Ceremony for Trash-Energy Plant : Many Left Guessing If Shovels or Speeches Will Be Used

The company that wants to build a trash-to-energy plant at a county landfill in San Marcos said it might ceremonially break ground on the project today even though a San Diego Superior Court judge has ruled that the firm currently has no contract with the county to proceed with the project.

Among those expected to attend the ceremony is county Board of Supervisors Chairman Brian Bilbray, although he said he hasn’t been asked nor does he expect to participate in an actual ground breaking.

Opponents of the plant said they have been assured that no ground will actually be broken at the site, given the fact that North County Resource Recovery Associates (NCRRA) has no current legal claim to the project because of last week’s court ruling.

‘Direct Violation’

Any ground breaking “is a direct violation of the court’s ruling which ordered them (NCRRA) to stop all activity,” said Michael Hogan, attorney for Christward Ministries, which operates a 640-acre retreat near the landfill and has steadfastly opposed the trash-burning project.

Hogan said Wes Peltzer, the attorney for NCRRA, assured him that there would be no actual ground breaking today and, instead, only speeches.

County officials said they have no problem with NCRRA using the county site for speeches.

But Richard Chase, managing director of NCRRA, would not commit himself Wednesday afternoon that the event would be limited to speeches.

“You’ll just have to show up and see what happens,” Chase said. “We can’t tell you for sure what will happen. You’ll just have to live with ambiguity and conflict and uncertainty.”

And Leslie Sinclair, a special projects coordinator for NCRRA who is handling the logistics of the ceremony, said Wednesday afternoon that the ground breaking will go on as planned.

“We’re going ahead with it,” she said. “I guess it’s not causing them (other NCRRA officials) any concern.”

Among those scheduled to participate, she said, are Bilbray; former County Supervisor Paul Eckert, who was a staunch supporter of the project; state Assemblyman William Bradley (R-San Marcos); each San Marcos City Council member except Pia Harris, who was the only council opponent to the project; former Councilman Dr. Lionel Burton, who was a major booster of the project; several NCRRA officials, and a representative of Lusardi Construction Co.

Bilbray said he would “represent the county . . . and praise the City of San Marcos and its leadership. But what’s going on with a ground breaking is a separate issue that I’m not informed of and haven’t been asked to participate in. I’m not going to be there for more than 15 minutes.”

Fifth District Supervisor John MacDonald said he would not participate in the ground breaking--even if he didn’t already have a prior commitment--because the most recent court ruling makes the ground breaking “inappropriate.”

“Since there is no contract (between NCRRA and the county to build the trash plant), there should be no ground breaking,” MacDonald said.

Superior Court Judge Alpha L. Montgomery ruled Friday that the county’s five-year-old contract with NCRRA to build and operate the trash-to-energy plant is invalid because it hinged on an environmental impact report that was previously ruled invalid by an appellate court.

Contract Negotiations

The county and NCRRA have been renegotiating the contract, and NCRRA officials have said it does not substantially matter whether the old contract is amended or a new one is written for the supervisors’ approval.

The contract deals with NCRRA’s rights and responsibilities in using the county parcel, the amount of money the county will pay the private company to dispose of the trash, and how much money NCRRA will pay the county in royalties from the recycling operation.

Deputy county counsel Leonard W. Pollard said Wednesday that he was instructed by the Board of Supervisors to challenge Montgomery’s ruling, either by appeal or more likely by seeking a writ of mandate from the Fourth District Court of Appeal to have Montgomery’s decision set aside.

Pollard said he briefed county supervisors in closed session Wednesday morning of Montgomery’s ruling, its possible repercussions and how the county should respond to it.

He said Christward Ministries, which brought the successful lawsuit resulting in Friday’s court ruling, has forwarded to him the proposed wording of the formal judgment that the judge had asked the group to prepare. He said that he finds it unacceptable because Christward Ministries interpreted the judge’s ruling differently than did he.

“The proposed (judgment) says both the contract and the EIR are invalid, and we’re not sure that’s what the court actually intended to say, so we will try to clarify the judge’s ruling,” Pollard said. “The county’s position is that there is no relationship between the contract and the (previously invalidated) EIR, which is what the judge decided. We don’t agree with that.

“There is also some issue as to what contracts we’re talking about. We have a 1982 contract as well as an amended, restated 1985 contract with NCRRA, and it’s not clear which contracts we’re dealing with.”

Want Ruling Clarified

Pollard said if Montgomery does not clarify his ruling to the county’s satisfaction, he would most likely seek a writ of mandate from the appellate court because it can be resolved quicker than an appeal.

Plant opponents have maintained that Montgomery clearly intended to invalidate the county’s contract with NCRRA to build the trash plant and, therefore, NCRRA has no right to break ground on the project today.

Hogan said he was prepared to go to court on Wednesday to seek an injunction prohibiting today’s planned ground breaking, but backed off after being given assurances by Pollard that there would only be speeches.

“We’d run amok on Thursday if they turn dirt,” he said.

Pollard said he did not specifically tell NCRRA it could not break ground because he had been assured by the company that it would only use the site as a stage for speeches.

“In light of the occurrence last Friday, there’s no indication they are going to go out with a bulldozer and do some work,” Pollard said.

He also said he was not prepared to offer an opinion as to whether it was legal for the ceremony to be closed to the public even though it is on public land. The press release announcing the ceremony noted that it was open only to invited guests, and NCRRA’s Sinclair said that was because of NCRRA insurance limitations.

Chase said his company is moving ahead with requests to the City of San Marcos to begin grading at the site, to be followed by requests for bids. Actual construction on the $217-million project might occur by March, pending the outcome of the current litigation and the approval of a new or amended contract with the county, he said.