Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/19/1990, A-1 - APPOINTMENT TO THE HRC fVjEE T ING AGENDA, �IATE w PITEM # � 11 city cO sAn suis oBispo lI� 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 June 4, 1990 oenctes action by Lead Pe sc�; ff Respond by: MEMORANDUM [ 01n�il ! AO TO: City Council �y Any. ✓�perk-'rig. FROM: Councilmembers Pe ard;& Billzlman, Council Subcommittee to�uman Relations Commission Y7 e r SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT T E HRC. Commissioner Shelley Aleshire bmitted her resignation to the HRC on May 23, 1990. The Council has had the benefit of her expertise since 1988 and she will be missed. During the annual interview cess in February, the Subcommittee had the opportunity to interview eight new apphc ts. From that resource we are pleased to recommend the appointment of Cosmo ( uck) Di Ciaccio to fill the unexpired term ending March 31, 1994. Mr. Di Ciaccio' background and experience will bring added value to the Commission. A copy of Mr. Di Cia cio's application is attached. /ss Attachment 113o ,g. �����II I II VIII�I IIIIIII �IIII��VIII city of sAn tuis oBispo 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 „ &er)07P.$action by Lead Person I Hespo�d by June 14 1990 !: couc; �AO MEMORANDUM "yam jerk-prig. �/'fIGy.4C TO: Council Colleagues ! T FROM: Penny Rappa - SUBJECT: LIAISON_REPORT = SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE In an effort to keep you informed and take action on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo, with which a majority of the council concurs, I request your input. The Solid Waste Task Force is moving very quickly to meet state deadlines. Council remembers that 1) County and cities confirmation of the former Solid Waste Commission as the state-required Task Force; 2) _ MOU signed by all agencies to fund the AB 939 planning process. Our next step is to form a JPA to implement the MOU. The Technical Committee to the Task Force has recommended four options (see attached). My preferred option is to have the existing Area Council of Governments JPA serve the needs of the planning process. I concur with the rationale of the Technical Committee and feel it is in the best interest of the City to have adequate control and representation. Also, as a refresher, I have attached a summary of AB 939. Any questions, please don't hesitate to call. PR:ss Attachments fo_3 C I V E 0 JUN 1 4 1990 CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA • AB 939 Authors: Sher, Eastin, Killea This bill establishes the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act that establishes state-mandated local integrated waste management programs. The Act iocludes: . 1. The replacement of the current part-time California Waste Management Board with.a.six-member full-tirhe California Integrated Waste Management Board consisting of: • one member appointed by the Governor with private sector experiences in the solid waste industry; • one member appointed by the Governor who has been an official of a nonprofit or promoting recycling and protection of water quality; • two public members appointed by the Governor. • two public members,.one each appointed by C' the Senate Rules Committee and the Speaker of the Assembly. 2 Each county will establish a task force to coordinate city source reduction and recycling activities and.to prepare a countywide siting element. 3. By July 1. 199.1, each city must prepare, adopt, and submit to the county a source reduction and recycling plan to include the following components:. a waste characterization study; a source reduction component; • a recycling component; • a composting component; • a solid waste capacity component; • a public information component; a funding component; a special waste component; • a household hazardous waste component: printed on recycled paper 4. Each county will prepare a countywide siting plan specifying areas for disposal or transformation sites needed for the ensuing 15, years; to provide for residual wastes which cannot be diverted through source reduction, recycling and composting. 5. Each county will prepare, adopt and submit to the State Board an integrated waste management plan which includes the city plans for source reduction and recycling, and the countywide siting plan. 6. Cities and counties are required by January 1, 1995 to divert 25 percent of solid waste from landfills through source reduction, recycling and composting. By January 1, 2000 a 50 percent reduction is to be attained where feasible. 7. The Board must approve or disapprove a plan within 120 days of receipt. If a plan is disapproved, the local jurisdiction must make corrections within 120 days. The Board may impose administrative civil penalties up to $10,000 daily for failure to submit,an adequate plan. 8. The preparation and implementation of local plans are to be funded by fees imposed by local jurisdictions on generators of solid waste. 9. The Board will adopt minimum standards for solid waste handling and disposal to protect air, waste and land. 10. The existing comprehensive system of permits, inspection and site cleanup and maintenance for all solid waste facilities in the state will be strengthened. 11. Funding for programs of the new Board (including those in SB 1322) will be accomplished through a landfill surcharge set at 50 ` cents per ton beginning January 1, 1990, and increasing to a maximum to $1 per ton after January 1, 1991: i I _1 post-It"brand fax transmitial MCM0 671 P of paean (� rro From Co. )c =nxa r"�Jl� , ���.��� Fox# :CAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 77.7-X t_ rmnAORANDUM `1'O: SOLID WASTE TECHNICAL DATE: MAY 29, 1990 ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: MICHAEL C. UPTON, CHAIRMAN STEPHEN A. DEVENCENZI, VICE CHAIRMAN SUBJECT: ORGANIZATIONAL OPTIONS FOR 00INT-POWERS AGRERMENT/AB 939 SOURCE REDUCTION AND RFCYCL7NG. . FLF.MENTS ' AND COUNTY INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATION It is recommended• that the Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) take the following actions: 1 . Consider each of four organizational options for a joint powers agreement (JPA) for the preparation.- of City and County Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRRE) and county Integrated Waste Management Plan (COIWMP) pursuant - to the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB --- 939) ; and 2. Develop a recommendation to the Solid Waste Local Task Force (LTF) for consideration at its Junp 7 meeting.. The TAC at its May 17 meeting directed the chairman and Vice Chairman to meet with County Engineering Department Staff and San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council (SLOACC) Staff to further explore the feasibility of designating SLOACC as the governing body of the proposed JPA for the preparation of City and County SRREJ's and the COIWMP. The TAC also directed . the Chairman and vice ,chairman to conduct a poll of TAC members following this exploratory meeting to develop a recommendation for presentatinn to the LTF at its June 7 meeting. ' The IAC's direction was the result of a discussion regarding the nature of the proposed JPA and the relationship of: the Project Coordinator(PC) to the LTF, TAC, and participating entities. TAC members suggested that this approach would save time by using the existing SLOACC JPA for purposes of AB 939 planning, thereby eliminating the need for a new JPA and related time for review by each participating entity and correlating potential for. delay_ TAC members also suggested that this approach would alleviate concerns about perceived County , control and unresponsiveness to TAC, the LTF, and City viewpoints and concerns. i TAC MEMORANDUM MAY 29, 1990 PAGE 2 The TAC chairman and Vice Chairman net on May 21 with Clint Milne and Carmen Fojo, County Engineering Department, and Ron de Carli, SLOACC Program Manager to further explore the feasibility of designating SLOACC as the governing body of the proposed JPA. Based on the results of that meeting, it appears feasible to pursue an approach involving SLOACC as the governing body. Please note that the concept of SLOACC as the governing body for JPA was initiated by TAC, not SLOACC delegates or Staff: Based on the ' May 21 -meeting, it ' appears there are four organizatiohAl options •regarding the establishment of the proposed JPA as follows: 1. County as lead agency, with the Board of Supervisors as the governing Board 2. Independent single-purpose governing board A. LTF option B. New governing board option --3. SLOACC as governing board A. PC assigned to County Engineering Department B. PC assigned to SLOACC Staff 4 . Independent JPA for cities Each option and its respective advantages and disadvantages are described below. Due to the complexity and importance of this matter and the need to establish a solid foundation for the future, we have determined it is necessary to hold a special meeting of the TAC on May 33 to carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages of each of' the above options and make a formal recommendation to the LTF for consideration at its June 7 meeting. DISCUSSION Background The TAC on March 13, 1990 and the LTF on April 5, 1990 'uninimously voted to recommend to the County and each city the following: 1. The County and each city collectively pursue a regional approach to meet the solid waste management planning requirements of AB 939; 7Y OF MukkO E:H Y ILL vL Nu . UL / OTAC MEMORANDUM MAY 29, 1990 PAGE 3 2 . Hire a consultant (with experience and expertise in all of the technical areas specified in Ala 939) and a project coordinator (PC) to work directly with the LTF, TAC, and each participating entity to prepare the required SRREls as well as the COIWMP pursuant to the requirements of AB 939; and 3 . All public landfills in the County 'levy a tipping fee surcharge equivalent to $1..00/ton to .fund the preparation of City and Cdunty SRREs and COIWMP only. (The monies generated would -pay for_ the consultant and PC only. ) This approach was determined to be the most efficient and cost- effective way to accomplish the enormous and complex workload mandated by AB 939 within the tight deadlines established by this new law. It will result in economies of scale for all participating entities as well as consistency betwen SRREs while allowing flexibility to local entitles to tailor their respective _ SRREs to local needs and conditions. The tipping fee surcharge is the only on of several options considered that can be •implemented quickly, is easy to administer, and will not 'impact the General Fund monies of participating entities. It also equitably distributes the cost of ERRE preparation over the entire waste generating population and avoids funding formulas, the development of -which would delay timely progress. The implementation of the above recommendation requires a JPA establishing an organization to handle monies and enter into contracts. Based on the estimated length of time needed to develop a JPA setting forth the duties and responsibilities of all parties regarding the preparation of SRREs and the COIWMP and the need to move ahead quickly, the TAC and LTF decided to recommend to each city and the- County a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to establish conceptual approval of the above recommendations. The MOU forms the basis for a detailed JPA and enables County- Staff to conduct a RFP process to select a qualified consultant concurrent with thb preparation of a JPA. The TAC, and LTF hoped that a JPA would become effective as close to July 1 as possible so a consultant contract could be signed and work started as soon as possible thereafter. It was understood that the tipping fee surcharge would be collected by the County on behalf of the JPA and costs for the required work would be paid from these funds. It was also understood that the County would provide monthly financial reports of revenues and expenses for review by the TAC and LTF. Throughout the TAC discussions leading to the above recommendations regarding a joint effort to meet the requirements of AB 939, many members assumed that a JPA would be established with a governing body representing all participating entities,. with Staff support provided ' by the county Engineering Department' or other County Department. This type of arrangement would be similar to SLOACC ane➢ the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit i TAC MEMORANDUM MAY 29 , 1990 PAGE 4 Authority (SLORTA) . It is our perception that many of us assumed that the governing body for a JPA would be the LTF; however, this may not be appropriate because four of its twelve members are not elected officials and only one Supervisor is a member. This led to consideration of alternatives at our May 17 meeting. During discussions at RFP subcommittee meetings and the May 17 TAG meeting, it ' became apparent that -County Staff believed the JPA should be an agreement- between the -County and _-the seven cities designating the' County as : the lead agency, with the Board of Supervisors as the:governing -body-and all decision-making would be through county administrative processes. This is not consistent with the consensus indicated above and suggests a misunderstanding that needs - to be - resolved to maintain a sound framework for cooperative and harmonious relationships in .the future. The • role of the PC has a3 so been included in . the above discussions. Many of us believed that County solid Waste Engineer Fojo and Recycling Coordinator Wood would provide staff support for a joint efforts however, Ms. Fojo and Ms. Wood indicated at the second or third TAC meeting they did not have the time to organize meetings of the TAC and LTF and provide Staff support for a joint effort as well as .handle the dut$,es and responsibilities for which they were hired. They suggested the need to hire a part-time, temporary PC. The role of PC has been discussed within the County organization as well as by the RFP subcommittee. The PC position has conceptually evolved into a full-time, permanent position at the senior planner level to perform duties related to consultant ' contract administration; coordination of efforts Po prepare SRREs and the COIWMP between participating entities and the consultants Staff support for TAC, LTF, and JPA governing body, including meeting arrangements and preparation of agenda . packets; assisting the consultant with data collection; and coordinating implementation strategies and programs and related monitoring. The PCis an important link in the muccessful completion•of AB 939 planning efforts. The PC must be responsive to a 14ide variety of. interests, concerns, and needs and possess a knowledge of regional processes and the ability to address in an equitable manner local conditions and priorities. Description of organizational options fpr J.PA There appears to be four organizational options for a JPA as follows: 1. County as lead aae cv, with the Board of SuperyiEors as governing board The County and each of the seven cities enter into a JPA designating the County as lead •agency. The County Engineering Department would provide Staff support to the TAC and LTF and the- PC would work under the supervision of the Solid Waste Engineer. -.Y OF .MORRD BAY TEL :8r'�772=7329 May 30 15 = 39 1-40 . 007 P . 04 TAC MEMORANDUM MAY 29, 1990 PAGE 5 The County Engineering Department would also receive and disburse the tipping fee surcharge monies. • The TAC and LTF would make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. All decision-making would be through the ;=County and subject to its procedures and regulations. This approach is reflected in the first draft of the proposed JPA distributed':at •the May 17 -TAC meeting. Advantades - • Maximizes - 'Use . .` of 'County's existing , organizationa] arrangements - • simplifies administration by enabling County to control all phases of project • Planning and implementation functions in the County Engineering Department • County would advance funds to pay for consultant and PC pending receipt of tipping fee surcharge monies Disadvantages • Gives County too much control of a regional, multi- jurisdictional process • May ndt be as responsive to city needs and concerns and TAC and LTF -direction and recommendation as other-options • Cities may not have adequate participation in decision-making process • County procedures and regulations may orcatc unnecessary delays and may not reflect the desires of participating entities • Inadequate 'political filtering" process to reduce the potential for Conflicts and provide a mechanism to resolve any conflicts and enhance multi-jurisdictional coordination and cooperation • PC five levels down in County hierarchy, affecting ability to adequately represent the interests and concerns of all participating entities C • Establishment of a JPA satisfactory to participating entities may take 2-3 months or longer.-, thereby hindering progresa on the required work • Perceived lack of regional perspective and objectivity as well as understanding of intergovernmental processes � tL = oLI:D- ( (L- ( L`J I.7ay 30 -r�0 15 =40 I�o . 007 P . 05 TAC MEMORANDUM MAY 29, 1990 PAGE 6 ` PC may favor County priorities rather than balance County priorities with priorities of cities • Potentially higher costs due to County overhead factor 2 • Indebendent single-nurpoS ... ove ni. Jg board The existing LTF or another body comprised of representatives from each participating entity would serve asan independent single- purpose governing board. The County Engineering Department would provide Staff support and the PC would work the direction of the County Engineer and be under supervised by the County Solid Waste Engineer for both options. A. 7.TF option _ The existing twelve-member ),TF would be the governing board of the proposed JPA, The LTF is comprised of one elected member from each city and the County and one member each representing the following: environmental organizations, recyclers, waste haulers, and general public. advantages • Represents a broad cross-section of interests and has regional perspective • Familin'rity with AFT 939 and related issues and concerns • Has many of the advantages indicated for option i Disa� dvanta es • Four members of the VrF are not accountable to ratepayers or to the participating entities financing required work and responsible for adoption and implementation of plans • County represented by one supervisor which would result in unincorporated areas not receiving proportionate representation. • Staff support through the County Engineering Department may result in county control of regional processes and related perceived lack of regional perspective and objectivity as well as unresponsiveness to city needs and concerns • Changing the role of lion-elected LTF members to non-voting ex officio status for governing, board functions may not be workable and may alienate tkiose members • Has the same disadvantages indicated for Option 1 regarding the PC, JPA approval process, and costs flay 30 , 9Q, 15 : 40 No . 007 P . 06 � j TAC MEMORANDUM D-DAY 29, 1990 PAGE 7 Duplication of SLOACC structure and related responsibility for regional concerns and coordination • Increased costs due to special _efforts to create and administer a single-purpose governing board • Confusion regarding duties and responsibilities` for 'Current activities and future commitments for. implementation- ' B. New governing board option A new governing board for the proposed JPA - would have representatives from each city and the County, which may include more than one Supervisor. This would essentially be a '"mirror- image" of the LTF (without the -four non-elected : members) as7 we) ) as SLOAcc, .which includes an elected -.delegate from=-each • city * and all five supervisors.- This new -governing board would -be created for a single purpose. Advantages • Focus on single issue Independent, regional. perspective responsive to member agency needs and concerns • Delegates could be di-fferent than those of SLOACC - Disadvantages • Creates a new organization and relatedsupport requirements for a single purpose where an existing entity could serve the same purpose • Has the disadvantages indicated for Option 1. regarding the PC, ,JPA approval process, and costs o Has the same disadvantages indicated in the last three items for Option 2A 3 . SLOACC as_.govcrnina board SLOACC is comprised of elected delegates from each city and all five County Supervisors and functions under an existing JPA. SLOACC currently focuses on transportation, including. streets, roads, highways and public transit; however, a recent survey of ; - S'LOACC delegates and key appointed officials in each jurisdiction dicatcd that SLOACC should be involved with other issues ar, well.. The top ten areas identified in the survey included growth management, water resources,- and solid waste management. According to SLOACC legal counsel. . (i. e. , County Counsel) , the SLOACC JPA provides sufficient legal authority for SLOACC to assume the responsibilities of the proposed JPA for AD 939 planning and implementation. TAC MEMORANDUM MAY 2.9, 1990 PAGE 8 There are two variations of this option relating to the assignment of the PC to either the County Engineering Department or SLOACC. SLOACC Staff believes this option is feasible, although they want to make it clear they did not initiate consideration of this option. The LTF would continue to exist pursuant to AB 939 and would make recommendations to SLOACC as needed. The TAC would continue to advise the . LTF. It is anticipated that . SLOACC would only be directly involved at several key points such as consultant contract award and review of the Siting Element=_:avid. COIWMP prior to adoption by the County and a majority of cities with a majority of the population. The , TAC and LTF, .with the -assistance -of the PC, would assure that the required SRRE's and other work'°tasks are completed in a timely and -acceptable manner. -.. According to- 'John Smith of the:California Integrated Waste ManagementiBoard (CIWXB) , there is nothing in AB 939 precluding this arrangement;,-especially in view of the .state policy encouraging regional- cooperation'-'and that LTF and SLOACC are recommending bodies to the County- acid cities. He stated that the Kings County Council of Governments has -done the work necessary to prepare County solid - waste management plan in the past and is now the lead agency for AB 939 planning efforts. The Kings County Planning -Department provides Staff support. l A. PC assigned to County Rngineerinc-JI)epartment The PC would be assigned to the County Engineering Department and work under the supervision of the Solid Waste Engineer The PC would be the primary Staff Idaison to the TAC, LTF, and SLOACC as well as to member agencies and the consultant. This approach is similar to the Option 1 , except that the county Engineering Department as JPA Staff would be accountable to SLOACC rather than to the Board of Supervisors. Advantages • Uses' an existing JPA which can assume AB 939 planning responsibilities with concurrence from SLOACC and its member agencies, thereby significantly reducing the time needed for the JPA approval process • Promotes independent, regional perspective and responsiveness to city concerns by making the County Engineering Department accountable to SLOACC o Retains planning and implementation functions in County Engineering Department , • Maximizes use of existing organizational arrangements • County or SLOACC could advance funds to pay for for consultant and PC pending receipt of tipping fee surcharge monies ii I ur riunr.0 rim itL - rrL- �JLy Flay JU .yU 11) ;41 No . UU( N . Ub TAC MEMORANDUM MAY 29, 1990 PAGE 9 • Provides FIpolitical filtering" process to assure that final documents will be acceptable to : the public and member agencies Disadvantages • Has many of . the disadvantages under option 1 regarding the PC's level in the .County. hierarchy and responsiveness to city _ concerns and . ..direction from TAC and LTF' as well as potenti.ally. higher costs due *to County overhead factor • May tend to be perceived as the "worst of both worlds" D. PC alligned to-SLOACC Staff The PC would be assigned to SLOACC staff and work under the direction of. the Program Manager. The PC would be -tha primary Staff Liaison to TAC, LTF, SLOACC, member agencies, and the consultant. Advantages • Has same advantages as Option 3A regarding the use of an existing JPA, approval time, maximizing use of existing organizational arrangement, and "political filtering" process w Promotes independent, regional perspective and responsiveness to the 'concerns-and needs Of. al-l. .member agencies • PC one level down in hierarchy, thereby enabling PC to be more responsive to TAC, LTF, SLOACC, member agencies, and the consultant • Benefit of SLOACC Staff's knowledge of regional and intergovernmental processes, local conditions, and applicable data • Potentially lower cost due to SLOACC's lower County overhead factor • SLOACC willing to advance funds to pay .for consultant and VC pending receipt of tipping fee surcharge monies Disadvantages • Not supported by County Engineering department and CAO County may not be willing to advance funds to pay for consultant and PC pending receipt of tipping fee surcharge monies o Separates planning and implementation functions to some. extent 10 TAC MEMORANDUM MAY 291 1990 PAGE 10 J' 4 . Independent JPA for cities It is possible that some or all of the seven cities could create- a separate JPA to accomplish the SRRI': work rccjuired by AB' 939 if agreement regarding a regional structure acceptable to all parties cannot be reached. The County would prepare its own SRRE as well as the Siting Element and COIWMP, the latter two of which must be approved by a majority of the cities with a majority of the population. This option is not .considered desirable because it _ would fragment effdrt, reduce multi--jurisdictional coordination and cooperation, and increase costs to the cities and County. Advantages o Would eliminate cities-* concerns regarding perceived County control and unresponsiveness issues Disadvantages o See above description of this option.