Skip to main content
Contra Costa County Header
File #: 25-3888    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Discussion Item Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 9/12/2025 In control: Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee
On agenda: 9/18/2025 Final action:
Title: DISCUSS pending changes to the IPM Program and ADVISE on these and other potential program adjustments.
Attachments: 1. 6A_ADMIN BULL 542-IPM, 2. 6B_IPM Policy, 3. 6C_IPMAC Bylaws, 4. 6D_Posting and Notification Policy, 5. 6E_IPM Coordinator Class Spec
Date Ver.Action ByActionResultTallyAction DetailsMeeting DetailsVideo
No records to display.

Advisory Board: Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee

Subject:  6.  DISCUSS pending changes to the IPM Program and ADVISE on these and other potential program adjustments.

Presenter: Wade Finlinson

Contact: 925.655.3214

 

Information:

The County IPM Policy states that IPMAC “serves as a resource to help both Department Heads and the Board of Supervisors periodically review, update, and improve existing programs and the processes used for making pest management decisions.”  The IPM Program will likely move from the Hazardous Materials Programs Division of Contra Costa Health to the Agriculture Commissioner’s Office in the near future.  This move marks an opportunity to evaluate how the broader program is structured and make recommendations for refinement. 

 

 

Referral History and Update:

At the June 24, 2025 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, Chief Lewis Broschard of the Contra Costa Fire Prevention District indicated that the IPM Program would transition to the Agriculture Commissioners office.   No further details of the timeline or logistics of this move have been shared with the IPM Coordinator.  Nevertheless, the pending move may result in greater access to related resources within the Agriculture Department and improve the implementation of IPM principles into applicable County programs.

 

Additionally, other related factors may compel further consideration at this time.  Those include but are not limited to the following:

                     Limited public participation in meetings since the COVID-19 pandemic.

                     Difficulty recruiting new members.

                     Potential challenges regarding new training requirements for all County boards and commissions.

                     Inconsistent engagement between the IPM Coordinator and each affected operational division.

                     Limitations on pragmatic problem solving within the parameters of the Brown Act, Better Government Ordinance, and hybrid meeting requirements.

                     Low rate of IPMAC recommendations being acknowledged or incorporated throughout the life of the program.

 

The County IPM Program consists of the IPM Advisory Committee and the IPM Coordinator.  It is also cooperatively attached to certain County operational departments or divisions that manage pests.  Applicable departments and divisions-along with their contracted service providers-are subject to the County IPM policies and practices. 

 

Despite the challenges listed above, the IPM Program has successfully produced a variety of resources and practices that should retain a central focus moving forward.  Those include decision documentation, IPM plan templates, the Pesticide Risk Footprint Tool, policy revisions, and the facilitation of public forums that promote a high level of transparency. 

 

Various reference documents are attached to this staff report.  Those include Administrative Bulletin #542, the County IPM Policy, IPMAC Bylaws, the Pesticide Use Posting and Notification Policy, and the IPM Coordinator class specification.

 

 

Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):

Staff recommends that IPMAC members provide feedback or request additional information to support ongoing deliberations at future meetings.  Potential areas of discussion could include:

                     Suggestions to consider including in potential revisions to the IPM Coordinator job description.

                     Comparisons of other similar IPM programs in the region.

                     Consideration of alternative meeting formats and committee classifications.

                     Other related advice.