Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05011990 - 2.5 Y i 2 .5 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 1, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: (See below for vote) ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUBJECT: Status of the County Solid Waste Commission The Board considered the report of the Director of Community Development recommending that the Solid Waste Commission (SWC) be retained as a separate body from the Integrated Waste Management Task Force if a revenue source is available to fund its staffing; if a revenue source cannot be identified, direct the dissolution of the SWC effective June 1, 1990. A copy of the report is attached and included as a part of this document. Roy Hawes, Chair, County Solid Waste Commission, commented on deficiencies in AB 939 relative to the current role and authority of the SWC particularly in the area of host community mitigation and related issues, and the role and authority of the Integrated Waste Management Task Force established under AB 939. He expressed concern with the inclusion of representatives of industry on the Task Force which is not a requirement for membership on the Commission. He commented on the role of the Commission relative to the development and adoption of the County's litter control ordinances and its other varied assignments. He advised of the Commission's interest in economizing on staff time and expressed the belief that current staff assigned to the Commission can be shared with the Task Force. Noting that the members of the SWC also serve on the Integrated Wasted Management Task Force, Mr. Hawes expressed concern with the transition period between the old Commission, the old Solid Waste Management Plan, the new Task Force, and the new Integrated WAste Management Plan. Supervisor Fanden advised that she supports the recommendation of the Solid Waste Commission and would recommend the retention of the SWC for six months. Supervisor McPeak advised that she did see a distinction between the planning to be done under AB 939 and the policy implementation on an adopted solid waste plan. For this reason she expressed the belief that there may be some merit in having the Solid Waste Commission continue for the next few months and would support this position only if there were no increased costs. She proposed having the meetings of these two advisory bodies held back to back with the current level of staffing provided to the Commission also assigned to the Task Force. She further proposed that the agenda of these two groups be bifurcated so that one part of the agenda is for policy determination/recommen- dations of the Solid Waste Commission with the second part of the agenda reserved for the planning function of the Integrated Waste Management Task Force as specified under AB 939. In response to the request of Supervisor Fanden, the Clerk was instructed to list on the Board's Agenda for May 8, 1990, a referral to County Counsel for development of a Conflict of Interest Code for the Integrated Waste Management Task Force. Supervisor Torlakson advised that he would support retention of the Solid Waste Commission. He expressed the opinion that more needs to be done in the area of recycling. He commented on the need to obtain information on participation on recycling activities and of the role of the Task Force in this area. He referred to the lack of staff to monitor and provide this information and of the need to identify a revenue source to pay for the additional staff. He expressed concern that there is no comprehensive system coming together to address these issues. Supervisor Torlakson recommended that the issue of financing be referred to the Environmental Affairs Committee and the Finance Committee. He expressed the need to have a work program to define what the Board desires to get done that is separate and apart from the requirements of AB 939 with a report to the Board in one month as to how the work of these two groups would be integrated. Supervisor Fanden moved to continue the Solid Waste Commission for six months and at the end of this period to determine the feasibility of continuing it. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Schroder. The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Supervisors Schroder, Fanden NOES: Supervisors McPeak, Torlakson ABSENT: Supervisor Powers ABSTAIN: None Supervisor McPeak commented on the review period of the Commision at the end of six months and advised that she believed 60 days would be a more appropriate review period. She expressed support for the development of a work program for the SWC. Supervisor McPeak then moved the continuation of the Solid Waste Commission as a separate body from the AB 939 Integrated Waste Management Task force, and referral to the Environmental Affairs Committee to develop a work program to include the examination of financing mechanisms available. Supervisor Torlakson seconded the motion; the vote was as follows: AYES: Supervisors Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Fanden NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Powers ABSTAIN: None 1 hereby ccr.1 is a true and correct copy of an action tnk,:i- nc' intcred on the minutes of the cc• Director, CDD Board Of SupFrvisc:r;: .-)r, ilio date shown. . Environmental Affairs Cte. ATTESTED: /1 y y PHIL of the Board County Administrator of Supervisors and C uinty Administrator j 2--005 TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Harvey E. Bragdon 4- FROM; •,/;'' / --,. Director of Community Development o, April 24, 1990 DATE'. y SUBJECT; Status of Solid Waste Commission r'a COUI't� SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Retain the Solid Waste Commission . (SWC) as a separate body from the Integrated Waste Management Task Force if a revenue source is available to fund its staffing. If funding is not available for its staffing, direct that the SWC be dissolved as of June 1, 1990. FINANCIAL IMPACT If the SWC is retained as a separate body from the Task Force, a funding source would need to be implemented to provide staff support to the Commission. The annual staff costs are approximately $25, 000. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION Since its formation in 1977, the Solid Waste Commission, previously known as the Solid Waste Coordinating Body and the Interim Policy Body for Solid Waste Management, has been acting as the advisory body to the Board of Supervisors on solid waste issues in the County. Originally staffed by the Environmental Control Division of the Public Works Department, this function has been with the Community Development Department since 1985 . The funding source for the SWC, authorized under previous solid waste planning law, has been the solid waste planning fee assessed at the landfills and transfer stations in the County. The Conservation Programs Division of the Community Development Department has provided staffing for the Solid Waste Commission since 1985 . As the department responsible for solid waste planning for the County, Community Development appreciates the opportunity to serve as staff to the Commission. We value the input on solid waste issues from the Commission, which is knowledgeable in this field. If a funding source is available to meet the staffing requirements of the SWC, the Community Development Department looks forward to continuing our staffing role. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT; YESSIGNATUR_77E' �. C RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMM TI OF OARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE S : ACT 'QN OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS \ \ 1 RE BY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES. AND =ERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF PER S ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: ATTESTED PHIL BATCHELOR. CLE F THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY INISTRATOR BY ,DEPUTY a County Counsel has stated that fees collected pursuant to AB 939, which supersedes previous solid waste planning law, may only be used for the preparation, adoption, and implementation of a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. Effective January 1, 1990, the Board set the solid waste planning fee at .95 cents per ton to fund the staffing for this plan and the related Task Force. The budget for the Community Development Department, therefore, reflects this funding source, which does not include a provision for the Solid Waste Commission.