AgdaPkt 2020-10-26 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.C. - Page 20 of 57 ATTACHMENT 1 Joe La Mariana, SBWMA Executive Director March 18, 2020 Page 3 As a founding principle, indeed prior to the section quoted above, the recitals of the JPA Agreement provide "the costs for planning and implementing Solid Waste and Recycling Programs will be based on a fair and equitable allocation system that considers the relative benefits to each Agency and the additional costs of services provided to each Agency." (JPA Agreement, Recital (D).) This means that a driving factor in the allocation of financial responsibilities within the JPA was the proportionate use and benefit gleaned by each member. Thus, each member was assessed for costs at a rate with consideration of their proportionate use and benefit from the JPA. SBWMA's predominant direction, especially in recent years, has been to fund projects that target and benefit commercial growth and diversion. Atherton is a built -out residential community with no commercial development or uses. Therefore, the Town does not benefit from this targeted approach in any way, and it never has. To avoid this divergence from the JPA's founding principle articulated above, Atherton expressly requested that processing costs for commercial and residential uses be apportioned equitably. Unfortunately, the request, and even discussion of the request, was unilaterally declined. Consequently, tt comes as no surprise that while Atherton has benefited the JPA, the JPA has predominantly served at the pleasure of, and for the advantage of, the other members. In addition, Section 12.1 — Debts and Liabilities provides that a member agency's obligation is "expressly limited only to the appropriation and contribution of such funds as may be levied pursuant to this agreement or as the Members hereto may agree." Furthermore, Section 13.2 — Attributing Solid Waste provides "the SBWMA shall establish a fair and equitable method of attributing Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Plant Materials to the Members that are delivered to the Facilities." These further support that the Town is entitled to its share of the JPA's assets. Indeed, despite these established principles of fair allocation, the Town has never utilized the JPA's full suite of services, nor received a discount for not doing so — as explained, the Town does not produce multi -family unit or commercial waste like other members and was denied its request to equitably apportion costs related to each. If the SBWMA were to abide by the exact language of the JPA Agreement, "Revenue Bonds" is expressly defined as only "those certain revenue bonds titled'South Bayside Waste Management Authority (San Mateo County, California) Solid Waste System Revenue Bonds, Series 2000,' and issued in the amount of $20,090,000 on March 1, 2000." (JPA Agreement, Ex. C. "Definitions.") There is no mention or consideration for future revenue bonds. Thus, a plain reading provides room for an argument to be made that the JPA Agreement does not apply to bonds issued beyond the Series 2000 bonds and the Town, or really any JPA member, has no obligation to revenue bonds except for the Series 2000 bonds pursuant to the JPA Agreement. The Town is entitled to certain assets of the JPA proportionate to its financial contributions to JPA initiatives until the time of the Town's withdrawal. However, the requisite liquidation prior to withdrawal is a measure of both the Town's assets and liabilities in the JPA. The total assets of the JPA as of the 2017118 Audited Financial Statements is $74,506,626. The JPA's stated total liabilities in that same Report is $54,235,476. Allocating the Town's responsibility at 3.25% for both assets and liabilities result in a net to the Town of $658,812. The Town does not expect the JPA to refund the Town in that amount nor liquidate its assets; however, the Town asks for the Page 3 of 4 1931794.4 14537-002 51