HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04021991 - H.2 H. 2
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on April 2, 1991 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson and Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance on Solid Waste Collection, Disposal and
Recycling Agreements
This is the time set for hearing on the proposed ordinance
on Solid Waste Collection, Disposal and Recycling in Unincorporated
areas.
Sara Hoffman reviewed the staff ' s recommendations and the
background and reasons for the recommendations.
The Chair declared the hearing open and the following
appeared to discuss the proposed ordinance:
Avon Wilson, 14 Richelle Court, Lafayette, Chairman of the
Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Task Force, expressed concern
with the process and the method of notification. She suggested
consideration of the proposed ordinance should be done in a less
hurried manner. She suggested exploring the option of a joint powers
agreement or memorandum of understanding.
Jean Siri, 1015 Leneve Place, El Cerrito, advised that she
had served for several years on the Boards of Steige Sanitary District
and El Cerrito. She suggested that there is no dissatisfaction with
the status quo and the public is comfortable. with it. She urged the
Board not to adopt the proposed ordinance.
Bob Bacon, 10890 San Pablo Avenue, E1 Cerrito, representing
the City of E1 Cerrito, opposed the provisions of the proposed
ordinance and urged the Board to delay action thereon.
David R. Contreras, Manager of the Mt. View Sanitary
District, suggested the Board not proceed with the proposed ordinance
until it receives input from all the affected agencies.
Mary Powell, 136 Prospect Avenue, P. O. Box 4, Port Costa,
advised that Port Costa had asked the Board to enter into negotiations
on behalf of Port Costa inasmuch as it has a sanitation board that is
appointed rather than elected and therefore does not have the power to
negotiate a contract for the community. She noted that that request
should not be construed as being in support of the proposed County
ordinance that would take away local power of sanitation districts.
She commented that she did not believe the Board is the entity to set
standards for each unincorporated community, given time the community
will solve the problem in a way that is best for the community.
Rod Buttler, 23 Baldwin Avenue, Crockett, Crockett Valona
Sanitary District, commented that he believed that on a local level
the people can do the job better and for less money than the Board or
a group of people at county level.
Harry Thayer, 425 Coventry Road, Kensington, recommended
leaving the franchises with the districts but requiring full
compliance with AB 939 by the franchisees, as well as credible written
plans by which they intend to achieve reduction. He discussed
limiting free pickups by franchisees, incineration, and prohibiting
junk mail. He suggested fines for non-conformance should be assessed
only against the offending districts, not against the unincorporated
area as a whole.
John Tulley, 3486 Springhill Court, Lafayette, commented
that the citizens don' t need another layer of people in
administration, that the Board should handle other problems and leave
solid waste to the sanitary districts. He urged the Board to leave
the franchise agreement with Central Sanitary District.
William Braga, 2910 Hilltop Drive, Richmond, Manager of West
Contra Costa Sanitary District, advised that earlier this day his
Board of Directors had taken a position to oppose the proposed
ordinance as it is written, although they do want to work with the
County. He noted that his Board had also earlier this day approved
a resolution with regard to a West County Joint Powers Agreement. He
commented that the West County cities and sanitary districts can work
together to accomplish the requirement imposed upon all of them. He
urged the Board not to adopt the proposed ordinance.
George Finly, Alamo, representing the Alamo Improvement
Association advised that Central Sanitary had been handling trash
pickups in his area for years and they have been very satisfied.
He opposed the proposed ordinance.
John Clausen, President of the Board of Directors, Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District, urged the Board to postpone adoption
of the proposed ordinance, and that it work in a cooperative manner
with franchising districts who share the County' s concerns and
dedication to meeting legislated waste diversion goals.
Kent Alm, 1111 Civic, Suite 300, Walnut Creek, representing
the Sanitation and Water Agencies of Contra Costa County, which, he
advised, is an informal organization that meets monthly to address
common needs, urged the Board not to adopt the proposed ordinance, but
instead to work towards well drafted and thoughtfully considered
Memoranda of Understanding entered into between the County and the
existing franchise entities. He suggested that the Public Resources
Code plainly envisions the use of such MOU' s to meet AB 939
objectives.
Sandy Skaggs, P. O. Box V, Walnut Creek, advised that he was
here to present the concerns of collectors of solid waste. He advised
that the collectors endorse the alternative which has been advanced by
the Sanitation and Water Agencies of Contra Costa County. He noted
that the collectors questioned whether economics of scale could be
achieved by the ordinance. He expressed concern about the ambiguity
made between staff report and oral representation about intent to
continue existing franchise relationships as opposed to language in
the ordinance which seems inconsistent. He commented that although
the staff recommends adoption of intent to continue existing franchise
terms, collectors feel it would be better included in the ordinance.
Mr. Skaggs then advised that he would now like to appear for
Valley Waste Management and address a couple of their concerns. He
declared that the proposed ordinance would create an inefficient area
for Valley Waste Management, noting that it is not an easy geographic
area to administer. He urged the Board to reconsider the proposed
ordinance.
Steve Roberti, 525 Green Street, Martinez, of the the
Central Labor Council, advised that he was appearing on behalf of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 315, who have concerns
over what will happen under this new proposal to the collective
bargaining agreements that they have with the various franchisees. He
noted that the Council had not been contacted and there are a number
of long-term contracts with the various franchisees that have
provided a very stable labor-management relationship over a long
period of time. He noted that he would like to have assurance that
the people he represents would continue to have their jobs and their
health and pension benefits. He noted that he could not speak in
favor of the proposal unless he has assurances.
John Nolan, 4 Embarcadero Center, San Francisco,
representing Bay View Refuse which services the Kensington area, noted
that there has not been any support for the ordinance, and advised
that on behalf of Bay View, he wished to point out that the proposed
ordinance does not specifically provide for preservation of existing
franchises. He urged the Board to defer action on the ordinance, and
that staff review whether the districts are currently meeting the AB
939 goals. He noted that Kensington and Bay View are currently
promoting recycling efforts and are meeting the goals. He suggested
that staff further review if the ordinance will save money or end up
costing the rate payer more.
There being no further speakers, the Chair commented on the
proposed ordinance and the Board' s goals and concerns; and he invited
other Board members to also comment. The Board discussed the matter
in some detail, including the need to meet the requirements of AB 939,
to work together cooperatively with the haulers and Districts,
recycling economics, control of the waste stream, the proposed joint
powers agreement or memoranda of understanding, and the franchise
issue; and to what extent the Board can be held harmless from fines in
the event it enters into arrangements with Districts for the
administration of part of the AB 939 program, .and what the
implications are on a countywide basis if some Districts don' t take
responsibility for certain unincorporated areas.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED THAT the hearing is closed, and
the comments and concerns discussed at this hearing are REFERRED to
staff for review and response, and for report on April 23 , 1991.
1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisorsonthe date shown.
W ,
ATTESTED. a • /P 9
PHIL BATCHELOR,Cierk of the Board
cc: Community Development ; of Supervisors and County Administrator
County Counsel
County Administrator By ,Deputy