Score: -4 (0/2/4)

Orange County Grand Jury • 2021-2022

Grand Jury 2021-2022 Where Have All the CRVs Gone?

Published: June 28, 2022 20 pages

View Original PDF

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ 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

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.

Related Recommendations (1)

By January of 2023, all cities and the County of Orange should develop extensive community outreach programs aimed at educating the public about how to access CRV redemption in their jurisdiction. (F1, F3)

Because redemption site locations have diminished in number, waste haulers are the beneficiaries to the CRV fees paid originally by resident consumers.

Related Recommendations (1)

When renegotiating their current waste hauler contract, all cities and the County of Orange should assess the value of the CRV funds received by the waste hauler in their jurisdiction and creatively leverage this revenue for the benefit of their residents. (F2, F4)

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.

Related Recommendations (3)

By January of 2023, each of the cities in Orange County should research and apply for available grants or pilot programs from CalRecycle for their community that focus on returning more CRV funds to their residents. (F3)

By January of 2023, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should require OC Waste & Recycling to research and apply for available grants or pilot programs from CalRecycle for the unincorporated areas of OC that focus on returning more CRV funds to their residents. (F3)

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. In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2021-2022 Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.

Related Recommendations (1)

Commendations 1

CM1

The 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 Orange County Grand Jury Page 15 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.

Agency Responses 11

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

City of Laguna Niguel 10/04/22

June 28, 2022 • 2 pages View Details ▾

PDF

City of Los Alamitos 09/20/22

September 20, 2022 • 3 pages • 5 responses • Score: -2 (+0, 1, -2) View Details ▾

PDF

5 responses to findings and recommendations

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.

Response: Disagree Score: -1

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. Response: Disagree There are currently three CRV redemption sites within a three-mile radius of Los Alamitos City Hall, all of which have an online presence. As such, the City does not concur with the Grand Jury’s finding.

Because redemption site locations have diminished in number, waste haulers are the beneficiaries to the CRV fees paid originally by resident consumers.

Response: Disagree Score: -1

F2. Because redemption site locations have diminished in number, waste haulers are the beneficiaries to the CRV fees paid originally by resident consumers. Response: Disagree As residents of Los Alamitos have access to and/or are in close proximity to multiple CRV redemption sites, there are no barriers to their ability to obtain CRV redemption should they choose to.

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

f 3 County and its cities are not fully taking advantage of the grant or pilot program opportunities available through CalRecycle. Response: Partially Agree While the CRV redemption program has worked well in the past, smaller cities that contract out their waste hauling services are often unable to meet specific requirements in order to take advantage of specific funding programs. In the event cities are able to access this funding, it is for a short period of time. As such, cities are required to continuously apply for new grant funding in order to sustain programs initiated by the State. Re...

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

R3. When renegotiating their current waste hauler contract, all cities and the County of Orange should assess the value of the CRV funds received by the waste hauler in their jurisdiction and creatively leverage this revenue for the benefit of their residents. (

Response: Unknown Score: 0

F4) Response: Recommendation has been implemented The City of Los Alamitos has and will continue to implement the recommendation. The City of Los Alamitos recently when out to bid for solid waste collection services. Part of City of Los Alamitos Page 3 o

City of San Clemente 12/13/22

December 13, 2022 • 3 pages View Details ▾

PDF

City of San Juan Capistrano 09/26/22

September 26, 2022 • 3 pages View Details ▾

PDF

City of San Juan Capistrano-Progress Response 03/29/23

March 29, 2023 • 2 pages • 3 responses View Details ▾

PDF

3 responses to findings and recommendations

Because redemption site locations have diminished in number, waste haulers are the beneficiaries to the CRV fees paid originally by resident consumers.

Response: Unknown Score: 0

f 2 March 29, 2023 Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Tom Toman, Director of Public Works, at (949) 234-4580. Sincerely, Benjamin Siegel City Manager Cc: Orange County Grand Jury, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701

Response: Unknown Score: 0

F3) City Response: The City has received funding from the CalRecycle Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program. These funds have been used to purchase water bottle filling stations for the Community Center, Gymnasium, and two park facilities. This option has multiple benefits that help reduce single use bottles, saves money for residents, is an environmentally friendly option, and encourages healthy habits. The City continues to research available CalRecycle CRV grant opportunities and approaches taken by other public agencies. The City has also reached out to Recycle from Home ...

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

R4 for the City of San Juan Capistrano). Each recommendation is listed below in italics, followed by the City’s response. RECOMMENDATIONS

City of Santa Ana 09/22/22

September 22, 2022 • 24 pages View Details ▾

PDF

City of Stanton 09/13/22

September 13, 2022 • 3 pages View Details ▾

PDF

City of Tustin 09/21/22

September 21, 2022 • 2 pages • 5 responses • Score: -2 (+0, 1, -2) View Details ▾

PDF

5 responses to findings and recommendations

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.

Response: Disagree Score: -1

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. Response: Based on the experience of City staff, the City of Tustin disagrees with this finding. The City of Tustin has received less than five (5) inquiries from residents since January 2018 regarding the location of CRV redemption centers in Tustin. There continues to be one permitted redemption facility in Tustin, Evolution Recycling #5 located at 1022-1112 Walnut Avenue. CalRecycle’s website also lists 12 in-store red...

Because redemption site locations have diminished in number, waste haulers are the beneficiaries to the CRV fees paid originally by resident consumers.

Response: Disagree Score: -1

F2: Because redemption site locations have diminished in number, waste haulers are the beneficiaries to the CRV fees paid originally by resident consumers. Response: Based on the experience of City staff, the City of Tustin disagrees with this finding. The City has not been advised by any residents that the closure of local redemption sites has impacted their ability to obtain CRV.

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

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. Response: The City of Tustin partially agrees with this finding. For many years, the CRV redemption program worked well. It is unfortunate CalRecycle could not find a way to modify its program to ensure continued success. Instead, municipalities are expected to sustain a State program through grant funding. Mayor Austin...

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

R3: When renegotiating their current waste hauler contract, all cities and the County of Orange should assess the value of the CRV funds received by the waste hauler in their jurisdiction and creatively leverage this revenue for the benefit of their residents. (

Response: Unknown Score: 0

F4) Response: The City of Tustin has and will continue to implement the recommendation. The City of Tustin goes out to bid every 10 years for solid waste collection services. It is made clear that waste haulers are expected to evaluate all revenue and expenses when determining customer rates and that any revenue they generate from CRV funding shall offset customer rates.

City of Lake Forest 09/21/22

September 21, 2022 • 3 pages View Details ▾

PDF

City of Laguna Woods 09/19/22

September 19, 2022 • 4 pages View Details ▾

PDF

City of Villa Park 08/24/22

August 24, 2022 • 2 pages View Details ▾

PDF

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Orange County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office