The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 11171992 - 2.6 TO: - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS5 • L —=��• Contra FROM: Mark Finucane, Health Services Director Costa r ;, County v � -z.. DATE: November 17, 1992 SUBJECT: Modifications to Countywide Mobile Household Hazardo,:s Waste Collection Program SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: 1. Acknowledge the approval of the mobile HHW collection program by a majority of the cities representing a majority of the incorporated population in the county. Seventeen cities have approved the program. 2. Approve new budget (Attachment 1) reflecting a reduction in total annual program cost from $1,590,000 to $1,490,000. 3. Adopt the accompanying resolution providing for the following reductions in the tipping fee: from $2. 26 to $2. 12 per ton beginning July 1, 1993, and from $0. 68 to $0. 41 per ton for start-up costs between November 23 , 1992 and June 30, 1993 . 4. Approve program changes jointly agreed to by the Health Services Department Director and the Public Managers Association (Attachment 2) . These changes include, among others, a. Allowing a region to withdraw from the countywide program by providing 120 days written notice; and b. Establishing an HHW Oversight Committee made up of three . city project managers and four city managers. FINANCIAL IMPACT The reduced program cost will result in a less expensive program for residents. The previous cost to residents (at $2. 26/ton) was $5. 30/household. 'The proposed cost will be $4. 97/household. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: - YES SIGNATURE: fiECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE S: ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS N THE DATE SHOWN. Cont ct: Barbara Masters (510) 370-5022 cc: County Administrator's Office ATTESTED l Health Services Director PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF T;!'al`I1 Officer SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel ornmunit D el D epartment Integra tyed �Jast��•Management Task Force M382 (10/88) BY DEPUTY BACKGROUND 1 . 218, 1992 , On April . the Board of Supervisors approved the Health Services Department implementation of a countywide mobile household hazardous waste collection program. The program was to cost $1,590,000 and was to be financed by solid waste tipping fees (Attachment 3) . Board approval was contingent upon receiving approval by a majority of the cities representing a majority of the incorporated population. 2. On May 19, 1992, following a public hearing, the Board approved a tipping fee rate of $2. 26/ton to be collected beginning July 1, 1993 (Res. No. 92/352, Attachment 4) . The Board also approved a tipping fee of $0.68/ton to finance the start-up of the program. This fee was to be collected during the current fiscal year ending June 30, 1993. 3. Health Services Department staff has made changes in program design and staffing, thus reducing the annual budget from $1, 590,000 to $1,490,000. The accompanying resolution reduces the tipping fee to reflect the reduced program cost. The resolution also makes nonsubstantive changes concerning collection of the fee, such as allowing the County discretion in measuring waste receipts, and providing for payment on a quarterly instead of monthly basis. All affected transfer station and disposal site operators have been provided copies of this report and the proposed resolution. 4. On September 1, 1992, the Health Services Director met with the Solid Waste Subcommittee of the Public Managers Association to negotiate outstanding issues regarding the mobile HHW collection program., agreeing to the following (Attachment 2) : a. Any region (east, central or west) may withdraw from the countywide program with a 120 day' s written notice; b. A HHW Oversight Committee will be established and will include four city managers and three city project managers. It will review the budget and make recommendations regarding any necessary adjustments due to differences between projected and actual costs and will assist in site selection, publicity and ongoing planning and monitoring; C. The County will assume all operational and generator liability and will not accept AB939 liability for the cities; d. The County will provide I quarterly reports on various aspects of the program to the cities and the Oversight Committee; and I e. The County will maintain a separate account for program revenues and expenditures. 1 5. The Public Managers Association, at their September 10, 1992 meeting, accepted these agreements and unanimously endorsed the countywide mobile HHW collection program developed by the Health Services Department. 6. Seventeen cities have approved the countywide mobile HHW collection program. Pittsburg has voted to not support the program. cc: County Administrator' s Office Health Services Director Health Officer County Counsel Community Development Department Integrated Waste Management Task Force r t '4ftao rle(L COUNTYWIDE MOBILE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM ONE-YEAR OPERATING BUDGET* July 15, 1992 $ 60, 000 Household Hazardous Waste Coordinator Responsible for overall management of program, including tracking all wastes, invoicing and budget; developing the RFP and working with the contractor; lining up organizations for the reuse program; selecting and arranging sites; publicizing .the program; working with the advisory committee. 30, 000 Hazardous Materials Specialist (60% time) Responsible for the overall compliance with health & safety regulations; for overseeing work of contractor, including unloading & lab packing; for arranging transporting hazardous materials 30, 000 Clerical Staff Responsible for making approximately 12 , 000 appointments with residents and providing them with legal transportation and disposal requirements, and information on alternatives to more toxic products. 60, 000 Source Reduction: $35, 000 Environmental Health Educator : Responsible for expanding the Safer Alternatives Program, and developing model procurement policies, regional media campaign, shelf labeling program and storm drain stencilling programs 25, 000 Printing, materials & supplies 10, 000 Advertising 3 , 000 Maintenance of Vehicles 1, 263 , 550 Hazardous Waste Management Firm Contractor �. Will manage events at each site, and transport, recycle & dispose of the wastes; budget based on. serving a minimum of 11, 000 cars at $122/car. $306, 550 On-site labor (chemists & technicians) $28/car x 11, 000 cars 88, 000 Supplies & equipment $ 8/car x 11, 000 cars 869 , 000 Recycling, Disposal & Transp. of wastes $79/car x 11, 000 cars 33 , 450 Labor to bulk latex paint/oil ($16. 64/hr x 2010 hrs) $1, 490, 000 TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET ($4 . 97/household/year) * Budget based on collecting full range of HHW; it also reflects a reduction by $45, 000 due to lower labor costs for bulking paint. Contra Costa County The Board of Supervisors OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT Tom Powers, 1st District Nancy C. Fohden, 2nd District Mark Finucane, Director Robert I. Schroder, 3rd District 20 Allen Street Sunne Wright McPeak, 4th District '��. j Martinez, California 94553-3191 Tom Torlakson, 5th District .%'. (510) 370-5003 County Administrator ; (510) 370-5098 Fax Phil Batchelor County Administrator September 3, 1992 Joseph M. Tanner City Manager City of Pleasant Hill 100 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-3323 Dear Joe, I am writing this letter .to summarize the agreements made at the September 1 meeting regarding the proposed Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) program. The meeting was attended by the following individuals: Don Blubaugh, Dave Rowlands, Rory Robinson, yourself, Janet Schneider, Avon Wilson, Barbara Price, Barbara Masters and me. I want to thank you and all the participants for their willingness to overcome divisions and develop solutions to the issues so that we may move forward with the program. I think that, working together, we.will have a first-rate program that all of our residents will appreciate and benefit from. 1. The County agrees to assume operational and generator liability. As we discussed, the County cannot assume AB 939 liability for the cities. 2. Once a majority of the cities with a majority of the population agree to the program, the County will begin collecting fees and implementing the program. If the majority of cities within a region -= defined as west, central, or east -- agree to withdraw from the program, they will provide the County, in writing, notice of such withdrawal 120 days before the effective date. The County will reduce the program budget to reflect the reduced number of collection events in that region. 3. A Household Hazardous Waste Oversight Committee will be established to be made up of 4 city managers and 3 project managers. They will be selected by the Public Managers Association. This Committee will review the program budget and make recommendations regarding programmatic or budgetary adjustments that may be needed as a result of any differences between the actual and projected costs. The Committee will also assist in selecting sites for collection events,program publicity and ongoing planning and monitoring. Merrithew Memorial Hospital& Clinics - Public Health • Menta!Health - Substance Abuse • Environmental Health • Contra Costa Health Plan • Emergency Mettical Services - Home Health Agency - Geriatrics -2- 4. The Health Services Department will make quarterly reports to the Oversight Committee and the cities regarding the number of participants, expenditures, wastestream types and quantities collected, and disposal and recycling methods used. 5. The County will maintain a separate account for fees collected and expenditures made to implement the HHW'program. I've enclosed a revised model City Council resolution to reflect these changes. Per our discussion at the meeting, with these agreements, the public managers who attended the meeting will recommend to the Public.Managers Association that cities support the program. I appreciate your assistance on this effort. Sincerely, Mark Finucane Health Services Director cc: Don Blubaugh Dave Rowlands Rory Robinson Janet Schneider Avon Wilson Barbara Price Barbara Masters Phil Batchelor William Walker, M.D. Robin Bedell-Waite TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS +t+ach tv&# ` Contra E A 3 l FROW Environmental Affairs Committee Costa Supervisors Nancy Fanden & Tom Torlakson County VA's April 27, 1992 SUSIECT: COUNTYWIDE MOBILE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION SPECIFIC REQUEST($)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)A SACKOROUND ANO JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: 1) Accept report from.the Environmental Affairs Committee regarding implementation by Health Services Department of a countywide mobile household hazardous waste (HHW) collection program beginning in spring 1993 (Attachment 1). 2) Approve implementation of the program,contingent upon receiving approval of at least 50% of Contra Costa cities representing at least 50% of the population in the incorporated area of the County. 3) Approve the total annual cost of the program at $1,590,000 and the .use of the landfill tipping fees or transfer station rates as the financing mechanism for the program; authorize the Health Officer to discount the landfill tipping fee or transfer station rates in FY 92-93 and to adjust the rate in subsequent years to meet the annual budget. 4) Direct the Health Services Department to explore other sources of funding to offset a portion of the program costs. 5) Set May 19 as a public hearing date at which time the rate will be adopted. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The total annual cost of the mobile HHW collection program will be $1,590,000 (Attachment 2). The start-up costs, including purchase of two vehicles, equipment, and computer system for data collection,will be fully financed with the $140,000 fine being paid by Lesher Communications, Inc. for hazardous waste storage storage violations. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: V YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER IONATURE S: /�� v^'``�'L�� i ACTION OF BOARD ON 4 APMIOVED AS RECOMMENDED ... OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS ' 1 HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS M A TRUE —4-UNANIMOUS(ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOEi AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOMB ABSENT: ASSTAMt OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWKK �^ cc County Administrator's Office ATTESTED .7- /f/� ✓Health Services Director PHIL SATC4LOR.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Health Officer SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel Community Development Department (I,Utegrated Waste Management Task Force SY DEPUTY The landfill tipping fee or transfer station rates will be raised by approximately $2.00 per ton to finance the program. This amounts to less than $2.00 per person per year or $0.16 per month. Since the program will not be fully operational in the first fiscal year, FY 92/93, the estimated budget is only $465,000; therefore, the tipping fee or transfer station rate will be discounted 70% — to about $0.60 per ton — to reflect the lowered costs. In subsequent years, however, the per-ton rate may need to be adjusted to compensate for reductions in disposal tonnage. BACKGROUND: A. Basic Program Design The basic design of an HHW mobile collection program involves sending a set of vehicles and trained staff out on weekends (both Saturdays and Sundays) to a site in a community, and having residents bring in their HHW to that site. The wastes would be collected, analyzed, packed into drums, and sent off for recycling or disposal at the end of each day. The collection sites would include parking lots of city halls, shopping malls and other appropriate locations. The collections will be by appointment only to insure short waiting times and to provide maximum ability to safely handle wastes. Approximately 200 cars will be serviced in each collection day. The collections would occur on approximately 28 to 33 weekends depending on costs of disposing of wastes,supplemental fuel, and recycling facilities. A total of 11,000 to 13,000 cars would be served. This mobile HHW collection program would run independently of the permanent HHW collection facilities proposed at the various solid waste transfer stations and at Erickson in West County. Each of the three regions of the county can continue to work towards implementation of a permanent facility if they so choose. It is clear at this point that those designing the permanent facilities would prefer to see the effectiveness of the mobile collection program prior to making final decisions about the size of the permanent HHW collection facilities. B. Policy Background On October 8, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved the use of the Lesher fine monies for the start-up vehicles and equipment for a countywide mobile collection program. It directed the Environmental Affairs Committee, with input from the AB939 Local Task Force, to recommend an operator and financing mechanism for this program. On December 9, 1991, the Environmental Affairs Committee initially reviewed the materials on mobile collection and requested direction from the AB939 Local Task Force as to whom the operator should be. Two proposals were presented to the Local Task Force for consideration: one from Health Services Department and one from Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San). On March 6, the Health Services Department offered a proposal to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Attachment 3),which suggested that the Health Services Department begin operation of the program in spring 1993. The Department feels it is critical to begin a Collection program in the county as soon as possible and that the program be run countywide in order to avoid costs of duplication. At the end of eighteen months, Health Services Department proposed to turn over operation of the program to Central San. Central San subsequently responded that it was not interested in operating a program and recommended one of the JPAs as a possible operator. Regardless of the operator, three issues would need resolution, however: (1) A permanent collection facility is constructed and ready to receive HHW; (2) Contracts or agreements are in place to operate the program in all three regions of the county; and (3) A well-developed, written plan for small quantity waste collection is in place which also addresses current private sector efforts to collect such wastes. At its March 18, 1992 meeting, the Local Task Force recommended that the Health Services Department operate a countywide HHW collection program to begin in spring 1993. Ten votes supported this recommendation, with one vote in opposition, and one vote abstaining. The Task 2 Force asked for further budget information and frequent reports on the program. The Health Services Department believes that the mobile collection program will be operational by the spring of 1993. It will operate the program for eighteen months, after which time other operators can be considered. C. Issues Raised by County Administrator's Office The Environmental Affairs Committee, at its December 9, 1991 meeting, requested the County Administrator's Office to review the proposed program. Below are responses to the issues raised in their March 23 response (Attachment 4). 1. Participation Rate: How many cars will be served, and what is the justification for serving this number of cars? Between 11,000 and 13,000 cars will be served in the proposed program. The number of cars will be dependent on the amounts and types of wastes received from residents and the costs of recycling and disposing of those wastes. If disposal costs are low, as many as 13,000 cars may be to be served. Eleven thousand cars, served in 28 weekends, represents 3.6% of the households in Contra Costa County,while 13,000, served in 33 weekends, is 4.3%. Typically, collection programs will serve 1.0% to 1.5% of the population for a one-time event. Because we will be returning to cities, communities and regions more often, we will be able to collect more HHW. With good publicity, these numbers of cars seem quite reasonable. In fact, our more likely concern will be one of=much demand. As we begin implementation,we will gain experience regarding how much publicity is appropriate to attract only 400 cars per weekend and no more. While ideally we would like to serve 100% of the households,this does not seem reasonable or affordable. Santa Clara County,with 520,180 households, had arbitrarily limited the cars they served to 10,000 for budget purposes. 2. City Plans: What are cities doing, and should the County determine their plans before finalizing program costs? All of the cities and the County for the unincorporated areas of the county are required to develop written and approved Household Hazardous Waste Elements (HHWEs) for their jurisdictions under AB939. All jurisdictions have submitted either Preliminary or Final Draft HHWEs recommending mobile HHW collection as a preferred alternative for collecting HHW. None of the cities have recommended that they implement such a program alone as there are clear cost savings through multijurisdictional implementation of the program. Under this proposal, the fees will be assessed and the program implemented only after at least 50% of the cities representing at least 50% of the population in the incorporated areas of the county adopt the mobile program. Additionally, an advisory committee, with significant representation by cities, will be established for the program to insure the effectiveness of the program throughout the county and coordination with cities. 3. Costs: What monies will be spent in-house versus contracted out? In the proposed annual budget (Attachment 2), almost 85% of the budget will be used to pay an experienced, qualified hazardous waste management firm to manage the collection events and recycle/dispose of the wastes. This percentage is typical of any collection program where the bulk of the costs are not tied up in high capital and internal staff costs. 3 The advantage of contracting out the majority of work to an outside firm is that it gives us greater flexibility in being able to expand or decrease the size of the program. A second issue is that the turnover among technicians which occurs in this field can be handled much more efficiently by the private sector; staff may be replaced very quickly. Because safety depends on an adequate level of personnel,this is critical. Also,using a firm whose sole business is handling hazardous wastes means that their personnel will receive a higher and more continuous level of training. A final reason for using a contractor is that operational liability, and perhaps even Superfund liability, can be passed on to the contractor, rather than the County assuming it all. This will be addressed in the question below. 4. Liabili : What liability insurance costs will be incurred? Are we prepared to handle liabilities of spills,groundwater contamination,accidents and long-term Superfund clean-up? The January 31, 1992 memo from Risk Management to Health Services (Attachment 5) outlines associated liability exposures. Their recommendations to minimize exposures and liabilities, which we fully intend to implement, include: (1) Complete investigation, and documentation on file to insure that all facilities and firms being utilized have all of the local, state and federal permits required and are financially sound with adequate insurance coverage. (2) Contract with an outside hazardous waste management firm to manage the events, and to accept all operational liabilities (spills, on-site incidents) for the program. Hazardous waste transporters would also be required to accept full liability for transportation incidents. Risk Management is also recommending that we negotiate with the contractor to accept "strong indemnification against future Superfund liability." (3) Recycle or incinerate virtually all wastes collected. By doing this, rather than disposing of wastes in a hazardous waste landfill (such as Kettleman Hills), very little long-term Superfund liability would remain. This will cost the program a little more initially, but will leave the County, which would be accepting full generator liability for all HHW collected, with very little Superfund liability. Every county in the state implementing HHW collection programs is faced with the same liability issues. It is important to reiterate here that were the county to have no HHW collection programs, HHW would continue to be disposed of illegally as it is now. It is critical to establish a HHW collection program which will keep HHW out of our new landfills, out of our storm drains and out of our sewer systems. _ D. Summar It is illegal to dispose of hazardous wastes in Class 1 landfills. AB939 requires all jurisdictions in the state to provide plans for collection and public education programs for their residents. We believe that this proposed mobile HHW collection program is a well- developed and sound program which would provide for effective collection at the least cost to the ratepayer. Given the high number of requests by residents for legal and proper disposal methods for HHW, we believe it is important to implement this program as soon as possible. cc: County Administrator's Office Health Services Director Health Officer County Counsel Community Development Department Integrated Waste Management Task Force 4 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALgORN''IA Adopted this Order on .�aT1 9, i s9? , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson and McPeak NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Fees for Mobile Household) RESOLUTION NO. 9222. Hazardous Waste Collection) (Public Resources Code Section 41901) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RESOLVES that: 1. This Board is responsible for implementing its Household Hazardous Waste Element pursuant to Public Resources Code Chapter 3.5 (section 41500 et seq.) and chapter 8 (section 41900 et seq.). 2. This Board has approved implementation of a countywide mobile household hazardous waste collection program (April 28, 1992) at an annual operating cost of $1,590,000, to be financed through the transfer station tipping fees, subject to the approval of a majority of the cities representing a majority of the incorporated population. 3. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 41901, the County may impose fees in amounts sufficient to pay the costs of implementing this bousebold bazardous waste collection program 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 41901, a fee of$226 per ton is hereby imposed on all solid waste transfer stations (including interim transfer stations) and disposal sites, including the transfer stations and disposal sites operated by Acme Fill Corporation, Richmond Sanitary Services and Keller Canyon Landfill Company. The tonnage used to determine the tonnage fee shall be based upon the tonnage of solid wastes reported by the site operators to the appropriate Regional Waster Quality Control Board or the County. The method of measurement of the tonnage fee shall be acceptable to the Health Services Department. The fees shall be paid on a monthly basis to the County of Contra Costa (care of the Health Services Department), and shall be due on the last day of the month. If fees are assessed at transfer station,no fee for those wastes is to be assessed at the disposal sites. S. The above fee of S2.26 shall be discounted by 70%, to $0.68 per ton, to reflect the lower costs in the first fiscal year ending June 30, 1993. 6. This resolution becomes effective immediately and operative following approval by a majority of the cities representing a majority of the incorporated population. Orig. Dept.: Health Services Department t hereby certify Mat this M a true ane Correct =;y Of cc: County Administrator an amort taken and entered On the fninut= of tr+e Auditor-Controller &Dare Ot 640.vtean on the aces• •"own- A cm a Fill Corp. via CDD �Trsszm —> �' Q Richmond Sanitary Service via CDD PHIL�T�+aoR a.r+Of the Baro • d Supervisor7 and Gourtty IkeminialtftOr Keller Canyon Iandfill Company via CDD ��- County Counsel ,nemny RESOLUTION NO. 92/352 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SUBJECT: Fees for Mobile Household ) Resolution No. 92/ 807 Hazardous Waste Collection ) .(Pub.Res.Code, S 41901) k` b The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors FINDS and RESOLVES as follows : R. The County is responsible for implementing its Household Hazardous Waste Element pursuant to Public Resources Code chapter 3.5 (section 41500 et seq. ) and chapter 8 (section 41900 et seq. ) . On April 28, 1992, this Board approved implementation of a countywide mobile household hazardous waste collection program at an annual operating cost of $1,590,000, subject to financing through solid waste tipping fees. On May 19, 1992, this Board imposed a fee of $2.26 per ton on all = solid waste received at solid waste transfer stations and. disposal sites, subject to approval by a majority of the cities representing a majority of the incorporated population. (Resolution No. 92/352 . ) Subsequent changes to the program design and staffing has resulted in reducing the program cost to $1,490,000, at a rate of $2 . 12 per ton. The $2 . 12 per ton assessment has been approved by a majority of the cities representing a majority of the incorporated population. Therefore, this Board hereby RESOLVES as follows : Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 41901, a fee of $2 . 12 per ton is hereby imposed on all solid waste transfer stations (including interim transfer stations) and disposal sites, including the transfer stations and disposal sites operated by Acme Fill Corporation, West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill and Keller Canyon Landfill Company. The tonnage used to determine the tonnage fee shall . be based upon the tonnage of solid wastes reported by the site operators to the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board or the County, or any other measurement deemed appropriate by the County. The fees shall be paid on a quarterly basis to the County of Contra Costa (care of the Health Services Department) . If fees are assessed at a transfer station, no fee for those wastes is to be assessed at the disposal site. The above fee of $2 . 12 shall be discounted by 80 percent, to - $0.41 per ton, to-' reflect the lower costs in the first fiscal year ending June 30, 1993. The fees imposed pursuant to Resolution No. 92/352 are hereby reduced and superseded by the fees imposed herein. This resolution becomes effective immediately upon adoption, and the fees imposed herein become operative on November 23, 1992. PASSED and ADOPTED on November 17, 1992 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors "Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak NOES: None ABSENT: None I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of ABSTAIN: None an action taken and entered on the minutes of th3 Board±of Supe ors on theda shown. ATTESTED: -�DyH� //' Moz-, PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Boar of Supe isor and County dministrator 7.Iihwiee.res by ,Deputy RESOLUTION NO. 92/807