HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/09/06 Item 24
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item :l L/.i9
Meeting Date 9/6/94
ITEM TITLE: Report: Evaluation of Candidate Sites for Transfer Station and Materials
Recovery Facility
SUBMITTED BY: Deputy City Manager Krempl~
Planning Director #1
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ bv);~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No X)
At the 7/19/94 meeting, Council approveHontracting with John SextonlChula Vista Sanitary
for the first phase of a transfer station and materials recovery facility to include siting,
conceptual design and permitting. As the initial step in that process, this report addresses the
methodology for evaluating 14 candidate sites within the City and recommends further study and
evaluation of two sites.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept the report and direct staff to proceed with an in-
depth evaluation (including cost information) of the two highest ranked sites (894 Energy Way
and 900 Bay Blvd.), and to report back regarding further recommendations on acquisition or
obtaining an option.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
On August 8, 1994, City staff representing Administration, Community Development,
Engineering and Planning toured the 14 sites along with representatives from Sexton, Chula
Vista Sanitary and the City's solid waste consultant, Brown, Vence and Associates (BV A).
Information from the tour and subsequent discussions resulted in evaluation documented in the
attached study titled SITE SELECTION - FIRST PHASE (Exhibit 1).
Summary of Findings
The study evaluated each site against six criteria. The criteria were weighted by relative
importance to the City. Each site was then given a value for each criterion based on its
comparative relation to the criterion. The raw scores were multiplied by the weight of each
criterion and summed. A detailed explanation of the methodology is included in Exhibit 2.
In summary, of the 14 sites:
o Nine sites dropped out because of "fatal flaws", i.e. further consideration of use of the
site as a trash transfer station and future materials recovery facility is precluded because
of various problems, such as:
,/
Four sites are not large enough for a transfer station of at least 5 acres in
size (sites 1 - 66 No. Glover; 2 - 800 Bay Blvd.; 4 - 1150 Bay Blvd.; &
9 - 2350 Main St.).
.1'//1'/
Page 2, Item ~ If 1'9
Meeting Date 9/6/94
./ Three sites are too close to residential areas (sites 6 - Industrial & Moss;
7 - Anita & Industrial; & 11 - 3441 Main St.).
./ Two sites have significant environmental obstacles to overcome, i.e. flood
plain/biological issues or soil and groundwater contamination (sites 8 -
380 Hollister; & 12 - the Old Omar Rendering site).
o The five remaining sites were ranked on basis of scores derived from Exhibit 1. In rank
order, they are:
Rank
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Site
14
3
13
10
5
Score
50
47
44
29
28
The top five sites are shown on locator maps under Exhibit 3 and are summarized below:
Site 14 - 894 Energv Wav
o General Plan designation of Industrial-Research & Limited Manufacturing; Zoning ofI-P
(Industrial/Precise Plan)
o Three parcels totaling approximately 18:l: acres
o Parcels identified for use would total 11. 5 acres
o Owners have been contacted and are amenable to sale
o 1-805 is 1. 8 miles to the west
o Otay Valley Road is being upgraded to a six lane road
o Site is surrounded on three sides by auto dismantling firms, while to the east is vacant
open space. The nearest residential area is over 4,000 feet to the northwest.
o There is no possibility for rail access.
Site 3 - 900 Bav Boulevard
o General Plan designation of Industrial-General; Zoning of I (General Industrial)
o 25:l: acre site.
o SDG&E property south of the power station. SDG&E has yet to determine whether the
land is available (former LNG tank site).
o Excellent rail site.
o Easy access to 1-5 via Bay Blvd/Palomar.
o Land uses on three sides compatible. San Diego Bay to the west.
Site 13 - 855 Maxwell Road
o General Plan designation ofIndustrial-Research & Limited Manufacturing; Zoning ofI-P
(Industrial/Precise Plan)
.2 '1,'/--"-
Page 3, Item~A
Meeting Date 9/6/94
o 17:i: acre site.
o Currently used as a contractor's storage yard (Fenton).
o The property owner was contacted and expressed no interest in selling.
o Site is one mile east of 1-805 off of Gtay Valley Road.
Site 10 - 2387 Faivre Street
o General Plan designation of Industrial-Research & Limited Manufacturing; Zoning of
IL-P (Limited Industrial/Precise Plan)
o 7:i: acre site.
o California Multimodal yard (trucking company).
o Recently entered into 20 year lease with Cattelus Corp for property.
o Not interested in vacating.
o Acquired access to 1-5 via Faivre Street, Broadway then Main.
Site 5 - Ada & Bav Blvd
o General Plan designation of Industrial-Research & Limited Manufacturing; Zoning of
M-52 (Old County - this is a special study area).
o 7:i: acre site.
o Possible rail access - rail lines across Bay Blvd. from site.
o Easy freeway access to 1-5 via Bay Blvd. and Palomar.
o Possible environmental problems on site which may result in negative declaration with
complex mitigation measures.
Sites recommended for Further Evaluation (Second Phase)
The top two sites (894 Energy Way and the SDG&E site at 900 Bay Boulevard) are being
recommended for further in-depth evaluation which will include availability and cost data.
These sites scored well over all of the factors used in this analysis. In addition, one offers a
benefit of proximity to the current landfill site routes and the franchised hauler's yard. The
other offers flexibility for rail access which could be important in the City's future needs. Both
sites are distant enough from residentially zoned areas to minimize impact on residents and have
good access.
FISCAL IMPACT: City staff costs for the first phase are being absorbed under current budgets.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1 - Matrix titled "Site Selection - First Phase"
Exhibit 2 - Explanation of Methodology
Exhibit 3 - Locator maps of the five ranked sites .).1/",- J
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
TRASH TRANSFER STATION AND
FUTURE MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILTY
SITE SELECTION - FIRST PHASE
I Critena> I Land Use Site Size & Site Environmenta Acquisition & Rail TOTAL
CANDIDATE Compatibility PreDeration Access Constraints ProcessinD Access SCORE
SITES V IWEIGHTING> 4 2 3 4 3 2 18
1~~iJ:;~~:,;,; ;~,.;:; ".;;,. ,. B;~~~i~tf~;~l!!:H!"ltrlt~rEg!;;;;;;;J;.;;
.aOlHllil\YIFi'" l!!.awBE..",n'", ...w................... . . . . .... ....". "........ w.....w...... .......... . . .. . .............. ". .,w. .......... w..' ..........w... W ..........
Wdil::III. .;.~I<~i~:i:l:.... ::.:.''''''''.'''" ';;E;;6;:;,:,HH: ::.::;, ;,.. ;;':;:.'j::n:ib::T:;::H:;:I;:;.:1:;.;: ;:,;I.U:,,::;; ii';;;::::::::
3 900 Bay Raw 3 3 3 2 2 3 16
IBIV~1~~i:Yfi:~:;lt:f,~l:I:':"'I...1}"'w"'nfrJ ...,,' """':,J:,;,:,;;:,,;:'I'''''~' .".. 6 6 ".,.w., ,...:~".".,.,
;?~OiH'~;{:'[ .il':"':,,:';:::.... i.I,:::> :::':::.::. :.:::'m[":::,': ::;:::';'.':::;:::::':; :;:::::::::"::.'.::::;':' .... ./,.." '''''''';',,':: ::. "':~:':'>:::""'"
Mil,.,.. "......,...., ,el ~el'L 'W." "'''''','', ,..'.,.,........ ..,.."......., '.'",",",.,",,,,'"'' """"'"'' '.. , ,., .'" . ..' .... ........ .....(-';+... .. .;.,;:;.:0,",............
5. Ada & Raw 1 2 2 1 2 2 10 \
Bay Blvd. Wei! hted 4 4 6 4 6 4 28 --- ~
:1L~t;,.... :~;~~;;:;:::,.::r~,.~.;:;::I;il;':.;:;I;:C';:;!:i:i:;: .::::::~~i~:i::i::I;::, i;;Hj~f!:t,li;:;;;;;;;,;,;;;,,;i.::::,:t:l:[~,:;;g;:;.:a: :[."ill . .. ;;,;U3,\:"j;ti;1 n!._:I,"~Rg;l~~tt!i?!i[ii[!11 ~
..' '.' . .... ... .,..,.".,. """"".' ".,.,.""..,....'...,."'.'.".,.,,,.,.,,,..,,......, C" .",.,. """.,.,."."..,"''''' '''',''',,'',',.,,' '.., '.'> 'c,,,'.'..".'...'..'..' ,.' ..", ...'w""..,.,.....,..,....,., ,,,...... ",..w.,".". ". ,,,,"',,.....,,.........,,"". '.' .,.." N
. Aftit'll &..... ,..... ... ......... ..... .. .... . .. . . .... ... ...... .,..".. ..... ....... ........ ............... . ." .. . .... .... '. ...... ..' ............... .w..... .,,,.,,..... W'" ... .. ...... ....................... ..' . ."."'T~niG!Qsj!Ul1. ....... Il
,'S ,h';' " ~T' (':V{ ~,' ,:',": .:: . ~ ': .:' :".~;>~' ::~~~:'::::'~' ~~.:~'~.~..: ::":.: ': ': .' '::.:: '>:':::: ~~":" ': ':~~ ;~~ ::.:;.f~':~:.:~:.: ::':~ :':~.~:.~,:::.:' ,...:~::: :~: ~~.~~::~::. ~:'.~'.:.:: .: :: :.r ", /:~ ::.~ :.:: :' '~':' ':'; :~: '.:~. ;~:~'~: ..:;..~~~:~~.~. :~n:;r~..h~~~k~..~.~:<:.*f.:fnh:;.
. '. . ..... ." ;. : -: : :i:::;: i::<:~;;~[;:.::.:: iI:lflr:;:: ::~;:::;i::~:;~::~::; :;:::::;::;:;;::;::;:'~ ;::',:::;::;';;:;.i: ii;;;;,;:,;;;;:,:,::;;,;;':;; :,:;;;;:,::;~,.,~,." .;;;;.;:;:;;:;~;;;;;:;;;~;ii~;i~,~.\~i;;iilli],
."i;;;;:,\;'; . ...." ..~:;:.> W:!:t;..;:;: .:.~':;: _.!PMi .:::: :::::;:>>;::;;::;.; ::.~~:i:;!:.;~;i:.i;;:': :: .:: ::::.:::: :;< ';'!;!"il\';':'?!li;;,::. i::;;;:;~;;!;;:!;:; :!;.;!;l!I;~~i~I!!!!,;;~! ;!~!!!!!!~!!.l!!!:!!il
...!l35Qj@.....,... ... ..... ..mmb gd;!:g '0'" ..~..." ........ ".....0 ' '"(,',, ., ;;;;;;";;;W;;(...,,.... .... ,.........."..........."",!...... "......;g.;;@,,,,,,,.........-..". .". .... .:lmi@fimir_..-.........."
liia%l.iilll;ll..' ~( ~'!m:'J ". ~~.;;>i[;jii;;,:;:;i,; t;+t:;,,';;,j:, ;;: ;iiii]Ii,,;;;,ij;,,;;;!i,i ji,i;:i;i:;'iiii;:;::..,; ;'i"")";"'))j.;i, ;;:;iiii;:.;.,.~:j;:;i;i;. :'::"iii;;;;:..:;;;,:; ;iilj.ii;:~;;;;;:;;ii;;ill!tjli~~[liiri$II;!;;.;[;lm!t
10.2387 Raw 1 3 2 2 1 1 10
"aivre SI. WeiQhted 4 6 6 8 3 2 29-
_t!i~~~~~Jl~IiliUiU~~ ~ : :'~~':~~~~ll!l~~~~~~~:;:~.: ::'.:"~:~M~:~~WWmf~ l~~lM~~~~;~~~~!{~: s:~m{!~~~~l~~~m~~~ ~M~~Mt]@~MjMlB ~~%.~~~~'~filiWl~M?~~~l~~ ?~~~~~~~,~~~r:~h~~~~~~~~~': ::t~~r~~~~~~:\1:~~~~$' n~Wt~~df.~4~n~~!_~~' ~.:::lf~i~}lI:]fl[I~;[ll
: .:~~t;l'~':'~':l' .:;.;:.:;..~.:~ ,.'~' ,~ ,;i;ii~:;::~S;:;%':<' :::':::~~::":<{Mm:::::@::::.":':;:'" :;:~b:;,:,;::~~:;,::~:,<,.$:;:<;;:;:::,;' ",:<:x<<<':';;:;'';';:;:;::'::;;:M:::::=::.: ::.:::;::::::";:;::;:;:;.~::;:::::::;:::;:~:::;:;~~:.;:::-,%%:;~':=.~:;::%~:M~:::~:~~s:~s ::::::~~~~::~~~~t..~~..::.;..H...:::~~:::;;'... t~~:~:..:::...vg~.;..,%:;;~.;"s ::~::::"v::.;::::N:;::m~'~:::-~":':;:':':;:,;; .... . ;"0.:.. ..w.:;::::::~.:v:
",,::1-3 '. . . ~i:~;:.~~' ... ~:;::M~::~::;" :;:.~:~~;:~.%m;:~w~:t~:t~~;..: ~::~:;::~~::::%~~~:-::::~::..:::mt~~~:' ~%:;:~.:;-::::::~~::~~;~.::,%';:::~:;:;;~ ::H~:~:;:::::::-.S::~";,,~:;,;~~:;::~::= '~::::~~~~~{~~R::~~~~~~82::g ~:~~~~~~~:::::,:;::;::::;'~:~:;e~~:~~~~k ,:~~;;::~::;'~~::;~.::::::::'M~~~:..;:.: ~.;::;:.;~mm:::;%.:;::~;~,:":t<:,, .' I.::;:.;@~:lli
";';;[l':';"":;lt;itt . .' ~:,:):1=:1::1:;~ i::::II:~'~:~~jl;J :;=:;::~11:~1:;~~~:~li:il:I~:I:II~:I:; :;:I;ji:l=~;m 'illl~t:IIIII:I;::1 il::t:::::::::i==lll, ::;:~ll~~;;l::l::l::' :14~1:1::i1;i: t*k;~:~::::,~,.:~.i..)*l
13. 1855 Raw 3 3 3 3 1 1 14
WEIGHTED
SCORE
FATAL
FLAW'
?'ih;;Hi;FE;;~;Ii;n[I;1!;:'i~;I,.~I.i:.i~..
==c....,. lLMn"",,,.. "'1"1""""""""'0"
~~. ~";:",.:~:::::~mm.~.::~. .:d*~mr:~:'~m~t1~:::~:::~.:~~,:.:.~~:
",.... "~"""'"lr''''''d'''''''''''''
.""'''..".;;;.;;:;;;1:i[~1!111111~'!i!i!i:!;~
"'#"."IJ.rn"""".,.,..,:..:)',.,.
..................,.1:li:l.. .. .w...
lEt;:;; I:&iiri~lil::.i;,;i::[i:
~
Maxwell Rd
14. 894
Enerav Way
WeiQhted
Raw
Weiahted
12
3
12
6
3
6
9
3
9
12
3
12
3
3
9
2
1
2
44
16
50
'NOTE: A "Fatal Flaw" precludes further consideration of a Site, no matter how desirable it otherwise may be. Sites containing fatal flaws are shaded.
M \SOFl'OWP\TRANSFER WB1
EXHIBIT 1
Exhibit 2
City of Chula Vista
Trash Transfer Station and
Future Materials Recovery Facility
Site Selection - First Phase
EXPLANATION OF METHODOLOGY
Initial Evaluation and Key Elements
Staff evaluated the 14 locations which were identified by the contractor as potential sites for the
trash transfer station. The evaluation included reviewing the General Plan, Zoning Map, and
the site visits by staff with the consultants to all 14 sites. The key elements resulting from staff
discussions of the evaluation evolved into the following major criteria:
1. Land Use Compatibility
2. Site Size & Preparation
3. Site Access
4. Environmental Constraints
5. Acquisition & Processing
6. Rail Access
Each site was considered in light of each criterion and assigned one of three raw scores: 1 =
low; 2 = medium; and 3 = high. These are explained under "Detailed Explanation of 'Raw'
Scores." The raw scores are not a ranking of how one site compares to another. Rather, each
site is taken on its own merits and judged against the low, medium or high score definitions
found under each criterion in Exhibit 2, "Explanation of Methodology." For example, under
"Rail Access," either the site has rail service, it could have rail service if it does not have it at
present, or it could not have it. Therefore, if the site has rail service it received a score of 3,
while if it does not have rail service and there is no possibility, it received a score of 1.
The "Raw" scores are multiplied by the "Weighting" factor to arrive at a "Weighted" score
immediately under each "Raw" score. The "Raw" and "Weighted" scores are then added
together along each row and show under the respective columns "TOTAL SCORE" and
"WEIGHTED SCORE. "
Detailed Explanation of "Weighting"
The weighting scale was developed to reflect the relative importance of each criterion. Staff
from the Planning, Administration and Community Departments reviewed the criteria and
assigned weight values to each one to indicate what they believe to be its relative importance to
the City. The "Weight" of each criterion is not a ranking of one criterion against the other,
rather, it is the importance of each criterion based on the needs and priorities of the City. The
weights were then added to arrive at the figure in the joint row/column under "TOTAL
SCORE/WEIGHTED SCORE" (18), as shown in the matrix. This score represents the 100%
of the "Weighting" values.
.2'1/1"5"
Explanation of Methodology
Page 2
Detailed Explanation of "Raw" Scores
To emphasize, a "low" equals a "Raw" score of 1, "medium" equals a "Raw" score of 2, while
"high" equals a "Raw" score of 3.
1. Land Use Compatibility: Is the proposed use compatible with surrounding and/or
adjacent land uses within the City of Chula Vista?
Low - Surrounding and adjacent land uses are not compatible, but excluding adjacent
residential land uses which is considered a "fatal flaw" (see below under "Fatal Flaw"
Explanation) .
Medium - Surrounding and adjacent land uses include retail commercial, which mayor
may not be compatible, but no residential. Further study required.
High - Surrounding land uses are compatible in that they are industrial uses and
residential land uses or other conflicting land uses are more than 2,000 feet away.
2. Site Size & Preparation: Is the parcel large enough to accommodate the project, and
what site improvements are necessary?
Low - Major grading and/or demolition of existing buildings required on-site; and/or the
site contains an existing usable building that requires major alterations rather than
demolition; and/or the parcel is marginal in size (parcels too small are "fatally flawed" -
see below under "Fatal Flaw" Explanation).
Medium - Grading required, but not as major as the "LOW" category. Demolition
and/or alterations to buildings minor. Costs associated with being within an assessment
district. Parcel size may be adequate.
High - Minor grading required. Site is vacant or contains structures which require no
demolition or alteration or are easily removed. Site is large enough to accommodate
station.
3. Site Access: Is the site easily accessible from freeways and major arterials? Is there
adequate ingress and egress? Are there any conflicts with traffic associated with other
land uses?
Low - Poor truck ingress and egress to the site and/or maneuvering area constrained.
No easy access to freeways and major arterials.
Medium - Marginal truck ingress and egress to the site. Maneuvering area somewhat
limited but may be adequate. Access to freeways and major arterials marginally
adequate. Conflicts with retail commercial traffic.
High - Ingress and egress pose no problems. Maneuvering area adequate. Easy access
to major arterials. No conflicts with retail commercial traffic.
.2'/ ~ -~
Explanation of Methodology
Page 3
4. Environmental Constraints: How easily is the project processed through environmental
review? The following is an earlv assessment based on available information:
Low - Environmental review will result in an ErR which includes impacts which mayor
may not be mitigated.
Medium - Environmental review resulting in an expanded initial study.
High - Environmental review resulting in an initial study with few environmental
impacts.
5. Acquisition & Processing: Is the property owner willing to sell or enter into a long term
lease? What discretionary permits are required as a result of the land use being placed
at the particular site?
Low - Eminent domain required because of unwillingness of property owner to sell.
Three to four discretionary permits required involving public forums and several public
hearings.
Medium - Property owner willing to sell, but asking price high. Three to four
discretionary permits required involving three to four public hearings.
High - Property owner willing to sell and price is reasonable. One to two discretionary
permits required involving one to two public hearings.
6. Rail Access: Is there rail access to the site? If not, is there the possibility that there can
be in the future?
Low - There is no rail access and there is no possibility that a rail line can be extended
to the site.
Medium - There is no rail access, but there is the possibility of extending and existing
rail line to the site.
High - There is rail access to the site.
"Fatal Flaw" Explanation:
In some cases, the sites were too small, too close to residential development, or environmental
constraints were associated with the sites which would have been very difficult and expensive
to overcome. These are considered "fatal flaws" which preclude any further consideration of
the sites. Because of the serious nature of the problems, these sites were not scored, although
they were initially included in the examination, and all other criteria were thoroughly discussed
in relation to the sites.
~~19 ' 7
EXHIBIT 3
LOCATOR MAPS OF THE FIVE RANKED SITES
,;J'IA"Y
~
,-----------
I
I
I
,
PROJECT
LOCATION
tJ.\"':>
-
rl
---
I
I
i
I
!
I)~.,
----------------
l
<
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR APPLICANT: PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) TRASH TRANSFER STATION
ADDRESS: 894 ENERGY WAY SITE SELECTION - CANDIDATE SITES
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: ,2.J/.,?- 9
NORTH NONE NONE SITE 14
PRO.JECT
LOCATION
~
...
,~
/~
_ _~l.lr.~~~~~A_ll~T~________
CITY OF NATIONAL CITy
"
- ____.l_
.0[5" D'
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WCATOR APPLICANT: PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
(I) TRASH TRANSFER STATION
ADDRESS: 900BAYBOULEVARD SITE SELECTION -CANDIDATE SITES
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: ol'//J-/p
NORTH NONE NONE SITE 3
a
I
iI
~
I
"---
PROJECT
LOCATION
,
---
---
---
--
CITY YlITA
aTY ", 1M _eo
-----~---------------
I
I
J
f
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR APPLICANT: PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C9 TRASH TRANSFER STATION
ADDRESS: 855MAXWELLROAD SITE SELECTION -CANDIDATE SITES
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: eJJ/~-//
NORTH NONE NONE SITE 13
... T
I
I
I
_ _ _ L _
I
I
I
I
- .... - - - - -l- - - - - -; - - _I - - .
IJ~
PROJECT
LOCATION
,
I
<Il
c(
~
a
<.)
<(
..,
FAIVRE
I I
c.;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
,
,
/'
CI T Y
CITY
"'-
,/
/'
_______ _..J
I
I
t-
V!
""-
""-
""-
/~- --=L
ru
I
,
,
,
r- --j
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1_
-' - - - -
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WCATOR APPLICANT: PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) TRASH TRANSFER STATION
ADDRESS: 2387 FAIVRE STREET SITE SELECTION -CANDIDATE SITES
SCALE: FilE NUMBER: .;J. '119 - /.)..
NORTH NONE NONE SITE 10
\
>-
.~
CD
._-----.
PROJECT
LOCATION
STREET
----------------- -
,
,
,
,
..
\
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WCATOR APPLICANT: PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) TRASH TRANSFER STATION
ADDRESS: ADAANDBAYBOULEVARD SITE SELECTION -CANDIDATE SITES
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: .2'1,4-1 ;J
NORTH NONE NONE SITE 5
..
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date
..2 'If!
9/6/94
TITLE:
REPORT Evaluation of the Solid Waste Authority's
Proposed Non-Member Contract Rates and Viability of
Alternatives
SUBMITTED BY: Deputy City Manager Krempl
Principal Managem~~Assistant Snyder
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~VO'~\(4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No-1L)
On 8/11/94, the San Diego Solid Waste Authority approved a menu of
differential tip fees for non-member agencies which were proposed
to go into effect at the region's landfills on 10/1/94 (Attachment
At. Aside from the option to join the Authority and receive the
rate proposed for member agencies, the Authority has presented
three rates differentiated by contract terms and conditions. The
Authority has directed that contracts be executed by 9/15/94. At
the regularly scheduled city Council meeting on 8/23/94, Council
directed staff to communicate specific concerns about the
Authority's process, options and deadline, and to request a prompt
reply.
This report discusses the options presented and subsequent
responses. The issue is also discussed in light of the viability
of other short-term disposal alternatives being explored by staff
and Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That Chula vista not execute any of the Authority's proposed
contract options.
2. That, at the 9/15/94 meeting of the Authority, the City
request a response to the 8/29/94 letter (Attachment B) and
recommendations contained therein.
3. That staff report back to Council on 9/13/94 as to any actions
taken by other non-member cities (4 other jurisdictions will
be meeting on or before 9/13/94).
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
A. Options Presented bv the Authoritv
The staff report of the Solid Waste Authority (Attachment A) dated
~'Ia-/
Page 2, Item -2~~
Meeting Date 9/6/94
8/11/94 offers non-member agencies the four options summarized as
follows:
1) Member Rate
o Requires commitment to join the Authority
o Tip fee to be $55.00/ton for three years
o Goal is to reduce tip fee to $48.00 /ton or less
starting FY 97/98
2) Non-Member Contracts- THREE YEAR OPTION
o Tip fee to be $65.oo/ton for three years
o After three years, if cost reduction goal of
$48.00/ton is met (or up to 5% higher for error
(i.e. up to $50.40/ton), must either
a) Join Authority as member at base rate, or
b) Contract as non-member agency for 10 years or
more at base rate plus 5% plus $10. OO/ton
(i.e. $60.40/ton)
o If cost reduction goal is not met, no further
contract commitment needed
3) Non-Member Contracts- FIVE YEAR OPTION
o Tip fee to be $72.50/ton for five years
o The difference between $72.50 and $65.00 (3 year
option price) will count as a credit towards past
liabilities for the system
o No further commitment needed
4) Non-Member Contracts- TEN YEAR OPTION
o Tip fee to be $67.5o/ton for ten years
o The difference between $67.50 and $65.00 will count
as a credit towards past liabilities for the system
o No further commitment needed
As explained in the report, none of the contract options are
intended to waive an agency's responsibility for liabilities for
usage of the system prior to 1990 when collection of closure and
).. 1/ 0 .. .J.
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 9/6/94
,)'18
post-closure costs was mandated by the state.
Although not discussed in the report as an option, the Authority
discussed that an agency not desiring to either join or to sign a
contract would pay a "daily rate" which carries no commitment. The
daily rate would not be calculated until after the 9/15/94 deadline
when all contract commitments are known.
B. Further Clarification of the Authoritv's options
Because draft contracts have not yet been received, city staff met
with Authority staff on 8/19/94 and 8/23/94 to discuss questions
and request further clarification on the intention of the proposed
contracts. Additional information was received regarding
justification of the proposed contract rates projected cost
reduction goals, as well as intentions with regard to future
increases.
The most attractive rate at first blush, is the 3 year contract for
$65/ton. Unfortunately, the caveats attached thereto result in it
being a 13 year contract due to the mandatory 10 year extension
provision. Further, the non-member rate can be $60.40 at the end
of year three but no assurances are provided as to how the rate
might fluctuate thereafter for the extra 10-year period.
The Authority is also on record that they believe every
jurisdiction has a responsibility for the NCRRA facility regardless
of circumstance. The press has recently reported on potential
litigation on this subject between the Authority and El Cajon (who
left the system on July 1, 1994).
As directed by the Council on August 23, 1994, a letter (Attachment
~ has been sent to the Authority requesting additional time for
analysis of the contract rates and draft contract language, and to
be able to pursue and negotiate other acceptable alternative rate
scenarios.
Draft contract language was received on August 29, 1994. The
contract (Attachment Cl is for the 3-year option plus 10 year
automatic extension if the target base rate is achieved. The terms
for the 5 and 10 year contracts would be similar. The draft 3 year
(plus 10 year extension) contract contains the following
clarifications and terms:
1. During the base period (years 1-3), the base fee ($65/ton)
shall be increased by the adjusted CPI. Adjusted CPI is
defined as the CPI in San Diego for the then current year,
minus the CPI effective on 1994 (to be determined in
the near future by the Authority) .
;tllJ..J
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date
02'18
9/6/94
2. The Authority shall provide a GO-day notice of what the 4th
year tip fee will be prior to the termination date of the 3-
year term.
3. As to the lO-year automatic extension, the rates will be the
reduced system rate in year 4, plus 5%, plus $10jton plus CPI
increases.
4. In addition to CPI, the rates may increase based on changes in
Federal, state or local law and force majeure events, such as
earthquakes and floods.
5. 100% of the waste stream of the jurisdiction is to be
committed.
6. The City retains the rights to its recycling activities and
any recycled waste can be excluded from the waste flow
contractual obligation.
7. The Authority indemnifies the City against any challenge
regarding its commitment of 100% of its waste flow.
8. The City has 30 days prior to the termination of the 3-year
deal to advise the Authority whether it wants to become a
member or enter into the 10-year extension.
C. Pursuit of Alternative Solid Waste options bv Chula vista
1. Local Enforcement Authority (LEA) Services
On August 9, 1994 Council directed staff to meet with the
currently designated LEA (County Environmental Health
services) as well as investigate the interest of other
certified LEA's in California who might be willing to provide
service to Chula vista and report back in 45 days. This item
is in process.
2. Transfer station services
On July 19, 1994 Council approved, in concept, business terms
with Sexton Sand and Gravel Corporation to site, conceptually
design and permit a transfer station and materials recovery
facility in Chula vista. site selection criteria has been
developed and sites analyzed and evaluated for Council
consideration. This is the subject of a companion agenda item
at Council's September 6, 1994 meeting.
Staff is also in the process of screening statements of
qualifications for firms which might be engaged to perform the
environmental review of the transfer station project. This is
;;. '10 - 'i
Paqe 5, Item .)J/ $
Meeting Date 9/6/94
being done in accordance with the city's normal procedure and
standard three-party agreement.
3. Disposal site services
staff has had ongoing discussions with various parties
regarding landfill site availability and rates including the
following:
A. Campo Landfill - Mid-America Waste
B. El Sobrante Landfill, Riverside - Western Waste
C. La Paz Landfill, Arizona - BFI and La Paz County
D. East Carbon, utah - ECDC (Rail haul)
This information has been via the North County JPA and
their contract negotiations with ECDC.
E. WMS System Trucks (El Cajon, Oceanside) Waste
Management
F. Various other truck haul technology with both Laidlaw
Waste Systems and Mr. Bud Chase, Chula vista Sanitary
Services.
There are a multitude of disposal site options available at
competitive rates if the transfer station and/or new truck
technology issues can be resolved. Staff will provide Council
with a verbal update on our progress at the September 6, 1994
meeting.
D. Status of Other Non-Member cities
On July 1, 1994, the City of EI Cajon withdrew from the system.
Their hauler, Waste Management, has the rights to a potential
container system called a Multiple Service/Transport System (WMS)
which can function without the need for a transfer station
(Attachment D). EI cajon's contract is for five years at a rate of
$40/per ton. The waste is being hauled out of County to a disposal
site at Lancaster in Los Angeles County.
Oceanside, which is also served by Waste Management, entertained a
WMS proposal on August 18, 1994. Their Council, 5-0, approved in
concept a proposed agreement with Waste Management. The final
agreement is to return to Council on September 21, 1994. Equipment
for collection and transfer is to be available (50%) by October 1
and the balance no later than November 15. Staff is to negotiate
with the Solid Waste Authority and others for disposal capacity for
rolloff, self-haul and other waste that cannot be accommodated
through the WMS system. Waste Management's proposal is $47 per ton
to be escalated at $1.50 per ton or CPI, whichever is greater, for
a contract term of 7 years. Waste for the first year would be
disposed of at the BKK landfill in West Covina and in subsequent
.21/(1-.5'
Page 6, Item .1 J/.B
Meeting Date 9/6/94
years in a combination of the simi Valley landfill (Ventura
County), Bradley landfill (San Fernando Valley) and Lancaster
landfill (L.A. County).
The North County Solid Waste Management Agency (NCSWMA) had been
considering a proposal from Coast waste Management/ECDC to rail
haul solid waste to a landfill in East Carbon, Utah. The rate was
to be $53.18 per ton escalated at 90% of the CPI annually. Since
NCSWMA did not yet have transfer station capabilities, the
agreement was essentially a standby one which the Authority could
activate with 120 days notice. The Authority consists of the
cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad and Escondido. Once Oceanside
conceptually indicated an interest in the alternate WMS System of
Waste Management, Coast Waste Management/ECDC and the remaining two
cities decided not to implement the standby agreement as the
tonnage originally planned would be significantly reduced.
CONCLUSION
At this time, none of the non-member cities have indicated any
interest in any of the three rate packages proposed by the
Authority. Staff also anticipates that the non-member cities will
support the points enumerated in Chula vista's 8/29/94 letter to
the Authority. The letter requests more time for review, that
contracts and implementation be delayed to December 1, and January
1 respectively, that rates stay at $55 per ton in the interim and
that the Authority authorize negotiations to occur on alternatives.
Attachment E is a letter from the City of La Mesa to the Authority
and our sister cities urging that the tip fee rate for everyone
stay at $55 per ton and that the Authority not be punitive as the
County was with the surcharge.
FISCAL IMPACT
None as a result of this report. Impact on ratepayers cannot be
determined until a definitive course of action is taken by the City
and/or the Authority.
GK:mab
Attachments:
. ~l>
A - 8/15/94 letter from Sol~d Waste A
B - 8/29/94 Chula vista letter t~~ Waste Authority
C - 8/29/94 draft contract
D - WMS b~~re
E - 8/26/~~tter from City of La Mesa
<9~
~~!)
~If{!./' /~113-/6
SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
,
J,":i:.achmen':: j\
August 15, 1994
~ rs') i' c"] F'\
D "'-.' l~.. ~.'., . - ','.1." I~ ~~ j i
~ ~n i
I :&!6 ':I6IG~ ~
The Honorable Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chela Vista, California 91910
,ltt: . . , ,_ . ',' _ ~~!;,-
"'.'hI ,= . CITY tG:,;".)i,.(;;'i.i.:.;:;)....-:':"~~~
~ CHULA VIS 11\. CA..""<'l'
.. -." ..
Dear Mayor Nader:
At its August 11th meeting, the Solid Waste Authority set rates for all Non-Member cities to be
effective October I, 1994. While the Deloitte & Touche report was used as a basis of
information, the Authority did its own additional study to determine the various rates to be set.
The Authority directed staff to work with all Non-Member cities to develop the appropriate
contract for the option selected by each Non-Member cily. The staff report on contract options
is attached for your review.
The Authority selected a deadline for each city's selection of September 15, 1994. Please
contact Tom Webstcr, Interim General Manager and/or Un Wurbs, Interim Assistant General
Manager to assist in determining which contract option is best for you. Tom and Lin have been
charged with assisting you with your questions and developing appropriate contract terms and
conditions by September 14th in order to report to the Authority on September 15th with the
results of the contract negotiations.
Sincerely,
AU11fORlZED FOR IMMEDIA.TE FAX WITHOUT SIGNA.TURE . SIGNED ORIGINAL TO FOllOW
DAL WILLIAMS, Chairman
Solid Waste Authority
RON MORRISON, Vice Chairman
Solid Waste Authority
Attachment
cc: John D. Goss, City Manager
dLj!J-Y
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, ROOM 215, SAN DIEGO. CALlFORNlA 92101-2470 TELEPHONE: 619/531-6174 FAX' 619/531-5794
SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
Date:
August 11, 1994
To:
Solid Waste Authority Members
From:
Management Staff - Tom Webs.tel and Un Wurbs
Subject:
SOLID WASTE TIP I-EE AND NON-MEMBER CONTRACT RATES
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to seek the Solid Waste Authority's approval to set a Tip
Fee for Members and establish contract rates for Non-Members. The Board of Supervisors
vested the Authority to determine solid waste rates to the Solid Waste Authority on June 28,
1994 and the JPA accepted the responsibility on July 14, 1994.
BACKGROUND AND mSTORY
In January of 1982, the Board of Supervisors established the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund and
set the Tip Fee for the disposal of Solid Waste at $6.50 per ton. Prior to that time, the costs
for regional solid waste management were handled through the County's General Pund.
Historically, the County and the City of San Diego have assumed the disposal responsibility in
the region since the closure of the last municipa11andfill in Oceanside in 197:1. Up to the early
1940's refuse was handled on an individual dumping basis with the garbage sold to the hog
fanners. These unregulated dumps were allover San Diego County and within the cities. In
the late thirties and early forties these dumps were set on flre and the burning dump era began.
In the early forties the County established formal bum sites. Both burning and sanitary
landfilling continued until 1972 when the last bum sites were shut down due to air pollution
regulations. In 196:1 and 1970 the federal government passed the Solid Waste Management Act
and the Resource Recovery Act to study and demonstrate safe methods of handling solid waste.
The San Diego County Regional Solid Waste Management Plan (1976, revised 1982,1986) was
developed as required by the Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972 as
a joint effort between the ciUes and the County. The overall goal of the plan was to provide a
regional system for managing the generation, storage, collecUon, transportation, reuse, and
disposal of solid waste in an economical manner which protects public health and welfare,
conserves natural resources and energy, minimizes littering and illegal dumping and generally
enhances the environment. The Plan and all subsequent amendments were approved by a
majority of the incorporated ciUes with a majority of the incorporated populaUon. Although the
County of San Diego has historically assumed the disposal responsibility in the region, the Plan
specifies in its opening chapter that "ciUes must recognize their responsibility to provide disposal
capacity for the waste generated by its citizens. "
02Lj!J -9
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, ROOM 215, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101-2470 TELEPHONE: 619/5314174 FAX: 619/5JI-5794
The cities have not created any disposal capacity on their own, however, and continue to rely
upon the "System" for their disposal needs. The County of San Diego and the City of San
Diego are the only two agencies currently providing solid waste disposal services in the region.
None of the remaining cities, with the exception of the City of Oceanside, have bad any capital
andlor direct disposal operation costs for their incorporated service areas as they either utilize
County or City of San Diego landfills.
The cities have been involved in the solid waste planning process for several years. For the past
three y~s, the cities have participated actively in the decision making process regarding the
best approach to handing solid waste within the region. As a first step, the cities directed the
study by Ernst and Young entitled "The Management Audit of the Solid Waste Division and
Financial Review of the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund". The cities also participated through the
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in several forums to discuss solid waste
issues. An outgrowth of the discussions was the creation of the Interim Solid Waste
Commission which involved all of the cities and the County. The primary goal of the one year
Interim Commission was to decide the governance structure that best met the needs of all of the
entities in the region. The consensuS approach that was developed was the creation of the Solid
Waste 10int Powers Authority Agency. The Solid Waste Authority was established to manage
the solid waste system in the county. AU of the assets, obligations and liabilities of the System
will be transferred to the Authority.
In order for the new "owners" of the System to plan for their capacity requirements, there needs
to be immediately available an understanding of who intends to use the System and for what
duration. It is critical for planning purposes for both the current system participants and to meet
future projected growth that a new strategic plan be able to be developed which accounts for the
Members needs and any contracts that non-members choose to sign.
AUGUST I, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING
On August 1, 1994 the Authority held a Public Hearing to get input on the rate study completed
by Deloitte and Touche. As the Authority Members know, the DeloiUe and Touche study was
prepared to depict all of the solid waste system costs and spread those costs over di fferent
lengths of time that could coincide with potential contract options. It has always been
recognized that the most cost effective and environmentally sound way for the cities and the
County to plan in this region is by doing so together. The Solid Waste Authority's goal will
always be to provide a cost effective system to all of those who want to use the Authority's
System. The Authority's intention is to not be punitive in any way, but to have an independent
analysis of the costs that have been incurred which will need to be the shared responsibility of
aU of the System's participants.
2 ;21/!f - /0
TIP FEE PROPOSAL
In June, 1994 the Solid Waste Authority endorsed a Tip Fee of $55.00 for this fiscal year that
was subsequently enacted by the Board of Supervisors for 60 days. The Board also delegated
the Tip Fee and Rate Setting authority to the JPA at that time. It is therefore the Authority's
responsibility 10 set tipping fees prior to August 31, 1994.
After hearing a variety of testimony from the non-member jurisdictions, the Authority Members
asked staff to prepare a fee schedule proposal that would keep the System whole, be competitive
and economical, and meet allleeal mandates. You requested that we produce a matrix of rates
which would include two year, five, ten and twenty year options.
We have reviewed the operating budget, the capital program budget, and every record we CQuld
in the effort 10 identify all operating costs, mandatory fIXed CQsts, and nece,'lary capital
requirements. We believe we have determined every dollar required in order to keep the system
operating in good health for the time periods we need rates (or. We also took the same
approach to determining to the best of our knowledge the annual tonnage we can realistically
expect. This proposal is a "full service" proposal that meets our legal and mandated obligations
and will keep the System whole.
The Audit and Budget sub-committee agreed after much discussion 10 modify the requested rate
matrix to one which would include a three year rate (rather than two), and a five and a ten year
rate. The two was changed to three because we determined that we needed a guaranteed three
year revenue stream in order to fund those capital improvements necessary to keep the system
viable (or even two years. The twenty year rate was eliminated on the premise that it would be
pointless for anyone to sign up for more than ten years yet still pay the non-membel premium
which would be required.
We developed the following baseline assumptions:
ASSUMPTIONS:
(1) that the System will be CQmposed of sixteen (16) cities and the CQunty;
(2) that the total mixed waste tonnage for the System (or FY 1994-95 would be
1,160,000; and
(3) that the commercial haulers from the City of San Diego would continue to use the
IPA's System at the same level as in the past.
Our analysis also recognized that several changes to the current budget would be ncccsSllry 10
provide for all of the System participants at Ml participation, with the departure from the region
by the City of El Cajon. It is essential to make both additions and deletions in the Budget and
spending plan to make the System (unction in a fiscally sound yet CQmpetilive fashion.
3
,)J/!J' - / /
SO'd ZOO'ON 50:11 v5'91 6n~
All dOH.lnlj 31SIjj1LGLJOS
NECESSARY BUDGET MODIfICATIONS:
(1) the Otay Liner needs to be included in the mandatory capital improvement plan
for a System that includes all si"tecn cities and the County;
(2) the variable operating costs within the budget need to be reduced "acroSS the
board" ;
(3) the costs associated with the NCRRA facility need to be reduced through the
negotiation process which is currently underway; and
(4) capital needs to be raised by evaluating and selling the assets the Solid Waste
Enterprise Fund has within it's portfolio willch might no longer be nceded.
Aner reviewing the budget in detail and developing several different options over vanous
contract lifespans _ we are prepared to recommend the following set of options for endorsement
by the Authority, recognizing that all of the assumptions above were incorporated in our study.
MEMBER RATE:
...
The tip fee for Authority members will be $55.00 for the next three years.
During that three years our goal will be to reduce the tip fee to $48.00 or less for
the fiscal year starting 1uly I, 1997.
NON-MEMBER OPTIONS:
* THREE YEAR CONTRACf OPTION:
The Non-Member contract rate for three years will be $65.00. At the end of the
three year period, if the cost reduction goal has been met by the Authority by
either reducing the base rate to $48.00 or less, to a figure no higher than $48.00
plus five (+5) percent, the Non-Member will agree in the original contract
document to either: (a) become a Member at the base rate achieved or (b) extend
the contract for an additional ten years or more at the base rate plus $10.00 per
ton.
If the Authority docs not make the $48.00 ($50.40 with the error factor), the
entity has no obligation to remain part of the System.
* FIVE YEAR CONTRACT OPTION:
The five (5) year contract price is $72.50, with the difference between $65.00 and
$72.50 counting as a credit toward the past responsibility to the System.
. 10 YEAR CONTRACT OPTION:
The ten (10) year contract price is $67.50, with the difference between $65.00
and $67.50 counting as a credit toward the past responsibility to the System.
None of the contract options described above are intended to waive the responsibility any entity
has regarding past obligations for use of the System.
4 ;2.,/!J~/;l-
J1NV18.0NMENTAL REVIEW
Attached to this report is a resolution finding that the setting of fees and chargC$ are exempt
from the Environmental Quality Act because none of the fees are designed to build a reserve
fund to finance capital projects for the express purpose of expanding the existing system. Staff
recommends that the Authority adopt this resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Approve the staff report including the proposed Member and Non-Member fees and
Contract Options, the attached Tip Fee Resolution No. 94..()1 establishing il.e Tip Fee
and Resolution No. 94-02 Finding That The Establishment of Rates and Charges To Be
Statutorily Exempt from The California Environmental Quality Aet.
2. Authorize the Authority Staff to direct legal counsel to draft the appropriate contract
language for each option described in the staff report.
3. Authorize the Chairman in concert with the Authority staff to expend funds, not to
elCcced $25,000 to contract with appropriate groups or individuals to assist in the Non-
Member contract negotiation process.
Submitted by:
Tom Webster, Interim General Manager
Lin Wurbs, Interim Assistant General Manager
5
~2/fl-13
LO'd_ZOO'ON 11:11 v6'91 6n~
AII~nHlnH 1JSHm_nl~ns
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
TIM NADER
~\I?-
~~~
~~........,;....
.........................
--
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
At-i-""C'j-" .,
~ ..'... 11l:0;1): B
August 29, 1994
VIA FAX
Chairman Dal Williams and Members
San Diego Solid Waste Authority
1600 Pacific Highway - Room 215
San Diego, CA 92101-2470
Dear Chairman Williams and Members of the Authority:
This letter is in reply to the Authority's August 11, 1994 action regarding non-member
solid waste contract options and your letter to me dated August 15, 1994. We
appreciate the efforts and work to date on this matter and our staff has met with your
General Manager and Assistant General Manager. However, we still have a number of
questions, and some information, such as draft contract language, which has not yet
been received.
On August 23, 1994, our Council (4-0) requested as follows:
1) That the time frame for resolution of the non-member contracts be extended;
2) That the deadline for non-member contract signature be December 1 ,1994 instead
of September 15, 1994 and that the rates take effect January 1, 1995 instead of
October 1, 1994;
3) That the current tip fee rate of $55/ton be maintained for the interim; and
4) That the Authority authorize the General Manager to be able to discuss alternative
contract options or counter-proposals.
;2L/!J- /i
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 919101(619) 691-5044
We feel that proceeding in the above manner results in a more realistic implementation
schedule while not jeopardizing the Authority's ability to act in a timely fashion.
Hopefully, also, the additional opportunity for negotiation will result in a resolution which
keeps the entire system intact, covers costs, allows the Authority the time needed to
examine alternatives, and is equitable for all parties.
We appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
J;- -/?-A~(,
Tim Nader
Mayor
TN:GK:mab
cc: City Council
City Manager
;21/6 -/5'
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
Attachment C
FAX COVER SIIEET
~LEASE EXPEDITE ,DELlVERYOF FAX/TIME SENSITWE
Date~ No. or Pa&es '6 (Jntludlnc Cover)
Name: ..NDH.- ~/.6b,-... i~04"'''~~rS ~ ~(~"~~4.~.d~
Agen....: ~Ai'I,b~'O (L.~". 11..1-". (',.,.....,J" ~~;;.i ~u",",:i./j' ~.._,l
-I I 1- , '. ..' ~
l...MC<N, $iJ..-teC, ~m,q M'...."5'Re,
Fax Number:' \/..";,,,, Telephone Number: . \/.11 rl....,
SUBJECT: ,C/lH~ iA(f~~(..,. : '
......................
...--"-
Sender: Tom Webster/Lin Wurn.. Solid Waste Authority. 1600 Pacific Hh'hwllY Room 215.
San niei!o. CA 92101 Fax Number: 619/5:11-5794 Telephone Number: 619/5:11-6174
COMMENTS:
~ Por your Information _ Coni1denlial
_ This materlalls being forwarded. per your requesL
_ Please lIChe(hIle the following ~g on your calendar:. ....
Please call to diScuss further.' .
ADDmONAL COMMENTS:
,-,/'.vA,W..J'-h"'Pc..",,;, :7~,1 '-:V. 1'..\1, 1./ -- r-- 1\.........:.)-.1v ~'.....) iJL'
,..... mT...Q\UC.,...'i>""tl\(.,.....:Jlfre.~re.t,,.. \,.Ih' 4G;t"....Ih<, 1'.,.I.....&..6L-rtNTtAr-Uwtr....::,y..-
Or,';'t ~ h..~ ~hffd r>u1fJt I(t,t~t Iii fl..c. 'f'or;"~e., $Uko~.
PII!/W- k Ilof ~I*"'~ CM~:'6 14:' ~ rIA.. ~ittIt. d ~"(~~~.
~tJ~JV-~J.(,~ uJ~s -
-~_.. .....,.y-.
", i~
'1
IC the lnConnation )'ou reeeive Is IBealble or Incomplete, please call 531-6174.
;2L/IJ--/?
SO/lO'd llO'ON 60:Zl V6'6Z 6n~
A1I~DHln8 31S~~ GIlDS
SOUD WASTE AUTHORITY
DRAFT
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
SAN DIEGO SOLID WASTE AUI'HORITY
AND THE ClTYOF
PROVIDING FOR TIP FER RATES
AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDmONS
THIS AGREEMENTis made this _ clay of - 1994 (the "Effective
Date"), by lIIId betweeft the SAN DIBGO SOLID WASTE AtTl'HORITY, (hereinafter
refem:cl to as . Authority"), and the CITY OF '. (hereinafter
referred to as "City"),
RECITALS
WlIEREAS, the Authority was forme4 under ajoint powers authority agreement ("the
IPA Agreement") between the County of San Dicaoand the Cities 9f Del Mar, Bncinitas.
Lemon Grove, National City, Poway, Solana Beach and Vista on June 1,1994; and
WIIEREAS,pursuant to Government Code Section ~OO d. seq" the Authority may
exercise the common powers of its member agencies, which are furth~ described in the IP A
Agrc:cment; and . . . .
, , ' - ','
WHEREAS, the JPA Aarccment provides for the _fer to the Authority of the
operation, DWJageIJlent, contrv1 and ~p of the County lOUd waste system (the
"Regional System"); and 1
WHEREAS, the Authority is responsible b the administration of the Regional
System; and
WllEREAS, the Authority may properly establish rates and fees for the use of the
,~.' . ~ R~Js)'stemHDdl1iditrg ~tion of the costs of opemtion and;'~~ ::::Yidoih&: i',.':
... setthiS'Q{ooiJei'iiOOdfiii' userReS;-wlifch ShaD. bCawlialbIC10 ilieiieiiciesana parties-"
desirina continued use of the Regional System without cor~pondina participation In the
Authority;
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter Into an asreement fur the purpose of
establishin8 the riahts and obHptlons applicable to the City's use of the Regional System
over ~..term .ot"'.i, A~~;~ .-'. .
. - ., -- ----"..-"
~t~
"
WHEREAS, It i. the Intent of the parties that the City shall be offered an opportunitY
to become a voting member of the Authority in conjunction with the success of the
Authority In manacin& the RectonaI System In a manner that effects an actual reduction in
the costs of operating and maIntaining the Regional System. .
1
J
;113-)7
BOIZO'd 110'ON Ol:Zl ~6'6Z 6n~
AII~DHln~ 31S~~ GIlDS
NOW I 'I'BEREFORE, In COIlsldcratlon of the benefits and obllptlons of each of the
PlArties hereunder, the Patties agrell"asfollDws:
1. N~MNinhM- CIty TW PR! RAt~A
The parties aarec that the City of iIha1l continue its we of the
Regional Syatem for tile dispokl of its municipal solid waste, which shall be ot a type
acncral1y accepted for disposal at munlc:ipal Illndfllls. The City agrees to pay a 'Base Fee
for use of the Regional System of SiX1)'-five DOllars ($6S .00) pee ton of lIOlid waste delivered
(the "Base Fee") for a periocl of three (3) years from the effective date of this Aireement
(the "Base Period").
Durina the Base P~ocl. the Base Fee shall be increased by the Adjusted CPt The
Adjusted CPt will be in accordance with the Consumer Price Index for tile then current
year. which is applicable to the San Dieio Urban Area, ,minus the CPt effective on
.1994.
2. Imu. '
The term ot this Agreement shall be for a period of three (3) years from the
Effective Data of this AgnlemonL
3. ~Ily'. Conllnulftll Obllutlons 10 Romain wllh Syd..m.
A. Conditional MembershiD Obliption.
On or before three (3) years from the Effective Date, the Authority may
reduce the Base Fee to Forty-eiaht OoIlars ($48) per ton or leu (the
.Reduced Fee"); provided however, that the Reduced Fee may, at the election
of the Authority. include a S ~ increase from the Forty~iiht Dollar ($48)
amount In accordance with actual changes in the costs of operatina and
c_,__, " i'~ ~," O~i\inl-'the-bgional System. I,~~d.,rd ::'d,,',', J1',_;
--~ .-.".' .. .....~_. ,..,. _........,.. -,--... -' .-.-, "'-I:"~' -" .~.......... --,- ~.. -~....,. ~-:. ,-,,',.. -..., -.~
B. Noti~ af Sl'!ttil\1 af TIp Fee Rate_
Authority aba11 serve written notice to City of the Reduced Fee and the
exteDdccI Ccml tip fee applicable to services to be pro~ded under this
Ap:c:ment for the subsequent fourth (4") year by not later than sixty (60)
, ~p!'ior_~_~,tef!l\l.natlon dateof.t!le three (3).ycar ~rm. ..0. hO ~__-::_
2
c1t/!J- /Y
BO/~O'd 110'ON Ol:Zt ~6'6Z 6n~
~lI~DHln~ 31S~~ GIlDS
C. Termination BAoM OIl Hither Tip Fee.
In the event that the Authority has not served the nodee provided for in
subparagnpb B by the date sixty (60) days pdor to the termination elate or
this Ap'eement, all obligations and rights as set forth in this Aareement shall
then automatically terminate.
D. Redu...... Fee AclIiev.MICitv Membership, or Ten Yl!!aI' Extension.
On notice by the Authority that the reduced fee has been achieved either:
1. City sba1l notit'y the Authority of its decisioll tQ become
a voting member of the Authority ill accordance with the
procedures and terms of the JPA Agreement, ,or
2. City and Authority aaree that, this Agn:em'rnt shall
automatically extend for a period of ten (10) years.
B. Tift Pee Revhdon..
1. If the City becomes a voting member of the Authority
the tip-fee sba1l be the fee paid by the voting members
of the Authority and this AJreement shall terminate.
2.
If the A~ment is extended for ten (10) years, then the
Base Fee Shall be adjustAld to the sum of the Reduced
Fee plus Ten Dollars per ton ($10), which amount shall
be paid by City during the fourth year following the
Effective Date. Thereafter, the Base Fee shall be the
sum of the Reduced Fee plus Ten Dollars per ton ($IO)
plus the CPl.
~~~~~~l~b ~l;~~ Ji~~~
3(./..::.....;,; ........; -',\ 1:~(;~ '1Jo'o;: ""'0
.,-"- .-. ,.....,... - .,... ,-----,.
3:-' 'ThOlip fee'may be' ru~ adjustCd by the 7luthOrity."
from time to time during the extended tcnn as necessary
to reflect costs from changes in federal, slate or local
law or occurrina due to · force ml\leure" events, includina
but DOt limited to acts of God, natural disasters, or other
catastrophic events.
.f.
.,_..___ ...J"_'.._' '.
3
) YV - /7
BOlvO'd 110'oN 11:~I v6'6~ 6n~
AII~DHln~ 31S~~ GIlDS
F. City Nnll"", of Decbion
City shall notify the Authority In writing at leut thirty (30) days prior 10 the
lcrmillation of this Asreemenl of lis clecIslon to either become a voting
member of the Authority or to continue use of the Rqional System under the
extended term of this Acreement. II City elects to become a member of the
Authority, It shall complete proceedings to joiii the Authority durin& the thirty
(30) day period following the Upiratillll date of thla Agreement.
G. Periodic TTnmla .
'l1Ie Authority aarees to PIl!plIIe Rqional System Reports, which shall be
delivered 10 City OIl or before July 30 of each year. Each Reaional System
Report shall identify the financial status of the Reaional System and provide
detailed information as 10 the progress of the -Authority In reaching the
Reduced Fee. The Regional System Report shall be prepared in ~~rdance
with the audltrequircll1enb .of the JPA Agreement. The Authority shall
prepare prompt and complete responllCS to questions received from City with
respect 10 any Regional System Report.
4. tlty'. Waste }1ow.
City agrees to deliver, or arrange to have delivered, all acceptable waste aenerated
within its municipal boundaries to Authorlty'slCounty'. Iystem facilities.
A. Chan~e In Law.
II a chanae or Interpretation In applicable law impairs or precludes either
Party from complying with thiI Section, such Party shall UIllI its best efforts to
the extent practicable to effectuate executive, legislative or judicial change in
or relief from said change of law 10 as to enable City to lawfully resume this
e (.i _ j c ,. ~ . ~.', IOblt88tiOJi 'to:-delf* waste to 'I.tem facilitics. i,_ ~"~--L,-.j .oJ. ;,,': J C,_ ~
.~~. ,. ........ .'..... _. .......,. "-.1 _ _- .-.... - ~- .....,. --', ,"" . - ..:' ......- .-... " +--- .
B, TnMmniflcation .
Authority aarees to indemnify City from the reasonable costs, = and
expenses incurred in defending any leaal challenge brought to eI\loln the
enforcement of Section 4 0( this Agreement.
~A'~.. ,_,~_,,,_ __',_ '
4
,). 1/ {S - d-- ()
BO/SO'd 110.ON tl:lt ~6'6l 6n~
AII~DHln~ 31S~~ GIlDS
C. Bxcegtlon for Rel;yclln, Activities.
Notwithstanding ~ything in this Seetion to th~ contrary. City shall have the
ri&ht 10 rc:cyclc Uly IOlid waste by Uly means IC1ccted by City, and any such
recycled maleria1 llhall be excluded from this directed waste flow contw:tual
obligation.
5. Authorltv'.Servlce Oblhl.tioDl.
Authority, throuah its JPA Agreement powcn, will provide, or cause to be provided.
the service of manaacment, handling and disposal of all 80Iidwaste generated by its
members and J\OIl-mcmbcrs choosin& to contract for system s:rvil:CS. ,
Nothing in this A&n:emcnt shall be deemed to prohibit or preclude Authority from
providing ~t, handling and dispolal of solid waste generated outside the County
reaion, or preclude the dispoul of system directed wute at disposal facilities outside the
region.
In the event. that a change in applicable law impairs or precludes the Authority' from
complying with this obligation, the Authority shall use its best efforts. to thecxtcnt
practicable, to effectuate executive, legislative or illdicial change' in or mlier. from the
applicability of such .Iaw so as to cnablethe, Authority .Iaw(ully to resume compliance with
this obligation as soon as possible fo1lowing the change in applicable law. The exercise of
such best efforts by the Authority unclei' such circumstances shall be deemed to be sufficient
to satisfy this obligation.
6. SevenhlUtv.
In the event that a IUbsllIntive provision of this Agreement shall be determined to
be invalid. l11ega! or unenforceable in Illy respect, the Parties hereto shall negotiate in good
faith such amendments, modifications or IUpplements to this Agreement or such other
"u.~ ~appropriate <Qi:t1oii '.' tIia1f,',,*, the maximum extent practicabWi-iR-,-1ijllt ::or;"iichi~ -'~c
.. dCtenniriailori;' implemC'nt' anolivicffca tohiniCiitioosofthe'parUca"as rcflccteif hemn.'"..
If neaotladonl when held in good faith fall, the Parties witt have the right to terminate this
Agreement.
7. Notices.
...,4.11 oo.tices.~~or ~~ punuant to this A&rcenKl!It shall be Inwriting,._N.!. .
notices, demands and requests to be sent to any Party shall be deemed to have been;
properly Jiven or served 011 the date actually received, It personally served or deposited hi
the United States mail. addressecI to such Party, postage prepaid, rcglstcrl!d or certified with
return receipt requested, at the addresses iclcntified below.
s
02'/LJ- ,,2/
BO/90'd ttO.ON It:Zt ~6'6Z 6n~
A1I~DHln~ 31S~~ GIlDS
TO AtJTHORlTY:
San Dieco Solid Waste Authority
Atlention: Mr. Tom Webster
Interim General Manager
9621 Ridgehaven Court
San Diego, CA 92123
TO Cln':
S. AttorneYS' F_.
In the event of any action or proceecIlng at law or in equity between Authority and
City to enforce any provision of this Agreement or to protect or establish any right or
remedy of Authority or City, the unsuccessful party to such action or proceeding shall pay
to the prevailing party, all coats and expenses, including without limitation, reasonable
attorneys' and paraJeaals' fees and expenses, Incurred in such action or proceeding and in
any appeal in conneCtion therewith by such prevailin& party, whether or not such action,
proceeding or appeal is prosccutedto judgment or other final determinalion, together with
all coats of enforcement 'and/or collection of any judgment or other relief.
t. EntIre AlIl'CCment.
This A&recmcnt, together with any other written document referred to or
contemplated herein, embodies the entire Agreement and understanding between the Parties
relating to the subject matter hereto and may be modified only by written agreement signed
by all of the Parties.
10. Audlorlty to Exeftlte.
c >,~::"" ; .~Bach ifafti.tbrf~artanls"'d1at it has the authority to enter into,-tllis ~.~ul, Ci~ -,_c
....' ".,' ........._..... ',' ..... "'!"..- >'r-" ,~,-'" '-, -~! - . .......'. -.~, ' .... ..,~~.._,..,....~ -", "- ..- '-,'
11. lJeadlnp.
'The captions and beadin&s in this Agreement ale for oonvenience only and shall not
define or limit the provisions hereof.
12. Wal!,~~. .
No breach of any provision hcrcln can be waived unless in writing. Waiver or any
one breach of any provision herein shalIllOt be deemed to be a waiver or any other breach
of the same or other provision hereof.
6
cJ '11J - 02 d-
BOIlO"d 110'ON ~l:Zl V6'6Z 6n~
A1I~DHln~ 31S~~ GIlDS
13. R"......tles.
AI1 Parties hmeto shall have the right to <:ommeJlCe any action at law or equity,
including specific pedormance. to remedy a bleaCh of the terml herein. provided that
neither Party shall have the ri,ht to terminate this Agreement except u provided herein.
, IN wrrNESS WBEREOJI'. the Authority and the City havo signed this
Agreement as or this date Ant IICt forth above.
AtmlORlTYI
SAN DIEGO SOLID WASTEAUTHORlTY
By
Chairman
CITY:
CITY OF
By
c:".1 ... :; '2 ;'~ '-' ' --- ,\ ~ ~ ; ,,~ "J..;;' 0.;,.. ~ .~,t
td"~'-::'.~..i:',':; .:...1..:.0.', CI~-h....j
".'-.....-..'''...._-:'lI"._
.., -.. --...... -.,..,.-.. ---.....-,-- ._'. .... " ..-- '''..
7
c1L/tJ -,).3
_. ~ "_ ,..' _.,._~. ,_ .__ .0.
eO/BO'd llO'ON ~l:lt P6'6l 6n~
..."._k -'..-.-,-'.~-
^lI~OHln~ 31S~~ GIlOS
~f!f/02i
PACKER 1
EXCLUSIVE DOUBLE
DIAMOND,
EXTENDABLE
CONTAINER ARMS
Packer 1 incorporates a
patented double container
attachment system to
provide fully automated,
semi-automated or manual
residential or commercial
collection.
An extendable loading
arm lifts single or double
plastic containers ranging
from 60- to 95-gallon capac-
ity and quickly and quietly
empties them into Packer 1 's
detachable container body.
It also serves commercial
containers up to a 2-cubic
yard capacity.
LOW PROFILE CAB
INCREASES VISIBILITY,
MINIMIZES OPERATOR
FATIGUE
Packer 1 's low profile cab
provides unparalleled oper-
atorvisibility and accessi-
bility. Ajoystickcontrol
provides automated resi-
dential or commercial col-
lection with the operator
never leaving the vehicle
cab. Easy entry cabs, with
optional dual controls and
the closeness of front-load-
ing container attachments
speed semi-automated
and manual residential
collection.
Double diamond container attachments on extendable arms handle dual
90 gallon containers for quick, quiet service.
Quick-change bodies mount and dismount from the vertical position,
eliminate costly transfer stations and support equipment.
DETACHABLE 22-YARD
BODIES PROVIDE ON-
THE-ROUTE EXCHANGE
MINIMIZES STREET
WEAR
Packer 1 's lightweight,
short wheelbase and low
profile front-loading design
eliminates wear on residen-
tial streets and alleys, even
in areas served by overhead
utilities.
Packer 1 is clearly a revo-
lutionary municipal waste
collection vehicle designed
to most economically serve
the changing needs of the
Nineties and beyond.
Exclusive vertical exchange
of enclosed 22-<:ubic yard
body/containers between
collection and transfervehi-
cles is accomplished in
compact exchange areas
strategically situated along
collection routes.
Packer 1 stays on the
route, doing what it is
designed to do, rather than
consume valuable collec-
tion time travelling to and
from distant transfer sta-
tions, process centers or
sanitary landfills.
02.'-/!J .-~~
PACKER 2
A BRIDGE FROM
CONVENTIONAL TO
WMS SERVICE
Packer 2 is an all-purpose
companion vehicle incorpo-
rating conventional North
American front-loading
container attachments. It is
designed to use the same
quick-change bodies and to
perform the same services
as Packer 1 without costly
replacement or retrofitting
of existing front-loading
containers. It also accom-
modates oversized and
heavier commercial
containers.
Packer 2 is an ideal intro-
duction to WMS services
in communities heavily
invested in front-loading
containers. It provides an
ideal transition from heav-
ier, less mobile and higher
profile front-loading refuse
vehicles to the fully inte-
grated WMS collection!
transfer system.
a Multiple Service/TranspoJ
,.,'~j~~~~,-,~..t~>:;."iI.i"--,,;; -
Packer 2 features conventional front-loading forks to serve existing containers and handle heavier commercial service
STANDARDIZATION
SAVES MAINTENANCE
DOLLARS
Standardized chassis,
engines, electrical and
hydraulic systems mini-
mize parts inventories and
speed maintenance proce-
dures. Single rear-axle con-
figurations eliminate four
tires per vehicle plus costly
maintenance oftandem
axle systems, saving time
and money for Waste
Management and our
customers.
RETROFIT CONTAINERS
TODAY OR VEHICLES
TOMORROW
Existing containers can
be quickly retrofitted to
accommodate both conven-
tional front-loading forks or
exclusive Packer 1 double
diamond attachments as a
community converts to
WMS service.
Packer 2 and Packer 1
work side-by-side
combining manual, semi-
automated and fully auto-
mated residential and
commercial collection.
Both vehicles use the same
22-yard, detachable con-
JLj.!J -.2&
.~
tainerlbodies. Both are
served by the unique WMS
Transporter.
Whether you opt for
Packer 2 or Packer 1, your
local Waste Management of
North America operating
division can custom tailor
service to meet specific
community needs.
System
WMS
TRANSPORTER
The WMS Transporter is
perhaps the most versatile
urban services vehicle ever
introduced to the North
American municipal
market.
Equipped with a unique
triple action hoist, the WMS
Transporter is capable of
loading and off-loading con-
tainers and special purpose
bodies vertically, horizon-
tally or to and from its
companion three-axle pup
trailer.
With three 22-cubic yard
compacted refuse contain-
ers in place, the WMS Trans-
porter and its trailer carry a
legal 40,000 pound payload.
Three empty containers can
be strategically positioned
along Packer 1 and Packer 2
collection routes or in
exchange areas each day as
filled containers are trans-
ported to distant process or
disposal centers.
Or, the WMS Transporter
can deliver full containers
of dry or liquid commodi-
ties for a variety of urban
uses. With chassis-activated
pumps and power units, the
WMS Transporter can apply
dry or liquid agricultural
supplements, pump reser-
voirs, flush streets and
parking areas, irrigate new
plantings, or pump munici-
pal and industrial contain-
ment areas.
In still other instances,
the WMS Transporter can
deliver up to nine open-top
roll-off containers on its
hoist and pull a tree shred-
deron its trailer hook. It can
be fitted with a detachable
flatbed body for delivery of
light equipment or aban-
doned vehicle removal, or
with dump bodies for street
repairs or parks and recre-
ational use. It can even pick
up and deliver compart-
mentalized recycling con-
tainers for recycling
drop-off centers.
The WMS Transporter
can be quickly converted to
a variety of seasonal and
special ~ervice tasks at a
cost far lower than dedi-
cated chassis with single
purpose, permanently
attached bodies.
If we sound excited" We
are. And, we're Waste Man-
agement, the world's most
experienced urban services
company.
Citizen recycling containers are among the wide range of special service
bodies handled by the multi.purpose WMS Transporter.
With one containerlbody on its hoist and two on its trailer, a WMS Transporter
carries a le9a140,000 pound payload.
The WMS Transporter quickly transfers filled and empty ~ontainerlbodies
on its own trailer for long distance hauls to and from outlYing process and
disposal centers.
;2 t/!5 -;2 7
RI..IG 30'94 01:46PM CITYOFLRME~6m.JNITYSERVlCES
P.5
I
City of La Mesa
Attachment E
. _ :.:~ugust 26. 1994
- .-....... .-..-..., ,',,,-. . ..,- ,
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Coronado
...,'.825~an<1.\i\I~Y....... :.._. . .,~ ,_. _ "" .
.,_~~.o, -2A;.:$21'lAv;~~'_Rr-~'~c-c"~Y"T-.VC:~'-'_'---5
Dear Mayor Herron and Members ot the City Council:
We'ra sGre that you don't agree with the reoent action of the COUl'1ty Solid Waste Joint ,
Powfirs'~uthorlty to penalize non-participating agencies for use of the landfills. - We.
senttlw'attQ.ched letter to each member of the JPAand to each member of their City
Council toexpr~ss our dissatisfaction. If you agree with our sentiment, it would be
usetul for you to do the same thing. Let our fellow elected officials know what you
think.
'..i_._.""......,';",;'..,:. .J!;",4,,,,-,,,,.,+-, ,.........:J......,,--.....,
. .p.
::-.5
If you would like to discuss the malter, please give one of U9 a call.
, .
Thank you.
Slnceraly.
~.6~~~
fluth M. Sterling
Vice Mayor .
Attachment
,~~
Councllmember
8130 ^1,LI$ON I\VI!NUB, P,O. !lOX 937. L/\ MI!5i\. O:;i\LIFORNI^ ll1U44-ll937 I (61(;)) "636llII, FI\X 16lll) 462'7528
4Zll
)Lj!3 -.;2~
RUG 3El '94 Ell' 46PM CITYOFLRMESRCDMMUNITYSERVlCES
P.6
,
DISTRIBUTION:
CIties of:
Carl.bad
Coronado
Chula Vim
EICajon
Enclnlta$
ESCOndldo
Imperial Beach
Oceanside
La Mesa
San Diego
San Marcos
Santee
. ","';;~.,,:...".;___ "i"-...:,.:...,;..t~",~,,,,-~,,,,:""."_;'~_'~;'~ "';:::"_':1""':"'~" ,;~, """","'-r-;:~,',o4'_:,'_~_:"':"""~,-"";;{~." ~..._ ,;...,j.,J"';',~~;,,~,....-...,,'1' ",'-. '.:.' .-..
~_'r:: :~ "9"'. ~t' ('I.I:!;:'V ~ITv':'':-Lqt'''-sr::-:r'~''''-'''{~-''!''s':"'7\'':::-::':S
'="',S
cJ-L/!J ~;2C;
RUG 3~ '94 ~1:44PM CITYOFLRMESRCOMMUNITYSERVICES
P.2
.-
,'{I.tlIt"lIr,..,
. "'I"fr",-,"/.,
\','..;;:::- '~..17
5'- f-, ~-:;>:,,--<;o
. t. '; ,.'/i/i ....> ,j ~ \-
~ \)~:~?F~-~~: :
J@,
.;~; ~",,~:,:-,-,"
{ "'flAt'I-'
City of La Mesa
August 26, 1994
I '"Ii
i ':'The Honorable Pam Slater
---SupeiVlSor; District 3 .-
County of San Diego
1600 Paciflo Highway
San Diego, .CA 92101
Dear Supervisor Slater:
"-,~.,....,,,~.: ",' '-,-,~",,,,,c,,",,,,,,,,,,,'.<.k.........
'..._ '..'l...".~' -',:_ .......... -,.,~,
_._'I'~ ~'.;.';",._.. __~.. . .._".':..'l.,~..."';;'".".______. '"
",.'As-members-of1he:-l"&'Mesa:SUboCommitlee-omSolid Waste, we wish, to bring the,
following. concerns to the atlention of all of our Council colleagues In the regIon.
. F,
OVer'tH~ past several years the County Board of Supervisors has attemptedt~
blaoKmjUolties by threatening to add a $10 surcharge to tipping fees if cities wouldn't
prom!~e'touse County landfills in perpetuity. Do you remember how you felt?- Your
city and ours refused to accept the County's terms. The County could not ~woo' us
with threats and Intimidation.
The 'County began to make some progress on the Issue by inviting the cities to
collaborate on a collective solullon. As a result of that collaboration, your city chose to
make a commitment and ours didn't. We respect your decision. We hope that we
can someday make the same commitment. In the meantime, we hope that you can
respect our declslon.
The County Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority has recently Informed us that unless
we make a full commitment and join the JPA, we are going to be penalized. This new
organlzatloh Is reverting to threats and Intimidation. This tlme, however, the threats
are more severe. The minimum punishment will be a $10,surcharge If we commlt,our
trash for up to thirteen years. The staff of the JPA is unable to tell us the costs if we
don't accept this 'modest' proposal. . Ate we the enemy? Is this a way to entice
regional cooperation and create new partnershIps? These tactics won't work,.
The solid waste system, as run by the County, had no credibility. The only way it
could win back some credibility was to begin to share its' decision-making by forming
the JPA. The JPA'sfltst effortsst cutting the operational costs of the landfills. and
taking a critical look at the N9CRA are a good start. Reverting to the failed County
taetic of blackmailing citIes to get what you want Is counter-productive. Please
reconsider this action and keep the tipping fee at $55 a ton or below for all users.
. . . I
11130 Al.I.ISON A V~UE. P.o. BOX 113'7. l.^ MElSI\, CAl.IFORNIA II 11l44~lO3'7 I (6191 463.661 I. FAX (6 1 g) 0162.'7528
*,Prir'llAd on Rec:vcled PlDer,
. ,
c2L//Y ~J{)
: !;,'G 3l'l '94 01:45PM CITYOFLAMESRCOMMUNITYSERVlCES
._.,.""''"'_..n.......,..._".,. '.,
P.3
_''''~_M''~'.''''
The problems of the solid waste system are eompleK ,and have escalated over time. It will
also take lime to unravel these problems and make the system work again. You are to be
commended for laking a leadel'Bhlp role. As credibility Is re-establlshed, we think other citlllS
will follow your lead. Give the rest of us more time to make the commItment. Don't send us
looking for alternative disposal aRei by charging additional fellS to UN county facilities.
If you would Uke to disoUis this matter, please give one of us II call.
Sincerely,
~ c:...Q-
Ja~uer
Councllmember
Ruth M. Sterling
Vice Mayor
.- '..,._._.,~" ->-. ,. ..-:_,.,;....... ,> ..,.. :~.;_.,...'..l.::,~i. ,,_,,',:>l~._" '..' cj.'_ -.,;i.H
.'_ ~,..'"...........I ..., .._~.;";,-" ::.....~.i." .._~._...._.._,,;;..."-,""'>........-....,"
')'"r:: ':"''''1 "~4- ?~.. 4:.r.'..... C!T'..~':'..:-'---q~~-'3C~n~'1y._!'~I..,--'?C'r.:-..","r:-::s
r.3
.."..'
.
;<t/!5 -' J /
RUG 30 '94 01' 45PM CITYOFLRMESRCOMMUNITYSERVlCES
P.4
DISTRIBUTION:
Pam Slater, Chair, Board of Supervisors
Cities of:
Del Mar
Lemon Grove
National City
Powliy
Solana Beach
Vista
111 'u,:. " :~'_;':'~"''''''__'''''';''''';'':'';;;':;'''~'''':'''''~'-:''M,,'''li':,_'''''''';:.IIA','':''~-,:~;~':";j'-'f'" ;j;_ ',:.;;",-,.<;; :..,........,-:Wh....',;' :....-IK.,"';'i:,..;.',',.......;l;4*-.;-,. ,.Iirk ....._ I~ ":;;.':;:;~~;I-'" "t,:, .\: '".,',C, -_.
?I_'-:; -:--~ ..~ ?t ,1.':':"'V '::"'!TY~::-!....Rf":-s'"=',--:c~l"v. !'''I-yS~--:l\,'TT'r.:S
..._--~
c ,
. ",,""
-
,
:11lJ - 3;z