Agenda_2016_4_12
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
... an Independent Special District
AGENDA
Michael Scheafer
President
Arthur Perry
Vice President
Robert Ooten
Secretary
Arlene Schafer
Assistant Secretary
James Ferryman
Director
Public Comments. Any member of the public may address the Board. Speakers on
agenda items should identify themselves to the Deputy Clerk before the meeting so that
their input can be provided at the time the item is considered. Speakers on non-agenda
items will be heard under Public Comments. Pursuant to State law, the Board may not
discuss or take action on non-agenda items except under special circumstances.
Speakers must limit their remarks to three minutes or as decided upon by the Presiding
Officer. The Presiding Officer reserves the right to declare any speaker out of order.
Obtaining Agenda Materials: The public is entitled to copies of all documents that are
made part of the agenda packet. If any document or other writing pertaining to an
agenda item is distributed to all or a majority of the Board after the packet is prepared, a
copy of that writing may be obtained at the District offices at 628 W. 19th Street, Costa
Mesa, California. The Deputy Clerk of the District may be contacted at (949) 645-8400.
In Compliance with ADA: Contact Noelani Middenway, (949) 645-8400, 48 hours prior
to meeting if assistance is needed (28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II).
BOARD OF DIRECTORS STUDY SESSION
628 W. 19TH STREET, COSTA MESA, CA 92627
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
9:30 AM
I.CALL TO ORDER
II.ROLL CALL
(If absences occur, consider whether to deem those absences excused based on
facts presented for the absence - such determination shall be the permission
required by law.)
III.PUBLIC COMMENTS
This time has been set aside for persons in the audience to make comments on
items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District that
are not listed on this agenda. Members of the public will have the opportunity to
address the Board of Directors about all other items on this agenda at the time
those items are considered.
Under the provisions of the Brown Act, the Board of Directors is prohibited from
taking action on oral requests but may refer the matter to staff or to a subsequent
meeting. The Board of Directors will respond after public comment has been
received. Please state your name. Each speaker will be limited to four (4)
continuous minutes.
IV.ITEMS OF STUDY
1.Organics Recycling Tonnages – FY2015-16
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive and file the report.
2.Code Enforcement Officer Report - March 2016
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive and file the report.
3.Organics Recycling Behavioral Study - Final Report
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive and file the report.
4.Ad Hoc Committee - Art Wraps for Wastewater Pump Station Control Panels
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive the report and direct
staff to report back for Board approval on April 28, 2016.
5.CR&R Anaerobic Digestion Facility - Update
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive an oral report from
CR&R Environmental Services Senior Vice President, Dean Ruffridge.
6.Quarterly Legislative Analysis
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive and file the report.
7.Alkaline Battery Recycling Program - Final Results
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive and file the report.
8.Historical Solid Waste Rates
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive and file the report.
9.Future Study Session Items
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors provide staff with direction on
items to be placed on future study session agendas.
V.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND DIRECTOR COMMENTS
VI.ADJOURNMENT
THE NEXT STUDY SESSION OF THE COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2016 AT 9:30
A.M. IN THE DISTRICTS BOARD ROOM, 628 W. 19TH STREET.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
... an Independent Special District
Organics Recycling Tonnages – FY2015-16
Item Number:1.
Recommendation/Notes:
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive and file the report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Organics Recycling Tonnages – FY2015-16 Backup Material
Month/
Year Tons
Jul-15 195.64
Aug-15 580.23
Sep-15 735.45
Oct-15 813.67
Nov-15 633.81
Dec-15 590.95
Jan-16 583.13
Feb-16 609.86
Mar-16 763.53
Apr-16
May-16
Jun-16
Total 5506.27
195.64
580.23
735.45
813.67
633.81
590.95 583.13 609.86
763.53
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TO
N
S
Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16
Tons 195.64 580.23 735.45 813.67 633.81 590.95 583.13 609.86 763.53
ORGANICS RECYCLING TONNAGES
FY 15/16
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
... an Independent Special District
Code Enforcement Officer Report - March 2016
Item Number:2.
Recommendation/Notes:
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive and file the report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Code Enforcement Officer Report - March 2016 Cover Memo
Protecting our community's health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services.
www.cmsdca.gov
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
….an Independent Special District
Memorandum
To: Board of Directors
Via: Scott Carroll, General Manager
From: Edward Roberts, Code Enforcement Officer
Date: April 01, 2016
Subject: Code Enforcement Officer Report – March 2016
This report summarizes major points for three ordinance enforcement topics covering
scavenging, graffiti, and trash container enforcement. For the month of March, the
CMSD Code Enforcement Officer focused his efforts on patrols in various parts of the
community. The goal is to identify and deter instances of scavenging and residential
trash carts left within the public view.
In the month of March, the District saw a number of complaints filed with CMSD Code
Enforcement staff regarding scavenging activity in the city. As with most scavenging
complaints, the alleged violations take place in the early morning hours. In order to
address resident concerns, the Code Enforcement Officer investigated all complaints
and adjusted his schedule to accommodate requests for early morning or weekend
enforcement. Included below are instances of scavenging that were detected while the
Officer was investigating specific complaints.
Proactive Scavenging Investigations: 07
1919 Anaheim Avenue- While patrolling the S/B
lanes of the 1900 block of Anaheim Avenue, Officer
Roberts observed a male subject riding on a bicycle.
Officer Roberts’ attention was drawn to the subject
due to numerous plastic bags attached to the
handlebars of his bicycle, which is consistent with
individuals who scavenge. A few moments later,
Officer Roberts observed the male stop in front of the
residence located at 1919 Anaheim Avenue and
begin to rummage through a CMSD trash cart.
Board of Directors
March 2016
At that time, Officer Roberts decided to make contact with the subject in order to
initiate a scavenging investigation. During the course of the contact, the subject
became belligerent and verbally abusive when asked about his scavenging activity.
While talking to the subject, Officer Roberts noted the subject’s words were incoherent
and not relevant to the situation at hand.
As Officer Roberts attempted to advise the subject regrading scavenging, the subject
appeared to become increasingly agitated. Due to the hostile demeanor being
displayed, Officer Roberts decided to disengage the contact for concern that the
situation would escalate.
While backing away from the subject, Officer Roberts advised him that the police
would be notified if he did not discard all recyclable items. The subject complied and
then rode off on his bicycle, heading S/B toward 19th Street. Officer Roberts checked
his rolling log and determined that the subject had not been previously contacted or
identified.
531 Bernard Street- Officer Roberts contacted
a male subject at this location for rummaging
through a CMSD trash cart. The subject was
made aware of the CMSD ordinance prohibiting
scavenging and advised to return all items to a
nearby CMSD cart. The subject was also
advised that he would be subject to citation if
observed scavenging again and sent on his way.
2356 Fordham Avenue- While patrolling the
2300 block of Fordham Avenue, Officer Roberts’
attention was directed toward a female subject
that was rummaging through a CMSD trash cart.
Officer Roberts contacted the female and asked
about her scavenging activity. The female
admitted that she routinely scavenges items
from CMSD carts and does so in the early
morning hours. The subject was advised that
scavenging is prohibited and was instructed to
return all recyclable material to a nearby trash
cart. The subject was sent on her way with a
verbal admonishment.
Board of Directors
March 2016
951 Joann Street – While patrolling the 900 block
of Joann Street, Officer Roberts observed both a
male and female rummaging through a CMSD
cart. Officer Roberts contacted both subjects in
front of the location in order to conduct a
scavenging investigation. During the course of the
investigation, both subjects admitted to
scavenging regularly in order to support
themselves. The subjects were cooperative and
agreed to return all scavenged items to a nearby
CMSD trash cart. The subjects were advised that
scavenging is a prohibited activity and sent on
their way with a verbal warning.
2128 Orange Avenue- While patrolling the 2100
block of Orange Avenue, Officer Roberts observed
a male subject rummaging through a CMSD cart.
As Officer Roberts approached the location, he
noted that the male subject had a shopping cart
with him containing a large amount of recyclable
material. The individual was contacted by Officer
Roberts and he admitted to having scavenged the
recyclable material from CMSD carts. The subject
was advised that scavenging is a prohibited activity
and directed to return all scavenged items to a
nearby CMSD cart. The male subject complied
with the directive and returned all scavenged
material to a nearby CMSD cart. The subject was then advised and sent on his way.
2869 Royal Palm Avenue – While patrolling the
2800 block of Royal Palm Avenue, Officer Roberts
observed a male subject walking along the
sidewalk with two large plastic bags in his hands.
As Officer Roberts drove closer to the male, he
noted that the trash bags contained recyclable
material. Officer Roberts contacted the male
subject in front of 2869 Royal Palm Avenue and
asked the male if he had scavenged recyclable
material from CMSD carts. The male subject was
cooperative and admitted to having removed the
recyclable items from CMSD carts. Based on the
admission of scavenging, the subject was advised to return all recyclable items to
CMSD carts in the vicinity.
Officer Roberts advised the male regarding CMSD policy and told him that he will be
subject to immediate citation if seen scavenging again. The male stated that he
understood and left the scene without further incident.
Board of Directors
March 2016
553 Wake Forest Road – While patrolling the 500
block of Wake Forest Road, Officer Roberts
observed a male subject rummaging through a
CMSD cart. Officer Roberts contacted the male
subject in front of 553 Wake Forest Road in order
to investigate the nature of his activity. During the
course of the investigation, the subject admitted to
scavenging from CMSD carts. The subject was
directed to return all items that were scavenged
and admonished regarding prohibited activity. The
subject was sent on his way and has not been
seen in the area since the contact.
END OF SCAVENGING ENFORCEMENT REPORT
Trash Container Enforcement:
In the month of March, there were a few customer complaints reported to the District
Headquarters regarding trash carts in public view. The following is a list of locations
where trash cart violations were found and addressed by the Courtesy Notice process.
Total Cases: 75
The following locations received First Warnings:
(1) Alabama Circle - Storage of carts in public view.
(2) Anaheim Avenue - Storage of carts in public view.
(1) Arnold Avenue - Storage of carts in public view.
(1) Avalon Street - Storage of carts in public view.
(3) Baker Street - Storage of carts in public view.
(2) California Street - Storage of carts in public view.
(1) Columbia Drive - Storage of carts in public view.
(3) College Avenue - Storage of carts in public view.
(3) Congress Street - Storage of carts in public view.
Board of Directors
March 2016
(2) Cornell Drive - Storage of carts in public view.
(2) Cove Street - Storage of carts in public view.
(2) Darrell Street - Storage of carts in public view.
(2) Elden Avenue - Storage of carts in public view.
(1) Fordham Drive - Storage of cart in public view.
(2) Fullerton Avenue - Storage of carts in public view.
(2) Gibraltar Avenue - Storage of carts in public view.
(1) Governor Street - Storage of carts in public view.
(3) Hamilton Street - Storage of carts in public view.
(4) Joann Street - Storage of carts in public view.
(1) Madison Street - Storage of carts in public view.
(4) Maple Street - Storage of carts in public view.
(2) Miner Street - Storage of carts in public view.
(1) Modjeska Circle - Storage of carts in public view.
(1) Nassau Road - Storage of carts in public view.
(1) Oak Street - Storage of carts in public view.
(2) Orange Avenue - Storage of carts in public view.
(1) Peppertree Lane - Storage of carts in public view.
(2) Pomona Avenue - Storage of carts in public view.
(1) Puente Avenue - Storage of carts in public view.
(1) Redwood Avenue - Storage of carts in public view.
(1) Ross Street - Storage of carts in public view.
(1) Rutgers Drive - Storage of carts in public view.
(3) Santa Ana Avenue - Storage of carts in public view.
Board of Directors
March 2016
(2) Senate Street - Storage of carts in public view.
(1) Surf Street - Storage of carts in public view.
(1) Villanova Road - Storage of carts in public view.
(3) Wallace Avenue - Storage of carts in public view.
(2) Westminster Avenue - Storage of carts in public view.
(2) Wilson Street - Storage of carts in public view.
(1) 16th Street - Storage of carts in public view.
(2) 18th Street - Storage of carts in public view.
END OF TRASH CONTAINER ENFORCEMENT REPORT
No cases of graffiti on a trash carts were opened in the month of March.
Scavenging Report – March 2016
Board of Directors
March 2016
Locations:
1919 Anaheim Avenue
531 Bernard Street
2356 Fordham Street
951 Joann Street
2128 Orange Avenue
2869 Royal Palm Avenue
553 Wake Forest Road
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
... an Independent Special District
Organics Recycling Behavioral Study - Final Report
Item Number:3.
Recommendation/Notes:
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive and file the report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Organics Recycling Behavioral Study - Final Report Cover Memo
1
Final Report
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
&
University of California, Irvine
FOOD SCRAPS FOR FUEL:
UNDERSTANDING AND INCREASING HOUSEHOLD
PARTICIPATION IN THE COSTA MESA CURBSIDE
ORGANICS PROGRAM
2
Prepared by:
Sally Geislar, M.A.
303-319-4759
sgeislar@uci.edu
www.sallygeislar.weebly.com
Doctoral Candidate
Director, The Food Works Lab
Department of Planning, Policy, and Design
School of Social Ecology
University of California, Irvine
April 8, 2016
Photos on cover page are from Portland Composts! and Costa Mesa Sanitary District
Graphic was designed by Sally Geislar
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................4-5
BACKGROUND................................................................................................................6
STUDY DESIGN & METHODS........................................................................................7-10
SAMPLE SELECTION..................................................................................................................7
DATA COLLECTION...................................................................................................................7
PHASE A: NATURAL EXPERIMENT................................................................................................ 7
PHASE B: INTERVENTION EXPERIMENT...................................................................................... 7-8
FOCUS GROUP.................................................................................................................... 8-9
TRIAL RECRUITMENT................................................................................................................ 9
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS................................................................................................... 9-10
OUTCOMES: PHASE A (JUNE-OCT).............................................................................10-11
CHANGES IN BEHAVIOR AND ATTITUDES......................................................................................10
DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION............................................................................................ 10
PARTICIPANT CONCERNS......................................................................................................... 10
PROGRAM SUPPORT.............................................................................................................. 11
OTHER EFFECTS OF PARTICIPATION............................................................................................11
OUTCOMES: PHASE B (OCT-DEC)..............................................................................11-12
EFFECTS OF NORM COMMUNICATION...................................................................................11-12
COST-EFFECTIVE IMPACT.........................................................................................................12
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................13-14
APPENDICES ..........................................................................................................15-16
I. TABLE 1: ESTIMATES OF STUDY IMPACT & IMPACT OF DISTRICT-WIDE EXPANSION...........................15
II. TABLE 2: DISTRICT-WIDE EXPANSION.....................................................................................16
4
Summary of Study Design, Analysis, Challenges, and Recommendations:
This study engages residents served by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) with the
Curbside Organics Collection Program (COCP) to better understand how households are
responding to in-home food scrap separation and to improve participation.
The Food Scraps for Fuel study, designed and led by Sally Geislar, M.A., is based on a proven
approach to improve pro-environmental behavior. Simply communicating the actual behavior
of others has been shown to improve energy conservation and recycling behavior, even more
than information or financial incentives alone. The Food Scraps for Fuel study will be the first to
apply these norm communication tools to the domain of food scraps to improve household
participation in the COCP.
Random sampling of mail-out surveys recruited 1,079 residents, 583 completed the second
survey and 499 completed the third survey. Of these 352 completed all three surveys. Phase A
was a natural experiment examining change between the first and second survey, before and
after residents received their curbside organics cart. Phase B was an intervention experiment
examining change between the second and third surveys. For Phase B, the 583 participants of
the second survey were randomly assigned to either a treatment and control group. The
treatment group received norm communication for the 8 week intervention period.
Results from Phase A (June-Oct):
The original CMSD curbside organics program was a success. After receiving the organics cart,
participants increased:
Food scrap separation from 20-66% of households
o 28% had collected kitchen pail from CMSD by Oct.
o 44% used some improvised collector such as an empty bulk yogurt container or
existing tupperware
Support of the curbside organics recycling program from 60-69%. Participants were
more likely to support the COCP if they knew that it would improve post-collection
recycling efforts.
The belief that separating food waste is the right thing to do from 67-77%
Results from Phase B (Oct-Dec):
Communicating the food scrap separation behavior of other residents improved
organics separation among treatment group participants by:
o Increasing the percent of residents participating in the COCP from 66-77%, a 17%
increase in participation
o Increasing the portion of household food waste separated from 53-60%, a 13%
increase in food waste separation by participants
o 39% collected kitchen pail from CMSD by Dec., up 38% from Oct
o 36% used some improvised collector
Residents receiving norm communication were also less likely to stop separating
Participants who received this messaging also increased their support of the COCP for
Costa Mesa and other cities by 7%.
The separation behavior and policy support of the control group remained constant
during the intervention period from October to December.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
5
Cost-Effective Impact
The Treatment group increased separation by 0.59 lbs. per household per week or 946 lbs. as a
group during the intervention experiment (8 weeks). 1 The program effects cost $30.65 per lb.
of increased food waste diverted during experiment based on the total cost of the program to
CMSD ($29,000), or $5.04 per lb. of increased food waste diverted over one year. If we consider
only the cost of implementing the treatment (i.e. incentives, mailing costs, magnet printing),
the increased food waste diversion cost $4.49 per lb. for the period of the experiment, or $0.74
per lb. diverted over one year. This final figure best represents the cost per lb. of expanding the
program to the broader community, not including evaluation of expansion.
This cutting edge research coupled with the cutting edge of organics management in Orange
County has generated new knowledge about barriers to and improvement of participation in
CMSD's COCP. This research has had immediate impacts in aiding the District to meet statewide
mandates for diversion and GHG reductions. Yet the real value of this study is in the application
of this new knowledge across the entire District.
Policy Recommendations
Expanding the new tools of norm communication will increase participation in the broader
community. This can be achieved in several forms including:
Framing messages in media (via newsletter, website, or mobile app)
Providing magnets (either to all households or only to those with substandard
performance)
Evaluation of these efforts for reporting success to state agencies and potential
grantors
Evaluation would also aid in communicating to other cities interested in learning from
the success of CMSD's Organics Recycling Program.
The following are additional recommendations based on the findings presented above.
Provide additional information (possibly in the form of magnets) on the benefits of the
curbside organics recycling program and best practices to maintain the cart and bin
Providing resident testimonials to help share ideas on how to overcome concerns about
family cooperation, maintaining the pail and cart, sufficient time and knowledge
Addressing challenges with insufficient curb space may continue to demand a case-by-
case approach.
One final note on avoiding the "ick"-factor
Avoiding exposure to "ick"-inducing factors such as pests and odors is key. Several residents
who began separating with the new cart, gave up because they assumed these "inevitable"
nuisances were simply tolerable to others, but not for them. Instead, these nuisances should be
perceived as a clue that their at-home practices need to be fine-tuned a little to have the in-
home food scrap separation system running smoothly. Suggested solutions provided below.
1 See Appendix I. Table 1 for more detailed analysis
6
Food waste is the single largest material stream sent to landfills after recycling. Once there, it
generates a quarter of the country's methane gas emissions, a potent greenhouse gas (GHG).
Diverting food waste from landfills to be used in alternative processing methods serves multiple
ends.
First, food waste diversion will help the district meet the demands of a series of state mandates
including the following: California Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341) requiring 75% landfill diversion by
2020, California Strategic Directive 6.1 requiring 50% reduction in the amount of organics in the
waste stream by 2020, and California Assembly Bill 32 (AB32) requiring a reduction of GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Secondly, alternative processing methods for organics such as
compost and anaerobic digestion produce a valuable product. These products are currently
used to return nutrients to the soil, power biogas-fleets, or power water treatment facilities.
This research was organized around the new curbside organics recycling program offered by the
Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) and the private hauler CR&R Environmental Services. The
research team set out to understand how households have responded to the new curbside
program, and to test new tools to improve participation.
The Food Scraps for Fuel study, designed and led by Sally Geislar, M.A., is based on a proven
approach to improve pro-environmental behavior. Simply communicating the actual behavior
of others has been shown to improve energy conservation and recycling behavior, even more
than information or financial incentives alone.
A classic example in the field of social-psychology is an experiment on hotel towel reuse. In the
study, some rooms had signs with an environmental message extolling the benefits of reusing
your towels, while signs in other rooms communicated group norms by stating that 75% of
other guests reused their towels. Ultimately, the guests with the norm messaging reused their
towels at 150% the rate of guests with environmental messaging. These hotels were able to
save water and energy, not with large capital investments or education campaigns, but merely
by communicating group norms.
The pilot study also suggests that spillover behaviors--those unrelated to the target behavior, in
this case food scrap separation--and environmental concern develop after beginning to
separate food scraps in the home. Pilot participants revealed more pro-environmental attitudes
and reported increased awareness of the environmental impact of their waste after they began
separating food scraps. Some reported engaging in other waste reduction efforts by purchasing
goods with less packaging, for example.
The Food Scraps for Fuel study will be the first to apply these norm communication tools to the
domain of food scraps to improve household participation in the COCP.
The research goal for this study was first to understand how households are affected by the
COCP, including how they are adapting to or resisting participation in the COCP. Secondly, the
goal was to test the use of norm communication to improve household participation.
BACKGROUND
7
In order to achieve the research goals for this study, the team recruited residents to participate
in two experiments; a Natural Experiment and an Intervention Experiment. The experiments
required participants to complete surveys at three points in time between June and December
2015. To prepare for the experiments, the team also conducted a focus group and a trial
recruitment.
Sample Selection:
In June 2015, 7,400 addresses were randomly selected2 from a complete list of 20,000 single-
family home residents served by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Each residence would receive
a curbside organics cart for the first time in July or August 2015. The recruitment mailer for this
study included a welcome letter, the six-page survey, a postage-paid return envelope, and a link
for the online version of the survey. One reminder postcard was sent to non-responders after
two weeks. Of the 1,040 who responded (14% response rate), 800 used the print survey and
250 completed it online. More than 75% of the print respondents indicated at the end of the
survey that they would prefer an electronic survey in the future.
The 7,500 addresses was determined based on the response rate to the print and digital
response option of 14% (a relatively high response for this sort of recruitment) from the print
and digital trial recruitment letters, and expected drop-out rates of 50% and 35% for the
subsequent surveys (based on previous community-based studies). To ensure sufficient
population size at the end of the study in Dec (approximately 400), the team determined that
attracting about 1,000 participants for recruitment and mailing to about 7,400 addresses would
be necessary.
Data Collection:
Surveys were mailed to a random sample of residents. Participants could complete the survey
online or by completing the hard-copy and returning it in the postage-paid return envelope. The
following surveys were requested of each participant:
Recruitment Survey, June 2015: Completed prior to receiving curbside organics carts
Posttest Survey, Oct 2015: Completed after receiving curbside organics carts
Post-intervention Survey, Dec 2015: Completed after 8-week intervention
Phase A: Natural Experiment (June-Oct):
Participants completed the Recruitment survey (June) before they received their organic
curbside carts, and a Posttest survey (Oct) afterwards. Comparing changes in resident
responses between these surveys suggests changes that resulted from having the organics carts
available. The surveys measured participants' beliefs and opinions about food waste,
environmental attitudes, and various behaviors.
Phase B: Intervention Experiment (Oct-Dec):
For the Intervention experiment (Oct-Dec), participants who completed the Posttest survey
(Oct) were randomly assigned to either a treatment or control group. The treatment group
2 The random selection for recruiting participants as well as the random assignment to treatment and control
groups improved the generalizability of the study results. In other words, all residents of single family homes had
an equal chance of being selected and participants were equally likely to be assigned to treatment or control
groups. This process makes the findings more likely to represent what we would find in the general population.
STUDY DESIGN
AND METHODS
8
received short weekly surveys to track their food scrap separation behavior over the course of
the 8 week intervention period. The treatment group then received messages communicating
the new norms of food scrap separation. The messages read: "76% of Households in Costa
mesa Separated All their Food Scraps this week." This figure varied by week.
Those completing print surveys received a magnet indicating the first week's participation rate,
and then received stickers to place over the magnet each week. Those receiving digital surveys
receiving this messaging in their email.
At the end of the intervention period, all treatment and control group participants received the
Post-intervention survey (Dec). Comparing changes between Oct-Dec surveys for the control
group (who did not receive norm communication) indicate the changes we would expect in the
general population during that same time. Any changes that occurred for the treatment group,
but not the control group are a result of the norm communication "treatment". If the treatment
group showed increased participation significantly above the control group, then the study
would conclude that norm communication improves participation.
Focus Group:
The focus group was designed to improve the community comprehension and cultural
competency of the surveys. First, our team identified local organizations in a community with a
similar demographic profile as Costa Mesa. We partnered with an organization in Fountain
Valley, CA which shares some key demographic variables with Costa Mesa including average
household size, median household income, and education. We Recruit members of that
organization to review and provide feedback on all study materials that will be received by
residents served by CMSD.
Participants from a diverse Fountain Valley church reviewed all study materials prior to the
focus group meeting. Participants attended a focus group with the Lead Researcher and
Research Assistants and reviewed each of the study materials for clarity. Two groups of six
participants received a $25 grocery store gift card for their participation.
Focus Group Outcomes:
1. Improved and finalized Recruitment Mailing Packaging: Participants indicated that
having the logo of the Food Works Lab and CMSD would help the survey stand out.
2. Improved and finalized Pretest-Posttest Surveys for experiments: Participants helped
improve clarity of several questions regarding food preparation and disposal in the
home as well as suggesting questions be included that asked if residents separate
recycling on their own and if residents were aware of the curbside program at the
9
baseline (before receiving bins). Participants also improved the wording of questions
assessing the impact of norms on behavior to be less off-putting to residents.
3. Improved and finalized Weekly Surveys and Norm Communication tools: Participants
indicated that they would be more likely to access the internet for the short weekly
surveys on their mobile device, but that older populations may not due to the small
screen size.
Trial Recruitment:
The trial recruitment was sent to a random sample of 400 residents selected from the initial
random sample of 7,500. The purpose of the trial was to determine whether including both a
digital and a print response option for residents improved the response rate. Half received
digital only, and half digital and print response options. The latter group had a significantly
higher response rate and a more representative sample.
Trial Recruitment Outcomes:
1. Higher response rate with digital and print option: The group receiving digital and print
response options had a 14% response rate compared to only 3% from those with print
response options only.
2. More representative sample with digital and print option: The trial indicated that
providing only a print response option resulted in a sample that was significantly older
and less educated than the general population.
Sample Characteristics
The Recruitment survey (June) attracted 1,079 respondents from the 7,400 who received the
survey (14% response rate). Of these, more than half completed the Posttest survey in Oct
(583, 56% response rate). For the Post-Intervention survey (Dec), all 1,079 original participants
received the survey, 499 completed it. Of these 352 completed all three surveys for a 32%
response rate overall.
Nevertheless, some demographic differences remain in the sample compared to the general
population in Costa Mesa.
The study participants were more likely to be non-Hispanic White (78%), female (68%),
aged 55 and over (46%), and having earned a Bachelor's degree or higher (50%)
Demographic data
June Oct Oct Dec
Sample Size 1,079 583 583 499
Retention Rate 56%86%
n = 583 Percentage n = 352 Percentage
Female 68 67
Non-Hispanic White 78 na
Aged 55 and over 46 61
Bachelor's or higher 50 73
Household size (avg)2.6 2.6
Children Present 26 26
Phase BPhase A
10
Average household size for participants was similar to that of Costa Mesa at about 2.6
persons per household.
About a quarter of participants had children in the home.
Those participants in Phase B who completed all three surveys (352 participants) had an
even greater portion of older (61%) and more educated residents (73%).
Changes in Behavior and Attitudes
After receiving the organics cart, participants increased:
Food scrap separation from 20-66% of households 3
Support of the curbside organics recycling program from 60-69%
The belief that separating food waste is the right thing to do from 67-77%
Determinants of Participation
Participants were more likely to separate if they:
Had a positive attitude toward separating food scraps, or had some prior experience
doing so.
Believed they had control over separation in their home--including the belief that it
would be an easy thing to do and that the decision in the household was theirs to make.
Participant Concerns
Participants had some concerns about separating food waste in their home. These concerns
changed after receiving the curbside bin and varied by who was responsible for household
tasks.
Insufficient kitchen space (47%)
Lack of knowledge about how to separate food waste (27%). Decreased after cart
Difficulty gaining household cooperation (25%) Increased after cart
Insufficient time to separate food waste (23%)
Insufficient curb space (20%). Increased after cart
Other concerns raised included:
Knowledge of how best to maintain the kitchen pail and the cart to avoid pests and
odors.
Not making "enough" food waste for the smallest curbside cart, many wanted an even
smaller option
Some had concerns about the added cost of compostable bags, perhaps not realizing
they could use paper bags or that they will use fewer regular garbage bags
Providing tips on how to keep the pail and cart clean and odor free including daily (or every
other day) emptying and rinsing of the pail. Share stories from residents on how they
successfully encouraged cooperation among other household members. Addressing challenges
with sufficient curb space may demand a case-by-case approach.
3 All figures were statistically significant below at least the p<.05 level compared to the recruitment survey.
OUTCOMES:
PHASE A
(JUNE-OCT)
11
Program Support
Participants were more likely to support the COCP if they
Knew that organics separation would improve recycling
Believed that separating food waste is the right thing to do
While the latter is of no surprise, the former suggests that new efforts to inform the community
about the effects of the COCP on post-separation recycling efforts may increase participation.
Other Effects of Participation
Participants reported additional changes in the home:
More aware of how much food is wasted, some are changing shopping behaviors to
waste less food
Pleased to eliminate one trash cart or have more room in trash cart, fewer trash bags
used
More thoughtful about where trash goes
More aware of food packaging—avoid plastic bags for produce and groceries
Effects of Norm Communication
The treatment group received weekly messages communicating the new norms of food waste
separation. The treatment group improved in behaviors and attitudes significantly more than
the control group. This indicates that norm communication does increase participation and
should be incorporated into future communication efforts by CMSD.
Increased participation:
The Treatment group was significantly more likely to:
Separate food waste from 66-77%4
Separate a greater percent of food waste, 60% on average increased from 53%. In fact,
54% of treatment group separates 75% or more of their food waste.
Not give up on separating food waste
4 All figures for the treatment group were statistically significant at a p<..05 level compared to the control group
OUTCOMES:
PHASE B
(OCT-DEC)
12
Increased positive perceptions and policy support:
The Treatment group was significantly more likely to:
Increase policy support 69-81%
Increase the belief that separating food waste is the right thing to do from 77-79%
Support promoting organics programs in other cities
It is important to note here that participants were significantly more likely to support the
curbside organics recycling if they knew that:
Organics separation will improve recycling
Waste is separated after collection
Cost Effective Impact
The study resulted in significant increases in participation, both in the percent of residents
participating and in the portion of household food waste diverted by residents. In estimating
the value of the impact of this study, the team considered both the total cost of the project to
CMSD and the cost of the administering the actual treatment. The latter is a more accurate
reflection of dollar spent per increased diversion (lbs.) as this is closer to what would be spent
in an expansion of norm communication tools.
Communicating the new norms of food waste separation increased the portion of food waste
separated by the treatment group. 5
Increased pounds of food waste separated by the treatment group
0.59 lbs. = Increased food waste separation (per household per week)
946 lbs. = Total increased food waste separation for treatment group during
experiment (186 households for 8 weeks)
Pounds diverted per dollar spent based on the total cost of the program to CMSD ($29,000)
$30.65 per lb. of increased food waste diverted during experiment
$5.04 per lb. of increased food waste diverted over one year
The following figures consider only the cost of implementing the treatment itself (i.e.
incentives, mailing costs, magnet printing)
Pounds diverted per dollar spent based on cost of treatment alone ($4,252)
$4.49 per lb. of increased food waste diverted during experiment
$0.74 per lb. of increased food waste diverted over one year
With the expansion of these norm communication tools, CMSD could see significant increases
in household food waste separation.
607,666 lbs. = Estimated increase in annual food waste separation with district-wide
expansion to all 19,637 households
5 For complete calculations see Appendix: Table 1
13
The primary finding of this research is that simply by using the language of the new norms of
food scrap separation, CMSD can improve participation in their curbside organics program.
Residents are more likely to participate and more likely to separate more of their food waste
into the CMSD curbside organics cart if they know that others in the community do so as well.
Thus, CMSD should incorporate this messaging into future communications with the
community. This can be done in a variety of formats and with different standards for
measurement. Some examples are provided below.
Expansion programs include communicating the new norms of organics separation by:
Framing messages in media (via newsletter, website, or mobile app)
Providing magnets (either to all households or only to those with substandard
performance)
Evaluation of these efforts for reporting success to state agencies and potential
grantors
Evaluation would also aid in communicating to other cities interested in learning from
the success of CMSD's Organics Recycling Program.
The following are additional recommendations based on the findings presented above.
Provide additional information (possibly in the form of magnets) on the benefits of the
curbside organics recycling program and best practices to maintain the cart and bin
Addressing challenges with insufficient curb space may continue to demand a case-by-
case approach.
One final note on avoiding the "ick"-factor
Based on responses to open-ended questions, many participants assume that odors and pests
in the kitchen pail is an inevitable part of food waste separation rather than a signal of some
shortcoming with maintenance or pail-emptying.
With frequent emptying of the kitchen pail into the organics cart (every-other day or
every day), and a quick rinsing and wiping out of the pail, residents can avoid these
nuisances.
Using a liner of some sort can also help in this regard. Residents may choose to purchase
compostable plastic bags, but a paper grocery bag or a newspaper works as well.
Similarly, incorporating brown waste in the cart and regularly rinsing out the organics
cart with a garden hose or the like will reduce the build-up of residues.
Residents may also choose to use existing cart-cleaning services at some interval.
Avoiding "ick"-inducing factors is key as some residents who began separating with the new
cart, gave up because of an unpleasant experience with their food waste. Their comments
suggest they assume these "inevitable" nuisances were simply tolerable to others, but not for
them. Instead, these nuisances should be perceived as a clue that their at-home practices need
to be fine-tuned a little to have the in-home food scrap separation system running smoothly.
POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS
14
Some steps to encourage this perspective include:
Communicating that odors and pests are a sign that something is not quite right with
the at-home food waste system and that there is a solution to odors and pests (e.g. on
an attractive magnet or flyer to be hung on the fridge)
Providing resident testimonials to help share ideas on how to overcome concerns about
maintaining the pail and cart, family cooperation, and having sufficient time or
knowledge
Encourage residents to find an in-home separation system that works for them;
different sized pails to fit the amount of daily food waste, more tightly sealed pails, etc.
15
Appendix I.
Table 1:Estimates of study impact and impact of district-wide expansion
Figure #Figure Calculation
Population
1 Households in final sample 352
2 Treatment group households 186
3 Treatment group percent of sample 53%(#2/#1)
Waste and Food Waste Generation
4 Total households with waste bins in CMSD Oct 2015 * 21880
5 Total waste generated (in tons) Oct 2015 *2650
6 Total waste generated (in lbs.)5300000 (#5*2000)
7 Lbs. of waste / household / month 242.23 (#6/#4)
8 Lbs. of waste / household / day 8.07 (#7/30)
9 Lbs. of foodwaste / household / day **1.21 (#8*.15)
Food Waste Separation (lbs. / HH / day)
10 Control group separation (53%)0.64 (#9*.50)
11 Treatment group separation (60%)0.73 (#9*.63)
Increased separation (in pounds)
12 Increased daily separation per household (lbs/hh/day) 0.08 (#11-#10)
13 Percent increase in separation 13%((#11-#10)/#11)
14 Daily treatment group separation (lbs/day)16 (#12*#2)
15 Monthly treatment group separation (lbs/month)473 (#14*30)
16 Annual treatment group separation (lbs/year)5756 (#14*365)
Estimated increased separation with district-wide expansion ***
17 Total households with organics carts in CMSD *19637
18 Annual increased separation (lbs/year)607666 (#17*(365*#12)
19 Annual increased separation (tons/year)304 (#18/2000)
Cost-Effective Impact
20 Total Study Cost to CMSD 29,000$
21 Dollars / lb. over experiment 30.65$ (#20/(2*#15))
22 Dollars / lb. over year 5.04$ (#20/#16)
23 Treatment Cost to CMSD (treatment group alone)4,252$
24 Treatment dollars / lb. over experiment (8 weeks)4.49$ (#23/(2*#15))
25 Treatment dollars / lb. over year 0.74$ (#23/#16)
* According to CR&R Environmental Services Oct 2015 report
** About 15% of household waste is food according to CalRecycle
*** General population assumed to separate at rate of control group (53% of household waste and 66% participation on
average) as they were randomly selected from general population and randomly assigned to control group
16
Appendix II.
Table 2: District-Wide Expansion of Norm Communication Tools to Increase Participation in Broader Community
Service
available
through the
Food Works
Lab
Messages
communicate
community
participation
Community
outreach,
education,
and feedback
Utilizes existing
communication
structures
Lasting
exposure of
new norms to
community
Evaluates effect
of new norms
for reporting to
state agencies
or grantors
1a x x x
Ex. 1 To all households
Ex. 2 Only to households in communities where participation is sub-standard.
2a x x x x
Ex. 1 CMSD (i) Quarterly Newsletter, (ii) Website, (iii) Mobile Application
1b x x x x
2b x x x x x
1b+2b x x x x x x
Ex. 1 Partner with CR&R to measure carts at the curbside before & after expansion
Ex. 2 Short surveys of new r&om sample of residents before & after expansion
(i) Quarterly CMSD newsletter: Include a regular column that reports the participation rate of the community and features resident
testimonials about overcoming challenges to adopting new habits and avoiding nuisances. The Food Works Lab could continue to
interview participants who have volunteered to share their stories.
(ii) CMSD website: Include a regular column that reports the participation rate of the community and features resident testimonials
about overcoming challenges to adopting new habits and avoiding nuisances. The Food Works Lab could continue to interview
participants who have volunteered to share their stories. This could be prepared for weekly or monthly entries and include an
opportunity for others to share their stories and ask questions.
(iii) CMSD mobile app: Include a regular blurb reporting the participation rate of the community and features resident testimonials
about overcoming challenges to adopting new habits and avoiding nuisances. The Food Works Lab could continue to interview
participants who have volunteered to share their stories. This could be prepared for weekly or monthly entries and include an
opportunity for others to share their stories and ask questions.
Evaluation of norm
communication expansion
with magnets only
Evaluation of norm
communication expansion
with media only
Evaluation of norm
communication expansion
with magnets & media
Program
Option
Provide magnets with the
new norms of separation
Media communicates the
new norms of food waste
separation
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
... an Independent Special District
Ad Hoc Committee - Art Wraps for Wastewater Pump Station Control Panels
Item Number:4.
Recommendation/Notes:
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive the report and direct staff to report
back for Board approval on April 28, 2016.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Ad Hoc Committee - Art Wraps for Wastewater Pump Station Control
Panels Cover Memo
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
…an Independent Special District
Protecting our community’s health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services.
www.cmsdca.gov
Memorandum
To: Board of Directors
Via: Scott Carroll, General Manager
From: Elizabeth Pham, Management Analyst II
Date: April 12, 2016
Subject: Art Wraps for Wastewater Pump Station Control Panels
Summary
The Board of Directors directed staff to create an ad hoc committee to oversee the Pump
Station Electrical Control Panel Art Wraps Pilot Program. The program’s purpose is to enhance the appearance of the District’s electrical control panels at wastewater pump
stations utilizing art wraps.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board of Directors receives the report and direct staff to report
back for Board approval on April 28, 2016.
Analysis
The ad hoc committee reviewed and selected 8 pump stations to place customized art
vinyl wraps on. These locations were selected based on visibility. The committee
determined that the artwork should be historically significant to each location (Attachment
A). Artwork would be solicited by artists from local schools (high schools and colleges) in
Costa Mesa and promoted through social media. Artwork would be selected by committee
members and the artist would receive an honorarium of $100. Of the 8 pump stations, only
4 would be selected to have the panels applied on for this fiscal year, and then apply the
remaining 4 in the next fiscal year.
Board of Directors
April 12, 2016
Page 2 of 2
Strategic Plan Element & Goal
This item complies with Strategic Element 3.0., Partnerships, and Strategic Goal No. 3.2,
Strengthen our ties with local governments, special districts and educational institutions.
Legal Review
Not applicable.
Environmental Review
Placing a wrap on the electrical enclosure at a pump station is not only a beautification
program but the wrap provides protection for the surface and diminishes the chances of
graffiti and can be considered a maintenance activity, which is categorically exempt under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000
et. seq.). Section 15300.4 of CEQA allows an agency while establishing its own procedures “to list those specific activities which fall within each of the exempt classes”,
and the District has adopted “CEQA Guidelines and Implementing Procedures” that state
on page 6 ”Projects” does not include …. C. Continuing administrative or maintenance
activities.”
Financial Review
Funds will be transferred from the Wastewater Contingency to support this project.
Public Notice Process
Copies of this report are on file and will be included with the entire agenda packet for the April 12, 2016 study session meeting at District headquarters and on District’s website.
Alternative Actions
1. Direct staff to report back with more information.
Attachments A: List of District Pump Stations
B: Estimate for Art Wraps
Reviewed by:
Wendy Hooper Davis
Finance Manager
Costa Mesa Sanitary District Pump Station –Art Vinyl Wrap Project
Historical significance of each location:
1. Gisler Pump Station—3003 Iowa St., Costa Mesa
Adobes
2. Iowa Pump Station—1601 Iowa St., Costa Mesa
Railroad (Harbor)
3. Adams Pump Station—2054 Adams Ave., Costa Mesa
Adobe de Sepulveda
4. Valley (Aviemore)Pump Station—1140 Aviemore Terrace, Costa Mesa
Marina/Harbor Theme
5. City Corporation Pump Station—3003 Placentia St., Costa Mesa
6. Santa Ana Pump Station—2449 Santa Ana Ave., Costa Mesa
Apple Orchards
7. Irvine Pump Station—2677 Irvine Ave., Costa Mesa
Ellis Brothers & the Great Race
8. 21st Pump Station—21st & Newport Ave., Costa Mesa
Downtown
Mesa
Art
&
Framing
789
W.
19th
St.
Costa
Mesa,
CA
92627
Phone#
E-‐Mail:
Payment
Terms:
Reference:
Atn:
Steve
Cano
Address:
Item Description QuantityCost Total
1 2054
Adams
P.S.1.00 $540.00 $540.00
2 1140
Avimor
Terrace 1.00 $1,368.00 $1,368.00
3
2300
Placentia
Ave.
P.S.1.00 $720.00 $720.00
4 3003
Iowa
Gisler
P.S.1.00 $514.00 $514.00
5 1601
Iowa
P.S.1.00 $541.00 $541.00
6 Santa
Ana
P.S 1.00 $362.00 $362.00
7 Irvine
P.S.1.00 $884.00 $884.00
8 11421
21st.
St.
P.S.1.00 $1,085.00 $1,085.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
8.00
Sub-‐Total:$6,014.00
Sales
Tax
8:$481.11
Received
By:Shipping
Other
Total:$6,495.11
$6,495.11
Vinyl
Wraps
Date:
04/03/16
Quote
Sheet
Es[mate
for:
CMSD,
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
... an Independent Special District
Quarterly Legislative Analysis
Item Number:6.
Recommendation/Notes:
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive and file the report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Quarterly Legislative Analysis Cover Memo
Protecting our community'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 pending
in Sacramento that are of interest 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, staff 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 bills as approved by the Board. This Legislative Analysis also
provides the Board of Directors with informative updates on State issues.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
1. SUPPORT:
AB 2022 (Gordon)
SB 1292 (Stone)
HR 3353 (Hunter)
2. OPPOSE:
SB 885 (Wolk)
SB 1318 (Wolk)
SB 1170 (Wieckowski)
3. WATCH:
AB 1707 (Linder & Dababneh)
AB 1063 (Williams)
AB 45 (Mullin)
AB 2039 (Ting)
AB 2111 (Dahle)
AB 2153 (Garcia)
SB 970 (Leyva)
AB 1588 (Mathis)
SB 661 (Hill)
AB 1005 (Gordon)
SB 1436 (Bates)
AB 2257 (Maienschein)
AB 2389 (Ridley-Thomas)
AB 2853 (Gatto)
AB 2981 (Alejo, Gonzalez, McCarty, & Ting)
AB 2396 (McCarty)
AB 1669 (Hernández)
Legislative Analysis
April 12, 2016
Page 2 of 15
SACRAMENTO LEGISLATIVE REPORT
CMSD SUPPORT BILLS
AB 2022 (Gordon) Advanced Purified Demonstration Water – As Amended on March 28,
2016 – SUPPORT
Author: Assembly Member Gordon, District 24
Status: 3/29/2016 – Re-referred to Committee on Environmental Safety & Toxic
Materials
Hearing Date: Pending
Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY & TOXIC
MATERIALS
Supported By: Orange County Sanitation District (co-sponsor), Orange County Water
District (co-sponsor), WateReuse California (co-sponsor), Association of
California Water Agencies, CalDesal, California Association of
Sanitation Agencies, California Coastal Protection Network, California
Coastkeeper Alliance, California Municipal Utilities Association, Desal
Response Group, Eastern Municipal Water District, Environmental
Caucus, Inland Empire Coastkeeper, Irvine Ranch Water District,
Midway City Sanitation District, Orange County Coastkeeper, Residents
for Responsible Desalination, Santa Barbara Coastkeeper, Sierra Club
Angeles Chapter, Sierra Club California, Southern California Watershed
Alliance, Surfrider Foundation, Sustainable Silicon Valley
Opposed By:
Watched By:
Summary: AB 2022 would authorize the operator of a facility producing advanced purified
demonstration water to bottle and distribute that water as samples for educational purposes
and to promote water recycling. The bill would prohibit the advanced purified demonstration
water from being distributed unless the water meets or exceeds all federal and state drinking
water standards. Additionally, the bill would authorize the water to be bottled at a licensed
water-bottling plant, it would establish bottling and labeling requirements, and it would prohibit
a facility from bottling more than 1,000 gallons of water in a calendar year. Lastly, AB 2022
would require that a collection and recycling program be created for the water bottles.
Analysis: James Herberg, General Manager of Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD),
requested the District’s assistance in supporting AB 2022 to further educate the community
about the technology being used to purify reused water to near-distilled drinking water quality.
The water that will be bottled from advanced water purification facilities will not be sold to the
public, but used to educate and gain public approval for drought resilient water supplies. The
bill is jointly sponsored by OCSD, Orange County Water District (OCWD), and WateReuse
California.
SB 1292 (Stone) Grand Juries: Reports – As Amended on March 28, 2016 – SUPPORT
Author: Senator Stone, District 28
Status: 3/28/2016 – From committee with author’s amendments. Read second
time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on Public Safety.
Hearing Date: April 12
Reviewed: SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Supported By: California Special Districts Association (sponsor)
Opposed By:
Legislative Analysis
April 12, 2016
Page 3 of 15
Watched By: Solano County, Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission
(CALAFCO)
Summary: SB 1292 would require grand juries to meet with the entities they are investigating
to hold an exit interview for the purposes of reviewing the accuracy of their findings. The bill
also provides investigated entities with the opportunity to provide comments on final grand jury
reports, and requires the submitted comments to be posted and distributed with final reports
when they are made public.
Analysis: SB 1292 establishes an opportunity for investigated entities to provide feedback
regarding the grand jury’s final reports. Ultimately, the bill increases the opportunity for
dialogue between the grand jury and investigated entities and provides investigated entities
with a voice to respond to investigations before they are made public. CSDA is sponsoring this
bill.
HR 3353 (Hunter) To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to limit attorney
fees and penalties in citizen suits, and for other purposes – As Introduced on July 29,
2015 – SUPPORT
Author: Congressman Hunter, District 50
Status: 7/30/2015 – Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment
Hearing Date: Pending
Reviewed: HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
Supported By: California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA), Eastern Municipal
Water District
Opposed By:
Watched By:
Summary: HR 3353 seeks to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in regards to
litigation costs, diligent prosecution, and affirmative defenses. In terms of litigation costs, the
amendment would ensure that attorney’s fees and awards are appropriate to local markets
and proportionate with the successful claims proven in each case. Additionally, it clarifies the
definition of “diligent prosecution” of alleged violations, which would allow state and federal
authorities to exercise enforcement and prevent unnecessary citizen suit intervention when
issues are being actively resolved. Lastly, it would apply normally accepted criminal and
standard defenses to the Clean Water Act, such that there would be no liability in the following
cases: acts of God, acts of war, and acts or omissions of a third party.
Analysis: Clean Water Act citizen suits serve an important purpose in the protection of the
environment, but cases based on sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and other alleged
violations at local wastewater agencies often result in local agencies paying millions of dollars
in settlements and legal fees that do not yield a corresponding environmental benefit. These
citizen suits are attractive to litigants because every SSO is technically a violation of the Clean
Water Act. Since SSOs can be reduced (but not completely prevented), all sewer systems are
exposed to citizen suits. Additionally, citizen plaintiffs are entitled to attorney’s fees and costs,
regardless of how many claims they prove. Meanwhile, local agencies that defend these
claims are responsible for the costs of their own attorney’s fees and those incurred by the
plaintiff. HR 3353 would amend the Clean Water Act to provide important protections to public
wastewater agencies like the District.
CMSD OPPOSE BILLS
Legislative Analysis
April 12, 2016
Page 4 of 15
SB 885 (Wolk) Construction Contracts: Indemnity– As Introduced on January 19, 2016 –
OPPOSE
Author: Senator Wolk, District 3
Status: 1/28/2016 – Referred to Committee on Judiciary
Hearing Date: Pending
Reviewed: SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Supported By: American Council of Engineering Companies of California (sponsor),
American Institute of Architects California Council, Structural Engineers
Association of California
Opposed By: California Special Districts Association (CSDA)
Watched By:
Summary: SB 885 would specify, for construction contracts entered into on or after January 1,
2017, that a design professional would not have a duty to defend claims against any other
person or entity arising from a construction project, except that person or entity’s reasonable
defense costs arising out of the design professional’s degree of fault. The bill would prohibit
waiver of these provisions and would provide that any clause in a contract that requires a
design professional to defend claims against other persons or entities is void and
unenforceable.
Analysis: SB 885 would limit local agencies’ ability to responsibly contract and potentially cost
taxpayers millions. The bill would make taxpayers and ratepayers responsible for fronting the
costs to defend the private sector (contractors) for claims that allege negligence,
recklessness, or willful misconduct on the part of the contractor. Neil McCormick of CSDA
asked for the District’s support in opposing SB 885 because it shifts the responsibility and risk
from design professionals to the public and would result in taxpayer dollars funding new and
unnecessary litigation.
SB 1318 (Wolk) Local Government: Drinking Water Infrastructure or Services:
Wastewater Infrastructure or Services – As Amended on March 28, 2016 – OPPOSE
Author: Senator Wolk, District 3
Status: 3/29/2016 – Set for hearing on April 6
Hearing Date: April 6
Reviewed: SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Supported By: Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability (Sponsor), Clean
Water Action, Community Water Center
Opposed By: California Special Districts Association (CSDA)
Watched By: Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (CALAFCO),
Olivenhain Municipal Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District
Summary: SB 1318 would prohibit the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) from
authorizing a city or a district with over 500 connections to extend drinking water infrastructure
or services or wastewater infrastructure or services until it has extended those services to all
disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to its sphere of influence, or has entered into
an agreement to extend those services to those disadvantaged communities. Additionally,
LAFCO would be prohibited from approving a sphere of influence update where there exists a
disadvantaged unincorporated community within or adjacent to the city or special district’s
sphere of influence that lacks safe drinking water infrastructure or services or adequate
wastewater infrastructure or services. LAFCO can, however, authorize an extension if written
evidence shows that the disadvantaged communities are opposed to receiving services.
Legislative Analysis
April 12, 2016
Page 5 of 15
Analysis: The bill was introduced in response to the events in Flint, Michigan and seeks to
ensure that all Californians have the right to safe water infrastructure. SB 1318 would impact
the District if it wished to extend its jurisdiction in the future. It would require that the District
extend wastewater infrastructure or services to all disadvantaged communities within or
adjacent to its sphere of influence before extending its jurisdiction elsewhere. CSDA opposes
SB 1318.
SB 1170 (Wieckowski) Public Contracts: Water Pollution Prevention Plans: Delegation –
As Introduced on February 18, 2016 – OPPOSE
Author: Senator Wieckowski, District 10
Status: 3/10/2016 – Set for hearing March 30
Hearing Date: March 30
Reviewed: SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Supported By: Association of General Contractors (sponsor), American Subcontractors
Association, (California Chapter), California Association of Sheet Metal
and Air Conditioning Contractors, (National Association), California
Chapters of the National Electrical Contractors Association, California
Legislative Conference of the Plumbing, Heating, and Piping Industry,
California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers, California
Precast Concrete Association, California Professional Association of
Specialty Contractors, California State Council of Laborers, Northern
California Allied Trades, Southern California Contractors Association,
Union Roofing Contractors Association, United Contractors, Wall and
Ceiling Alliance
Opposed By: Association of California Healthcare Districts, Association of California
School Administrators, Association of California Water Agencies,
California Association of Sanitation, California Association of School
Business Officials, California Special Districts Association, Coalition for
Adequate School Housing, California Municipal Utilities Association,
California State Association of Counties, California School Boards
Association, California State University, League of California Cities,
Rural County Representatives of California, Three Valleys Municipal
Water District, Urban Counties of California
Watched By:
Summary: SB 1170 would require special districts and other local agencies to directly manage
and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) on every public works project
exceeding one acre in size. It would allow for the agency to contract this work with a design
professional, but it prohibits the agency from doing so with the contractors managing and
implementing the day-to-day construction of the project.
Analysis: This bill shifts the legal responsibility for the management of SWPPPs to public
agencies rather than contractors. Additionally, it would require public agencies to obtain
environmental permits before going out to bid for a project to ensure legal compliance.
SWPPPs are usually made in accordance with general contractor’s construction plans, and as
the project progresses, they must often be changed to accommodate the changing conditions
of the project. Contractors who are actually performing the work are in the best position to
know when the plan must be modified. Requiring the contractor to develop and maintain the
SWPPP creates an incentive to ensure that the SWPPP effectively protects water quality. SB
1170 would remove this incentive and increase the burden on local agencies, potentially
resulting in illegal pollutant discharges, fines, and water quality issues.
Legislative Analysis
April 12, 2016
Page 6 of 15
CMSD WATCH BILLS
AB 1707 (Linder & Dababneh) Public Records: Response to Request – As Amended on
March 28, 2016 – WATCH
Author: Assembly Members Linder and Dababneh
Status: 3/29/2016 – From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Committee on
Local Government. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (March 29). Re-referred to
Committee on Local Government.
Hearing Date: Pending
Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Supported By: ACLU, California Newspaper Publishers Association, Electronic Frontier
Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, San Diegans for Open
Government, Socrata, Sierra Club
Opposed By: Association of California Water Agencies, California Association of
Clerks and Election Officials, California Association of Counties, City
Clerks Association of California, League of California Cities,
Sacramento Municipal Utility District, San Joaquin Board of Supervisors,
Cities of Burbank, Belvedere, Chico, Chino, Chino Hills, Coachella,
Colton, Corona, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Danville, Desert Hot Springs,
Downey, Dublin, Eastvale, Glendora, Indian Wells, Laguna Hills,
Lakeport, Lakewood, La Quinta, Los Alamitos, Los Altos, Martinez,
Menifee, Murrieta, Napa, Newark, Newport Beach, Norco, Norwalk,
Ontario, Pinole, Poway, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverbank, Rocklin,
Roseville, Salinas, San Dimas, San Marino, Santa Maria, Santa Monica,
South Lake Tahoe, Temecula, Torrance, Union City
Watched By: California Special Districts Association (CSDA), Contra Costa Local
Agency Formation Commission (CALAFCO)
Summary: The California Public Records Act requires state and local agencies to make public
records available for inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. The act requires
a response to a written request for public records that includes a denial of the request, in
whole or in part, to be in writing. This bill instead would require that response to be in writing
regardless of whether the request was in writing. The bill would require that written response
additionally to demonstrate that the record in question is exempt under an expressed provision
of the act and to identify the type or types of record withheld and the specific exemption that
justifies withholding the record.
Analysis: The District currently follows the practice of providing a written response to public
records request denials, along with the specific exemption that justifies the withholding of the
record. Many cities and local government agencies oppose this bill because it may pose
“operational challenges, increased costs, and a potential for increased litigation for cities
already struggling to comply with the California Public Records Act.” Supporters of the bill
argue that it will support government transparency and forces agencies to ensure that public
request denials are in fact justified. CSDA opposed the bill in its previous state, but withdrew
its opposition due to the recent amendment.
AB 1063 (Williams) Solid Waste: Charges – As Amended on August 17, 2015 – WATCH
Author: Assembly Member Williams, District 37
Status: 8/19/2015 - In committee: Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the
request of author.
Legislative Analysis
April 12, 2016
Page 7 of 15
Hearing Date: Pending
Reviewed: SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Supported By: Californians Against Waste (sponsor), California State Association of
Counties (CSAC), Rural County Representatives of California
Opposed By: LA County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated, Waste
Management Task Force, Western Placer Management Authority
Watched By: California Special Districts Association (CSDA), Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
Summary: AB 1063 would raise the solid waste tipping fee imposed on an operator of a
disposal facility from $1.40 per ton to $4 per ton beginning on January 1, 2017. A minimum of
$1.50 per ton of the fee collected would then be required to be allocated to activities that
promote recycling and the highest and best use of materials until January 1, 2022.
Additionally, beginning on January 1, 2019, this bill would require the Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to establish and impose a quarterly charge
on all solid waste generators to be collected by a local government and remitted to the State
Board of Equalization (BOE). The generator charge must be sufficient to ensure that no less
than $15 million is collected annually for the purpose of funding activities that promote
recycling and the highest and best use of materials. Lastly, the bill requires the local
governments, or up to two designees per city or county, to collect the charge and remit the
money to the BOE.
Analysis: As the state moves towards its 75% diversion goal, the subsequent decrease in
disposal tonnage will cause a decrease in tipping fee revenue. The state tipping fee currently
funds CalRecycle programs and grants such as Household Hazardous Waste Grants and the
fee has not been increased in over 20 years (since 1993). If the tipping fee is increased, the
majority of the new revenue would be put towards building infrastructure necessary for
diversion. If the tipping fee remains at $1.40 per ton, the Integrated Waste Management
Account (IWMA) fund balance is projected to be in deficit by FY 2017-2018.
AB 1063 proposes a substantial increase of nearly triple the existing tipping fee. As a result of
AB 939, local jurisdictions across the state have reduced their solid waste landfill disposal
rates and may see this bill as penalizing them for their success in reducing disposal tonnages.
Critics argue that it will require local governments to collect a solid waste generator fee with no
mechanism to recoup resources utilized to collect the fee. Additionally, the bill provides no
assurance that revenue collected from disposal facilities, residents, and businesses would be
proportionally invested in the region where the revenue originated from.
AB 45 (Mullin) Household Hazardous Waste – As Amended on January 21, 2016 –
WATCH
Author: Assembly Member Mullin, District 22
Status: 2/4/2016 - Referred to Committee on Environmental Quality
Hearing Date: Pending
Reviewed: SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Supported By: American Academy of Pediatrics, Eli Lilly and Company, Biocom,
Biotechnology Industry Association, California Healthcare Institute,
TechNet
Opposed By: California State Association of Counties (CSAC), Santa Barbara County,
Alameda County Board of Supervisors, California Product Stewardship
Council, Cities of Burbank, Diamond Bar, Lawndale, Paramount,
Roseville, Santa Monica, and Torrance, Counties of San Bernardino,
Legislative Analysis
April 12, 2016
Page 8 of 15
Tulare and Los Angeles, Marin County Board of Supervisors, Lincoln
Police Department, Los Angeles Integrated Waste Management Task
Force, Rocklin Police Department, Roseville Police Chief, Rural County
Representatives of California, Placer County Board of Supervisors,
Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors, Solid Waste Association of North America (CA Chapters),
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, Urban Counties Caucus,
Western Pacer Waste Management Authority
Watched By: California Special Districts Association (CSDA)
Summary: AB 45 would require the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle) to adopt one or more model ordinances for a comprehensive program for the
collection of household hazardous waste (HHW) and would authorize a local jurisdiction that
provides for the residential collection and disposal of solid waste that proposes to enact an
ordinance governing the collection and diversion of household hazardous waste to adopt one
of the model ordinances adopted by the department. The bill would require the department to
determine whether a nonprofit organization has been created and funded to make grants to
local jurisdictions for specified purposes relating to household hazardous waste disposal and
would specify that if the department does not determine that such a nonprofit organization
exists by December 31, 2018, then the bill's provisions would be repealed on January 1, 2019.
Analysis: AB 45 intends to coordinate with local governments, producers of HHW products,
and CalRecycle to adopt model ordinances for comprehensive HHW collection programs.
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill would have a fiscal impact of
increasing CalRecycle’s annual costs by $200,000-$300,000. Additionally, this bill is
contingent upon a determination made by CalRecycle on whether an appropriate nonprofit
organization has been created and funded for the purpose of making grants to local
government, but AB 45 does not require that a specified amount of funding be distributed by
the nonprofit. The bill broadens the definition of HHW to include home-generated
pharmaceutical waste (such as prescription and non-prescription drugs), but it does not
provide a specific collection model that would be appropriate for these sometimes dangerous
substances. Additionally, some argue that retailers and manufacturers of HHW products
should share in the responsibility for HHW collection.
Depending on the adopted program, this may or may not impact the District, as the District
has several HHW programs in place (Door-to-Door, HHW Collection event, Battery Recycling
Program, Sharps & Pharmaceuticals Programs, and the OC HHW Collection Centers).
However, the bill may increase funding for HHW-related grants, which the District may be
eligible for.
AB 2039 (Ting) Solid Waste: Home-generated Sharps – As Amended on March 17, 2016
– WATCH
Author: Assembly Member Ting, District 19
Status: 3/28/2016 – Re-referred to Committee on Environmental Safety and
Toxic Materials.
Hearing Date: Pending
Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND
TOXIC MATERIALS
Supported By:
Opposed By:
Legislative Analysis
April 12, 2016
Page 9 of 15
Watched By: Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle),
California Pharmacists Association, California Special Districts
Association (CSDA)
Summary: AB 2039 would require a producer of home-generated sharps or a stewardship
organization designated by the producer to submit a home-generated sharps stewardship plan
by July 1, 2018, to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. The bill would
require the plan to provide for the development and implementation of a recovery program to
reduce the generation of, and manage the end of life of, home-generated sharps, and to
include specified elements, including provisions to meet specified minimum collection rates for
the home-generated sharps subject to the plan.
Analysis: This bill would require pharmaceutical manufacturers that sell or distribute
medication that is intended to be self-injected at home to create a plan for the reduction and
management of home-generated sharps. It places a greater responsibility on manufacturers to
play to take part in ensuring proper disposal of home-generated sharps. If passed, AB 2039
would not have a direct impact on the District.
AB 2111 (Dahle) Household Hazardous Waste – As Introduced on February 17, 2016 –
WATCH
Author: Assembly Member Dahle, District 1
Status: 2/18/2016 - From printer. May be heard in committee March 19.
Hearing Date: Pending
Reviewed:
Supported By:
Opposed By:
Watched By: California Pharmacists Association, California Special Districts
Association (CSDA)
Summary: Existing law authorizes public agencies to operate household hazardous waste
collection facilities, as defined, and specifies conditions for the transportation of household
hazardous waste. AB 2111 would make nonsubstantive changes to the definitions pertaining
to those provisions.
Analysis: This bill does not have any direct implications for the District, as it simply seeks to
make minor changes in the plurality of “service” and “program” within Section 25218.1 of the
Health and Safety Code.
AB 2153 (Garcia) Household Hazardous Waste: Hazardous Waste Facilities – As
Introduced on February 17, 2016 – WATCH
Author: Assembly Member Garcia, District 58
Status: 2/29/2016 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Safety & Toxic
Materials
Hearing Date: Pending
Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND
TOXIC MATERIALS
Supported By:
Opposed By:
Watched By: California Special Districts Association (CSDA)
Legislative Analysis
April 12, 2016
Page 10 of 15
Summary: AB 2153 would extend the authorization to transport household hazardous waste
(HHW) to a hazardous waste facility, along with the existing consolidated manifesting
procedures requirement to December 31, 2021.
Analysis: In its current state, this bill does not have direct implications for the District, but it
would extend the current authorizations in place for HHW transporters such as CR&R.
SB 970 (Leyva) Organic Food Waste Diversion – As Amended on March 28, 2016 –
WATCH
Author: Senator Leyva, District 20
Status: 3/15/2016 – Set for hearing April 6
Hearing Date: April 6
Reviewed: SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Supported By:
Opposed By:
Watched By: California Special Districts Association (CSDA)
Summary: SB 970 would require, by June 1, 2017, the Department of Resources Recycling
and Recovery, in consultation with the State Air Resources Board and the State Energy
Resources Conservation and Development Commission, to develop a demonstration program
to award matching grant funding for cost-effective and efficient integrated organic food waste
diversion projects at existing wastewater treatment facilities.
Analysis: This bill intends to establish a program that provides cost-effective utilization of
existing anaerobic digestion capacity at public wastewater agencies, make the best use of
diverted organics, reduce the emissions of criteria air pollutants, promote the effective use of
public-private partnerships, provide environmental benefits for disadvantaged communities,
and create local jobs. In the bill’s current state, the District would not be eligible for matching
grant funding, as it specifies only “wastewater treatment facilities” as possible recipients.
AB 1588 (Mathis) Water and Wastewater Loan and Grant Program – As Amended on
March 16, 2016 – WATCH
Author: Assembly Member Mathis, District 26
Status: 3/29/2016 – From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Committee on
Appropriations with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 13.
Noes 0.) (March 29). Re-referred to Committee on Appropriations
Hearing Date: Pending
Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Supported By: Association of California Water Agencies
Opposed By:
Watched By: Orange County Water District, Association of California Water
Agencies, California Special Districts Association (CSDA)
Summary: AB 1588 would require the State Water Resources Control Board to establish a
program to provide low-interest loans and grants to local agencies to eligible homeowners to
connect to water or wastewater service, close abandoned septic tanks or water wells, deepen
an existing groundwater well, or install a water treatment system if the groundwater doesn’t
meet primary or secondary drinking water standards. Eligible loan applicants must have their
own home and be unable to obtain a conventional loan, be below the statewide median
income, or have a household income that is less than 60% of the statement median. This bill
would create the Water and Wastewater Loan and Grant Fund and provide that the moneys in
Legislative Analysis
April 12, 2016
Page 11 of 15
this fund are available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the board for expenditure for
the program. This bill would transfer to the Water and Wastewater Loan and Grant Fund
$20,000,000 from the General Fund.
Analysis: The bill creates the ability for the State Water Board to provide financial assistance
for needed water and wastewater improvements to private home owners who otherwise
cannot afford to make improvements. This bill would not have a direct impact on the District.
SB 661 (Hill) Protection of Subsurface Installations – As Amended on January 4, 2016 –
WATCH
Author: Senator Hill, District 13
Status: 1/26/2016 – In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
Hearing Date: January 21
Reviewed: SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Supported By: Associated General Contractors, AT&T, California Council of Laborers,
California Labor Federation, California Landscape Contractors
Association, California Legislative Conference on the Plumbing,
Heating, and Piping Industry, National Electrical Contractors
Association, Southern California Contractors Association, Underground
Service Alert of Southern California, United Contractors, Western Line
Constructors Chapter, Inc.
Opposed By:
Watched By: California Special Districts Association (CSDA)
Summary: SB 661 would establish the “Dig Safe Act of 2016” and make several changes to
existing laws governing subsurface excavations, including prohibiting an excavator that
damages a subsurface installation due to an inaccurate field mark by an operator from being
liable for damages, replacement costs, or other expenses arising from damage to the
subsurface installation, provided the excavator complied with all pre-excavation notification
requirements and procedures. This bill would also direct specified state agencies to enforce
violations of the bill’s provisions related to excavation, and would create the California
Underground Facilities Safe Excavation Advisory Committee, which would investigate alleged
violations of laws relating to the protection of underground infrastructure and develop
standards relevant to safety practices in excavating around subsurface installations.
Analysis: This bill makes contractors and facility owners accountable for safe excavation
practices. In relation to the District, the bill would add sewer lateral language for residential
buildings into the Health and Safety Code that requires indication of the location of the sewers.
The District’s sewer map, which is newly updated and accessible on the District website, will
allow both residents and contractors to locate their sewer laterals with greater ease. The
added accountability and its resulting costs may cause contractors to increase their service
fees.
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill will result in unknown penalty
revenues (in the millions of dollars). The resulting costs are approximated to be as follows: an
initial cost of $2.4 million with ongoing costs of about $2.1 million to fund the Advisory
Committee, an initial cost of $190,000 and an annual cost of $175,000 for the Contractors
State License Board staff to administer disciplinary actions, and one-time costs of about
$110,000-$190,000 for the Building Standards Commission staff to develop and adopt non-
residential building standards for the installation of trace wire or tape for non-pressurized
sewers.
Legislative Analysis
April 12, 2016
Page 12 of 15
AB 1005 (Gordon) California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act:
Market Development Payments – As Amended on January 4, 2016 – WATCH
Author: Assembly Member Gordon, District 24
Status: 2/4/2016 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Quality
Hearing Date: Pending
Reviewed: SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Supported By: California Nevada Beverage Association, Californians Against Waste
(sponsor), CarbonLITE, Ecopet Plastics, Global Plastics, RePET Inc.,
Talco Plastics Inc., Verdeco Recycling, Inc.
Opposed By:
Watched By:
Summary: AB 1005 will extend the Plastic Market Development Program (PMDP) from 2017 to
2022. The program has successfully increased the in-state processing and use of recycled
plastic, spurring private investment and jobs. Prior to the existence of the program, less than
2% of plastic beverage containers collected for recycling were processed and manufactured
into new products in California. The remainder was exported. By 2014, in-state plastic
processing and use increased by more than 3,000 percent to almost 100,000 tons.
Analysis: The bill will continue the existing allocation of $10 million annually for the PMDP
program for an additional five years. It is intended to create a financial incentive for recycling
and to make recycling convenient for consumers to decrease the beverage container
component of the solid waste stream. Although the bill does not have a direct impact on the
District, it promotes community recycling and landfill diversion.
SB 1436 (Bates) Local Agency Meetings: Local Agency Executive Compensation: Oral
Report of Final Action Recommendation – As Amended on March 28, 2016 – WATCH
Author: Senator Bates, District 36
Status: 3/28/2016 – From the committee with author’s amendments. Read
second time and amended. Re-referred to the Committee on
Governance and Finance
Hearing Date: Pending
Reviewed: SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Supported By:
Opposed By:
Watched By: California Special Districts Association (CSDA), Contra Costa Local
Agency Formation Commission (CALAFCO)
Summary: SB 1436 would require that the legislative body’s final action regarding the salaries,
salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency
executive to be made a separate oral report and not placed on a consent calendar. The bill
would require the legislative body to orally report a summary of a recommendation for the final
action during the open meeting which the final action is to be taken.
Analysis: Any changes made to the salary, salary schedule, or benefits of the District’s
executive (General Manager) are prepared by the District Counsel in the form of an agreement
and presented to the Board of Directors by the District Counsel in an open public meeting as a
discussion item. Therefore, this bill would have no direct impact on the District’s current
practices. The bill does, however, promote greater transparency in local public agencies.
Legislative Analysis
April 12, 2016
Page 13 of 15
AB 2257 (Maienschein) Local Agency Meetings: Agenda: Online Posting – As
Introduced on February 18, 2016 – WATCH
Author: Assembly Member Maienschein, District 77
Status: 3/29/2016 – In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing cancelled at the
request of author.
Hearing Date: Pending
Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Supported By:
Opposed By:
Watched By: Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (CALAFCO)
Summary: The Ralph M. Brown Act requires the legislative body of a local agency to post, at
least 72 hours before the meeting, an agenda containing a brief general description of each
item of business to be transacted or discussed at a regular meeting, in a location that is freely
accessible to members of the public and to provide a notice containing similar information with
respect to a special meeting at least 24 hours prior to the special meeting. This bill would
require an online posting of an agenda by a local agency to have a prominent direct link to the
current agenda itself on the agency’s homepage.
Analysis: AB 2257 would have no direct effect on the District, as the District currently follows
the practice of posting a link to the agenda on the homepage of its website.
AB 2389 (Ridley-Thomas) Special Districts: District-based Elections: Reapportionment –
As Introduced on February 18, 2016 – WATCH
Author: Assembly Member Ridley-Thomas, District 54
Status: 3/8/2016 – Referred to Committees on Elections and Reapportionment
and Local Government
Hearing Date: Pending
Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Supported By: Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (sponsor),
American Civil Liberties Union of California, Association of California
Water Agencies, California Association of Recreation and Park Districts,
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights
Opposed By:
Watched By: Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (CALAFCO)
Summary: AB 2389 would permit a special district to change the method of electing its
governing board members from at-large to a by-district method of election without receiving
voter approval. Specifically, the bill authorizes the governing body to adopt a resolution
(without being required to submit the resolution to voters for approval) that requires its
governing body to be elected using district-based elections. Existing law does not provide a
process for conversion if a district wished to change from at-large to by-district conversion.
Analysis: The bill would provide special districts with the flexibility to convert from an at-large
election district to a by-district election district (and vice versa) without voter approval or Board
ordinance. AB 2389 would only impact the District if its Board of Directors wished to convert to
a by-district election method.
AB 2853 (Gatto) Public Records – As Amended on March 18, 2016 – WATCH
Legislative Analysis
April 12, 2016
Page 14 of 15
Author: Assembly Member Gatto, District 43
Status: 3/18/2016 – From committee chair, with author’s amendments: Amend,
and re-refer to Committee on Judiciary. Read second time and
amended.
Hearing Date: Pending
Reviewed:
Supported By:
Opposed By:
Watched By: City of Glendale, Orange County Employees Retirement System, Contra
Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (CALAFCO), Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7),
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Joint CFCA-FDAC
Legislative Task Force, Ventura County Transportation Commission,
California Cable & Telecommunications Association
Summary: AB 2853 would authorize a public agency that posts a public record on its website
to refer a person that requests to inspect or obtain a copy of the public record to its website
where the record is posted.
Analysis: This bill would not have a direct impact on the District, as it already makes certain
public records available on its website for the purpose of transparency.
AB 2891 (Alejo, Gonzalez, McCarty, & Ting) Household Hazardous Waste: Guidelines –
As Introduced on February 29, 2016 – WATCH
Author: Assembly Members Alejo (Chair), Gonzalez, McCarty, and Ting
Status: 3/28/2016 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic
Materials
Hearing Date: Pending
Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND
TOXIC MATERIALS
Supported By:
Opposed By:
Watched By: Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
Summary: Existing law requires the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle) to prepare, in consultation with the Department of Toxic Substances Control,
guidelines and a state policy to guide the efforts of local agencies to provide household
hazardous waste (HHW) collection, recycling, and disposal programs pursuant to this article.
AB 2891 would require CalRecycle to additionally consult with the State Water Resources
Control Board in preparing the guidelines and state policy. Additionally, the bill would require
CalRecycle, beginning January 1, 2019, to annually update and post the guidelines on its
website.
Analysis: This bill would require CalRecycle to create guidelines and a state policy for HHW
collection, recycling, and disposal programs which the District would be subject to follow. It is
difficult to determine the impact of this bill without knowing what the guidelines will be. The
District will monitor this bill to ensure that it remains in compliance with state policy in regards
to HHW collection programs.
Legislative Analysis
April 12, 2016
Page 15 of 15
AB 2396 (McCarty) Solid Waste: Annual Reports – As Introduced on February 18, 2016 –
WATCH
Author: Assembly Member McCarty, District 7
Status: 3/8/2016 – Referred to Committee on Natural Resources
Hearing Date: Pending
Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Supported By:
Opposed By:
Watched By: Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
Summary: Current law requires each state agency to submit an annual report to CalRecycle
summarizing its progress in reducing solid waste that is due on or before May 1 of each year.
This bill would require each state agency to include in that annual report a summary of the
state agency's compliance with specified requirements relating to recycling commercial solid
waste and organic waste, including an estimate of the amount of organic waste in cubic yards
that will be generated in the county or region over a 15-year period, an estimate of the
additional organic waste recycling facility capacity in cubic yards that will be needed to process
that amount of waste, and areas identified by the county or regional agency as locations for
new or expanded organic waste recycling facilities capable of safely meeting that additional
need.
Analysis: If passed, AB 2396 will require the District to add information to its annual solid
waste reduction progress report to CalRecycle. The bill would create additional work for staff,
but would also result in a valuable 15-year forecast of organic waste collection and capacity.
Since the bill does not have any listed support or opposition, District staff will continue to track
it and ensure that the District remains in compliance with state reporting requirements.
AB 1669 (Hernández) Displaced Employees: Service Contracts: Collection and
Transportation of Solid Waste – As Amended on March 8, 2016 – WATCH
Author: Assembly Member Hernández, District 48
Status: 3/9/2016 – Re-referred to Committee on Labor and Employment
Hearing Date: Pending
Reviewed: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
Supported By:
Opposed By:
Watched By: Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle),
California Refuse Recycling Council (CRRC), North County Transit
District (NCTD), Caltrain
Summary: AB 1669 would add employees of solid waste collection and transportation
contractors and subcontractors to “displaced employees” provisions that require subsequent
contractors to retain, for a minimum specified period of time, employees of a predecessor
contractor or subcontractor who are employed to perform essentially the same services.
Analysis: If the District were to go out to bid for a different solid waste collection contractor,
this bill would require the District to give bidding preference to contractors who agree to retain
(for a specified period of time) employees who were employed to perform the same services
by the previous contractor. AB 1669 would impact the District’s bidding process for its solid
waste contract and require the winning contractor to offer employment to the employees of the
previous contractor.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
... an Independent Special District
Alkaline Battery Recycling Program - Final Results
Item Number:7.
Recommendation/Notes:
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive and file the report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Alkaline Battery Recycling Program - Final Results Cover Memo
Protecting our community's health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services.
www.cmsdca.gov
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
….an Independent Special District
Memorandum
To: Board of Directors
Via: Scott Carroll, General Manager
From: Gina Terraneo, Management Analyst I
Date: April 12, 2016
Subject: Alkaline Battery Recycling Program - Final Report
Summary
On July 16, 2013, the Board of Directors directed staff to implement a Battery
Recycling Pilot Program that focused on collecting used alkaline batteries from local
schools. In the first year of the program, five schools participated and collected 4,453.9
pounds of alkaline batteries. During the second year of the program, eight schools
participated and 5,345 pounds of batteries were collected. This year’s program began
on October 1, 2015 and ended on April 1, 2016. Nine schools participated and
collected a total of 4,525 pounds of batteries. Staff is providing the Board of Directors
with a final program report.
Staff Recommendation
That the Board of Directors receive and file the report.
Analysis
A total of nine schools participated in this year’s program and collected a total of 4,525
pounds of alkaline batteries. Below is a chart illustrating the participating schools
ranked by the total weight (in pounds) collected per school:
School Battery Totals (lbs.)
1st place Davis Magnet School 1,654
2nd place Christ Lutheran 1,073
3rd place Kaiser Elementary School 587
4th place California Elementary 502
5th place St. John the Baptist 272
6th place Newport Heights Elementary 168
Board of Directors
April 12, 2016
Page 2 of 3
7th place Harper School 151
8th place Waldorf School 108
9th place TeWinkle School 10
Grand total of 4,525 (lbs.)
Battery Recycling Program
The program works as follows:
1. Mercury Disposal Systems, Inc. (MDS) delivers a 5-gallon battery recycling
bucket to each school. Additional buckets are available upon request.
2. In order to remain time and cost-efficient, MSD staff collects the batteries upon
request from each school.
3. MDS then tags the buckets with each school’s name, weighs them, and sends
District staff the total tonnage collected per school.
4. MDS bills CR&R and CR&R bills the District for this service. This allows us to
take advantage of CR&R’s low battery disposal cost of $0.76 per pound.
5. At the conclusion of the program, a CMSD Director presents the checks to the
participating schools. A minimum of 50 lbs. is required to receive the minimum
award of $300.00. (On average, a 5-gallon bucket of alkaline batteries weighs
about 50-60 pounds.)
This program allows children of all ages to continue to learn about recycling and
conservation efforts in school. CMSD hopes that they will apply these principals at
home, educate their families, and become good stewards of the environment.
Strategic Plan Element & Goal
This item complies with the objective and strategy of Strategic Element 2.0, Solid
Waste, which states:
“Objective: Our objective is to manage the collection and recycling of residential trash
in the most economical and environmentally friendly way.”
“Strategy: We will do this by looking for ways to improve efficiencies, achieve high
customer satisfaction, and considering prudent new recycling methods.”
Legal Review
Not applicable at this time.
Environmental Review
The program establishes a convenient method for school children and their families
dispose of batteries, ultimately preventing the batteries from being illegally placed in
the trash and making their way to landfills. As presented, the District’s Alkaline Battery
Recycling Program is not a disturbance to the environment directly or indirectly.
Board of Directors
April 12, 2016
Page 3 of 3
Financial Review
For Fiscal Year 2015-2016, the Battery Recycling program budget was $20,000.
District staff obtained grant funding in the form of HD-23 (a Household Hazardous
Waste Discretionary Grant from CalRecycle) to reimburse the District for the disposal
costs of $3,439.00. However, the grant does not provide funding for cash incentives,
so the District will provide the fundraiser reward amount of $3,500.00.
The budget was used as follows:
Fundraiser Rewards $3,500.00
Disposal Costs $3,439.00
Total Program Costs $6,939.00
Categories Rewards
1st Place $1,000
2nd Place $600
3rd Place $400
4th Place (minimum award $300 award) x 5 schools
*TeWinkle School did not meet the minimum collection of 50 lbs.
and therefore will not receive a $300 reward
$1,500
Total $3,500
CMSD staff monitored the Battery Recycling Program on a monthly basis to ensure
that the program remained within budget.
Public Notice Process
Copies of this report are on file and will be included with the complete agenda packet
for the April 12, 2016 Board of Directors meeting at District Headquarters and posted
on the District’s website.
Reviewed by:
Wendy Hooper. Davis
Finance Manager
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
... an Independent Special District
Historical Solid Waste Rates
Item Number:8.
Recommendation/Notes:
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive and file the report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Historical Solid Waste Rates Cover Memo
Protecting our community's health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services.
www.cmsdca.gov
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
….an Independent Special District
Memorandum
To: Board of Directors
Via: Scott Carroll, General Manager
From: Elizabeth Pham, Management Analyst II
Date: April 12, 2016
Subject: Historical Solid Waste Rates
Summary
On Tuesday, March 9, 2016, the Board of Directors requested staff to provide a
Historical Solid Waste Rate report.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board of Directors receive and file this report.
Analysis
The District’s revenues partially derive from Solid Waste fees placed on the property
tax rolls. The Solid Waste fees are charged for residential refuse collection services on
single family and small multi-family users. The District’s current Solid Waste rate is
$216 per year or $18.00 per month. In FY 2012-13, the annual rate was reduced from
$239.41 to $228, and then further reduced in FY 2013-14 to its current rate of $216 per
year. The rate reductions were approved by the Board of Directors, and its primary
objective was to decrease the reserve balance in the Solid Waste Fund.
Strategic Plan Element & Goal
This item complies with the objective and strategy of Strategic Element 2.0, Solid
Waste, which states:
“Objective: Our objective is to manage the collection and recycling of residential trash
in the most economical and environmentally friendly way.”
Board of Directors Study Session
April 12, 2016
Page 2 of 2
“Strategy: We will do this by looking for ways to improve efficiencies, achieve high
customer satisfaction, and considering prudent new recycling methods.”
Legal Review
Not applicable
Environmental Review
Providing a report on the history of trash collection fees is an administrative activity
and is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.) Section 15300.4 of CEQA allows an
agency while establishing its own procedures “to list those specific activities which fall
within each of the exempt classes”, and the District has adopted “CEQA Guidelines
and Implementing Procedures” that state on page 6 “Projects” does not include ….
C. Continuing administrative or maintenance activities.”
Financial Review
The FY 2016-17 Annual Charge budget is $4,725,000, based upon an annual charge
of $216 per year, or $18 per month, for approximately 21,875 units.
Public Notice Process
Copies of this report are on file and will be included with the complete agenda packet
for the April 12, 2016, Board of Directors Study Session meeting at District
Headquarters and posted on the District’s website.
Alternative Actions
1. Direct staff to report back with more information.
Attachments:
A. Historical Solid Waste Rates Chart
Reviewed by:
Wendy Hooper Davis
Finance Manager