📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Napa County Grand Jury
• 2001-2002
Napa – Vallejo Waste Management Authority
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 3 findings
F1
Page 60
The JPA has no staff of its own and is operated by the Napa County Department of Environmental Health staff in a very efficient manner. No single person is assigned full time to the JPA. Two or three of the Department’s staff are assigned to the JPA along with their regular duties.
F2
Page 60
The County made a decision in 1993 to build the transfer station to avoid the liability for closure of another landfill. The JPA made a decision in 1997 to switch from truck to rail to truck to truck, because liability for closure of another landfill was no longer a problem.
F3
Page 60
The JPA is paying Allied Waste Inc. (Allied) $54 a ton. It includes the cost of operation of the transfer station, transporting the waste to Keller Canyon and the fees charged by an Allied subsidiary to dispose of the waste at Keller Canyon. Because the $54 per ton is not broken down, it is not possible to tell if Allied is making more than it should on the cost of the operation of the transfer station, the transportation of the waste and the cost of disposal. The actual cost of burying the waste should be $8 to $9 per ton.
Recommendations 3
-
R1Page 60The JPA should continue to be operated without a staff of its own.
-
R2Page 60None. The County made the correct decision in each case.
-
R3Page 60The JPA should allow no further extensions of Allied’s contract, and when the contract expires in 2007 the JPA should open Allied’s contract to competitive bidding. The Request for Proposals should require each bidder to itemize the various elements of the bid: 1. Operation of the transfer station 2. Transportation from the transfer station to the landfill 3. Disposal of the waste at the landfill The JPA could then award the low bid on operation to the lowest bidder for operation. If the low bid for transportation was from a different bidder the low bidder on the operation could be allowed to meet the transportation bid, or there could be bids awarded to different entities to take advantage of the low bid. The low bid for disposal at the landfill could come from yet another bidder. In any event it will be possible to issue a contract at a price which combines the lowest bid for the cost of operation of the transfer station, the cost of transportation and the cost of disposal at a landfill.