Orange County Grand Jury
• 2021-2022
• Agency Response
Response to:
Where Have All the CRVs Gone? 06/28/22
City Manager Mayor Kristine Ridge Vicente Sarmiento City Attorney*
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
Due to the reduced availability of convenient CRV redemption sites and the lack of accurate online information, it is difficult for resident consumers to redeem CRV fees. City's Response: Disagree wholly - According to CalRecycle's records, Santa Ana has 22 buyback centers. These 22 buyback centers represent 20% of the 110 total buyback centers in Orange County while Santa Ana's population comprises less than 10% of the County's population. These buyback centers serve a population of 310,227, an average approximate density of one redemption center for every 14,100 people, which is 84% higher density than the California average of one redemption center for every 26,000 people. The City of Santa Ana's redemption center density is also over two times higher than the Orange County average (one redemption center for 29,000 people). The high density of CRV redemption centers allows for residents of Santa Ana, and contiguous communities, to redeem CRV SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL Vicente Sarmiento Phil Bacerra Thai Viet Phan Nelida Mendoza Jessie Lopez Johnathan Ryan Hernandez David Penaloza Mayor Pro Tem, Ward 4 Ward 1 Ward 2 Mayor Ward 3 Ward 5 Ward 6 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] September 22, 2022 Honorable Erick Larsh, Presiding Judge containers in a convenient manner. A map showing 22 redemption centers within the City limits is included as Attachment 1 to this letter.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Because redemption site locations have diminished in number, waste haulers are the beneficiaries to the CRV fees paid originally by resident consumers. City's Response: Disagree wholly – Because of the high density of CRV redemption centers in the City of Santa Ana, and the propensity of residents of Santa Ana to redeem their CRV containers at these local centers, very low volumes of CRV end up in the curbside recycling program that is operated by the City's franchise hauler. For example, according to Waste Management's 2021 annual report, aluminum is 0.02% of the total residential waste stream (27.87 tons of aluminum out of 121,430.88 tons of total residential waste in 2021). According to CalRecycle's waste characterization study, 0.10% of Orange County's residential waste stream comprises aluminum cans. The City of Santa Ana has 1/5th the amount of aluminum cans in its residential waste stream when compared to the OC average due to the high density of CRV redemption centers in the City and the ease of CRV redemption enjoyed by residents. Visit www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/ to view CalRecycle's waste characterization study. Additionally, based on CRV redemption data provided by CalRecycle, the City's residents utilized buyback centers for 30.2 million lbs. of the total 42.9 million lbs. of CRV redeemed in the City. The hauler redeems only 30% of the total CRV in the City via curbside programs while recycling centers are used by residents to redeem 70% of CRV in the City. In an Orange County city with a lower density of redemption centers (approximately 1 buyback center for every 85,000 residents), 70% of CRV is hauler-redeemed and 30% is redeemed by residents via redemption centers.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
CalRecycle is attempting to improve CRV redemption and reduce CRV recyclables from landfills and are offering financial incentives to do so. Orange County and its cities are not fully taking advantage of the grant or pilot program opportunities available through CalRecycle. City's Response: Disagree wholly - As evidenced by the analysis included in the City's responses to Findings 1 and 2, CRV redemption levels are sufficiently high in Santa Ana without the need for additional funding or programs.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Orange County and most OC Cities do not make CRV redemption and recycling a priority when negotiating their waste hauler contracts which results in missed financial opportunities and convenience for their residents. City's Response: Disagree wholly - the City recently completed a competitive Request for Proposals for trash and recycling services. The contract became effective July 1, 2022 and a new service provider, Republic Services, is now collecting materials in the City. The City included language in the contract that indicates the hauler receives all revenue from CRV materials that end up in the recycling bins, as well as the scrap value of both CRV and non- September 22, 2022 Honorable Erick Larsh, Presiding Judge CRV materials. As a condition of receiving these revenue streams, the hauler assumes all risks and rewards associated with fluctuations in commodity values. Additionally, the hauler is prohibited from requesting rate adjustments from the City if commodity pricing results in financial losses. The City believes this system of the hauler assuming all risks and rewards associated with commodity and/or CRV revenue protects the ratepayer by keeping the rates stable and consistent. Further, it provides an incentive to the hauler to maximize the amount of clean recyclable materials it accepts through recycling programs and to take measures to reduce CRV scavenging.
No recommendations for this finding
Commendations 1
-
CM1The OCGJ commends Recycle From Home in the City of Irvine as CalRecycle's only pilot project grant program in Orange County. A collaboration between the City and private enterprise, Recycle From Home is a unique collaborative concept to service the entire City of Irvine's CRV recycling needs. This is an eco-friendly way to recycle right from your driveway or doorstep. This mobile residential recycling service was selected and approved as part of a new pilot project grant program established by the State of California. The pilot program is innovative, convenient, helps keep CRV recyclable material out of the waste stream and returns the deposits directly to the consumer. RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report: California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g., District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official's control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05 specifies the way such comment(s) are to be made as follows: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: 2021-2022 Where Have All the CRVs Gone? (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.