The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995-05-02 - AGENDA REPORTS - LANG RANGE SOLID WASTE (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA LNTEROFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: George Caravalho, City Manager DATE: May 2, 1995 SUBJECT: LONG RANGE SOLID WASTE FINANCIAL PLAN Pursuant to the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), the City of Santa Clarita is mandated to divert 25% of its Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) from landfills by the year 1995, and 50% by the year 2000. Strongest methods in which to achieve this mandate are through source reduction, recycling, composting and transformation. These methods may be referred to as landfill alternatives or more simply alternatives. While alternatives have proven to be effective, the integrations of technologies which will transform waste into commodities have yet to hit peak performance levels in California which will ensure a greater diversion beyond the year 2000. The City of Santa Clarita supports the development of emerging technologies to increase diversion from landfills. Such technologies may include waste -to -energy, pyrolysis, petrolysis or vermaculture. Meanwhile, as these technologies emerge, short term waste management solutions may be directed toward non urban/remote landfills. Many of these alternatives are controversial in nature and will require further policy decisions from the Council. Alternatives such as the remote landfilling will result in direct rate increases to residents. City staff recently calculated the impact to residential rates when tipping fees are increased. In January, when tipping fees at Chiquita Canyon Landfill went from $30.10 per ton to $31.48 per ton, single family rates increased $0.25. (This is only the tipping fee, and not the increase to operations which is driven by the Producers Price Index.) Tipping fees to non -urbanized landfills are projected to range between $45.00 and $50.00 per ton due to the long hauling by train or trucking of MSW to these remote sites, The current tipping fee at Chiquita Landfill is $31,48 per ton. Based on our Scaling Spreadsheet Model, long hauling would increase the residential rates for some single family households by 14 to 19 percent per month or residents would pay $2.24 to $3,08 more per month. Agenda Item: Mayor and City Council Long Range Solid Waste Financial Plan May 2, 1995 Page 2 In our discussion tonight regarding landfill alternatives, staff would like the Council to be cognizant of how the increases of tipping fees directly impact residents' trash bills with many of these residents still not appreciating the need for urbanized landfill alternatives. Staff desires to report on the estimated costs of landfill alternatives and seeks direction to continue our investigation into emerging technologies which will support landfill alternatives. These technologies include: waste to energy, composting and petrolysis. As stated above, until these technologies for landfill alternatives become more effective, City staff desires to pursue remote -haul research and conduct a viability study for the City. More specifically, staff seeks direction to develop a study to find how an integrated approach using landfill alternatives could be phased in allowing for the gradual elimination of urban landfills. Staff will present to the Council more information on the aforementioned waste alternatives during the study session and will request further direction based on the recommendations below. Direct staff to further investigate solid waste disposal alternatives, their cost impacts on tipping fees and their adaptability to our community's solid waste management needs. 2. Direct staff to develop a study recommending an integrated approach allowing gradual elimination of urban landfills. Projected Residential Rate Increase JK:del:gmm cssswmem PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL RATE INCREASES BASED ON LANDFILL FEES LANDFILL FEES PER TON SINGLE FAMILY RATE INCREASE 1/1/95 SINGLE FAMILY RATE INCREASE I/1/96 MULTI -FAMILY RATE INCREASE I/1/95 MULTI -FAMILY RATE INCREASE 1/1/96 $31.48 $ .25 1.51% $35.00 $ .81 $ .57 4.82% 3.40% $40.00 $1.64 $1,41 9.93% 8.35% $45.00 $2.49 $2.24 15.05% 13.30% $50.00 $3.33 $3.08 20.17% 18.25% $55.00 $4.13 $3.91 24.98% 23.20% $60.00 $4.92 $4.75 29.80% 28,15% $65.00 $5.77 $5.53 34.92% 32.79% $70.00 $6.61 $6,36 40.03% 37.73% $75.00 $7.40 $7.20 44.85% 42.68% *PPI increases are not reflected above. PPI trends for prior years indicate an annual increase of 0 - I %. LANDFILLS POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE TO ACCEPT RESIDUAL WASTE FROM THE PUENTE HILLS MRF East Carbon Sanitary Landfill Proponent: East Carbon Development Corp. Location: City of East Carbon, Utah Discussion: this landfill is fully permitted and operational and is currently accepting alimited amount of municipal solid waste by rail from communities within Utah, although itis permitted to accept out-of-state waste. Franconia Landfill Proponent: Franconia Technologies, a Waste Management Company Location: Franconia, Arizona Discussion: This landfill site is fully permitted and is in the process of being constructed. La Paz Landfill Proponent: Browning Ferris Industries, Inc. Location: La Paz County, Arizona Discussion: This landfill is owned by the County of La Paz, Arizona and operated by Browning Ferris Industries, Inc. The site is permitted to accept out-of-state waste. Eagle Mountain Landfill Proponent: Mine Reclamation Corporation (MRC) Location: near Desert Center in Riverside County, California Discussion: On July 26, 1994, the Superior Court set aside both the Riverside County Board of Supervisors' certification of the Final EIR for the landfill and its issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the project as a result of several CEQA lawsuits. The project proponent has indicated that they will revise the EIR as necessary to satisfy the Court and will continue to actively pursue project development. Bolo Station Landfill Proponent: Rail Cycle, a joint venture of WMX Technologies and the ATSF Location: near Amboy in San Bernardino County, California Discussion: A Final EIS/EIR for the project was released in August, 1994. No permits have been issued yet for this project. San Bernardino County Planning Commission has recommended to the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors that the EIR be certified and that the landfill should be issued a CUP. The Board has delayed hearing the matter. The April 2, 1995 Daily Bulletin reports that opponents to the landfill are gathering signatures to put the matter before the voters on an initiative ballot. Mesquite Regional Landfill Proponent: California InteRail, a partnership of the Gold Fields Mining Company, Western Waste Industries, and SP Environmental Systems, Inc. Location: near Glamis in Imperial County, California Discussion: A Draft EIS/EIR for the project was released for public review in April, 1994. No permits have been issued for this project.