HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06051990 - FC.5 REVISED FC.5
L
s . TO;
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS _1..
FROM; Finance Committee
Supervisor Robert I.. Schroder
Supervisor Tom Torlakson Alm-;;;,:_.-};' }
i� 04
DATE . .y ""•c�
June 5, 19 9 0
SUBJECT; Tq COUK�
Use of Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill
Resource Recovery Fee Monies
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMMDATIONS
1. Recommend that the, Board of Supervisors concur with the
County Community Development ' Department' s use of Acme
Transfer Station resource recovery fee monies ( $100,000
annually) to carry out components of the proposed Recycling
Action Plan.
2. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors concur with the
County Community Development Department' s proposed use of
Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill resource recovery fee monies
to carry out the proposed Recycling Action Plan. (This
recommendation was proposed by Supervisor Torlakson but not
supported by Supervisor Schroder) .
3. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the Recy-
cling Action Plan in concept, and
a. Authorize staff to proceed with a short-term contract
.to retain Resource Management Associates for the con-
tinued development of the.,Recycling Action Plan.
b. Authorize staff to proceed with the continued
development of a County Building Multi-material
Collection Processing Program (Program C-1) , the
"preparation of support information for an incorporated
area franchising program (Program C-4) , the continued
development of the school program (school education
curriculum and school facility recycling) (Program
0-1) , and the continued development of the "Promotion"
program . (outreach and public information) (Program
O-3 ) .
C. Direct that the remainder of the Recycling Action Plan
be referred to the County Solid Waste Commission for
review and comment, and that the Commission' s comments
be referred to the Oversight Committee.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X Y SIGNATURE:
ooF
RECOMMENDATIONOF ON:/OFC TRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE
SI-GNATURE(-S): Su Supervisor Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD 4P1NnP. 5F �`�`yO AP;" AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
The Board unanimously approved Recommendations No.3, 4, 5,/and 6.
With respect to Recommendation No. 2, Supervisor Schroder advised that he is opposed .
to using the money from the Marsh Canyon Land Use Permit until it is determined whether
Marsh Canyon will actually be utilized for a landfill. site as it might give a connotation
that there is a decision on that landfill, but that he could vote for using the funds
from the Acme Transfer Station. - Supervisor Fand"ei, agreed.
Supervisor Torlakson .moved approval of Recommendations land 2. Supervisor Powers
seconded the motion. Supervisors Powers, McPeak and Torlakson voted aye, .Supervisors
Schroder and Fanden voted no. The motion carried.
1.fiereby certify that this is a true and Correct Copy Of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervi on the date shown.
cc: Community Development (Orig. Dept. ) Al IESI O, 6 /f !a
County Auditor-Controller FHIL BAT app,Clel�the Board
County Counsel of Supwftm and County Administrator ,
County Administrator my Deputy,
1
&d. Designate the Environmental Affairs Committee as the
Board' s oversight committee for the Recycling, Action
Plan.
4 . Recommend that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to give
the unincorporated area top priority in implementing the
Recycling Action Plan.
5. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors direct staff „to keep
overhead costs to a minimum in implementing the Recycling
Action Plan.
6. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to
pursue cost sharing with cities and sanitary districts with
respect to implementing the Recycling Action Plan.
BACKGROUND .
On May 1, 1990, the Community. Development Department, at the
Board of Supervisors' direction, presented and recommended an
outline proposal for the use of the $200,000 fee for recycling
from the Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill project. The Board
referred the matter to the Finance Committee. By the time the
Finance Committee met on May 21st, staff had expanded the previ-
ous conceptual proposal . into a more detailed outline ' for a
Recycling Action Plan. The Recycling Action Plan consists almost
entirely of projects and components previously authorizedby. the
Board of Supervisors, but not specifically funded. As its name
implies, its components are intended to be implemented in the
short-term while , longer term planning proceeds under the AB 939
program.
Staff proposed to use the $100, 000 annual fee from the Acme
Transfer Station (it is to be used to fund the Resource Recovery
Specialist' s office, which would manage the action workplan) .
The basic issue is how and when to spend the $200,000 Marsh
Canyon fee. The Community Development Department advised the
Finance Committee that FY 1989-90 monies for a County recycling'`
program were exhausted or encumbered, and that the Marsh Canyon
landfill fee would provide an appropriate means of retaining the
County' s consultant and starting to carry out Action Plan recy-
cling projects previously directed by the Board. There are,
however, _9bjections to spending any portion of the Marsh Canyon
resource recovery fee at this time because of concerns that this
would "vest" the project. This concern is reflected in the
attached letter from the Diablo Audubon Society. 'As previously
noted, the Committee was split on this issue.
Another issue before the Finance Committee was the County Solid
Waste Commission' s request that the Recycling. Action Plan be
referred to the Commission for review and . comment ( letter
attached) . In_ order to continue work on several *\components,
staff proposed that the Board authorize the use, of`,the"fee monies
to retain the consultant ' and to continue-workori:= several ; of the
Action Plan components, and.-:to`refer the remainder of, ' the Action
Plan to the Solid Waste Commission for review. The Finance, Com-
mittee agreed.
Ito-VW
Noting that a number of the components of the Recycling Action
Plan were of benefit to the entire County and that the County' s
recycling consultant had previously provided advise to cities,
the Finance Committee concluded that staff should seek cost-
sharing arrangements with- cities and sanitary districts.
2 .
i
The recommendations include designating the Environmental Affairs
Committee (alternatively, the Finance Committee) as a Board
oversight committee for the action program. Staff pointed out
that almost all of the Action Plan components require additional
development work. , A committee, rather than the full Board, would
be the best vehicle for working out the details of project pro
posals before they are carried out or contracted out.
jl49:finan.brd
Enclosed:
Mt. Diablo Audubon Society letter
County Solid Waste Commission letter
3 .