📋
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.
⚠️ 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 852 findings
F1
Page 16
A large amount of the debris and junk is located near hangar #6.
F2
Page 16
The mobile home located behind hanger #6 is owned by and is the residence of the Tenant.
F3
Page 16
The Airport Manager and a representative of the county should regularly inspect the airport as required in the concessionaire Contract with Amador County.
F4
Page 16
All unauthorized trailers; machinery, vehicles and debris should be removed from the airport property.
F5
Page 16
GSA should develop a policy for the parking of unattended vehicles (also known as “airport cars”) on airport property. Facts:
F6
Page 16
Tenant pays rent on hangars #3 and #6, where he operates an aircraft repair service.
F7
Page 16
Tenant has been located at Westover Field since 1989. Findings:
F8
Page 16
Amador County has never executed a written lease or rental agreement with Tenant #1 and there is no evidence of any decree or action by the Board of Supervisors allowing him to live-in a trailer parked on county property.
F9
Page 16
Presently the Tenant does not have current liability insurance showing the county as an additional insured. 16 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F10
Page 17
Amador County General Services Administration should immediately enter into a lease agreement with the occupants of all the hangars at Westover Airport.
F11
Page 17
Amador County Risk Manager should define the amount of coverage and type of insurance required by the county for leased or rented property, and insure that all the occupants of the hangars obtain insurance appropriate to meet the requirements of the county. Facts:
F12
Page 17
The mobile home at the rear of hanger #6 is owned and occupied by the Tenant.
F13
Page 17
The previous airport manager allegedly made a verbal agreement allowing the Tenant to live on the premises in exchange for his acting as security watchman for the airport. There is no evidence that the Board of Supervisors approved this agreement.
F14
Page 17
On March 6, 2001, the Amador Code Enforcement Officer received a complaint regarding an alleged illegally occupied mobile home behind hangar #6.
F15
Page 17
On March 8, 2001, the Code Enforcement Officer, at the direction of the an Airport Committee Member/Amador County Supervisor, was directed to ascertain if the mobile home installation at the airport meets the health and safety codes of Amador County.
F16
Page 17
The Chief Building Inspector upon attempting to locate the trailer and verify the complaint found that all the gates to the airport were locked. He was confronted by an unnamed man who denied him access and stated that the trailer “is being moved anyway” from the airport property. This was reported to the Director of the Land Use Agency who ordered that the case be dropped due to the fact that the mobile home was to be moved.
F17
Page 17
In approximately July or August of 2002, the CHP received a request from Amador Sheriff’s Office to investigate a complaint from the airport manager about unlicensed vehicles at the airport. The responding CHP officer interviewed the Tenant, who told the officer that seventy five per cent of the time he lives in Oregon, but travels back and forth to Amador County on business. The CHP Officer stated no action was taken because it is the county’s responsibility to define the legality of vehicles parked on county property.
F18
Page 17
On April 16, 2003, the Amador County Building Inspector found several code violations concerning the mobile home located behind hangar #6; noting “travel trailer hooked up without permit, electrical hookup not to code and sewer connection leaking on the ground”. Findings:
F19
Page 17
The mobile home was not “moved away” and none of the former complaints were ever acted upon. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 17
F20
Page 18
The hook ups to the mobile home located behind hanger #6 were found to be in violation of Amador County Codes.
F21
Page 18
The County does not have a written agreement with the occupant of the mobile home (Tenant) to be a watchman.
F22
Page 18
The Tenant cannot provide effective night watchman services if he is in Oregon seventy five per cent of the time.
F23
Page 18
Remove the mobile home from county property or rectify the code violations.
F24
Page 18
The GSA should provide airport security, if needed. Facts:
F25
Page 18
The Amador County Building Department has inspected hangar #10. The report states that the interior of hangar #10 has been altered to include the addition of a loft and stairs.
F26
Page 18
The modifications were constructed without proper building permits in violation of county codes.
F27
Page 18
All hangars are either county owned or privately owned on leased county ground. Findings:
F28
Page 18
Interior alterations and additions have been constructed to both lessee owned and County owned hangars.
F29
Page 18
Hangar #6 was not inspected, but the Tenant told the inspectors that he is willing to cooperate with the Building Department.
F30
Page 18
The Amador County General Services Administration and the Airport Manager should inspect all buildings on county airport property for modifications or alterations.
F31
Page 18
The County should require that all occupants of hangars or buildings on airport property which have additions or modifications to their structure for which there is not a valid building permit, either obtain the proper permit or demolish the modifications or additions. Response Required: The Amador County Grand Jury requires a response to this report from the following officials/agency heads per California Penal Code 933.05. Director of Amador County Land Use Agency Board of Supervisors Amador County General Services Administration Amador County Building Department 18 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report Amador County Sanitary Landfill (Buena Vista Landfill) Introduction: The 2002-2003 Grand Jury elected to review and evaluate the Amador County Sanitary Landfill pursuant to Penal Code 925. Background: The Amador County Sanitary Landfill has been in operation since 1973. Day to day operations of the landfill and the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) are currently taken care of by Amador Disposal Service, Inc. (ADS), a wholly owned subsidiary of Waste Connections, Inc.. The Amador County Sanitary Landfill is a valuable asset for the county. The citizens of Amador County need an affordable place to dispose of garbage. The landfill has the potential to pay for itself. In the last ten years the landfill and the Waste Management Department has been moved from one department to another. The Waste Management Department was under the General Services Administration and moved to the Public Works Agency in November 2001. There has been a lack of direction and planning which has caused the landfill to be neglected. Currently the Amador County is looking at two options for the Amador County Sanitary Landfill and the disposal of waste. Those options are selling or keeping the landfill. If the county keeps the landfill it can construct phase 4 and continue operations, allow ADS to expand the landfill or close the landfill and use the MRF as a transfer station. Method of Evaluation: Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, internet sites and toured the Amador County Sanitary Landfill. Persons Interviewed: Members of the Board of Supervisors County Administrative Officer Assistant County Counsel Director of Public Works Solid Waste Technician Citizens District Manager, Waste Connections, Inc. President, Aces Waste Services, Inc. Documents Examined: 1987 Solid Waste Water Quality Assessment Test Report (SWAT) 1988 Buena Vista Landfill Verification Monitoring Program Report 1991 Remediation of Leachate Plume: Buena Vista Landfill – CanonieEvironmental 1992 Draft Report Revised Monitoring Programs Buena Vista Landfill- Vector Engineering, Inc. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 19 1992 Buena Vista Landfill Environmental Impact Report (Volumes 1 and 2) Report of Disposal Site Information – December 2002 (Revised 2/6/03) Quarter Monitoring Report for Fourth Quarter 2001 Buena Vista Landfill Annual 2001 Monitoring Report Buena Vista Landfill 1991-1992 Amador Grand Jury Final Report Buena Vista Landfill Real Estate Purchase Agreement between Howard Properties and County of Amador Contract and Addendums for Operation and Maintenance of Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) Agreement and Addendums Administrative Civil Liability Complaint Number 5-00-521 – Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region Administrative Civil Liability Complaint Order Number 5-00-253 - Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region Tentative Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Revision and Cease and Desist Order Buena Vista Landfill – Dated April 12, 2002 County of Amador Final Budgets – 1988/1989 through 2002/2003 Various Documents from Amador County, Intelliwaste, Inc., Jacobson Helgoth Consultants and ADS. Internet Sites: California Integrated Waste Management Board – http:/www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ California State Water Resources Control Board - http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/index.html California Government Codes - http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html Waste Connections, Inc. - http://www.wcnx.org/ Amador County - http://www.co.amador.ca.us/ Amador County’s Management of the Buena Vista Landfill Facts:
F32
Page 20
The landfill is managed under the Waste Management Department, which is under the Public Works Agency. There is one employee in the Waste Management Department, a solid waste technician.
F33
Page 20
The Waste Management Department has been moved between the Public Works Agency and the General Services Administration and back to the Public Works Agency. The Waste Management Department has been a department on its own and combined in the Air/Waste Management Department. These changes have been made over the last ten years.
F34
Page 20
Public Works Agency took over management of the Waste Management Department in November of 2001 from the General Services Administration.
F35
Page 20
The Public Works Director is a Registered Civil Engineer. An engineering background is necessary when dealing with the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and the California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB) and meeting laws and regulations. 20 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F36
Page 21
The landfill and waste management issues are also overseen by a Waste Management Committee headed up by two Amador County Supervisors.
F37
Page 21
The State Water Resources Control Board fined Amador County for $25,000.00 on November 2, 2000. The county was late with ground water monitoring reports ranging from 91 days late to 348 days late to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). When the reports were sent to the RWQCB they were incomplete.
F38
Page 21
The Waste Management Department was under the General Services Administration at the time of the fine.
F39
Page 21
Each phase of the landfill has a site life estimate based on capacity and expected annual disposal amount. An example would be a phase with 500,000 ton capacity with a dump rate of 50,000 tons per year. The expected life of the phase would be ten years.
F40
Page 21
The landfill is a business that requires planning for future expenses.
F41
Page 21
A gas extraction system is being installed on phase 1. It was known that phase 1 would need a gas extraction system in 1995. The cost of the gas extraction system is $597,099.22 plus $50,000.00 for over seeing the construction. Findings:
F42
Page 21
The county is reactive rather than proactive in meeting state regulatory requirements and then needs to file for extensions which cause undue attention by state agencies and the public. This causes confusion and concern.
F43
Page 21
Waste management and the landfill require a great deal of time. The Public Works Agency isn’t staffed to meet the demand. There needs to be a manager to meet the needs of the Waste Management Department and the landfill.
F44
Page 21
There has been improvement in the management of the landfill since November 2001 when the Waste Management Department was moved to the Public Works Agency.
F45
Page 21
There has been no work done on the solid waste facility permits or WDRs for phase 4.
F46
Page 21
The county is currently trying to meet the 50% diversion of waste from the landfill as required by AB 939. The baseline year is in question with the CIWMB. The county was using 1990 as the baseline, which would have made the county inline with diversion requirements. The CIWMB was using 1993 as the baseline year and that puts Amador County out of compliance. The county is working with CIWMB to get the problem corrected.
F47
Page 21
Hire a Waste Management Department Director to report directly to the Board of Supervisors and County Administrative Officer. The Director would oversee and meet state regulations governing the landfill, procure out of county waste, direct waste management issues within the Amador County Waste Management JPA, plan for future landfill needs and monitor landfill costs. The candidate should have a strong business and financial background to analyze revenues and costs.
F48
Page 21
Use tipping fees to pay salary and benefits of the Waste Management Director. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 21 Environmental Facts:
F49
Page 22
The landfill sits on a geologic formation called the Ione Formation. The Ione Formation is primarily made up of clays, which have a very low permeability (the ability of water to move through).
F50
Page 22
Phase 1 consists of a cavity carved out of over 50 feet of clay, which left 25 feet of clay under it. It was lined with another two feet of clay brought in from the Indian Hill Clay Plant.
F51
Page 22
Phase 1 of the landfill was built according to the regulations for landfill construction in 1973.
F52
Page 22
There has been movement of leachate, out of Phase 1 caused by the formation of methane gas.
F53
Page 22
Leachate is a liquid formed by rainwater dissolving materials out of the disposed waste.
F54
Page 22
A trench was dug and a collection system installed on the west side of Phase 1 to capture leachate being pushed out of Phase 1 by the methane gas. The leachate is collected and pumped to an evaporation pond.
F55
Page 22
A gas extraction system is being installed to remove the methane gas from Phase 1.
F56
Page 22
There are sixteen monitoring wells around the landfill, which monitor the water at different levels. The water drawn from these wells is sent to a laboratory to be tested for contaminates which indicate the presence of leachate escaping from the landfill. Findings:
F57
Page 22
The State Water Resources Control Board has reduced most of the ground water monitoring tests to every six months from every three months in the current waste discharge requirements (WDRs). There are two reasons for this. First, there is a reduction in contaminates in the wells which first detected the movement of leachate out of Phase 1. Secondly, the county has been meeting testing and reporting requirements in a timely manner.
F58
Page 22
The Amador County Sanitary Landfill is currently maintained and operated in compliance with state and federal laws.
F59
Page 22
“The Buena Vista Landfill does not have a definable ground water contaminant plume” according to an e-mail sent to county officials from Jacobson, Helgoth Consultants dated September 18, 2002. Jacobson, Helgoth Consultants do the ground water monitoring for the landfill.
F60
Page 22
Amador County’s control over what goes into the landfill will insure the environment will not be sacrificed for profits.
F61
None. 22 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report October 1, 2002 Rate Increase. Amador County gave permission to ACES Waste Services, Inc. (ACES) to take a large part of the garbage they collect to the Kiefer Landfill in Sacramento County to conserve capacity at the Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill. ADS sent a proposal to the county requesting a rate increase to make up lost revenue from ACES hauling waste to the Kiefer Landfill. ACES began hauling waste to the Kiefer Landfill on September 1, 2002. ADS requested an increase of $8.05 to landfill tipping fees which would require an increase to the MRF tipping fees and to the franchise haulers; which ADS is also a franchise hauler. Facts:
F62
Page 23
The Contract and Addendums for Operation and Maintenance of Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill states the county may request an audit of ADS’s financial records when ADS requests an increase in tipping fees.
F63
Page 23
The Contract and Addendums for Operation and Maintenance of Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill states ADS shall keep detailed financial records of all landfill operations and those records shall be separate and independent from all other operations. Annually ADS is to send a balance sheet and income statement verified by an accountant to the county.
F64
Page 23
The county has not received or requested financial records from ADS for the landfill in over seven years.
F65
Page 23
Prior to October 1, 2002 tipping fees at the Buena Vista Landfill were $25.00 per ton.
F66
Page 23
The landfill tipping fees split between ADS and the county was $15.75 (63%) for ADS and $9.25 (37%) for the county.
F67
Page 23
The Board of Supervisors approved the fee increases to $34.00 per ton on September 17, 2002 with the stipulation ADS and ACES provide audits of their financial records. The increase would take effect on October 1, 2002 and remain as long as the audits justified the fee increases.
F68
Page 23
The split for the landfill tipping fees between ADS and the county is $24.75 (73%) to ADS and $9.25 (27%) to the county. ADS received $0.95 more than they requested.
F69
Page 23
ADS provided their audit in November 2002 after two letters from the Amador County Administrative Agency. The Board of Supervisors was not able to determine if the audit did or did not justify the increase ADS was requesting.
F70
Page 23
The Board of Supervisors hired a consultant, Intelliwaste, Inc. to review the audits for $16,500.00. The Board of Supervisors approved the proposal on January 28, 2003. According to the proposal, the reports were to be completed no later than March 31, 2003. As of May 8, 2003, the results of the review of the audits have not been completed.
F71
Page 23
According to the Amador County Administrative Officer the report is late due to ADS having to separate out financial records between the landfill operations, the MRF operations and their franchise waste hauling which includes operations in Amador County and Calaveras County. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 23
F72
Page 24
The proposal by ADS to raise the landfill tipping fees estimated landfill tonnage to be 24,403 tons after ACES started to take waste to Kiefer Landfill. This was down 12,474 tons from the 36,877 tons received at the landfill in the last twelve months (August 2001 – July 2002). The provision stated-if landfill tonnage was greater than 25,000 tons and less than 37,000 tons, the county would receive all the tipping fees as protection from windfall profits. If the tonnage exceeded 37,000 tons then ADS would receive $15.75 per ton.
F73
Page 24
Tipping fees rates and landfill capacity are major considerations when analyzing the value of a landfill. Findings:
F74
Page 24
The Board of Supervisors, County Administrative Agency, and the County Counsel’s Office were willing to grant the increase requested without an audit until it was pointed out that the county had a right to request the audit from ADS to justify the proposed tipping fee increases.
F75
Page 24
The county has not received financial records from ADS in over seven years, which makes it hard to determine if the current figures justify the increase because there is nothing to compare. It would be assumed when ADS was a small independent corporation it would not have the large overhead Waste Connections has. The Waste Services Industry tends to be a heavily leveraged (large debt) industry.
F76
Page 24
ADS has not kept separate financial records for the landfill, the MRF and its solid waste hauler franchise.
F77
Page 24
Raising the landfill tipping fees makes the landfill more attractive to a potential buyer.
F78
Page 24
Request the annual balance sheets and income statements on landfill and MRF operations as required by the contracts with ADS so there can be a comparison of operation revenues and expenses on a year to year basis. Options for the Amador County Sanitary Landfill. County Sells the Buena Vista Landfill. Facts:
F79
Page 24
Currently the landfill is taking in approximately 68 tons of waste per day which comes to 24,403 tons per year. Prior to ACES taking their waste to the Kiefer Landfill, the daily average rate was approximately 113 tons per day based on 358 operating days per year.
F80
Page 24
The landfill is permitted for 810 tons per day.
F81
Page 24
The county is currently funding an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed sale of the landfill at a cost of $150,000 although the county government officials claim they have not decided to sell the landfill.
F82
Page 24
The county purchased the land for the landfill for $852,957 from the Howard Estate. Escrow closed on 1-20-1994. 24 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F83
Page 25
The County Administrative Agency and the County Counsel’s Office are handling the majority of the current landfill issues and the County Administrative Officer and the County Counsel were chosen by the Board of Supervisors to handle negotiations for the sale of the landfill which can be held in closed sessions under the Brown Act.
F84
Page 25
The county is seen as an owner/operator and a generator of municipal solid waste (MSW) and municipal sewage sludge (MSS) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund).
F85
Page 25
The Supreme Court ruling in the United States v. Bestfoods protects parent corporations from the actions of its subsidiary. There is nothing in CERCLA which allows the corporate veil to be pierced. Findings:
F86
Page 25
The county would lose authority over the landfill and a new owner could allow dumping of anything into the landfill. It would be illegal for an operator to dump anything in the landfill that was not in the solid waste facility permit granted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).
F87
Page 25
The county states it would put conditions on the sale of the landfill to mitigate citizen concerns regarding the environment, traffic and operation of the landfill. Considering the county has not held ADS to the terms of their contract to operate the landfill and MRF the likelihood of the county to hold a buyer of the landfill to a sales agreement is questionable.
F88
Page 25
The county would sell the landfill “As Is” which would mean the new owner would take the liability of the existing phases of the landfill but this would lower the price for the landfill.
F89
Page 25
Ultimately there is a legal concern as to whether the county can ever rid itself of past ownership liability since it is always a potentially responsible party for site clean up as reported by Intelliwaste Inc. to the Board of Supervisors. Even if the county can negotiate away its liability as an owner/operator it would still be liable as a generator of waste. Corporations can go bankrupt and taxing entities, such as the county, are seen as financial deep pockets in litigation.
F90
Page 25
There are waste management companies interested in the possible purchase of the landfill.
F91
Page 25
Franchise haulers would not be required to use the landfill if it were purchased.
F92
Page 26
Would allow the county to continue to receive a split of tipping fees and generate revenue to cover costs associated with the landfill.
F93
Page 26
One proposal and estimate offered by a county official would be to permit and construct Phase 4 of the landfill at an estimated cost of $2,800,000.00 and the cost to close it would be approximately $1,600,000.00 for a capacity of 850,000 tons. Another proposal is for a capacity of 500,000 tons. The greater the capacity the lower the cost per ton for construction costs.
F94
Page 26
Professional and Specialized Services, environmental monitoring, regulatory liaison and consulting services, cost the county $591,626.30 in 2000-2001 and $896,295.22 in 2001-2002.
F95
Page 26
Total operating expenses for the Waste Management Department for the last ten years, fiscal years 1992/1993 through 2001/2002, average $668,714 a year. The 1993/1994 fiscal year was the highest at $1,625,363.78 and the 1997/1998 fiscal year had the lowest total operating expenses with $278,403.12. The approved budget for total operating expenses for 2002/2003 is $1,288,960. Findings:
F96
Page 26
It takes 200 tons per day of waste for a landfill operation to reach an economy of scale (operate efficiently).
F97
Page 26
County continues to have control over the landfill, which benefits environmental concerns for the area.
F98
Page 26
The landfill under county control provides reasonable waste disposal to citizens of the county. Tax dollars used to meet landfill expenses provide a benefit to all Amador County citizens. If the landfill is sold there is a good chance the cost to dispose of garbage by Amador County citizens would increase.
F99
Page 26
As prices go up illegal dumping through out the county becomes a greater problem.
F100
Page 26
The county would be responsible for the cost of permitting, regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring, closure and post closure costs as they are now.
F101
Page 26
The Amador County Board of Supervisors has chosen not to fund this option.
F102
Page 26
Construct phase 4 to a capacity of at least 850,000 tons and use as a regional landfill taking in at least 250 tons per day of waste.
F103
Page 26
Use a bond issue to finance construction if funds are not available.
F104
Use tipping fees to payoff the bond. Two examples of how tipping fees could be used to pay for construction, salary and benefits for a Waste Management Director, closure costs and operational expenses. The per ton breakdown at an average of 250 tons per day based on a 358 day year would be: 26 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report Using a bond issue: ADS $15.75 Retirement of Bonds at six year amortization ($2.8 million @ 4%) $ 5.87 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $ 1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $17.45 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $33.20 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.87 equals $1,838,695 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Using funds available: ADS $15.75 Payback on $2.8 million over six years to general fund $5.21 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 over the last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director ($80,000.00) $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $16.79 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $32.54 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.21 equals $1,631,960 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Close the Landfill and Haul Waste Out of County Facts:
F105
Page 27
The county must continue to maintain and monitor existing phases. Professional and Specialized Services have averaged $467,908 per year for the last ten years.
F106
Page 27
Aces Waste Services, Inc. has negotiated a contract with Sacramento County to haul waste to The Kiefer Landfill and will continue to pay Amador County $5 per ton through May 2003. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 27
F107
Page 28
It will cost $804,000 to cap and close phases 2 and 3. A fund exists to meet this cost with the county making installments to cover the costs to cap and close the phases 2 and 3. This fund is required under the solid waste facility permit granted by the CIWMB.
F108
Page 28
Current tipping fees for the MRF are $57.86, which gives ADS a net after landfill tipping fees ($34.00) of $23.86 per ton. Findings:
F109
Page 28
It is unknown if hauling waste out of the county would increase costs to Amador County citizens. Out of county tipping fees and the cost to haul the waste to the disposal site would determine costs.
F110
Page 28
The MRF is used to sort waste into recyclables and for disposal into the landfill. Not all waste received at the gate go into the landfill. The MRF was required to help the county meet requirements of AB 939 for diversion of waste from landfills. Under the contract for the operation of the landfill, ADS has exclusive rights to sell any salvageable items.
F111
Page 28
If the county closed the landfill the MRF would be used as a transfer station.
F112
Page 28
This will be the option if the Board of Supervisors does not act soon. It is the default option.
F113
Not recommended. Allow ADS to Expand the Landfill: The information contained in this is taken from a proposal from the county on possible options for the landfill. Most of this would require negotiations and bids for the best deal for the county. Facts:
F114
Page 28
ADS would fund all construction, capping, and closure of Phase 4 and needed Phases in the future. ADS would fund regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring and perform all routine land management.
F115
Page 28
ADS would pay the county one-dollar per ton royalty. The county states this would generate $150,000.00 to the county per year. To generate that much per year, the landfill would need to be taking in on average 400 tons of waste per day, which is currently four times the amount generated in the county.
F116
Page 28
The county would retain liability of prior Phases and the cost of regulatory monitoring. Findings:
F117
Page 28
ADS would get all necessary permits and address all outstanding issues such as completing the revised closure plan, completing the permitting of all disposal activities and the expansion of the landfill.
F118
Page 28
ADS would fund the majority of the costs of the permits.
F119
Page 28
ADS would limit out of county waste to fifteen truck-loads per day and would prevent the trucks from traveling through Ione.
F120
Page 28
By allowing ADS to continue operations this would permit the landfill to remain in operation. 28 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F121
Page 29
Once a landfill closes it is very hard to resume operations because of state agencies and regulations.
F122
Page 29
Under this proposal the county would have a difficult time covering costs for meeting post closure monitoring.
F123
Page 29
The next best option behind the county constructing the next phase is to allow ADS to fund and construct phase 4. This will allow the landfill to continue to operate. Time is running out on the ability to keep the landfill open and operating under current permits.
F124
Page 29
Set aside funds to construct the next phase, phase 5. Response Required: California Penal Code 933.05 requires a response within 90 days. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 29 Criminal Justice 30 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report California Youth Authority Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp Introduction: Penal Code Section 919(b) mandates that the Grand Jury annually review all prisons and jails within the County. Background: Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp (PGYCC) was established in 1945 in a joint agency agreement between the California Youth Authority (CYA) and the California Division of Forestry (CDF). The facility operates on an annual budget of two million dollars for CYA and nine hundred thousand dollars for CDF. The camp has a staff of 31, including 18 peace officers and 3 part-time employees. This 80-bed facility currently houses 68 wards whose ages range from 18 to 24 years. Their average stay at the camp is 480 days. No ward is selected who has been convicted of arson, any sex offense or who is a flight risk. The wards are assigned to one of four fire crews, a community-service crew or camp crew. Wards are paid from $1.40 to $3.50 per day for regular work but receive $1.00 per hour while fighting fires. Crews are dispatched to fires throughout California. Wards work for public and non-profit agencies, on projects such as fire trails, snow clearance, food distribution, grounds maintenance of public buildings and historical landmarks, cemeteries, and weed abatement of roadways. Evening school attendance is mandatory, until a high school diploma or GED is obtained. Correspondence college courses are available at the ward’s own expense. Each ward must also participate in a minimum of four small group counseling sessions per month, plus individual counseling sessions which include topics such as work ethics, job-seeking skills, anger management, drug abuse, gang activities, and parenting skills. Methodology: Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, and toured the facility. Persons interviewed: Camp Superintendent Assistant Camp Superintendent CDF Division Chief Youth Counselor Camp Cook Parole Agent 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 31 Documents examined: Budget Summary Organization chart Conservation camp operation Camp master projects list Special incident package Operations manual Multi-hazard emergency plan CYA Staff News CYA Today Newspaper Facts:
F125
Page 32
Wards of the PGYCC provided 99,096 hours of public service to the county of Amador, last year and they logged 69,961 hours on the fire line.
F126
Page 32
They donated $1632.00 last year to victim’s funds .
F127
Page 32
The camp serves as a landing field for Med-Evac units .
F128
Page 32
The dining hall and infrastructure can support food services to feed 800 people per day in the event of a major disaster.
F129
Page 32
The wards collect, assemble and distribute 4000 Christmas boughs in the county each year.
F130
Page 32
The camp staff hosts quarterly meetings with the Pine Grove Citizens Advisory Committee. Findings:
F131
Page 32
The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is very community oriented and provides many valuable services to the surrounding cities and to the county.
F132
Page 32
The facility was clean and orderly and the staff cordial and knowledgeable. The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is a very real asset to the County.
F133
None Response Required:
F134
None 32 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F135
Page 16
Amador County has never executed a written lease or rental agreement with Tenant #1 and there is no evidence of any decree or action by the Board of Supervisors allowing him to live-in a trailer parked on county property.
F136
Page 16
Presently the Tenant does not have current liability insurance showing the county as an additional insured. 16 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F137
Page 17
Amador County General Services Administration should immediately enter into a lease agreement with the occupants of all the hangars at Westover Airport.
F138
Page 17
Amador County Risk Manager should define the amount of coverage and type of insurance required by the county for leased or rented property, and insure that all the occupants of the hangars obtain insurance appropriate to meet the requirements of the county. Facts:
F139
Page 17
The mobile home at the rear of hanger #6 is owned and occupied by the Tenant.
F140
Page 17
The previous airport manager allegedly made a verbal agreement allowing the Tenant to live on the premises in exchange for his acting as security watchman for the airport. There is no evidence that the Board of Supervisors approved this agreement.
F141
Page 17
On March 6, 2001, the Amador Code Enforcement Officer received a complaint regarding an alleged illegally occupied mobile home behind hangar #6.
F142
Page 17
On March 8, 2001, the Code Enforcement Officer, at the direction of the an Airport Committee Member/Amador County Supervisor, was directed to ascertain if the mobile home installation at the airport meets the health and safety codes of Amador County.
F143
Page 17
The Chief Building Inspector upon attempting to locate the trailer and verify the complaint found that all the gates to the airport were locked. He was confronted by an unnamed man who denied him access and stated that the trailer “is being moved anyway” from the airport property. This was reported to the Director of the Land Use Agency who ordered that the case be dropped due to the fact that the mobile home was to be moved.
F144
Page 17
In approximately July or August of 2002, the CHP received a request from Amador Sheriff’s Office to investigate a complaint from the airport manager about unlicensed vehicles at the airport. The responding CHP officer interviewed the Tenant, who told the officer that seventy five per cent of the time he lives in Oregon, but travels back and forth to Amador County on business. The CHP Officer stated no action was taken because it is the county’s responsibility to define the legality of vehicles parked on county property.
F145
Page 17
On April 16, 2003, the Amador County Building Inspector found several code violations concerning the mobile home located behind hangar #6; noting “travel trailer hooked up without permit, electrical hookup not to code and sewer connection leaking on the ground”. Findings:
F146
Page 17
The mobile home was not “moved away” and none of the former complaints were ever acted upon. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 17
F147
Page 18
The hook ups to the mobile home located behind hanger #6 were found to be in violation of Amador County Codes.
F148
Page 18
The County does not have a written agreement with the occupant of the mobile home (Tenant) to be a watchman.
F149
Page 18
The Tenant cannot provide effective night watchman services if he is in Oregon seventy five per cent of the time.
F150
Page 18
Remove the mobile home from county property or rectify the code violations.
F151
Page 18
The GSA should provide airport security, if needed. Facts:
F152
Page 18
The Amador County Building Department has inspected hangar #10. The report states that the interior of hangar #10 has been altered to include the addition of a loft and stairs.
F153
Page 18
The modifications were constructed without proper building permits in violation of county codes.
F154
Page 18
All hangars are either county owned or privately owned on leased county ground. Findings:
F155
Page 18
Interior alterations and additions have been constructed to both lessee owned and County owned hangars.
F156
Page 18
Hangar #6 was not inspected, but the Tenant told the inspectors that he is willing to cooperate with the Building Department.
F157
Page 18
The Amador County General Services Administration and the Airport Manager should inspect all buildings on county airport property for modifications or alterations.
F158
Page 18
The County should require that all occupants of hangars or buildings on airport property which have additions or modifications to their structure for which there is not a valid building permit, either obtain the proper permit or demolish the modifications or additions. Response Required: The Amador County Grand Jury requires a response to this report from the following officials/agency heads per California Penal Code 933.05. Director of Amador County Land Use Agency Board of Supervisors Amador County General Services Administration Amador County Building Department 18 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report Amador County Sanitary Landfill (Buena Vista Landfill) Introduction: The 2002-2003 Grand Jury elected to review and evaluate the Amador County Sanitary Landfill pursuant to Penal Code 925. Background: The Amador County Sanitary Landfill has been in operation since 1973. Day to day operations of the landfill and the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) are currently taken care of by Amador Disposal Service, Inc. (ADS), a wholly owned subsidiary of Waste Connections, Inc.. The Amador County Sanitary Landfill is a valuable asset for the county. The citizens of Amador County need an affordable place to dispose of garbage. The landfill has the potential to pay for itself. In the last ten years the landfill and the Waste Management Department has been moved from one department to another. The Waste Management Department was under the General Services Administration and moved to the Public Works Agency in November 2001. There has been a lack of direction and planning which has caused the landfill to be neglected. Currently the Amador County is looking at two options for the Amador County Sanitary Landfill and the disposal of waste. Those options are selling or keeping the landfill. If the county keeps the landfill it can construct phase 4 and continue operations, allow ADS to expand the landfill or close the landfill and use the MRF as a transfer station. Method of Evaluation: Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, internet sites and toured the Amador County Sanitary Landfill. Persons Interviewed: Members of the Board of Supervisors County Administrative Officer Assistant County Counsel Director of Public Works Solid Waste Technician Citizens District Manager, Waste Connections, Inc. President, Aces Waste Services, Inc. Documents Examined: 1987 Solid Waste Water Quality Assessment Test Report (SWAT) 1988 Buena Vista Landfill Verification Monitoring Program Report 1991 Remediation of Leachate Plume: Buena Vista Landfill – CanonieEvironmental 1992 Draft Report Revised Monitoring Programs Buena Vista Landfill- Vector Engineering, Inc. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 19 1992 Buena Vista Landfill Environmental Impact Report (Volumes 1 and 2) Report of Disposal Site Information – December 2002 (Revised 2/6/03) Quarter Monitoring Report for Fourth Quarter 2001 Buena Vista Landfill Annual 2001 Monitoring Report Buena Vista Landfill 1991-1992 Amador Grand Jury Final Report Buena Vista Landfill Real Estate Purchase Agreement between Howard Properties and County of Amador Contract and Addendums for Operation and Maintenance of Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) Agreement and Addendums Administrative Civil Liability Complaint Number 5-00-521 – Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region Administrative Civil Liability Complaint Order Number 5-00-253 - Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region Tentative Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Revision and Cease and Desist Order Buena Vista Landfill – Dated April 12, 2002 County of Amador Final Budgets – 1988/1989 through 2002/2003 Various Documents from Amador County, Intelliwaste, Inc., Jacobson Helgoth Consultants and ADS. Internet Sites: California Integrated Waste Management Board – http:/www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ California State Water Resources Control Board - http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/index.html California Government Codes - http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html Waste Connections, Inc. - http://www.wcnx.org/ Amador County - http://www.co.amador.ca.us/ Amador County’s Management of the Buena Vista Landfill Facts:
F159
Page 20
The landfill is managed under the Waste Management Department, which is under the Public Works Agency. There is one employee in the Waste Management Department, a solid waste technician.
F160
Page 20
The Waste Management Department has been moved between the Public Works Agency and the General Services Administration and back to the Public Works Agency. The Waste Management Department has been a department on its own and combined in the Air/Waste Management Department. These changes have been made over the last ten years.
F161
Page 20
Public Works Agency took over management of the Waste Management Department in November of 2001 from the General Services Administration.
F162
Page 20
The Public Works Director is a Registered Civil Engineer. An engineering background is necessary when dealing with the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and the California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB) and meeting laws and regulations. 20 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F163
Page 21
The landfill and waste management issues are also overseen by a Waste Management Committee headed up by two Amador County Supervisors.
F164
Page 21
The State Water Resources Control Board fined Amador County for $25,000.00 on November 2, 2000. The county was late with ground water monitoring reports ranging from 91 days late to 348 days late to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). When the reports were sent to the RWQCB they were incomplete.
F165
Page 21
The Waste Management Department was under the General Services Administration at the time of the fine.
F166
Page 21
Each phase of the landfill has a site life estimate based on capacity and expected annual disposal amount. An example would be a phase with 500,000 ton capacity with a dump rate of 50,000 tons per year. The expected life of the phase would be ten years.
F167
Page 21
The landfill is a business that requires planning for future expenses.
F168
Page 21
A gas extraction system is being installed on phase 1. It was known that phase 1 would need a gas extraction system in 1995. The cost of the gas extraction system is $597,099.22 plus $50,000.00 for over seeing the construction. Findings:
F169
Page 21
The county is reactive rather than proactive in meeting state regulatory requirements and then needs to file for extensions which cause undue attention by state agencies and the public. This causes confusion and concern.
F170
Page 21
Waste management and the landfill require a great deal of time. The Public Works Agency isn’t staffed to meet the demand. There needs to be a manager to meet the needs of the Waste Management Department and the landfill.
F171
Page 21
There has been improvement in the management of the landfill since November 2001 when the Waste Management Department was moved to the Public Works Agency.
F172
Page 21
There has been no work done on the solid waste facility permits or WDRs for phase 4.
F173
Page 21
The county is currently trying to meet the 50% diversion of waste from the landfill as required by AB 939. The baseline year is in question with the CIWMB. The county was using 1990 as the baseline, which would have made the county inline with diversion requirements. The CIWMB was using 1993 as the baseline year and that puts Amador County out of compliance. The county is working with CIWMB to get the problem corrected.
F174
Page 21
Hire a Waste Management Department Director to report directly to the Board of Supervisors and County Administrative Officer. The Director would oversee and meet state regulations governing the landfill, procure out of county waste, direct waste management issues within the Amador County Waste Management JPA, plan for future landfill needs and monitor landfill costs. The candidate should have a strong business and financial background to analyze revenues and costs.
F175
Page 21
Use tipping fees to pay salary and benefits of the Waste Management Director. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 21 Environmental Facts:
F176
Page 22
The landfill sits on a geologic formation called the Ione Formation. The Ione Formation is primarily made up of clays, which have a very low permeability (the ability of water to move through).
F177
Page 22
Phase 1 consists of a cavity carved out of over 50 feet of clay, which left 25 feet of clay under it. It was lined with another two feet of clay brought in from the Indian Hill Clay Plant.
F178
Page 22
Phase 1 of the landfill was built according to the regulations for landfill construction in 1973.
F179
Page 22
There has been movement of leachate, out of Phase 1 caused by the formation of methane gas.
F180
Page 22
Leachate is a liquid formed by rainwater dissolving materials out of the disposed waste.
F181
Page 22
A trench was dug and a collection system installed on the west side of Phase 1 to capture leachate being pushed out of Phase 1 by the methane gas. The leachate is collected and pumped to an evaporation pond.
F182
Page 22
A gas extraction system is being installed to remove the methane gas from Phase 1.
F183
Page 22
There are sixteen monitoring wells around the landfill, which monitor the water at different levels. The water drawn from these wells is sent to a laboratory to be tested for contaminates which indicate the presence of leachate escaping from the landfill. Findings:
F184
Page 22
The State Water Resources Control Board has reduced most of the ground water monitoring tests to every six months from every three months in the current waste discharge requirements (WDRs). There are two reasons for this. First, there is a reduction in contaminates in the wells which first detected the movement of leachate out of Phase 1. Secondly, the county has been meeting testing and reporting requirements in a timely manner.
F185
Page 22
The Amador County Sanitary Landfill is currently maintained and operated in compliance with state and federal laws.
F186
Page 22
“The Buena Vista Landfill does not have a definable ground water contaminant plume” according to an e-mail sent to county officials from Jacobson, Helgoth Consultants dated September 18, 2002. Jacobson, Helgoth Consultants do the ground water monitoring for the landfill.
F187
Page 22
Amador County’s control over what goes into the landfill will insure the environment will not be sacrificed for profits.
F188
None. 22 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report October 1, 2002 Rate Increase. Amador County gave permission to ACES Waste Services, Inc. (ACES) to take a large part of the garbage they collect to the Kiefer Landfill in Sacramento County to conserve capacity at the Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill. ADS sent a proposal to the county requesting a rate increase to make up lost revenue from ACES hauling waste to the Kiefer Landfill. ACES began hauling waste to the Kiefer Landfill on September 1, 2002. ADS requested an increase of $8.05 to landfill tipping fees which would require an increase to the MRF tipping fees and to the franchise haulers; which ADS is also a franchise hauler. Facts:
F189
Page 23
The Contract and Addendums for Operation and Maintenance of Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill states the county may request an audit of ADS’s financial records when ADS requests an increase in tipping fees.
F190
Page 23
The Contract and Addendums for Operation and Maintenance of Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill states ADS shall keep detailed financial records of all landfill operations and those records shall be separate and independent from all other operations. Annually ADS is to send a balance sheet and income statement verified by an accountant to the county.
F191
Page 23
The county has not received or requested financial records from ADS for the landfill in over seven years.
F192
Page 23
Prior to October 1, 2002 tipping fees at the Buena Vista Landfill were $25.00 per ton.
F193
Page 23
The landfill tipping fees split between ADS and the county was $15.75 (63%) for ADS and $9.25 (37%) for the county.
F194
Page 23
The Board of Supervisors approved the fee increases to $34.00 per ton on September 17, 2002 with the stipulation ADS and ACES provide audits of their financial records. The increase would take effect on October 1, 2002 and remain as long as the audits justified the fee increases.
F195
Page 23
The split for the landfill tipping fees between ADS and the county is $24.75 (73%) to ADS and $9.25 (27%) to the county. ADS received $0.95 more than they requested.
F196
Page 23
ADS provided their audit in November 2002 after two letters from the Amador County Administrative Agency. The Board of Supervisors was not able to determine if the audit did or did not justify the increase ADS was requesting.
F197
Page 23
The Board of Supervisors hired a consultant, Intelliwaste, Inc. to review the audits for $16,500.00. The Board of Supervisors approved the proposal on January 28, 2003. According to the proposal, the reports were to be completed no later than March 31, 2003. As of May 8, 2003, the results of the review of the audits have not been completed.
F198
Page 23
According to the Amador County Administrative Officer the report is late due to ADS having to separate out financial records between the landfill operations, the MRF operations and their franchise waste hauling which includes operations in Amador County and Calaveras County. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 23
F199
Page 24
The proposal by ADS to raise the landfill tipping fees estimated landfill tonnage to be 24,403 tons after ACES started to take waste to Kiefer Landfill. This was down 12,474 tons from the 36,877 tons received at the landfill in the last twelve months (August 2001 – July 2002). The provision stated-if landfill tonnage was greater than 25,000 tons and less than 37,000 tons, the county would receive all the tipping fees as protection from windfall profits. If the tonnage exceeded 37,000 tons then ADS would receive $15.75 per ton.
F200
Page 24
Tipping fees rates and landfill capacity are major considerations when analyzing the value of a landfill. Findings:
F201
Page 24
The Board of Supervisors, County Administrative Agency, and the County Counsel’s Office were willing to grant the increase requested without an audit until it was pointed out that the county had a right to request the audit from ADS to justify the proposed tipping fee increases.
F202
Page 24
The county has not received financial records from ADS in over seven years, which makes it hard to determine if the current figures justify the increase because there is nothing to compare. It would be assumed when ADS was a small independent corporation it would not have the large overhead Waste Connections has. The Waste Services Industry tends to be a heavily leveraged (large debt) industry.
F203
Page 24
ADS has not kept separate financial records for the landfill, the MRF and its solid waste hauler franchise.
F204
Page 24
Raising the landfill tipping fees makes the landfill more attractive to a potential buyer.
F205
Page 24
Request the annual balance sheets and income statements on landfill and MRF operations as required by the contracts with ADS so there can be a comparison of operation revenues and expenses on a year to year basis. Options for the Amador County Sanitary Landfill. County Sells the Buena Vista Landfill. Facts:
F206
Page 24
Currently the landfill is taking in approximately 68 tons of waste per day which comes to 24,403 tons per year. Prior to ACES taking their waste to the Kiefer Landfill, the daily average rate was approximately 113 tons per day based on 358 operating days per year.
F207
Page 24
The landfill is permitted for 810 tons per day.
F208
Page 24
The county is currently funding an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed sale of the landfill at a cost of $150,000 although the county government officials claim they have not decided to sell the landfill.
F209
Page 24
The county purchased the land for the landfill for $852,957 from the Howard Estate. Escrow closed on 1-20-1994. 24 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F210
Page 25
The County Administrative Agency and the County Counsel’s Office are handling the majority of the current landfill issues and the County Administrative Officer and the County Counsel were chosen by the Board of Supervisors to handle negotiations for the sale of the landfill which can be held in closed sessions under the Brown Act.
F211
Page 25
The county is seen as an owner/operator and a generator of municipal solid waste (MSW) and municipal sewage sludge (MSS) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund).
F212
Page 25
The Supreme Court ruling in the United States v. Bestfoods protects parent corporations from the actions of its subsidiary. There is nothing in CERCLA which allows the corporate veil to be pierced. Findings:
F213
Page 25
The county would lose authority over the landfill and a new owner could allow dumping of anything into the landfill. It would be illegal for an operator to dump anything in the landfill that was not in the solid waste facility permit granted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).
F214
Page 25
The county states it would put conditions on the sale of the landfill to mitigate citizen concerns regarding the environment, traffic and operation of the landfill. Considering the county has not held ADS to the terms of their contract to operate the landfill and MRF the likelihood of the county to hold a buyer of the landfill to a sales agreement is questionable.
F215
Page 25
The county would sell the landfill “As Is” which would mean the new owner would take the liability of the existing phases of the landfill but this would lower the price for the landfill.
F216
Page 25
Ultimately there is a legal concern as to whether the county can ever rid itself of past ownership liability since it is always a potentially responsible party for site clean up as reported by Intelliwaste Inc. to the Board of Supervisors. Even if the county can negotiate away its liability as an owner/operator it would still be liable as a generator of waste. Corporations can go bankrupt and taxing entities, such as the county, are seen as financial deep pockets in litigation.
F217
Page 25
There are waste management companies interested in the possible purchase of the landfill.
F218
Page 25
Franchise haulers would not be required to use the landfill if it were purchased.
F219
Page 26
Would allow the county to continue to receive a split of tipping fees and generate revenue to cover costs associated with the landfill.
F220
Page 26
One proposal and estimate offered by a county official would be to permit and construct Phase 4 of the landfill at an estimated cost of $2,800,000.00 and the cost to close it would be approximately $1,600,000.00 for a capacity of 850,000 tons. Another proposal is for a capacity of 500,000 tons. The greater the capacity the lower the cost per ton for construction costs.
F221
Page 26
Professional and Specialized Services, environmental monitoring, regulatory liaison and consulting services, cost the county $591,626.30 in 2000-2001 and $896,295.22 in 2001-2002.
F222
Page 26
Total operating expenses for the Waste Management Department for the last ten years, fiscal years 1992/1993 through 2001/2002, average $668,714 a year. The 1993/1994 fiscal year was the highest at $1,625,363.78 and the 1997/1998 fiscal year had the lowest total operating expenses with $278,403.12. The approved budget for total operating expenses for 2002/2003 is $1,288,960. Findings:
F223
Page 26
It takes 200 tons per day of waste for a landfill operation to reach an economy of scale (operate efficiently).
F224
Page 26
County continues to have control over the landfill, which benefits environmental concerns for the area.
F225
Page 26
The landfill under county control provides reasonable waste disposal to citizens of the county. Tax dollars used to meet landfill expenses provide a benefit to all Amador County citizens. If the landfill is sold there is a good chance the cost to dispose of garbage by Amador County citizens would increase.
F226
Page 26
As prices go up illegal dumping through out the county becomes a greater problem.
F227
Page 26
The county would be responsible for the cost of permitting, regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring, closure and post closure costs as they are now.
F228
Page 26
The Amador County Board of Supervisors has chosen not to fund this option.
F229
Page 26
Construct phase 4 to a capacity of at least 850,000 tons and use as a regional landfill taking in at least 250 tons per day of waste.
F230
Page 26
Use a bond issue to finance construction if funds are not available.
F231
Use tipping fees to payoff the bond. Two examples of how tipping fees could be used to pay for construction, salary and benefits for a Waste Management Director, closure costs and operational expenses. The per ton breakdown at an average of 250 tons per day based on a 358 day year would be: 26 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report Using a bond issue: ADS $15.75 Retirement of Bonds at six year amortization ($2.8 million @ 4%) $ 5.87 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $ 1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $17.45 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $33.20 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.87 equals $1,838,695 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Using funds available: ADS $15.75 Payback on $2.8 million over six years to general fund $5.21 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 over the last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director ($80,000.00) $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $16.79 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $32.54 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.21 equals $1,631,960 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Close the Landfill and Haul Waste Out of County Facts:
F232
Page 27
The county must continue to maintain and monitor existing phases. Professional and Specialized Services have averaged $467,908 per year for the last ten years.
F233
Page 27
Aces Waste Services, Inc. has negotiated a contract with Sacramento County to haul waste to The Kiefer Landfill and will continue to pay Amador County $5 per ton through May 2003. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 27
F234
Page 28
It will cost $804,000 to cap and close phases 2 and 3. A fund exists to meet this cost with the county making installments to cover the costs to cap and close the phases 2 and 3. This fund is required under the solid waste facility permit granted by the CIWMB.
F235
Page 28
Current tipping fees for the MRF are $57.86, which gives ADS a net after landfill tipping fees ($34.00) of $23.86 per ton. Findings:
F236
Page 28
It is unknown if hauling waste out of the county would increase costs to Amador County citizens. Out of county tipping fees and the cost to haul the waste to the disposal site would determine costs.
F237
Page 28
The MRF is used to sort waste into recyclables and for disposal into the landfill. Not all waste received at the gate go into the landfill. The MRF was required to help the county meet requirements of AB 939 for diversion of waste from landfills. Under the contract for the operation of the landfill, ADS has exclusive rights to sell any salvageable items.
F238
Page 28
If the county closed the landfill the MRF would be used as a transfer station.
F239
Page 28
This will be the option if the Board of Supervisors does not act soon. It is the default option.
F240
Not recommended. Allow ADS to Expand the Landfill: The information contained in this is taken from a proposal from the county on possible options for the landfill. Most of this would require negotiations and bids for the best deal for the county. Facts:
F241
Page 28
ADS would fund all construction, capping, and closure of Phase 4 and needed Phases in the future. ADS would fund regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring and perform all routine land management.
F242
Page 28
ADS would pay the county one-dollar per ton royalty. The county states this would generate $150,000.00 to the county per year. To generate that much per year, the landfill would need to be taking in on average 400 tons of waste per day, which is currently four times the amount generated in the county.
F243
Page 28
The county would retain liability of prior Phases and the cost of regulatory monitoring. Findings:
F244
Page 28
ADS would get all necessary permits and address all outstanding issues such as completing the revised closure plan, completing the permitting of all disposal activities and the expansion of the landfill.
F245
Page 28
ADS would fund the majority of the costs of the permits.
F246
Page 28
ADS would limit out of county waste to fifteen truck-loads per day and would prevent the trucks from traveling through Ione.
F247
Page 28
By allowing ADS to continue operations this would permit the landfill to remain in operation. 28 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F248
Page 29
Once a landfill closes it is very hard to resume operations because of state agencies and regulations.
F249
Page 29
Under this proposal the county would have a difficult time covering costs for meeting post closure monitoring.
F250
Page 29
The next best option behind the county constructing the next phase is to allow ADS to fund and construct phase 4. This will allow the landfill to continue to operate. Time is running out on the ability to keep the landfill open and operating under current permits.
F251
Page 29
Set aside funds to construct the next phase, phase 5. Response Required: California Penal Code 933.05 requires a response within 90 days. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 29 Criminal Justice 30 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report California Youth Authority Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp Introduction: Penal Code Section 919(b) mandates that the Grand Jury annually review all prisons and jails within the County. Background: Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp (PGYCC) was established in 1945 in a joint agency agreement between the California Youth Authority (CYA) and the California Division of Forestry (CDF). The facility operates on an annual budget of two million dollars for CYA and nine hundred thousand dollars for CDF. The camp has a staff of 31, including 18 peace officers and 3 part-time employees. This 80-bed facility currently houses 68 wards whose ages range from 18 to 24 years. Their average stay at the camp is 480 days. No ward is selected who has been convicted of arson, any sex offense or who is a flight risk. The wards are assigned to one of four fire crews, a community-service crew or camp crew. Wards are paid from $1.40 to $3.50 per day for regular work but receive $1.00 per hour while fighting fires. Crews are dispatched to fires throughout California. Wards work for public and non-profit agencies, on projects such as fire trails, snow clearance, food distribution, grounds maintenance of public buildings and historical landmarks, cemeteries, and weed abatement of roadways. Evening school attendance is mandatory, until a high school diploma or GED is obtained. Correspondence college courses are available at the ward’s own expense. Each ward must also participate in a minimum of four small group counseling sessions per month, plus individual counseling sessions which include topics such as work ethics, job-seeking skills, anger management, drug abuse, gang activities, and parenting skills. Methodology: Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, and toured the facility. Persons interviewed: Camp Superintendent Assistant Camp Superintendent CDF Division Chief Youth Counselor Camp Cook Parole Agent 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 31 Documents examined: Budget Summary Organization chart Conservation camp operation Camp master projects list Special incident package Operations manual Multi-hazard emergency plan CYA Staff News CYA Today Newspaper Facts:
F252
Page 32
Wards of the PGYCC provided 99,096 hours of public service to the county of Amador, last year and they logged 69,961 hours on the fire line.
F253
Page 32
They donated $1632.00 last year to victim’s funds .
F254
Page 32
The camp serves as a landing field for Med-Evac units .
F255
Page 32
The dining hall and infrastructure can support food services to feed 800 people per day in the event of a major disaster.
F256
Page 32
The wards collect, assemble and distribute 4000 Christmas boughs in the county each year.
F257
Page 32
The camp staff hosts quarterly meetings with the Pine Grove Citizens Advisory Committee. Findings:
F258
Page 32
The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is very community oriented and provides many valuable services to the surrounding cities and to the county.
F259
Page 32
The facility was clean and orderly and the staff cordial and knowledgeable. The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is a very real asset to the County.
F260
None Response Required:
F261
None 32 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F262
Page 17
The mobile home was not “moved away” and none of the former complaints were ever acted upon. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 17
F263
Page 18
The hook ups to the mobile home located behind hanger #6 were found to be in violation of Amador County Codes.
F264
Page 18
The County does not have a written agreement with the occupant of the mobile home (Tenant) to be a watchman.
F265
Page 18
The Tenant cannot provide effective night watchman services if he is in Oregon seventy five per cent of the time.
F266
Page 18
Remove the mobile home from county property or rectify the code violations.
F267
Page 18
The GSA should provide airport security, if needed. Facts:
F268
Page 18
The Amador County Building Department has inspected hangar #10. The report states that the interior of hangar #10 has been altered to include the addition of a loft and stairs.
F269
Page 18
The modifications were constructed without proper building permits in violation of county codes.
F270
Page 18
All hangars are either county owned or privately owned on leased county ground. Findings:
F271
Page 18
Interior alterations and additions have been constructed to both lessee owned and County owned hangars.
F272
Page 18
Hangar #6 was not inspected, but the Tenant told the inspectors that he is willing to cooperate with the Building Department.
F273
Page 18
The Amador County General Services Administration and the Airport Manager should inspect all buildings on county airport property for modifications or alterations.
F274
Page 18
The County should require that all occupants of hangars or buildings on airport property which have additions or modifications to their structure for which there is not a valid building permit, either obtain the proper permit or demolish the modifications or additions. Response Required: The Amador County Grand Jury requires a response to this report from the following officials/agency heads per California Penal Code 933.05. Director of Amador County Land Use Agency Board of Supervisors Amador County General Services Administration Amador County Building Department 18 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report Amador County Sanitary Landfill (Buena Vista Landfill) Introduction: The 2002-2003 Grand Jury elected to review and evaluate the Amador County Sanitary Landfill pursuant to Penal Code 925. Background: The Amador County Sanitary Landfill has been in operation since 1973. Day to day operations of the landfill and the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) are currently taken care of by Amador Disposal Service, Inc. (ADS), a wholly owned subsidiary of Waste Connections, Inc.. The Amador County Sanitary Landfill is a valuable asset for the county. The citizens of Amador County need an affordable place to dispose of garbage. The landfill has the potential to pay for itself. In the last ten years the landfill and the Waste Management Department has been moved from one department to another. The Waste Management Department was under the General Services Administration and moved to the Public Works Agency in November 2001. There has been a lack of direction and planning which has caused the landfill to be neglected. Currently the Amador County is looking at two options for the Amador County Sanitary Landfill and the disposal of waste. Those options are selling or keeping the landfill. If the county keeps the landfill it can construct phase 4 and continue operations, allow ADS to expand the landfill or close the landfill and use the MRF as a transfer station. Method of Evaluation: Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, internet sites and toured the Amador County Sanitary Landfill. Persons Interviewed: Members of the Board of Supervisors County Administrative Officer Assistant County Counsel Director of Public Works Solid Waste Technician Citizens District Manager, Waste Connections, Inc. President, Aces Waste Services, Inc. Documents Examined: 1987 Solid Waste Water Quality Assessment Test Report (SWAT) 1988 Buena Vista Landfill Verification Monitoring Program Report 1991 Remediation of Leachate Plume: Buena Vista Landfill – CanonieEvironmental 1992 Draft Report Revised Monitoring Programs Buena Vista Landfill- Vector Engineering, Inc. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 19 1992 Buena Vista Landfill Environmental Impact Report (Volumes 1 and 2) Report of Disposal Site Information – December 2002 (Revised 2/6/03) Quarter Monitoring Report for Fourth Quarter 2001 Buena Vista Landfill Annual 2001 Monitoring Report Buena Vista Landfill 1991-1992 Amador Grand Jury Final Report Buena Vista Landfill Real Estate Purchase Agreement between Howard Properties and County of Amador Contract and Addendums for Operation and Maintenance of Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) Agreement and Addendums Administrative Civil Liability Complaint Number 5-00-521 – Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region Administrative Civil Liability Complaint Order Number 5-00-253 - Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region Tentative Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Revision and Cease and Desist Order Buena Vista Landfill – Dated April 12, 2002 County of Amador Final Budgets – 1988/1989 through 2002/2003 Various Documents from Amador County, Intelliwaste, Inc., Jacobson Helgoth Consultants and ADS. Internet Sites: California Integrated Waste Management Board – http:/www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ California State Water Resources Control Board - http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/index.html California Government Codes - http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html Waste Connections, Inc. - http://www.wcnx.org/ Amador County - http://www.co.amador.ca.us/ Amador County’s Management of the Buena Vista Landfill Facts:
F275
Page 20
The landfill is managed under the Waste Management Department, which is under the Public Works Agency. There is one employee in the Waste Management Department, a solid waste technician.
F276
Page 20
The Waste Management Department has been moved between the Public Works Agency and the General Services Administration and back to the Public Works Agency. The Waste Management Department has been a department on its own and combined in the Air/Waste Management Department. These changes have been made over the last ten years.
F277
Page 20
Public Works Agency took over management of the Waste Management Department in November of 2001 from the General Services Administration.
F278
Page 20
The Public Works Director is a Registered Civil Engineer. An engineering background is necessary when dealing with the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and the California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB) and meeting laws and regulations. 20 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F279
Page 21
The landfill and waste management issues are also overseen by a Waste Management Committee headed up by two Amador County Supervisors.
F280
Page 21
The State Water Resources Control Board fined Amador County for $25,000.00 on November 2, 2000. The county was late with ground water monitoring reports ranging from 91 days late to 348 days late to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). When the reports were sent to the RWQCB they were incomplete.
F281
Page 21
The Waste Management Department was under the General Services Administration at the time of the fine.
F282
Page 21
Each phase of the landfill has a site life estimate based on capacity and expected annual disposal amount. An example would be a phase with 500,000 ton capacity with a dump rate of 50,000 tons per year. The expected life of the phase would be ten years.
F283
Page 21
The landfill is a business that requires planning for future expenses.
F284
Page 21
A gas extraction system is being installed on phase 1. It was known that phase 1 would need a gas extraction system in 1995. The cost of the gas extraction system is $597,099.22 plus $50,000.00 for over seeing the construction. Findings:
F285
Page 21
The county is reactive rather than proactive in meeting state regulatory requirements and then needs to file for extensions which cause undue attention by state agencies and the public. This causes confusion and concern.
F286
Page 21
Waste management and the landfill require a great deal of time. The Public Works Agency isn’t staffed to meet the demand. There needs to be a manager to meet the needs of the Waste Management Department and the landfill.
F287
Page 21
There has been improvement in the management of the landfill since November 2001 when the Waste Management Department was moved to the Public Works Agency.
F288
Page 21
There has been no work done on the solid waste facility permits or WDRs for phase 4.
F289
Page 21
The county is currently trying to meet the 50% diversion of waste from the landfill as required by AB 939. The baseline year is in question with the CIWMB. The county was using 1990 as the baseline, which would have made the county inline with diversion requirements. The CIWMB was using 1993 as the baseline year and that puts Amador County out of compliance. The county is working with CIWMB to get the problem corrected.
F290
Page 21
Hire a Waste Management Department Director to report directly to the Board of Supervisors and County Administrative Officer. The Director would oversee and meet state regulations governing the landfill, procure out of county waste, direct waste management issues within the Amador County Waste Management JPA, plan for future landfill needs and monitor landfill costs. The candidate should have a strong business and financial background to analyze revenues and costs.
F291
Page 21
Use tipping fees to pay salary and benefits of the Waste Management Director. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 21 Environmental Facts:
F292
Page 22
The landfill sits on a geologic formation called the Ione Formation. The Ione Formation is primarily made up of clays, which have a very low permeability (the ability of water to move through).
F293
Page 22
Phase 1 consists of a cavity carved out of over 50 feet of clay, which left 25 feet of clay under it. It was lined with another two feet of clay brought in from the Indian Hill Clay Plant.
F294
Page 22
Phase 1 of the landfill was built according to the regulations for landfill construction in 1973.
F295
Page 22
There has been movement of leachate, out of Phase 1 caused by the formation of methane gas.
F296
Page 22
Leachate is a liquid formed by rainwater dissolving materials out of the disposed waste.
F297
Page 22
A trench was dug and a collection system installed on the west side of Phase 1 to capture leachate being pushed out of Phase 1 by the methane gas. The leachate is collected and pumped to an evaporation pond.
F298
Page 22
A gas extraction system is being installed to remove the methane gas from Phase 1.
F299
Page 22
There are sixteen monitoring wells around the landfill, which monitor the water at different levels. The water drawn from these wells is sent to a laboratory to be tested for contaminates which indicate the presence of leachate escaping from the landfill. Findings:
F300
Page 22
The State Water Resources Control Board has reduced most of the ground water monitoring tests to every six months from every three months in the current waste discharge requirements (WDRs). There are two reasons for this. First, there is a reduction in contaminates in the wells which first detected the movement of leachate out of Phase 1. Secondly, the county has been meeting testing and reporting requirements in a timely manner.
F301
Page 22
The Amador County Sanitary Landfill is currently maintained and operated in compliance with state and federal laws.
F302
Page 22
“The Buena Vista Landfill does not have a definable ground water contaminant plume” according to an e-mail sent to county officials from Jacobson, Helgoth Consultants dated September 18, 2002. Jacobson, Helgoth Consultants do the ground water monitoring for the landfill.
F303
Page 22
Amador County’s control over what goes into the landfill will insure the environment will not be sacrificed for profits.
F304
None. 22 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report October 1, 2002 Rate Increase. Amador County gave permission to ACES Waste Services, Inc. (ACES) to take a large part of the garbage they collect to the Kiefer Landfill in Sacramento County to conserve capacity at the Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill. ADS sent a proposal to the county requesting a rate increase to make up lost revenue from ACES hauling waste to the Kiefer Landfill. ACES began hauling waste to the Kiefer Landfill on September 1, 2002. ADS requested an increase of $8.05 to landfill tipping fees which would require an increase to the MRF tipping fees and to the franchise haulers; which ADS is also a franchise hauler. Facts:
F305
Page 23
The Contract and Addendums for Operation and Maintenance of Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill states the county may request an audit of ADS’s financial records when ADS requests an increase in tipping fees.
F306
Page 23
The Contract and Addendums for Operation and Maintenance of Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill states ADS shall keep detailed financial records of all landfill operations and those records shall be separate and independent from all other operations. Annually ADS is to send a balance sheet and income statement verified by an accountant to the county.
F307
Page 23
The county has not received or requested financial records from ADS for the landfill in over seven years.
F308
Page 23
Prior to October 1, 2002 tipping fees at the Buena Vista Landfill were $25.00 per ton.
F309
Page 23
The landfill tipping fees split between ADS and the county was $15.75 (63%) for ADS and $9.25 (37%) for the county.
F310
Page 23
The Board of Supervisors approved the fee increases to $34.00 per ton on September 17, 2002 with the stipulation ADS and ACES provide audits of their financial records. The increase would take effect on October 1, 2002 and remain as long as the audits justified the fee increases.
F311
Page 23
The split for the landfill tipping fees between ADS and the county is $24.75 (73%) to ADS and $9.25 (27%) to the county. ADS received $0.95 more than they requested.
F312
Page 23
ADS provided their audit in November 2002 after two letters from the Amador County Administrative Agency. The Board of Supervisors was not able to determine if the audit did or did not justify the increase ADS was requesting.
F313
Page 23
The Board of Supervisors hired a consultant, Intelliwaste, Inc. to review the audits for $16,500.00. The Board of Supervisors approved the proposal on January 28, 2003. According to the proposal, the reports were to be completed no later than March 31, 2003. As of May 8, 2003, the results of the review of the audits have not been completed.
F314
Page 23
According to the Amador County Administrative Officer the report is late due to ADS having to separate out financial records between the landfill operations, the MRF operations and their franchise waste hauling which includes operations in Amador County and Calaveras County. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 23
F315
Page 24
The proposal by ADS to raise the landfill tipping fees estimated landfill tonnage to be 24,403 tons after ACES started to take waste to Kiefer Landfill. This was down 12,474 tons from the 36,877 tons received at the landfill in the last twelve months (August 2001 – July 2002). The provision stated-if landfill tonnage was greater than 25,000 tons and less than 37,000 tons, the county would receive all the tipping fees as protection from windfall profits. If the tonnage exceeded 37,000 tons then ADS would receive $15.75 per ton.
F316
Page 24
Tipping fees rates and landfill capacity are major considerations when analyzing the value of a landfill. Findings:
F317
Page 24
The Board of Supervisors, County Administrative Agency, and the County Counsel’s Office were willing to grant the increase requested without an audit until it was pointed out that the county had a right to request the audit from ADS to justify the proposed tipping fee increases.
F318
Page 24
The county has not received financial records from ADS in over seven years, which makes it hard to determine if the current figures justify the increase because there is nothing to compare. It would be assumed when ADS was a small independent corporation it would not have the large overhead Waste Connections has. The Waste Services Industry tends to be a heavily leveraged (large debt) industry.
F319
Page 24
ADS has not kept separate financial records for the landfill, the MRF and its solid waste hauler franchise.
F320
Page 24
Raising the landfill tipping fees makes the landfill more attractive to a potential buyer.
F321
Page 24
Request the annual balance sheets and income statements on landfill and MRF operations as required by the contracts with ADS so there can be a comparison of operation revenues and expenses on a year to year basis. Options for the Amador County Sanitary Landfill. County Sells the Buena Vista Landfill. Facts:
F322
Page 24
Currently the landfill is taking in approximately 68 tons of waste per day which comes to 24,403 tons per year. Prior to ACES taking their waste to the Kiefer Landfill, the daily average rate was approximately 113 tons per day based on 358 operating days per year.
F323
Page 24
The landfill is permitted for 810 tons per day.
F324
Page 24
The county is currently funding an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed sale of the landfill at a cost of $150,000 although the county government officials claim they have not decided to sell the landfill.
F325
Page 24
The county purchased the land for the landfill for $852,957 from the Howard Estate. Escrow closed on 1-20-1994. 24 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F326
Page 25
The County Administrative Agency and the County Counsel’s Office are handling the majority of the current landfill issues and the County Administrative Officer and the County Counsel were chosen by the Board of Supervisors to handle negotiations for the sale of the landfill which can be held in closed sessions under the Brown Act.
F327
Page 25
The county is seen as an owner/operator and a generator of municipal solid waste (MSW) and municipal sewage sludge (MSS) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund).
F328
Page 25
The Supreme Court ruling in the United States v. Bestfoods protects parent corporations from the actions of its subsidiary. There is nothing in CERCLA which allows the corporate veil to be pierced. Findings:
F329
Page 25
The county would lose authority over the landfill and a new owner could allow dumping of anything into the landfill. It would be illegal for an operator to dump anything in the landfill that was not in the solid waste facility permit granted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).
F330
Page 25
The county states it would put conditions on the sale of the landfill to mitigate citizen concerns regarding the environment, traffic and operation of the landfill. Considering the county has not held ADS to the terms of their contract to operate the landfill and MRF the likelihood of the county to hold a buyer of the landfill to a sales agreement is questionable.
F331
Page 25
The county would sell the landfill “As Is” which would mean the new owner would take the liability of the existing phases of the landfill but this would lower the price for the landfill.
F332
Page 25
Ultimately there is a legal concern as to whether the county can ever rid itself of past ownership liability since it is always a potentially responsible party for site clean up as reported by Intelliwaste Inc. to the Board of Supervisors. Even if the county can negotiate away its liability as an owner/operator it would still be liable as a generator of waste. Corporations can go bankrupt and taxing entities, such as the county, are seen as financial deep pockets in litigation.
F333
Page 25
There are waste management companies interested in the possible purchase of the landfill.
F334
Page 25
Franchise haulers would not be required to use the landfill if it were purchased.
F335
Page 26
Would allow the county to continue to receive a split of tipping fees and generate revenue to cover costs associated with the landfill.
F336
Page 26
One proposal and estimate offered by a county official would be to permit and construct Phase 4 of the landfill at an estimated cost of $2,800,000.00 and the cost to close it would be approximately $1,600,000.00 for a capacity of 850,000 tons. Another proposal is for a capacity of 500,000 tons. The greater the capacity the lower the cost per ton for construction costs.
F337
Page 26
Professional and Specialized Services, environmental monitoring, regulatory liaison and consulting services, cost the county $591,626.30 in 2000-2001 and $896,295.22 in 2001-2002.
F338
Page 26
Total operating expenses for the Waste Management Department for the last ten years, fiscal years 1992/1993 through 2001/2002, average $668,714 a year. The 1993/1994 fiscal year was the highest at $1,625,363.78 and the 1997/1998 fiscal year had the lowest total operating expenses with $278,403.12. The approved budget for total operating expenses for 2002/2003 is $1,288,960. Findings:
F339
Page 26
It takes 200 tons per day of waste for a landfill operation to reach an economy of scale (operate efficiently).
F340
Page 26
County continues to have control over the landfill, which benefits environmental concerns for the area.
F341
Page 26
The landfill under county control provides reasonable waste disposal to citizens of the county. Tax dollars used to meet landfill expenses provide a benefit to all Amador County citizens. If the landfill is sold there is a good chance the cost to dispose of garbage by Amador County citizens would increase.
F342
Page 26
As prices go up illegal dumping through out the county becomes a greater problem.
F343
Page 26
The county would be responsible for the cost of permitting, regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring, closure and post closure costs as they are now.
F344
Page 26
The Amador County Board of Supervisors has chosen not to fund this option.
F345
Page 26
Construct phase 4 to a capacity of at least 850,000 tons and use as a regional landfill taking in at least 250 tons per day of waste.
F346
Page 26
Use a bond issue to finance construction if funds are not available.
F347
Use tipping fees to payoff the bond. Two examples of how tipping fees could be used to pay for construction, salary and benefits for a Waste Management Director, closure costs and operational expenses. The per ton breakdown at an average of 250 tons per day based on a 358 day year would be: 26 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report Using a bond issue: ADS $15.75 Retirement of Bonds at six year amortization ($2.8 million @ 4%) $ 5.87 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $ 1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $17.45 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $33.20 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.87 equals $1,838,695 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Using funds available: ADS $15.75 Payback on $2.8 million over six years to general fund $5.21 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 over the last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director ($80,000.00) $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $16.79 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $32.54 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.21 equals $1,631,960 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Close the Landfill and Haul Waste Out of County Facts:
F348
Page 27
The county must continue to maintain and monitor existing phases. Professional and Specialized Services have averaged $467,908 per year for the last ten years.
F349
Page 27
Aces Waste Services, Inc. has negotiated a contract with Sacramento County to haul waste to The Kiefer Landfill and will continue to pay Amador County $5 per ton through May 2003. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 27
F350
Page 28
It will cost $804,000 to cap and close phases 2 and 3. A fund exists to meet this cost with the county making installments to cover the costs to cap and close the phases 2 and 3. This fund is required under the solid waste facility permit granted by the CIWMB.
F351
Page 28
Current tipping fees for the MRF are $57.86, which gives ADS a net after landfill tipping fees ($34.00) of $23.86 per ton. Findings:
F352
Page 28
It is unknown if hauling waste out of the county would increase costs to Amador County citizens. Out of county tipping fees and the cost to haul the waste to the disposal site would determine costs.
F353
Page 28
The MRF is used to sort waste into recyclables and for disposal into the landfill. Not all waste received at the gate go into the landfill. The MRF was required to help the county meet requirements of AB 939 for diversion of waste from landfills. Under the contract for the operation of the landfill, ADS has exclusive rights to sell any salvageable items.
F354
Page 28
If the county closed the landfill the MRF would be used as a transfer station.
F355
Page 28
This will be the option if the Board of Supervisors does not act soon. It is the default option.
F356
Not recommended. Allow ADS to Expand the Landfill: The information contained in this is taken from a proposal from the county on possible options for the landfill. Most of this would require negotiations and bids for the best deal for the county. Facts:
F357
Page 28
ADS would fund all construction, capping, and closure of Phase 4 and needed Phases in the future. ADS would fund regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring and perform all routine land management.
F358
Page 28
ADS would pay the county one-dollar per ton royalty. The county states this would generate $150,000.00 to the county per year. To generate that much per year, the landfill would need to be taking in on average 400 tons of waste per day, which is currently four times the amount generated in the county.
F359
Page 28
The county would retain liability of prior Phases and the cost of regulatory monitoring. Findings:
F360
Page 28
ADS would get all necessary permits and address all outstanding issues such as completing the revised closure plan, completing the permitting of all disposal activities and the expansion of the landfill.
F361
Page 28
ADS would fund the majority of the costs of the permits.
F362
Page 28
ADS would limit out of county waste to fifteen truck-loads per day and would prevent the trucks from traveling through Ione.
F363
Page 28
By allowing ADS to continue operations this would permit the landfill to remain in operation. 28 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F364
Page 29
Once a landfill closes it is very hard to resume operations because of state agencies and regulations.
F365
Page 29
Under this proposal the county would have a difficult time covering costs for meeting post closure monitoring.
F366
Page 29
The next best option behind the county constructing the next phase is to allow ADS to fund and construct phase 4. This will allow the landfill to continue to operate. Time is running out on the ability to keep the landfill open and operating under current permits.
F367
Page 29
Set aside funds to construct the next phase, phase 5. Response Required: California Penal Code 933.05 requires a response within 90 days. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 29 Criminal Justice 30 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report California Youth Authority Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp Introduction: Penal Code Section 919(b) mandates that the Grand Jury annually review all prisons and jails within the County. Background: Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp (PGYCC) was established in 1945 in a joint agency agreement between the California Youth Authority (CYA) and the California Division of Forestry (CDF). The facility operates on an annual budget of two million dollars for CYA and nine hundred thousand dollars for CDF. The camp has a staff of 31, including 18 peace officers and 3 part-time employees. This 80-bed facility currently houses 68 wards whose ages range from 18 to 24 years. Their average stay at the camp is 480 days. No ward is selected who has been convicted of arson, any sex offense or who is a flight risk. The wards are assigned to one of four fire crews, a community-service crew or camp crew. Wards are paid from $1.40 to $3.50 per day for regular work but receive $1.00 per hour while fighting fires. Crews are dispatched to fires throughout California. Wards work for public and non-profit agencies, on projects such as fire trails, snow clearance, food distribution, grounds maintenance of public buildings and historical landmarks, cemeteries, and weed abatement of roadways. Evening school attendance is mandatory, until a high school diploma or GED is obtained. Correspondence college courses are available at the ward’s own expense. Each ward must also participate in a minimum of four small group counseling sessions per month, plus individual counseling sessions which include topics such as work ethics, job-seeking skills, anger management, drug abuse, gang activities, and parenting skills. Methodology: Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, and toured the facility. Persons interviewed: Camp Superintendent Assistant Camp Superintendent CDF Division Chief Youth Counselor Camp Cook Parole Agent 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 31 Documents examined: Budget Summary Organization chart Conservation camp operation Camp master projects list Special incident package Operations manual Multi-hazard emergency plan CYA Staff News CYA Today Newspaper Facts:
F368
Page 32
Wards of the PGYCC provided 99,096 hours of public service to the county of Amador, last year and they logged 69,961 hours on the fire line.
F369
Page 32
They donated $1632.00 last year to victim’s funds .
F370
Page 32
The camp serves as a landing field for Med-Evac units .
F371
Page 32
The dining hall and infrastructure can support food services to feed 800 people per day in the event of a major disaster.
F372
Page 32
The wards collect, assemble and distribute 4000 Christmas boughs in the county each year.
F373
Page 32
The camp staff hosts quarterly meetings with the Pine Grove Citizens Advisory Committee. Findings:
F374
Page 32
The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is very community oriented and provides many valuable services to the surrounding cities and to the county.
F375
Page 32
The facility was clean and orderly and the staff cordial and knowledgeable. The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is a very real asset to the County.
F376
None Response Required:
F377
None 32 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F378
Page 18
Interior alterations and additions have been constructed to both lessee owned and County owned hangars.
F379
Page 18
Hangar #6 was not inspected, but the Tenant told the inspectors that he is willing to cooperate with the Building Department.
F380
Page 18
The Amador County General Services Administration and the Airport Manager should inspect all buildings on county airport property for modifications or alterations.
F381
Page 18
The County should require that all occupants of hangars or buildings on airport property which have additions or modifications to their structure for which there is not a valid building permit, either obtain the proper permit or demolish the modifications or additions. Response Required: The Amador County Grand Jury requires a response to this report from the following officials/agency heads per California Penal Code 933.05. Director of Amador County Land Use Agency Board of Supervisors Amador County General Services Administration Amador County Building Department 18 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report Amador County Sanitary Landfill (Buena Vista Landfill) Introduction: The 2002-2003 Grand Jury elected to review and evaluate the Amador County Sanitary Landfill pursuant to Penal Code 925. Background: The Amador County Sanitary Landfill has been in operation since 1973. Day to day operations of the landfill and the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) are currently taken care of by Amador Disposal Service, Inc. (ADS), a wholly owned subsidiary of Waste Connections, Inc.. The Amador County Sanitary Landfill is a valuable asset for the county. The citizens of Amador County need an affordable place to dispose of garbage. The landfill has the potential to pay for itself. In the last ten years the landfill and the Waste Management Department has been moved from one department to another. The Waste Management Department was under the General Services Administration and moved to the Public Works Agency in November 2001. There has been a lack of direction and planning which has caused the landfill to be neglected. Currently the Amador County is looking at two options for the Amador County Sanitary Landfill and the disposal of waste. Those options are selling or keeping the landfill. If the county keeps the landfill it can construct phase 4 and continue operations, allow ADS to expand the landfill or close the landfill and use the MRF as a transfer station. Method of Evaluation: Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, internet sites and toured the Amador County Sanitary Landfill. Persons Interviewed: Members of the Board of Supervisors County Administrative Officer Assistant County Counsel Director of Public Works Solid Waste Technician Citizens District Manager, Waste Connections, Inc. President, Aces Waste Services, Inc. Documents Examined: 1987 Solid Waste Water Quality Assessment Test Report (SWAT) 1988 Buena Vista Landfill Verification Monitoring Program Report 1991 Remediation of Leachate Plume: Buena Vista Landfill – CanonieEvironmental 1992 Draft Report Revised Monitoring Programs Buena Vista Landfill- Vector Engineering, Inc. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 19 1992 Buena Vista Landfill Environmental Impact Report (Volumes 1 and 2) Report of Disposal Site Information – December 2002 (Revised 2/6/03) Quarter Monitoring Report for Fourth Quarter 2001 Buena Vista Landfill Annual 2001 Monitoring Report Buena Vista Landfill 1991-1992 Amador Grand Jury Final Report Buena Vista Landfill Real Estate Purchase Agreement between Howard Properties and County of Amador Contract and Addendums for Operation and Maintenance of Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) Agreement and Addendums Administrative Civil Liability Complaint Number 5-00-521 – Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region Administrative Civil Liability Complaint Order Number 5-00-253 - Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region Tentative Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Revision and Cease and Desist Order Buena Vista Landfill – Dated April 12, 2002 County of Amador Final Budgets – 1988/1989 through 2002/2003 Various Documents from Amador County, Intelliwaste, Inc., Jacobson Helgoth Consultants and ADS. Internet Sites: California Integrated Waste Management Board – http:/www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ California State Water Resources Control Board - http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/index.html California Government Codes - http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html Waste Connections, Inc. - http://www.wcnx.org/ Amador County - http://www.co.amador.ca.us/ Amador County’s Management of the Buena Vista Landfill Facts:
F382
Page 20
The landfill is managed under the Waste Management Department, which is under the Public Works Agency. There is one employee in the Waste Management Department, a solid waste technician.
F383
Page 20
The Waste Management Department has been moved between the Public Works Agency and the General Services Administration and back to the Public Works Agency. The Waste Management Department has been a department on its own and combined in the Air/Waste Management Department. These changes have been made over the last ten years.
F384
Page 20
Public Works Agency took over management of the Waste Management Department in November of 2001 from the General Services Administration.
F385
Page 20
The Public Works Director is a Registered Civil Engineer. An engineering background is necessary when dealing with the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and the California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB) and meeting laws and regulations. 20 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F386
Page 21
The landfill and waste management issues are also overseen by a Waste Management Committee headed up by two Amador County Supervisors.
F387
Page 21
The State Water Resources Control Board fined Amador County for $25,000.00 on November 2, 2000. The county was late with ground water monitoring reports ranging from 91 days late to 348 days late to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). When the reports were sent to the RWQCB they were incomplete.
F388
Page 21
The Waste Management Department was under the General Services Administration at the time of the fine.
F389
Page 21
Each phase of the landfill has a site life estimate based on capacity and expected annual disposal amount. An example would be a phase with 500,000 ton capacity with a dump rate of 50,000 tons per year. The expected life of the phase would be ten years.
F390
Page 21
The landfill is a business that requires planning for future expenses.
F391
Page 21
A gas extraction system is being installed on phase 1. It was known that phase 1 would need a gas extraction system in 1995. The cost of the gas extraction system is $597,099.22 plus $50,000.00 for over seeing the construction. Findings:
F392
Page 21
The county is reactive rather than proactive in meeting state regulatory requirements and then needs to file for extensions which cause undue attention by state agencies and the public. This causes confusion and concern.
F393
Page 21
Waste management and the landfill require a great deal of time. The Public Works Agency isn’t staffed to meet the demand. There needs to be a manager to meet the needs of the Waste Management Department and the landfill.
F394
Page 21
There has been improvement in the management of the landfill since November 2001 when the Waste Management Department was moved to the Public Works Agency.
F395
Page 21
There has been no work done on the solid waste facility permits or WDRs for phase 4.
F396
Page 21
The county is currently trying to meet the 50% diversion of waste from the landfill as required by AB 939. The baseline year is in question with the CIWMB. The county was using 1990 as the baseline, which would have made the county inline with diversion requirements. The CIWMB was using 1993 as the baseline year and that puts Amador County out of compliance. The county is working with CIWMB to get the problem corrected.
F397
Page 21
Hire a Waste Management Department Director to report directly to the Board of Supervisors and County Administrative Officer. The Director would oversee and meet state regulations governing the landfill, procure out of county waste, direct waste management issues within the Amador County Waste Management JPA, plan for future landfill needs and monitor landfill costs. The candidate should have a strong business and financial background to analyze revenues and costs.
F398
Page 21
Use tipping fees to pay salary and benefits of the Waste Management Director. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 21 Environmental Facts:
F399
Page 22
The landfill sits on a geologic formation called the Ione Formation. The Ione Formation is primarily made up of clays, which have a very low permeability (the ability of water to move through).
F400
Page 22
Phase 1 consists of a cavity carved out of over 50 feet of clay, which left 25 feet of clay under it. It was lined with another two feet of clay brought in from the Indian Hill Clay Plant.
F401
Page 22
Phase 1 of the landfill was built according to the regulations for landfill construction in 1973.
F402
Page 22
There has been movement of leachate, out of Phase 1 caused by the formation of methane gas.
F403
Page 22
Leachate is a liquid formed by rainwater dissolving materials out of the disposed waste.
F404
Page 22
A trench was dug and a collection system installed on the west side of Phase 1 to capture leachate being pushed out of Phase 1 by the methane gas. The leachate is collected and pumped to an evaporation pond.
F405
Page 22
A gas extraction system is being installed to remove the methane gas from Phase 1.
F406
Page 22
There are sixteen monitoring wells around the landfill, which monitor the water at different levels. The water drawn from these wells is sent to a laboratory to be tested for contaminates which indicate the presence of leachate escaping from the landfill. Findings:
F407
Page 22
The State Water Resources Control Board has reduced most of the ground water monitoring tests to every six months from every three months in the current waste discharge requirements (WDRs). There are two reasons for this. First, there is a reduction in contaminates in the wells which first detected the movement of leachate out of Phase 1. Secondly, the county has been meeting testing and reporting requirements in a timely manner.
F408
Page 22
The Amador County Sanitary Landfill is currently maintained and operated in compliance with state and federal laws.
F409
Page 22
“The Buena Vista Landfill does not have a definable ground water contaminant plume” according to an e-mail sent to county officials from Jacobson, Helgoth Consultants dated September 18, 2002. Jacobson, Helgoth Consultants do the ground water monitoring for the landfill.
F410
Page 22
Amador County’s control over what goes into the landfill will insure the environment will not be sacrificed for profits.
F411
None. 22 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report October 1, 2002 Rate Increase. Amador County gave permission to ACES Waste Services, Inc. (ACES) to take a large part of the garbage they collect to the Kiefer Landfill in Sacramento County to conserve capacity at the Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill. ADS sent a proposal to the county requesting a rate increase to make up lost revenue from ACES hauling waste to the Kiefer Landfill. ACES began hauling waste to the Kiefer Landfill on September 1, 2002. ADS requested an increase of $8.05 to landfill tipping fees which would require an increase to the MRF tipping fees and to the franchise haulers; which ADS is also a franchise hauler. Facts:
F412
Page 23
The Contract and Addendums for Operation and Maintenance of Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill states the county may request an audit of ADS’s financial records when ADS requests an increase in tipping fees.
F413
Page 23
The Contract and Addendums for Operation and Maintenance of Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill states ADS shall keep detailed financial records of all landfill operations and those records shall be separate and independent from all other operations. Annually ADS is to send a balance sheet and income statement verified by an accountant to the county.
F414
Page 23
The county has not received or requested financial records from ADS for the landfill in over seven years.
F415
Page 23
Prior to October 1, 2002 tipping fees at the Buena Vista Landfill were $25.00 per ton.
F416
Page 23
The landfill tipping fees split between ADS and the county was $15.75 (63%) for ADS and $9.25 (37%) for the county.
F417
Page 23
The Board of Supervisors approved the fee increases to $34.00 per ton on September 17, 2002 with the stipulation ADS and ACES provide audits of their financial records. The increase would take effect on October 1, 2002 and remain as long as the audits justified the fee increases.
F418
Page 23
The split for the landfill tipping fees between ADS and the county is $24.75 (73%) to ADS and $9.25 (27%) to the county. ADS received $0.95 more than they requested.
F419
Page 23
ADS provided their audit in November 2002 after two letters from the Amador County Administrative Agency. The Board of Supervisors was not able to determine if the audit did or did not justify the increase ADS was requesting.
F420
Page 23
The Board of Supervisors hired a consultant, Intelliwaste, Inc. to review the audits for $16,500.00. The Board of Supervisors approved the proposal on January 28, 2003. According to the proposal, the reports were to be completed no later than March 31, 2003. As of May 8, 2003, the results of the review of the audits have not been completed.
F421
Page 23
According to the Amador County Administrative Officer the report is late due to ADS having to separate out financial records between the landfill operations, the MRF operations and their franchise waste hauling which includes operations in Amador County and Calaveras County. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 23
F422
Page 24
The proposal by ADS to raise the landfill tipping fees estimated landfill tonnage to be 24,403 tons after ACES started to take waste to Kiefer Landfill. This was down 12,474 tons from the 36,877 tons received at the landfill in the last twelve months (August 2001 – July 2002). The provision stated-if landfill tonnage was greater than 25,000 tons and less than 37,000 tons, the county would receive all the tipping fees as protection from windfall profits. If the tonnage exceeded 37,000 tons then ADS would receive $15.75 per ton.
F423
Page 24
Tipping fees rates and landfill capacity are major considerations when analyzing the value of a landfill. Findings:
F424
Page 24
The Board of Supervisors, County Administrative Agency, and the County Counsel’s Office were willing to grant the increase requested without an audit until it was pointed out that the county had a right to request the audit from ADS to justify the proposed tipping fee increases.
F425
Page 24
The county has not received financial records from ADS in over seven years, which makes it hard to determine if the current figures justify the increase because there is nothing to compare. It would be assumed when ADS was a small independent corporation it would not have the large overhead Waste Connections has. The Waste Services Industry tends to be a heavily leveraged (large debt) industry.
F426
Page 24
ADS has not kept separate financial records for the landfill, the MRF and its solid waste hauler franchise.
F427
Page 24
Raising the landfill tipping fees makes the landfill more attractive to a potential buyer.
F428
Page 24
Request the annual balance sheets and income statements on landfill and MRF operations as required by the contracts with ADS so there can be a comparison of operation revenues and expenses on a year to year basis. Options for the Amador County Sanitary Landfill. County Sells the Buena Vista Landfill. Facts:
F429
Page 24
Currently the landfill is taking in approximately 68 tons of waste per day which comes to 24,403 tons per year. Prior to ACES taking their waste to the Kiefer Landfill, the daily average rate was approximately 113 tons per day based on 358 operating days per year.
F430
Page 24
The landfill is permitted for 810 tons per day.
F431
Page 24
The county is currently funding an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed sale of the landfill at a cost of $150,000 although the county government officials claim they have not decided to sell the landfill.
F432
Page 24
The county purchased the land for the landfill for $852,957 from the Howard Estate. Escrow closed on 1-20-1994. 24 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F433
Page 25
The County Administrative Agency and the County Counsel’s Office are handling the majority of the current landfill issues and the County Administrative Officer and the County Counsel were chosen by the Board of Supervisors to handle negotiations for the sale of the landfill which can be held in closed sessions under the Brown Act.
F434
Page 25
The county is seen as an owner/operator and a generator of municipal solid waste (MSW) and municipal sewage sludge (MSS) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund).
F435
Page 25
The Supreme Court ruling in the United States v. Bestfoods protects parent corporations from the actions of its subsidiary. There is nothing in CERCLA which allows the corporate veil to be pierced. Findings:
F436
Page 25
The county would lose authority over the landfill and a new owner could allow dumping of anything into the landfill. It would be illegal for an operator to dump anything in the landfill that was not in the solid waste facility permit granted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).
F437
Page 25
The county states it would put conditions on the sale of the landfill to mitigate citizen concerns regarding the environment, traffic and operation of the landfill. Considering the county has not held ADS to the terms of their contract to operate the landfill and MRF the likelihood of the county to hold a buyer of the landfill to a sales agreement is questionable.
F438
Page 25
The county would sell the landfill “As Is” which would mean the new owner would take the liability of the existing phases of the landfill but this would lower the price for the landfill.
F439
Page 25
Ultimately there is a legal concern as to whether the county can ever rid itself of past ownership liability since it is always a potentially responsible party for site clean up as reported by Intelliwaste Inc. to the Board of Supervisors. Even if the county can negotiate away its liability as an owner/operator it would still be liable as a generator of waste. Corporations can go bankrupt and taxing entities, such as the county, are seen as financial deep pockets in litigation.
F440
Page 25
There are waste management companies interested in the possible purchase of the landfill.
F441
Page 25
Franchise haulers would not be required to use the landfill if it were purchased.
F442
Page 26
Would allow the county to continue to receive a split of tipping fees and generate revenue to cover costs associated with the landfill.
F443
Page 26
One proposal and estimate offered by a county official would be to permit and construct Phase 4 of the landfill at an estimated cost of $2,800,000.00 and the cost to close it would be approximately $1,600,000.00 for a capacity of 850,000 tons. Another proposal is for a capacity of 500,000 tons. The greater the capacity the lower the cost per ton for construction costs.
F444
Page 26
Professional and Specialized Services, environmental monitoring, regulatory liaison and consulting services, cost the county $591,626.30 in 2000-2001 and $896,295.22 in 2001-2002.
F445
Page 26
Total operating expenses for the Waste Management Department for the last ten years, fiscal years 1992/1993 through 2001/2002, average $668,714 a year. The 1993/1994 fiscal year was the highest at $1,625,363.78 and the 1997/1998 fiscal year had the lowest total operating expenses with $278,403.12. The approved budget for total operating expenses for 2002/2003 is $1,288,960. Findings:
F446
Page 26
It takes 200 tons per day of waste for a landfill operation to reach an economy of scale (operate efficiently).
F447
Page 26
County continues to have control over the landfill, which benefits environmental concerns for the area.
F448
Page 26
The landfill under county control provides reasonable waste disposal to citizens of the county. Tax dollars used to meet landfill expenses provide a benefit to all Amador County citizens. If the landfill is sold there is a good chance the cost to dispose of garbage by Amador County citizens would increase.
F449
Page 26
As prices go up illegal dumping through out the county becomes a greater problem.
F450
Page 26
The county would be responsible for the cost of permitting, regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring, closure and post closure costs as they are now.
F451
Page 26
The Amador County Board of Supervisors has chosen not to fund this option.
F452
Page 26
Construct phase 4 to a capacity of at least 850,000 tons and use as a regional landfill taking in at least 250 tons per day of waste.
F453
Page 26
Use a bond issue to finance construction if funds are not available.
F454
Use tipping fees to payoff the bond. Two examples of how tipping fees could be used to pay for construction, salary and benefits for a Waste Management Director, closure costs and operational expenses. The per ton breakdown at an average of 250 tons per day based on a 358 day year would be: 26 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report Using a bond issue: ADS $15.75 Retirement of Bonds at six year amortization ($2.8 million @ 4%) $ 5.87 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $ 1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $17.45 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $33.20 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.87 equals $1,838,695 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Using funds available: ADS $15.75 Payback on $2.8 million over six years to general fund $5.21 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 over the last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director ($80,000.00) $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $16.79 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $32.54 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.21 equals $1,631,960 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Close the Landfill and Haul Waste Out of County Facts:
F455
Page 27
The county must continue to maintain and monitor existing phases. Professional and Specialized Services have averaged $467,908 per year for the last ten years.
F456
Page 27
Aces Waste Services, Inc. has negotiated a contract with Sacramento County to haul waste to The Kiefer Landfill and will continue to pay Amador County $5 per ton through May 2003. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 27
F457
Page 28
It will cost $804,000 to cap and close phases 2 and 3. A fund exists to meet this cost with the county making installments to cover the costs to cap and close the phases 2 and 3. This fund is required under the solid waste facility permit granted by the CIWMB.
F458
Page 28
Current tipping fees for the MRF are $57.86, which gives ADS a net after landfill tipping fees ($34.00) of $23.86 per ton. Findings:
F459
Page 28
It is unknown if hauling waste out of the county would increase costs to Amador County citizens. Out of county tipping fees and the cost to haul the waste to the disposal site would determine costs.
F460
Page 28
The MRF is used to sort waste into recyclables and for disposal into the landfill. Not all waste received at the gate go into the landfill. The MRF was required to help the county meet requirements of AB 939 for diversion of waste from landfills. Under the contract for the operation of the landfill, ADS has exclusive rights to sell any salvageable items.
F461
Page 28
If the county closed the landfill the MRF would be used as a transfer station.
F462
Page 28
This will be the option if the Board of Supervisors does not act soon. It is the default option.
F463
Not recommended. Allow ADS to Expand the Landfill: The information contained in this is taken from a proposal from the county on possible options for the landfill. Most of this would require negotiations and bids for the best deal for the county. Facts:
F464
Page 28
ADS would fund all construction, capping, and closure of Phase 4 and needed Phases in the future. ADS would fund regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring and perform all routine land management.
F465
Page 28
ADS would pay the county one-dollar per ton royalty. The county states this would generate $150,000.00 to the county per year. To generate that much per year, the landfill would need to be taking in on average 400 tons of waste per day, which is currently four times the amount generated in the county.
F466
Page 28
The county would retain liability of prior Phases and the cost of regulatory monitoring. Findings:
F467
Page 28
ADS would get all necessary permits and address all outstanding issues such as completing the revised closure plan, completing the permitting of all disposal activities and the expansion of the landfill.
F468
Page 28
ADS would fund the majority of the costs of the permits.
F469
Page 28
ADS would limit out of county waste to fifteen truck-loads per day and would prevent the trucks from traveling through Ione.
F470
Page 28
By allowing ADS to continue operations this would permit the landfill to remain in operation. 28 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F471
Page 29
Once a landfill closes it is very hard to resume operations because of state agencies and regulations.
F472
Page 29
Under this proposal the county would have a difficult time covering costs for meeting post closure monitoring.
F473
Page 29
The next best option behind the county constructing the next phase is to allow ADS to fund and construct phase 4. This will allow the landfill to continue to operate. Time is running out on the ability to keep the landfill open and operating under current permits.
F474
Page 29
Set aside funds to construct the next phase, phase 5. Response Required: California Penal Code 933.05 requires a response within 90 days. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 29 Criminal Justice 30 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report California Youth Authority Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp Introduction: Penal Code Section 919(b) mandates that the Grand Jury annually review all prisons and jails within the County. Background: Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp (PGYCC) was established in 1945 in a joint agency agreement between the California Youth Authority (CYA) and the California Division of Forestry (CDF). The facility operates on an annual budget of two million dollars for CYA and nine hundred thousand dollars for CDF. The camp has a staff of 31, including 18 peace officers and 3 part-time employees. This 80-bed facility currently houses 68 wards whose ages range from 18 to 24 years. Their average stay at the camp is 480 days. No ward is selected who has been convicted of arson, any sex offense or who is a flight risk. The wards are assigned to one of four fire crews, a community-service crew or camp crew. Wards are paid from $1.40 to $3.50 per day for regular work but receive $1.00 per hour while fighting fires. Crews are dispatched to fires throughout California. Wards work for public and non-profit agencies, on projects such as fire trails, snow clearance, food distribution, grounds maintenance of public buildings and historical landmarks, cemeteries, and weed abatement of roadways. Evening school attendance is mandatory, until a high school diploma or GED is obtained. Correspondence college courses are available at the ward’s own expense. Each ward must also participate in a minimum of four small group counseling sessions per month, plus individual counseling sessions which include topics such as work ethics, job-seeking skills, anger management, drug abuse, gang activities, and parenting skills. Methodology: Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, and toured the facility. Persons interviewed: Camp Superintendent Assistant Camp Superintendent CDF Division Chief Youth Counselor Camp Cook Parole Agent 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 31 Documents examined: Budget Summary Organization chart Conservation camp operation Camp master projects list Special incident package Operations manual Multi-hazard emergency plan CYA Staff News CYA Today Newspaper Facts:
F475
Page 32
Wards of the PGYCC provided 99,096 hours of public service to the county of Amador, last year and they logged 69,961 hours on the fire line.
F476
Page 32
They donated $1632.00 last year to victim’s funds .
F477
Page 32
The camp serves as a landing field for Med-Evac units .
F478
Page 32
The dining hall and infrastructure can support food services to feed 800 people per day in the event of a major disaster.
F479
Page 32
The wards collect, assemble and distribute 4000 Christmas boughs in the county each year.
F480
Page 32
The camp staff hosts quarterly meetings with the Pine Grove Citizens Advisory Committee. Findings:
F481
Page 32
The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is very community oriented and provides many valuable services to the surrounding cities and to the county.
F482
Page 32
The facility was clean and orderly and the staff cordial and knowledgeable. The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is a very real asset to the County.
F483
None Response Required:
F484
None 32 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F485
Page 21
The county is reactive rather than proactive in meeting state regulatory requirements and then needs to file for extensions which cause undue attention by state agencies and the public. This causes confusion and concern.
F486
Page 21
Waste management and the landfill require a great deal of time. The Public Works Agency isn’t staffed to meet the demand. There needs to be a manager to meet the needs of the Waste Management Department and the landfill.
F487
Page 21
There has been improvement in the management of the landfill since November 2001 when the Waste Management Department was moved to the Public Works Agency.
F488
Page 21
There has been no work done on the solid waste facility permits or WDRs for phase 4.
F489
Page 21
The county is currently trying to meet the 50% diversion of waste from the landfill as required by AB 939. The baseline year is in question with the CIWMB. The county was using 1990 as the baseline, which would have made the county inline with diversion requirements. The CIWMB was using 1993 as the baseline year and that puts Amador County out of compliance. The county is working with CIWMB to get the problem corrected.
F490
Page 21
Hire a Waste Management Department Director to report directly to the Board of Supervisors and County Administrative Officer. The Director would oversee and meet state regulations governing the landfill, procure out of county waste, direct waste management issues within the Amador County Waste Management JPA, plan for future landfill needs and monitor landfill costs. The candidate should have a strong business and financial background to analyze revenues and costs.
F491
Page 21
Use tipping fees to pay salary and benefits of the Waste Management Director. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 21 Environmental Facts:
F492
Page 22
The landfill sits on a geologic formation called the Ione Formation. The Ione Formation is primarily made up of clays, which have a very low permeability (the ability of water to move through).
F493
Page 22
Phase 1 consists of a cavity carved out of over 50 feet of clay, which left 25 feet of clay under it. It was lined with another two feet of clay brought in from the Indian Hill Clay Plant.
F494
Page 22
Phase 1 of the landfill was built according to the regulations for landfill construction in 1973.
F495
Page 22
There has been movement of leachate, out of Phase 1 caused by the formation of methane gas.
F496
Page 22
Leachate is a liquid formed by rainwater dissolving materials out of the disposed waste.
F497
Page 22
A trench was dug and a collection system installed on the west side of Phase 1 to capture leachate being pushed out of Phase 1 by the methane gas. The leachate is collected and pumped to an evaporation pond.
F498
Page 22
A gas extraction system is being installed to remove the methane gas from Phase 1.
F499
Page 22
There are sixteen monitoring wells around the landfill, which monitor the water at different levels. The water drawn from these wells is sent to a laboratory to be tested for contaminates which indicate the presence of leachate escaping from the landfill. Findings:
F500
Page 22
The State Water Resources Control Board has reduced most of the ground water monitoring tests to every six months from every three months in the current waste discharge requirements (WDRs). There are two reasons for this. First, there is a reduction in contaminates in the wells which first detected the movement of leachate out of Phase 1. Secondly, the county has been meeting testing and reporting requirements in a timely manner.
F501
Page 22
The Amador County Sanitary Landfill is currently maintained and operated in compliance with state and federal laws.
F502
Page 22
“The Buena Vista Landfill does not have a definable ground water contaminant plume” according to an e-mail sent to county officials from Jacobson, Helgoth Consultants dated September 18, 2002. Jacobson, Helgoth Consultants do the ground water monitoring for the landfill.
F503
Page 22
Amador County’s control over what goes into the landfill will insure the environment will not be sacrificed for profits.
F504
None. 22 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report October 1, 2002 Rate Increase. Amador County gave permission to ACES Waste Services, Inc. (ACES) to take a large part of the garbage they collect to the Kiefer Landfill in Sacramento County to conserve capacity at the Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill. ADS sent a proposal to the county requesting a rate increase to make up lost revenue from ACES hauling waste to the Kiefer Landfill. ACES began hauling waste to the Kiefer Landfill on September 1, 2002. ADS requested an increase of $8.05 to landfill tipping fees which would require an increase to the MRF tipping fees and to the franchise haulers; which ADS is also a franchise hauler. Facts:
F505
Page 23
The Contract and Addendums for Operation and Maintenance of Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill states the county may request an audit of ADS’s financial records when ADS requests an increase in tipping fees.
F506
Page 23
The Contract and Addendums for Operation and Maintenance of Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill states ADS shall keep detailed financial records of all landfill operations and those records shall be separate and independent from all other operations. Annually ADS is to send a balance sheet and income statement verified by an accountant to the county.
F507
Page 23
The county has not received or requested financial records from ADS for the landfill in over seven years.
F508
Page 23
Prior to October 1, 2002 tipping fees at the Buena Vista Landfill were $25.00 per ton.
F509
Page 23
The landfill tipping fees split between ADS and the county was $15.75 (63%) for ADS and $9.25 (37%) for the county.
F510
Page 23
The Board of Supervisors approved the fee increases to $34.00 per ton on September 17, 2002 with the stipulation ADS and ACES provide audits of their financial records. The increase would take effect on October 1, 2002 and remain as long as the audits justified the fee increases.
F511
Page 23
The split for the landfill tipping fees between ADS and the county is $24.75 (73%) to ADS and $9.25 (27%) to the county. ADS received $0.95 more than they requested.
F512
Page 23
ADS provided their audit in November 2002 after two letters from the Amador County Administrative Agency. The Board of Supervisors was not able to determine if the audit did or did not justify the increase ADS was requesting.
F513
Page 23
The Board of Supervisors hired a consultant, Intelliwaste, Inc. to review the audits for $16,500.00. The Board of Supervisors approved the proposal on January 28, 2003. According to the proposal, the reports were to be completed no later than March 31, 2003. As of May 8, 2003, the results of the review of the audits have not been completed.
F514
Page 23
According to the Amador County Administrative Officer the report is late due to ADS having to separate out financial records between the landfill operations, the MRF operations and their franchise waste hauling which includes operations in Amador County and Calaveras County. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 23
F515
Page 24
The proposal by ADS to raise the landfill tipping fees estimated landfill tonnage to be 24,403 tons after ACES started to take waste to Kiefer Landfill. This was down 12,474 tons from the 36,877 tons received at the landfill in the last twelve months (August 2001 – July 2002). The provision stated-if landfill tonnage was greater than 25,000 tons and less than 37,000 tons, the county would receive all the tipping fees as protection from windfall profits. If the tonnage exceeded 37,000 tons then ADS would receive $15.75 per ton.
F516
Page 24
Tipping fees rates and landfill capacity are major considerations when analyzing the value of a landfill. Findings:
F517
Page 24
The Board of Supervisors, County Administrative Agency, and the County Counsel’s Office were willing to grant the increase requested without an audit until it was pointed out that the county had a right to request the audit from ADS to justify the proposed tipping fee increases.
F518
Page 24
The county has not received financial records from ADS in over seven years, which makes it hard to determine if the current figures justify the increase because there is nothing to compare. It would be assumed when ADS was a small independent corporation it would not have the large overhead Waste Connections has. The Waste Services Industry tends to be a heavily leveraged (large debt) industry.
F519
Page 24
ADS has not kept separate financial records for the landfill, the MRF and its solid waste hauler franchise.
F520
Page 24
Raising the landfill tipping fees makes the landfill more attractive to a potential buyer.
F521
Page 24
Request the annual balance sheets and income statements on landfill and MRF operations as required by the contracts with ADS so there can be a comparison of operation revenues and expenses on a year to year basis. Options for the Amador County Sanitary Landfill. County Sells the Buena Vista Landfill. Facts:
F522
Page 24
Currently the landfill is taking in approximately 68 tons of waste per day which comes to 24,403 tons per year. Prior to ACES taking their waste to the Kiefer Landfill, the daily average rate was approximately 113 tons per day based on 358 operating days per year.
F523
Page 24
The landfill is permitted for 810 tons per day.
F524
Page 24
The county is currently funding an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed sale of the landfill at a cost of $150,000 although the county government officials claim they have not decided to sell the landfill.
F525
Page 24
The county purchased the land for the landfill for $852,957 from the Howard Estate. Escrow closed on 1-20-1994. 24 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F526
Page 25
The County Administrative Agency and the County Counsel’s Office are handling the majority of the current landfill issues and the County Administrative Officer and the County Counsel were chosen by the Board of Supervisors to handle negotiations for the sale of the landfill which can be held in closed sessions under the Brown Act.
F527
Page 25
The county is seen as an owner/operator and a generator of municipal solid waste (MSW) and municipal sewage sludge (MSS) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund).
F528
Page 25
The Supreme Court ruling in the United States v. Bestfoods protects parent corporations from the actions of its subsidiary. There is nothing in CERCLA which allows the corporate veil to be pierced. Findings:
F529
Page 25
The county would lose authority over the landfill and a new owner could allow dumping of anything into the landfill. It would be illegal for an operator to dump anything in the landfill that was not in the solid waste facility permit granted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).
F530
Page 25
The county states it would put conditions on the sale of the landfill to mitigate citizen concerns regarding the environment, traffic and operation of the landfill. Considering the county has not held ADS to the terms of their contract to operate the landfill and MRF the likelihood of the county to hold a buyer of the landfill to a sales agreement is questionable.
F531
Page 25
The county would sell the landfill “As Is” which would mean the new owner would take the liability of the existing phases of the landfill but this would lower the price for the landfill.
F532
Page 25
Ultimately there is a legal concern as to whether the county can ever rid itself of past ownership liability since it is always a potentially responsible party for site clean up as reported by Intelliwaste Inc. to the Board of Supervisors. Even if the county can negotiate away its liability as an owner/operator it would still be liable as a generator of waste. Corporations can go bankrupt and taxing entities, such as the county, are seen as financial deep pockets in litigation.
F533
Page 25
There are waste management companies interested in the possible purchase of the landfill.
F534
Page 25
Franchise haulers would not be required to use the landfill if it were purchased.
F535
Page 26
Would allow the county to continue to receive a split of tipping fees and generate revenue to cover costs associated with the landfill.
F536
Page 26
One proposal and estimate offered by a county official would be to permit and construct Phase 4 of the landfill at an estimated cost of $2,800,000.00 and the cost to close it would be approximately $1,600,000.00 for a capacity of 850,000 tons. Another proposal is for a capacity of 500,000 tons. The greater the capacity the lower the cost per ton for construction costs.
F537
Page 26
Professional and Specialized Services, environmental monitoring, regulatory liaison and consulting services, cost the county $591,626.30 in 2000-2001 and $896,295.22 in 2001-2002.
F538
Page 26
Total operating expenses for the Waste Management Department for the last ten years, fiscal years 1992/1993 through 2001/2002, average $668,714 a year. The 1993/1994 fiscal year was the highest at $1,625,363.78 and the 1997/1998 fiscal year had the lowest total operating expenses with $278,403.12. The approved budget for total operating expenses for 2002/2003 is $1,288,960. Findings:
F539
Page 26
It takes 200 tons per day of waste for a landfill operation to reach an economy of scale (operate efficiently).
F540
Page 26
County continues to have control over the landfill, which benefits environmental concerns for the area.
F541
Page 26
The landfill under county control provides reasonable waste disposal to citizens of the county. Tax dollars used to meet landfill expenses provide a benefit to all Amador County citizens. If the landfill is sold there is a good chance the cost to dispose of garbage by Amador County citizens would increase.
F542
Page 26
As prices go up illegal dumping through out the county becomes a greater problem.
F543
Page 26
The county would be responsible for the cost of permitting, regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring, closure and post closure costs as they are now.
F544
Page 26
The Amador County Board of Supervisors has chosen not to fund this option.
F545
Page 26
Construct phase 4 to a capacity of at least 850,000 tons and use as a regional landfill taking in at least 250 tons per day of waste.
F546
Page 26
Use a bond issue to finance construction if funds are not available.
F547
Use tipping fees to payoff the bond. Two examples of how tipping fees could be used to pay for construction, salary and benefits for a Waste Management Director, closure costs and operational expenses. The per ton breakdown at an average of 250 tons per day based on a 358 day year would be: 26 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report Using a bond issue: ADS $15.75 Retirement of Bonds at six year amortization ($2.8 million @ 4%) $ 5.87 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $ 1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $17.45 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $33.20 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.87 equals $1,838,695 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Using funds available: ADS $15.75 Payback on $2.8 million over six years to general fund $5.21 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 over the last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director ($80,000.00) $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $16.79 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $32.54 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.21 equals $1,631,960 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Close the Landfill and Haul Waste Out of County Facts:
F548
Page 27
The county must continue to maintain and monitor existing phases. Professional and Specialized Services have averaged $467,908 per year for the last ten years.
F549
Page 27
Aces Waste Services, Inc. has negotiated a contract with Sacramento County to haul waste to The Kiefer Landfill and will continue to pay Amador County $5 per ton through May 2003. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 27
F550
Page 28
It will cost $804,000 to cap and close phases 2 and 3. A fund exists to meet this cost with the county making installments to cover the costs to cap and close the phases 2 and 3. This fund is required under the solid waste facility permit granted by the CIWMB.
F551
Page 28
Current tipping fees for the MRF are $57.86, which gives ADS a net after landfill tipping fees ($34.00) of $23.86 per ton. Findings:
F552
Page 28
It is unknown if hauling waste out of the county would increase costs to Amador County citizens. Out of county tipping fees and the cost to haul the waste to the disposal site would determine costs.
F553
Page 28
The MRF is used to sort waste into recyclables and for disposal into the landfill. Not all waste received at the gate go into the landfill. The MRF was required to help the county meet requirements of AB 939 for diversion of waste from landfills. Under the contract for the operation of the landfill, ADS has exclusive rights to sell any salvageable items.
F554
Page 28
If the county closed the landfill the MRF would be used as a transfer station.
F555
Page 28
This will be the option if the Board of Supervisors does not act soon. It is the default option.
F556
Not recommended. Allow ADS to Expand the Landfill: The information contained in this is taken from a proposal from the county on possible options for the landfill. Most of this would require negotiations and bids for the best deal for the county. Facts:
F557
Page 28
ADS would fund all construction, capping, and closure of Phase 4 and needed Phases in the future. ADS would fund regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring and perform all routine land management.
F558
Page 28
ADS would pay the county one-dollar per ton royalty. The county states this would generate $150,000.00 to the county per year. To generate that much per year, the landfill would need to be taking in on average 400 tons of waste per day, which is currently four times the amount generated in the county.
F559
Page 28
The county would retain liability of prior Phases and the cost of regulatory monitoring. Findings:
F560
Page 28
ADS would get all necessary permits and address all outstanding issues such as completing the revised closure plan, completing the permitting of all disposal activities and the expansion of the landfill.
F561
Page 28
ADS would fund the majority of the costs of the permits.
F562
Page 28
ADS would limit out of county waste to fifteen truck-loads per day and would prevent the trucks from traveling through Ione.
F563
Page 28
By allowing ADS to continue operations this would permit the landfill to remain in operation. 28 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F564
Page 29
Once a landfill closes it is very hard to resume operations because of state agencies and regulations.
F565
Page 29
Under this proposal the county would have a difficult time covering costs for meeting post closure monitoring.
F566
Page 29
The next best option behind the county constructing the next phase is to allow ADS to fund and construct phase 4. This will allow the landfill to continue to operate. Time is running out on the ability to keep the landfill open and operating under current permits.
F567
Page 29
Set aside funds to construct the next phase, phase 5. Response Required: California Penal Code 933.05 requires a response within 90 days. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 29 Criminal Justice 30 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report California Youth Authority Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp Introduction: Penal Code Section 919(b) mandates that the Grand Jury annually review all prisons and jails within the County. Background: Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp (PGYCC) was established in 1945 in a joint agency agreement between the California Youth Authority (CYA) and the California Division of Forestry (CDF). The facility operates on an annual budget of two million dollars for CYA and nine hundred thousand dollars for CDF. The camp has a staff of 31, including 18 peace officers and 3 part-time employees. This 80-bed facility currently houses 68 wards whose ages range from 18 to 24 years. Their average stay at the camp is 480 days. No ward is selected who has been convicted of arson, any sex offense or who is a flight risk. The wards are assigned to one of four fire crews, a community-service crew or camp crew. Wards are paid from $1.40 to $3.50 per day for regular work but receive $1.00 per hour while fighting fires. Crews are dispatched to fires throughout California. Wards work for public and non-profit agencies, on projects such as fire trails, snow clearance, food distribution, grounds maintenance of public buildings and historical landmarks, cemeteries, and weed abatement of roadways. Evening school attendance is mandatory, until a high school diploma or GED is obtained. Correspondence college courses are available at the ward’s own expense. Each ward must also participate in a minimum of four small group counseling sessions per month, plus individual counseling sessions which include topics such as work ethics, job-seeking skills, anger management, drug abuse, gang activities, and parenting skills. Methodology: Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, and toured the facility. Persons interviewed: Camp Superintendent Assistant Camp Superintendent CDF Division Chief Youth Counselor Camp Cook Parole Agent 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 31 Documents examined: Budget Summary Organization chart Conservation camp operation Camp master projects list Special incident package Operations manual Multi-hazard emergency plan CYA Staff News CYA Today Newspaper Facts:
F568
Page 32
Wards of the PGYCC provided 99,096 hours of public service to the county of Amador, last year and they logged 69,961 hours on the fire line.
F569
Page 32
They donated $1632.00 last year to victim’s funds .
F570
Page 32
The camp serves as a landing field for Med-Evac units .
F571
Page 32
The dining hall and infrastructure can support food services to feed 800 people per day in the event of a major disaster.
F572
Page 32
The wards collect, assemble and distribute 4000 Christmas boughs in the county each year.
F573
Page 32
The camp staff hosts quarterly meetings with the Pine Grove Citizens Advisory Committee. Findings:
F574
Page 32
The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is very community oriented and provides many valuable services to the surrounding cities and to the county.
F575
Page 32
The facility was clean and orderly and the staff cordial and knowledgeable. The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is a very real asset to the County.
F576
None Response Required:
F577
None 32 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F578
Page 22
The State Water Resources Control Board has reduced most of the ground water monitoring tests to every six months from every three months in the current waste discharge requirements (WDRs). There are two reasons for this. First, there is a reduction in contaminates in the wells which first detected the movement of leachate out of Phase 1. Secondly, the county has been meeting testing and reporting requirements in a timely manner.
F579
Page 22
The Amador County Sanitary Landfill is currently maintained and operated in compliance with state and federal laws.
F580
Page 22
“The Buena Vista Landfill does not have a definable ground water contaminant plume” according to an e-mail sent to county officials from Jacobson, Helgoth Consultants dated September 18, 2002. Jacobson, Helgoth Consultants do the ground water monitoring for the landfill.
F581
Page 22
Amador County’s control over what goes into the landfill will insure the environment will not be sacrificed for profits.
F582
None. 22 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report October 1, 2002 Rate Increase. Amador County gave permission to ACES Waste Services, Inc. (ACES) to take a large part of the garbage they collect to the Kiefer Landfill in Sacramento County to conserve capacity at the Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill. ADS sent a proposal to the county requesting a rate increase to make up lost revenue from ACES hauling waste to the Kiefer Landfill. ACES began hauling waste to the Kiefer Landfill on September 1, 2002. ADS requested an increase of $8.05 to landfill tipping fees which would require an increase to the MRF tipping fees and to the franchise haulers; which ADS is also a franchise hauler. Facts:
F583
Page 23
The Contract and Addendums for Operation and Maintenance of Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill states the county may request an audit of ADS’s financial records when ADS requests an increase in tipping fees.
F584
Page 23
The Contract and Addendums for Operation and Maintenance of Amador County Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill states ADS shall keep detailed financial records of all landfill operations and those records shall be separate and independent from all other operations. Annually ADS is to send a balance sheet and income statement verified by an accountant to the county.
F585
Page 23
The county has not received or requested financial records from ADS for the landfill in over seven years.
F586
Page 23
Prior to October 1, 2002 tipping fees at the Buena Vista Landfill were $25.00 per ton.
F587
Page 23
The landfill tipping fees split between ADS and the county was $15.75 (63%) for ADS and $9.25 (37%) for the county.
F588
Page 23
The Board of Supervisors approved the fee increases to $34.00 per ton on September 17, 2002 with the stipulation ADS and ACES provide audits of their financial records. The increase would take effect on October 1, 2002 and remain as long as the audits justified the fee increases.
F589
Page 23
The split for the landfill tipping fees between ADS and the county is $24.75 (73%) to ADS and $9.25 (27%) to the county. ADS received $0.95 more than they requested.
F590
Page 23
ADS provided their audit in November 2002 after two letters from the Amador County Administrative Agency. The Board of Supervisors was not able to determine if the audit did or did not justify the increase ADS was requesting.
F591
Page 23
The Board of Supervisors hired a consultant, Intelliwaste, Inc. to review the audits for $16,500.00. The Board of Supervisors approved the proposal on January 28, 2003. According to the proposal, the reports were to be completed no later than March 31, 2003. As of May 8, 2003, the results of the review of the audits have not been completed.
F592
Page 23
According to the Amador County Administrative Officer the report is late due to ADS having to separate out financial records between the landfill operations, the MRF operations and their franchise waste hauling which includes operations in Amador County and Calaveras County. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 23
F593
Page 24
The proposal by ADS to raise the landfill tipping fees estimated landfill tonnage to be 24,403 tons after ACES started to take waste to Kiefer Landfill. This was down 12,474 tons from the 36,877 tons received at the landfill in the last twelve months (August 2001 – July 2002). The provision stated-if landfill tonnage was greater than 25,000 tons and less than 37,000 tons, the county would receive all the tipping fees as protection from windfall profits. If the tonnage exceeded 37,000 tons then ADS would receive $15.75 per ton.
F594
Page 24
Tipping fees rates and landfill capacity are major considerations when analyzing the value of a landfill. Findings:
F595
Page 24
The Board of Supervisors, County Administrative Agency, and the County Counsel’s Office were willing to grant the increase requested without an audit until it was pointed out that the county had a right to request the audit from ADS to justify the proposed tipping fee increases.
F596
Page 24
The county has not received financial records from ADS in over seven years, which makes it hard to determine if the current figures justify the increase because there is nothing to compare. It would be assumed when ADS was a small independent corporation it would not have the large overhead Waste Connections has. The Waste Services Industry tends to be a heavily leveraged (large debt) industry.
F597
Page 24
ADS has not kept separate financial records for the landfill, the MRF and its solid waste hauler franchise.
F598
Page 24
Raising the landfill tipping fees makes the landfill more attractive to a potential buyer.
F599
Page 24
Request the annual balance sheets and income statements on landfill and MRF operations as required by the contracts with ADS so there can be a comparison of operation revenues and expenses on a year to year basis. Options for the Amador County Sanitary Landfill. County Sells the Buena Vista Landfill. Facts:
F600
Page 24
Currently the landfill is taking in approximately 68 tons of waste per day which comes to 24,403 tons per year. Prior to ACES taking their waste to the Kiefer Landfill, the daily average rate was approximately 113 tons per day based on 358 operating days per year.
F601
Page 24
The landfill is permitted for 810 tons per day.
F602
Page 24
The county is currently funding an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed sale of the landfill at a cost of $150,000 although the county government officials claim they have not decided to sell the landfill.
F603
Page 24
The county purchased the land for the landfill for $852,957 from the Howard Estate. Escrow closed on 1-20-1994. 24 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F604
Page 25
The County Administrative Agency and the County Counsel’s Office are handling the majority of the current landfill issues and the County Administrative Officer and the County Counsel were chosen by the Board of Supervisors to handle negotiations for the sale of the landfill which can be held in closed sessions under the Brown Act.
F605
Page 25
The county is seen as an owner/operator and a generator of municipal solid waste (MSW) and municipal sewage sludge (MSS) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund).
F606
Page 25
The Supreme Court ruling in the United States v. Bestfoods protects parent corporations from the actions of its subsidiary. There is nothing in CERCLA which allows the corporate veil to be pierced. Findings:
F607
Page 25
The county would lose authority over the landfill and a new owner could allow dumping of anything into the landfill. It would be illegal for an operator to dump anything in the landfill that was not in the solid waste facility permit granted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).
F608
Page 25
The county states it would put conditions on the sale of the landfill to mitigate citizen concerns regarding the environment, traffic and operation of the landfill. Considering the county has not held ADS to the terms of their contract to operate the landfill and MRF the likelihood of the county to hold a buyer of the landfill to a sales agreement is questionable.
F609
Page 25
The county would sell the landfill “As Is” which would mean the new owner would take the liability of the existing phases of the landfill but this would lower the price for the landfill.
F610
Page 25
Ultimately there is a legal concern as to whether the county can ever rid itself of past ownership liability since it is always a potentially responsible party for site clean up as reported by Intelliwaste Inc. to the Board of Supervisors. Even if the county can negotiate away its liability as an owner/operator it would still be liable as a generator of waste. Corporations can go bankrupt and taxing entities, such as the county, are seen as financial deep pockets in litigation.
F611
Page 25
There are waste management companies interested in the possible purchase of the landfill.
F612
Page 25
Franchise haulers would not be required to use the landfill if it were purchased.
F613
Page 26
Would allow the county to continue to receive a split of tipping fees and generate revenue to cover costs associated with the landfill.
F614
Page 26
One proposal and estimate offered by a county official would be to permit and construct Phase 4 of the landfill at an estimated cost of $2,800,000.00 and the cost to close it would be approximately $1,600,000.00 for a capacity of 850,000 tons. Another proposal is for a capacity of 500,000 tons. The greater the capacity the lower the cost per ton for construction costs.
F615
Page 26
Professional and Specialized Services, environmental monitoring, regulatory liaison and consulting services, cost the county $591,626.30 in 2000-2001 and $896,295.22 in 2001-2002.
F616
Page 26
Total operating expenses for the Waste Management Department for the last ten years, fiscal years 1992/1993 through 2001/2002, average $668,714 a year. The 1993/1994 fiscal year was the highest at $1,625,363.78 and the 1997/1998 fiscal year had the lowest total operating expenses with $278,403.12. The approved budget for total operating expenses for 2002/2003 is $1,288,960. Findings:
F617
Page 26
It takes 200 tons per day of waste for a landfill operation to reach an economy of scale (operate efficiently).
F618
Page 26
County continues to have control over the landfill, which benefits environmental concerns for the area.
F619
Page 26
The landfill under county control provides reasonable waste disposal to citizens of the county. Tax dollars used to meet landfill expenses provide a benefit to all Amador County citizens. If the landfill is sold there is a good chance the cost to dispose of garbage by Amador County citizens would increase.
F620
Page 26
As prices go up illegal dumping through out the county becomes a greater problem.
F621
Page 26
The county would be responsible for the cost of permitting, regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring, closure and post closure costs as they are now.
F622
Page 26
The Amador County Board of Supervisors has chosen not to fund this option.
F623
Page 26
Construct phase 4 to a capacity of at least 850,000 tons and use as a regional landfill taking in at least 250 tons per day of waste.
F624
Page 26
Use a bond issue to finance construction if funds are not available.
F625
Use tipping fees to payoff the bond. Two examples of how tipping fees could be used to pay for construction, salary and benefits for a Waste Management Director, closure costs and operational expenses. The per ton breakdown at an average of 250 tons per day based on a 358 day year would be: 26 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report Using a bond issue: ADS $15.75 Retirement of Bonds at six year amortization ($2.8 million @ 4%) $ 5.87 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $ 1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $17.45 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $33.20 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.87 equals $1,838,695 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Using funds available: ADS $15.75 Payback on $2.8 million over six years to general fund $5.21 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 over the last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director ($80,000.00) $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $16.79 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $32.54 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.21 equals $1,631,960 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Close the Landfill and Haul Waste Out of County Facts:
F626
Page 27
The county must continue to maintain and monitor existing phases. Professional and Specialized Services have averaged $467,908 per year for the last ten years.
F627
Page 27
Aces Waste Services, Inc. has negotiated a contract with Sacramento County to haul waste to The Kiefer Landfill and will continue to pay Amador County $5 per ton through May 2003. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 27
F628
Page 28
It will cost $804,000 to cap and close phases 2 and 3. A fund exists to meet this cost with the county making installments to cover the costs to cap and close the phases 2 and 3. This fund is required under the solid waste facility permit granted by the CIWMB.
F629
Page 28
Current tipping fees for the MRF are $57.86, which gives ADS a net after landfill tipping fees ($34.00) of $23.86 per ton. Findings:
F630
Page 28
It is unknown if hauling waste out of the county would increase costs to Amador County citizens. Out of county tipping fees and the cost to haul the waste to the disposal site would determine costs.
F631
Page 28
The MRF is used to sort waste into recyclables and for disposal into the landfill. Not all waste received at the gate go into the landfill. The MRF was required to help the county meet requirements of AB 939 for diversion of waste from landfills. Under the contract for the operation of the landfill, ADS has exclusive rights to sell any salvageable items.
F632
Page 28
If the county closed the landfill the MRF would be used as a transfer station.
F633
Page 28
This will be the option if the Board of Supervisors does not act soon. It is the default option.
F634
Not recommended. Allow ADS to Expand the Landfill: The information contained in this is taken from a proposal from the county on possible options for the landfill. Most of this would require negotiations and bids for the best deal for the county. Facts:
F635
Page 28
ADS would fund all construction, capping, and closure of Phase 4 and needed Phases in the future. ADS would fund regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring and perform all routine land management.
F636
Page 28
ADS would pay the county one-dollar per ton royalty. The county states this would generate $150,000.00 to the county per year. To generate that much per year, the landfill would need to be taking in on average 400 tons of waste per day, which is currently four times the amount generated in the county.
F637
Page 28
The county would retain liability of prior Phases and the cost of regulatory monitoring. Findings:
F638
Page 28
ADS would get all necessary permits and address all outstanding issues such as completing the revised closure plan, completing the permitting of all disposal activities and the expansion of the landfill.
F639
Page 28
ADS would fund the majority of the costs of the permits.
F640
Page 28
ADS would limit out of county waste to fifteen truck-loads per day and would prevent the trucks from traveling through Ione.
F641
Page 28
By allowing ADS to continue operations this would permit the landfill to remain in operation. 28 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F642
Page 29
Once a landfill closes it is very hard to resume operations because of state agencies and regulations.
F643
Page 29
Under this proposal the county would have a difficult time covering costs for meeting post closure monitoring.
F644
Page 29
The next best option behind the county constructing the next phase is to allow ADS to fund and construct phase 4. This will allow the landfill to continue to operate. Time is running out on the ability to keep the landfill open and operating under current permits.
F645
Page 29
Set aside funds to construct the next phase, phase 5. Response Required: California Penal Code 933.05 requires a response within 90 days. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 29 Criminal Justice 30 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report California Youth Authority Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp Introduction: Penal Code Section 919(b) mandates that the Grand Jury annually review all prisons and jails within the County. Background: Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp (PGYCC) was established in 1945 in a joint agency agreement between the California Youth Authority (CYA) and the California Division of Forestry (CDF). The facility operates on an annual budget of two million dollars for CYA and nine hundred thousand dollars for CDF. The camp has a staff of 31, including 18 peace officers and 3 part-time employees. This 80-bed facility currently houses 68 wards whose ages range from 18 to 24 years. Their average stay at the camp is 480 days. No ward is selected who has been convicted of arson, any sex offense or who is a flight risk. The wards are assigned to one of four fire crews, a community-service crew or camp crew. Wards are paid from $1.40 to $3.50 per day for regular work but receive $1.00 per hour while fighting fires. Crews are dispatched to fires throughout California. Wards work for public and non-profit agencies, on projects such as fire trails, snow clearance, food distribution, grounds maintenance of public buildings and historical landmarks, cemeteries, and weed abatement of roadways. Evening school attendance is mandatory, until a high school diploma or GED is obtained. Correspondence college courses are available at the ward’s own expense. Each ward must also participate in a minimum of four small group counseling sessions per month, plus individual counseling sessions which include topics such as work ethics, job-seeking skills, anger management, drug abuse, gang activities, and parenting skills. Methodology: Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, and toured the facility. Persons interviewed: Camp Superintendent Assistant Camp Superintendent CDF Division Chief Youth Counselor Camp Cook Parole Agent 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 31 Documents examined: Budget Summary Organization chart Conservation camp operation Camp master projects list Special incident package Operations manual Multi-hazard emergency plan CYA Staff News CYA Today Newspaper Facts:
F646
Page 32
Wards of the PGYCC provided 99,096 hours of public service to the county of Amador, last year and they logged 69,961 hours on the fire line.
F647
Page 32
They donated $1632.00 last year to victim’s funds .
F648
Page 32
The camp serves as a landing field for Med-Evac units .
F649
Page 32
The dining hall and infrastructure can support food services to feed 800 people per day in the event of a major disaster.
F650
Page 32
The wards collect, assemble and distribute 4000 Christmas boughs in the county each year.
F651
Page 32
The camp staff hosts quarterly meetings with the Pine Grove Citizens Advisory Committee. Findings:
F652
Page 32
The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is very community oriented and provides many valuable services to the surrounding cities and to the county.
F653
Page 32
The facility was clean and orderly and the staff cordial and knowledgeable. The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is a very real asset to the County.
F654
None Response Required:
F655
None 32 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F656
Page 24
The Board of Supervisors, County Administrative Agency, and the County Counsel’s Office were willing to grant the increase requested without an audit until it was pointed out that the county had a right to request the audit from ADS to justify the proposed tipping fee increases.
F657
Page 24
The county has not received financial records from ADS in over seven years, which makes it hard to determine if the current figures justify the increase because there is nothing to compare. It would be assumed when ADS was a small independent corporation it would not have the large overhead Waste Connections has. The Waste Services Industry tends to be a heavily leveraged (large debt) industry.
F658
Page 24
ADS has not kept separate financial records for the landfill, the MRF and its solid waste hauler franchise.
F659
Page 24
Raising the landfill tipping fees makes the landfill more attractive to a potential buyer.
F660
Page 24
Request the annual balance sheets and income statements on landfill and MRF operations as required by the contracts with ADS so there can be a comparison of operation revenues and expenses on a year to year basis. Options for the Amador County Sanitary Landfill. County Sells the Buena Vista Landfill. Facts:
F661
Page 24
Currently the landfill is taking in approximately 68 tons of waste per day which comes to 24,403 tons per year. Prior to ACES taking their waste to the Kiefer Landfill, the daily average rate was approximately 113 tons per day based on 358 operating days per year.
F662
Page 24
The landfill is permitted for 810 tons per day.
F663
Page 24
The county is currently funding an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed sale of the landfill at a cost of $150,000 although the county government officials claim they have not decided to sell the landfill.
F664
Page 24
The county purchased the land for the landfill for $852,957 from the Howard Estate. Escrow closed on 1-20-1994. 24 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F665
Page 25
The County Administrative Agency and the County Counsel’s Office are handling the majority of the current landfill issues and the County Administrative Officer and the County Counsel were chosen by the Board of Supervisors to handle negotiations for the sale of the landfill which can be held in closed sessions under the Brown Act.
F666
Page 25
The county is seen as an owner/operator and a generator of municipal solid waste (MSW) and municipal sewage sludge (MSS) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund).
F667
Page 25
The Supreme Court ruling in the United States v. Bestfoods protects parent corporations from the actions of its subsidiary. There is nothing in CERCLA which allows the corporate veil to be pierced. Findings:
F668
Page 25
The county would lose authority over the landfill and a new owner could allow dumping of anything into the landfill. It would be illegal for an operator to dump anything in the landfill that was not in the solid waste facility permit granted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).
F669
Page 25
The county states it would put conditions on the sale of the landfill to mitigate citizen concerns regarding the environment, traffic and operation of the landfill. Considering the county has not held ADS to the terms of their contract to operate the landfill and MRF the likelihood of the county to hold a buyer of the landfill to a sales agreement is questionable.
F670
Page 25
The county would sell the landfill “As Is” which would mean the new owner would take the liability of the existing phases of the landfill but this would lower the price for the landfill.
F671
Page 25
Ultimately there is a legal concern as to whether the county can ever rid itself of past ownership liability since it is always a potentially responsible party for site clean up as reported by Intelliwaste Inc. to the Board of Supervisors. Even if the county can negotiate away its liability as an owner/operator it would still be liable as a generator of waste. Corporations can go bankrupt and taxing entities, such as the county, are seen as financial deep pockets in litigation.
F672
Page 25
There are waste management companies interested in the possible purchase of the landfill.
F673
Page 25
Franchise haulers would not be required to use the landfill if it were purchased.
F674
Page 26
Would allow the county to continue to receive a split of tipping fees and generate revenue to cover costs associated with the landfill.
F675
Page 26
One proposal and estimate offered by a county official would be to permit and construct Phase 4 of the landfill at an estimated cost of $2,800,000.00 and the cost to close it would be approximately $1,600,000.00 for a capacity of 850,000 tons. Another proposal is for a capacity of 500,000 tons. The greater the capacity the lower the cost per ton for construction costs.
F676
Page 26
Professional and Specialized Services, environmental monitoring, regulatory liaison and consulting services, cost the county $591,626.30 in 2000-2001 and $896,295.22 in 2001-2002.
F677
Page 26
Total operating expenses for the Waste Management Department for the last ten years, fiscal years 1992/1993 through 2001/2002, average $668,714 a year. The 1993/1994 fiscal year was the highest at $1,625,363.78 and the 1997/1998 fiscal year had the lowest total operating expenses with $278,403.12. The approved budget for total operating expenses for 2002/2003 is $1,288,960. Findings:
F678
Page 26
It takes 200 tons per day of waste for a landfill operation to reach an economy of scale (operate efficiently).
F679
Page 26
County continues to have control over the landfill, which benefits environmental concerns for the area.
F680
Page 26
The landfill under county control provides reasonable waste disposal to citizens of the county. Tax dollars used to meet landfill expenses provide a benefit to all Amador County citizens. If the landfill is sold there is a good chance the cost to dispose of garbage by Amador County citizens would increase.
F681
Page 26
As prices go up illegal dumping through out the county becomes a greater problem.
F682
Page 26
The county would be responsible for the cost of permitting, regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring, closure and post closure costs as they are now.
F683
Page 26
The Amador County Board of Supervisors has chosen not to fund this option.
F684
Page 26
Construct phase 4 to a capacity of at least 850,000 tons and use as a regional landfill taking in at least 250 tons per day of waste.
F685
Page 26
Use a bond issue to finance construction if funds are not available.
F686
Use tipping fees to payoff the bond. Two examples of how tipping fees could be used to pay for construction, salary and benefits for a Waste Management Director, closure costs and operational expenses. The per ton breakdown at an average of 250 tons per day based on a 358 day year would be: 26 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report Using a bond issue: ADS $15.75 Retirement of Bonds at six year amortization ($2.8 million @ 4%) $ 5.87 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $ 1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $17.45 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $33.20 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.87 equals $1,838,695 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Using funds available: ADS $15.75 Payback on $2.8 million over six years to general fund $5.21 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 over the last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director ($80,000.00) $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $16.79 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $32.54 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.21 equals $1,631,960 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Close the Landfill and Haul Waste Out of County Facts:
F687
Page 27
The county must continue to maintain and monitor existing phases. Professional and Specialized Services have averaged $467,908 per year for the last ten years.
F688
Page 27
Aces Waste Services, Inc. has negotiated a contract with Sacramento County to haul waste to The Kiefer Landfill and will continue to pay Amador County $5 per ton through May 2003. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 27
F689
Page 28
It will cost $804,000 to cap and close phases 2 and 3. A fund exists to meet this cost with the county making installments to cover the costs to cap and close the phases 2 and 3. This fund is required under the solid waste facility permit granted by the CIWMB.
F690
Page 28
Current tipping fees for the MRF are $57.86, which gives ADS a net after landfill tipping fees ($34.00) of $23.86 per ton. Findings:
F691
Page 28
It is unknown if hauling waste out of the county would increase costs to Amador County citizens. Out of county tipping fees and the cost to haul the waste to the disposal site would determine costs.
F692
Page 28
The MRF is used to sort waste into recyclables and for disposal into the landfill. Not all waste received at the gate go into the landfill. The MRF was required to help the county meet requirements of AB 939 for diversion of waste from landfills. Under the contract for the operation of the landfill, ADS has exclusive rights to sell any salvageable items.
F693
Page 28
If the county closed the landfill the MRF would be used as a transfer station.
F694
Page 28
This will be the option if the Board of Supervisors does not act soon. It is the default option.
F695
Not recommended. Allow ADS to Expand the Landfill: The information contained in this is taken from a proposal from the county on possible options for the landfill. Most of this would require negotiations and bids for the best deal for the county. Facts:
F696
Page 28
ADS would fund all construction, capping, and closure of Phase 4 and needed Phases in the future. ADS would fund regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring and perform all routine land management.
F697
Page 28
ADS would pay the county one-dollar per ton royalty. The county states this would generate $150,000.00 to the county per year. To generate that much per year, the landfill would need to be taking in on average 400 tons of waste per day, which is currently four times the amount generated in the county.
F698
Page 28
The county would retain liability of prior Phases and the cost of regulatory monitoring. Findings:
F699
Page 28
ADS would get all necessary permits and address all outstanding issues such as completing the revised closure plan, completing the permitting of all disposal activities and the expansion of the landfill.
F700
Page 28
ADS would fund the majority of the costs of the permits.
F701
Page 28
ADS would limit out of county waste to fifteen truck-loads per day and would prevent the trucks from traveling through Ione.
F702
Page 28
By allowing ADS to continue operations this would permit the landfill to remain in operation. 28 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F703
Page 29
Once a landfill closes it is very hard to resume operations because of state agencies and regulations.
F704
Page 29
Under this proposal the county would have a difficult time covering costs for meeting post closure monitoring.
F705
Page 29
The next best option behind the county constructing the next phase is to allow ADS to fund and construct phase 4. This will allow the landfill to continue to operate. Time is running out on the ability to keep the landfill open and operating under current permits.
F706
Page 29
Set aside funds to construct the next phase, phase 5. Response Required: California Penal Code 933.05 requires a response within 90 days. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 29 Criminal Justice 30 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report California Youth Authority Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp Introduction: Penal Code Section 919(b) mandates that the Grand Jury annually review all prisons and jails within the County. Background: Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp (PGYCC) was established in 1945 in a joint agency agreement between the California Youth Authority (CYA) and the California Division of Forestry (CDF). The facility operates on an annual budget of two million dollars for CYA and nine hundred thousand dollars for CDF. The camp has a staff of 31, including 18 peace officers and 3 part-time employees. This 80-bed facility currently houses 68 wards whose ages range from 18 to 24 years. Their average stay at the camp is 480 days. No ward is selected who has been convicted of arson, any sex offense or who is a flight risk. The wards are assigned to one of four fire crews, a community-service crew or camp crew. Wards are paid from $1.40 to $3.50 per day for regular work but receive $1.00 per hour while fighting fires. Crews are dispatched to fires throughout California. Wards work for public and non-profit agencies, on projects such as fire trails, snow clearance, food distribution, grounds maintenance of public buildings and historical landmarks, cemeteries, and weed abatement of roadways. Evening school attendance is mandatory, until a high school diploma or GED is obtained. Correspondence college courses are available at the ward’s own expense. Each ward must also participate in a minimum of four small group counseling sessions per month, plus individual counseling sessions which include topics such as work ethics, job-seeking skills, anger management, drug abuse, gang activities, and parenting skills. Methodology: Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, and toured the facility. Persons interviewed: Camp Superintendent Assistant Camp Superintendent CDF Division Chief Youth Counselor Camp Cook Parole Agent 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 31 Documents examined: Budget Summary Organization chart Conservation camp operation Camp master projects list Special incident package Operations manual Multi-hazard emergency plan CYA Staff News CYA Today Newspaper Facts:
F707
Page 32
Wards of the PGYCC provided 99,096 hours of public service to the county of Amador, last year and they logged 69,961 hours on the fire line.
F708
Page 32
They donated $1632.00 last year to victim’s funds .
F709
Page 32
The camp serves as a landing field for Med-Evac units .
F710
Page 32
The dining hall and infrastructure can support food services to feed 800 people per day in the event of a major disaster.
F711
Page 32
The wards collect, assemble and distribute 4000 Christmas boughs in the county each year.
F712
Page 32
The camp staff hosts quarterly meetings with the Pine Grove Citizens Advisory Committee. Findings:
F713
Page 32
The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is very community oriented and provides many valuable services to the surrounding cities and to the county.
F714
Page 32
The facility was clean and orderly and the staff cordial and knowledgeable. The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is a very real asset to the County.
F715
None Response Required:
F716
None 32 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F717
Page 25
The county would lose authority over the landfill and a new owner could allow dumping of anything into the landfill. It would be illegal for an operator to dump anything in the landfill that was not in the solid waste facility permit granted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).
F718
Page 25
The county states it would put conditions on the sale of the landfill to mitigate citizen concerns regarding the environment, traffic and operation of the landfill. Considering the county has not held ADS to the terms of their contract to operate the landfill and MRF the likelihood of the county to hold a buyer of the landfill to a sales agreement is questionable.
F719
Page 25
The county would sell the landfill “As Is” which would mean the new owner would take the liability of the existing phases of the landfill but this would lower the price for the landfill.
F720
Page 25
Ultimately there is a legal concern as to whether the county can ever rid itself of past ownership liability since it is always a potentially responsible party for site clean up as reported by Intelliwaste Inc. to the Board of Supervisors. Even if the county can negotiate away its liability as an owner/operator it would still be liable as a generator of waste. Corporations can go bankrupt and taxing entities, such as the county, are seen as financial deep pockets in litigation.
F721
Page 25
There are waste management companies interested in the possible purchase of the landfill.
F722
Page 25
Franchise haulers would not be required to use the landfill if it were purchased.
F723
Page 26
Would allow the county to continue to receive a split of tipping fees and generate revenue to cover costs associated with the landfill.
F724
Page 26
One proposal and estimate offered by a county official would be to permit and construct Phase 4 of the landfill at an estimated cost of $2,800,000.00 and the cost to close it would be approximately $1,600,000.00 for a capacity of 850,000 tons. Another proposal is for a capacity of 500,000 tons. The greater the capacity the lower the cost per ton for construction costs.
F725
Page 26
Professional and Specialized Services, environmental monitoring, regulatory liaison and consulting services, cost the county $591,626.30 in 2000-2001 and $896,295.22 in 2001-2002.
F726
Page 26
Total operating expenses for the Waste Management Department for the last ten years, fiscal years 1992/1993 through 2001/2002, average $668,714 a year. The 1993/1994 fiscal year was the highest at $1,625,363.78 and the 1997/1998 fiscal year had the lowest total operating expenses with $278,403.12. The approved budget for total operating expenses for 2002/2003 is $1,288,960. Findings:
F727
Page 26
It takes 200 tons per day of waste for a landfill operation to reach an economy of scale (operate efficiently).
F728
Page 26
County continues to have control over the landfill, which benefits environmental concerns for the area.
F729
Page 26
The landfill under county control provides reasonable waste disposal to citizens of the county. Tax dollars used to meet landfill expenses provide a benefit to all Amador County citizens. If the landfill is sold there is a good chance the cost to dispose of garbage by Amador County citizens would increase.
F730
Page 26
As prices go up illegal dumping through out the county becomes a greater problem.
F731
Page 26
The county would be responsible for the cost of permitting, regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring, closure and post closure costs as they are now.
F732
Page 26
The Amador County Board of Supervisors has chosen not to fund this option.
F733
Page 26
Construct phase 4 to a capacity of at least 850,000 tons and use as a regional landfill taking in at least 250 tons per day of waste.
F734
Page 26
Use a bond issue to finance construction if funds are not available.
F735
Use tipping fees to payoff the bond. Two examples of how tipping fees could be used to pay for construction, salary and benefits for a Waste Management Director, closure costs and operational expenses. The per ton breakdown at an average of 250 tons per day based on a 358 day year would be: 26 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report Using a bond issue: ADS $15.75 Retirement of Bonds at six year amortization ($2.8 million @ 4%) $ 5.87 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $ 1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $17.45 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $33.20 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.87 equals $1,838,695 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Using funds available: ADS $15.75 Payback on $2.8 million over six years to general fund $5.21 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 over the last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director ($80,000.00) $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $16.79 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $32.54 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.21 equals $1,631,960 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Close the Landfill and Haul Waste Out of County Facts:
F736
Page 27
The county must continue to maintain and monitor existing phases. Professional and Specialized Services have averaged $467,908 per year for the last ten years.
F737
Page 27
Aces Waste Services, Inc. has negotiated a contract with Sacramento County to haul waste to The Kiefer Landfill and will continue to pay Amador County $5 per ton through May 2003. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 27
F738
Page 28
It will cost $804,000 to cap and close phases 2 and 3. A fund exists to meet this cost with the county making installments to cover the costs to cap and close the phases 2 and 3. This fund is required under the solid waste facility permit granted by the CIWMB.
F739
Page 28
Current tipping fees for the MRF are $57.86, which gives ADS a net after landfill tipping fees ($34.00) of $23.86 per ton. Findings:
F740
Page 28
It is unknown if hauling waste out of the county would increase costs to Amador County citizens. Out of county tipping fees and the cost to haul the waste to the disposal site would determine costs.
F741
Page 28
The MRF is used to sort waste into recyclables and for disposal into the landfill. Not all waste received at the gate go into the landfill. The MRF was required to help the county meet requirements of AB 939 for diversion of waste from landfills. Under the contract for the operation of the landfill, ADS has exclusive rights to sell any salvageable items.
F742
Page 28
If the county closed the landfill the MRF would be used as a transfer station.
F743
Page 28
This will be the option if the Board of Supervisors does not act soon. It is the default option.
F744
Not recommended. Allow ADS to Expand the Landfill: The information contained in this is taken from a proposal from the county on possible options for the landfill. Most of this would require negotiations and bids for the best deal for the county. Facts:
F745
Page 28
ADS would fund all construction, capping, and closure of Phase 4 and needed Phases in the future. ADS would fund regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring and perform all routine land management.
F746
Page 28
ADS would pay the county one-dollar per ton royalty. The county states this would generate $150,000.00 to the county per year. To generate that much per year, the landfill would need to be taking in on average 400 tons of waste per day, which is currently four times the amount generated in the county.
F747
Page 28
The county would retain liability of prior Phases and the cost of regulatory monitoring. Findings:
F748
Page 28
ADS would get all necessary permits and address all outstanding issues such as completing the revised closure plan, completing the permitting of all disposal activities and the expansion of the landfill.
F749
Page 28
ADS would fund the majority of the costs of the permits.
F750
Page 28
ADS would limit out of county waste to fifteen truck-loads per day and would prevent the trucks from traveling through Ione.
F751
Page 28
By allowing ADS to continue operations this would permit the landfill to remain in operation. 28 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F752
Page 29
Once a landfill closes it is very hard to resume operations because of state agencies and regulations.
F753
Page 29
Under this proposal the county would have a difficult time covering costs for meeting post closure monitoring.
F754
Page 29
The next best option behind the county constructing the next phase is to allow ADS to fund and construct phase 4. This will allow the landfill to continue to operate. Time is running out on the ability to keep the landfill open and operating under current permits.
F755
Page 29
Set aside funds to construct the next phase, phase 5. Response Required: California Penal Code 933.05 requires a response within 90 days. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 29 Criminal Justice 30 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report California Youth Authority Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp Introduction: Penal Code Section 919(b) mandates that the Grand Jury annually review all prisons and jails within the County. Background: Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp (PGYCC) was established in 1945 in a joint agency agreement between the California Youth Authority (CYA) and the California Division of Forestry (CDF). The facility operates on an annual budget of two million dollars for CYA and nine hundred thousand dollars for CDF. The camp has a staff of 31, including 18 peace officers and 3 part-time employees. This 80-bed facility currently houses 68 wards whose ages range from 18 to 24 years. Their average stay at the camp is 480 days. No ward is selected who has been convicted of arson, any sex offense or who is a flight risk. The wards are assigned to one of four fire crews, a community-service crew or camp crew. Wards are paid from $1.40 to $3.50 per day for regular work but receive $1.00 per hour while fighting fires. Crews are dispatched to fires throughout California. Wards work for public and non-profit agencies, on projects such as fire trails, snow clearance, food distribution, grounds maintenance of public buildings and historical landmarks, cemeteries, and weed abatement of roadways. Evening school attendance is mandatory, until a high school diploma or GED is obtained. Correspondence college courses are available at the ward’s own expense. Each ward must also participate in a minimum of four small group counseling sessions per month, plus individual counseling sessions which include topics such as work ethics, job-seeking skills, anger management, drug abuse, gang activities, and parenting skills. Methodology: Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, and toured the facility. Persons interviewed: Camp Superintendent Assistant Camp Superintendent CDF Division Chief Youth Counselor Camp Cook Parole Agent 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 31 Documents examined: Budget Summary Organization chart Conservation camp operation Camp master projects list Special incident package Operations manual Multi-hazard emergency plan CYA Staff News CYA Today Newspaper Facts:
F756
Page 32
Wards of the PGYCC provided 99,096 hours of public service to the county of Amador, last year and they logged 69,961 hours on the fire line.
F757
Page 32
They donated $1632.00 last year to victim’s funds .
F758
Page 32
The camp serves as a landing field for Med-Evac units .
F759
Page 32
The dining hall and infrastructure can support food services to feed 800 people per day in the event of a major disaster.
F760
Page 32
The wards collect, assemble and distribute 4000 Christmas boughs in the county each year.
F761
Page 32
The camp staff hosts quarterly meetings with the Pine Grove Citizens Advisory Committee. Findings:
F762
Page 32
The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is very community oriented and provides many valuable services to the surrounding cities and to the county.
F763
Page 32
The facility was clean and orderly and the staff cordial and knowledgeable. The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is a very real asset to the County.
F764
None Response Required:
F765
None 32 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F766
Page 26
It takes 200 tons per day of waste for a landfill operation to reach an economy of scale (operate efficiently).
F767
Page 26
County continues to have control over the landfill, which benefits environmental concerns for the area.
F768
Page 26
The landfill under county control provides reasonable waste disposal to citizens of the county. Tax dollars used to meet landfill expenses provide a benefit to all Amador County citizens. If the landfill is sold there is a good chance the cost to dispose of garbage by Amador County citizens would increase.
F769
Page 26
As prices go up illegal dumping through out the county becomes a greater problem.
F770
Page 26
The county would be responsible for the cost of permitting, regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring, closure and post closure costs as they are now.
F771
Page 26
The Amador County Board of Supervisors has chosen not to fund this option.
F772
Page 26
Construct phase 4 to a capacity of at least 850,000 tons and use as a regional landfill taking in at least 250 tons per day of waste.
F773
Page 26
Use a bond issue to finance construction if funds are not available.
F774
Use tipping fees to payoff the bond. Two examples of how tipping fees could be used to pay for construction, salary and benefits for a Waste Management Director, closure costs and operational expenses. The per ton breakdown at an average of 250 tons per day based on a 358 day year would be: 26 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report Using a bond issue: ADS $15.75 Retirement of Bonds at six year amortization ($2.8 million @ 4%) $ 5.87 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $ 1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $17.45 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $33.20 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.87 equals $1,838,695 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Using funds available: ADS $15.75 Payback on $2.8 million over six years to general fund $5.21 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 over the last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director ($80,000.00) $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $16.79 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $32.54 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.21 equals $1,631,960 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Close the Landfill and Haul Waste Out of County Facts:
F775
Page 27
The county must continue to maintain and monitor existing phases. Professional and Specialized Services have averaged $467,908 per year for the last ten years.
F776
Page 27
Aces Waste Services, Inc. has negotiated a contract with Sacramento County to haul waste to The Kiefer Landfill and will continue to pay Amador County $5 per ton through May 2003. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 27
F777
Page 28
It will cost $804,000 to cap and close phases 2 and 3. A fund exists to meet this cost with the county making installments to cover the costs to cap and close the phases 2 and 3. This fund is required under the solid waste facility permit granted by the CIWMB.
F778
Page 28
Current tipping fees for the MRF are $57.86, which gives ADS a net after landfill tipping fees ($34.00) of $23.86 per ton. Findings:
F779
Page 28
It is unknown if hauling waste out of the county would increase costs to Amador County citizens. Out of county tipping fees and the cost to haul the waste to the disposal site would determine costs.
F780
Page 28
The MRF is used to sort waste into recyclables and for disposal into the landfill. Not all waste received at the gate go into the landfill. The MRF was required to help the county meet requirements of AB 939 for diversion of waste from landfills. Under the contract for the operation of the landfill, ADS has exclusive rights to sell any salvageable items.
F781
Page 28
If the county closed the landfill the MRF would be used as a transfer station.
F782
Page 28
This will be the option if the Board of Supervisors does not act soon. It is the default option.
F783
Not recommended. Allow ADS to Expand the Landfill: The information contained in this is taken from a proposal from the county on possible options for the landfill. Most of this would require negotiations and bids for the best deal for the county. Facts:
F784
Page 28
ADS would fund all construction, capping, and closure of Phase 4 and needed Phases in the future. ADS would fund regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring and perform all routine land management.
F785
Page 28
ADS would pay the county one-dollar per ton royalty. The county states this would generate $150,000.00 to the county per year. To generate that much per year, the landfill would need to be taking in on average 400 tons of waste per day, which is currently four times the amount generated in the county.
F786
Page 28
The county would retain liability of prior Phases and the cost of regulatory monitoring. Findings:
F787
Page 28
ADS would get all necessary permits and address all outstanding issues such as completing the revised closure plan, completing the permitting of all disposal activities and the expansion of the landfill.
F788
Page 28
ADS would fund the majority of the costs of the permits.
F789
Page 28
ADS would limit out of county waste to fifteen truck-loads per day and would prevent the trucks from traveling through Ione.
F790
Page 28
By allowing ADS to continue operations this would permit the landfill to remain in operation. 28 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F791
Page 29
Once a landfill closes it is very hard to resume operations because of state agencies and regulations.
F792
Page 29
Under this proposal the county would have a difficult time covering costs for meeting post closure monitoring.
F793
Page 29
The next best option behind the county constructing the next phase is to allow ADS to fund and construct phase 4. This will allow the landfill to continue to operate. Time is running out on the ability to keep the landfill open and operating under current permits.
F794
Page 29
Set aside funds to construct the next phase, phase 5. Response Required: California Penal Code 933.05 requires a response within 90 days. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 29 Criminal Justice 30 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report California Youth Authority Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp Introduction: Penal Code Section 919(b) mandates that the Grand Jury annually review all prisons and jails within the County. Background: Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp (PGYCC) was established in 1945 in a joint agency agreement between the California Youth Authority (CYA) and the California Division of Forestry (CDF). The facility operates on an annual budget of two million dollars for CYA and nine hundred thousand dollars for CDF. The camp has a staff of 31, including 18 peace officers and 3 part-time employees. This 80-bed facility currently houses 68 wards whose ages range from 18 to 24 years. Their average stay at the camp is 480 days. No ward is selected who has been convicted of arson, any sex offense or who is a flight risk. The wards are assigned to one of four fire crews, a community-service crew or camp crew. Wards are paid from $1.40 to $3.50 per day for regular work but receive $1.00 per hour while fighting fires. Crews are dispatched to fires throughout California. Wards work for public and non-profit agencies, on projects such as fire trails, snow clearance, food distribution, grounds maintenance of public buildings and historical landmarks, cemeteries, and weed abatement of roadways. Evening school attendance is mandatory, until a high school diploma or GED is obtained. Correspondence college courses are available at the ward’s own expense. Each ward must also participate in a minimum of four small group counseling sessions per month, plus individual counseling sessions which include topics such as work ethics, job-seeking skills, anger management, drug abuse, gang activities, and parenting skills. Methodology: Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, and toured the facility. Persons interviewed: Camp Superintendent Assistant Camp Superintendent CDF Division Chief Youth Counselor Camp Cook Parole Agent 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 31 Documents examined: Budget Summary Organization chart Conservation camp operation Camp master projects list Special incident package Operations manual Multi-hazard emergency plan CYA Staff News CYA Today Newspaper Facts:
F795
Page 32
Wards of the PGYCC provided 99,096 hours of public service to the county of Amador, last year and they logged 69,961 hours on the fire line.
F796
Page 32
They donated $1632.00 last year to victim’s funds .
F797
Page 32
The camp serves as a landing field for Med-Evac units .
F798
Page 32
The dining hall and infrastructure can support food services to feed 800 people per day in the event of a major disaster.
F799
Page 32
The wards collect, assemble and distribute 4000 Christmas boughs in the county each year.
F800
Page 32
The camp staff hosts quarterly meetings with the Pine Grove Citizens Advisory Committee. Findings:
F801
Page 32
The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is very community oriented and provides many valuable services to the surrounding cities and to the county.
F802
Page 32
The facility was clean and orderly and the staff cordial and knowledgeable. The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is a very real asset to the County.
F803
None Response Required:
F804
None 32 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F805
Page 28
It is unknown if hauling waste out of the county would increase costs to Amador County citizens. Out of county tipping fees and the cost to haul the waste to the disposal site would determine costs.
F806
Page 28
The MRF is used to sort waste into recyclables and for disposal into the landfill. Not all waste received at the gate go into the landfill. The MRF was required to help the county meet requirements of AB 939 for diversion of waste from landfills. Under the contract for the operation of the landfill, ADS has exclusive rights to sell any salvageable items.
F807
Page 28
If the county closed the landfill the MRF would be used as a transfer station.
F808
Page 28
This will be the option if the Board of Supervisors does not act soon. It is the default option.
F809
Not recommended. Allow ADS to Expand the Landfill: The information contained in this is taken from a proposal from the county on possible options for the landfill. Most of this would require negotiations and bids for the best deal for the county. Facts:
F810
Page 28
ADS would fund all construction, capping, and closure of Phase 4 and needed Phases in the future. ADS would fund regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring and perform all routine land management.
F811
Page 28
ADS would pay the county one-dollar per ton royalty. The county states this would generate $150,000.00 to the county per year. To generate that much per year, the landfill would need to be taking in on average 400 tons of waste per day, which is currently four times the amount generated in the county.
F812
Page 28
The county would retain liability of prior Phases and the cost of regulatory monitoring. Findings:
F813
Page 28
ADS would get all necessary permits and address all outstanding issues such as completing the revised closure plan, completing the permitting of all disposal activities and the expansion of the landfill.
F814
Page 28
ADS would fund the majority of the costs of the permits.
F815
Page 28
ADS would limit out of county waste to fifteen truck-loads per day and would prevent the trucks from traveling through Ione.
F816
Page 28
By allowing ADS to continue operations this would permit the landfill to remain in operation. 28 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F817
Page 29
Once a landfill closes it is very hard to resume operations because of state agencies and regulations.
F818
Page 29
Under this proposal the county would have a difficult time covering costs for meeting post closure monitoring.
F819
Page 29
The next best option behind the county constructing the next phase is to allow ADS to fund and construct phase 4. This will allow the landfill to continue to operate. Time is running out on the ability to keep the landfill open and operating under current permits.
F820
Page 29
Set aside funds to construct the next phase, phase 5. Response Required: California Penal Code 933.05 requires a response within 90 days. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 29 Criminal Justice 30 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report California Youth Authority Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp Introduction: Penal Code Section 919(b) mandates that the Grand Jury annually review all prisons and jails within the County. Background: Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp (PGYCC) was established in 1945 in a joint agency agreement between the California Youth Authority (CYA) and the California Division of Forestry (CDF). The facility operates on an annual budget of two million dollars for CYA and nine hundred thousand dollars for CDF. The camp has a staff of 31, including 18 peace officers and 3 part-time employees. This 80-bed facility currently houses 68 wards whose ages range from 18 to 24 years. Their average stay at the camp is 480 days. No ward is selected who has been convicted of arson, any sex offense or who is a flight risk. The wards are assigned to one of four fire crews, a community-service crew or camp crew. Wards are paid from $1.40 to $3.50 per day for regular work but receive $1.00 per hour while fighting fires. Crews are dispatched to fires throughout California. Wards work for public and non-profit agencies, on projects such as fire trails, snow clearance, food distribution, grounds maintenance of public buildings and historical landmarks, cemeteries, and weed abatement of roadways. Evening school attendance is mandatory, until a high school diploma or GED is obtained. Correspondence college courses are available at the ward’s own expense. Each ward must also participate in a minimum of four small group counseling sessions per month, plus individual counseling sessions which include topics such as work ethics, job-seeking skills, anger management, drug abuse, gang activities, and parenting skills. Methodology: Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, and toured the facility. Persons interviewed: Camp Superintendent Assistant Camp Superintendent CDF Division Chief Youth Counselor Camp Cook Parole Agent 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 31 Documents examined: Budget Summary Organization chart Conservation camp operation Camp master projects list Special incident package Operations manual Multi-hazard emergency plan CYA Staff News CYA Today Newspaper Facts:
F821
Page 32
Wards of the PGYCC provided 99,096 hours of public service to the county of Amador, last year and they logged 69,961 hours on the fire line.
F822
Page 32
They donated $1632.00 last year to victim’s funds .
F823
Page 32
The camp serves as a landing field for Med-Evac units .
F824
Page 32
The dining hall and infrastructure can support food services to feed 800 people per day in the event of a major disaster.
F825
Page 32
The wards collect, assemble and distribute 4000 Christmas boughs in the county each year.
F826
Page 32
The camp staff hosts quarterly meetings with the Pine Grove Citizens Advisory Committee. Findings:
F827
Page 32
The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is very community oriented and provides many valuable services to the surrounding cities and to the county.
F828
Page 32
The facility was clean and orderly and the staff cordial and knowledgeable. The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is a very real asset to the County.
F829
None Response Required:
F830
None 32 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F831
Page 28
ADS would get all necessary permits and address all outstanding issues such as completing the revised closure plan, completing the permitting of all disposal activities and the expansion of the landfill.
F832
Page 28
ADS would fund the majority of the costs of the permits.
F833
Page 28
ADS would limit out of county waste to fifteen truck-loads per day and would prevent the trucks from traveling through Ione.
F834
Page 28
By allowing ADS to continue operations this would permit the landfill to remain in operation. 28 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F835
Page 29
Once a landfill closes it is very hard to resume operations because of state agencies and regulations.
F836
Page 29
Under this proposal the county would have a difficult time covering costs for meeting post closure monitoring.
F837
Page 29
The next best option behind the county constructing the next phase is to allow ADS to fund and construct phase 4. This will allow the landfill to continue to operate. Time is running out on the ability to keep the landfill open and operating under current permits.
F838
Page 29
Set aside funds to construct the next phase, phase 5. Response Required: California Penal Code 933.05 requires a response within 90 days. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 29 Criminal Justice 30 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report California Youth Authority Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp Introduction: Penal Code Section 919(b) mandates that the Grand Jury annually review all prisons and jails within the County. Background: Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp (PGYCC) was established in 1945 in a joint agency agreement between the California Youth Authority (CYA) and the California Division of Forestry (CDF). The facility operates on an annual budget of two million dollars for CYA and nine hundred thousand dollars for CDF. The camp has a staff of 31, including 18 peace officers and 3 part-time employees. This 80-bed facility currently houses 68 wards whose ages range from 18 to 24 years. Their average stay at the camp is 480 days. No ward is selected who has been convicted of arson, any sex offense or who is a flight risk. The wards are assigned to one of four fire crews, a community-service crew or camp crew. Wards are paid from $1.40 to $3.50 per day for regular work but receive $1.00 per hour while fighting fires. Crews are dispatched to fires throughout California. Wards work for public and non-profit agencies, on projects such as fire trails, snow clearance, food distribution, grounds maintenance of public buildings and historical landmarks, cemeteries, and weed abatement of roadways. Evening school attendance is mandatory, until a high school diploma or GED is obtained. Correspondence college courses are available at the ward’s own expense. Each ward must also participate in a minimum of four small group counseling sessions per month, plus individual counseling sessions which include topics such as work ethics, job-seeking skills, anger management, drug abuse, gang activities, and parenting skills. Methodology: Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, and toured the facility. Persons interviewed: Camp Superintendent Assistant Camp Superintendent CDF Division Chief Youth Counselor Camp Cook Parole Agent 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 31 Documents examined: Budget Summary Organization chart Conservation camp operation Camp master projects list Special incident package Operations manual Multi-hazard emergency plan CYA Staff News CYA Today Newspaper Facts:
F839
Page 32
Wards of the PGYCC provided 99,096 hours of public service to the county of Amador, last year and they logged 69,961 hours on the fire line.
F840
Page 32
They donated $1632.00 last year to victim’s funds .
F841
Page 32
The camp serves as a landing field for Med-Evac units .
F842
Page 32
The dining hall and infrastructure can support food services to feed 800 people per day in the event of a major disaster.
F843
Page 32
The wards collect, assemble and distribute 4000 Christmas boughs in the county each year.
F844
Page 32
The camp staff hosts quarterly meetings with the Pine Grove Citizens Advisory Committee. Findings:
F845
Page 32
The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is very community oriented and provides many valuable services to the surrounding cities and to the county.
F846
Page 32
The facility was clean and orderly and the staff cordial and knowledgeable. The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is a very real asset to the County.
F847
None Response Required:
F848
None 32 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
F849
Page 32
The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is very community oriented and provides many valuable services to the surrounding cities and to the county.
F850
Page 32
The facility was clean and orderly and the staff cordial and knowledgeable. The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is a very real asset to the County.
F851
None Response Required:
F852
None 32 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report
Recommendations 1
-
R1Page 24• Request the annual balance sheets and income statements on landfill and MRF operations as required by the contracts with ADS so there can be a comparison of operation revenues and expenses on a year to year basis. Options for the Amador County Sanitary Landfill. County Sells the Buena Vista Landfill. Facts: • Currently the landfill is taking in approximately 68 tons of waste per day which comes to 24,403 tons per year. Prior to ACES taking their waste to the Kiefer Landfill, the daily average rate was approximately 113 tons per day based on 358 operating days per year. • The landfill is permitted for 810 tons per day. • The county is currently funding an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed sale of the landfill at a cost of $150,000 although the county government officials claim they have not decided to sell the landfill. • The county purchased the land for the landfill for $852,957 from the Howard Estate. Escrow closed on 1-20-1994. 24 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report • The County Administrative Agency and the County Counsel’s Office are handling the majority of the current landfill issues and the County Administrative Officer and the County Counsel were chosen by the Board of Supervisors to handle negotiations for the sale of the landfill which can be held in closed sessions under the Brown Act. • The county is seen as an owner/operator and a generator of municipal solid waste (MSW) and municipal sewage sludge (MSS) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). • The Supreme Court ruling in the United States v. Bestfoods protects parent corporations from the actions of its subsidiary. There is nothing in CERCLA which allows the corporate veil to be pierced. Findings: • The county would lose authority over the landfill and a new owner could allow dumping of anything into the landfill. It would be illegal for an operator to dump anything in the landfill that was not in the solid waste facility permit granted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). • The county states it would put conditions on the sale of the landfill to mitigate citizen concerns regarding the environment, traffic and operation of the landfill. Considering the county has not held ADS to the terms of their contract to operate the landfill and MRF the likelihood of the county to hold a buyer of the landfill to a sales agreement is questionable. • The county would sell the landfill “As Is” which would mean the new owner would take the liability of the existing phases of the landfill but this would lower the price for the landfill. • Ultimately there is a legal concern as to whether the county can ever rid itself of past ownership liability since it is always a potentially responsible party for site clean up as reported by Intelliwaste Inc. to the Board of Supervisors. Even if the county can negotiate away its liability as an owner/operator it would still be liable as a generator of waste. Corporations can go bankrupt and taxing entities, such as the county, are seen as financial deep pockets in litigation. • There are waste management companies interested in the possible purchase of the landfill. • Franchise haulers would not be required to use the landfill if it were purchased. Recommendations: The county retains ownership of the landfill. County Keeps the Landfill. The county has at least three options if the ownership of the landfill is retained. The county could invest in constructing another phase, have ADS construct the next phase and be responsible for permitting and operation, or close the landfill and haul waste out of the county. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 25 County Re-Permits the Landfill and Builds the Next Phase and Continues Operations. Facts: • Would allow the county to continue to receive a split of tipping fees and generate revenue to cover costs associated with the landfill. • One proposal and estimate offered by a county official would be to permit and construct Phase 4 of the landfill at an estimated cost of $2,800,000.00 and the cost to close it would be approximately $1,600,000.00 for a capacity of 850,000 tons. Another proposal is for a capacity of 500,000 tons. The greater the capacity the lower the cost per ton for construction costs. • Professional and Specialized Services, environmental monitoring, regulatory liaison and consulting services, cost the county $591,626.30 in 2000-2001 and $896,295.22 in 2001-2002. • Total operating expenses for the Waste Management Department for the last ten years, fiscal years 1992/1993 through 2001/2002, average $668,714 a year. The 1993/1994 fiscal year was the highest at $1,625,363.78 and the 1997/1998 fiscal year had the lowest total operating expenses with $278,403.12. The approved budget for total operating expenses for 2002/2003 is $1,288,960. Findings: • It takes 200 tons per day of waste for a landfill operation to reach an economy of scale (operate efficiently). • County continues to have control over the landfill, which benefits environmental concerns for the area. • The landfill under county control provides reasonable waste disposal to citizens of the county. Tax dollars used to meet landfill expenses provide a benefit to all Amador County citizens. If the landfill is sold there is a good chance the cost to dispose of garbage by Amador County citizens would increase. • As prices go up illegal dumping through out the county becomes a greater problem. • The county would be responsible for the cost of permitting, regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring, closure and post closure costs as they are now. • The Amador County Board of Supervisors has chosen not to fund this option. Recommendations: • Construct phase 4 to a capacity of at least 850,000 tons and use as a regional landfill taking in at least 250 tons per day of waste. • Use a bond issue to finance construction if funds are not available. • Use tipping fees to payoff the bond. Two examples of how tipping fees could be used to pay for construction, salary and benefits for a Waste Management Director, closure costs and operational expenses. The per ton breakdown at an average of 250 tons per day based on a 358 day year would be: 26 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report Using a bond issue: ADS $15.75 Retirement of Bonds at six year amortization ($2.8 million @ 4%) $ 5.87 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $ 1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $17.45 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $33.20 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.87 equals $1,838,695 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Using funds available: ADS $15.75 Payback on $2.8 million over six years to general fund $5.21 Capping and closing phase 4 (Estimate of $1.6 million) $1.88 Operating Expenses (Based on average cost of $668,713.81 over the last 10 years) $ 7.47 Salary and Benefits for Waste Management Director ($80,000.00) $ 0.89 State Franchise Tax Board Fee $ 1.34 Total County Tipping Fee $16.79 Total Landfill Tipping Fee $32.54 Life of the landfill remaining after six years assuming a life of 9.5 years with a capacity of 850,000 tons would be 3.5 years or 42 months. 42 months times 7,458 tons equals 313,236 tons. 313,236 tons times $5.21 equals $1,631,960 towards the next cell requiring less financing. Close the Landfill and Haul Waste Out of County Facts: • The county must continue to maintain and monitor existing phases. Professional and Specialized Services have averaged $467,908 per year for the last ten years. • Aces Waste Services, Inc. has negotiated a contract with Sacramento County to haul waste to The Kiefer Landfill and will continue to pay Amador County $5 per ton through May 2003. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 27 • It will cost $804,000 to cap and close phases 2 and 3. A fund exists to meet this cost with the county making installments to cover the costs to cap and close the phases 2 and 3. This fund is required under the solid waste facility permit granted by the CIWMB. • Current tipping fees for the MRF are $57.86, which gives ADS a net after landfill tipping fees ($34.00) of $23.86 per ton. Findings: • It is unknown if hauling waste out of the county would increase costs to Amador County citizens. Out of county tipping fees and the cost to haul the waste to the disposal site would determine costs. • The MRF is used to sort waste into recyclables and for disposal into the landfill. Not all waste received at the gate go into the landfill. The MRF was required to help the county meet requirements of AB 939 for diversion of waste from landfills. Under the contract for the operation of the landfill, ADS has exclusive rights to sell any salvageable items. • If the county closed the landfill the MRF would be used as a transfer station. • This will be the option if the Board of Supervisors does not act soon. It is the default option. Recommendations: • Not recommended. Allow ADS to Expand the Landfill: The information contained in this is taken from a proposal from the county on possible options for the landfill. Most of this would require negotiations and bids for the best deal for the county. Facts: • ADS would fund all construction, capping, and closure of Phase 4 and needed Phases in the future. ADS would fund regulatory liaison, environmental monitoring and perform all routine land management. • ADS would pay the county one-dollar per ton royalty. The county states this would generate $150,000.00 to the county per year. To generate that much per year, the landfill would need to be taking in on average 400 tons of waste per day, which is currently four times the amount generated in the county. • The county would retain liability of prior Phases and the cost of regulatory monitoring. Findings: • ADS would get all necessary permits and address all outstanding issues such as completing the revised closure plan, completing the permitting of all disposal activities and the expansion of the landfill. • ADS would fund the majority of the costs of the permits. • ADS would limit out of county waste to fifteen truck-loads per day and would prevent the trucks from traveling through Ione. • By allowing ADS to continue operations this would permit the landfill to remain in operation. 28 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report • Once a landfill closes it is very hard to resume operations because of state agencies and regulations. • Under this proposal the county would have a difficult time covering costs for meeting post closure monitoring. Recommendations: • The next best option behind the county constructing the next phase is to allow ADS to fund and construct phase 4. This will allow the landfill to continue to operate. Time is running out on the ability to keep the landfill open and operating under current permits. • Set aside funds to construct the next phase, phase 5. Response Required: California Penal Code 933.05 requires a response 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 29 Criminal Justice 30 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report California Youth Authority Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp Introduction: Penal Code Section 919(b) mandates that the Grand Jury annually review all prisons and jails within the County. Background: Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp (PGYCC) was established in 1945 in a joint agency agreement between the California Youth Authority (CYA) and the California Division of Forestry (CDF). The facility operates on an annual budget of two million dollars for CYA and nine hundred thousand dollars for CDF. The camp has a staff of 31, including 18 peace officers and 3 part-time employees. This 80-bed facility currently houses 68 wards whose ages range from 18 to 24 years. Their average stay at the camp is 480 days. No ward is selected who has been convicted of arson, any sex offense or who is a flight risk. The wards are assigned to one of four fire crews, a community-service crew or camp crew. Wards are paid from $1.40 to $3.50 per day for regular work but receive $1.00 per hour while fighting fires. Crews are dispatched to fires throughout California. Wards work for public and non-profit agencies, on projects such as fire trails, snow clearance, food distribution, grounds maintenance of public buildings and historical landmarks, cemeteries, and weed abatement of roadways. Evening school attendance is mandatory, until a high school diploma or GED is obtained. Correspondence college courses are available at the ward’s own expense. Each ward must also participate in a minimum of four small group counseling sessions per month, plus individual counseling sessions which include topics such as work ethics, job-seeking skills, anger management, drug abuse, gang activities, and parenting skills. Methodology: Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews, reviewed documents, and toured the facility. Persons interviewed: Camp Superintendent Assistant Camp Superintendent CDF Division Chief Youth Counselor Camp Cook Parole Agent 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report 31 Documents examined: Budget Summary Organization chart Conservation camp operation Camp master projects list Special incident package Operations manual Multi-hazard emergency plan CYA Staff News CYA Today Newspaper Facts: • Wards of the PGYCC provided 99,096 hours of public service to the county of Amador, last year and they logged 69,961 hours on the fire line. • They donated $1632.00 last year to victim’s funds . • The camp serves as a landing field for Med-Evac units . • The dining hall and infrastructure can support food services to feed 800 people per day in the event of a major disaster. • The wards collect, assemble and distribute 4000 Christmas boughs in the county each year. • The camp staff hosts quarterly meetings with the Pine Grove Citizens Advisory Committee. Findings: • The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is very community oriented and provides many valuable services to the surrounding cities and to the county. • The facility was clean and orderly and the staff cordial and knowledgeable. The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp is a very real asset to the County. Recommendations: • None Response Required: • None 32 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report