Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10041994 - IO.4 I .O.-4 5 Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS � INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Cosa FROM: .�- L xAIiF,.:��_-- ,¢ County q lr� ;40 September 26, 199A DATE: �r>d'C U ct SUBJECT: FISH AND WILDLIFE, COMMITTEE I SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&;BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: ` 1 . REQUEST the ' County Administrator and Community Development . Director to obtain information on the following: • If the ;;Fish and Wildlife Committee were restored, what. should the precise role, responsibility and jurisdiction of thei:Committee be? • What is the actual cost of staffing the Fish and Wildlife Committee? • What options would the Board of Supervisors have for funding the Fish and Wildlife Committee from other than County general funds? • What is, an appropriate reporting "chain of command" for the Fish and Wildlife Committee which makes it clear to whom th'e Committee is responsible? •• What, i"'f any, changes should be made to the composition of thelFish and Wildlife Committee? 2 . REQUEST the , County Administrator and Community Development Director to ; obtain the_ following information from other counties in :the Bay Area, including at least the counties of Sacramento, $olano, San Joaquin and Sonoma: • Does the county have a Fish and Wildlife Committee? • If so, ' what is its size, composition and manner of appointment? CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF O NT INIST ATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE E SIGNATURES i' ACTION OF BOARD ON (ictober 4 , f q 4 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED - OTHER r' 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 ON THE DATE SHOWN. OCT 0 4 1994 ATTESTED Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Community Development Director Members, Fish and Wildlife Committ_ ,(( -* CAO) By llano�^� _,DEPUTY I .O.-4 • What is the identified role and responsibility of the Committee? • What level of staff support is provided to the Committee and from which County Department? • What is the cost of providing staff support to the Committee, including staff time, materials, mailing and other costs? • What is the source of funding for the costs of staffing the Committee? 3 . REQUEST the County Administrator to write to the members of the Fish and` Wildlife Committee and encourage them to provide the County Administrator with their suggestions for the role, size, composition, manner of selection and reporting relationship for the Committee if it were to be reconstituted. 4 . REQUEST the County Administrator to provide the Internal Operations Committee with a report on this subject to cover the points in recommendations # 1, # 2, and # 3 above on October 31, 1994 . BACKGROUND: On July 12, 1994, the Board of Supervisors abolished the Fish and Wildlife Committee. On August 16, 1994, at the request of Supervisor Bishop, the Board of Supervisors agreed to refer the matter to our Committee for further consideration and a recommendation back to the Board of Supervisors regarding whether to modify or reverse the Board' s action of July 12, 1994 . On September 26,, 1994 , our Committee met with staff from the Community Development Department, several members of the Fish and Wildlife Committee and other interested citizens . Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Director, reviewed the attached report with our Committee. Skip Bateman, a member of the Fish and Wildlife Committee, recounted some of the history of the Committee and some of the actions which were taken which led some of the members of the Committee to believe that the Community Development Department staff was trying' to get rid of the Committee by narrowing its responsibilities and eventually concluding that there was nothing further that the Committee needed to address. He noted that the Committee was supposed to protect the fish and wildlife in the County and report to the Board of Supervisors . He emphasized the importance of reporting to the full Board of Supervisors and not just through the Water Committee. Mr. Bateman suggested that there are a number of current and emerging issues which require the attention of the Committee. Tom Studley, also a member of the Committee, urged our Committee to recommend three actions to the Board of Supervisors : • That the Committee be restored. • That the Committee be made responsible to report directly to the Board of Supervisors . • That the fish and game fine revenue received by the County be used to' provide staff support to the Committee. Mr. Studley indicated that the Committee could help to protect the interests of Contra Costa County from outside groups which might approach the Board of Supervisors asking for money from the fish and game revenue for purposes which might be spent outside this County. He also suggested that the Committee needed only a few hours a month of staff support, contrary to the staff report, which suggested the need for 15 to 50 hours a month of staff support. He also suggested that there are always wetlands issues and development issues which ought to be of concern to the Committee. 2 I .O.-4 Andy Surges suggested that the Board of Supervisors needs a Committee to look at some of these issues and advocate for their perspective. He noted that in the past there had been a perceived need for a grading ordinance which was brought to the Board' s attention by the Committee in order to prevent developers from filling in the wetlands . Jim Marieiro spoke to the issue of financing by pointing out that the State law permits 10% of the Fish and Game fines, not to exceed $3,000 a year to be used to support a Fish and Wildlife Committee. In the past, Mr. Marieiro noted that the Board of Supervisors had been using the Fish and Game fine revenue for the Sheriff ' s Marine Patrol in violation of the State law. This situation was brought to the Board' s attention by the Committee. Capt. Ed Nagel of the State Department of Fish and Game supported the need for the Committee, indicated that the other three counties for which he is responsible and, he thought, the other 14 counties for which his regional supervisor was responsible all had Fish and Wildlife Committees . Mr. Nagel also suggested that the Committee could be supported from a portion of civil settlements of hazardous materials spills prosecuted by the District Attorney. John Winther suggested that the Committee performs an important watchdog role and provides a great deal of valuable work to the County for free. Al McNabney suggested that without the Committee no one in the County is charged with watching out for the interests of fish and wildlife. He disagreed with the report from the Community Development Department. He noted that the Committee has had some ups and downs over the past years - mostly "downs" in the past few years and that everyone associated with the Committee, including staff and members of the Committee, are frustrated. He indicated that the Committee should have an opportunity to make its comments on issues from its perspective to the Board of Supervisors . The need for staff assistance should be minimal, in Mr. McNabney's view. Supervisor DeSaulnier asked whether committees in other counties in the Bay Area report to the Board of Supervisors and how they are staffed. Capt. Nagel indicated that in his counties the Committees reported to the Board of Supervisors, although he was unsure how they were staffed. Supervisor Smithread the entry from the "Maddy Book" which outlines the role of the Fish and Wildlife Committee and noted that much of what the Committee members had been discussing was beyond the role outlined by the Board of Supervisors . He suggested that there is bound to' be a conflict when the Committee is trying to do other than what they were established to do and staff then tries to bring them back to their official role. He also suggested that it is somewhat naive to suggest that the Committee does not require considerable dedication of staff resources to do research, write reports, do mailings, etc. He also suggested that there are two issues which are causing a problem: ✓ The mission of the Committee ✓ The financial situation Supervisor Smith also suggested that it does a disservice to the Board of Supervisors to suggest that the Committee does not care about an issue simply because it abolishes a Committee with jurisdiction in a given area. He noted the importance about being clear about the charge to the Committee. 3 I .O.-4 Based on the discussion we had with the members of the Fish and Wildlife Committee, we have asked that the above information be gathered and reported to our Committee by the end of October. Following the receipt of that information and an opportunity to discuss it with the members of the Committee and staff, we will be prepared to make further recommendations to the Board of Supervisors . 4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: I .O. Committee Supervisor Jeff Smith Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier / FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Directo DATE: September 21, 1994 SUBJECT: FUTURE OF COUNTY FISH AND WILDL FE COMMITTEE BACKGROUND The Fish and Wildlife Committee (the Committee) was, on the recommendation of the Water Committee (Supervisors Torlakson and McPeak) allowed to continue on an "ad-hoc basis" by the Board of Supervisors on February 2, 1993. This action was to allow the Committee to review and comment on a proposed draft wetlands ordinance. The Board did not approve the ordinance since a consensus could not be reached, on June 13, 1993. As part of the recommendation to ,continue with an ad-hoc Committee on a project specific basis, vacancies were not filled, and members ' terms were allowed to expire. There have been no new referrals from the Board to the Committee, , and as a result, the Committee has not met for some time. Some Committee members who remain interested in Committee continuance, have in the past asked the Water Committee for use of Game Protection Funds to pay for greater levels of staff support. No action has been taken. If such action were to be considered, a determination by County Counsel may be appropriate as to the legality of using these funds to cover administrative costs, rather than activities which directly benefit wildlife. THE GAME PROTECTION FUND County Game Protection Fund monies consist of a very small percentage of State Department of Fish and Game citation fines which go to the County of origin to help mitigate damage done to the environment. ' There is about $20,000 of reserve funds in this account at this time, and we receive about $2,000 -$4,000 per year. The Committee and the Sheriff-Coroner may advise the Board on how these funds should be used. The Game Protection Fund, even if deemed appropriate for I I I administrative uses, may not be adequate to pay for staff associated with Committee activities, once reserve funds have been exhausted. Recent State cuts in the Department of Fish and Game, coupled with cuts in County Sheriff Marine Patrol activities, have resulted in significantly less manpower on the Delta, resulting in less citations and less funding back to the counties. Staff has reported that this Committee is quite staff-intensive, having required anywhere from 15 to 50 hours per month in the past. RECOMMENDATION Due to budgetaryconstraints, coupled with resultant staff and program restrictions, we do not recommend continuation of this Committee at this time. The concept of a Committee is a good one, given adequate funding for staff and the necessary wetland/wildlife programs where Committee involvement would indeed be helpful . This is a consideration' for the future, when budgetary issues have been resolved and proactive environmental programs are once again underway. County programs related to wetlands have been deferred indefinitely due to lack of funding. Should the Board elect to continue Committee, involvement, there would be a need to define the funding, function and duties of the Committee. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: I .O. Committee Supervisor Jeff Smith Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Directo DATE: September 21, 1994 SUBJECT: FUTURE OF COUNTY FISH AND WILDL FE COMMITTEE BACKGROUND The Fish and Wildlife Committee (the Committee) was, on the recommendation of` the Water Committee (Supervisors Torlakson and McPeak) allowed to continue on an "ad-hoc basis" by the Board of Supervisors on February 2, 1993. This action was to allow the Committee to review and comment on a proposed draft wetlands ordinance. The IBoard did not approve the ordinance since a consensus could not be reached, on June 13, 1993 . As part of the recommendation to continue with an ad-hoc Committee on a project specific basis, vacancies were not filled, and members ' terms were allowed to expire. There have been no new referrals from the Board to the Committee, and as a result, the Committee has not met for some time. Some Committee members who remain interested in Committee continuance, have in the past asked the Water Committee for use of Game Protection Funds to pay for greater levels of staff support. No action has been taken. If such action were to be considered, a determination by, County Counsel may be appropriate as to the legality of using these funds to cover administrative costs, rather than activities which directly benefit wildlife. THE GAME PROTECTION FUND County Game Protection Fund monies consist of a very small percentage of State Department of Fish and Game citation fines which ,go to the County of origin to help mitigate damage done to the environment. There is about $20,000 of reserve funds in this account at this time, and we receive about $2, 000 -$4,000 per year. The Committee and the Sheriff-Coroner may advise the Board on how these funds should be used. The Game Protection Fund, even if deemed appropriate for administrative use, may not be adequate to pay for staff associated with Committee activities, once reserve funds have been exhausted. Recent State cuts in the Department of Fish and Game, coupled with cuts in County Sheriff Marine Patrol activities, have resulted in significantly less manpower on the Delta, resulting in less citations and less funding back to the counties . Staff has reported that this Committee is quite staff-intensive, having required anywhere , from 15 to 50 hours per month in the past. RECOMMENDATION Due to budgetary constraints, coupled with resultant staff and program restrictions, we do not recommend continuation of this Committee at this time. The concept of a Committee is a good one, given adequate funding for staff and the necessary wetland/wildlife programs where Committee involvement would indeed be helpful . This is a consideration for the future, when budgetary issues have been resolved and proactive environmental programs are once again underway. County programs related to wetlands have been deferred indefinitely due to lack of funding. Should the Board elect to continue Committee involvement, there would be a need to define the funding, function and duties of the Committee.