Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/15/1990, COMM. 1 - COMMUNICATION ITEM FOR MAY 15TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING - RECONSIDERATION OF CITY POSITION ON PROPOSIT ., M' TING AGENDA// OBISPO AGENDA /�DATE , - 0 ITEM #U&W . CItYOf SM 'WIS @Mimi 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 May 9, 1990 MEMORANDUM To: Council Colleagues From: Bill Roalman Subject: Communication item for May 15th City Council meeting - Reconsideration of City position on Propositions 111 and 108. I have further reviewed this matter, and based particularly upon the City's facing a Gann appropriation limitation and the necessity for a tax override election, I believe the City Council should consider a position of support for these propositions. I plan to discuss it with you on the 15th, and ask that it be placed on the agenda for the May 22 meeting. Thank you. me C. City Clerk City Administrative Officer City Attorney b2/roalman Denotes action by Lead Person R nd by: Lk Council 0 —r C_ciity Atty. _ l3 Clerk-0ng. '%X. ="4 Te r r• � Fick iNG AGENDA �-ATEh -LR) ITEM # ii I aty of san luis oBispo 1111= ',i !ird=i 111 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 May 11, 1990 MEMORANDUM I+ 1)vnoies acion by Lead Person Respond by: Ii"CGJrtCil ILYCAQ TO: Mayor and Councilmembers �!�Pil FROM: Councilman Roalman P7%t17)-);0n e 2) SUBJECT: Opposition to AB 4298 Attached is information provided by the Californians Against Waste (CAW) organization concerning AB 4298 . CAW is asking the City to oppose this bill because it relieves beverage container manufactures of responsibility for supporting the cost of recycling their containers. This bill, which is opposed by the League of California Cities, will harm recycling efforts. I am asking Council to direct this matter be agendized for the next Council meeting so that we may formally oppose this bill. KH:sl ' CAW -_ Californians Against Waste _ Towards a Recycling Economy F. rS��••'�` May 2, 1990 =s _ ed'"'' Mayor Ron Dunin (,SAY 4 1940 City of San Luis Obispo P.0- Box 1100 CITY CLERK San Luis Obispo CA, 93401 SAN LOIS O&SPO,CA RE: AS 4298 Glass Industry Legislation to Gut Recycling Law - OPPOSE - Dear Mayor Dunin: We need your assistance in opposing Assembly Bill 4298, a special interest bill introduced on behalf of the glass industry by Assembly Speaker Willie Brown. If this measure is adopted, it would delete from the state's bottle and can recycling law the financial responsibility of manufacturers of glass and plastic beverage containers to pay for the cost of recycling their products. This provision, known as the processing fee, was an essential element of the original AS 2020 compromise, agreed upon by industry and environmentalists and adopted by the legislature in 1986. Under the processing fee, beverage container manufacturers are required to pay-- or internalize--the net cost of recycling their containers, when the scrap value alone is not sufficient to do so.. By abdicating this responsibility, as proposed in AB 4298, the cost of recycling "expensive to process" glass and plastic will have to be picked up by recyclers and/or local governments, or these materials simply will no longer be recycled. Last year's AB 939 (Sher) requires every city in the state to recycle 25 percent of their waste by 1995. The processing fee element of AS 2020 is one of the only financial mechanisms available to local government and recyclers in order to make recycling work. We urge you to act quickly, and join with recyclers, the Sierra Club, League of Cities, and others in opposing this measure. A copy of your letter or resolution opposing AS 4298 should be sent to Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, your assembly and senate representative(s), the League of Cities, and CAW. Attached is a model resolution, a copy of the bill, and some background material to assist you. Thank you for your attention to this critical recycling issue. If you have any questions, please contact us. Sincerely, Mark Murray RESOLUTION OPPOSING ASSEMBLY BILL 4298 WHEREAS, the [City Council/Board of Supervisors of, City/County] is committed to implementing recycling and waste reduction plans and programs in order to meet the requirements of the California Integrated Solid Waste Management and Recycling Act (AB 939, 1989 ); and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 4298 by Assembly Speaker Willie Brown would, if adopted, dismantle the processing fee provision of the state's beverage container recycling and litter reduction act as agreed to by industry, environmentalists, recyclers and local government officials in 1986; and WHEREAS, the processing fee requires beverage container manufacturers to pay the cost of recycling their containers when the scrap value is not sufficient; and WHEREAS, the net cost of recycling glass and plastic beverage containers in California in 1989 was in excess of $10 million, and in 1990 is projected to be $15 million the deletion of the processing fee as proposed in AB 4298 will require recyclers and local government to cover that cost and in effect subsidize the recycling of glass and plastic beverage containers; NOW THEREFORE BE IT .RESOLVED THAT THE [City Council/Board of Supervisors of City/County] : 1. Oppose Assembly Bill 4298 currently moving through the state legislature. 2. Convey our opposition to AFS 4298 to Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, our assembly and senate representative(s), and the California League of Cities and County Supervisors Association of California. 3. Direct our legislative representative to join with representatives of the League of Cities, Sierra Club California, the Planning and Conservation League, the California Recource Recovery Association, the Northern California Recyclers Association and Californians Against Waste in working to defeat AB 4298. AB 4298 Date of Hearing: April 23, 1990 Fiscal: Yes Urgency: No ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Byron D. Sher, Chair AB 4298 (W. Brown) - As Amended: April 19, 1990 SUBJECT: BEVERAG:? CONTAINER RECYCLING: 1) SHOiiLD THE PROCESSING FEE PAID BY BEVERAGE CONTAINER MANUFACTURERS TO COVER THE COSTS OF RECYCLING THEIR CONTAINERS BE RECAST TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT PAID BY MANUFACTURERS? 2) SHO-,-ILD CONVENIENCE INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO CERTIFIED RECYCL=:RS BE FI.IMINATED AND REPLACED BY RECYCLING SERVICE FEES BE PAID TO :•:dE ELIGIBLE CERTIFIED RECYCLING CENTER IN EACH CW ="NIENCE ZONE? 3) SHOi1.D THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION BE LIMITED TO' EST:.BLISHING AN UNSPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF CONVENIENCE ZONES IN 1990 AND INCREASING THAT AMOUNT BY AN UNSPECIFIED PER'_ENTAGE IN THE FUTURE? DIGEST Appropriation. 2/3 vote required. Current lav under th:= Beverage Container Recycling And Litter Reduction Act (the "Act") : 1) Requires beverag-: container manufacturers to "internalize" (or pay for) the costs of collecting, processing and recycling the beverage contain.-rs they manufacture. To the extent these costs are not covered by scrap values paid by c.:ntainer manufacturers, current law authorizes the Department of Co::servation (DOC) , to impose a "processing fee" on particular container types (i.e. aluminum, glass and plastic) sold in :he state, based upon a formula specified in statute, to make up the difference between the scrap value paid by beverage manufacturers and the costs of recycli:.g the particular container type they manufacture. 2) Requires DOC to —;tablish "convenience zones" within 1/2 mile of most supermarkets, within which at least one certified recycling center shall be located to re ''eem beverage containers from consumers. Current law '.oes not specify a nu.•rrical or percentage cap on the number of convenience zones which may '.e established in the state. continued - AB 298 Pale 1 AB 4298 • 5) Recasts the Beverage Container Recycling Fund to require DOC to pay recycling service fees to certified recycling centers before payment of DOC administrative program costs, of grants to community conservation corps and other nonprofit agencies and of advertising and promotional contracts with certified recycling :enters in convenience zones. 6) Makes technical conforming changes to penalty provisions of the Act. COMMENTS 1) Background. According to the sponsor, the California Glass Recycling Corporation, this measure was introuced (1) to avoid the imposition onerous processing fees (as calculated under current lav) on glass containers sold in California (2) to ensure that little, if any, recycled glass will be landfilled and (3) to provide a stable source of revenue for certified recyclers located in convenience zones. GPI states that current state lav does not recognize that f.:vorable economic conditions must exist to ensure that materials collected ;snd processed will be reused. The sponsor points out that the videly-_c-ported recent landfilling of several thousand tons of glass proves that end markets do not exist for lover grades of glass and that the econom cs of glass markets have been detrimentally altered due to the processing fee provisions of the Act. This measure is intended to reduce the burden of processing fees on the,. glass industry while simultaneously providing a stable source. of revenue for recyclers to be reimbursed for their handling and collection costs. 2) Issues. Addressed In Bill Were Subject of Committee Oversight Hearing In March. In response to concerns over the landfilling of glass collected under the state's beverage container recycling program, in March of this year, this committee conducted and oversight hearing on problems with glass recycling (see attached briefing paper) . At that hearing, DOC announced that it would impose the processing fee effective May 1, and that it would seek legislation to allow for a reduction or rebate of processing fees for California glass manufacturers which recycle California cullet. The rebate proposal suggested by DOC has been amended into AB 1490 (Sher) , which is presently pending before the Senate Natural Resources Committee. 3) Litigation Pending Over Proposed Im;:osition Of Processing Fee. In March of this year, in response to the pr. blems associated. with glass being disposed of in landfills, DOC annou.ioed its intention to impose a processing fee on glass beverage co:,tainers sold in the state, effective May 1, 1990. Last week, in response to this action, the California Glass Recycling Corporation filed suit in the Superior Court of Sacramento seeking immediate relief from imposition of the processing fee. A hearing date has been scheduled for April 24. 4) Recycling Service Fee Would .Permane:tly Establish Subsidies To Recycling Centers. As presently drafted, thi.: measure would replace current subsidies to certified recyclers (C-.P' s) with recycling service fees. Under current law, CIP' s are scheduled to sunset in 1993. On and after October 1 of this year, DOC is required to make a number of changes to the method by which CIP' s are distributed to certified recyclers to encourage greater efficiency at these centers and greater volumes 3f materials collected. This measure would repeal these provisions and instead provide recycling services fees to all certified in-zone recyclers, regardless of their efficiencies, and make perman,-nt these subsidies. Sa The Sacramento Bee Final Friday,April 27.1 SW The Sacramento Bee Locally owned and edited for 133 years JAMES McCLATCHY,editor, 1857.1883 C.K.McCLATCHY,editor.president, 1883-1936 ELEANOR McCLATCHY,president, 1936.1978 WALTER P.JONES,editor, 1936-1974 C.K.MCCLATCHY,editor. 1974-1989 GREGORY=.FAVRE.executive editor PETER SCHRAG,editorial page editor FRANK R.J.WHITTAKER.president and general manager Willie Brown's broken bottle bill The day after Earth Day, a key Assembly worked out by manufacturers, the grocery committee approved legislation that industry and environmentalists to avoid an- threatens to gut the state's bottle bili and se- other expensive initiative fight. Because riously undermine California's recycling ef- there is no fee on materials that are easily re- forts. The bill, AB 4298, sponsored by the cyclable; such as aluminum, and a high fee glass manufacturing industry and authored on plastics and glass,which are hard to recy- by Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, would cle,the current system encourages the use of .keep the state from imposing a processing recyclable. containers. Once the processing fee on manufacturers that would cover the fee is lowered to the point that it becomes full cost of recycling beverage containers negligible, which is what the Brown bill and the other waste their products generate. would do, manufacturers would have no rea- The Brown bill recalculates the fee set by son to do the environmentally right thing. In the Department of Conservation in a way addition, curbside recycling programs, that substantially understates the cost of re- which benefit from the increased scrap value cycling. That saves manufacturers money that the processing fees encouraged, are un- but it deprives recyclers of the funds they dercut by the Brown bill. need to make recycling economically viable. In order to keep the recycling system from coilapsing, Brown proposes to raid the fund he state's 4-year-old bottle bill has established to pay consumers 21/2 cents re helped substantially to reduce litter in demption value for every container they re- parks, beaches and roadsides. Despite occa- turn to recycling centers. The Department of sional g5tches, most of that litter has been Conservation, which administers the slate's kept )uz of landfills. With the Brown bill, bottle bill, testified in committee Monday gla;.L manufacturers are seeking to rer..ege that that provision of the Brown bill coul-1 on commitments they made five years ago to bankrupt the state's recycling fund. pay their fair share of the cost of recycling The processing fee was a key element of materials they produce. AB 4298 deserves to California's original bottle bill, which was be soundly rejected.