Cities and counties share a compost facility when none of them has enough tonnage, a suitable site or the staff to run one alone. The usual legal vehicles are a joint powers authority or other separate public entity, an interlocal agreement without a new entity, or a contract under which one agency hosts the facility and the others deliver material. The project succeeds or fails on four sets of terms: who governs, who pays and how, what the host community receives, and what tonnage each member commits.<\/p>\n
The economics of a compost facility are lumpy. A permit, a scale house, a loader, a screen, a trained operator and an emissions control approach cost roughly the same whether the site takes a modest or a large tonnage. Sharing them helps in several ways:<\/p>\n
The costs are also real: longer hauls for some members, slower decisions, and a host community that may feel it carries the burden for everyone.<\/p>\n
Each state sets its own rules. California and Washington are shown here as examples because their statutes are short and clear; check your own state’s law.<\/p>\n
Under California Government Code section 6502<\/a>, two or more public agencies, if authorized by their governing bodies, may by agreement jointly exercise any power common to them. Section 6507<\/a> makes the agency created by the agreement a public entity separate from its members, and section 6508<\/a> lets it, where the agreement authorizes, make contracts, employ staff, build and operate works, hold property and incur debts in its own name. Under section 6503.5<\/a>, a separate agency must file a notice of the agreement with the Secretary of State within 30 days, and if it fails to file it cannot issue bonds or incur debt until it does.<\/p>\n Washington’s Interlocal Cooperation Act, RCW 39.34.030<\/a>, lets two or more public agencies agree to joint or cooperative action after each governing body acts by ordinance or resolution. The agreement must state its duration, any separate entity and its powers, its purpose, how it is financed and budgeted, how it can be terminated and how property is disposed of. If no separate entity is created, the agreement must also name an administrator or joint board and say how property is acquired, held and disposed of.<\/p>\n One city or county owns and runs the facility; the others sign delivery contracts. This is the simplest structure and the fastest to set up. Partners get less say in governance, and the host carries the permit and the capital.<\/p>\n Some regions already have a government that handles solid waste for its members. SG’s Grand Forks profile describes the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary in British Columbia composting yard and garden waste at the Grand Forks Landfill, adding residential food waste as a result of an expanded regional organics diversion program, and later adding biosolids, with plans for two separate Class A products (profile<\/a>).<\/p>\nInterlocal agreement (with or without a new entity)<\/h3>\n
Host agency contract<\/h3>\n
Regional government<\/h3>\n