Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.1 Recyc Local Task Force CITY CLERK File # 810-10 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 2, 2000 SUBJECT: Designating Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board as the Local Task Force Report Prepared by: Jason Behrmann, Management Assistant ATTACHMENTS: 1) 2) Letter from the Alameda County Waste Management Authority Letter from the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board RECOMMENDATION: 1) 2) Consider the language of Measure D to designate the Recycling Board as Local Task Force as well as the Authority's position of retaining the existing Local Task Force. Direct staffto draft a letter for the Mayor's signature to the Alameda County Waste Management Authority indicating the City's position. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: The Local Task Force (LTF) was established in 1990 by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (ACWMA) to provide advice in connection with planning issues relating to the Alameda County Integrated Waste Management Plan. The current members of the LTF represent a wide range of solid waste interests in the County and were originally approved by a majority of cities having a majority of the County's population, as required by State law. In April 1999, the Recycling Board requested that the Board of Supervisors designate the Recycling Board as the LTF. The Recycling Board's proposal is based on language contained in the Alameda County Initiative Charter Source Reduction and Recycling Amendment of 1990 (Measure D) which provides that "...to avoid unnecessary administrative duplication, the Board of Supervisors shall seek the consent of a double majority of the cities for the Recycling Board to serve as the local task force." Additionally, the Authority and Recycling Board signed an MOU in 1991 agreeing that "...the current LTF continue until the Local Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRREs) are approved by the H/cc-fo rms/agdastmt, doc COPIES TO: ITEM NO. 8,1 State. After this, the Authority and Recycling Board agree to consider a merger of the LTF into the Recycling Board, subject to approval by the County and Cities." The last SRRE was adopted in March 1998. Following the Recycling Board's request, the ACWMA discussed the most effective use of the LTF and voted to recommend keeping the existing LTF. The Authority contends that appointing the Recycling Board as the LTF would undermine the LTF's function as an independent advisory body. If the Recycling Board is designated as the LTF, the elected officials on the Recycling Board would essentially be advising themselves because they serve on both Boards. In addition, the Authority argues that LTF members represent a wide range of solid waste and recycling interests and that the dismissal of the existing LTF would result in the loss of valuable expertise. Measure D requires the Board of Supervisors to seek the consent of a majority of the cities in the County having a majority of the population, in order to have the Recycling Board serve as the LTF. Since the Authority has the responsibility under the joint powers agreement to appoint LTF members, the Authority's legal counsel argues that the Authority "stands in the County's shoes" in this regard. Counsel also asserts that the Authority may recommend a different approach to the LTF than contemplated by Measure D. The City received a letter dated February 28, 2000 (Attachment 1) from the ACWMA noting the Authority's position and requesting that the City consider the issue, and communicate that decision to the Authority. In response to the Authority's position and request, the City received a letter dated April 17, 2000 (Attachment 2) from the Recycling Board, expressing its disagreement with the Authority's recommendation to keep the existing LTF. The Recycling Board argues that the Authority's recommendation is contradictory to the intent of Measure D and that the Recycling Board should be designated as the LTF to "avoid unnecessary administrative duplication" and streamline the County's integrated waste management planning process. The Recycling Board also contends that it is "fully conversant with planning and program issues" and is in a better position to serve as the LTF. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council consider the language of Measure D to designate the Recycling Board as the LTF as well as the Authority's position of retaining the existing LTF and direct staff to draft a letter for the Mayor's signature to the ACWMA indicating the City's position. Alameda County Waste Management Authority. Alameda County Source Reduction and Recychng Board www. stopwaste.org February28,2000 FE,B ~ ,,9 ?~000 Guy Houston Mayor City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 CiTY OF: Re: Referral of Issue of Designating Recycling Board as the Local Task Force as contemplated by Measure D (adopted by County voters in November 1990) Dear Mayor Houston: It is the purpose of this letter to request your agency's consideration of several options concerning the Local Task Force (LTF) which is an advisory, body of the Authority. As we will explain, the Authority Board has taken the position that the current membership of the LTF should be retained. The Authority, a joint po,~vers agency created to deal with solid waste issues in Alameda County, has al~Pointed members to its LTF to provide advice in connection with planning issues relating to the Alameda County Integrated Waste Management Plan. The current members of the LTF were approved by a majority of cities having a majority of the County's population as required by state law. Public Resources Code § 40950(b). In 1990 Measure D was approved as an amendment to the Alameda County Charter by the County's voters. It created a Recycling Board made up of six representatives selected by the Board of Supervisors and five representatives selected by the Authority from among its membership. Measure D, Section 64.130D.1. It also provided that the Board of Supervisors must seek the consent of a majority of the cities in the County having a majority of the population for having the Recycling Board serve as the LTF. Since the Authority has the responsibility under the joint powers agreement to appoint LTF members, it is the opinion of our counsel that the Authority stands in the County's shoes in this regard. It is also the opinion of our counsel that the Authority may recommend a different approach to the LTF than contemplated by Measure D. The Authority has been considering the most effective use of the LTF. At its regular meeting on February 23, 2000, the Authority Board considered the following options: 777 Davis Street, Suite 100, San Leandro, CA 94577 ° (510) 614-1699 · FAX (510) 614-1698 printed on recycled paper ..~:~:':-,.., ATTACHMENT 1 1. Keep the existing LTF. Recommend to the cities and the County that the Recycling Board be designated as the LTF. This action would require the concurrence of a majority of the cities having a majority of the County's population. Under the joint powers agreement, it would also require the approval of the County. Recommend that a new LTF be constituted consisting of the current members of the LTF and the Recycling Board. This action would also require the concurrence of the cities and the CountY as described in No. 2 above. 4. Keep the existing LTF, adding members as appropriate, and refer all actions before the LTF to the. Recycling Board for recommendation prior to action by the Authority Board. Option 4 was selected by the Authority Board. In summary, the reasons are that the current members of the LTF are experienced and represent a wide range of solid waste interests in the County.. They have expressed the desire to continue their duties. Further, if the Recycling Board were to become the LTF (either alone or in conjunction with the current LTF members), the Authority Board would be in the position of receiving advice from five of its oWn members. The concept of an advisory body is that it is made up of people other than the ultimate decision- makers. The Board would like the views of the Recycling Board before taking action but beheves that the purpose can be accomplished by referring issues to the Recycling Board while retaining the LTF. On the other hand, Meai'~re D requires the County to seek the concurrence of a majority of the cities ha'~ing a majority of the County's population for the Recycling Board to serve as the LTF. The members of the Recycling Board support this approach. It might provide some efficiency by eliminating one advisory body. In summary, the Authority requests that your agency consider the language of Measure D to designate the Recycling Board as the LTF as well as the Authority Board's position of retaining the existing LTF. Following your agency's consideration and review of all the options as outlined above, please communicate your decision to the Authority. Please contact our Executive Director, Karen Smith, with any questions. Sincerely, Be President cc: Mr. Richard Ambrose, City Manager City of Dublin Alameda County Waste Management Authority lameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board www. s opwaste.org April 17, 2000 CITY oF Guy Houston, Mayor City of Dublin P. O. Box 2340, Dublin, CA 94568 'Re: Supporting Designation of Recycling Board as Local Task Force Dear Mayor Houston, On February 28th, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority wrote your city recommending designation of an existing, infrequently meeting committee appointed by the Waste Authority as the Local Task Force fo[ countywide solid waste planning matters. The Authority's recommendation is clearly contradictory to the intent and letter of the Alameda County Initiative Charter Source Reduction and Recycling Amendment o£ 1990, Section 64.13003): To avoid unnecessary administrative duplication, the Board of Supervisors shall seek the consent of a double majority of the cities for the Recycling Board to serve as the local task force mandated by California Public Resources Code Section 40950. Instead, we recommend that the Recycling Board, which meets regularly and is fully-conversant with planning and program issues, be designated as the Local Task Force "to avoid unnecessary administrative duplication" and to streamline the county's integrated waste management planning process. While Alameda County has thus far made significant progress toward attaining this year's state-mandated 50% solid waste diversion goal, and some communities, especially those without large industrial, office and commercial sectors, have already achieved a 50% diversion level as determined by the California Integrated Waste management Board, most of the cities over 50,000 population have not. The Recycling Board, which does from disposal (allowed under a state law which Alameda County opposed), has determined that the County's diversion level as of 1998 was only 41%, well short of the 50% goal. Measure D, enacted by 62.72% o f the county voters in November 1990, contemplated, as its first and ongoing task, Recycling Board service as th6~ lead entity in 777 Davis Street, Suite 100, San Leandro, CA 94577 ° (510) 614-1699 · FAX (510) 614-1698 orinted on recycled paper .~"~ ATTACHMENT 2 preparing (with professional support) the County Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP). The law requires updating of this plan at five-year intervals. This follows from the good-government principle of planning public expenditures before making them. While Measure D was held up by a 1991 lawsuit by three jurisdictions, and eventually upheld in a 1993 California Appeals Court decision affirmed by the California Supreme Court, the recycling Board's operations were in limbo for about two years. To comply with the AB 939 requirement that each county appoint an LTF, the Waste Authority formed a separate committee, on which three of its original appointees still serve. Since preparing the first ColWlVIP, the existing committee has met very infrequently. In contrast, the Recycling Board is akeady positioned to comment on the CoIWMP. We meet up to three times per month, and receive annual reports from recycling staff, of each of the 17 jurisdictions regarding their diversion:program successes, shortcomings, and goal attainment. Additionally, the Recycling Board awards about $4' millit)n annually in grants to local businesses, non-profit organizations, and educational programs to advance the' county toward the Measure D goals of 50% diversion by the year 2000, and 75% diversion by 2010. Sharing staff under a Memorandum of Understanding with the Waste Authority, ,;Vhich has about $21 million of funds reserved fore possible large-scale diversion projects, the Recycling Board has taken the lead in proposing "big-leap" projects and programs that will accelerate county progress toward the 50% and 75% goals. The Recycling Board, by performing its intended role as Local Task Force, can streamline the integrated waste management planning process to move Alameda County expeditiously toward a sustainable waste utilization system that minimizes land and air pollution and attains the 50% and 75% diversion goals of Measure D. We urge your Council to help us realize the intentions of the voters who enacted Measure D in 1990. Respectfully, President, Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board