HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/16/1991, C-15 - ADDITIONAL ASBESTOS ABATEMENT AT THE RECREATION CENTER I�IIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIII II MEETI�JG GATE:
I►I 9�U� cI� of San LUIS OBISPO - `-
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER
FROM: Jim Stockton - Recreation and Parks Di 59# t- t�
PREPARED BY: K. Koop;Trincipal Recreation Supervisor
SUBJECT:
Additional Asbestos Abatement at the Recreation Center
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
By motion, ratify the CAO's approval of an amendment to the
contract with REMTECH in the amount of $36,534 for the abatement
of additional asbestos discovered at Recreation Center using
approved project contingency funds.
DISCUSSION:
At the Council meeting of April 4, 1990 the City Council authorized
staff to proceed with the comprehensive rehabilitation of the San
Luis Obispo Recreation Center. Staff prepared plans and
specifications and solicited bids. On July 3, 1990, at an
adjourned regular meeting, the City Council authorized the CAO to
award the contract if bids received were lower than or equal to
Engineer's estimate. Shetler Construction of San Luis Obispo
presented the low bid and based on the company' s past performance,
staff determined that the firm was acceptable to the City as
contractor for this project and the bid was awarded.
Rehabilitation of the facility began on January 18, 1991.
Prior to beginning the project an asbestos abatement firm, REMTECH,
was contracted to test and perform abatement of originally detected
asbestos material. The known asbestos material was abated prior
to the Re-hab beginning. During the demolition phase of the Re-
hab project additional asbestos was discovered to exist in the
exterior stucco and roof mastic. The Re-hab Project Contractor
completed what work was possible but has been unable to continue
due to this asbestos discovery.
REMTECH was again contacted to test the suspect material and the
results were positive indicating that asbestos was present.
Abatement of 3200 square feet of exterior stucco and 1200 square
feet of roof mastic is required. Initial monitoring and reporting
contacts have been filed and the abatement could begin as soon as
April 15, 1991. Rehabilitation of the Recreation Center will
resume immediately upon completion of the asbestos abatement.
A more detailed explanation of this action is provided as
Attachment A.
CAO APPROVAL UNDER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.24.060 (F)
On April 10, 1991 the CAO authorized the contract amendment under
Municipal Code Section 3 .24 . 060.
d' y'i Iil ji I city tty 0� Jai 1
Luis o B I s po
3 COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT
In seeking CAO authorization to immediately proceed with the
additional asbestos removal, the items of concern listed below were
paramount:
1. PROJECT TIME DELAYS: A 35 day delay to restart the
rehabilitation work was anticipated. Reapplication with Air
Pollution Control was necessary further extending the delay.
2. POSSIBLE RISK TO CITY: Should this time delay result in
the Re-hab contractor being unable to proceed with proposed work
schedules, action by the contractor may occur.
CONCURRENCES:
This proposal for asbestos abatement has been reviewed by the
project architect, project inspector, and the Departments of
Finance, City Attorney, Public Works and Recreation and Parks.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The projected cost to accomplish the "Comprehensive
Rehabilitation", $973,900, was approved at the April 41 1990
Council Meeting and is summarized as follows:
Remodeling $ 718, 000
Contingencies @15% 107,800
Bidding assistance and project admin. 27,300
Acquisitions (equipment and furnishings) 2.5, 000
Asbestos Abatement 65, 000
Landscaping 30, 000
Total Project Cost $ 973, 100
The project balance available excluding
bidding assistance, acquisitions, and
landscaping: $ 890,800
i
The bid received for the "Remodeling" phase of the project was
below the engineers estimate. Since the job began in January,
change orders have become necessary and as the old wrap is removed
from the building the need for other changes have become apparent.
Summarized below is the fiscal information, both actual and
anticipated to date:
Actual: Remodeling Contract Awarded $ 678, 600
Asbestos Abatement Awarded 58 , 000
Total to date: $ 736, 600
Anticipated 'changes:
Asbestos Change #1 $ 11700
Roofing for gym 12, 000
Ceiling tile replacement 7, 500
Lighting fixtures 71500
Boiler removal 5, 000
Total to date: $ 33,700
Balance prior to Asbestos
change #2 $ 1200500
iIJ, San Luis o6lspo
;�,I c�� o�
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
The scope of the proposed asbestos work includes the removal and
disposal of asbestos containing exterior stucco material,
approximately 3,200 square feet, and roofing mastic, approximately
1,200 square feet. The total cost for the work is $36, 534,
itemized as follows:
Stucco Removal $ 25,255
Roof Mastic Removal 2,800
Scaffolding 31465
Independent Air Monitoring 5.014
Total Abatement Cost $ 36,534
Contingencies at 15% were included in the original fiscal
impact development for the rehabilitation project to allow for the
unexpected circumstances that arise as a part of rehabilitation
projects. Adequate funding is available in the contingencies of
the project budget to accomplish this asbestos abatement and as
well as the above mentioned anticipated changes.
After payment for the asbestos abatement a budget balance of
$83,966 will remain for the construction phase of the project.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL RATIFICATION: i
Although the CAO has taken action to amend the contract for reasons
outlined earlier, he has requested that this matter be placed on
the Council Agenda for ratification.
i
i
ATTACHMENTS: "A" CAO Memo
"B" Original Contract
"C" Proposed Contract
Chis-3
ATTACHMENT "A"
II
Cityo son vu�s o��sly
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
April 10, 1991
MEMORANDUM ,
To: City Council
From: John Dunn
Subject: Con act a ndment for further Recreation Center asbestos
abatement
Attached is a CAO Special Report which authorizes additional
asbestos abatement as part of the Recreation Center remodeling
project.
In summary, after initial asbestos removal at the Recreation
Center, additional asbestos was discovered during work by the prime
contractor. As such, a stop order has been issued to the prime
contractor until the additional asbestos can be abated.
It is essential that the additional asbestos be abated without
delay as a matter of public health, and because there is the
potential for prime contractor claims resulting from excessive
delay. If action is not taken now, the delay can be worsened
because there is a limited amount of time remaining on the asbestos
abatement permit, and if further abatement is not completed in the
next few days, it will be necessary to go through the entire permit
process again.
For these reasons, I have taken the unusual step of approving a
$36,534 contract amendment with the asbestos abatement contractor
prior to obtaining formal Council approval. Under Municipal Code
Section 3.24.060(F) the CAO is authorized to dispense with standard
purchasing "When reasonably necessary for the preservation or
protection of public peace, health, safety or welfare of persons
or property". The amendment will, however, be placed on the next
possible City Council agenda for ratification.
If you have any questions concerning my reasons for taking this
action, please contact me.
JD:mc
Attachment
C. City Attorney, Recreation Director, Finance Director
d/asbcstm
(File -3� - ATTACF.11ENT 'G"
MM
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA
FORM OF AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on this 4 day of September 19 9Q by and between the
City of San liTLui4�O i San Luis Obispo County, California, hereinafter called
the Owner, and hereinafter called the Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
That the Owner and the Contractor for the consideration stated herein agree as
follows:
ARTICLE 1, SCOPE OF WORK: The Contractor shall perform everything required to
MM be performed, shall provide and furnish all of the labor, materials, necessary
:tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required
to complete all the work of construction of in strict accordance with the plans
and specifications therefor, including any and all Addenda, adopted by the Owner,
in strict compliance with the Contract Documents hereinafter enumerated.
It is agreed that said labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall
be furnished and said work performed and completed under the direction and
supervision and subject to the approval of the Owner or its authorized
representatives. •
ARTICLE II, CONTRACT PRICE:• The owner shall pay the Contractor as full
consideration for the faithful performance of this Contract, subject to any
additions or deductions as provided in the Contract Doc,unents, the contract
prices as follows:
Approximate Items with Unit Price Written Unit Total
Item Quantity in Words Price (in Fissures
Asbestos Abatement Asbestos Abatement of San Fifty-eight $ 5g , 000 .
Luis Obispo Recreation thousand
Center as described in dollars
attached proposal
Tlie following unit prices shall .apply to any additional asbestos
containing materials not identified in REMTECH ' s proposal .
Transite Ceiling Panels Three dollars $3 • `
and fifty cents SQ/,
per square foot
Pipe Insulation 'fi.,elve dollars $ 12 . 00/
per square foot SQ/I-T
Items with Unit 'Price Writ.ten Unit Price Total
gppToximate
Quantity in Words
HVAC Vibration Collar One hundred $100/ea
dollars per
each
HVAC Duct Insulation Ten dollars $10 . 00/
per square SQ. FT
foot
Two dollars $2. 00
Contaminated Dirt
per pound
payments are to be made to the Contractor in accordance with and subject
to the provisions embodied in the documents made a part of this Contract:
Should any dispute arise respecting the true value of any work omitted or
of any extra work .which the Contractor may be required to do, or respecting the
size of any payment to the Contractor, during the performance of this Contract,
said dispute shall be decided by the Owner and its decision shall be final, and
conclusive-
ARTICLE III, COMPONENT PARTS OF THIS CONTRACT: The Contract consists of the
following documents, all of which are fully a part thereof as if herein set out
in full, if nor attached, .as if hereto attached.
1. Notice to Contractors.
y, Proposal requirements and information for bidders.
3 . General conditions., specifications and Special Provisions.
4. Accepted Proposal.
.5 . P! 3ns.
6 Ab-eement and Bonds
ARTICLE
IV. It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto
that should there be any conflict between the terms of this instrument and the
bid or psoposal of said Contractor, then this instrument shall control and
nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said
proposal conflicting herewith.
IN gITNESS VHEREOF, the parties to these presents have hereunto set their
hands this year and date first above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MAYOR RON IXMIN
4CORACTOR
t REMTECH Restoration Corpo{`ation
John V. Finnerty/President
ATTEST
I'llXle-e-;in-,r
'CIT CLE R• 1OCES
BY: KIM COPiDON, !!EPUT CITY CLERK
ATTACHMENT
REMUCH
Restoration Corporation
March 27, 1991
]Kathy Koop, Recreation Department
City of San Luis Obispo
860 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Dear Kathy:
Enclosed are the (two) bulk sample reports (dated March 14 and March
22) taken at the Recreation Center. Please note that the handwritten
results are all .that has been received for the reported dated March 22,
1991 at this time. When the final type written report is received from
the lab, I will forward this on to you.
Additionally, the estimate for the additional work on the roof and
stucco is attached. : The stucco not to be removed includes the second
floor stucco and the addition on the side and rear: of the building from
the downspout around back to the doorway. This material is non-
asbestos containing.
Lastly, Karen.Brooks of San Luis Obispo County ;APCD has requested a
job site preview to discuss the asbestos removal work practices that will
be used. This meeting is'. scheduled at the job site:!on Monday, April lit '..:
at 1:00 P.M. While the City's presence is not: mandatory, you and 'Jim
are invited'.to . attend.'.':' hI site : su ervisor'! Robert LagunaMy; P and my
. ;partner Glen Hockridge will attend this meeting,;;::Unfortunately
,. I am
unable to attend. ..
, .
We 'look forward' to working with you to complete' this project quickly
and efficiently - weather permitting!
Sincerely,
REMTECH Restoration Corporation
ohn V. r innert
President
632 • Fu��., /�r�
r . ... . Phan s 714-680 3077 yr. .i,�
. i
ra
_ Restoration Corporation
To: Kathy Hoop, City of San Luis Obispo
Recreation Department
From: John V. Finnerty
Date:. March 27, 1991
Re: Asbestos Removal, Recreation Center
L Description of Work: The:.scope of work includes the removal
and disposal' of asbestos containing exterior stucco materials
(approximately 3,200. square feet) and roofing mastic around
flashing and penetrations (approximately 1,200 square feet)
EL Procedures: Work shall comply with current local, state and
federal regulations. Scaffolding shall be constructed to facilitate
removal operations. The stucco removal procedures shall be as
follows:
1.. Seal off the work area and establish negative air pressure.
2. Construct a three chambered decontamination unit.
3. Under full containment, adequately.wet the stucco material.
.4. :i Remove the stucco ,by,;maaual methods. The removal shall
:. include stucco, lightweight concrete, .chicken wire'and paper
sheathing.
: :All material shall be doubled bagged and, kept wet' and placed
Fi : >(:: r .in a locked bin f6;.disgosiiiL
6. Wet clean the: containment;' and encapsulate €ollowiag . a
• ' visual inspection. of :work :area. , is i .. ,
7. =i Performfinal air clearance-within the. containment Final Air
Clearance levels shall be:,04ffcc.er less.
"Air-monitoring shall be:pe formed .throughout:the project.
Roof, mastic shall be removed by wet methods and double bagged
for disposal.
All personnel shall be outfitted with half face respirators, Tyvek
suits, goggles and hard hats for both stucco and roof removal
operations.
4060 Palm S... :. . a,=i l:n, CA 92635 • Pltoi,°r ; :>80-3077 • FAX 714-680
I if.nSn Nn
Restoration Corporation
III. .Schedule:. Work shall be completed within fourteen (IQ calendar
days.commencing on April 1, 1991.
IV. Contract Sum: :
A. Stucco Removal $ 25,255.00
B. Roofing Mastic Removal: $ 2,800.00
C. Scaffolding: $ . 3,465.00
DI Independent Air Monitoring: $ 5.014.00
Total Contract Sum: '$ 36,534.00
REMTECH Restoration Corporation
John V. / dent
, `
r
�Iri vi.. guile 602 Full,'rrtr;!. ; 9263.5 PhonA 71A.AAn.VI I 71:^..A;m.1n70
,I n „ t t t r t t „ t t t t I t t , r t t t ( • _
c o••-' r t t _
\ cn
r-0O — — �
0 I'll
xy �— c V
Cyr. (s _ � ,� � (7
� p � � � �• � �' ° � C � sit
=:::l ±70 o o O
II az GI.
rK-r � p � �
cG•.ten� "� � ^ ^ n O � � >on
N O
�0E4 I f O
� E4
o I n s ° p
o �I
..
vrd�YC7 I
. ON °
�—
OY7y'•
o y r' I I I
n 0 1 1 I rVlo
syr.
�o My
. • a" b o,
r1
I—
DI O
Y0 7 + r3 ra I I I6< O
r-O �
gI,_:
K O I I clt+
Y
'rGa O10 O' < O
O
rti O
.a e
r,
a. I I I I O I 7
n`
.- C
-� HI-TECH LABORATORY
Asbestos Analysis Laboratory
*BULI: SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT*
REPORT NUMBER:4859 DATE OF REPORT: 03-14-91
PROJECT NAME:RECREATION CTR. CUSTOMER:REMTECH
SLO
THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES OF MATERIALS SUSPECTED OF CONTAINING ASBESTOS WERE
COLLECTED FROM THE LOCATIONS LISTED BELOW AND ANALYZED FOR ASBESTOS CONTENT.
THE RESULTS OF ANALYSIS ARE FOR THE SAMPLE OR SAMPLES DELIVERED TO US AND
MAY NOT REPRESENT THE ENTIRE MATERIAL FROM WHICH THE SAMPLE WAS TAKEN. ON A
NEGATIVE SAMPLE TILE EPA RECOMMENDS THREE OR MORE SAMPLES FROM A HOMOGENEOUS
SAMPLING AREA BEFORE IT IS CONSIDERED NON ASBESTOS CONTAINING.
�RCENTAGES AND TYPE OF ASBESTOS WERE DETERMINED BY USING THE PRINCIPLES OF
JLARIZED LIGHT MICROSCOPY AND DISPERSION STAINING, USING NIOSH APPROVED
METHOD 7403 . THIS METHOD IS FURTHER DEFINED IN THE EPA
600/M4-82-0201 "INTERIM METHOD FOR THE DETERMINATION OF ASBESTOS IN BULK
INSULATION SAMPLES . " THE RESULTS , DATES AND LOCATIONS OF THE SAMPLES ARE
LISTED BELOW.
ASBESTOS IS TYPICALLY QUANTIFIED USING THE VISUAL AREA ESTIMATION (VAE)
'TECHNIQUE. THIS TECHNIQUE INVOLVES VISUALLY COMPARING THE AMOUNT OF
ASBESTOS VERSUS NON ASBESTOS MATERIAL PRESENT IN THE SAMPLE OR SAMPLE LAYER.
THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED BY GROSS EXAMINATION OF THE SAMPLE UNDER THE STEREO
MicROSCOPE AND OR EXAMINATION OF HOMOGENOUS SLIDE PREPARATIONS UNDER THE
POLARIZING LIGHT MICROSCOPE.
EACH SAMPLE WAS INITIALLY EXAMINED UNDER A NIKON SMZ-213 STEREOSCOPIC
MICROSCOPE AT A MAGNIFICATION OF SX TO 50X. FIBROUS MATERIAL WAS
DIFFERENTIATED RASED UPON MORPHOLOGY. PORTIONS OF EACH SAMPLE WERE
IMMERSED IPI A -FLUID WITH A KNOWN REFRACTIVE INDEX. THE SAMPLE WAS EXAMINED
UNDER POLARIZED LIGHT USING A NIKON LABOPHOT MICROSCOPE WITH A McCRONE
DISPERSION STAINING OBJECTIVE UNDER 100X MAGNIFICATION. OPTICAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FIBROUS MATERIAL WERE EXAMINED TO -DETERMINE
MINEROLOGY OF THE FIBER. THE OBSERVED OPTICAL CHARACTERISTICS INCLUDE ANGLE
OF EXTINCTION , SIGN OF ELONGATION , AND DISPERSION STAINING COLORS .
NONE DETECTED IS ONLY REPORTED AFTER A THOROUGH SEARCH UTILI'LLNG APPROPRIATE
'AMPLE PREPARATION TECHNIQUES IS CONDUCTED AND NO ASRESTOS IS DETECTED . THE
,I'SULT DOES NOT IMPLY NO ASBESTOS IS PRESENT; THL•' METHOD IS NOT CAPABLE OF
MAKING •r11A'r DETERMINATION . RATHER, IT IMPLIES THAT EITHER ASBLsTOS IS NOT
PRESENT , OR IF IT IS , IT IS LIKELY TO BE LEss THAN 1% OF THE SAMPLE.
5396 LINCOLN AVE.. SUITE D • CYPRESS.CA 90630 • (714)827-OG93 • FAX(774)827.0695
\ Hl-TECH LABORATORY
.. =! Astx.hl:NcJy,�s l:+fKudrury �-
CLIENT:
TV4POPMY REPORT .
'
NONE 9'0'1'l.L T. •
SAMPLE YD NONE 1'E� CIIRYSMILI: PlOSITE 07Ist7t h'ts:f(Q; V!7%M1.4
CrE3 O
� .
PROJECT:
DATEt �� /�/ N:,1LY,'P :�
i
REPORT 4859
DATE ASBESTOS NON ASBESTOS
SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE MINERAL % MINERAL
NUMBER TAKEN LOI;ATION TYPE TYPE
---------- --------------------------------------------------------------
RC 1 ROOF MASTIC CHRYSOTILE 30-40% CELLULOSE 01-05%
BINDER/FILLER 45-55%
RC 2 STUCCO NONE DETECTED CELLULOSE 01-05%
ROCK FRAG. 50-60%
CALCITE 01-05%
BINDER/FILLER 20-30%
RC 3 STUCCO CHRYSOTILE 10-20% CELLULOSE 01-05%
.*STUCCO ONLY ROCK FRAG. 30-40%
BINDER/FILLER 25=35%
RC 4 ROOF MAT. NONE DETECTED CELLULOSE 30-40%
FIBROUS GLASS 05-10%
BINDER/FILLER 40-50%
RC 5 ROOF MAT. NONE DETECTED CELLULOSE 20-30%
SYNTH. FIBER 05-10%
BINDER/FILLER 40-50%
ROCK FRAG. 05-10%
HI
TECH �4
LABORATORY
M EV A AGENDA
DATE `�/"� ITEM #L 1
�►ii�i►►�I�II�IIIIIIIIII� pIII►► ►►il
of An tuts oasposCl
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
April 8, 1991
LIAISON REPORT
TO: Council Colleagues
FROM: Councilmember Penny Rapp.
SUBA T: SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE
Could Council please review the attached information regarding the regional approach to
our solid waste programs. I will be happy to discuss any of the proposed concepts and
would appreciate your input.
PR:ss
Attachment
Action ❑ En
❑❑ CDD Da
IX
L❑9'ACAO ❑ DH
EEF
r�=/ORIG ❑ ua a t
❑ MGM7:MW f-i❑�}r&C DIX
—LT
. �III�QIII��IIIJdJ I�����I �IIIiI Il IIID
CityOf SAn tui§
OBISPO
AN
HIM 955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
March 26, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer .
Dave Romero, Public Works Director
Dave Elliott, Administrative Analyst
Penny Rappa, Councilmember
Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney
FROM: Cyndi Butterfield, Solid Waste Coordinator&o
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Technical Advisory Meeting Discussion
The March 21, 1991 meeting of the Solid Waste Technical Advisory '
Committee (TAC) included discussion about regional approaches to
implementation of. AB 939 plans and the administrative forms that
regionalization might take. Early discussions of source
reduction and recycling programs produced a clear consensus among
TAC members that many programs would be best implemented on a
regional (county wide) or sub-regional (defined regions including
cities and/or county areas) basis. For example, to avoid
duplicating efforts and limit expenses, public education might
best be addressed on a county wide basis. Also, the expense of
siting and developing a material recovery facility could be
shared by regions, perhaps one south of Cuesta Grade and one
north of the Grade.
Brown, Vence & Associates (BVA) is the San Francisco based
consulting firm hired by the County and all the Cities to develop
Source Reduction and Recycling Plans for the County and each City
within SLO county. As you review the attached report presented by
BVA, please keep in mind the following important considerations:
Even though a regional approach may be used to implement an
Integrated Waste Management Plan, each city and county is
responsible for meeting the goals set by State law within it's
jurisdiction.
The Source Reduction and Recycling Plan for this City is due
to the State by December 1, 1991. Failure to submit an adequate
plan by the due date is subjec $10,000 per day fine.
�E�VSD
MAR 2 1991
ciry cOe iL
TAC
Page Two
The document that the City of San Luis Obispo prepares for .
the State Waste Management Board is subject to regulatory
compliance. It is more than a plan. State regulatory officers
will visit each city to make sure that plans are being carried
out by the appropriate dates. Not meeting the waste reduction
goals set by the State of 25% by 1995 and 50% by 2000, is subject
to a $10,000 per day fine.
Michael Brown encouraged TAC members to remember that under a
JPA, each jurisdiction has the ultimate veto power. This means
that the planning process might be bogged down, especially in
siting a facility. For example, a sub-regional material recovery .
facility may be essential to divert the necessary waste for each
jurisdiction to meet State goals, but discussions over siting
might jeopardize meeting those goals.
The TAC has requested that the Solid Waste Task Force form a sub-
committee to study the options provided by the two regional
administrative forms.
Attachment: report
tacregir/cbIA
DRAFT
Regional Approaches
to Integrated Waste Management
Programs and Facilities
February 25, 1991
Prepared for:
San Luis Obispo County Technical Advisory Committee
Prepared by:
Brown, Vence & Associates .
120 Montgomery Street
Suite: 680 . :. -..
San Francisco, CA 4104--
7
4104=7 _ _, 2 r.:) - _ (415)43.4-0900..
b `l:G �� ��' .__t.• _�_. i.__:'tet _ [) ._.,.. . ....,..,_ � � . ..'- !'_._..yin - .'.f'
Regional Approaches to Waste Diversion
Introduction
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 has
made cost effective, maximum recovery ' of recyclable materials a
major concern of every city and county in the State.
The Source Reduction and Recycling Elements currently being
prepared will specify programs to be developed and will recommend
facilities to be built. But the strategy for implementing these
programs and developing these facilities must be determined by the
governing bodies of the County and the cities themselves.
Prior to AB 939, waste management activities across California
were conducted through a variety of institutional arrangements that
allocated various roles to the public and private sectors. Each
community was free to choose the arrangement it found most
compatible with the manner in which other local government
services were provided.
While communities are still free to make these choices, AB 939
will profoundly affect these arrangements and how they are
developed. AB 939 requires that each jurisdiction give greater
thought to the optimal institutional arrangement by making each city
and the unincorporated area of each county individually responsible
for achieving waste diversion from landfills of 25 percent by 1995,
and of 50 percent by 2000. Failure to meet 'these goals can result in
fines. of up to $10,000 per day of noncompliance. Thus, regardless of
the waste management options and institutional arrangements
chosen, each city is accountable to the state for meeting the diversion
goals. -
Regional Programs and Facilities
Planning and developing programs •and facilities on a regional
or sub-regional level is often- the most efficient way to achieve the
greatest results through economies of scale. For example, flyers
promoting source reduction activities- can-,be *designed on a regional
basis to be distributed to all of the schools in the County. Likewise, a
group of cities that share the same recycling service provider can
work together to set equitable rates. The County can decide to site a
materials recovery facility in the unincorporated area of the County
to be shared with other jurisdictions.
Some of the programs and facilities that will need to be
developed are capital-intensive (municipal solid waste composting
facilities, tire-shredding plants, even promotional video. and radio
spots are costly to produce and air). In Tables 1 through 5 we have
identified the most. appropriate entity for carrying out each waste
diversion activity. Virtually all of the programs and facilities have
economies of scale. For the cities and the County to achieve the
desirable goal of getting the most- diversion for the least possible
cost, it is' clear that the jurisdictions should work together for mutual
benefit.
Approaches for Regionalization
The strict diversion requirements of AB 939 point to the need
for each city to be part of a large-scale, integrated program to handle
many categories of waste. This legislation, and other laws, allow for
cities to cooperate to achieve their diversion goals. This cooperation
could take one of three major forms: a lead agency, a J.P.A., or a
special district (although a special district for waste diversion may
require further legislative action). These approaches are
summarized in Table 6.
A city or the County ("lead agency") could take the lead on a
particular project and contract with other cities to share in the
project. Alternatively, a group of cities within a region, with or
without the County or other districts, could set up a joint powers
authority ("J.P.A.") to procure facilities, develop master franchises,_ or
set .rates. Finally, the County Board of Supervisors or the residents_. of
a region may determine that a special district ("special district")
should be created to plan and develop :an. overall regional strategy to
meet the mandated waste reduction goals.
Lead_ Agencies' are.. created when. an individual; jurisdiction
takes' on the responsibility to. plan. and, develop:. a program or facility:-
for use by surrounding jurisdictions. The lead agency, contracts_ with -
the other jurisdictions through a cost-sharing agreement or a
memorandum ofr..understanding., The: part
-i..
guarantee to, share: proportionally the : burden-, of. the-�costs. and elicit .__:
I..... .-' . .. -- J. J ..
corresponding :benefits., The. lead agency- will. usually. ,site-,the; facility.
. within its own borders and take the responsibility of finding
financing for the project, procuring a vendor to develop the facility,
and either operate the facility or contract with a private provider for
the services.
J.P.A.s are created by the governing bodies of the member
agencies. The cities, counties, or districts sign a joint powers
agreement which delegates certain authorities to the J.P.A. By
agreement, the J.P.A. may be given authority to site and develop
facilities and programs for the benefit of the member agencies. The
J.P.A. may hold property in its own right, enter contracts, hire
employees, construct and maintain facilities, issue bonds, and incur
debts, liabilities, and obligations.
Special districts are created when the Board of Supervisors of a
county determines that a portion of the county is in need of a
particular facility or service. The proposition for the creation of the
district must be approved by the voters within the territory of the
district. The district may include incorporated cities provided that
the governing body of the city consent to the adoption by a two-
thirds vote of it members. In addition to hiring employees, issuing
bonds, entering contracts, and acquiring property, special districts
may levy taxes on the taxable property within the district sufficient
to defray the costs of its operations and draft district-wide
ordinances.- '
Currently, AB 939 allows the formation of special districts for
waste disposal or processing. This could include processing mixed
wastes into its component parts for recycling. However, this would
not include developing a facility for source-separated recyclable
materials. A special district created .for the express purpose of
developing program's and facilities- for waste diversion may be ,
authorized by future legislative action.'
Issues in Program and Facility Development
Planning, procurement, implementation, and development, o_f..
programs or. facilities for- waste diversion ' may be' undert_ake_n by any
of the- jurisdictional= entities provided that the following" � `
implementation issues are resolved.
Flow!'confrol.=='-'Flow='control=is= the authority that local ' L ''�'"T
jurisdictions have` to,-direct where" ttie `solid`'waste-(or discarded:.
materials),"that- isgenerated within"the=juris`d)1(iction is- processed' or
�.-...:1 'C'
t '
disposed. Achieving large diversion rates will be nearly impossible
without constructing large-scale facilities rn rPsl„re. t e vo ume o-
mat` e`o4ing to landfills. Guaranteeing a sufficient flow of
recoverable materials is a requirement of any ' large-scale facility
development.
Land use. The location of a MRF or other facility contributes to
its effectiveness. The. power to take private property for public use
through expropriation or eminent domain is granted to local
governments by the state constitution. The cities and the County can
assert eminent domain within their territories individually; a joint
powers authority may exercise this right within the territories of its
member agencies; and a special district may expropriate land within
its borders.
Financing. Individual cities, the County, a joint powers
authority, or a special 'district may issue bonds to acquire, construct,
.maintain, or operate facilities to dispose, treat or process the
reusable materials of solid waste. In each case, the proposition must
be approved .by a majority of the voters within the territories of the
agency. Each of the agencies may levy user fees or surcharges on
facilities within their jurisdiction.
Role of AB 939 Local Task Force
As discussed above, the cost of complying with AB 939
requires a high level of regional integration of programs and
facilities. The components of the Source Reduction and Recycling
Element must work together to achieve the diversion goals within
each city or County-unincorporated area and the city and County ,
Elements must be orchestrated in the County Integrated - Waste
Management. Plan. for., maximum coordination of� efforts.
AB- 939 gives this' large-scale, complex effort. to the Local- Task
_
Force. This body,-Which is to be convened every five years,- must
ensure a cost-effecti.ve�regional recycling system by identifying solid '
waste management issues of county-wide or regional concern;
determining the need for solid waste collection-`systems;^ processing
facilities,, and marketing strategies that. can serve more than one local
jurisdiction:within. the region;: facilitating the_developinenf of
multijurisdictional_, arrangements:. for`'marketing- of recyclable
materials; facilitating resolntioii 'of' conflicts" between`or- among city
source reduction- and Jrecycliiig'eletnents;` and 'developing-goals?,
j
policies and procedures to guide the developmentof the siting
element.
The Local Task Force has been delegated all of the
responsibilities for carrying out this regional approach, without
accountability or the authority to do so. The Local Task Force can
determine the needs for regional cooperation, but is powerless to
carry them out. A permanent regional board, such as a J.P.A. or a
special district, accountable to the voters and responsible for
carrying out the diversion mandates, could fulfil this need.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Approaches
Since lead, agencies, J.P.A.s, and special districts each have
broad powers to plan and develop programs and facilities, a closer
examination of the shades of difference between the options is
required. The "Pros" and "Cons" of each approach are listed in Table
7.
The lead agency approach is ideally suited for developing
.specific projects. Before AB 939, facilities and programs were
developed on an "as needed" basis. However, the specified goals of
AB 939 require a comprehensive, on-going and long-term
coordinated effort. Riverside County, for example, would like to site
several regional facilities throughout the County-unincorporated area
to meet the diversion goals for the County and the cities throughout
the County. Riverside County must now negotiate with each
jurisdiction to ensure that they will guarantee flow control and agree
to cost-sharing.
The lead agency approach, though 'easiest.. to implement, is least
likely .to succeed, because. the lead agency_ has- no' responsibility to
ensure that other cities' diversion goals are met.' " Furthermore, a
single city: may have difficulty, designing, programs which are
appropriate. for all, the cities . in the. region, whatever- their intentions.
The lead agency, approach has. considerable, ,short=comings, with`
regards to level. of authority, .scale, and _longevity of implementation,
made necessary by AB. 939.
Since both, J.P.A.s .and special .districts=can enact similar' powers;-'.�"
one way to bring` out; the shades -.of'.'difference between the' two..``_.'u
i_ a _r•. ... _� ,fit -o ,.
entities, is to comp-are exam les .of:•each'-for � their effectiveness:-
. P -� .
Although there are. examples Jof"J.P.A.s thathave" been created-'to,z-`
develop certain projects ( e.g. West Contra Costa County has set up a
J.P.A. . to centralize rate-setting and coordinate facilitydevelopment)
and there are J.P.A.s that serve a regional planning function ( e.g. the
Association of Bay Area Governments and the Alameda County Waste
Management Authority).
However, outside Los Angeles County (where the cities contract
with the County for certain regional services), there are few J.P.A.s
that have been delegated the power to implement regional plans by
developing programs and facilities region-wide. This function is
usually carried out by special districts created by legislative
mandate. Water and sanitation, air quality management, and
transportation are examples of the kinds of special districts that have
been created to implement certain region-wide plans.
Because J.P.A.s are made up of individual member agencies,
they are by their nature consensus-building organizations. Each
member agency has strong rights to veto implementation of .
programs or facilities within its own jurisdiction. For example, if a
J.P.A. was set up to site a fire shredding plant and the best place to
put it was in a portion of the unincorporated area' of the County, the
governing body of the County has to approve it. If the County
government refuses and the J.P.A. decides to put the tire-shredding
plant in City A, City A' must approve it. It is possible that all of the
member agencies could agree that it is best for the region to have a
tire shredding plant, but no individual member may be willing to
have a tire shredding plant within its jurisdiction. J.P.A.s do have the
right to expropriate lands from private individuals for public use,
however not without the approval of the jurisdiction in which the
land is located.
Special districts are separate governmental entities with
territories that may include incorporated cities. The special district
board has the right to create its own ordinances, assess property
taxes, and develop programs and site facilities wherever it chooses
within its own territory. To take maximum advantage of regional
planning, a regional board must be 'empowered to implement the
plan. This can be done through creating a J.P.A. provided that there
is little conflict between the members. Because it is not always
possible to come to a consensus, J.P.A.s have limited effectiveness
and can only carry out the functions that all the member agencies
agree to. The Yuba-Sutter Counties Waste Management Authority
was originally devised to perform a rate-setting function and create
a master franchise. These goals have not yet been realized under the
current J.P.A. structure, and so the Waste Management Authority has
served primarily as a planning agency.
The J.P.A. approach allows better integration of regional
objectives, and greater scope of action. However, despite its
advantages in regional planning, it is difficult to actually implement
programs through a J.P.A. because the individual member agencies
have broad veto powers. Thus it may be ideal for long-term
planning projects based on consensus, but is probably inadequate for
AB 939 compliance because of the requirement for swift and decisive
action. It will be difficult to design and implement a program to
reduce solid waste by 25 percent in four years and 50 percent in
nine 'years without displeasing someone and without providing an
opportunity for political controversy and delay. Nevertheless,
because of the $10,000 per day fines established by AB 939, each
.city and the County must overcome these institutional barriers.
The special district approach has the advantages of the J.P.A.
approach with regard to successful regional planning. Furthermore,
it has the capacity for decisive action which is required in the
present circumstances, although this power is gained at the cost of
local sovereignty. At present, the legislative mandate for a waste
diversion special district is not clear, and further legislative action
may be necessary to clarify the situation.