Loading...
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 .