Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/06/11 Item 10 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 1..() ITEM TITLE: Meeting Date 6/11/91 Report: Cons i deri ng options for re-des i gnat i ng a Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) as required by the Cal ifornia Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 Principal Management Assistant SnYde~ SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ i/ (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No-X-) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires that each 1 oca 1 governi ng body re-des i gnate a Local Enforcement Agency to ensure that minimum standards for solid waste handling and disposal are met. The LEA must meet new State certification guidelines. It is responsible for solid waste facility permits, including application review, approval and CEQA review, and monthly inspections, enforcement and closure/post-closure requirements. Affected facilities include landfills, transfer stations, material recovery facilities, waste-to-energy plants, and composting projects. The certification guidelines for the LEA designation are now available in draft form and will soon be codified in regulations to be adopted by the State board (CIWM8) by August 1, 1991. Within 30 days of adoption of the regulations, each governing body is required to submit a letter of intent to the State on how the juri sdi ct i on intends to meet the requi rement. As an overview, there are three alternatives available. The City may: 1) designate the State (CIWMB); 2) establ i sh its own LEA; or 3) enter into an agreement with an appropriate jurisdiction (County) approved to perform the duties of the LEA. Failure to take any action will result in a designation of the State as the City's LEA by default. The County of San Diego is preparing to meet the State certification requirements and is offering to provide the service to the cities (Attachment A) . The request from the County to cons i der enteri ng into an agreement asks for an indication of interest by June 15, 1991. Although staff is pursuing additional information and clarification, this report advises Council of the need for a decision in the near future, discusses the alternatives in light of available information, and provides a preliminary recommendation to be followed up within the next three months. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Authorize the City Manager to send a letter of intent to the County of San Di ego regardi ng the City's pre 1 imi nary interest in des i gnat i ng the County as its LEA for solid waste management activities; and 2. Direct staff to return to Council in August 1991 with a final recommendation for designation. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservat ion Commi ss ion will review this report at its June 10, 1991 meeting. The Commission's comments and/or recommendat ions wi 11 be reported to the City Council duri ng the discussion of this item or forwarded subsequently in an informational report. 10-1 Page 2. Meeting Item 14 Date 6/11/91 DISCUSSION: Prior to the enactment of the Cal ifornia Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), minimum standards for solid waste handling and disposal were addressed for enforcement purposes in two categories. health-related and non-health related sol id waste matters. A jurisdiction could designate two di fferent LEA's if it so chose. The City of Chul a Vi sta chose to des i gnate the County of San Diego, Department of Health Services (DHS) as the LEA for health-related solid waste disposal and site storage regulations. For all other standards, the City retained co-LEA status with the County as did 14 other cities in the region. Under the new regul at ions, thi s practice will no longer be all owed and each governing body must designate a sole LEA to handle all matters related to sol id waste handl ing and disposal. Over the next few months, staff will be examining what changes this requirement will necessitate in the non-hea lth-rel ated enforcement act i vi ties the City is currently performi ng, such as 1 itter control, space all ocat i on rel at i ve to sol i d waste collection, etc. REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES The attached evaluation (Attachment B) details the advantages and disadvantages and the estimated fiscal impact of each alternative previously mentioned. At this time, it appears that the designation of the County Department of Health Services as the City's LEA is the most cost-effective and reasonable solution. That choice will retain the most amount of local control while not requiring that the City engage in a time-consuming and expensive endeavor to establish a staff of technical and professional experts in order to meet State cert i fi cat ion requi rements. Although the fundi ng mechani sm is still to be determined by the County, it is expected that the County's program will be funded from the Solid Waste Enterprise fund (tipping fees) and possibly new charges for permit review processes which will be paid directly by the appl icant. This choice would result in no direct cost to the City unless the City chose to establish its own facility. NECESSARY ACTIONS AND TIME LINES The designation process will not be complete until August 1992. At this time the County is requesting only a letter of intent in order to signal the City's interest in designation. By August 1991, the City will be requested to provide a resolution regarding intended designation. The County's request for certification will be submitted to the State in December 1991. Local LEA certifications are to be approved by the State by August 1, 1992 or the State becomes the City's LEA by default. It is stressed that the action recommended to Council at this time is preliminary in nature and not binding upon the City. Council action is being recommended because of the lead time necessary in the planning process for the LEA designation. FISCAL IMPACT: No direct cost to the City as a result of this action to provide a letter of intent to the County. Should the designation eventually take place, it is not expected that there will be any direct cost to the City. WPC 3699A 10..2- ATTACHMENT A NORMAN W. HICKEY CHIEF ADMINISTRATlVE OFFICE~ 16191631-6250 FAX (6191 557.4060 (!ltluntU of ~nn ~i~Bo CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101-2472 May 14, 1991 ' John D. Goss City Manaqer City of Chula vista 276 Fourth Avenue ChUla~' ta, CA 92010-2688 Dear . oss: The alifornia Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 requires that each governing body designate a Local Enforcement Agency (LEA). On May 2, 1991, the County of San Diego Department of Health Services (DHS) staff provided an overview of the draft regulations to the Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). A copy of our presentation is enclosed. The information provided to the TAC includes an overview of the responsibilities of an LEA, the requirements an LEA must meet in order to be designated and certified, and the time limitations in which each governing body must work. The information should also provide you with a better understanding of your governing body's options. ,... ,~ f4 In response to the new regulations, the DHS is actively preparing to be designated and become the certified LEA for the unincorporated areas of the county. In order to maintain consistency in solid waste enforcement, DHS would also like to act as the LEA for the other jurisdictions in the county. If your governinq body would like the DHS to act as the LEA for your jurisdiction, we request that you notify them of your intent, in writing, by June 15, 1991. Please direct your correspondence to: Gary Stephany, Deputy Director Environmental Health Services P. O. Box 85261 San Diego, California 92186-5261 If you have any questions, please contact Gary R. .Stephany, Deputy Director, Enyironmental Health Services at (619) 338-2211. Sincerely, W. HICKEY Administrative Officer NWH:cad Enclosure cc: city DPW Director "rlnt.1Qcv~,.3., ~ c , -t::::. Alternatives - DesiQnation of: A. State B. City of Chula Vista C. County of San Diego, Dept. of Health Services WPC 3700A AdvantaQes Greatest amount of local control Either has or will easily be able to meet certification requirements Most cost-effective choi ce EVALUATION OF LEA ATERNATIVES DisadvantaRes loss of local control Lack of staff and expertise to qualify for certification Lack of funding ATTACHMENT B Fiscal Imo8ct CIWMB staff S128/hr., not expenses, and member service service charge of including per diem charges, travel legal fees. Estimated $70,0aD/yr. for one full-time Registered Environmental Health Specialist, not including appropriate technical consultants, independent legal counsel, safety equipment, instruments and vehicles, and training. No direct cost to the City. Funding is expected to be provided from the County Solid Waste Enterprise Fund (through tipping fees) and permit review charges levied directly against the solid waste facility.