Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1992 0108 CC SPC ITEM 11A(71e' , A . MOORPARK REM L/ 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 '. =PPARK, CALIFORNIA C;iy C I Meefng of 199 2 ACTION: C1 M E M O R A N D U M BY TO: Honorable City Council rp\ FROM: Mary R. Lindley, Assistant to the City Manag DATE: December 26, 1991 (Council Meeting 1/8) SUBJECT: Ventura County Waste Management Reorganization Proposal Background This item has been carried over from the December 18 Council Meeting. Previously, Council noted three critical issues that needed to be resolved before the City would support the Ventura County Waste Management Reorganization Proposal - liability, funding, and special voting procedures. Council also previously directed the Public Works and Facilities Committee to meet with Simi Valley to discuss mutual concerns regarding the reorganization. The items discussed at that meeting were allocation of liability for known and unknown facilities based permanently on wasteshed, extending the proposal review period, and private versus public ownership and operation. After review of Council's comments and those expressed by other cities, staff has compiled a revised list of concerns regarding the Waste Management Reorganization Proposal. Section 6.3 As expressed in the December 12 letter to the County, Moorpark cannot support the allocation of liability and risk by wasteshed for the first five years and system -wide thereafter. The City proposes that liability for existing facilities be allocated by wasteshed for the first ten years post - closure and system -wide thereafter. In the discussion with Simi Valley, the alternative of allocating liability by wasteshed on a permanent basis was presented and is an option Council may wish to consider. Section 5.1.1.1 Any redistribution of VRSD property tax must consider Moorpark and Simi Valley in the same manner as VRSD member cities. PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR. 1....__;1...__k_, Councilmember Waste Management Reorganization December 26, 1991 Page 2 Section 3.3.2 The City recommends that an alternative method of tabulating the results of a special vote a developed. A simple two - thirds (2/3) majority vote should be used. Section 4.6.2. The proposal provides the Waste Authority with the power to establish a countywide assessment district. The City favors utilizing user fees to support waste management programs, not assessments which are an - indirect means of funding and are not necessarily assessed on a user basis. Sections 3.4.2. and 4.3.2. The City understands that flow control is important to a successful regional waste management system. However, cities should retain ownership /control of their waste streams and agree to send waste /recyclables to county facilities if and when they are available. The City of Moorpark reserves the right to take its waste to a facility outside the county as long as that type of facility is not located in Ventura County. Section.3.1. The proposal discusses curbside collection of solid waste and recyclables in relationship to the Authority's regulatory powers for contacts or franchises. It is not clear whether this includes commercial/ industrial waste operations. This issue should be clarified. Sections 6.1 and 6.2 In several instances, Simi Valley Landfill is referenced as contributing to countywide costs, i.e., closure /post closure costs and gas collection and control system costs. Since the Landfill is privately owned, it would seem that these costs should not be included as regional liabilities. It is unclear whether staff meant to reference Tierra Rejada Landfill instead of Simi Valley. Chapter 3 The possibility of public ownership and /or operation of facilities by groups of cities through a JPA or other mechanism should not be precluded. Language addressing private versus public ownership /operation should not be included in the legislation, but should be a part of a policy decision by the Board of the Waste Authority. Section 7.4.1. Staffing and organization plans should be studied before going forward with the reorganization Waste Management Reorganization December 26, 1991 Page 3 proposal. Such studies should be funded from the existing VRSD and Ventura County share of the detachment derived property taxes. The role retained by the County of Ventura needs to be clarified especially in relationship to implementing special waste fees at the landfill, i.e., temporary AB 939 fee at Simi Valley. Section 4.4 The authority for AB 939 planning is given to the Waste Authority with the cities retaining oversight and ultimate responsibility and liability to approve, adopt, and implement their SRREs. The cities and county should retain authority for AB 939 planning with the ability to contract with the Waste Authority or any private contractor for plan preparation and implementation. Also in this section it should be made clear that any siting would have to be consistent with local zoning and entitlement processing requirements. Section 5.2.3. In addition to the funding issues identified previously, cities have considerable anticipated costs in meeting the AB 939 mandate so the property tax money should be made available to cities and county with the Waste Authority relying on user fees. Section 5.4.4. The issue of the equipment replacement fund and salvage value should be addressed prior to enactment of any legislation creating the Authority. Chapter 4 Since the proposal calls for no detachment or withdrawal provisions, draft bylaws should be created prior to enactment of the legislation and prior to the cities agreeing to support any legislation. Under the current time -line, the Waste Commission has asked that cities respond with comments by January 10, 1992, and the final proposal would be adopted in February. This time frame does not allow for meaningful dialogue between cities on a proposal that will have far reaching impacts on solid waste policies and programs. The Council may wish to consider joining Fillmore in requesting that the schedule for review be extended to allow additional time for discussion. Recommendation Direct the Mayor to send a letter to the Waste Management Commission stating the City's concerns with the reorganization proposal and support extending the review period to allow for further discussion.