Loading...
02-05-2002 - City Council Liaison Meetings Highlights0 City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager and City Council FROM: Artie A. Fields, Assistant City Manager , ITEM NO. M - 2 DATE February 5, 2002 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL LIAISON MEETINGS HIGHLIGHTS SUMMARY: Councilmember Mike Miller attended the League of California Cities Public Policy Safety .Committee, League of California Cities Environmental Quality Policy Committee, and the West Covina Chamber of Commerce Board Meeting during the month of January. Attached are the agendas and highlights of these meetings. DISCUSSION: Members of the City Council have been appointed to serve as liaisons on various regional committees and boards. Councilmember Mike Miller attended the League of California Cities Public Policy Safety Committee, League of California CitiesEnvironmental Quality Policy Committee, and the West Covina Chamber of Commerce Board Meeting during the month of January. Attached are the highlights and agendas of these meetings, which Councilmember Miller wishes to submit to the City Council for their information. RECOMMENDATION: - It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this informational report. Prepared by: Chris Freeland Administrative Analyst II Reviewed & approved by: Arti elds Assistant City Manager Attachments Michael L. Miller 735 East Herring Avenue West Covina, California 91790 To: From: Subject: City Council Members City Manager Mike Miller City Council Member Public Safety Policy Committee League of California Cities January 27, 2002 I attended the January 25 meeting of this Committee. The attached agenda provides an overview It was too early in this legislative session to review specific bills. The Committee had an extensive presentation by the City of Oakland Fire Department on their efforts to be prepared to identify biological agents in the field. This information will be given to the Fire Chief. Attached is more detailed information on the impacts of the anti -terrorism efforts. Millions of additional dollars are being spent in cities throughout the State. Coordinated regional programs are the best approach for the more costly programs while each city develops plans to address local problems and possible isolation in the event of any major event or disaster. In short, this is basic community emergency preparedness. Under other matters the .City of Fullerton raised their concerns about the State placing a drug rehabilitation center in the middle of their downtown. Fullerton officials expressed their concerns about the facility but the State ignored them. I raised the issue of locating parole offices in small commercial buildings adjacent to residential areas and there needed to be a more considered approach. The Committee will be asking to have State officials in these areas at the March committee meeting. We will air these issues and to get State cooperation to address them. More information is attached on these subjects. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this report be received and filed. Mike Miller 1 Council Member *BLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTE10 Friday, January 25, 2001 10a.m.-3p.m. San Jose AGENDA Welcome and Introductions II. Orientation Ill. Cities and Terrorism -State legislation related to terrorism (attached) -Rapid-test methods available to first responders IV. Legislative Update (attached) -Dry Chemical Stored Pressure Fire Extinguishers (attachments) -New Legislation =Gaming V. League Summary of Existing Policy and Guiding Principles — Update VI. 2002 Work Program (attached) VII. Other Business VIII Next Meeting -Friday, March 22, 2002 — South (location to be determined) Brown Act Reminder: The League of California Cities' board of directors has a policy of complying with the spirit of open meeting laws. Generally, off -agenda items may be taken up only if: 1) Two-thirds of the policy committee members find a need for immediate action exists and the need to take action came to the attention of the policy committee after the agenda was prepared Note: If fewer than two-thirds of policy committee members are present, taking up an off -agenda item requires a unanimous vote); or 2) A majority of the policy committee finds an emergency (for example: work stoppage or disaster) exists. A majority of a city council may not, consistent with the Brown Act, discuss specific substantive issues among themselves at League meetings. Any such discussion is subject to the Brown Act and must occur in a meeting that complies with its requirements. NOTE: Policy committee members should be aware that lunch is usually served at these meetings. The state's Fair Political Practices Commission takes the position that the value of the lunch should be reported on city officials' statement of economic interests form. Because of the service you provide at these meetings, the League takes the position that the value of the lunch should be reported as income (in return for your service to the committee) as opposed to a gift (note that this is not income for state or federal income tax purposes just Political Reform Act reporting purposes). The League has been persistent, but unsuccessful, in attempting to change the FPPC's mind about this interpretation. As such, we feel we need to let you know about the issue so you can determine your course of action. If you would prefer not to have to report the value of the lunches as income, we will let you know the amount so you can reimburse the League. The lunches tend to run in the $20 to $30 range. To review a copy of the FPPC's most recent letter on this issue, please go to www.cacities.or,-/FPPCletter on the League's website. Policy\ps\agenda1-02.doc SEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIE A T1 TERRORISM SURVEY SUMMA LEAGUE ANTI -TERRORISM SURVEY SUMMARY OF RESULTS (AS OF 12/201/01) The League and CSAC conducted a survey of cities and counties to develop information regarding costs associated with anti-terrorist activities. To date of the 120 cities that responded, 80 provided comprehensive detail. This report summarizes the results of the cities that have reported to date. We continue to receive additional surveys, which will be added to our database. What did we learn? • $7.1 million already spent on anti -terrorism activities and expect to spend over $21.5 million by the end of the current fiscal year. • Additional expenses include department budget overruns of 13% in public safety services, 10% in fire and EMS services, and 6% in hazardous materials. In the current economic climate these additional expenditures will further strain city budgets. • $93 million additional one-time and on -going funding requirements reported ($55 million in one-time and $38 million in on -going expenditures). • Largest additional needs reported for security for key facilities ($18.9 million for one-time costs) with items requested including security and surveillance systems, fencing, camera equipment, protective covering for water systems and training. • Hazardous materials needs of $8.6 million included mobile equipment, detection and diagnostic equipment, protective gear, purification systems and training. • Public safety funding needs of $10.8 million included -local, regional and national communication links, command posts, biohazard equipment, technology upgrades; bomb sniffing dogs, and public awareness and preparedness programs. • Fire and emergency medical services needs of $43 million included additional specialized equipment, protective gear, and emergency drills. • Information technology and communications additional funding needs of $6.8 million included phone tracking software, website security, battery backup, security software, redundant systems, mail processing security, and communication equipment for key personnel. • . Additional personnel and overtime needs were listed throughout all categories, frequently citing needs for specialized personnel not currently on staff. • Training, both one-time and on -going is also noted as common need, including public awareness education. These are dramatic figures considering that the reports represent 25% of the total number of cities. Large cities including Los Angeles, San Jose and Long Beach have not reported. An article in the Los Angeles Times noted Los Angeles security costs totaled $11 million for the first 2 '/s months following September 11. Many cities that did report indicated that they have not yet fully determined their needs. Therefore the figures included in the attached table should be considered a very conservative estimate of the local needs to protect citizens from terrorist activities. Please contact Frances Medema at 916/658-8218 with any questions. Attached: report -summary LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITES ANTI- TERRORISM SURVEY Security Fire and information Hazardous for Key Emergency Public Technology Materials # Facilities # Medical # Safety . # Communications # Other # Total # Current Year Expenditures in Excess of Budget Spent to date/number responses 435,750 38 2,408,539 40 1,96.1,951 30 891,200 46 110,000 9 37,050 6 5,844,490 Expected by fiscal year-end 1,747,154 51 6,698,848 38 3,228,321 33 3,955,665 51 .599,400 14 127,374 716,356,76 0 Additional funding requirements 0 One-time 5,305,979 5717,790,433 .36 3,968,981 35 4,754,120 44 4,063,805 30 554,023 1136,437,341 On -going 3,349,039 44 3,246,861 32 2,274,184 31 2,800,319 41 1,384,239 21 530,453 913,585,095 Subtotal 8,655,018 21,037,294 6,243,165 7,554,439 5,448,044 1,084,476 50,022,436 Totals 10,402,172 27,736,142 9,471,486 11,510,104 6,047,444 1,211,850 66,379,198 N ' # = Number of survey replies for this category. COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Legislative Activity Related to Terrorism 1. Terrorism Survey (Updated Figures): ,The League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties prepared a survey for response by city and county governments to questions concerning programs and expenditures related to terrorism preparedness and response. The League prepared an original summary on 11/28/01 for use by the Governor in his lobbying efforts with the federal government. Attached for your review is an updated summary. 2. AJR 31 (Thomson and Cardoza). This joint resolution is co -sponsored by the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties as a means of maximizing receipt of federal expenditures for security, prevention, and preparedness activities related to terrorism that local governments have undertaken since September 11, 2001. This joint resolution directs the Chief. Clerk of the Assembly to transmit copies of the resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, and to each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States. Attached is the League's support letter that you may use to encourage your state representative to support AJR 31. It is also recommended that each city work with their congressional representative to clarify the public safety obligations that local governments face and the related costs associated with such services. 3. League Federal Platform — Public Safety Issues. 'The League is working through its lobbyist in Washington on the following public safety issues: a) Block Grants. Supporting flexible block grants to local governments to improve security and public safety locally. Specifically, S. 1737 (Clinton) provides $3 billion, with 70% going directly to more than 1,000 cities and counties across the United States. (This recipient pool includes cities with a population of more than 50,000 and that are within. metropolitan areas and counties within metropolitan areas, regardless o the size of the county, will receive funds directly.) The remaining 30% will to States to direct to smaller communities to help them improve security and public safety. Funds will be distributed through a grant program administered by the United States Attorney General. Each grantee must prepare a statement of homeland security objectives and projected fund uses that meet short- and long-term security needs. Funds may be used for overtime expenses for law enforcement, fire, and emergency personnel incurred as a result of terrorist threats or to purchase personal protective equipment for fire, police, and emergency personnel. Funds may also be used for technology acquisitions, or security improvements to water treatment plants, tunnels, or bridges. Additionally, this legislation requires communities -to match by 10% the funs received from the Federal Government. b) Communications Systems. Supporting legislation to ensure an adequate broadcast spectrum is available to local governments for public safety communications. Current spectrum allocations are insufficient and often force local response agencies to operate across different, incompatible radio frequency bands. As a result, agencies responding to emergencies are often unable to communicaterapidly with each other, creating a significant vulnerability for cities. 4. State Strategic Committee on Terrorism — Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Resources. In October, 2001, Governor Davis issued Executive Order D-47-0.1, directing the State Strategic Committee on Terrorism (SSCOT) to: 1) evaluate the potential threat of terrorist attacks, 2) review California's current state of readiness to prevent and respond to a potential attack, and 3) establish and prioritize recommendations for prevention and response. As part of this process, SSCOT established the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Resources (this is one of 16 subcommittees), which is tasked with considering the public employees, facilities, and systems that provide services necessary for the protection of our state. The subcommittee has made preliminary recommendations regarding continuity of essential government operations, roles and responsibilities within the State's Standardized Emergency Management System, and the development of a reliable federal and state information source related to terrorism threats. The League, as a member of this subcommittee, will continue to work through the committee process on the development of strategies that achieve the objectives of each of these recommendations. There will likely be a point in the future that the League solicits input from its constituents on these. strategies. 2 DRY CHEMICPOTORED PRESSURE FIRE EXTINGUISHOAINTENANCE Background: Current state regulations require owners of those entities (businesses, apartment complexes, schools, etc.) using stored pressure dry chemical fire extinguishers to have an annual internal maintenance examination of the extinguishers. These regulations allow for the entity owner to conduct a monthly visual inspection, which must then be verified annually by a representative (i.e., fire marshal) of the Authority Having Jurisdiction. In those jurisdictions that do not have an annual internal maintenance inspection program, entities must pay for a trained individual to perform the inspection. When a fire department inspector finds that the extinguisher is out of service (i.e., the owner has not performed the proper inspections, pressure is down, etc.), the entity owner must pay for a private inspector to thoroughly disassemble the extinguisher. Currently, the State Fire Marshal (SFM) realizes a revenue stream from the licensing fee charged to those business entities that manufacture fire extinguishers. Additionally, the SFM receives a percentage of the annual inspection charged by private inspectors for disassembly service. The combination of these two revenue streams is approximately $700,000 per year. In 1996, the League General Assembly approved Resolution #13 relating to fire extinguishers (see attached). The General Assembly resolved that "... the League support legislation that would amend the State Fire Code to require stored pressure dry chemical fire extinguishers to be serviced and recharged every six years or after each use, whichever occurs first." In 1998, Assemblyman Battin authored AB 2242, which would have codified the current annual internal maintenance examination regulations. Proponents argued that the bill would have ensured the effectiveness and reliability of portable fire extinguishers, while opponents argued that the bill would,have led to unnecessary and expensive regulations. The bill failed passage from the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee and subsequently died. In 1997, 1998, and 1999, the State Fire Marshal Fire Extinguisher Advisory Committee convened, but the Committee did not take any decisive action on the issue of extinguisher maintenance. Since 1997, a statewide coalition including businesses, fire departments, California Fire Chiefs Association, Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs Association and the Los Angeles Area Fire Marshals Association have requested that the fire marshal adopt a six -year internal examination requirement. Past research conducted by this coalition indicates that this change alone could save those entities required to utilize extinguishers $150 million annually. Current Regulatory Action: The State Fire Marshal Fire Extinguisher Advisory Committee recently met regarding the maintenance of stored pressure dry chemical extinguishers. Specifically, the Committee has recommended and the SFM is proposing to: 1) adopt NFPA Standard #10, which will increase the frequency of the internal examination period from one to six years, and 2) to require a licensed technician to perform the annual external maintenance examination. Issue: Should the League amend its standing policy as reflected in Resolution #13 regarding dry chemical stored pressure fire extinguishers? Recommendation: Listen to presentations from the Los Angeles Area Fire Marshals/Fire Chiefs Associations and the State Fire Marshal and then discuss further action. Michael L. Miller . 735 East Herring Avenue West Covina, California 91790 To: City Council Members January 27, 2002 City Manager From: Mike Miller City Council Member Subject: Environmental Quality Policy Committee League of California Cities I attended the January 24 meeting of this Committee. The attached agenda provides an overview. It was too early in this legislative session to review specific bills. However, several possible bills were discussed. These were: Electronic Waste (E-Waste) — provide for some manufacturer responsibility for taking this equipment back. HP already has a program that allows one to trade in specific piece of computer equipment when you buy a newer version of that particular equipment. This needs to be expanded industry -wide. The number of people that have stored old computers is anyone's guess. Water Quality - Mandatory financial penalties for minor, non -recurring violations of water quality standards is becoming a problem. Regional Boards do not have the option not to fine in many cases. Starting up new treatment equipment is the best example where such violations can occur. If fines are mandatory, levied fines could discourage installation of new equipment. Potential Legislation by Senator Gloria Romero — The proposed legislation includes: 1) Establishment of a Zero Waste Disposal Goal for all cities and counties, 2) Requiring a study as to the need for replacement of Local Enforcement Agencies by the Waste Board, 3) Adding a seventh member to the Waste Board who is from local government. Proposed SCAQMD Rule 1133 — This would require all composting facilities to control particulate matter (dust) and volatile organic compounds (gases). This may require composting to be in enclosed building or other containers. City Staff is monitoring this rule development. There was also a presentation on the status of the Update of the California Water Plan. There is a State requirement to review and revise this Plan as needed every five years. (Phis requirement is similar to the requirement of a city to review and update their general plan] One of the concepts that may impact West Covina is the proposal for regional watershed independence (my words). In short this means we provide the water for our businesses and residents without depending on other areas in the State. This may result in more costly desalination of seawater instead of more reliance on the California Water Aqueduct as we do now. More information is attached on these subjects. REcomwNDATION It is recommended that this report be received and filed. Mike Miller Council Member E4kONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COARTTEE Thursday, January 24, 2002 10 a.m. - 3 p.m. San Jose AGENDA Welcome and Introductions Orientation III. Legislative Update (attached) IV. South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1133 Update V. California Water Plan Update (attached) Speaker. Marci Coglianese, Mayor, Rio Vista VI. California Integrated Waste Management Board Update VII. League Summary of Existing Policy and Guiding Principles — Update Vill. 2002 Work Program (attached) IX. Other Business X. Next Meeting Thursday, March .21, 2002 — South (location to be determined) Brown Act Reminder: The League of California Cities board of directors has a policy of complying with the spirit of open meeting laws. Generally, off -agenda items may be taken up only if.• 1) Two-thirds of the policy committee members find a need for immediate action exists and the need to take action came to the attention of the policy committee after the agenda was prepared (Note: If fewer than two-thirds of policy committee members are present, taking up an off -agenda item requires a unanimous vote); or 2) A majority of the policy committee finds an emergency (for example: work stoppage or disaster) exists. A majority of a city council may not, consistent with the Brown Act, discuss specific substantive issues among themselves at League meetings. Any such discussion is subject to the Brown Act and must occur in a meeting that complies with its requirements. NOTE. Policy committee members should be aware that lunch is usually served at these meetings. The state's Fair Political Practices Commission takes the position that the value of the lunch should be reported on city officials'statement of economic interests form. Because of the service you provide at these meetings, the League takes the position that the value of the lunch should be reported as income (in return for your service to the committee) as opposed to a gift (note that this is not income for state or federal income tax purposes just Political Reform Act reporting purposes). The League has been persistent, but unsuccessful, in attempting to change the FPPC's mind about this interpretation. As such, we feel we need to let you know about the issue so you can determine your course of action. Ifyou would prefer not to have to report the value of the lunches as income, we will let you know the amount so you can reimburse the League. The lunches tend to run in the $20 to $30 range. To review a copy of the FPPC s most recent letter on this issue, please go to www.cacities.orQ/FPPCletter on the League's website. G:\LEGISLTV\POLICY\EQ\agendal-02.DOC AMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUOTY Legislative Agenda January 2002 (* Denotes Consent Item) RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE Electronic Waste (E-Waste). Background: Federal law now specifies that certain elements of electronic wastes are to be considered hazardous waste. On August 31, 2001, the California Department of Toxics Substances Control issued emergency regulations to regulate the collection and disposal of commonly found e-waste, most specifically computer monitors and televisions, both called cathode ray tubes or CRT. They are banned from landfill disposal due to the high lead level content. Under California law, CRTs may be collected and transported as a "universal waste" without requiring a hazardous waste manifest. Universal waste is a hazardous waste that is regulated under California's hazardous waste regulations dealing with high volume, low -risk wastes, such as batteries, fluorescent lamps and CRTs. Currently, the recycling and reuse markets for CRTs remain limited, although opportunities are increasing slowly. At the same time, cities and counties, as well as private haulers and landfill operators, have begun to implement a -waste collection and recycling programs because such wastes are no longer permitted to be disposed. These are costly programs and generally are funded by a surcharge on garbage bills, tipping fees, or surcharges on individual CRTs when they are brought to a recycling center. A number of groups, including some cities, counties and environmental organizations, propose that manufacturers of CRTs and other a -waste components take the responsibility for the recycling and reuse of their products. So-called "manufacturer responsibility" proposals generally include either a surcharge added to the product at the time of sale or the requirement that the manufacturer actually take back and recycle the product when the customer wishes to purchase another product or dispose of an existing product. The concept is similar to other programs, such as those for motor oil, tires and beverage containers that are already subject to statewide fees used by local governments to support recycling. In September 2001, the governing board of the Mojave Desert and Mountain Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority adopted a resolution supporting manufacturer responsibility for e-waste. The JPA consists of the cities of Apple Valley, Barstow, Big Bear Lake, Needles, Twentynine Palms, Victorville, Yucca Valley and the County of San Bernardino. A copy of their resolution is attached. In 2002 it is likely that one or more bills will be introduced to deal with a -waste and propose some form of manufacturer responsibility on producers of CRTs and other e- waste components. Existing League policy supports the concept of advance disposal fees to provide funds to cover the cost of disposal or promote recycling in order to keep such products from being recycled. The League also supported legislation adding a fee to oil and tires to fund recycling programs. In order for the League to be positioned to participate in a -waste discussions, it would be appropriate for the League to adopt policy G'\LEGISLTV\POLICY\EQ\Leg 1-02.doc guidelines novr on the subject. It is suggested that the policy guidelines be similar to the resolution adopted by the Mojave Desert and Mountain JPA. Proposed League E-Waste Manufacturer Responsibility Policy Guidelines The League supports legislation implementing the concept of manufacturer responsibility for electronic waste (e-waste). This includes, but is not limited to, requiring manufacturers of computer, CRT and other electronic products considered universal wastes to operate or fund comprehensive, extended producer responsibility programs. Such programs should require products to be sustainably designed and labeled, offer financial incentives to consumers to properly dispose e-wastes, and fund a convenient collection infrastructure. The League also supports an advance disposal fee on computer and other electronic products in order to fund such manufacturer responsibility programs and local collection and recycling programs. Issue: Should the League adopt an a -waste manufacturer responsibility policy similar to the one suggested above? Should the League support legislation consistent with the above policy? Are such policies consistent with previous League recycling and solid waste policies adopted for other products? Recommendation: Adopt above a -waste policy and support future legislation consistent with that policy. 2. Potential Legislation by Senator Romero Background: Senator Gloria Romero is the chair of the Special Senate Subcommittee on Urban Landfills. In response to concerns she has about a variety of waste management issues and findings by the State Auditor's report of the California Integrated Waste Management Board, her staff has circulated various conceptual proposals for three bills. Some of the concepts being proposed, which may or may not still be currently considered by the author, were described by Senator Romero's staff to League staff. They include the following. -Establishing a "zero waste" goal for the state. It should be noted that the zero waste concept would aim for a decrease each year in waste being disposed at landfills, and that its calculation would, not include adjustment for population or economic growth and alternative daily cover would be considered disposal, not diversion, contrary to current law. -Authorizing the Waste Board to deny a solid waste facility permit application if the Board determines that the facility will hurt achievement of the zero waste goal. -Requiring the Board to develop a list of recommended waste reduction/recycling programs local agencies could implement. -Adding a seventh member to the Waste Board who is from local government. -Requiring a study of regional Local Enforcement Agencies to replace the current city or county system of LEAs. -Requiring that comments submitted by the Waste Board on an EIR for a disposal facility must be approved by the Board before they can be submitted. G:\LEGISLTV\POLICY\EQ\Lcgl-02.doc -Establishing a manTifacturer responsibility program for e-waste. The initial proposal had an AB 939, good faith effort link to the zero waste concept, but due to strong reaction by many, apparently this concept may be reconsidered. . League staff met with the author's staff to discuss the proposals and provided preliminary feedback on the various concepts, some of which may or may not be still under consideration. Many of the concepts are in conflict with existing League policy and as a result, League staff indicated that the League would likely oppose legislation that included them in their currently described form. At the January EQ meeting, League staff wi11 provide an update on the status of Senator Romero's various proposals. Issue: What position, if any, should the League take on legislation introduced by Senator Romero? Staff will provide an oral update on the concepts based upon the information available at the time of the meeting. Recommendation: Discussion. Many of the concepts are contrary to League policy and local control (i.e., permitting the Waste Board to deny a solid waste facility permit due to its impacts on zero waste; replacing the current LEA system with a regional system; changing ADC to disposal as opposed to diversion). It is likely that the League would oppose the legislation unless the author resolves many of the problems raised by the League and others. WATER QUALITY 3. Water Quality. Minimum Mandatory Penalties. Publicly Owned Treatment Works. Background: In 2000, SB 709 became law. The bill, authored by Assembly Member Carol Migden and known as the "Clean Water Enforcement and Pollution Prevention Act of 1999", requires that regional water quality control boards assess mandatory penalties for specified violations of waste discharge permits for publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The law applies to municipal and private industrial entities. As a result, in many cases, municipalities are being assessed mandatory minimum penalties for violations which could not have been prevented in the exercise 'of reasonable care, or are minor and have no effect on water quality. Because the law removes the previous discretion of regional boards to impose penalties, local governments increasingly are faced with situations in which they (and often the regional boards) believe penalties are not appropriate. The complex permitting and enforcement system is best described by a background paper prepared by staff at the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, from which the following is adapted. What are Minimum Mandatory Penalties (MMP)? The State is required to assess mandatory minimum penalties for "serious" or "repeat" violations of end of pipe discharge limits . A six-month term is used for assessing penalties due to repeat violations. Under the Act, local governmental entities operating wastewater treatment plants are subject to mandatory fines of $3,000 per violation if they exceed discharge limits The regional board lacks the discretion to reduce the penalties regardless' of the circumstances or financial hardship to the agency. The regional. boards must devote significant time and resources to preparing the mandatory penalty complaints. G:\LEGISLTV\POLICY\EQ\Legl-02.doc In addition to the mandatory penalty authority, the SWRCB and regional boards have authority under the Water Code to assess discretionary penalties of up to $10,000 per day of violation. The amount of these discretionary penalties depends upon a variety of factors, including the gravity of the violation, the degree of culpability, and the economic benefit or savings. What happens to funds collected from penalties? Penalties collected under SB 709 are deposited into the Cleanup and Abatement Account. Money from this account does not support the State and regional board operating budgets; rather, funds from the account may be used for qualifying cleanup projects. When a permittee pays a discretionary penalty (as opposed to the mandatory minimum penalty) a portion of the penalty amount may be directed to a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP). SEPs are projects that "enhance the beneficial uses of the waters of the State, provide a benefit to the public at large" and are not otherwise required of the discharger. SEPs offer an opportunity for local environmental projects rather than simply placing penalty monies into the clean-up and abatement account. The State Water Board encourages the use of SEPs. Unfortunately, the law limits the amount of mandatory penalties that can be directed to a SEP to only the first $3,000— too small an amount to do a viable project. Why revise the Minimum Penalty Law? Municipalities need revisions to the law to deal with the unintended and unforeseen consequences of a statute that removed all enforcement discretion from the regulatory agency (the "regional board "). One of those unintended consequences is the assessment of penalties during start-up of a new or refurbished water treatment unit process. Prior to SB 709, the regional boards would not. have assessed penalties during the "de -bugging " process of a new treatment unit because all processes require fine-tuning during start-up. Recently, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board was forced (against the Board members' stated desires) to fine the City of Palo Alto $126,000 for starting up a refurbished unit. Ironically, the refurbished unit will IMPROVE water quality, and yet Palo Alto was FINED for bringing it on line Ii Whenever an absolute limit of zero is imposed —and several of these no -tolerance limits are included in most permits —violations will occasionally occur. According to this Act, wastewater treatment plants are subject to minimum penalties if such a violation takes place, even if it does not pose a public health or environmental hazard. In the past, occasional violations carried penalties only if there was a public health or water quality impact or if the violation represented a systemic problem at the plant. There are limits in many permits. which cannot be met 100% of the time, and which do not pose a public health or environmental threat. Regional board officials have acknowledged that many of the financial penalties for permit violations are being imposed only to comply with SB 709, and that in most cases these discharges do not represent any adverse -water quality impact Many local agencies have been hit with sizeable mandatory penalties. In addition to the penalties assessed against the City of Palo Alto, the City of San Bernardino has been notified by the Santa Ana regional board that it must pay $234,000 for violations of a permit requirement two orders of magnitude more stringent than required under the applicable regulations. Other municipalities, including the cities of Pacifica, San Luis Obispo and Camarillo, have been assessed sizeable mandatory penalties for permit exceedances with no environmental or public health impact. G.\LEGISL'MPOLICY\EQ\Ug 1-02.doc 9 Proposed legislatio CASA has approached the League to -sponsor legislation to modify the existing MMP law and address some of the more egregious problems faced by local governments. CASA's proposal, which was developed with input from sanitation agency staff representing special districts and cities, does not contemplate repealing the law (which clearly is not politically. feasible). Rather, the proposal involves modifying some of the current problems in a way that returns some discretion back to the regional boards and provides some relief to POTWs for the more unrealistic circumstances in which MMPs must be assessed. The current concepts being proposed.include the following: (a) An exemption from mandatory minimum penalties (MMPs) for start-up of new or refurbished treatment facilities for a specified period of time. (b) Define "single operational upset" to exceed a single day and if necessary, re -name this defense to avoid conflict with federal regulations. (c) Expand the opportunity to use Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) beyond the first $3,000 penalty. (d) Amend Section 13385(i)(1) to provide that MMPs will be assessed for "violations" of effluent limitations rather than exceedances. This would correct the problem that penalties can now be assessed for exceedances even though the permittee has an affirmative defense (e.g. bypass or upset.) (e) Allow a regional board to decline to issue or reduce MMPs if the board makes specific findings and/or with a tupermajority (e.g. 4/5) vote. (f) Add clarity/specificity with regard to the due process and procedure for imposing the penalties. (g) Address issues with analytical methods and how MMPs are calculated for effluent limits of zero with continuous monitoring requirements (e.g. chlorine residual). Issue: Should the League join CASA and co-sponsor legislation to modify the MMP law, as described above? This will be very difficult legislation to successfully pursue. Thus, it will be crucial to include changes that reflect real world problems, as described above, as opposed to a blanket repeal or gutting of the law. Recommendation: The League should join CASA and co-sponsor legislation to modify the MMP law. Cities should continue to be involved in drafting and reviewing the proposed legislation. The League should seek examples from cities on potential MMP problems that could be included in the bill, if reasonable and politically feasible. GALEGISLTV\POLICYIEQ\Leg 1-02.doe Oil • Legislative Agenda Item III-1 Resolution 2001- Urging the California State Legislature to Introduce and Support Legislation Requiring Computer and Electronics_ Producers to take Responsibility for Reuse and Recycling of Their Products WHEREAS, Electronic discards are an increasing problem, with more than 6,000 computers becoming obsolete in California every day and 3.2 million tons of electronic waste ending up in United States landfills in 1997; and WHEREAS, Electronics contain lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium, polyvinyl chloride, brominated flame retardant -and other- materials -that can pose -- hazards to human health and the environment when handled improperly; and, WHEREAS, Only 14% of personal computers that became obsolete in 1998 were recycled or refurbished; and, WHEREAS, Recycling markets for CRTs remain limited, particularly in Southern California, creating the likelihood of widespread illegal dumping and improper disposition of these products; and, WHEREAS, The State of California recently affirmed that discarded cathode ray tubes, such as those found in televisions and computer monitors, are prohibited from municipal landfill, increasing concerns regarding proper disposal, cost and liability; and, WHEREAS, Extended producer responsibility principles, such as those being adopted by several countries and the European Union, will foster the development of sustainable design and recovery of electronic equipment by shifting the defaulted burden of disposal responsibility from government, ratepayers and taxpayers back to the manufacturers, distributors and consumers of such products, where it properly belongs, in part by internalizing lifecycle costs in the price of such products; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Directors of the Mojave Desert and Mountain Integrated Waste Management Board endorses electronic equipment extended producer responsibility; and FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Directors of the Mojave Desert and Mountain Integrated Waste Management Board joins with other City and County officials in urging its State Assembly Members and Senators, by letter and receipt of this resolution, to introduce and support legislation requiring computer and electronics producers to operate or fund comprehensive extended producer responsibility programs whereby products are sustainably designed and labeled, consumers receive a financial incentive for proper disposal, a convenient collection infrastructure yielding a high rate of recovery is created and environmentally sound reuse followed by recycling is maximized. 1.1 0 1133— Background: In the fall of 2001; the South Coast Air Quality Management District staff proposed regulations (known as Rule 1133) to address perceived air quality problems from composting, biosolid, dairy, and green waste chipping and mulching facilities within its jurisdiction. Shortly thereafter, the League heard from several local governments and solid waste/composting operators, as well as from the California Integrated Waste Management Board about the potential devastating impacts of Rule 1133 on the composting industry, disposal of biosolids and the ability of cities and counties to achieve the AB 939 goals. After consulting with the 2001 chair of the EQ Committee and an EQ member from the SCAQMD area familiar with the issue, League staff sent a letter to the SCAQMD expressing concern about Rule 1133, and a letter to cities in the SCAQMD region alerting them to the situation. A copy of the League's letter to the SCAQMD is attached. The response of the AQMD Board members themselves, many of them city or county elected officials, has been positive. One member observed to League staff that she will not vote for "...anything that will decimate AB 939." In the last few weeks, it appears that progress.has been made to address the problems with Rule 1133. We have invited representatives from the SCAQMD to provide a brief update on that progress and to respond to questions from EQ members. Issue: Because this is an issue that, if not resolved appropriately, could spread to other air districts and impact cities elsewhere, Rule 1133 and efforts to reach consensus is of interest to cities statewide. It is an issue of concern to cities and others interested in promoting the compost industry, dealing with biosolids, and achieving AB 939 goals. Recommendation: No action is necessary. The League should continue to consult with cities within the SCAQMD region, and others, about whether revised regulation resolves the problems. If local government agencies in the area, with technical input from the composting industry and the Waste Board, conclude that a revised Rule 1133 is proposed that meets their concerns, then the League should notify the SCAQMD (and cities within that region) that it no longer opposes Rule 1133. G:\LEGISLTV\POLICY\EQ\Lcgl-02.doc 7 Water Plan W Legislative Agenda Item V DEPARIMEKT • OF a W A 7 ER • RESOURCES CALIFORNIA WATER PLAN . • L_l P DAI-E 2003 • •.•st>-,raxs���c2ssnsn:r?z••••-•n�+c.:r.��s �-::��t^ z .ixttx�,.rc:-.a�^.,......;tt�;:::s.!.t.:,.�...e.:.,�^s�y��rr,..cty�*�ract�a:azsa_;axas�oa Background The Department of Water Resources has announced the selection of approximately 60 individuals from throughout the State to serve on the public Advisory Committee to provide input for preparation of the next California Water Plan Update 2003. Committee membership is intended to represent a diverse cross-section of water use and water management interests, with broad geographic distribution from throughout California. A list of these individuals and their affiliations is attached. The Department is required by statute to prepare updates of this plan every five years, and to form an Advisory Committee to assist in this effort. The water plan update will describe statewide water supplies, water uses, and actions that could be taken by water agencies to improve future water supply reliability. The Advisory Committee is expected to meet for a full day approximately every six to eight weeks during the next three years, with the first meeting to be held in Sacramento in January 2001. These meetings will be open to the public, and noticed in advance. In response to the large number of requests for Advisory Committee participation, the Department of Water Resources is also forming an Extended Review Forum as another mechanism for public involvement in this process. Through this new process, interested parties will be provided information and updates regarding the Advisory Committee activities and progress.. Questions about the Advisory Committee or the Extended Review Forum may be directed to: Paul Dabbs, Chief Water Resources Evaluation Section (916) 653-5666 Back $1%_)) WE._)'t_ANNI `t' Copyright ©1998. California Department of Water Resources All rights reserved. Mail: Web author The URL is http://www.WaterPlan.water.ca.gov Last modified: 11 /29/01 Comments or Suggestions) 10 http://www.waterpl2n.w2ter,ca.gov/bi 60/committee/background.html ConstrIllenc un cation Principal Briefing Points Spring/Summer 20.01 California Water Plan Update 2003 Collaborative Strategic Planning Process Goals: • Meet Water Code Requirements + Incorporate suggestions by Advisory .Committee, Extended Review Forum & public • Develop a plan that can be 'useful" to wide range of decision makers California Water Plan Upda$1 2003 Co laborative Stra?e gic Plannina Process Principal Steps: + where we are now * where we are going * where we want to be * How.we will get there + How we will measure our progress along the way California Water Plan Update 2003 Other items: * 65 Member Public Advisory Committee • broad spectrum of interests * CCPDR team facilitates/mediates consensus -seeking process California Water Plan Update 2003 12 IAere WeAre NoTv (4) Element "Mater Portfolio" to describe current conditions + 70+ Category Flow. Diagram + Expanded Water Balances + Narrative to Provide Detailed Contextual information + DataTables to provide requested Supplemental information California Water.Plan Update 2003 Where We Are Now ""Actual" Data used to describe 1998, 2000 &-2001 conditions + Easily understood by general public + Requested by some stakeholders & customers * May help identify underutilized assets and unmet uses + Shows real-time management decisions California Water Plan Update 2003 13 s � Where We Are Going Multiple Futures Being Considered for insights into management goals, challenges and opportunities AC members identifying "important factors" and "ranges", and proposing combinations of these factors and ranges as "study plans" Study Plan worksheet posted on web October 2001 California Water Plan Update 2003 Preliminary Assumptions & EstimatesReport * Statutory deadline: January 1, 2002 Preliminary Report on approaches that will be taken to forecasting specified water supplies and uses California Water Plan Update 2003 14 . Pre/irtnaryAssumpti ns & �,__ _ __ ___ Estimates Report Main Sections: Draft Table of Content$ + Introduction & Collaborati ve Process For CWPU in 2003 + Assumptions for Where we are now.. + Assumptions for Where we are going * Web-ba8.ed "Process Mapping" tool to make assumptions accessible,'an'd transparent California Water Plan Update 2003 15 ENVAMENTAL QUALITY POLICY CO EE 2002 WORK PROGRAM 41 1. LEGISLATIVE UPDATES/MONITORING The committee will review pending legislation, making recommendations where appropriate. Superfund: The committee will review the League's policy on Superfund as it relates to cities. Energy: The committee will review and update as necessary the League's existing energy policy statement in conjunction with the recommendations of the League's Energy Task Force on issues such as conservation, power plant siting, public power, air quality, distributed generation and pricing. 2. WORK PRIORITIES Water. The committee will continue to examine the current, CALFED program and its possible consequences for local governments throughout the state, including its governance structure. The committee will continue to examine current issues related to water quality, Publicly Owned Treatment Works, and impaired water bodies. Smart Growth The League's Smart Growth subcommittee will keep the committee abreast of their recommendations and current developments regarding this issue. Water Quality Act The committee will continue to evaluate the federal Water Quality Act regarding frivolous lawsuits. The committee will review the recommendations of the Citizen Lawsuit Subcommittee. Hazardous Materials The committee will review federal and state law regarding the transport and storage of hazardous chemicals. Permitting The committee will review selected state and federal environmental permitting processes for consistency and efficiency. These reviews may include an analysis of the USFWS' "Biological Opinion" process related to the Environmental Species Act, the federal Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) wastewater and stormwater discharge permitting processes under the Clean Water Act, and the land -use impacts of the EPA's Total Maximum Daily Load Program. Po1icy\eq\work2002draft. doc 16 COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Supplemental Legislative, Agenda January 24, 2002 1. Solid Waste Issues Potential Legislation. By Senator Romero. (Update of Background Packet Item #2) Background: As noted in the material mailed to the EQ Committee, Senator Gloria Romero likely will propose several bills to make significant changes to solid waste and recycling laws. Although the specific content of the bills is not yet know, her staff has met with various groups, as well as League staff, to describe the different concepts contemplated. In order to position the League to be actively engaged once the bills are introduced, staff recommends that the League adopt preliminary positions on the concepts. Many of the concepts and proposed positions reflect existing policy. The following are the key items discussed with Senator Romero's staff and proposed League positions on each. Zero Waste. Summary: Would establish zero waste as a statewide goal and would require the Waste Board to measure and announce each year the amount of waste (reduction) disposed statewide. The total amount measured would not be adjusted to reflect changes in population or economic growth. All waste would be counted as disposal, including alternative daily cover. Proposed League Position: Oppose. Although this would be a new statewide goal, it would be confusing with the AB 939 goals applied to individual jurisdictions. Not adjusting the figure for population or economic growth is unrealistic and counting ADC as disposal not diversion conflicts with existing law that permits ADC, under certain circumstances, to be counted as diversion not disposal. Good Faith. Effort. Summary: Requires the Waste Board to prepare a list of recommended waste reduction and diversion programs that local agencies could implement. If a city or county does not achieve the 50% AB 939 goal,. but is at a yet to be determined level, say 35% or 40%, and is implementing programs on this best practices list, and the amount of waste disposed in the jurisdiction is less than the amount disposed the previous year, there would be a rebuttable presumption that the jurisdiction is making a good faith effort to achieve the AB 939 goals. The disposal calculation would not be adjusted for population or economic.growth and all materials would be considered disposal,. including ADC. Proposed League Position: Oppose. This.conflicts with other good faith provisions of existing law and is confusing. How would the best practices programs be evaluated? It would conflict with existing law governing ADC and other restricted wastes and could be viewed as a first step to having zero waste use permit. This would put the Board in -the de -facto position of being the permitting agency, as opposed to existing law. Add a Seventh Board Member from Local Government Summary: Creates a seventh Board position, to be filled by a local government official. Proposed League Position: Support. However, if the bill includes any of the other components opposed by the League, we would not support the bill simply to have a local government position created on the Board. Study Feasibility of Regional LEAs. Summary. Requires an evaluation by the Auditor General or Legislative Analyst of the feasibility and potential of replacing the existing Local Enforcement System with a regional enforcement structure. The concept would respond to potential "conflict of interest' concerns for LEAs that either oversee their own jurisdictions' facilities or treat private facilities differently from public facilities. Proposed Lea_-gue Position. Oppose. The proposal assumes the existing system is broken, without an evaluation to determine if it is. The League has long opposed efforts to dismantle the LEA system. If problems with conflict of interest exist (and it is not clear that there are problems), it is more appropriate to evaluate whether the Waste Board is properly exercising its oversight authority to respond to a particular LEA' problem. It is also appropriate to evaluate whether there are gaps in the Waste Board's authority to provide proper LEA oversight. Such problems should be fixed on a case by case basis, as opposed to throwing out the entire LEA system and moving to a new system. Proposed League Position: Oppose anything that limits or replaces the current LEA system. Support proposals that enhance the Waste Board's oversight authority, providing due process is included for LEAs. Work with city and county LEAs in evaluating any proposal. Electronic Waste and Manufacturer Responsibility. Summary: Require manufacturer responsibility, including front end fees, for sale of items that , become electronic waste, such as computers, televisions and computer monitors. Proposed League Position: Support concept as long as it is consistent with League E-Waste policy and does not place an unfunded burden on local . agencies. Wait to take a formal position until more details are known. Issue: What position, if any, should the League take on these various proposals, should they appear in legislation? Although Senator Romero's staff indicates these are all conceptual proposals and that she is refining the concepts, should the League formally communicate preliminary positions on the concepts? 1 3 applied at the local level as well as state level. Also, not adjusting for population and economic growth is not realistic. Finally, this new good faith effort provision would conflict with what is in existing law and it is unclear which would take precedent. Solid Waste Facility Permits and Zero Waste. Summary: Would authorize the Waste Board to deny a solid waste facility permit on the basis that the facility would not contribute to the state's zero waste goal. Proposed League Position: Oppose. This would be a major restriction on local control. It would permit the Board to micro -manage development of solid waste facilities and would put the board in the position of second guessing local decisions by the Local Enforcement Agency, the host jurisdiction, the public or Private entity planning the facility and local land use and CEQA decisions. Waste Board CEQA Comments. Summary: Would require that any comments by the Waste Board on an EIR for a solid waste facility be approved by a majority vote of the Board before the comments can be sent to the lead agency. Proposed League Position: Oppose. If the Board wants to establish this as a policy, it can do so without legislation. This sets a bad precedent for CEQA comments by cities at the! local level. Chancie the Standard for Board Concurrence of a Solid Waste Permit. Summary: Under existing law, a solid waste facility permit is written by the Local Enforcement Agency and sent to the Waste Board for concurrence or non - concurrence. The host jurisdiction also is the CEQA lead and issues the land use permits. The Board may non -concur only if the permit does not conform to state minimum standards. If the board does not approve a permit within.45 days, then the permit is deemed to be concurred in. Thus, if the board votes to concur on a 3-3 vote, the permit is concurred in. If the Board wants to deny a permit, four votes are required. This is similar to the Board review and approval process in effect prior to enactment of AB 939 in 1989. Senator Romero's new proposal would instead require four affirmative votes to concur in a permit. If four votes are not in favor of concurrence, then the permit would be denied. Proposed League Position: Oppose. This increases the vote requirement to concur in the issuance of a solid waste facility permit, which should be a local decision as long as the facility meets state minimum standards. It puts the Board in the position of having more control and ultimately be the permitting agency, as opposed to the local LEA and host jurisdiction. For example, the Board could hold up concurring with the permit (i.e., four votes are. not there) until it was satisfied with the CEQA mitigation required, or the conditions included in the land 2 . Michael L. Miller • 735 East Herring Avenue West Covina, California 91790 To: City Council Members January 28, 2002 City Manager From: Mike Miller City Council Member Subject: Chamber of Commerce Information The City Council had requested to receive the financial reports for the West Covina Chamber of Commerce. Attached are the subject reports: ➢ Balance Sheet as of December 31m 2002 ➢ Profit and Loss Budget vs. Actual for December 2001 ➢ Profit and Loss Budget vs. Actual for July through December 2001 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this report be received and filed. Mike Miller Council Member r, %st Covina Chamber of Commerce i Balance Sheet OV14102 As of December 31, 2001 Dec 31,'01 ASSETS Current Assets Checking/Savings 2,715.33 Cash in Bank -FM Savings 30,414.60 Cash in Bank - General 40,225.51 Cash in Bank - Money Market 1,821.48 Cash in Bank - PWNB 3,37396 Cash in Bank - Your Town Market 173.96 . Petty Cash Total CheckingMavMgs -- — .•- 78,700.88 Total Current Assets 78,700.88 Fixed Assets Furniture & Fixtures 106, Furniture & Fixtures Furniture & Fixtures Accum Depr _ 6,328A -3328.15 • _.-3 1 Total Furniture '& Fixtures 70,092.44 Leasehold Improvements 1496 Leasehold Improvement Leasehold improvement Aa Depr _ _ ,308.34 ,30.34 -1 .90 _ • _.. Total Leasehold Improvements 31,01144 Total Fixed Assets `__ 101,103 =88 TOTAL ASSETS _ R179,804.76 LIABILITIES & EQUITY Equity Opening Bel Equity 120,899.55 Net Income 58,905.21 _.. -._.- -.--.• - Total Equity _� — __ 179,804.76 TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY "- 179,8U.76 Page 1 01114102 Income Fatmers Market Fundraisers Interest Memberships New Renewal Total Memberships Product Sates Publications Total Product Sales Programs First Friday Mixers Network Cafe. Public Saifety Total Programs Total Income Expense Banking & Credit Card Charges Board of Directors President's expense Regular Meetings Total Board of Directors Building Expense Maintenance Taxes Total Building Expense Communieations Cable TV Fa3dModem Internet Total Communications Equipment Maintenance Computers, etc. General Postage Meter Telephones. etc Total Equipment Maintenance Insurance General Insurance - Other Total Insurance Membership Mixers Newsletter openings Supplies & Matarlais Team One Website Total Membership .'1 Lt Commerce Covina Chamber of rofit & Loss Budget vs. Actual , December 2001 Dec 101 Budget 9 Over Budget- - % of Budget 782.00 550.00 232.00 142.2% 60.00 62-03 150.00 -87.97 41.4% 449.00 1,700.00 -1,251.00 26.4% 5.067.00 2,900.00 - 2,167.00 - _-174.7% __5,516.00 4.600.00 916.00 119.9% O.DO 135.00 _ ......-135.00 _._ - - 0.0% _ D.00 135.00 -135.00 0.0% -506.23 50•00 -556.23 -1,012.6% 0.DO 25.00 -25.00 0.0% 33.00 50.00 -17.00 66.0% 0.00 1,00D.00 . _ _ 1,000.00 -- 0.0% - -- _-473.23 1,125.00 _......... =1,598.23 -- - -` 42.1% -- - - 5,946.80 6,560.00 -613.20 90.7% 135.22 100.00 35.22 135.2% 9.72 39-15 30.00 _ 9.15 _- - 1305°.6 - 48.87 30.00 18.87 162.9% 250.00 250.00 0.00 100.0% 0.00 750.00 -750.00 0.0% - - _- 250.00 1.000.00 -750.00 25:0% 5.33 10.0D -1.67 83.3% 0.00 50.00 -50.00 0.0% 0.00 34.00 -34.00 O.D% - - - 8.33 94.DO -85.67 8.9% 0.00 340.00 -340.00 0.0'Ye 0.00 146.00 -146.00 0.0% 0.00 73.00 -73.OD 0.0 0.00 42.00 -42.00 0.0 /° 0.00 601.00 -601.00 0.0% 0.00 250.00 --250.00 0.0% 54.92 -- - - 54.92 250.00 -195.08 22.0% 0.DO 8.00 -8.00 0.0% 1,095.51. 670.00 425.51 163.5% 0.00 8.00 -8.OD 0.0% 0.00 250.00 -250.00 0.0% 0.00 10.00 -10.00 0.0% 0.00 80.00 _80.00 1,095.51 1,026.00 _ 69.51 106.8% Page 1 r. r. L Oest Commerce • Covina Chamber of Profit & Loss Budget vs. Actual • ov,4,o2 December 2001 Dec'01 Budget $ Over Budget _- 9!e of Budget Operations 518.45 625.00 -106.55 83.0% 0.0% Copier Lease 0.00 125.00 -125.00 Dues & Subscriptions 0.00 210.00 -210.00 0.0% Meals 8 entertainment 0.00 750.00 -760.00 0.0% Office Supplies 69.61 250.00 -180.39 27.8% Printing O.DO 50.00 .50.00 0.0% 0.0% Staff Training 0.00 75.00 -76.00 Storage 0.00 250.00 -250.00 -- 0.0`Yo --- --- Taxes - _ -- 568.08 - 2.335.00 - -1,746.94 ° 25.2/0 Total Operations Payroll, wages, beneflls 0.00 150.00 -150.00 0.0% 1099 Compensation 3.116.03 5,000.00 -1,884.97 62.3% Salaries 356.56 1,625.00 -1.268.44 21.9% Taxes, benefits $ fees O.OD 75.00 -75.00 0.0% - - - Workers compensation - - - 3,471.59 - 6,850. 00 - -3.378.41 -- 50.7%0.0%Postage Total Payroll, wages, benefits 0.00 625.00 -625.00 Professional Services 1,900.00 Audit & Accounting 0.00 125.00 -125.00 0.0% Computers, etc. 0.00 270.00 -270.0.0 - 0.00/0 Legal - .... _- 1,900.00 - 395.00 - - - - 1.505.00 481.0% Total Professional Services 0.00/00.00 0.00 250-00 -250.00 Public Affairs Utilities 405.01 550.00 -144.99 73.6% Electric 403.73 360.00 112.1 % - _ _ - Telephones, etc- 8D8.74 - 910.00 •43.73 -101.26 ......_._.._.._._.-.- Total Utilities -._..-..-_... _. ...._ 8,361.24 1.4,466.00 .6,104.76 _. _• 57.8% _-- - Total Expense _..._ ...,_ _ .. .2,414.44 7,906.00 5.491.56 30X% ----- Net Income -- - --- = - -_ - - - -- Page 2 7 01114102 Income BIT Coupon Books Farmers Market Fundraisers Interest Memberships New Renewal Total Memberships Product Sales Publications Total Product Sales Programs Business Expo First Friday mixers Network Cafe Public Satiety. Total. Programs Total Income Expense Banking & Credit Card Charges Board of Directors installation Presidenrs expense Regular Meetings Board of Directors - Dther Total Board of Directors Building Expense_ Maintenance Taxes Total Building Expense Commurdcations Cable TV Fax/Modem . Internet Total communications Economic Development Advertising Coupon Books Total Economic Development Equipment Maintenance Computers, etc. General Postage Meter Telephones, etc Total Equipment Maintenance insurance General officers & Directors haurance - Other Total Insurance fist Covina Chamber of Commerce • Profit & Loss Budget vs..ACtuat July through December 2001 Jul-Dac..0 Budget :over Budget % of Budget _... 75,000.00 0.00 -2 500.00 100.00/0 0.0% 0.00 2,500.00 2,400.00 547.53 122.8% 2,947.53 660.00 7A900.00 -6,340,00 9.4% 79.2% 713.19 -188.81 2,879.00 8,670.00 .5.791.00 6;30T.00 6. 33.2% 132.0% 26,007.00 19,700.00 -- - -- - - - .. 516.00 101.8% 28,886.00 28,370.00 160.00 425.OD -265.00 37.6% - - -' -' - - - - - 425.00 160.00 -265.00 37.6% 5,17,500.00 •2,377.79 68.3% 56.4% 169..12 0.00 150.00 15 -130.88 -41.00 72.7% 109.00 357.00 300.00 57.00 119.0% 3.894.97 7,500.00 --- _3,605_03 51.90/9 --_- - 9,652.30 15,750.00 -5.097.70 61.3% - -- - -- 132,345.00 118,019.02 -14,325.98 89.2% 1,406.65 600.00 806.65 234.4% 218.75 9.72 87.05 130.00 �2.95 67.0% 110.92 _ - -- - .. - 426.44 130.00 296.44 328.0% 250.00 1.500.00 =1.250.00 16.7% 0.0% 0.00 750.00 -750.00 -- - - 250.00 2,250.00 -2,000.00 460.00 -10.02 83.3% 14.7% 44..22 300.00 200.00 -255.78 -70.00 - -.. _...­2420 5W.00 -270.00 -535.80 _..__.-_35.01/6 4.3% 4,335.00 0.00 10,000.00 -10,DD0.00 0.0% 4.335.00 10.000.00 -5,865.00 43.4% 0.00 2,000.00 -2,000.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 876.00 -876.D0 0.0% 0.00 75.00 435.00 249.00 -435.00 -174.00 - - - - -30_1% -_ . - -- 75.00 3.560.00 3,485.00 2.1% 0.00 1,500.00 -1,500.00 0.0% D.0%. 0.00 1,250.00 .1,250.00 2,974.92 - --- 2,974.92 2.750.00 224.92 108.2°,b page 1 KI 0 01ma102 Membership Mixers Newsletter Openings Supplies & Materials Team One Website Membership - Other Total Membership Operations Copier Lease Dues & Subscriptions Meals & EtriertainmerA Office supplies Printing Staff Training Storage Taxes Travel & Lodging Total Operations parvi1, wages, benefits 1099 compensation Salaries Taxes, benefits & fees Workers compensation -Ohre Payroll, wages, Total Payroll, wages, benefits porfessional Services Postage Professional Services Audit & Accounting Computers, etc. Legal Total Professional Services Public Affairs Uncategorized Expenses Utilities Electric Telephones. etc. Utilities - Other Total Utilities Total Expense Net Income ACovina Chamber of Commerce Profit & Loss Budget vs. Actual July through pecember 2001 $ Over Budget °/. of Budget ------ Budget Jul - Dee •01 ��___ _ - _ -.•-- ..._. -- -- 0.00 -2,964.49 26.1% 11045.51 4,010.00 50.00 _50.OD � 0.0 % 0.00 0.00 1'�'� -1,500.00 200.04 0.0% 4502% 60-00 5W.00 -116.00 76.89'0 384.00 384.00 440.00 ��..._ - -'� -- 6,170.00 -4,030.35 34.7% 2,139.65 2,915.50 3,750.00 .834.60 -325.44 77.7% 56•6% 424.56 750.00 1,242.00 113.3% 4.r/h 1,406.89 4,500.00 211.49 288.51A64.159 �4,288.51 -821.81 45.20/9 678.19 1,300.00 -1,345.00 -348.3ok -1.045.00 450.00 -450.00 0.0% 469.3% 0.00 250.00 923.21 1,173.21 985.24 __._._. 12,742.00 6,991.92 53.0% 6,750.08 0.00 r 600.00 -600.00 -2,966.98 0.0% 90.1% 27,033.02 30,000.00 9,760.00 -4.866.21 50.1 0.0% 4,883.79 450.00 -450.00 0.00 -33.00 - --- _- 40,800-00 3,916.19 78.1% 31,883.81 105.00 3,75p.OD .3 568 67 4.8% 181.33 1,900.00 4,000.00 -2,100.00 -750.00 47.5% 0.0% 0.00 750.00 1.100.00 _1.100.00 _..._ 0.0% _...._._.__ .._. 0.00 00 5,850.- - - ._... -3 �.00 32.5% 1,900.00 -500.00 0.0% 0.00 500.00 45.00 2,936.63 3,530.00 -593.37 1,479.42 83.2'/6 180.8% 3,309.42 1.830.00 370.68 - _ `__ 5,360.00 1,256.73 123.4% _....._....__ �..--- - 6,616.73 ^-._.:. - -, - 95.022.00 35,908.19 59.113.81 - - ..-_-.- _ - ........ - --- _.� _ -- 37,323.00 21,582.21 15T.8% _.-•-.. se,905.21 -- - -•- -- Page 2