HomeMy WebLinkAbout13. Receive Legislative Update Page 1 of 16
Item 13.
CENTRAL SAN BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2021
SUBJECT: RECEIVE UPDATE ON PENDING LEGISLATIVE MATTERSAND PROVIDE
DIRECTION ON PRIORITY LEGISLATION
SUBMITTED BY: INITIATING DEPARTMENT:
EMILY BARNETT, COMMUNICATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION-COMM SVCS AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS INTERGOV REL
MANAGER
REVIEWED BY: PHILIP R. LEIBER, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
i
I �w...
Roger S. Bailey Kenton L. Alm
General Manager District Counsel
ISSUE
In accordance with Board Policy No. BP 026 — Legislative Advocacy, the Board may provide direction to
staff on positions related to priority legislation.
BACKGROUND
Under BP 026 — Legislative Advocacy, when legislation has direct impact on Central San or special
significance to the Board, the General Manager will present information to the Board on priority legislation.
The Board may then provide direction as to Central San's position on the legislation.
Staff has reviewed pending legislation and worked with member associations to identify possible direct
impacts on Central San. The process to create and pass legislation is constantly in flux; the priority
legislation presented in this Position Paper represents the most confident analysis and due diligence
research at this time. As new information becomes available, it will be presented at future Board
meetings.
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 82 of 147
Page 2 of 16
Staff has attached a priority legislation tracking sheet for Board review and input, with information as of
February 9, 2021. Staff will discuss several of the priority items at this meeting and expand on others in the
coming weeks as more information becomes available.
ALTERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS
The Board may choose from the following positions on each piece of legislation:
• Support
• Support if Amended
• Neutral
• Oppose Unless Amended
• Oppose
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
None.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
This matter was not reviewed by a Board Committee.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION
If applicable, take one of the following actions on Priority Legislative Tracking Sheet or another legislative
matter:
1. Adopt staff recommended position(s) on the priority legislation; or
2. Adopt a different position on one or more pieces of the priority legislation; or
3. Take no action.
Strategic Plan re-In
GOAL ONE: Customer and Community
Strategy 1—Deliver high-quality customer service, Strategy 2—Maintain a positive reputation
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Priority Legislation Tracking Sheet as of 2-9-2021
2. AB 377 Author's Fact Sheet
3. HR 535 - S 91 Author's Fact Sheet
4. AB 361 Author's Fact Sheet
5. AJ R-4 (Garcia) Press Release
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 83 of 147
Central San 2021 Priority Legislative Tracking Sheet as of 2/9/21 Attachment 1
Green Shading-bill enacted,
Gray Shading-bill is dead, (as presented at
White Shading-bill in progress meeting)
Industry Position Date of
Federal/ Organization(s1
Author Legislation Also Known As Summary Recommended by Board Board Decision Notes
State Priority
List/Position Staff Direction
1 Slate Portantino(D-La Proposed Bond Wildfire SB 45 Wildfire Prevention,Safe Drinking Water,Drought Preparation,and Flood Protection California No position 2/8/21 This is a reintroduced bill from previous
Canada Measure SB 45 prevention,safe Bond Act of 2022— Association of session.
Flintridge) drinking water Authorizes the sale of$5.51 billion in general obligation bonds. Sanitation Agencies
drought $2.20 billion,wildfire prevention and community resilience (CASA):Support if
preparation and $1.47 billion,protection of California's water supply and water quality Amended to include
flood protection $620 million,protecting fish and wildlife from climate risks additional monies
bond act of 2022 $190 million,protecting agricultural land from climate risks requested for
aka CA Climate $970 million,protecting coastal lands/oceans/bays/waters/natural resources/wildlife from recycled water,etc.
Bond(if passed climate risks
will be placed on $60 million,climate resilience,workforce development,and education
Nov.2022 ballot).
2 State Hertzberg TBD Stormwater This bill authorizes municipal wastewater agencies to enter into voluntary agreements with Co-sponsored: Support 1/23/20 Unanimous decision by CASA Legislative
(D-Van Nuys) Capture and entities responsible for stormwater management—including municipal,industrial,and CASA and Committee to move forward with compromise bill
Diversion commercial stormwater dischargers—to more effectively manage stormwater and dry weather California with Hertzberg.2/8/21 This is a reintroduced bill
Authority runoff. The bill supplements the existing authority of all municipal wastewater agencies to enter Coastkeeper from previous session.
into projects to divert and treat stormwater and dry weather runoff.Any agreement,project,or Alliance(CCA)
use of this authority is completely voluntary for all entities involved.The bill will therefore
promote regional interagency cooperation,improve water quality,and make efficient use of
publicly owned infrastructure by removing onerous barriers that prevent stormwater capture,
treatment and recycling.
3 State Newman(D- SB 289 Solid waste: This bill would conduct a study on the disposal and recyclability of household batteries, Co-sponsored: Support 2/8/21 This is a reintroduced bill from previous
Brea) household including their impact on solid waste landfills,health impacts,associated costs,and now California Product session.
batteries include lithium-ion and nickel metal hydraide to those studied(a change from the 2020 Stewardship
proposed legislation).This is an extended producer responsibility bill and our HHW supervisor Council(CPSC),
requested support. South Bayside
Waste
Management
Authority,and
Californians Against
Waste(SBWMA)
4 State Bloom(D-Santa AB 818 Nonwoven This bill would require,commencing July 1,2022,certain nonwoven disposal products to be Co-Sponsored: Support 2/17/21 Bill in print.2/8/21 This is a reintroduced
Monica) disposable labeled clearly and conspicuously to communicate that they should not be flushed,as specified.CASA and National bill from previous session.
products The bill would establish enforcement provisions,including authorizing a civil penalty not to Stewardship Action
exceed$2,500 per violation to be imposed on a person who violates the bill's provisions.The Council(NSAC)
bill provides that the industry conduct a 5 year customer education campaign on the labeling.
This bill would not apply to currently labeled"flushable wipes",but is a positive first step in
tackling the issue legislatively.This is the third attempt to pass this legislation.This bill
represents an agreement with the industry.
5 Federal Representative TBD Break Free From These bills require producers of covered products to finance programs to collect and process Support:CASA, Support 2/8/21 This is a reintroduced bill from previous
Lowenthal(D- Plastic Pollution the plastic product waste and implement cleanup programs with EPA approval.The bill would NSAC session.
CA), Act create a 10-cent national refund program for all beverage containers regardless of material.
Beginning January 2023,it would begin to phase out single-use plastic products and impose a
fee on carryout bags.It would create a national standard for recycled content,and protect
existing state action.CASA included language that includes wipes as part of the bill.
Central San 2021 Priority Legislative Tracking Sheet as of 2/9/21
Green Shading-bill enacted,
Gray Shading-bill is dead,
White Shading-bill in progress
Industry Position Date of
Federal/ Organization(s)
Author Legislation Also Known As Summary Recommended by Board Board Decision Notes
State Priority
List/Position Staff Direction
6 State Grayson AB 59 Mitigation Fee Act This bill may eliminate the ability for agencies to assess connection and capacity fees using a CASA:Oppose Oppose Unless 1/28/21 CASA,ACWA,CMUA and CSDA have a
(D-Concord) 2021 'buy-in"fee methodology,and would instead require connection and capacity fees to be strongly. Amended working group to address this bill.2/8/21 This is a
assessed based on the actual costs of new development. The bill is being spearheaded by reintroduced bill from previous session.
housing advocates that cite high development fees as an impediment to new housing.Official
bill summary states:Prohibits a local agency from imposing a housing impact requirement
adopted by the local agency on a housing development project,as defined,unless specified
requirements are satisfied by the local agency,including that the housing impact requirement
be roughly proportional in both nature and extent to the impact created by the housing
development project.
7 State Dodd(D-Napa) SB 222 Water Affordability This bill would establish the Water Affordability Assistance Fund in the State Treasury to help CASA:Watch, Watch 1/14/21 Introduced.
Assistance provide water affordability assistance,for both drinking water and wastewater services,to low- Association of
Program income/economic hardship ratepayers in California.The bill would make moneys in the fund Clean Water
available upon appropriation by the Legislature to the state board to provide,as part of the Agencies(ACWA):
Water Affordability Assistance Program established by the bill,direct water bill assistance, Watch(both will
water bill credits,water crisis assistance,affordability assistance,and short-term assistance to reconsider postion
public water systems to administer program components.The bill would require the water at a future
board to develop guidelines/oversight procedures/budget by January 1,2023. legislative meeting
To the extent this provision would impose new requirements on local publicly owned electric
utilities and local publicly owned gas utilities,the bill would impose a state-mandated local
program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts
for certain costs mandated by the state.Statutory provisions establish procedures for making
that reimbursement,however,no funding has been identified yet in this bill.
8 State Rivas(D- AB 377 California Clean The bill is sponsored by Coastkeeper and makes significant changes to NPDES permitting CASA:Oppose Oppose 2/2/21 Introduced.
Hollister) Waters Act procedures,creates a new enforcement program,and requires all surface water in California to
Principle Co- be drinkable,fishable,and swimmable by 2050. The intent is to address chronic contamination
Author: of impaired receiving waters.
Hertzberg
(D-Van Nuys)
9 Federal Garamendi(D- H.R.535,S.91 Include Special These two identical bills would amend the Social Security Act to include special districts in the California Special Support 2/3/21 17 CA Co-sponsors including McNerny and
CA)Sinema(D- Districts in COVID coronavirus relief fund and directs the Secretary to include special districts as an eligible issuer Districts DeSaulnier.
AZ) relief under the Municipal Liquidity Facility Association
(CSDA):Support
10 State Rivas(D- AB 361 Brown Act: The bill allows local agencies to meet remotely during a declared state or local emergency.It CSDA:Sponsor Support 2/8/21 Request from CSDA to provide letter of
Hollister) Remote Meetings would remove the requirement for agenciesto post meeting notices/agendas in physical support.
During locations during an emergency.While the public must continue to have access to the remote
Emergencies meeting and provided the ability to make public comment,this bill states agencies would not be
required to make all remote meeting sites accessible to the public,nor include the remote
location details in the meeting notice or agenda during a declared state of emergency or a
declared local emergency.Additionally,agency board members would not be required to be at
remote sites within the territorial bounds of the agency during a declared state of emergency or
a declared local emergency
Central San 2021 Priority Legislative Tracking Sheet as of 2/9/21
Green Shading-bill enacted,
Gray Shading-bill is dead,
White Shading-bill in progress
Industry Position Date of
Federal/ Organization(s)
Author Legislation Also Known As Summary Recommended by Board Board Decision Notes
State Priority
List/Position Staff Direction
11 State/ Garcia(D-Bell AJR 4 Support This joint resolution would declare California to be in favor of the United States'ratification of Support:CPSC Support 2/8/21 Request from CPSC to join letter of
Federal Gardens) Ratification of the Basel Convention at the earliest opportunity and would request the Biden Administration to support.
Basal Agreement accomplish this ratification as a matter of urgency.The Basel Convention resolution on the
Control of the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal(1989)was
signed but never ratified by the United States.The United States is now one of only afew,
countries that have failed to ratify this vital multinational environmental agreement to protect
developing countries from the export and dumping of wastes from rich industrialized countries.
According to the journal Science Advances the United States and Great Britain are the world's
biggest source of plastic waste.In 2019,the Basel Convention was amended to include mixed
and contaminated plastic waste shipmentswithin its control procedure to address the problem of
plastic waste collected for recycling in industrialized nations and sent to highly polluting
recycling operations in developing countries.In these locations,the plastic waste is often
dumped and burned rather than safely recycled.As of January 1,2021,such exports will
require the notification and consent of receiving countries prior to export.However,the United
States,not being a Basel Party will not be able to legally export wastes,which are illegal for the
importing country to receive,leading to illegal traffic,seizures,lawsuits,and waste repatriation
events.Plastic pollution is a growing global concern.
5T%2, Page 6 of 16
A.tt'`' W
W Assemblymember • • ' Assembly
�i
AB 377 — The California Clean Water Act
SUMMARY
In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act, which set a nearby communities. Poor water quality also has severe
goal of restoring and maintaining clean water in all of the impacts on the biodiversity and climate resiliency of
nation's rivers, lakes, wetlands, and other waterways by aquatic habitats, driving degradation and extinction even
1985. Unfortunately, five decades later, the vast majority as the state sets ambitious "30 x 30" goals. The economic
of waterways in California and across the nation are still impacts of water quality impairments, such as closed
polluted, or "impaired," by discharges of chemicals, beaches and tainted seafood, can devastate entire
sediment, or other materials into those waterways. These communities in some cases.
discharges can range from a chemical company pouring
waste into a nearby swimming hole, to a logging project Although the State Water Board tracks which waterways
clogging up a stream with sediment runoff, to untreated are impaired via the "303(d) List" (most recently updated
urban storm water carrying bacteria, toxic metals, and in 2018), its efforts to actually ensure compliance with
trash onto the beach. water quality standards have been inadequate. Permits
issued by the water boards, while nominally requiring
Assembly Bill 377 will put California back on track to compliance with relevant standards, also contain
eliminate impaired waterways and make all waters loopholes that allow discharge into waterways above and
statewide suitable for conversion to drinking water, beyond what the standards would allow. The water boards
swimmable, and fishable by 2050. Specifically, the also frequently fail to enforce violations of the terms of
California Clean Water Act will require the State and discharge permits or go after illegal discharges, choosing
Regional Water Boards to close permit loopholes, ensure instead to focus on "paper violations," such as late
that all dischargers are in compliance with water quality submittal of forms.
standards, and direct a larger proportion of existing
funding toward cleaning up impaired waterways. The SOLUTION
effects of this bill will be especially significant in AB 377,the California Clean Water Act,will change the way
disadvantaged communities, where water is the State and Regional Water Boards enforce compliance
disproportionately likely to be polluted or even with water quality standards and ensure that waterways
undrinkable. are taken off the impaired list over time by:
BACKGROUND/PROBLEM • Eliminating loopholes. Currently, many discharge
Fifty years after the passage of the Clean Water Act, permits direct the permittee to comply with water
roughly 95% of all waterways in California remain quality standards but allow for exploitation of a
impaired, including 82%of rivers and streams,93%of lakes number of loopholes. (A permit holder may never have
and ponds, 99% of wetlands, and 99% of bays and to provide any evidence that they're actually
estuaries. As noted, the causes of impairment can vary complying with water quality standards, for example.)
greatly. A stream in the Sierra Nevada,for example, might AB 377 will not change the terms of existing permits,
be impaired by arsenic pollution from an abandoned mine but will ensure that as new or renewed permits are
upstream. Disadvantaged communities in the Fresno area, issued, loopholes are eliminated and permittees are
meanwhile, are forced to get a significant portion of their brought into compliance with water quality standards.
drinking water from a reservoir contaminated with
mercury because the nearby San Joaquin River — which • Changing Water Board enforcement procedures,
many residents rely on for subsistence fishing — is even requiring them to spend more time and effort
more polluted with mercury, pesticides, and hazardous enforcing against the worst polluters instead of
levels of nutrients. ignoring violations.
Impaired waterways that could otherwise provide drinking • Directing a larger portion of existing Water Board
water or recreation opportunities (such as fishing, financial resources toward cleaning up impaired
swimming, or boating) are effectively inaccessible to waterways, without imposing any new fees or costs.
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 87 of 147 OVER
5T%2, Page 7 of 16
A.tt'`' W
W Assemblymember • • ' Assembly
�i
AB 377 — The California Clean Water Act
Together, these important measures will ensure that
impaired waterways are steadily removed from the 303(d)
list between now and 2050. The effects will be most
significant in the disadvantaged communities, where
residents are disproportionately more likely to struggle
with issues of poor water quality or even lack of access to
clean drinking water under the current, flawed system.
AB 377, while significant,will not create new water quality
standards, nor will it affect water rights, voluntary
settlement agreements, or any other water supply issues.
This legislation will only affect compliance with existing
water quality standards for surface waters; groundwater
policy will not be affected by this legislation, either.
SUPPORT
• California Coastkeeper Alliance (sponsor)
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Miles Horton, Legislative Director
Email: miles.horton@asm.ca.gov
Cell: 415 269-4720
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 88 of 147 OVER
Page 8 of 16
NSDC
FACT SHEET:
H.R. 535 (Garamendi) & S. 91 (Sinema): Special Districts Provide Essential Services Act
Summary: H.R. 535 and S. 91 would provide special districts access to future appropriations to the
Coronavirus Relief Fund, enhance Federal Reserve programs to allow special districts access to capital, and
establish a definition for"special district' in federal law for program eligibility.
Main provisions:
• Would require states to distribute 5 percent of future Coronavirus Relief Fund allocations to special
districts within their respective state within 60 days of receiving funds from the U.S. Treasury.
• Special districts applying for funding would submit information to their state demonstrating the degree
to which they have experienced or anticipate they will experience COVI D-1 9-related revenue loss,
grant/inter-governmental revenue loss, or increased COVID-19-releated expenditures.
• Allocations would be limited such that a special district may not receive funding that exceeds the
amount the district expended in any quarter of 2019. Special districts providing services the federal
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency deems to be within a "critical infrastructure sector"
would be exempt from limitations.
• Provides flexibility for states with excess funds reserved for special districts that make a good faith
effort to distribute funds to districts within the state. States file a waiver with U.S. Treasury after 60 days
demonstrating how the state distributed its special districts funding. If approved, the state may use the
balance of the funds for other COVID-19 response purposes.
• "Special district' would be defined as a "political subdivision of a State, formed pursuant to general law
or special act of the State, for the purpose of performing one or more governmental or proprietary
functions."
• Would direct the U.S. Department of Treasury to consider special districts as eligible issuers to take
advantage of the Municipal Liquidity Facility, as established in the CARES Act, for access to capital
during the current financial downturn.
Frequently Asked Questions:
Why is this bill necessary?
The Special Districts Provide Essential Services Act is necessary to meet the needs of special districts
across the nation delivering essential services to their communities. Many special districts provide
critical infrastructure, as defined by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, that cities and counties
do not provide to the communities they serve. Despite this, special districts are not considered eligible
for direct Coronavirus Relief Fund disbursements. Many states and counties did not release their
portions of Coronavirus Relief Funds, in part intended for municipalities serving fewer than 500,000
people, to special districts despite their ability to do so. Without changes to the current law, special
districts will continue facing obstacles to funding. This legislation allows special districts
access to local government resources that have already been authorized and appropriated.
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 89 of 147
Page 9 of 16
Special Districts Provide Essential Services Act
Fact Sheet
Page 2 of 4
Would the Special Districts Provide Essential Services Act authorize any new programs or provide new
emergency appropriations?
No. The legislation only ensures special districts have access to COVID-19 relief funds for state and
local governments made under Section 601 of the Social Security Act (the Coronavirus Relief Fund).
The bill would require a small portion of future Section 601 appropriations to be directed to special
districts. This makes the amount directed to special districts contingent upon what Congress
appropriate under Section 601 in the future.
Would the bill cover COVID-19-related revenue loss?
The legislation would allow special districts access and use assistance made available under Section
601 of the Social Security Act (the Coronavirus Relief Act). The CARES Act currently only allows funds
to be used only COVI D-1 9-releated expenditures. Congress may amend Section 601 to allow funds to
be used for COVID-19 revenue loss in a separate effort.
Why is the mandate to direct future allocations 5 percent?
The National Special Districts Coalition and Congressman Garamendi settled on a 5 percent share
based on property tax revenue data for special districts relative to cities and counties. Special districts
receive at least 10 percent of each state's property tax revenue when comparing to city and county
governments. Based figures listed within the U.S. Census Bureau's 2017 Census of Governments,
expenditures tend to track with revenue figures. Special districts fully understand general purpose
governments - counties and cities — have more services (full health departments, office of emergency
services, etc.) that are utilized while also experiencing large declines in sales tax revenues. Being
mindful of the situation, special districts ask for 5 percent of future allocations, which in some states is
rather modest.
Does the bill outline how states must distribute the funds?
No. The bill gives states discretion to direct funding to special districts based on districts' needs with
each respective state. However, the states would be required to distribute the funds within 60 days of
receiving their portion from the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
How many special districts are there in the U.S.?
There are approximately 30,000 special districts serving millions of Americans across the country. This
is hard to ascertain, as there is no federal definition of"special district" in current law. "Special districts"
definitions vary across states. To remedy this, the Special Districts Provide Essential Services Act
establishes a "special district" definition.
Does the Special Districts Provide Essential Services Act prioritize particular types of districts over the others?
No, the bill does not specify which districts are eligible for the funds. Special purpose governments
meeting the definition established in the bill would all be eligible. States would make determination on
how the funds are distributed in their respective states.
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 90 of 147
Page 10 of 16
Special Districts Provide Essential Services Act
Fact Sheet
Page 3 of 4
The bill defines "special district" as a political subdivision, formed pursuant to general law or special act
of a State, for the purpose of performing one or more governmental or proprietary functions.
Talking Points:
• Special districts are local governments providing critical infrastructure, first response and community
enrichment services to millions across California and the country.
• We are local governments, not businesses or non-profits, and though we provide services like water,
sewer, fire protection, parks, and others, we are separate and distinct from cities and counties.
• Many special districts have not received access to Coronavirus Relief Act funding for local governments
thorough their states and counties, despite providing essential services counties and cities do not
provide their residents.
• The Special Districts Provide Essential Services Act would allow a portion of resources provided in
future Coronavirus Relief Fund appropriations to be directed to special districts.
• These bills do not ask for a new appropriation. Rather, it authorizes a mechanism for special district
access appropriations Congress makes in the future under Section 601 of the Social Security Act
(CARES Act/ Coronavirus Relief Fund).
• The bill would give states flexibility on how to disburse funds to special districts within their respective
states.
• This bill also allows special districts to use the Federal Reserve's Municipal Liquidity Facility program
as a tool to access capital during an economic downturn / period of revenue loss — a tool other local
governments have access to.
• This bill remedies the problem, providing greater fiscal certainty for special districts, with a definition of
special districts and direction for states to provide 5 percent of their respective proportion of the Fund to
special districts.
• The legislation does not intend to divert monies appropriated for cities and counties.
• Without access to federal resources, special districts will continue falling into economic distress,
deferring maintenance, delaying capital projects, reducing staff and cutting services to their
communities.
Discussion Guide for Impacts on Your Special District
• Share with your representative where your special district is located (region), what services your district
provides and how many people live in the community
• Quantify previously unbudgeted expenses due to COVID-19 and share what those expenses have
been (PPE, technology upgrades to for telecommuting, etc.)
• To what extent has your district experienced revenue loss? What do you project it to be?
• Have you had to cancel or significantly change routine operations or programs?
• If a utility provider: have you experienced revenue loss due diminished commercial and industrial
service? Have you noticed unpaid residential customer bills? (state whether you have issued
moratoriums on shutoffs)
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 91 of 147
Page 11 of 16
Special Districts Provide Essential Services Act
Fact Sheet
Page 4 of 4
• How many employees do you have, and how many now must either work from home and/or have been
let go/furloughed?
• Have staff members had to take emergency sick or family leave time?
• Have you had to repurpose your district's facilities to accommodate community needs?
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 92 of 147
5TAT� Page 12 of 16
Al
Assemblymember Robert Rivas, 30t' Assembly District
AB 361 — Brown Act: Remote Meetings During Emergencies
SUMMARY SOLUTION
As amended, Assembly Bill 361 will provide additional AB 361 will provide additional flexibility for local agencies
flexibility for local city councils, boards, commissions, and looking to meet remotely in order to continue providing
other agencies to meet remotely via video and the public with essential services during a proclaimed state
teleconference during a local emergency that makes of emergency or local emergency. In doing so, local agency
meeting in person unsafe, while still maintaining high boards will not have to rely on an Executive Order from the
levels of public access and transparency. This legislation Governor.
will not allow local agencies to meet remotely during
emergencies that would not prevent the local agency While maintaining high standards of public transparency
board from meeting in person, nor will this legislation and access, AB 361 will allow public agencies to meet
create any new authorization for a local agency to declare remotely to continue providing services to the public
a local emergency. without jeopardizing the safety of the public, local agency
personnel, or board members. Local agencies will
BACKGROUND accommodate both internet video conferencing platforms
In 1953, the Ralph M. Brown Act, known simply as the and phone lines to ensure that the public can access these
"Brown Act" ever since, guaranteed the public's right to meetings with or without an internet connection. This
attend and participate in meetings of local legislative means that if a specified state or local emergency is
bodies. To meet this objective, the Brown Act drew up declared, a local city council would be allowed to meet via
requirements regarding public notices of meetings, the a videoconferencing platform and/or phone. The public
posting of agendas, and physical access to those meetings. would be able to participate through such online and
telephonic platforms,too.
In 1988, AB 3191 (Frazee) updated the Brown Act by
authorizing local legislative bodies to use video Most importantly, if a meeting could still be held in-person
teleconferencing in connection with any meeting or without endangering local agency board members or
proceeding authorized by law,for the benefit of the public. personnel, then the local agency will not be entitled to
However,AB 3191 also required that the public had to have meet remotely.
physical access to each remote meeting location.
Subsequently, in 1998, SB 138 (Kopp) expanded the Local agencies looking to meet remotely pursuant to these
allowable uses of teleconferencing even further. provisions will have to do so in accordance with a locally
declared emergency or an emergency declared by the
When the COVID-19 pandemic started, local agency boards Governor of California. A local emergency could include a
struggled to conduct their meetings in compliance with the toxic leak or wildfire evacuation that inhibits the local body
Brown Act's public accessibility requirements while still from meeting in person. Together, these important
abiding by stay-at-home orders. As a result, Governor provisions will provide local agencies with the flexibility
Newsom signed Orders N-25-20, N-29-20, and N-35-20 to necessary to meet remotely while preserving public access
grant local agencies the flexibility to meet remotely during during a specified emergency.
the COVID-19 pandemic.
SUPPORT
PROBLEM • California Special Districts Association (Sponsor)
The Governor's executive orders allowed public agencies • Rural County Representatives of California
to meet remotely and did not require physical public access • California Association of Joint Powers Authorities
to those meeting locations. Unfortunately,those Executive • Association of California Healthcare Districts
Orders only apply to the current health pandemic and do
not contemplate future health, fire, flood, or other FOR MORE INFORMATION
unforeseen emergencies. Julio Mendez Vargas,Associate Consultant
Email: Julio.MendezVargas@asm.ca.gov
Phone: (760) 848-8224
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 93 of 147 Last Revised 2/2/21
Page 13 of 16
$ Di STRICT
CAPL£OL OFFICE ,Z DISTRICT OFFICE
P.O.Bax 942849 8255 FIRESTONE BLVD SUITE 203
SAcRAmmTo,CA 94249-0058 DOWNEY,CA 90241
PHONE:(916)319-2058 }eo• ��� PHONE:(562)861-5803
E-MAIL:ASSEMBLYMEMBER.GARCIA@ASSEMBLY.CA.GOV WEBSITE:WWW.ASSEMBLY.CA.GDVIGARCIA
Press Release
January 11,2021 Contact: Leo Briones
(916) 319-2058
(323) 574-2524
Assemblymember Cristina Garcia, Ten legislative Co-Sponsors, and a Broad
Coalition Call for The Biden Administration, as a Matter of Global Urgency, to
Make Ratification of the Basel Convention Priority in the First 100-days
AJR 4 calls ratification of the Basel Agreement a critical step in properly regulating international environmental
injustice of plastic dumping on countries without currently having the capacity to properly manage the material.
(Sacramento) —Today, Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) introduced AJR 4 urging the Biden
Administration to act immediately to ratify the Basel Convention, which addresses the growing global concern
of plastic pollution and its severe environmental impacts.
"All the scientific data shows that plastic waste poses an existential threat to our planet equivalent to climate
change. My resolution calls for the Biden administration to prioritize responsible management of plastic waste
with a real sense of urgency. The coming administration's clearest path to that ends is to ratify the Basel
Agreement as a first 100-days priority." urged Assemblymember Garcia.
The Basel Convention resolution on the Control of the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and
their Disposal (1989) was signed but never ratified by the United States. The United States is now one of only a
few countries that have failed to ratify this vital multinational environmental agreement to protect developing
countries from the export and dumping of wastes from rich industrialized countries. According to the journal
Science Advances the United States and Great Britain are the world's biggest source of plastic waste.
In 2019, the Basel Convention was amended to include mixed and contaminated plastic waste shipments
within its control procedure to address the problem of plastic waste collected for recycling in industrialized
nations and sent to highly polluting recycling operations in developing countries. In these locations, the plastic
waste is often dumped and burned rather than safely recycled.
As of January 1, 2021, such exports will require the notification and consent of receiving countries prior to
export. However, the United States, not being a Basel Party will not be able to legally export wastes, which are
illegal for the importing country to receive, leading to illegal traffic, seizures, lawsuits, and waste repatriation
events. Plastic pollution is a growing global concern.
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 94 of 147
Page 14 of 16
"Right now, floating in the Pacific Ocean is a patch of plastic trash twice the size of the state of Texas. The
effects of that plastic patch negatively impact ocean life and island and mainland communities from Japan, to
the Philippines, to Australia, to Peru, to the United States—no one is spared. That's the chilling reality of the
state of plastics management on our planet. Ratifying the Basel Agreement will show the United States takes
responsibility for our role in this crisis and that we are willing to work toward solutions," concluded Assembly
member Garcia.
Quotes from co-authors and sponsors
Senator Henry Stern (D-Los Angeles) Co-Author AJR 4
"The U.S. really needs to 'walk the walk' when it comes to plastics, because 'recycling plastic' doesn't mean
shipping it to poorer, underdeveloped countries for it to be burned. The U.S. doesn't just need to ratify the
Basel Convention and do a better job of recycling, it needs to stop producing so much of the stuff in the first
place."
Senator Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) Co-Author AJR 4
"I successfully authored a resolution on the Basel Convention in 2019, but unfortunately Congress did not act.
Now that more environmentally aware leaders are serving in Congress, and soon the White House, it is time
again to urge ratification to reduce international pollution, including global plastic waste."
Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-Chula Vista)
"We have to be honest with ourselves: single-use plastics do not decompose, and simply dumping them onto
other countries does not cause them to be recycled." Assemblywoman Gonzalez said. "If we don't act
responsibly now, the plastic pollution crisis will continue to cause irreparable harm to our ecosystem and
communities."
Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis
"For too long, we have relied on exporting plastic waste to countries where large portions of the waste stream
were disposed improperly," said Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Chair Hilda L. Solis, Supervisor to the
First District. "Plastic waste is rapidly becoming one of the largest global threats to our environment, and in
response nearly every country has signed on to the Basel Convention to stem the tide of plastic pollution. It is
vitally important that our state and nation join efforts from around the world to curb illegal exports of plastic
waste, and develop the technologies and infrastructure needed to recover plastic here at home."
Heidi Sanborn, Chair, Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling.
"The California Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling is comprised of 17 people
representing a variety of stakeholders which unanimously supported policy recommendation #10 in our report
to the Legislature delivered just last month which states "California should encourage Federal action on Basel
Convention Ratification". It is encouraging to know that the many volunteer hours the Commission worked
over the last six months to advise the legislature and CaIEPA is being taken seriously and leaders are acting on
our recommendations".
Jim Puckett, Founder and Director of the Basel Action Network.
For too long we Americans have been using developing countries as convenient dumping grounds for our
wastes -- even when these exports violate their laws and end up causing serious harm to their health and
environment. This occurs because we are the only developed country in the world that has to date refused to
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 95 of 147
Page 15 of 16
ratify the Basel Convention —a treaty requiring global environmental justice in waste management. We
applaud this resolution as the first step which will lead us to finally ratify this essential global agreement.
Genevieve Abedon, on behalf of the Clean Seas Lobbying Coalition
"Plastic is hazardous to the health of communities, ecosystems and our climate from the extraction of fossil
fuels all the way through disposal of waste. Particularly with California being the largest exporter of plastic
waste in the country, the Clean Seas Lobbying Coalition enthusiastically supports the Joint Resolution in favor
of the United States' ratification of the Basel Convention and its 2019 Plastic Waste Amendment."
John Davis, Mojave Desert and Mountain Joint Powers Authority
"The Basel export limitations reemphasize the need to create and strengthen our own markets if we are to
recycle plastic. Plastic manufacturers need to take the burden off California ratepayers and build viable
markets here to improve their woeful recycling performance. We need real solutions now, not more promises.
Eric Potashner,Vice President and Senior Director of Strategic Affairs, Recology
"Recology strongly supports AJR 4. In December, we sent a letter to the incoming Biden Administration to urge
the President-Elect to lead by joining the Basel Convention and ratifying the Plastics Waste Amendments. We
cannot continue to burden the most vulnerable communities on the planet with our plastic pollution. To that
end Recology has committed to no longer export low-grade plastic materials (Mixed Rigid Plastics and Mixed
Plastics #3-7) received after January 1 of this year."
Dan Jacobson, Senior Advisor Environment California
"It is time for the United States and California to stop shipping our toxic waste to other countries and figure
out ways to deal with it. We should be reducing what we produce in the first place and managing what is left.
Passing the buck is wrong."
Ashley Blacow-Draeger, Pacific Policy and Communications Manager,Oceana
Globally, 33 billion pounds of plastic enter the marine environment every year and is devastating the world's
oceans. Single-use plastic is made from a material that is designed to last forever, but often used for a
moment and then discarded. With a mere nine percent of all plastic waste generated ever being recycled, that
alone is not enough to solve the plastics crisis. As the top producer of plastic waste, the United States has the
responsibility to reduce the amount of unnecessary single-use plastic generated for the betterment of
environmental health and public health both here at home and abroad. Oceana thanks Assemblymember
Garcia for introducing this resolution for the United States to join the Basel Convention and properly address
our own plastic waste problems instead of shipping our crisis off to other countries. Paramount to achieving
this reduction in plastic throwaway waste at home is for consumer goods companies to step up to the plate
and stop forcing plastic upon us.
Trish Roath, Executive Director Resource Recovery Coalition
"The Resource Recovery Coalition of California wholeheartedly applauds and supports the Assembly Joint
Resolution relative to the Basel Convention. As environmental stewards in the State of California, we
understand the importance of plastic recycling in a safe manner, both domestic and internationally. We
strongly support the United States' ratification of the Basel Convention, and encourage the Biden
Administration to do so as quickly as possible."
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 96 of 147
Page 16 of 16
Nick Lapis, Director of Advocacy, Californians Against Waste
"Dumping worthless plastic waste on countries halfway across the globe is not a sustainable solution to our
trash problem," said Nick Lapis of Californians Against Waste. "Consumers deserve to receive the recycling
they are paying for, and manufacturers need to take responsibility for using truly recyclable packaging."
Doug Kobold I Executive Director, California Product Stewardship Council
"CPSC applauds the initiative of Assembly Member Cristina Garcia, along with Assembly Co-Authors Assembly
Members Quirk, Gonzales, and L. Rivas, and fellow Senate Co-Author Senators Allen, Stern, and Weickowski,
to introduce an Assembly Joint Resolution 4 stating the California Legislature's support for the Basel
Convention and the inclusion of plastic as a hazardous material for the purposes of the
convention. Ratification of the Basel Convention by the United States is incredibly important to help stem the
tide of plastic wastes that are plaquing our lands, streams and rivers, lakes, bays, and the ocean as a whole."
said CPSC Executive Director Doug Kobold.
Chuck Riegle, Senior Vice President,TOMRA Systems ASA
"We need to stop viewing plastic as waste, and instead treat it as a resource and an opportunity. The linear
economy model of'take, make, dispose' has been accelerating for the past 40 years. At its heart is a culture of
waste, viewing products as disposable, with little regard for what becomes of them once discarded. In a
circular economy it is possible to collect and recycle without impacting on the product's quality, so that
products can be used again and again in a never-ending closed loop."
The 58th Assembly District includes the cities of Montebello, Pico Rivera,Commerce, Bell Gardens, Downey, Norwalk,
Bellflower, Cerritos and Artesia.
February 18, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 97 of 147
No Interest or Attachment 6
Applicability No Action Will Be Taken (Handout)
to the District
General Interest General Manager Will All Actions Shared
?000* to the District Take a Position with Board
LEGISLATIONREVIEw
Direct Impact General Manager to Present Board Decides on
on the District Information to the Board District's Position
(may include recommendation)
Time-sensitive Action is Necessary All Actions Shared with
General Manager to Take a Position Board
on Behalf of the District
END Full Board Summary on
• • +t Key Legislation
DISTRICT POSITION CHOICES:
Support Support if Amended Watch Neutral Oppose Unless Amended Oppose