HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1984/07/24 Item 11 r
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 11
Meeting Date 7-24-84
EM TITLE: Resolution //f/Adopting the San Diego County Unified
Hazardous Incident Contingency Plan
BMITTED BY: Director of Publi ety (4/5ths Vote: Yes No xx)
VIEWED BY: City Manager
t the March 15, 1984 meeting of the San Diego County Unified Disaster
)uncil, they adopted the Unified Hazardous Material Incident Contingency
Lan for San Diego County. The Disaster Council has asked each city to
iss a Resolution adopting this plan.
ECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution
)ARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable
ISCUSSION:
le San Diego County Unified Hazardous Material Incident Contingency
Lan was developed, by the County Office of Disaster Preparadness with input
rom cities and agencies throughout San Diego County.
.irpose
-ie purpose of this unified plan is to establish the organization and
?.lineate the responsibilities of county and city agencies in the event
E a hazardous material incident within San Diego County. It applies to
-ie individual cities, unincorporated areas and events that require a
.lti-jurisdictional response.
ze plan is designated as a policy statement and response reference. It
in no way intended to restrict, discourage or limit the time proven
Dsponse techniques of individual responders or administrators nor to
-2t as a response plan. City and County departments and individual
irisdictions are encouraged to develop checklists and Standard Operating
rocedures (SOPs) for their own use and attach them to this plan to cover
?ecific notifications and actions within their organizations .
)jectives
le objectives of this plan are to save lives, minimize injuries, protect
foperty and diminish environmental impact. Through a unified approach,
t is hoped to maximize the effectiveness of existing resources and to
lentify future needs for response equipment, personnel and planning.
zis plan follows the format of the State of California Hazardous Material
zcident Contingency Plan and is designed to be consistent with State
ad Federal response plans when an incident exceeds local capability.
:ope,
zcidents involving hazardous materials may vary from minor spills to
ijor disasters . They may occur on transportation routes , industrial sites,
In A-113 (Rev. 11/79)
Page 2
Item 11
Mtg. Date 7-24-84
zblic or private facilities, and can be expected to happen almost
zywhere and any time on land, water or in the air.
lis plan encompasses pre-emergency planning, emergency response
L-ocedures and post-emergency restoration.
its plan identifies areas of responsibility and determines which agencies
could perform specific required functions .
Zis plan outlines the limited Federal and State funding that is
iailable to assist in hazardous spill incidents . The plan points out
cat clean-up costs should be the responsibility of the party responsible
)r the incident but that a local jurisdiction may be required to pay the
L11 and seek reimbursement from the responsible party.
le plan contains an appendix which lists the name, address and phone
ambers of Hazardous Waste Haulers in San Diego County.
ESCAL IMPACT: None
P-7
_ ��-AIL\
COUNCIL CONFERENCE
AGENDA STATEMENT Item
Meeting Date 7/26/84
ITEM TITLE : Resolution "1 - Supporting Transit Organizational Structure Study Policy
Committee Recommendations and Legislation to Implement
Committee Recommendations
\(141
SUBMITTED BY : City Attorneys (4/5ths Vote: Yes No x )
At the Council meeting of July 17, 1984, Council directed the City
Attorney to report back on the legal implications of the Council 's
action in support of the legislation authorizing MTDB to take over
San Diego Transit.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council support the enabling legislation upon the condition
that the agreement between the City of San Diego and MTDB is
brought back to the City for its consideration prior to the take
over taking place.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
At the July 17 meeting, the City Attorney advised the City Council
that he had a conversation with the City Attorney of La Mesa, Lee
Knutson, in which Mr. Knutson expressed some reservations about
the take over of San Diego Transit by MTDB. At Council 's
direction, the City Attorney met with Mr. Knutson, Lynn McDougal,
the City Attorney of El Cajon, Roger Krauel, City Attorney of
Coronado, Curt Fitzpatrick, Senior Chief Deputy City Attorney of
San Diego, and Jack Limber, Counsel for MTDB to discuss some of
the concerns regarding MTDB ' s proposed takeover.
To understand the concerns, it is necessary to first explain the
current system of operation. San Diego Transit Corporation
operates public transportation for the City of San Diego. It is a
private nonprofit corporation separate from the City. It has no
assets, and its sole source of funding is the City of San Diego
and other contracting agencies. San Diego owns the buses, the
real property and approves a yearly operating budget for San Diego
Transit Corporation. SDTC has approximately an $8 million
unfunded pension liability. Assuming the worst case, if San Diego
Transit ran out of funds, former bus drivers, who would not
receive their pensions, would in all likelihood bring a lawsuit to
"pierce the corporate veil" and hold the City of San Diego liable.
MTDB now proposes to take the place of the City of San Diego and
provide the monies and assets necessary for SDTC to operate public
transportation in the City of San Diego. Under the law, MTDB
would "stand in the shoes" of the City of San Diego. While both
the City of San Diego and MTDB have concluded that they are not
Form A-113C (11/79)
Council Conference 7/26/84
Page Two
liable for any debts of SDTC, there is a legitimate concern that a
court would consider SDTC to be a "shell" corporation and pierce
the corporate veil in order to hold San Diego or MTDB liable for
debts of SDTC.
The next question is, if this were to happen, how would these
debts be paid. While there is a strong possibility that the state
would be called upon to step in and pay them, there also exists
the possibility that MTDB would have to absorb this liability
itself or spread it among its members. Given this concern, the
representatives of the City of San Diego and MTDB have agreed that
they would attempt to place provisions into the agreement between
San Diego and MTDB that would protect MTDB and its members from
any liability resulting from unfunded pension liability. They
also agree that the language of this contract would be brought
back before the City Council before the takeover could occur.
Legislation is also proposed to protect the cities from any new
liabilities.
The mere fact that there is an unfunded pension liability does not
mean that there will be some problem in the future. State law
presently requires this pension liability to be addressed within
forty years and that law is already ten years old. SDTC is
reportedly ahead of schedule in securing this debt. The indemnity
protection sought is for the purpose of protecting members of MTDB
if the worst case were to become a reality.
The action requested of Council is to endorse the enabling
legislation which would enable MTDB to take over San Diego
Transit. It does not require the takeover to proceed and the City
will have another opportunity to either support or oppose the take
over if it feels its concerns have not been adequately addressed
in the agreement between MTDB and the City of San Diego.
the
Chula Vi :-,i<,
} --- b
Dated ._.....�
PL- 1111 e