Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 2 DUMP GATE FEE 07-19-82DATE: TO: lc'ROM: SUBJECT: July 14, 1982 REPORTS No. 2 7-19-82 inter-Corn HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BILL HUSTON, CITY MANAGER ESTABLISHMENT OF A GATE FEE AT DUMP SITES BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS At its July 13, 1982 meeting, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to establish a $7.00 per ton gate fee at County operated dump sites effective October 1982. The Board took the action after receiving a solid waste management study from its consultant on July 8, 1982. The City of Tustin, as well as all other Orange County cities, also received the report, which is approximately 3 inches thick, on Thursday afternoon, July 8. On Friday afternoon, the City received a copy of County Staff's recommendations with regard to implementation of the consultant's report. The Orange County City Manager's Association met on Monday morning, July 12, and all twenty six cities agreed that the Orange County Division of the League of Cities should recommend the following to the Board of Supervisors: That a gate fee is needed. e That a fee should be set by January 1, 1983 after the County consults with all cities. 3. That the fee be implemented on July 1, 1983. The cities took this position si.nce they had no opportunity to review the report. Despite the above position of the cities and the appearance of approximately 50 city officials at the Board meeting, the Board voted to proceed with the gate fee. The cities are objecting on the basis of the following points: A1 though cities were represented on an advisory committee which assisted the County's consultant, the committee had no oportunity to review and comment upon County staff's recommendations. In fact, the committee was told that its purpose was to advise County staff and not to provide recommendations. e The consultant recommended a gate fee of $4.90 per ton. Coun~ staff increased it to $7.00 per ton with no supportive information other than an explanation that the additional money is needed to fund future costs of the solid waste program. Page t~o e The consultant's report presented options with regard to financing of the County's solid waste program, yet the cities had no opportunity to review them and consult with the County. Without any warning that the County intended to adopt a fee this soon, no City made provision for the cost in their budget and/or franchise trash collection fee. Some cities will have to absorb the cost and others will have to re-open negotiations with their franchise hauler. The consultant's report stressed the need for an aggressive public information and participation program in conjunction with adoption of the solid waste program. The Board of Supervisor's totally ignored this particular recommendation. Cities do not dispute the need for a gate fee. They do dispute the manner in which the County adopted the fee which totally ignored the practical impact upon cities. It is interesting to note that the County General Fund expenses will be reduced bY at least ten million dollars in 1982-83, as a result of the Board's action. Since the City of Tustin pays the cost of residential trash collection directly from the General Fund, based upon an October l, 1982 effective date for the gate fee, the City will incur an additional General Fund expense of $45,000 in 198243. The annualized additional cost will be $60,000, which is a 27% increase in the cost of residential trash collection. This point was made to the BoarU of Supervisors in a letter from the Mayor which was hand delivered to all Board members prior to the Board meeting. A copy of the letter is attached. A second issue which Tustin is particularly affected by is the failure of the solid waste plan to adequately address toxic waste disposal. The County report on toxic waste disposal sites last Fall was challenged by the City because it failed to fully evaluate the implications of locating a toxic waste disposal site in Tustin. After pointing out the discrepancies to the County, the Board of Supervisors responded that this matter would be fully evaluated through the solid waste plan. The attached memorandum from the Director of Community Development points out that the solid waste plan merely reiterates the general criteria which should be used in locating a toxic waste disposal site. The plan does not address the deficiencies of the County's prior report and does nothing to respond to the City's request that toxic waste disposal be an integral component of the solid waste study. The County staff report which accompanied the solid waste plan merely recommended that the Director of the County General Services Agency work with the Solid Waste Committee (to be appointed by thq Board of Supervisors) in locating an appropriate site for a County operated toxic w~ste disposal site. At this point, the City can only monitor what the County does with regard to locating a toxic waste disposal site (refer to the recommendation of the Community Development Director's attached report). Page three With regard to the 9ato fee, the Steering Committee of the Orange Cou'nty Division of the League of Cities has requested the City Manager's Association to formulate a recommendation to the Committee concerning what action should be taken, including a. lawsuit, to prevent the County from implementing the $7.00 per ton gate fee. I will keep the Council advised as more information is available. BILL HUSTON, City Manager WH:dmt attachments July 12, 1982 The Honorable Thomas F. Riley O.C. Board of Supervisors 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Aha, CA 92701 Dear Supervisor Riley: On behalf of the Tustin City Council, I urge the Board of Supervisors to delay adoption of the solid waste management gate fee. The City of Tustin is supportive of the need to establish a fee system to cover the cost of the solid waste management program. However, we are deeply disturbed about the lack of opportunity to review the report which was received at City Hall only last Thursday. Surely, the Board would be concerned about the input of all cities which can only be forthcoming after a reasonable opportunity to examine the report. The City of Tustin pays the cost of residential trash service directly from its General Fund. If the Board adopts the staff recommendation of a seven (7) dollar per ton gate fee, the cost of the City's contract with SCA of Orange County will increase 27% in 1982-83. The City's preliminary budget for 1982-83 does not include monies to cover this cost since we had no idea that the County was contemplating.the implementation of a fee this soon and as high as is proposed. The City agrees with the position of the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities which is: Supportive of establishing a fee. Establishing a fee by January l, ~983 after consultation with all ci ti es. 3. Implementation of the fee on duly 1, 1983. A second issue which we are concerned about is the failure of the report to adequate~ly address toxic waste disposal. As the Board will recall, County staff had recommended last year that a toxic waste transfer station be located in Tustin. Only after we objected about the inaccuracy of the County's report upon which that recommendation was based, did the Board defer action'. ~e were lead to believe that the solid waste management study would thoroughly evaluate the criteria to be used in determining the appropriate location for toxic waste disposal sites. The report does not $00 Centennial h)ay * Tu~tin, California 92680 * (714J 544-8890 Board of Supervisors July k2, k982 page tvm address this issue sufficiently, but farmer, reco~m~ends that the Oirecl~0r of the General Services Agency locate an appropriate site. I cannot stress enough our opposition to this approach to a highly sensitive issue. County staff has apparently failed to respond to a BoarU directive that toxic - waste disposal be an integral component of the solid waste study. Again, I urge the Board to delay action on the gate fee and request that toxic waste be a matter of an indepth analysis by the County. RICHARD B. KnGAR, Mayor RB:WH:dmt DATE: TO: · FROM: S UBJ ECT July 12, 1982 Inter-Corn Bill Huston, City Manager Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Director Addressing of Hazardous Liquid Waste Disposal in the Final Report of the "Solid Waste Management System to the County of Orange" The overall issue of toxic/hazardous waste was addressed in generalities on a total county basis. The need for transfer facilities was reiterated (two to four low-technology facilities). The general areas for such facilities were given by zip code as 92626, 92707, 92631, 92647 and 92705. The last, 92705, would encompass the site previously indicated on Bell Avenue in Tustin. The report states, "Additional examination will be necessary to identify locations." The report recognized opposition from local citizen groups to such facilities and chided them for opposition due to their lack of enlightenment: "What the public in general fails to realize is that a well-planned and operated transfer system can alleviate potential health problems by providing a means of more economically removing waste from the local environment." The report also reaffirms that Tustin per se is not a major 'producer of such wastes, but the top three include neighboring south Santa Aha, Fullerton and Costa Mesa (together equal 67% of all hazardous wastes generated). The report restated the transfer site locational criteria: The property must be industrially zoned. Industrial facilities or industrially zoned land must border the property on four sides. Transfer operations must be compatible.with current land use in the immediate area. The site must be located in an area with minimum potential for flooding. The property must not be located near schools, playgrounds, recreation centers, or other areas frequented by children and teenagers. Freeway access must be available in close proximity to the site. The terrain should be relatively level. Bill Huston July 12, 1982 Page 2 The station must be situated in close proximity to major generating areas. Ingress and egress must accommodate large trucks. The property must be at least one mile from active faults. The report co~letely si de-stepped our specific concern and has relegated it to future consideration. The specific recommendation of the County General Services Agency sends the issue back to GSA staff and the Waste Management Commission: "Instruct the Director of GSA, in cooperation with the Waste Management Commission, to begin site studies for location of a toxic waste transfer station to accomodate the small generator of toxic wastes. The station will be for transfer only and will accept only small containers of waste." Since we recognize that site studies by the County have in reality been conducted, our mission would be to assure that a final decision is not the result of interior administrative decisions of GSA staff quietly brought back at a future date. RECOMMENI)ATI ON Draft letter to Manager GSA, Chairman Waste Management Commission and Board of Supervisors, indicating a desire for receipt of all communications on all matters relating to site analysis and/or selection to both Community Development and City Manager. Further, we be placed on regular mailing list for notification of Commission meetings and agendas. I suggest it be signed by the Mayor. 7-12-82