Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1978/11/28 Item 07CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~ ~ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. For meeting of 11/28/78 ~~ ITEM TITLE Resolution 9 3 80: Authorizing County of San Diego to Implement } Coordination of County-wide Litter Clean-up and Enforcement Program Under SB 650 SUBMITTED BY Cyity Manager C~ ITEM EXPLANATION''.. (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES N0~) ^ The Litter Control, Recycling and Resource Recovery Act (SB 650) was signed in 1977 '` to provide an annual fund allocated to public, private and non-profit agencies. This program provides''an opportunity for local entities to develop and implement a comprehensive effective litter control program. Funding is available under this Act for any combination of the following seven projects: ^ Litter Clean-up Litter Law Enforcement Resources & Energy Recovery Litter Receptacles Recycling Centers Special Recycling Projects Education & Public Awareness Allocations to cities and counties for Litter Clean-up and Litter Law Enforcement are predetermined by the State Solid Waste Management Board based on a population formula. Staff has been notified by the County that Chula Vista is allotted $10,777 for Litter Clean-up and $1,556 for Litter Law Enforcement. All local entities have the option of developing a coo>!'dinated expenditure plan or applying for the funds separately. Essentially, the City has the following three options: 1. Contract with the County to implement a regional program. The total X12,000 would be spent at their discretion. 2. Contract with the County to apply for funding and administer a program we develop, in exchange for 5% of our grant. 3. Apply for and administer the grant with City staff. continued on Supplemental Page 2 ~XH1~115 Agreement ~ Resolution XX Ordinance Plat Notification List Other ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on FINANCIAL IMPACT N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolution BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION COUNCIL ACTION ~ ~ ~;, ^, Supplemental Page 2 Item No. ~ Meeting of 11/28/78 Using the first alternative, the City would adopt a resolution contracting with the County. The specific use of the $12,000 would be left to the County's discretion, as part of a regiional effort. Any work done in connection with this program would be coordinated by County staff. With the second alternative, the City would also contract with the County. However, City staff would develop the program administered by the County. County staff would handle all details and, in exchange for these efforts, the County would claim 5% of the total grant. The third option requires the City to apply for and administer the grant. Under the grant provisions, the City is required to: a. Apply behavioral science techniques in litter control. b. Improve sanitation technology. c. Provide public education. d. Apply vigorous enforcement. e. Prepare an annual report on progress of cleaning up litter. All applications for grant funds must include a description of the method used to determine the effectiveness of the proposed program. An annual report will be sub- mitted to summarize the progress on litter clean-up in the area and include the number of citations issiued that year for violations of State and local litter laws. In addition, all Litter Control Grant Recipients must be willing to participate in any litter-related studies initiated by the Board for the purpose of program evaluation. A thorough account- ing system must be maintained, and all programs are subject to audit. A grant of only $10,000 will not allow an elaborate program of Litter Control. The money could be used to buy equipment (for example, a small version of a street sweeper used for parking lots.), but we do not have available staff to operate the machine. The money might also be used to sponsor community-wide functions, similar to the TRASHATHON conducted by Bonita Vista High School's LIFE Program. However, this type of program would require extensive staff time to coordinate. Also, it might receive adverse publicity due to the many programs we have eliminated since the passage of Proposition 13. Additionally, staff does not feel litter can be effectively controlled in our City with the amount of funding available. Finally, the Council approved the "San Diego County Solid Waste Management Plan 1976-2000", which identified', litter control and enforcement as a regional concern. It recommends ' that litter programs be coordinated County-wide to maximize their effectiveness. This can be achieved by contracting through the County for a coordinated implementation of the SB650 programs. Because litter wbs identified as a regional concern and because the grant amount is so small, staff recommends we contract with the County under Option 2, The County will administer the giant for us, so it will require minimal staff time. However, the City will retain cont~ol over the development of a program. It is staff's in ent to assist the County in developing a coordinated County-wide plan. If this effort i unsatisfactory, the City can develop its own program with. the County serving as admin'strator. Staff will maintain contact with the County's Department of Sanitation and F ood Control in developing a joint endeavor. DAS:mab y3 ~6