HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 07272015 - Internal Ops Cte Min
INTERNAL OPERATIONS
COMMITTEE
SPECIAL MEETING
July 27, 2015
Note the start time: 1:30 P.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair
Agenda
Items:
Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference
of the Committee
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
3. RECEIVE and APPROVE the Record of Action for the May 11, 2015 IOC meeting.
(Julie DiMaggio Enea, IOC Staff)
4. CONSIDER approving nomination to appoint to the Scott Anderson to the County,
School District, and Community College District seat on the Treasury Oversight
Committee to complete the unexpired term ending on April 30, 2016. (Russell Watts,
Treasurer-Tax Collector)
5. ACCEPT report on the status of the development of a waste hauler ordinance and
provide policy direction to staff. (Marilyn Underwood, Environmental Health Director)
6. CONSIDER report and recommendations from the Behavioral Health Director regarding
the roles of the Health Services Director's Consolidated Planning Advisory Workgroup
and the Mental Health Commission of the Board of Supervisors in the development and
oversight of the Mental Health Services Act Three-Year Plan and annual updates
thereof. (Cynthia Belon, Behavioral Health Services Director)
7. ACCEPT report prepared by the Office of the Auditor-Controller on analysis of the
Public Works Department-Fleet Services Division’s compliance with Administrative
Bulletin #508.4, “County Vehicle and Equipment Acquisition and Replacement Policy,
and Clean Air Vehicle Policy and Goals.” (Joanne Bohren, Chief Auditor,
Auditor-Controller's Office)
8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for September 14, 2015.
9.Adjourn
1
The Internal Operations Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with
disabilities planning to attend Internal Operations Committee meetings. Contact the staff person
listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Internal Operations Committee less than
96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor,
during normal business hours. Staff reports related to open session items on the agenda are also
accessible on line at www.co.contra-costa.ca.us.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day
prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Julie DiMaggio Enea, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1077, Fax (925) 646-1353
julie.enea@cao.cccounty.us
2
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE -
SPECIAL 3.
Meeting Date:07/27/2015
Subject:RECORD OF ACTION FOR THE MAY 11, 2015 IOC MEETING
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION
Presenter: Julie DiMaggio Enea, IOC Staff Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea (925)
335-1077
Referral History:
County Ordinance requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the
record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the
meeting.
Referral Update:
Attached is the Record of Action for the May 11, 2015 IOC meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE and APPROVE the Record of Action for the May 11, 2015 IOC meeting.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None.
Attachments
IOC Record of Action for 5/11/15
3
INTERNAL OPERATIONS
COMMITTEE
RECORD OF ACTION FOR
May 11, 2015
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair
Present: Karen Mitchoff, Chair
John Gioia, Vice Chair
Staff Present:Julie DiMaggio Enea, Staff
Attendees: Theresa Speiker, Chief Asst. County Administrator
Betsy Burkhart, Communications and Media
Director
Kara Douglas, Conservation & Development Dept
Jill Ray, District II Supervisor's Office
Michaela Senicola-Payden
James Matthew Smith
1.Introductions
Chair Mitchoff called the meeting to order at 2:40 p.m. and recognized two Los Medanos College
students who were in attendance to observe the meeting.
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
No members of the public asked to speak under public comment.
3.RECEIVE and APPROVE the Record of Action for the April 13, 2015 IOC meeting.
Chair Mitchoff asked committee staff to emphasize to the Environmental Health
Director that the IOC wants to see a draft waste hauler ordinance at the July IOC
meeting rather than just notes from the stakeholder outreach meetings.
With that clarification, the minutes for the April 13, 2015 IOC meeting were
approved as presented.
AYE: Chair Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
4
4.CONSIDER approving nomination by the Affordable Housing Finance Committee to
reappoint Willie Robinson to the County #2 seat to a new three-year term expiring on
June 30, 2018.
The Committee approved the nomination to reappoint Willie Robinson to the County #2 seat on the
Affordable Housing Finance Committee.
AYE: Chair Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
5.At the time of the policy development, whether or not to archive county social
media content was left undetermined, as there was little consensus as to whether or
not it was necessary, and how that it could be done. Over the past year, it has
become accepted that government social media content is, in fact, an electronic
public record, subject to records requests. Many agencies have created manual
processes to capture their own posts and accompanying comments, and retain
them per their records retention schedules. However, manual captures are not
searchable, and make responding to records requests difficult. Several vendors
have developed low-cost tools to archive social media records, and make them
available to government agencies. OCM recommends that the County contract
with one of those services to ensure we have access to the records when we need
them.
1.
We are also recommending that analysis of metrics be handled at an enterprise
level, utilizing tools such as Hootsuite, TweetDeck and Sprout Social. While
social media outreach has significant value, it can also be very time-consuming,
and it is important to know which efforts are paying off in terms of actual
engagement. Facebook “likes” and Twitter “followers” are numbers that are
largely irrelevant now compared to when those tools were new. Analytics will
help County social media administrators focus limited resources where they have
the biggest payoff. Managing these accounts from a countywide perspective rather
than by department or office will be most cost-effective.
2.
Chair Mitchoff accepted the staff report and requested staff to schedule the report and took no
action on the recommendations. She asked the Communications & Media Director to schedule the
staff report and recommendations for Board of Supervisors discussion in July. Supervisor Gioia
was absent during the hearing of this item.
6.REVIEW the updated schedule for the discussion of items referred to the Internal
Operations Committee and provide direction to staff on changes, if needed.
Chair Mitchoff reviewed the discussion and meeting schedule for the remainder of
the calendar year and directed staff to cancel the June and August meetings, attempt
to schedule the July meeting for either the 20th or 27th, and combine the two
semi-annual SBE and Outreach Reports into one annual report to be scheduled for
discussion in October.
Supervisor Gioia was absent for this item.
5
7.The next meeting is currently scheduled for June 8, 2015.
Chair Mitchoff canceled the June 8 meeting. The July IOC meeting date is yet to be
determined.
8.Adjourn
For Additional Information Contact:
Julie DiMaggio Enea, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1077, Fax (925) 646-1353
julie.enea@cao.cccounty.us
6
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE -
SPECIAL 4.
Meeting Date:07/27/2015
Subject:NOMINATIONS TO THE TREASURY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Submitted For: Russell Watts, Treasurer-Tax Collector
Department:Treasurer-Tax Collector
Referral No.: IOC 14/5
Referral Name: Advisory Body Recruitment
Presenter: Russell Watts, Treasurer-Tax Collector Contact: Russell Watts
925.957.2801
Referral History:
In 2013, IOC reviewed Board Resolution Nos. 2011/497 and 2011/498, which stipulate that
applicants for At Large/Non Agency-Specific seats on specified bodies are to be interviewed by a
Board Committee. The IOC made a determination that it would conduct interviews for At Large
seats on the following bodies: Retirement Board, Fire Advisory Commission, Integrated Pest
Management Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, Treasury Oversight Board, Airport
Land Use Commission, Aviation Advisory Committee and the Fish & Wildlife Committee; and
that screening and nomination fill At Large seats on all other eligible bodies would be delegated
each body or a subcommittee thereof.
The purpose of the TOC is to review the County's investment policy; regularly monitor the
County Investment Pool's performance; and report on the pool's performance to the Board of
Supervisors.
The TOC is composed of two ex-officio and seven appointed members: the County Treasurer; the
Auditor-Controller; one representative appointed by the Board of Supervisors; the County
Superintendent of Schools or designee; one representative selected by a majority of the presiding
officers of the governing bodies of the school districts and the community college district in the
county; one representative selected by a majority of the presiding officers of the legislative bodies
of the special districts in the county that are required or authorized to deposit funds in the County
Treasury; three members of the public, a majority of whom shall have expertise in, or an
academic background in, public finance and who shall be economically diverse and bipartisan in
political registration.
Referral Update:
Attached is a memo from Treasurer-Tax Collector Russell Watts transmitting the nomination of
7
Attached is a memo from Treasurer-Tax Collector Russell Watts transmitting the nomination of
Scott Anderson, Chief Business Officer at the San Ramon Valley Unified School District, to
replace retiring Chris Learned, to the County, School District, and Community College District
seat on the Treasury Oversight Committee. The nominee to this seat is selected by a majority of
the presiding officers of the governing bodies of the school districts and the community college
district in the County.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
APPROVE nomination to appoint to the Scott Anderson to the County, School District, and
Community College District seat on the Treasury Oversight Committee to complete the unexpired
term ending on April 30, 2016.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
Memo from Treasurer-Tax Collector Transmitting TOC Nomination
Candidate Application_Scott Anderson_TOC
County Office of Education Letter_Scott Anderson
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE -
SPECIAL 5.
Meeting Date:07/27/2015
Subject:WASTE HAULER ORDINANCE
Submitted For: William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director
Department:Health Services
Referral No.: IOC 15/8
Referral Name: Waste Hauler Ordinance
Presenter: Marilyn Underwood Contact: Marilyn Underwood (925)
692-2521
Referral History:
On May 8, 2012, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Internal Operations Committee a review
of the Waster Hauler Ordinance in order to address a number of problems with illegal haulers
including:
complaints that illegal haulers have been hired by private parties to remove refuse, and some of these
companies have subsequently dumped the collected material along roadways and on vacant lots.
incidents in which the Sheriff's Department found refuse haulers with improperly secured loads, which pose
a hazard to motorists if items fall onto roadways.
haulers that have been found transporting the collected materials to illegal transfer stations that have not
undergone the required zoning, environmental, and permitting review, and pose significant threats to public
health and the environment.
haulers that have been found collecting residential or commercial garbage in violation of local franchise
agreements.
haulers that are not posting the bond required by Contra Costa County Ordinance Section 418-2.006. This
bond is intended to ensure compliance with applicable laws. It is questionable if illegal haulers carry liability
insurance, and they may not be in compliance with tax or labor laws.
The Internal Operations Committee held several discussions on this matter over the last three
years, during which substantial work and progress were noted. The IOC requested Environmental
Health staff to work with the County Counsel to develop a final draft ordinance for circulation to
stakeholders for comment, and then for consideration by the IOC.
In September 2014, Environmental Health asked to suspend work on the waste hauler ordinance
so that priority could be given to the updating of Environmental Health fees. Ordinance No.
2014-12, which authorizes the collection of a plan review fee for plan review and inspection of
food facilities and swimming pools, was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 2,
2014, allowing work to resume on the waste hauler ordinance.
In a December 2014 status report to the IOC, Environmental Health staff reported that they had
met with County Counsel and DCD Solid Waste/Recycling staff to discuss issues raised by the
16
proposed waste hauler ordinance, including the interplay between the proposal and existing
agreements with franchise waste haulers. Each franchise agreement is unique and must be
examined to determine the extent to which it might conflict with the County's proposal. This
examination, which may necessitate meetings with the franchisees and the waste authorities to
clarify and resolve any such conflicts, must be completed before staff can recommend a draft
ordinance for Committee consideration.
Environmental Health staff made a status report to the IOC on April 13, 2015 and planned to send
the current draft ordinance to all of the stakeholders for remarks by May 15 and report back to
IOC in July.
Referral Update:
Attached is an update from Environmental Health on the status of the examination of the
County's franchise agreements for conflicts with the proposal to further regulate waste hauling
with a new ordinance. Environmental Health is seeking policy direction on the scope of the
ordinance and on a number of policy issues/opportunities that surfaced during meetings with
stakeholders.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT report on the status of the development of a waste hauler ordinance and provide policy
direction to staff.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None.
Attachments
Environmental Health Status Report on Development of Waste Hauler Ordinance
Conceptual Draft of Waste Hauler Ordinance
17
Contra Costa Environmental Health
2120 Diamond Blvd., Suite 200
Concord, CA 94520
Phone: (925) 692-2500
Fax: (925) 692-2502
www.cchealth.org/eh/
Date: July 17, 2015
To: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Internal Operations Committee (IOC)
From: Marilyn C. Underwood, PhD, REHS, Director of Environmental Health
Subject: Update on Proposed Refuse Hauler Ordinance
Contra Costa County Ordinance 418-2
______________________________________________________________________________
A. Introduction
There are two County Code Chapters that regulate aspects of waste collection within the
unincorporated area. County Code Chapter 418-7 requires that entities enter into an agreement with
the County (e.g. Franchise Agreement) prior to collecting or authorizing service providers to collect
waste generated in the unincorporated County area. In addition to collection from the unincorporated
area, Chapter 418-2 also regulates the hauling of waste (regardless of area of origin) on unincorporated
roads. Therefore, anyone collecting waste from within the unincorporated area without a County
Franchise or Hauler Permit is technically doing so in violation of two separate ordinances.
The proposed revisions developed by staff are meant to significantly improve the effectiveness of
Chapter 418-2 as it relates to three important goals: (1) combat illegal dumping in unincorporated
areas, (2) combat illegal haulers, and (3) combat illegal transfer stations. However, a local ordinance
alone is not the entire solution, but instead one of multiple elements needed to address these chronic
problems.
To protect public health, safety, and the environment it is critical that solid waste and recyclable
materials are safely transported to an approved solid waste disposal or recycling facility. Illegal
dumping on both public and private property is a significant problem in Contra Costa County. The
County will never be able to stop illegal dumping completely, however it can be minimized if adequate
resources are consistently dedicated to pursuing prevention and enforcement strategies. There are a
wide range of prevention and enforcement strategies including camera surveillance options, periodic
stake-outs by law enforcement in chronic dumping "hot spots", rigorous prosecution of illegal dumping
cases, publicize local illegal dumping convictions using media and any other possible methods, and
maximize the County's ability to impose meaningful penalties for illegal dumping convictions.
Revisions to Chapter 418-2 (hauler permits) and Chapter 418-6 (mandatory subscription) have been
identified as two means of strengthening the effectiveness of the County’s illegal dumping prevention
and enforcement efforts.
18
July 17, 2015 Page 2
IOC Report: Refuse Hauler Ordinance
Solid waste taken to illegal solid waste facilities, including illegal transfer stations, is also a serious
problem. Unregulated non-franchise waste haulers are implicated in both illegal dumping and illegal
solid waste facilities. For these reasons, Contra Costa Environmental Health (CCEH) previously brought
to the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) a recommendation that the County’s cur rent refuse hauler
ordinance be updated to provide a permit system and other protections which are feasible to
implement and more effective overall.
As part of the effort to modify the current refuse hauler ordinance (County Ordinance Chapter 418-2),
CCEH scheduled a series of workshops and individual meetings with stakeholders. The stakeholders
were provided a copy of a conceptual draft ordinance prior to the workshops. The discussions were
productive and staff received helpful feedback and suggestions. Some of the suggestions were
incorporated into the latest conceptual draft proposal dated June 15, 2015 (attached). Other
suggestions and ideas warrant consideration by the IOC and are contained in Section C of this report;
staff is seeking direction regarding these items prior to preparing a revised draft ordinance to submit
for legal review.
B. Summary of workshop and meeting discussions
(1) As discussed at previous IOC meetings, the franchised haulers do not want non-franchised
waste haulers conducting business in a manner that conflicts with franchise agreements. This
includes non-franchised haulers who might obtain a health permit pursuant to a revised
ordinance.
Efforts were made to identify types of hauler operations that do not conflict with franchise
agreements. Many non-franchise waste haulers provide a labor component that is not
provided by franchised haulers. For example, haulers that clean up and remove junk, debris, or
other items from a property for transport and disposal, but the property owner, business, or
tenant is not themselves involved in loading the truck or refuse container; such non-franchised
operations were a primary target of the original proposal to revise the current ordinance. This
distinction has been added to Section 418-2.003(c) of the attached draft. See Section C(5)
below for related policymaker considerations.
If a non-franchised hauler does not provide this labor component and instead drops off a
container that is filled by his or her client, this could conflict with a franchise agreement,
depending on the location and/or type of waste. It is recognized that educating the non-
franchise haulers about restrictions to their business in franchised areas will be an important
component of a waste hauler regulatory program. Additionally, haulers should be informed to
check with any city in which they operate, since a city business license and/or other approval(s)
may also be required.
(2) Requiring the marking of all debris boxes, even if self-hauled, will aid regulatory agencies in
ensuring the lawful use of these boxes. This recommendation was incorporated into the
revised draft proposal in Section 418-2.008(g).
(3) Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste is a significant component of the waste stream.
Franchise haulers suggested that the County Franchise Agreements be modified as needed to
19
July 17, 2015 Page 3
IOC Report: Refuse Hauler Ordinance
clearly specify that Franchisees are granted with exclusive right to collect C&D waste.
Currently, this is only provided for in one of the County’s four Franchises which governs services
provided by Richmond Sanitary Service (RSS) in West County. Stakeholders felt that exclusively
franchising collection of C&D waste would simplify enforcement. See Section C(6) below for
related policymaker considerations..
(4) It was suggested that building permit process could be altered to address C&D waste
management practices, since construction projects can generate large quantities of waste
materials. Building permit process falls under the purview of DCD. County Code requirements
associated with the building permit process specific to C&D waste are contained in Chapter
418-14 (less stringent than and therefore in effect superseded by CalGreen). CalGreen
(statewide code) requires that certain information be documented and submitted to
demonstrate planned (building permit applications) and actual (final inspection) methods used
for recycling and disposing of C&D waste. See Section C(4) below for related policymaker
considerations..
(5) There was extensive discussion about contractors and landscapers self-hauling their waste
materials, a practice that was initially proposed for exemption from the permit requirement.
Franchise Agreements do not prohibit contractors and landscapers from hauling waste they
generate at client worksites. It is recognized that contractors and landscapers collect and
transport large quantities of waste material, some of which may be illegally dumped or
destined for illegal solid waste facilities. It is important that this waste be safely transported to
an acceptable disposal or recycling facility.
It is also important to accurately account for the amounts and types of waste collected, as well
as the point of origin and ultimate destination, for both diversion rate reporting and the
payment of fees (e.g., mitigation funds, LEA fees, CalRecycle fees, etc.). Therefore, the IOC may
wish to consider some degree of regulatory oversight regarding waste transport and disposal
for these businesses. See Section C(3) below for related policymaker considerations..
(6) Reporting of waste collected and ultimate disposal is an important component of the proposal.
But the proposal restricts reporting requirements to those haulers operating under a health
permit. It would be useful to get this information from others, such as landscapers and
contractors, but this would significantly expand the scope and complexity of regulatory
oversight. For those businesses required to maintain waste transport records, it was suggested
that these be submitted to CCEH on a regular basis, and this idea has been incorporated into
the revised draft in Section 418-2.008(e). Additionally, as noted above, CalGreen requires that
contractors submit certain report documentation to DCD regarding the ultimate
facilities/services providers used to dispose of and recycle C&D waste from building projects.
(7) Another item discussed was requiring all solid waste material transported by permitted haulers
be disposed or recycled at solid waste or recycling facilities located within Contra Costa
County. See Section C(10) below for related policymaker considerations..
(8) The franchised haulers expressed concern about illegal haulers who poach or scavenge
recyclable materials to which the franchisee is entitled under the franchise agreement. The
20
July 17, 2015 Page 4
IOC Report: Refuse Hauler Ordinance
scavenging of these materials has a financial impact on the franchise haulers as well as the
ratepayers. Franchisee stakeholders expressed concerns that non-franchised haulers who
might obtain a health permit pursuant to a revised ordinance may start poaching Franchisees
recyclables. Franchise Agreements regulate the collection of recyclables, unless such collection
is provided free of charge. See Section C(7) below for related policymaker considerations.
(9) An improved definition of “industrial waste” is desirable, since these wastes are exempt from
the permit requirement. Franchise Agreements do not regulate the collection of industrial
waste. See Section C(9) below for related policymaker considerations.
(10) Enforcement of the ordinance, including assistance from the Sheriff’s Office. It is recognized
that consistent enforcement with meaningful penalties for noncompliance is critical for the
ordinance to be effective. Current County Ordinance contains provisions for civil, criminal, and
administrative penalties. CCEH has experience using civil and criminal penalties for its cases,
but not administrative penalties. The possible use of administrative penalties contained in
County Ordinance Chapter 14-12 when dealing with violations of a waste transport ordinance
would require further research as part of a legal review.
(11) Require non-franchise haulers seeking a permit to disclose their service area (where their
hauling business will be collecting waste from) and the location(s) where solid waste or
recyclable materials will be taken on the applications for a hauler permit. This suggestion was
incorporated into Section 418-2.003(c).
(12) Issues associated with requiring hauler permits for waste loads which originate within
incorporated areas or outside Contra Costa County were also discussed. Anecdotal evidence
collected in the past suggest that roughly half of the illegal dumping found in one West County
community originated from within that community. Therefore, if legally feasible it would be
desirable to include language that would allow the County to require permits solely for
transporting waste loads through the unincorporated area. Staff believes this is critical to
effectively addressing illegal dumping resulting from waste hauling originating in other
jurisdictions.
(13) The “level playing field” concept was discussed. The franchise haulers incur numerous
operating costs not borne by some non-franchise haulers. For example, they must comply with
other regulations (e.g., California Air Resources Board), carry liability insurance, pay union
wages, etc. These issues are beyond the scope of the proposal and not within the purview of
CCEH, but staff want the IOC to be aware that these are important issues for the franchise
haulers.
C. Key Items for Policymaker Consideration:
Based on input received at the stakeholder meetings, staff has identified the policymaker
considerations and policy options identified below for consideration by the IOC. These key items
pertain to policy matters involving the potential scope, requirements or enforcement of the ordinance.
21
July 17, 2015 Page 5
IOC Report: Refuse Hauler Ordinance
(1) ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT – Potential Role of the Sheriff’s Office
The Sheriff's Office has in the past provided useful assistance related to illegal haulers. It would
be helpful if they have the authority to enforce certain provisions of the proposed
ordinance; specifically, those standards that are observable in the field (e.g., presence or
absence of a permit sticker, proper containment of waste while driving on county roads). Staff
recognizes that the Sheriff's Office has many competing needs for its resources, and where and
when they could assist is subject to balancing these resources with the myriad requests for
services and other obligations. The IOC may wish to formally ask Sheriff Livingston if this is
acceptable or direct staff to make this inquiry on its behalf.
Option
The following language could be considered for addition to the end of Section 418-2.003(a): In
addition to Contra Costa Environmental Health, the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office may
also enforce Sections 418-2.003(a), 418-2.003(b), 418-2.005, and 418-2.008 of this chapter.
(2) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT - Performance Bond
The current ordinance requires that refuse haulers post a bond with the Board of
Supervisors. The proposal lists four options for the IOC to consider. See Section 418-2.006 in
attached draft.
Option 1
Keep the amount the same but have the bond posted with the health officer (i.e., CCEH).
Option 2
Raise the bond amount and have it posted with CCEH.
Option 3
Require liability insurance in lieu of a bond.
Option 4
Delete this section entirely.
Based on the questionable utility of these bonds, staff recommends Option 4.
(3) ORDINANCE SCOPE - Building Contractors and Landscapers Self-Haul
Landscapers and building contractors generate a significant component of the solid waste
stream. The proposed ordinance exempts these contractors from the waste hauler permit
requirement if they are transporting waste from their own jobsites directly to an approved solid
waste or recycling facility. Similar exception applies to the County’s Franchise Agreements,
therefore landscapers and contractors can haul waste they generate at client jobsites without
having a County Franchise or Hauler Permit. Under the current proposal, they
are still subject to certain operational standards (e.g., containment of waste during
transport). The IOC may wish to consider to what further extent the waste hauler
22
July 17, 2015 Page 6
IOC Report: Refuse Hauler Ordinance
ordinance applies to these building contractors and landscapers. The following are options to
consider:
Option 1
Full compliance, including a permit requirement. There are hundreds of landscapers and
building contractors operating in the County, so to require them to have a waste transport
permit would significantly expand the scope of the proposed revised ordinance. Staff does not
believe the resources necessary to implement such a large-scale program exists at this time or
in the foreseeable future.
Option 2
Not require a permit, but add additional requirements not previously proposed. For example,
reporting requirements (418-2.008(e)) and drop box marking (418-2008(g)). At a minimum
staff recommend all debris boxes or waste containers, including those used by landscapers or
building contractors to self-haul, be marked with the owner's information (see Option 3).
Option 3
Exempt landscapers and building contractors from the permit and reporting requirements as
per the attached proposal. Require marking of refuse containers. Staff believes that Option 3 is
a practical option to implement at this time.
Option 4
Require a permit system for individual debris boxes. This would require additional
administrative resources for questionable benefit. Staff believes regulatory efforts, at least
initially, should focus on permitting the transport vehicles and businesses rather than individual
containers.
(4) ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT – Role of the Building Permit & Inspection Process
A suggestion discussed at the workshops and individual meetings was the role that the building
permit process could play to help monitor and aid enforcement of the revised ordinance. If the
revised ordinance regulates hauling of C&D waste, stakeholders expressed interest in including
documentation requirements associated with building permit applications. Additionally, there
was interest in exploring what enforcement assistance DCD Building Inspectors might be able to
provide when out in the field.
State law (CalGreen) requires certain reporting documentation be submitted to demonstrate
planned (building permit applications) and actual (final inspection) methods used for recycling
and disposing of C&D waste. CalGreen has in effect superseded similar, less stringent,
requirements in Chapter 418-14 of County Code. If the IOC decides that it would be desirable
to incorporate new requirements related to the management of C&D waste generated as a
result of building permit issuance in County Code, such requirements should be instituted in
Chapter 418-14 and not the hauler permit system established in Chapter 418-2
Considering that any building permit process changes would only impact one component of the
overall waste stream (C&D waste), staff recommends that new compliance monitoring and
verification requirements not be imposed or at least kept to a minimum (e.g. Option 4). Any
building permit or inspection requirements are ultimately the responsibility of the property
23
July 17, 2015 Page 7
IOC Report: Refuse Hauler Ordinance
owner and not the contractor who is often in charge of arranging for the removal and disposal
of C&D waste from the jobsite. Implementing changes to the building permit and/or inspection
process would likely necessitate that DCD’s applicable fees be increased to cover the added
costs. If building permit applications required the applicant to list the waste hauler (franchise
company, self-haul, other lawful waste transporter), that information would be available to
assist in monitoring waste transports, disposal, or recycling. It would also serve as a source of
information that could prove helpful to County departments or Franchise haulers when
investigating suspected/alleged violations of County Code or franchises.
Option 1
Building inspection process would require verification of the hauling company being used based
on the debris box placed at the jobsite. Staff does not believe this is a feasible means o f
verification because of the variables involved. There is no certainty that the inspector will
observe the debris box at the jobsite because inspections only occur at certain phases of each
project’s construction which varies by project type.
Option 2
Building permit would not be finaled or a certificate of occupancy issued until the contractor
demonstrates the C&D waste was lawfully transported to an approved location.
Option 3
Require a bond tied to waste disposal from C&D projects. Staff is uncertain if this is allowable
under state law. More importantly, staff believes this option would be burdensome to
implement and likely would result in little if any substantive benefit.
Option 4
Revise existing Debris Recovery reporting forms submitted when applying for building permits
to satisfy requirements in State law (CalGreen) so that applicants must also identify who will
haul away the C&D waste generated at the jobsite (self-haul by contractor or name of hauling
company). State law (CalGreen) requires certain reporting documentation be submitted to
demonstrate planned (building permit applications) and actual (final inspection) methods used
for recycling and disposing of C&D waste. Staff believes that Option 4 is the most practical
option to implement at this time.
(5) ORDINANCE SCOPE - Conflicts with Existing Franchise Agreements
County Code Chapter 418-7 require that entities providing or regulating the provision of
collection services for waste generated in the unincorporated County area enter into a
Franchise or alternative type of agreement with the County. Depending upon the nature of the
Chapter 418-2 revisions ultimately deemed to be desired, changes may also need to be made to
Chapter 418-7 accordingly to avoid conflicting and/or overlapping County Code requirements.
The County only has authority over the provision of waste collection services for a portion of
the unincorporated County area. Waste and recycling services in the unincorporated areas that
fall within the County’s regulatory authority are governed under four separate Franchise
Agreements (Franchises) with the following hauling companies:
24
July 17, 2015 Page 8
IOC Report: Refuse Hauler Ordinance
(1) Richmond Sanitary Service (Republic Services),
(2) Crockett Garbage Service (Republic Services),
(3) Allied Waste (Republic Services), and
(4) Garaventa Enterprises.
Other portions of the unincorporated County area remain under the control of these other
public agencies:
Byron Sanitary District (portion of Byron),
RecycleSmart/Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (Alamo, Contra Costa
Centre/Pleasant Hill Bart Diablo, and unincorporated Walnut Creek),
Kensington Community Services District (Kensington),
Mt. View Sanitary District (portion of unincorporated Martinez), and
Rodeo Sanitary District (Rodeo).
Parameters which dictate the scope of the County’s Franchises: geographic service area,
generator/waste type, and whether or not there is a charge for collection. Specific agreement
provisions that dictate what is and is not governed by the County’s Franchises:
DEFINITIONS - Commercial Solid Waste, Industrial Waste, Residential Solid Waste, Solid
Waste, and where applicable, Recyclable Material
FRANCHISE AREA MAP
INTENT TO REGULATE COLLECTION, RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL
EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE AND DUTY
EXCEPTIONS TO EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEDGE
What if any Franchise Agreement changes may be desired by the County depends upon a
number of policy options and elements of the proposed ordinance revisions. Upon receiving
policy direction that provides adequate certainty about the ordinance’s scope and
requirements, DCD staff would request any pertinent legal review/opinion and initiate
negotiations with applicable Franchisees.
Option 1
Limit authority granted under hauler permits to waste collection services which are not
governed under the County’s existing Franchise Agreements (e.g. industrial waste, waste self-
hauled by contractors and landscapers, free waste collection services).
Option 2
Limit hauler permit authority to recycling collection services which are not offered by the
County’s Franchisees.
Option 3
Work with Franchisees and County Counsel’s office to develop consistent mutually agreeable
revisions to all four County Franchises to eliminate actual or perceived conflicts for any specific
waste collection services intended to be authorized through hauler permits (e.g. on-property
25
July 17, 2015 Page 9
IOC Report: Refuse Hauler Ordinance
clean-up and removal services) and not exclusively governed under the County’s Franchise
Agreements.
(6) Franchise C&D Waste
Debris boxes (aka drop boxes) are large containers used for the collection and transport of solid
waste. They are typically seen at construction sites and filled with C&D waste
materials. Discussion with stakeholders focused on C&D waste, but these boxes can be used
for other waste materials, including landscaping waste. These boxes are used by both
franchised and illegal haulers. Illegal haulers have been found transporting or using these
containers at illegal transfer stations.
A franchise agreement for C&D waste would not be part of this ordinance; instead, it would be
more appropriately placed in Chapter 418-7, which is under the purview of the Contra Costa
County Department of Conservation and Development (DCD).
Franchise haulers have a proven record of making sure the materials collected in debris boxes
are taken to approved facilities for recycling or disposal. As noted in Section B of this report,
the County’s Franchise Agreement governing services in most of West County provides the
Franchisee the exclusive right to collect C&D waste. C&D represents a significant waste
stream, and one with ample opportunities for diversion. This also simplifies monitoring and
enforcement.
What if any Franchise Agreement changes may be desired by the County depends upon a
number of policy options and elements of the proposed ordinance revisions. Upon receiving
policy direction that provides adequate certainty about the ordinance’s scope and
requirements, DCD staff would request any pertinent legal review/opinion and initiate
negotiations with applicable Franchisees.
The IOC may wish to consider directing staff to explore potentially mutually agreeable
amendment provisions associated with expanding Franchise exclusivity to include C & D waste
as part of Option 3 in Section C(5) above.
(7) ORDINANCE SCOPE - Source-separated Recyclables/Poaching Issue
Originally, CCEH proposed exempting from the permit requirement those persons transporting
source-separated recyclable materials. Instead, the IOC may wish to consider exempting from
the permit requirement only those businesses who are transporting lawfully obtained source-
separated recyclable materials. While this is not the definitive answer to the poaching issue, it
is a tool that can be used in certain situations (e.g., a large-scale poaching operation). Materials
that are not source-separated must go to an approved transfer station, so it is recommended
that transporters of those materials fall under greater regulatory scrutiny, including the
requirement for a waste hauler permit.
Option 1
Retain proposed exemption for source-separated recyclable materials as currently reflected in
the proposal.
26
July 17, 2015 Page 10
IOC Report: Refuse Hauler Ordinance
Option 2
Include as an exemption: 418-2.004(8): Person transporting lawfully obtained source-
separated materials that can be accepted by a recycling facility per the California Code of
Regulations Section, Title 14, 17402.5(d) or any successor standard.
A person handling unlawfully obtained materials would be subject to penalties under the
proposed ordinance.
(8) ORDINANCE SCOPE - Further outreach
Depending on the scope of the ordinance, additional outreach may be warranted. For example,
if contractors or landscapers were subject to a permit or reporting requirement, outreach
directed toward those groups is recommended.
(9) ORDINANCE SCOPE - Industrial Waste
The City of Los Angles Municipal Code contains a definition of industrial entity that might be
helpful in defining industrial waste (Section 20.72.181):
“Industrial entity” means any site for mechanized manufacturing activities including factories,
food processing, mineral extraction, power generation, refineries, fuel storage facilities and
publically operated treatment works.
For clarification it is recommended that the word wholesale be placed before food processing.
The legal review of the draft ordinance would, of course, entail a careful crafting of the
definition.
This is one of multiple aspects of a revised ordinance which require consideration of related
County’s Franchise Agreement provisions, in order to identify and if necessary to address
potential conflicts or loopholes. The County’s Franchises do not define “industrial entity”,
however they do contain definitions of “industrial waste”. This definition is an important one
because the County’s Franchises do not provide the Franchisees exclusive privilege and duty to
collect industrial waste. Industrial waste is not defined in the same way in all four of the
County’s Franchises, however the majority specify the following definition:
“Industrial Waste. Industrial Waste includes all types of Solid Waste which result from industrial
processes and manufacturing operations and/or which originates from such facilities.”
(10) ORDINANCE REQURIEMENT - In-County versus Out-of-County Disposal/Recycling
A suggestion from the meetings was that solid waste and recyclable materials go to facilities
located within Contra Costa County. Staff is okay with these materials going to either an in-
county or out-of-county facility if the facility is able to lawfully accept the material(s).
27
July 17, 2015 Page 11
IOC Report: Refuse Hauler Ordinance
Option 1
Require all solid waste material collected in Contra Costa County to go to a disposal or recycling
facility located in Contra Costa County. If the IOC wishes to recommend to the Board that it
consider this option, the legality of such as requirement would need to be determined.
Option 2
Do not make such a restriction. The draft contains the requirement that solid waste and
recyclable materials go to legitimate solid waste or recycling facilities, but does not specify any
geographical restrictions. Staff recommends Option 2 (see Section 418-2.008(f)).
Encl. Draft Ordinance (Dated June 15, 2015)
28
PROPOSED REVISION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ORDINANCE 418-2
REFUSE TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL ORDINANCE
(DRAFT - June 15, 2015)
The following are proposed revisions to Contra Costa County Ordinance Chapter 418-2.
Black text = discussion or background information
Blue text = current ordinance
Red text = proposed revised ordinance
Green = revised post-workshops
I. INTRODUCTION
Key considerations for this ordinance:
Not conflict with franchise agreements or County franchise ordinance (418-7).
Define what refuse transportation businesses are subject to health permit requirement.
Authorization to conduct inspections.
Authorization to charge permit and other fees.
Minimum operating standards.
Requirement that the solid waste go to an approved solid waste or recycling facility.
Enforcement tools.
Identifying other possible target audiences for outreach.
II. DEFINITIONS
The current definition of “refuse” is somewhat out of date. The updated definition of “refuse”
recognizes the importance of recycling in modern waste management by including additional
terminology. The goal is that the updated “refuse” definition, a description of those refuse
transporters exempt from the health permit requirement, and other requirements will facilitate
regulatory efforts toward non-franchised transporters to ensure that solid waste materials are
brought to a legitimate solid waste or recycling facility in a safe manner that protects public health
and the environment.
The modified definition of “refuse” keeps much of the original language, but takes into account that
many illegal haulers claim they are recyclers, when, in fact, they may be taking materials to illegal
transfer stations or other unacceptable locations. Illegal refuse transporters are often distinguished
by the carrying of mixed loads; for example, the waste material in the a truck does not meet the
three-part test (i.e., not source-separated or too much contamination with residuals or putrescibles);
likewise, at illegal transfer stations, these loads arrive and are further processed or separated, often
in a manner inconsistent with the State minimum solid waste standards.
29
Current Ordinance 418-2.002 Refuse—Defined
As used in this chapter, "refuse" means garbage, combustible or noncombustible waste, and
putrescible solid or concentrated liquid wastes originating from household, business,
commercial, or industrial activity, including sewage, sewage effluent, sewage sludge, or any
admixture of any of these substances with another of them or with any other substance.
Proposed 418-2.002 Definitions
(a) Refuse – As used in this chapter “refuse” means solid waste, garbage, food waste, junk,
rubbish, recyclable materials, non-source-separated recyclable materials, recyclable
materials containing more than ten percent residual waste or more than one percent
putrescible waste, construction or demolition debris, landscaping wastes, compostable
materials, biosolids, combustible or noncombustible wastes, and putrescible solid or
concentrated liquid wastes originating from households, business, commercial, or industrial
activity.
(b) Recycling facility – As used in this chapter, “recycling facility” means a facility as defined
in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 17402.5(d) and having all necessary
state and local permits and registrations.
(c) Solid waste facility – As used in this chapter, “solid waste facility” means a facility as
defined in the California Public Resources Code Section 40194 and having all necessary
state and local permits and registrations.
(d) Person – As used in this chapter, “person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint
venture, association, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
city, county, or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a
unit.
Note(s):
(1) The definition of “person” is standard boilerplate language in many laws. This
version is from the California Retail Food Code.
III. PERMIT REQUIRED
The current ordinance requires both franchised haulers and cities to obtain refuse hauler permits if at
some point the vehicle travels on a road in the unincorporated county. Environmental Health is
recommending that that franchised haulers and cities be specifically exempted from the health
permit requirement. The current proposal also excludes from the permit requirement those people
transporting their own refuse (e.g., contractors, landscapers), though there is a legitimate concern
that some persons transporting their own refuse may contribute to the illegal dumping problem.
Additionally, the proposal excludes from the permit requirement businesses operating under a
specific permit issued by a solid waste authority; for example, a construction and demolition debris
hauler operating under a waste authority permit.
30
The proposed revision to 418.2-004 includes breaking it out into two separate sections, 418-2.003
and 418-2.004. An inspection program is included in the proposed revision.
Current Ordinance 418-2.004 Permit required
No person, municipality, or governmental agency shall collect or transport any refuse on the
public streets or highways of this county without first having obtained a permit from the board of
supervisors.
Proposed 418.2.003 Permit required
(a) Except as described in Section 418-2.005, no person shall transport refuse in the
unincorporated areas of the county without possessing a valid health permit for the business
and a valid health permit sticker for each refuse transportation vehicle. The health permit
and health permit sticker are issued by the Contra Costa County health officer (“health
officer”) or his or her designee. The health officer may designate Contra Costa
Environmental Health as his or her designee to implement and enforce the provisions of this
chapter, including the issuance of health permits and health permit stickers.
(b) A health officer issued health permit sticker shall be affixed to the rear of the vehicle in a
location acceptable to the health officer and be plainly visible.
(c) An application for a health permit shall be on forms approved by the health officer and
contain all information as required by the health officer. The information required by the
health officer may include, but is not limited to: (1) a listing of the location(s) where the
person will collect, transport, dispose of, or relinquish control of refuse and (2) verification
or affirmation that if the refuse is collected in an area covered by a franchise agreement, the
person will only haul refuse if the person, or his or her employees, provide the labor
component required to load the transport vehicle or container.
(d) The health officer may issue a health permit and health permit sticker after the refuse
transportation vehicle has been inspected by the health officer and found in compliance with
the provisions of this chapter, the business is otherwise in compliance with this chapter, and
all required fees have been paid.
(e) Equipment used for refuse transportation shall be made available for inspection as requested
by the health officer, including an annual inspection of refuse transportation vehicles prior to
the issuance of health permit stickers.
(f) For the purposes of enforcement of this chapter, the health officer may, during the
business’s hours of operation and other reasonable times, enter, inspect, issue citations, and
secure any sample, photographs, or other evidence from a refuse transportation business or
refuse transportation vehicle or any business or vehicle suspected of being a refuse
transportation business or vehicle.
Note(s):
(1) Regarding 418-2.003(a), the collection vs. transportation distinction remains an issue to
ultimately resolve; for example, an appropriate place to further address issues around the
collection of solid waste is in County ordinance 418-7.
31
(2) Right of entry to inspect is commonly found in ordinances, regulations, and statutes.
Proposed 418-2.004 Permit exemptions
The current proposal would exempt from the health permit requirement the following: franchise
haulers working under the scope of the franchise agreement or related permit (e.g., C&D permit),
cities collecting their own refuse, and people and or businesses transporting their own wastes to an
approved location.
A refuse hauler health permit or health permit sticker is not required for the following if the refuse is
taken directly to a solid waste facility or recycling facility:
(1) Refuse transportation business operating pursuant to a franchise agreement issued by a local
governmental entity such as a county, city, or local solid waste authority; or
(2) Refuse transportation business operating pursuant to a permit issued by a local solid waste
authority and transporting the refuse allowed by the permit; or
(3) Contractor or landscaper transporting refuse from his or her own jobsite. The health officer
may request proof that such refuse is from a jobsite. Such proof may include a building or
demolition permit consistent with refuse being hauled, contract for the work performed that
demonstrates the work is consistent with the refuse being transported, or other
documentation acceptable to the health officer; or
(4) Governmental entity transporting refuse from its own jobsites; or
(5) Renderer operating under permit from the State Department of Food and Agriculture; or
(6) Property owner, business owners, agricultural operation, or farmer transporting refuse from
his or her own premises; or
(7) Transporter operating under permit issued by a governmental entity and collecting or
transporting only the specific waste allowed by the permit, including such material as
industrial waste, medical waste, or hazardous wastes, and where such waste is transported to
an approved destination or facility authorized to accept the material.
Note(s):
(1) If a contractor does not takes his or her waste directly from a jobsite to a solid waste or
recycling facility and instead brings it back to the business for processing or sorting, that
location might be considered an illegal transfer station.
IV. HIRING OF LICENSED PERSON REQUIRED
Current Ordinance 418-02.005 Hiring of licensed person required
No person shall engage the service of a person, municipality or governmental agency, whether or
not for compensation, to collect or transport over the public streets or highways of this county,
refuse, unless the person, municipality or governmental agency whose service is engaged has
obtained a permit pursuant to Section 418-2.004.
32
Proposed 418-2.005 Hiring of licensed person required
No person shall engage the services of a person, whether or not for compensation, to transport
refuse, unless the person whose service is engaged has obtained a permit pursuant to Section 418-
2.003.
V. BOND REQUIRED
The current ordinance requires a refuse transporter post a $2,000 bond with the Board of
Supervisors. Please note that the current ordinance is based on the transportation of refuse on
county roads, but the bond requirement also mentions collection. There are several options the
Board of Supervisors may wish to consider.
Option 1 Keep the amount the same but have the bond posted with the health officer (i.e.,
Environmental Health).
Option 2 Raise the bond amount and have it posted with Environmental Health.
Option 3 Require liability insurance in lieu of a bond.
Option 4 Delete this section entirely.
Current Ordinance 418-2.006 Bond required
Every person, other than a governmental agency, which shall apply for a permit to collect or
transport refuse, shall file with the board of supervisors a bond in the amount of two thousand
dollars, or the same amount in cash, as a guarantee that the privilege granted in the permit shall
be performed in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the board of supervisors in the
order granting the permit, as recommended by the county health department and in accordance
with applicable state laws.
Option 2
Prior to the issuance of health permit the applicant shall post with the health officer a cash deposit or
performance bond guaranteeing compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Such bond is to
be in an amount of $__________. In addition to other civil or criminal penalties, the health officer
my use this case deposit or bond to remedy violations of applicable laws or regulations.
VI. VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS
Some of these requirements would apply to all refuse transporters, regardless of whether or not they
need a health permit. For example, under the proposed (and current ordinance), no refuse
transportation vehicle is allowed to have materials falling off the truck. Franchised haulers
33
expressed concern that Environmental Health may issue permits to a non-franchised hauler who
then might impinge upon a franchise agreement. The current proposal includes the requirement that
non-franchised haulers not violate a franchise agreement, though Environmental Health has been
informed that this requirement may not actually address potential conflicts with franchise
agreements; additionally, there is the question as to the appropriateness of our agency being
involved in the enforcement associated with a franchise agreement. Nevertheless, Environmental
Health recognizes that this is an important issue to the franchise haulers and we hope that it is
somehow addressed to the satisfaction of all parties.
Current Ordinance 418-2.010 Vehicle requirements
(a) Every vehicle transporting refuse to a solid waste disposal or processing facility shall
provide a means to cover and contain refuse securely within the vehicle, so that no
refuse shall escape.
(b) Every vehicle used in the business of refuse collection shall have painted on the
outside of each side wall of the hauling body, in letters not less than four inches high
and one inch wide, the following legible information in a color contrasting with the
body color:
(1) Name of the refuse collector;
(2) Permit number issued by the board of supervisors;
(3) Number of vehicle, if more than one vehicle is operated by the collector.
(c) Collecting vehicles shall be kept clean, and no nuisance of odor committed.
Proposed revised 418-2.008 Vehicle and Operational requirements
(a) Every vehicle transporting refuse shall provide a means to cover and contain refuse securely
within the vehicle so that no refuse shall escape, including leakage of liquid or semisolid
materials.
(b) Every vehicle for which a permit is required pursuant to this chapter shall have painted on
the outside of each side wall of the hauling body, in letters not less than four inches high and
one inch wide, the following legible information in a color contrasting with the body color:
(1) Name of the refuse hauler; and
(2) Unique identifying number of the vehicle if more than one vehicle is operated by the
refuse hauler.
(c) Every vehicle transporting refuse shall be kept clean and create no nuisance, including
nuisance odors.
(d) A person operating a refuse transportation business shall not violate a local franchise
agreement, whether or not the person has obtained a health permit to operate a refuse
transportation business.
34
(e) A person operating a refuse transportation business for which a permit is required pursuant
to this chapter shall maintain records showing the type, amount, and location from which
refuse is collected and the disposal site or end destination for said refuse. Such records shall
be kept for at least one year and provided to the health officer upon request. In addition to
the records maintained for at least one year, quarterly reports shall be submitted to the health
officer by the end of the month following the end of a quarter; these reports shall accurately
list the type, amount, location from which refuse is collected, and the disposal site or end
destination for said refuse. The health officer shall provide copies of these records to a solid
waste authority or other governmental entity upon request.
(f) Refuse shall be transported to a permitted landfill, permitted transfer station, other solid
waste facility operating in conformance with the State minimum solid waste standards,
recycling facility, or other facility in conformance with applicable laws and regulations.
(g) Refuse containers provided by a refuse transportation business shall be clearly marked with
the name of the refuse transportation business or other person using or providing said
containers. Containers of one cubic yard or larger owned by the refuse transportation
business or other person using or providing said containers shall be identified with the name
and phone number of the refuse transportation business.
(h) Where the refuse containers are provided by a refuse transportation business, the refuse
transportation business is responsible for maintaining the containers in good condition.
Note(s):
(1) The following operational standards in this section would apply to both franchise and non-
franchise operations (in unincorporated areas of the County): 418-2.008 (a), (c), (f), (g), and
(h).
(2) The following operational standards in this section would apply to non-franchise operations
(in unincorporated areas of the County): 418-2.008 (b), (d), and (e). Please note that
recordkeeping requirements in other state and local laws/regulations (and enforced by other
agencies) already apply to franchise haulers.
VII. CHAPTER EXCEPTIONS
Section 418-2.010 Chapter exceptions
Recommend deleting this section as the exceptions are now described elsewhere.
Current Ordinance 418-2.010 Chapter exceptions
The provisions of this chapter, except Section 418-2.008(a) and (c), shall not apply to a septic
tank-chemical toilet cleaner as defined in Section 413-3.415, having a valid, unrevoked,
unsuspended public health license issued therefor pursuant to the provisions of Article 413-3.8,
and to persons collecting:
(1)
Dead animals, bones, or meat scraps for tallow plants;
35
(2)
Waste material, such as waste paper and waste paper products, to be used as a raw material in
manufacturing;
(3)
Refuse originating on their own premises.
VIII. ENFORCEMENT
Title 1, Division 14 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code contains provisions for civil,
criminal, and administrative penalties, and criminal enforcement, including permit suspension and
revocation.
Note(s):
(1) When Environmental Health submits cases to District Attorney’s Office for prosecution, we
typically include Business & Professions Codes 17200. This is used for civil enforcement
and does have significant monetary penalties.
IX. FEES
Title 4, Division 413 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code allows the Health Officer to
establish fees in order to fund regulatory programs. A permit fee system would be established for a
refuse hauler program, including inspections, reinspections, field surveillance, and complaint
investigations.
FYI: Items from other ordinances to consider
1. SF Appendix 10 – Requires a refuse company to provide a written receipt to its customers.
2. SF Appendix 17 – A boilerplate severability clause.
3. Santa Clara County Section B11-160 – A definition of disposal that is consistent with the
language in the proposed hauler ordinance: “Disposal means to deposit refuse into an
approved solid waste landfill, transfer station, compositing or recycling operation.”
4. Santa Clara County Section B11-166 – Specifies that permits are revocable.
5. Santa Clara County Section B11-168 – A general catchall section. “All collectors must
operate in a manner to protect the public and environmental health as determined by the
director. Collectors are responsible for picking up any spillage that may occur during
collection and transport.”
6. Santa Clara County Section B11-173(c) – Contains an exemption similar to the proposed
ordinance for contractors hauling their own waste, but requires approval from the
enforcement agency to do so.
7. Santa Clara County Section B11-178(b) – Requires yards where collection vehicles are
stored to be kept in a sanitary condition.
36
8. Santa Clara County Section B11-188 – Prohibits unauthorized disposal. “It is unlawful for
any person to throw away, deposit or bury, or cause to be thrown away, deposited or buried,
any refuse, except at an approved disposal or collection area unless authorized by the
director…”
9. Napa County Section 8.56.020 – This section mentions removing, collecting, and
transporting. “The standards in this chapter shall apply to vehicles used for removing,
collecting, and transporting solid wastes within the incorporated area of the county, except
that nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to regulate the transportation of solid wastes on
any railroad tracks which connect to any interstate rail system.”
10. Napa County Section 8.56.030 C – Language regarding basis for denying permit. “...The
LEA shall deny the permit only if the LEA determines that the proposed operation and
equipment will not comply with the requirements of this chapter, all applicable local
ordinances including the terms of any applicable franchise agreement, and all applicable
state and federal statutes and regulations.”
11. Napa County Section 8.56.040 B – Exclusion from permit language. “Collectors and
transporters of septic tank pumping, hazardous wastes and/or medical waste are not required
to have a permit under this chapter but must conform to the permit requirements and
regulations set forth in other sections of this code as well as all applicable state and federal
laws and regulations.”
12. Sonoma County Section 22.10 – Has specific language about the permit application.
13. Sonoma County Section 22.25 – Insurance, bonding, and indemnification
37
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE -
SPECIAL 6.
Meeting Date:07/27/2015
Subject:Composition of Stakeholder Group for MHSA Plan Monitoring
Submitted For: William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director
Department:Health Services
Referral No.: IOC 15/11
Referral Name: Mental Health Services Act Budget Oversight Process
Presenter: Cynthia Belon, Behavioral Services
Director
Contact: Warren Hayes (925)
957-5201
Referral History:
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5898 states that each Mental Health Services Act (MHSA)
Three Year Program and Expenditure Plan and annual Plan Update is to be developed in
partnership with stakeholders to:
Identify community issues related to mental illness resulting from lack of community
services and supports, including any issues identified during the implementation of the
Mental Health Services Act.
1.
Analyze the mental health needs in the community.2.
Identify and re-evaluate priorities and strategies to meet those mental health needs.3.
California Code of Regulations Title 9, Division 1 section 3200.270 defines stakeholders as
individuals or entities with an interest in mental health services in the State of California,
including but not limited to: individuals with serious mental illness and/or serious emotional
disturbance and/or their families; providers of mental health and/or related services such as
physical health care and/or social services; educators and/or representatives of education;
representatives of law enforcement and any other organization that represents the interests of
individuals with serious mental illness and/or serious emotional disturbance and/or their families.
In order to comply with the above statute and regulation, Contra Costa County Behavioral Health
Services commissioned in 2009 an ongoing advisory body, entitled the Consolidated Planning
Advisory Workgroup (CPAW), to assist and advise the Behavioral Health Services Director in
implementing the required community program planning process that is part of development of
the MHSA Three Year Program Plan and annual Plan Update. The Membership Committee of
CPAW accepts and reviews applications from the public, and makes recommendations to the
Behavioral Health Services Director for appointment to CPAW. The Membership Committee also
analyzes stakeholder characteristics and affiliations, and assists in recruitment of individuals from
stakeholder groups who are underrepresented.
In 2011, Contra Costa Mental Health (now part of Behavioral Health Services) reported to the
38
In 2011, Contra Costa Mental Health (now part of Behavioral Health Services) reported to the
IOC on: 1) the status of its compliance with statute and regulations pertaining to MHSA
stakeholder participation, 2) a plan to ensure broad representation, 3) the necessity of service
providers to be involved, and 4) the requirements for CPAW members to declare any potential
conflict of interest, and to refrain from being involved in any decision-making or
recommendations that might present a conflict of interest to them and/or their agency.
In 2012, the Office of the County Counsel provided a legal opinion for all County Boards,
Commissions and their Administrative Officers and Secretaries pertaining to compliance with
selected Brown Act and Better Government Ordinance provisions. The Mental Health
Commission is subject to the provisions of the Brown Act, while CPAW is not. However, County
Counsel stated that County bodies that are not subject to the Brown Act nevertheless must
comply with comparable provisions under the Better Government Ordinance. CPAW has been
operating under the intent of the Brown Act by holding all meetings open for public attendance
and participation, and by publicly advertising and providing advance notice for meetings at fixed
times and places.
In 2013, CPAW revisited its governance and membership provisions in order to more closely
align its role as an advisory body for ensuring representative stakeholder input regarding priority
mental health needs, strategies to meet those needs, and active ongoing participation in the
MHSA-prescribed community program planning process. It was clarified that CPAW’s role does
not include providing funding recommendations to the Behavioral Health Services Director or
approval authority for MHSA programs, plan elements, categories, components or the MHSA
budget in total. CPAW does not make recommendations on contract awards. A revised working
agreement stipulates that any individual, whether a CPAW member or not, must identify to the
group any perspective, affiliation or potential conflict of interest in discussions that lead to group
positions or recommendations. All current members completed a revised membership application
that updated their characteristics and affiliations. Analysis of these applications indicate that over
50% of CPAW members identify as consumers and/or family members, with five of the 22
members employed by a County contract provider, three employed by Contra Costa County, two
serving on the NAMI board, and four serving on the Mental Health Commission (including the
current chairperson).
In 2014, the MHSA Three Year Program and Expenditure Plan included a new chapter, entitled
Evaluating the Plan. In partnership with the Mental Health Commission’s MHSA/Finance
Committee, staff developed and implemented a comprehensive program and fiscal review process
of each MHSA funded program and plan element in order to evaluate the effective use of funds
provided by the MHSA. In addition, a monthly Finance Report was developed and generated to
depict funds budgeted versus spent for each program and plan element. This enables fiscal
transparency and accountability, as well as provides information with which to engage in sound
planning. The results of both program reviews and monthly Finance Reports are shared with both
CPAW in its planning and evaluation advisory role to the Behavioral Health Services Director,
and the Mental Health Commission in its monitoring role to the Board of Supervisors. Neither
entity recommends or approves MHSA budgets, as this is the purview of the County and the
Board of Supervisors.
Given the above, the Board of Supervisors’ Internal Operations Committee (IOC) had asked for a
review of the County’s process for recommendation, review, and monitoring of the MHSA
budget, the roles of the CPAW and the Mental Health Commission in this process, and the
protocol for identification and mitigation of any potential financial conflicts of interests by 39
protocol for identification and mitigation of any potential financial conflicts of interests by
individuals who serve on either body. The Health Services Department reported to the IOC on
this referral on March 9, 2015 at which time, after substantial discussion and public comment, the
IOC requested staff to report back in 60 days with its findings and recommendations for alternate
stakeholder body models. The Behavioral Health Director indicated that she is open to
reconstituting CPAW and reviewing other models; and that it was an opportune time to make
other kinds of changes to improve how CPAW functions.
Referral Update:
The Internal Operations Committee of the Board of Supervisors requested the Contra Costa
Behavioral Health Services (CCBHS) Director to provide recommendations regarding the role,
governance and structure of the Consolidated Planning Advisory Workgroup (CPAW). Input was
invited and considered from CPAW, the Mental Health Commission, and NAMI – Contra Costa.
In addition, analysis was conducted of other counties of similar size as to how they addressed the
statutory and regulatory requirements for active stakeholder participation in planning, evaluation
and oversight of the public mental health system (Attachment 1).
Also attached to this staff report are three Public Comment submittals from Douglas Dunn, who
advises that these submittals have the support of NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness).
These are incorporated herewith as Attachment 5: CPAW Restructure; Attachment 6 : CPAW
Membership Structure; and Attachment 7: Conflict of Interest Policy.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Role. It is recommended that CPAW’s primary role is to assist Contra Costa Behavioral Health
Services in complying with statutory and regulatory requirements to, 1) advise and assist the
CCBHS Director obtain inclusive and diverse stakeholder participation in the Community
Program Planning Process, 2) provide input on priority needs that affect the entire public mental
health system, and 3) recommend strategies to meet these needs (California Code of Regulations
9 CA ADC Sections 3300 and 3200.070). Issues for discussion will be coordinated with the
Mental Health Commission and topical to CCBHS. Unlike stakeholder structures of some
counties, such as Sacramento and Orange Counties, it is recommended that CPAW’s role not
include funding decisions or recommendations. CCR Sections 3300 and 3200.070 are
implementations of Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) 5848(a) that requires that the County
shall provide for a Community Program Planning Process as the basis for developing the MHSA
Three-Year Program and Expenditure Plan and Plan Updates.
Governance. It is recommended that CPAW meet on a monthly basis in order build an ongoing
stakeholder body of expertise in the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) and its components,
values and provisions. Business is to be conducted under provisions of the Brown Act, with an
emphasis on open and inviting forums for all stakeholders in the community to come and
participate. Attachment 2 represents a set of self-governance agreements that the current CPAW
membership has developed and adopted for all CPAW sponsored meetings. This agreement
addresses potential conflict of interest issues, and protocol for when group positions are taken.
Minutes will be taken of each meeting and transmitted to the CCBHS Director, as well as posted
online with accompanying handouts. These minutes will depict summaries of agenda items,
discussions and any group positions taken. The results of Community Program Planning
Processes will be included as part of the MHSA Three Year Program and Expenditure Plan and
yearly Plan Updates.
40
Membership. All stakeholders are invited to attend and participate in CPAW sponsored meetings.
In order to ensure compliance with WIC Section 5848(a) the BHS Director will seek and appoint
individuals for three to five year terms who can constructively represent in a meaningful way
stakeholders, as defined by statute and regulations, who participate in the public mental health
system as either receivers of care, provide support to the provision of care, or providers of care.
Special emphasis will be placed on appointment of individuals whose characteristics and
affiliations are underrepresented. Attachment 3 provides a roster of current active CPAW
members, and an initial, suggested matrix depicting each member representing a single
affiliation. As per CCR 3300 affiliations consist of consumer, family member, peer provider,
family partner, County and contract service provider, representatives of underserved populations,
and leadership from partner systems, such as criminal justice, education, veterans’ services,
alcohol and other drug programs, homeless programs, and faith based organizations. Currently
CPAW has 23 members, with five additional appointments recommended to add underserved
population representation of persons identifying as Latina/o, parents of young children, and a
representative of alcohol and other drug programs, homeless programs, and veterans’ services.
Applications for membership will be accepted on a continuous basis, and current CPAW
members may be asked to assist in vetting an applicant for identification of all characteristics and
affiliations that may influence their participation. Attachment 4 provides a matrix of all of the
self-reported characteristics and affiliations of individuals who were CPAW members as of May
2014.
Attendance. Appointed members who miss a third or more of meetings in a year’s time will be
considered for relinquishment of their appointment. This will enable an appointment of an
individual who can more actively represent said affiliation. In addition, members will be expected
to participate in at least one additional stakeholder body supported by CCBHS, whether CPAW
sponsored or not, and will share information from these meetings with CPAW membership.
Structure. Until now, sub-committees and ongoing workgroups under the auspices of CPAW
have included Membership, Steering, Innovation, Systems of Care, Children’s, Transition Age
Youth, Adults (not currently active), Older Adults, Housing and Social Inclusion. These bodies
have been issue-specific, open to any and all interested stakeholders, and do not designate specific
individuals for membership. Representatives from CPAW and the Mental Health Commission
attend these meetings.
The following is recommended for each of the above sub-committees and workgroups:
Membership. Membership will be a CPAW workgroup, and will meet on an as needed basis to assist in, 1)
vetting an applicant for CPAW membership for identification of all characteristics and affiliations that may
influence their participation, and 2) making a recommendation to the CCBHS Director for membership to
CPAW. Participation in this process is open to all CPAW members, with the public invited to attend and
comment.
Steering. Steering will be a CPAW workgroup, and will normally meet two weeks before the monthly
CPAW meeting to, 1) construct the CPAW meeting agenda, and 2) consider any issues delegated to them
from CPAW meetings. Participation in this process is open to all CPAW members, with the public invited to
attend and comment.
Innovation. Innovation will be a CPAW workgroup, and will meet monthly to, 1) receive, vet and
recommend Innovative Concepts to the Behavioral Health Services Director for development into a proposal,
2) assist in developing an approved Innovative Concept to an Innovative Project proposal for Mental Health
41
Services Oversight and Accountability Commission (MHSOAC) consideration and approval as per WIC
Section 5830, and 3) provide oversight and input to MHSOAC approved Innovative Projects. Participation in
this process is open to all CPAW members, with the public invited to attend and comment. It is recommended
that CPAW members wishing to participate in the deliberations associated with Innovative Project concepts
or proposals commit to participation in the entirety of each Innovative Project consideration process in order
to enable this workgroup to develop efficient consistency and continuity of effort, from Innovative Concept
consideration through Project approval and implementation.
Systems of Care. System of Care will be a CPAW workgroup, and will meet monthly to enable
stakeholder input on MHSA funded programs and plan elements that are in development or change.
Examples have included staffing the newly built Miller Wellness Center, implementation of the Electronic
Mental Health Record System, and developing a common data reporting system for MHSA funded
Innovation and Prevention and Intervention programs in response to pending new regulations. CPAW will
delegate to this workgroup issues for stakeholder participation. Participation in this workgroup is open to all
interested stakeholders, whether CPAW members or not.
County MHSA funded personnel will provide ongoing staff and administrative support to CPAW
meetings, and the above four CPAW sponsored workgroups. This includes, 1) ongoing
communication with CPAW members, 2) posting developed agendas and attachments, 3)
reserving rooms, setting up and arranging for audio-visual support, 4) responding to reasonable
accommodation requests, such as gift cards, 5) producing agreed upon documents, such as agenda
readiness forms, minutes, staff analyses and position papers, and 6) facilitating communication
and problem solving between stakeholders and the CCBHS Director, Deputy Director, chiefs and
managers, as appropriate.
For the remaining stakeholder bodies it is recommended that respective Behavioral Health
Services managers assume sponsorship by appointing personnel within their supervision to
perform the staff support and administrative duties that are listed above. These stakeholder bodies
will include Children’s, Transition Age Youth, Adults and Older Adults, Housing, and Social
Inclusion. Issues for participation will be mutually agreed upon and topical to the entire
Behavioral Health Services System; not just issues where MHSA funding is involved.
This restructuring will enable the County to build stakeholder expertise in addressing statutory
responsibilities under the Mental Health Services Act, while concurrently supporting wide
stakeholder participation in an integrated Behavioral Health Service Division.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None.
Attachments
Attachment 1_County Survey
Attachment 2_CPAW Self-Governance Agreement
Attachment 3_CPAW Composition and Roster
Attachment 4: CPAW Self-ID Matrix
Attachment 5_Public Comment, Douglas Dunn_CPAW Restructure
Attachment 6_Public Comment, Douglas Dunn_CPAW Membership Structure
Attachment 7_Public Comment, Douglas Dunn_Sacramento Co. MHSA Conflict of Interest Policy
42
ATTACHMENT 1
Stakeholder Bodies in Other Counties
Ten counties were researched pertaining to how they addressed statutory requirements for a
mental health board/commission (WIC Section 5604), and conducted a community program
planning process as part of implementing a Mental Health Services Act Three Year Program and
Expenditure Plan or Plan Update (WIC Section 5848).
All counties indicated on their web sites that they successfully adhered to the requirements of
the above statutes, but differed significantly in how they accomplished the requirements.
1. Alameda. Has a standing Mental Health Advisory Board to address WIC Section 5604
requirements. For WIC Section 5848 employs a standing MHSA Stakeholder group to
provide counsel to Behavioral Health Care Services on current and future funding
priorities, review the effectiveness of funded MHSA strategies, and provide consultation
on new and promising practices.
2. Orange. Has a standing Mental Health Board to address WIC Section 5604
requirements. For WIC Section 5848 has a MHSA Steering Committee that meets
monthly to consider formal presentations and vote on MHSA funding requests, to
include Innovation Project proposals. Does not operate under the Brown Act. The
MHSA Steering Committee is comprised of representatives from four sub-committees
that meet every other month. The four sub-committees, CSS – adults and older adults,
CSS – children , youth, TAY, WET/INN, and PEI receives applications for membership
from the public, but states that no more than 20% of each sub-committee is to be
comprised of public members.
3. Sacramento. Has a standing Mental Health Board to address WIC Section 5604
requirements. For WIC Section 5848 has a standing MHSA Steering Committee that
makes program recommendations to the Sacramento County Division of Behavioral
Health Services for funding. Has 29 members appointed, with an alternate – consumers
and family members representatives are chosen by a six person consumer/family
member panel. Generates ad hoc workgroups as needed.
4. San Bernardino. Has a standing Behavioral Health Commission to address WIC Section
5604. For WIC Section 5848 put together a MHSA Executive Committee to plan last
year’s Community Program Planning Process that was County run and drew from all of
the existing advisory bodies to Behavioral Health Services, to include alcohol and drug
and homeless services.
5. San Diego. Has a standing San Diego Behavioral Health Advisory Board to address WIC
Section 5604. For WIC Section 5848 has four System of Care Councils (Adult, Older
Adult, Children/Youth/Family, Housing) that meet monthly. Input for MHSA is received
43
ATTACHMENT 1
through these council meetings and online comment/questions received from the
public.
6. San Francisco. Has a standing Mental Health Board to address WIC Section 5604. For
WIC Section 5848 San Francisco Behavioral Health Services has a 25 member MHSA
Advisory Committee of consumers and family members (at least 51%) and service
providers who choose an executive committee to review membership each year. This
committee assists in supporting broad community participation and guides MHSA
resources to target priority populations.
7. San Mateo. Has a standing Mental Health and Substance Abuse Recovery Commission
to address WIC Section 5604. For WIC Section 5848 has a 50 member Steering Advisory
Committee that meets twice a year and has a broad spectrum of stakeholder
representation, to include all members of the Mental Health and Substance Abuse
Recovery Commission (MHSARC). It is chaired by a Board of Supervisor and the chair of
the MHSARC. It operates under the Brown Act, and recommends priorities for inclusion
in the MHSA Plan, reviews input received through the Community Program Planning
Process, and makes recommendations for strategy development.
8. Santa Barbara. Has a standing Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services (ADMHS)
Commission to address WIC Section 5604. For WIC Section 5848 has formed a MHSA
Planning Group to plan and assist the Community Program Planning Process that is part
of the MHSA Three Year Plan or Plan Update. This planning group includes members
from the Commission and the ADMHS System Change Steering Committee.
9. Santa Clara. Has a standing Behavioral Health Board to address WIC Section 5604. For
WIC Section 5848 has a MHSA Stakeholder Leadership Committee that reviews, provides
input and advises the County Mental Health Department in MHSA planning and
implementation activities. It serves as a forum to assure wide ranging representation
during the MHSA Community Program Planning Process. It also considers Innovation
Project proposals. It meets 2-3 times per year.
10. Solano. Has a standing Mental Health Board to address WIC Section 5604. For WIC
Section 5848 has a MHSA Steering Committee comprised of consumers, family members
and representatives from underserved communities. This committee provides input to
county administration, and meetings take place as needed to gather input for MHSA
Plans and Plan Updates.
44
ATTACHMENT 2
As of: May 29, 2015
Consolidated Planning Advisory Workgroup (CPAW)
Working Agreement
The counsel and advice of all participants in the CPAW process is highly valued in
planning and evaluating Mental Health Services Act funded programs and services. In
order for all voices to be expressed in a productive, safe and respectful environment,
the CPAW body has developed and adopted the following set of self-governance
agreements for all participants at all types of CPAW meetings:
1. Come prepared to discuss the published agenda items and handouts.
2. We are committed to starting and finishing on time. Please help us by arriving on
time, speaking only to the topic at hand, and coming back from breaks on time.
3. Turn your cell phone ringers off; take any calls outside.
4. Avoid providing any distractions, such as side bar conversations.
5. Wait to be recognized before speaking, and keep your comments brief.
6. Please identify to the group your perspective, affiliation or potential conflict of
interest if you are participating in discussions that lead to group positions or
recommendations.
7. When internal group decisions need to be made, such as CPAW or sub-
committee governance issues, members will attempt to reach consensus, or, if
necessary, decide by a simple majority. For a group position or recommendation
made through CPAW to Contra Costa Behavioral Health Services, participants
may be asked if they support, do not support, or do not wish to take a position.
The number of CPAW members and non-members in each response category
should be reported.
8. It is OK to disagree politely and respectfully, as different perspectives are
welcomed and encouraged.
9. Please refrain from criticizing in a negative manner a specific person or agency
during the meeting, or in group communications. Outside of the meeting please
speak to the staff supporting the meeting for assistance in having your concerns
heard and addressed through the appropriate channels.
10.An individual may be asked to leave should he/she behave in a manner that
threatens the safety of our group members, or does not honor the terms of this
working agreement.
45
ATTACHMENT 3
CPAW Members Representing a Single Stakeholder Affiliation
The Consolidated Planning and Advisory Workgroup (CPAW) members are appointed by the
Behavioral Health Services Director to address the statutory and regulatory requirement to
assist in planning and participating in the yearly Community Program Planning Process as part
of developing the MHSA Three Year Program and Expenditure Plan or Plan Updates.
Membership composition addresses the statutory requirement to have representation of
consumers, family members, mental health service providers, underserved communities, and
representatives from organizations representing the interests of individuals with serious mental
illness and/or serious emotional disturbance and/or their families.
The following matrix is an initial representation of current CPAW members should they be
designated as representing a single, primary stakeholder group:
NAME AFFILIATION NAME AFFILIATION
1. Ashley Baughman Consumer 15. Jennifer Tuipolatu Family Partner - CCBHS
2. Lisa Bruce Consumer 16. Courtney Cummings Underserved Population
3. Karen Smith Consumer 17. Vacant Underserved Population
4. Connie Steers Consumer 18. Vacant Underserved Population
5. Gina Swirsding Consumer 19. John Hollender CCBHS Service Provider
6. Matt Wilson Consumer 20. Molly Hamaker CBO**Service Provider
7. Stephen Boyd Peer Provider – CCBHS* 21. Susanna Marshland CBO Service Provider
8. Susan Medlin Peer Provider - CCBHS 22. Tom Gilbert CBO Service Provider
9. Kimberly Krisch Family Member 23. Kimberly Martel Criminal Justice
10. Dave Kahler Family Member 24. Will McGarvey Faith Based Leadership
11. Ryan Nestman Family Member 25. Kathi McLaughlin Education
12. Lauren Rettagliata Family Member 26. Vacant Veterans Services
13. Laurie Schnider Family Member 27. Vacant Alcohol & Other Drug
14. Sam Yoshioka Family Member 28. Vacant Homeless Programs
Should this method of affiliation representation be adopted, CPAW would fully meet statutory
requirements for stakeholder representation by adding an individual who can represent the
interests of underserved communities, such as groups whose primary language is Spanish (#17,
18), a veteran’s service representative (#26), an Alcohol and Other Drug Program
representative, and a Homeless Programs representative.
*CCBHS – Contra Costa Behavioral Health Services employee
**CBO – Community Base Organization contracting with Contra Costa Behavioral Health
Services
46
ATTACHMENT 4 - CPAW Self-Reported Characteristics and Affiliations as of: May 19, 2014
CPAW Member Consumer Family Member Affiliation Identify with
Region of County
Current Past Child Adult
Ryan Nestman X X Central
John Hollender X Rubicon West
Tony Sanders X West, Central, East
Mariana Moore X X We Care Services Central
Susan Medlin X X Nami, MHCC, Texas MH Central
Kathi McLaughlin X X Martinez USD Central
Susanna Marshland Fred Finch West
Kimberly Krisch X X MHCC, Nami Central
David Kahler X MHCC, Nami Central
Lori Hefner X X Cty Advisory Committee Central
Molly Hamaker X Nami Central
Tom Gilbert X Shelter Inc/Bibett Central
Courtney Cummings X X Native Amer Faith Based Comm West
Lisa Bruce X Crestwood Central
Stephen Boyd X X BHS OCE Central
Sam Yoshioka X CCC MH Commission Central
Connie Steers X X X Nami, Pt's Rights Advocacy Central
Laurie Schnider X X Crestwood Central
Karen Smith X X Crestwood East
Lauren Rettagliata X CCC MH Commission Central
Gina Swirsding
CPAW Member Caucasian
Native
American
African
American Latino Asian/Pacific
Islander Multi-Racial LGBTQ
Ryan Nestman X X X
John Hollender X
Tony Sanders X X X
Mariana Moore X
Susan Medlin X
Kathi McLaughlin X
Susanna Marshland X
Kimberly Krisch X
David Kahler X
Lori Hefner X X
Molly Hamaker
Tom Gilbert X
Courtney Cummings X X
Lisa Bruce X
Stephen Boyd X X X
Sam Yoshioka X
Connie Steers X X
Laurie Schnider X
Karen Smith X
Lauren Rettagliata
Gina Swirsding
47
ATTACHMENT 4 - CPAW Self-Reported Characteristics and Affiliations as of: May 19, 2014
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged Youth Older
Adult
X
X X
X X
48
CPAW Restructure: NAMI-Contra Costa Board of Directors—07/02/2015
Consolidated Planning Activities Workgroup (CPAW) Restructure and Renaming
NOTE: Current internal CPAW restructure proposals still fail the basic requirements of Transparency,
Accountability, and Oversight of Mental Health Service Act (MHSA) funded programs. The purpose of
the following Actions is to:
Provide diffuse and diverse stakeholder involvement that will allow the new Mental Health Services
Act Advisory Committee (MHSAAC) to, hopefully, reflect these values.
Ensure the main focus of the new MHSAAC is properly serving persons living with mental illness and
their family supporters with Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds.
Needed Corrective Actions
At a minimum, the Internal Operations Committee needs to follow Sacramento County and many other
counties Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Steering Committee guidelines by recommending to:
Allow only 3 separate contractor service providers to be voting members at any one time.
Annually rotate the 3 allowed voting service providers by class of services provided.
Allow only one behavioral staff vote on the MHSAAC. This category excludes internal county
“consultants” such as Vocational Rehabilitation Services and First Hope. For voting privileges, such
“consultants” are considered contract service providers.
Prohibit multiple membership affiliations. Allow only 1 membership affiliation per voting member. In
this vein, prohibit persons employed by contract service providers or the county from representing
any other affiliate membership category.
Mandate at least 5 voting consumer positions and at least 5 voting family positions from the 5
supervisor districts by persons NOT on the county payroll and not on a Community Based
Organization (CBO) payroll.
Prohibit interlocking voting membership on any of the 4 Mental Health Services Act Advisory
Committee (MHSAAC) Sub-Committees (Membership, Steering, Innovations, and Systems of Care).
Rotate MHSAAC and its 4 Sub-Committees leadership and membership every 3 years.
Institute a stricter conflict-of-interest policy which requires a voting member to leave the room and
recuse themselves from any direct or remote conflict of interest situations. See attached Sacramento
County Conflict-of-Interest policy.
Restrict MHSAAC voting membership to 19, preferably, or a maximum of 25.
Emphasize the need for diverse geographic, cultural, ethnic, and, and gender representation.
The sooner the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) recommends these actions, the better for all
concerned. California counties have significant “home rule” latitude to make such changes. The
Internal Operations Committee (IOC) needs to help insure all community voices are consistently involved
at all levels in making mental health policy in this county. For families, especially, this has not been the
case. They feel that this advisory workgroup, as currently structured, is primarily a “self-serving
bureaucracy interested in its self-perpetuating existence.” The profound anti-family bias which has
pervaded all levels of county Behavioral Health care and policymaking must be promptly corrected.
Thank you for recommending bold, corrective action.
References
Sacramento County Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Steering Committee:
Vision and Current Membership
2014 Revised Conflict-of-Interest Statement and Policy
San Mateo County Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Steering Committee
Roles and Responsibilities
February, 2015 Membership Roster
Proposed Contra Costa Mental Health Services Advisory Committee 19 and 25 member structure.
NOTE: In each of these counties, each voting person represents one particular affiliation. Also, the
Sacramento County MHSA Steering Committee has adopted a stronger Conflict-of-Interest Policy.
49
Revised Mental Health Services Act Advisory Committee Membership—19 Members
Family Members--5
1—District 1 (caring for children, Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult Consumer)
1—District 2 (caring for children, Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult Consumer)
1—District 3 (caring for children, Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult Consumer)
1—District 4 (caring for children, Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult Consumer)
1—District 5 (caring for children, Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult Consumer)
Consumers (persons living with a mental illness)--5
1—District 1 (Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult)
1—District 2 (Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult)
1—District 3 (Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult)
1—District 4 (Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult)
1—District 5 (Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult)
1—Mental Health Commission Family Member
1—Mental Health Commission Consumer
1—Behavioral Health Director or designee
3—Community Based Organization contractors (children, adult, and, older adult)
1—Transition Age Youth (TAY) representative
1—LGBTQUI representative
1—Faith Community representative
19 members
Revised Mental Health Services Act Advisory Committee Membership—25 Members
Family Members--5
1—District 1 (caring for children, Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult Consumer)
1—District 2 (caring for children, Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult Consumer)
1—District 3 (caring for children, Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult Consumer)
1—District 4 (caring for children, Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult Consumer)
1—District 5 (caring for children, Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult Consumer)
Consumers (persons living with a mental illness)--5
1—District 1 (Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult)
1—District 2 (Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult)
1—District 3 (Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult)
1—District 4 (Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult)
1—District 5 (Transition Age Youth, Adult, or Older Adult)
1—Mental Health Commission Family Member
1—Mental Health Commission Consumer
1—Behavioral Health Director or designee
3—Community Based Organization contractors (children, adult, and, older adult)
1—Transition Age Youth (TAY) representative
1—LGBTQUI representative
1—Faith Community representative
1—Latino representative
1—Asian-American representative
1—Law Enforcement representative
1—Local Union representative
1—Veterans representative
1—Education
25 Members
50
1
Rev 8-20-14
Sacramento County
Mental Health Services Act Steering Committee
Conflict of Interest Policy and Statement
Conflict of Interest Policy
This Conflict of Interest Policy and Statement applies to Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Steering
Committee members and alternates. It is intended to define direct and remote conflicts of interest in relation
to the MHSA Steering Committee’s role as a recommending body related to MHSA planning/funding.
This policy is not intended to inhibit, prevent or discourage agencies affiliated with MHSA Steering Committee
members from applying for MHSA funding. Rather, it is to ensure a fair and impartial planning process related
to MHSA activities, program development and funding.
MHSA Steering Committee members have a commitment to conduct all responsibilities of the Steering
Committee in a manner consistent with the best interest of the MHSA mission. This requires that all decisions
and actions of members on behalf of the MHSA Steering Committee must be made or taken solely with a
desire to serve in the best interest of the community, rather than a desire to serve in the best interest of an
individual and/or agency.
Definition of Direct or Remote Conflict of Interest
The following is provided to identify the types of relationships and activities that may create direct or remote
conflicts of interest:
a. If a member or alternate, or their family, will receive a direct financial benefit, such as a payment,
dividend, increase in a value of a commodity or real estate, etc. by an action taken by the Steering
Committee, the member or alternate has a direct conflict of interest.
b. A member or alternate has a remote conflict of interest if their employer will, or could, receive a
benefit from an action of the Steering Committee.
Declaration of Conflict and Recusal
Government Code Section 1090 et. seq. addresses conflict of interest. The MHSA Steering Committee can take
guidance from this code section to ensure there is an impartial decision-making process. MHSA Steering
Committee members are encouraged to have open dialogue and share personal experiences and any bias
which may influence opinions one way or other during the discussion. When there is a direct or remote
conflict of interest, MHSA Steering Committee members and alternates will:
a. Declare the nature of the direct or remote conflict;
b. Recuse themselves from the discussion by leaving the room; and
c. Recuse themselves from any vote/action regarding the specific matter.
Failure to Declare a Conflict of Interest
Failure to declare a conflict of interest may invalidate any said action taken by the MHSA Steering Committee.
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
MHSA Steering Committee members and alternates must complete, sign and submit the attached Conflict of
Interest Statement to disclose any direct or remote personal or familial conflict financial stake/affiliation
(within the past two years) with community based organizations providing behavioral health services in
Sacramento County.
51
2
Rev 8-20-14
Sacramento County
Mental Health Services Act Steering Committee Member/Alternate
Conflict of Interest Statement
I, , understand and agree to
comply with the attached Conflict of Interest Policy.
I certify that the following statements are true to the best of my knowledge:
A. I have a financial stake/affiliation currently, or within the past 24 months, with the
following community based organization(s) providing behavioral health services in
Sacramento County. Attach additional pages, if necessary. If none, so state.
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
B. My family member(s) has a financial stake/affiliation currently, or within the past 24
months, with the following community based organization(s) providing behavioral
health services in Sacramento County. Attach additional pages, if necessary. If none, so
state.
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Should there be a change in my involvement in any activity or circumstances that constitutes a
direct or remote conflict of interest, I will notify a member of the MHSA Executive Committee
immediately. I will complete, sign and submit an updated MHSA Steering Committee Conflict of
Interest Statement form.
SIGNATURE:
NAME: __________________________________________________DATE:
(PLEASE PRINT)
52
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE -
SPECIAL 7.
Meeting Date:07/27/2015
Subject:Chief Auditor's Report on County's Compliance with Clean Air Vehicle
Policy
Submitted For: Robert Campbell, Auditor-Controller
Department:Auditor-Controller
Referral No.: IOC 15/2
Referral Name: Review of the Annual Audit Schedule
Presenter: Joanne Bohren, Chief Auditor Contact: Joanne Bohren
925-646-2233
Referral History:
On February 9, 2015, the Auditor's Office reported to the IOC on its internal audit activities for
2014 and on the proposed schedule of audits for 2015. The IOC had requested that the Public
Works department audit be broadened to include compliance with the County's vehicle
acquisition policy, specifically that the most economic and fuel efficient vehicles are being
purchased.
Referral Update:
Please reference the attached compliance report prepared by the Chief Auditor. Also attached for
reference is Administrative Bulletin No. 508, "County Vehicle and Equipment Acquisition
Replacement Policy".
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT report prepared by the Office of the Auditor-Controller on analysis of the Public Works
Department-Fleet Services Division’s compliance with Administrative Bulletin #508.4, “County
Vehicle and Equipment Acquisition and Replacement Policy, and Clean Air Vehicle Policy and
Goals.”
Attachments
Chief Auditor's Report on County Compliance with Clean Air Vehicle Policy
County Clean Air Vehicle Policy
53
54
55
56
57
58
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Office of the County Administrator
ADMINISTRATIVE BULLETIN
Number: 508.4
Date: October 24, 2008
Section: Property and Equipment
SUBJECT: County Vehicle and Equipment Acquisition and Replacement Policy, and
Clean Air Vehicle Policy and Goals
This bulletin sets forth County policy and guidelines for department requests for
acquisition and replacement of County vehicles and equipment.
I. APPLICABILITY. This bulletin is applicable to addition and replacement vehicles
and equipment to be acquired by County departments either through purchase,
lease purchase or donation.
II. AUTHORITY. By Board Order, Item C.162, July 18, 2000, proposed County
Vehicle/Equipment Acquisition and Replacement Policy
III. POLICY GUIDELINES
Additional and replacement vehicles and equipment to be acquired by County
departments either through purchase, lease purchase or donation must be appropriate
for the intended use, within the approved budget, safe to operate, and cost efficient both
to operate and maintain. The expected annual use of any vehicle should be in excess
of 3,000 miles. Dedicated Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and battery electric vehicles
with frequent and demonstrated short trip usage patterns may be exempted from the
County minimum mileage requirement. Replacement priority will be given to vehicles
and/or equipment that are determined by the Fleet Manager to be unsafe, in the poorest
condition, uneconomical to operate or maintain, or have the highest program need.
A. ACQUISITION OF REPLACEMENT VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT The acquisition of
“replacement” vehicles or equipment may be approved by the Fleet Manager and
County Administrator, provided that the vehicle being replaced meets or exceeds
the minimum mileage criterion and/or the vehicle/equipment is damaged beyond
economical repair as determined by the Fleet Manager.
Vehicles and equipment will be considered for replacement or, in the case of low
utilization, reassignment to another function or department, when one or more of
the following conditions exist as determined by the Fleet Manager.
1. Replacement parts are no longer available to make repairs
2. Continued use is unsafe
3. Damage has made continued use infeasible
4. Cost of repair exceeds the remaining value
Page 1 of 5
59
5. Low utilization (usage does not exceed 3,000 miles per year)
cannot justify ongoing maintenance and insurance costs
B. MILEAGE EVALUATION INTERVALS At the mileage intervals specified below,
vehicles will be evaluated to determine their condition and expected life. The
General Services Fleet Management Division is to make such evaluations in
accordance with the following schedule. Evaluations may be conducted sooner
under certain conditions, such as when a vehicle needs repairs more often than
other vehicles of the same class and age, or when a vehicle has been damaged.
After initial evaluations, a vehicle will be re-evaluated every 12,000 miles or until
it reaches the end of its life, at which time it will be declared surplus.
VEHICLE TYPE EVALUATION INTERVAL
Sedans 90,000 miles
Sheriff Patrol
Sedans
90,000 miles
Passenger Vans 90,000 miles
Cargo Vans 90,000 miles
Sports Utility
Truck
100,000 miles
Pickups and 4x4 100,000 miles
Medium/Heavy
Duty Trucks
120,000 miles
Buses 180,000 miles
School Buses 8 years/(inspect every 45
days by law)
Miscellaneous
Equipment
Depends on Condition
C. EQUIPMENT ABUSE, NEGLIGENCE, AND MISUSE Departments utilizing
County equipment shall be responsible for all costs associated with driver abuse,
negligence, or misuse of County equipment. Determination of abuse,
negligence, or misuse will be at the discretion of the GSD Fleet Manager. The
GSD Fleet Manager shall notify the department using the equipment of any
charges covered under this section.
D. VEHICLE CITATIONS, PARKING TICKETS, AND TOLL EVASION NOTICES
The department utilizing the equipment shall be responsible for ensuring
payment of all citations, parking tickets, and toll evasion notices attributed to any
equipment. Citations or tickets attributed to equipment due to administrative
reasons (license, titling, registration, etc) will be the responsibility of GSD to
resolve, with the exception of expired registration tabs on undercover vehicles.
The department utilizing the equipment is responsible for ensuring undercover
plated vehicles display a current registration tab.
Page 2 of 5
60
E. ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT Departments
requesting acquisition of an additional vehicle or piece of equipment must
demonstrate the need and identify the source of funding for the acquisition and
its ongoing maintenance. Funds for the acquisition of additional or replacement
vehicles/equipment must be appropriated in the County budget before such
acquisition can occur. This appropriation may be included in the annual County
Budget adopted by the Board of Supervisors or may occur via a budget
appropriation adjustment approved by the Board during the fiscal year. The
attached form shall be used for each vehicle/equipment acquisition request and
forwarded to the County Administrator’s Office, Budget Division, upon whose
approval the request will be sent to the General Services Fleet Management
Division for a technical recommendation.
Any vehicle and/or equipment that is offered as a donation to the County must be
inspected by the GSD Fleet Management Division and determined to be in good
operating condition, safe, and efficient to operate and maintain prior to
acceptance. If the vehicle does not meet these criteria, the donation is not to be
accepted. Donated vehicles and equipment require a signed Board Order before
the donated equipment may be accepted.
IV. CLEAN AIR VEHICLE POLICY AND GOALS
It is the intent of the County to procure the most fuel efficient and lowest emission
vehicles and reduce petroleum fuel consumption. Vehicle and equipment purchases
shall be operable on available County alternate fuel sources to the greatest extent
practicable and must comply with all applicable clean air and vehicle emission
regulations.
A. EXEMPTION FROM CLEAN AIR VEHICLES POLICY Marked emergency
response vehicles (e.g. police patrol, fire, paramedic, and other Code 3
equipped units), are exempt from the Clean Air Vehicle Policy. The GSD Fleet
Manager may also grant exemptions for vehicles used primarily for prisoner
transport or when no alternate fuel or low emission vehicle is available that
meets the essential vehicle requirements or specifications. The intended use of
the vehicle shall be the determining criteria for granting a Clean Air Vehicle
Policy exemption.
B. SEDAN PURCHASES Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and hybrid electric
sedans shall be procured to the greatest extent practicable. If a CNG sedan is
not operationally feasible, a hybrid electric sedan shall be the next vehicle type
considered for procurement. Sedan purchases other than CNG or hybrid electric
require specific justification and approval by the GSD Fleet Manager and shall
be rated no lower than Partial Zero Emission Vehicle (PZEV) by the California
Air Resources Board. All County sedan purchases shall be alternate fuel, hybrid
electric, or rated as PZEV or greater by the California Air Resources Board.
Page 3 of 5
61
C. VAN/LIGHT TRUCK PURCHASES Vans and light truck shall be alternate fuel or
hybrid electric to the greatest extent practicable.
D. SPORT UTILITY VEHICLE (SUV) PURCHASES Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs)
will not be purchased unless justified based on specific and verified work
assignment and approved by the GSD Fleet Manager. When such vehicles are
a necessity every effort should be made to purchase hybrid or alternative fuel
vehicles. Any SUV purchases which are not for marked law enforcement or
Code 3 emergency response shall be hybrid electric.
V. DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITY
A. Department Head or Designee assigned vehicles
1. Designate a department staff person to serve as the departments point of
contact for all fleet related issues
2. Ensure safe operation of all vehicles
3. Budget appropriately for all expenses
4. Prepare and submit Vehicle and Equipment Request Form to the County
Administrator’s Office, Budget Division for approval of replacement and/or
addition of vehicles
5. Enter correct mileage when purchasing fuel
6. Ensure vehicle meets minimum use guidelines
7. Notify GSD Fleet of any vehicle assignment changes
B. County Administrator’s Office
1. Review requests for purchase of vehicles for operational need, compliance
with County policy, and budgetary impact.
C. General Services Department
1. Administer and oversee the County Fleet
2. Budget for the acquisition and replacement of vehicles and/or equipment
3. Prepare annual report and summary of the distribution of light vehicles
and heavy equipment by department for the current fiscal year, the two
prior fiscal years, and the recommended distribution for the new fiscal year
Page 4 of 5
62
4. Develop light duty vehicle and equipment specifications to accommodate
alternate fuel, hybrid electric, and low emission vehicle purchases
5. Identify and procure suitable alternate fuels for use in County vehicles
6. Monitor and identify non-County alternate fuel locations for use by County
vehicles
Originating Department(s):
County Administrator’s Office
General Services Department
Information Contacts:
County Administrator’s Office –Management Analyst Liaison
County Fleet Manager at 925.313.7072
Update Contact:
County Administrator Senior Deputy, Municipal Services
_____________/s/_______________
David Twa
County Administrator
Page 5 of 5
63