Board Meeting: July 1314, 2004, Agenda Item 9

1
Board Meeting July 13-14, 2004, Agenda Item 9

• Public Hearing and Consideration of the
  Imposition of Penalties Against the City of
  McFarland Pursuant to Compliance Order IWMA
  BR03-01 (Public Resources Code Section 41850).

2
PRC Section 41850

• If after issuing a compliance order (CO), Board
  finds City failed to make a Good Faith Effort
  (GFE) to implement the CO.
• Then, Board may impose penalties up to 10,000
  per day until CO is implemented.

3
PRC Section 41850.5 Administrative Civil Penalty

• Deposited in the Local Government Assistance
  Account.
• Used solely to assist local governments in
  complying with diversion requirements.

4
Items For The Record

• Notice of Hearing, sent by certified mail June 1,
  2004.
• Proof of Service of Notice, receipt confirmed by
  U.S Postal Service.
• Agenda Item 9 and Attachments 1-4.

5
Issues Before the Board

• Did McFarland fail to meet the conditions of the
  Compliance Order?
• If so, what is the appropriate penalty to be
  imposed for this failure?

6
Compliance Order Conditions and Schedule

• OLA staff will conduct a needs assessment meeting
  with the City and outline the scope of a LAP.
• Agreement on Local Assistance Plan (LAP) by
  6/30/03.

7
Program Implementation Assistance

• Staff provided program implementation assistance
  on 50 different occasions from August 14, 2003,
  to July 6, 2004.
• Please see attachment three of this Agenda Item
  for a list of assistance.

8
Failure To Meet Order Conditions

• Based on the Citys quarterly LAP updates and
  many requests for program implementation details,
  staff believes the City failed to demonstrate GFE
  to implement a majority of LAP programs by March
  31, 2004.

9
Penalty Criteria Demonstration of GFE

• Many of the LAP programs were not completed by
  the due date. Some depended on waste hauler
  provided recycling services however, the City
  could have implemented some, without a contracted
  hauler.

10
Penalty Criteria Demonstration of GFE

• Kern County offers free outreach assistance,
  determines the best materials, publicity, and
  copies of materials.
• Staff provided contacts for Kern. As of July 9,
  2004, the City had not contacted Kern.

11
Penalty Criteria Demonstration of GFE

• Three entities offered free program
  implementation technical assistance to the City
  and/or their hauler.
• The City met with two in June of 2004.

12
Penalty Criteria Programs Implemented Ahead of
Schedule

• LAP Program 3 Residential greenwaste program
  will start July 13.
• LAP Program 7 Pilot curbside recyclables program
  will start July 13.

13
Penalty Criteria Diversion Rate

• 1999 and 2000 diversion rates were 34, (City was
  issued a Compliance Order).
• The 2001 diversion rate is 36.
• The 2002 diversion rate dropped to 25.

14
Penalty Range Considerations

• Maximum 10,000/day from issuance of compliance
  order (1/14/03).
• Enforcement Policy
• Serious Up to 10,000/day.
• Moderate Up to 5,000/day.
• Minor Up to 1,000/day.

15
Reasons for Selecting Moderate Penalty Range

• Citys failure to implement SRRE LAP was not
  caused by natural disasters, budgetary
  constraints, or work stoppages.
• Three years ago, staff discussed program
  performance concerns with the City but the
  diversion rate remains low.

16
Reasons for Selecting Moderate Penalty Range

• Mitigating circumstance of delay in implementing
  programs is the result of the Citys effort to
  negotiate new services with their hauler.

17
Penalty Considerations- Additional Options

• Option 1 One-time penalty for failing to meet
  the March 31, 2004 LAP due date.

18
Penalty Considerations- Additional Options

• Option 2 Daily penalty assessed if City fails
  to complete past due LAP programs by December 31,
  2004.

19
Questions