HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-07-24; City Council; 10734; AUTHORIZATION TO INVESTIGATE ALTERNATIVES TO COUNTY FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL. .*.
.G
.% &-
e ul
M 0,
5
2
.. z 0 E a
G -I
z 3 0 0
ClVOF CARLSBAD - AGENmBILL Wl
AB# /4 q35L TITLE: AUTHORIZATION TO INVESTIGATE DE
Ci' MTG. 7/24/90
c I' DEPT. CA/CM
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
ALTERNATIVES TO COUNTY FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
That the City Council, by motion, authorize staff to ir
the availability of alternatives to the County of San
solid waste disposal services including the possible for
a joint powers agency.
ITEM EXPLANATION
San Diego County's cities unanimously rejected a County 1 sign over control of the waste stream. As directed, we wz
in urging that rejection because the proposal was 'la bad cities and a part of the County's effort to feed the S
incinerator. Our position was and is that Carlsbad will
with the County to meet the region's trash needs on the
fair representation, sound plans, environmental pr
mutuality of obligation, and fiscal responsibility. The (
rejected all that and, instead, is considering issuing
finance the estimated $300 million cost of construc incinerator. The County, to do that, must find othei
controlling the trash stream. They have proposed a n prohibiting a city from using any of the County's so facilities without giving up control of its waste si
accepting the obligation to pay whatever charges the Cour necessary. A copy of the policy is attached as Exhik subcommittee of the Board is also actively negotiating P to punish cities that refuse to send their trash to the in by imposing substantially higher waste disposal fees cities than would otherwise apply. A copy of the draft
with NCRRA is attached as Exhibit B.
The County's plans to finance the incinerator will
significant increases in tipping fees which will directly
into substantial increases in the trash rates paid by our Tip fee increases are inevitable since the County's curre without the incinerator, shows a projected fee of $45 a t
year 2000. (See Exhibit C) . Estimated debt service and costs for the incinerator could double that figure. If P
continue to effectively oppose the incinerator and try t
our citizens against that type of increase, staff belie necessary to investigate alternatives to County service. also advisable since the County's efforts to site a Nor
environmental impact report may be inadequate. The (
dealing with that problem by separating the general plan from the landfill permits which means there will be su
delays and a second round of environmental review a1
hearings before there is any prospect of beginning constr a landfill.
landfill have recently become problematic. It aPF
0 e ..
-. . .- Agenda Bill # /4 794 Page 2
It is, therefore, recommended that the City Council, b direct staff to investigate alternatives for trash ser both inside and outside the County that may be available f governmental agencies or the private sector to determine are available alternatives to what San Diego County can c is further recommended that the alternatives to be inv include the formation of a joint powers agency among i cities as a possible provider of solid waste services.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A - Proposed waste stream control policy
Exhibit B - Draft agreement
Exhibit C - Tip fee projections Exhibit D - "Why Every City Should Be Against the Trash
-~olj3)rv OF SAN DIEGO, CALiFmJiA p :5
-. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY
To establish a policy which ensures a revenue stream for funding regional
vias te fa c i 1 i ti e s .
The County's existing landfill capacity is projected to be exhausted by
As part of the commitment .to integrated waste management to reduce volu
waste delivered to County landfills, the County has developed programs for
reduction ai waste, recycling, and transformation of waste to energy. tic
these programs will not eliminate the need for additional landfills and t
stations to handle this region's waste.
Bringing on line this necessary capacity is expensive and will require t;
Bonding requires an aggressive capital comni tment which the County could not
without zssurance that a funding source would be available to reti
indebtedness.
A guaranteed waste stream, provided by-- incorporated cities Hi thin the
would provide necessary revenues to the Solid Uaste Enterprise Fund (SI
retire bond indebtedness. SIiEF was established in 1981-02 to maintain and uaste disposal facilities through tipping fees collected at landfills,
fees from licensed haulers, using County facilit-ies, and fr'orn leases of En1
Fund property. However, cGrrent revenues funding SWEF are not guaranteed cities zgree to direct the waste stream from the poi'nt of. collection wh
financing is being retired.
Provided that the County can locate and fund new waste management fac
the cities would assign their responsibility for waste disposal io the
rather than to private haulers as under current practices. Thus, the Coun
assure limited responsibility for waste management on behalf of the
responsibility for disposing of cities' waste would be contingent upon the
ability to develop disposal facilities to handle the waste. In this reGarc would cornit to pay a system-wide tipping fee and guarantee a source of
for was:e hand1 ing facilities.
Iloreover, access to new waste disposal facilities funded by the County
conditional upon an agreement by cities assigning their waste stream to ti-
fron the source of collection.
,-
. ..
CO!%Y OF SAN DIEGO, CALlFR4IA.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY
Policy Subject Number
Uaste Stream Control
Pol icy
It is the policy of the Board of Supervisors to:
1. Enter into long-term agreecents with municipalities which allow the
to direct the waste, cormit the cities to pay a system-wide tipping if
guarantee a source of payment for waste handling facilities continger
the County's ability to develop facilities to handle the waste.
2. Limit access to new waste facilities to those cities participating ii
stream control and having a signed agreement with the County.
3. Fund new facilities on a system-wide funding basis.
Scnsei Date
t '$ . :
e#-:. -# _-
Section 10.18. Disposal Fee Covenant. The Count] covenants to charge a fee for disposal of waste at the Facil
no higher than the disposal fee charged at any County-owned Landfill that may, under Applicable Law, receive non-hazardc
Section 10.19. Compliance with ADDlicable Law; Otl
(a) Atwlicable Law. The Company agrees that in
Requirements.
- -performing its obligations under this Agreement it:
(1) will comply with Applicable Law in financ constructing, equipping, testing, starting-up completion
operation, maintenance and ownership of the Facility;
(2) will obtain all approvals, consents, perm
(3) will submit a copy of each request to obta or maintain any such approval, consent, permit, license o : authorization to the County at least seven (7) days befor
its intended submission to the appropriate Person to perm
I.? the County to review and comment thereon;
(5) will cause compliance by Subcontractors anc agents with Applicable Law; and
(6) will promptly comply and cause Subcontract0 and agents to comply with requirements of Persons providin insurance under this Agreement.
sUbs@ction is intended solely to create a covenant of the bny.in favor of the County to comply with Applicable Law anc btaln such approvals, consents, permits, licenses and
izations as are required to be obtained by subsection
a)(2)~ and to allocate responsibilities, but it is not
ed to waive any exclusion or exemption from any such
ement of compliance to which the Company would be entitlec absence of this subsection.
-95-
w w _. .I
..
. ..
0 0- d
d& UQDz0-i mmw * 20
.A
CrCCrNNNNNWWWWWSESES~~~~
I I I I II I I I I I II I I I I I I II I I I I I II I I I I I It I I I I Ill 1 I I I I I1 I I I I J II 1 I I t I I1 I I I I I 11 I I I I II I1 I I1 II I I I IllIIlIIIl I I I I I1 I I I I Ill I I I I I1 I I I I Ill I I I I I1 I I I I Ill I I I1 I I I I Ill I I
ll I I I II I1 1 I
II I I II 1 I
Ill I JlII
II I I
II I I
IIII IIII II I I II I I IIII
IIII
II I I Ill1 IIII I1 I I II I I II J I
II I I II I I II 1 I 11 I I II I I Ill I Ill I
II I I
1
a m ,. ,t
.. WHY EVERY CITY SHOULD BE AGAINST THE TmSH PLANT
Prepared by the Cities of Encinitas,
Carlsbad, and Escondido-Based upon RE(
Best Available Information and Estimates, June 1990 JUL
BASIC BACKGROUND FACTS: c In CITY c
1. The County currently has 5 active landfills and 10 complt
2. Approximate tons of waste projected for the County's 9r
3. Current County Tipping Fee: $18.50/ton.
4.
landfills.
waste stream: 2 f 506 f 115'.
Projected County 90-91 Revenue from Solid Waste Tipping Fc
$44 f 438,4452.
5. Money currently held by County in Enterprise Fund for
6. Projected cost for all proposed North County solid wt
projects without trash plant : $48 f 000 f OO04. This incli all of the following:
Trash Plant: $1 f 250 f 0013.
A. 3 new North County Landfills, acquisition
B. San Marcos Landfill Expansion;
C. 7 North County Transfer Stations
County projected tipping fee increase without the Trash P and with only a portion of their other proposed projects
$47.OO/ton by 199g5.
development;
7.
0 m . . .( ..
-. TRASH PLANT FACTS:
8. Projected Construction and Development Cost of Trash Plant latest draft proposed county contract:
Amount of Waste projected to be removed from the waste st? by the trash plant: 322,864 tons/yr7.
9. Projected direct Cost to process the above waste: $40.00/t
10. Amount of subsidy from SDG&E Contract to trash pli
$13,241,;00/year and $317,790,000 over the life of contract. This equates to a subsidy of $41 for every tor trash removed from the waste stream by the Trash Plant i
all rate payers in the County will pay.
Projected 1999 cost to dispose of waste under county plan 1
the trash plant, to be spread through the entire county: 2
per ton! [$47.00 (projected Tipping Fee) + $40 (projec
processing and financing cost) + $41 (electrical subsidy;
$224,842,0006.
8.
11.
CONCLUSIONS:
THE TRASH PLANT IS NOT COST EFFECTIVE!
1. The Trash Plant represents approximately $81, p: of the $128/ton solid waste cost in 1999, or 631
the total. Yet, the trash plant will handle at I only 13% of the trash.
The cost' of disposal at the trashIglant is five t:
greater than other alternatives. 2.
. . .> 0 e
. .- 1. From County Proposed 1990-91 Solid Waste Enterprise Budget. North County Cities (approximately) 983,000 tons/year South County cities without the City of San Diego (approximat
$716,000. City of San Diego (approximately) 1,874,000 tons/
and unincorporated County (approximately) 419,000 tons/year.
2. Ibid
3. Ibid
4. From County Staff projections presented at the Solid I?
Industry Committee Meeting regarding the proposed Solid W
Enterprise Fund 1990-91 Budget.
5. From county staff cost projections presented at the SI
Waste Industry Committee Meeting regarding the proposed Solid W, Enterprise Fund 1990-91 Budget and assuming the issuance of 11
million dollars in bonds for:
1 North County Landfill,
1 North County Transfer Station and
San Marcos Landfill Expansion
6. This figure does not include the operating and mainten, cost of the facility. Although these are the figures from
proposed contract, rumors are that the costs are much higher.
7. The amount of trash removed = 342,576 tons/year(amc recycled or burned) - 19,712 tons/year (amount of ash general
= 322,864 tons/year. In other words, even though the capacit]
the plant is for 561,500 tons/year, the Plant only removes 322
tons/year from the waste stream.
8. The cost per ton for construction and development ($224,842,000/24 year initial tern) / 322,864 tons = $29.02/1
If the County must borrow $40,000,000 [$224,842,000 (projec cost) - $185,000,000(State Bonds)] at an assumed interest ratt
8.5%, then they will pay approximately $3,O0OI000/year in f inanc costs. this will equal $81,600,000 over the initial 24 year i of the contract. $3,000,000/year / 322,864 tons/year = $10.50/1
Not including operating and maintenance costs, the reali: minimum processing cost is therefore $29.02/ton + $10.50/tc
$40/ton, assuming that the pro-jected costs in the proposed conti
are accurate and that the State bonds are released to applicant. Note: These costs do not include any provision disposal of the ash, should it be deemed to be hazardous.
9. Assuming that SDG&E could pay 2.7 cents/kwh for electric
but under the Trash Plant contract will be paying approximately
cents/kwh, the subsidy is 5.1 cents/kwh. 5.1 cents/kwl 259,632,000 kwh/yr at maximum production under the propc contract results in $13,241,200 for an initial contract term 0:
years.
’ *< e a
. _-
lo. These calculations were based on the costs projected in -
proposed contract. If the $225 million construction q
development cost is low (numbers in the $300 million plus range q
being discussed) you can add approximately $lO/ton for every million in bonds that must be sold.
Citend.296
Lu3L 0 rvIT)U.LY AAIIl'IUUJiU V.
TOTAL. COUNTY WASTE = 2, 506,115 TONS/YUQ
e , . .(
. i-
~ii other options
2,183,251
Tzash Plant
5225.8
Tzash Plant
322,864
S4S.O
WASTE (TOHSJYM) COST (UI5~1cr;s)
>: ..
0 0 a. .I
July 24, 1990
TO: Carlsbad City Council
From: Tom Erwin 7703 Garboso Place
Carlsbad, CA. 92009
RE: AB #10,734 Authorization to investigate alternatives to County solid waste disposal.
As a long time opponent of the proposed San Marcos incir
I ask that you authorize staff to investigate the options an(
alternatives available to us if we choose not to go along wi-
the County.
The County is currently embracing a waste plan which ha:
potential for being an environmental and financial disaster.
commission studies, then don't read them. They propose land1
over Aquifers and near drainage basins, and they want to buil
massive trash burning incinerator near residential areas.
Additionally the County has decided to ignore both the
spirit and the law of AB 939, the "California Integrated Was1
Management Act of 1989", and continue down their questionablc
path. The County has been unable to sell their plan to the <
so now they are attempting to muscle it through.
If we have no alternatives or options we are committing
selves to be the victims of the County's latest whim. We mL
find out what options and alternatives are available to us.
Sincerely yours, -
'e
'Q, %;%"a 22 82 3 8 a*% @ Q, Q, 4 Q \ 32 8.2 8qh Q%b Q.$.L,% 2cph .Oh+ c-=o%!$ .:+ $3 cr,@%T 3 r= '402 .i= ecr,zcr,Q, a, a ha" + +%Q.&OQ -Q 4% Q 8 cp
,'$ 2 E% bo 3s 3 c Q, q- -4 38: !J-::z 3 8 !jq e E; o:Gj%*22 O%;iW, E
0 QAW: h.0 Q,qp*oc bo E.BQQ,'l?.,t, 4 @ s 0 $ $$@q g
3 + w.5 ,..a: * ke 8 9 q 2.3 8" t= 3 ZQ p" 9 Q.2i 0
.2: Q r= Qc Q"ct.2 4WQm b @.(.g! $2 4a a0 4 3 Q 09 o&gz: E a -2 e E.%"
5-24 g k*g h $52 E-ggs *3 cr,EQ,,q 0.2 4 4 c.z 304 O.22 32% o"c+ 8" q.I-.p 2.2 ZzZG W.-+45kQ,k
P,~~YQ) 0 8 4*3cpbo Ye b cu c: (q2Q.a 2 0 ".& Qj 2 Q,O% 3 m$:.L, z?% 2 c, x 5 cp c *2 r, cp c, A+ * s &a,
m% ".$*$;a 2% 0 cr, c:s Ob0 :: a%$;$% %Opacq0 9 ,qkJo+4--..sc -q "8 02:
A, h q 34- $c-$42%.5 Q c.9.2 gg.2 Qc3 Q, Q- 9, =f o 92 s-5 20 "a r: +-2cr,*+ 3 *) Q, E 6 Q.+ r: cr, $+ 83 m.2 8 +a $2 r" 8.2 h.2 42 &% E m-4- *%*%-Q U-2 c 4 cb., s r, c;"o" c: r, o Q &.QQ*.QQ+%& I Qk,-Ek a.*$qQ c, 0 4 q Qa- 2J2 qett Q.2 a geha,:O&+qrn 0.2 0o"Qhwo :$$ &Q $*@ 83% .3.&h $4 k 0 tu) -QJ 0 g'"* G4.W -8 WZ30r:L 2 Q, & k.0 QZQ% q Qw-s.'$',AQE%$hQ %.: 0 Q, Qa8%gQag@$, * q*t,-2:s3 $3 C""%3$3.2 8% !p$ ,$w 0 cp e KY *a;.s
-c 0 'Q,~~~%%~2~~~~~.~h~%~gm a, 4c-04 O @.-@ 3s @.&I 8 gg B
r, '3%2 OT3 s o-"a E c 0 %.2.@ sy Q r, 0 Qb 2 A $44 c,&Q Li 3 Q3 Q4Q
hQ,Q Em ~"aEb-$~L3cpbOh-~~S~::Qs-C:QICt*--..h 5.2 5 ?q Q, Q, % bU$ cph 2 Qcp 3 2;- Q q Q a,? 0 3 ZZk p; 84 p+p*.;j @:&.@$ g
Oh%+ Q.r, Q, 0.1 0, s 8 E sr: m'c: (.;E E6-U 0% E& $$&$a hG44$"ct -2 Q.z+ 1 'v.%.$.% 282 8*4 &b2 8*s$*qa4 Q E.%% E* 2.s 4 @ %28ZQ @.bok 3 5 cr,Q Q3 4 9 *sa, - - 9+ E g O E- 0- h *w 0 3 cp g%2 wqq o 8 &g p9 0 k E 8 E 0) 0 p, A0 8 2 2 QQ$om 2Q%bO2 a mQr, c3 Q, 3 E 2 8 2 a, - cp QCU 0% % a,%q% cph OLQ, 0 % c: cpLQ&'Q c,
*~O~~~ar-.OC)mo4c;1m~u,(0bQ)Q,o~~ *u,abQ)mO+am*u,ab 4*-*-+-*~~~~a~~~aaa~mmmm~mmm
'm 9 -2QU2 .OCkO
-h- 2 p2
4.: 3 4a Q,
hr:
5 .'" +y Q h%
Q, q E
$4 2 -2QJa3
$U 0 0 Q
1 r, m I
3 a,Q, Q.23 z Q,+
4b 4 Q =J w q- 0 cp - QQ
"E
cs2? c: \- cp %4cr,- -*%*QJ F: a aJ r, r:
cp Q9 3 e4
0 - 0 - -0.
3% 2 2 2% $Qhh4A4 .:$Q g O- Q cp.g rg';;g"ct-sa, 33 I
GG .ha q 4% tppl *+-p GQ ct,V 2 qg "ct.,.aq@
$9 d 4 cp %-2
J2 .z Q L4 89dc q:g 32 8% $cp 2 t, Q.5 .% q8 9 g
Q% c,sa,cr,g.b3 Q gw 80 Sk*2$ s+ - sp 9, cp 8-p .(.g! %$pQ
3 38 SfQ 0% &%L?Q,g ea *-a" .$h$ &Q$ 3 -28PV-i 2 b4
h.3344 8 a, 9 9, Q? :$ .o,o % 3% kQ5Q q4 284.5 CaYQ sf gs .@g ma spQ498& :
.P!&O .k-- 9chQgq . 8% 3Q m I s*;p+ .%%+QE%~ c%-zci 4
-4 .a8 ho 6' 3 eSE?.$mQ p+35m0 4 0 EaQ .o 0
Q+cp4Q,Q ocr,q-,q :Z.l.r;o$ - .Q, .- 3 y 2, 9 Qg &*g .. d Q.9 qb %QEG :
h 839 rn3%&3&3 ; Q,E3SQ$2 .2shq.o- 8 $m Q2 +oo $ 9 Obh**g'$d
c: .$ -9 g Q, Qq L( c, sw d 0 h$ $.&p cu tw.8 I
VI QQ,Q*-p .z 3 Q .i=
a 8 $43; gs ; r=b ,8Q Q.00- -""ct-?o3g sgp4 cp .ss;p =i .22?-j E%Qkab2p)
.o 4 a,.@ %"a bo@&$ 3 -24 43500 448cr,&%E %I QQ3T.Jsge4! %mP"g o-oc$ 2Q3% .2zc 5 2 %.z 22 Q% Q"a Q boE&Z Q 8% 9%;g ;i
Q & qb T -25 .-%hI*4.scl.;a3 4 cp q Q% B $0
.9,0 O 8qgZ 819% q ,""- 54; e 8 $4 2 &s Q L(
2 cr, 0'3Q-q s+.p.g
Q cp boc fa c&%oQcQo~bo 8 Qcr,o Gr: * q.2" Q,"n 0 e Q, &.+ cr, L.Z.2 hg4 r= c m cp.9 cp g s 5;o k 82 E gt, Q -fa h; -.ww g.&qQ*% S3$
cgb ,..zgze2s Qs30 8% Ep: Q+ OC
+ mCcJ TF lC a r-. OC) m 0 4 c;1 c3 * u, (0 b Q) Q, 0 H a
$%QQ,bQE 4%4, .% m 4 ."'.e Q, 000
33 0QQ.W
i$ b3442
a$ .OQ gQQms, "ct
Qg4 9- .%a" .@ ;c:
% -
/
bq 4 -2 % 4 .%
00 $Q;7 -y$s% %"WQ9 -4% z q%
40 k2 y% qsb**<c. pj-2 h.c: Q,
8$68-,?Q~i~.$ 5-0 3
Y3 @rn 99 e$"" kQ,Ocp& 3 k*LQ-cpQQ OUQ2 cp- 4 $
Q, !@$q$Q'3~50 0-3 h- Q"a *Q3Q,Qg z-4-
Q)+ 4% Q -0 *
id *--~***-***~c;1~~~~~c;1~~~~~~***~ a+ mO+~m*map
L