HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 02292016 - Internal Ops Cte Min
INTERNAL OPERATIONS
COMMITTEE
SPECIAL MEETING
February 29, 2016
11:00 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor John Gioia, Chair
Supervisor Candace Andersen, 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. INTERVIEW candidates for the At Large #1, At Large #2 and Public Member
Alternate seats on the Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee and
DETERMINE recommended appointments for Board of Supervisors consideration.
(Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator, Health Services Department)
4. CONSIDER approving nominations to reappoint Frank Gordon to the General Public
seat, Tim Bancroft to the General Public Alternate seat, Jim Payne to the Labor #2 seat
and Tracy Scott to the Labor #2 Alternate Seat; and reassign Usha Vedagiri from the
Environmental Organization #3 Alternate seat to the Environmental Organizations #2
seat on the Hazardous Materials Commission. (Michael Kent, Executive Asst. to the
Hazardous Materials Commission)
5. CONSIDER approving the proposed plan and schedules for the recruitment to fill one
seat each on the Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association Board of
Trustees, the County Planning Commission, and the Contra Costa County Fire
Protection District Advisory Fire Commission that will become vacant on June 30,
2016; and three seats on the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Board of
Directors that will become vacant on November 30, 2016. (Julie DiMaggio Enea, IOC
Staff)
6. CONSIDER accepting report on the status of the development of a waste hauler
ordinance and PROVIDE direction to staff on next steps. (Marilyn Underwood,
Environmental Health Director & John Kopchik, Conservation & Development
Director)
7. CONSIDER recommending that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to take the
1
7. CONSIDER recommending that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to take the
necessary actions to obtain electrical load data from PG&E, work with interested cities
to conduct a technical feasibility study of CCE in this county, and acquire additional
consulting services through completion of the technical study, if authorized. (Jason
Crapo, Conservation and Development Department)
8. CONSIDER accepting report on the Auditor-Controller's audit activities for 2015, and
approving the proposed schedule of financial audits for 2016. (Joanne Bohren, Chief
Auditor)
9. CONSIDER approving 2016 Internal Operations Committee meeting schedule and
work plan. (Julie DiMaggio Enea, IOC Staff)
10.The next meeting is currently scheduled for March 28, 2016.
11.Adjourn
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 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:02/29/2016
Subject:CANDIDATE INTERVIEWS: INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Submitted For: William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director
Department:Health Services
Referral No.: IOC 16/5
Referral Name: ADVISORY BODY RECRUITMENT
Presenter: Tanya Drlik, Integrated Pest Management
Coordinator
Contact: Tanya Drlik
925.335.3214
Referral History:
In June 2014, the 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 subcommittee. The Resolutions further permit a Board Committee to select a
screening committee to assist in interviewing applicants for appointment. Upon review of the
eligible seats, 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.
Referral Update:
The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Advisory Committee was established by the Board of
Supervisors in November 2009 to advise the Board regarding the protection and enhancement of
public health, County resources, and the environment related to pest control methods employed
by County departments. The IPM Committee has eight voting members as follows: two ex-officio
members (Health Services Department and County/Unincorporated County Storm Water
Program) and six public members (one Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board
representative, one County Fish and Wildlife Committee representative, one Environmental
Organizations representative, and three At Large appointees); plus one Public Member Alternate
seat. Terms of office for the At Large and Alternate seats reviewed by the Internal Operations
Committee have recently been extended from two to four years at the direction of the IOC.
The Environmental Organization, and At Large 1-3 seats will become vacant on December 31,
3
2015. Attached is a letter from the IPM Committee transmitting the three applications received
from the recruitment for the four vacancies, and describing the recruitment process, and the
current Committee roster.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
INTERVIEW the following candidates for At Large #1, At Large #2 and Public Member
Alternate seats on the Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee and DETERMINE
recommended appointments for Board of Supervisors consideration:
Larry Brunink, Concord
Susan Captain, Moraga
Kelly Davidson, Clayton
James Donnelly, Danville
Nati Flores*, Antioch
Wayne Lanier, PhD, Walnut Creek
Justin B. Sinclaire, Clayton
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
Candidate Application_IPM_Larry Brunink
Candidate Application_IPM_Susan Captain
Candidate Application_IPM_Kelly Davidson
Candidate Application_IPM_James Donnelly
Candidate Application_IPM_Nati Flores
Candidate Application_IPM_Wayne Lanier
Candidate Application_IPM_Justin B. Sinclaire
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE -
SPECIAL 4.
Meeting Date:02/29/2016
Subject:NOMINATIONS TO THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
COMMISSION
Submitted For: William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director
Department:Health Services
Referral No.: IOC 16/5
Referral Name: Advisory Body Recruitment
Presenter: Julie DiMaggio Enea Contact: Michael Kent (925)
313-6712
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 IOC delegated the screening and nomination of
Hazardous Materials Commission candidates to the Commission.
Referral Update:
The term for numerous seats on the Hazardous Materials Commission expired on December 31,
2015, creating vacancies. The Commission recruited and interviewed candidates for the vacant
seats and makes nominations to the IOC to fill the seats, as explained in the attached transmittal
letter. Recruitment materials and candidate applications are attached for information.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
APPROVE Hazardous Materials Commission nominations to appoint the following individuals to
the Commission to terms ending on December 31, 2019:
Action Nominee Seat Nominated By
Reappoint Frank
Gordon
General Public Commission
Reappoint Tim
Bancroft
General Public
Alternate
Commission
37
Reassign Usha
Vedagiri
Environmental
Organizations #2
Commission
Reappoint Jim Payne Labor #2 Central Labor
Council
Reappoint Tracy
Scott
Labor #2 Alternate Central Labor
Council
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
Transmittal_Hazardous Materials Commission Nominations
Candidate Application_HMC_Frank Gordon
Candidate Application_HMC_Timothy Bancroft
Candidate Application_HMC_Usha Vedagiri
Candidate Application_HMC_Charles Davidson
Candidate Application_HMC_James Payne
Candidate Application_HMC_Tracy Scott
Env Seat Flyer
Env Seat Press Release
Gen Pub Flyer
Gen Pub Press Release
USW Nomination Letter
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE - SPECIAL 5.
Meeting Date:02/29/2016
Subject:RECRUITMENT PLAN FOR SCHEDULED RETIREMENT BOARD, PLANNING COMMISSION, ADVISORY FIRE
COMMISSION AND CC RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISRICT BOARD VACANCIES
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: IOC 16/5
Referral Name: ADVISORY BODY RECRUITMENT
Presenter: Julie DiMaggio Enea, IOC Staff Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea 925.335.1077
Referral History:
The Board of Supervisors has directed the IOC to personally conduct recruitment and interviews of applicants for At Large seats on the Contra
Costa County Fire Protection District's (CCCFPD) Fire Advisory Commission, the County Planning Commission, and the Board appointees to
the Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association (CCCERA) Board of Trustees and the the East Contra Costa County Fire
Protection District Board of Directors. Additionally, the Board of Supervisors has directed the IOC to recruit on behalf of the Contra Costa
Resource Conservation District (CCRCD), which is governed by a Board of Directors appointed by the County Board of Supervisors and
regulated under Division 9 of the California Public Resources Code.
On June 30, 2016, the terms of Board of Supervisors Appointees #4 seat on the CCCERA Board of Trustees; the At Large #2 seat on the
County Planning Commission; and the At Large #1 seat on the CCCFPD Fire Advisory Commission will expire. On November 30, 2016, the
terms of the President, Director 1 and Director 3 seats on the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District (CCRCD) Board of Trustees will
expire.
Referral Update:
It is important that the IOC develop a recruitment schedule that permits the Board of Supervisors to make its appointments prior to the
effective dates of the new seat terms.
The proposed recruitment schedule for the CCCERA Board of Trustees, the County Planning Commission, the CCCFPD Fire Advisory
Commission is shown below:
March 4 Issue press release advertising vacancies
April 8 Application Deadline for vacancies (5 week application period)
April 25 IOC Committee Meeting: Screen applications and determine interview format*
April 26-May 6 Staff to schedule all interviews for May 23
May 23 IOC Committee Meeting: Interview candidates for the vacancies
June 14 and/or
21
Board of Supervisors Meeting: Board consideration of IOC recommended appointments and/or interview of
finalists for Retirement Board
July 1 All appointments take effect
The proposed recruitment schedule for the CCRCD Board is shown below:
August 29 Issue press release advertising vacancies
September 30 Application Deadline for vacancies (5 week application period)
October 1-10 Staff to schedule interviews for October 24
October 24 IOC Committee Meeting: Interview candidates for the vacancies
November 1 or 15 Board of Supervisors Meeting: Board consideration of IOC recommended appointments
December 1 All appointments take effect
*It may be impractical for the IOC to individually interview all applicants. The IOC may need to screen applications to reduce the pool of
candidates to be interviewed and use group interviews if there remain a large number of candidates for each body. Staff intends to do an initial
screening of applicants against the specifications for each seat and will provide initial recommendations to the Committee for any
applications that should be rejected.
Also attached for the Committee's information is a listing of all advisory body seats that are screened by the Internal Operations Committee and their current status, according to the Board Appointive List maintained
by the Clerk of the Board's Office.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
64
APPROVE the proposed plan and schedules for the recruitment to fill one Board of Supervisors seat on each the Contra Costa County
Employees' Retirement Association Board of Trustees, the County Planning Commission and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
Fire Advisory Commissions that will become vacant on June 30, 2016, and three seats on the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District
Board of Directors that will become vacant on November 30, 2016.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None.
Attachments
2016 IOC Interview and Screening Responsibilities for 2016
65
IOC ADVISORY BODY CANDIDATE SCREENING AND INTERVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES2016Per BOSPer BOS ResResoIOCAdvisory or Regional Legislative BodyCounty "At Large" SeatStaff ContactInterview Interview 2011/498 Airport Land Use Appointee 1 BOS 5/2/2020 Jamar Stamps, DCDInterview Interview 2011/498 Airport Land Use Appointee 2 BOS 5/6/2019 Jamar Stamps, DCDReview Interview 2011/497 Aviation Advisory At Large 1 2/28/2018 Natalie Oleson, PWReview Interview 2011/497 Aviation Advisory At Large 2 3/1/2017 Natalie Oleson, PWInterview Interview 2011/498 Contra Costa County FPD Fire Advisory Commission At Large 16/30/2016Vicki WisherInterview Interview 2011/498 Contra Costa County FPD Fire Advisory Commission At Large 2 6/30/2018 Vicki WisherInterview Interview 2011/498 County Connection Citizens Advisory County seat6/18/2015Diane Bodon, 925‐256‐4720Interview Interview 2011/498 East Bay Regional Parks District AdvisoryAppointee 112/31/2016Pfuehler Erich, EBRPD (510) 544‐2006N/A Interview N/A East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Board of DirectorsBOS Seat 12/4/2018 Hugh HendersonN/A Interview N/A East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Board of DirectorsBOS Seat 22/4/2018 Hugh HendersonInterview Interview 2011/498 Employees Retirement Assos. Bd of Trustees (CCCERA)BOS Appointee 46/30/2016Gail Strohl/Julie EneaInterview Interview 2011/498 Employees Retirement Assos. Bd of Trustees (CCCERA)BOS Appointee 56/30/2017 Gail Strohl/Julie EneaInterview Interview 2011/498 Employees Retirement Assos. Bd of Trustees (CCCERA)BOS Appointee 66/30/2017 Gail Strohl/Julie EneaInterview Interview 2011/498 Employees Retirement Assos. Bd of Trustees (CCCERA)BOS Appointee 96/30/2017 Gail Strohl/Julie EneaInterview Interview 2011/498 Employees Retirement Assos. Bd of Trustees (CCCERA)BOS Appointee Alternate6/30/2017 Gail Strohl/Julie EneaInterview Interview 2011/497 Fish & WildlifeAt Large 112/31/2018 Maureen Parkes, DCDInterview Interview 2011/497 Fish & WildlifeAt Large 212/31/2018 Maureen Parkes, DCDInterview Interview 2011/497 Fish & WildlifeAt Large 312/31/2016Maureen Parkes, DCDInterview Interview 2011/497 Fish & WildlifeAt Large 412/31/2016Maureen Parkes, DCDInterview Interview 2011/497 Fish & WildlifeAt Large Alternate12/31/2016Maureen Parkes, DCDInterview Interview 2011/497 Integrated Pest ManagementAt Large 112/31/2019Tanya DrlikInterview Interview 2011/497 Integrated Pest ManagementAt Large 212/31/2019 Tanya DrlikInterview Interview 2011/497 Integrated Pest ManagementAt Large 312/31/2018Tanya DrlikInterview Interview 2011/497 Integrated Pest ManagementPublic Member Alternate12/31/2017Tanya DrlikN/A Interview N/A Local Enforcement Agency Independent Hearing Panel (Solid Waste) At Large 3/31/2018 Dorothy Sansoe/Enid MendozaN/A Interview N/A Local Enforcement Agency Independent Hearing Panel (Solid Waste) Public Member 3/31/2018 Dorothy Sansoe/Enid MendozaN/A Interview N/A Local Enforcement Agency Independent Hearing Panel (Solid Waste) Technical Expert 3/31/2018 Dorothy Sansoe/Enid MendozaInterview Interview 2011/497 Planning Commission At Large 1 6/30/2018 Hiliana Li, DCDInterview Interview 2011/497 Planning Commission At Large 26/30/2016Hiliana Li, DCDInterview Interview 2011/497 Treasury OversightBOS Member4/30/2016Rusty WattsInterview Interview 2011/497 Treasury OversightPublic 14/30/2018 Rusty WattsInterview Interview 2011/497 Treasury OversightPublic 24/30/2018 Rusty WattsInterview Interview 2011/497 Treasury OversightPublic 34/30/2016Rusty WattsReview Review 2011/498 Affordable Housing Finance Community 16/30/2017 Kara Douglas, DCDReview Review 2011/498 Affordable Housing Finance Community 26/30/2018Kara Douglas, DCDReview Review 2011/498 Affordable Housing Finance Community 36/30/2016Kara Douglas, DCDReview Review 2011/498 Affordable Housing Finance County 16/30/2017 Kara Douglas, DCDReview Review 2011/498 Affordable Housing Finance County 26/30/2018Kara Douglas, DCDReview Review 2011/498 Affordable Housing Finance County 36/30/2016Kara Douglas, DCDReview Review 2011/498 BBK Union Cemetery Distict Bd of Trustees (if needed) Trustee 1 12/31/2018 Lea CastleberryReview Review 2011/498 BBK Union Cemetery Distict Bd of Trustees (if needed) Trustee 2 12/31/2017 Lea CastleberryReview Review 2011/498 BBK Union Cemetery Distict Bd of Trustees (if needed) Trustee 3 12/31/2017 Lea CastleberryInterview Review 2011/497 Hazardous Materials Env Engineering Firms 12/31/2017 Michael KentInterview Review 2011/497 Hazardous Materials Env Engineering Firms Alt12/31/2017 Michael KentInterview Review 2011/497 Hazardous MaterialsEnv Organizations 112/31/2017 Michael KentInterview Review 2011/497 Hazardous MaterialsEnv Organizations 1 Alt12/31/2017 Michael KentInterview Review 2011/497 Hazardous MaterialsEnv Organizations 212/31/2019Michael KentInterview Review 2011/497 Hazardous MaterialsEnv Organizations 2 Alt12/31/2019 Michael KentInterview Review 2011/497 Hazardous MaterialsEnv Organizations 312/31/2016Michael KentInterview Review 2011/497 Hazardous MaterialsEnv Organizations 3 Alt12/31/2016Michael KentATTACHMENT "A"2014 IOC designated these seats for in‐person interview by IOC.66
IOC ADVISORY BODY CANDIDATE SCREENING AND INTERVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES2016Per BOSPer BOS ResResoIOCAdvisory or Regional Legislative BodyCounty "At Large" SeatStaff ContactATTACHMENT "A"Interview Review 2011/497 Hazardous Materials General Public12/31/2019Michael KentInterview Review 2011/497 Hazardous Materials General Public Alt12/31/2019Michael KentInterview Review 2011/498 Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Tenant #1 (age 62 or above)3/31/2016Joseph VillarrealInterview Review 2011/498 Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Tenant #23/31/2016Joseph VillarrealReview Review 2011/497 Law Library Bd of Trustees Member of the Bar12/31/2016Carey Rowan, Sup CourtInterview Review 2011/498 Mosquito & Vector Control District Bd of Trustees At Large 1 1/2/2019 Allison Nelson or Craig DownsInterview Review 2011/498 Mosquito & Vector Control District Bd of TrusteesAt Large 21/2/2017Allison Nelson or Craig DownsInterview Review 2011/498 Mosquito & Vector Control District Bd of TrusteesAt Large 31/2/2017Allison Nelson or Craig DownsReview Review 2011/497 Public & Environmental Health Adv BdAdolescent School Age5/31/2017 No staff assignedReview Review 2011/497 Public & Environmental Health Adv BdCentral County At Large 15/31/2019No staff assignedReview Review 2011/497 Public & Environmental Health Adv BdCentral County At Large 25/31/2019No staff assignedReview Review 2011/497 Public & Environmental Health Adv BdConsumer 15/31/2017No staff assignedReview Review 2011/497 Public & Environmental Health Adv BdConsumer 25/31/2017No staff assignedReview Review 2011/497 Public & Environmental Health Adv BdEast County At Large 15/31/2016No staff assignedReview Review 2011/497 Public & Environmental Health Adv Bd East County At Large 25/31/2017No staff assignedReview Review 2011/497 Public & Environmental Health Adv Bd Environmental Health5/31/2017No staff assignedReview Review 2011/497 Public & Environmental Health Adv Bd Family & Children 5/31/2018No staff assignedReview Review 2011/497 Public & Environmental Health Adv Bd General At Large 15/31/2015No staff assignedReview Review 2011/497 Public & Environmental Health Adv Bd General At Large 25/31/2015No staff assignedReview Review 2011/497 Public & Environmental Health Adv BdImmigrant5/31/2017No staff assignedReview Review 2011/497 Public & Environmental Health Adv BdPrivate Medical Community5/31/2017No staff assignedReview Review 2011/497 Public & Environmental Health Adv BdSeniors Issues5/31/2018No staff assignedReview Review 2011/497 Public & Environmental Health Adv BdVoluntary Health Agencies5/31/2016No staff assignedReview Review 2011/497 Public & Environmental Health Adv BdWest County At Large 15/31/2015No staff assignedReview Review 2011/497 Public & Environmental Health Adv BdWest County At Large 25/31/2016No staff assignedInterview Review 2011/498 Resource Conservation District Bd of TrusteesDirector 111/30/2016Hunter Teresa, RCD, (925) 672‐6522Interview Review 2011/498 Resource Conservation District Bd of TrusteesDirector 211/30/2018 Hunter Teresa, RCD, (925) 672‐6522Interview Review 2011/498 Resource Conservation District Bd of TrusteesDirector 311/30/2016Hunter Teresa, RCD, (925) 672‐6522Interview Review 2011/498 Resource Conservation District Bd of TrusteesPresident11/30/2016Hunter Teresa, RCD, (925) 672‐6522Interview Review 2011/498 Resource Conservation District Bd of TrusteesVice President11/30/2018 Hunter Teresa, RCD, (925) 672‐6522Interview Review 2011/498 Western CC Transit Auth Bd of DirectorsCrockett12/31/2017Jamar Stamps, DCDInterview Review 2011/498 Western CC Transit Auth Bd of DirectorsCrockett Alt12/31/2016Jamar Stamps, DCDInterview Review 2011/498 Western CC Transit Auth Bd of DirectorsRodeo 12/31/2017Jamar Stamps, DCDInterview Review 2011/498 Western CC Transit Auth Bd of DirectorsRodeo Alt12/31/2016Jamar Stamps, DCDKey: currently vacantwill have a 2016 vacancyfilled2014 IOC delegated interview responsibility to the respective advisory body, with a referral of the resultant nomination to the IOC .67
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE -
SPECIAL 6.
Meeting Date:02/29/2016
Subject:WASTE HAULER ORDINANCE
Submitted For: William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director
Department:Health Services
Referral No.: IOC 16/8
Referral Name: Waste Hauler Ordinance
Presenter: Marilyn Underwood & John
Kopchik
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 four
years, during which substantial work and change in the scope of the draft ordinance occurred. 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. Work on the ordinance was suspended for several months in 2014 but resumed in early
2015. Recent discussions have focused on reconciling the ordinance with the County's existing
franchise agreements, if and how the initial scope of the ordinance should or could be expanded
or limited, exemptions to the ordinance, and how and by whom the ordinance could effectively be
enforced.
At the most recent IOC discussion in October 2015, the Committee directed County Counsel and
staff to prepare a final draft ordinance for IOC review in February 2016, and decided to address
the enforcement aspect of the ordinance separately. Supervisor Gioia asked for a commitment
68
from the franchises to raise fees sufficient to fund enforcement of the ordinance countywide. Mr.
Evola reiterated his offer to fund one third of the cost of a CSO.
Referral Update:
Attached is a report prepared jointly by the Directors of Environmental Health and Conservation
and Development on the status of the development of a waste hauler ordinance and transmitting
the current version of the ordinance. Also attached is a recapitulation prepared by the County
Counsel on how the current version of the Ordinance compares to the October 2015 version.
The status report includes a discussion regarding enforcement of the proposed ordinance.
Undersheriff Mike Casten has been invited and plans to attend the meeting to discuss the roles of
the Sheriff and California Highway Patrol may have in enforcing the ordinance and related
enforcement issues.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT report on the status of the development of a waste hauler ordinance and provide policy
direction to staff.
Attachments
Staff report prepared by Environmental Health and Conservation & Development Departments on Waste Hauler
Ordinance
Exhibit A: DRAFT Waste Hauler Ordinance as of Feb 2016
Exhibit B: County Counsel Memo re Comparison of Feb 2016 Ordinance to Oct 2015 Ordinance
Exhibit C: County Wastehaulers Franchise Area Map
69
Page 1 of 17
JOINT STAFF REPORT TO THE INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Contra Costa Environmental Health and Department of Conservation & Development
February 29, 2016
I. INTRODUCTION
To prepare for bringing this matter back before the Internal Operations Committee (IOC), a
fair amount of staff time and internal discussions have been dedicated to the issues
discussed in this report. Over the past several months, a multi-departmental staff team
has diligently gathered information, collaboratively worked through issues and several
draft versions of the ordinance which collectively shaped the revised version of Chapter
418-2 now being presented. Below is a brief overview of this collaborative staff effort:
Multi-departmental staff team includes the Directors and lead staff members from CCEH
and DCD as well as staff contacts from County Counsel’s Office and the County
Administrator’s Office (CAO). The entire team met three times, once in November, again in
December and then again in February. Additionally, key staff members from DCD, CCEH
and County Counsel’s office have had numerous phone meetings more frequently during
the same several month period in order to discuss and identify means to address specific
issues in much greater detail so that County Counsel’s office could finalize the revised
Chapter 418-2 being presented to the IOC. Since the October 2015 IOC meeting, staff
from DCD and CCEH have been in communication with County franchise representatives
on several occasions to discuss the proposed ordinance or related franchise issues.
II. POLICY ISSUE FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE MOVING FORWARD AND FORMULATION OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Distinction Between Ordinance and Related Issues – During the course of the
IOC’s consideration of the potential ordinance revisions to Chapter 418-2 referred by
the Board of Supervisors in 2012, other policy issues have been raised which are
related to, but extend beyond the scope of the ordinance. Now that the IOC is being
presented with the recommended Chapter 418-2 language, it is possible to clearly
identify those issues which are not expected to be addressed in ordinance. Staff has
identified these non-ordinance policy issues in this report in order to potentially
facilitate discussion of distinct recommendations the IOC may decide to make to the
Board of Supervisors regarding the referred ordinance versus the other related
issues. Staff has grouped these related non-ordinance policy issues into two
categories, Franchises and Enforcement.
1. Policy Issues are Inter-related – Although technically beyond the scope of what
ordinance revisions would address, these other non-ordinance policy issues are
inter-related to varying degrees. The inter-relationships significantly add to the
70
Page 2 of 17
complexity of the potential problems and solutions. Furthermore, the manner
and sequence in which each issue is ultimately addressed can dictate and limit
options to address other policy issues.
2. Proposed Approach for Moving Forward – Although it is possible (and
probably helpful) to take some actions that help move forward with addressing
non-ordinance policy issues on a ‘parallel track’ if desired by the Board, there are
others which cannot because they are contingent upon factors that dictate the
applicable sequence and timing. Non-ordinance policy issues are grouped and
further discussed below in sections pertaining to Franchises and Enforcement.
Additionally, to the extent that staff has identified factors that dictate
sequence/timing specific to an issue/action such has been noted in the applicable
section.
3. Separating Issues and Taking Next Steps – Staff recommends that, to the
extent possible, immediate action on the ordinance and further action on the
related policy issues be pursued on separate, parallel tracks in order to simplify,
and clarify, discussion of the issues. For the IOC’s consideration, staff is providing
the following list of potential next steps to move forward on these policy issues in
the near term. Most of these next steps are discussed in more detail in
subsequent sections of this staff report as are additional potential actions that
the County may consider in the future (medium and far term).
a. Ordinance – Potential Future Actions:
i. Consider recommending that the Board approve the revised version of
Chapter 418-2 attached as Exhibit A, which requires that the bond amount
be specified in a fee resolution to be adopted by the Board, and specify
whether the ordinance effective date should be timed to coincide with the
Board’s consideration of the fee resolution and/or the minor County
franchise amendments described in Section IV.A.4.a.
ii. If the revised Chapter 418-2 ordinance is approved by the Board of
Supervisors, CCEH will perform the following activities:
o Develop application form in consultation with DCD.
o Develop a fee schedule for refuse haulers.
o Notify refuse haulers, Chambers of Commerce, local building and
code enforcement departments, etc. of the new ordinance.
o Process permit applications (including notifying the special districts
and DCD of applications).
o Inspect and issue permit stickers to compliant vehicles.
o Investigate any reports of violations.
o Conduct field surveillance, including at illegal transfer stations.
b. Franchising/Franchises – Potential Future Actions:
i. When transmitting recommended Ordinance to the Board, identify
separate recommendation about possibly amending three of the County’s
franchises to clarify Industrial Waste definition in three franchises and add
71
Page 3 of 17
wording clarifying the applicability of the exclusivity exception for
property clean-up service providers. (see Section IV.A.4 of this report )
ii. Consider recommending that the Board direct to staff to proceed with
issuance of 5-Year Rule notices required for the County to have the
option to potentially amend franchises to expand exclusivity in the future.
(see Section IV.A.7.iii of this report)
c. Enforcement – Potential Future Actions:
iii. Consider requesting that County franchise haulers reach out to law
enforcement agencies in each Contra Costa city they currently serve to
help raise awareness and discuss potential enforcement of Public
Resources Code Sections 41950, 41951 and 41955 pertaining to the theft
of residential and commercial recyclables prior to collection (described in
described in Section IV.B.4.a.ii.A.
III. REVISED ORDINANCE: CHAPTER 418-2
The proposed ordinance (attached as Exhibit A) has been revised significantly over the past
several months. The attached Memorandum from County Counsel’s office (attached as
Exhibit B) identifies what changes have been made to the Draft Ordinance version
presented to the IO Committee in October 2015 as well as a brief explanation of the
reason for each change. The proposed ordinance would, in the view of staff, constitute a
marked improvement over current regulation of Chapter 418-2 of the County Ordinance.
It is however important to understand the challenges that will be faced in implementing
the ordinance.
A. Enforceability
There are issues related to potentially overlapping regulatory authority that may
significantly impact the implementation of a revised refuse
hauler ordinance. Specifically, potential conflicts with ordinances adopted by other
local non-County franchise agencies (discussed in Section III.B below ) or their
respective franchise agreements (discussed in Section IV.A.2). The interrelated
complexities associated with implementing a waste hauler permit system in areas
where waste collection is already governed by multiple different local agencies
pursuant to separate franchise agreements granting varying degrees of exclusivity
are expected to pose significant enforceability challenges. Staff may discover that
there are other local agency adopted ordinances governing certain waste hauling
activities that will introduce further unforeseen implementation and/or enforcement
complexities.
Existing franchise agreements involve variables that do not allow for any permitting
uniformity and increase the complexity of permit systems design which directly
compromise the ordinance’s enforceability. This lack of permitting uniformity that is
necessitated by existing franchises, diminish the usefulness and effectiveness of the
County issued decals as simple stand-alone compliance indicators. Although the lack
of a decal is a visually obvious clue that hauler does not have a permit, it does not
mean that the unpermitted hauling activity constitutes a violation of the ordinance.
72
Page 4 of 17
There are numerous types of unpermitted hauling activities that would not violate
Chapter 418-2, such as a roofer hauling old roofing materials from his own jobsite or
a non-profit organization transporting donated source-separated recyclables (both
of which are exempt from the ordinance) or an independent hauler with a load of
household refuse picked up from within a city (not subject to the ordinance). Permits
will authorize hauling of only certain waste types from customers located within a
defined permit-specific territory – which may be further limited by customer type
(e.g. only residences). The readily visible decal makes it relatively easy to spot
permitted hauling vehicles, which only proves that permitted hauler has authority to
haul at least one type of waste from somewhere in the unincorporated area.
It is expected that law enforcement could not play a significant role because they
would generally not have the probable cause necessary to stop haulers solely
because they do not have decal. Most likely complaints will be the primary way that
CCEH will become aware of haulers that may be providing waste collection that
violates their permit. In most cases, further investigation or follow-up by CCEH will
be necessary to determine if the hauler is in compliance with the ordinance.
However, though these obstacles exist, the ordinance will provide a basis for taking
enforcement actions that prevent harmful activities, such as illegal dumping.
B. Other Local Agencies with Authority to Regulate Waste Collection
To date, the local agency ordinances received and reviewed by staff do not appear to
pre-empt or limit ordinance implementation. An ordinance adopted by the Central
Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (CCCSWA) established their existing permit
system applicable to construction and demolition (C&D) debris transporters
operating within that Central County territory. The boundaries of the CCCSWA
include five incorporated city areas as well as surrounding unincorporated areas. The
four other district managed franchises include only unincorporated areas of the
County as shown in the Map attached as Exhibit C. Staff is not aware of any other
hauler permit systems being implemented in the unincorporated areas.
Locally adopted ordinances pertaining to waste collection that are in effect for non-
County franchise areas, could possibly limit the effectiveness of Chapter 418-2 as
proposed to be revised or maybe even pre-empt the County’s authority to
implement the revised ordinance altogether. The proposed ordinance acknowledges
that other local agencies exercise their own regulatory authority over waste collection
within their jurisdiction which will ideally be adequate to avoid any conflicts with
ordinances adopted by those local agencies. CCEH has reached out to these non-
County franchise agencies seeking information about any applicable ordinances that
they may have adopted. CCEH staff has identified two local franchise agencies which
have adopted ordinances related to waste hauling (CCCSWA and Mt. View Sanitary
District ) and confirmed that a third agency has not adopted any such ordinances
(Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District). Unfortunately, at
the time this staff report was prepared, the remaining two local agencies had yet to
respond (Rodeo Sanitary District and Byron Sanitary District).
73
Page 5 of 17
Upon receipt of any additional non-County ordinances pertaining to waste hauling,
staff may find that there is critical regulatory conflict necessitating that the County
work more closely with the applicable non-County franchise agency(ies) in order for
the County to exercise any regulatory authority over waste collection within their
jurisdictional franchise areas. If this occurred, CCEH staff would strive to identify and
overcome any barriers in order to obtain the agency’s consent to implement the
ordinance as written within their jurisdiction. If issues related to overlapping
regulatory authority were to result in substantially limiting or restricting
implementation of Chapter 418-2 in one or more non-County franchise areas, The
Board of Supervisors may wish to further revise Chapter 418-2 to include only those
requirements which can be implemented more uniformly and effectively enforced on
a consistent basis.
IV. NON-ORDINANCE POLICY ISSUES
A. Franchise Agreements - There are nine separate Franchise Agreements which
govern the collection of waste and recyclables, each covering different portions of
the unincorporated County area. Four of the nine Franchises are administered by the
County (County Franchises) and the other five are each administered by other local
public agencies (Non-County Franchises). See map attached as Exhibit C for
delineation of the County’s four franchise areas as well as the five non-County
franchise areas.
1. County Franchises govern collection services provided to approximately 53% of
the total unincorporated population. Following is a breakdown for the four
County Franchises:
Allied Waste Systems, Inc. (Allied) primarily serves Central County customers
(approximately 9% of the total unincorporated County population)
Crockett Garbage Service serves Crockett, Port Costa and Tormey
(approximately 2% of the total unincorporated County population)
Garaventa Enterprises primarily serves East County customers (approximately
20% of the total unincorporated County population)
Richmond Sanitary Service (RSS) primarily serves West County customers
(approximately 21% of the total unincorporated County population)
2. Non-County Franchises administered by the following five local public agencies
govern services provided to approximately 47% of the total unincorporated
population:
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority/RecycleSmart – Joint Powers
Authority responsible for waste and recycling programs for Alamo, Blackhawk,
Contra Costa Centre, Diablo, Tassajara and unincorporated areas in the
vicinity of Danville, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda and Walnut Creek.
74
Page 6 of 17
Byron Sanitary District– Special District solely responsible for a portion of
Byron
Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District – Special
District solely responsible for collection services in Kensington
Mt. View Sanitary District – Special District responsible for unincorporated
Martinez areas as well as some land near Pacheco Blvd. and Arnold Dr.
Rodeo Sanitary District– Special District solely responsible for collection
services in Rodeo
3. Interrelationship between Franchises and Ordinance/Permit System
Collection of waste and recyclables is currently regulated almost exclusively by
franchises administered by local agencies. There are a number of franchise-
specific variables which are interrelated with key ordinance provisions in Chapter
418-2. These interrelationships and the need to avoid potential permit/franchise
conflicts add a fair amount of complexity the overall permit system.
Understanding the complexities involved with these interrelated variables can
also help provide insight as to the overall approach to Chapter 418-2. Franchise
exclusivity can be complicated because it depends on the franchise and at least
two if not more variables. The franchise exclusivity variables include geographic
area (which franchise area), the type of waste generator (such as residence), the
type of waste (such as yard waste or construction and demolition waste), the type
of business arrangement (free pick-up or fee for service) as well as any related
services (clippings resulting from gardening).
4. Actions Related to Franchises to aid Ordinance Implementation
Following is a discussion of related non-ordinance policy issues associated with
the franchise agreements:
a. Avoid issuing permits that conflict with County Franchises
i. Minor clarification type amendments to three of the County’s Franchise
Agreements [Separate/Parallel Track]
Industrial Waste – The recommended revisions to Chapter 418-2 does not
define Industrial Waste. However, it is in effect defined by the wording of
the applicable proposed Exception in Section 418-2.008(e) which says “solid
waste that is generated in a mechanized manufacturing process or at a
publicly operated treatment works”. Only one of the County’s four
franchises (RSS) includes “publicly operated treatment works” in its Industrial
Waste definition, therefore it may be worthwhile to amend the County’s
other three franchises to add publicly operated treatment works to their
definitions.
ii. Minor clarification type amendments to all four of the County’s Franchise
Agreements [Separate/Parallel Track]
On-site Clean-up / Junk Removal Services – Consistent with earlier
discussions, amending the exclusivity exception applicable to remodeling
75
Page 7 of 17
and gardening in the County’s franchises will help facilitate consistent
regulation of hauling by on-site clean-up (junk removal) services under the
new permit system that would be implemented following the adoption of
revisions to Chapter 418-2. The Franchise Agreements will also need to
clarify that hauling performed in conjunction with other clean-up services
(intended to be subject to the permit requirement in Chapter 418-2) fall
under the franchise exclusivity exception applicable to contractors and
landscapers as long as any collection and transport by on-site clean-up
service providers is solely for solid waste they were hired to physically
remove, load, transport and reuse, recycle or dispose.
iii. Referral Process for County Franchises: [Ordinance Implementation]
CCEH proposes to implement an application referral process to facilitate
coordination with County and Non-County Franchising Agencies (discussed
in greater detail in the following section). DCD will act as the recipient
agency for referrals pertaining to the four County Franchises for the purpose
of reviewing Hauler Permit Application referrals in order to provide CCEH
with determination about any applicable conflicts with County Franchises.
b. Avoid issuing permits that conflict with Non-County Franchises
i. Recommended Ordinance Language: County staff provided substantial
comments on the revised Hauler Ordinance with the intent of trying to
ensure that Permits would not be issued if the proposed hauling services
would conflict with exclusive rights granted to a Franchise Hauler.
ii. Permit System Design: County staff also expects to rely quite heavily on
the design of the permit system that would be implemented if the revised
Hauler Ordinance is adopted to further facilitate consistency with existing
Franchise Agreements administered by the County or five other local
agencies (JPA and Special Districts) to govern the collection of waste and
recyclables throughout the unincorporated County.
I. Franchise Agency Referral Process – CCEH will implement a referral
process to facilitate coordination with Franchising Agencies for the
purpose of avoiding issuance of permits which conflict with their
respective franchises. Currently there is no comprehensive centralized
map delineating the exact boundaries of each of the nine
unincorporated area Franchise Service Areas (Exhibit C of this report is
a general map of these Service Areas). For the sake of efficiency and
thoroughness, CCEH plans on referring copies of each application to
all six Franchising Agencies (including DCD for all four County
Franchises as mentioned above). Eventually, staff’s ultimate goal
would be to develop a Geographical Information System (GIS)
electronic mapping layer that precisely depicts each of the Franchise
Service Areas.
II. Permit Applications - CCEH and DCD will work together on
developing the application forms to help ensure that applicants are
76
Page 8 of 17
required to provide the type of information needed to make
determinations regarding potential conflicts with the County’s
Franchises. The complexity of the Franchise related variables involved
necessitate that the Permit Applications will require applicants to
provide a significant level of detail about the hauling services for
which they are seeking a permit.
A. Application forms will require the applicant to clearly identify the
exact boundaries of the territory they are seeking approval to
serve and the type of waste generator (location) they propose to
collect from (e.g. residential, commercial, light industrial, heavy
industrial, or governmental).
B. Applications will also need to identify what waste types they
would like to collect (if not the same for all generator types, they
will have to specify waste types by generator type). C&D
debris/material will distinguished as one of the waste types.
C. Applications will need to identify which types of solid waste are to
be collected in conjunction with on-site clean-up services
(which might involve any type of solid waste) separately from the
types of solid waste that could/would be hauled solely as a
collection service (meaning customers would be removing waste
from their property and loading the containers themselves). The
intent being that Permits issued for waste types which the
County’s Franchisees have been granted the exclusive right to
collect would only authorize collection and transport by on-site
clean-up service providers and solely for waste they were hired to
physically remove, load, transport and dispose/recycle.
III. Franchise Agency Determinations - Upon receipt of a new
application, CCEH will refer a copy of the application package to the
six Franchising Agencies and request they provide a determination
about any proposed hauling services which conflict with their
Franchise within a specified 30-day review period. If no response is
received after the 30-day review period, CCEH will proceed with the
permitting under the presumption that it would not violate their
franchise.
5. Amending Franchises to Possibly Expand Exclusivity in the Future (Separate
from Ordinance Implementation
County franchise hauler representatives (stakeholders) initially raised this issue at
the IOC meeting held in April 2015. These stake holders advocated for amending
three of the four County franchises to provide franchisees with the exclusive
privilege to collect C&D debris, similar to what is provided for in the County’s
Franchise Agreement with RSS. This issue was brought up in workshops that
CCEH hosted for stake holders in May 2015 to discuss revising the ordinance as
well as being discussed at the July 2015 and October 2015 IOC meetings.
77
Page 9 of 17
However, exclusivity privileges in franchise agreements are a stand-alone issue,
different from revising the ordinance and as such warrants its own separate
process.
Since this exclusivity issue was not part of the Board’s referral to the IOC, DCD
staff has identified the need to obtain direction from the Board of Supervisors
prior to moving forward. Although franchise exclusivity was raised as a potential
ordinance issue, it is significant policy issue extending beyond the scope of the
referral with implications unrelated to illegal dumping. The IOC and County staff
have appropriately been focused on ordinance-specific issues. Therefore, this
important matter has yet to be afforded the attention it deserves. Conceptual
support for this idea has been expressed by members of the IOC at their July and
October meeting, however that was in the absence of receiving or reviewing any
analysis or recommendations from staff. Staff is providing some additional
details regarding this policy issue in this report to facilitate more detailed
discussion or referral to the Board of Supervisors, if so desired.
Chapter 418-7: County Code Chapter 418.7 entitled “Franchises for Solid
Waste Collection, Disposal and/or Recycling Service” is the ordinance
applicable to County franchises. Franchises are not governed by Chapter
418-2. As such, in order to expand this exclusivity, staff proposes this issue
be delineated from the proposed Hauler Ordinance and addressed
separately through its own process.
Assessing the Relative Merits of Franchise Exclusivity as Compared to
Alternative Regulatory Approaches (C&D): Waste collection activities are
primarily regulated at the local government level via permits or franchise
agreements. Permits and franchises can be either exclusive or non-exclusive.
Some agencies limit the number of permits that can be issued or franchises
that can be in effect, others impose more extensive permit conditions
(including diversion requirements) or impose on-going fee (somewhat like a
franchise fee). Each of these approaches ha their upsides and their
downsides, so which is the best can be quite subjective as it depends upon
the circumstances and the goals/needs of the agency involved.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors consider the advantages and
disadvantages of various approaches as it provides direction to staff on
potentially negotiating amendments to existing franchises. As explained
previously, only the RSS Franchise provides exclusivity for hauling C&D
debris. This difference was not an unintentional oversight but instead it was
the policy decision made at the time. It is also worth noting that one major
difference the RSS Franchise has from the County’s other three franchise
agreements is that it was drafted and approved roughly two to three years
prior to the others. County staff learned from this initial franchise
negotiation and later implementation of the RSS Franchise, the valuable
experience and ability to adapt and improve future franchise agreements.
One valuable difference was ensuring that the scope of the exclusivity
provision would more closely adhere to the franchise requirement in County
78
Page 10 of 17
Code Chapter 418-7 “Franchises for Solid Waste Collection, Disposal and/or
Recycling Service”. See Table 1 below for a comparison of potential benefits
of various collection system options which is part of a report that was
prepared in 2012 by a consultant hired by the County (complete report
available upon request). Staff has identified some information gathering
tasks in Section IV.A.7 that should yield additional updated data that should
help supplement the consultant’s findings in their report.
79
Page 11 of 17
Table 1. COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF COLLECTION SYSTEM OPTIONS
Collection System
Options
Ability to Generate
Additional Fees
Additional AB 939
Diversion
Opportunities
Impact on Illegal
Dumping (1)
Potential Impact to
Rate Payers
Ease of
Administration
Open-Market Options
Traditional Open-Market Options
Unregulated Open-
Market System
(EXISTING – 2015)
None
D
None
D
May increase relative
to other options if
unregulated "fringe
haulers" illegally dump
collected materials
D
Potential for lowest
rates for some
haulers
A
None
A
Regulated Open-
Market Permit System
With Limited
Permit Requirements
(PROPOSED ORDINANCE)
Can require basic
permit fees
(e.g., set amount and/or fee
per truck)
B
Can require material
be diverted but
difficult to enforce
B
May be reduced
relative to
Unregulated Open-
Market System as a
result of greater
regulatory oversight.
B
Potential for lower
rates relative to
Closed-Market
Options
B
Low
B
Enhanced Regulated Open-Market Options
Regulated Open-Market
Permit System
with Enhanced
Permit Requirements
Can establish and collect
permit fees (based on
tonnage, gross revenues or
other factors)
A
Can require minimum
diversion levels or that
material be delivered
to certified facilities
A
May be reduced
relative to
Unregulated Open-
Market System as a
result of greater
regulatory oversight
B
Rates likely to be
relatively higher than
Open-Market Options
due to Permit
requirements
C
Highest
D
Regulated Open-Market
Non-Exclusive
Franchise with No Limit
on the Number of
Franchised Haulers
Can establish and
collect franchise
fees (based on tonnage, gross
revenues or other factors)
A
Closed-Market Options
Closed-Market with a
Limited Number of Non-
Exclusive Franchised
Haulers
Can establish and
collect franchise
fees
A
Can require minimum
diversion levels or that
material be delivered
to certified facilities
A
May be reduced
relative to Open-
Market Options due to
stricter operating
requirements that may
eliminate "fringe
haulers"
B
Rates likely to be
relatively higher than
Open-Market Options
due to Franchise
requirements
C
Highest
D
Closed-Market with a
Single Exclusive
Hauler
(EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE)
Rates may be
somewhat higher than
Non-Exclusive
Franchise due to lack
of market pressures;
but less so if
competitively bid.
C
High
C
(1) Greater regulatory control would be expected to reduce any illegal dumping by certain "fringe haulers" assuming they no longer operated, but any associated increase in rates may
result in increased illegal dumping by waste generators.
Legend
Most Preferable
Option
A
More Favorable
B
Less Favorable
C
Least Preferable
Option
D
SOURCE: 2012 Consultant Report
80
Page 12 of 17
6. Process Required to Expand Franchise Exclusivity
There is a mandatory noticing period and process that must be completed in
order to authorize the County to proceed with any franchise amendments which
would grant any new or expanded exclusive waste collection privileges. Section
49520 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC), states in part, “If a local
agency has authority, by franchise, contract, license, or permit, a solid waste
enterprise to provide solid waste handling services1 and those services have been
lawfully provided for more than three previous years, the solid waste enterprise
may continue to provide those services up to five years after mailed notification
to the solid waste enterprise by the local agency having jurisdiction…”. This
requirement is often referred to as the “5-Year Rule” and the details are discussed
briefly below.
a. 5-Year Rule – It is County staff’s position that the 5-Year Rule applies to this
issue of amending Franchise Agreements to expand exclusivity to haul C&D
material. If the County wants to implement an exclusive franchise system, or
a non-exclusive franchise system that limits the number of haulers through
permits (i.e. an “approved list”), it must issue the required notices to those
haulers that have lawfully been providing service for more than three years
and then wait five years before implementing said change. Any solid waste
enterprise “lawfully providing” service means that waste hauler is in
substantial compliance with the terms and conditions of its franchise,
contract, license, or permit. The PRC also defines a solid waste "License" as a
license issued by a local agency or a business license issued by a local agency
if the local agency has not established any other form of authorization for the
lawful provision of solid waste handling services.
Technically, only certain hauling services are subject to the permit
requirements of County Chapter 418-2 or the franchise/contract requirements
in Chapter 418-7. Companies that haul C&D material are not obligated to
obtain a franchise or permit pursuant to County Code Chapter 418-7. The
County does not actually issue permits under Chapter 418-2 (existing Hauler
Ordinance) nor has the requirements of that Chapter been actively enforced
by the County since Chapter 418-7 was enacted. Therefore, any waste hauler
who has a business license may be operating lawfully.
b. 3-Year History of Business Licenses for Noticing – DCD staff has obtained
listings of all unincorporated area business licenses issued in the past three
years from the County Tax Collectors Office. The average number of business
licenses issued annually in the past three years is about 3,800 per year with a
total of 11,500 licenses. Staff compiled the three years of data into one
master list to facilitate more efficient analysis and data scrubbing (consolidate
applicable records and purge non-applicable license data) for the purpose of
deriving a more manageable list of enterprises for 5-year noticing purposes.
1 The PRC defines Solid waste as “…all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes, including
garbage, trash, refuse, paper, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned
vehicles and parts thereof, discarded home and industrial appliances, manure, vegetable or animal solid or
semisolid wastes, and other discarded solid and semisolid waste.”
81
Page 13 of 17
Only business that have had valid business licenses for the entire 3 year
period need be included, however the list can be further reduced by
removing businesses known not provide waste hauling services, such as
banks or retail stores At the time this staff report was prepared, this data
scrubbing effort was underway but a fair amount of work was still needed to
eliminate more of the non-applicable businesses from the consolidated
master list. Staff will continue working on this in anticipation that the IOC and
Board may wish to proceed with issuance of 5-year notice to maximize the
County’s decision making flexibility for the future.
c. Starting the clock – In order to initiate the start of the 5-year Rule clock,
notices must be mailed to those businesses that have been lawfully providing
waste hauling services for at least three years. The IOC may wish to
recommend to the Board that they direct staff to move forward with the 5-
year notices. There is no significant risk for doing so as it would not obligate
the County to take any specific action in the future. However, it would provide
the County with added flexibility in the future and the intervening period can
be used to gather additional information as well as further study potential
benefits and consequences of various approaches to amending the County’s
Franchise Agreements to expand exclusivity. Upon providing such notice,
PRC § 49521 specifies that businesses providing “continuation” solid waste
handling services during the 5-year period are subject to two conditions
involving (1) meeting the quality and frequency of services required by the
local agency in other areas not served by said business, and (2) if required by
the local agency, adhere to rates that are comparable to those established by
the local agency.
7. Additional suggested considerations to inform future decision making
about expanding exclusivity
Even if the County was prepared to move forward with amending these
franchises to expand exclusivity, we are legally precluded from enacting such
amendments during the 5-Year period following issuance of the required notice.
However, the County would regulate the collection of C&D through a permit
system if the Board approves the proposed revisions to Chapter 418-2 of the
County Ordinance.
Staff suggests there is a need for additional information gathering and analysis
which should be undertaken during the 5-Year Notice period to aid the County in
in any franchise exclusivity expansion decision making process and/or
negotiations. Additionally, during that period additional information may
become available such as the below which should also be considered:
New or changed laws and industry norms/trends closer to when the
exclusivity could actually take effect.
Evaluate the degree to which the implementation of the Hauler Permit
system is effective means of regulating collection of this specialized waste
stream.
82
Page 14 of 17
B. Enforcement: The IOC expressed the preference to address enforcement aspects of
the ordinance on a separate and parallel track and directed staff to gather
information from law enforcement countywide to see if enforcement costs could be
estimated.
1. Funding – Funding source(s) needs to be identified in order for the County to
dedicate anything beyond the current level of resources to the types of
enforcement discussed at prior IOC meetings.
a. Commitments from Franchisees: The IOC asked for a commitment from the
County Franchisees to contribute amounts sufficient to fund enforcement of
the ordinance countywide. A representative from the County’s franchise
hauler that serves most of East County has offered to fund one-third of a
Community Services Officer (CSO). Of the total estimated revenue that
franchise haulers collect annually from the ratepayers in all four of the
County’s Franchise Areas, this East County area accounts for roughly 45%.
b. Funding Enforcement by Raising Garbage Rates: The IOC asked staff to
report back about the feasibility of raising garbage rates to help fund
enforcement. Staff consulted with County Counsel’s Office and was advised
that the County cannot legal raise garbage rates to fund the desired
enforcement.
2. State Regulations/Laws Prohibit Unmarked Debris Boxes (CCR 17301-
17345)
As the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) for solid waste, Contra Costa
Environmental Health can enforce the State solid waste standards, including
those provisions in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR)
throughout the unincorporated County area. Unlike the County’s authority to
regulate waste collection under Chapter 418-2, any ordinances pertaining to
waste collection adopted by local non-County franchise agencies cannot
preempt the LEA’s authority to enforce the state’s requirements in CCR Title 14.
CCEH staff is not proposing to include requirements in Chapter 418-2 if there is
already something similar in State laws or regulations that are already within the
enforcement purview of a County department. There are a number of
requirements and standards applicable to refuse hauling vehicles and containers
contained in CCR Sections 17301-17345 (with the exception a permit
requirement). Several CCR Sections already address two concerns that the
County’s franchise haulers have advocated that the County take on by
expanding the scope of this ordinance, namely unmarked debris boxes and
unmarked refuse hauling vehicles.
CCR Section 17316 requires containers of one cubic yard or more to be
identified with the name and telephone number of the applicable service
provider (container owner). CCEH has begun an information outreach effort to
inform refuse haulers, contractors and building departments for the County and
18 cities (CCEH is not the LEA for the City of Pittsburg) of these requirements
and advise that they can refer complaints about possible violations (unmarked
83
Page 15 of 17
boxes/containers) to the LEA for investigation. If a violation is verified, the LEA
will give official notice requiring the responsible party to correct the violation.
CCEH believes that proactive enforcement of CCR Title 14 container marking
requirements can adequately address franchise hauler concerns about unmarked
debris boxes. If such efforts prove to be unsuccessful, the Board of Supervisors
may wish to consider adding debris box (container) marking or decal
requirements to Chapter 418-2.
3. Building Inspection – DCD’s Application and Permit Center staff will assist
efforts by helping collect and make available (upon request) hauler information
that is collected during the Building Permit process. The hauler information
collected on these forms may also prove to be helpful to CCEH when they
investigate complaints or allegations. Building Inspection staff will also help
watch out for and report any debris boxes they observed which do not identify
the name and telephone number of the container owner.
a. CalGreen: DCD is prepared to move forward with modifying our CalGreen
Debris Recovery Plan and Report forms to require identification of the name
of the person or company responsible for hauling debris from the applicable
jobsite.
i. The State Building Code (including CalGreen) is updated every three
years. Following the release of each updated State Building Code in
approximately June or July, the County prepares any proposed local
amendments to present in conjunction with the updated State Code for
potential adoption by the Board of Supervisors between July –
December.
ii. Later this year, the County will have the opportunity to develop
proposed amendments to the updated version of CalGreen which will
be presented for recommended adoption before the end of December
2016. Staff can include any recommended changes that may be
deemed necessary to start requiring identification of the responsible
hauling entity on CalGreen compliance forms.
b. Penalty for Violating CalGreen: At the October 12, 2015 IOC meeting, a
Franchisee representative spoke in support of having the County start
levying fines if Permittees failed to provide evidence of proper disposal of
C&D debris at the time they requested their certificate of occupancy (Final
Inspection) from the Building Inspection Division. The County does not have
authority to impose fines on persons violating the debris recovery
requirements in CalGreen. Persons found to be out of compliance with
CalGreen debris recovery requirements are denied the ability to receive their
Final Inspection for that project.
Cities have the ability to require deposits at the time building permit
applications are submitted, which are only released after construction has
been completed and the report and receipt documentation is submitted
demonstrating compliance. This has been an incredibly effective and
efficient compliance incentive that is far superior to levying fines. Although
84
Page 16 of 17
the California Government Code expressly provides cities with the right to
require forfeiture of deposits for ordinance violations, the same is specified
for counties. In most cases the highest fine that the County can impose for
most first time code violations is $100. This maximum fine amount is
dictated by State law and has remained the same for over a decade. Even 10
years ago that amount was too low to serve as a disincentive for violating
County Code. However, a decade later the cost of living and more
importantly disposal/recycling costs have increased significantly quite
dramatically. DCD staff identified this as an area of concern and there has
been a SUPPORT position addressing this exact need in the County’s State
Legislative Platform since at least 2007.
c. Role of Building Inspectors tied to Debris Box Decal Requirement: If efforts
to enforce the container marking requirements in Title 14 prove to be
inadequate or insufficient that Chapter 418-2 were to be revised in the future
to require County issued decals for debris boxes/containers, Building
Inspectors could alert Environmental Health if they observe Debris Boxes
without decals when visiting jobsites to conduct inspections.
4. Law Enforcement –
a. Source separated recyclables - Recyclables belong to the generator until
they are given/donated to another party or placed out for collection.
i. City of Concord – The City’s Franchise Agreement requires that their
Franchise Hauler (Concord Disposal Service owned by Garaventa
Enterprises) fund one-half of the cost of a full-time CSO (which is a non-
sword officer that works for their Police Department). This is the only
local model staff is aware of where law enforcement has an ongoing
active role in helping address theft of recyclables. However Concord’s
CSO apparently focus enforcement efforts on combating poaching of
recyclables from commercial customers.
ii. Poaching (Theft) of Recyclables Prohibited by Multiple Existing
State Laws and Regulations - Imposing new Ordinance requirements
at the local level is unnecessary and duplicative because there are
already State laws and regulations in place which prohibit poaching
(theft) of recyclables placed out for collection by the Franchise Haulers.
A. Recyclable Theft and Penalty Options - PRC: The franchisees have
expressed concerns about the theft (poaching) of recyclable
materials, primarily from commercial customers, along their routes.
State law includes additional more stringent provisions which can
be found in the California Public Resources Code (PRC) but which is
not enforced by CCEH, as the LEA. Violations of these PRC Sections
involving the theft of recyclables are subject to criminal
enforcement (if not handled as a civil matter) by applicable
enforcement authorities (e.g. local law enforcement). . Sections
41950 and 41951 include language specifying that residential and
85
Page 17 of 17
commercial recyclables become the property of the collection
service operator as soon as they are placed out on the curb (or
other designated pick-up location) for collection. These sections
also expressly prohibit persons from removing residential or
commercial recyclables placed out for collection. PRC Section
41955 allows the theft of recyclables valued between $50 and $950
to be charged as either a misdemeanor or an infraction, unless it is
a second or subsequent violation which must then be charged as a
misdemeanor punishable pursuant to Section 19 of the Penal Code.
Additionally, PRC Section 41953 specifies the maximum civil penalty
amounts that courts are allowed to award in response to civil
actions brought by the designated recycler; the amount allowed for
the first violation ($2,000) is less than half of the amount allowed
for subsequent violations within any 12-month period ($5,000).
Alternatively, courts may award treble damages instead if greater
than applicable civil penalty limits.
B. Report Fraudulent Activities to the State: CalRecycle’s Division of
Recycling is responsible for the California Refund Value (CRV)
recycling program. The State provides assistance and resources in
order to increase recovery and recycling of CRV beverage containers.
CalRecycle’s website lists self-haul type trucks being used to deliver
beverage containers to a recycling center as one of the potentially
fraudulent activities that should be reported to the Division of
Recycling’s toll-free tip hotline at 1-866-CANLOAD (1-866-226-5623).
The Division of Recycling provides recyclers and processors with a free
copy of this fraud reporting sign. By posting this sign at their places of
business, recyclers and processors can help discourage fraudulent
recycling activities. A Printable sign is posted on their website as is a
link to request a printed fraud sign.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Revised County Code Chapter 418.2 – Hauler Ordinance
Exhibit B: County Counsel Memorandum – February 23, 2016
Exhibit C: Map of Unincorporated Franchise Areas
G:\Conservation\David\Hauler Ordinance\February 2016 IOC Meeting\Joint Staff Report to IOC_2-29-
2016_CLEAN.docx
86
ORDINANCE NO. 2016-____
(Solid Waste Collection and Transportation)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows:
SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance amends Chapter 418-2 of the County
Ordinance Code to establish permit requirements for the collection and transportation of solid
waste in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County.
SECTION II. AUTHORITY. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to Article 11, section 7 of
the California Constitution, Public Resources Code section 40059 and Vehicle Code section
21100.
SECTION III. Chapter 418-2 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read:
Chapter 418-2 Solid Waste Collection and Transportation
418-2.002 Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases have the following meanings:
(a) “Solid waste” means all solid waste as defined in Public Resources Code section 40191
as may be amended from time to time.
(b) “Solid waste facility” means a solid waste facility as defined in Public Resources Code
section 40194 as may be amended from time to time. (Ords. 2016-___ § 3, 82-42 § 1: prior code
§ 4500: Ord. 1443.)
418-2.004 Permit requirement.
No person shall collect solid waste from any location in the unincorporated area and transport
it over the public streets or highways of the unincorporated area except under a valid permit
issued under this chapter, unless an exemption applies. (Ord. 2016-___ § 3; prior code § 4501:
Ord. 1443.)
418-2.006 Territorial limits; solid waste types.
(a) A permit issued under this chapter authorizes the permittee to collect specified types of
solid waste within a specified territory in the unincorporated area and to transport it over the
public streets and highways of the unincorporated area.
(b) A person may obtain a permit under this chapter to collect solid waste from territory in
the unincorporated area only to the extent that another person does not have an exclusive
privilege or right to collect that solid waste from that territory under a valid franchise agreement.
(Ord. 2016-___ § 3; prior code § 4502: Ord. 1443.)
418-2.008 Exemptions.
The requirement to obtain a permit under Section 418-2.004 does not apply to any of the
following:
(a) The collection and transport of solid waste by the owner or occupant of the real property
where the solid waste was generated.
EXHIBIT A
87
(b) The collection and transport of solid waste that is generated on real property in the course
of a service provided to the owner or tenant of that property by a building contractor or
landscape contractor, if the solid waste is collected and transported by the contractor.
(c) The collection and transport of solid waste under a valid federal, state or other local
agency permit.
(d) The collection and transport of solid waste under a valid franchise agreement.
(e) The collection and transport of solid waste that is generated in a mechanized
manufacturing process or at a publicly operated treatment works.
(f) The collection and transport of source-separated recyclable material. (Ords. 2016-___
§ 3, 91-26 § 2: prior code § 4503: Ord. 1443.)
418-2.010 Application.
(a) A person may apply for a solid waste collection and transportation permit by submitting
an application to the Contra Costa County Health Services Department, Environmental Health
Division, and paying an application fee established by the board by resolution. The application
must be made using a form approved by the health officer and include all of the following:
(1) The full name, address and telephone number(s) of the applicant.
(2) Identification of all vehicles proposed to be used in the collection and transport of
solid waste under the permit, including legible copies of valid California registration cards for
each vehicle.
(3) Documents showing that all individuals who will operate any of the vehicles
described in Section 418-2.010(a)(2) have legal authority to operate those vehicles, including
legible copies of valid California driver’s licenses.
(4) Identification of the types of solid waste to be collected and transported.
(5) Identification of the types of locations where solid waste will be collected.
(6) Identification of the specific territory to be served.
(7) Identification of the locations to which the solid waste will be transported.
(8) A description of any services to be provided to a customer related to the collection
and transport of solid waste for that customer.
(b) A copy of the application will be provided by the health officer to the director of the
department of conservation and development for review to determine whether any other person
has obtained an exclusive right or privilege from the county to collect and transport the same
type of solid waste described in Section 418-2.010(a)(4) from the same territory described in
Section 418-2.010(a)(6). The review will be conducted and completed no later than 30 calendar
days following the date that the application is submitted.
(c) A copy of the application will be provided by the health officer to local public agencies
that have jurisdiction over solid waste handling within the territory described in Section 418-
2.010(a)(6), including sanitary districts and community services districts, for review to determine
whether any other person has obtained an exclusive right or privilege from the agency to collect
and transport the same type of solid waste described in Section 418-2.010(a)(4) from the same
territory described in Section 418-2.010(a)(6). (Ords. 2016-___ § 3, 91-26 § 3, 82-42 § 2: prior
code § 4504: Ord. 1443.)
418-2.012 Vehicle inspections.
(a) All vehicles proposed to be used for collection and transport of solid waste under a
permit issued under this chapter shall be made available for inspection by the health officer.
88
(b) Before a new or renewed permit is issued under this chapter, the health officer shall
inspect all vehicles proposed to be used for collection and transport of solid waste under the
permit to determine compliance with the following minimum standards:
(1) The vehicle must be designed, constructed and configured for safe handling and to
securely contain the type of solid waste proposed to be collected; and
(2) The vehicle must be prominently marked with the name and telephone number of the
applicant. (Ord. 2016-___, § 3.)
418-2.014 Permit issuance; grounds for denial.
(a) After receipt of an application and payment of a permit fee established by the board by
resolution, and following the review by the director of the department of conservation and
development under Section 418-2.010(b), the health officer shall issue a solid waste collection
and transportation permit unless any of the following grounds for denial exists:
(1) The director of the department of conservation and development or a local public
agency identified in Section 418-2.010(c) advises the health officer that another person has an
exclusive right or privilege to collect and transport the same type of solid waste described in
Section 418-2.010(a)(4) from the same territory described in Section 418-2.010(a)(6).
(2) The application is incomplete or inaccurate.
(3) A permit issued to the applicant under this Section 418-2.012 has been revoked
within 12 months prior to the date of the application.
(4) The applicant has failed to pay an outstanding fine.
(5) The health officer determines that a vehicle proposed to be used in the collection and
transport of solid waste under the permit does not conform to the minimum standards set forth in
Section 418-2.012(b)(2).
(b) The health officer shall provide written notice to the applicant of any denial of a permit
under this chapter and the reasons for the denial. (Ord. 2016-___, § 3.)
418-2.016 Conditions.
The following requirements are conditions of operation under a permit issued under this
chapter:
(a) The permittee must comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
(b) A copy of the permit must be kept in each vehicle used for solid waste collection and
transportation under the permit and produced immediately in response to a demand of the health
officer or any peace officer.
(c) All solid waste must be transported only to:
(1) A solid waste facility that is lawfully operated under all required state and local
permits, registrations and enforcement agency notifications; or
(2) A recycling facility that, as its principal function, receives wastes that have already
been separated for reuse and are not intended for disposal, and is lawfully operated in accordance
with all applicable laws and regulations.
(d) Each vehicle used for solid waste collection or transportation under the permit must
prominently display, on the rear of the vehicle, a permit decal issued by the health officer.
(e) Each vehicle used for solid waste collection or transportation under the permit must be
marked with the name and telephone number of the permittee. Markings must be in sharp
contrast to the background and of such size as to be readily visible during daylight hours from a
distance of 50 feet. Markings must be applied to each sidewall of a vehicle.
89
(f) Each vehicle used for solid waste collection or transportation under the permit must be
regularly cleaned and maintained to prevent the creation of a nuisance.
(g) The permittee must maintain, on a rolling basis, original records showing, for the
immediately preceding 12 months, the type and weight of all solid waste collected, the location
where each load of solid waste was collected, and the disposal site or other final destination of
each load collected. Copies of these records must be submitted to the health officer upon
request.
(h) The permittee must submit quarterly reports to the health officer showing the type and
weight of solid waste collected, the location where solid waste was collected, and the disposal
site or other final destination of each load collected. (Ord. 2016-___, § 3.)
418-2.018 Bond.
A permittee must file with the county and maintain until permit expiration a performance
bond or equivalent security of the type and in the amount set by the board by resolution. (Ord.
2016-___, § 3.)
418-2.020 Permit expiration and renewal.
(a) A permit issued under this chapter remains valid until the permit expires or is revoked
under Section 418-2.022.
(b) A permit expires on the last day of February unless it is renewed prior to expiration. A
permittee may apply for renewal of the permit by submitting an application that conforms to the
requirements set forth in Section 418-2.010 and payment of a permit fee established by the board
by resolution. (Ord. 2016-___, § 3.)
418-2.022 Revocation.
(a) Grounds. A permit issued under Section 418-2.012 may be revoked by the health officer
in accordance with the procedure set forth in this section if the health officer determines that (1)
the permittee has failed to comply with a term or condition of operation under the permit
following written notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure the violation; or (2) the permittee’s
conduct under the permit constitutes a nuisance.
(b) Notice. The health officer will provide written notice of intent to revoke a permit to the
permittee at the address provided on the permittee’s application. The notice will state all
applicable grounds for the revocation and the permittee’s right to a hearing under this section.
(c) Hearing. Within 15 days after the date of the notice of intent to revoke, the permittee
may request a hearing before the health officer by completing and submitting a written hearing
request form and paying a fee established by the board by resolution. The hearing will be held
no sooner than 20 days and no later than 45 days following the date of the written request for
hearing.
(d) Effective date. If no hearing is timely requested, the revocation is effective 15 days after
the date of the notice of intent to revoke. If a hearing is held, a revocation order issued by the
health officer will be effective when the time to appeal under Chapter 14-4 expires, unless an
appeal to the board is timely filed under Chapter 14-4. (Ord. 2016-___, § 3.)
418-2.024 Prohibition.
No person shall engage the service of a person for compensation to collect solid waste from
any location in the unincorporated area and transport it over a public street or highway in the
90
unincorporated area unless the person whose service is engaged has obtained and operates in
compliance with a permit issued under this chapter or is exempt from the permit requirement.
(Ord. 2016-___, § 3.)
418-2.026 Investigations.
Whenever it is necessary to inspect a vehicle or other property to enforce the provisions of
this chapter, or whenever the health officer has cause to believe that there exists on any property
any violation of this chapter, the health officer may enter the property to inspect and gather
evidence or perform the duties imposed on the health officer by this chapter. Entry may be made
at any reasonable time upon advance notice to the owner or occupant of the property. If entry is
refused, the health officer is authorized to proceed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
1822.50 and following, as may be amended from time to time, and any and all other remedies
provided by law to secure entry. (Ord. 2016-____, § 3.)
418-2.028 Construction.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed in a manner that conflicts with Vehicle Code
section 21100, subdivision (b), as may be amended from time to time. (Ord. 2016-____, § 3.)
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after
passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published in the Contra Costa Times, a
newspaper published in this County. This ordinance shall be published in a manner satisfying
the requirements of Government Code section 25124, with the names of the supervisors voting
for and against it.
PASSED on __________________, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
By: ____________________________
Deputy Board Chair
[seal]
H:\Ordinances\WasteHaulerOrdinance.Rev.2.22.16.docx
91
EXHIBIT B
92
93
94
95
96
Clyde
5
2
3
Contra Costa County
Alameda County
SolanoCounty
San FranciscoCounty
SacramentoCounty
San Mateo County
San JoaquinCounty
Alamo
Rodeo Bay Point
Discovery Bay
Byron
Crockett
Knightsen
Bethel Island
Blackhawk
El Sobrante
Diablo
Kensington
Pacheco
Port Costa
E. Richmond Heights
Richmond
AntiochConcord
Oakley
Hercules
Danville
Pittsburg
Orinda
Pinole
San Ramon
Lafayette
Martinez
Brentwood
Moraga
Walnut Creek
Pleasant Hill ClaytonEl Cerrito
San Pablo
3
5
2
1
4
£¤101
}þ4
}þ160
}þ13
}þ242
}þ12
}þ84§¨¦580
§¨¦680
§¨¦880
§¨¦780
§¨¦205
§¨¦238
§¨¦980
§¨¦580
567J4
This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and
Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some
base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's
tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for
its accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be
reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and
accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.I 0 5 102.5
Miles
Supervisorial Districts
County Administered Franchises
Allied (16,834 pop.)
Crockett Sanitary (3,322 pop.)
Garaventa (34,643 pop.)
RSS (35,070 pop.)
Non - County Franchises
CCCSWA County (49,999 pop.)
Kensington CSD (5,077 pop.)
Byron Sanitary (756 pop.)
Mt View Sanitary (21,192 pop.)
Rodeo Sanitary (7,730 pop.)
Contra Costa CountyCollection Franchise Area Map (Draft)
Map Created 2/23/2016
by Contra Costa County Department of
Conservation and Development, GIS Group
30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553
37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756W* Population numbers from 2010 Census Data *
EXHIBIT C
97
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE - SPECIAL 7.
Meeting Date:02/29/2016
Subject:Community Choice Energy Aggregation Update
Submitted For: John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: IOC 16/11
Referral Name: Community Choice Energy Aggregation
Presenter: Jason Crapo, Conservation & Development Department Contact: Jason Crapo (925) 674-7722
Referral History:
The Board of Supervisors referred the topic of Community Choice Energy (CCE) to the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) on August 18, 2015.
The IOC received an initial report on this topic at its meeting on September 14, 2015, at which time the IOC recommended that the Board of Supervisors (Board) direct the Department
of Conservation and Development (DCD) to initiate outreach to cities within Contra Costa County to determine the level of interest cities have in partnering with the County to
investigate three potential alternatives for implementing CCE in Contra Costa County. These three alternatives are as follows:
Form a new Joint Powers Authority (JPA) of the County and interested cities within Contra Costa County for the purpose of CCE;1.
Form a new JPA in partnership with Alameda County, and interested cities in both counties; and2.
Join the existing CCE program initiated in Marin County known as Marin Clean Energy, or MCE3.
On October 13, 2015, the Board accepted the recommendations of the IOC and directed DCD to initiate outreach to cities within Contra Costa County to determine the level of interest
cities have in joining with the County to investigate these three alternatives. The Board also authorized DCD to hire a consultant to assist the County with this outreach effort. The
Board directed DCD to report back to the IOC regarding the outcome of outreach to cities.
Referral Update:
This report will describe the outreach activities undertaken by County staff, discuss the responses the County has received from cities to these outreach efforts, and recommend next
steps.
In summary, based on the interest expressed by cities in working with the County to further investigate options for potentially implementing CCE within the County, staff recommends
the IOC and the Board direct staff to continue working with Contra Costa cities towards completion of a technical study that would evaluate options for potentially implementing CCE
in Contra Costa County.
Outreach Activities
Between November 2015 and January 2016, County staff conducted a variety of outreach activities to engage cities on the topic of Community Choice Energy (CCE). These activities
included meetings with City Managers and other city staff, attendance at the December 3, 2015 Mayors Conference, three public workshops in mid-December held in different regions
of the County, and presentations provided by County staff and consultants at five City Council meetings during the month of January.
On November 13, 2015, the County Administrator sent a letter (Attachment A) to all City Managers in Contra Costa County asking for responses back from cities by January 31, 2016
indicating the level of interest cities have in partnering with the County to study CCE. This letter specifically asked if cities would authorize the County to obtain electrical load data
from PG&E for the purpose of potentially conducting a technical study of CCE in Contra Costa County, and if the cities would be willing to contribute financially towards the cost of
such a study if one were conducted.
To facilitate greater public understanding of CCE and assist cities in their deliberations on the subject, DCD staff and consultants hosted three public workshops in December 2015: the
first on December 10 at Walnut Creek City Hall, the second on December 14 at the Hercules Public Library and the third on December 16 at the Brentwood Community Center.
Average attendance at these workshops was approximately 20 people, and several cities sent representatives to attend the workshops.
During the month of January 2016, many City Councils throughout the County placed items on their agendas to discuss their interest in partnering with the County to further study
implementation of CCE. County staff and consultants were invited to attend and make presentations at the Concord, Clayton, Pinole, Lafayette and Brentwood City Council meetings.
The workshops and city council meetings held in December and January generated several press articles, which can be viewed at the following links:
East Bay Express: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2015/10/12/contra-costa-considers-replacing-pgande-with-green-power-program (10/12/15)
Contra Costa Times: http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_29360872/contra-costa-county-alternative-energy-idea-gathering-city (1/8/16)
The Press: http://www.thepress.net/news/brentwood/contra-costa-county-considers-joining-a-community-choice-aggregation-system/article_50f79566-7e65-11e5-8ab8-2badb324eed0.html (10/29/15)
Yodeler (Sierra Club): http://theyodeler.org/?p=11203 (1/28/16)
East Bay Express: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2016/01/29/coco-county-moves-closer-to-green-energy-plan-that-would-replace-pgande ((1/29/16)
MarinIJ: http://www.marinij.com/environment-and-nature/20160216/marin-clean-energy-on-brink-of-growth-as-contra-costa-eyes-effort?source=most_viewed (2/16/16)
The Press: http://www.thepress.net/news/oakley-council-takes-steps-toward-clean-energy/article_314697c6-d671-11e5-badf-5f71a1ae9678.html (2/18/16)
Responses from Cities
By the end of January, all 16 cities in Contra Costa County not currently enrolled in a CCE program (Richmond, El Cerrito and San Pablo are currently enrolled in Marin Clean Energy)
provided written responses to the County (Attachment B) authorizing the County to request electrical load data from PG&E necessary for a technical study of CCE in Contra Costa
County. Approximately half of these cities indicated varying degrees of willingness to participate in the cost of a technical study of this data, should such a study proceed. These
responses are summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1. City Responses to County
City Load Data Authorization Cost Sharing for Tech Study
Antioch Yes No indication
Brentwood Yes Yes, not to exceed $30,000
Clayton Yes Yes, pending more details
Concord Yes Yes, not to exceed $25,000
Danville Yes Yes, not to exceed $18,000
Hercules Yes No indication
Lafayette Yes No indication
Martinez Yes No indication
Moraga Yes No indication
Oakley Yes No indication
Orinda Yes Need more information 98
Orinda Yes Need more information
Pinole Yes Need more information
Pittsburg Yes Yes, pending more details
Pleasant Hill Yes Yes, not to exceed $15,000
San Ramon Yes Maybe, pending more details
Walnut Creek Yes Yes, not to exceed $20,000
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Given the interest of Contra Costa cities in participating with the County to further investigate potential implementation of Community Choice Energy, staff recommends the Board
direct DCD to continue with the steps required to undertake a technical study of CCE in Contra Costa County.
The immediate next step in this process would be for the County to obtain electrical load data from PG&E on behalf of the County and the 16 cities that have authorized the County to do
so. This will provide the County with detailed information regarding electrical usage within the covered jurisdictions, and will constitute the raw data necessary to conduct a technical
study of potential CCE implementation within the County.
Staff recommends that the Board direct DCD to work in partnership with interested cities to jointly fund a technical study of CCE in Contra Costa County that would evaluate three
options: a program including only interested jurisdictions within Contra Costa County; a program that is a partnership with Alameda County and interested jurisdictions in the
two-county region; and joining the existing CCE program originated in Marin County known as Marin Clean Energy.
Such a technical study would be conducted by a qualified consultant selected through a competitive process. The technical study would evaluate electrical load data to determine the
amount of electricity a CCE program would need to procure in order to serve electricity consumers in the participating communities, and would estimate the billing rates that a CCE
program would need to charge electricity customers in order to pay for program operations.
The study would analyze how rates might vary under scenarios in which the CCE program offered customers different levels of electricity originating from renewable sources (for
example, rates associate with 50% renewable or 100% renewable options). Electricity rates for these scenarios would be compared to products offered by the incumbent utility, PG&E
(Attachment C). The technical study would also include a risk analysis of factors that could potentially interfere with successful operation of a CCE program within the County, such as
risks associated with price volatility in energy markets and risks stemming from legal or regulatory changes. CCE technical studies performed in other Bay Area counties have included
additional components, including analysis of the impact a CCE program might have on local renewable power generation and local job creation.
As stated in Table 1 above, roughly half of the cities in Contra Costa County have indicated some degree of willingness to contribute financially towards the cost of a technical study.
Staff recommends that the Board direct DCD to work with cities to finalize payment arrangement and initiate the technical study. Staff recommends that the County and each
participating city pay for a portion of the cost of the technical study similar to its proportion of the total population covered under the study.
Staff proposes that DCD work with the cities to finalize the scope of the technical study, develop and issue a Request for Proposals (RFP), and select a consultant to perform the
technical study. The County would then enter into a contract with the selected consultant. The results of the technical study would be reported to the cities and the Board of Supervisors,
and staff would seek further direction.
Project Schedule and Budget
Completing a technical study of Community Choice Energy would represent the first major phase of activity related to potential implementation of CCE within Contra Costa County.
Following a technical study, additional steps would be required to launch a CCE program, should the Board decide to proceed with implementation.
An estimated schedule and budget for fully implementing CCE within the County is attached to this report (Attachment D). The time and expense associated with implementing CCE
within the County depends heavily on the outcome of the technical study and the resulting direction selected by the Board and participating cities.
The CCE option likely to require the greatest commitment of time and resources would be the option to form a new JPA comprised of the County and cities within Contra Costa
County. Following the technical study, such an option would involve two additional phases of activity: JPA Formation and Program Launch. The activities associated with these
additional project phases and the estimated time and expense to complete these activities are described in greater detail in Attachment D. Staff estimates the total time needed to
implement the Contra Costa JPA option and begin providing electricity to customers would be in the range of two to three years and would cost approximately $2 million.
Recommendation(s)
Staff recommends the IOC and Board of Supervisors direct DCD and other County staff to take the following actions:
Take all actions necessary to obtain electrical load data from PG&E on behalf of the County and all cities in Contra Costa County that have authorized the County to do so.1.
Work with interested cities in Contra Costa County to conduct a technical study of options for potentially implementing CCE within Contra Costa County, anticipating the
County’s share of cost is estimated to be in the range of $25,000 to $50,000.
2.
Authorize DCD to amend the consulting services contract with LEAN Energy to increase the payment by $75,000 to a new payment limit of $100,000 for consulting services
through completion of the technical study.
3.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
Should the IOC and the Board approve the recommendations of this report, the cost to the County would be approximately $300,000. This includes an estimated $125,000 in consulting
services and $175,000 in County staff costs to manage the project. Staff recommends that these consulting and staffing costs be funded from the County’s General Fund.
These costs would include an amendment to the County’s current consulting services contract with LEAN Energy to increase the contract limit by $75,000 to assist DCD with obtaining
electrical load data from PG&E, refining the scope of the technical study and developing the RFP, evaluating proposals from consultants for conducting the technical study, interpreting
the results of the technical study and reporting the findings of the technical study to cities, the IOC and the Board of Supervisors. LEAN Energy will also assist County staff is
conducting a variety of community outreach activities to provide information and education to the public and to gather public input to assist decision makers in evaluating the results of
the technical study.
The costs of the actions recommended by this report also include the County’s share of cost for conducting the technical study. The total cost of the technical study is estimated to be in
the range of $75,000 to $150,000. The County’s share of this cost is estimated to be in the range of $25,000 to $50,000.
Costs of the actions recommended in this report also include the cost of DCD staff time until the end of 2016 at a cost of approximately $150,000 plus the cost of County Counsel staff
time, estimated to be $25,000 during 2016.
The County would seek to have its costs reimbursed in the future from the revenues of a new CCE program should a new JPA be created for this purpose. If a new JPA is not established,
the County’s costs are unlikely to be reimbursed.
Attachments
Attachment A: CAO Letter to CC Cities
Attachment B: City Responses to CAO Letter
Attachment C: PG&E's New Solar Choice Offering
Attachment D: Proposed CCE Tech Study Schedule and Budget
Attachment E: CCE Powerpoint Presentation
99
Attachment ASAMPLE100
SAMPLE101
SAMPLE102
Attachment B
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
中文 Search
Solar Choice | Residential | PG&E http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/solar/choice/index.page
1 of 2 2/23/2016 3:20 PM
124
中文 Search
Frequently Asked Questions | Solar Choice | Residential | PG&E http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/solar/choice/faq/inde...
1 of 2 2/23/2016 3:21 PM
125
Frequently Asked Questions | Solar Choice | Residential | PG&E http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/solar/choice/faq/inde...
2 of 2 2/23/2016 3:21 PM
126
Community Choice Energy
Estimated Schedule and Budget*
*Note: Time and cost estimates for Phases 2 and 3 are based forming a Contra Costa JPA
and are subject to change if another CCE option is selected for implementation
Phase 1 – Technical Study
Schedule Summary: 10 months (time remaining to completion)
Budget Summary: $300,000
Schedule Detail: 10 months to completion
Outreach to Cities (November ‘15 – January ‘16)
PG&E Data Request (March – to May ’16)
Convene Cities and Scope Tech Study (March – May ’16)
Develop Web Site, Increase Stakeholder Engagement (March – ongoing)
Tech Study RFP and Consultant Selection (June – August ’16)
Complete Tech Study (September – October’16)
Report Findings and Receive Direction (November – December ’16)
Budget Detail:
LEAN Energy: $75,000
Technical Study: $50,000 (County Share of $150,000 estimated total cost)
County Staff: $175,000
Phase 2 – JPA Formation or Inclusion
Schedule Summary: 8 – 12 months
Budget Summary: $750,000 – $1 million
Schedule Detail:
If joining MCE, costs and schedule to be negotiated with MCE, but costs expected to be
considerably lower and schedule to program launch shorter that with other options.
If creating new JPA with Alameda County, costs will be negotiated and shared. Schedule
unknown.
If creating a new Contra Costa JPA, tasks will include the following:
JPA legal documents and Approvals
Finalize Program Design
Adopt Local Ordinances
Submit Implementation Plan to CPUC
Attachment D
127
Initiate bidding for electricity procurement
Secure source of operating capital/credit
Community Outreach and Engagement
Budget Detail:
Phase 2 costs will depend heavily on the CCE option selected from Technical Study, but
if the option of creating a Contra Costa JPA is selected, costs for Phase 2 would likely be
$750,000 or greater. These costs would include consulting services for assistance with
regulatory compliance, energy procurement and community outreach activities, plus
County staff time in DCD and County Counsel.
Phase 3 – Program Launch
Schedule Summary: 8 – 12 months
Budget Summary: $500,000 – $1 million
Schedule Detail:
Schedule for program launch will depend on CCE option selected from Technical Study
A new Contra Costa JPA will require the most time and expense
Phase 3 tasks associated with a new Contra Costa JPA would include:
Hire JPA staff and securing office space
Energy Procurement
Comply with CPUC Regulatory Requirements
Increase marketing and public engagement,
Secure working capital/credit
Budget Detail:
Phase 3 costs are difficult to estimate but could be in the range of $500,000 to $1 million
if a new Contra Costa JPA is formed. Such costs would include JPA staffing and
facilities, and consulting services for assistance with regulatory compliance, energy
procurement and marketing activities. Funding during this phase could come from
sponsoring jurisdictions, or from third-party sources, such as banks and other financial
institutions. Following JPA formation, a transition would occur whereby the new agency
would become responsible for program costs.
128
Community Choice Energy (CCE)
In Contra Costa County
Internal Operations Committee of the Board of Supervisors
February 29, 2016
129
What is Community Choice Energy?
CCE enables local governments to procure and/or develop power on behalf of their
public facilities, residents and businesses. It creates a functional partnership between
municipalities and existing utilities. It has proven to increase renewable energy and
lower greenhouse gases while providing competitive electricity rates.
130
Basic Program Mechanics
1. Form or join a Joint Powers Agency: Local governments participate by
passing an ordinance and entering into a JPA Agreement
2. Utility (PG&E) continues to provide consolidated billing, customer
service, grid and line maintenance.
3. PG&E programs for low income/CARE customers remain the same
4. CCE electric generation charges (including exit fee) appear as new line
items on the customer bill; all other charges remain the same
5. CPUC certifies CCE Plan; oversees utility/
CCE service agreement and other requirements.
131
3 Programs in California… so far
Launch Year Avg. Customer
Rate Savings
Power Options
(current)
2010 2-5% below
PG&E
56% Renewable
100% Renewable
100% Local Solar
2014 6-14% below
PG&E
36% Renewable
100% Renewable
2015 3-4% below
SCE
35% Renewable
100% Renewable
132
Financial Highlights
MCE and SCP are fiscally sound
CCE Financial Performance
133
CCE & Local Climate Action Plans
Excerpt from City of San Mateo Climate Action Plan
TCO2 Reduced
Note that CCE programs
do not impose additional
costs to property
owners/developers
-5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
CCE
Other RE
Energy Efficiency
Alternative Fuels
Alternative Transport
Composting
Other
CAP Program Options
134
Renewable Energy Product Options
Provider Program Power Options Average
Premium for
Residential
Customers
Added charge on
monthly bill (assume
500 kwh/month)
PG&E Default
Solar Choice
27% Renewable
50% Solar
100% Solar
No premium
3.58 cents/kWh
3.58 cents/kWh
None
$8.96/month (assume
250 kWh from solar)
$17.91/month (assume
all 500 kWh from solar)
Marin Clean
Energy
Light Green
Deep Green
Local Sol*
56% Renewable
100% Renewable
100% Local Solar
No premium
1 cent/kWh
6 cents/kWh
None
$5.00/month
$30.00/month
Sonoma
Clean Power
CleanStart
EverGreen**
36% Renewable
100% Renewable
No premium
3.5 cents/kWh
None
$18.00/month
*100% from local solar project in Novato
**100% sourced from the Geysers geothermal facility in Sonoma County
135
What are the Risks…
And how are they mitigated?
Rate Competition/Market Fluctuation: Rates will vary
with market conditions. Power market expertise and well
crafted power RFPs are essential; Diversified supply
portfolio and “value add” programs.
Customer Opt-Out: Competitive rates are a must;
Articulate additional consumer and community benefits.
Political: Align CCA to local policy objectives; Appeal to
both progressive and conservative minds by making the
environmental AND business case.
Regulatory/Legislative: PUC decisions may adversely
affect CCA; also example of AB 2145; Participate in the
regulatory and legislative process.
136
In Summary: Potential CCE Advantages
•CCE is responsive to local environmental and economic goals
•Offers consumers a choice where none currently exists
•Revenue supported, not taxpayer subsidized
•Stable, often cheaper, electricity rates
•Allows for rapid switch to cleaner power supply and significant
GHG reductions; achievement of local CAP goals
•Provides a funding source for energy efficiency and other energy
programs like energy storage and EV charging stations
137
Outreach Activities Since Last BOS Meeting
•County staff sent letters to all 16 eligible cities (Richmond,
San Pablo and El Cerrito are already members of MCE) to
authorize load data collection and assess interest in a
technical study.
•Announced regional workshops at Dec. 3 Mayors Conference
•Three Regional Workshops
a) Walnut Creek (Dec. 10)
b) Hercules (Dec. 14)
c) Brentwood (Dec. 16)
•Presentations to City Councils: Concord, Clayton, Pinole,
Lafayette and Brentwood
138
City Load Data Authorization Cost Sharing for Tech Study
Antioch Yes No indication
Brentwood Yes Yes, not to exceed $30,000
Clayton Yes Yes, pending more details
Concord Yes Yes, not to exceed $25,000
Danville Yes Yes, not to exceed $18,000
Hercules Yes No indication
Lafayette Yes No indication
Martinez Yes No indication
Moraga Yes No indication
Oakley Yes No indication
Orinda Yes Need more information
Pinole Yes Need more information
Pittsburg Yes Yes, pending more details
Pleasant Hill Yes Yes, not to exceed $15,000
San Ramon Yes Maybe, pending more details
Walnut Creek Yes Yes, not to exceed $20,000
City Responses
139
Where do we go from here?
•Given city interest in a potential CCE program in Contra Costa, staff
recommends the Board direct DCD to undertake a technical study of
CCE in Contra Costa County.
•County’s contribution to the technical study likely to be in the
$25,000-$50,000 range. Total cost of study est. $75,000-$150,000.
•First Next Step: Obtain PG&E Load Data
•Work with cities to fund and initiate the tech study, examining three
options:
Stand-alone CCE
Join MCE
Partner with Alameda County on joint CCE program
140
What could go into a technical study?
•Evaluate total load requirements for a CCE (MWH and MW peak
demand)
•Look at different resource scenarios (50% renewable, 100%
renewable option, etc.)
•Ability to be competitive in current market environment
(including PG&E’s new Solar Choice option)
•Assessment of risks
•Discussion/modeling of local renewable project development
(and associated economic benefits)
•Useful to keep in mind that other counties have undertaken such
studies, and similar issues apply.
141
Community Outreach
•Community Outreach has two objectives:
Inform the public about CCE
Gather public input to assist decision-makers evaluate tech study
•Community Outreach activities would include:
Public workshops
Focused stakeholder engagement
Web-based educational materials
Presentations at Mayors Conference, City Council meetings, and/or
other venues
142
Summary of Recommendations/Fiscal Impacts
•Take steps to obtain PG&E Load Data
•Work with Cities to fund and initiate technical study
•Estimated Fiscal Impact: $300,000
$75,000 for consulting services to obtain load data, develop and evaluate
technical study, and community outreach activities (LEAN Energy)
$50,000 for County share of costs for technical study
$175,000 for County project management and legal expenses
•The County would seek to recover its costs if a new CCE JPA is formed. Costs
will not be reimbursed if the County does not create a new JPA.
143
Thank You
For More Information:
Jason Crapo, Deputy DirectorDepartment of Conservation and DevelopmentCounty of Contra Costajason.crapo@dcd.cccounty.us(925) 674-7722
LEAN Energy USShawn Marshall Seth Baruch (Carbonomics) Tom Kelly (KyotoUSA)shawnmarshall@leanenergyus.org(415) 888-8007
144
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE -
SPECIAL 8.
Meeting Date:02/29/2016
Subject:REPORT FROM THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER’S OFFICE ON THE
SCHEDULE OF FINANCIAL AUDITS FOR 2016
Submitted For: Robert Campbell, Auditor-Controller
Department:Auditor-Controller
Referral No.: IOC 16/2
Referral Name: Review of the Annual Audit Schedule
Presenter: Elizabeth Verigin, Asst
Auditor-Controller
Contact: Joanne Bohren
925-646-2233
Referral History:
The Internal Operations Committee was asked by the Board in 2000 to review the process for
establishing the annual schedule of audits, and to establish a mechanism for the Board to have
input in the development of the annual audit schedule and request studies of departments,
programs or procedures. The IOC recommended a process that was adopted by the Board on June
27, 2000, which called for the IOC to review the schedule of audits proposed by the
Auditor-Controller and the County Administrator each December. However, due to the
preeminent need during December for the Auditor to complete the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report, the IOC, some years ago, rescheduled consideration of the Auditor’s report to
February of each year.
Referral Update:
Attached is a report from the Auditor-Controller reviewing the department’s audit activities for
2015 and transmitting the proposed schedule of financial audits for 2016, which are already in
progress.
Assistant Auditor-Controller Elizabeth Verigin and Chief of Internal Audits Joanne Bohren will
present the report.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT report on the Auditor-Controller's audit activities for 2015 and APPROVE the proposed
schedule of financial audits for 2016.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
There is no fiscal impact related to providing input into the annual audit schedule. The financial
145
There is no fiscal impact related to providing input into the annual audit schedule. The financial
auditing process may result in positive and negative fiscal impacts, depending on the audit
findings.
Attachments
2016 Internal Audit Report
2015 Audit Work
Proposed 2016 Audit Schedule
146
147
148
149
Schedule of Internal Audit Examinations for 2015ScheduledEstimatedTotal DepartmentLast DonePreferredForHoursExaminationExamination DescriptionThroughCycle (yrs)20152015HoursAuditor-Controller0105Revolving/Cash Diff. Fund & Shortage Report (fiscal year)6/151 (Law)X60310037Misc A-C duties (ie Petty Cash ICQ;Relief of Shortage;Increase/New Petty Cash; Recons)1X60-Treasurer-Tax Collector0151Treasury Cash & Investments - 1st qtr3/151/4 (Law)X1001350151Treasury Cash & Investments - 2nd qtr 6/151/4 (Law)X1001260151Treasury Cash & Investments - July 17/1/151/4 (Law)X100510151Treasury Cash & Investments - 3rd qtr (Auditor recommendation)9/151/4 (Law)X100410151Treasury Cash & Investments - 4th qtr12/141/4 (Law)X100640156Tax redemptions12/143X2405130172Treasury Oversight Committee (calendar year)12/141 (Law)X180176Purchasing1493Procurement Card Program - 3rd qtr9/151/4 (CAO)X40461493Procurement Card Program - 4th qtr12/141/4 (CAO)X40461493Procurement Card Program - 1st qtr3/151/4 (CAO)X40461493Procurement Card Program - 2nd qtr6/151/4 (CAO)X4045Various Departments / Office of Revenue Collections A/RContinuation of examination of ORC A/R that was returned to depts (special)special-3/15X400261Clerk-Recorder3551General Department5/152X475312Sheriff-Coroner3002Inmate Welfare Fund (2 yr law repealed)2/152X200132Conservation and Development (DCD)3571Keller Canyon - follow up to 2010 examination6/15X120169Health Services4671Mental Health Contracts (special)special-12/14X2001735402Hospital and Clinics (Collections and Petty Cash)6/152X2001594510Conservatorships/Guardianships3/152X2752825401Year End Inventory Control (Pharmacy)6/153X1151145401Year End Inventory Control (General Stores and Materials)6/153X115115Employment & Human Services5001Trust Fundsspecial-10/14X1001525005In Home Supportive Services (IHSS)3/153X175177Completed Examinations - ScheduledPAGE 1 OF 2150
Schedule of Internal Audit Examinations for 2015ScheduledEstimatedTotal DepartmentLast DonePreferredForHoursExaminationExamination DescriptionThroughCycle (yrs)20152015HoursPublic Works0633Fleet Services Division's Compliance with County Clean Vehicle Policy - 2015 IOC Requestspecial-2/15328Treasurer-Tax Collector0151-AReview of Tax Collector Cash Collections Internal Controlsspecial-5/15310151-ATax Collector Cash on Hand - July 1 - Treasurer-Tax Collector Request7/1/15150151-ATax Collector Cash on Hand - 3rd qtr - Treasurer-Tax Collector Request9/15130151-ATax Collector Cash on Hand - 4th qtr - Treasurer-Tax Collector Request12/1512Sheriff-Coroner3003Custody Alternative Programs12/044X350-Completed Examinations - UnscheduledPostponed Examination - Rescheduled for 2016PAGE 2 OF 2151
Schedule of Internal Audit ExaminationsCalendar Year 2016Prefd.ScheduledEstimatedDepartmentLast DoneAuditForHoursProject DescriptionThroughCycle (yrs)20162016Board of Supervisors1101District 1 General Department Audit (Including MACs)1/074X1001103District 3 General Department Audit (Including MACs)4/064X1001105District 5 General Department Audit (Including MACs)1/074X100Auditor-Controller0105Revolving/Cash Diff. Fund & Shortage Report (fiscal year)6/151 (Law)X600037Misc A-C duties (ie Petty Cash ICQ;Relief of Shortage;Increase/New Petty Cash; Recons)1X60Treasurer-Tax Collector0151Treasury Cash & Investments - 1st qtr (3/31/16)03/151/4 (Law)X1000151Treasury Cash & Investments - 2nd qtr (6/30/16)06/151/4 (Law)X1000151Treasury Cash & Investments - July 17/1/151/4 (Law)X1000151Treasury Cash & Investments - 3rd qtr (9/30/16) (Auditor recommendation)09/151/4 (Law)X1000151Treasury Cash & Investments - 4th qtr (12/31/15)12/141/4 (Law)X1000151-ATax Collector Cash on Hand - 1st qtr (3/31/16)NEW1/4 (TTC)X200151-ATax Collector Cash on Hand - 2nd qtr (6/30/16)NEW1/4 (TTC)X200151-ATax Collector Cash on Hand - July 17/1/151/4 (TTC)X200151-ATax Collector Cash on Hand - 3rd qtr (9/30/16)9/151/4 (TTC)X200151-ATax Collector Cash on Hand - 4th qtr (12/31/16)12/151/4 (TTC)X200172Treasury Oversight Committee (calendar year)12/141 (Law)X180Purchasing1493Procurement Card Program - 1st qtr (3/31/16)3/151/4 (CAO)X401493Procurement Card Program - 2nd qtr (6/30/16)6/151/4 (CAO)X401493Procurement Card Program - 3rd qtr (9/30/16)9/151/4 (CAO)X401493Procurement Card Program - 4th qtr (12/31/15)12/141/4 (CAO)X40Sheriff-Coroner2551Escrow Fund (aka Sheriff's Civil)12/102X3503003Custody Alternative Programs12/044X3502555Sheriff Training Center12/072X230Probation3081General Departmental Audit12/132(Law)X240Page 1 of 2152
Schedule of Internal Audit ExaminationsCalendar Year 2016Prefd.ScheduledEstimatedDepartmentLast DoneAuditForHoursProject DescriptionThroughCycle (yrs)20162016Health Services3641Public Administrator3/102X1304521Environmental Health-Hazardous Materials Div3/102X3005401Year End Inventory Control (OR Supplies and Implants)NEW3X180Employment & Human Services5001Administration - Including Form 1099/W-9 Handling, Adm Personnel Req, proc cards, fixed assets, petty cash, expenditures/contractsNEWX300Community Services (EHSD)5882Weatherization Projects Inventory 6/073X180Public Works0634Voyager CardsNEW3X160GASB Implementation (40 X 2)80Single Audit assistance/wrap up803,940 Page 2 of 2153
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE -
SPECIAL 9.
Meeting Date:02/29/2016
Subject:2016 WORK PLAN
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: Julie DiMaggio Enea, IOC Staff Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea
925.335.1077
Referral History:
The Board of Supervisors made the following referrals to the 2016 Internal Operations
Committee, which are summarized in Attachment B:
Standing Referrals
Continued policy oversight and quarterly monitoring of the Small Business Enterprise and
Outreach programs, and e-Outreach
1.
Review of the annual financial audit schedule2.
Review of annual Master Vehicle Replacement List and disposition of low-mileage vehicles3.
Local Bid Preference Program4.
Advisory Body Candidate Screening/Interview5.
Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund Allocation6.
Advisory Body Triennial Review7.
Non-Standing Referrals
Waste Hauler Ordinance8.
Social Media Policy9.
Animal Benefit Fund Review10.
Community Choice Energy Aggregation11.
The Committee members have selected the fourth Monday of each month at 11:00 a.m. as the
standing meeting date/time for 2016.
Referral Update:
Attached for the Committee's review is the proposed meeting schedule, developed in consultation
154
Attached for the Committee's review is the proposed meeting schedule, developed in consultation
with your schedulers, and the proposed work plan for hearing each of the 2016 referrals
(Attachment A).
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
APPROVE the proposed 2016 Committee meeting schedule and work plan, or provide direction
to staff regarding any changes thereto.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None.
Attachments
ATTACHMENT A: PROPOSED 2016 COMMITTEE MEETING AND DISCUSSION SCHEDULE
ATTACHMENT B: SUMMARY OF 2016 IOC REFERRALS
155
ATTACHMENT “A”
2016 Internal Operations Committee Discussion Schedule
4th Monday at 11 a.m.
As of February 23, 2016
Meeting
Date
Subject
Staff Contacts
February 29*
Special
IOC Schedule and Work Plan for 2016
Internal Audit Work Plan for 2016
AB Recruitment Schedule
Waste Hauler Ordinance
Community Choice Energy
IPM Interviews
HazMat Nominations
Julie Enea
Elizabeth Verigin/Joanne Bohren
Julie Enea
Marilyn Underwood/Joe Doser
Jason Crapo
Tanya Drlik
Michael Kent
March 28 Social Media Policy follow-up
Animal Benefit Fund follow-up
Fleet/Low Mileage Vehicle Disposition
Triennial Phase I Review – Follow-up: EHS, Ag, HSD,
Librarian
Betsy Burkhart
Beth Ward
Carlos Velasquez
Theresa Speiker
April 25 Screen applications for vacancies and determine interview
format
Fish & Wildlife Propagation Fund allocation
recommendations
Treasury Oversight Cte interviews (BOS Rep and Public 3
seats)
Julie Enea
Maureen Parkes
Russell Watts
May 23 Planning Commission, Fire Board, & Retirement Board
interviews
Affordable Housing Finance Committee nominations
Julie Enea
Kara Douglas
June 27
July 25
August 22 AB Triennial Review – Phase 2 Vicky Mead
September 26 Local Bid Preference Program Annual Report David Gould
October 24 SBE 2015 Annual Report
CCRCD interviews
Vicky Mead
Julie Enea/Teresa Hunter
November 28 Hazardous Materials Commission nominations
Law Library Member of the Bar nominations
Mosquito & Vector Control nominations
Michael Kent
Julie Enea/Carey Rowan
Allison Nelson/Craig Downs
December 26 Fish & Wildlife Cte interviews (At Large 3, 4 and
alternate)
Maureen Parkes
156
ATTACHMENT C
SUMMARY OF 2016 IOC REFERRALS
1. Small Business Enterprise (SBE) and Outreach Programs. The IOC accepted an annual SBE
Program report on October 12, 2015 from the County Administrator’s Office, covering the
period January-December 2014, and noted that new data collection procedures instituted by
CAO and have been implemented by most departments. The Committee recommended that
staff provide a highlighted performance report and give underperforming departments an
opportunity to communicate what factors are hindering their performance. This is a standing
referral.
2. County Financial Audit Program. Since 2000, the IOC reviews, each February, the annual
schedule of audits and best practices studies proposed by the Auditor-Controller. The Auditor-
Controller’s Office presented a report of their 2014 audits and the proposed 2015 Audit Schedule
to the IOC on February 9, 2015. The Committee accepted the report on the status of 2014 audits
and approved the 2015 plan with the direction to examine the Inmate Welfare Fund as soon as
possible and to broaden the examination of the Public Works Department to include compliance
with the vehicle acquisition policy. The Board of Supervisors approved the IOC’s
recommendations on March 3, 2015. This is a standing referral.
3. Annual Report on Fleet Internal Service Fund and Disposition of Low Mileage Vehicles.
Each year, the Public Works Department Fleet Manager has analyzed the fleet and annual
vehicle usage, and made recommendations to the IOC on the budget year vehicle replacements
and on the intra-County transfer of underutilized vehicles, in accordance with County policy. In
FY 2008/09, following the establishment of an Internal Services Fund (ISF) for the County Fleet,
to be administered by Public Works, the Board requested the IOC to review annually the Public
Works department report on the fleet and on low-mileage vehicles.
The Fleet Manager, in a report on February 9, 2015, highlighted that there are over 1,500
vehicles in the fleet, 859 of which are in the Internal Services Fund (ISF), identified 9 low
mileage vehicles out of 859 vehicles in the Internal Services Fund Fleet and consulted with each
department having low mileage vehicles. The Fleet Manager concluded that all but 4 of the 9
low mileage vehicles had compelling reasons to be maintained in the fleet. The department
continues to install asset management and locating devices in ISF vehicles to promote good
decision making and optimization of the ISF fleet. The Committee accepted the staff report and,
on October 12, received a follow-up report on the status of "greening" the fleet. On November
17, 2015 the Board of Supervisors approved the recommended changes to the County's Vehicle
and Equipment Acquisition Policy and Clean Air Vehicle Policy and Goals. The primary impact
of the proposed changes is to commit to a goal of procuring the most fuel efficient and lowest
emission vehicles that meet the essential vehicle requirements and specifications of departments.
The policy vests authority with the Fleet Manager to determine when exemptions from the policy
may be warranted. This is a standing referral.
157
4. Local Bid Preference Program. In 2005, the Board of Supervisors adopted the local bid
preference ordinance to support small local businesses and stimulate the local economy, at no
additional cost to the County. Under the program, if the low bid in a commodities purchase is not
from a local vendor, any responsive local vendor who submitted a bid over $25,000 that was
within 5% percent of the lowest bid has the option to submit a new bid. The local vendor will be
awarded if the new bid is in an amount less than or equal to the lowest responsive bid, allowing
the County to favor the local vendor b ut not at the expense of obtaining the lowest offered
price. Since adoption of the ordinance, the IOC has continued to monitor the effects of the
program through annual reports prepared and presented by the Purchasing Agent or designee.
On October 12, 2015, the IOC accepted the FY 2014/15 Report from the Public Works
department and requested that the Purchasing Manager provide more information in future
reports about how the Local Bid Preference Program meshes with the Small Business Enterprise
and Outreach Programs. On November 17, the Board of Supervisors accepted the annual report.
This is a standing referral.
5. Advisory Body Candidate Screening/Interview. On December 12, 2000, the Board of
Supervisors approved a policy on the process for recruiting applicants for selected advisory
bodies of the Board. This policy requires an open recruitment for all vacancies to At Large seats
appointed by the Board. 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 to fill At Large seats on all other eligible bodies
would be delegated to each body or a subcommittee thereof.
In 2015, the IOC submitted recommendations to the Board of Supervisors to fill 18 vacant seats
on various committees and commissions. The IOC interviewed 17 individuals for seats on the
Airport Land Use Commission, Aviation Advisory Committee, Integrated Pest Management
Advisory Committee, and the Fish & Wildlife Committee. This is a standing referral. In 2016,
the IOC will recruit to fill scheduled vacancies on the County Planning Commission (At Large
#2 seat), Retirement Board (BOS #4 seat), Advisory Fire Commission (At Large #1 seat), and
the Resource Conservation District (three seats).
6. Process for Allocation of Propagation Funds by the Fish and Wildlife Committee. On
November 22, 2010, the IOC received a status report from Department of Conservation and
Development (DCD) regarding the allocation of propagation funds by the Fish and Wildlife
Committee (FWC). The IOC accepted the report along with a recommendation that IOC conduct
a preliminary review of annual FWC grant recommendations prior to Board of Supervisors
review. On April 13, 2015 the IOC received a report from DCD proposing, on behalf of the
FWC, 2015 Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund Grant awards. The IOC approved the proposal
and, on April 21, recommended grant awards for 11 projects totaling $61,155, which the Board
of Supervisors unanimously approved. This is a standing referral.
7. Advisory Body Triennial Review. The Board of Supervisors has asked a number of county
residents, members of businesses located in the county and/or county staff to serve on appointed
158
bodies that provide advice to the Board on matters of county or other governmental business.
Members provide a resident’s, business or county staff perspective on a wide variety of policy
issues or programs that the BOS oversees.
Beginning in 2010 and concluding in 2011/2012, the Board of Supervisors conducted an
extensive review of advisory body policies and composition, and passed Resolution Nos.
2011/497 and 2011/498, which revised and restated the Board’s governing principles for the
bodies. The Resolutions dealt with all bodies, whether created by the BOS as discretionary or
those that the BOS is mandated to create by state or federal rules, laws or regulations. The
Resolutions directed the CAO/COB’s Office to institute a method to conduct a rotating triennial
review of each body and to report on the results of that review and any resulting staff
recommendations to the Board, through the IOC, on a regular basis.
The first phase report of the current Triennial Review Cycle was considered by the IOC on April
13, 2015. At that time, the Supervisors approved many of the recommendations in the report.
However, they also asked the CAO’s Office to return with additional information about a
number of the advisory bodies. On October 12, 2015 the IOC accepted the follow-up report
from the County Administrator on outstanding issues and information requests stemming from
Phase 1 of the Board Advisory Body Triennial Review. The IOC reported back to the Board on
December 8 with results of Phase I of the review and recommendations for follow-up.
Phase II of the review is currently in progress.
8. Waste Hauler Ordinance. On May 8, 2012, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Internal
Operations Committee a proposal to develop a waste hauler ordinance. The IOC received a
preliminary report from the Environmental Health (EH) Division of the Health Services
Department on May 14, 2012 and status report on November 13, 2013 showing substantial work
and progress. The IOC requested EH staff to bring a final draft ordinance to the Committee for
further consideration but staff subsequently identified issues with the interplay between the
proposal and current franchise agreements that had to be examined before the County could
proceed with an ordinance. On April 2015, IOC accepted a status report, and on July 27, 2015
reviewed a conceptual draft ordinance and a report outlining ten key issues on which policy
direction was needed before further work on the ordinance could proceed. On October 12, 2015,
the IOC provided additional policy direction to staff and asked to see a final draft ordinance at
the February 2016 IOC meeting. IOC expressed preference to address the enforcement aspect of
the ordinance on a separate and parallel track and directed staff to gather information from law
enforcement countywide to see if enforcement costs could be estimated. The IOC asked for a
commitment from the franchises to raise fees sufficient to fund enforcement of the ordinance
countywide. As this continues to be a work in progress, we recommend that this referral be
continued to the 2016 IOC.
9. Social Media Policy Follow-up. On June 26, 2012, the Board of Supervisors referred to the
IOC the potential development of a policy governing the use of social media by County
departments. The County Administrator’s Office assigned the Office of Communications and
159
Media (OCM) with the task of researching this issue and providing information to the IOC. The
IOC began studying the issue in August 13, 2012 and received periodic updates over the
subsequent 18 months, during which time work on the policy had to be tabled for several months
due to other emerging priorities. The policy was completed and approved by the Board of
Supervisors on June 17, 2014, with direction to the Communications and Media Director to work
with the County Counsel and Risk Manager to prepare social media site usage guidelines, terms
of use disclaimers, and staff training curriculum, and to report back to the Internal Operations
Committee on the status of these efforts.
10. Animal Benefit Fund Review. On April 21, 2015, the Board of Supervisors received several
comments regarding the Animal Benefit Fund from members of the public during fiscal year
2015/16 budget hearings. As part of budget deliberations, the Board directed staff to include a
review of the Animal Benefit Fund to a Board Standing Committee for further review. On May
12, 2015, the Board of Supervisors adopted the fiscal year 2015/16 budget, including formal
referral of this issue to the Internal Operations Committee. On September 14, 2015 IOC
received a staff report summarizing prior year expenditures and current fund balance of the
Animal Benefit Fund. The Committee accepted the staff report and requested a follow-up report
from the new Animal Services Director approximately 90 days post-appointment regarding
pending needs and possible one-time uses of the funds
11. Community Choice Energy Aggregation. On August 18, 2015, the Board of Supervisors
referred to the IOC the topic of Community Choice (Energy) Aggregation. Community Choice
Aggregation (CCA) is the practice of aggregating consumer electricity demand within a
jurisdiction or region for purposes of procuring energy. The existing energy utility remains
responsible for transmission and distribution. The most common reason for jurisdictions
pursuing CCA is to promote electricity generation from renewable energy sources and offer
consumers choice in purchasing electricity with potential opportunities for cost savings.
The IOC took up CCA at its regular September 14, 2015 meeting and on October 13,
recommended to the Board of Supervisors that outreach be conducted to Contra Costa cities and
neighboring counties to gauge their interest in partnering with Contra Costa County to
implement CCA. The Board directed the Conservation and Development Department (DCD) to
conduct this outreach and examine the following three CCA options:
forming a CCA partnership among the cities and the County, representing the
unincorporated areas;
partnering with Alameda County (and its cities) to form a CCA program; or
joining the existing Marin Clean Energy program (which currently provides energy to
three Contra Costa cities – Richmond, San Pablo and El Cerrito).
Further, the Board directed DCD to reach out to Contra Costa mayors and city managers to
explain the concept and gauge their interest in studying CCA options. The Board also
acknowledged that outreach efforts would require a substantial amount of staff time, expertise,
and experience in the field of energy aggregation and, on October 20, 2015, approved an
160
allocation of $25,000 to DCD for the study of CCA. Results of the outreach efforts will be
reported to the IOC, therefore, we recommend that this matter be retained on referral.
161