San Mateo County Grand Jury
• 2017-2018
South Bayside Waste Management Authority Board – Elected Officials or Senior Management Staff?
⚠️ 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 and Recommendations 7 findings
F1
One reason behind wanting to change the composition of the Board appears to stem from the public’s concern over rate increases and service changes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Disseminate more information to the public about SBWMA’s operations, the role of its franchisees, and the rate setting process.
F2
The organizational structure of SBWMA is a complex issue that the public does not well understand.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Request that Recology prepare a detailed billing statement for its customers that shows all charges imposed by Recology and itemizes all fees charged by the Member Agency.
F3
The rates and the process of setting them are difficult to understand because so many variables, such as added city fees, come into play.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Continue to appoint only senior management staff to the Board as stipulated in the 2005 Agreement.
F4
Customers would benefit from receiving itemized billing statements that show charges imposed by Recology and additional fees imposed by the relevant Member Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
If the Restated Agreement is amended to provide for a Board composed solely of elected officials, then put in place a technical advisory committee consisting of staff with technical experience in waste management. The Grand Jury recommends that the SBWMA Board do the following:
F5
Elected officials already have sufficient influence in the decision-making process because the governing body of each Member Agency must approve major decisions such as contracts and rate increases.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The Grand Jury recommends that the SBWMA Board do the following:
Disseminate more information to the public about SBWMA’s operations, the role of its franchisees, and the rate setting process through a variety of media.
F6
There is no demonstrable advantage to changing the Board composition from only senior management staff to only elected officials.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
A technical advisory committee would be useful to a Board composed solely of elected officials if the Restated Agreement is amended to change SBWMA’s governance structure in this manner. 7 http://archives.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=1770056 (May 13, 2013). Interview with Task Force member. 9
No recommendations for this finding
Comments 10
-
CO1 Page 82The report states the Shoreway facility was built at a cost of approximately $17 million. While the Shoreway MRF building cost approximately $17 million there were approximately $29 million in additional capital improvements including but not limited to the new single stream processing equipment, expanded Transfer Station building, new traffic lanes and scales, new public recycling center, etc.
-
CO2 Page 82The report references the “SBWMA’s waste hauler” but it should be noted that the individual Member Agencies hold contracts with a waste hauler, not the SBWMA. BACKGROUND SECTION OF REPORT
-
CO3 Page 82The franchise agreements between the Member Agencies and BFI expired on December 31, 2010 and not January 1, 2011.
-
CO4 Page 82The report references the “SBWMA’s new franchise waste hauler” but it should be noted that the individual Member Agencies hold contracts with a waste hauler, not the SBWMA. DISCUSSION SECTION OF REPORT
-
CO5 Page 82The report references the State diversion requirements increasing to 75% by 2017. This is actually a statewide goal of 75% by 2020, and not a local mandate on cities and counties at this time.
-
CO6 Page 82A statement is made that the SBWMA’s administrative operations were initially performed by City of San Carlos staff which is partially true. Such operations were also performed by contract staff and consultants.
-
CO7 Page 82In September 2006, the SBWMA hired its first Executive Director and not “a day to day operations manager.”
-
CO8 Page 82In 2000 the SBWMA, not its Member Agencies, issued revenue bonds.
-
CO9 Page 82A statement is made that Allied Waste “had a cost plus contract with the SBWMA” which is true as it related to operations of the Shoreway facility only. Allied Waste, formerly BFI, also had separate cost plus contracts (i.e., franchise agreements) with each Member Agency for collection services.
-
CO10 Page 82The report states incorrectly that, “Another cause for increasing rates is that the Ox Mountain dumping facility increased its rates because less waste was being delivered to it as a result of increases in recycling.” Since January 1, 2005, the SBWMA has had a disposal agreement with Ox Mountain based on a fixed price per ton which is annually adjusted by 80% of CPI excepting any pass through costs such as government fees. Another beneficial provision is that the SBWMA has a “most favored nations” status, which means that if a lower rate is charged by Allied to another jurisdiction, this lower rate would apply to the SBWMA. This 6