Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-12-16; City Council; 3548; San Diego Regional Solid Waste Management PlancxTx OF cARLSBn. AGENDA BILL xni.t .al: -- Dept. IId . DATE December �6, 1975 C. Atty. VIFA DEPARTMENT:^ City .Ianayer C. I4gr. Subject: SAi3 DIEGO REGIONAL SOLID WASTE I•lANAGEP3EI.3T PLAN Statement of the: Batter Council previously received conies of the Preliminary San Diego Regional Solid Waste Management Plan, 1976 - 2000, from the Countv of San Diego. The city has received a letter from the County of San Diego requesting Council input and/or comments regarding.iriplementation of the plan. The major recommendations of the plan are the consolidation,of the solid waste disposal within the County structure, changes in the system of financing to greater reliance on user fees and reduced financing by property taxes, and pursuance of a program leading to the construction of a large-scale resource recovery facility by the year 1980. The plan also calls for acquisition of a system of landfills which will guarantee disposal capacity in the County to the year 2000. There aria also alternative proposals in the Financing and, Organization Chapter regarding the form and powers of an advisory ional solid haste organization. body to the proposed keg Input from the various City Councils in San Diego County -will be used by the Task Force to produce an approved plan which must be submitted to the State Solid Waste Management Board by January 1, 1976. The final plan will be distributed for a resolution of approval later in December. A representative from the Solid Waste Management Task Force will be present to answer questions at the Council Meeting. Exhibit Memo to City Manager from Public Works Administrator dated 12-8-75 Recommendation y See Public Works Administrator memo attached. Council action Diego 12-16-75 advisedythatnthe Citcil yeofeCarlsbadthat hagreestlgith the autof Sa horbtive of a Commission. MEMORANDUM December 8, 1975 TO: City Manager FROM: Public Works Administrator SUBJECT: County Solid Waste Management Plan I have reviewed the operative sections of the Plan and concur with its general goals and objectives. However, I think there are a few questions that should be answered before we formally adopt a position with regards to the document. They are: In a Financial and Organizational Goals statement, the goal of the project is to equitably allocate costs of solid waste services. Their indication is that this is to be done by fully covering the costs of collection and disposal by user costs. While this is admirable in that it is perhaps the most directly related source of revenues, it could be perceived as an attempt to get around taxing limitations and reallocating general funds currently spent on this operation to other areas while re-establishing revenues for this operation from user service fees. Under the Collection Goals section, the report appears to support the,mandatory collection of refuse, but perhaps the most worthwhile section in this Goals statement is for the preparation of a contin- gency plan of collection. If we are able to achieve this goal, it may very well circumvent some of the significant problems that have been faced in Los Angeles County with regard to labor problems associated with the collection of refuse. Under the general area of Transportation Goals and Processing and Reuse Goals, the Plan appears to preclude the possibility of muni- cipally -owned facilities and, even if this were not true, the implementation of a site evaluation process could potentially overrule local procedures in selection of a landfill site and/or a reclamation site. Considering our location, our state of develop- ment, the amount of open land and the transportation costs for trans- porting refuse to the sanitary landfills, we may not choose to foreclose on the option of the location of a municipally -owned reclamation facility, energy conservation facility and/or landfill site in this area. Under general statement, the goals and objectives of the report appear to be very good and appear to be sincere effort to achieve the most good for the populace as a whole. The program, however, goes a little deeper into those areas traditionally in the purview r City Manager December 8, 1975 Page Two of local -government than we may choose to agree with and, therefore, a:-, adoption of this program in its final plan stages should include th'e possibility of our withdrawal or non -concurrence with specific sections of the program. Another option not specifically discussed in the preliminary program is the possibility that the County take over all aspects of refuse collection, disposal and financing, allowing the Cities to withdraw from their traditional, roles. t t , Ronald A. Beckman ' RAB/dh ! cc: U/M Dir. S