HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.3 Mandatory Recycling Single Use Ban~~~~ Off' nU~~~
/ii ~ 111
L~~ - ~ ~~~
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
File #810-60
November 1, 2011
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
~~
Joni Pattillo, City Manager ° ~'
SUBJECT: Report on Proposed StopWaste.Org Mandatory Recycling and Single-use Ban
Ordinances
Prepared by Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive a report on two proposed Countywide ordinances being prepared
by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (StopWaste.org). The first ordinance
would place a mandate on businesses and multi-family dwellings to recycle all recyclable and
compostable materials, and prohibit them from placing such materials in a garbage container.
The second ordinance would ban single-use bags from being used within the County and
require that businesses begin charging their customers a fee for giving out reusable bags.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The exact financial impact of the proposed ordinances is unknown at this time. Staff will need
additional time to complete the financial analysis and has asked StopWaste.org to delay the
Authority Board's consideration of the ordinances to allow each city additional time to consider
and analyze the impact. The final drafts of these ordinances will not be available until November
4, 2011.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report and discuss the potential impacts of
said ordinances on the City of Dublin.
.~~
~ ~..
Submitted By"
Assistant to the City Manager
~,
Reviewed By
Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. 8.3
DESCRIPTION:
The Alameda County Waste Management Authority ("ACWMA") Board and the Source
Reduction and Recycling Board are known collectively as StopWaste.org and function as one
agency to provide waste management and program planning services in Alameda County. The
ACWMA Board consists of one elected official from each of the seventeen member agencies.
The City of Dublin is currently represented by Councilmember Hildenbrand with Councilmember
Biddle as the alternate.
The ACWMA operates according to the terms of a 1992 Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
("JPA") for the management of waste. According to the JPA, the ACWMA has the power to
enact countywide ordinances and is also responsible for preparing planning documents to meet
state requirements, implementing countywide diversion programs, and determining landfill
disposal needs.
In 2010, the ACWMA approved a Strategic Plan covering aten-year time period to define
programs and efforts conducted by StopWaste.org. The Strategic Plan identified several goals
to more effectively manage discards by the year 2020, including a goal that less than 10% of the
materials found in an individual garbage container be readily recyclable and compostable
materials.
As part of the implementation of the Strategic Plan, two policies, a Mandatory Recycling
Ordinance and aSingle-use Bag Reduction Ordinance, are being proposed by StopWaste.org
staff and will be considered by the ACWMA Board on November 16, 2011.
Mandatory Recycling Ordinance
According to StopWaste.org staff, a Mandatory Recycling Ordinance is necessary to achieve the
Strategic Plan goal that less than 10% of readily recyclable and compostable materials are
disposed of, but instead that as much of this material be recovered as possible. The purpose of
this Ordinance is to intensify landfill diversion efforts beyond the baseline gained through public
education and voluntary recycling. A Mandatory Recycling Ordinance is also expected to help
jurisdictions meet their own diversion goals and comply with the State of California mandatory
recycling regulations.
On October 9, 2011, Governor Brown signed AB 341, which is a Statewide mandatory recycling
law. The State law applies to all businesses with 4 or more cubic yards of weekly service, and it
applies to multi-family dwellings with 5 or more units. The State law mandates participation in a
recycling program and leaves out any kind of performance standards. Simply, it requires a
business to arrange fora "basic" level of recycling service, which is not defined, and would not
punish a business if a recyclable item was found in the garbage. Staff believes that this is a
good first step in the process of shifting behavior by mandating that a recycling option be
available. Staff has received complaints in the past from commercial and multi-family tenants
that want to recycle but unfortunately could not because their property owners had decided not
to allow it. In essence, AB 341 creates a "right to recycle," without mandating the intensity of
recycling effort. Staff is concerned that a performance mandate at this point in the process will
create an immediate shift in behavior, which is of course the intent of the threshold, while having
significant financial and contractual consequences. In addition, AB 341 establishes a Statewide
diversionary goal of 75% by 2020, but specifically states that there is no punishment/penalty
Page 2 of 5
established for any city that does not meet this threshold. Thus, the goal is aspirational, and not
a performance mandate.
The proposed StopWaste.org Mandatory Recycling Ordinance would require all Alameda
County multi-family properties and businesses that generate four cubic yards or more of
garbage per week to segregate recyclable materials by July 1, 2012 (Phase 1) and would
require all Alameda County multi-family properties and businesses to segregate organic
materials by July 1, 2014 (Phase 2) for recovery. Reporting and recovery requirements
described in the Mandatory Recycling Ordinance also pertain to Alameda County facilities that
accept garbage from those generators of waste that independently haul materials from covered
jurisdictions to the landfill or transfer station.
In general, Staff is supportive of a Mandatory Recycling Ordinance as it would help increase
diversion, thereby, conserving resources and showing sound environmental stewardship. In fact,
over the past few years, the City has worked diligently to achieve the City Council goal of 75%
of waste diverted from landfill by 2010. In 2010, the City of Dublin had a State reported diversion
rate of 75%, obtaining the significant goal. A Mandatory Recycling Ordinance would, of course,
help the City continue to build on this great success. The Mandatory Recycling Ordinance would
also aid Dublin in complying with the aforementioned State regulation.
Although diverting recyclable and organic materials away from the landfill continues to be of
long-term importance to the protection of resources and the environment, a Mandatory
Recycling Ordinance may also have a number of negative impacts, particularly with regard to
rate increases. Staff has preliminarily estimated that a Mandatory Recycling Ordinance could
raise commercial rates by as much as 50%, if Dublin's rate structure were to remain unchanged.
Also, a change in law of this magnitude could trigger a franchise agreement provision requiring
the City to renegotiate contractual provisions with the City's waste hauler, Amador Valley
Industries ("AVI"), and the City's landfill disposal contractor, Waste Management, to restructure
the rates and/or modify other provisions within these agreements.
Currently, recycling and organics collection costs are heavily subsidized by garbage rates. A
Mandatory Recycling Ordinance will shift materials and revenue away from garbage collection
and result in revenue shortfalls for the City's franchise hauler AVI, necessitating steep rate
increases to cover the cost of collection services. This is due to the fact that the City has a
bundled rate for garbage service, where residents and businesses pay for the cost of garbage
with recycling being provided at no additional cost. As a result, the individual resident has an
incentive to reduce his or her garbage can size by adding recycling, saving money, with the
collective group picking up the lost revenue from the garbage service reduction during the next
annual rate increase. Alternatively, rates could be restructured to increase revenue by
establishing a charge for recyclables and charging more for organics collection to recoup the
costs from the increased diversion. Therefore, the Mandatory Recycling Ordinance, as proposed
by StopWaste.org, will inevitably raise rates for all customers just to cover the cost of the current
collection services
To illustrate mitigation concerns, let suppose that AVI's annual revenue is $120 from 10
accounts that pay $1 per month. Further, Resident A is able to reduce his garbage can size by
adding more recycling and will now pay only $0.50 per month. This is a loss to the system of
$6.00 annually, which will have to be made up by the group. The $6 is then divided up across
the 10 accounts at the next rate increase, with the new monthly rate for the 9 accounts at $1.05,
and a reduced rate of $0.55 for the one customer with a smaller can. The annual revenue is still
$120, but the migration of the one customer to a smaller can, has been redistributed across the
Page 3 of 5
whole. This type of system works well for small incremental changes, but for large scale shifts in
behavior it starts to fall apart, especially for those that are already at a point that they can't
reduce garbage any further. For example, if everyone shifts equally, then everyone could
perhaps end up paying close to the same amount, but be receiving less service. Those
residents and businesses that were not able to shift services would end up paying more in
garbage fees to compensate for their neighbors. Thus, residents and businesses that have tried
to be good recyclers from the beginning would be penalized and pay for their neighbors lack of
effort. Staff can try to segregate out the revenue shortfalls from increased commercial recycling
to ensure that the costs are borne solely by the commercial sector alone, but it will be difficult if
not impossible to separate the costs out completely, thereby, ensuring that the residential sector
does not bear any of the rate burden associated with the proposed ordinance.
According to a preliminary draft of the Mandatory Recycling Ordinance, StopWaste.org staff will
be responsible for enforcement and action will be taken only if approved by the City Manager of
the affected jurisdiction. However, the Ordinance language is sufficiently vague on this point and
could result in a loss of local control on solid waste and recycling issues. Exceptions to the
Ordinance are at the sole discretion of StopWaste.org staff and are only allowed if amulti-family
property or business owner can demonstrate that financial hardship or space constraints prohibit
recycling and organics recovery.
The Mandatory Recycling Ordinance draft language contains an "opt-out" provision enabling a
jurisdiction to exclude its service area from Phase 1, Phase 2, or all of the requirements of the
Mandatory Recycling Ordinance. However, opting-out of the Mandatory Recycling Ordinance
could further reduce grant funding for recycling programs in Dublin. Declining consumption and
waste disposal due to the recession has already reduced grant funds generated from fees on
garbage disposed in the landfill. Dublin's grant monies have declined from a high of
approximately $220,000 annually to approximately $140,000 in FY 2011-2012. Funds could
deteriorate further or may be eliminated altogether if Dublin were to opt-out of the Countywide
Mandatory Recycling Ordinance, because the Ordinance requirements may be tied to grant
funding via a proposed definition of adequate commercial recycling scheduled for consideration
by the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board in early 2012. If adequate
commercial recycling were to be defined by the adoption of a Mandatory Recycling Ordinance,
this would require Dublin to approve the Mandatory Recycling Ordinance or face losing most or
even all of its recycling program grant funding.
Although staff has reviewed a first draft of the Mandatory Ordinance language, a final draft of
the Ordinance is not expected to be circulated until November 2nd. Therefore, given the
considerable rate impacts of a Mandatory Recycling Ordinance, more time is necessary for a
thorough evaluation prior to an ACWMA Board vote in order to fully assess the potential impacts
on the City's current franchise contract and rates as well as the economic impact on businesses
and residents.
Single-use Bag Ban
In addition to the above, StopWaste.org staff is proposing aSingle-use Bag Ban Ordinance,
which is intended to reduce the volume of single-use bags distributed in Alameda County and
reduce negative impacts to the environment caused by bag litter and bag landfill disposal.
Studies estimate that two million single-use bags are given away daily in Alameda County.
Single-use carryout bags, especially plastic bags, have been identified as a large component of
litter in the marine environment damaging wildlife and impacting sensitive habitat. Single-use
Page 4 of 5
bags are also a large component of the waste stream occupying valuable landfill space.
According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery ("CalRecycle"),
over 150,000 tons of paper bags and more than 120,000 tons of plastic bags were disposed of
in 2008. It is important to note that, because of the lighter weight of plastic bags, these numbers
represent a considerably greater volume of plastic bags compared to paper bags.
To address litter impacts and disposal issues, on November 16, 2011, the ACWMA Board will
consider aSingle-use Bag Reduction Ordinance, banning any single-use carryout bag and
imposing a minimum 10-cent-per-bag fee for recycled-content paper bags and for reusable
bags. Retailers would be entitled to keep the per-bag fee, and they would be required to note
any charges for bags on their customers' receipts. The proposed Single-use Bag Reduction
Ordinance would take effect on January 1, 2013 and apply to retail establishments that either
sell food products or have a pharmacy. Restaurants and nonprofit charitable reuse
organizations would be exempt.
StopWaste.org staff would oversee enforcement of the Single-use Bag Reduction Ordinance.
Transactions involving assistance programs, specifically the Women, Infants, and Children
("WIC") program, would not be subject to the 10-cent-per-bag fee, and plastic bags used to
contain raw meat or produce would be exempted.
The proposed Single-use Bag Reduction Ordinance could reduce litter and have other benefits
for the City of Dublin. Supporting aSingle-use Bag Reduction Ordinance would help meet the
requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit since plastic and paper bags can be
found in storm sewers and catch basins which drain into waterways and ultimately the Bay.
The exact financial impacts of a Mandatory Recycling Ordinance and a Single-use Bag
Reduction Ordinance are unknown at this time since final language has not yet been circulated
by StopWaste.org staff. Opting-out of the Mandatory Recycling Ordinance may reduce or
eliminate grant funds used to support the City's recycling programs. Approximately $140,000 of
grant funds may be at risk if the City were to opt-out of an adopted Countywide Mandatory
Recycling Ordinance. Staff has less concern with the Single-use Bag Reduction Ordinance,
depending on the final ordinance language, and will keep the City Council informed of any
significant deviations from the summary provided herein.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS: None.
Page 5 of 5