and Consultant are the responsibility of the CITY or COUNTY requesting such additional services and shall be borne by the COUNTY or CITY electing to have such work tasks performed. Such additional work tasks shall be performed by the COUNTY or CITY desiring them through separate contract(s) between COUNTY or CITY and the Consultant. The costs of such additional work tasks shall not be reimbursed from the AB 939 Trust Fund. 9. COUNTY and CITIES shall each be responsible for staff support to the planning effort at their own expense. -8- sponsi_bi_li_ti.es for plan preparation and associated funding requirements shall be included in the scope of work for preparing the PLAN. 10. COUNTY and CITIES shall each be responsible for furnishing information with regard to areas under their jurisdiction for use by the Consultant including , but not limited A-jAs�Abt-v to, the following :Ainformation regarding the constituent materials which compose solid waste generated within each jurisdiction, information regarding any recycling- and -composing- - programs or policies, information regarding existing waste handling and disposal practices for solid waste, any preferred policies and implementation measures , existing solid waste ordinances and regulations , and existing and proposed land use , 00pulation, and/or zoning information. 11 . COUNTY and CITIES and each of them shall indemnify and save harmless the COUNTY and each other and the officers , agents and employees of each, from any and all claims, demands , damages, costs , expenses or liability arising out of or occasioned by any act or omission to act by such COUNTY or CITIES pursuant to this Agreement , including , but not limited to, any act or omission to act on the part of COUNTY 'S or CITIES' agents or employees or independent contractors directly responsible to COUNTY or CITIES . 12. This Agreement shall take effect upon its execution by the COUNTY and the seven incorporated cities and shall continue until the AREA COUNCIL' S contract with the Consultant _9_ shall have been fully performed by the parties thereto, until the SRREs and the PLAN have been completed in accordance with the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, and received by the parties hereto and submitted and approved by the California- Integrated Waste Management Board and all the obligations of the parties hereto have been performed, whereupon it shall automatically terminate, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the parties to this agreement. 13. This agreement supersedes all previous contracts and constitutes the entire understanding of the parties hereto. Provided however, that nothing contained in this Agreement supersedes the Memorandum of Understanding approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 15, 1990, nor the Joint Powers Agreement entered into January 17, 1976, and amended on November 4, 1980 • and September 19, 1984 and August 28, 1990, and ratified annually. No changes , amendments or alterations shall be effective unless made in writing by all parties to this Agreement. 14. No party to this Agreement may assign, transfer, delegate or sublet any interest therein. 15. If any term, covenants , condition or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void- or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby. 16. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts , each of which shall be deemed an original . -10- �-5 I *'OUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By: Date : Chairperson Board of Supervisors By: Resolution No. Clerk, Board of Supervisors JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PROVISIONS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM JAMES B. LINDHOLM, JR. County Counsel By: . Depu y Count ou �el Dated: 9 (Q D 7023e • -13- EXHIBIT B-2 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING MAY r) REGARDING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT =rr✓',onmio;,t�i r E:• RECITALS WHEREAS, the California Legislature has enacted the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 , commonly referred to as Assembly Bill 939 ; and WHEREAS, Xssembly Bill 939 mandates that certain solid waste planning be undertaken by the County of San Luis Obispo and the cities located within that county (the "Local Cities") , and that these actions must be taken in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the county and the local cities to prepare and adopt- a Source Reduction and Recycling Element which shall include a program for the management of solid waste generated within the cities and the unincorporated areas of the county; and WHEREAS, it is the County's responsibility to prepare and adopt a countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo and the Local Cities have convened a Solid Waste Task Force to study issues related to solid waste management and to make recommendations to these entities in the area of solid waste management and to assist in coordinating the development of the city and county Source Reduction and Recycling Elements; and WHEREAS the Solid Waste Task Force has convened a Solid Waste Technical Committee to advise the Solid Waste Task Force on matters pertaining to the development of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element and the countywide Integrated Waste Management . ��I Plan, and the funding of the costs of preparing these plans ; and • WHEREAS the Solid Waste Technical, Committee has considered various ways in which to meet the requirements set forth under. Assembly Bill 939 ; and WHEREAS the Solid Waste Task Force has considered the recommendations made by the Solid Waste Technical Committee, and the Task Force hag determined that 1) it would be more cost- efficient to adopt a countywide approach to prepare the County and City Source Reduction and Recycling Elements, and the countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, - 2) the governmental entities having jurisdiction over solid waste management within the county should cooperate jointly to achieve a timely completion of their responsibilities under Assembly Bill 939 , by engaging the services of a consultant to draft both the County and City Source Reduction �• and Recycling Elements, and the Integrated Waste Management Plan; and 3) that .these entities should develop a proper method of funding the preparation of the plans required under Assembly Bill 939, as codified in California Public Resources Code section 41901, and adopt a mechanism for equitably funding the preparation of the Source Reduction Recycling Elements and Integrated Waste Management Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, it is understood and agreed by and between , the governmental entities which are signatories to this document, as follows: 1. That the County of _San Luis Obispo, the cities located within the County of San Luis Obispo, and those special C9districts located within the County having jurisdiction over the 1 1 � reitoval of solid waste, will collectively pursue a countywide approach to the problems of solid waste management, and that these • entities shall collectively engage a consultant and a project coordinator to prepare the individual Source Reduction and Recycling Elements and the Integrated Waste Management Plan required under Assembly Bill 939. 2. That* the necessary ordinances and resolutions be adopted, levying a tipping fee surcharge equivalent to $1. 00 per ton at all public landfills in the County of San Luis Obispo, to- _ fund the preparation of the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements and the Integrated Waste Management Plan. 3 . That the tipping fee surcharge be apportioned among all of the residents of the County of San Luis Obispo in an equitable manner. Passed and adopted by the signatories hereto on the dates a indicated below. City of Grover City Dated: By DAVID EKBOM, Mayor. of Grover City City of Arroyo Grande Dated: By: MARK MILLIS, Mayor of Arroyo Grande w City of Pismo Beach Dated: By:- DICK y:DICK MORROW, Mayor of Pismo Beach City of San Luis Obispo Dated: By: RON DUNIN, _ Mayor of San Luis Obispo City- of Morro Bay Dated: By: ROSE MARIE SHEETZ, Mayor of Morro Bay City of Paso Robles j Dated: May 1 , 1990 By: STEVE MARTIN, Mayor of Paso Robles City of Atascadero Dated: By: ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor of Atascadero County of San Luis Obispo Dated: MAY 15 1990 By: EVELYN LAKY Chairpe on of the Board of Supervisors misc\memo.und (lmdm) i �3 JUN 23 '94 09:59 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN-SACTO,CA P.2/21 EXHIBIT C • 1 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND HO $ALLEN A Professional Corporation 2 TRIS P.YANG,ESQ. (STATE BAR NO. 106999) VIRGINIA A CAHTLL,ESQ. (STATE BAR NO. 099167) 3 555 Capitol Mall,Ninth Floor Sacramento,California 95814 4 Telephone:(916) 4443900 5 Attorneys for Respondents and Defendants 6 City of El Paso de Robles and City Council of the City of El Paso de Robles 7 -- 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 TN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 11 CHICAGO GRADE LANDFILL,INC.,WALTER ) CASE No. CV 075627 JOHNSON and PATRICIA JOHNSON, ) 12 ) RESPONDENTS' AND 13 Petitioners and Plaintiffs, � MEMO�RANTDUM OF POINTS V. ) AND AUTHORTIZES IN 14 ) OPPOSITION TO ISSUANCE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES.CITY COUNCIL ) OF PRELIlVIINARY 15 OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES and ) INJUNCTION DOES 1-20, ) 16 ) Respondents and Defendants, ) 17 Date: June 30, 199'4 18 WIL-MAR DISPOSAL COMPANY,INC., ) Tune: 9.00 a.m. 19 Real Party in Interest. ) Dept: CLM (To Be Announced) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 S JUN 23 '94 09:59 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN-SACTO,CA P.3i21 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.. .............................. ............................... ri 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION 5 TO ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION...................................... 1 6 I. INTRODUCTION.... ........................................................... 1 7 II. A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD BE DENIED '- UNDER BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 8 SECTIONS 17070 and 17200........................................................ 4 9 A. City's Actions Do Not Constitute"Unfair Competition" ................. 4 10 1. Resolution No.91-32 Has Been Superseded by Resolution No.94-81............................................ 5 11 2. There Has Been No Violation of City's General Plan............ 6 12 3. Setting a New Tipping Fee and Expanding the 13 Service Area Did Not Constitute A Change in the Design or Operation of the Landfill................................. 7 14 4. City Has Not Violated CEQA by Allowing 15 Wil-Mar to Deposit Solid Waste at City's Landfill............... 9 16 a. City's landfill is an existing facility.......................... 9 17 b. City prepared an Initial Study and adopted a Negative Declaration finding no adverse environ-' 18 mental impacts from operating the landfill to handle up to 250 tons of waste per day.............................. 10 19 c. Deliveries by Wil-Mar will not cause new 20 significant environmental impacts not covered in the previous negative declaration................ 11 21 III. CONCLUSION. .................................................*................... . 13 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 uoowa��.ouuo _i_ JUN 23 '94 10:00 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN-SACTO,CA P.4i21 • 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 3 CASA - 4 Benton v.Board of Supervisors 5 (1991)226 Cal.App.3d 1467 ......................................................... 11, 12 6 Buxbom v. Smith (1944)23 Cal.2d 535 .................................................................. 5 7 C &A Carbone,Inc.v.Town of Clarkstown 8 (1994)94 Daily Journal D.A.R.6577 ............................................... 7 _ 9 Charles C.Chapman Bldg.Co.v.California Mart 10 (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 846.....................................---....................... 5 Chemical Waste Management v.Hunt 11 (1992) 504 U.S._ (119 L.Ed.2d 121) ............................................ 7 12 Committee for a Progressive Gilroy v. State Water Resources Control Board • 13 (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 847............................................................ 9 14 Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill,Inc. v. - Michigan Dept.of Natural Resources 15 (1992) 504 U.S. _(119 L.Ed.2d 139) .............................................. 7 16 Fund for Environmental Defense v.County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1538 ......................................................... 13 17 Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors 18 (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337 ......................................................... 13 19 Oregon Waste Systems,Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon 20 (1994) 511 U.S. _ (128 L.Ed.2d 13)............................................... 7 21 Philadelphia v.New Jersey (1978) 437 U.S. 617........................................---......................... 7 22 Scudder Food Products v. Ginsberg 23 (1943) 21 Cal.2d 596) ................................................................. 5 24 STATUTES 25 Busme5s n�@ssi ns�Code • 26 Section17001------------------------------------------------ ----------------------- 5 27 Section 17070........................................................................ 4 Section17200................................... .................................. 28 ALLN .x+�taaok.�aowvw� i�' JUN 23 '94 10:00 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&RLLEN-SACTO,CA P.5i21 1 Public Resources Code 2 Section 21000 et seq. (California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA')).......................... 2, 4, 9 3 Section 21092............................ ......................................... 10 Section44004....................... .... ................. .................... 8, 13 4 5 MISCELLANEOUS 6 San Luis Obispo County Superior Court LocalRule No.7.03(b).....................................................I.......... 1 7 Guidelines for implementation of the 8 California Environmental Quality Act _ 9 ("CEQA Guidelines') Title 14,California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq. .................................................................. 4, 9 10 Section 15162. . .................... ........................................... . 11 Section 15162(a)(1).................................................................... 11 11 Section 15301............ .................... ....................................... 9 12 13 • 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • 27 28 �57 JUN 23 194 10:25 .MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN-SACTO,CA P.3i21 , • 1 CEQA when it prepared its Initial Stud approved its Negative Declaration for the operating Q P P _ Y� PP g 2 permit amendment and filed its Notice of Determination for the changes on the landfill design and 3 operation on January 12, 1993. 4 Moreover,the relief petitioners seek is fatally flawed. They seek to have the Court order 5 City to discriminate against a particular handler within its service area either by not permitting 6 Wil-Mar to use City's landfill, or making Wil-Mar pay a higher fee than that charged to other 7 haulers. Such an order would be unconstitutional. - 8 Based on all of the foregoing,petitioners' application for a preliminary injunction should be 9 denied. 10 DATED: June 22, 1994. 11 Respectfully submitted, 12 McDONOUGH,HOLLAND &ALLEN A Professional Corporation • 13 14 r By; 15 IRIS P. YANfj 16 Attorneys for Respondents and Defendants CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES AND 17 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CTI'Y OF EL PASO DE ROBLES 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WCOMMHOUAW -14- ,AUEW .acKe.— , >e JUN 23 094 10:25 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN-SACTO,CA P.4i21 CASE TITLE: Chicago Grade Landfill,et al.v.City of Paso Robles,et al. 1 2 COURT/CASE NO: San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Case Number CV 075627 PROOF OF SERVICE 3 I am employed in the County of Sacramento; my business address is 555 Capitol Mall.- 4 all;4 Suite 950,Sacramento,California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the foregoing action 5 6 On June 22, 1994,I served the following document(s): RESPONDENTS' AND DEFENDANTS'. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 7 AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; 8 DECLARATION OF JOHN R. McCARTHY IN OPPOSITION TO 9 PETITIONERS' APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; 10 DECLARATION OF RICHARD J. RAMIREZ IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; and 11 EXHIBITS IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' APPLICATION FOR 12 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. 13 by mail on the following party(ies) in said action, in accordance with Code of 14 Civil Procedure § 1013(a), by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in a designated area for outgoing mail, addressed as set forth below. In the 15 ordinary course of business at McDonough, Holland& Allen, mail placed in that designated area is given the correct amount of postage and is deposited that same day 16 in a United States mailbox in the City of Sacramento,California. 17 by personally delivering a true copy thereof, in accordance with Code of Civif Procedure § 1011,to the person(s) and at the address(es) set forth below. 18 XXX by overnight delivery on the following party(ies) in said action, in 19 accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 1013(c), by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, with delivery fees paid or provided for, in a 20 designated area for outgoing overnight mail, addressed as set forth below. In the ordinary course of business at McDonough, Holland & Allen, mail placed in that 21 designated area is picked up that same day for delivery the following business day. 22 by facsimile transmission, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure - § 1013(e),to the following party(ies)at the facsimile number(s)indicated. 23 Frederick W.Clough 24 SCHRAMM&RADDU'E 15 West Carrillo Street 25 Post Office Box 1260 Santa Barbara, CA 93102 26 Betty R. Sanders 27 WRIGHT&SANDERS 5950 Entrada Avenue 28 Au"adero,CA 93422 ►COOpUOK NOUAID I ALLEN ADFOCS'AMK 00WOUDON - JUN 23 '94 10:26 MCDONOUCH,HOLLAND&ALLEN-SACTO,CA P.5i21 1 I declare under of under the laws of she State of California that the foregoing is true and correct his d cument was executed on June 22, 1994. g g 2 3 Shelly Jagd 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2-7 28 MG00+«,K►OW."D &AUX* -2- A-DMaoram�uaw C JUN 23 '94 10:00 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN—SACTO,CA P.6i21 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 2 3 Respondents and Defendants City of El Paso de Robles and City Council of the City of El 4 Paso de Robles(collectively referred to herein as"City'l submit this Memorandum of Points and 5 Authorities in Opposition to Petitioners' application for the issuance of a preliminary injunction to 6 either(a)prohibit City from accepting the deposit of solid waste material at City's landfill from 7 Real Party in Interest Wil-Mar Disposal Company,,Inc. ("Wil-Mat"), or (b) require City to 8 charge Wil-Mar a higher tipping fee than City charges other haulers using its landfill. 9 10 _ I. 11INTROD]UCTION 12 Petitioners and Plaintiffs (herein"petitioners")are the private operators of a landfill which 13 is located in the unincorporated area of San Luis Obispo County near the City of Atascadero. 14 Wil-Mar collects solid waste from the City of Atascadero and certain unincorporated areas of San 15 Luis Obispo County (the "County"). To the best of City's knowledge, there is no contract 16 between petitioners and Wil-Mar which requires Wil-Mar to deposit the solid waste it collects at 17 petitioners' landfill; nor is there any agreement between Wil-Mar and either the County of San 18 Luis Obispo or the City of Atascadero which requires Wil-Mar to deposit solid waste at 19 petitioners' landfill. In addition,there is no agreement between City and Wil-Mar which requires 20 Wil-Mar to deposit solid waste at City's landfill. In other words, Wil-Mar can use whatever 21 landfill it chooses to use. 22 City has owned a solid waste landfill since 1970. The most recent operating permit was 23 issued by the County Health Department on June 30, 1986. (A copy of that permit is contained 24 as Exhibit K in the"Exhibits in Opposition to Petitioners' Application for Preliminary Injunction" 25 filed concurrently herewith under separate cover, as required by Local Rule No. 7.03(b).) The 26 permit did not limit the amount of solid waste which could be deposited at the landfill. ! 27 On August 27, 199z, City Q[opucd art initial study Ni connection with its application to 28 amend its landfill operating permit to: (1)install a landfill liner and a leachate collection system; Wc00WWQKh0UAo .wM �; JUN 23 '94 10:01 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN-SACTO,CA P.7i21 1O 2 change from a"trench and fill"system to a mass excavation method; (3)change the height g Y g 2 and design capacity for the landfill;and (4)establish a limit of 250 tons per day of solid waste 3 which would be processed at the landfill. Both the Periodic Site Review("PSR") (referred to in 4 the Initial Study (Exhibit H: pp. 086, 088))1 and the Report of Disposal Site Information 5 ("RDSI") (Exhibit G)indicated that City's landfill could easily accommodate that amount,and 6 that if a compactor was added,the daily load could be increased to 500-750 tons per day. (RDSI 7 (Exhibit G: pp. 051-052); Initial Study (Exhibit H: p. 088).) The PSR also stated that the, 8 landfill would support, at the rate of 250 tons per day, a service area population of 77,330 to the 9 year 2018. If a compactor were used,the life of the landfill could be extended to the year 2052. 10 (RDSI,Tables 5.4 and 5.5 (Exhibit G: pp.075-076); Initial Study(Exhibit H: p.088).) 11 On January 5, 1993,the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93-03 approving a Negative 12 Declaration for the improvements to City's.landfill outlined in its application for an amended • 13 operating permit. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(Pub. Resources 14 Code, §21000, et seq.) ("CEQA'), City also filed a Notice of Determination on January 12, 15 1993,regarding its approval of the Negative Declaration for the landfill improvements project. 16 As with all City operations,City has monitored the costs of operating the landfill against its 17 revenues. Over the last several years, the City Council has made adjustments to the landfill 18 tipping fees charged to haulers of commercial compacted waste and to the collection fees charged 19 to commercial and residential customers. (Declaration of Richard J. Ramirez,14; Exhibits A 20 through D.) In each instance,the purpose of the adjustments was to try to eliminate a deficit in 21 the operation of the landfill. The most recent adjustment to the tipping and collection fees was 22 made on May 3, 1994, by Resolution No. 94-74. (Declaration of Richard 1. Ramirez, 14; 23 Exhibit D.) 24 In addition, City has defined,by resolution,the geographic service area for City's landfill. 25 As petitioners point out, on March 19, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-32, • 26 which established a service area for City's landfill. However, on May 17, 1994, the City 27 i All Exhibits references herein are contained in the"Exhibits in opposition to Petitioners' Application 28 for Preliminary Injunction"filed Concurrently herewith under separate cover. iRIJEDI _2_ 1 AgyCLLbYL OSVfA1.11 (_- JUN 23 '94 10:02 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN-SACTO,CA P-8/21 r 1 Council adopted Resolution No. 94-81, which expanded the area which could be served by 2 City's landfill. (Exhibit E.) Resolution No.94-81 did&Q1 seek to increase the amount of solid 3 waste which the landfill would accept,but only expand the area from which it could come. City_ 4 has no intention of amending its pending application,which would establish a limit of 250 tons 5 of solid waste per day. 6 Petitioners' points and authorities in support of its application for a preliminary injunction 7 are centered upon a claim that the City,by setting a new tipping fee rate for all haulors,engaged. 8 in acts of unfair competition under the Business and Professions Code. City believes petitioners' 9 request for a preliminary injunction under Business and Professions Code section 17070 should 10 be denied for the following reasons: 11 1. City Resolution No. 91-32, which set a geographic service area for the City 12 landfill,was superseded by Resolution No. 94-81 (Exhibit E),which expanded the 13 service area. Thus,there has been no violation of Resolution No. 91-32. 14 2. As clearly set forth in the RDSI (Exhibit G) and the Initial Study (Exhibit H) and 15 Negative Declaration for the operating permit amendment, neither the act of setting 16 tipping fees nor the expansion of the service area will adversely affect the ability of 17 City to serve City's expected population and business needs for the time period 18 projected 19 3. For the last year and a half, City has had pending before the County Health 20 Department an application for an amendment to its operating permit for City's 21 landfill which would establish a limit, for the first time, on the amount of solid 22 waste which could be accepted daily. That limit of 250 tons per day is more than 23 three times the average daily amount received by the landfill in 1992. City prepared 24 an Initial Study and approved a Negative Declaration to accompany its application in 25 early 1993. (Exhibit H.) The recent actions of City in setting a new tipping fee and 26 expanding the landfill service area do not affect the pending application for the, 27 operat ng Permit amendment and do not constitute a change in the design or 28 operation of the landfill_ ,tOON«,G.� 404, -3- JUN 23 '94 10:02 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN-SACTO,CA P.9i21 • 1 4. As mentioned above, City prepared an Initial Study and approved a Negative 2 Declaration in connection with its application to amend its operating permit for the 3 landfill. (Exhibit H.) Under CEQA and its implementing guidelines (14 Cal.Code- 4 Regs., § 15000 et seq.),City's actions of setting a new tipping fee and expanding 5 the service area did not require the preparation of an environmental impact report 6 because they did not involve new significant environmental impacts which were not 7 considered in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration. Consequently,there has. 8 been no CEQA violation. - 9 Finally, what petitioners seek to have the Court do clearly violates the holdings in a series 10 of U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding the regulation of waste transfer and treatment. 11 Petitioners would have the Court order City to discriminate against a particular hauler either by 12 prohibiting it from using City's landfill or.by charging it a higher tipping fee than that charged to 13 other haulers. Such an order would be unconstitutional. 14 For all of the above reasons,the request for a preliminary injunction should be denied. 15 16 I1. 17 A PBEIJMINARY INJUNCTTON SHOULDE DENIED MINDER BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 18 SECTIONS 17070 AND 17200 19 A. may'Actions Do Not Constitute "Unfair Comped ion". 20 Petitioners allege they are entitled to a preliminary injunction under the provisions of 21 section 17070 of the Business and Professions Code because City has engaged in unfair 22 competition. "Unfair competition"is defined in section 17200 of the Business and Professions 23 Code as follows: 24 "As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include unlawful unfair orfr_ u�dulenl bu_c.mess rap ctice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or 25 misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with • Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and-Ptofessions Code." 26 (Ibid.,emphasis added.) 27 The essence of petitioners' complaint is that in setting a new tipping fee, City engaged in 28 unfair competition because that action (and, by implication, the expansion of the service area) auLEu -4- •iRYE6610Mu1�/JIOI C JUN 23 '94 10:03 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN-SACTO,CA P.10i21 i 1 allegedly violated(1).Resolution No.91-32;(2)City's General Plan; (3).City's landfill operating 2 permit;and(4)CEQA. None of these claims have any merit and the application for a preliminary 3 injunction should be denied. 4 Section 17001 of the Business and Professions Code states that the purpose of the Unfair 5 Trade Practices Act is to "foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, 6 deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest 7 competition is destroyed or prevented." (Ibid.) 8 Competition in business, even though it could severely harm a rival, is not ordinarily 9 actionable, so long as the methods employed do not involve wrongful conduct such as fraud, 10 misrepresentation,intimidation,coercion,obstruction or procurement or violation of contractual 11 relations. (Scudder Food Products v. Ginsberg (1943)21 Cal.2d 596.) A business has the right 12 to compete with other businesses, and where the means of interference involves no more than 13 recognized trade practices such as advertising or price cutting,the petitioners' loss as a result of 14 the competition-is not actionable. (Buxbom v. Smith (1944) 23 Cal.2d 535; Charles C. 15 Chapman Bldg. Co. v California Mart(1969)2 Cal.App.3d 846.) 16 In this instance, City has not engaged in any unlawful business practice. The purpose in 17 revising the tipping and collection fee schedules was to increase overall revenues and avoid 18 continued operation of the landfill at a deficit. As the staff report relating to Resolution No.,94- 19 74 indicated,if this pricing technique proved to be unsuccessful,the City,like any other prudent 20 business operator,would have to consider revising its rates once again. (Exhibit D:.p. 035.) 21 22 1. YttSolution No 91-32 Has Been Superseded by Rg5ol timet on No. 94-81, 23 24 Petitioners claim City has engaged in unfair competition because it accepted waste 25 generated outside the service area defined in Resolution No.91-32: Petitioners apparently were 26 unaware that on May 17, 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 94-81, which 27 expanded t1C geographic Service area for the landfill. (Exhibit E,) The solid waste collected by 28 Wil-Mar was generated within the service area defined by Resolution No. 94-81. Wil-Mer did mat HOUAM A/a005.9ouL 00NlYYpCN JUN 23 '94 10;03 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN-SACTO,CA P.11/21 1 not begin making regular deliveries to City's landfill until May 25, 1994(Declaration of John R. 2 McCarthy, q 10) and,.therefore, there was no violation of a local regulation. As a result, 3 petitioners' claim on this issue has no merit. 4 5 2. There Has Been No Viol tion of City's General Plan 6 Contrary to petitioners' assertions, setting a new tipping fee and expanding the 7 service area did not violate the policies set forth in City's General Plan. Policy"PS-9 of the 8 General Plan provides: 9 "Policy PS-9: Ensure that the City's landfill maintains sufficient capacity to serve the needs of the City's expected population and business needs within the planning 10 period. 11 "PROGRAM: Suprt and participate in an update to the County's Solid Waste 12 Management Plan radopted in January 197.7). • `PROGRAM: Investigate the cost and benefits of either reserving use of the 13 landfill to residents and businesses located within City limits or charging a higher rate for County users." (General Plan, p. LU-62 (Exhibit F: p. 042).) 14 15 First, the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which was adopted in August 16 1991,has a 20-year planning period. (Exhibit F: p.040.) The projected population of City in the 17 year 2010 is 35,000 persons. (Exhibit F: p. 040.) According to the Initial Study, based on an 18 average deposit of 250 tons per day, the landfill could support a population of 77,330 persons 19 past the year 2020. (Exhibit Li: p.080.) 20 Second, petitioners state no facts to support any claim that City has not been 21 participating in an update to the County's Solid Waste Management Plan. In fact, over the last 22 several years,City, along with the County and other cities within the County, has participated in 23 discussions regarding the formation of a joint powers authority for integrated waste management. 24 (Declaration of Richard J. Ramirez,16.) 25 Third,City has monitored on an ongoing basis the operation of the landfill. One of • 2E the reasons for the adoption of the new tipping and collection fee schedule was to increase overall 27 revenues and reduce the operating deficit for the landfill. As stated in the staff report dated 28 April 24, 1994,anticipated increased revenues from the tipping fees would allow City to reduce hk00« INIM -6- APWKISOVAL mIVWM39N t CIJ JUN 23 194 10:04 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN-SACTO,CA P.12i21 • 1 the proposed residential and commercial collection rate increase from the proposed 15%to 9.4%. 2 (Exhibit D: p. 034.) The staff report also noted that the plan to increase revenues might be 3 unsuccessful and that City might need to make further adjustments to its landfill fees: 4 "If after the first month or two,delivery volumes did not increase,the$5.00 per ton reduction could be eliminated and the full 15%residential and commercial collection 5 rate increase would be implemented." (Staff Report(Exhibit D: p.035).) 6 Finally, the suggestion in the policy that City could charge County users of the 7 landfill higher fees has been vitiated by a series of U. S. Supreme Court cases which have held 8 that states or any of their political subdivisions cannot charge different fees based solely on 9 where the waste originated or control where waste can be treated. (C &A Carbone, Inc. v. 10 Town of Clarkstown (1994) 94 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6577; Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. 11 Dept. of Environmental Quality of Oregon (1994) 511 U.S. (128 L.Ed.2d 13); Fort Gratiot 12 Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources (1992) 504 U.S. _ (119 13 L.Ed.2d 139); Chemical Waste Management v. Hunt(1992) 504 U.S._(119 L.Ed.2d 121)0 14 Philadelphia v New Jersey (1978) 437 U.S:617.) These holdings apply not only to waste 15 which is transported across state lines,but also intrastate. (Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill,Inc. v 16 Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources,supra.) 17 Based on the above, petitioners' claims that City's actions violated its General Plan 18 and resulted in unfair competition also must fail. 19 20 3. ming g New Tigging Fee and Expanding the Service Area Did Not Constitute A Change in thsr Design or Operation 21 of the Landfill 22 Consistent with the practice at that time,the landfill operating permit issued by the 23 County in 1986 contained no limit on the amount of solid waste which City's landfill could 24 receive. (Exhibit K.) Moreover,the permit does not limit the area from which the City landfill 25 may receive solid waste. (Ibid.) 26 In 1991, CiEy began discussions with the County and the California Integrate* Z7 WMt Mdupol D0410 iGgU86 An amGilOM tQ the Tr"`6 permit Declaration of John 28 R. McCarthy,114.) A-.indicated in the Initial Study and RDS1,City has contemplated sLPo' t wcoaauu.HOUAW a uui -7- r� JUN 23 '94 10:05 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN-SACTO,CA P.13i21 • establish a limit of 250 tons r day. (RDSI-(Exhibit G: pp. 049- 1 'rri amending the permit to esta per g Pe 2 051);Initial Study(Exhibit H:pp.086-088) The amendment also was: (1) to change the final 3 height and design capacity for the landfill;(2)to install a landfill liner and leachate collection 4 system; and(3) to change the operations from a"trench and fill" method to a mass excavation 5 method in order to install the liner and leachate collection system. (Initial Study (Exhibit H: 6 p.085).) The Initial Study and Negative Declaration, which was approved by City in January 7 1993, analyzed the environmental impacts of establishing such a limit and the other proposed. 8 aspects of the amendment and found there would be no significant impacts. (Exhibits H,I.) 9 Public Resources Code section 44004 provides: 10 "(a) No operator of a solid waste facility shall make a significant change in the design or operation of any solid waste facility except in conformance with the terms 11 and conditions in an approved solid waste facilities permit or revised solid waste facilities permit issued by the local enforcement agency, or by the board acting as 12 the enforcement agency,to the operator. 13 "(b) If the operator wishes to modify the design or operation of a solid waste facility,the operator shall file an application for revision of the existing solid waste 14 facilities permit with the enforcement agency. The application shall be filed at least 120 days in advance of the date when the proposed modification is to take place. 15 (c) Under circumstances which present an immediate danger to the public health 16 and safety onto the environment, as determined by the enforcement agency, the 120-day filing period may be waived:' (Ibid-) 17 18 City fully complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code section 44004. 19 It filed its application to revise its existing solid waste facilities permit in 1992• Neither the 20 setting of new tipping fees or the expansion of the landfill service area alter the proposed 21 amendment to establish a daily solid waste disposal limit of 250 tons per day. In 1991, the 22 average daily deposit of solid waste at the landfill was 88 tons; in: 1992,it had been reduced to 23 80.3 tons per day. According to Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Walter Johnson, Wil-Mar 24 delivered approximately 1400 tons of compacted solid waste to petitioners' landfill in April 1994, 25 or approximately 46 tons per day. Even if all of that were being delivered to City's landfill, the 26 total amount being deposited at city's landrll would still be about half of the 250 tons that was 27 proposed in the operating permit amendment. 29W.00POMM HOU-00 WIN JUN 23 '94 10=05 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN-SACTO,CA P.14i21 1 Because City has complied with the requirements of public Resources Code section 44004, 2 petitioners' argument that City has engaged in unfair competition on this score is also without 3 merit 4 5 4. City Has Not 'Violated CE0 A by Al, A owing Wil-Mar to DeRosit Solid 'Waste at Cm's Landfill, 6 7 Petitioners assert that City violated CEQA in deciding to allow Wil-Mir to deposit. 8 solid waste at City's landfilL There has been no CEQA violation. Wil-Mar's present deliveries 9 can be.accommodated within the facility's existing capacity, and City's Initial Study and 10 Negative Declaration addressed the long-term impacts of handling 250 tons of solid waste per 11 day. (Exhibit H: P.088.) 12 a. Cii4Y's landfill is an existingfa_ cility. 13 City has owned-its landfill since 1970. The decision to accept waste from 14 Wil-Mar will require no changes in the current method of operation of the landfill. (Declaration 15 of John R. McCarthy, 111.) The landfill can accommodate the waste delivered by Wil-Mar 16 with existing employees and equipment. Jffij.4U The CEQA Guidelines exempt the operation of 17 existing public or private facilities. (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15301.) Since Wil-Mar's deposits 18 can be accommodated at the existing site, with existing staff and equipment, as part of the 19 landfill's ongoing operations, City's actions in allowing Wil-Mar to use the landfill are exempt 20 from CEQA. 21 Although the existing facilities exemption is limited to circumstances which 22 involve negligible increase in use (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15301), existing use is properly 23 measured by the existing, previously-approved capacity of the facility. (See, Committee for a 24 Progressive Gilroy v. State Water Resources Control Board (1987) 192 Cal-App-3d 847, 864- 25 65.) Otherwise, each new user of an existing facility would trigger CEQA review. Petitioners 26 have failed to show that the landfill lacks the capacity,to accept waste from wil-Mar. Moroover18 27 as discussed below, City has actually analyzed the long-term capacity of its landfill, which is 28 sufficient to accommodate the Wil-Mar deliveries. nmowaxw auua ♦/aOrlL'v01.L cw0fY641 �' / JUN 23 '94 10:06 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN-SACTO,CA P.15i21 • 1 b Initial Study and adgpmd a Negative Declaration finding no adverse environmental ' facts from owxabn g.the landfill 2 to harAe2 3 In connection with its application to amend its permit for the landfill,City. 4 prepared an Initial Study addressing changes in the design height and capacity of the landfill, 5 installing a leachate collection system,certain operational changes,and increasing the amount of 6 solid waste processed on a daily basis. The Initial Study addressed the existing capacity of the 7 landfill,and the additional capacity and/or lifetime of the landfill that could be achieved with the. 8 addition of a compactor: - 9 "The RDSI [Report of Disposal Site Information) indicates that, with the existing staff and equipment, the site can sustain an ongoing daily load of up to 250 10 tonstday and that if a compactor is added, the daily load could be further increased 11 to 500-700 tonstday(depending upon the sire of the compactor). "...The existing capacity to handle an average of 250 tons/day translates to 91,250 12 tons/year, which at 1.18 tons/year/person would support a population of 77,330. Therefore,the existing operation(personnel and equipment) should be adequate for S 13 the life of the landfill. The addition of a compactor would extend the life but would also allow for a doubling in the daily tonnage." (Initial Study (Exhibit H: pp. 088- 14 089).) _ 15 The Initial Study concluded that "[t]he proposed changes to the design and operation of the 16 landfill will not have any significant effect on the environment." (Initial Study (Exhibit H: 17 p. 096).) 18 By Resolution No. 93-03, the City Council recited that an Initial 19 Study/Negative Declaration for the project had been prepared,that public notice of the proposed 20 Negative Declaration had been given as required by section 21092 of the Public Resources Code, 21 and that the City Council had found that there was no substantial evidence that the project would 22 have significant adverse effects on the environment. The City Council approved the Negative 23 Declaration (Resolution No. 93-03 (Exhibit I)) and City filed a Notice of Determination on 24 January 12, 1993 (Exhibit n. 25 Thus, the City Council has found that there will be no adverse 26 environmental impacts from operating City's landfill to handle up to 250 tons of solid waste per 27 day. The amount of waste handled at City's landfill in 1992 was approximately 80 tons per day. 28 (Doclaratiom of John R. McCarthy, 1 12.) If, as petitioners allege at paragraph 40 of the M020MOKHOLLW .,LUN -10- AR17GffQY�Al1O/ JUN 23 '94 10:06 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN-SACTO,CA P.16i21 1 petition,the tonnage deposited annually will increase by 25,000 tons, the increase will average* P Y 2 only 68.5 tons per day. The total is well within the amount found by the City Council to have no 3 adverse environmental impacts. 4 C. Deliveries by Wil-Mar will not ca se new significant environmental impacts not covered in the previous 5 negative declar sign. 6 City has analyzed the impacts of accepting up to 250 tons of solid waste per 7- day in its Initial Study/Negative Declaration. (Exhibit H.) CEQA does not require an EIR in this 8 case, because the expansion of City's service area will not result in new significant 9 environmental impacts not considered in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration. 10 CEQA Guideline section 15162 of 14 California Code of Regulations 11 addresses the need for an EIR in cases in which a negative declaration has already been prepared. 12 That guideline provides in part: 13 "(a) Where an EIR or negative declaration has been prepared,no additional EIR need be prepared unless: 14 "(1) Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require 15 portant revises of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant impacts not considered in a previous 16 EIR or negativ_odd l�on the project. 17 "(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under 18 which the project is undertaken, "(3) New information of substantial importance to the project becomes 19 available ...... (14 Ca1.Code Regs., § 15162;emphasis added.) 20 This case does not involve changes in circumstances or new information. 21 Section 15162(a)(1) would require preparation of a subsequent EIR only if expansion of the 22 landfill service area were considered a change in the project which required important revisions to 23 the negative declaration due to new significant environmental impacts. 24 In Benton v. Board of Supervisors (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467, the court 25 held that section 15162 is valid, and applies where a previous negative declaration has been 26 prepared for a project. The court stated: 27 28 MOMMGc� .ALS JUN 23 '94 10:07 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN-SACTO,CA P. 17i21 ' f modifiedproject is ro when the initial environmental 1 `If a limited review o a proper document was an ETR,it stands to reason that no greater review should be required 2 of a project that initially raised so few environmental questions that an EIR was= required,but a negative declaration was found to satisfy the environmental review 3 requirements of CEQA." (Benton, supra, at p. 1480.) 4 In Benton, the court held that when evaluating whether a modified project would result in any 5 significant environmental impacts,a county properly considered only the incremental differences 6 between the original project and the modified one. (M,at p. 1484.) 7 City's landfill project discussed in the Negative Declaration included an. 8 "increase in the amount of solid waste processed on a daily basis to reflect increases in the 9 population of the area served by the Landfill:' (Exhibit H.) An increased population in the area 10 served by the landfill could result either from growth within the original service area or from 11 expansion of the service area to include additional populated areas_ The language was 12 sufficiently broad to cover either eventuality. Thus,petitioners have not demonstrated that there 13 has been a change in the project 14 Even assuming arguendo that the change in the service area constitutes a 15 change in the project described in the Negative Declaration,no EIR is required in this case. The 16 previous Initial. Study/Negative Declaration addressed the design, capacity, and method of 17 operating City's landfill,and concluded that there would be no adverse environmental impacts of 18 operations handling up to 250 tons per day. Accepting waste from Wil-Mar will not cause the 19 landfill to exceed this capacity,which can be accommodated with existing staff and equipment. 20 Impacts from operation at these levels have already been analyzed. 21 Petitioners assert that accepting waste from Wil-Mar will shorten the life of 22 the landfill. However, the Initial Study/Negative Declaration make it clear that addition of a 23 compactor could extend the life or the landfill and/or allow a doubling of the daily tonnage during 24 the planned site life, which extends to the year 2018. (Exhibit H: pp. 088-089.) 25 The only new environmental impact claimed by petitioners which is caused 26 by Wil-Mar's operations and which was not considered in the Negative Declaration is that 10 to 27 12 additional garbage truck nips a day will be made to City's landfill. The addition of such a Z& 5ma11 number of trips, less than Z per hour,is de mir mis. The environmental impact of the trips MODONCUGK HMLAMD IALLEN -12- / JUN 23 '94 10:24 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN-SACTO,CA P.2i21 I does not rise to the level of significance and does not require "important revisions" to the 2 Negative Declaration. Petitioners failed to show any significant impact of these trucks. (See 3 Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Ca1.App_3d 1337, 1352 4 (unsubstantiated opinions regarding traffic did not rise to level of substantial evidence supporting 5 fair argument of significant environmental effect).) The one potential traffic impact identified in 6 the PSR has been alleviated by the construction by CalTrans of a left turn lane for eastbound 7 traffic on Highway 46 East into the road leading to the landfill. (Declaration--of John R, 8 McCarthy, 115, 13.) - 9 In summary,petitioners have failed to demonstrate how any changes would 10 require "major revisions" in the original environmental documents. (See, Fund for 11 Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1538, 1546 (petitioner 12 must also demonstrate that the changes it has identified would require major revisions in the 13 previous environmental document).) Nothing about City's decision to accept waste from Wil- 14 Mar would require any revisions, and certainly not "important revisions" to the analysis of 15 environmental impacts contained in the Initial Study checklist, or the discussion of potential 16 impacts in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration. Accordingly, no EIR is required. The City 17 Council was able to adopt Resolution 94-81 based on the information in its previously-prepared 18 environmental documents. 19 20 IIT. 21 CONCLUSION 22 Petitioners have failed to state facts which would entitle them to a preliminary injunction 23 under the Unfair Trade Practices Act First,their claim that City acted in violation of Resolution 24 No. 91-32 is moot because that resolution was superseded. Second,City has complied with the _ 25 landfill policy and programs set forth in its General Plan, with the exception of the suggestion 26 (now determined t0 k=0115 itutiOnal) that county users be charged higher rates. Third, City 27 also complied with the requirements of Public Resources section 44004 when it filed its IIoears . � W1 a �d 1� 28 application to amend its operating permit near y two y g 2 JUN 23 '94 10:25 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN-SACTO,CA P.3i21 • I CEQA when it prepared its Initial Study, approved its Negative Declaration for the operating 2 permit amendment and filed its Notice of Determination for the changes on the landfill design and 3 operation on January 12, 1993. 4 Moreover,the relief petitioners seek is fatally flawed. They seek to have the Court order 5 City to discriminate against a particular handler within its service area either by not permitting 6 Wil-Mar to use City's landfill, or making Wil-Mar pay a higher fee than that charged to other 7 haulers. Such an order would be unconstitutional. 8 Based on all of the foregoing,petitioners' application for a preliminary injunction should be- 9 denied. 10 DATED: June 22, 1994. 11 Respectfully submitted, 12 McDONOUGH,HOLLAND&ALLEN A Professional Corporation 13 14 r By: A� ' 15 IRIS P. YANJO 16 Attorneys for Respondents and Defendants CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES AND 17 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WD0W),GKH0UAW -14- u AT AGE A ITEM #� ( ) APPROVED ( J DENIED ( ) CONTINUED TO TO: Rich Ramirez, City Manager (�^) FROM: Mike Compton, Director of Administrative servicesfF� / SUBJECT: Solid Waste Collection Rate Increase l� DATE: April 24, 1994 Need: For the City Council to consider adoption of a resolution providing for an increase in solid waste collection rates for regular residential and commercial refuse collection operations as well as the recycling/greenwaste program. Facts : 1 . The City has received a request from Paso Robles Waste Disposal (PRWD; copy attached) requesting a 16% increase in solid waste collection rates . 2 . This request included the following components : a . Residential Waste Collection b. Commercial Waste Collection C. Curbside Recycling & Greenwaste d. Commercial Recycling e. 40/60 Gallon. Container Rental 3 . The current franchise agreement adopted by the City Council, December 7, 1993 provided the following rate setting provisions : a. That for residential and commercial waste collections services, rates shall be established to provide a "fair and reasonable return" general defined as an operating ratio of 90 to 92% . b. That a rental rate shall be established for both 40 and 60 gallon automated containers . C. That PRWD shall implement a commercial recycling program as approved by the Director of Pub!--' -- Works . ublicWorks . 4 . The Director of Public Works has determined that implementation of a commercial recycling program, should be postponed to some future time yet to be determined. • Accordingly, the proposed rate increase component for a Pace 1 �� r L commercial recycling program has- been eliminated from • consideration. 5. Staff and the Fiscal Policy Committee has met on numerous occasions to consider said rate increase request. While a rate increase is undesirable, data provided by PRWD would generally support the rate increase as proposed in the attached rate schedule. Analysis and Conclusion: For the purposes of determining the overall rate increase, analysis was segregated into three components: 1. Residential and commercial collections 2 . Recycling and greenwaste program 3. 40 and 60 gallon automated container rental Residential and Commercial Collections Total operating expenses reported for the fiscal year ended October 31, 1993, $1, 983, 030, were adjusted downwards by removing expenses associated with the recycling/greenwaste program and rolloff box services . These expenses were further adjusted upwards by various increases for 1994 as proposed by PRWD. The Fiscal Policy Committee agreed that for rate setting purposes $1, 792, 700 in total expenses would be used for identifying the amount of total revenues to be generated to achieve an operating ratio of 92% . The equation is as follows: Adjusted expenses divided by desired operating ratio equals total revenues required; or $1, 792, 700 92% _ $1, 948, 600 The balance of the equation required the removable of recycling/greenwaste program revenues and rolloff box revenues from the 1993 revenue total of $1, 975, 800 . After adjustment, the total revenue amount becomes $$1, 692, 400 . The equation for determining the rate increase may now be completed as follows : Total revenues needed less 1993 adjusted revenues divided by 1993 adjusted revenues equals percentage rate increase; or ($1, 948, 600 - $1, 692. 400) $1, 692, 400 = 15% Recycling and Greenwaste Programs Two underlying issues impact the adjustment needed for the recycling and greenwaste programs . • Page 2 '�/ • The first issue is a public policy- issue as to whether or not "operating ratio" should be applied to the recycling/greenwaste program revenues. Prior to the adoption of the new franchise agreement last December, PRWD was content with an situation wherein operating revenues covered operating expenses. PRWD is now requesting that the program provide a "fair and reasonable" rate of return defined as an operating ratio of 90 to 92%. It was not anticipated at the time the new franchise agreement was formulated that this might become an issue. For the purposes of this analysis, staff has included operating ratio in the calculation of the necessary rate adjustment. The second issue revolves around the handling of the operating loss for the year ended October 31, 1993. PRWD has not only requested a rate increase to eliminate operating losses in fiscal year 1994 but has also requested that the operating loss experienced last year be made up in 1994 as a part of the rate adjustment. PRWD has indicated acceptance to a proposal to spread the 1993 loss over three years in order to mitigate impact upon current rates . Assuming that "operating ratio" shall apply and that the 1993 operating loss shall be made up over three years, the equation is as follows: • 1993 operating expenses plus increase in Rossi tipping fee plus one third of 1993 operating loss plus a 5% adjustment in 1993 operating expenses divided by the desired operating ratio equals amount of required revenues; or $151, 200 + $11, 40C + $7, 800 +$7, 600 92% _ $193, 500 The balance of the equation for determining the rate increase may now be completed as follows : Total revenues needed less 1993 revenues divided by 1993 revenues equals percentage rate increase; or ($193. 500 - $127, 300) $127, 300 = 520 40 and 60 Callon Automated Container Rental As provided in the franchise agreement, PRWD has requested implementation of a container rental fee which would be used to purchase additional automated containers . The objective of purchasing additional automated containers is to complete the conversion of the current collection system to a fully automated system by December, 1997 . PRWD has requested • $1.50 per month for 40 gallon containers and $2 .00 per month for 60 gallon containers . The current rental rate for 90 gallon containers is $2 50 per month. 2,2� li Page 3 Fiscal • Impact: The actual impact of the above noted rate increases on the rates vary from rate classification to rate classification. Refer to the attached Exhibit "A", pages 8 through 10, which illustrate the rate impact as compared to existing rates. The rate increase varies from 17% to 36% for residential customers and is 15% for commercial customers. Should the City Council decide as a policy matter that applying "operating ratio" to the recycling and greenwaste programs is not desirable, I will prepare and bring to the Council meeting an alternative rate schedule. This option would provide for a recycling/greenwaste program rate increase of 40% rather than 52%. Due to the fact that the current municipal landfill has an expected life through the year 2040 at current compaction levels; and given the success of the City's volunteer recycling/greenwaste program, staff has been investigating other options for City Council consideration which would mitigate the rate increase identified above and in Exhibit "A" as well as future impacts. There is an desire by the wilmar Disposal to deliver their solid waste collections to the City's landfill. This may be desirable for the following reasons: 1 . The immediate impact should this diversion occur would be to reduce the proposed residential and commercial collection rate increase from the proposed 15% to 9 . 4% . 2 . Revenues received by the City from landfill tipping fees would be significantly increased. The City's Solid waste Operations Fund is currently operating in a deficit position. These increased revenues would eliminate the deficit and bring the City into compliance with the City Council adopted fiscal policy. 3. The increased revenues noted in #2 above would eliminate the immediate need for a landfill tipping fee increase which has a direct impact upon residential and commercial collection rates in the City. 4 . Revenues received by the landfill operator from tipping fees would also be significantly increased. The landfill operator has previously voiced concerns relative to current operating income levels and has suggested that a rate increase request may be forthcoming. Again, should the diversion occur, the need for an immediate landfill tipping fee increase would be eliminated and may be substantially mitigate rate increases in the near term. Page 4 '� • 5. In the long term, increased delivery volumes provides a much broader base over which future rate increase needs may be spread. Thus, lowering the overall impact upon individual residential and commercial collection customers . Given ever increasing federal, state and county mandates relative to landfill operations, having a broader customer base provides the economies of scale to mitigate such mandated cost impacts . Concerns relative to "filling the City landfill" can be addressed in a number of ways. Improving compaction methods and expanding the landfill. Both options have been investigated and are attainable though the expansion option would have a much longer time line. In conclusion, staff maintains ongoing discussions with Wilmar Disposal regarding the delivery of their solid waste material to the City's landfill. It is expected that these discussions will be completed before the next City Council meeting. Wilmar Disposal has requested that the compacted commercial tipping fee be decreased by $5.00 per ton in order to offset their increased operating costs for traveling the greater distance to the City landfill. Wilmar Disposal has also requested the following assurances: a. That no landfill tipping fee preference be shown to any commercial hauler (same rate fits all) ; and b. That upon the expiration of the current contract. for the operations of the City landfill, that proposals be solicited from all interested parties; and C. That delivery volumes and conversion ratios which may form the basis of any diversion scenario be carefully monitored during the first few months and appropriate adjustments be made accordingly. While it may be highly desirable to have a firm commitment from Wilmar Disposal, lowering the commercial compacted rate by $5.00 per ton and letting competitive market factors dictate whether or not increased solid waste deliveries occur may be worth a try. The approximate impact upon the City's landfill operations would be $10, 000 monthly. This represents the amount that the City may have to "hold harmless" the landfill operator should revenues be negatively impacted. If after the first month or two, delivery volumes did not increase, the $5 .00 per ton reduction could be eliminated and the full 15% residential and commercial collection, rate increase would be implemented. Exhibit "B", pages 11 through 13, provide for residential and commercial collection rates which are only adjusted by 9 . 4% based upon the above noted scenario in • which commercial compacted rates are decreased by $5. 00 per ton. Page �(� Options: 1. That the City Council approve the following: a. Adopt Resolution No. providing for the residential and commercial collection rate increases as identified in the attached Exhibit "B"; and b. Authorize a reduction in the commercial compacted landfill tipping fee by $5.00 per ton; and c. Provide the assurances to Wilmar Disposal as noted in the Fiscal Impact section, items a through c; or 2. That the City Council adopt Resolution No. providing for the rate increases as identified in the attached Exhibit "A"; or 3. Amend, modify or reject any of the options above. • 0 }_ Page ,/Yip RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO.93-29 ESTABLISHING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FEES AND ESTABLISHING REVISED SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FEES WHEREAS, the Municipal Code provides for the establishment of various fees and charges and also provides that the City Council may adjust said fees and charges as deemed necessary from time and time; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received a request from Paso Robles Waste Disposal, the City's solid waste collection franchisee, for various rate adjustments per the franchise agreement; and WHEREAS, Paso Robles Waste Disposal ca: not maintain financial and economic viability without the implementation of rates which provide adequate revenues . THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the Citv of El Paso de Robles rescinds Resolution Nc. 93-29 and adopts the solid waste collection fees as identified in the attached Exhibit "B" effecti-:e Mav 1, 1994 . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Cc'_:ncil of the City of El Pasc de • Robles that : 1 . Solid waste collect'c.. c�s- omers r-.av have the option .:-f purchasing their automated container at cost from the franchisee (purchase price plus shlcoing) ; and 2 . Customers who purchase ther own containers s-.all have the monthly collection fee red.:ced by the appropriate rental amount; and 3 . All requests for new collection services anther chances in collection services, _ .e . change of address cr conta_-.er size, shall be required 7ic utilize an automated container of 40, 60 or 90 gallon caoacity; and 4 . Based upon the availability of autcmated containers, t'-.e franchisee shall initiate a change-out programs. wherein current non-automated cas�omers wi-1 be converted to automated service; and 5 . The City shall assist t::e franchisee in the implementation of system wherein deli=_-ent amounts owing the franc.--.-- see for solid waste collectic:- services is placed as a lien upo-. the annual property of property _eceivi- _ saic collection services . PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of -- _ 1994 �� �r.e foi_�w-ng rci- cal_ • vote: l / • •Cf) 0 O O O O co O O N N N C AO -• ✓• n N. 0 pn�000 0 yn fy� aL � R y N (A 0 w V- 0) 7 7 7 m 7a ? 0 0 0 o a o o o o 9 w > > > > > > S S > > p D D D D 0D D '� •� n D D a c pi m c c c c c p, - c c c n n •• 7 m 3 3 3 3 3 3 v n 3 3 CD m m w w w w ,=F w w m m n n G m m m N _ m m a n n n n n m 00 S w S w E S w^ •c w a c0 W n y n n w n n �m vv n � m m H m X X m a w � n w m r r lD J W J W O W Oi O a W W W 1p W r U Ol 0 O r . r re 0 : O .. U W p� J tD N N W W OJ N m 7 `��"'• n O 0 xti r* O n 0 O O O < <ms; ry a 3.>=; m r 0I_p 0 � C n a O t yGY r 1([P•`_ � o j O rt 0 0. O e r M p - b n ' o 1 0 e, < k� r N � O O W N W N N r O N 0 M O 0 W U �O Ql tp O O O 0 b O C ^ 0 tb a g Cu CD m 0 o v+ cn n 6 71 O r r .� r r .� .� r r �+ r r• .� r r r � o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O rA 0 H 0 O r o lD �O pi N N O O O U N p� �• n' b a H c 0 R q ID w i Q V Q CT Q O 7 7 m > > > > 7 N P m CW N A W N y a m N A W N { CL to ID 3 3 3 3 CD 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Q 3 ID m m m m m m m m m m m m N N m m m m m m 4/ N N N N 4l W N T T T T T m m F F FF F m F F F F F m F F F F Fmomem m ID F x 7mc 7mC" x m m m m m F m 0 m m x F F x F x 7C 7C' 7c' 0 O r t F` 7 f U m r U J U b W m r W O c xH- R � <5 r m m °z n d ice:' O M:: C p': 0 A n r ° no '0,'n r W n M o O H Y O' b r 0 0 r n n o � o o � r G 0 p R n , O R a G 0 M n b O G O n o n `D A 0 V. A K ;C n n � tl v 0 O ro r 0 U U 0 U U Vi U� O O O O O O O'O O O O O O O O O O O O 9 � H d W O m a N � U � �• � � R � m m N � mJ V1 J N O l0 �-• W U+ O� m r• J N m a O J J � � O� O� p �' U U O O Vi U O O to N U O O O (P (n U O O b jx,V } O O Ln A rrW N — ( W N �A A CO to w cx n A N N A a) N M N N N 3 3 3 3 3 N 3 3 3 3@ 3 3 3 3 m m m m m m@ CD m m N N V m *g -9 79 -9 '9 m CD 3 WF F F F F m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m x m m m m m x F m x x l F x x F x x x x x F F mm CD x x O r r w W N N r ID U n J Oi d W N W W N r r m N n J D7 m r V d V• d W p� U� m m O O� O N Q� o c R O �d Ic A H K CA p Y µ O A � b O r g r c: - ao m o W h M b C H O rt )? µ - W m N O 1p J L U W N m tD U O U b' 0 a o r r n „ o 0 rt n a H H. b_ rt Wry C rt r � n a "ft' m L:_ rt � O µ 'o M H O � ..l w a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O b J W 4 G R7 I r a G O U O• O O O O m O O U U O O O O O O O O N O O O O w p p N N N O O 1 m m m w o 57 m � > > n c c c c a{i C c c cEL �? 3 3 3 333 v n R3 m s s waw w a a w a w N m m m m m m m _ �5 w n n a n n a " a n a Lim C C C N ? m m n n n , CD X X m n n w � a m r r b J W J W O :': U W p� J �p N N W ✓ - r W `+ m N m :3 OA G 0_ 5 y ° AN N N N N 5 ID CD m m C O W N N N N N N N N N N N N N = •�� � r 10 Y n• O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m • .tom d O O 3 � O N N N F+ �-+ N �' r N r �+ � ? d • U W U U W W m N m 7 � • t r d C 0 i• • go o K r : W A r p O a m rt O iii' m rt O O N N O O O 7 0 F• N m m m u.: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 - v rt N 0 d O W N W N N Cn N W W N N N m r Z r J W r r W W W ll� N O J O a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7 d U N W J d a O W O b d y O ro W N N N N J r+ r N r N r N r rt d • .'-' m N W 1p O O m O� V� Q� l� N O N m Y • � U tp N W N N W r r W � O m O • Y` W L C ��f � 1 7 > > > O 0 7 > > > > > 6 W N ... N In ILn A W N ,� ... 6 • 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 m� w w w w m w Imii a w y m m m m m m o b m .. 79 72 -2 '9 'R T9 T 'g 79 '9 79 ' m F F F F F m F F F F F F F m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m F 70c' x JCC" F F 70C x � x � 7C' m 0 m (D m 7S' 7r • JC 7C 7C' 7� F p `< 0 F O /�ppby11 n b Y O C 2 rt o Ih r O R O ID H 0. Sof.H ID Q R Ir o o o � LD:0 N• K b O O C O 0 -.Fr. g �y✓y W D) W fD W m W O J a r © a Oi W r tp Ot W 7' d � • b C Mb r n o > R r W :M d m O O J N m O U r r r r m R r b m a r a a d O H, 0 o c ,� rt O 'm d 3 ar d 7 K :: A M d K: 1D< m u.. K O ' m r r 5 'o sp> ro H 0 . O n r - b W O 01 W t0 to 02 20 W (n 0 U O� b <O W O O O O O O O O a a O a a a O a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 a y • O O O O 4� O U b O O O O U N C), §{ ( § / § ( ( § \ - - - 33 / } . $ @ ° CL QQQQ � \ e } 52 ° � � � - - ƒ ƒ 0 / 39 / CD CD CD CD IIII � 77 ) f ) \ § $ � / { CD � [ \ � . \ \ } } } \ \ \ \ } } } \ \ \ \ } } [ � � 0 % �:3 9 � * ; r tr . [ \ o ° � [ '.1 00 � [ » } [ \.0 �; 0 ID 2 � 2 } 0" c ( } \ Ir� . , . . � r � . ; 0 . �:� PASO ROBLES WASTE DISPOSAL, INC. 538 TWELFTH STREET • P.O. BOX 753 PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA 93447 (805) 238-2381 April 12 , 1994 Mr. Mike Compton Director of Finance & Administration City of Paso de Robles 4th & Pine , Paso Robles , Ca. 93446 Dear Mr. Compton : In response to your request , Paso Robles Waste Disposal , Inc . has revised our Rate Increase Request to segregate costs for curbside recycling and comu:ercial recycling . Our revised proposal is explained as follows and demonstrated in Exhibits A and B wherein we deleted the cop-.merc- al recycling proposed revenue and expenses . Notes to explain Financial tiummaries Fxhi it "A" Col. 1 , 1993 Adjusted to��� repr=sents i9actuals as reported in for 12 month period endin;� 10-3':-9j " Iess 1 - months ' totals for R: 11-Of- revenue and expense totals . Col. 2 , 1994 Proposed incudes expense= and revenue to include Co=ercial Recyc��ng program as pro- posed in our _etter tc J . c-althy dated 1- 19-94 as as curbside re - cycling . Col . 3 , 1994 Proposed Res dentia_ Cur:side recycling program Revenue and =xuenses incl,.dinF� loss carried forward and added Fossi Trucking costs to pro- cess green waste , c be deleted from our Revised 1994 Proposal . Col. 4 , 1994 Net Revenue and ExEenses to implement Commer- cial Recyclir— PrOEram as proposed to J . McCarthy 1-1�-94 tc be ezi�luded from our revised prop--sal . Col . 5 , 1994 Net 1994 Re-,-= ue a_--i xpe_:Ses exclusive of curP- side resider:-ial and �ommercial Mr. Mike Compton Page Two Recycling, with the inclusion of special Events i.e . , annual clean up , HHW event, etc . to serve as basis for service rates . Col. 6 , 1995 1995 Proposed Revenue and Expenses as presented in PRWD , Inc ' s original submission 2-16-94 . Col. 7 , 1995 Proposed Curbside Residential Recycling Program revenue and expenses , to be deleted from our revised 1995 proposal. Col. 8 , 1995 Proposed Commercial Recycling revenue and expenses to be deleted from our Revised 1995 proposal . Col. 9 , 1995 Revised 1995 proposal to provide a basis for future service rates . Per your request, we deleted our request for the operating ratio , as provided in the Franchise Agreement for Curbside recycling service . Please refer to Columns 3 and 7 . However PRWD , Inc . does not agree that we should not receive a reasonable profit on curbside recycling and any other services as mandated by the Council through the Franchise Agreement . In our revised request, we have provided for the expense for an annual clean up day including Tipping Fees . If the City wishes to waive the Tipping Fee , the cost could be reduced by $7 ,000 . We have also included recovery costs of $22 , 500 for the rental element of the 60 gallon containers furnished to customers during_ 1992 and 1993 per Council ' s direction. Also a recycle event as described in the Franchise Agreement is included at $3 ,000 per year, Exhibit B demonstrates the proposed rates which includes 50,E per residential customer to cover the loss in curbside rec.-cling of $23 , 895 • during 1993 • We anticipate that the proposed residential rates willove c r our costs for 1994 . C • Mr. Mike Compton Page Three Proposed rates also include a 12% increase to all customers residential and commercial, which is justified in recognition of the 3 year previous operating losses on a consolidated basis ($116 ,383 . ) . We have anticipated a small growth in Residential customers , however we can only speculate as to the amount of bad debts . City Municipal Code 7 . 16 . 290 providesthat all customers are mandated to pay the approved rates , however PRWD , Inc . does not have the authority to enforce mandatory payment . We would appreciate Council ' s action on this issue. Please refer to the depreciation_ schedule which identifies our scheduled acquisition of 40 and 60 gallon automatic containers . Proposed rates for these containers include a rental element. . • We wish to point out that previ� j.s requests for rate increases were either denied or reduced tc a level that incurred significant losses . Consequent-- y we were forced to cance_ family health coverage insurance for our employees . In addition, cash flow has dictated that excessiveinterest costs were incurred in order to purchase equipment . PRWD , Inc . has operated with a aebt to equity ratio that iS significantly unfavorable according to our CPA firm . We are most anxious to obtain early approval . Your consideration of this request will be appreciated . Very truly yours , Dale Gomer , General Manager Paso Robles �^daste Disposal , In- . cc : Mayor Iverson Mayor Pro Tem Picanco John McCarthy Rick Ramirez l' r n -A w p. v m -i D O O w m -t p m � � o 3 o � v p O X -i m cn (n cn z r+ m o cD o o cD o. c Z, a (D 2 c W (n cn rn c � � - v p cD cD o cD n C o < " < Dn n y a cD c c c 3 x < co m --4 1 _< < < O (D T o h o con QO Qo a (D - 2 m n) w 'D N o o C) z D n 0 m 0 3 cou o — O o. fn o cn n m (D > > D rt _ - s m r — cD D m O Q 7 .Z- O (n �_ O .Ci C � dl En c x O_ (D (D (D (D D � � ` m t0 T T, -n ,-� (D Dl n (n O — O O2 0- N - (D Q N 0 z CD O CD WD C O to O (D 30 < _. (D (n C C fo (D r Vii p) CD(n Q CD N (n <n C) 7 CD (n y n' (D N (D Q n fy (D C) O. yCD CD Cl) CD (D < o y y > > y D m 3 o c Co o Q' 3 c (n fn y N COD (1 NCD D 3 v: H N N y O O O O O D D CD CO W CD < T O O n 9 O O C C) CD (O = N (n J A N W A W (D 4l J A W O -' tT O CD W O V V rn oo Ul A V W CD CD O O (n A (n 01 CD W O m cn _~ A A (D O W O (D 0) N J -� W O CD -� O cn A A W Co CP O CD O) N co N co _l -! O N cn O Co'CP O (D AQ rn 00 O Di N --� O W CD (D A J -+ Co J N NW J CD W co 0 (PW J h.,: li A NA A _ I O CD U1 CD A N N A N ma) C-31Ul0) W (Jt W U) CD `1 0) A _ -' rn 0 CT1 W (n OD V O W Cl) N CA J U1 O A J --+ J A UL CD Co W — N CC Ol I N A Ut co co O (D A co O Ul CO O Q1 O O co Co Cb O O A 0 W N J Cl) co w m O m O O V V CD p V O rn O O co O O co O (.D N O O O N cD N m N (n m Cn O O ti N N 0 0 0 cn V O m O N O O N O Oo O W O O (n C N N w O A A 0 0 Cr W O A o O W N m Ln N N N A N Cn (n Ul DD rn (n O W O O J A N O ww O N O O m cD O co O O O Ul n O CT) J (1 O OUli 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cO O O O O O O O rn O O J (D a O O O A 0 0 W O n A i 1 C, J40 W CD (D1 (7 W W A rn N N I J J W W w O co CO N CP J A A co O rJ`. - - - _ rn W O cn W O rn cn (n O J A 0 0 0 � J (J J N O ONONOANOA rnrn' NQAu JV-��Cnn`!l rn�ACWN-An• CND W I 0UNNrn� CNNJ1P•i OCWNAAn CW_AAD (YI 0O ( 0 0 A A A A Qi N A W W Co N Ut w w A A W � CD 'co WNCJ cn O coO Cl) J w0cn(n O W O A O x O w N I'D m J J O m O O V O O U O O co Ul w n (n w m OCWNAAAAwrnCPT; LD ONONCJAJ(NwPD*t O0 A(ND iI OJ CL C D W Cn W co b n W N cn sWw JVO O O O O w O N ' rn m J A w A O W A cnO O V W m O W O O m O J w A M O (n Ul O w w w W (D co co co N A I UlO O O n (n O (n O DO O mO m O n O O O O A J m V m Un O C" JCD co Co U1l cn m w (D 0) Cn O W O J A N co n O (D O CC) O w 0 (D 0) w m O (nmO O O O O O m A O OO O O n O O O O O J O W O O O N O O tJ J U O O m OO n O n n O n O O O O O O vl0 Z O w N O N O O C . C) A m (D (77 Co L7N - C. ., O Q) N CD NO W J Co r� O w v A (D (p O CP A U� OV W l m (n O v, JJ U mwO CD O O OOrn Cn- . W O m (D (n 0 0 0 01 ui rn rn O A n J W o rn w o o 6 W w (.7 0 Lin WNL z -- <W O CD O z -D CD rn o r- -1 o 0 N n tp v v m ., < r = -1 O x D - o > j o 3 cD l7(�C7 70 7D cu -. in o m " D ., (D 5 3 to � 'o CD 70 o O CCDM CD � o o' — m to T 7o r r � 0 � � o o. 3 3.c-< m m o y m a S � cn CD to p Q Cr c� n ., m 3 Z to X 0, -u m (D to CD CD y o o °' N p0 T m � � m m W ra m �• 00 R° 0 o.CL 70 70 -'. r c rn S K o z C, n m d ? c tom„ o co n r ? �70< < o y 0 (A-� a m 3 N (n < "' a D CD o x co CD (D CD CD (n 0) O� O (D (D :3 O Q •= N -< -< c c 0) CD D '0 (D-� Q Ch (D h--+ 0) n 0 CD CD X C4 y cD N > O tD tD tD to co ' O Dm m m m y m _' co o a) O D n 00 N O W O N CD CD c n0-t1 CL y to C{ O O c w obi n O m.N-. . -0. A0 noorncn D {-0O.vmW w CD CD M M X d d (D CD r + ct N N o D San: En UD to D D - �7 C.co CD O O - W V N O A W tp' C 0 V V (D co N O V -P- - -c A (n N (n D WO- O O y o CTI O O) N N W N d .n 0) " cnO W O O m m m h A - N m cn A to to J o A A J Cn {i CL (D cD W W W CD N (n Cn (Il o W O CD O co O O w A N w o rn V v 0 0 o W O cn O co rn 00 N N O W v o o o W 00 D co Ut O O Cn t.) 0 0 W O O (D J nCD V O co A ,Co w co W W A A CO CD o O co 0 0 O'(" 00 n 7o n • n� 0 , 3 Q W (fl r) w 3 N o 0 0 0 0 o m C, N C CD � N (n �1 CND N W O N V Ln W c�D H' o W O co O (n V (n O O w A O A 'A' CD o m O cn O O N 0 0 0 O cn N rn 0 V CL 3 to W 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 O O Cn V O A CD N CD CD CL � o C cD cn A N _ (n Ut W Q) N (n D 1 N 90 Cn W _..�. �1 O Co o 07 N A N V v co 0 0o O (n O w tb O O N (D m A 7 0 (D 00 O (D W O O C71 V O O r O CD cD n W v CD Ul m O CDUl � o V (n O O O Cn 0 0 � D � m O co A w 0 _ 0 m (D co n 3 < o O o cn a) cn LNo A0 O O o o a) co CD CD co co — cn Ul . (D m N Cn Cn w O N O cn w 0 o w O co O A O w w m (n CD ow O Cn O w w O o O CD N CD m 0s < to 0 0 0 CD O O 0.0 cn N O A n (7 O v CD D w Y) i Exhibit B Collection Rate Schedule • Inside City of Paso Robles Effective 4/1/94 .SERVICE RESIIENTFAL CURRENT IRATE RECYCLE. :12% INC. PROPOSED CUSTOMER AP.PR. 311/93RATE 1 can at curb 9.98 .50 1.20 11.681 13.76 2 cans at curb 13.81 .50 1.65 15.96 1319 3 cans at curb 17.67 .50 2.12 20.29 14 1 can in yard 18.02 .50 2.16 20.68 25 2 cans in yard 22.13 .50 2.66 25.29 23 1 can Phys. Disab in yard 8.07 .50 .97 9.54 44 2 cans " in yard 13.81 50 1.65 15.96 i 60 gal auto at curb 13.81 .50 3.65 17.97 i 60 gal auto in yard 22.13 .50 4.65 27.28 ? 40 gal auto at curb N.A, .50 2.70 1 3.1 83 40 gal auto in yard N.A. .50 3.16 22.183 9:1 90 gal auto at curb 17.67 .50 2.12 20.30 90 gal auto in yard 26.04 .50 3.1 2 29.66 90 gal auto duplex 20.43 .50 2.45 23.38 - i 90 gal auto triplex 29.35 .50j 3.52 33.37 Multi Unit Per can' 6.83 .50 .82 8.15 Special Tag 1.35 .50 1.55 COMMERCIAL CURRENT RATE RECYCLE 12% INC. PROPOSED CUSTOMER 1 RATE j 1 yard container service 36.53 4.38 40.91 1-1/2 yards 1 time per week 41.41 4.96 46.37 235 1-1/2 yards 2 times per week 65.78 7.89 73.67 22 1-1/2 yards 3 times per week 90.13 1 10.81 100.94 9 1-1/2 yards 4 times per week 114.49 13.74 128.03 1-1/2 yards 5 times per week 138.85 I 16.66 155.51 i 1-1/2 yards 6 times per week 163.21 19.59 182.80 2 yards 1 time per week 48.71 5.85 54.56 i 2 yards 2 times per week 80.37 9 64 90 01 2 yards 3 times per week 112.05 13.45 1 25.50 2 yards 4 times per week 143.71 17.24 1 50.95 Exhibit B Collection Rate Schedule • Inside City of Paso Robles SERVICE:- COMMERCIAL CURRENT RATE RECYCLE 12% INC. PROPOSED CUSTOMER APPR. 3/1/93 RATE 2 yards 5 times per week 175.38 21.04 196.42 2 yards 6 times per week 207.05 24.81 1 231.86 3 yards 1 time per week 63.34 7.60 70.94 100 3 yards 2 times per week 108.38 13.00 121.38 80 3 yards 3 times per week 153.47 18.42 171.89 48 3 yards 4 times per week 198.58 23.83 222.41 1 1 3 yards 5 times per week 243.59 29.23 272.82 10 3 yards 6 times per week 288.67 34.64 323.31 5 4 yards 1 time per week 92.56 1 1.1 1 103.67 7 4 yards 2 times per week 151.02 18.1/1 169.54 17 4 yards 3 times per week 209.50 25.14 234.64 12 4 yards 4 times per week 267.96 32.13 300.09 7 4 yards 5 times per week 326.4339.17 365.57 8 i 4 yards 6 times per week 384.88 46.19 =31.07 3 COMMERICAL CANS 1 can 1 time per week 12.18 1.46 13.64 19 2 cans 1 time per week 18.25 2.19 20.44 15 3 cans 1 time per week 24.36 2.92 27.28 1 4 cans 1 time per week 30.43 3.65 34.35 4 5 cans 1 time per week 36.54 4.38 40.92 1 1 1 can 2 times per week 22.45 2.69 25.14 1 2 cans 2 times per week 36.54 4.38 40.92 3 cans 2 times per week 48.71 5.85 54.56 4 cans 2 times per week 60.91 7.30 68.21 1 5 cans 2 times per week 73.08 8.76 81.84 90 gal A/C 1 time per week27.23 3.27 30.50 3� 90 gal A/C 2 times per week 51.57 6.19 57.76 1 60 gal A/C 1 tim per week 18.24 219 20.43 4 25-3 yard bins 2 times per 2,709.50 325.00 3C 4.93 1 week -2 {$ Exhibit B Collection Rate Schedule Inside City of Paso Robles SERVICE COMMERCJAL CURRENT RATE RECYCLE 12% INC. PROPOSED CUSTOMER APPR 3/1/93 RATE: - 7-3 yard bins 2 times per 758.66 91.04 849.70 week 1 RESIDENTIAL RATES NOT SHOWN ON 3/1/93 APPROVED RATES RECYCLE PROPOSED CUSTOMER RATE 12% INC. 3 cans duplex .50 24.96 6 3 cans triplex 50 49.48 4 cans duplex 50 57.92 4 cans triplex 50 63.6 6 cans triplex 50 85 69 1 can @ duplex per week 50 (Total 2) 17 COMMERCIAL RATES NOT SHOWN ON 3-1-93 SCHEDULE PROPOSED I CUST0 , RATES 60 gal A/C at curb 17.97 I 90 gal A/C at curb 20.93 1 can in yard 20.6a � 2 cans at curb I oa 2 cans in yard 25.29 Pulling charge per month 33.1 Pulling charge 1 time per week ` 33.13 � Pulling charge 2 times per week 10.36 NOTES: 1 If converted to 40 gallon auto container rate would be $13.18 to include rental cost. 2 Customers would be offered the option to convert to 40 gallon auto container as surDri% s available. Proposed rates include Rental fee of 1 .50 per month for 40 gal a c container ar 2.00 per month for 60 gal A/container. 3 One can customers will be converted to 40 gallon auto container rate as sueply is availa and/or change in customers due to new ownership or new rentee. (Re'. City Coun- . Resolution). 4 Proposed rates includes rental costs for automatic type containers i.e., 40 gal, 60 gal, o 1-4 yard commercial units. -3- ;K PASO ROBLES WASTE DISPOSAL, INC. 538 TWELFTH STREET P.O. BOX 753 PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA 93447 (805) 238-2381 February 6, 1994 Mr. Mike Compton, Director of Administration Mr. John McCarthy, Director of Public Works City of Paso Robles 4th & Pine, Paso Robles, Ca. 93447 Gentlemen: Paso Robles Waste Disposal, Inc. is pleased to present our request for Rate Increases, and suggest that after proper review by Staff , the Fiscal Committee and Council, that these rates could be effective 4-1-94 for commercial and residential accounts. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the Franchise Agreement, we have enclosed the following: 3 prior year financial results -- Exhibit A 2 year pro forma financial projections for Expenses and Revenue -- Exhibit A with Assumptions Equipment Inventory -- Exhibit B 1A Depreciation Schedule Current --Exhibit C and Projected -- Exhibit C-1 Chart of Accounts -- Exhibit D Plans for Wage and Salary Adjustments - Current and Future -- Exhibit E Officers Salaries with Projected Adjustments -- Exhibit E Policy Statement with regard to Equipment and Special Services -- Exhibit F Description of Practice with regard to delinquent accounts -- Exhibit G Franchise Tax Computation -- Exhibit H Audited Statement for Y/E 10-31-93 as prepared by Glenn Burdette, Phillips & Bryson -- Exhibit I Please note that we have deleted 10 months' expense from our 1993 financial reports to form a basis for projection for 1994 and 1995 . We have included the effect of implementing our proposed Commercial Recycling program to include cardboard, office paper and glass bottles. We have not considered other recyclable materials i . e. , aluminum cans, steel cans, plastic containers and green waste that might become a part of residuals derived from our Commercial customers. This proposal was presented to Mr. John McCarthy on 1- 19-94 . • Request for Rate Increase Page Two We also have included the cost to respond to the requirements set forth in the Franchise Agreement, i.e. "Clean up week" as described in paragraph 8 , and three special recycling events per year per Paragraph J. Paso Robles Waste Disposal, Inc. is pleased to respond to the City's request to become totally involved in the waste reduction program to meet the goals established by AB-939 . We might point out that with the implementation of Commercial Recyclable Program that the City of Paso Robles is now the first City in SLO County to put in place the only complete program for waste reduction. Our Residential Curbside Recycle and Curbside Green Waste program has the participation of over 2650 residents. The best record in the County. Paso Robles City Staff and Council can take pride in this achievement. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the Franchise Agreement, Para. 2 (B) we have proposed our rates so that through an "averaging" process we hope to achieve an operating ratio of 91% in the not too distant future. Significant losses during the period of 1991 through 1993 when considered in conjunction with the growth in future expenses (including the new Program) that would warrant an increase of 16 percent. However we would opt to request a more reasonable increase in 1994-95 rates that would level off to an operating ratio of 91% and a reasonable R.O. I . within the next three years . With respect to the City's mandate to provide automated service by 12-31-97 , we have projected the cost of a reasonable number of automated type containers for 1994 , followed by larger numbers of units in 1995 . Our current plan includes the acquisition of one (1) automatic type rear loader truck in 1996 . Please refer to the Depreciation Schedule (Exhibit C) for further details as to size and quantities of containers. Our expense projections and rates would include a reasonable rental cost for all types of containers. Prior rates have included a rental element for only 90 gal . plastic automated containers and larger steel containers in the 1-4 yard capacity range , used primarily in our commercial business . . t Request for Rate Increase Page Three I At your convenience we are available to discuss this proposal. We are hopeful that this matter could be ready for Council approval so we could include the new rates in our April billing cycle. sincerely, Dale Gomer, General Manager Encl. C� Paso Robles Waste Disposal Comparative Statement of Income Fiscal Years 1990-1993 with Projections for 1994 and 1995 Residential and Commercial Waste Collection and Roll off Box Services • Actual Actual % Actual % Actual Results Results Inc. Results Inc. Results Inc. 10/31/90 10/31/91 (Dec.) 10/31/92 (Dec.) 10/31/93 (Dec.) Income: Inside City 1,539,486.00 Outside City 291,489.00 Transportation 17.550.00 Total Income 1,318,970-00 1-502.305.0.a 13.90% 7.656.717.00 10.24% 1 .848.575.00 11.61% Expenses: Advertising & promot' 14,324.00 16,613.00 15.98€ 16,507.00 -0.64% 15,416.00 -6.61% Auto & truck expense 122,556.00 141,095.00 15.13% 135,873.00 -3.7O% 151,215.00 11.29€ Bad debts 0.00 0.00 n/a 10,060.00 n/a 23,761.00 136.19€ Bank charges 203.00 454.00 123.65€ 313.00 n/a 165.00 n/a City fees 33,531.00 38,500.00 14.82% 41,688.00 8.28€ 44,872.00 7.64% Dump fees 217,780.00 355,854.00 63.40% 355,659.00 -0.05% 460,349.0C 29.44€ Dues & subscriptions 4,745.00 5,576.00 17.51% 9, 642.00 72.92€ 7,597.0, -21.21% Employee Benefits 281.00 1,576.00 460.85% 554.00 -64 .65% 4,438.CC -.,_.08€ Freight 2,079.00 4,592.CC 120.88% 2,511.00 -45. 32% 1,437.0' -42.77% Insurance - all 132,218.00 153,785.0C 16.31% 190,538.00 23.90% 180,719.0_ Interest 31,590.00 43,456.0- 37.56€ 34,413.00 -20.81% 34,016.00 -_._5€ Meetings & convention 4,395.00 6,372.0 54.98% 4, 141.00 -35.01% 3,754.0 -9.35% Office supplies 25,506.00 20,582.CC -19.31% 26,887.00 30.63€ 23, 129.0,- -13.98% Outside professlonalf 12,476.00 16,075.C-, 28.85% 17,546.00 9.15% _, 920.03 . _.92€ Payroll Taxes 28,896.00 32,556.0 12.67% 36,502.00 12.112% 43,037.0-. 17 .9C;i Pension plan 33,657.00 35,387.0_ 5.14% 41, 695.00 17.63% 53, 353.0' 27.9665, Rent 35,100.00 35,10C.CC 0.00€ 40,575.00 15.60% 47,700.0C 1-1 .56€ Repairs & maintenance 2,324.00 1,688.00 -27.37% 233.00 -86.20% 751.0- =22 .32% Retirement benefits 21,960.00 21,600.0 -1.64% 20, 612.00 -4.57% 20, 400.00 Returned checks 448.0, 752.,0 67.86% 81_5.00 8.38€ 1,499.03 _3.93€ Salaries-officers 121,200.00 128,474.0: 6.00% 61,200.00 -52.36% _36, 300.0 :22.7 I% Salaries & wages 238, 614.00 274,004.00 14.83% 379,998.00 36.68% 342, 383.00 -9.90€ Shop supplies 10,372.00 14,027.0 35.24% 19,020.00 35.60% _2, 933.0- -32.0C% Taxes & licenses 52,665.00 34,621.0-- -34.26% 35,355.00 2.12% .;,561.06 11.58% Telephone & utilities 5,315.00 6,505.09 22.39% 6,551.00 0.7i% 7, 652.CC 16.81% Travel 2,759.00 5,792.01 109.93% 2,290.00 -60.46% 1,930.00 -15.72% Depreciation 181,176.00 189. 973.CC 4.86% 165,001.00 -13.15% 7-e, 937.0r, -9.744 Total Expenses 1 336. 170.00 1.585.009.00 62� 1 656, 179.00 4 ,49% 1 . : 4.CC Gross Income (loss) -17,200.00 -82,704.00 33.00 _3, 301.0_ Net Income (loss) 6,145.00 -60,227.0C 10,033.00 4.5, 605.0- RATIO 101.304 105.50` 99.998 99.2B- Page HrN Gb v4 1C•�t3r"I'I City of EI Paso de Robles • "94, ODas.a, of diz DaL" M., 40-4 I • April 26, 1994 Tom Walters Wilmer Disposal Company 5885 Traffic Way Atascadero, Ca. 93423 Re: i,FTT£R OF UNDERST=7NQ Dear Mr. Walters: This letter is written to affirm the understanding between Wil.mar Disposal and the City of Paso Robles relating to the deliver of the solid waste material collected by Wilnar Disposal to t;;e Paso Robles Landfill . Should Wilmar Disposal opt to deliver it ' s soled waste material to the Paso Robles Landfil-, the Paso Rorles City Cou..c-- will be asked at their May 3, 1994 council meeting to reduce the co.;,ercial co7pacted tipping fee by 55 .00 per ton and provide to Wilmar Disposal: 1. That no landfill tipping fee preference wil- be given to any commercial hauler; al, co=erc�al had-ero _� be treated equally; and 2 . At the expiration of the current landfill operations contract, proposal-- will be solicited for the operations of the Paso Robles Landfill from all interested parties according to approved purchasing procedures and regulations in effect at the time; and 3. That delivery quantities and conversion ratio factors will be monitored on a month to month basis . Should delivery quantities and/or conversion ratio factors differ from those assumptions on which diversion was based, t:^e parties hereto agree to consider modifications to nnitigate any financial hardship that might be arise to either party. 1 hope that the above assurances would satisfy any ccnoerr.s you ray Nave regarding the City' s intentions. I believe that the d •version of Wilmar Disposal's solid waste to the Paso Robles Landf'__! is mutually beneficial. The degree of benefit to either party is dependcnt generally on the actual conversion ratio. So long as we carefully Administrative Services 801 Fourth Stre©t, Paso Robles, CA 93446 a (805) 237.3999 HrK Lb "74 1c•�cn monitor tonnage and delivery data, appropriate adjustments may be timely considered. . Respectfully your$, Michael J. Compton Director of Administrative Servicea I acknowledge the assurances given above and assuming Paso Robles City Council approval would agree to solid waste deliveries beginning May 4, 1994 on a month to month trial basis. Dated; a_c Tom Walters, wilmar isposal, Inc. i nn a- Qv 'z-4s C a 4— j • RESOLUTION NO. 94-74 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO.93-29 ESTABLISHING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FEES AND ESTABLISHING REVISED SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FEES 7HEREAS, the Municipal Code provides for the establishment of various fees and charges and also provides that the City Council may adjust said fees and charges as deemed necessary from time and time; and ;9HEREAS, the City Council has received a request from Paso Robles Waste Disposal, the City' s solid waste collection franchisee, for various rate adjustments per the franchise agreement; and :iHEREAS, Paso Robles Waste Disposal can not maintain financial and economic viability without the implementation of rates which prov-de adequate revenues . --HEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the Ci-y o- -- Paso de Robles rescinds Resolution No.93-29 and adopts the solid collection fees as ident-_fied in the attac_-_ed Exhibit "B'' . Commelc-a- solid waste collection fees shall become effective May 1, 1994 and -esidential solid waste collection fees shall become effective -994 . IT FURTHER RESOLVED b,.. the C-' --y Counci- of the City of El Pasc ae .obles that: 1. Solid waste collection customers may have the option of purchasing t.-,_eir automated con-ainer at cost from the franchisee (purchase price plus shipping) ; and 2 . Customers r::to ourcr_ase their c:•:n containers shall ha-.-e - e monthly collection fee reduced by the appropriate ren-a_ amount; and 3 . All requests for new collection. services and/or chances In collection services, i .e. change of address or container size, shall be reauired to ut--_ize an automated conta_=er ci 40, 60 or 90 gallon capacity; and 4. Based upon the availability of automated containers, c-e franchisee shall initiate a c:-ange-out program wherein current non-automated customers will be converted to automated service; and 5 . The City shall assist the franc:-iisee in the implementa�:-o- of system wherein delinquent a-.ounts owing the franc'-see for solid waste collection se-7.--ices is placed as a l-en the annual property tax bill of the property receivino_ sa-d collection services. is 6 . The commercia_ compac-ed tipp=-'_g fee rate at the Paso Ro'o-es Landfill shall be decreased by $5 . 00 per ton from the current rate of $28.65 per ton to $23 .65 per ton effective • immediately. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of May, 1994 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Heggarty, Macklin, Martin, and Picanco NOES: Iversen ABSFT:T: Plane Zz- Christian E. Iversen, Mayor ATTEST: Richard J. Ramirez, City Clerk i oc O o O O O Ln O Ln Ln O O o Ln Ln lP Ln o C) 0O O to M H M .-1 H M N N M N 0l Ln • ,� ) N O N M N �D Ln L o OD rO O m M N cc (d -1 c-1 c-i N H cN H N �--I i I- N N N N N M J-1 F CL' H M H -i N H N N N t` M O 'j, �1 O Ufl O R$ (d L- 'll L` r1 M dt dT N M N Ln p� off° U N .-i N H H H M N H .--I H rl H N O CC C H o o O O O o O O O O O o O O o O �.o o co CC) �o Ln �D ui H o co H Ln O L- O m C- M H M M H Ln Un M �D C- .--I N N N O Cl N M N d' Ln N N Cl) N M n O U v H H 1 E, 0 U ?4 C C4 H a� O o O O O O O O O O O o O O O O .) N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M �. Ln N N 1j � U C4 Ill v �4 u H ,m �> 0 0 0 0 Ln Ln c o a' 411 r- N N 43 0 C o <" a W` opo c �'D o cc cc �D Ln �o Ln o 00 _ 'T ^ 'T r H CY) c cc O cc N N O M U O O H O cc l0 H rl ri H H rl H N r-i N ._, 1 U U v t. m •H 0 �( H (d a U m a 01-1 01 41 U H N rr 0 co N W H M Ln Ln r" _ d) U f-I Cl O 6l CC H cc cc H lD LD O M � Q Q1 Cl co C) M N M M N (� h \D C) m fl3 ,� N H H N rl H N H H N N N A •� - = H 0 a W •, 0 4J •H Uu c o 0 o c c o 0 0 0 0 0 o c U ma Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln N y $4 U N N C\, N N N N N N N N N N U Q 41 4.1 � ro 4.)3 0 id" Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln $4 a 70 �-i N N N N N a ro Q, 4.)''., y.1 N N N N N m 0 L) C :.�:. I C � VL co N m M �.D _ O <f' U-) 'T c) �D ^'1 M \D m Cl N .. r [� Ln L� H Ol •-i H Ol N N rl ri N c H 1-� U ri � rl •-i H r-1 H r-I N U � W «S r-1 �i ri �I O v �D Ln H M Cl M O lD M ri N M H m r- M h cl L� Ql �� N Ll O L O m O m O O O O m o O m O O O O 01M � 1p N Cl L1 M O1 l004 W L1 M L1 O1 N L1 CD • L1 ri CO L1 �-i W M t` N C- ri kD a> W l� l� l0 �n M d' [- m N Ll h Ll W N m M N "D rl l0 �-i "D .H 1) N �-A -A .-1 � .-i _I N 'H r-i N N M F P ow v O OCD O o 0 0 O O O O o C. 0 0 0 O o q H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD `. M M W C- lD L1 T M L M c-i M �.D L1 D\ M lD O V� cc r-� d' h O M M L M m d' d' m 1-4 .7' lD Dl '- �-{ M M l0 M O M L1 �' [� O M �D 01 L1 O d' cc rl ri c-1 r-i r-1 rl H r-i .--1 (\ O U O O E, IH (24 �I 4J Ow 0 0) N 0- L N v -oU U W U H m ?4 N 0 N < U 'D Lq c cc L) - rn �D L rn M. c M rn in o = _ 0 t7 U 0 p O b p' O v U b1 a-) H 'L7 •rl W b bM — cc c -n H cc L cc C- -^ cc c o r M o M M c _ v lD - Ll c C CCrM c N M Ll M CD M U' N ri c W ,H M �L v� ccH c t CD o � o L _ c 0 \ n rl H r-I r-i H N r-I -- A a q N o a A b W 0 U aJ •ri U N a : b U ri W u 4.3 N a �4 4 o s4 P4 H u' 0 M - CC m L1 L c i oc L d' W I- �+' Ll - dp CO N c M c M (n O U � M 4 O 1D O L7 Cl. c U � �I p' r1 O U m o o m o in o Ln Ln o Ln in m o Ln m o Ln N N N c--1 c-I O M (7) �D M 0\ Ln Ol M lD Ol �o klo • rl ri Ln al M 6l lD Mo) m M lD 01 m OD (� O k.0 N m Ln N H H N M M N M Ln l0 [� N Ln 4-) � -L) -A H N N M 'tO -n CZ d' dl d' d' d' V, lD O �-I 0) 0\ 01 0% 0) Ol m 41 m m m M Ol dl m m CO m U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O M M W M N 0) klD MH M M M f` Ln Ln ,� [- N LD H ID rl H t` N m 'T H d' Ln h W M W H a CO d' m Ln O l0 (N r-i N N M N M V' Ln lD N d' f�41 O -1 N M M O 0 a E �4 a W &C 0) N Ln r. H N Q1 ' q 4-) O TA U U G C4 H fO d N rl rJ � O � U a o o mG� m m M m m Ln �D rl �D r-I rl C' r-I V1 Ln r- w r-) m .� m d' Ol Ln O lD Ln 0 N FI U 0 0 ri b a O U 0 � N: ra •� Q) U T. lD N O lD O CC CC G' Ln 'j+ r-i r-, S M (N Q) Ln O Ln 0) OC co W a FI v N ( D N m C N lD m O n C,9 m Ln O lD N m Ln J J J- L rl N N M r'1 1.) O A a E W 0 0 ri 04J ri U 0) � a > rdu 0 44 ii a) Ea a b 0 :+ Ln Ln k a'. 'ZS 14 N N P4 a ;u:: �1 O C SII U � U 1,0 N 0 O 0 X m L.n 'j+ Ln IT m CO L� Ln o Ln m m N r �, Ln Ln m e rn Ln -'i N H O L- lfl Izil N m C 0 lD N LD m O M r1 U � m n O UN N m c-I �I N ^') r"1 N M 'j, l0 [� N Ln N N M M � I r-i O U SECTION 8 DISPOSAL FACILITY CAPACITY COMPONENT FOR THE CITY OF PASO ROBLES VOLUME 1 SECTION 8 • DISPOSAL FACILITY CAPACITY COMPONENT ' FOR PASO ROBLES Volume 1 8.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Disposal Facility Capacity Component is to review the disposal capacity Paso Robles has available at permitted solid waste disposal facilities. The goal is to ensure that adequate landfill capacity is allocated for disposing of the solid waste that cannot be diverted through source reduction, recycling, or composting activities. Nonrecyclable wastes, residue from materials recovery operations, and nonprocessible materials and residue from incineration/transformation operations are wastes that will not be diverted from the landfills. A projection of solid waste disposal facility needs has been calculated by estimating the disposal capacity required to accommodate the total solid waste that will be generated by the Paso Robles during the next 15-years. As defined by Section 18744 of the regulations, the 15-year period shall begin in 1991, thus extending through 2005. As required by Section 18744 of regulations, the facility capacity component includes a description of existing permitted solid waste landfills and transformation facilities located within Paso Robles, and a projection of solid waste disposal facility needs. As required by the regulations, the discussion also covers solid waste facilities that are to be phased out or closed, expanded, or that are newly established, and plans to export wastes out of Paso Robles. Volume 1 provides a summary of the information requested in Section 18744, and Volume 2 provides the background information, assumptions, and calculations. June 1994 F:\M90036\F\V1.DFC\PAS0 07/14/94 4:33 am 1-8-1 • 8.2 SUMMARY Table 8-1 Disposal Capacity at the Three Major Landfills in San Luis Obispo County Landfill Remaining Capacity Years Remaining at Present (in cubic yards) Fill Rates Cold Canyon 4,554,000 (July 94) 17 Chicago Grade 900,000 (November 90) 12 Paso Robles 5,000,000 (April 90) 28 8.3 EXISTING DISPOSAL FACILITIES IN PASO ROBLES . The City of Paso Robles Landfill, the only permitted solid waste landfill within Paso Robles, receives all the city's municipal solid waste. This landfill is used by the City of Paso Robles and the surrounding county-unincorporated communities of San Miguel, Shandon, Heritage Ranch, and Oak ShoresI. Table 8-2 summarizes information on the landfill, which includes the facility location, owner, operator, permitted site acreage, permitted capacity, current disposal fees, and remaining facility capacity. Volume 2 contains further information, including detailed disposal fee structures and the assumptions and data used to determine waste quantities. No transformation facilities are located within Paso Robles. 8.4 FUTURE DISPOSAL CAPACITY NEEDS FOR PASO ROBLES To establish the disposal facility needs for the city, a projection of the amount of solid waste generated, imported, exported, diverted, and disposed, and a projection of the current and future disposal facility capacity must be made. The projection of solid waste disposal facility needs provides an estimate of the available disposal capacity, in cubic yards per year, through 2005. The disposal needs projection anticipates future solid waste generation within Paso Robles over F:\SWM036\F\V1.DFC\PASO 07/14/94 4:33 am 1_8_2 June 1994 that period. The needs projection is calculated using certain reasonable assumptions about waste management practices and trends over the next 15 ears. This needs assessment is a planning g P y tool. The actual capacity needs may vary if these assumptions herein do not hold true over the 15-year period. The projection of disposal capacity needs will require periodic revision to reflect the evolving solid waste management environment. This volume summarizes the process for projecting the disposal facility needs and its results. Volume 2 contains details of the process, specific assumptions, and calculations. 8.4.1 DETERMINING DISPOSAL CAPACITY NEEDS The projection of disposal capacity needs for the next 15 years is based on the solid waste generation projection developed as part of the Solid Waste Generation Study (SWGS), as set forth in Section 18722, Article 6.1 of the regulations. The disposal capacity needs projection is calculated using the additional capacity equation defined in Section 18744, Article 6.2. Table 8-3 contains the additional capacity equation and definitions of its terms. • F:\M90036\F\V1.DFC\PASO 07/14/94 4:33 am 1-8-3 June 1994 • Table 8-2 Permitted Disposal Facility in Paso Robles Facility Information City of Paso Robles Landfill Location Highway 46 east, 8 miles east of Palo Robles, Paso Robles, CA 93446 Owner City of Paso Robles Operator Carmel Corporation Landfill classification/facility Class III type Quantity Disposed for 1990 38,400 (tons per year) Waste types (i.e., residential, Nonhazardous municipal solid commercial, special wastes, waste. sludge, asbestos) Overall permitted site acreage 80 Active site acreage 40 as of March 1991 Permitted capacity (tons per 70 day) Disposal fees as of Varies depending on vehicle size September 1, 1990 and material type.' Remaining facility capacity 5,000,000 cubic yards as of April 1990; 27 years at current fill rates. 'The detailed disposal fee structure is provided in Volume 2. F:\M90036\F\V1.DFC\PAS0 07/14/94 4:33 am 1_8_4 June 1994 r r • Table 8-3 Determining Disposal Capacity Needs for Paso Robles Capacity ci Needs Equation For Year n: Additional Capacity = [(G + I) - (D + TC + LF + E)] Definition of Terms G = The amount of solid waste projected to be generated in Paso Robles. I = The amount of solid waste that is expected to be imported to Paso Robles and disposed of in permitted solid waste disposal facilities through agreement(s) with other cities or counties, or through agreements with solid waste enterprises, as defined in Section 40193 of Public Resources Code. D = The amount diverted through successful implementation of proposed source • ® reduction, recycling, and composting programs. T TC = The amount of volume reduction occurring through available, permitted transformation facilities. LF = The amount of permitted solid waste disposal capacity that is available for disposal in Paso Robles, of solid waste generated in the Paso Robles. E = The amount of solid waste generated in Paso Robles that is exported to solid waste disposal facilities through agreement(s) with other cities or counties, or through agreements with solid waste enterprises, as defined in Section 40193 of Public Resources Code. n = Each year of a 15-year period commencing in 1991. F:\SW\90036\F\VI.DFC\PASO 07/14/94 4:33 am I-8-5 June 1994 For Paso Robles, each term used in the equation was defined according to local conditions, and current and planned solid waste management activities. The value of each term, the source of the data used, assumptions, and calculations made for each variable are discussed in Volume 2. 8.4.2 PROJECTING DISPOSAL CAPACITY NEEDS Results from the disposal capacity needs projection are shown in Figure 8-1. The capacity needs are shown for 1991 through 2005. All values are given in compacted in-place cubic yards of solid waste using an estimated average compacted density of 775 pounds per cubic yard for amounts assumed to be disposed of at the City of Paso Robles Landfill. The information provided in Figure 8-1 is a summary of the detailed calculations required in the needs assessment. Volume 2 includes the computer worksheet that calculated the annual capacity needs. The disposal capacity needs projection clearly indicates that the City of Paso Robles has sufficient landfill capacity throughout the AB 939 planning period. The City of Paso Robles landfill will adequately serve the City of Paso Robles and the surrounding communities for another 25 to 50 years depending on landfill practices and diversion programs. 8.5 DISPOSAL FACILITY CLOSURES PLANNED_ FOR PASO ROBLES At this time, Paso Robles has no plans to phase out or close the City of Paso Robles Landfill before 2005 because adequate landfill capacity is available. A detailed landfill study prepared by Penfield-Smith Engineers estimates that the remaining landfill capacity will serve Paso Robles for 28 years at present fill rates and landfill compaction practices. This 28-year capacity can be extended by implementing source reduction, recycling, and composting programs recommended in this plan or by improving the landfill compaction procedures. • F:\SW\90036\F\V1.DFC\PASO 07/14/94 4:33 am 1-8-6 June 1994 • �1�e�.�e�e�.�.�.�e�1�.�•�.�♦�1�.�•�1�♦01�1�••1�1�1�1.•.1.1��.•.1.1.1.e� ►tt.•.1ee♦,.,.,♦•.,.e.,♦1.,♦,♦,.e.•e,1,.1.1.•1•,.�•�e�•11�❖�.1.1tte� • ►•.•.1.1i•❖.1�❖-e-1.e-e-••-1ie-•-•���1-�•�••-�-�•��•���1���e••�ti • ►1.1.1.�.�.1.�.,.�.�.,�,•�.e.�.��1��1�1�1,•,1�1�•,1j�j•�•11t�••�•�1e1t�t� ►.�.ett•1i1i1♦1t,.•i,.,e1e•♦,i,♦ee.•i1ia,♦,♦•i�i11ee111i11.1.11ieit11� • ►t•.1e,.•.�♦e.1.111.•.,.ee,.�♦,.,♦,.•��.,•1.�.�.•��1t�•�•�.1.�•�•e.1••11t•� • ►.•e1.1••1,.,.1.,e,11e••,.,1.eee••,♦,1,.e.••,♦1.1111••,.e11,.••1•,.1.1.1.1� • ►ee....•e...•.e.•e.e.e..w.ee.e•eee..•..ee..e•.. ►1�0.1�������te1������olt�•���oee��•���•,ee��e�•�•,�,1�•�•�•�1�•�•�ot•��je•• � ►tt1111.1♦111e1.1.1.111.1.1.,.,.e.••,.,1,.,.••,.,11111••,.11.11••11,1,1,••tti • ....................................... .1.1.,.•.,.,1,.,♦••1.,...,•1..1.1e�te.�1t�•1•••,•1.,•,•••�•,.,.••,•1.,•1.•tt. • ...•t.•.tet••et•e•eeee••e•e••t•••.••••.e• .1.11••1.1e,.1.•.,.1e,.1.•.,♦,.,.,t,.,♦,.�.,1.1.�.�.�.1.1,���.1t1.�.�.1.•.1t1.,. • :•�•.1�1••t•�e.1�e••••�e•1�••�•�•1���••e��•1��•••���•1��•••���•1•••���•1•�1••tt� • �1�1�10����1�1�1�,�,t1e1�1•,•,�1�1•.t.1.�1�,•.e.1�•���••�.•���e•❖�•i�i•.e.•�•.! ►•ieii1i1io�i�ili�io�i�t�e••�•�1���e••�e�1����••���•����••�•�•1•••�•�11�1�ttt� • � ►♦t•♦e•e•••at•ee.•e••••••••••••.•••.••••te• ►••1.1.,.•1111♦,.,♦•.1♦1.1�1.1.,.1♦1.••,e,.,.,.•♦,.1♦�.�♦•�,11♦e�•�1,.���t�1,•1•A1N! mm v ee1e1.1•,•1.1.••,•1.1.1•••,•1.1.1•,�,•,•,•••,�1�,•,••�,�,�1•,•••,�1•,•,�,�,�.••1.�t�i • � :,•1.1�1-1•t�t�•�•at�e�•�t�e�1�•�t�•�t�•�•�•�•�•�•�•�•�•�.••�••.-•�.�•••�•�1.�.❖.moi �1e.111♦1♦1♦•.1.1♦,.1♦•.1.,.1.,.•.,.,♦.•���1�5..•��11���•�1,•,t���•�•,1••�•�o1e1*40- • 1111,.••,.11,.111.111.,.1.••,.111♦••,.11,.e.••1.11,.��••,.,11���1•�,�1•,�•�,111,•111t� • ■ d�1�••1�1�1�1�.�1�1�1�1�•�1.1�1�1�•�♦�.�1�•�1���1�1•••����1.,.••,•,.1.,.•.,•,.,.1�1�,.1�e�eo♦♦e♦♦•.•♦♦e♦•eo.••o••••o••••••.••o.••o•te• • 1•,e,•1•••1e1e1•,•••,•1•,11.1•,•1.1.1•,ee,•,•••,•1.1.1.01.1•�•1.1•••�•1t�o••1•�.••10.0•� • �1i�i�iei�ilili�ii�i�i�i�iei�ieili�i�i�i�i�i�ii�i1iiiiiii�i�i�i�i�i�iiilili�i❖� •eoeee♦o••.eoe•♦•oe.•o••t•o••••o••.•••.•oe•t•• ••♦•.•♦•♦.e♦otte•o••eoe.e•o•.•••••••o•••o•t•s • 1���1�1�1�1�1�1�,�1�•�,�,�1�,�•�,�1�1�•�,�,�,�,�•�,�,�1�,�•�,�,M,0,41•���,�1q1•4,�,�1�ii�i�i • .1�1�1-��1�•�1�.�1i•�.�•�.ie�•itaitiitsa•�•••�•-•iiiiii•••�••t-•�.i•�•�•i..1.1-•.ta ►�e1t1.1o••1.1t1•,o`•,•,t1eoe�•lteelo••1t,•,o••,e1t,•,t,•,•,.,•,•••,•,.,•1•••1•,•,0••,•.14�i • ►,••�,�1�,e1••�1�1�1e,•1�1�1�,e1••�,•1�,•,�1�,�1•,••�,�,�,•,••�,�,�1•,••�,�,�,•i�i�i�i�i�i�e�i • ►i❖.•.tile-❖i�-❖�•.1.e�•its•-•...❖.•.1.•.e.•-•...❖.❖.1.❖.•-•.t.❖.•-te.�.•.ti .'....�.....�.v.."....-W'.-.•..y'..r.".".'....'.•.r.r.r.'."... ►••.••e•te••eteee•t•••• ee•e•e••e•••• •e•••.•et•• ►1.•.1.,1,1•.e♦111111•.1.,11111••1.,1,111•.111.11••,1,.,�,�•11111111.111111111.111.1•,•,•11,•1 • ►,1111•,1,111,11.1111,111••,111,.1♦••,.1.,1••,.,111��••,1111.1•••1.111.1•••,•11,•••,•,11.1.•It� • 1.1�•�e�t�e�.�•�•�.�•••�•�e�1���•�t�1�1�•�•�1�•�•�•�1�1�1-•_•�e�•�1-1-•�1�••1��-•�•�1�❖-•-11-1- �,•,•,.1•,•1e,.1.1e,•1•,.1.••1.1e1.1.1•,e1•,.••,•1.1.1.••,•,•1.1.••,•1.1••�•�•••�.�•••1.1t••�.1.�i • 1�•atee•�•�1et�1,•�1�1e1e1e❖•�••eee❖•wee•.�i1e1e1e••••�e••�e•-�-1��e1�•�1-1�1ee�-Oe�e�e•�•� ! ��11��.,•,.,•,t••1•,.1e1.•e1•,t1.1.••,•,•1et••,t1e,.,e,•1t,•,•,•,•,.,•,•••1.1t,•,•••111•,.•e1.11e1i • .�•�.1.11••111.111.•1,1111111••11,111/11•,1,1,♦•1,.,.,�1.••,.,1,111••,1�1t1�1••�1�1.,•,•,•111•,.•e1� • • r • 8.6 NEW OR EXPANDED DISPOSAL FACILITIES FOR PASO ROBLES Paso Robles does not plan to establish new or expanded existing facilities for the short-term or medium-term planning periods. The City projects the landfill capcacity will last to the year 2018 without implementation of AB 939 programs, and to the year 2034 with the implementation of AB 939 programs. �J may �p�p1 �S • 'J "'JI"��to hv—Yvonil.ili}c� �f»nom ..� of Landfill capacity for disposal of solid waste generated in other portions of the county. 8.7 PLANS TO EXPORT WASTE S - f The City of Paso Robles has no plans to export waste to ano er jurisdiction during the short- . term or medium-term planning periods. As described abov , the City of Paso Robles Landfill has sufficient landfill capacity to serve the needs of the city 25 years or more. With this landfill capacity secured, exportation is not necessary. F:\SW\90036\F\V1.DFC\PASO 07/14/94 4:33 am 1-8-8 June 1994 JUN-20—'94 MON 15:21 ID:CITY OF ATASCADERO TEL NO:805 461-0606 #627 Pal t f Poet-It'Fax Note 7671 oats 1. Papeo� S L `�= tr r ToIF Z } E , (% Phone 0 Phone M Fax N x/70 Fax / TO. ' EACH 130ARD MEMBER FROM: ROBERT E. HENDM, COUNTY AIbMMSTRATOR DATE: MAY 23, 19N SUBJECT: ZIPACTS OF PASO ROBLES LANDFILL TIP FEE RATE REDUCTION AND RELATED ISSUES Last week, county staff from Engineering, Environmental Health, the Auditor's Office, County Counsel, and the Administmdve Office met to discuss the above subject. here's a "bullet form' summary of tha discussion and ::.rutting conclusions for your information, * The City of Paso Robles reduced their tipping fee by SS per ton effective May d, 1994. * Since May 12th, Wilmar disposal has starttd hauling some of their garbage to the Paso Robles Landfill, Tho number of trucks going to the Paso Landfill each day has been increasing. Wilma: appears to be- phasing in their shlft from Chicago Grade to Paso. * 'A"rdle. the Paso Robles City Manager said no agrezments or arrangements were made with Wilmar in connection with the City's landfill rate reduction, it has been reported that Wilma: asked for three assurances from the City if they were to begin transporting garbage for disposal at the City's landfill. Ono of those assurances were that Paso Robles would openly bid the operation of the landfill once the existing agreement expires. Presumably, Wilmer would bid on the contract.. Another assurance was the tip fee reduction. The third assurance is unknown, * The recent expansion of the Paso Robles Landfill required CEQA review. The City of Paso Robles was the lead agency for the review. The CEQA review process required publishing information on the proposed project and an invitation for comments. County Environmental Review staff never saw the published notice (had to go through the Clerk's office) and never knew of the opportunity to comment. Had the opportunity arisen, the County could have commented and the City of Paso Robles would have boon required to consider County comments when making their final environmental determination. 71)e City of Paso Robles approved a negative declaration environmentzl dctcmination for their expansion project (Paso Robles resolution 9303). Tttc initial study is on rcrord in the County Clerk's Office, file number EIS 92002. • * The existing Paso Robles Landfill operating permit issued in 1986 estimated a m�-ximum 70 tons daily through the gate from an unspecified origination or waste shed', k i JUN-20—'94 MON 15:21 ID:CITY OF ATRSCRDERO TEL NO:805 461-0006 #627 P02 a-- Landoll operating permits arc good for five years• State Government Code, Title 14, re,qu{res. updates to permits every five c emeatAn pdate is complete. the Soard for final approval'sed permit 1s forwarded to the State IntcgraWaste Mareted a8 The five year revision for the Paso Robles Undf►ll remains in progress. The revision was started In 1991. County Environmental Health has cited Paso for their f211ure to comply With permit revision requirements. The latest proposed changes to the permit include a tonnage estimate of 250 tons per day. Landfill permits don't have tonnage limits; only estimates for informational purposes. * Wilmar ma3=s up 50% of the Chicago Grade Landfill business volume and 804 of the Chicago Grade revenue,, * If the Chicago Grade Landfill went out of business, the Integrated Waste Management Board would probably put heat on the Local Enforcement Agency (County Environmental Health Division) to force proper closure of the landfill'. At the end of calendar year 1994, the Chicago Grande Landfill would have accumulated enough money in their closure fund (S 1$0,000) to be in compliance with the Integrated Waste Aianagernent Board. Of course, the diversion of Wilmu's business mks that goal unattainable from a practical sense and, obviously, $150,000 is only a drop in the bucket if closure were actually needed. * Integrated Waste Management Board requirements era all currently being met by the Operators of the Chicago Grade Lnztdfill'. * The Chicago Grade Landfill currently has four deep monitoring wells which are providing data indicating no ground water contaminahan'. , * The Johnson's currently have a lot split application pending to aQiust the lot lane And subdivide the ranch property. The result would be a lot line adjustment isolating the landfill from the ranch and then a division of the ranch into three different parcels. Concerns by staff include tb.e following. * Paso Robles' failure to consider future regional landfill capacity nerds and options. * Paso Robles' apparent move to monopolize landfill disposal in the North County Arid the Potential for price gouging. * The Paso Robles City Manager hasn't hidden his interest in ma dng the city landfill mg�a money for the City. 71ie is accordLnj to Miko McBee of the County Environmental Hearth Aivletoa. • JUN-20-194 MON 15:22 ID:CITY OF ATASCADERO TEL NO:005 461-0606 4627 P03 Paso Robles Landfill May 23 1994 • Page 3 * Paso Robles may have engaged In "unlawful competition' which occurs when prices are artificially lowered to drive out other businesses and then increased when they are gone. * Paso Robles continues to violate provisions of the Waste Tipping Fee Memorandum of Understanding which requires them to hand over a S3/ton tipping fee to the County Auditor. * Paso Robles remains a hold out on the Solid Waste JPA. There, is little to indicate they will actually join. Most solid waste staff believe the JPA will not include, Paso which may also exclude Ataseadero since they may be chained to Paso's landfill. It is anticipated we will have a "Coastal Waste Authority"; that is, everything south of the Grade, including the coastal areas up to Monterey County. * The Johnson's proposal lot line adjustment and split may be based on a strategy to isolate the, landfill and thereby isolating the liability. They resctntly inoorporated their business, presumably for the same reason: to isolate financial liability- * Staff are also concerned about the lot lint adjustment and split proposal eroding the viability of the landfill. The landfill is relatively isolated and buffered from residential development. The proposed split may be the start of land use conflict in the arca. • Optloasi * Give this to the COG to debate, * Request the Environmental Coordinator examine environmental impacts of the Paso Robles Landfill expansion as if the County were the lead agency. * A letter could be scut from the County or COG to the City of Paso Robles asking them to look at CEQA in terms of their expansion and increased daily tonnage. * It would probably be helpful if some dialog ware developed between County Supervisors and Paso Robles Councilmembers. Recent County staff efforts to talk with Paso staff have been unsuccesMI. Unfortunately, the mast factor cams to remain pretty low. o; G. Sibbach C. Milne = R. Bicring M. Nieces M. Whittlesey J. Nall • Y • • - 1850 •\ - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408 • 805-549-5450 June 9, 1994 _ _ • - J14 DAVID BLAKELY Richard Ramirez, City Manager DISTRICT FIVE City of EI Paso de Robles ^1� rn,7 PAgn RnRI F 910 Park St. Paso Robles, CA 93446 Dear Mr. Ramirez: Thank you for taking the time to acknowledge my concerns regarding the action you brought before the City Council concerning the Wil Mar contracts and the Paso Robles landfill. The newspaper articles you sent me were very interesting but failed to address several of my primary concerns regarding your proposal adopted by the city council. My concerns stem from three (3) very critical factors: First, I felt your bringing this before the city council was not properly handled vis-a-vis the county or the City of Atascadero. You failed to notice or inform the county of this pending action by the city council. The action that the council took has tremendous ramifications to the citizens of the remainder of the North County; because it had such impact on those citizens, I felt it would have been j appropriate that the county would have been provided the opportunity to comment on the propose decision. Second, the unintended, or possibly the intended, consequence of your action. is to CIO down a very important resource in the Chicago Grade landfill. As a result of shifting Wil Mar's trash to Paso Robles, there is a great possibility that Chicago Grade Landfill will be forced to close. If it does close, I believe we are losing a tremendous resource which is desperately needed in the county. Landfills and landfill capacity are in high demand throughout the United States. We have what many view as a viable landfill in Chicago Grade, but because of the action taken by the Paso Robles City Council, we may loose that valuable resource by it being forced to close, Third, I am also concerned about closure costs for the Chicago Grade facility. I don't believe that there is enough money collected in the fund to finance the complete closure of Chicago Grade landfill, and if there is not, I fear the potential environmental cost may fall on the City of Atascadero and the unincorporated area of the county. If this came to pass, it would be a tremendous waste of our citizens' money to carry out an unnecessary project. If you are so inclined, I would appreciate your reaction to my three issues of concern. Sincerely, DAVID BLAKELY Supervisor, District Five '} cc: Ron DiCarli • Wayne Hall Paso Robles City Council Atascadero City Council Board of Supervisors Y 06/17/94 11:52 002 County of San suis Obispo COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,RM.370■SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408•(805)781-5011 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE: JUNE 21 , 1994 OFFICE OF THE CouN'n'AnM[T�ISIRATOR SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY LANDFILL ISSUES Summary On May 4, 1994, the City of Paso Robles reduced the tipping fee for garbage disposal at the Paso Robles Landfill by $5 per ton. A related shift by Wil-Mar Disposal Inc, in the delivery and disposal of garbage they collect from the Chicago Grade Landfill to the Paso Robles Landfill threatens the viability of the Chicago Grade Landfill and raises questions about environmental impacts, public health, regional waste disposal capacity, and consumer protection. This is a report on North County garbage disposal issues and includes suggested courses of action to facilitate Board discussion and direction. • Recommendation It is recommended that Your Board consider available options for remedying potential Impacts of recent actions related to garbage disposal by the City of Paso Robles a,-,o `.* it-Mar Disposal Inc. and provide further staff direction. Discussion County government has a variety of responsibilities associated with solid waste d',sposal activities occurring within its geographical borders. More specifically, the County plays a role in: 1 ) solid waste management, in terms of source reduction and recycling( household hazardous waste disposal, composting, landfill and nondisposal facility siting as required by Assembly Bill 939 which was passed with the intent of requiring local jurisdictions to manage their waste stream in such a way that protects the environment and preserves landfill capacity; 2) consumer protection, by virtue of its rate setting authority which requires close monitoring of what the public is charged to dispose of garbage; 3) environmental protection, in terms of the California Environmental Quality Act's (CEQA) recognition that land boundaries do not confine environmental impacts, and human endeavors such as waste generation result in envirunrrnental impacts of varying degrees, and 4) public health, in terms of its respur�sibility as the Loc«I Enforcement A�(jency F.Cting dS an arnl Of the State in �md mumtoring lc nd 'ill operJ,ions.e— 06/17/94 11:53 BeJ Y • North County Land Use Issues page 2 June 21, 1994 Several years ago, every local jurisdiction In San Luis Obispo County recognized the interrelatedness of waste disposal matters when they began developing an Integrated Waste Management Plan (emphasis on "integrated"). Until recently, all of the cities and the County were working together toward a cooperative, "big picture", regional waste management program. Until recently, local jurisdictions expected to see the creation of a regional (countywide) integrated waste management authority. These virtuous goals of local government were upset on May 4, 1994, when the City of Paso Robles reduced their landfill tipping fee as part of an apparent arrangement with Wil- Mar Disposal Company to shift their (Wil-Mar's) garbage disposal business from the Chicago Grade Landfill to the Paso Robles Landfill, As a business decision alone, it might be said that Paso Robles did the right thing in that many of their fixed costs associated with landfill operation should remain fairly constant while they enjoy a sharp increase in income. Paso Robles may be able to "corner the market" on North County landfill disposal by driving the Chicago Grade landfill out of business. As a government entity, though, Paso Robles may have failed to consider other impacts of their decision on the general public. These impacts include, possible air quality degradation, potential for increases in illegal dumping, increased wear and tear on public roads, loss 10 future landfill resources, and shifts in traffic circulation patterns that could result unanticipated congestion, just to name a few. CEQA clearly requires consideration of these kinds of impacts in an environmental review associated with the expansion cf landfill operations. Copies of County Planning Department and Environmental Health Division correspondence pointing out Paso Robles Landfill CEQA deficiencies is attached for your information. There are several things your Board can do in response to recent Paso Robles actions. First, you can authorize the Board Chairperson to transmit a letter expressing your concerns to the Cities of Paso Robles and Atascadero for consideration at their joint councils meeting `which has been scheduled to discuss this topic on July 21 , 1994. Second, you can ask the Council of Governments to approve a resolution supporting the countywide integrated waste management perspective on North County landfill issues. It may be important to emphasize the problems Paso Robles' recent actions will cause with existing integrated waste management plans which all of the cities and the County were a party to developing. And Third, the Environmental Health Division could be directed to report back to your Board within a specific time frame with results of continued staff research and an update on the status of landfill operations in the North County, so that further direction can be pro,, ided, if necessary. Your Board's discussion, today, will likely produce other options for consideration, Unless otherwise directed, staff will continue to research landfill issues in the North County AS an eye for problem resolution. Also, the Environmental Health Division will investigate follow up on possible permit and operational violations occurring at the Paso Robles Landfill including CEGA violations. / OG/17/94 11:54 ee4 • North County Land Use Issues page 3; June 21 , 1994 Other Agency Involvemenj Preparation of this response required consultation with staff from County Environmental Health, Planning, and Engineering Departments. Consultation has also occurred with the Atascadero City Manager. Financial Considerations None. Sincerely, ROBERT E. HENDRIX • County Administrator Attachments S ,U `r1Y OG/17/94 11:54 ee5 Department of Planning and Building San suis Obispo County Alex Hinds, Director Bryce Tingle,Assistant Director Barney McCay, Chief Builaing Official Ellen Carroll, Environmental Coordinator Norma Salisbury, Aaministrative Services orricer ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: MIKE MCGEE, LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FROM: JOHN NALL, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING DATE: JUNE 13, 1994 . SUBJECT: PASO ROBLES LANDFILL At your request, I have reviewed the Negative Declaration (EIS 92002) prepared by the City of Paso Robles for the expansion of the City's landfill. I have also reviewed Resolution No. 94-81 adopted by the City Council on May 17, 1994. 1 have the following comments to offer in light of the City Council's recent decision to expand the geographical service area of the landfill, to allow the landfill to accept waste from outside the City of Paso Robles. Incidently, this would allow Wil-Mar to haul to the City of Robles' landfill and not to Chicago Grade. The Negative Declaration entitled "EIS 92002 (Landfill Improvements)" was evidently prepared by the City of Paso Robles In order to expand the existing landfill including: installing a liner and leachate collection system; changing from trench and fill to mass excavation; changing the final height and design capacity; and increasing the daily volume of garbage to reflect population increases within the original service area of the landfill. As you know, it was necessary for the city to prepare an environmental determination because of the "significant change" associated with the expansion. According to the Negative Declaration prepared for the "significant change", the increase in the amount of waste to be accepted was as a result of an increase In the population of the original service area. o6i17i94 11:55 • According to my copy of Resolution No. 94-81, there is no Indication that an environmental determination was done as part of the decision to expand the geographic service area. This was a "discretionary project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);therefore, an environmental determination should have been done. Since a CEQA determination was not made for expanding the service, the city did not meet the requirements of CEQA. In addition, it would be impossible for the city to use the previously approved Negative Declaration prepared for the landfill expansion because that document does riot address an expansion of the geographic service area, but rather addresses an increase in population within the existing service area. Therefore, to comply with CEQA the city must address the environmental effects of the geographic service area expansion. It appears that expanding the geographic service area would nearly double the daily intake of solid waste. Therefore, the city is in a position that will require revislo7,s to the existing Solid Waste Facilities Permit issued by your office, a discretionary permit requiring CEQA compliance. Further, it appears that the City Council's decision to exOand the service area results in several inconsistencies with the Draft RDSI. First, expanslOn of the service area is inconsistent with the original service area population projections contained in the RDSI. Second, the landfill's substantial increase in intake of solid waste will nave an affect on site life, which will be inconsistent with that portrayed in the RD 1. • Having considered the existing information in light of the City's action to exert: the service area, it is my opinion that doubling the solid waste intake at this site r-ay result in significant effects on the environment. For example, doubling the number cf vehicle trips at the landfill entrance could pose significant impacts associated with left turn lane stacking and turning movements. Also, extended haul routes may result in aur.erse air quality impacts due to an increase in vehicle emissions. It is Important that a comprehensive initial study be prepared, so that other potential adverse effects, if any, can be identified. In the opinion of the County Department of Planning and Building, Environmental Division, no County agency, including Environmental Health, can issue a discretionary permit without an environmental determination addressing the environmental e`acts of expanding the geographical service area. Please inform the City of Paso Robles that no discretionary County permits will be issued until they provide a full environmental determination or provide funds and a contract to the County for environmental review. The County can be either a responsible agency to the Gity's environmental review or a lead agency with the City as an applicant. This memo has been reviewed by County Counsel. If I can be of further assistance cr if you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. 06/17/94 11:56 007 c_ SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTOO 2156 Sierra Way • P.O. Box 14.89 • San Luis Obispo, California 93406 TELEPHONE (805) 781-5544 • FAX (805) 781-4211 June 14, 1994 John Me Carthy, Director of Public Works City of El Paso de Robles 801 4th Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 Re: Paso Robles Landfill Dear Mr. Mc Carthy, This office has requested that the County Environmental Division of the Planning and Building Department advise us regarding the applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with respect to the City of Cl Paso de Robles Landfill, and in particular the adoption of City Resolution No. 94-81, expanding the geographical waste service area for the Paso Robles Landfill. As a result of this review the following determinations have been made, (1) The adoption of Resolution No. 94-81 is a discretionary project under CEQA, therefore, an environmental detcrinination should have been done, (2) The previous negauve declaration (EIS 92002) is not adequate because (EIS 92002) does not address an expansion of the service area, but rather an increase in population within an existing service area. As the San Luis Obispo County Local Enforcement Agency for solid waste, this office is a responsible agency under CEQA. Therefore, this office must be able to demonstrate that the City of El Paso de Robles as lead agency has complied with CL-QA. We concur with The County Planning and Building Departnient's determination that resolution No. 94-81 may result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, it is necessary that a comprehensive environmental determination be prepared addressing the environmental effects of expanding the geographical service area of the landfill. Plcase indicate how you plan to address the environmental issues associated with the service area expansion by June 28, 1994. Also, see the attached memorandum from County Planning and Building for further details and clarification. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact Michael McGee of our office. qJery Moine, R.L-.11.S_ Director of Environmental Hcalth mikem\mccarthy.fil � kt 6/94 A DEPARTMENT OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CUUNTY HEALTH AGENCY J ✓ y' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ° "° ` w f_ COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408 805-781-5450 July 15, 1994 Members of the Board HARPY OVITT The Honorable Walt Macklin, Mayor LALL:ENCE L_ LAURENT y EVELYN DEI.ANY City Council Members Heggarty, Picanco, Iversen and Martin i TH E. BRACKETT City of EI Paso de Robles DAVID BLAKELY 910 Park Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 Dear Mayor Macklin and City Council Members: The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors encourages you and the Atascadero City Council to discuss north county solid waste management issues at your joint Council meeting next month. The recent actions of your Council regarding the landfill rates and waste shed designation for your landfill have implications for the entire north county. The Board of Supervisors has directed County staff to investigate and prepare a report on the issues in the north county that are affected by these actions. Among our concerns are: i ENVIRONMENTAL i local government compliance with the CEQA process to properly address at a minimum, the air, noise, traffic, and illegal dumping impacts of the action; the assumption that landfill operation changes would not be necessary to accommodate the increased tonnage; the assumption that landfill tip fee changes and waste shed designation would not result in any environmental impacts or cost increases; the assumption of a 'nc-risk" landfilling operation (with reference to possible site contamination) for the hauler or our jurisdictions because of a lining on part of the active area. COSTS TO LANDFILL USERS the potential for tip fee increases reflecting the increased costs of daily operation; the potential for tip fee increases due to installing a new liner, more monitoring and having closure/post-closure fully funded earlier than anticipated; the earlier than anticipated cost of siting a new facility when this one reaches capacity (2020 or sooner); The Honorable Walt Macklin, Mayor July 15, 1994 Page Two the difficulty and expense of siting a new north county disposal facility in the future if the Chicago Grand Landfill ceases operation. AB 939 the capacity and life span of the Paso Robles Landfill with acceptance of the increased tonnage; the capacity and life span of the Chicago Grade Landfill without the Wil-Mar tonnage; the integrity of the four plus years of cooperative solid waste planning; the success of the newly formed Integrated Waste Management Authority's program implementation; the potential inability to implement our AB 939 programs due to a lack of cooperation, funding and facilities. As you can tell, the county concerns are numerous and we are anxious to have these important issues addressed. The environmental review process would cover most of these issues. Information gleaned from a proper EIR could be effective at laying to rest • many of the concerns and identifying mitigations for areas that are significantly impacted. The county has tried to cooperatively plan good solid waste management programs to address the state mandated waste reduction goals and respond to the citizens' demand for programs. Presently, we are feeling somewhat frustrated with knowing how best to proceed to implement those programs in the north county. sincerely hope that you and the Atascadero City Council will be able to discuss these issues and address both the short and long term impacts of your action on integrated solid waste management programs. Sincer , EVELYN DELA , Chair erson Board of Supervisors cc: Members of the Board of Supervisors Richard Ramirez, EI Paso de Robles City Manager "C"N-V 1 t. U 605 '13'9 Y July 21, 1994 Paso Robles/SLO County Meeting on North County Landfill Issues Purpose of Meeting: To openly communicate with Paso Robles official(s) on North County landfill issues in order to clarify positions and intentions. To clear up any myths or misconceptions. Goal of County Staff: To convince Paso Robles official(s) we are not trying to engage in battle for the joy of the battle or victory. Our goal is not to foster a we-them, or win-lose, divisive approach to problem solving. The County wants to have a good neighbor and to be a good neighbor. Discussion Topics Problem Statement County and City of Paso Robles Perspectives. Maybe it would be best for a County perspective first as we seem to be the ones complaining. - Role of the LEA Performing as an arm of the State; not as a mechanism of the County. Pending Activities Paso-Atas meeting purpose and expected results. "_fes_�.o }e, Paso-County Meeting? Purpose and expected results. Status of the Chicago Grade Landfill- What stake does the County have in it? What stake does Paso Robles have in it? Local Enforcement Agency landfill permit authority. Cyh��.. Tipping Fees due to the County Auditor. AB 939 Planning and Implementation. The Integrated Waste Management Authority. Other Bottom Lines What are they for Paso Robles and the County? Reactions Possible outcomes if bottom lines are achieved (for discussion purposes). FILE toj`V TO: ROBERT HENDRIX, COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FROM: RICHARD J. RAMIREZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY LANDFILL ISSUES DATE: JULY 21, 1994 Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with County Staff many of the concerns that the Board of Supervisors have regarding the City providing an economically priced landfill operation for North County customers. During the meeting we discussed in detail your memo dated May 23, 1994 wherein a number of assumptions were shared with the Board (see attachment). Thanks to Wayne Hall, we also covered a number of issues outlined in the attached memo. Based on our discussions, the following is a summary of the meeting: 1. The City of Paso Robles and the County Board of Supervisors should postpone our joint meeting until after the North County Summit. In this way, the County/City can better frame the issues affecting the implementation of the Integrated Waste Management Plan as it pertains to the North Countv. 2. The Summit sponsors should invite members of the Board of Supervisors. 3. Given all that has been said and written about the City's action, we really have five issues: a) the assumption that the County will lose a major asset in Chicago Grade; b) the assumption that all the impacts associated with the City's action were not considered; c) the assumption that there may be insufficient landfill capacity for North County customers beyond the year 2000; d) the assumption that the City is violating the original agreement regarding the collection and remittance of tipping fees to the County; e) the assumption that the "bullet" items contained in the May 23, 1994 County Staff report (see attached) are accurate and that the Board of Supervisors is still operating on these initial assumptions. In order to best address these assumptions, County and City Staff agreed to suggest that before any further action is taken, the respective governmental entities allow the North County Summit to be a forum to frame/deal with the key issues on solid waste. .. r w , Further, City Staff agreed to forward the request of County Staff to invite the County Supervisors from North SLO to attend the summit. Additionally, the Paso Robles Staff agreed to request the respective City Councils of Atascadero and Paso Robles that the summit address not only the above concerns but those contained in the attached correspondence from the County Board of Supervisors. During our meeting, several new pieces of information were made known to County Staff which they will independently verify. A. With respect to the "capacity" question, this matter will be discussed in August by the Paso Robles City Council. Although the City's landfill already has 35 years of capacity remaining under current conditions (i.e. the year 2029), and although the landfill could alter its current level of operation and stretch our capacity to the year 2052 (i.e. through compaction), the City Council will be taking affirmative action to provide potential additional capacity. B. There seems to be a tremendous interest in the "waste shed" resolutions which the City has adopted. County Staff learned that, to the best of our knowledge, there are no other landfills in SLO that have "waste sheds" or defined service areas. More importantly, there is no State mandated requirement for a "waste shed" relevant to setting fees or for accepting isolid waste (see attached article). Both County and City Staff agreed that we all want the same thing: an environmentally and economically run landfill responsive to the North County Customer. Given an opportunity to provide the above documentation, we may be able to get on with serving the landfill customers of North County. P.2/3 AUG 17 '94 12:00Ph1 . JOINT ATASCADERO/PASO ROBLES MEETING AGENDA DATE 8/25194 ffEM# A-3 July 1-:;. , 1944 T CI : HARPY OV T f T IIam SUBJECT: Inco sed Ca aGit� �anta Margarita Flood Control of the Salinas river starts right at the Santa Margarita dam. This should be the number one n even though in the oast this operational Consideratio important but infrequentl Y "needed requirement h""bepen ignored . 1 ike Monterey County,r s gperAti� o4 Lake T 'm told that , Nadimiento to date, nc?.writ en operational procedure has � _ been prepared to ,,Or management a7 the Santa Margari+. dam . This situation should be corrected ASAP . (The procedure Ter Lake Nacimiente is now being prePared - � The orocadure covering operation of Santa Margarita dam shout d be straightforward and understandable . It must orotect the water rights and requirements of all SLO County residents and should include the foi 1 owing (1) At the start of each rainy season ' the wa�t-r rel case to the Sal Inas river mast a ua1 the �t ak:& inf l w rate until the live stream requirements have been met . The water release scheoul a should then be SO1G of the inflow and this rate should be reduced to held until the reservoir has filled to the maximum level Consistent with prudent Flood Control Policy P.3i3 .. AUG 1 '-44 32:00PM ('21 At the end of the rainy season , or during extended drought periods when wet stream reauirements are not met , titre water release rate should again be adjusted to match the lake inflow rates and flow maintained until the live stream reouirements are met or until the end of the rainy season , whichever occurs first . __ - -- - (3) The Dam Operational Procedure , the Flood Control Policy and the detailed Periodic records of at least the inflow and rel ease rates should be made available to the Public along with any emergency situations and remedies as they occur. Historical records Should d be compii ed and reviewers with yea the public at ? eases every five_rs or at any time ther County Board os Supervisors direct . U©on approval of the plan to increase the storage capacity or the Santa Margarita Dam 'Lake Reservoir , the above procedure =_mould be placed in effect at that time . Bob Kinsel1 237- 586 County ofd Luis Obispo BOB KINSELL Vd~6WA$XIWt (W 25744 (SW 484-9674 BOARD OF SUP694MRS*AGW� TBOUTON OFOM QIIS�PO,�FOF FAX( )76.14 0n CONTINUED TO: 8/25/94 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 4k944- CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-1 Through: Andy Takata, City Manager Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 44 From: Kelly Heffernon, Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Second Public Hearing on the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) with Appendices (Volumes 1 & 2 of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan) RECOMMENDATION: That Council review the program plans outlined in the Source Reduction and Recycling Element and continue the Public Hearing to the 8/23/94 Council meeting for final adoption BACKGROUND: Council first reviewed the SRRE on 12/8/92 which was conducted as an introductory workshop. The second review of the document, and first of two required Public Hearings, was held on 3/9/93 in which Council gave tentative approval. The second Public Hearing is intended for when the City is prepared to formally adopt the SRRE, which can only occur after the EIR for both the SRRE and Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) has been certified by the Lead Agency and adopted by participating jurisdictions. SLOCOG, as Lead Agency in this process, certified the Program EIR on April 6, 1994. A copy of the SRRE document has been placed on Council's reading desk for review. Please see Attachment A, Memorandum to Councilmembers dated 10/22/92, for further background information. DISCUSSION: According to CEQA, all cities and the County are considered "Responsible Agencies" and must certify that the Lead Agency reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR. Because of legal issues concerning the EIR ;and tinning of the upcoming joint meeting between Paso Robles and Atascadero, the City Attorney has requested that the final Public Hearing on the SRRE, HHWE and Program EIR be continued to the 8/23/94 Council meeting. City and SLOCOG staff will be available at both meetings to answer questions. Since Council's last review of the document, two modifications have been made to the SRRE. First, the tables have been updated to reflect more realistic program implementation dates. Second, the City's share of regional costs have been calculated based on Atascadero's estimated percent of countywide tonnage disposed rather than on population. A comparison between these two methods shows an approximate 20% increase in regional costs, although local costs remain unchanged (please refer to the Funding Component for details). Council should note that Atascadero has already implemented several of the proposed programs outlined in the document. To date, the City has implemented a Residential Curbside Recycling Program of commingled recyclables and yard debris and a Commercial Recycling Program of commingled recyclables, cardboard, office paper and phone books. The Recycling Committee has also been active with various aspects of public education/information and backyard composting. In addition, Wil- Mar Disposal recently initiated a pilot program to sort recyclables at their yard which, if successful, will significantly save in hauling and sorting costs. Council should further note that approval of the SRRE does not commit the City to implement every program and construct every facility indicated in the document, nor to signing the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to form a Countywide Integrated Solid Waste Management Authority. The City has the option to participate in a North County JPA, or to handle the AB 939 process on its own. SLOCOG will submit copies of adopted SRRE documents to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) by the August 31 st deadline. FISCAL IMPACT: As proposed, all program and facility costs will be funded through tipping fees. Note that these estimated costs are based on the City's participation in a Countywide Solid Waste Management Authority. Depending on the specific program and Atascadero's direction in regional solid waste management,the City's share in these costs will likely vary. Please see Attachment B for a summary of estimated costs as described in the updated SRRE document. Encl: Resolution No. 80 - 94 Attachment A: Memorandum to City Council dated 10/22/92 Attachment B: Cost Summary of programs and Facilities Proposed in the SRRE ZE: ITEM E-1, 8/25/94 RESOLUTION NO. 80 - 94 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO THE SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council is committed to providing City residents and businesses with methods for reducing, reusing, recycling and composting discarded materials; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council is dedicated to providing programs that are safe, efficient, cost effective and environmentally sound, and WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council recognizes that proper forcollection term and processing of community generated resources provides opportunities local economic benefit; and WHEREAS, it is a priority for the Atascadero City Council to develop programs and facilities that strengthen local economic opportunities for City residents; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council intends to work with neighboring communities to provide cost effective and productive regional programs and facilities; and tes WHEREAS,the California Integrated R duct Rete duction Recycicng Elemenement At of 1989a ndathe adoption and implementation of a Source reduction of landfilled waste by 25% by 1995 and 50% by 2000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero as follows: 1 . That the City Council does hereby adopt the June Wasteaask ForcSource e and and Recycling Element as produced by the So approved by the San Luis Obispo council of Governments, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein. 2. That the City Council makes all the findings set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 1 ATTACHMENT A MEMORANDUM To: City Councilmembers Ray Windsor, City Manager Via: Greg Luke, Public Works Director From: Kelly Heffernon, Administrative Analyst Subject: Update of AB 939 Process Date: October 22, 1992 The objective of this update is to review the status of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and the potential major impacts that the local and regional programs may have on the City. This review is prepared as a prelude to the upcoming workshop and Public Hearing process for adoption of the SRRE by Council. SRRE WORKSHOP The y g City's contract agreement with the consultant (BVA) includes two public review workshops. It is anticipated that the first workshop will be an introduction to the SRRE. Council will be encouraged at this time to address issues that will require further evaluation at the subsequent workshop. Since detailed technical questions will likely be premature at this first meeting, it is recommended that County staff make the introductory presentation. This would save the City a costly visit from the consultant for a future workshop when their services would be better warranted. To date, two cities have had their first workshop: Arroyo Grande (September 22) and Paso Robles (October 6). Both were scheduled during regular City Council meetings, allowing little time to adequately review the document. Staff recommends a separate public hearing be held to evaluate the SRRE. Given the scope and projected costs for the various programs outlined in the document, the adoption process is anticipated to be controversial and time consuming. Although it may be prudent to wait and see how other jurisdictions respond to their SRRE's, it should be kept in mind that the 1995 deadline is not far away. There will be an abundance of information presented at the workshops. The following is provided as an introduction to what will be discussed at these meetings. BACKGROUND As you may recall, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) mandates each jurisdiction to develop the following plans: Solid Waste Generation Study (SWGS) Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) Counties are additionally responsible for preparing a Countywide Siting Element (CSE) and a County Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). Recent state legislation (AB 3001) added to the responsibility of both cities and counties to include a Nonsdisposal Facility Element (NDFE). This element is to include all solid waste facilities and solid waste facility expansions, except disposal and transformation facilities, which will recover for reuse or recycling at least 5% of the total volume of material received by the facility. The NDFE is to be appended to the jurisdiction's SRRE when it is included with the CIWMP. Development and implementation of these plans is the responsibility of each individual jurisdiction under AB 939. The cities and the unincorporated county areas have formed a regional Solid Waste Task Force (SWTF) under the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). The original intent of establishing a regional planning approach was to maximize efficiencies of facility and program planning, development and operation. The draft SWGS and SRRE for the City have been completed by a solid waste consultant, reviewed by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and returned with minor comments. The HHWE is currently being prepared by SLOCOG staff the Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee. It is anticipated that a draft of this document will be brought before the SWTF for review and comment shortly after the first of the year. Environmental analysis for both the SRRE and HHWE will be included in one Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Source Reduction and Recycling Element has the following eight components: 1 . Source Reduction 2. Recycling 3. Composting 4. Special Wastes 5. Education and Public Information 6. Disposal Facility Capacity 7. Funding 8. Integration OVERVIEW OF PROGRAMS As an organizational format, each component is divided into 5 major program areas: Objectives, Existing Conditions, Evaluation and Selection of Program Alternatives, Program Implementation and Monitoring and Evaluation. The SWTF has determined that regional implementation of some programs and facilities will be cost effective and eliminate the duplication of efforts of individual jurisdictions within the county. The SWTF is in the process of developing a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) which will create a regional Authority. As you may recall, the concept of the JPA was endorsed by the Council last February. The tasks of the Authority have been outlined to: Coordinate development and implementation of regional programs * Manage public interest in the development and operations of major composting and materials processing facilities The City is to work with the regional Authority to develop regional programs and facilities that will effectively integrate with the City's existing programs. City staff will also manage the local implementation of regionally developed programs. For example, the City may work with the regional Authority to develop printed source reduction materials and then coordinate the use of the materials in the City. Although future legislation may allow regions to calculate diversion levels on a regional • basis, the ultimate vulnerability to the $10,000 a day fine for noncompliance is with the individual jurisdiction. This is an extremely important point. Council could be faced with a decision to give JPA extensive authority to implement the Integrated Waste Management Plan yet the City will still ultimately be responsible for implementing all of the AB 939 provisions. Regional Programs and Facilities will include: Source Reduction Recycling facility for materials processing * Composting facility * Special waste collection and processing site * Education and public information To meet the 1995 requirements, the City will focus on continued expansion of existing programs to reach the state mandated goal of 25% waste reduction. The City's existing successful collection programs include the following: Volume-based rate structure Residential curbside of green waste Residential curbside of commingled recyclables Pilot collection of recyclables and cardboard from commercial businesses and multi-unit complexes Existing local programs are funded by the garbage collection rates charged to residents and businesses. Planned regional programs will be funded by increases in tipping fees at the landfill and at recycling and composting facilities. The tipping fee is the cost per ton the hauler must pay to the landfill to dump waste and is ultimately reflected in the rates paid by residents and businesses. REVIEW OF AB 939 PROGRAMS DESCRIBED IN THE SRRE Source Reduction Source reduction means decreasing waste by consuming less. It is mandated by the state as the highest priority program. Source reduction programs will be most efficiently and economically developed on a regional basis. Our SRRE indicates that City staff will participate in the development of programs and that implementation will be both regional and local. Planned programs include providing technical assistance, education and promotion of: * Backyard "master composting" program * Business and local government waste evaluations\source reduction * Countywide waste exchange * Countywide joint purchase pools * Environmental shopping campaign * Public source reduction education program . * Regional bans on specific products and packaging * Review of planning, zoning and building codes for potential development of incentives to encourage rehabilitation of existing structures T * Monitoring of state and federal grant programs Recycling As stated above, planned regional recycling programs and facilities will be based on the City's existing recycling programs. The policies in which City recycling programs are based include: * Maintain source reduction as a primary objective * Continue source separation programs which provide an uncontaminated, more valuable product * Encourage the purchase of recycled products * Encourage the establishment of businesses which manufacture goods made from recyclables Our recycling component consists of plans to continually expand our existing collection programs which are listed above, and to evaluate the feasibility of participating in a regional materials processing facility. This facility would serve the area north of the Cuesta Grade and would process source separated recyclables and debris from the residential, commercial, industrial and institutional sectors. Only the residue would be landfilled. The costs estimated by the consultant for this facility are high end projections and are shown in the attached summary of costs. The projected date of completion for this facility is 1996. Coml2ostin4 The City's composting program will expand upon our existing residential green waste collection program. Collected yard debris will eventually be composted at a regionally sited composting facility. Reaching our 25% diversion level will largely depend upon when this facility and collection system are implemented. Once this program is established, the City will work with other jurisdictions to determine the feasibility of expanding the compost program to include food debris, agricultural materials, unrecycled paper and municipal sewage sludge. The estimated costs of this facility and program are shown in the attached summary of costs. Special Wastes Special wastes are those that require special handling due to their physical characteristics or potential hazard to human health or to the environment. The special waste programs targeted in the SRRE include the following: Expansion of white goods (large appliances) collection at the landfill ,. Construction and demolition debris (asphalt, concrete and sheetrock) collection and processing Expansion of existing tire diversion programs Education Education and public information programs are planned to be developed on a regional level. City staff will work with the regional Authority to develop appropriate education and public information materials for source reduction, recycling, composting, and special waste programs. Materials developed and produced on the regional level will be available for Atascadero's use in promoting both regional and local programs. SUMMARY OF SRRE PROGRAM COSTS FOR ATASCADERO ". The costs outlined below are estimates based on various program assumptions. The actual costs may vary depending on final program design. Costs for regional programs are distributed among the North County jurisdictions according to population. Please refer to Volume 2 of the SRRE document for a finer breakdown of costs. The projected regional costs for these programs include local staff time. The City is currently supplying a limited amount of staff time for recycling programs and education. As proposed, demand for staff time will increase with the planning and implementation of programs. Note that some of the programs have already been enacted and costs incorporated into the existing rate structure for garbage collection. Various pilot programs, such as commercial recycling, are also currently in place. 1. SOURCE REDUCTION Anticipated Capital Costs Operating Costs Date of (the City's & Debt Service Implementation proportionate share) (Cost per Year) All Programs: 1992-1995 $4,999 $15,318 *Local Government Programs „ *Technical Assistance, Education, and Promotion *Regulatory Programs *Economic Incentives *Rate Structure Modification II. RECYCLING A. Single-Family December 1991 $285,458 $182.202 Curbside (all costs of curbside are included in existing rates) Assumes Santa Margarita and Templeton will be incorporated into the Atascadero program and share the costs. B. Multi-Unit 1992 $30,336 $4,930 Recycling There is currently a pilot program in place serving a limited # of complexes. Anticipated Capital Costs Operating Costs Date of (the City's & Debt Service Implementation proportionate share) (Cost per year) C. Commercial 1992 $116,470 $52,549 Recycling There is currently a pilot program in place. * Processing n\a $200,972 Assumes Facility processing costs This facility will be used to service will be offset by curbside, multi-unit recycling and bar & revenues restaurant glass recycling. D. Office Paper 1992 $3,681 $3,557 Recycling E. Material 1996 $865,832 $196,900 Processing Facility Used to process source separated recyclables and debris from residential, commercial and industrial waste streams. Will require interagency coordination. Total Recycling: $1,502,749 $440,138 (Less curbside): ($1,217,291) ($257,936) M. COMPOSTING A. Yard Debris 1993 $1,078,830 $238,414 (collection and facility costs) Collection and processing of yard debris, wood debris, manure and misc. organics. C. Source-Separated 1995 $1,328,279 $527,115 Organics Composting This is an expansion of the collection system of the yard debris composting program. Food debris, mixed paper and contaminated paper are added to the program. Total Composting: $2,407,109 $765,529 Antici ated Capital Costs Operating Costs Date of (the City's & Debt Service Implementation woportionate share) Most per year) IV SPECIAL WASTES All Programs: 1992-1994 n\a $8,834 *White goods recycling, repair and reuse *Asphalt, concrete, and sheetrock recycling *Tire management program (retreading, reuse, crumb rubber, shredding tire-derived fuel) V EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION All Programs: 1992-1993 $20,208 $17,080 *Includes public education activities associated with each component. ATTACHMENT B COST SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES PROPOSED IN THE SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT Source Reduction: Total Regional Capital Costs = $47,200 Atascadero's Share of regional costs _ $6, 145 Recycling - Material Processing Facility in North County: Total Regional Capital Costs = $2,364,000 Atascadero's Share of Regional Costs _ $1,029,286 Composting - Yard Debris Facility in North County: Total Regional Capital Costs = $51,600 Atascadero's Share of Regional Costs . _ $22,467 Composting - Source Separated Organics Facility in North County: Regional Total = $2,195,600 Atascadero's Share of Regional Costs _ $955,964 Education and Public Information: Total Regional Capital Costs = $190,800 Atascadero's Share of Regional costs = $24,842 Note: Atascadero's share of regional costs are calculated based on an estimate of the City's percent of countywide tonnage disposed and would be paid out of tipping fees. CONTINUED TO: 8/25/94 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: SM/94- CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-2 Through: Andy Takata, City Manager Via: Henry Engen, Community Development Director From: Kelly Heffernon, Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Second Public Hearing on the Household Hazardous Waste Element (Volume 4 of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan) RECOMMENDATION: That Council review the program plans outlined in the Household Hazardous Waste Element and continue the Public Hearing to the 8/23/94 Council meeting for final adoption BACKGROUND: On February 22, 1994 Council held the first of two required Public Hearings on the Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) in which tentative approval was'given. Before Council can adopt either the HHWE or the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) CEQA requirements must be satisfied. A Program EIR has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of implementing the SRRE's and the HHWE. SLOCOG is the Lead Agency for this project with participating jurisdictions serving as "Responsible Agencies" as defined under CEQA. SLOCOG certified the EIR on April 6, 1994. As a Responsible Agency, the City is required to endorse the provisions of the EIR for programs or projects planned for implementation within the City limits. Due to legal issues concerning the EIR and timing of the upcoming joint meeting between the cities of Paso Robles and Atascadero, the City Attorney has requested that the final Public Hearing on the SRRE, HHWE and Program EIR be continued to the 8/23/94 Council meeting. All final documents must be submitted to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) no later than August 31, 1994. A Copy of the HHWE has been placed on Council's reading desk for review. DISCUSSION: The state mandates each City and County to adopt a Household Hazardous Waste Element along with their respective Source Reduction and Recycling Element. The purpose of the HHWE is to outline programs to safely reduce, collect, recycle and dispose of household hazardous waste. SLOCOG staff, with assistance from the Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee (SWTAC) and Solid Waste Task Force (SWTF), prepared the HHWE for the seven cities and County. The approach was to establish countywide programs for consistency and cost effectiveness. The CIWMB reviewed the document and submitted their comments in August 1993. All comments, including those from the state, SWTAC, SWTF and County Board of Supervisors, have been incorporated into the document before you. Since Council's last review of the HHWE, the only changes made include added language concerning shared liability indemnification of permanent collection facilities and minor modifications to Section 6, "Selection and Implementation of Programs". The program alternatives considered in the document fall into four main categories: 1 . Collection Programs such as curbside collection programs and one-day events using mobile and/or permanent facilities. 2. Load Checking Programs on a periodic basis at the landfills. 3. Recycling and Reuse Programs encouraging private sector participation. 4. Education and Public Information Programs to increase awareness throughout the County. The proposed programs are designed to be implemented on a regional basis under the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Authority in an effort to avoid duplication of programs and facilities. It is currently undetermined which direction Atascadero or the North County will take in managing solid and household hazardous waste. However, the document does provide a munu of program choices. Council should note that from a local standpoint, the City has been successful in recycling various categories of household hazardous waste through its Special Recycling Events. City and SLOCOG staff will be available at both Council meetings to answer questions. RESOLUTION NO. 81 - 94 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADOPTING THE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT WHEREAS,the Atascadero City Council is committed to providi city residents with methods for reducing the volumes of household hazardous wa tes, and for the safe collection, recycling and disposal of household hazardous w tes; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council is further com . ted to providing the public with education and information about alternatives to zardous products and about reusing, recycling and safe disposal of household ha rdous wastes; and WHEREAS,the Atascadero City Council intends to ork with other jurisdictions to provide cost effective and productive regional pro rams for the safe collection, recycling and disposal of household hazardous wast ; and WHEREAS, the Integrated Waste Managem nt Act of 1989 mandates adoption and implementation of a Household Hazardous aste Element. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED at the City of Atascadero does hereby • adopt the June 1994 Household Hazardou aste Element as produced by the Solid Waste Task Force and approved by the ,«fan Luis Obispo council of Governments, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and ince porated herein. tf r On motion by Councilmelfiber seconded by Councilmember the foregoini resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: K 1:E: ITr.", n-2, 8/25/9 . �f -:ro/23/9A _J l 1TJSE.J:T) �/ RESOLUTION NO. 81 - 94 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ADOPTING THE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council is committed to providing city residents with methods for reducing the volumes of household hazardous wastes, and for the safe collection, recycling and disposal of household hazardous wastes; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council is further committed to providing the public with education and information about alternatives to hazardous products and about reusing, recycling and safe disposal of household hazardous wastes; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council intends to work with other jurisdictions to provide cost effective and productive regional programs for the safe collection, recycling and disposal of household hazardous wastes; and WHEREAS, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 mandates adoption and implementation of a Household Hazardous Waste Element. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero as follows: 1 . That the City Council does hereby adopt the June 1994 Household Hazardous Waste Element as produced by the Solid Waste Task Force and approved by the San Luis Obispo council of Governments, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein. 2. That the City Council makes all the findings set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated by reference. On motion by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: Resolution No. 81-94 Page 2 ATTEST: /ASCADERO By: LEE PRICE, City Clerk R. D ID BEWLEY, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney t ,r