An update on the Canyonlands trash service from both the recent Board of Supervisors, and Castro Valley Sanitary District Meetings

Alameda County Board of Supervisors Planning Committee Meeting – January 6th

At the January 6th Alameda County Board of Supervisors (BOS) Planning meeting Liz McElligot, the Alameda County Community Development Agency assistant planning director, along with Mona Palacios from the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) updated the BOS about the ongoing Canyonlands trash issue. Palacios reported that there were some costs associated with the annexation application that LAFCO would attempt to waive as requested, but there was still a significant amount of staff time needed to complete the application. Even if the report is fast tracked, it would still take at least six weeks to complete. Upon approval of the resolution form the BOS, LAFCo and county staff would begin the process.

Palacios also mentioned that If the BOS approved the resolution, there would be an update at the upcoming Tuesday, February 3 BOS meeting.

Dan Davini, a resident of the Canyonlands, spoke out against the annexation. He explained that even though he has garbage service, much of the area is rural and there are many residents who do not want or need garbage service. He felt it would be inappropriate to force annexation upon them and he expressed doubts that Waste Management would agree to the terms of a losing contract.

I spoke to the Board about the varied needs for the area, and that a single solution would not be appropriate. I suggested that a survey be created in the next few weeks to not only determine what service is needed, and how much it would cost, but which areas want what, for what price. The results would help decide which areas have a strong desire to be annexed, and which do not. It would also help determine what level of service they expect and at what price.

Supervisor Miley was insistent on amending the resolution to include the words “some or all” of the Canyonlands. This created the option of excluding some of the Canyonlands from the annexation. This was the first time this possibility was in writing. The Supervisor (who also sits on the LAFCO commission,) wanted to be absolutely sure that CVSan would have the option of annexing only part of the area. The BOS passed the amended resolution 4-0 to proceed with the annexation study.

Castro Valley Sanitary District Board Meeting – January 6th

The regularly scheduled Castro Valley Sanitary District (CVSan) meeting that same day had an impressive turnout, probably due to the recent distribution of a flyer about it.

At the beginning of the meeting, General manager Williams gave a summary of the process and what developments had taken place regarding issue. He explained that there had been some discussion with Waste Management regarding the existing contract and whether or not it is ironclad. CVSan believes that according to the contract, Waste Management (WM) is required to offer all CVSan customers the same level of service for the same price. Waste Management will not commit to this at this time and there is no guarantee what will happen when the contract expires in 2019. Until then, the expectation is that the annexed areas will receive 3-can service (organic, recycling, and solid waste), picked up curbside, for the same price as the urban customers. During the negotiations for the next contract, tiered pricing, or scaled back service will be considered by the prospective service providers. He pointed out that this resolution was not a decision to annex, but a vote in support of the LAFCO process. This is the only time that the Board will vote on the annexation, but the hope is that once the annexation details are determined, CVSan will bring this back for some more public input and a vote to approve or reject the annexation.

Dan Davini spoke out about the process and that many of the residents do not want to be annexed. Some of the areas are on large ranches and have little need for small cans of organics, and most currently have found alternative means to recycle and haul trash. He would like the board to look at some alternatives. He has concerns about the traffic impact upon the narrow roads if the garbage trucks were tripled. There is currently a single truck that picks up solid waste, but in order to pick up recycling and organics, truck traffic would triple and this impact needs to be studied.
Once again, I emphasized how important it is to find out what the residents want and which areas want what. Because it will take a few months until LAFCO completes their report, I suggested that the Board could and should delay this vote until they have some information. The best way to do this would be to create a survey of the affected residents. The survey should include the scope of work, the potential costs, and it should also include which areas the respondents are coming from. I was at the Board of Supervisor’s meeting that day, and it will take at least 6 weeks for Mona Palacios, form LAFCo to complete the annexation application. The hope is that application process will answer many of the questions that have been raised, and so I suggested that CVSAN should wait until their next meeting to vote in support of the LAFCo study. I asked the directors to not vote in favor of something without knowing what they are voting support of.

Several other people in attendance added that they do not want Waste Management to have their contract and were disappointed that they would have no choice in their provider. Other concerns were also raised including service quality, potential cost increases in the future, and the loss of their current service level –which most residents seem pleased with.

The Board comments reflected the concern that this had been discussed much already. Director Ralph Johnson explained that he is worried what will happen when Waste Management stops providing service. He said that Supervisor Miley is adamant that the Canyonlands be annexed by CVSAN. He voted as he did because he believed that if CVSAN did not give its approval, then the annexation would grind to a halt. Director Melody Appleton explained that this vote was an action to provide service if the annexation goes through. This vote was not a vote on the annexation itself, that will be decided through LAFCO and the BOS. CVSan cannot solve the problem until it is their responsibility. Director Tim McGowan believes that CVSAN is the best agency able to serve the residents, and Supervisor Miley has made it clear that he does not want to be in the garbage service. Director Sadoff voted against it because he was concerned about the costs this could incur to the existing CVSAN customers. The board voted 4-1 in favor of the resolution and several people went outside to discuss the implications.

After the CVSAN meeting, I spent some time talking with local Canyonlands residents. The more rural residents understand that some of the people may have need of garbage service, but these same residents are extremely concerned with mandating full service to all of the Canyonlands. They wonder what is to prevent WM from unilaterally applying a surcharge to the customers once they have mandatory service. WM did this after their last rate increase was denied a few years back, and they applied a “gas surcharge” instead. CVSan General Manager Roland Williams told the board that the franchise agreement is clear, but this does not mean that WM will accept this. WM has a history of successful litigation, and Nate Miley pointed this out at the BOS meeting. There is still a concern that WM will fight the agreement once the area is annexed.

Supervisor Miley said that he does not know if the county even wants to fight with WM on this, even if the agreement is clear. Has CVSAn and the BOS considered the costs if this were to be litigated? What if there is hostile opposition from citizens opposed to the annexation? Who will pay for this and where will the money come from? One of the residents pointed out that WM are currently using a single truck to provide full service the Sunnyslope homes in the district. WM sorts and separates the garbage, recycling and organics elsewhere, but it is more practical to have a single truck pick everything up. Are they going to do this in the rest of the Canyonlands?

There was also some confusion at the CVSan meeting about the protest vote and the process. If 25%of the landowners in the Canyonlands challenge the annexation and request a protest vote, then there will be an election. This will be expensive and time consuming. It makes sense to use the flexibility that Supervisor Miley created with the amended resolution and find out which areas have the strongest opposition and eliminate them from the annexation process. One of the residents asked me if LAFCO is authorized to adjust the areas of annexation, or are they are only authorized to complete the process.

Hopefully, some of these concerns will be addressed at the February 3rd BOS meeting, and I look forward to hearing how this issue works out for the residents.