| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.
|
|
|
|
Introductions |
| |
Chair Mitchoff called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. and introductions were made by all meeting attendees. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
|
|
|
Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes). |
| |
No members of the public asked to speak during the Public Comment period. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.
|
|
|
|
RECEIVE and APPROVE the Record of Action for the May 11, 2015 IOC meeting.
|
| |
The Record of Action for the May 11, 2015 IOC meeting was approved as presented. |
| |
|
AYE:
|
Chair Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair John Gioia
|
|
Passed
|
|
| |
Attachments: |
| |
IOC Record of Action for 5/11/15
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.
|
|
|
|
APPROVE nomination to appoint to the Scott Anderson to the County, School District, and Community College District seat on the Treasury Oversight Committee to complete the unexpired term ending on April 30, 2016.
|
| |
The Committee approved the nomination to appoint Scott Anderson to the County, School District, and Community College District seat on the Treasury Oversight Committee to complete the unexpired term ending on April 30, 2016. |
| |
|
AYE:
|
Chair Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair John Gioia
|
|
Passed
|
|
| |
Attachments: |
| |
Memo from Treasurer-Tax Collector Transmitting TOC Nomination
|
| |
Candidate Application_Scott Anderson_TOC
|
| |
County Office of Education Letter_Scott Anderson
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
|
|
|
|
ACCEPT report on the status of the development of a waste hauler ordinance and provide policy direction to staff.
|
| |
Chair Mitchoff asked staff to present each of the ten key policy issues and asked for public comment issue by issue:
1. Ordinance Enforcement-Potential Role of the Sheriff's Office: Environmental Health clarified that this ordinance would be enforced only in the unincorporated area. However, cities may decide to follow suit and adopt similar ordinances to cover the incorporated areas. The Committee directed staff to change the proposed language to indicate that County Environmental Health and the Sheriff "shall" instead of "may" enforce the ordinance provisions, and directed Environmental Health to contact the Sheriff to determine the fiscal impact of that enforcement, if any, and to clarify the appropriate roles for each agency. Deidra Dingman suggested that the Committee could potentially use cost information for the existing mitigation fee-funded resident deputy position that is dedicated to working in North Richmond. The Committee asked for that information to be included in the next report back to the IOC.
Scott Gordon commented that if the refuse boxes were labeled or decaled, then enforcement would be easier. He also expressed the importance of eradicating illegal transfer stations which, in his opinion, are the key driver of illegal hauling and dumping. He said that the convenience of a small transfer station promotes illegal activity and that the ordinance and the enforcement should be designed primarily to cut the "head off of the hydra". Gordon also observed that some of the illegal transfer stations were sophisticated operations and had direct relationships with the haulers. Supervisor Gioia agreed that while both are valid strategies, eradicating the illegal transfer stations should receive priority over ramping up a process to permit haulers. Supervisor Mitchoff felt that both avenues should be pursued.
Supervisor Gioia added that some of the materials dumped at these illegal transfer stations were hazardous, so the need for enforcement is also a public safety issue. He stated that the County should make a concerted effort to eradicate illegal transfer stations, starting with west county due to the high concentration in that area, and use multiple strategies to eradicate them, including code, land use, and statutory enforcement.
2. Ordinance Requirement-Performance Bond (four options): Environmental Health said that the bond amount is a low amount and is supposed to cover losses from improper work.
The Committee preferred Option 2. They felt that the County should not want to permit a hauler who cannot obtain a bond. They also felt that the bond amount should be high given the price the community must pay for illegal dumping. The Committee directed EH staff to return with a recommendation for the amount of the performance bond.
Scott Gordon commented that the bond requirement should minimally be $100,000 and that liability insurance should also be required.
3. Ordinance Scope-Buildling Contractors and Landscapers Self-Haul (four options): The Committee decided that landscapers were not really the problem and should be exempted from permitting (Option 3, but just pertaining to landscapers. EH staff indicated that EH has developed educational brochures listing legal transfer stations throughout the county.
4. Ordinance Enforcement-Role of the Building Permit & Inspection Process: Deidra Dingman explained the requirements under the CalGreen law. The Committee viewed construction debris as a serious problem and preferred Option 4, which would require building contractors, in addition to designating in the permit where debris will be dumped, to also designate how the debris will be disposed/hauled and who will haul it.
Dingman clarified that the CalGreen report, which is required for the final inspection, must include documentation showing how debris was disposed; and that the problem related more to unpermitted work or permitted work that didn't receive a final inspection. The Committee asked Conservation & Development staff to report back on the number of permits pulled vs. completed, and also directed that if debris boxes are present at the time of a building inspection, that the inspector note on the report whether or not the box was properly decaled.
5. Ordinance Scope-Conflicts with Existing Franchise Agreements: The Committee decided that the County's franchise agreements should be amended to be exclusive with regard to debris boxes but not exclusive with regard to self-haul contractors, consistent with the current franchise agreement covering west county.
6. Franchise C&D Waste: The Committee preferred franchise exclusivity on C&D waste collected in drop/debris boxes but non-exclusivity on C&D self-haul.
7. Ordinance Scope-Source-separated Recyclables/Poaching Issue (two options): The Committee preferred neither option 1 nor 2 and, instead, preferred that permitting be required for the transport of source-separated recyclable materials.
8. Ordinance Scope-Further Outreach: The Committee concurred with the staff recommendation.
9. Ordinance Scope-Industrial Waste: The Committee concurred with the staff recommendation except that it decided that "food processing" should be removed from the definition of "Industrial entity", and that size/scale and zoning should determine whether or not a food processing facility is an industrial entity. The Committee requested staff to develop final language.
10: Ordinance Requirement-In-County vs. Out-of-County Disposal/Recycling (two options): The Committee identified legal and policy issues with restricting disposal within Contra Costa boundaries. The Committee asked County Counsel for a legal opinion.
The Committee asked EH and DCD staff to report back in October. |
| |
Attachments: |
| |
Environmental Health Status Report on Development of Waste Hauler Ordinance
|
| |
Conceptual Draft of Waste Hauler Ordinance
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.
|
|
|
|
Role. It is recommended that CPAW’s primary role is to assist Contra Costa Behavioral Health Services in complying with statutory and regulatory requirements to, 1) advise and assist the CCBHS Director obtain inclusive and diverse stakeholder participation in the Community Program Planning Process, 2) provide input on priority needs that affect the entire public mental health system, and 3) recommend strategies to meet these needs (California Code of Regulations 9 CA ADC Sections 3300 and 3200.070). Issues for discussion will be coordinated with the Mental Health Commission and topical to CCBHS. Unlike stakeholder structures of some counties, such as Sacramento and Orange Counties, it is recommended that CPAW’s role not include funding decisions or recommendations. CCR Sections 3300 and 3200.070 are implementations of Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) 5848(a) that requires that the County shall provide for a Community Program Planning Process as the basis for developing the MHSA Three-Year Program and Expenditure Plan and Plan Updates.
Governance. It is recommended that CPAW meet on a monthly basis in order build an ongoing stakeholder body of expertise in the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) and its components, values and provisions. Business is to be conducted under provisions of the Brown Act, with an emphasis on open and inviting forums for all stakeholders in the community to come and participate. Attachment 2 represents a set of self-governance agreements that the current CPAW membership has developed and adopted for all CPAW sponsored meetings. This agreement addresses potential conflict of interest issues, and protocol for when group positions are taken. Minutes will be taken of each meeting and transmitted to the CCBHS Director, as well as posted online with accompanying handouts. These minutes will depict summaries of agenda items, discussions and any group positions taken. The results of Community Program Planning Processes will be included as part of the MHSA Three Year Program and Expenditure Plan and yearly Plan Updates.
Membership. All stakeholders are invited to attend and participate in CPAW sponsored meetings. In order to ensure compliance with WIC Section 5848(a) the BHS Director will seek and appoint individuals for three to five year terms who can constructively represent in a meaningful way stakeholders, as defined by statute and regulations, who participate in the public mental health system as either receivers of care, provide support to the provision of care, or providers of care. Special emphasis will be placed on appointment of individuals whose characteristics and affiliations are underrepresented. Attachment 3 provides a roster of current active CPAW members, and an initial, suggested matrix depicting each member representing a single affiliation. As per CCR 3300 affiliations consist of consumer, family member, peer provider, family partner, County and contract service provider, representatives of underserved populations, and leadership from partner systems, such as criminal justice, education, veterans’ services, alcohol and other drug programs, homeless programs, and faith based organizations. Currently CPAW has 23 members, with five additional appointments recommended to add underserved population representation of persons identifying as Latina/o, parents of young children, and a representative of alcohol and other drug programs, homeless programs, and veterans’ services. Applications for membership will be accepted on a continuous basis, and current CPAW members may be asked to assist in vetting an applicant for identification of all characteristics and affiliations that may influence their participation. Attachment 4 provides a matrix of all of the self-reported characteristics and affiliations of individuals who were CPAW members as of May 2014.
Attendance. Appointed members who miss a third or more of meetings in a year’s time will be considered for relinquishment of their appointment. This will enable an appointment of an individual who can more actively represent said affiliation. In addition, members will be expected to participate in at least one additional stakeholder body supported by CCBHS, whether CPAW sponsored or not, and will share information from these meetings with CPAW membership.
Structure. Until now, sub-committees and ongoing workgroups under the auspices of CPAW have included Membership, Steering, Innovation, Systems of Care, Children’s, Transition Age Youth, Adults (not currently active), Older Adults, Housing and Social Inclusion. These bodies have been issue-specific, open to any and all interested stakeholders, and do not designate specific individuals for membership. Representatives from CPAW and the Mental Health Commission attend these meetings.
The following is recommended for each of the above sub-committees and workgroups:
Membership. Membership will be a CPAW workgroup, and will meet on an as needed basis to assist in, 1) vetting an applicant for CPAW membership for identification of all characteristics and affiliations that may influence their participation, and 2) making a recommendation to the CCBHS Director for membership to CPAW. Participation in this process is open to all CPAW members, with the public invited to attend and comment.
Steering. Steering will be a CPAW workgroup, and will normally meet two weeks before the monthly CPAW meeting to, 1) construct the CPAW meeting agenda, and 2) consider any issues delegated to them from CPAW meetings. Participation in this process is open to all CPAW members, with the public invited to attend and comment.
Innovation. Innovation will be a CPAW workgroup, and will meet monthly to, 1) receive, vet and recommend Innovative Concepts to the Behavioral Health Services Director for development into a proposal, 2) assist in developing an approved Innovative Concept to an Innovative Project proposal for Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission (MHSOAC) consideration and approval as per WIC Section 5830, and 3) provide oversight and input to MHSOAC approved Innovative Projects. Participation in this process is open to all CPAW members, with the public invited to attend and comment. It is recommended that CPAW members wishing to participate in the deliberations associated with Innovative Project concepts or proposals commit to participation in the entirety of each Innovative Project consideration process in order to enable this workgroup to develop efficient consistency and continuity of effort, from Innovative Concept consideration through Project approval and implementation.
Systems of Care. System of Care will be a CPAW workgroup, and will meet monthly to enable stakeholder input on MHSA funded programs and plan elements that are in development or change. Examples have included staffing the newly built Miller Wellness Center, implementation of the Electronic Mental Health Record System, and developing a common data reporting system for MHSA funded Innovation and Prevention and Intervention programs in response to pending new regulations. CPAW will delegate to this workgroup issues for stakeholder participation. Participation in this workgroup is open to all interested stakeholders, whether CPAW members or not.
County MHSA funded personnel will provide ongoing staff and administrative support to CPAW meetings, and the above four CPAW sponsored workgroups. This includes, 1) ongoing communication with CPAW members, 2) posting developed agendas and attachments, 3) reserving rooms, setting up and arranging for audio-visual support, 4) responding to reasonable accommodation requests, such as gift cards, 5) producing agreed upon documents, such as agenda readiness forms, minutes, staff analyses and position papers, and 6) facilitating communication and problem solving between stakeholders and the CCBHS Director, Deputy Director, chiefs and managers, as appropriate.
For the remaining stakeholder bodies it is recommended that respective Behavioral Health Services managers assume sponsorship by appointing personnel within their supervision to perform the staff support and administrative duties that are listed above. These stakeholder bodies will include Children’s, Transition Age Youth, Adults and Older Adults, Housing, and Social Inclusion. Issues for participation will be mutually agreed upon and topical to the entire Behavioral Health Services System; not just issues where MHSA funding is involved.
This restructuring will enable the County to build stakeholder expertise in addressing statutory responsibilities under the Mental Health Services Act, while concurrently supporting wide stakeholder participation in an integrated Behavioral Health Service Division.
|
| |
Chair Mitchoff gave an overview of the staff report and of the written public comment that had been submitted, including the difference in the roles and reporting relationships of the Mental Health Commission and the Consolidated Planning and Advisory Workgroup (CPAW). Environmental Health (EH) staff recommended increasing CPAW to 28 members. Cynthia Belon clarified that the Alcohol & Other Drug and Homeless Program seats are designated for recipients of those services. Warren Hayes clarified that the Veterans Services seat is designated for a person that has an interest in veterans' mental health services.
The Committee invited public comment. Douglas Dunn commented that too many of the CPAW members were County employees but the Committee disagreed, noting that only 25% of the membership were County staff. Dunn said that he and the NAMI Board believe that CPAW members should not have multiple stakeholder affiliations. He gave an example where certain Family seat members also work for a community-based organization. Theresa Pasquini commented that she wants to see a broad representation of affiliations on CPAW but she complained that concerns about double affiliations are not being heard or taken seriously. She observed a lack of representation of adult family partners. Pasquini said, in her opinion, that Belon had not made any new appointments to the CPAW and that the current membership was appointed by someone else.
Barbara Serwin commented that on other boards on which she has participated, multiple affiliations were not permitted and it was the responsibility of each appointee to be clear about which interest he/she was representing.
Supervisor Gioia responded that it is not unusual for stakeholders to have many affiliations with a cause or issue, and that being affiliated with more than one stakeholder group should not make a person's viewpoint less valid or meaningful. He spoke of himself serving on regional boards and holding both regional and county viewpoints. He cautioned about making assumptions about what someone's bias or predisposition might be. He said that being a good contributing member has less to do with the stakeholder category and more to do with the capacity of each individual to communicate, to be open to hearing other viewpoints and respectful towards people who have differing viewpoints.
Barbara Serwin commented that the appointees change over time but the seat designations do not, so the configuration should be based on seat designations rather than appointees.
In reference to the staff report on the diversity of representation on CPAW, Supervisor Gioia said that it was unacceptable to not have a Hispanic person on CPAW. He acknowledged that appointees to the Underserved representatives will likely have dual or multiple affiliations and that was acceptable.
The Committee suggested that the CPAW should be configured as shown below. Supervisor Mitchoff said that, with the added MHC seats, Gina Swirsding should be allowed to decide whether she wants to serve in the Consumer seat or Mental Health Commission seat.
|
Seat Designation
|
Current
Configuration |
Suggested
Configuration |
| Alcohol & Other Drug |
0 |
1 |
| CBO Service Provider |
3 |
3 |
| CCBHS Service Provider |
1 |
1 |
| Consumer |
6 |
6 |
| Criminal Justice |
1 |
1 |
| Education |
1 |
1 |
| Faith Based Leadership |
1 |
1 |
| Family Member |
6 |
6 |
| Family Partner - Juvenile |
1 |
1 |
| Family Partner-Adult |
0 |
1 |
| Homeless Programs |
0 |
1 |
| Mental Health Commission |
0 |
2 |
| Peer Provider - CCBHS |
2 |
2 |
| Underserved Population |
3 |
3 |
| Veterans Services |
0 |
1 |
| Total: |
25 |
31 |
The Committee went on to determine that no further changes were needed to address conflict of interest procedures since CPAW does not make fiscal recommendations. Discussion ensued regarding the applicability of the Brown Act to the CPAW. Supervisor Gioia clarified that the CPAW is subject to the County's Better Government Ordinance, which is more stringent than the Brown Act with respect to open meetings, agendas, and public noticing. The Committee asked for additional training to be provided to CPAW on compliance with the Better Government Ordinance.
The Committee otherwise accepted the EH recommendations and directed staff to forward the Committee's recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. |
| |
|
AYE:
|
Chair Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair John Gioia
|
|
Passed
|
|
| |
Attachments: |
| |
Attachment 1_County Survey
|
| |
Attachment 2_CPAW Self-Governance Agreement
|
| |
Attachment 3_CPAW Composition and Roster
|
| |
Attachment 4: CPAW Self-ID Matrix
|
| |
Attachment 5_Public Comment, Douglas Dunn_CPAW Restructure
|
| |
Attachment 6_Public Comment, Douglas Dunn_CPAW Membership Structure
|
| |
Attachment 7_Public Comment, Douglas Dunn_Sacramento Co. MHSA Conflict of Interest Policy
|
| |
Attachment 8_Public Comment_Barbara Serwin_CPAW Analysis
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.
|
|
|
|
ACCEPT report prepared by the Office of the Auditor-Controller on analysis of the Public Works Department-Fleet Services Division’s compliance with Administrative Bulletin #508.4, “County Vehicle and Equipment Acquisition and Replacement Policy, and Clean Air Vehicle Policy and Goals.”
|
| |
Joanne Bohren, Chief Auditor, presented the staff report, which showed that, as of February 28, 2015, 18% of the fleet were clean air vehicles, 36.2% were not clean air vehicles but were exempted by the policy or by the Fleet Manager, and 45.8% were not exempt and not in compliance with the clean air vehicle policy.
PW Fleet Manager Carlos Velasquez said he recognized that we are not where we need to be with clean air vehicles but that he is committed to downsizing and right-sizing County vehicles. PW has already purchased more than 25 electric and CNG vehicles since February. He reported that several of the PW utility vans have been retired and replaced with CNG vehicles and he has introduced electric vehicles to the PW fleet. Supervisor Gioia commented that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District just released a funding opportunity for clean air vehicles. Carlos reported that he tracks grant and rebate programs on a national level.
Supervisor Gioia asked the Fleet Manager to update the 2008 County Clean Air Vehicle Policy to also to reflect current technology such as electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and current funding incentives. Supervisor Mitchoff asked the Fleet Manager to break out large construction vehicles from regular trucks and sedans to make the statistical reporting more meaningful.
The Committee directed Committee staff to forward this report to the Board on Consent, and directed Public Works to report back to the IOC on September 14 with recommended policy revisions. |
| |
|
AYE:
|
Chair Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair John Gioia
|
|
Passed
|
|
| |
Attachments: |
| |
Chief Auditor's Report on County Compliance with Clean Air Vehicle Policy
|
| |
County Clean Air Vehicle Policy
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.
|
|
|
|
The next meeting is currently scheduled for September 14, 2015. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.
|
|
|
|
Adjourn |
| |
Chair Mitchoff adjourned the meeting at 4:05 p.m. |