HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1984/10/30 Item 11a COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Item //
Meeting Date 10/30/84
ITEM TITLE: Resolution ��f0Z D Supporting Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act
(Proposition 27)
SUBMITTED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No )
At the September 6 Redevelopment Agency meeting, Agency members requested staff to report
back to the City Council with recommendations regarding Proposition 27, which would
authorize bonds for the cleanup of hazardous waste materials.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution in support of Proposition 27
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N.A.
DISCUSSION
There are two existing financial resources available to the State of California for cleanup
of hazardous waste sites:
. The State Superfund Program. This program was created in 1981 to finance
cleanup of hazardous waste sites that pose a threat to public health or the
environment. This fund is supported by $10 million in annual tax revenues paid
by generators of hazardous waste. Currently, 93 sites in the State have been
identified in which contaminated waste needs to be cleaned up.
. The Federal Superfund Program. The federal superfund monies are awarded on a
"matching" basis with the federal government Providing $9 for every $1 made
available by the State for cleaning up sites that qualify for the national priority
list. Of the 546 sites currently on the national priority list, only 19 are in
California. These same 19 are also on the State's priority list.
It doesn't appear that sufficient monies have been targeted for cleaning up hazardous waste
sites to date. This is evidenced by two factors,
. Cleanup of these hazardous waste sites is expensive. The Federal Environmental
Protection Agency estimates the average cost to clean up each site on the
national priority list is approximately $7.5 million. The estimated total cost
for cleaning up the 93 hazardous waste sites in the State has been placed at
$300 million to $1 .5 billion.
. The current pace Of hazardous waste site cleanup is slow. As of July 1 , 1984, the
State Superfund Program had completed cleanup of only 1 of the 93 hazardous
waste sites in the State. Cleanup of 2 other sites is scheduled to be completed
by 1985. At the current rate of expenditure, the job of cleaning up hazardous
waste sites will not be completed until the middle of the next century:
continued
=orm A-113 (Rev. 11/79)
Page 2, Item
• Meeting Date 10/30/84
The Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act of 1984 is designed to provide additional
monies to fund cleanup of contaminated sites. Significant points to note about
the Act include the following:
. The Act would authorize the State to sell $100 million in general
obligation bonds.
. The bonds are potentially self-liquidating. Seven potential sources for
the monies needed to make principal and interest payments are to be
utilized in the following order:
-Accrued interest and premiums earned on the pro-
ceeds from the bonds sold by the state.
-Recoveries from those responsible for the contamina-
tion at sites where bond proceeds have been used to
finance cleanup actions.
-Federal Superfund moneys that are available to finance
cleanup actions at sites where bond proceeds have been
used.
-Moneys appropriated by the Legislature from the
Hazardous Substance Account.
-Moneys available from the Superfund Bond Trust
Fund created by the measure. This fund would receive
a minimum of $5 million annually from the Hazardous
Substance Account.
-Moneys derived from any other source.
-The General Fund.
Monies from the State General Fund would only be utilized if monies from
the first six sources were not available. The General Fund, however,
would be reimbursed, with interest, when and if additional funds from
one of these six sources becomes available.
. The Hazardous Substance Account Tax, paid by generators of hazardous
waste, would be increased from $10 million to $15 million annually.
. The State Department of Health Services or the regional water quality
control boards would be required to prepare and approve remedial action plans
for all Superfund sites. In addition, the department or the State Water
Resources Control Board would have to respond to requests to preparc or
approve remedial action plans for specified sites.
. The Attorney General would be required to recover from responsible parties
any cleanup costs incurred under the bond act program.
. A binding arbitration panel would be required to apportion cleanup costs
among participating responsible parties who do not contest liability.
. Strict liability would be established as the legal standard for recovering
the cost of cleanup action.
The Legislative Analyst has estimated that there would not be a net cost to the
State General Fund if this proposition -is approved due to revenues from the
Hazardous Substance Account Tax and the availability of revenue from the other
six sources mentioned previously.
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 10/30/84
Additional information relevant to consideration of the need for a more aggressive cleanup
of hazardous waste sites is detailed below:
. 80% of the toxic dumpsites in the State are leaking into our groundwater.
. Groundwater provides 50% of our drinking water Statewide.
. Already, vast areas of the State, such as the San Gabriel and San Fernando
Valleys, have had their groundwater polluted by toxic waste.
FISCAL IMPACT: N.A.
JDG:mab
!--
.
/7,-,A
UNANIMOUS CONSENT FORM
IT IS HEREBY REQUESTED by the undersigned that the following
item, with the unanimous consent of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista, be considered and acted upon by the Council pursuant
to the provisions of Sec.2.04 .090 of the Chula Vista City Code.
Resolution - Supporting Propostion 27 , the Hazardous
Substance Cleanup Bond Act
1/C":
:%,,i„, ..
G✓
(Signature)
Unanimous Consent of the City Council, as indicated by the following
signatures :
,�,,// r
e(��!.c � /�C .rte ` .�.. / e
/I' i
1- IAA A .., P. t a , i
..
__ r
k--1/i79?C)
CA-301