Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission’s Technical ... › sites › rwr › rwrc › tac › ... · • Mattress recycling tour [pre-TAC] (Reena Brilliot) ... On February 25,

Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission’s Technical Advisory Committee Agenda for August 14, 2014

Table of Contents Table of Contents ……………………………………………… Page 1

Agenda ……………………………………………………… Page 2-3

Pharmaceutical Recommendation ……………………………… Page 4-5

MOA Amendment/Clarification ……………………………… Page 6

DRS Update ……………………………………………………… Page 7

Green Business Report ……………………………………… Page 8

HCEP Report ……………………………………………………… Page 9 – 10

Legislative Report ……………………………………………… Page 11 – 20

Recycling Hotline Report ……………………………………… Page 21 – 25

County of Santa Clara Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission of Santa Clara County Recycling and Waste Reduction Division 1553 Berger Drive, Building #1 San Jose, California 95112 (408) 282-3180 FAX (408) 282-3188 www.ReduceWaste.org

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA

DATE: Thursday, August 14, 2014 TIME: 1:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. LOCATION: 1555 Berger Drive, Building #2, Auditorium San Jose, CA 95112 COMMUTE ALTERNATIVES: The Board of Supervisors encourages the use of commute alternatives including bicycles, carpooling, and hybrid vehicles.

Public transit access is available to and from the Berger Drive Facility, 1555 Berger Drive San Jose, California by VTA bus lines 66. For trip planning information, contact the VTA Customer Service Department at 408-321-2300 Monday through Friday between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and on Saturday from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Schedule information is also available on the web at www.vta.org.

Bicycle parking racks are available in the front of Buildings 1 and 2.

(** Denotes item on which action may be taken)

1. Call to Order and Introductions**

2. Approval of Draft Minutes Meeting of July 10, 2014 **

3. Public Presentations (This item is reserved for persons desiring to address the committee on any matter not on this agenda.) For members of the public who wish to address the committee on any item not listed on the agenda this would be the appropriate time. The Chair will call individuals in turn. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. The committee is not permitted action or extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If committee action is requested, the committee may place the matter on a future agenda. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing.

4. Election of Vice-Chair** (5 min)

5. Sharing TAC email list** - Matthew Krupp (15 min)

6. Diversion on Levi’s Stadium Opening Night- How did it go? - Dave Staub (10 min)

7. Recommend a letter be sent by RWRC to support SCVWD grant goals** - Rob D’Arcy (10 min)

8. MOA** - Rob D’Arcy (15 min)

Commissioners: James R. Griffith, Chair; Ronit Bryant, Kansen Chu, Michael F. Kotoswski, Linda J. LeZotte, Orrin Mahoney, Teresa O’Neill, Jan Pepper, Cat Tucker, Mike Wasserman

9. IC Update** – Matthew Krupp (10 min)

10. RWRC Update** - IWM Staff (10 min)

11. Division Manager's Report and Updates on Countywide Programs** (5 min) A. Disposal Reporting System - Update B. Green Business – Report C. Home Composting – Report D. Other

12. Subcommittee Reports and Updates** (20 min) A. Enforcement – Stan Chau B. Household Hazardous Waste – Alex Wykoff C. Legislation – Mark Bowers D. Operations – Cynthia Palacio E. Public Education – Sandra Jensen F. Source Reduction/Recycling – Karen Gissibl G. Ad Hoc Food Rescue – Matthew Krupp H. Ad Hoc Zero Waste – Heidi Melander

13. Program Update** (5 min) A. Eco-Gardener – Dave Staub B. Recycling Hotline – No Report

14. Items for Future Agenda/Guest Speakers (5 min)

15. Informational Updates and Announcements (15 min)

16. Adjournment**

Note: Next Meeting Date is September 11, 2014

(The following is a ‘Parking Lot’ list of items to be brought back to TAC at a later date) List of Future Agenda Items to be discussed:

• Large Venue Diversion [pre-TAC] (Tony Eulo) • CalRecycle 75% diversion (Matthew Krupp) • Social media consultant (Karen Gissibl) • Mattress recycling tour [pre-TAC] (Reena Brilliot) • Joint meeting with ZLI [later in 2014] • Rethink Disposables (Mariam Gordon) • Smoking ban (Matthew Krupp) • Literati on Instagram (Julie Muir) • TraX (Julie Muir) • Evaluate long term disposal and processing capacities and opportunities for regional

cooperation (TAC Chair)

County of Santa Clara Department of Agriculture and Environmental Management Recycling and Waste Reduction Division 1555 Berger Drive Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 282-3180 Fax (408) 282-3188 http://www.ReduceWaste.org

August 14, 2014 TO: RWRC Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Recycling and Waste Reduction Division SUBJECT: Support for pharmaceutical collection grant RECOMMENDED ACTION Forward a recommendation to the RWRC to send letters encouraging all pharmacies, police departments, hospitals and clinics to serve as voluntary collection locations for unwanted and expired pharmaceuticals. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS There is no impact on the General Fund as a result of this action.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION On February 25, 2014, the California Product Stewardship Council (CPSC) was awarded a grant from the Santa Clara Valley Water District in the amount of $206,417. The purpose of the grant is to build a public education campaign to teach residents about the proper disposal of unwanted and expired medications. The Santa Clara County Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Program will assist the CPSC in recruiting pharmacies, police departments, hospitals and clinics to serve as voluntary collection locations. In addition, the City of San José’ Environmental Services Department has agreed to fund the purchase of 10 collection receptacles for the first 10 locations. A letter is requested to demonstrate the collective support of the County and the cities through the unified voice of the RWRC.

BACKGROUND The County of Santa Clara’s HHW Program and the City of San José’ Environmental Services Department teamed up with the California Product Stewardship Council to craft a grant proposal in response to a Pollution Prevention Partnerships and Grant offering by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The grant criteria specifically listed the desired benefit of preventing contaminants such as pharmaceuticals, household hazardous waste, and trash from entering our waterways.

Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith

The grant project will strive to establish 50 new convenient secure medication collection bins in pharmacies, hospitals and police stations in Santa Clara County. This builds on the “Don’t Rush To Flush, Meds in the Bin, We all Win! (DRTF)” program in Sacramento and Yolo counties. The project will harmonize with the existing message of “No Drugs Down the Drain” (NDDD) which will be included on all print and web material. Currently 15 take-back sites serve the 1,837,504 residents of Santa Clara County primarily operated by the County Sheriff’s Office. The County has over 260 pharmacies that could potentially collect medications, in addition to hospital and law enforcement sites. The project is unique in obtaining written agreements with the host locations to arrange for and pay the disposal costs for at least five years. Grant funds will be used to purchase the bins, report on pounds collected, promote the new host locations for maximum convenience and help provide solutions for the public to eliminate the flushing of pharmaceuticals into the sanitary sewer and improper disposal to the environment.

Proposed Amendments and Clarifications to the MOA

1. Page 5, Section II. B. – Appointment of Members.

a. Include a process for contesting NGO selection process –Update IWM to RWRD throughout document

b. Include the following sentence after “The Commission will accept requests and nominations for

non-governmental organizations to serve on the TAC.” Interested non-governmental agencies, as identified in Section II. A. 4, will submit a biography of their organization and how it aligns with the goals of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission’s Technical Advisory Committee.

c. Add letter d under Section II. A. 4 that would read: No one individual shall represent more than

one non-governmental organization.

2. Page 6, Section III. C. – Attendance from a Remote Location. The Brown Act allows for voting members to call in via conference call from a remote location provided there is a 10-day notice given to the Administrator and that notice is then posted on the meeting agenda. Because the MOA treats subcommittees the same as any other public meeting, subcommittee meetings are held to the same standard. (Note: a voting member would not be eligible to vote if the remote location was not on the agenda – but CAN participate in the discussion as a member of the public).

3. Page 7, Section IV. A. – Officer Positions. Suggest adding this sentence: In addition, any TAC member or their alternate may serve as Subcommittee Chair.

4. Page 9, Section VII. C. – Ad Hoc Subcommittees. Currently, the MOA only allows for TAC to create

ad hoc subcommittees. Is there interest in allowing the IC to create ad hoc subcommittees or should this remain a function of TAC?

5. Page 10, Section VII. D. – If Administrator is Also a PARTY. Consider striking second sentence: The

PARTY’S TAC/IC representative shall be a person who is not involved in the work of the Administrator.

6. Page 13, Section IX. F. – Biennial Audit. Can the Administrator have an independent CPA that is already under contract with Administrator perform the biennial audit or does TAC wish to have Administrator issue a RFP for this service?

7. Page 15, Section XI. A. – Legal Counsel – clarify who would be represented by Legal Counsel under

this provision. TAC, RWRC, Board of Supervisors, all the PARTIES to the MOA?

8. Page 16, Section XII. B – Ethical Code of Conduct. Discuss when and how this should be carried out during the current fiscal year. Should each voting TAC member (and their alternates) provide proof that they have attended Ethics Training? Offer a training prior to a TAC meeting? There is currently no consequence for non-compliance. Should there be a consequence? If so, discuss what that consequence should be.

Payment DRS Data Payment DRS Data Payment DRS Data Payment DRS DataLandfill

Guadalupe 05/21/14 05/22/14Kirby Canyon 05/21/14 05/21/14Newby Island 06/17/14 07/17/14Pacheco PassPalo AltoZanker Material 06/13/14 06/16/14Zanker Road 06/13/14 06/16/14

NDFEcoBox 7/25/2014 6/20/2014Green Team 06/09/14 07/22/14GreenWaste Recovery 06/06/14 06/06/14Mission TrailsPacheco Pass 05/05/14 06/16/14Pacific Coast RecyclingPremier 06/23/14 4/18/2014Rock TennSan Martin 05/23/14 04/14/14ValleyZ-Best 06/13/14 06/13/14Zanker Material 06/13/14 06/16/14Zanker Road 06/13/14 06/16/14

report and payment mailed

taken in County

closed

closed closed closed closed

8/5/2014

Due 06-15-14 Due 09-15-14 Due 12-15-14 Due 03-15-15

Qtr 1 2014 Qtr 2 2014 Qtr 3 2014 Qtr 4 2014Jan - Mar April - June July - September October - December

closed closed closed

7/31/2014

Green Business ProgramFY14

City

Enrolle

d Prior t

o

FY15

Certifie

d Prior t

o

FY15

Re-cert

ified Prio

r to

FY15

Enrolle

d in FY15

Certifie

d in FY15

Re-cert

ified in

FY15

2nd R

e-

certi

ficica

tion in

FY15

Dropped

from

Program

Total R

ecert

ified

Total Enro

lled

Total C

ertifie

d

Campbell 40 12 6 0 0 0 0 11 6 40 12Cupertino 94 35 9 3 1 0 0 7 9 97 36Gilroy 25 10 8 0 0 0 0 2 8 25 10Los Altos 22 18 11 0 0 0 0 3 11 22 18Los Altos Hills 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2Los Gatos 71 36 9 1 1 0 0 16 9 72 37Milpitas 24 9 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 25 9Monte Sereno 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Morgan Hill 42 20 3 0 0 0 0 12 3 42 20Mountain View 141 81 28 3 0 0 0 33 28 144 81Palo Alto 442 111 24 0 0 0 0 69 24 442 111San Jose 450 233 71 4 1 1 0 120 72 454 234Santa Clara 89 34 9 0 0 0 0 11 9 89 34Saratoga 13 6 2 0 0 0 0 4 2 13 6Sunnyvale 26 51 26 0 0 0 0 17 26 26 51Unincorporated (1) 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 4TOTAL 1489 662 207 12 3 1 0 312 208 1501 665

2 - this is total enrolled since inception of the program and represents both those businesses that have been certified and those still in process1 - all inquiries are placed under Unincorportated as many of those inquiring do not state the city their business is in.

Home Composting Education ProgramCompost Workshop Attendance by City

January - December 2014

1

Date Course TitleLocation

Cam

pbel

l

Cup

ertin

o

Gilr

oy

Los

Alto

s

Los

Alto

s H

ills

Los

Gat

os

Milp

itas

Mon

te S

eren

o

Mor

gan

Hill

Mou

ntai

n V

iew

Pal

o A

lto

San

Jos

e

San

Mar

tin

San

ta C

lara

Sar

atog

a

Sun

nyva

le

Out

of C

ount

y

Unk

now

n

Tota

l

February 8, 2014Compost WorkshopSunnyvale 3 1 2 2 8 4 2 21 2 45March 8, 2014Compost WorkshopSunnyvale 2 2 2 16 22March 15, 2014Compost WorkshopCupertino 38 1 6 2 1 4 52March 26, 2014Compost WorkshopGRPG, San Jose 1 2 20 2 2 3 30April 12, 2014Compost WorkshopSunnyvale 2 4 5 4 5 6 1 27April 26, 2014Compost WorkshopPalo Alto 2 36 1 1 1 41April 30, 2014Compost WorkshopGRPC, San Jose 1 1 9 3 1 15May 3, 2014Compost WorkshopMorgan Hill 2 1 7 10May 10, 2014Compost WorkshopSunnyvale 1 1 1 1 8 1 17 30May 10, 2014Compost WorkshopPrusch Park-San Jose 1 1 20 22May 17, 2014Compost WorkshopMountain View 15 2 1 2 1 1 22June 7, 2014Compost WorkshopPalo Alto 31 2 33June 14, 2014Compost WorkshopSunnyvale 2 1 1 2 5 8 3 9 4 35June 21, 2014Worm WorkshopPrusch-San Jose 2 5 1 8June 25, 2014Compost WorkshopGRPC-San Jose 2 9 1 1 3 16Total 1 46 3 1 0 3 7 0 9 24 77 91 0 35 14 79 7 11 408

Home Composting Education ProgramCompost Workshop Attendance by City

January - December 2014

2

July 12, 2014Compost WorkshopSunnyvale 1 4 1 1 3 3 2 8 4 27July 26, 2014Worm WorkshopPalo Alto 1 2 16 1 20July 30, 2014Compost WorkshopGRPC-San Jose 0August 9, 2014Compost WorkshopSunnyvale 0August 19, 2014Compost WorkshopPalo Alto 0September 13, 2014Compost WorkshopSunnyvale 0September 20, 2014Compost WorkshopPrusch-San Jose 0September 27, 2014Compost WorkshopMorgan Hill 0October 4, 2014 Worm Workshop Santa Clara 0October 4, 2014Compost WorkshopCupertino 0October 11, 2014Compost WorkshopSunnyvale 0October 18, 2014Compost WorkshopMountain View 0October 25, 2014Compost WorkshopPalo Alto 0November 8, 2014Compost WorkshopSunnyvale 0

Total 3 50 3 1 0 4 7 0 9 27 96 94 0 37 14 88 7 15 455

TAC Legislative Report September 2014 Page 1

AB 333 (Wieckowski) – Medical waste – Revises requirements for storage, treatment, hauling,

documentation for medical waste. Passed Assembly 67-6 on May 23, 2014 Senate Appropriations (Suspense file) Last amended June 24, 2014

AB 1594 (Williams) – Recycling: diversion: green materials – As of January 1, 2010, defines as disposal, not

diversion, the use of green waste for alternative daily cover or intermediate landfill cover. However green waste used as ADC or ILC would not be subject to the state disposal fee (currently $1.40 per ton). Passed Assembly 57-21 on May 29, 2014 Senate Appropriations (Suspense file) Last amended August 4, 2014

SWANA LTF - Neutral

CRRA – Support

CAW – Support (Co-sponsor w/California Compost Coalition)

AB 1699 (Bloom) – Waste management: plastic microbeads – Bans sale of personal care products that

contain plastic microbeads, defined as intentionally added plastic particles five millimeters or less in size in every dimension. Preempts local ordinances adopted after January 1, 2019. Passed Assembly 47-13 on May 23, 2014 Senate Third Reading Last amended August 4, 2014

AB 1743 (Ting) – Hypodermic needles and syringes – Requires those providing needles as part of a needle

exchange program to “make available” sharps disposal containers. Passed Assembly 45-28 on April 10, 2014 Passed Senate 36-0 on August 7, 2014 In Assembly for concurrence in Senate amendments Last amended May 27, 2014

SWANA LTF – Support if Amended to require programs to “provide” sharps disposal containers.

AB 1826 (Chesbro) – Solid waste: organic waste - Requires businesses generating specified amounts of

organic waste per week to arrange for recycling services. Requires jurisdictions to implement organic waste recycling programs to service those businesses. Threshold of:

2016 – 8 cubic yards per week

2017 – 4 cubic yards per week

2019 – 1 cubic yard per week Passed Assembly 54-22 on May 15, 2014

Senate Third Reading

Last amended August 6, 2014

CAW – Support (Sponsor)

NCRA - Support

AB 1907 (Ridley-Thomas) – Use fuel tax: natural gas: gallon equivalent – Specifies weight-to-volume

conversions to state natural gas fuel quantities as “gallon equivalents” of gasoline and diesel. Passed Assembly 78-0 on May 15, 2014 Senate Appropriations Last amended April 3, 2014

AB 2355 (Levine) – Local governments: agencies: streets and highways: recycled materials – Requires local

agencies to either adopt CalTrans standards for use of recycled building materials for streets and highways

or, in a public hearing, discuss why it is not adopting those standards.

Passed Assembly78-0 on May 15, 2014 Senate Appropriations (Suspense file) Last amended June 11, 2014

TAC Legislative Report September 2014 Page 2

SB 270 (Padilla) – Solid waste: single-use carryout bags – Bans single-use plastic bags at groceries, large

drug stores, convenience stores, liquor stores and requires a ten-cent charge for paper bags and reusable plastic bags provided. Grandfathers local ordinances passed before September 1, 2014. Passed Senate 37-0 on April 29, 2013 (prior to “gut and amend”)

Assembly Appropriations (Suspense file)

Last amended May 20, 2014

SWANA LTF – Support if Amended

CAW – Support

NCRA - Oppose

SB 498 (Lara) – Solid waste: biomass conversion – Revises the definition of “biomass conversion” to mean

the production of heat, fuels, or electricity by the controlled combustion of, or the use of other noncombustion thermal technologies on, specified materials (crop residues, bark, lawn, yard, and garden clippings, leaves, silvicultural residue, tree and brush pruning, wood, wood chips, wood waste and nonrecyclable pulp or nonrecyclable paper materials). Assembly Second Reading

Last amended June 26, 2014

SWANA LTF – Support

SB 1014 (Jackson) – This bill would, upon the enactment of federal regulations, require the State Board of

Pharmacy, in consultation with CalRecycle and the Department of Public Health, to adopt regulations to implement California drug takeback programs for the collection and destruction of home-generated pharmaceutical waste, as defined. The regulations adopted would only apply to licensees of the board. Passed Senate 33-3 on May 29, 2014

Assembly Appropriations

Last amended August 6, 2014

SWANA LTF – Support (position being reconsidered after amendments)

CAW – Support

CPSC – Support (Sponsor)

SB 1249 (Hill) – Hazardous waste: shredder waste – Requires DTSC to update how it regulates metal

shredding facilities and the disposal of auto shredder fluff. Passed Senate 23-12 on May 28, 2014

Assembly Appropriations

Last amended August 4, 2014

SB 1274 (Hancock) – Recycling: used mattresses – Requires that local governments, permitted solid waste

facilities, and solid waste operations that accept mattresses are provided a mechanism for recovery of illegally dumped mattresses at no cost. Passed Senate 35-0 on May 1, 2014

Passed Assembly 77-0 on August 7, 2014

In Senate for concurrence in Assembly amendments

Last amended June 16, 2014

SWANA LTF – Support if Amended

SB 1383 (Hueso) – Recycling: plastic products: labeling - Requires CalRecycle, upon ASTM's adoption of a

standard for aerobically biodegradable plastics in the soil environment in the temperate zone, to adopt that standard. Authorizes sale of agricultural mulch film labeled "biodegradable" if it meets the standard. Defines "agricultural mulch film" as film plastic used as a technical tool in commercial farming applications.. Passed Senate35-0 on May1, 2014

Assembly Second Reading (Consent Calendar)

Last amended July 1, 2014

SWANA LTF – Support

Draft 1 – 8-1-14 Proposed Legislation for Consideration of the

County Engineers Association of California (CEAC)

Reporting or Levying Fees on InterDistrict Waste Flows

Problem Since 2000, the amount of materials disposed in the San Mateo County Landfill (Ox Mountain) owned and operated by Republic Industries has decreased by over 50%. This is due to a combination of factors, including success with AB939 waste diversion programs, and, increasingly a portion of it is due to exporting discarded materials to landfills outside of the county. In the next couple of years, communities in the county may choose to send another 36% of materials to out of county landfills. When the waste is shipped out of the County there is no source of revenue to support existing programs. The export of materials to other counties makes it difficult for public or private investments locally in new infrastructure for reuse, recycling and composting and to continue support of existing programs. Similar problems have impacted other counties around the state. In Alameda County collective local, county, regional and state charges total about $20 per ton for disposal at the two active landfills in the county. StopWaste faces challenges in obtaining information from certain out of county landfills on the haulers or generators of wastes originating in Alameda County and delivered to those landfills, so they have not been able to enforce their Facility Fee on all materials sent out of county. StopWaste has been able to get jurisdiction of origin info from everyone, but not the rest of the scale ticket information to know who hauled the material and where it came from and what it was. The City of San Jose and Santa Clara County have a very similar situation to Alameda County, with about $20/ton in combined local, county, regional and state fees and taxes being levied on landfills located within San Jose. Regulatory fees levied on landfills in neighboring counties (particularly Solano County and San Joaquin County) are not as high as those in San Mateo County, Alameda County and Santa Clara County. As a result, hundreds of thousands of tons of materials per year are being shipped long distances (100-180 miles round trip) largely to avoid paying local waste fees and taxes. Similar problems have impacted other counties around the state. Sacramento City hauled its wastes for many years to a landfill near Reno, NV until the City adopted a climate change plan and found that this long haul was a problem from a greenhouse gas perspective. Part of the reason for the fees being less in Reno for

Draft 1 – 8-1-14 landfilling was the lower amount of regulatory fees on the landfill compared to the County. Discarded materials from within Sacramento County and San Joaquin Counties migrated to the Forward Landfill in Manteca. This was in part due to similar differentials in regulatory fees. Interested Parties Many counties in the state could benefit from addressing this problem. Counties that levy higher fees and taxes (generally in urban areas such as San Mateo County, Alameda County and Santa Clara County) will likely be supportive. Counties that levy lower fees (generally in rural areas adjacent to urban areas like Solano County) will likely be in opposition. Rural counties (such as those north of Solano, Napa and Sonoma Counties) would likely not care about this. Landfill operators with lower fees (Potrero Hills, Redwood Landfill, Forward, Inc.) will likely oppose proposals under consideration. Others most likely to support this proposal would include the Sustainability, Parks, Recycling and Wildlife Legal Defense Fund (SPRAWLDF). Others most likely to oppose this proposal would be tax relief organizations (like Howard Jarvis) and businesses that might pay higher fees. Existing Law

Section 41901 of AB 939 authorizes local governments to raise fees specifically for the costs of implementing their waste diversion programs to comply with this law. Other laws empower local governments to enact business taxes, with the basis being adjusted to provide proper measurement of business activity there, such as number of cubic yards filled according to aerial surveys or by tonnage of materials disposed at the entrance gate.

In ~1988, North Santa Clara County cities sued the City of San Jose claiming it did not have the authority to levy its business tax on landfills on materials disposed from North Santa Clara County cities. The judge upheld the City of San Jose in that litigation, and said San Jose had the authority and had followed the correct legal processes to levy the business tax in that way. Users of landfills operating in Alameda County now pay about $20/ton for materials disposed there, including the “Measure D Fee” levied under the Alameda County Waste Reduction and Recycling Act of 1990. In City Of Dublin V. County Of Alameda, the courts upheld the public’s right to levy a fee like the Measure D fee by public referendum and that the fee is not a tax.

Draft 1 – 8-1-14 “Standby fees” are used by water utilities all the time and would be a good precedent to cite.

California in general has a “modified origin” sales tax system.1 This means that state, county and city taxes are “origin-based”, and district taxes are “destination-based.” “Origin based” means that all shipments within California are taxed at the current prevailing sales tax rate in California, regardless of the tax rate at the location where the product is being shipped. “Destination based” means the tax is applied based on the destination at which the product will eventually be used, or the address to which the product is shipped.”

Suggested Legislation to Address Problem

1. Option A - Solid waste facilities should be required to provide reports to the county of origin on the amount of materials disposed of in landfills in California from outside the county in which the landfill is located. Landfill operators should be required to ask for the county of origin of each truck, record that information, compile it and report on it on a regular basis (e.g., monthly). For trucks serving multiple counties in one load, the landfill operators should ask what % of the truck is from the different jurisdictions served. In the event that there is any dispute over the amounts of materials allocated, those routes under dispute should be required to record weights on the route from each account.

2. Option B - Solid waste facilities should be required to levy fees based on the amount of materials disposed of in landfills in California, at the prevailing level of AB939 fees in the county of origin as directed by the county of origin. Landfill operators should be required to ask for the county of origin of each truck, record that information, compile it, report on it and remit payments received to the counties of origin on a regular basis (e.g., monthly). This wouldn’t supplant host fees of receiving jurisdiction (and would be additive). This would reduce the incentive to ship wastes long distances.

3. Option C - The State could levy a significant landfill surcharge (e.g., $20/ton) to help fund the implementation of state and local initiatives for AB341, composting and anaerobic digestion grants, and market development grants and loans. The uses of the funds would be similar to those recently approved for Cap and Trade funding, and could be administered in the same way as the Cap and Trade funding. The amount of the State landfill surcharge would be adjusted to give credit for local and regional fees (i.e., if a State $20/ton landfill surcharge is enacted, and the local fees in San Mateo County are $9.83/ton, then the additional landfill fee levied on behalf of the state would be ($20 - $9.83 = $10.17/ton). The latter would have the effect of equalizing the amounts of regulatory fees and eliminate the benefit of shipping long distances to avoid such fees.

1 Source: http://www.accuratetax.com/blog/destination-origin-sales-tax/

Draft 1 – 8-1-14 Fiscal Impact This would have a direct positive fiscal benefit to counties (such as San Mateo County, Alameda County and Santa Clara County) that currently are losing the disposal of discarded materials to other counties. This would have a direct negative fiscal impact on counties that are currently receiving discarded materials from other counties and are paid AB939, franchise or other fees based on the amount of materials received. In Solano County, they received $3 million in the County General Fund as a result of fees associated with imported materials being landfilled in the county.2 History This is a new proposal and not been introduced in the Legislature before. Measure E adopted by citizens’ referendum in Solano County in 1984 limited out-of-county trash importations to 95,000 tons annually. Opponents of the expansion of the Potrero Hills Landfill in 2010 obtained a judgment from Solano Superior Court Judge Paul Beeman that a modified version of Measure E would be constitutional. AB 845 (Fiona Ma, 2012) adopted in 2012 by the California Legislature to address the issues surrounding Measure E in Solano County prohibits local governments from restricting or limiting the importation of solid waste based on the place of origin, nullifying Measure E. Despite the adoption of AB845, economic incentives are still allowed. Public Policy This follows the recent change in California sales tax policy to follow destination-based taxation practices as more appropriate for these transactions. This would also complement the Governor’s and Legislature’s concern with addressing climate change (as it would provide an incentive to not haul wastes such long distances). It would also complement the Governor’s emphasis on the delegation of responsibilities to the level of government most able to implement those programs.

2 Source: http://www.dailyrepublic.com/news/solanocounty/brown-signs-garbage-importation-law/

Draft 5 – 8-6-14 Proposed Legislation for Consideration of the

County Engineers Association of California (CEAC)

AB939 Fee Expansion to Include Diverted Materials to help Implement AB341

Summary Propose to expand the authority to levy AB939 fees (to include diverted materials charged a fee for service), and to expand the authority for the use of AB939 fees (including for funding maintenance, monitoring and remediation of closed landfills) to keep funding stable for County solid waste and recycling programs to help implement AB341. Problem Since 2000, the amount of materials disposed in the San Mateo County Landfill (Ox Mountain) owned and operated by Republic Industries has decreased by over 50%. This is due to a combination of factors, including success with AB939 waste diversion programs, and, increasingly a portion of it is due to exporting discarded materials to landfills outside of the county. In upcoming years, communities in the county may choose to send another 36% of materials to out of county landfills. The AB939 fee is collected on each ton of solid waste landfilled at the County’s sole active solid waste landfill. When the waste is shipped out of the County there is no source of revenue to support existing programs. San Mateo County charges an AB939 fee of $9.83/ton disposed in San Mateo County landfills, based upon a calculation in 2009 of the actual costs of programs the County offers in support of AB939.1 Prior to 2009, the County received a "County Compensation Fee" that was paid into a Solid Waste Fund by BFI/Allied Waste. This was paid under a contract between the County and the landfill owners operating this landfill in the unincorporated areas. The County no longer receives this revenue as the contract expired and was not renewed with the new owners Republic Services. The remaining Solid Waste Fund is being used to maintain and monitor three County owned closed landfills and a small number of solid waste program activities that are not eligible for AB939 fee funding. The Solid Waste Fund that supports the closed landfills will be fully depleted by FY2017-18 at the current rates of funding. This will happen sooner if more materials are shipped to out of county landfills. The export of materials to other counties makes it difficult for public or private investments locally in new infrastructure for reuse, recycling and composting and to continue support of existing programs. In addition, AB939 fees have been restricted since their inception in 1989 to uses that were adopted to implement Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRREs) and County Integrated Waste Management Plans (CoIWMPs) developed by local jurisdictions under AB939, as modified by Annual Reports filed with the State. Since 1989, subsequent legislation and

1 About $10/ton is less than $1 per household per month if passed through to residential ratepayers.

Draft 5 – 8-6-14 regulations have placed more requirements on local governments to implement new waste reduction programs (such as the outreach requirements in AB341). The Annual Reports are focused on waste diversion programs. Over time, monitoring, remediation and maintenance of closed landfills has increased, as well as other issues related to solid waste (e.g., reducing litter from entering storm drains and decreasing illegal dumping). AB939 fees that were in existence as of the date of passage of Proposition 26 (November 3, 2010) are not subject to the requirements of Proposition 26 because that law is not retroactive. AB 939 fees that are newly adopted or increased after November 3, 2010 are subject to Proposition 26’s requirements.2 Proposition 26 has seven clear exceptions, but how those apply or not to AB939 fees is subject to interpretation. With any clarification or expansion of the levying and use of AB939 fees, legislation should clarify that the adoption or increasing of these fees are exempt under Proposition 26. Similar problems have impacted other counties around the state. In Alameda County collective local, county, regional and state charges total about $20 per ton for disposal at the two active landfills in the county. The AB939 fees levied by Alameda County are subject to the same challenges noted above for San Mateo County. The $20/ton includes $4.34/ton as an AB939 facility fee adopted by the County that applies to anything disposed in a landfill anywhere in CA and $2.15/ton household hazardous wastes AB939 feeStopWaste is not able to enforce information on origin of waste, so they are not able to enforce their fees against materials sent out of county. The City of San Jose has a very similar situation to Alameda County, with about $20/ton in combined local, county, regional and state fees and taxes being levied on landfills located within San Jose. As part of Santa Clara County, that includes an AB 939 implementation fee of $4.10 per ton of disposed waste. Each jurisdiction uses the countywide AB 939 implementation fee monies to fund waste prevention and recycling programs. Programs funded differ by jurisdiction. Funded projects have included purchase of rolling carts for curbside collection of yard waste, purchase of recycling bins, public outreach, staffing for special recycling projects, and other AB 939-related purposes. The AB939 fees levied by the City of San Jose and Santa Clara County are subject to these same challenges. Interested Parties Many counties in the state could benefit from addressing this problem. Although some counties have more revenues to support waste diversion activities than San Mateo County, it is expected that there would be wide support from counties throughout the state. Cities and counties throughout the state have problems funding the monitoring, remediation and maintenance of closed landfills, including many cities that ran their own landfills all around the San Francisco Bay Area. Those most likely to oppose this proposal would be tax relief organizations (like Howard Jarvis) and businesses that might pay higher fees.

2 Source: League of CA Cities, Proposition 26 Implementation Guide, April 2011, http://www.cacities.org/Prop26Guide

Draft 5 – 8-6-14 Existing Law3

Section 41901 of AB 939 authorizes local governments to raise fees specifically for the costs of implementing their waste diversion programs to comply with this law:

"A city, county[,] or city and county may impose fees in amounts sufficient to pay the costs of preparing, adopting, and implementing a countywide integrated waste management plan prepared pursuant to this chapter. The fees shall be based on the types or amounts of the solid waste, and shall be used to pay the actual costs incurred by the city or county in preparing, adopting, and implementing the plan, as well as in setting and collecting the local fees. In determining the amounts of the fees, a city or county shall include only those costs directly related to the preparation, adoption, and implementation of the plan and the setting and collection of the local fees. A city, county, or city and county shall impose the fees pursuant to Section 66016 of the Government Code."

Section 41902 clarifies that:

"A local agency may directly collect the fees authorized by this chapter or may, by agreement, arrange for the fees to be collected by a solid waste hauler providing solid waste collection for the city or county."

Some communities have adopted AB 939 fees on haulers and others have adopted AB 939 fees on solid waste facilities in their jurisdictions.

Suggested Legislation to Address Problem

1. The authority to levy AB939 fees should be broadened to include materials that are diverted from landfill that are charged fees for services, either for the collection of those materials or for their processing or final disposition. This would follow the definitions in the CA Supreme Court decision in Rancho Mirage in 1994 that said local jurisdictions could decide whether or not to allow independent businesses to provide recycling services for a fee and how they would be regulated. This would address a portion of the decreasing AB939 fees available to fund on-going programs.

2. The uses of AB939 funds should be broadened to allow for funding of programs that complement the implementation of AB939, AB341 and related solid waste, recycling and waste reduction legislation, including the monitoring, remediation and maintenance of closed landfills.

3 This description is excerpted from a CalRecycle publication entitled “Incentive Programs for Local Government Recycling and Waste Reduction” 2000, written by Gary Liss & Associates, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Library/Innovations/Incentives/OtherHauler.htm#AB 939

Draft 5 – 8-6-14 Fiscal Impact The proposal would have a direct positive fiscal benefit to counties (such as San Mateo County, Alameda County and Santa Clara County) that currently are losing the disposal of discarded materials to other counties and diversion tons are not levied the same fee. This would have a direct negative fiscal impact on counties that are currently receiving discarded materials from other counties and are paid AB939, franchise or other fees based on the amount of materials received. Ratepayers could also see a slight increase in their solid waste/recycling fees. History This is a new proposal and not been introduced in the Legislature before. An alternative to legislation would be CalRecycle interpreting current law to allow for the levying of AB939 fees on fee for service recycling transactions, as those are not specified in the current law. Public Policy CSAC has long-standing policy opposing unfunded state mandates on local governments. The purpose of the original AB939 fee was to ensure that local governments were empowered to raise the fees to fund the implementation of waste reduction policies and programs envisioned by that law. Subsequent legislation did not continue similar clearly stated authority to raise fees, so local governments were forced to pursue other alternatives. This would also complement the Governor’s and Legislature’s concern with addressing climate change (as it would provide an incentive to not haul wastes such long distances). It would also complement the Governor’s emphasis on the delegation of responsibilities to the level of government most able to implement those programs.

College of Social Science • Department of Environmental Studies • Center for Development of Recycling • www.RecycleStuff.org • 800/533-841, 408/924-5453 • Fax 408/924-5477 • [email protected]. • One Washington Square • San Jose, California 95192-0204

Santa Clara County Recycling Hotline and Website

4th Quarter Report: April 1, 2014 – June 30, 2014

1) Budget Status a) The contract ended within budget.

2) Projects and Activities Completed a) Outreach

i) CDR produced and printed business cards and a brochure to facilitate outreach.

ii) Social Media Guide/Updates (1) CDR staff provided informational updates to our Twitter, Facebook,

Pinterest and YouTube accounts. Our intent is to support our outreach methods using social media to ultimately raise the public’s awareness of CDR’s County-wide recycling information services.

b) Publication CDR-06: City Recycling and Garbage Services in Santa Clara County i) This guide which contains information about each city’s recycling and

garbage program was completed and posted to RecycleStuff.org. c) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

i) Many websites contain a page that answers some common questions from visitors. This project populated a list of responses to some common recycling questions received at the CDR. The FAQ’s will be posted on the new site.

d) Junk Mail Kit i) CDR has updated its Junk Mail Kit (JMK). Staff used data from CDR’s

original kit, internet sources, and from BayROC which apparently is no longer supporting its JMK. CDR, which conceived and published the original JMK, has revised and updated its original version. The final guide will be made available on the revised RecycleStuff website.

e) California County Recycling Links i) This project identified and collated a list of main recycling websites for each

County within the state. This list serves as a guide for residents who come across the CDR website but may live outside of Santa Clara County. The links are being uploaded to the new website.

f) Green Cleaning Alternatives i) This guide provides users with natural cleaning alternatives that can be

produced at home with common solutions and materials. The concept is to reduce the use and disposal of hazardous materials. The guide will be posted on the new website.

g) Green Gifts i) The Green Gift Guide is intended to reduce waste. Gift giving can be “green”

when considering source reduction and reuse. Reuse of common items that have reached their point of disposal can be fun and informative for the general

Santa Clara County Recycling Hotline Quarter Report 1

public when they are transformed into art or useful products. Reinforcing reuse as a top priority along the waste management hierarchy is a goal of the CDR. By offering a list of green reuse gift ideas that provide for ‘wasteless” gift giving and a mechanism to transform everyday discards into new, useful applications. These lists have been put into a single document that will be available on the new website.

h) Paint Care i) Staff reviewed the PaintCare website and contacted each listed company to

verify paint take-back service providers. These companies were then added to the RecycleStuff website. A paint take-back flow chart was also developed and will be placed on the revised RecycleStuff site.

3) Projects & Activities In-Progress a) Website Revision

i) CDR retained two contractors to revise RecycleStuff.org; an engineer and a graphic artist. It was determined to use Bootstrap as an operating platform as it can seamlessly function on multiple devices, smart phone, tablets and computers. A new, simplified search function with a tabular results page was developed and tested on a beta site for transfer to a beta Bootstrap site. The transfer did not go as planned; causing a delay as revisions to the original programming is required. Additional material developed by CDR student-staff is awaiting upload to the new site. The original engineer was replaced and the new engineer is working to complete the transfer and to assure compatibility with data entry and management functions. CDR met the in-kind hours requirement for this project in November 2013 (documented by the SJSURF) and continued to provide staff hours at no cost throughout the term of this contract.

b) Resource Materials Analysis Project (RMA) i) The goal of this project is to enhance the RecycleStuff website with

informational data sheets about the recycling of select materials that can be found on the site when doing a recycling search. Data is being retrieved from market-affiliated associations, government publications and peer reviewed journals. About 8 “recycling stories” have been completed and will be on the new website. About 25 more are in various stages of completion. This information will be available on the revised RecycleStuff.org.

c) CDR Guide 01 National Reuse and Recycling Information Resources; Update i) This document contains contact information for government agencies, trade

associations, and recycling and waste management journals. This project involves collecting and verifying data to ensure that the information within this guide is up-to-date and valuable for those seeking detailed research sources. The final guide will be posted on the revised RecycleStuff.org.

d) Recycled Content Resources i) This guide provides a substantial resource of catalogs and directories for

recycled content products/materials. The guide will be posted to the new RecycleStuff website.

e) CDR Staff: Where Are They Now? i) The CDR has provided a service-learning experience for nearly 600 SJSU

students. It is our hope that their time working at the CDR has taught them professional skills that can be applied to their professional careers. This project looks to reconnect with past CDR interns too see where they are today and how their time working in the CDR affected their career trajectory. Emails were sent to former members of the CDR. The final result of this project will be displayed on the website, highlighting how the County/CDR

Santa Clara County Recycling Hotline Quarter Report 2

collaboration helped students become ‘waste managers” when they entered the work force. This project will continue on a continuing basis, as more responses accumulate over the coming months.

f) Environmental Stewardship and Recycling Certifications i) Certifications exist from a variety of sources for a variety of environmental

services and products. Ranging from green building standards to zero waste certification for cities and businesses, the environmental sector has undergone a mass movement towards more verifiable metrics of evaluation. It is the intent of this project to list and define these certifications and to note companies in our database that have them. This project will continue into the first quarter of the new period.

g) Trash It! (Products that cannot be recycled) i) Much attention is given to what can be recycled that we sometimes forget

about all the materials that simply cannot be recycled at this time. The intent of this project is to populate a database of materials that cannot be recycled; it will be a quick guide to inform individuals about which materials should simply be placed in the trash bin. As collection specifics vary from city to city a separate database for each city is being populated for three categories of waste hauling: single family homes, multi-family homes and businesses. Data has been collected from each city and service provider. CDR is contemplating how to portrait the info on RecycleStuff.org in consideration of budgetary priorities.

4) Staffing a) Steven Hirsch has replaced Pauline Khek, who has graduated, as Administrative

Manager. We are currently staffed for the Summer semester and will recruit staff for Fall semester staff in mid-August. i) In the Spring semester, 21 students enrolled to work at CDR. All were trained

to work on the hotline and assigned to projects. 5) Inquiry Tracking: This report will be forwarded in a separate document. 6) Invoice: The SJSU Research Foundation will process the invoice.

Santa Clara County Recycling Hotline Quarter Report 3

2014 Recycling Hotline/Website/Email Inquiry Tracking

Web Question Type

2014

Cam

pbel

l

Cupe

rtin

o

Gilro

y

Los A

ltos

Los A

ltos H

ills

Los G

atos

Milp

itas

Mon

te S

eren

o

Mor

gan

Hill

Mtn

. Vie

w

Palo

Alto

San

Jose

Sant

a Cl

ara

Sara

toga

Sunn

yval

e

Uni

ncor

pora

ted

Und

ecla

red

Out

of C

ount

y

Call

Tota

l

Recy

cleS

tuff.

org

*

e-m

ail

Inqu

iry T

otal

1-Re

cycl

e St

art-

up

2-Ci

ty P

rogr

ams

3-Re

cycl

e / R

euse

4-In

ter-

org.

Ref

erra

ls

5-Pu

blic

atio

ns

6-Ge

nera

l Inf

o.

7-U

ndec

lare

d

Tota

l **

January 4 8 0 1 0 2 3 0 2 2 1 86 8 4 0 0 24 4 149 16038 15 16,202 0 22 96 4 1 9 17 149

February 1 3 1 4 1 1 3 0 1 1 4 84 15 3 2 0 18 5 147 15396 10 15,553 0 26 107 3 0 4 7 147

March 5 2 1 0 0 2 5 0 1 2 0 90 6 4 1 0 18 0 137 14531 12 14,680 0 16 97 8 0 9 7 137

April 1 5 1 5 0 3 6 0 5 2 2 72 3 0 2 0 22 3 132 12227 12 12,371 0 22 95 8 0 3 4 132

May 1 0 1 3 0 3 6 0 1 3 2 42 3 4 0 0 26 0 95 13823 13 13,931 0 8 80 2 0 2 3 95

June 3 5 3 1 0 4 4 0 1 1 2 69 9 2 2 0 18 2 126 20228 14 20,368 1 15 104 1 0 2 3 126

July 0 0 0

August 0 0 0

September 0 0 0

October 0 0 0

November 0 0 0

December 0 0 0

Total 15 23 7 14 1 15 27 0 11 11 11 443 44 17 7 0 126 14 786 92,243 76 93,105 1 109 579 26 1 29 41 786

30 76

City Population *** 41

,993

59,9

46

52,4

13

29,9

69

8,35

4

30,5

32

70,0

92

3,45

0

41,1

97

76,7

81

66,8

61

1,00

0,53

6

121,

229

30,8

87

147,

055

91,8

32

n/a

n/a

1,87

3,12

7

Population as % of County 2.

24%

3.20

%

2.80

%

1.60

%

0.45

%

1.63

%

3.74

%

0.18

%

2.20

%

4.10

%

3.57

%

53.4

2%

6.47

%

1.65

%

7.85

%

4.90

%

n/a

n/a

% of Tele Inquiries-YTD 1.

91%

2.93

%

0.89

%

1.78

%

0.13

%

1.91

%

3.44

%

0.00

%

1.40

%

1.40

%

1.40

%

56.3

6%

5.60

%

2.16

%

0.89

%

0.00

%

16.0

3%

1.78

%% of Inquiry Type -YTD 0.

13%

13.8

7%

73.6

6%

3.31

%

0.13

%

3.69

%

5.22

%

100.

00%

% of Total Referrals-YTD

*** California Department of Finance, City/County Population Estimates 01/01/14

Number of Telephone Inquiries E-mail

* Represents page views

** Some residents may call with more than one question type.

CDR Student Hours and Projects: Quarterly Report Spring/Summer 2014 (Apr, May, June)Name: Phone Calls: Emails: Hours:

Andrew 43 4 Paint Care/E-Waste 79.5

Brian 7 0 Junk Mail Kit 57.75

Cassidy 8 1 Recycled-Content Products 19.75

Cristian 10 0 Testing Beta-Website/New Companies/Oil 75.75

Cindy 12 2 Verify Companies in Santa Clara County / New Companies/Bike Companies 52.5

Ivonne 12 0 HHW Cleaning Alternatives/Polystyrene RMA 46.25

Jessa 27 2 Paint Care 45.5

Juan 13 0 RMA-Carpets/CRV 17.25

Jason 12 0 RMA – add materials /Verify Web Links – Haulers and Cities / New Companies 13.5

Justin 46 6 RMA – Master List/Manager 158.5

Katerina 5 1 CDR Guide 1/Thermostat Companies 24.75

Klayton 2 6 “Where are they now?”/Internships/New Companies 7.75

Mika 8 3 E-Steward Definitions /Testing Beta-Website/ New Companies 50

Paige 19 0 RMA – Prescription Drugs/Gift Waste Reduction 42.75

Pauline 38 3 Administrative Manager Tasks 124.5

Roshan 11 1 RMA(add materials)/Cans and Bottles 54.25

Ryan 27 0 New Companies Master List / Yellow Pages Project 31

Sharon 8 0 Green Gifts/Pinterest 21

Sheena 5 0 Social Media/Facebook 63.25

Steven 32 10 RMA – Needles/Syringes 51

Werner 14 1 RMA – Textiles/Clothing 48

Yoni 35 3 Trash It! project 46.75TOTAL: 351 39 1051.75

Project(s):