Form revised February 6, 2008

FISCAL NOTE FOR NON-CAPITAL PROJECTS

Department:	Contact Person/Phone:	DOF Analyst/Phone:
Seattle Public Utilities	Dick Lilly – 615.0706	John McCoy – 615.0768

Legislation Title:

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City of Seattle’s solid waste system, prohibiting the use of expanded polystyrene food service containers, requiring food service businesses to transition from disposable plastic food service ware to compostable and recyclable alternatives, and amending Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 21.36.

· Summary of the Legislation:

This legislation prohibits food service businesses, restaurants of all types, and grocery stores, from using expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam containers, plates, cups, meat trays, egg cartons and so forth, effective Jan. 1, 2009.  The legislation further requires food service businesses to stop using disposable plastic or plastic-coated paper food service products – trays, plates, “clamshells,” cups, utensils and so forth – and change to reusable, compostable or recyclable alternatives by July 1, 2010.

· Background: (Include brief description of the purpose and context of legislation and include record of previous legislation and funding history, if applicable):

The attached legislation arose from Resolution 30990 which instructed SPU to study the environmental impact of EPS, sometimes referred to by the trade name Styrofoam™, and consider a ban on its use because of its presence in land and marine litter, and persistence in the environment.  SPU hired Herrera Environmental Consultants to study EPS and, in addition, the general problem of disposable plastic containers, plates, cups and the like in the food service business.  The Mayor and Council President decided, given the information available, that the proper course of action was to issue a ban on the use of EPS food service products effective Jan. 1, 2009, followed by a requirement that food services businesses change entirely from disposable plastic and plastic-coated paper food service products to reusable, compostable, or recyclable products by July 1, 2010.  Importantly, this policy reinforces the City’s programs for reaching its 60 percent recycling goal by increasing the emphasis on food composting.

· Please check one of the following:

____ This legislation does not have any financial implications.  (Stop here and delete the remainder of this document prior to saving and printing.)

__X__ This legislation has financial implications.  (Please complete all relevant sections that follow.)

Appropriations:  This table should reflect appropriations that are a direct result of this legislation.  In the event that the project/programs associated with this ordinance had, or will have, appropriations in other legislation, please provide details in the Notes section below.

Fund Name and Number	Department	Budget Control Level*	2008 Appropriation	2009 Anticipated Appropriation
TOTAL

*See budget book to obtain the appropriate Budget Control Level for your department.

Notes:  SPU may seek additional appropriation in the 2009-2010 cycle for outreach, communication and enforcement of this ban.

Anticipated Revenue/Reimbursement: Resulting From This Legislation: This table should reflect revenues/reimbursements that are a direct result of this legislation.  In the event that the issues/projects associated with this ordinance/resolution have revenues or reimbursements that were, or will be, received because of previous or future legislation or budget actions, please provide details in the Notes section below the table.

Fund Name and Number	Department	Revenue Source	2008 Revenue	2009 Revenue
TOTAL

Notes:

Total Regular Positions Created, Modified, Or Abrogated Through This Legislation, Including FTE Impact:  This table should only reflect the actual number of positions affected by this legislation.   In the event that positions have been, or will be, created as a result of other legislation, please provide details in the Notes section below the table.

Position Title and Department	Position # for Existing Positions	Fund Name & #	PT/FT	2008 Positions	2008 FTE	2009 Positions*	2009 FTE*
TOTAL

* 2009 positions and FTE are total 2009 position changes resulting from this legislation, not incremental changes.  Therefore, under 2009, please be sure to include any continuing positions from 2008.

Notes:

SPU may request additional inspection staff in the 2009-2010 budget cycle to conduct field visits to food service businesses affected by the ban on expanded polystyrene food service ware, to ensure compliance, and to provide technical assistance.

· Do positions sunset in the future?  (If yes, identify sunset date):

Spending/Cash Flow: This table should be completed only in those cases where part or all of the funds authorized by this legislation will be spent in a different year than when they were appropriated (e.g., as in the case of certain grants and capital projects).  Details surrounding spending that will occur in future years should be provided in the Notes section below the table.

Fund Name & #	Department	Budget Control Level*	2008 Expenditures	2009 Anticipated Expenditures
TOTAL

* See budget book to obtain the appropriate Budget Control Level for your department.

Notes:

· What is the financial cost of not implementing the legislation? (Estimate the costs to the City of not implementing the legislation, including estimated costs to maintain or expand an existing facility or the cost avoidance due to replacement of an existing facility, potential conflicts with regulatory requirements, or other potential costs if the legislation is not implemented.)

The City would continue to face disposal costs for the various plastic and plastic-coated paper food service products, and incur avoidable costs where food waste is landfilled rather than composted.  Compostable food service products used in fast food settings increase food waste composting as they allow food waste and containers to be handled together, rather than thrown in the garbage.  The current annual cost to the City of collection, recycling, disposal and litter cleanup for the disposable food service items distributed in the city each year is about $620,000.  Implementing the legislation may increase the City’s costs in the short run for administration and inspection related to the proposed ban.  However, these costs will likely be offset by savings from increased composting of food waste rather than landfilling.  These costs and savings are not currently quantified.

· What are the possible alternatives to the legislation that could achieve the same or similar objectives? (Include any potential alternatives to the proposed legislation, such as reducing fee-supported activities, identifying outside funding sources for fee-supported activities, etc.)

A voluntary approach could be applied, but this would not achieve the same level of compliance and would likely fall short of the goal of eliminating disposable plastic and plastic-coated paper food service products from the waste stream.

· Is the legislation subject to public hearing requirements:  (If yes, what public hearings have been held to date, and/or what plans are in place to hold a public hearing(s) in the future.)

No. 

· Other Issues (including long-term implications of the legislation):

During the transition to compostable and recyclable food service products, the City will need to provide technical assistance to smaller, minority, and immigrant-owned food service businesses, possibly helping to establish buying cooperatives so that these businesses can obtain volume pricing on compostable food service products. In the current market, these can cost 5 to 10 cents more than existing EPS products.

The City will also need to work with Cedar Grove Composting and other stakeholders to establish standards for compostability and develop clear identification for approved compostable products through logos and/or color coding so the public cannot mistake such products for others that do not meet the established standard.

Please list attachments to the fiscal note below:

            None.