HomeMy WebLinkAboutM020982February 9, 1982
OF CALIFORNIA }
SS.
OF BUTTE
82 '',
238
The Board of Supervisors met at 4:00 a:m. pursuant to adjournment.
Present: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler. Mike
Pyeatt, interim administrative officer; Del Siemsen, 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
CLOSED SESSION: The Board recessed at 9:01 a.m. to hold a closed session
regarding meet and confer.
RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 9:32 a.m, following a closed session
regarding meet and confer.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the minutes of January 6, January 12, January I3, January l9,
January 20, and January 26, 1982 were approved as mailed.
The minutes of February 2, 1982 were continued to Februarys 23, 1982.
239
240
24If
242
ADDITTONAL AGENDA ITEMS FROM BOARD MEMBERS TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE END OF
THE DAY
Chairman Wheeler stated she would be giving an update on the
CSAC meeting that was held.
CONSIDERATION OF MERIT ADVANCEMENT FOR VETERANS' SERVICE OFFICER TABLED
Supervisor Saraceni felt the Board should look at merit increases
closely since the county is facing the deficit in the budget that they are.
He felt this should be considered in light of the fact that there is an
increase once a year that takes place for employees.
Consideration of merit increase for Veterans' Service Officer
from step D to step E was tabled at this time.
AUTHORIZE ACQUISITION OF FINGERPRINT MACHINE FOR CHICO MUNICIPAL COURT
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, set out the background
of the request for the fingerprint machine for the Chico Municipal Court.
The purchase of this equipment could allow for a savings in the transporting
of defendants to the jail in Oroville for fingerprinting and could save
the court some time. He did not know whether Chico Police Department had
a fingerprinting machine or not. The way the program would work is that
when a person made a court appearance they would be asked to have the
fingerprinting done and then go back into court.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, acquisition of a fingerprint machine at a cost of $460
including tax was authorized.
AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF E UIPMENT FOR DATA PROCESSING
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, set out the backgound
of the request for ten disk packs to offset continuing least payments
in the following years for the Data Processing Department. While this
seems like a large capital outlay this fiscal year, it will preclude budgeting
similar amounts of money within the rents and leases budget for other years..
This is within the budgetary considerations this year.
Page' 189.
February 9, 1982
February 9, 1982
8 2-
~'
It was moved by Supervisor ~4oseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
that the purchase of ten disk packs this year at a cost of $4,421 to offset
continuing lease payments in the following years for Data Processing be
authorized.
Supervisox Dolan stated that the only savings would be if the
county stayed with the centralized computer.
Mr. Pyeatt advised that the county had.. an agreement with Univac
for 42 months. The disk packs will be used for 42 months as long as the
county maintains the 90/40 computer. There will be a savings next fiscal
year.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: None
Motion carried.
243
244
ADDITIONAL MATTER PRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN WHEELER
Chairman Wheeler stated she had been approached by members of
the Administrative Office staff who are excited about the fact the Auditor
will be able to put a great deal of budgetary considerations on the computer
at this time. They are anxious to look at the possibility of a financial
management system for the Auditor that can be built into the computer
program. She would like for the Board to give staff the opportunity to
resarch the matter and bring a proposal back to the Board at budget time.
The entire Board was in agreement and staff has their direction
to Ming back a proposal to the Board on the financial management system
for the Auditor's Office.
ACCEPT CONDITIONS ON APPLICATION FOR_USE/VARIANCE PERMIT IN CITY OF CHICO
Discussion of the application for use/variance permit in the
City of Chico held at this time.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that in the conditions for the use/
variance permit, one of the conditions is that the building be re-evaluated
to see if the building is as energy efficient as possible.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, stated that they are
not contemplating any changes to the building. They have worked with the
city and the application for a use/variance permit was for a parking lot
and the requirement on the building seems ironic since this is only for
a parking lot.
Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, stated that the
reason this matter is before the Board at all is because of the conditions
being imposed on the permit. Ordinarily, their office would sign the
document and handle the matter. The variance is to the ordinance establishing
conditions for a parking lot. That ordinance was adopted after the plans
and specifications were approved and put out to bid. The action of the
City Planning Commission was retroactive. They have gone through an energy
audit with PG&E. The company made recommendations to the Board and whether
they have to go back to the City Planning Commission for changes he did not
know.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that this is listed under the conditions
of the permit. If there is a change there would be increased costs, due to
the condition of approval to have the building design re-evaluated for energy
efficiency. page 190•
February 9, 1982
February 9, 1982
$2- Supexvisor Dolan was comfortable with the fact that the re-evaluation
'b '' had been done. It is interesting to note that the use permit for the Library
wanted more compact parking spaces which is really the use of more energy
efficient cars.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
', and carried, the conditions on the application for use/variance permit to
the City of Chico were accepted and the County Administrative Officer was
', authorized to sign. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley and Chairman Wheeler.
NOES: Supervisor Saraceni.
'245 APPROVE BTIDGET TRANSFERS
', On motion of Supervisor "Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the following budget transfers were approved:
B-139 - Auditor-Controller. Transfers $450 from salaries and wages
to equipment in order to provide an appropriation for the purchase of the
disk.: cartridge to be used in conjunction with the Prime Computer maintained
by CETA Administration for the compilation of the 1982-83 budget.
', B-141 - Co~nunity Action Program - Rural Home Repair Program.
', Transfers appropriations in the amount of $1,000 between line items within
', the CAA budget to cover vaxious anticipated deficiences. .
', B-142 - Community Action Program - Channel I Drug and Alcohol
Program. Transfers appropriations between line items totalling $197 to
cover various deficiencies in the program. These transfers have been approved
by the Department of Alcohol and Drugs.
8-143 - Data Processing_ ISF. Transfers $4,421 from .equipment rental
to fixed assets - equipment in order to purchase ten disk packs to replace
twelve disk packs now on rental. The payback on these ten disk-packs is
thirteen months and it is anticipated they will be used for 42 months.
'',246 App ROVE OIL AND GAS APPRAISAL CONTRACT WITH HAROLD W. BER~OLF, INC. - ASSESSOR
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the oil and gas appraisal contract with Harold W. Bertholf, Inc.
in the amount of $4,000 with the term of the agreement to be one year,
', commencing .7uly 1981 was approved and the Chairman authorized to sign.
',247 APPROVE NITRATE GROUND WATER STUDY CONTRACT
', It was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
that the contract with the State Water Resources Control Board to conduct
a ground water study in the Chico area be approved and the Chairman be
authorized to sign.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, stated that their
office had received additional information on this contract. The contract
is for $15,000 and federal funding that does not require a county match.
The contract speaks to expenditures of no more than $35,000 which is a
$25,000 difference. Presently, the state has encumbered $15,000 and any
subcontract for the engineering study has a limit of $15,000. He felt
the state would appropriate the additional $20,000 for this program.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Moseley
NOES: None
Motion carried.
Page 191.
February 9, 1982
February 9, 1982
82- 248 APPROVE CHILD PROTECTII~E SERTTICES COUNSELING AGREEMENTS - WELFARE
~ ', On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried the counseling agreements with local agencies which meet state
requirements to claim in grant funding for the .Child Protective Services
were approved and the Chairman authorized to sign.
249
250
251
252
APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SKYWAY FAS ANB FAU PROJECTS
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background
of the plans and specifications for the Skyway Project at this time.
Tt is in order. There are 4.3 miles funded in the amount of $1.7 million
between the Town of Paradise and County of Butte with about 80 percent
of the funds being federal highway money.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the plans and specifications for Skyway, FAS Project No.
RS-Y 742(3) and FAU Project No. M-Y742(1) were approved; the Chairman and
Director of Public Works were authorized to sign the glans; the wage scale
was adopted; and the bid opening was set for 11:00 a.m. on March 4, 1982
at the Public Works Office.
WAIVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE ADOPTING 1979 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1979
UNIFORM ..PLUMBING CODE AND NEW FIRE STANDARDS
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background of
the ordinance adopting the 1979 Uniform Building Code, 1979 Uniform Plumbing
Code and new fire standards. This will bring the 1979 codes into use.
There are constant cahnges being made and there will be changes in another
year. There is also the addition of the fire standards which adopts new
codes. The fire standards are the one's that apply to the Building Codes.
The other standards that were considered by the Board previously apply
to the Subdivision Ordinance and those will be coming back to the Board
at a later date.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the first reading of the ordinance adopting the 1979 Uniform
Building Code, 1979 Uniform Plumbing Code and new fire standards was waived.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-23 ESTABLISHING POLICY FOR REFUNDING OF BUILDING PERMIT
FEES
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the request for
adoption of the resolution establishing the policy for refunding of building
permit fees at this time. The refunds would be for a person who chose not
to build and does allow the caunty to keep the money if the county has
checked the plans but would allow for refund of some money if there had
been no inspections.
Jim Glander, building department, stated the main difference
between the policy at present and the new proposed policy is the six-month
limit after a fee is paid. This would allow up to a one--year limit.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, Resolution 82-23 establishing a golicy on the refunding o£
building permit fees was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
MOTION TO NOT ALLOW MERIT INCREASES FOR EMPLOYEES WITHDRAWN
Supervisor Saraceni stated that his concern on merit increases
was not a reflection on the Veterans' Service Officer. He was speaking to
all merit increases and the fact the Board should look at no merit increases
at this time.
It was moved by Supervisor Saraceni that there be no merit increases
approved for any employee.
Page 192.
February 9, 1982
8 2-
~'
February 9, 1982 -_______ ______
Del Siemsen, county counsel; advised that as far as the two
employee units were concerned this matter would have to be a negotiated item.
The Board could put a freeze on merit increases for department heads but
that is the extent of what. could be :done at this time.
Motion withdrawn at this time.
'253
'254
'.,255
256
257
258
Supervisor Moseley felt this was something that will have to
be discussed at budget time.
APPROVE CONVEYANCE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PERPETUAL OPEN AREA EASEMENT
FOR H.B. ORCHARD CO., INC. (.ROBERT HATAMIYA)
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the conveyance of development rights and perpetual open area
easements for H.B. Orchard Co., Inc. (.Robert Hatamiya) to comply with
condition of approval on use permit was approved and the Chairman authorized
to sign.
PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET
The following public heaxing dates were set:
1. A public hearing date of March 9, 1982 at 10:15 a.m. was set
for consideration of W. Scott Rutherford appeal of the EIR requirement on
rezone from "TM-40" to "TM-10," property located on the west side of Doe
Mill Ridge Road, approximately five miles south of Highway 32 via Schott
Road, Doe Mill Ridge area, ten miles northeast of Chico, identified as
AP 63-02-70.
2. A public hearing date of March 9, 1982 at 10:30 a.m. was set
for consideration of Robert L. Brown proposed negative declaration and rezone
from "SR-3" (suburban residential - 3 acre parcels) to "I~l" (light industrial),
property located on the northeast corner of Cohasset Road and Thorntree Drive,
identified as AP 48-O1-17 (portion}, Chico.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-24 URGING PASSAGE OF URGENCY LEGTSLATION PERTAINING TO
(STAFFING OF CHICO MUNICIPAL COURT
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, Resolution 82-24 urging passage of urgency legislation pertain-
ing to staffing of Chico Municipal Court was adopted and the Chairman
authorized to sign.
CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE CONCERNING THERMALITO DRAINAGE CAPITAL OUTLAY
DEVELOPMENT FEE HELD AT THIS TIME FOR COUNSEL AND PUBLIC WORKS TO LOOK
AT THE ORDINANCE
Consideration of the ordinance concerning Thermalito drainage
capital outlay development fee was held at this time in order that Counsel
and Public Works can have a look at the ordinance.
APPOINTMENTS TO CHICO MEMORIAL HALL COMMITTEE
On motion of Supervisor-Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the following were appointed to the Chico Memorial Hall
Committee:
Arnold V. Millington, delegate
Theodore Rife, alternate
APPOINTMENTS TO OROVILLE MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the following were appointed to the Oroville.Mosquito Abatement
District:
Page 193.
February 9., 1982
8 2'-
'b
259
'260
Fehruary 9, 1982
Harold Kroeger
William Geddis
Frank. Walburn
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING POLTCY AND PROCEDURE ;MANUAL SECTION 1.10 RE:
CHAIRMAN/VICE-CHAI~AfAN SELECTION TAKEN OFF AGENDA TO BE HELD UNTIL ADVISED
TO PLACE BACK ON AGENDA BY BOARD
Consideration of amending the Policy and Procedure Manual Section
1.10 concerning Chairman/Vice-Chairman Selection was taken off the agenda
at this time to be held until advised to place the matter back on the
agenda by the Board.
APPOINTMENTS CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 23, 1982
Consideration of the following appointments was continued until
February 23, 1982:
1. Appointments to the Butte County Housing Authority, District 2
'261
262
263
2. Appointments to the Mental Health Advisory Board
RECONSIDERATION OF CON50LIDATING BIGGS AND GRIDLEY JUDICIAL COURTS
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, stated that the only
reason the reconsideration of consolidating the Biggs and Gridley Judicial
Courts was placed on the agenda was because there was still stime prior to
the election process to set a public hearing and consider the issue. Since
the prior discussion, the Auditor has given their office some final
projections for the next fiscal year.
Chairman Wheeler advised that any issues pertaining to the budgetary
proaess would be handled by the Board on the days set for budgetary considera-
tion.
Supervisor Dolan stated that this matter was placed on the agenda
at the request of the Administrative Office in light of the financial
analysis by the Auditor. She felt the Board should decide to either re-
consider the matter or vote to remove it from the agenda so people will
know what is happening. If the Board votes not to reconsider th a matter,
it should not be brought up again this year.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, reconsideration of consolidating the Biggs and Gridley
Judicial Courts is not to be brought back on the agenda. AYES: Supervisors
Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler. NOES: Supervisor Dolan.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-25 CONCERNING EQUITY ISSUE AS IT PERTAINS TO MILITARY
SPOUSES" RETIREMENT
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler ,
and carried, Resolution 82-25 concerning equity issue as it pertains to
niliary spouses' retirement was adopted and the Chairman authorized to
^,ign.
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION URGING LEGISLATION TO AMEND SECTION 1262 OF
PHE MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE FOR OPERATION OF MEMORIAL HALLS
Consideration of resolution urging legislation to amend Section
1262 of the Military and Veterans Code for operation of memorial halls was
held at this time.
Chairman Wheeler stated this is a resolution to support legislation
to clarify the discretionary requirements of the counties to maintain the
facilities. The Board would be asking the State Legislature to interpret
the section for the Board. The Board will not be considering budgetary
Page 194.
February 9, 1982
8 2-
'v
• _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ -_ - =February 9, =1982_ -_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _
issues in this matter.- The next budget session will bQ on February 24,
at 1:00 p.m.
Discussion open to tie public.. Appearing:
1. Jim Hurst. Mr. Hurst stated that he was here on behalf ~
the veterans and citizens of the county who use the memorial halls to ~
known to the Board their opposition to the proposed resolution. They ~
be offering point by point discussion. on the petition and submitting a
number ofpetitions signed by the citizens of the county. He will be
introducing several people to speak on this matter.
1482
The matter was continued to later in the meeting.
264
PUBLIC•HEARING: BUDGET TRANSFERS B-146 - COMMUNITY ACTION-AGENCY; B-136 -
BIJILDINGS AND GROUNDS MAINTENANCE ISF: AND B-137 - CHICO MUNICIPAL COURT
The public hearing on the following budget transfers was held
as advertised:
B-146 - Community Action Agency.. Proposed is to transfer and
amount not to exceed $118,000 from the appropriation for contingencies)
to appropriations to establish an interim funding of the Community Action
Agency, Butte County, Inc. pending receipt of funds from the 1982
Community Services grant.
B-136 - Buildings and Grounds Maintenance ISF. Transfers $2,000
from the reserve to maintenance - structures and improvements - Memorial
Halls in order to install a sprinkling system in the Chico Memorial Ha11
that is required by the Chico Fire Marshal. ',
B-137 - Chico Municipal Court. Transfers $19,176 from the reser
with $18,716 going to extra help and $460 to fixed assets. The purpose of
this transfer is to cover current and projected deficits in the extra help
and fixed assets accounts. ',
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, set out the backgro
of budget transfer B-137 as it relates to the Chico Municipal Court. The
court had a backlog of approximately five years in warrants that needed to
be updated. The majority of the extra help was for covering sick leave,
vacation and the backlog of warrants. The other reason for the transfer
is because the workload statistics at budget time were lower than what', has
actually been done. ',
Supervisor Saraceni asked how the county was going to meet the
financial obligations as they come forward, when the Board sets up a budget
and tries to make a determination. There are increased numbers that are
difficult to budget. ~'
Mr. Pyeatt stated there were code sections that allow for other
courses of action for the judicial branch of government. The workload', has
increased tremendously. The judge and court clerk feel there are overridi
reasons for this and he would have to tend to agree.
Andrea Nelson, clerk of the Chico Municipal Court, stated
in order to maintain efficient and accurate staffing, the judge has
that they use extra help from October to the present. They have inc
the amount taken in from $15,000 to $19,000 because of this process.
Page 195.
February 9, 1982
8 2-
a'
265
February 9, 1982
They have done numerous things to increase efficiency and have closed at
2:00 p.m. The filings have increased'. The judge has assisted by clerking
her own trials. .Because of the ability to process the Grarrants, the
revenues,-have increased to..the county. Traffic infractions have increased
from 1,200 to 1,500 per month. The City of Chico is filling all notices
to collect with them which will be 200 per-.month to process., get out and
the failures to appear. The extra help is being used for traffic and
jury commissioner for the computerized system. They. are qualifying six
to eight panels per month and sending out 100. or more questionnaires per
day.
Mr. Pyeatt stated that budget transfer B-y36 relative to the
sprinkling system in the Chico Memorial Hall was not being added back into
the budget. There were increased costs when the proposals were sought.
California Water Service will also levy a charge for bringing water into
the building.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the following budget transfers were approved:
B-146 - Communit Action Agency. Proposed is to transfer an
amount not to exceed $118,000 from the appropriation for contingencies to
appropriations to establish an interim funding of the Community Action Agency
Butte County, Inc, pending receipt of funds from the 1982 Community Services
grant .
B-136 - Buildings and Grounds Maintenance IS F. Transfers $2,000
from the reserve to maintenance - structures and improvements - Memorial
Halls in order to install a sprinkling system in the Chico Memorial Ha11
that is required by the Chico Fire Marshal.
B-137 - Chico _Municipal Court. Transfers $19,176 from the reserve
with $18,716 going to extra help and $460 to fixed assets. The purpose of
this transfer is to cover current and projected deficits in the extra help
and fixed assets accounts.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-2b & RESOLUTION 82-27: PUBLIC HEARINGS: JACE K. RASH
AND SCOTT LAWRENCE ABANDONMENTS
The public hearing on the following was held as advertised:
1. 3ace K. Rash abandonment of Railroad Avenue, between Melisa
Avenue and Louis Avenue, Palermo
2. Scott Lawrence abandonment of portion of Hewitt Avenue (300
feet long by 80 feet wide; 0.55 acres) between Williams Avenue and Ludlum
Avenue, Palermo
Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the
abandonments. They are in order.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1.. Jace Rash. Mr:'Rash~sEated the reason he was applying for
the abandonment was that it .had been"brought to his attention that the
property he owns was not properly surveyed. When he took out the permit
for the well and septic system, he had plenty of room for the house but
because of the survey could not now place the house where it was going to
go.
2. Hal Higgins. Mr. Higgins stated that. currently Hewitt
Avenue goes through Palermo Park. The residents in the area are in favor
of the abandonment as is the Fea'th~Y River Recreation and Park District.
Page 196.
February 9, 1982
B 2-
~'
'266
February 9, 1982
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.-
On motion .of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried; the following abandonments were approved; resolutions were
adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign:
1. Resolution 82-26 abandonment of Railroad Avenue, between Melisa
Avenue and Louis Avenue, Palermo for Jace K. Rash..
2. Resolution 82-27 abandonment of portion of Hewitt Avenue (300
feet long by 80 feet wide; 0.55 acres) between Williams Avenue and Ludlum
Avenue, Palermo for Scott Lawrence.
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTTON URGING LEGISLATION TO AMEND SECTION 1262 OF
THE MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE_FOR OPERATION OP MEMORIAL HALLS
Consideration of resolution urging legislation to amend Section
1262 of the Military and Veterans Code for operation of memorial halls was
held as continued from earlier in the meeting.
2. Ron Barnes, commander of VFW in Paradise. Mr. Barnes asked
Chairman Wheeler to repeat the opening statements made relative to the
resolution.
Chairman Wheeler stated the county would be asking the Legislature
to clarify the discretionary nature of the counties in maintenance of the
facilities and are the counties required to continue to maintain the
buildings.
Mr. Barnes understood the resolution was not a clarification but
a change in the code section.
Chairman Wheeler advised that Mr. Barnes was correct.
Mr. Barnes stated he would be giving his personal views and not
those of an organization or group. He quoted paragraph I of the resolution.
This enables the counties to provide and maintain facilities. He set out
the definition of provide from Webster's Dictionary. The Superior Court
on August 26, 1981 issued an order in Case No. 75821, page 2, line 6,.where
the county was to comply with Section 1262 of the Military and Veterans
Code:and to comply with the Third District Court of Appeals decision on
April 29, 1929. The order also says that the court retains jurisdiction
to see that the order is carried out. He set out the definitions of enable
and mandate from the dictionary. He read paragraph 2 of the resolution.
He wanted to know what was discretionary about a mandate. He wanted the
paragraph to be changed to reflect that litigation was instituted to the
existing section that provide maintenance is mandatory to the county.
He read paragraph 3 of the resolution and felt it should be changed to
read that whereas such litigation will be expected to continue. He
then read paragraph 4 of the proposed resolution. The Superior Court
decision previously referred to does not imply that maintenance is
discretionary. He read paragraph S and the definition of disproportionate
from the dictionary. He contended that not only veterans but the structure
for using disproportionate was correct but not in the context used. How
can a budget proportion of 0.2, which is the budget set up for memorial
halls, be a burden. It is the burden of thousands of users to continually
fight year after year to keep the halls open. Maintenance and cleanup has
been added to the responsbilities of the users even though they are paying
a rental fee.
3. Nancy Schmidt. Ms. Schmidt stated she was a regular user
of the memorial halls. She submitted a petition with 1,158 signatures
Page 197.
February 9, 1982
February 9, 1982
82- in opposition to the proposed funding cuts for the memorial halls. Those
b signatures were gathered in four days. There are a total of 17 to 25
community groups that use.Chico Memorial Hall on a regular basis. There
would be no where for -meetings if the memorial Hall in Chico were closed.
4. James Hayes, district adjudant for the Fourth District
California American Legion. Mr. Hayes stated he attended a meeting in Area 1
which covers 26 of the 58 counties in the state. He presented the proposed
resolution to them. Area 1 is against the resolution. The information has
been given to the National Executive Commandant for consideration at
department level. There was a statement made about the large number of
California counties including Shasta County who .lease their halls while
Butte County has refused the lease proposal. Out of the 26 counties in
Area 1, three counties lease their halls. Shasta County has four memorial
halls and lease two of them with one leasee trying to get out of the lease.
Yuba County leases one hall out of the four memorial halls. This hall
is leased to veterans organizations for $1 per ten years and the county
pays for all support to the building. Placerville leases one out of four
memorial halls. The county takes care of all major repairs and expenses
and the income is turned over to the veterans organization to take care
of janitorial services, minor maintenance and landscaping. He would Like
to know the large number of counties involved. They have sent a questionnaire
to all 58 counties. He felt that any lease by a veterans group would be
in violation of the law because of the restrictions relative to memorial
halls. '
5. Jim Hurst introduced Don Montgomery who had been in Butte
County since 1983 and was here when most of the memorial halls were
built.
6. Don Montgomery. 'Mr,: Montgomery stated he had lived in
Paradise for 34 years. He served on the building committee two times for
the Paradise hall. He was appalled that 50 years of very satisfactory
operations there is the idea that in order to save money the veterans should
supply the money. He could not see a good reason for this. There is a wave
of patriotism sweeging the country and he felt the veterans should be given
credit for the work done in the past.
7. George Schwindeman. Mr. Schwindeman stated he was representing
the Melody Dance Club who use the Paradise Memorial Hall. He read a letter
which was submitted for the record in support of keeping the memorial halls
open and maintained by the county.
8. Jim Hurst. Mr. Hurst felt that the Board was harassing all
veterans in the county. Cxhy should the veterans have to come to the Board
meetings month after month when there has been a court order on this matter.
The Board did not heed the court order so they are going back into court
again. He thought the Board was in contempt of the court order. The
Administrative Officer has harassed the veterans. The veterans as a group
will not be harassed now.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, stated it was not
their intent to harass the veterans. He was well aware of the legal action.
He was aware of the court's decision and the fact that the county could have
'appealed that decision. It is very expensive for the county and could be
;expensive for the veterans organizations. This resolution does not ask
'the Board to make the decision keep the halls open. The only intent was
Ito have an interpretation of Military and Veterans Code 1262. He did not
concur with the findings of the court. He was asking that the matter be
submitted to the Legislature for clarification. They were not asking the
Board to keep or close the halls, or at what level they should be kept.
Page 198.
February 9, 1982
8 2',-
b',
February 9, 1982
_.~ T = - - _ = W - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The question is still open as to what was the intent o£ the Legislature as
it applies to .maintenance and operation of memorial halls.
Supervisor Dolan stated that regardless of whether she liked the
outcome of the court action, she believed the county budget actions and
maintenance of the halls comply with the court arder. At the same time,
she recognized the issue under contention. Wtio decides if that issue is
cleared up? If the county is going to be sued, maybe the court is where
it will be decided. If the Board. adopts the resolution and finds a state
legislator, on election year, to carry the legislation and if it passes,
which she doubted, the action would remove the code section. She felt
that what the county's position was is to arrange an agreement with the
people that use the halls in such a way that the county taxpayers do not
supply for the scheduling and maintenance of the halls for recreational
purposes. She felt the Board asked for a little of the reaction today
because of something comes as a surprise then the people will react.
She felt the Board should throw the resolution out and cooperate with the
people who use the halls for recreational and social purposes.
Chairman Wheeler stated that if there was no problem the resolution
would be thrown out. The Board will be considering the budget as it pertains
to the scheduling and maintenance of the memorial halls on February 10,
1982 at 1': 00 p . m.
No action taken on the resolution.
267
RECESS: 10:44 a.m.
RECONVENE: 10:52 a. m.
PUBLIC HEARING: GREGORY TODD HEMSTALK APPEAL OF ADVISORY AGENCY'S DENIAL
OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATTON AND TENTATIVB PARCEL MAP, AP 72-29-61,
TWO PARCELS, PROPERTY' LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET NORTHEAST OF
ROMELT LANE AND MATHER LANE INTERSECTTON (BOTH SIDES OF ROMELT LANE),
STRINGTOWN AREA
The public hearing. on Gregory Tadd Hemstalk appeal of the Advisory
Agency's denial of proposed negative declaration and tentative parcel map,
AP 72-29-61, two parcels, property located approximately 1,000 feet northeast
of Romelt Lane and Mather Lane intersection (both sides of Romelt Lane),
Stringtown area was held as advertised.
Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the
appeal. The denial was based on the General Plan. The Board has copies
of the Planning Director's report with the discussion for the reasons
why the denial was approved and the zoning of the surrounding properties.
The applicant was cautioned that the Planning Department would not be able
to support the application.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Bill Geddis. Mr. Geddis stated he hoped the Board had the
compilation map they had submitted at the time of appeal. This property
was caught up in the Mackey-Shelly rezone but was not apart of the rezone.
It does touch on two sides. The property is immediately adacent to
five acres and 9.8 acres ,c and to the south 2.9 acre parcel. The 2.9
acre parcel was approved April 1, 1980-. There are several parcels in
this area similar to what they are proposing. The road splits this parcel.
This road has a 60-foot right-of way. There are asking to split the property
at the road to allow for a parcel on each side of that road. The information
from the Planning Department was due to the Board's action on the Shelly-
,Mackey rezone. They have satisifed Public Works and Health Departments'
requirements. Heys etc,out the history of the area. This property was
Page 199.
February 9, 1982
82-
d'
Bebruary 9, 1482
formed by the division through deeds and the conveying of property. Mr.
Mackey~took.oyer roost o£.the property and atte~pted'to;:hring it into
the requirements of the .county with the roads. and surveys filed with the
court. This progeny-was not included in-tHe property Mr. Mackey acquired,
however, it is subject to the roadway going through the property. When the
property was acquired there was no road going through. the property.
Supervisor Dolan stated that the issue of a road physically
dividing a road was one that had been discussed by the Board in the past.
2. Kelly Albrecht. Mr. Albrecht stated he was an attorney
representing the owner of the parcel as well as being. an owner is an
undivided one-half interest in the property. The proposal is the request
to divide one parcel into two-six acre parcels. This is not a large
land division. This is the only land division possible because of the
location of the road. This is consistent with the neighborhood.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
Tt was moved by Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseleiy
that the Board find the proposed project could not have a significant effect
on the environment and a negative declaration be adopted; that the Board
uphold the appeal subject to the following conditions:
1. Verify legal parcel.
2. Verify legal access.
3. Provide two-way traversable access RS-8-LD-I to each parcel from a
county maintained road or state highway.
4. Access to be reserved in deeds as per county ordinance and offered
for dedication on the final map.
5. Show 50 ft. building setback line measured from centerline of access
easement.
6. Provide road maintenance agreement.
7. Show all easements of record on the final map.
8. Provide street name signs per requirements of the Dept. of Public
Works prior to recordation of the final map.
9. Pay off any assessments.
10. Pay any delinquent taxes.
11. Show a fifty (50) foot leachfield setback from the drainage way
on parcels A & B.
12. Prove that the required quantities of domestic water are available
or place the statement on the map that "there is no evidence that
domestic water is available" for parcels A & B.
Supervisor Dolan stated she could not support the motion based
on the action of the Board when they zoned the area "FR-1Q" zoning. She
recognized that anytime zoning is put in the place of "A-2" zoning, there
are going to be non-conforming parcels. She was uncomfortable with the
suggestion that the Board should approve divisions because of roads. and
their placement. The Board has no control over the placement of roads.
Page 200.
February 9, 1982
k'ebruary 9, 1382
Supervisox Saraceni stated the road has been put in and dissects
the property and there is property contiguous to xhe parcel that is divided
in five.acre parcels.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, stated tfiat-in light of the fact
that the Advisory Agency did not find that the project was consistent with
the General Pian, in order to approve the project the Board must find this
consistent with the General Plan and make it clear why there are overriding
considerations.
Bettye Blair, planning director, suggested the Board might find
conformity with the agricultural-residential designation relating to sur-
rounding parcels contiguous and possibly surrounded by like sizes and
with all elements of the General Plan.
Motion amended: finding conformity with the agricultural-
residential designation relating to surrounding parcels contiguous and
possibly surrounded by like sizes and with all elements of the General
Plan.
Supervisor Dolan stated that they all knew it was the Board
who makes the findings and if the Board has difficulty making the findings
that is all the more reason not to approve the parcel map.
Supervisor Moseley stated she remembered when the same type
of situation was before the Board in the past. The road went through
that property and there was mention of the fact that the man would have
to go across the road to have a barbecue in his back yard. This is not
much different.
Vote on motion:
*~
268
AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: Supervisor Dolan
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: PATRICIA GILCkiRIST APPEAL OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND ADVTSORY AGENCY'S DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, AP 28-27-156, FOUR
PARCELS, SOUTHEAST SIDE OF BANGOR PARK ROAD, I/4 MILE EAST OF DUNSTONE ROAD,
BANGOR AREA
The public hearing on Patricia Gilchrist appeal of proposed
negative declaration and Advisory Agency's denial of tentative parcel map,
AP 28-27-156,-four parcels, southeast side of Bangor Park Road, 1/4 mile
east of Aunstone Road, Bangor area was held as advertised.
Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the
appeal. The denial was based on the General Plan. This is the last of
the three parcels that were created with 40 acres each. Each of the other
two parcels have gone into parcel splits that were upheld by the Board.
She had posted a map of the parcels. She set out how the 40 acre parcels
were created without a map. This can be done with waiver applicati ons
for parcels over 40 acres. There was an appeal before the Board on November,
1980 that staff did not support. The second one was appealed before the
Board on December, 1980 creating four parcels. There could be other
forty acre parcels coming down.
Supervisor Dolan stated that the waiver existed for 40 acre
or larger parcels because because of no consequences on the roads and
urban services. There are 40 other acres that could also come in for
a split and would give this as a reason to break down their property.
Page 201.
February 9, 1982
82-
3'
February 9., 1982
Hearing open to .the public. Appearing;' Robsrt Huskey.
Mr.-Huskey stated the state provides for the procedures to applg for waivers
to create 40 acre parcels and larger.. They can_bs created without a parcel
map but there is required the use of a record of survey. This has to meet
all the redvirements of a parcel-map. This is-the third map in this area.
The basic prob.let¢ Planning seems to have with the map is that something less
than 40 acres are in some way not compatible with. the adjoining lands in
Williamson Act contract. To the south there is a large piece of land for
cattle with a cow-calf on the property three months out of the year. There
are ten acre parcels used for mini-ranches. He did not thinly. there was
any conflict between the uses. There are laws that cover problems to the
farmers, such as animal control. He felt the issue came down Co favoring
the rights of one over another, the rights of the large land owner to
dictate what happens. The area is zoned "A--S" zoning and all services
are in the area.
Supervisor Dolan disagreed that the issue was one of favoring
rights. It is an analysis of the area based on the criteria and the Board's
determination of whether this is an appropriate area for urbanisation.
This is just not a one ten-acre ranch being created; it is the third of
three 40-acre parcels which makes at least 12 parcels that is creating a
trend for that area of very large parcels with a history of grazing.
She could not support the trends.
Mr. Huskey stated it was true it was a trend for people leaving
the urban centers looking for a little elbow room. If the people are
continued to be pressured and not allowed to live on five to ten acre
parcels there will be nothing but urbanization. If the Board stops that
growth, it will push the growth into the areas near urban centers, namely,
into the prime agricultural land in Oroville and Chico. If the Board would
allow division in the foothills on marginal land and tightening up on the
west side, maybe there will be a lessening of people attempting to
development in agricultural areas. If a person owns 200 acres and decides
to keep that land, that is fine. If a person has 40 acres to graze three
cows for six months or chows to place famibes in the area that should
be allowed. He owns seven acres and lives near subdi~asions.
Hearing closed to the gublic and confined to the Board.
It was moved by Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
that the Board find the proposed project could not have a significant effect
on the environment and a negative declaration be adopted; that the appeal
be upheld subject to the following conditions; finding consistency with
the General Plan under the ~.gricultural-residential designation conditionally
consistent zones in the General Plan to comply in that the "A-5" zoning is
a conditionally zoning that has compatibility with neighboring agricultural
activites, evidence of adequate water and sewage disposal capacity, availability
of adequate fire protection facilities, adequately maintained approved road
access with sufficient capacity to service area and reasonable accessibility
to commercial services and schools:
1. Verify legal parcel.
2. Verify legal access.
3. Provide two-way traversalile access RS-8-LD-I to each parcel from a
county maintained road or state highway. Construct through road.
4. Access to be reserved in deeds as per county ordinance and offered
for dedication on the final map.
Page 202.
February 9, 1982
6 2-
a
February 9, 1982
5. Show 50 ft..b.uilding setback line measured from .centerline of
access easement.
6. Provide road maintenance agreement.
7. Provide street name signs per requirements of .the Department of Public
Works prior to recordation of the final map.
8. Pay off any assessments.
9. Pay any delinquent taxes.
10. Show a fifty (50) foot leachfield setback. from the drainage
way on parcels two (2), three (.3) and four (4).
L1. Show a one hundred (100) foot leachfield setback from the highwater
line of the creek on parcels one (1)., two (2), three (3) and four (4).
12. Prove that the required quantities of domestic water are available
or place the statement on the map that "there is no evidence that
domestic water is available" for parcels one (1), two (2), three (3)
and four (4).
Supervisor Dolan asked what other zoning was in the county in
"A-5" zoning in 1967. She believed that grazing was agriculture. She
felt the project was inappropriate in that area.
Supervisor Saraceni did not feel that the county should keep
Land vacant but allow use of the land for people to raise families. By
ioing this the value of the land will be increased. He did not feel that
property in the LCA contract that was paying less county taxes than the
ether property should dicate to all lands around it.
Supervisor Dolan stated she had not said there should not be
allowed any rural lifestyle.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: Supervisor Dolan
Motion carried.
269 PUBLIC HEARING: INCREASE OF FEES FOR HEALTH INSPECTION PERMITS FOR
RESTAURANTS
', The public hearing on the increase of fees for health. inspection
vermits for restaurants was held at this time.
Dr. Svihus stated there was a fee schedule for food establisments
that was established by the Board one year ago when they established the
Environmental Health fees. The request is to~establish a range of fees
based on the size of the establishment, which will make it fair for the
smaller establishments. There would be a decrease for the smaller places
and an increase for the larger places. They estimated the county would
receive about the same revenues and this will provide for an average of
four inspections per year per establishment. These inspections will not
necessarily be quarterly since some will b.e once or twice for a follow up
of things found to be wrong that need to be corrected. There will be
some that will require five or six in a year while others will only
require one or two inspections. The emphasis is on education and helping
the food establishments comgly with state law. In the past, there was
Page 203.
February 9, 1982
8 2-
~'
Supervisor Saraceni asked if there would.be any problems with
maintaining the schedule with one-half the rates being asked for and using
one inspector.
February 9, 19.82
one sanitarian assigned to .the food program and-it did not work out. Some
~f the establishments were not even inspected with one inspector.
Dr. Syihus stated that would be with. one-half the staff and it
would go back to the program they had a number of years ago where their office
was unable to keep up with the inspections for all restaurants. The work
is really too much for one person. One person could not provide the follow
up and at least one inspection per year per establishment.
Lynn Vanhart, environmental health director, stated that there
are 400 restaurants in the county. The program speaks to all food establish-
ments, including markets and all public food establishments, which makes
a total of 1,000 establishments that have to have inspections. There are
230 working days in a year.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that with 230 working days per year and
considering an average inspection time of one to one and one-quarter hours,
one inspector could cover all the establishments.
Mr. Vanhart stated that one inspector would not be adequate. They
could probably cover all the establishments, but it would nor cover the
call back inspections. The effective key is the call back inspection. In
figuring the fees and number of people, he took into account the total amount
of time based on restaurant routine inspections plus follow up with an
average of four inspections per year. If the Board policy is to have an
effective program, there are two people needed to perform that program.
If the Board wants a lesser program, they can do the program with one person.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1.. Ken Brinton, Rico's Pizza. P1r. Brinton stated he spoke to
Board two weeks ago and had been in favor of the progrram. There
owner operators of food services who have regulations upon regulations
osed already. These regulations are enforced. They cannot afford this
gram. There are high food costs, utilities and existing government
uirements at this time. If another fee is placed on the owners, no
ter how small, it will place a big burden on the business. They would
e to cut back and slow down the business more. He was opposed to any
d of fee.
2. Gary Quilicy, Depot. Mr. Quilicy stated he was in favor
f the inspection program. He felt that restaurants, as well as other
usiness, need to have some type of agency checking on them for conforming
o health standards. If the fees are based on the number of seats, he
id not feel this was equitable. Their restaurant was probably the
argest establishment in the Oroville area and with the exception of
wo nights, they are only partially filled. He did not feel that having
he establishment filled two days a week and having the establishment
etting vacant or only partially filled the remainder of the week should
eve fees based on the number of seats. They are not open 24 hours per
ay and are only open three hours for lunch and four to five hours for
he dinner hour. Some of the establishments, even though they are smaller,
re open 24 hours per day, and are utilizing a larger portion of the seats.
he restaurants are also suffering because of the poor economy. He was in
avor o£ the program but felt the system the fees are based on should be
Page 204.
February 9, 1982
~_ _ ~ - _
S 2-
3'
February 9, 19$2
Mr. Vanhart did not feel it was fair to charge a small hamburger
stand the same fee as was charged to the Depot. It takes longer for a person
to do an inspection on-the larger buildings. They considered using square
footage and the number of employees; and did not feel that was fair. The
only thing they could come up with that would be equitable would be the
seating capacity for the establishment.
3. Ken Brinton, Rico's Pizza:. Mr. Brinton stated this is business
is located next door to Jack-In--The-Box. His business has larger seating
capacity but the Jack-In-The-Box has three times the customers. There is
an equitable number of people working in both places. 12arely is his
business full. At lunch, there might be ten of the twenty-two seats filled.
He did not feel that establishments such as his and the Depot would need
as many inspections as some of the other establishments. He felt that some
of the small Mom and Bad businesses would require more inspections.
Dr. Svihus stated that in figuring a restaurant is open six
days per week and dividing the number of days into the fee he came up with
a fee of 19~ per day for the small restaurants and 42G per day for the
larger restaurants. This is not a large fee. It is not~out of line with the
surrounding counties and is less than the state and surrounding counties.
4. Richard Southerland, Taco Bell. Mr. Southerland stated that
there was mention of the fees being lower than the surrounding communities.
His only comparable is the Dairy Queen located in Woodland with a fee of,
$35. He felt that some of the establishment owners were not aware of
the hearing that was being held on these fees. He felt that some of the
requirements that were imposed on the Depot after an inspection were out
of line. If this is the type of requirement, it will be difficult for some
of the older establishments to comply without having a complete remodel of
the premises.
Mr. Vanhart stated that if there were an effective program in
operation the word would probably get around faster. The last Grand Jury
report suggested the hiring of two sanitarians to perform the program.
The Board and Grand Jury endorsed this suggestion.
Supervisor Moseley stated that at the time, the Board was
considering the Grand Jury report, they did not know they would have a
$7 million deficit.
Mr. Vanhart stated he felt the fee schedule would pay for the
cost of the services so it would not take taxpayer money to provide the
services.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he wanted the inspections and wanted
to fallow the recommendations of the Grand Jury but felt the Board had
to look at this program and consider starting with one person to go through
the inspections. He realized they would be asking a little more of that
person. He felt they should look at the hiring of one person and the
implementation of fees to cover one person so there would be less impact
on the businesses and they could hopefully get the services for the program
that was needed.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he was proposing one-half the fees
proposed because there would be an adjustment in the program of having
one person instead of two people performing the service. This would be
for all food program inspections.
Page 205.
February 9, 1982
8 2-
~,
Feb.ruary.9,_1382
I~r. yanhart stated thaE if the Board wanted an ,effective program,
it was Dr. Syihus and his opinion that there is a.need for .two people and
if the Board wants a one~half way program, they will give the best they can.
The county-has used this program .with one person and could not conduct
any effective program. They did not have the fees at .that time.
Mike Pyeatt; interim administrative officer, stated that when
the criteria was set forth for the program the Board was asked to review
it and one of the criteria for this program was not to remove the resources
or level of services. If the Board is going to have a program, they will
have to staff the program or maybe forego the program entirely.
Chairman Wheeler stated they had requirements to the county and
the health of the public. She felt the Grand Jury addressed that in their
comments to the Board. They felt the health and welfare of the people
was not protected. They are talking about reductions of revenue available
and very specifically, her intent was in dealing with Proposition 13 is
that users would pay a user fee schedule to pay for the necessary services.
She felt that was the interpretation of the general public. This would
be done for protection of the public. '
Supervisor Saraceni stated there was no question about protection.
He personally went out on an inspection. As the business people are
looking at the cost,, if the county is going to over burden the private
sector and those people who have .restaurants at a time when the economy
is terribly bad for them, they aie'not effectively doing their job. If
the county starts with one person and finds there is a problem, they can
hire the second person.
Chairman Wheeler stated it was not the intent of the Board to
overburden the taxpayers. There is a need to have information to provide
the needed services the community requires. This is a service they do
require. Tt is back to needed services and maybe there is a need to
re-examine some areas as far as the cost factor. She did not feel it
was cost effective to burden one individual.
Supervisor Dolan stated the fees cover all portions of the
program. If the Board looks at the history of the program there are many
things that are clear. Everyone believes the inspection program is a
good idea and it is for the public health. The county had an experience
with one sanitarian and the program was not adequate in staff's opinion.
The issue seems to be whether the Board wants a full program with full
fees or a one-half program with one-half staff and fees. The other information
is that the proposal for two sanitarians is one-half of the state requirements.
That means they are actually talking about one-fourth of a program if they
approve one sanitarian.
.Supervisor Saraceni stated that if the county feels there is
a problem, maybe they can go into the money spent by the state to find
ways to pay for this service without charging people in business.
Tt was moved by Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
that the permit fees proposed by staff be amended to reflect the amount
for one Health Department Inspector at this time with the fees be adjusted
accordingly on food inspections only.
Supervisor Dolan stated she could not support the motion. The
Board should either go for the program or not go for the program.
Supervisor Saraceni stated there were compromises that will have
to be made by looking at funds and economies. He did not feel that they were
either supporting of not supporfinng the program with the motion.
Page 206.
February 9, 1982
8 2-
~''
February 9, 1982
J J - Supervisor Dolan stated-that if you helieyed it was necessary to
have two people for a minimum adequate program, to have the program and
fee schedule for one person would b.e to not have the program.
Supervisor Moseley stated this same thing came up with the
Agricultural Commissioner. The Board required the charging of fees and
asked Mr. Bandy to .put fees on items in Air Pollution Control and then
the program would not go back to the state.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised the Board that if the
motion were a two to two vote the fee schedule has not been approved.
The resolution of fee schedules adopted last year would go into effect.
Dr. Svihus stated there were three fee schedules before the
Board; the one adopted a year ago scheduled to go into effect; the
proposal by staff; and the proposal from Supervisor Saraceni at one-half
the proposal by staff.
Chairman Wheeler wanted to make sure that the program was
implemented. '
Supervisor Saraceni wanted to make adjustments so there would
be a savings and the program would be paid for.
Supervisor Moseley stated that what the Board is doing now will
not remove what is in effect today. The Board will not be doing what
the people are asking the Board to do. They are not removing anything
from the people.
Supervisor Dolan stated they had correspondence from the
restaurant awners that they supported this action.
Motion amended at this time to rescind the hiring of two
sanitarians and to include the hiring of one sanitarian for the food
inspections.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Moseley and Saraceni
NOES: Supervisors Dolan and Chairman Wheeler
Motion fails.
Chairman Wheeler stated the Board is working at a handicap and
they do have the possibility of the appointment of a Supervisor from the
ridge area. This is an issue that directly effects them. She felt those
people should have input and the matter should be reconsidered when that
Supervisor is appointed.
It was moved by Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
that a freeze be placed on the hiring of the second sanitarian until the
Fifth District Supervisor is on board.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors xioseley and Saraceni
NOES: Supervisors Dolan and Chairman Wheeler
Motion fails.
Page 207.
February.9, 1982
February 9, 1382
82- It was.moyed by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Chairman Wheeler
'~i' that .the Board adopt the'.reyised food program submitted by staff..
Vote on motionb
AYES: Supervisors Dolan and Chairman.[Zheeler
', NOES: $upertirisors Moseley and Saraceni
Motion fails.
RECESS: 12:07 p.m.
RECONVENE: 12:28 p.m.
270 JOINT MEETING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CANCELED
The joiht meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
was canceled.
271 AYY~AKAN I;P:: ti~LV KY Ml; I:ALL
Mr. McCall thanked the Board for their vote of confidence and
encouragement in regard to the Oroville Chinese Cemetery being designated
a point of historical interest. The state designated the Oroville, Jewish
and Chinese Cemeteries historical interest points. He submitted a letter
from Congressman Chappie supparting the designation. He asked that the
county survey crews be authorized to mark out the four corners of the
Chinese Cemetery. There are plans for placement of a fence and bringing
in of top soil to put in grass and parking and a monument.
Chairman Wheeler suggested that Mr. McCall meet with the Public
rks Director who can bring a proposal to the Board.
272
Supervisor Saraceni stated he would be happy to bring the
information back to the Board and would be willing to meet with the Public
Works Director and Mr. McCall on this matter.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, stated that if
the survey crew is working outside of a funded project, the funds would
be charged against the General Fund for the staff time.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he would check with the Public Works
Director on this matter.
APPEARANCE: VERNON ELARTH
Mr. Elarth thanked the Board for their organization relative
to the fee schedule for the square dancing clubs in the county. They are
now able to make their reservations in one place and have all their callers
hired for 1982. He would like to see this situation continue. He suggested
that if the Board is looking for money, with the restrictions on fundings,
that they look toward how much is received, what does the money produce and
felt if the Board looked at the memorial hall from a budgeting point of
view, there are no supervisors, no administration and the number of
people through the halls show this to be the best facility for the amount
of money that is being expended. He felt the county should provide the
facilities and the area will take care of itself.
273 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF BOARD RECOMMENDATTONS POR EITHER SEX
ARCHERY DEER HUNT
The public hearing on consideration of Board recommendations for
either sex archery deer hunt at Gray Lodge was held as advertised.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, set out the background
of the hearing. If the Board is in opposition to the hunt, the must adopt
a resolution of opposition. Page 208•
February 9, 1982
8 2-
3!:
February 9, 1982
Letters from the following were received and considered:
California Bowmen Hunters and State Archery Association. Support.
Tfiomas Hill, Rancho Cordova. Support.
3ames E. Williams, Sacramento. Support.
Michael N. Steffer, Fairfield. Support.
E. T. Raubush, Davis. Support.
Milton C. Lathrop, Yuba City. Support.
Marilyn Jo Alverson, Marysville. Support.
Sharon Kelley, Feather River Archers, T.oyalton. Support.
Ron Buiv, Yuba City. Support
John S. ,""Pat, John, and Tami Lenalaan, Gridley. Support.
Train Cities Rod and Gun Glub, Inc., Marsville & Yuba City. Support.
Robert R. Pendleton, Yolo Bowmen, Fairfield. Support.
Elmer W. Wilson, Davis. Support.
David Clarke, Yo1o Bowmen, Woodland. Support.
Donald E. Hill, Vacaville. Support.
Mr. & Mrs. Earl Martin, Olivehurst. Support.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he had received quite a few telephone
calls in support of the hunt.
Chairman Wheeler stated she had received several calls and none
were negative against the hunt.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Gene Mercer, secretary, Butte County Fish and Game Commission.
Mr. Mercer stated that one of the calls he received wanted to know where
he received the authority to appear before the Board when no action was
taken by the commission in asking for a public hearing. The letter was
received on January 12, 1982 and the commission met on January 11, 1982.
The only way he could get to the Soard meeting was to call all-.:the
commissioners. All commissioners were not in favor of the hunt. He did
not contact Supervisor Saraceni. He also called Jim Snowden, Department
of Fish and Game in Chico, and was advised that Mr. Snowden would call the
Sacramento office and try to get a letter on the definition of antlerless
deer. He received a letter dated January 18, 1982 relative to his request
for clarification of the term either sex. The department relied on Title 14,
Section 351D. Section 351C also gave the definition. The purpose of the
regulations is female, fawns of either sex and male deer with unbranched,
horns, which are not more than three inches in length. The definition
excludes spotted fawns and spiked horns longer than three inches. Each
permitee has the responsibility. to identify the deer to insure that spotted
fawns and spiked deer with horns three inches or longer are not taken.
He would like an opportunity to respond to remarks made after everyone has
spoken to the Board.
2. Paul Jensen, regional manager for Department of Fish and Game
in Rancho Cordova. Mr. Jensen stated it might be of some benefit to explain
the rules they are operating under. If the Board before March 1 passes
a resolution, the department may not suggest the hunt to the commission.
If the Board elects not to offer a resolution they would go through their
normal procedure of hearings by the commission before the public in setting
the hunting season. At any time it occurs to the Board to take the position
of opposition to the hunt, the commission will very likely consider that
position, or on the other hand, let the procedure go forward and still the
Board would have an opportunity to advise the commission of any reservations
they may have. They are proposing to issue archery permits for 30 antlerless
deer. They have had archery hunts for three previous years. The first year
there were under 50 permits, with four animals taken the year before last and
Page 209. `,
February 9, 1982
February 9, 1982
8.
b
~*~
none taken last.. At the count of .deer by .the .department, there was an
estimate of at least 140 .'deer. This is an isolated herd and there can be
harvests by the regulations proposed.
3. Jim Snowden, wildlife biologist for Butte County. Mr. Snowden
stated that the best reason for having the hunt asked for is 'that there
are a few more deer than they need on the area. This is evidenced by the
number of deer found dead since September, at least 22 known dead. A good
number of those have been lost doe to lung worm which is a parasite they
have had in that area for many years. Usually any disease problems become
aggrivated when there are more deer. There is considerable evidence on
the vegetation of high vining. Much of the leaves and twigs have been eaten
up to the point the deer maybe unable to reach the foliage. He did not
have the figures on the deprediation permits. These permits require disposal
in a certain manner. They cannot turn the deer over to the county for
the jail because of public health. They would like to have an opportunity
to allow the hunters to take the animals instead o£ having them lie out
there and rot.
He was questioned by some of the commissioners~as to why the
deer were not removed and placed in another area. There is a parasite
problem and they do not want to spread that disease to another area.
Most of the areas have all the deer they can take care of. There can be
adverse effects, which is evidenced by the removal of deer from Angel's
Island and the number lost.' Many people who are concerned about this
hunt are from outside this county. By the state constitution, the animals
belong to the state and the state being the people means this will be
effecting state-wide concerns. He went before the Butte County Fish
and Game Commission in January and gave a verbal rundown as to the proposal
by their department. He did not have the exact definitions at that time.
He could not have covered every point. They discussed the subject of
a possible black powder hunt. He felt it was a good idea at the time until
he had discussed the matter with the personnel at Gray Lodge. There are
a good number of people who go into the wildlife management area to fish
and the department personnel are working in there. heavy slugs carry
quite well through the brush and the idea of a black powder hunt would not
be adviseable. He did not mention the lung worm problem to the commission.
4. William D'Amato. Mr. D'Amato stated that when Mr. Snowden
made the presentation to the commission on the proposal it was stated
the spotted fawns were presented as such and for us to take that under
advisement. Mr. Mercer called the commissioners and said the Board had
to have the answer by March 1. The commissioners felt that they should
wait until this meeting to discuss the matter openly. As far as vote,
he voted No because he wanted more enlightenment and what rules would be
set down.
5. Bob Malquist. Mr. Malquist stated his big concern was the
question of why the department could not move the deer. He wanted to know
if the lung worm hit young or old deer. If there is going to be shotting of
either sex deer, there is going to be shooting of young deer. If you are
going to try to get rid of the parasite, the department might want to
require the shooting of full grown deer rather than undersized deer.
He was not in favor of the hunt. He is a commissioner.
6. Jim Snowden. Ins. Snowden stated that the parasites know
no bounds. The problem is not afflicting one sex or age group. As a
greater population of animals come into the area, that much more is
readily attained.
Page 210.
February 9, 1982
S 2-
~eb.ruary 9, 1982
7. Joe.Becker, Northern California SowJaunters Association. Mr.
Becker supported the.departmeat proposal. He.belieyed it was the department's
responsibility to manage ail the wildlife in California. The Legislature
directed the department to, manage the deer-herds and improve them. He
believed this was what the department was proposing to do. The first year
this was proposed the archers were not aware. of the proposal. Naturally,
they support the hunt. He questioned why the hearings on this matter were
not conducted in the evenings when the sportsman could attend. This is
the third year he has attending the Board meetings-and he is a working
person. His position on this association is voluntary. He asked that any
future hearings concerning hunting and fishing be held in the evenings.
8. Lew Hubb, Cascade Range of the Bowhunters. Mr. Hubb stated
he supported the proposal and would like to see the meetings held during
the evenings.
9. Mike Bleu, Tehama. Mr. Bleu stated he was interested in
the hunt. He supported the hunt as the only way to provide the management
function for the carrying capacity. That means the number in a herd that
can be supported by the ground area. The Board has the ability to tell the
Department of Fish and Game that the county does not want excess animals
harvested. He felt the response the Board was receiving was what everyone
wanted. This proposal is based on the fact they are talking about the
ability of the sport hunters to harvest the surplus of the department's
herds.
10. Richard Locard, secretary Maiaf.!Bowhunters. There are sixty
families involved in this organization with forty males and fifteen female
and youth. There was a 100 percent vote for the hunt to control the herds.
The state has seen fit to kill off most of the predatory animals. Mr.
Locard set out what happened when Theordore Roosevelt set aside Yosemite
and would not allow the hunting of deer. Within five years the deer almost
starved to death. Now it is up to the hunter to harvest the animals.
The reason for archery i-s because there is rice still in the fields and
the duck are starting to eozne in.
11. Gene:: Mercer. Mr. Mercer called the Board's attention to
the commissioners' feelings on the hunt. The history of Butte County has
been opposed to the taking of antlerless deer. There are many archers in
favor of the shot. They have given good advise as far as they are concerned.
He as an individual was opposed to the taking of antlerless deer and the
fawns that will be taken. The earliest he has seen fawns is the last of
April and the first of May along the river and foothills. He has seen fawns
born in July and when the season opens October 1, there will he no
shotting of any spotted fawns but will take little fawns. These are the
archers and because of that it leads him to believe that all they want
to do is use the bow and arrow to take a fawn. These are three, four or
maybe two month old deer. He was asking that the Board not approve the
antlerless hunt.
12. Richard Locard. Mr. Locard stated that archers do not
like to go out and kill spotted fawns. He attended an archery hunt in
Grants Pass, Oregon and out of 150 deer there was not one fawn taken.
He was on the first Gray Lodge shoot'and these were two year old deer
killed that were not spotted and at least one month away from spots.
13. Bill Zonker. Mr. Zonker stated his main reason for being
at the meeting was the statement made by"Mr. Mercer saying that only archers
would want to shoot spotted fawns. He resented that comment. He supported
the departments request for a hunt. He felt that with Mr. Mercer being
in the position he is in, that his position was a little farsigned toward
the public good. Page 211.
February 9, 1982
82-
3'
Supervisor Saraceni stated that he had had many licenses and
his family was-very involved through all his life in hunting and he had
never met anyone who would go out and purchase a license and try to obey
the laws that would want to take a small animal for any reason. He felt
very strongly in recommending that the Board follow the direction of the
state.
~'eb.ruary 9 ~ 1982
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
It was moved by Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
to go ahead and follow the direction from the state in protecting the herd
by allowing the hunt to take place with 30 permits.
Supervisor Dolan stated that it was her understanding that if
the Board did not approve of the hunt then the Department of Fish and
Game would be told they were opposed to the hunt. The Board should request
that the process go forth and as information comes forward she felt they
would be able to let the department know if they wanted it to happen.
She was not comfortable making a motion of support at this time. If the
Board does not take action, the commission will go forward with their
hearings.
Motion amended: to not send any information to the Department
of Fish and Game except for the fact that the Board has held hearings but
would be happy for the commission to proceed.
Supervisor Dolan was not sure if that was what she was looking
for or not.
Motion amended: Authorize the Administrative Office to send
a letter that the Board had conducted a public hearing and the Board
feels that the request of the Department of Fish and Game should be to
continue their hearings in the matter.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: None
274
Motion carried.
APPOINT SUPERVISOR DOLAN AND CHAIRMAN WHEELER AS COMMITTEE TO REPRESENT
THE BOARD DURING NEGOTIATIONS ON SHARING OF TAXES FOR RDA AND ANNEXATION
IN CITY OF CHICO
Chairman Wheeler stated she understood there is some consternation
over who or what was appointed to negotiate with the City of Chico relative
to RDA and annexation tax monies. She realized this was one of Supervisor
Saraceni's specialities in the Oroville area. She was recently appointed
to a special CSAC committee dealing with RDA legislation on the state level
and the interpretation of what the word blighted means and they will be
meeting with the League of Cities and Council to determine that. Since
this directly relates to her district and Supervisor Dolan's district,
she felt the Board needed to appoint someone to meet with the City of
Chico dealiing with tax increment funds.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, stated there were
several issues involved in the agreement with the cities for distribution
of taxes in April and the City of Chico has indicated a willingness to
negotiate with the county on the Southeast Chico RBA ~~1. At the same time,
they are in the process of the Northeast Chico RDA. There are a couple of
questions involved which is the annexation and both 'RDAs and there was
the question of staff involvement•:=
Page 212,
February 9, 1982
S 2-
$'
_ February9~ 1482 ___ ___-~_______
Supervisor Saraceni stated that a couple of weeks ago he started on
a project to get on top of, working on and getting information together.
He asked for the okay of the Board to get started on this matter. It was
agreed that everyone said go ahead so he called a meeting with the Auditor,
Administrative Office staff and County Counsel to start on negotiations for
the Chico RDA. He now found they-did not have the recou~mendation with the
Chico RDA .~kl but now they are coming through and going to do something about
that. He asked that the Board let him continue in his studies that have
been started. If someone would like to help him and take part of it, that
would be fine.
Supervisor Dolan stated what was brought to her attention was direct-
ion of staff to proceed with gathering information and now it was the issue
to set the direction to reppen RDA ~~I and to proceed with negotiations for
RDA 4~2, which is now in process, and the city is throwing in the request to
talk about annexations also. This is an entirely different step. She felt
Supervisor Wheeler was right and someone will have to sit down and negotiate
with the Chico City Council. That does not mean a Supervisor loses interest
in the RDA,. She felt a committee should be set up to include the Supervisors
from that geographic area.
Supervisor Saraceni supported that 100 percent. The only reason he
brought the matter up two weeks ago was that time was pass ing by and he took
that interest because he did not want to allow what happened with the past.
He continually encourages anyone's help in the Board to help him in putting
this together. He felt they needed everyone involved and he has experience
from negotiations in the past in the Oroville area since he and Supervisor
Moseley did the negotiations in that area.
Chairman Wheeler felt that as Chairman she was directly responsible
and she would work with Supervisor Saraceni and valued his work in the area.
It is an area she is directly responsible for and at the time appreciated
Supervisor Saraceni's bring it to the Board. She would never assume she
could come to the Oroville area and negotiate without coming to Supervisor
Saraceni and the Chairman of the Board to meet with the other city council.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he would be happy to work with Chairman
eeler on this matter. The RDA effects the entire county and is not really
district concern.
Supervisor Dolan stated that the committee would bring the information
back to the Board. The entire Board was responsible for what happened with
Chico RDA #l.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that was the reason he would like to stay
on top of this matter. That is why he brought the issue up and felt it was
important to speak to the Chico area also. He would have liked to have had
someone other than from the Oroville area when they were negotiating because
of the pressure involved in that negotiation.
Chairman Wheeler stated that Supervisor Dolan raised a point that
the committee brings the presentation to the Board. She felt she was capable
of having the ability of dealing with this issue. She was cognizant of what
happened in the past and assured the Board it would not happen again.
Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, stated there would
probably be two or three meetings at the staff level before the Board becomes
involved with the Chico City Council. The Auditor still has to develop
information and there are various items for sharing the tax increments.
During the meeting between the Auditor, and himself with Chico staff, the tone
of the meeting changed and Fred Davis said they-would apply the formula to
Page 213.
February 9, 1982
B 2-
3'
February 9, 1982
annexed territory as well. The area the Auditor and Administrative Office
is working on is a per capita formula basis. For the City of Oroville it
was 9.05 percent of the tax rate. They have at least one more meeting to
nail down some of the information to take the matter to the point to pass
this into the hands of the members of the Board with what has been offered.
He was not quite prepared for the new annexed territot-y.. He understood
that April I would be when the negotiations were reopened. The arrangement
is a 60 - 40 split. The city manager offered to share the tax increments
with the county in RDA ~~l and there has been some development. They have
discussed the carious methods of updating per capita information.
Supervisor Saraceni asked what the advantage was in"using the
per capita arrangement versus the arrangement on the tax value of property.
Mr. Lively stated that the assessed value basis o~ property tax
did not take into consideration what a house is worth versus what a house
is worth in terms of services needed to be provided. Residential subdivisions
with minimum services are very expensive. Property taxes do not pay for that.
A per capita valuation takes into consideration services. In the industrial
areas the county would lose. The per capita information would be done by
counting the number of residences and using a family size per residence,
which is 2.9 percent per household.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he did not know of anyone who used
the per capita basis. It would put more work on the county when there are
appraisers on staff already.
Mr. Pyeatt stated they worked up the information on the per capita
for the purposes of reaching a negotiation basis because the city referred
that information to the county. The industrial per capita was also indicated.
He did not feel the county should agree to one type of criteria to be used
for RDAs and annexations.
Mr. .Lively stated they were checking the information the City of
Chico was offering. The city made the statement the cost was $95 per head
and the county said $107 per person. They are providing the Board with th
best information they can on all options so the best information will be
available.
It was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
that the Supervisors who will represent the Board as a committee for
negotiations on sharing the tax increments for the Chico area with RDAs and
annexations be Supervisors Dolan and 4lheeler.
Supervisor Saraceni felt it was a big mistake to put two people
from that area on the committee because in this type of negotiation it is
important to have the overall backing. When there are negotiations of this
type it is not just a matter of district but consideration for the whole of
Butte County. He felt the Board members would find it important to have
someone else with them from outside the district to go in and make the
negotiations. He thought the Board would be making a mistake if the
two from that area go in without someone from outside the area who will be
objective to helping and making that decision.
Supervisor Dolan stated she was not going to tell Supervisor
Saraceni she did not believe that. She could keep her perspective of the
county budget in setting negotiations and recommending to the Board what
should be done. She was not going to be denied the right to take part in
her district, where low income money is being spent.
Page 214.
February 9, 1982
8 2-
a'
February 9, 1982 _ _
Supervisor Moseley felt that anything that took place world eventually
come back to the Board for consideration. If there is difficulty the committee
could come back. to the Board.
Vote on motion:
AYES; Supervisors Dolan, Moseley and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: Supervisor Saraceni
Motion carried.
275
276
Chairman. Wheeler stated that all the members are in-this together
in dealing with matters of the county. She could assure the Board she was
as capable as any other Board member in dealing with this matter.
COMMUNICATIONS
H. W. Randle, Chico. Mr. Randle writes appealing the denial of a sewage
disposal permit by the Environmental Health Division of the Health
Department, AP 48-062-35, Ceanothus Avenue, Chico. Continued to
February 23, 1982 for a report from Environmental Health Director.
Bachman and Associates, Chico. The engineers, on behalf of Vern McMath,
request that new filing fees be waived due to confusion on the
identification of approved access for a parcel map located at
AP 63-04-61, Doe Mill Road. Continued to February 23, 1982.
California Bowmen Hunters and State Archery Association. The Association
urges endorsement of special hunts within Butte County. Handled
earlier in the meeting.
City of Chico. The Mayor provides information regarding financing of less
than countywide services with property taxes and requests a joint
meeting of the City Council and Board of Supervisors to discuss
the type of services provided by this means. Administrative Office
to set up the time for the meeting.
Department of the Interior. The Department of the Interior indicates plans
to study the feasibility of enlarging Shasta Lake and urges
participation in the study effort. Information; no action taken.
Michael G. Rawson, Sebastopol. Mr. Dawson requests that his property,
AP 041-15-0-029-0 and AP 041-15-0-031-0, be withdrawn from the
Williamson Act agreement with the County. Referred to Planning
Department for action.
Thomas Hill, Rancho Cordova. Plr. Hill writes in support of an either sex
hunt in the Grey Lodge area. Handled earlier in the meeting.
3ames E. Williams, Sacramento. Mr. Williams writes in support of a proposed
either sex hunt in the Grey Lodge area. Handled earlier in the
meeting.
Clark A. Nelson, County Clerk-Recorder. Mr. Nelson submits his resignation
as Butte County Clerk--Recorder effective April 30, 1982. Applica-
bons to be accepted from now until March 2, 1982. Interviews
to be held on March 9, 1982 at 3:OO.p.m. Resolution of appreciation
to be prepared for Mr. Nelson.
APPOINTMENT TO GRIDLEY MEMORIAL HALL COMMITTEE
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan.,
and carried, the following people were appointed to-the Gridley Memorial
Hall Committee: Page 215.
February 9, 1982
Rebruary 4, 1982
82- W Lester T. Hepworth, delegate
{ Herbert Perkins, alternate
277 ADDITIONAL-MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD"MEMBERS
Supervisor Moseley stated she-had information from Mr. McClintock
asking to withdraw the nominations fox the Paradise Memorial Hall Committee.
She referred the information to Administrative Office to look into.
Chairman T~heeler stated there was a great deal of information
to share with the Board from CS AC and Health and Welfare and Criminal
Justice. Until the packets are prepared for the Board members and the
comments are received from staff she will not present the information.
Supervisor Moseley stated the Board had received a letter from
the attorneys for the Northern California Emergency Medical Care Council
relative to reorganization.
The letter to be placed on the agenda for February 23, 1982,
¢ESS: The Board recessed at 1:48 p.m. to reconvene on ir]ednesday,
February 10, 1982 at 1:30 p.m.
Page 216.
February 9, 1982