The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 04011986 - 2.4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: SOLID WASTE COMMISSION (VIA COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR) DATE: MARCH 14, 1486 SUBJECT: AB 2020 - BEVERAGE CONTAINERS : REDEMPTION AND RECYCLING VALUES Specific Request(s)for Recommendations & Background & Justification RECOMMENDED ACTION SUPPORT AB 2020 (March 13, 1986 version) if amended to increase the minimum redemption value from one cent, to two cents per container, and that the bill include a mechanism for conducting a litter, survey to determine whether any additional containers should be added to the program. FINANCIAL IMPACT No direct County coast. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND On February 19, 1486, the Solid Waste Commission considered AB 2020 and recommended to the Board that AB 2020 ;be opposed. On March 4 , 1486, the Board of Supervisors considered the recommendation but did not take a position on AB 2020 because significant revisions to the bill were expected. The Board referred AB 2020 to the County Administrator. AB 2.020 was furthe"r amended on March 13, 1486. At its March 1.9, 1486 meeting the Solid Waste ,Commission considered the amended version of AB 2020. Joel Witherell , Director of Community Services for the City of E1 Cerrito and very 'active in recycling matters , recom- mended that the Commission support AB 2020 if amended to include'an increase of the minimum deposit value from one cent to two cents per container and that a litter survey be done to determine what other containers (e.g. , wine coolers and 1 /2-pint alcoholic bottles) , should be included in the: program. After considerable discussion, the Commission voted four to three to support Mr. Witherell 's recommendation. The dissenting Commission members felt that even a two-cent minimum redemption value was inadequate to stimulate a high level of recycling. r Continued on attachment: yes Signature: ecomnen ation of County Administrator eco a at Q of Board ortmittee j Approve Other: / �I Signature(s): �t Action of Board on: April 1, 1986 Approved as Recommended Other x REFERRED proposed legislation AB 2020 (March 13, 1986 version) to the Resources Committee for review at their April 14 meeting and recommendation to the full Board on April '15, 1986. 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.t3 Attested Orig. Div.: Community Development P BATCHELOR, RK cc: County Administrator- OF THE BOARD AND COUNTY Resources Committee ADMINISTRATOR - - - . By A, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECYCLING ASSOCIATION TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors iUCEIVED FROM: Joel ,Witherell , MCRA Board Member MAR 2 5 1986 RE: AB 2020 Ptl!i.BATCHELOR C K BOr RD OF SUP RVISORS RA COST O. . Deputyj BACKGROUND On March 8, 1985 AB 2020 was introduced by Assemblyman Margolin in an effort to pass a bottle bill through the Legislature. On May 27, 1985 a major change was introduced to exclude aluminum cans and include wine bottles and liquor bottles. On January 27, 1986 another major change was introduced that changed the concept' dramatically to view the "bottle bill" as the California Beverage Container Recycling Act. This change in concept was the result of the container manufacturers and distributors recogni2ing that a 'compromise was needed to solve a twenty year issue regarding litter from beverage containers. The "new bill" called for a 1¢ deposit on :certain containers (.excluding wine coolers, wine bottles, and hard liquor containers).. Aluminum cans were re-included. The redemption program would provided a minimum of 1¢ plus a bonus amount based on a percentage of returned containers, i .e.:=an aluminum can would be worth 1¢ (the deposit) plus .5� (..the bonus value) if 60% of all aluminum containers were being recycled. In addition the customer could receive a portion of the value of the .material when sold. Therefore the alum1num can picked up off the 'street and brought to a redemption center would be redeemed for 1� (deposit) +.. .5¢ (bonus) (value of the material ) for a total redemption of; 2�. However, if an item is only. bei.'ng recycled at 10%, i .e. plastic drink bottle, the redemption would be the' following. - 1� (deposit) plus 6.3� (bonus) plus O¢ value of material or a total of 7.3¢ redemption. Starting February 14, 1986 a series of amendments have been made based on review by the recycling industry and others who found the January 27, 1986 bill acceptable in concept yet lacking in other areas. Assemblyman Margolin has made it clear that he expects many amendments during the various Assembly and Senate Committee hearings prior to a vote on the Senate floor. DRAFT April 1 , 1986 Assemblyman Burt Margolin State Capitol , Room 6011 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: AB 2020 - Support if Amended Dear Assemblyman Margo:li.n: The Contra Costa. Board of Supervisors acting on a recommendation by our, County Solid baste Commission endorsed in concept AB 2020 if amended. We believe that the California Beverage Container Recycling Act has merit as a solution to our increasing litter problem in our County and can be an asset to increasing recycling activity throughout the State. However, to fully endorse AB 2020 'it is necessary for the following amendments. 1 . Two cent deposit: All containers should have a .minimum of 2¢ deposit to allow for a higher 'redemption value and bonuses. The proposed l�. deposit on aluminum cans will only provide a redemptive value of 1 .5� if a 60% 'leve.] is .obtained. Accordi:ng. to the aluminum' industrythis is thel�current level of ,aluminum can recovery in California. Yet many.. aluminum cans are still littering our County. We believe that a'2Q 'deposit that will provide a 2.9¢ redemption. value is necessary to increase the stated 60% return rate to 80% or more-. 2. Wine Coolers and certain liquor bottles: A true litter control program must include wine coolers andlicertain throw-away type liquor bottles to reduce the cost to .the State and local governments for litter cleanup and to prevent serious accidents to the public due to broken glass.. We believe that in addition to the growing popularity of wine coolers on the market and the'Ipropensity for 2 pint and pint liquor bottles disposed of in public places that these must also have a redemptive value. In addition to the above amendments our Board of Supervisors and our County Solid Waste Commission wish to have the opportunity to review the final bill before fully endorsing AB 2020 p'r'ior to a final vote by the Assembly and Senate. We believe that the bill is extremely complex. and could be simplified when full consideration to how the program is administered is worked out. Sincerely, Supervisor. Tom Powers cc: Contra Costa Cities California Counties Attachment: Comments on AB 2020 Page 2 There are two major amendments 1 and other recyclers feel are .necessary to make this system work. 1 ) 2¢ Deposit:- These include increasing the deposit level to at least 2¢ at the- beginning of the program. Presently the bill calls for increases to. 2¢ by. 1991 each container that does not reach a 65% level of recycling. :' -(See attached draft letter for rationale. ) 2) Wine Coolers and Certain Liquor Bottles: Wine .coolers, 2 pint , and pint liquor bottles should not be exempt. (Also see attached draft letter for rationale. ) There are a variety of additionaland more technical amendments that should be made. I have attached the current bill amended as March 13, 1986 and have made comments. If the Contra Costa .Board .of Supervisors approves of the draft letter to Assemblyman Margolin, I would like to include the comments on other more technical amendments. Attachments: 1 ) Draft letter for Board of Supervisors 2) Assembly Bill 2020 amended 3/13/86 with comments JCW:bb