The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/18/1990 AGENDA INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITI'EE MEETING CITY/COUNTY June 18, 1990 11:30 A.M. County of Kern Host - Venus Room, Bakersfield Convention Center Councilmembers attending - Pat Smith, Chairperson Kevin McDermott Conni Brunni 1. Union Avenue Enhancement Project (John Stinson) (City Staff - Jake Wager) 2. Highspeed/Ught Rail transportation update (Joel Heinrichs) (City Staff - Ed Schulz) 3. Fair Housing (Geary Taylor) (City Staff - Jake Wager) 4. Underground Storage Tanks (Geary Taylor) (City Staff - Dennis Needham) 5. Congestion Management Relief Plan (Dale Mills) (City Staff - Ed Schulz) 6. Solid Waste Management Issues (Paul Dow) (City Staff - Paul Dow) 7. Metropolitain Recreation and Park District (Dale Hawley) (City Staff - Lee Andersen) 8. Set date and agenda for next meeting City Staff Attending meeting - Lee Andersen Paul Dow Dale Hawley Dennis Needham Art Saalfield Ed Schulz John Stinson Jake Wager ICRC MEETING June 18 - 11:30 A.M. Bakersfield Convention Center - Venus Room 1. Union Avenue Beautification (John Stinson) 2. High Speed/Light Raft (Joel Heimichs) 3. Fair Housing Update (Geary Taylor) ~ 4. Underground Tanks (Geary Taylor) '~ 5. Congestion Management Plan (L. Dale Milis)-~t 6. Solid Waste Management Issues (Paul Dow) 7. Metro Park & Recreation District (Dale Hawley) MEMORANDUM June 14, 1990 TO: INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE Patricia Smith, Chair Conni Brunni Kevin McDermott FROM: JOHN W. STINSON~, ~ISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: MEETING OF JUNE 18, 1990 The County is hosting the City/County Intergovernmental Relations Committee meeting for: Monday, June 18, 1990 11:30 a.m. Bakersfield Convention Center, Venus Room Please note the 11:30 a.m. time and the change of location. A copy of the agenda and backup information for Item 6 - Solid Waste Management Issues are attached. JWS:jp Attachment cc: J. Dale Hawley Lee Andersen Paul Dow Dennis Needham Art Saalfield Ed Schulz John W. Stinson Jake Wager AGENDA INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMR-rEE MEETING CITY/COUNTY June 18, 1990 11:30 A.M. County of Kern Host - Venus Room, Bakersfield Convention Center Councilmembers attending - Pat Smith, Chairperson Kevin McDermott Conni Brunni 1. Union Avenue Enhancement Project (John Stinson) (City Staff - Jake Wager) 2. Highspeed/Light Rail transportation update (Joel Heinrichs) (City Staff - Ed Schulz) 3. Fair Housing (Geary Taylor) (City Staff - Jake Wager) 4. Underground Storage Tanks (Geary Taylor) (City Staff - Dennis Needham) 5. Congestion Management Relief Plan (Dale Mills) ~-}~~ /'2 ~ ~ - ~-,~''~,,~_.-~.~' >. (City Staff - Ed Schulz) 6. Solid Waste Management Issues (Paul Dow) (City Staff - Paul Dow) 7. Metropolitain Recreation and Park Districl (Dale Hawley) (City Staff - Lee Andersen) 8. Set date and agenda for next meeting City Staff Attending meeting - Lee Andersen Paul Dow Dale Hawley Dennis Needham Art Saalfield Ed Schulz John Stinson Jake Wager /////r" ~ ~,//Depar~fm/ent of DALE MILLS PUBLIC WORKS Director of Public Work~ 2700 "M" Street, Suite ~500 County Surveyor l~ker~field, CA 93301 Counted [load Commissioner Phone: (805) 861-2481 Fax: (805) 324-1715 April :18, 1990 Fi]e: 23250 O!ty Managers: AB 939 IMPLEMENTATION WASTE cHARACTERIZATION STUDIES The AB 939 Workshop held April 11, 1990, was a success. We thank everyone for their participation. Some good input was received and.questions asked. The Workshop keyed on the Waste Characterization Oomponent of the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements. Attention was focused on the tact that the intent of AB 939 is .to hold all jurisdictions separately accountable for complying. Each City and the Gounty preparing separate Waste Characterization Studies will be very inefficient and costly. By coordinating this effort, efficiency can be increased, cost to each jurisdiction reduced and separate accountability in the reporting can still be maintained. The attached report has been revised based on input at the meeting. It would appear, that the most cost effective approach to prepare the Waste Characterization Study as required by AB 939 will be through a combined program of City and Oounty cooperation utilizing a single consultant. We urge each City To review this report and decide soon which alternate they will support. The timeline for implementation is short, so action must be taken soon. The auestion of cost for preparing the Source Reduction and Recycling (SR&R) Element also came up at the Workshop. Staff has contacted various consultants involved in The field capable of the work and have compiled rough cost estimates as listed in the following table: APR 2 0 990 CITY OF BAKERS~ELD City Managers Page 2 Cost of City SR&R Element Arvin $ 60,000 Bakersfield 140,000 California City '50,000 Delano 70,000 Maricopa 40,000 McFarland 50,000 Shafter 60,000 Rtdgecrest 80,000 Taft 50,000 Tehachapi 50,000 Wasco 50,000 These estimates assume the work to be completed entirely by consultants. We intend to discuss the potent/a] for joint'County and ~Otty efforts in regards to this effort in subsequent meetings. At this time, we don't know to what extent jurisdictions will benefit from joint efforts. If you have any questions regarding this material or desire assistance in this matter, please call DOug Landon of this department. Very ~ly yours, ~ LDM:ab Attachment L-30.D9 cc: DL/HJE/EWRE/GS IMPLEMENTING AB 939 SOLID WASTE CltAI~CTERIZATION STUDIES Solid Waste Management Division Kern County Public Works April 1990 MISC-5.D9 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDIES ALTERNATIVES The County and all eleven cities will be held accountable To implement AB 939 by preparing waste characterization studies as a component of the Source Reduction and Recycling Elements. Waste characterization studies obtain and compile data and Source Reduction and Recycling Elements prepares plans based on The data. Public Resources Code repeatedly states that The cities will need To be part of AB 939 with Section 41813 stating That The California Integrated Waste Management Board may impose administrative civil penalties of not more than Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000) per day on any city or county which fails to submit an adequate plan. The 'solid waste data must be generated for each city and The county for unincorporated areas. For Kern County, this is a monumental task That each city and the County are individually responsible for. It appears that the work involved in performing a Waste Characterization Study can be accomplished most cost effectively by combining forces and coordinating a single effort. Even if The work is combined into a single effort or single report, the data must still be segregated for each City and the County unincorporated area. The County and Cities must reach agreement as To how this work will be performed and how the work will. be funded to meet The required deadlines. The cost To obtain and compile solid waste data has a large range based on the amount of waste generated. Incorporated in this report are costs for The waste generation study for Two different alternatives. The first alternative reviews potential costs should each jurisdiction prepare separate studies in their individual efforts. The second alternative reviews potential costs should all jurisdictions work Together on a joint study. ALTERNATIVE SEPARATE STUDIES BY EACH JURISDICTION The cost to prepare separate studies for each jurisdiction is very high. Redundancy and inefficiencies Would plague any such effort. A survey among various waste management consultants provided information from which the estimates were computed. County This alternative for the County assumes full compliance with AB 939 using a consultant to only prepare the methodology to conduct the study and provide oversight responsibilities. County staff would prepare the plans and collect all the necessary data for the waste generation study. City City staff would probably have to fully rely on the consultant to propose the methodology, collect the data and prepare the final reports. Should the city retain or train qualified staff, the cost could be reduced. The following proposed costs could be realized by each 3urisdiction: Cost of Waste Generation Study County $ 350,000 City Arvin $ 45,000 Bakersfield 300,000 California City 35,000 Delano 85,000 Maricopa 30,000 McFarland 40,000 Shafter 45,000 Ridgecrest 120,000 Taft 40,000 Tehachapi 40,000 Wasco 60,000 City Total $ 840,000 Grand Total $1,290,000' *This is not the same as Option i from the previous draft of the report. Option 1 did not consider preparation of separate reports by each jurisdiction whereas this alternative does. -2- ALTERNATE 2 JOINT STUDY The 'cost to prepare a joint study for all jurisdictions would realize a cost savings for all jurisdictions involved by eliminating redundant tasks. This alternative assumes full compliance with AB 939 using a private consultant to prepare the proposed methodology, to conduct the waste generation study and provide oversight responsibilitY. The county would collect the data and prepare the actual waste generating study for the county as well as each city. In a sense, the county would act as the consultant for each city with the part-time involvement of existing professional staff of each city (i.e. city planner, city engineer) for demographics and specific municipal information. This alternative would relieve the city of retaining or training qualified staff and securing their own consultant. To fund the cost of the study, a cost share agreement based on population is proposed. The following estimated cost could be realized by each 3urisdiction: Cost of Waste Generation Study County $ 350,000 City Arvin $ 11,500 Bakersfield 215,000 6,000 California City 28 000 Delano 1 600 Maricopa 8 700 McFarland 10 000 Shafter 38 800 Ridgecrest 8 100 Taft 7 500 Tehachapi 15,000' Wasco City Total $ 350,200 Grand Total $ 700'200 MISC-5.D9 -3- SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE GENERATION STUDIES Chapter 29, Article 6.1 of the Emergency Regulations recently adopted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board {CIWMB} defines the reouirements for preparation of the Solid Waste Generation Study mandated in the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939). The intent of the solid waste generation study is to provide information necessary to plan and analyze recycling and source reduction alternatives as part of the County-wide Integrated Waste Management Plan {CoIWMP). The requirements spell out a very detailed and extensive study that will cost a great deal. The general extent of the requirements are outlined below. A copy of the revised Emergency Regulations presented to the CIWMB at their February 22, 199D meeting are available upon request. 1. Each City shall submit the initial solid waste generation study as part of its Source Reduction and Recycling (SRR) Element by July 1, 1991. Each county shall submit the initial solid waste generation study as part of its SRR Element by January t, .1991. It is expected that clean-up legislation will revise the County deadline to coincide with the cities'. 2. Date for the initial solid waste generation study shall have been collected during a continuous six month period. A revised SRR Element will be required to contain data for the solid waste generation study collected during a continuous twelve month period. This means the last date to begin continuous' testing is August 1, 1990. 3. Solid waste generation studies shall identify by volume and weights., the following waste categories: a. Paper: 1) corrugated containers 2) mi xed paper 3 ) newspaper 4) high grade ledger paper 5} other paper b. Plastics: 1) high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers 2} polyethylene terephthalate {PET} containers 3) film plastics 4) other plastics c. Glass: 1} refillable gl ass beverage containers 2) California Redemption Value glass 3) other recyclable glass 4) other non-recyclable glass -4- ~ ~ d. Metal s' - 1) aluminum cans · 2) tin cans and bi-metal containers 3) ferrous metals 4) non-ferrous metals including aluminum - scrap 5} white goods e. Yard waste, including leaves, grass, and prunings f. Other Organics: 1) food waste 2) tires and rubber products 3) wood wastes · 4) agricultural crop residues 5) manure g. Other Wastes: 1) inert solids, including rock, concrete, brick, sand, soil, fines textiles and leather ~ household hazardous waste materials and discarded household hazardous waste materials containers h. Special wastes: 1) ash 2) sewage sludge 3) industrial sludge 4) '~sbestos 5) auto shredder waste 6) auto bodies 7) other special wastes 4. Solid waste generation studies shall include a projection of the solid waste generated for each year of the next 15-year period following submittal of CoIWMP. 5. The total solid waste generated shall be computed as the total solid waste disposed of at permitted facilities plus the total solid waste diverted from permitted solid waste facilities. In equation form this is: GENERATED = DISPDSED + DIVERTED 6. The solid waste generation study shall identify solid waste generated by volume and weight and by material type from the following sources of generation: a) residential b) commercial c) industrial d) other sources It would appear from this requirement that all 32 material types must be reported for each of the 3 (or more) generation sources. -5- ?. Composition and Quantity of solid waste disposed shall be determined by either quantitative field analysis or materials flow methodologies or use of existing solid waste composition data from another jurisdiction. Data from another jurisdiction may only be used if population, number of residential dwelling units and number of commercial units are all within 10% of those in the other jurisdiction. The quantitative field analysis shall be conducted using sampling procedures identified in the Emergency Regulations. / EWRE:sg R687.5 -6-