Loading...
6 - Legislative AnalysisProtecting our comm unity's health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services. www.cmsdca.gov Costa Mesa Sanitary District ….an Independent Special District California Legislative Analysis The Legislative Analysis provides the Board of Directors with analyses of measures pendi ng in Sacramento that are of inte rest to the District. On July 22, 2010, the Board of Directors gave authority to the President to write support and/or opposition letters on behalf of the Board if that position has been taken by an agency the District is a member of. For all other bills, s taff recommendations for formal District positions on legislation will be agendized and presented for Board action at their regular Board of Directors meetings. When the Board takes formal action on a piece of legislation, the President will advocate the support or opposition of individual bill s as approved by the Board. This Legislative Analysis also provides the Board of Directors with informati ve updates on State issues. BRIEFING: For the Legislative Session of 2014, Governor Jerry Brown received a total of 1,074 bills. This was the highest number of bills passed by the Legislature since 2008. According to the California Senate Office of Research, Brown vetoed 13 percent of the bills, his second lowest veto percentage since returning to office in 201 1. The following analysis includes bills that the District has supported/opposed for th is legislative session. Also included is CSDA’s Legislative Hot Sheet, which provides a comprehensive breakdown of some of the bills that CSDA has advocated for. DISTR ICT BILLS: 1. SUPPORT : AB 1594 (Williams) AB 1826 (Chesbro) SB 2 70 (Padilla , de Leon, and Lara) 2. OPPOSE : AB 194 (Campos) Legislative Analysis October 14 , 2014 Page 2 of 4 CMSD SUPPORT BILLS A B 1594 (Williams ) Solid Waste: Recycling – As Intro duced on February 3 , 2014 – SUPPORT Author: Assembly Member Williams Status: Approved by the Governor on 09/28/14 Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT Supported By: Californians Against Waste Opposed By: Watched By: This bi ll, commencing January 1, 2020, would provide that the use of green material, not including materials left over from the composting process, as alternative daily cover does not constitute diversion through recycling and would be considered disposal for pur poses of the act. The bill would authorize a jurisdiction that, as a result of these provisions, would not be able to meet certain diversion requirements to apply to the department for up to a 2 -year delay from being subject to these provisions. The bill w ould require the application form, to be developed by the department, to require the applicant to include specified information. The bill would impose a state -mandated local program by imposing new duties upon local agencies with regard to the diversion of solid waste. The District has supported this bill because it is aligned with the goals we hope to achieve through the Organics Recycling program. The program will keep the District’s organic waste out of the landfill and help the District achieve 75 perc ent diversion from landfills. Existing law authorize d green waste to be used as an alternative daily cover as well as exempt ions from a statewide disposal fee collected by the Board of Equalization. This exemption, coupled with the recycling credit local g overnments receive toward their diversion goals, ends up encouraging the use of green materials for ADC instead of other more environmentally friendly uses. A B 1826 (Chesbro ) Solid Waste: Recycling –As Introduced on February 3, 2014 – SUPPORT Author: A ssembly Member Williams Status: Approved by the Governor on 09/28/14 Hearing Date: Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT Supported By: Californians Against Waste Opposed By: Watched By: This bill places requirements on busine sses, multi -family premises, and jurisdictions to dive rt organic waste from landfills . This bill would require a business, when arranging for gardening or landscaping services, to require the organic waste generated by those services to comply with the req uirements of this act. This bill would require each jurisdiction, on and after January 1, 2016, to implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste from the businesses subject to this act, thereby imposing a state -mandated local progra m by imposing new duties on local government agencies. The bill would require each jurisdiction to report to the department on its progress in implementing the organic waste recycling program, and the department would be required to review whether a jurisd iction is in compliance with this act. Legislative Analysis October 14 , 2014 Page 3 of 4 This bill would authorize a local government agency to charge and collect a fee from an organic waste generator to recover the local government agency’s costs incurred in complying with this act. The District has sup ported this bill because it is strongly aligned with the goals we hope to achieve through the Organics Recycling program. The program will keep the District’s organic waste out of the landfill and help the District achieve 75 percent diversion from landfil ls. Existing law authorize d green waste to be used as an alternative daily cover as well as exempt ions from a statewide disposal fee collected by the Board of Equalization. This exemption, coupled with the recycling credit local governments receive toward their diversion goals, ends up encouraging the use of green materials for ADC instead of other more environmentally friendly uses. S B 270 (Padilla, de Leon, and Lara ) Single Use Grocery Bags –As Introduced on February 14 , 2013 – SUPPORT Author: Senator Alex Padilla, Senator Kevin de Leon, Senator Ricardo Lara Status: Signed by the Governor on 09/30/14 Hearing Date: None Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT Supported By: Californians Against Waste Opposed By: Watched By: Th is bill p hases out single -use plastic grocery bags. Reusable, paper, and (in certain jurisdictions) compostable plastic bags can only be distributed with a minimum 10 cent charge. This includes standards and incentives for plastic bag manufacturers to tran sition to making reusable bags. This bill seeks to reduce those costs by prohibiting single -use plastic grocery bags in supermarkets and drugstores starting July 1, 2015. By July 1, 2016, smaller grocery stores and convenience stores must also comply wit h the requirements. Other bags (paper, reusable, and in some jurisdictions, compostable) are allowed only with a ten cent minimum charge. Local ordinances adopted before September 1, 2014, which currently cover a third of the state's population, would be p rotected under a grandfathering clause. The District has supported this bill because it encourage s consumers to bring their own bags and to reduce litter. The District is committed to providing a sustainable environment that is free of solid waste polluti on and continues to promote waste reduction practices. CMSD OPPOSE BILLS AB 194 (Campos ) Open Meetings: Protections for Public Criticism: Penalties for Violations –As Introduced on January 28, 2013 – OPPOSE Author: Assembly Member Campos Status: Vet oed by Governor 0 9 /2 7 /14 Hearing Date: None Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT Supported By: Opposed By: CASA, CSDA, ACSA Watched By: League of California Cities Legislative Analysis October 14 , 2014 Page 4 of 4 This bill would make it a misdemeanor for a member of a legislati ve body, while acting as the chairperson of a legislative body of a local agency, to prohibit public criticism protected under the act. This bill would authorize a district attorney or any interested person to commence an action for the purpose of obtainin g a judicial determination that an action taken by a legislative body of a local agency in violation of the protection for public criticism is null and void, as specified. Due to the fact that this bill would establish a new misdemeanor crime, the bill wou ld impose a state -mandated local program. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. The District opposed this bill because it create d unwarranted misdemeanor charges against local legislative body chair s who limit public criticism at public meetings . The effect could potentially lead to unnecessary litigation and deter civic leadership involvement. LEGISLATIVE HOT SHEET – END OF THE YEAR EDITION October 6 , 2014 This End of the Y ear Edition focuses on a few of the most important bills either signed or vetoed by G overnor Jerry Brown . Please stay tuned for a comprehensive annual report in the coming weeks. For more information, be sure to visit www.csda.net/advocacy for the latest and comprehensive breakdown of the hundreds of bills that CSDA tracks for its membership. SIGNED AB 52 (Gatto): CEQA – Native American Consultation – O ppose – Creates a new CEQA consultation process between Native American tribes and lead agencies for projects that impact tribal cultural resources. Beginning July 1, 2015, lead agencies must consult with Native American tribes, who have requested consultation, pr ior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report. Native American tribes include those that are federally recognized or Native American tribes located in California and on the contact list maintain ed by the Native American Heritage Commission. AB 1522 (Gonzalez): Paid Sick Leave – Oppose – Titled the “Healthy Workplaces , Healthy Families Act of 2014” this law requires al l employers to grant up to 3 days of paid sick leave to employees that have been employed for 30 days or l onger. Sick leave accrues at 1 hour for every 30 hours work, and may be taken following 90 days of employment. Local agency policies meeting the minimum accrual and leave -time po licies established by AB 1522 may serve as acceptable alternatives to the law, which takes effect July 1, 2015. AB 2040 (Garica): Public Official Compensation Posting – Neutral – Requires that any local public agency that maintains a website must include a link on their website to the State Controller’s Office publi c compensation online database www.publicpay.ca.gov . Alternatively, th e local agency may post to its website its local officials’ compensation data as reported to the State Controller’s Office to meet the requirements of the bill. This law takes effect January 1, 2015. Earlier versions of the measure would have required local agencies to maintain their own online databases with salary, benefit, and reimbursement data for all elected officials, s taff, and consultants. SB 628 (Beall): Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFD) – Support – Effectively replaces former redevelopment agencies (RDAs) with a collaborative and accountable new infrastructure and economic development tool for speci al districts and other local agencies. This new law permits these agencies to invest property tax increment and other available funding to improve infrastructure. Most importantly, EIFDs will prohibit the diversion of property tax revenue away from special districts and other taxing enti ties without their consent. EIFDs will also allow each participating taxing entity to appo int a representative to its board, literally giving special districts a seat at the table. VETOED AB 543 (Campos): Translation of CEQA Notices – concerns . Would have required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare new CEQA guidelines to establish criteria for a lead agency to assess the need for translating certain CEQA notices into non -English languages. AB 2126 (Bonta): Mediation and Factfinding – Oppose – Would have created significant delays in the meet and confer process by creating mandatory mediation at the request of either party in a negotiation between a public agency and recognized employee organization. Also , would have required a mediat or to be agreed upon within five days, or if no agreement could be met , would have authorized the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to select a mediator. In addition, would hav e allowed finding panels to selectively determine which information to include or exclude in their dispute evaluation and take under consideration any matters subject to the meet and confer process, rather than be limited to the source of impasse. AB 2493 (Bloom): Mardi Gras Bonds – Oppose – Would have allowed 39 former redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to spend $750 million in bonds that were not under contract before June 28, 2011. Due to interest rates in excess of eight percent, taken on during the “Ma rdi Gras” period following the g overnor’s RDA dissolution announcement, this would have ultimately cost special districts, counties, cities and schools approximately $2 billion. While the measure’s intent was noteworthy, it would have simultaneously und ermined funding for core local services. Moreover, if the state is looking to invest in local infrastructure, it could find a more equitable approach that is not limited to the 39 RDAs that took on “Mard i Gras” bonds.