Oceanside Dumps Trash-Plant Settlement : Environment: City Council rejects proposed agreement on San Marcos incinerator because it finds the cost of a compromise recycling plant exorbitant.

A proposed settlement that would have ended a decade-long dispute over a controversial trash-to-energy plant in San Marcos appeared to be falling apart Wednesday when one of the opposing cities, Oceanside, refused to agree to a negotiated compromise.

Under the proposed agreement, four North County cities that have sued to halt construction of the controversial trash-fueled power plant in San Marcos would drop their legal challenge in return for assurances that San Diego County will cancel all permits granted to a private developer--effectively killing the project.

In a closed session Wednesday, the Oceanside City Council rejected the settlement agreement, Mayor Larry Bagley said.

“I can’t tell you why this happened,” Bagley said. “Nothing was discussed in the (executive) meeting about it. As far as I am concerned, this puts the trash-to-energy plant back on the front burner again.”

Councilwoman Melba Bishop, who voted against the settlement, said she opposed it “because it is a boondoggle. It’s like voting for a $200 toilet seat.”

Apparently part of the reason the Oceanside council turned down the compromise was the cost of a proposed large trash recycling center that would replace the trash-to-energy plant.

Bishop called the $85-million price tag for a recycling facility “outrageous. It ought to be $35 million, tops. I think that the county is just planning to get the money and use some of it to recover some of its losses on the trash-to-energy plant.”

She said Oceanside entered the legal battle over the incinerator late and had no funds invested in it. The council instructed its attorney to drop Oceanside from the lawsuit, she said, “but I can’t, in good conscience, vote for this settlement.”

County Supervisor John MacDonald late Wednesday downplayed the Oceanside council’s action, saying the county compromise “is good enough to get us an agreement (with the other cities) without their signature.”

The Carlsbad City Council voted Tuesday night to approve the settlement, which has been under negotiation for several months. Encinitas followed that lead Wednesday night. Escondido, which also challenged the plant, was scheduled to vote on the issue late Wednesday night.

Negotiators said approval of the compromise agreement would end all county commitment to build the trash-burning plant and pave the way for construction of the less-controversial recycling center on the site next to the San Marcos landfill.

Vince Biondo, Carlsbad city attorney, said the legal challenge by Carlsbad, Escondido, Encinitas and Oceanside to the trash incinerator needs to be dropped so that low-interest state bond funds can be sought later this month to help finance the trash recycling plant.

County supervisors last August rejected a proposed contract with Thermo Electron Inc., the Boston-based corporation that planned to construct and operate the incineration plant, but let stand some of the permits and agreements with the firm.

On Monday, during an executive session, supervisors approved the settlement agreement that would cut all county commitments with Thermo Electron Inc. involving the trash-to-energy plant.

Biondo said the tentative agreement to drop the cities’ lawsuits related to the trash-to-energy plant includes a one-sentence letter to the state Pollution Control Financing Agency supporting the use of state bond funds for the recycling plant.

“In other words, under this agreement, we are withdrawing our opposition to the use of CPCFA (California Pollution Control Financing Authority) funds for the recycling project,” Biondo said. “Since the county is committed to doing this project, it will be cheaper for our citizens if this financing method is used.”

The low-interest state bond financing could lower the cost of building the recycling plant, an expense which will be borne by North County residents through higher trash collection fees. Biondo said the cities did not agree to drop their opposition to related trash issues, including expansion of the San Marcos landfill, which is expected to reach capacity and close early in 1992 if expansion approval is not granted.

San Marcos Mayor Lee Thibadeau said the settlement of the legal challenge against the proposed trash-to-energy plant is critical to gaining approval of state bond funding, when the financing authority meets Nov. 21.

“That’s my real concern because, if we don’t get this cleared up before the hearing, we lose the financing and it will cost customers $10 to $20 more on their monthly trash bills.”

Thibadeau said San Marcos remains firm on its plans to charge a “host fee” of $5 a ton for trash brought into the city for recycling and disposal in order to pay for the wear and tear on city streets and other municipal costs.

He added that he expects continued opposition to the fee from the other North County cities who use the county landfill in San Marcos and who will use the future recycling center.

“Of course I am disappointed at losing the trash-to-energy plant,” Thibadeau said. “At one point, they (opposing cities) wanted a guarantee that there would never be another attempt to build such a facility. But, of course, that is an impossible commitment to make.

“I suspect that, in a few years, these opponents to the plant are going to realize just how wrong they were,” he said. “I’m not playing games on this thing. I am just hoping there will be a solution in time.”