HomeMy WebLinkAboutM010681January 6, 1981
OF CALIFORNIA )
SS.
Of' BUTTE )
81- The Board of Supervisors met at 9:00 a.m. pursuant to adjournment.
3 Present: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Lemke.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer; Dan Blackstock, county counsel; and
Clark A. Nelson, county clerk,, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk to the Board.
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
Invocation by Supervisor Moseley
11
meeting was called to order for the purpose of re-organization
of the Board.
Supervisor Dolan felt that the chair should be rotated. The Board
has a written procedure that has not been followed in which it says the
chair would be rotated by district number. Every district should have a term
at the chair.
Chairman Lemke stated the precedent was broken last year. So far
it has rotated and the next rotation would normally be the fourth district.
Last year would have been District 4. District 1 was represented in 1978.
The time he served out of order was two years ago. The rotation would have
been District 1, District 4, District 5, District 3 and District 2.
Supervisor Dolan felt that the chair should go with the job of
supervisor and someone on the Board would not get the chair, which means
the constituents in the district will lose out.
Supervisor Wheeler did not think the constituents were missing out.
Even though a supervisor comes from one district, they represent Butte County
as a whole. She felt the Board was rotating the chair.
Chairman Lemke stated he had no problem either way. The proper
rotation is now being presented except that one person is out of turn. The one
person that would lose the chance at the chair would be the second District.
It is not a political plum. There is a considerable amount of extra work
involved.
Chairman Lemke declared nominations in order for Chairman for
the ensuing yeax. Supervisor Wheeler nominated Supervisor Moseley as
Chairman, The motion was seconded by Supervisor Saraceni. There being
no further nominations the nominations were closed. Vote on motion:
Ayes; Supervisors Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Lemke. Noes: Supervisor
Dolan. Abstaining: Supervisor Moseley. Chairman Moseley declared nominations
in order for Vice-Chairman for the ensuing year. Supervisor Zemke nominated
Supervisor Wheeler as Vice-Chairman. The motion was seconded by Supervisor
Saraceni. There being no further nominations the nominations were closed.
Vote on motion: Ayes; Supervisors Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman
Moseley. Noes: Supervisor Dolan:
2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the minutes of 17eeember`16 1980 were approved
as mailed.
On motionuof Supervisor Lemke, seconded By Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the minutes of December 2, 1980, minute order
80-1889 were amended to reflect Resolution 80-257 in appreciation of
Supervisor Winston's services~wa~:adopted and the Chairman authorized
to sign. Page 475. January 6, 1981.
January 6, 1981
$1- 3 APPROVE CETA EDD AGREEMENT
$ On mat ion of Supervisor L'Emke; seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and unanimously carried, the non-financial agreement between the prime
sponsor of CETA and the State Employment Development Department (EDD)
delineating areas of cooperation and coordination was approved and the
Personnel Director authorized to sign.
4 (WAIVE FIRST READING OF SALARY _ORBINANCE AMENDMENT
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and unanimously carried, the first reading of the salary ordinance which
adds three additional Deputy Sheriff positions to the Patrol Division, making
a total of twelve authorized of the 27 proposed was waived.
SIAPPROVE PURCHASE - OROVILLE JUSTICE COURT
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the purchase of two used desks at a cost of $212
in order to provide work stations for personnel for the Oroville Justice
Court wase approved.
6IAUTHORIZE INCREASE TO TMPREST FUND FOR THE EMERGENCY LOAN•REVOLVTNG FUND
0n motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
unanimously carried, an increase to $12,500 to the imprestl~fund for
emergency loan revolving fund (Fund 1330) was authorized.
7IORDER DISTRIBUTION OF EXCESS TAX PROCEEDS TO SOUTHERN ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
nd unanimously carried, distribution of excess tax proceeds in accordance
th Revenue and Taxation Code Section 4675 from the sale of AP 47-22--57
in the amount of $981.05 to Southern Adjustment Bureau, Inc. was ordered.
8IORDER DISTRIBUTION OF EXCESS TAX PROCEEDS TO SOUTHERN ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, distribution of excess tax proceeds in accordance
th Revenue and Taxation Code Section 4675 from the sale of AP 41-36-37
in the amount of $3,841.09 to Southern Adjustment Bureau, Tnc. was ordered.
9 OLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL AMENDMENT - CONTINUED TO JANUARY 13 1981
Discussion of amendment to Policy and Procedure Manual Section
24.00 - Housing and Community Development to provide for changes for
operation of the program in the 1980-81 grant year held at this time.
Supervisor Dolan was concerned with the loan in Section 24:02,
ection b, subsection 3 relative to the three year period. The
ent policy relative to Section 8 goes with the structure for three
s and HUD will loan money to the people £or fifteen years.
Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, stated they were
tying to assure benefitting low and moderate income people. They are
orking closely relative to Section 8. Subsection 3 is an attempt to
e consistent with the items in subsection 1 and 2. Section 8 loans could
e for a period of 15 years. The average terms of the loans issued are
tom 15 to 20 years.
Supervisor Dolan was concerned that the availability of low
moderate income housing should be fox the life of the loan.
Supervisor Lemke stated that the loans would be in low income
target areas. He did not feel that this area would be rented by higher
income persons. The property will be in the wrong geography for them to
:eke advantage of the low income rents. Whether or not the loan is made
Page 476.
3anuary 6, 1981
SI=
d
_ __Ja_nu_ary 6, 1981 _____ _______
aow interest there should be some type of provision to provide for the
itomatic two percent increase_in assessment for the property. Over a
:riod of 15 years the increase would be about thirty percent.
Supervisor Dolan asked that HUD be asked if they take the two
assessment increase into consideration for their loans.
Mr. Lively stated it is considered at the time of the loan. The
e of thumb is that the total housing cost should not be more than
rty percent of the income of the person living in it. The developer
really not the number one priority. The policy is that the developer
secondary concern.
The matter was continued to January 20, 1981.
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
unanimously carried, the following budget transfers were approved:
10
B-72 - Oroville Justice Court. Transfers $212 from jmry and
ess expense to fixed assets - equipment in order to provide the
ssary budgetary appropriation for the purchase of two desks for
ting personnel.
B-73 -- Sheriff-Coroner. Transfers $15,000 from the £ood account
the incarceration budget; with $3,500 going to clothing and personal
plies to provide an additional budgetary appropriation to cover the
is associated with new jail personnel; increases special department
ense in the investigation bureau to cover the costs associated with
keeping of fighting cocks at the Animal Control shelter; and increases
ice expense in the services division in the amount of $5,000 to cover
costs related to the state mandated revamping of forms.
8-75 - Criminal Justice System Subvention Program (AB 90). Transfers
total of $11,210 within various AB 90 related projects, together with
llocatiog an additional $23,127 in AB 90 subvention funds,for a total
ransfer of $34,337. This transfer adjusts various projects funded through
he Criminal Justice System Subvention Program (AB 90) to reflect the
llocation of finalized 1980-81 fiscal year grant funds available and the
llocation 1979-80 carryover funds.
8-76 - Community Action Program. Increases the budgetary appropriation
r salaries and wages, $605 and employee benefits, $1,431 in the Community
tion Agency 1980 Rural Senior Service Project in order to cover end of
e grant budgetary deficiencies. Total amount of the transfer is $2,036
th funding coming from unanticipated revenue - other aid - participant
B-77 - Community Action Program. Transfers $2,000 from salaries and
es with $200 going to fringe benefits, $150 to travel, $1,400 to consumable
plies and $250 to rents, leases and purchase of equipment. The purpose
this transfer is to provide an appropriation within the 1980 YCCIP
utification Project pursuant to budget modification ~~2 as approved by
CETA Director on December 18, 1980.
B-7S -- Community Action Program - HEW. This transfer establishes
budget for tfie Community Action Agency 1981 Head Start Program as
roved by the Department of Health and Human Services on December 4, 1980
the amount of $524,861. Funding includes $104,972 in-kind contributions
$419,889 in federal aid.
Page 477.
January 6, 1981
January 6,, 1981
81- 11 AUTHORIZE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TO INTER INTO AGREEMENT FOR APPRAISAL
b SERVICES FOR PROPERTY AC UISITION - 2510 FT. WAYNE STREET (HCD)
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the Administrative Officer was authorized to enter
into an agreement for appraisal services concerning property acquisition
for 2510 Ft. Wayne Street, Oroville.
12 APPROVE VARIANCE RENEWALS
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and unanimously carried, the following were approved:
1. Margaret Dietz renewal of variance to Sections 19-10 and/or
19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on
AP 40-30-64, 2392 Blossom Lane, Durham area. Zoning: "A-5"
2. Clifford 0. and Mary L. Long renewal of variance to Sections
19-10,and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home
on AP 31-19-021, 2048 Hardnett Court, Oraville area. Zoning: "AR-MH"
3. Ben Ringer renewal of variance to Sections~l9-10 and/ox
19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on
AP 42-05-14, Route 1, Box 765, Rodeo Avenue, Chico area. Zoning: "A-5"
13 APPROVE 1980-$1 STANDARD AGREEMENT - COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and unanimously carried, the 1980-81 standard agreement for county health
services with the Department of Health Services to cover reimbursement
of program costs in the maximum amount of $1,028,509 was approved and
the Chairman authorized to sign.
14 AUTHORIZE SUBMISSION OF FAMILY PLANNING CONTRACT RENEWAL APPLICATION
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the renewal application for the family planning
services contract fox submission to the State Department of Health in the
amount of $80,000 for the 1981-82 fiscal year was authorized.
15 ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-1 ESTABLISHING FEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, Resolution 81-1 establishing fees for Envirosunental
Health. Services Department was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
16 AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PENALTY RELIEF - ROBERT COWMAN
On motion of Supervisor Wheelex, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the request for penalty relief for Robert Lowman
for AP 12-072-006-0 was authorized.
17 APPROVE 1480c'85 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM POR INCLUSION iN THE REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated this was just
for the purposes of inclusion in the plan and not for funding of the
projects.
Supervisor Saraceni felt that the Ophir Road Extension should
have a higher priority in the Oroville area.
Mr. Castleberry stated it would relietre the traffic problems
on Oro-Dam Blvd. It is a new extension.
Supervisor Saraceni asked that this be moved to the 1981-82
(portion of the plan.
Page 478.
3anuary 6, 1981
January 6, 1981
8T=
v
Supervisor Dolan stated the same could be said for the projects
for 1982-83. The county has been in discussion witfi.the-City of. Chico
relative to Rio Lindo and Cohasset in an effort to get the intersection
safer.. It is still listed in the 1982-83 priorities.
Mr. Castleberry stated that as far as his department was
concerned the Ophir Road Extension was not a critical item. He wished
he had the money to do the projects. He would be happy to work on any
project the Board wishes him to. The project for the railroad track on
Oro-Dam Blvd is scheduled to be in the next budget year. The traffic
at this location on Oro-Dam Blvd is presently 22,000 cars per day. He
would be happy to discuss priorities during the budget session this year.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
and unanimously carried, the Capital Improvement Program for 1980-85 was
approved for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan update.
18 ADOPT ORDINANCE 2174: CL05EA HEARING: BALDWTN CONTRACTING COMPANY - DRAFT
EIR AND REZONE FROM "FR-5" (FOOTHILL RECREATIONAL - FIVE ACRE PARCELS) TO
"PA-C" PLANNED AREA-CLUSTER), PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG BUTTE CREEK FROM THE
SKYWAY TO THE EAST APPROX. THREE MILES, IDENTIFIED AS AP 40-01-25, 40-02-130
&132 40-41-2 & 3 AND 46-38-50 & 57 50UTHEAST OF CHICO
The closed public hearing on Baldwin Contracting Company draft
environmental impact report and rezone from "FR-5" (foothill recreational -
five acre parcels) to "PA-C" (planned area - cluster), property located
along Butte Creek from the Skyway to the east approximately three miles,
identified as AP 40-01-25, 40-02-130 and 132, 40-41-2 and 3, and 46-38-50
and 57, southeast of Chico was held as continued.
Supervisor Lemke stated he had received a letter from Mr. and
Mrs. Manuel S. Borger in opposition to the rezone.
Supervisor Wheeler stated she had received a telephone call from
Bob Paugh relative to the rezone. He was concerned about the location of
the treatment plant for sewage and flooding and wanted to know who would
pay for contamination of wells of other property owners if it should
Supervisor Dolan stated that apparently Mr. Paugh called every
ere. In her checking on the question, contamination does not happen at
rapid growth. How do you deterine where the exact cause is over a
riad of year if the area has developed.
Supervisor Lemke stated he was anxious that the issue is
operly addressed and that they have those sanctions from Water Quality
ntrol Board that the Health Department has thoroughly investigated
e matter. In the event of contamination does the Board have the
erewithall to determine who does the work of providing for uncontaminated
Earl Nelson, environmental review director, stated there were
concerns raised during the hearing process. One condition of approval is
that the developer must meet the Health Department requirements. There are
notes in the EIR that this type of soil material that allows rapid
permability. The water moves through it very rapidly. The developer proposes
to treat the water before it is released and additional filtration will
occur in the soil itself. It is not the kind of soil suitable for normal
leaching. The developer has designed the system in a way that there will
be.pre-treatment and this should meet the requirements of the Health
Department. It might improve the situation that exists on some of the
properties in the area if there ~.*as a filtration system in the entire canyon.
age 479.
January 6, 1981
Sl-
a
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ =J_an_uar_y-6i 1981_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Supervisor Lemke stated there was concern at the hearing about
safety of the new road and encroachment on the Skyway as opposed to adding
four feet to Honey Run Road.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated that his office
had looked at the location again. He suggested that to add emphasis
to an item not discussed as much that the new approach on the Skyway near
Burtorfs Mesa, that condition 9 be added tocas follows: Design and construction
by developer shall include left turn facilities at Skyway as approved by
Public Works. Condition 429 should be revised starting with the word
reconstruct as follows: reconstruct substandard vertical curves at
two locations for a distance of 400 feet to 45 MPH design speed. Mr.
Castleberry felt that horizontal design was close to 45 MPH already. At
this site a person would lose site of a vehicle. He did not think the
S turn should be revised. If this is revised the traffic speeds would
increase. Right-of-way would be necessary to go through a house that
is there now. If the Board wanted the road widened four feet to the
Skyway that would be fine. He felt that would be a little much. The
exit would be as proposed unless the curves were realigned. That would
increase the traffic in the area. He did not feel the realignment of
the S curve should be done and the access should be made emergency only.
Mr. Castleberry spoke to the improvements on Honey Run Road.
There are two locations with dips. He was saying take the two hills off
and fill in the dips with the dirt from the hills and there will be site
distance. If the Board wants the road widened all the way to Skyway he
would be happy with it. He felt that Honey Run Road and Skyway would be
used 50 - 50. The more one is improved, the more that road will be used.
It was moved by Supervisor Lemke seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
finding that comments and recommendations from the public have been
attached to the draft environmental impact report, that written response
to significant environmental points raised by the comments have been
prepared and attached to the draft environmental impact report and that
a list of persons, organizations and public agencies who commented has
been attached to the draft environmental impact report, the final environmental
impact report be certified as having been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, the State Environmental Review
Guidelines and the Butte County Environmental Review Guidelines.
Supervisor Dolan asked if the Board had seen the map showing
the subdivisions in the area. It specifically addresses the impact. She
felt this map needed to be a part of the EIR.
Supervisor Lemke amended the motion to include: map showing
subdivisions in the area to be included in the final ETR in the section
regarding cumulative effects.
Supervisor Wheeler stated that some of the developments further
up will have access on Highway 32. Humbug Road will not be totally
impacted from all these developments.
Vote on amended motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke,-Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman
Moseley
NOES: None
Motion carried.
Page 480.
January 6, 1981
81-
3
- _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - January-6 t 1981_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
It was moved by Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Wheelet
that having reviewed and considered the final environmental impact report,
the following findings be made:
1. Development which occurs pursuant to project approval when viewed in
conriecti~n•with other probable fature projects, may result in significant
environmental changes affecting the level of public services provided
to this area, specifically schools and perhaps also police and fire
protection. Such effects would occur over time, and could be mitigated
before they occur, depending on the availability, allocation and
expenditure of public funds derived as a result of new development
and associated economic activity. Because of inflation, increasing
energy costs, and an apparent public mood to reduce the size of
governmentr:and to reduce taxes, public service levels may decline
whether or not this project is built. Present day economic uncertainties
render this impact too speculative for evaluation. This project will
not in itself cause significant adverse environmental effects on
public services, but its possible relationship to an area-wide cumulative
effect over a long period of time is acknowledged.
2. The project under consideration, being located within an area subject
to flooding, is designed to accommodate a 100-year recurrence interval
flood. Potentially significant adverse environmental effects including
hazards to life and property from floods of a larger recurrence interval
such as 500 years or 1,000 years are acknowledged to be possibilities,
but the .lik@lihoodof such floods occurring is very small. For this
reason an increase in the project design standard beyond the 100-year
flood recurrence interval is deemed to be unreasonable and unnecessary
since an adequate level of public safety is provided by the 100-year
flood design considerations and related safety features to ~be made
conditions of project approval.
3. A11 other impacts which are disclosed in the record of proceedings
related to this project are either insignificant, too speculative for
evaluation, significant, but not adverse or will be reduced to a level
of insignificance by mitigation measures attached as conditions of
project approval.
a. Impacts which are found to be insignificant and the reasons
for these findings are as follows:
1. Exposure of buildings and project residents to groundshaking
from earthquakes. This impact is common to most areas of the
county and is not more severe here than in other areas.
Additionaly, applicable building code standards will provide
the buildings with a measure of structural resistance to
groundshaking.
2. Restriction of groundwater recharge. This concern was eliminated
when the project was re-designed to permit flood waters to pass
through the pond area.
3. Noise. Construction noise will be of short duration, and should
not be significant when compared to previous aggregate
extraction activities, and the noise from livestock on
surrounding parcels. Noise from residential uses wi13 be less
than construction noises, and should not be significant for
similar reasons.
4. Wildlife. Impacts to wildlife should be offset and compensated
for by the provision and maintenance of 300 acres of riparian
hapitat as a wildli~e''~"refuge.
Page 481.
January 6, 1981
81=
January 6, 198_1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- 5. Traffic volume and hazards. Traffic volume is identical to
the volume which would be created under FR-5 zoning. Area
roads are adequate to handle anticigated traffic, even when
cumulative effects of other protects are considered (See Butte
Creek Canyon Rezone EIR).
6. Exposure of project residents to a mosquito_producing area.
This impact is common to many areas of the county near streams,
and is not considered significant.
7. Exposure of residents to a wildlife area which may contain
rabid animals. This impact is not considered significant,
since rabies can be prevented by treatment, and human exposure
occurs relatively unfrequentiy.
8. Glare from streetlights. Only four streetlights will be located
where they might affect adjoining properties. This impact is
normally considered insignificant, as it is in this case.
b. The following impacts are deemed too speculative for evaluation:
1. Condominium residents may trespass on neighbors' properties.
2. Condominium residents may object to the maintenance of livestock
on surrounding parcels.
c. Impacts rebated to the change in character of the area from a rural
ranchette type suburban area to:the~character present in a cluster
condominium development is considered significant, but not adverse,
since many persons prefer the condominium lifestyle. To a great
extent, the condominium residents and the ranchette residents in
this area are expected to be able-to peacefully co-exist with a
minimum of conflict.
d. The following impacts are deemed insignificant because of mitigation
measures:
1. Exposure of project residents to liquifaction, slumping and
differential settling. Conditions 1, 2 and 3, are intended to
eliminate the concerns associated with these hazards.
2. Effects on surrounding wells. Conditions 5 and 10 are intended
to mitigate this concern.
3. Impacts related to sewage disposal (odor, groundwater
contamination, etc.). Conditions 10 and 12 are intended to
mitigate these concerns.
4. Erosion and sedimentation of Butte Creek. Conditions 1 and 4
are intended to mitigate this problem.
5. Increase in fire hazard and exposure of project occupants to
a high fire hazard area. Conditions 9 and 13 are intended to
mitigate this area of concern.
6. Air quality impacts. Only construction impacts are mitigable
at the project level, and Condition 6 is included to accomplish
this. Other air quality impacts are not deemed significant
for the reasons outlined in the response to comment 11 at
the end of the EIR.
Page 482.
January 6, 1981
81-
• _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ =JanuaryT6~ 1981_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4. Mitigation measures to reduce and in some cases eliminate potential
significant environmental effects will be included in the conditions
of project approval. These mitigation measures will reduce potential
impacts 3n the areas of geologic hazards including liquifaction, slumping
and differential settling, flood exposure of residents, sewage disposal,
water provision, fire safety, stream sedimentation, emergency access
and egress, traffic circulatien, air quality impacts, and effects on
wildlife. Although these measures will reduce environmental problems
potentially significant environmental effects will remain as outlined
in previous paragraphs (1) and (2).
5. Project alternatives are being rejected in favor of the original
proposal for the following reasons:
a. The "no project" alternative can be divided into two categories,
the first being no building or development on the site whatsoever,
and the second being simply to leave the zoning "as is". The
first of these is being rejected because it does not accomplish
the project objectives of providing ~5 residential units. Additionally,
to accomplish the "no development" alternative, a zone change from
the present FR-5 zoning would be necessary to some zoning category
which prevents development. Except where clearly necessary, the
County has ben hesitant to employ such restrictive zoning because
of questions related to "averse condemnation". A purchase of
development rights with County money does not seem warranted since
the public benefits are of limited value and would accrue primarily
to the residents living in the immediate vicinity, while the costs
would be born by County taxpayers as a whole, whether or not they
receive any benefit. In this case, a combination of clustered
development and provision of open space as contained within the
applicant's proposal, seems more reasonable than simply no
development anywhere on the property. Leaving the zoning "as is"
(retaining the FR-5 zoning) is•being rejected because the project
as proposed is less damaging to the environment than dispersed
5-acre parcels would be for the reasons described in the EIR
(i.e., greater erosion and sedimentation, flood hazard, destruction
of wildlife habitat, traffic hazard, etc. as described on page 32
of the EIR} ,
b. A modification of the project to allow fewer dwelling units is
being rejected because the cost per unit would be increase and the
reduction in dwelling units would have to be substantial to realize
any significant environmental benefits. At this reduced number
of dwelling units, some of the same disadvantages of the previously
described "no development" alternative become applicable, and the
economic pressure to further develop some other portion of the
property at some future time would become greater.
A modification of the project to allow more dwelling units is being
rejected because there would be a corresponding increase in the
severety of many of the environmental impacts listed in the EIR.
c. A relocation of the development to the western edge of the project
area is being rejected because such a development pattern would
more severly affect wildlife habitat, flood protection would be f~
more difficult, and the resulting residences would be adversely
affected by noise from the Skyway.
d. A modification of the project from residential use to recreational
ranch use is being rejected because of adverse effects to wildlife
habitat, traffic increases and sanitation problems associated with
maintenance of horses wLiicit'normally accompany such projects.
Page 483.
January 6, 1981
81=
3
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ =January-6Z 1981_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
e. A modification of the project to allow the same number of dwelling
units but to locate them along Honey Rua Road where access would
not be cut off by flood waters passing through the pond area and
across access roads is being rejected because such design would
result in greater density of development within the developed areas
(thus increasing the urban character of the development) and would
concentrate a greater number of dwelling units closer to adjoining
neighbors' residences. Additionally, the possibility of screening
the development with trees along Honey Run Road would be reduced.
6. Although there may be significant adverse environmental effects resulting
from the approval of this project, there are overriding considerations
which justify project approval. These overriding considerations include:
a. The project as proposed is environmentally superior to development
which can occur pursuant to the present FR-5 zoning. The project
under consideration provides the advantages of cluster development
which include in addition to shorter utility lines, fewer lineal
feet of roads, easier provisions of public services; and the provision
of 300 acres of open space designated for wildlife habitat. Such
wildlife habitat would be severely reduced in value if 5-acre
homesites covered the property, and septic tank°pohlution~pi'oblems
and traffic hazards would be greater.
b. The project as proposed appears to be the least environmentally
damaging project alternative capable of achieving project objectives.
c. The project will result in the constxuction of a road linking
Honey Run Road, and Skansen Subdivision along Skyway to the north
Such a road will normally be for the private use of project
residents. However, during an emergency, it-could be opened for
public use providing an alternative escape route far canyon
residents who live further up Honey Run Road.
d. This project will provide 75 additional residential units in an
area of other than prime agricultural soil, this reducing pressure
to build in the areas of prime agricultural soils.
e. The project will provide jobs during the construction phase, and
project residents will contribute to the local economy.
7. The rezone to "PA-C" is in conformance with all elements of the Butte
County General Plan.
Having made the above findings, the project was approved subject to the
attached conditions; Ordinance 2174 be adopted and the Chairman be authorized
to sign:
1.1. Except for flood control, drainage facilities, and the dwellings as
shown in the development plan, construction activities shall not be
permitted within 100 feet of Butte Creek or within 20 feet of the
proposed ponds. Insofar as possible, berms shall also be kept 100
feet from the stream. Tf riparian woodland areas must be disturbed
by earth moving activities, such areas shall be revegetated soon
after construction work in that area is completed. Earth moving
activities shall be done in a manner which minimizes or avoids
siltation of Butte Creek.
2. All graded fills andz'foundations for permanent dwellings shall be
designed to eliminate the liquefaction hazards identified in the project
ETR. For this purpose all graded fills and foundations for permanent
Page 484.
January 6, 1981
81-
3
~______====-January-6, 1981=====_--______-____
structures shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and/or
in consultation with an engineering geologist.
3. Graded fills shall be compacted prior to construction of buildings
above to prevent differential settling over time.
4. Areas of rapid erosion along the Butte Creek stream banks shall
be protected with riprap.
5. Wells serving as the water sourcesfor the development shall be
drawn from a sufficient depth to prevent interaction with surrounding
wells.
6. A dust palliative snail be applied as needed during construction to
control dust.
7. Provide road crossing guards or gates at stream crossings within the
development that prevent attempts to cross flooded streets when
it is unsafe.
8. An alternative, emergency access route including a bridge over the
intake weir shall be provided by the developer and maintained by
the homeowners association. Such bridge and access road to the three
feat above the 100-year flood elevation.
9. An alternative access route westerly to the Skyway crossing Butte
Creek shall be provided by the developer. Said road shall include
a bridge across Butte Creek. Said road and bridge shall be developed
to standards acceptable to the Butte County Public Works Department
and maintained by the homeowners association. Design and construction
by developer shall include left turn facilities at Skyway as approved
by Public Works.
10. Provide a sewage treatment plant, sewage collection facilities and
sewage disposal facilities that meet the regdirements of the California
State Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Butte County
Health Department. Such facilities shall be designed to meet Health
Department requirements for the starage of sewage during periods of
power outages and mechanical breakdown.
11. Provide a community water supply system that meets the requirements
of the California Safe Drinking Water Act and the Butte County
Subdivision Ordinance. Prior to recording a final map provide a
legal entity adequate to construct, maintain and operate the system
and either complete the system or post a bond with. the County of
Butte sufficient to insure the completion of the system.
12. Provide a homeowners association or other legal entity approved by
the Butte County Health Department and the California State Regional
Water Quality Control Board for the construction, maintenance and
repair of the sewage disposal facilities.
13. Meet Butte County Fire Department Requirements.
14. Submit road and drainage plans to the Department of Public Works
for approval and install the required facilitd'.es.
15. Provide 20 ft, radius property line returns at all street intersections.
16. Provide right-of-way for standard No. S-5 at all street intersections.
Page 485.
January 6, 1981
81-
3
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - J anu a_ry_ 6 , _19 81= _ _ _ -_ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
17. Indicate a 50 ft. building setback line from the centerline of
Honey Run Road.
18. Street signs shall be provided by the developer at all street inter-
sections per County requirements. (Submit 5 alternate street names
for each street to the County address coordinator fox approval of
street names.)
19. Deed 30 ft. from the centerline of Honey Run Road to the County of
Butte along proposed project frontage.
20. Construct one half street sections of Honey Run Road along project
frontage to RS-3A geometric standard. Minimum structural section
to be 2" AC and 8" AB, SC 250 prime and fog seal and 95% relative
compaction. Submit design to County Dept. of Public Works for
approval. "R" value determinations and other data may be required
to support section design.
21. Provide monumentation as required by the Dept. of Public Works in
accordance with accepted standards.
22. Street grades and other features shall comply with the Butte County
Ordinances, design resolution and other accepted engineering
standards.
23. Provide permanent solution for drainage.
24. All easements of record to be shown on the final map.
25. Street lights shall be provided in accordance with the Street
Lighting Plan with minor modifications as necessary to meet Butte
County and PG&E requirements.
26. Obtain county encroachment permit for any construction within
county right-of-way.
27. Segregate or pay off assessments.
28. File a tentative and final map and pay appropriate fee.
29. The developer shall work with the Butte County Department of Public
Works to alleviate sight distance problems associated with the Honey
Run Road "S"Sturn. If the sight distance solution can not be
achieved, the Developer shall provide a "Knock. Bown Gate" for
restricted access available for emergency use only; and reconstruct
substandard vertical curves at two locations for a distance of
400 feet to 45 MPH design speed.
30. Provide Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Said document shall
include the statement "No part of the Common Area shall be rezoned
without the prior affirmative vote of not less than seventy-five
percent (75%) of the members of the Association."
Supervisor Wheeler supported the project. This area is canyon
dredger area that has been reclaimed. There will be acres left in riparian
habitat. This will allow building in the foothills of Butte County in
the marginal land and relieve the pressure from the west side of the county.
Supervisor Dolan stated she did not support the project because
it will impact traffic and change the rural character of the canyon and
they are not mitigable. It does not approve a project that meets the
Page 486.
January 6, 1981
January 6, 1981
81-
that are identified in the county. Development projects have been or
are in the works close to urban areas where they can be better served
far better. She objected to the finding that the impacts relative to
rural is considered significant but not adverse. She felt it was adverse.
The cost of heating the homes will be costly because the PG&E lines
do not go that far. It is costly and inefficient. Is the Ordinance being
approved and conditions going with the rezone and project?
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated the Board is making
approval of a zoning ordinance which is a "PA-C" zone. The subdivision
map would follow. This type of rezone is an endeavor to fit the approved
development into a particular area. This allows the Board to call for
specific design as distinguished from the requirements under other
zones.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Lemke, Saracens, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley
NOES: Supervisor Dolan
Motion carried.
RECESS: 10:07 a.m.
RECONVENE: 10:25 a.m.
19
ADOPT RESOLUTIONS 81-2, 81-3, 81-4 & 81-5: PUBLIC HEARINGS: L. A. THOMPSON,,
HOLIAAY POOLS, WILLIAM GREEN AND POWERS CONSTRUCTION: ABANDONMENT OF PUBLIC
UTILITIES EASEMENTS AND RECREATIONAL EASEMENTS IN PARADISE PINES AREA
The public hearings on the following were field as advertised:
1. L, A. Thompson abandonment of public utilities easement and
recreational easement, Paradise Pines Unit 15, Lot 94.
2. Holiday Pools abandonment of public utilities and recreational
easement, Paradise Pines Country Club #4, Lot 109.
3. William Green abandonment of public utilities easement,
Paradise Pines #4, Lot 122.
4. Powers Construction abandonment of public utilities and
recreational easement, Paradise Pines X114, Lot 205.
Hearings open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearings closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the following abandonments were approved;
resolutions were adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign:
1. Abandonment of public utilities easement and recreational
easement, Paradise Pines Unit 15, Lot 94 for L. A. Thompson; Resolution
81-2.
', 2. Resolution 81-3 abandonment of public utilities and recreational
easement, Paradise Pines Country Club 114, Lot 109 for Holiday Pools.
3. Resolution 81-~+ abandonment of public utilities easement,
Paradise Pines 114, Lot 122 for William Green.
4. Resolution 81-5 abandonment of public utilities and
recreational easement, Paradis~~es 1114, Lot 203 for Powers Construction.
Page 487.
January 6, 1981
January 6i 1981
81- 20
3
PUBLIC HEARING: RENAMING OF COUNTY ROADS - PARADISE ADDRESS AREA (PULGA
ROAD) .
The public hearing on renaming of county roads in the Paradise
address area (Pulga Road) was held as advertised.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background
of the street name changes.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
The matter was continued to later in the meeting.
21
PUBLIC HEARING: HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PAST PERFORMANCE
TO RECEIVE CITIZEN INPUT REGARDING PAS T_ PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM
The public hearing on the Housing and Community Development Program
citizen input regarding past performance of the program was held as
advertised.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
22
Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, stated that this
is the closing of the 1976-77 and 1977-78 grants. There was an audit
done on these grant years. If there are any complaints from the public
those are then required to be submitted in writing to HUD. There is
no action required.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-6: PUBLIC<:HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF DISSOLUTION OF
COUNTY SERVICE AREA 453 (UPPER RIDGE FIRE)
The public hearing on consideration of dissolution of County
Service Area 4P53 (Upper Ridge Fire) was held as advertised.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
23
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and unanimously carried, dissolution of County Service Area ~i53 (Upper
Ridge Fire) was approved; Resolution 81-6 was adopted and the Chairman
authorized to sign.
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2175: PUBLIC HEARING: ALEX HARMON - REZONE °. FROM "A-R"
(AGRICULTURAL - RESIDENTIAL) TO "AR-MH" (AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE
HOME), PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF LOWER WYANDOTTE ROAD, ONE MILE EAST OF
UPPER PALERMO ROAD, IDENTIFIED AS AP 36-31-75, 97, 104 & 105, 27-04-12,
18 & 22 SOUTHEAST OF OROVTLLE
The public hearing on Alex Harmon (item not subject to environmental
review) rezone from "A-R" (agricultural - residential) to "AR-MH" (agricultural
residential - mobile home), property located south of Lower Wyandotte Road,
one mile east of Upper Palermo Road, identif ied as AP 36-31-75, 97, 104
and 105, 27-04-12, 18 and 22, southeast of Oroville was held as advertised.
Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the
rezone.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. N. H. Heber. Mr. Heber was concerned that this was being
considered for mobile homes. He beught the property with the understanding
it would be for homes.. Page 488.
January 6, 1981
81
b
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the rezone from "A-R" (agricultural - residential)
to "AR-MH" (agricultural residential - mobile home), property located south
of Lower Wyandotte Road, one mile east of Upper Palermo Road, identified
as AP 36-31-75, 97, 104 and 105, 27-04-12, 18 and 22, southeast of Oroville
was approved finding it exempt from environmental review and in conformity
with the General Plan; Ordinance 2175 was adopted and the Chairman authorized
to sign.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
24
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ =January 6^ 1981_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
2. Garland Epley. Mr. Epley was appointed as a court trustee
for some eleven parcels in this subdivision. He asked that the .rezone be
approved.
PUBLIC HEARING: STEVEN E. LONIS - APPEAL OF DENIED USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A
SECOND MOBILE HOME ON PROPERTY ZONED "TM-6" (.TIMBER MOUNTAIN - FIVE ACRE
PARCELS) LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COHASSET ROAD, 1/4 MILE NORTH OF THE
COHASSET CHURCH, IDENTIFTED AS AP 56-10-34, COHASSET
The public hearing on Steven E. Lonis (item determined to be
categorically exempt from environmental review) appeal of denied use permit
to allow a second mobile home on property zoned "TM-5" (timber mountain -
five acre parcels) located on the west side of Cohasset Road, 1/4 mile north
of the Cohasset Church, identified as AP 56-10-34, Cohasset was held as
advertised.
appeal.
Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Charles E. White, Cohasset Community Association. Mr.
White spoke in opposition to the use permit. The association is not
opposed to the second dwelling but felt this should be done with a
different procedure. They did not feel this should be approved with
special consideration. They felt it would be an erosion of the zoning in
the area.
2. .Warren Fugert. Mr. Fugert spoke in favor of the use permit.
He owned the property and was wanting to help Mr. Lonis be able to put
a mobile home on the property. He owns 20 acres and this is a five acre
zone. He would be willing to lease the property to Mr. Zonis for
$1 per year. He did not want to have a parcel map prepared as it would
require a survey of the property. He did not have the money for a survey.
Del Siemsen, deputy county counsel, stated that from what
Mr. Fugert has said he would be running very close to be in violation
of the Subdivision Map Act. If the property is put up for lease then
this brings in the Subdivision Map Act and will required a parcel split.
Mr. Fugert stated it would not have to be a lease.
~t*
Supervisor Wheeler stated staff recommended that the property
be parceled.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
Supervisor Dolan stated this is a situation where there will be
two dwellings on a parcel that will not be divided and each dwelling
will have separate owners. It seems to be a way not to split.
Page 489.
January 6, 1981
81-
3
January 6, 1981
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the appeal cfi denied use permit to allow a
second mobile home on property zoned "TM-5" (timber mountain - five acre
parcels) located on the west side of Cofiasset Road, 1/4 mile north of the
Cofiasset Church, identified as AP 56-10-34, Cofiasset for Seven E. Lonis
was denied.
PUBLIC HEARING: BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMTSSION REZONE FOR MOST OF THE
UNINC ~ZOPRATED PORTIONS OF THE AREA BOUNDED GENERALLY BY ROCK CREEK ON
THE NORTH; HIGHWAY 99 ON THE WEST, SYCAMORE CREEK ON THE SOUTH AND LAND
CONSERVATION ACT AGREEMENTS ON THE EAST TDENTIFIED AS AP BOOKS 44, 4.7 .&'48
The public hearing on Butte County Planning Commission (item :on
which an EIR was previously certified} rezone from "A-2" (general), "M-1"
(light industrial) and "A-40" (agricultural - 40 acre parcels) to "A-160"
(agricultural - 160 acre parcels), "A-40" (agricultural -.40 acre parcels)
"SR-3" (suburban residential - three acre parcels), "SR-1" (suburban
residential - one acre parcels), "SR-5" (surburan residential - £ive acre
parcels), "S-R" (suburban residential), "A-S R" (agricultural - suburban
residential), "RT-1-A" (minimum density residential trailer), "RT-1"
(minimum density residential - mobile home), "R-1" (single family
residential), "P-Q" (public - quasi public), "C-2" (general commercial),
"L-I" (limited industrial), "M-1" (light industrial) and "M-2" (heavy
industrial), for most of the unincorporated portions of the area bounded
generally by Rock Creek on the north, Highway 99 on the west, Sycamore
Creek an the south and Land Conservation Act agreements on the east,
identified as AP Books 44, 47 and 48 was held as advertised.
25
Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the
rezone. Posted on the walls were maps showing the delineating the drainage
channels and the property requests, an aerial of the area, Planning
Commission's recommendations comming forward to the Board and the original
proposal.
Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background
of the previously certified EIR.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Devere Pace. Mr. Pace spoke in Favor of the rezone.
2. Dennis Strothman. Mr. Strothman asked how the change in
zoning from "A-2" to "S-R-1" would effect the animals in the area.
Ms. Blair stated the property owners would be limited to the
number o£ livestock that could be maintained under the zoning district,
assuming there was no livestock at the time of the change. If there is
existing livestock they would not be effected. It would be a nonconforming
',use. The uses unless abandoned are seldom terminated.
Mr. Strothman wondered if the zoning change would do to the
leasement road that exists at the present time.
He was advised that it would remain a private road.
3. Cal Bachman. Mr. Bachman was concerned with the animals
allowable under the "SR-1" zoning district.
Ms. Blair advised that this matter would be coming before
the Planning Commission to modify the "S R" zoning district to be compatible
with all the request of the livestock requirements.
Page 490.
January 6, 1981
al-
3
26
_ _ _ _ _January 6, 19.81_ _ _ _ _ _ ~ T = = J __ _ _ _ _ _ _
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board,
The hearing was continued to January 13, 19.81.
APPEARANCE: VANITA MELICK
Ms. Melick spoke regarding the subsidized transportation for
senior citizens. She read a petition at this time. She asked that the
transportation of senior citizens not be ended at 7:00 g.m. and that the
Kelly Ridge area be included in the zone allowing transportation.
The matter was referred to Public Works to discuss the matter
with Ms. Melick.
27
APPEARANCE: DAMES HANSON
Mr. Hanson spoke regarding the laws in the county that have
been trampled on and destroyed. There is a police state being built.
He spoke regarding a newspaper article where the police were called out
to a home because of a family disturbance.
AUTHORIZE REED TRANSFER UNDER PROVTSIONS OF SB 1299 OF THE EHMAN HOUSE
TO THE BUTTE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Lorna Barth spoke regarding the Ehman House. The Legislature
passed SB 1299 allowing for transfer 6f the Ehman House to the Butte
County Historical Society. She asked that the Board make this transfer.
She invited the Supervisors to a celebration at the Ehman House Sunday,
January 18, 1981.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the deed to the Ehman House was transfered to
the Butte County Historical Society pursuant to SB 129.9.
28
29
MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CJIS PROGRAM AND GRANT TO BE PLACED ON
THE BOARDtS AGENDA FAILS
Caicg Wilson asked for clarification of the vote relative to
the CJIS Program. He is associated with RFT, Inc. and is a vendor fox
LEAA. His company might be interested in a competitive bid on the
equipment.
Supervisor Lemke stated that the motion that was passed was to
strike the grant application and the match money as originally presented
to the Board. The consideration given was relative to the fact that
there might not be LEAA funding in the future for this program.
Supervisor Wheeler advised Mr. Wilson that as Chairman of
the Data Processing Executive Committee he was welcome to make a
presentation to them.
Mr. Wilson stated he was trying to get clarification. He was
under the impression the grant was for capital outlay and the personnel
would Tie under the county.
Supervisor Lemke stated it was a policy decision. One thing
that bothered him was that the county's share jumped from $93,000 to $121,000.
Supervisor Bolan stated it was a major policy decision of the
county. She did not know about the information ~intil it came up at the
end of a Board meeting. When the Board approved the grant there was
lengthy discussion and there was notice to law enforcement people. She did
not even know the county money had increased. She received no information.
She did not feel that this should have been brought up off the agenda.
She felt it should be on the agenda.
Page 49T.
January 6, 1981
81=
5
30
31
32
_Ja_nuary 6, 1981_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~. _ _ ~ _ _ _
Supervisor Wheeler could not agree with bring ing the matter
back on the agenda, when this was done from a fiscal standpoint.
The minutes of the Data Processing Executive Committee givenan indication
when the committee recommended and approved acceptance of the grant, which
aas for the purchase of hardware and not for personnel. There was a need
for wants and warrants for~the Sheriff. This system is ready and available
in Pennsylvania and transferrable to the 9030 unit the county now has.
One of her concerns was why this was not done in the beginning. The CJIS
Board had set a priority with the District Attorney's management system.
The committee felt that as far as priority the $93,000 can be best used
to implement programs on the market.
It was .moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Chairman Moseley
that consideration of the CJIS program and grant be placed on the Board's
agenda.
Supervisor Lemke stated that since the action was taken, he
had discussed this with the people directly involved aad he had nogreason
and no new information to make him change his decision to defund the
program.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan and Chairman Moseley
NOES: Supervisors Lemke and Wheeler
ABSTAINING: Supervisor Saraceni
Motion failed.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-7: PUBLTC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF RENAMING OF COUNTY
ROADS PARADISE ADDRESS AREA (PULGA ROAD)
The pulllic hearing on consideration of renaming of county roads
in the Paradise address area (Pulga Road) was held as continued.
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the following county roads were renamed;
Resolution 81-7 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign:
Existing Name Termini Adopted Name
Pulga Road Big Bend Road to End Bardees Bar Road
Pulga Road Pulga Road to County Line Camp Creek Road
Pulga Road Highway 70 to Pulga Station Pulga Road
DISCUSSION: SUBSIDIZED TRANSPORTATION FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated that the Oro Express
has been the subsidized taxi service. Tt has been operating 24 hours per
day. This has been exclusively for senior citizens. It now has to be
opened to the general public. The plan was to add a small route bus
system. The City of Oroville did not have enough money for the 24--hour
per day service for the senior citizens and a new fixed route for the
general public. It was Public Works recommendation that the senior
citizens' subsidized taxi service be cut back to 12 hours per day like
the other areas of the county. He would be happy to meet with Ms. Melick
and discuss this matter.
NO ACTION TAKEN ON CONSIDERATION FOR SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR
ALEX HARMON - EXTENSION OF INTERIM "AR-MH" (AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL -
MOBILE HOME) ZONE ON PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS AP 36--31-105
No action was taken relative to setting a public hearing date
for consideration of Alex Harmon extension of interim "AR-MH" (agricultural
residential - mobile home) zone on property identified as. AP 36-31-105.
Page 492.
January 6, 1981
January 6, 19.81
81- 33 ADOPT ORDINANCE 2176: WAIVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE INCREASING THE
b MILEAGE ALLOWANCE AND PER DIEM OF GRAND JURY"MEMBERS
On motion o£ Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the second reading of the ordinance increasing
the mileage allowance to $.24 per mile and the per diem tb $20 per day
for Grand Jury members was waived; Ordinance 2176 was adopted and the
Chairman authorized to sign.
34 ADOPT ORDINANCE 2177: WAIVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE
DESIGNATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF HANDICAPPED PARKING AREAS
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the second reading of the ordinance concerning
the designation and ex~forcement of handicapped parking areas was waived;
Ordinance 2177 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
35 APPOINTMENT TO BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
and unanimously carried, Michael G. Schrader was appointed to the Butte
County Planning Commission, District 1.
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, Ron Max was appointed to the Butte County
Planning Commission, District 5.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, Rae Wheeler was appointed to the Butte County
Planning Commission, District 4.
3b APPOINTMENT TO AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMISSION
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, Raymond LeFevre was appointed to the Agricultural
Advisory Commission, District 1.
Appointments to the Agricultural Advisory Commission for Districts
4 and 5 continued to January 13, 1981.
37 LETTER OF APPRECIATION TO BE SENT TO MYRON OPENSHAW FOR HIS YEARS OF
SERVICE ON THE AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMISSION
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, a letter of appreciation is to be sent to Myron
Openshaw for his years of service on the Agricultural Advisory Commission.
38 SELECTION OF CONSULTANT FOR MANAGEMEI3T__STUDY IN THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
It was moved by Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
that Hughes Heiss & Associates, Inc. be awarded the bid fox the consultant
services for the management study in the Sheriff's Department in the
amount of $15,000.
Chairman Moseley stated that she was opposed to studies. There
is nothing that says the department has to take the recommendation that
comes out of the study. She felt the study would show almost basically
the same problems the Board is aware of.
Sppervisor Dolan stated that the information the Board has
received to this date has come from the task force and the Sheriff's
Department. One of the items is the level of staffing and the number of
people needed. The Board agreed to accept the recommendations of the
committee. She supported the study,
Supervisor Lemke stated that the original recommendation from
the committee was that the Sher~ff's Department be studied from top to bottom.
age G93.
January 6, 1981
/ ..
January 6, 1981
81- The suggestion made at that time was that POS.T`ifie used. This. was not
~+ agreeable to the Board, This study might save money down the road. It
might prove the county does not need 27 more people.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke, Saraceni and Wheeler
NOES: Chairman Moseley
Motion carried.
COMMUNICATIONS
Cook Associates, Oroville. The engineers, on behalf of Phil Rauch, appeal
the requirement for an environmental impact report for a rezone
from "A-2" (general) to "ARMH-1" (agricultural residential -
mobile home - one acre minimum parcels), AP 30-19-15 and 20,
property located on the west side of Larkin Road, southwest
of the Oxoville airport, Oroville area. Set for hearing
January 20, 1981 at 10:15 a.m.
Wayne Paul, Chico. Mr. Paul writes appealing the proposed negative
declaration and denied rezone from "S-R" (suburban residential)
to "R-3" (medium density residential), property located on the
southwest side of State Highway 32, approximately 800 feet
northwest of Oak Way, identified as AP 42-14-16 and 45, Chico.
Set for hearing January 20, 1981 at 10:30 a.m.
McCain Associates, Chico. The engineers, on behalf of Baldwin Contracting
Company, appeal the Advisory Agency's condition 11 on tentative
parcel map, AP 40-40-02 and 07, four lots, property located
on the east side of State Highway 99E, south of Entler Avenue
Chico area. Set for healing January 20, 1981 at 10:45 a.m.
McCain Associates, Chico. The engineers, on behalf of John Crowe, appeal
the proposed negative declaration and denial of tentative parcel
map, AP 39-27-58, four lots, property located on the south side
of Pront Street, between Yocum and Gerke Streets, Dayton.
Set for hearing January 20, 1981 at 11:15 a.m.
Ron Graves and Associates, Oroville. The engineeers, on behalf of Don
Hill and Robert Roulett, file a late appeal on the Advisory
Agency's condition 14 on tentative parcel map, AP 62-07-4-3,
two lots, property located on the east side of Bloomer Mountain
Road, 1-1/2 miles west of pro-Quincy Highway, Bloomer Mountain
area. See motion following communications.
Ron Graves and Associates, Oroville. The engineers, on behalf of Ron
Harmon, file a late appeal on the Advisory Agency`s condition 7
on tentative parcel map, AP 36-50-56, four lots, property
located on the north side of Ophir Road and west of Palermo-
Baggett Road, Oroville area. See motion following communications.
Ron Graves and Associates, Oroville, The engineers, on behalf of Nada
Stevenson, file a late appeal of the Advisory Agency's condition
13 on tentative parcel map, AP 62-23-31, two lots, property
located 500 feet south of Bald Rock Road, west of Zink Road,
Bald Rock area. See motion following communications.
Mk~Z, Tnc., Engineering - Surveying, Marysville. The engineers, on behalf
of MGN Farms, Inc., f31e a late appeal on Advisory Agency's
condition 1 and 5 on tentative parcel map, AP 41-19-17,
Page 494.
3anuaxy 6, 1981
81-
a
________=-_==January-6, 1981__________________
AP 41-20-02, 09, 11, 40 and 51, and AP 41.-23-08, twelve parcels,
property located on the east side of State Highway 49, south
of State Highway 149, south of their intersection fronting on
both, between Chico and Oroville. See motion following
communications.
Ron Graves and Associates, Oroville. The engineers, on behalf of Richard
DeNyse, file a late appeal appealing mitigation measure 1 on
conditional negative declaration and the Advisory Agency's
condition 8 on tentative parcel map, AP 34-19-82, two lots,
property located on the north side of Oro-Quincy Highway between
Glenn Drive and State Route 162, Orovtlle area. See motion
following communications.
Lorin M. Wiser, Gridley. Mr. Wiser writes requesting that his property
identified as AP 22-26-36 be considered for "R-4" zoning when
the Board considers a General Plan amendment change on March 17,
1981. To be considered at the time of the hearing.
Mack W, Hill, et al, Chico. Mr. Hill writes xequesting clarification of
an assessment notice in the amount of $5,358.04 for Assessor`s
Parcel AP 43-29-b9. Referred to Public Works to be referred
to the engineer of work.
Vanita Melick, Oroville. Ms. Melick writes requesting consideration be
given to extending the hours of operation for subsidized taxi
service in the Oroville area. Handled earlier in the meeting.
Bob Baiocchi, Paradise. Mr. Baiocchi forwards information with regard
to the initial environmental study prepared by the State Department
of Water Resources for the proposed Thermal:ito Diversion Dam
power generation facility within the Oroville project. Referred
to the Fish and Game Commission.
Peters, Fuller, Rush, Schooling & Luvaas, attorneys at law. The attorneys,
on behalf of Irrigation Products, Inc., foward a claim for
indemnification as a result of an automobile/pedestrian
accident occurring in Chico on May 30, 1980. See motion
following communications.
Law Offices of Hewitt, Lenhard, Sandards & Anderson. The attorneys, on
behalf of Patricia Hollenbeck, file a claim in the amount of
h$].00,000 as a result of alleged damages occurring on or about
September 12, 1980 involving an arrest. See motion Following
communications.
Butte County Committee for Employment of the Handicapped. The committee
writes thanking the Board for their support of handicapped
parking designations. Information; no action taken.
City of Biggs. Mayor Callaway writes requesting the Board to select
a committee to review the subject of consolidation of fire
protection services within the City of Biggs and the county.
Chairman Moseley to handle.
Committee to Reform Voting Practices in the Assembly of California. The
Committee forwards information and requests endorsement and
public support by the Board for "Operation Vote-Switch" for
the purpose of placing an initiative on the statewide ballot.
No action taken.
Page 495.
January 6, 1981
81-
b
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =January-6, 1981_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
California Criminal Justice Planning Directors Association. The association
writes forwarding information with regaxd to financing of jail
and courthouse construction and requests support for legislation
that will allow a special 30% incxease in fines to be used for
the purpose of jail facility construction. Referred to Nine
Northern Counties for discussion with the General Assembly.
State Department of Health Services. The department forwards information
advising that the annual report on indigent health care submission
has been extended to April 30, 1981 pending development of
guidelines and instructions for completion of the report.
Information; no action taken.
State Department of Health Services. The department writes forwarding in-
formation concerning the availability of matching funds for
plague surveillance and suppression in various counties.
Information; no action taken.
Department of the Army°-- CoYps of`°Eagineers. The department writes requesting
information concerning support for studying public recreation
and fish and wildlife enhancement as part of the bank protection
and erosion study within the Sacramento River and tributaries
bank protection and erosion control ivestigation. Information;
no action taken.
U.S. Department of Labor - Office of Administrative Law Judges. The
department forwards notification of receipt of request for a
hearing and prehearing order giving notice of February 26,
1981 as a date to file information with the office. Referred
to Auditor and Personnel Director.
MAKE FINDING FURSUANT TO SEC~N 20-6b RELATIVE TO FILING OF APPEAL
AFTER THE 15-DAY TIME PERIOD AND SET PUBLIC HEARING DATES FOR DON HILL
AND ROBERT ROULETT~,_ RON HARMON, NADA_STEVENSON,^MGN FARMS,'INC. AND
RICHARD DE NYSE
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated he understood the
request for the appeal of the mitigation measure for Richard DeNyse was
a modification in order for the map to be completed and recorded prior
to construction of the mitigation measure. The requirements have changed
from the time of approval.
40
It was moved by Supervisor Saracens, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
the following late appeals to the Advisory Agency's conditions and
anon measure be allowed and the findings be made pursuant to
on 20-66,,paragraph 3 of the Butte County Code:
1. Don Hi11 and Rohert Rowlett, appeal of Advisory Agency's
condition 14 on tentative parcel map, AP 62-07-4-3, two lots, property
located on the east side of Bloomer Mountain Road, 1-1/2 miles west of
Oro-Quincy Highway, Bloomer Mountain area.
2. Ron Harmon appeal of Advisory Agency's condition 7 on
ive parcel map, AP 36-SO-56, four lots,. property located on the
side of Ophir Road and west of Palermo-Baggett Road, Oroville area.
3. Nada Stevenson appeal of Advisory Agency's condition l3 on
ive parcel map, AP 62-23-31, two lots, property located 500 feet
of Bald Rock Road, west of Zink Road, Bald Rock area.
Page 496.
January 6, 1981
81~
a
January 6, 1981
4. MGN Farms, Inc, appeal of Advisory Agency's condition 1 and 5
on tentative parcel map, AP 41-~19-17, AP 41-24-02, 0.9, 11, 40 and 51, and
AP 41-23-08, twelve parcels, property located on the east side of State
Highway 94, soot of State Highway 149, south of their intersection fronting
on both, between Chico and Oroville.
5. Richard DeNyse appeal of mitigation measure 1 on conditional
negative declaration and the Advisory Agency's condition 8 on tentative
parcel map`, AP 34-19-82, two lots, property located on the north side of
Oro-Quincy Highway between Glenn Drive and State Route 162, Oroville area.
Supervisor Dolan stated she had reviewed the reasons for late
filings and the only one she could see that fit the requirements was
MGN Farms, Inc. The record will show that Ran Graves and Associates
did file other appeals-for others for the fire standaxd. She did not
feel that the Board could make the findings for the other four appeals.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley
NOES: Supervisor Dolan
Motion carried.
The following public hearing dates were set:
1. A public hearing date of January 27, 1981 at 10:00 a.m. for
consideration of Don Hill and Robert Roulett, appeal of Advisory Agency's
condition 14 on tentative parcel map, AP 62-07-4-3, two lots, property
located on the east side of Bloomer Mountain Road, 1-1/2 miles west of
Ora-Quincy Highway, Bloomer Mountains area, waseset.
2. A public hearing date of January 27, 1981 at 10:00 a.m. bras
set far consideration of Ron Harmon appeal of Advisory Agency's condition 7
on tentative parcel map, AP 36-50-56, four lots, property located on the
north side of Ophir Road and west of Palermo-Baggett Road, Orouille area.
3. A public hearing date of January 27, 1982 at 10:00 a.m. was
set for consideration of Nada Stevenson appeal of Advisory Agency's
condition 13 on tentative parcel map, AP 62-23-31, two lots, property
located 500 feet south of Bald Rock Road, west of Zink Road, Bald Rock area.
4. A public hearing date of January 27, 1981 at 10:15 a.m. was
set for consideration of MGN Farms, Inc. appeal of Advisory Agency's
condition 1 and 5 on tentative parcel map, AP 41-19-17, AP 41-20-02, 09,
11, 40 and 51, and AP 41-23-08, twelve parcels, property located on the
east side of State Highway 99, south of State Highway 149, south of
their intersection fronting on both, between Chico and Oroville.
5. A public hearing date o£ January 27, 1981 at 10:30 a.m. was
set for consideration of Richard DeNyse appeal of mitigation measure 1
on conditional negative declaration and Advisory Agency's condition 8
on tentative parcel map, AP 34-19-82, two lots, property located on the
north side of Oro-Quincy Highway between Glenn Drive and State Route 162,
Oroville area.
REJECT CLAIMS
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and unanimously carried, the following action was taken and referred
to County Counsel and Risk Management Coordinator:
41
Page 497,
January 6, 1981
81-
b
3anuary 6, 1981
1. The claim of Irrigation Products, Inc. for indemnification as
a result of an automobile/pedestrian accident occurring in Chico on
May 30, 1480 was denied as not being timely filed.
2, The claim of Patricia Holienbeck in the amount of $100,000
as a result of alleged damages occurring on or about September l2, 1980
involving an arrest was rejected.
RECESS: 12:12 p.m.
RECONVENE: 1;34 p.m.
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL BY ASSESSOR FOR A COMPUTER IN
THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE FOR THE PROPERTY TAX CYCLE - CONTINUED TO JANUARY 13,
1981
Ed Brown, assessor, made a presentation for a computer in the
Assessor's Office for the property tax cycle. This presentation is
being made by IBM. He was not;against~facilities management per say.
He has been dissatisified with the present arrangement. By perhaps looking
at another concept, theyaimight get better service at a lower cost. He was
concerned that if the Board considered this concept seriously that they
follow the normal procedure as far as public contract. He was not an agent
of IBM or any=•other company. He made contact with several vendors and
one was Univac. ISM considered his contact and wrote a letter back in
April addressed to Bupervisor 'Wheeler outlining a proposal on their part
of putting a tax system and auditor's account system at a reasonable cost.
They stated in writing, if the county is not satisified, they would
remove the system from the county at no cost to the county. He was not
saying he wanted this system. Cost wise the data processing charges for
this year for the Assessor is $104,614, the Tax Collector is $200,000
and the Auditor $100,000. It is a lot of money. He understood that
Mariposa will be dropping of£ data processing services. He understood
Glenn County was looking for their own computer as well as Sierra County.
The charges against his department could be more. His sole reason for
changing his thoughts is that five years ago the software development and
the requirements for hardware did not make it feasible for the system
that is not interconnected. Now the hardware can operate in a people
environment. He felt the overall cost for the county could be reduced
considerably if the tax cycle was taken away. In order to take this
away Butte County would have to make arrangements with other counties.
42
Al Chebett, IBM, set out the proposal he had presented to
the county. The proposal included what would happen with just Butte
County, with Butte County and a couple of other counties, and with
Butte County and ten other counties. He worked with an independent
contract programer to run a demonstration for the Butte County people,
on the system 34. There should be one file £or the tax cycle. There is
also a security system. The other thing is special reports. These are
,types of things they did not demand. The next thing they did was produce
(some tax bills and posted cash, He was advised the tax cyle was paying
$17,000 per month for data processing. The system 34 would be $3,000
per month, $2,000 per month for a programmer and supplies at $250 per
month for paper. This would be $5,250 versus $17,000. There would be
two terminals in the Assessor's Office, Tax Collector's Office and
Auditor's Office. They also talked about adding counties. The Auditor
needed other functions, budgetary and warrants. They would be able to
supply this. There would be an initial cost of no more than $30,000
for the development of the program, There would be one person responsible
for maintaining the system. He felt that the individuals in the
departments could be trained to operate the machinery. He set out the
accounts he has and the number of people needed to operate the programs.
Page 498.
January 6, 1981
81=
January 6, 19.81
J Mr. Chebett was not asked to consider any other program other
than the.tax cycle.
Supervisor Wheeler stated the Board had to be made aware of
the total cost effort on the entire system for the county.
Mr. Chebett stated he was only looking at the tax cycle.
He was looking at $17,000 versus $5,000. If he were taking a look at
the entire county the entire thing would be changed, If this system
worked for the tax cycle, maybe the county could use the main center
for development ofcther systems. Anything is possible. There would
be additional costs for changing over and above what has been presented
for a proposal.
Supervisor Wheeler stated she found all the users in data processing
have a common interest as far as information is concerned. She felt it
was important to access individual units.
Mr. Chebett stated this could be done.
Supervisor Wheeler stated that planning would have a need for
the Assessor's information.
Mr. Brown stated he could not foresee any way that the 9030
would need access to this computer. Take ~~lanning for instance, anything
in his files they needed, they could have their own printer and through
proper screening could get the information they are entitled to use. He
would be happy to work with them on this. He did not foresee any problem.
Mr. Chebett stated that different computers can talk to each
other. It is done all the time by the government.
Supervisor Wheeler stated they were working with the Welfare
Department and have set a priority for the Sheriff's Office for warrants.
Her concern was can they access this and where will it be located,
who will ~e:able to access, is this a fiscally responsible decision on
the Board's part. They are faced with over 200 man hours for the Auditor's
Department. That has been held off.
Mr. Chebett stated the systems today are not complex. The price
of computers is falling. The cost is for people. Thr~xe are several
common complaints relative to data processing, such as, data processing
is not responsive; they cannot change the existing systems in a timely
basis, they cannot implement new necessary projects.
Mr. Brown stated he had only asked Mr, Chebett to talk about
the tax cycle facit.
Mr. Chebett set out what IBM has done. They announced the
system 38 which was said to be two years ahead of its Time. It seems
the cost of programming is going up and up. They had to look at a
vehicle to cut the people costs. Their comment was it was necessary
to make programming and changing much easiex. The object of the system
is to have a programmerless system. They have reduced a tremendous
number of people costs. He took a serious look at whether the tax
cycle should be taken off the central computer. The central computer
was good for its Time. He made a commitment for a price for the tax cycle
for Butte County. He could probably include the @uditor's reports and
budgetary for that price. He felt it could be fit in with the $95,000.
The other option was the system 34 with two other counties at a cost
of $4,538 per month, $126,447 purchase and $9.63 per month maintenance.
Page 499.
January 6, 1981
January 6, 1981
gl_ Mr. Chebett asked the Board to tell them what they wanted to do. He could
y have a small system 38. The programming is much. more productive. and much
faster and could be expanded to ten couaties, He felt the money for the
system 38 was fairly equal to the system 80. Tn comparison with other
systems the system 38 response time and through put was eaiser to do.
Supervisor Wheeler stated that one of the biggest users of
data processing was the Welfare Department. She wondered if the upgrade
would be able to handle the entire county. The property tax system is
a good portion of the pie but is not the total pie.
Mr. Chebett stated that Mr. Brown had asked him to look at the
tax cycle. He did not make this type of offer every day. It allows the
Board to look at a vehicle another way to see if they can xeduce the
money and to see how they will proceed in the future. He recommended
a small system 38 decide on the contract programmer to identifiy and
train a programmer at the county. There is anaIBM executive education
facility the person would be sent to. There would be an IBM system
engineer tfiat comes along with the system. There would be monthly check-
points to make sure everything is going accofding to plans The system
could probably be installed in three months.
Mr. Brown stated fie felt the Board wanted him to present a concept.
is the concept. He felt the costs were prohibitve. He felt this
ept would allow them to reduce the biggest problem as far as cost,
le costs. He thought this should be studied property. The county
ld follow the proper public contract procedures, prepare technical
ifications and put out on a request for proposals. Based an pxice
service and guarantee, the Board could decide. He felt this was
only way to go through this procedure.
S: 2:40 p.m.
VENE: 2:53 p.m.
YJPERVISOR SARACENI ABSENT AT THIS TIME.
Supervisor Lemke stated at the present time the Assessor has
aid he was dissatisfied with the services. Now they are talking about
1,000 per month at the present time.
Jim Johansen, auditor, stated the cost for fiscal year 1979-80
or the tax cycle was about $222,000 which is about $18,000 per month.
Supervisor Lemke stated ISM has presented a proposal that will
ost $5,250 per month.
Mr. Chebett stated that would be the monthly cost plus $34,000
p front money, that would include programming, education, and shipping
he machine in.
Supervisor Lemke stated there would be another $3,000 per month
for start up to $8,000 per month. This is about $10,000 savings
the present billings, oil $120,000 savings.
Supervisor Wheeler stated that consideration must be given as
the cause and effect to the otfier property users and the total data
cessing operation of Butte County. _
Supervisor Lemke stated all the Board was discussing was the fact
Assessor has consistently told the Board he had a problem. The Tax
ector has told the Board he has specific problems. He is being told
Page 500.
January 6, 1981
a1-
3
January 6, 1481 _ _ _ _
there is a possible savings of $120;.000 the first .year if the Board institutes
the system explained today,
Supervisor Wheeler stated the proposal was considering the
Auditor's Office. Was he acceptable to mini-computerization.
Mr. Johansen stated he was acceptable to exploring any alternative.
These axe some other complexities involved in those. Tt isn't quite
as simple as saving $120,000.
Supervisor Lemke stated that hanging over all the contract .
deliberations with SCT, if there is $100,000 worth of savings that has
to come out o€ tfie contract and the county is no longer using the mainframe
and SCT then the contract should be reduced.
SUPERVISOR S14RACENI PRESENT AT THIS TIME.
Supervisor Lemke stated the next logical line of conclusion
is if IBMecan furnish this service maybe Univac can do so. These are things
the Soard needs to find out beforecthe Board finally addresses the contract
with SCT. If it is possible to make those savings, the savings have
to be reflected in the contract with SCT, or whatever the Board gets into.
These will have the effect of saving three FTEs maybe. The Board does
not have the time to get into consideration of the contract negotiations
to go to a full blown RFP without the agreement of the contract or
without additional decision as far as the date. There is two weeks time
for discussion of the contract with SCT.
Supervisor Wheeler stated that many people were waiting for
the implementation of that contract.
Supervisor Lemke stated they ail are. When the decision comes
up, he wondered if one-eighth of the total contract consideration must
be considered. There is a proposal from IBM now. Those figures are goad
for 90 days. The Board either has to forge ahead and say they will go
full bore with SCT or find out the information by January 20, 1981. He
was not interested in coming up with a full blown RFP and who is going to
write it. There is an offer from IBM. Is the Board aware of others willing
to comp~he with that.
Supervisor Wheeler felt the answer could be forthcoming from
the Auditor, because of the fiscal decision that needs to be made. She
felt the cost of this particular system must be justified by the Auditor's
Office. There is a need for justification of the mini-computer on the
total data processing, staffing, who and how much it will cost, what happens
and what is going to happen. The major consideration is the major property
users on the present system,~if they will remain on the central computer
what ra~dfications will the mini-computer have on the operation as a
total operation, who will pay for the existing system until the other
system is up and running, there is a need for a timetable for cost and
how much the county canputer will be used in the time period. These
questions can be answered by the Auditor. With those statistics, the
Board should be able to make a valid judgement within one week. It may
be the answer for the property system. What about the other users and
the cost and effect of pulling these users off the present system.
Supervisor Lemke stated there were major policy things coming
down through this suggestion. TFese~are°somg'iof the things that were
asked two years ago, if this cycle comes off the mainframe. At the same
time, gfie county is addressing new programs that need to be put an the
central computer, the 5heriff's wants and warrants. The county is
Page501.
January b, 1981
January b, 1981
81-
looking at losing Butte College as an outside user. The county may lose
other outside users. He has never been convinced that the outside users
were picking up and paying what they were getting. if there are other
counties getting ready to pull out of the county's cycle, then there
are major adjustments to make in the contract with SCT. It sounds like
maybe the county can end up saving some money this year and getting more
with what we have. The concept of data processing is what would do the
job for Butte County that the county needs and will answer all the
county's in-house problems. Once the county is through with that, there
is no business seeking outside business unless that computer has the
ability to handle other outside users at least on a cost basis and
maybe making a little for the county. If the county does not need the
outside users maybe the operation can be scaled down rather than seeking
bigger and better hardware. Why is the county in the data processing
business and hhwrfar is the county going to go? Those are things that
need to be considered. He did not think those questions have been
asked. in ten years. The county has been listening to vendors for a long
time.
Supervisor Wheeler stated that County Schools are looking to
buy their own system 80 and bring in under the county's facilities
management. They are going to have some time sharing with the county.
At this particular time the committee has recommended the county stay
with the 9030 and proceed with moving online for the Welfare Department.
The priority is wants and warrants. If the Board is acceptable to the
questions she has asked, she wondered if the Board might ask the Auditor
to bring back a report in one week.
Supervisor Dolan felt that was part of it. The big part is
the cost effectiveness and financial expenditures. Maybe Butte County
has been listening to vendors because they do not know the answers.
Mr. Johansen felt that in one week he could identify some
issues in terms of cost and cost savings. The total tax cycle costs
are about $372,000. The difference between the outside users and the
county is $222,000. If the county Forgets the tax cycle there is a
different impact than if the county keeps the outside, users. It seems
that maybe what we are asking is part of a bigger picture which he was
not sure the answers wouldn't be clearer to follow for the entire computer
center. If this proposal does the fine things being suggested maybe
there are some other things it will also do. Elections is a problem that
concerns the County Clerk.
Iilif Nickelson, administrative officer, felt that one of the
most important aspects is if the county goes to a separate machine for
the tax cycle for the county, the county should as soon as possible get
rid of all outside users „because there will be the same costs to re-
program Glenn County Assessor for legislative changes as it is costing
for Butte County and the others.
Mr. Johansen stated that some of the costs might not be clear-
cut. If a user is eliminated, the hardware might not be eliminated.
-They would have to see all the users contfibuting to the overhead cost.
If 50 percent of the outside users are on CPU then it is not quite as
clear cut. The county is losing Butte College, which will raise the
county cost for the center.
Supervisor Wheeler felt the outside users would be dropping
off as the county goes on-line because of the cost of telephone lines.
Page 502.
January 6, 1981
__ .
81-
43
44
- --~
January_6, 1981 _ ~ _
The matter was continued to January 13, 1981 for a report from
the Auditor.
CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO BE PREPARED FOR DOROTHY ASHLEY
A certifieate of appreciation in to be prepared for Dorothy
Ashley for fier years of services as an employee of Butte County.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED SY BOARD 'MEMBERS
Chairman Moseley stated the Board had received a copy of various
appointments to various committees relative to Board members. The matter
to be discussed an another Board meeting.
Supervisor Lemke .stated he had received a letter relative to
the Neal Road land fill septage ponds. He would like to know why there
is a problem getting the new ponds dug.
Supervisor Wheeler stated Supervisor Lemke is the new Vice-
President of the Northern California Supervisors' Association. She has
committed Butte County to a general session meeting on August 7,&8,
1981 in Chico. She has called the convention center who `will handle
all the paperwork. She has been asked to be on the Board of Directors.
She asked the association if she could chair a committee of northern
California supervisors to sit down aad address the reapportionment in
1982.
Supervisor Lemke asked if there was a possibility of aieash
lew for the county. He would like to see something brought back that
would not include the farm areas.
ADJOURNMENT
There being nothing further before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned at 3:45 p.m. to reoonvene on Tuesday, January 13, 1981 at
9:00 a.m.
ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK-
RECORDER AND ex-officio Clark
of the Board of Supervisors
By
~age~503:
i
Chairman, Board of S pervisors
January 6, 1981