The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 03041986 - 2.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: SOLID WASTE COMMISSION DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 1986 SUBJECT: ASSEMBLY BILL 2020 - BEVERAGE CONTAINERS : REFUND VALUE peci is Request(s) or Recommendation(s) K Background & Justification RECOMMENDED ACTION OPPOSE Assembly Bill 2020 - Beverage Containers: Refund Value (amended version January 27, 1986) . FINANCIAL IMPACT - None REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND At the February 19, 1.986 meeting of the Solid Waste Commission, the Commission discussed AB 2020 - Beverage Containers: Refund Value, introduced by Assemblyman Margolin. Versions of this type of legislation in the past have been known as the "bottle bill" . AB 2020 would establish a redemption value of at least one cent for every beverage container sold in the State. This redemption value would increase to two cents if certain recycling goals were not met. The empty containers would have to be taken to certified recycling centers in order to claim the redemption value. A 17-member commission would be established to oversee the program and to regulate various aspects of the bill . The Solid Waste Commission recommends opposition to the bill for the following reasons: (1) The one-cent redemption value is not enough of an incentive to divert a sufficient amount of containers from the wastestream and from littered areas. Previous versions of the "bottle bill" have had a redemption value of a minimum of five cents per container. (2) The composition of the commission to oversee the Act is biased toward the beverage and container industry. Ten of the 17 members are designated for the beverage or container industry. (3) The general public may have difficulty in redeeming their beverage containers since the only certified recycling centers would be able to redeem these containers . Previous legislation had proposed that grocery stores be locations where the public can return empty containers. In this legislation, grocery stores have an option of becoming certified recycling centers , but are not required to supply4Senate This bill has passed the Assembly and is being considered ' ttees. Continued on attachment: yes Signature: Recommendation of County Administrator a endatio T'6 d Committeel Approve Other: Signature(s): Action of Board on: March 4, 1986 Approved as Recommended Other x DEFERRED decision on proposed legislation AB 2020 and REQUESTED the County Administrator to report on the current status of the bill. Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN x Unanimous (Absent - ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. Absent: Abstain: swc .bo.ab202O.t2 Attested Orig. Div.: Community Development PHIL BATCHELUN, ULTI'IK cc: County Administrator' OF THE BOARD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR - By DEPUTY CLERK TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator ClJl ltra February 26, 1986 S DATE: CW couft / SUBJECT: Legislation: SB 1990 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(.S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION• Adopt a position of support for SB 1990 (McCorquodale) which would authorize the governing body (including the board of supervisors) of any taxing entity which provides fire protection services in a redevelopment project area, where a redevelopment plan was adopted prior to January 1, 1987, to elect to be allocated all, or a portion of, the tax revenues which would have been received by that taxing agency in the absence of the existence of the redevelopment agency. BACKGROUND: In the Board of Supervisors ' 1986 Legislative Program, the Board included an item indicating their willingness -to support any legislation which might be introduced which provides for a pass-through of that portion of a redevelopment agency' s tax increment revenue which would have gone to a fire district if the redevelopment agency had not been established. Senator McCorquodale has introduced SB 1990 which allows the Board of Supervisors as the governing body of the Board-governed fire districts to require the pass-through of the tax increment revenue in instances where a redevelopment plan was adopted prior to January 1, 1987 . The bill also allows the Board of Supervisors to request such a pass-through of tax increment revenue in instances where a redevelopment plan is being considered, but has not yet been adopted. In Contra Costa County, the tax increment loss of the Board-governed fire districts has increased over the last five years as is noted below: 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 $ 909,874 $1,183,493 $1, 367,179 $1,440,685 $1,721,616 CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: 6��_aaav X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE n OTHER Lat1__1 SIGNATURE(S): 1 .!!< y/e& ACTION OF BOARD ON March 4, 1986 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _XL'. OTHER X REFERRED proposed legislation SB 1990 to the fire districts for their review and endorsement . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT --- AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County Administrator ATTESTED March 4 ,. 1986 All Fire Chiefs Firefighters ' Union PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Senator Dan McCorquodale SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Kathy Snodgrass, Jackson/Barish BY `� � ,DEPUTY M382/7-83 Page 2 The passage and approval of SB 1990 would, therefore, provide the Board of Supervisors with a substantial funding vehicle to assist in improving the current needs of the fire districts. Since this issue was a part of the Board' s 1986 Legislative Program, it is appropriate for the Board to specifically endorse SB 1990.