Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - No. 4334RESOLUTION NO. 4334 RESOLUTION REJECTING THE "DRAFT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR CITIES AND COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN" DATED JANUARY 17, 1977 BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Lodi does hereby not approve the "Draft Solid Waste Management Plan for Cities and County of San Joaquin" dated January 17, 1977 for the following reasons: 1) Lack of a Replacement for the Harney Lane Site 2) Lack of Consideration of Transfer Station Alternatives 3) Lack of a Meaningful Data Base 4) Lack of a Clearly -Defined Plan 5) Lack of Legal Means by Which City of Lodi can influence the Plan Implementation 6) Lack of Economic (Budgetary) Commitment 7) Lack of a Financial Plan 8) Lack of an Implementation Plan Schedule 9) Lack of Provisions for Stimulating Waste Reduction and/or Resource Recovery 10) Lack of Provisions for Public Education and for the Rehabilitation and Reuse of Completed Landfill Sites The reasons hereby set forth for the disapproval by the City Council of the City of Lodi of the "Draft Solid Waste Management Plan for Cities and County of San Joaquin" dated January 17, 1977 are more fully detailed in a report dated March 4, 1977 by the City of Lodi's Solid Waste - 1- Management Consultant, Kenneth K. Hekimian from Lockman and Associates a copy of which is annexed hereto marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof as if set forth in full herein. Dated: March 16, 1977 �M' TM�m��r�i',/�i:%k�ry::i,*i >k%rm�F�k�n•'/k�`d�� �MMMMMM7CI,TM��MMMM�M/nT1CMi�ryCryry.MTTiM/MM��MM�� I hereby certify that Resolution No. 4334 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in regular meeting held March 16, 1977 by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen - Ehrhardt, Hughes, Katzakian, Pinkerton and Katnich Noes: Councilmen - None Absent: Councilmen - None ALICE M. REIMCHE City Clerk -Z- 4334 City of Lodi y 221 West Pine Street E Lodi, California 95242 } ,-Ak 7 1977 CITY OF LORI t . .,%Cs= Cjge&a31JMJ1QRP0RATION 249 E. POMONA BOULEVARD • MONTEREY PARK. CALIFORNIA 91754 • TEL. 724.0250 Attention: Mr. Jack Ronsko Director of Public Works Dear Mr. Ronsko: County Solid Waste Management Plan March 4, 1977 In accordance with our letter agreement of December 22, 1975, we have con- cluded review of the Draft Report of the Solid Waste Management Plan for Cities and County of San Joaquin (JanuaryWe recom e t t e ity o Loi provide input to the Plan through submission of a report, prepared by our office and submitted to you on February 24, 1977. However, for the reasons stated below, we recommend that the City not approve the current Draft of the Plan, even if the Plan is amended to 'include the in- p(it of the City. { To its credit, the Draft is a good compilation of, and accurately reflects, the current situation for storage, collection and disposal in the County and the Cities and the plans of private industry. It identifies many pro- blem areas but stops short of analyzing alternatives and of recommending specific plans. Many of the necessary studies required to develop a good plan are recommended in the plan implementation schedule (Page X-3). How- ever, it is our contention that at least a few of these studies should be completed, and commitments made before the City of Lodi approves the Plan. A specific study in point is the "Harney Lane Site Replacement Study"; this study is urgently needed in the near future. The reasons for rejection of the present Draft are summarized below: 1. Lack of a Replacement for the Harney Lane Site Of primary concern to the citizens of Lodi is the fact that the present Harney Lane Site has only a 3 -year capacity. At their February 22, 1977 meeting, the County Board of Supervisors rejected the proposed Harney Lane replace tent site. This site is referenced and supported in the Draft and no alternatives are discussed. This site, located d EXHIBIT "A" City of Lodi March 4, 1977 Page 2 a few miles due east of the present landfill, would have provided economical refuse disposal costs to citizens of the City. However, if the City's franchised collector has to haul the waste to the present Foothill Landfill, the cost to the citizens of Lodi could be as high as $3.2 - million from 1980 to 1990. 2. Lack of Consideration of Transfer Station Alternatives In a separate analysis, our office has evaluated the economics of the City of Lodi having its waste transferred to large transfer vans rather than having the City's franchised col- lector hauling directly to the Foothill Landfill. The three possible transfer stations considered were: a. Sanitary City's yard - 80 tons per day b. Harney Lane Site - 160 tons per day c. Eight Mile Road - 320 tons per day Each of these hypothetical alternatives would be more economical than hauling direct to the Foothill Landfill. These and others should be evaluated so that the citizens of Lodi are assured of an economical means by which to dispose of their waste in the next decade, at least. 3. Lack of a Meaningful Data Base The Draft bases muchrof its decisions on data prepared by, and published in, Solid Waste Serve CountZ of San Joaquin ', 1967. There is no mention of any independent field surveys upon which these data were, or could be, updated. Furthermore, there is no attempt to assimilate the data and relate it to other County planning efforts, such as the Land Use File, the Transportation Plan, the Population Projection, and the BTloyment Projections. Without a logical and consistent data base,*alternatives cannot be compared on a rational basis, and thus, any decisions made based on an inadequate data base would be suspect. 4. Lack of a Clearly -Defined Plan Although many options and many inputs are referenced in the Draft, there is no clearly-defined plan that specifies what is going to be done, by whom and when. Therefore, as will be discussed sub- sequently, there is little mention as to what are the costs, and how is it going to be financed. For example, one private firm has proposed to the County that they be allowed "to construct, at their own cost, a transfer station on the existing Harney Lane Site. Refuse would be transferred to their resource recovery City of Lodi March 4, 1977 Page 3 statin and landfill at Austin Road". (Page VII -9). On the other handproposes that a Resource Recovery Center and Transfer Station will be constructed near Lodi "at some future date when pressures for resource recovery and/or transportation costs dictate its need". (Page IV -2). These tuo examples, and there are many more; are clearly competing for the same waste stream. How is a decision going to be made? The Draft begs the question: "Until such time as all costs can be analyzed at one time, no evaluation of the proposed can be made. It is assumed that the data will be available in the near future and the review process will consider the proposal". (Page VII -10, 11). The questions that one should ask are: what data are needed, who is going to decide, what criteria are going to be considered, what are the relative weightings of the criteria, what is the procedure for evaluating these (and other) alternatives! Too much is left up in the air. S. Lack of Legal Means by which City of Lodi can Influence the Plan Implementation Even if a clearly-defined plan were presented, how would it be administered? The Draft suggests (in Chapter 8) that a coalition of agencies be formed to coordinate the plan as well as to revise it. Each agency (including the City of Lodi) "will continue to be responsible for the administration of the plan within its jurisdiction. County shall be responsible for the overall admini- stration of the ccarmon elements.of the plan and the portions relating to the uningorporated areas". (Page VIII -2). Un- fortunately, through this management, the City of Lodi would have little legal power to protect its interest. If this "Solid Waste Management Coalition" were presently in force, could it have pre- vented the County Board of Supervisors from rejecting the pro- posed Harney Lane Site as they did on February 22, 1971? The City needs some protection, perhaps through a joint powers agree- ment. 6. Lack of Economic (Budgetary) Commitment The Draft lists (in Chapter 9) the County's current operational budgets for the Harney Lane Landfill, the Foothill Landfill and Lovelace Transfer Station, and the Corral Hollow Landfill. Furthermore, the Draft references the City of Stockton's operational costs of disposal. The Draft fails to project the solid waste bud- gets (e.g., for each of the next five years) of the public agencies, showing capital and operating costs. The estimated costs of in- spection and enforcement are included, but the costs of other pro- gram functions, such as plan review and update, administration, public information, and employee training, should also be budgeted. This lack of a budgetary coianitmsnt by the County raises a doubt. as to whether the County is budgeting the amount necessary to g realistically carry out a good solid waste program. City of Lodi M rc:l Y, i97; Page 4 7. Lack of a Financial Plan The Draft lists (also in Chapter 9) the Franchise Fees paid to the County and to the City of Stockton in 1976. It further states that various studies will be underta'.cen and will be financed by the County General Fund and/or by the individual cities involved: One of the actions resulting from these studies Cperformed in the Medium Term, after 1981) will include pro- visions for financial funding of (County) operation and main- tenance as well as capital outlay". (Page LSC -8). Why are the level and sources of funding not specified now? If the City of Lodi approves this Draft, it may have no recourse if the County adopts a financing plan that is contrary to the desires and/or best interests of the citizens of Lodi. 8. Lack of an Implementation Plan Schedule The Draft presents (izi Chapter 10) a proposed schedule for im- plementation. Since there is no clearly-defined plan, there can be no scheduling of activities. What are scheduled, are several studies which one expects will lead to a clearly-defined plan. For example, a "Harney Lane Site Replacement Study" was scheduled to begin in October 1976. That is timely because it will take at least 18 months to prepare a replacement site for Harney Lane. However, the schedule shows the study extending to the year* 2000! What are the citizens of Lodi going to do after 1980? Will the results of the study still be timely in the year 2000. This particular study (and others) should be completed before the plan is approved by the City of Lodi and before the plan is sub- mitted to the State Solid Waste Management Board for approval. 9. Lack of Provisions for Stimulating Waste Reduction and/or Resource Recovery The Draft presents (in Chapter 7) numerous resource -recovery pro- posals, including, at least, one firm no longer in business. However, it accurately points out that the "franchise fee system for franchise haulers to use dump sites without other costs, pro - irides no incentive to franchised haulers to reprove material from the waste stream"._ (Page VII -3, 4). So even if there were an economical resource recovery system, there is no means for getting the waste to it. The County should explore ways as to how private industry can be stirailated into removing materials from the waste stream, -reducing the amount of waste entering the landfills, and thus reducing the need for new sites. All of the major refuse firms are franchised by either the City(ies) or the County, or both. The goverment has a great degree of control on the private collectors. The City of Lodi should volunteer to work with the County, and hopefully extend the life of the Harney Lane Landfill. City of Lodi March 4, 1977 Page 5 10. Lack of 'Provisions ' for Public ' Txhication ' arid ' for ' the 'Rehabilitation euse 6 bmpet ill Sites One of the most important aspects of solid waste management is that no matter how much resource recovery reduces the waste stream, there will always be need for'd'IAMfill. Much of the opposition of the proposed Barney a site ccmp aed that the site would be an eyesore; cause pollution, rats, and other vectors of disease; increase traffic and litter; as well as depress adjoining property values. While all of these are possible;'th *'n66d'ri6t'be.. Public .information and education are as much a mist in o er to gain acceptance of a new landfill site or a transfer station site as they are for a new sewage treatment plant or other public facility dealing with wastes. One positive step would be to rehabilitate and reuse completed landfills. One good example that people could identify with would make it possible to obtain new ones. There are, in brief, ten reasons why the City of Lodi should reject the current Draft. If you desire to discuss any points of clarification, please do not hesitate to call. With the submittal of this letter report, we have now completed all the work specified in the subject agreement. We appreciate this opportunity to serve the City of Lodi and hope to have another opportunity in the near future. Thank you. Very truly yours, - Kenneth K. Hekimian, Ph.D., P.E. Vice President q7 cc: City of Lodi Attn: Mr. Ted Katzakian, Councilman Sanitary City Disposal Company, Inc. Attn: Mr. Dario De Benedetti, General Manager