HomeMy WebLinkAboutM030282', klarch.2, 19.82
STATE OF CAbIFORNTA )
': ) SS.
', COUNTY OF BiITTE )
82', The Board of.Superyisors met at 9.:0.0 a,m. pursuant to adjournment.
d ' Present;- Superyisors.Dolan, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman-Wheeler. Mike
', Pyeatt, interim administrative officer; Del Siemsen, county counsel, by Ron
Sims, deputy county counsel; and Clark A. Nelson, county clerk, by Cathy
Pitts, assistant clerk to the Board of Supervisors
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States o£ America
', Invocation by Supervisor'Moseley
'; 356 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
', Consideration of approval of minutes of February 3, 9, 10, 23 and
', 24, 1982 was continued.-to March 9, 1982.
357 ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS SY SOARD MEMBERS TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE END OF THE
DAY
Chairman Wheeler stated she would be referring to a CSAC circular
on pending legislation,
358 WAIVE FIRST READING OF SALARY ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Consideration of waiving of the second reading of the salary
ordinance amendment that provides flexible staffing for several 'county positions
and reclassification of several other positions was held at this time.
It was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Chairman Wheeler
that the second reading of the salary ordinance amendment be waived and
the ordinance be adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
', Supervisor Moseley stated she had a problem on Section 2 of
the ordinance.
', Supervisor Saraceni stated he also had problems with Section 2
of the proposed ordinance.
Motion withdrawn.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
', and carried, the first reading of salary ordinance amendment that provides
flexible staffing for several county positions and reclassification of
several other positions with the deletion of the proposed Section 2 regarding
the Assessor`s Office was waived.
', Supervisor Dolan stated that the entire ordinance had been
read last week. The Board just voted to waive the first reading of the
amended ordinance. The Board could take action on either ordinance.
359 CONSIDERATION OF MERIT INCREASE FOR PLANNING DIRECTOR AND VETERANS SERVICE
OFFICE TO BE CONSIDERED WREN STAFF BRINGS BACK PROPOSAL FOR FLAT RATE
', SALARY FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS
Consideration of the-merit increase for the Planning Director
', from Range 32.5 step D to step E was held as continued from last week.
', Supervisor Moseley stated she had a problem with approval of
the merit increase. She could not vote for the increase at this time.
Supervisor Dolan advised the Board had received a memo from the
Administrative Office that outlines what has happened with regard to merit
increases. There are two that the Board has not passed, with the reason
Page 249..
March 2, 1982
8 2-
~ '',
360
361
March_2L 1982_ _ _ _
being budgetary and economic concerns, which. are not stated reasons by the
merit system plan. To .deny the igeri.t advancergent is a breach of contractual
stance. There are long standing depart~gent.heads.u?ho have reached the
E step in their salary range. The Board is not considering the .merit
increases for the entire general unit unless the•rules are amended.
Jim Rackerby, personnel director, stated that part of the merit
concept is that persons advance in .range on time and performance. There
is nothing addressing the lack of funds. Tf the concerns are economical
as to how much a department head is paid, the Board might want to consider
setting flat rates for them and the only way there would be an increase is
by action of the Board to increase the salary on the basis of comparability.
This would treat the appointed like the elected department heads. There are
a number of counties using the flat rate. If the elected officials come in
at the top step then the appointed department head should also.
Supervisor Saraceni felt that maybe economics should be addressed
in the merit system. Because someone is doing a good job, the county might
not be able to afford the merit increase.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, stated the budget
would not be balanced by withholding merit increases. The Board could
delegate authority for evaluating performance. There are four department
heads not at the top step of their range.
Supervisor Dolan stated that the performance evaluation for
the department heads lie with the Board. The practicality is that the• Board
does not do it. She would support moving to a flat rate rather than step
increases for departments heads and to change the rules to reflect what
is being done so they are not doing an annual performance rating. She did
not feel it would be effective or good policy to add economic to merit
increases.
Chairman Wheeler directed Personnel to woxk with Administrative
Office staff and put a proposal together for the Board to consider.
Supervisor Moseley stated that the Board also considered the
merit increase for the Veterans' Service Office. She felt they should
consider both the Veterans' Service Officer and Planning Director. She
felt it was a good idea to look into the flat rate proposal.
AWARD CONTRACT FOR CETA UNIFIED AUDLT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1984 & 1981
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the contract for conducting the CETA unified audit for fiscal
years 1980 and 1981 was awarded to Steven Yu Company of Sacramento for
$39,873 and the Director was authorized to sign subject to approval of
County Gounsel and Auditor-Controller.
DESIGNATE TERMS OF APPOINTMENT FOR INCUMBENTS OF COMBINED EMPLOYMENT AND
TRAINING COUNCIL (CETAC): AUTHORIZE POSITION OF VACANCIES TO BE FILLED BY
SPECIFIC CATEGORIES
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, terms of appointment for incumbents fox Combined Employment
and Training Council (CETAC) were designated as follows:
1. Bob. Crisan, Public Assistance Agencies, one year term
2. Supervisor Dolan, Prime Sponsor, one year term
3. George Gilbert, Local Development Councils/Business &
Industry, two year term
Page 250.
March 2, 1982
B
a
Larch 2, 1982 _ _ _ _
4. Morris Goafley,.Business & Industry, tw,o.year.term
5. Jim-Hayes, Veterans' Organizations; two.gear-term
6. .Tim Lynch, Business & Industry, two year term
7. Gloria McKinnon, Vocational Education/Vocational Education
Advisory Council/Post~Secbndary Education, two year term
8. Jim T'IcNaughton, Community Based Organizations, one year term
9. Francisco Pena, Employment Development Department/Governmental
Organizations Serving Youth, one year term
10. Roy Roney, Agricultural Employers/Business & Industry, two
near term
11. Jim Ryan, Organized Labor/Business & Industry, two year term
12. Wally Schwartz, Other Education/Local Education Agencies,
two year term
13. Andrew Sikula, Education/Post Secondary Education, two year term
14. Bob Stevens, Business & Industry, two year term
15. Dair Tandy, Apprenticeship Community/Business & Industry,
two year term
16. Nate White, Nongovernmental Organizations Serving Youth, two
year term.
and the posting of vacancies to be filled by specific categories for two
year terms was authorized on the following categories;
1. Agricultural Workers/Business & Tndustry
2. Handicapped Persons/Business & Industry
Industry
3. Employees Not Represented by Organized Labor/Business &
4. Client Sector, Youth Representative (Two appointments- are
needed in this category). -•
category)
5. Business & Industry (Two appointments are needed in this
INVOKE PROViSI0N5 OF MOU WITH BCEA ALLOWING BUY-OUT OF SCHEDULE ADJUSTMENT
LEAVE AND APPROVE PLAN TO REDUCE FIELD INSPECTION HOURS TO FOUR DAYS PER
WEEK FOR BUILDING INSPECTOR AND PLAN CHECKER CLASSIFICATIONS
Jim Rackerby, personnel director, set out the background of the
proposed plan for a reduction in hours for the building inspector and plan
checker classifications. His office has a signed document for each person
requesting voluntary reduction of 20 percent in time and pay in recognition
of the problems in the budget. The adoption of this plan would save the
laying off of four additional building inspectors immediately. This
department is operated'on revenues generated and there is a need for
qualified staff when the services are in demand. This would allow for
maintaining of qualified people to be available to meet the needs. The
action required would be to place the employees on a base 40-hour week,
Page 251.
March 2, 1982
362
S 2-
March 2, 1482
which means.buying:out the SAL time at 6-•1/4.percent. This will enable
an increase in.the.number'of hours available and-reduce the hours by 20
percent, which,i,*ill result in a savings,of.15 percent. .This plan will
provided that there would not be field inspections on-those days and that
service would be reduced.to four days per week'. The .SAL .may have to be
relooked at for .next budget year. The concept has not worked that well for
the county and there has been a hardship for scheduling purposes. This
creates serious problems when departments are operating on minimum staff.
Supervisor Saraceni understood this was'a way of trying to keep
people with the county, but hisproblem was with the buy out of the 6-1/4
percent. That was put into place because of the time element~in the cost.
He would be opposed to that portion of the plan.
Supervisor Dolan stated that this was not a b-1/4 percent buy out
but a diviaion that directly related to what-was happening in private industry.
If people are not building, inspectors are not necessary. When and if the
interest rates go down, it is incumbent upon the county to have qualified
experienced inspectors on hand. This would be a 15 percent savings, with
the individual employees taking a 15 percent cut in pay.' If the'county did
not have experienced building inspectors, the backlog when the work picked
up would be tremendous.
Supervisor Saraceni did not agree with the 6-1/4 percent pay
increase because this could cause the county to lay another person off.
If they went to a four-day work week that would be fine. Once the county
buys the time out and there is not a need for the inspectors, the county
will pay more. He felt it was to the county's advantage to not go £or the
6-1/4 percent increase.
Mike Pyeatt, interim admnistxative officer, stated this would
be a 20 percent reduction with 15 percent in funding effected. The workers
would be going from a five day to a four-day work week.
Supervisor Dolan stated that in essence the employees would be
going from 37-1/2 hours to 32 hours per week. If the staff goes back to
full time because of increased building activity, the Board could discuss
the .SAL when they return to full pay. The Board is looking at a reduction
in staff and are not saying that if they go to 40 hours everyone will
receive full pay.
Mr. Rackerby stated that the department needs a 15 percent reduction
to balance the expenditures. The employees have agreed to help make up
the 5 percent by going to a four-day week and elimination of the SAL days.
There is no additional cost to the county. If it became necessary to make
further reductions in the department, they. would be sitting down again with
the employees to work-out mutually agreed plans or with authorization to
negotiate new kinds of rules and regulations. This is emergency planning
to meet the needs of the department. In the absence of that, they will
not be in agreement with the employees who indicated a voluntary reduction
was contingent on the plan presented. They could do nothing except Lay
off four people.
It was, moved'by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
that the Board invoke the provisions of the MOU with BCEA allowing the buy
out of the Schedule Adjustment Leave CS AL) (short work week) at 6-1/4 percent
for Building Inspector and Plan Checker classes and recognize and approve
the field inspection hours plan for four days per week.
Supervisor Moseley stated she had a problem: with closing the
Chico office on Fridays. She knew this was a busy office. The county
Page 252.
1~larch 2, 1982
8 2-
S',
_____March221982__-_ _____-_-~~____
is in a situation with closing offices during the day. That has been bothering
her ever since.. She did nqt think-the county should be closing the doors
to-the public any more .than they had to.
aim Glander, building department, stated that closing the office
was certainly not one of his favorite things. They have to cutback somewhere.
He would rather-have the cutback for one day than to have the industry suffer
everyday. He felt the industry would work. with them. They are not planning
to close the Oroville office, but will close tihe Paradise and Chico offices.
Supervisot Saraceni asked if there would be a 6-~1/4 percent
pay increase for these workers?
Mr. Rackerby stated that the county reduced the work week last
year in lieu of a pay increase and did not cut the pay back for the reduced
work week. The employees receive the same amount for working 37-1/2 hours
as they did for working 40 hours and, in addition, received a 2 percent
increase. Looking at the hourly rate of labor for this year as opposed to
last year, there was an increase of 8-1/4 percent per hour. There was
2 percent up front and 6-1/4 percent in lost time. In some instances,
there was no way to have the reduced schedule; like Juvenile Hall, 5heriff`s
dispatch and Mental Health, and the policy of the. Board was to buy out the
6-1/4 percent of lost time and increase the pay for those employees. The
concept in the MOU permits the Board to do this. In this case, the employees
have said they will give the county one day per week and the net result is
a savings in the department of 15 percent. He did not know if this would
continue for the next fiscal year. There are a number of other county
offices, in terms of SAL time, that it would work to the advantage of the
county to buy them out. This department is not a department that is
effected by county funds but is effected by revenues received from fees.
Chairman Wheeler stated she would call for the question and
recommended that Supervisor Saraceni spend time with the Administrative
staff to have this issue made clearer for him.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that the county would be looking at
paying something they agreed not to do.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: Supervisor Saraceni
Motion carried.
APPROVE INCLUSION OF THERMALITO IRRIGATION DISTRICT EMPLOYEES IN COUNTY
HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the inclusion of Thermalito Irrigation District employees
in the county~Yzealth insurance plan was approved and the Chairman was
authorized to sign the agency agreement.
3631
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-36 DESIGNATIL4C BUTTE COUNTY .ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
AS METROPOLTTAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, Resolution 82-36 designating Butte County Association of
Governments (BCAG~ as the Metropolitan Planning Organization was adopted
and the Chairman authorized to sign.
36 41
Page 253.
March. 2, 1982
36 5
366
367 [
36 8
March_2z 1982
DISCUSSION OF CONSIDERATION OF UTILIZING PURCHASE OPTION CREDITS TO ACQUIRE
CARE 1900 DATA ENTRX SYSTEM - CONTINUED TO LATER IN THE MEETING.
Discussion of utilizing purchase option credits to acquire the
CADS 1800. data entry system at a cost of $31,615 was held at this time.
Mike Pyeatt, interim ads-nistrative officer, stated that along
with this item the Board would be considering budget transfer B-160 during
the hearings. In the memo of February 19, 19.82, there is a savings of
about $18,,8]0 from not pursuing the Gillinger.l'hase II project. This is
due to an encumbered amount from the 1980-81 fiscal year. Rather than go
through an intricate budget transfer, the transfer is coming from .the
reserve and there will be savings at the end of-the year because the Board
would not be pursuing the project. The amount of money would be awash.
Supervisor Dolan stated it was awash as far as finances. There
are over $36,000 identified in savings that the Board could either use for
the buy out on the system or toward fund balances at the end of the year.
The matter was continued until later in the meeting when budget
transfer B-160 is heard.
APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH NORTH STATE COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SYSTEM AGREEMENT
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the agreement with the North State Cooperative Library
System for implementation of a computerized cataloging and processing
system was approved and the Chairman authorized to sign.
APPROVE CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS FOR GRIDLEY AND CHICO LIBRARIES
Oa motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the following contract change orders were approved:
1. Contract change order No. 2 for Gridley Library that reflects
a requirement by the Health Department to change the floor covering in the
toilet room at an increased cost of $155 and two days contract extension
time.
2. Contract change order No. 3 for Gridley Library that reflects
changing requirements of the Sealed Insulating Glass Manufacturer's Associ-
atian at an increased cost of $680 and contract extension time of two days.
3. Contract change order No. 5 and contractl,change order No. 6
for Chico Library for the extension of rain delays totalling 16 days with
no increased costs.
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Moseley and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: Supervisor Saraceni
APPROVE/DENY PENALTY ABATEMENT REQUESTS, CHANGE OFOWNERSHIP REPORTS
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the following action was taken:
1. Approved penalty abatement request for MacLeod Construction
Company, AP 044-56-0-005-0 and AP 044-56-0-009-0
2. Approved penalty abatement xequest for Joe Woods,
AP o2a-24-o-o32-a
3. Approved penalty a~iatement request for Mr. & Mrs. Vernon P.
Greenlin, AP 050-41-0-0.09-0
4. Approved penalty abatement request for Mr. & Mrs. Stanley Wilson
AP 031-04-D-037-0 Page 254.
S7arch 2, 1982
', March. 2, 1982
82- 5. Approved penalty abatement request for Mr. & Mrs. Kris W.
d ', Nikolauson; AP 065-05-0-019-0
6. Approved penalty abatement request for Larry A. Atkins,
044-59-0-0.64-0
7. Approved penalty abatement request for Michael C. Vaupel,
003-12-0-009-0
8. Approved penalty abatement request for Mr. & Mrs. Ralph
Rutledge, AP 069-30-0-005-0
9. Approved penalty abatement request for Mr. & Mrs. Jimmy
AP 062-23-0-024-0
10. Approved penalty abatement request for Mr. & Mrs. John Q.
doff, etal, AP 046-78-2-026-0
lI. Approved penalty abatement request for Mr. & Mrs. John ,
terra, AP 008-28-0-032-0
12. Approved penalty abatement request for Mr. & Mrs. Thomas L.
stis, AP 054-24-0-022-0
13. Approved penalty abatement request for Mr. & Mrs. Clark E.
off, AP 047-33-0-051-0
14. Denied penalty abatement request far Marjorie L. Downing,
056-10-0-046-0
369 CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING SPECIAL TAX FOR FTRE
PROTECTION SERVICE IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS FOR PLACEMENT ON JUNE BALLOT
CONTINUED TO MARCH 9 1982 FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of the ardinance implementing special tax for fire
rotection service in the unincorporated areas for placement on the June
Ballot was held at this time.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, stated that the
ounty fire warden might want to summarize the procedures..;-'His'-staff
pent a considerable amount of time coordinating the effort. There are
our changes to the schedule for parcels outside the area of influences,
here was an increase in about four items, section 7,3 has the date of
lection inserted.
Supervisor Dolan stated this really wasn't the procedure the $oard
cussed. There was a proposal in February relative to the funding mechanism
the amount. The Board directed staff to analyze what would be necessary
proceed toward an election.
Sill Teie, fire warden, stated there were two changes from the
original proposal. One of the changes deals with the fact this is less than
a county-wide area, which would have been involving areas of people voting
and not assessed. This proposal is for a county-wide election less the
:itees and E1 Medio Fire Protection District. There are amounts for the
rate per parcel for those within the influence.and one for those that are not.
['hey changed the assessment based on the size of the structures. He found
ghat the size of homes was confidential information and they could not use
:hat information. They had to hack off and go with. a flat rate. This is
>ased on the original proposal, which-would fund 30 percent of the department
Budget. The rates for duplex and tri-plea is based on the living units in
.he structure. The cost-would be about $.14 per day per-house or $50 per year.
Page 255.
March ~2, 1982
', 1`Sarch 2, 1482
- - - _ ~ _ - - - - W W ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ ~ ~.
82'- This will raise just slightly over $1 million, which is 40 percent of the
5 '; ~ budget. The two changes were based on the requirements of the law.
Supervisor Dolan-felt that the Board should hold a public hearing
rior to any action.
The hearing was set for March 9, 19.82 at 10:30. a.m.
370" ADBITIONAL MATTER PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS
Chairman Wheeler stated that the interviews for the applicants
for County Clerk-Recorder on March 9, 1982 will be moved up to 1:30 p.m.
from 3:00 p.m.
371 APPROVE BUDGET TRANSFERS
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the following budget transfers were approved:
B-154 - Board of Supervisors. Transfers $1,300 to cover deficiency
in professional and specialized services as a result of unanticipated costs
in codifying Butte County ordinances.
B-156 -- Community Action Agency. Transfers appropriations between
line items within the CAA Program in order to cover certain line item
deficits.
B-158 - Public Health - DCRC - Mental Health. Transfers $6,000
from the Mental Health budget to Public Health - DCRC to prova.de an appropria-
tion for the Drug Program Manager who will provide management services to the
Alcohol Program for the period of 2/15/82 through 6/30/82.
372 APPROVE VARIANCE RENEWALS FOR EVELYN LACEY & ALTA LINN
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the following were approved:
1. Evelyn Lacey renewal of variance to Sections 19-10 and/or
19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 31-20-3-21,
1942 19th Street, Thermalito/Oroville area. Zoning: "AR-MH"
2. Alta Linn renewal of variance to Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12
of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 31-25-3-48,
1175 Grand Avenue, Oroville area. Zoning: "A-2"
373 REPORT TO THE BOARD CONCERNING REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FEE FOR PERMITS TO SERVE
DOMESTIC WATER TO FOUR SCHOOLS WITHIN CHICO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Lynn Vanhart, environmental health director, reported to the Board
on the request for a waiver of a fee for permits to serve domestic water to
four schools within the Chico Unified School District. He presented the
Board with a list of water services owned by political subdivisions. The
fee is $72 based on the average time for each service. There are 13 public
and 3 private schools along with other subdivisions. The fees are based
on the entire program to make it self-supporting. If these fees are waived
they will have to increase the fees for the others or take from the General
Fund. The total in fees for this program is $2,530 total with $936 for
public schools.
Administrative Office to write Chico Unified School District
advising them the Board took no action on their request and did not approve
the request for waiver of fees. '
RECESS; 9:55 a..m.
RECONVENE: 1Q;00 a.m.
Page .256.
March~2, 1982
82- 374
March.,2, 1482
PUBLIC HEARING; CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF THE ADAMS ESQUON WATER DTST_RTCT
The public hearing to consider formation of the Adams Esquon Water
District was held as advertised.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Paul Minasian, representing Sam and Tom Nevis.,.- Mr. Minasian
stated his purpose was to outline the understanding of things requested,
issues before the Board and the methods of approaching those issues. He
made and recommended the current proposal to the Nevises. He was asked by
Mr. Nevis to find a way to find gravity independent water for the Adams
Esquon Ranch. The best way to do that is the formation of a California
Water District. This issue is good water planning. There is no question
that instituting proceedings is the most beneficial way to solve their
water problem because it has financing capabilities and municipal status
before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). For"those people
in the audience who had conversations with the Board and alleged the
Nevises are not to be trusted, if the comments are relevant to the hearing,
he would like for those to be shared at the hearing because this is the
time to present the issues for the Board to consider. Jealousy or envy of
a person who has succeeded are not grounds for stopping a water district.
The Board is being asked to call an election within the area and asked to
determine the area in the district. Anyone who would like to be placed
in the district to try to find water sources can do so. There is the
question of whether or not the Board can determine not to form the district.
The technical legality since this was formed by LAFCo leaves the Board with
administrative actions. He has heard that by formation of this district,
it will give them the right to condemn water rights. He has presented the
Board with a list of all the district where most are composed of one family.
The opponents have that list. He will be setting out what mischief has
not occurred or likely to occur in the future. As to the question of whether
a district is more likely to cause problems in this neighborhood than any
other, he would let the opponents tell the Board of any difference than
another district. The power of ,condemnation is the way to implement the
power of the district. This has to go through a Superior Court judge
who has to detexmine necessity. He has received the letter from Mr. Edgar.
A mutual water company is not applicable and less desireable than a water
district. It does not have municipal preferences. If the Board wanted
an example of using private hydro-electric power as a disaster, the Board
should look to~~the Feather River where PG&E have developed the power and
a municipality is trying to take it without paying for the power. Look
at Orland Mutual Water Company when they built Stonygourge Dam. The
company and county have spent $30,000 to $40,000 trying to beat the City
of Santa Clara in this issue. The City of Modesto routinely file applications
on power.
The further reasons why the experts are suggesting this is not
needed is because a mutual district does not have the power to issue tax
bonds. A mutual water district can go to the bank and if they can obtain
financing, the term will be for ten to fifteen years on a 1o an. A water
district can issue bonds and they will range from 25 to 40 years. If the
Board feels the appropriate entity is a mutual water company there is
no point in going further upstream for water.
There is a LAFCo condition limiting condemnation.- A neighbor
went to LAFCo saying he was concerned about the crossing of their property
to the Western Canal. Now the issue is maybe the condition is not valid
or enforceable. They have to compromise the issue. There are a couple of
other things that can occur than a district. If the district isn't formed,
they are then in a situation to attempt to get water from the Western
Canal system and in a position of not developing downstream water. If they
Page 257.
March~2, 1482
8 2-
a
March 2, 1982
were a mutual water company they would have to come before the Board and ask
that the Board begin condemnation proceedings.- He would like to. settle on
a long term basis. The FIestern Canal is not dependable. He was looking for
a mechanism to exchange water-with the Bureau of
Department of Water Resources. He asked that the Board think about how
long it will,be:.b.efore another district .recognizes this water with maybe
a cost of $35 to $85 .per foot, when Orland is $2O0.per-foot and Cottonwood
is $100 to $200 per foot. Anyone who needs water can join the district.
He had the solution for this. The Board is not an appellant board
to tell LAFCo what to do. The Board can adopt the resolution calling for
formation and setting the boundaries. He set out the 'additions that were
being proposed to the resolution. These would include that within 45 days
as a further condition of effectiveness that LAFCo adopt a further condition
that includes the additional area as set forth in the information provided
to the Board as an area in which there is no condemnation power. LAFCo
~aould adopt another condition that would require the district within 60 days
of formation to submit to the Superior Court, .under Section 34530 of the
Water Code, as to whether the district was validly formed and whether the
condition was valid. Another solution would be for the Board to say no
or send it back to LAFCo. He did not think that was in the interest of
the county. He asked that the Board adopt the resolution including the
housekeeping terms for including any other land.
2. Don Heffr.en, Gorrill Ranch on Hamlin Slough. Mr. Heffren
read a letter to the Board which was submitted for the record. He set out
the concerns he had relative to the district and the condemnation rights
and urged the Board to not form the district.
3. Jim Burris, Llano Seco Ranch manager. Mr. Burris asked
that the letter from Tom Edgar that was received by the Board be accepted
into the record. The Llano Seco Ranch is owned and operated by the Parrott
family. The have lift pumps from the Sacramento River and Butte Creek, and
have had since 1909. The water rights were adjudicated in 1942. He must
oppose formation of this district. His initial concern was the number of
people in the district and that this would enhance the land under a single
ownership which is surrounded by similar parcels under similar ownerships
and uses. The most important aspect of this is contained in Section 35b00
of the Water Code which allows the district may within or without the
3istrict acquire by purchase, condemnation or other legal means all property
or rights in property necessary for works and to supply land with sufficient
cater for all district purposes. Section 34041 of the Water Code gives
the definition of property, which is all land and personal property, water
rights, water works, easements and rights of way. The creation of the
3istrict would be a serious unbalance of water district in how 'this.
pan be considered-more necessary as opposed to a mutal water company.
Because of the understandable facts, LAFCo attempted to limit the power
~f the district by withholding condemnations. They are advised by their
counsel that this cannot be limited. There are a variety of levels of
nutual water companies, which is only aquasi-public agency, that could
supply the water. A mutual water company could not impase imminent domain
proceedings until a hearing has been held before the Board. This is more
acceptable to the people than legal proceedings. It has been put forth
that there are other people who could file for water rights within the county.
Phis is a realistic concern that could be met with the county filing to
told the water within the county. The power of condemnation creates
preferences. He hoped the Board would not approve this district because
i.t would create two classes of citizens. In Water Code Section 34302.5,
the Board can deny the application for good cause.
Page 258.
March 2, 19.82
8
~~
klarch.2, 1982
4. Wilhelm Schneider, electrical engineer with PG&E. Mr. Schneider
read a prepared statement which was presented to the Board. PG&E are
neither in support or opposed to the formation of the district. They felt
the Board should restrict the powers of the district relative to acquiring
of water and condemnation rights until plans and safeguards are established.
5. Don Balrude, secretary for Durhaipxlut.ual Water Company. Mr. Balrud
stated he was speaking for 211 shareholders in the district, who own 2,700
to 2,800 acres.. Their water rights were adjudicated in 1942 just above
Adams Esquon Ranch. They have 42 cubic feet per second. Their people
have been calling the Board about their concerns. They are concerned about
the powers of imminent domain and that the district, if formed, may very
well exercise those powers on the Durham Mutual Water Company. He is
actually representing 210 people, since the other owner is Adams Esquon
'Ranch, who have 40 acres in the district. Their company has a voice in
the company of one vote for one acre. There is not sufficient water in
the district to irrigate the entire Adams Esquon Ranch. These were
concerns that were raised at the LAFCo hearings. At that time, they
were unaware of the ramifications the district would have.' At this time
the company is against the formation of the district, primarily because
of the powers of imminent domain.
6. Steve Di1g, Rt. 4, Box 486, representing Butte County Farm
Bureau. Mr. Di1g stated the Faxm Bureau was opposed to the formation of
the water district essentially because there is only one family being
sole beneficiary of the district. The public statutes on imminent domain
WEYe designed to help groups fox uses effecting the entire community.
He did not feel the Board should allow the formation when there were other
options open, such as mutual water agreements.
7. George Carter, representing M&T Incorporated. Mr. Carter
stated they have water rights on Butte Creek, which has been used since
1909, and also, water rights on the Sacramento River. He submitted a
letter for the record which he read at this time. He could see no public
purpose for formation of the district nor could he see it for the general
welfare of the people. He felt that other alternatives should be considered.
8. David Lane, representing Lundberg Farms and McKnight Ranch.
Mr. Lane was opposed to the district. They farm about 4,000 acres. He
joined in the previous comments that have been made. He addressed
specific comments by Mr. Minasian. The Soard has the authority to deny
formation of the district upon good cause. Such good cause has been shown
by the opponents that this is not in the public interest. He suggested
that the Nevises need for good water planning for the district was so they
could have good water planning without regard to what their neighbors and
fellow farmers may need. The suggestion that the limitation on condemnation
would take care of any problem, he felt the Nevises wanted to have condemna-
tion power available so they would not have to come before the Board if the
neighbors get contrary. The restriction imposed by LAFCo is unenforceable.
Mr. Minasian suggested that the Board should form the district and within
60 days they would go into Superior Court to see what there is. What happens
if the Superior Court judge says the district was formed properly and the
limitation is not right and there was no limitation on condemnation. There
would not be the traditional guarantee this was in the public's interest,
but it would b.e one family looking out for their own interests. The
appropriate thing would b.e to deny the request anal continue to investigate
the formation of a county-wide or multi-county-wide water district to taken
into account all rights. xtr. Minasian came up with a vehicle that would
give the Nevises control, which is not in the besti interest of the public.
Their ideas of good planning may not coincide witli_the neighbors ideas of
good planning. He asked that the Board deny this formation for good cause in
Page 259.
March. 2, 1982
March 2, 1982
that it is not in the public's best interest that a single family water unit
as proposed would be in the family`s interest.
9.. Gary"McGowen. 1~Ir. 1~IcGowen stated he farmed with his family
in the Butte Creek. vicinity. Sam and Tom Nevis have always •treated him
fairly. He felt the district was a bad idea. He had the opportunity to
review the documents presented to LAFCo and the Board. He felt the formation
of a single family water district located on one ranch was a great mistake.
There were three great problems of the uncertainity of the legal implications,
the uncontrollability and the basic unfairness. He felt if this were approved
the county would lose a great deal o£ control and this is not is the public
interest. The final objection is the unfairness of having a private water
user set up a public entity to serve their needs. The Adams Esquon Ranch
was purchased knowing full well what water was on the ranch and the history
of the operation. Mr. Heffern mentioned the acreage farmed and the number
of acres that were increased. He did not blame them for wanting to get
flowing water and not have to go after the groundwater. He felt that if
the obtaining of groundwater was cheaper than flowing water, the application
would not have been submitted. If the Board wants to help with water
problems, this should be done on a county-wide basis fox•everyone to share
equally. Agriculture is the number one meal ticket in the county and state.
10. Gene Mercer, representing Butte County Fish and Game Commission.
Mr. Mercer was concerned about the fisheries and wildlife involved in the
development of surface water. There axe salmon and steelhead fisheries
that run in Butte Creek that are important to the citizens. The dams that
are proposed to be created would have an environmental impact on the salmon
and steelhead. They would also effect the migration of the deer herds.
He asked that if the Board approved' the application, that they insist that
the applicant pay for a feasibility and environmental study of what the dams
would do to the fisheries and wildlife. He has disccissed this matter with
the Department of Fish and Game, Region II office, who advised him they
did not have the money to do the study. The study should be carried out
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife personnel and the Bureau of Land Management
because some of the land would be BLM land.
11. Gary McGowen. Mx. Mc Gowen presented a petition at this
time for the record in opposition to the proposal.
12. Ke11y Meagher, Honey Run Road. Mr. Meagher was representing
the Butte Creek Canyon Citizens Committee. Their major concern is the darning
of the Butte Creek Canyon area. He did not think the darning of the ca~iyon
was inevitable. He went on public record to alert whatever entity that
wants to dam Butte Creek, that the same group who had such a stoa~m of protest
over the condominums would be brought about if there are proposals to dam
Butte Creek in the canyon. This is a valuable resource for Butte County.
13. Tom Nelson, Watt Road, Durham, representing Chico Fly Fishing
Club and by extension the salmon and steelhead. Mr. Nelson urged the Board
to consider the environmental rights of the salmon and steelhead.
14. Art Gilman, 5498 Ord Ferry Road. Mr. Gilman stated his family
is involved in production of almonds. He owned no water rights on any stream.
He was the recipient of a great deal of water on both streams. His basic
objection to the district was the one of public interest. He felt every
elected official had an obligation to protection of the public interest.
If the Board felt they were compelled to allow the formation of this
district, he felt the Board would be compelled to have eyexy person who
pumped groundwater go find another way of irrigation. They all share the
increased cost of water. There are two members of the. Board who sat on
LAFCo. The Board should not give public entity status unless there is"
overriding.benefit to the public good.
Page 260.
March 2, 1982
March 2, 1982
15. George Sayse, representing Parrott Ranch. and M&T Incorporated.
Mr. Bayne stated that Mr. Minasian had filed a list of districts_comparable
to the proposed district. Those distlicts located .west side of the Sacramento
River and the~5an Joaquin .County districts are different. He~felt the groposed
district was clearly distinguished from those tw,o districts on the Tehama
Colusa Canal. One of them is a mutual water company. It .was formed for a
limited purpose at the time for negotiations of a contract with DWR for
water from the Tehama Colusa Canal to their property. There was never a
question of where the district would go to acquire water for the lands.
The issues raised today were not issues raised in the formation of those
districts. 'The same is true of the San Joaquin District. The clear purpose
for those districts was for contracting for use of the state water project.
There was no question of where they would 'go for a water supply. Adams
Esquon Ranch is evidently in need of water rights to expand their operation.
Mr. Minasian has explained that the possibility of upstream storage was for
power. If this district were formed they would not have the power to
generate hydropower. That power is limited to eight named California
Water Districts in the state and it would take further legislative authority
for power generation rights. Irrigation districts have the general power
to use hydropower plants. He submitted that the Board had heard adequate
testimony of good cause to terminate the proceedings and deny the district.
16. Tom Edgar, representing Parrott Ranch Company. Mr. Edgar
stated there were several problems involved with the suggestion that it
is appropriate to form the district and require that within 60 days the
formation be confirmed by the Superior Court. This is opening the door
to litigation. This is asking the people in the room to step forward to
use tax dollars to go into litigation. In hs:aetter of March 1, 1982,
he pointed out the substantial Constitutional authority and statutes of
the state Supreme Court. It is illegal to give police power to individuals.
Those people are asking for police power, asking to form a district saying
from the beginning the promise to discriminate..by promising not to condemn
to the west and south. That is a violation of the state and U.S. Constitutions.
He felt that the public benefits would best be served by a county-wide agency.
If it is appropriate for the citizens of the county to obtain hydropower
from Butte Creek Canyon, and the Board has heard testimony .the residents of
the canyon are opposed to this, then this should be done as a county and
not given to a family for their own benefit. Any citizen has a right to
make application to FERC for hydro sources and in many cases a municipal
entity can come in and take it away from them. In the smaller agencies,
there are exemptions where the sources cannot be taken away. This is a
good opportunity for Butte County to take the tri-county idea in an effort
to have a coordinated approach to hydro, underground and surface resources.
There is no question that outside interests are viewing the county's
resources with great designs. Let's do it right at the Butte County level.
Special powers and benefits should not be given to a single family.
17. Anne Schneider, representing Gorrill Ranch. Ms. Schneider
wanted to respond to several comments by Mr. Minasian. He had said he was
asked to find a way to get water for the Nevis family ranch and his suggest-
ion was toform a water district for that purpose. It is important to
recognize that Mr. Minasian did not go further in his statement. He was
to find water from a water district. It does not tell how they will take
care of the immediate problems only that they will build upstream storage
some day at possibly five sites on Butte Creek. The ranch has to have
immediate water and there are only a few places to find That water. She
felt the motives reflect the problem with the condemnation power.
Mr. Minasian sites some sections in the Government Code and sets
out the limitations on the condemnation power. This was discussed in
LAFCo at length. that possibly the record could be used when the district
Page 261.
24arcti 2, 1482
_ _ March 2, 19.82 _ _
3ecided toTcondemn for water rights to stop the district. The first problem
she saw was that they would have to be in court arguing conde~nation proceed-
ings, and the second problem was that over a period-of time should the nature
~f public necessity change. In two, five or ten years the district could go
to court and argue that things have changed and they should b.e allowed to
condemn at a future date. She did considerable research on whether the
Board or LAFCo could condition the formation of a district on not exercising
of power normally granted to that district with the formation. She did not
think the Board could do so and there were no specific cases for LAFCo. In
looking at 'the overall law, LAFCo,'s powers are the issuing of-rules and
regulations for operation of special districts by classifying types or
services. The legislative body cannot delegate to any agency the primary
power to make laws. The legislature in creating an action that forms a
California water district has given that district expressed condemnation
laws. LAFCo cannot take that away because it would be usurping ttze
legislative power. By adding to the condition as set forth by Mr. Minasian
to add limiting of condemnation powers to the south and west and adding
north and east, if the county cannot limit the power that does not help them.
It was her recollection that if this matter went to Superior Court, their
jurisdiction was limited to deciding whether the district was properly
formed and whether they filed the proper- notices.
1$. Hester Patrick, Durham. Ms. Patrick did not represent any
of the large land owners. She does have a water right. The Durham Mutual
Water Company gets their water out of the south end of the dam.~and she gets
her water out of the north end of the dam. .The M&T Ranch is above her
property. In the course of listening to the various arguments, the imminent
domain is the most frightening to all of the people. It would be very easy
for the Nevises to say they need the water. She asked that the Board con-
sider the number of farmers that would be charged for putting in wells and
paying PG&E bills as compared to those getting water at a nominal cost if
this district is formed. Why should everyone else pay so that one family
can have lower rates? If the Board considered the people in this° area of
the county opposed and the number of people in favor, there is an overwhelming
majority opposed for many reasons that have been presented. She knew what
water rights were and did not want them taken away from her or others.
19. Jim Walter, Walter Earms, Dayton P4utual Irrigation District.
Ns. Walter stated he was opposed to the district as presented. There is a
great need for this water for everyone in the area. If it is at all possible,
he would like to see the county form a district and develop upstream storage.
There is a great increase in the energy costs for the farmers to lift the
water from one well, which is about $2,000 to $3,000 per month. They do
need water. If the Nevises are allowed to get water, the should all be
allowed to get water. Maybe the Board could develop a water system for all
the county, not only in Butte Creek but maybe also Deer Creek as well.
RECESS: 11:35 a.m.
RECONVENE: 11:42 a.m.
Supervisor Dolan stated that this hearing was different from
the LAFCo hearings, certainly in the number'of people present, amount
and specifics of the testimony. i.AFCo continued their first hearing for
one month to obtain information from neighbors and the Durham Mutual Water
District. LAFCo did not have counsel at their hearings. They::had an
attorney as chairman, who was not counsel to the commission. It seemed
that the hearings were whether the neighbors wanted to join in and was
different than do you want this district formed for anyone. In her mind
there had been testimony that there was good cause for the Board to
terminate the proceedings. She wondered what the code section was
relative to the finding of good cause.
Page 2b2.
March' 2, 1982
March 2, 19.82
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- W = _ _ _ _ _ _
82- Ron Sims, deputy county counsel, advised that_the section on
'~'' food.cause was Water Code Section 34302.5.
~t was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
Chat the Board move for termination of the proceedings in that there is
sufficient information given to the Board that questions the validity of
LAFCo and/or the Board even imposing, let alone making stick a condition
for limiting condemnation rights, and believed that LAFCo did that in serious
good faith, attempted to eliminate opposition to the district and, also,
that given that iC is not good public policy to base a decision on whether
or not a procedure that may or may not be valid in Superioro° Court should
detelmine their condition, that the Board should do it, also that Durham
Mutual Water Company's concerns, which were, specifically requested and
not explicitely expressed at the LAFCo hearing, are now and their opinion
was a factor in the district formation, and then it is changed, and in
summation, that Che testimony on these issues here today tells her that the
public interesC would not be served in forming of the district.
Supervisor Moseley stated she also sat on LAFCo at the time of
hearings. Supervisor Dolan was right on line. This is a little
erenC. There was little interest shown and people were concerned but
to the extent shown at this hearing. She had no problems with the
oral.
Chasrman Wheeler felt she should share her concerns with the
Board. Certainly, the Nevis family application should be considered.
There is a need for water for growing riceland. She knew the cost for
pumping deep water wells. Her concern was in giving one family power
of condemnation and municipal preference over their neighbors. She was
concerned about the other farmers to the Butte Creek watershed. who need
improved water affordability. She was concerned that maybe the district
would decide to condemn property in Centerville, Jonestown and Inskip. She
did not think Butte County would benefit by allowing a private family rights
of condemnation. She had concerns for the people in Butte Creek Canyon.
She encouraged the Nevis family and water users in the Butte Creek watershed
to develop the best possible surface water they can and not give an unfair
advantage for any one group, and for the Board to consider establishing a
water agency. Senator Johnson now has the resolution the Board adopted
to have legislation on formation of a wafer agency with Glenn, Tehama
and Butte Counties. The legislation will be going to the floor soon. There
is a need to establish their own agency, and maybe the tri-county vehicle,
could be used not only for groundwater but the need to look at surface water.
The state is monitoring all the county's water and the Peripheral Canal
is looming in June. She urged everyone to go out and vote. State Water
Resources are very manipulating and that is why the Board chose to move
ahead and establish groundwater management anticipating this being passed
by the state Legislature. The three counties will be the lead counties
and there will probably be other counties that can be added through amendment.
There are so many outstanding water experts sitting in the audieric'e and the
Board did not just need them here when someone was challenging water rights,
but needed their help.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that after hearing the testimony, it
was clear they had to Look at their water sources very closely and utilize
as best they can. This seems Co be a problem of condemnation power versus
one family. On the.other hand, there is a reserve of people in Butte
County, they will make every effort looking at a way to..help the people in
production in Butte County.
Vote on motion:
Page 263.
March '2, 1982
82
b
March- 2, 19.82
AXES: Supervisors Do1an,'Moseley, Saracens and .Chairman Wheeler
NOES: None
Motion carried:
375
376
RECESS: 11:53 a. m.
RECONVENE: 12:0.3 p:m.
RECESS: 12:04 p.m.
RECONVENE.: 1:32 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: SAMUEL O'LEAR APPEAL OF CONDITTON .#5 (PROVIDE A PERMANENT
SOLUTION FOR DRAINAGE - PAY MUD CREEK DRAINAGE FEE) ON TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP,
AP 47-52-14, FOUR PARCELS, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LANDMARK
DRIVE AND HICKS LANE INTERSECTION NORTH CHICO AREA
The closed public hearing on Samuel O'Lear appeal of condition ~~5
(provide a permanent solution for drainage - pay Mud Creek drainage fee) on
tentative parcel map, AP 47-52-14, four parcels, property located on the
west side of Landmark Drive and Hicks Lane intersection, north Chico area
was held as continued.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background
of the appeal. The drainage plan that was drafted will be to the Board one
week from today. This is in an area where the Board has sustained appeals
in the past. It. was not his recommendation that the appeal be sustained.
Qn motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saracens
and carried, the appeal of condition ~i5 (provide a permanent solution for
drainage - pay Mud Creek drainage fee) on tentative parcel map, AP 47-52-14,
four parcels, property located on the west side of Landmark Drive and Hicks
Lane intersection, north Chico area for Samuel O'Lear was upheld and the
condition deleted. AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Saracens and Chairman Wheeler.
NOES: Supervisor Dolan
PUBLIC HEARING: DON PRIDE LATE APPEAL OF CONDITION 4~7 (PERI~,ANENT SOLUTION
FOR DRAINAGE) ON TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, AP 47--34-11 & 12, THREE PARCELS,
PROPERTX LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF KEEFER ROAD, WEST OF HICKS LANE,
The public hearing on Don Pride late appeal of condition ~P7
(permanent solution for drainage) on tentative parcel map, AP 47-34-11 and
12, three parcels, property located on the north side of Keefer Road, west
of Hicks Lane, north Chico area was held as continued.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background
of the appeal.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Cal Bachman, representing
Don Pride. Mr. Bachman stated that the late appeal was based on whether
this area was covered in the Mud Creek Drainage study. There was a map
next door to this property recorded without the requirements.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
377
On motion of Supervisor Saracens, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the appeal of condition ~~7 (.permanent solution for drainage)
on tentative parcel .map, AP 47-34W11 and 12, three parcels, property
located on the north. side of Keefer Road, west of Hicks Lane, north Chico
area for Don Pride was upheld and the condition deleted. AYES: Supervisors
Moseley, Saracens and Chairman Wheeler NOES: Supervisor Dolan
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-37: PUBLIC HEARING; RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO RENAME
ROADS IN BUTTE COUNTX
The public hearing on the resolution of intention to rename the
following roads in Butte County was held as advertised;
Page 264.
March'2, 1982
8 2-
$ ''
~arch.2, 1982
- ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - W _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
Almond Avenue (Canyon Drive to Hillcrest Avenues to Hillcrest Avenue
Hillcrest Avenue (Almond Avenue to Kelly Ridge Roads to Hillcrest Avenue
Marilyn Drive (Yankee'Hill Road to ends to Red Eye Road
Blue Gravel Lane (Centerville Road to ends to Quail Run Drive
Clay Castelberry, public works director, set out the background
of the name changes. He set out the locations of the roads being discussed.
There are two petitions relative to the naming of Almond Avenue to Hillcrest
Avenue. He recommended that the Board rename the road that has two names.
There has been a precedent set in the past on this type of thing. The
people living on Blue Gravel Lane would like that matter continued.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he had met with Mr. Castleberry and
the people in the area relative to the Almond Avenue and Hillcrest Avenue
area. `Phere is a new petition requesting that the names remain as they
are. He had a problem of the same names being on both petitions, which
were for the change and now are-not for the change. From the recommendations
and discussions, he felt the names should f'emain as they are and the house
numbers should be straightened out.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Betty Crites, 131 Almond. Ms. Crites spoke in favor of
keeping the name Almond. She contacted the emergency services people and
they saw no problem with keeping the street name. There could be a problem
of forwarding mail and there will be a big cost involved for each property
owner.
2. 3ames Ruell, 109 Almond. Mr. Ruell spoke in favor of retaining
the name of Almond Avenue. The name has been that way for 40 years and no
one has a problem finding the road.
3. April Abbott, 125 Almond. Ms. Abbott appreciated the concern
by the county. The people on Hillcrest and Almond Avenues are aware of
that. Those roads have been historical roads since 1920. She was in
favor of the names remaining the same.
4. Lynn Vanhart, 225 Hillcrest. Mr. Vanhart stated he has
been frustrated for many years in giving directions. The road names
changes in the middle of the road. He has had emergency people come to
his door in the middle of the night looking for a heart attack victim.
He did not care what the name of the street was but it should be straightened
out.
5. Mrs. Ruell, 109 Almond. Mrs. Rue11 stated she signed both
petitions and did not have any idea what they were for. She wanted Almond
Avenue to remain as the street name. She did not see any problem with
this and it would save the property owners the cost of changing their
addresses.
6. Garrett Wood, l01 Almond. 1~Ir. Wood spoke in favor of
retaining the street names. He signed both petitions not knowing what he
was signing. One street is a continuance of the other.
7. Lynn Vanhart, 225 Hillcrest. Mr. Vanhart stated that not
all the people on Hillcrest would get off scotfree because they will have
to change their address either way.
Page 265.
24arch 2, 1982
8
b
_ March 2, 1982
- 8.- klr. Schneck, 177 Almond. Mr. Schneck.stated that Mr. Vanhart
was.-tile only one who had an address of 225 in-the group of houses where
he lives. The only thing that needed to be changed would be the house number.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
Mr. Castleb-erry asked the-Board for policy direction relative
to two names on the same street. Did the Board not want them to bring
these liack for renaming?
Supervisor Saraceni felt Mr. Castleberry was doing the right
thing by bringing these to the Board. The Board can then consider the
testimony.
On motion of Superva..sor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the renaming of Marilyn Drive (Yankee Hill Road to end) to
Red Eye Road was approved; Resolution 82-37 was adopted and the Chairman
authorized to sign.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: BUDGET TRANSFERS B-144,. B-145, B--150, B~151, B-159 & B-160
?'The""pulilmc hearings on the following budget transfers were held
as advertised:
378
B-144 - Public Works - General Services. Transfers $2,000 from
the reserve with $500 going to office expense (duplicating IS F), and $1,500
to office expense (stores IS F), in order to provide an additional appropriation
to cover unanticipated expenses and house numbering and road name ':changes
activities.
8-145 - Public Works - Road and Br~ idge Construction. Increases
the appropriation for the Park Avenue and Fair Street traffic signal project
in the amount of $1,575. Unanticipated revenue is from federal FAU funds,
$1,355 and state local assistance 169.1 funds, $220. Unanticipated revenue
was paid by Caltrans for our invoice totalling $1,571.43.
B-150 - Gridley Justice Court. Transfers'$4,000 from the appro-
priation for contingencies to professional and specialized services to
cover expenses of private attorney services.
B-151 - Chico Municipal Court. Transfers $31,500 from the appro-
priation for contin encies to professional and specialized services Chico
Municipal Court for the purpose of covering expenditures of $14,000 for
court reporter transcripts, $7,500 for processing of CSUC parking violations
and $10,000 for visiting judges and court appointed attorneys.
B-159 - Public Health. Public Health 409 Drug Abuse allocation
has been increased $2,606 over anticipated amounts. The Public Health
Director requests increases in special department expense, $606 and pro-
fessional services, $2,000.
B-160 - Data Processing. Transfers $14,872 from rents and leases
of equipment and $14,040 from the reserve; with $1,797 going to maintenance
of equipment and $27,115 to fixed assets - equipment. The purpose of this
transfer is to provide the necessary appropriation to acquire the Computer
Assisted Data Entry system and to cover the related maintenance costs.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to'-.the public and confined to the Board.
Page 266.
March 2, 1982
8
3
larch 2, 1982
.-~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - T = _ _ _ ~ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _
On motion of .Supervisor Dolan, seconded_by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried,,budget transfer'B-144 -- Public~Works.-~ General Services. Transfers
$2,000 from the reserve; with $500 going to office expense (duplicating ISF),
and $1,50Q to ooffice expense (stores ISF~, in order to provide an additional
appropriation to cover unanticipated expenses and house numbering and road
name changes activities was approved.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor S"araceni
and carried, approval was given to budget transfer B=145 -'Public Works -
Road and Bridge Construction. Increases the appropriation for the Park
Avenue and Fair Street traffic signal project in the amount~of $1,575.
Unanticipated revenue is from federal FAU funds, $1,355 and state local
assistance 169.1 funds, $220. Unanticipated revenue was paid by Caltrans
for our invoice totalling $1,571.43.
Discussion of budget transfer B-150, Gridley Justice Court, held
at this time. Supervisor Saraceni had a problem with seeing additional
money coming out of the General Fund. He realized that sometimes the work-
load could not be anticipated but on the same token being faced with additional
expenses, he wondered how the Board could compensate for that. In budgeting
they are looking at a certain amount of money and in some cases some extra
helg.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, stated that the
reason for budget transfer B•~150 was because of a court appointed attorney
for services on a case that is three years old. This had been an on-going
item, even though it eminated out of the Oroville area.
On motion of, Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, approval was given for budget transfer B-150 - Gridley Justice
Court. Transfers $4,000 from the appropriation for contingencies. to pro-
fessional and specialized services to cover expenses of private attorney
services.
Discussion of budget transfer B-151, Chico Municipal Court, held
at this time. Chairman Wheeler had concern over this transfer because of
the big to do over the fact that data processing could notjproduce the
services as it pertains to processing of these items. Wasn't that the
case eight or nine months ago and that they could do it cheaper?
Mri:. Pyeatt stated it was longer than eight or nine months ago.
The judge believed the city had the program on their computer geared to
handle the program. There was quite a discussion by the Board prior to
the moving to this system. There was an agreement entered into with
the City of Chico for processing 17,000 parking violations monthlys:._:_T$e
average this fiscal year is a total of 22,000 violations. There are 5,000
more violation through the city and an additional 7,500 needed for the
agreement. The county is still recovering $1,000 over and above the
expenses for a month for the activity. It is paying for itself. Perhaps
the county should look at the alternative of doing the processing on the
county's central computer.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, approval was given for budget transfer B-151 - Chico Municipal
Court. Transfers $31,500 from the appropriation for contingencies_ to pro-
fessional and specialized services Chico Municipal CCourt for the purpose
of covering expenditures of $14,000 for court reporter transcripts, $7,500
for processing of CSUC parking violations and $10,Q00 for visiting judges
and court appointed-attorneys.
Page 267.
March' 2, 1982
8
_ March. 2, 1982
On.mo.tion°rof Supervisor Dolan, seconded..hy Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, approval was given for budget transfer`B-159 -Public Health.
Public Health: 404 Drug ..Abuse allocation has been increased.$2,b06 over
anticipated amounts. The PublictHealth Director requesfs increases in
special department expense; $606 and professional services, $2,000.
Discussion of budget transfer B-i60, Data Processing held at
this time. Supervisor Dolan stated-that .the Administrative Office memo
lays this matter out very well. Should this be used for a fund balance
fox this year-or consider•.ed next year?
Chairman Wheeler felt that $36,000 was so miniscual compared to
the savings. This has to be viewed for more than just this year.
Mr. Pyeatt stated they could save something between 29 and 42
months because of the savings that will occur. The $36,000 will help as
far as the budget is concerned. All indicat&ons are that this will be
needed for the next 36 months in the data processing section.
It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
that approval be given to budget transfer B-160 - Data Processing. Transfers
$14,872 from rents and leases of equipment and $14,040 from the reserve; with
$1,797 going to maintenance of equipment and $27,115 to fixed assets -
equipment. The purpose of this transfer_is to provide the necessary appropri-
ation to acquire the Computer Assisted Data Entry system and to cover the
related maintenance costs.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: Supervisor Dolan .
Motion fails since a 4/Ss vote is need for motion to pass.
379
380
CONSIDERATION OF UTILIZING PURCHASE OPTION CREDITS TO '.ACQUIRE CADS 1900
DATA ENTRY SYSTEM AND BUDGET TRANSFER B-160 AUTHORIZING PURCHASE TO BE
CONSIDERED UNTIL THE BOARD HAS FIFTH BOARD MEMBER
Consideration of utilizing purchase option credits to acquire
the CADS 1900 data entry system at a cost of $31,615 and budget transfer
8-160 to provide the necessary appropriation were held until the Board has
the fifth Board member.
DECIDE INTERPRETATTON OR APPLICATION PURSUANT TO BUTTE COUNTY CODE SECTION
24-20 SUBPARAGRAPH D RE i.SECONDARD USE FOR "A-5" ZONING':
Jim Arnold stated that he lives five miles above Bangor and has
a Grade A dairy. He would like to manufacture dairy equipment in the
buildings that are on the property. He was asking that the Board find
that the manufacture of dairy equipment on groperty zoned "A-5" (agri-
cultural - 5 acre parcels) is a secondary use to this property.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he had visited Mr. Arnold's property
and felt that this should be granted.
Ron Sims, deputy county counsel, stated that in discussing this
with Del Siemsen, county counsel, it was his opinion that the zone does
not allow manufacturing as a separate .use. If the Board wanted an extended
evaluation of the matter, he asked that this he continued/for a week.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the Board made. the interpretation that manufacture of dairy
equipment on property zoned "A---S" (.agricultural ~~ 5 acre parcels) is a
secondary use. Page 268•
Mardi 2, 1982
S 2= 381
~''
_--____-_-- March 2_19.82___________________
TPHORIZE TRANSFER FOR COMMUNITY DEIJELOPx1ENT.BUDGET AND ADr1INISTRATION FOR
I~~-$Q: AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATIONS FOR AUDTT AGREEMENT FOR GROGRAM REQUIRED
Ward Connerly, Connerly and Associates, stated that they are
required every other-year and on completion of a grant to have an audit.
In the 1978-79 grant year there is about $16,000 left and he would like
to have that iponey transfered from the grant so there could be a .biennial
audit and close out. He was asking for authorization to negotiate with
Matson & Isom and Davis Hammon for the audit to bye completed by March 31,
1982 which would cost about $2,000.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, authorize to transfer the Chapmantown grant funds to E1 Medio
grant funds in the amount of $1,Obb.78, public works; $. 13, acquisition;
$50.00 relocation for El Medio; and $36.94 rehabilitation Chapmantown; to
the 1978-79 E1 Medio Rehabilitation budget.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
d carried, Connerly and Associates were authorized to negotiate with
tson & Isom and Davis Hammon for an audit agreement for program required
382 RETAIN CONNERLX & ASSOCIATES BEYOND SEPTEMBER 30, 1982 FOR PROGRAM ADMIN-
IS~RATION OF H D PROGRAM
_ Tdard Connerly, Connerly and Associates, stated that their contract
expires at the end of September. The Auditor has advised them to prepare
a budget for 19$2-83, which is going beyond the date of the contract. He
proposed $4,200 per month for the contract, while the cost is $3,750 per
month at the present time. This would be representing twelve months from
July 1, 1982 to June 30, 1983 with a total of $49,050 for the twelve month
period.
It was moved by Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
t Connerly & Associates be retained beyond September 30, 1982 for
fee for program administration being $4,200.00 per month for the period
obey 1, 1982 to September 30, 1983.
Supervisor Dolan understood why Mr. Connerly had brought the
item to the Board at this time. It seemed like the only reason that this
vas being brought to the Board was to put the money in the budget. She
could like to wait until this summer.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: Supervisor Dolan
Motion carried.
39 3
DENY REQUEST FOR PENALTY RELIEF - JUSEYHiN1; k'ULSVM
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the request for penalty relief by Josephine Folsom on
AP 055-13-089 was denied.
394 APPROVE CONTRACT WITH BANK OF AMERICA FOR MUNICIPAL FINANCE CONSULTANTS
Ev Bosworth, treasurer, set out the background of the groposed
agreement with the Bank. of America as municipal finance consultants to handle
proposed issue of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes to finance cash flow
deficits during the 1182-53 fiscal year. This contract covers every aspect
of the procedure including bond counsel. All costs are estimated and listed
in the contract. Any overestimated cost would not be allowed without prior
Page 2b9.
March 2, 1982
8'.
b
395
396
397
398
_ _ March 2, 1982
approval by the county. The important aspect of the proposal is that the
county does not put up front money and all fees-and costs incurred will be
billed by the consultant after the proceeds in July. The only outlay would
be travel expensesfor the consultant and county-personnel. The necessary
provisions for cost of issue can be met in the next budget-year. If for
some reason the issue is called off and the county does not proceed, the
expenses up to that date would be paid. He recommended approval of the
contract.
Ron Sims, deputy county counsel, stated that Del Siemsen, county
counsel, had discussed this matter and would approve the agreement subject
to one small amendment he wanted made in it.
Mr. Bosworth stated that he had discussed this with County
Counsel and the Auditor. He and the Auditor drafted a small amendment
this morning that protects the Auditor when he certifies the contract
as being proper: They reworded the contract to make sure there was nothing
billed and payable prior to proceedings of the sale.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the contract with municipal finance consultants, Bank of
America, to handle proposed issue of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes
to finance cash flow deficits during the 1982-83 fiscal year was approved
and the Chairman authorized to sign. ,
APPROVE 1982 LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM
CONTRACT - CAA
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the 1982 low income home energy assistance weatherization
program contract with the State Office of Economic Opportunity in the
amount of $50,000 to be effective from March 1 through September 30, 1982
(~~8300-0854) was approved and the Chairman authorized to sign.
APPEARANCE: LOUIS CAMENZIND, JR.
Mr. Camenzind, Jr. commended the Board on the action taken relative
to Mr. Arnold's request for manufacturing of dairy equipment.
APPEARANCE: CECELIA BROCK, REPRESENTING BUTTE TRIBAL ,COUNCIL
Ms. Brock spoke regarding the request for support by Robinson
Rancheria for their Indian child welfare grant application. The Inter-
Tribal Council of California has a child care center in Chico.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, stated he had
researched this matter a little. and found that this involves an overlap
of existing county services. The grant is for $306,000 and the main
headquarters for Robinson Rancheria is in Lake County. There are three
counties involved in this grant; Lake, Yolo and Butte Counties. There will
be some office in Butte County.
Ms. Brock asked that the Board look into the matter a little more.
She felt this should be discussed with the Butte Tribal Council.
Ms. Brack advised to discuss this matter with the Administrative
Office staff for them to bring back in a couple of weeks.
APPEARANCE: BAN B.OEGER, CITY OF GRIDLEY COUNCII:MAN,_
Councilman Boeger submitted a letter from the City of Gridley
asking to withdraw their appeal of the Andrew Stewart parcel map. The
city has found that their mater drainge plan .must be adopted by the
Board before they are able to collect drainage fees. He 'asked that the
Board direct staff to go over this plan so the Board can approve it.
Page 270.
March. 2, 1982
8,
a
399
400
March 2, 1982
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated-they could do
this but it would cost money and time. He was sure the work would be done
by the Planning Director and himself.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, advised that Drainage
District No. 1 had filed an appeal on the Andrew Stewart parcel map.
WITHHOLD APPROVAL OF BUDGET TRANSFER B-151, CHI CO MUNICIPAL COURT, FOR
ONE WEEK
Chairman Wheeler stated she would like to change her vote on
budget transfer B-151, Chico Municipal Court, which was considered in '
minute order 82-378. The Board was talking atiout $36,000 in budget
transfer B-160, data processing, while they are talking about $14,000
offsetting $63,000 in costs later on. Budget transfer 8--151 is a transfer
of $31,000, which made a difference of not quite $15,000. She was tired
of people coming in and asking for money from .the reserve. The departments
have to know that if they budget for a certain amount, they are not to come
in and ask for any more in funding.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, stated that all
it would take would be a few no votes to stop the departments. The courts
are a separate branch of government, but he felt the Board should be
allowed to review the expenditures and purpose the money is used for.
A portion of the money in the transfer was overlooked in their budget
and during the close of final budget hearings. i.,
On motion of Supervisox Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, budget transfer 8-151, Chico Municipal Court, is to be
reconsidered. AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler.
NOES: Supervisor Dolan.
It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
that the budget transfer B-151, Chico Municipal Court, be denied maintaining
the funds are needed for a carryover balance in the budget considerations.
Mr. Pyeatt stated that if the Board appxoved that motion, the
court would be closed down effectively as far as juries because they are
completely out of money for professional and specialized services. There
would be no money for court appointed attorneys, interpretors or payment
of the processing parking tickets.
Discussion of the requirements for visiting judges held at this
time.
Motion withdrawn.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor ." araceni
and carried, the Board will withhold action on budget transfer B-151,
Chico Municipal Court, for one week because they do not have sufficient
time to consider the concerns.
The matter was continued to March 9, 1982 at 10:00 a. m.
REPORT ON COUNTY`S M1N~MUM FOR STATE HIGHY7AY CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED BY
SB 215 COMPARED TO STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP} PROPOSAL
Clay Castleberry, public works director, reported on the county's
minimum for state highway construction as required bg SB 215 compared to
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP} proposal. Gianella Bridge
is not in the state plan at this point.- The county will be shorted on
the SB 215 money. This is only for information purposes.
Page 271.
Mardi 2, 1982
a 2- 401
b
402
March 2, 1982
- - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - T = _ _ ~ ~ ~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ - - _ -
~.DOPT RESOLUTION 82-38: APPROVE PUBLIC WORKS. ITEMS
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, the following action was taken:
1. Accepted the work of M & M Electric of Sacramento for the
traffic signal installation at the intersection of Esplanade and Lassen Avenue,
Chico, FAU Project No. M-Y762{33; authorized the Chairman~to sign notice of
completion and directed the Clerk to record said notice with the Recorder.
2. Adopted Resolution 82-38 setting a public hearing date of
April 6, 1982 at 10:00 a.m. for consideration of intention to rename a
private road in Butte County: Phantom Drive (Yankee Hi11 Road 'to end) to
Yankee Vista Drive and the Chairman authorized to sign.
WAIVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE ADOPTING 1979 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE AND
1979 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE WITH ELIMINATION OF PROVISIONS FOR TREATMENT
OF SHAKE ROOFS
Discussion of the ,provision to require that if there are shake
roofs, that they be treated was held at this time. Bi11 Teie, fire warden,
stated the state law is more stringent. It requires roof covering and
added vent openings. The Department of Forestry is holding hearings and
setting down zones that will be effected. The state fire marshall has
to draw up specifications. This new Iaw is some time off. The Board could
do two things: 1) waive second reading and adopt ordinance as set out;
or, 2) adopt with the provision of the shake roofs taken out of the ordinance.
He recommended adoption of the ordinance as read and if there is a problem
with the shake roofs, the Board could then instruct staff to come back on
that item.
Supervisor Dolan stated that the Board had passed a motion of
intent relative to the fire standards that were to be built into the ordinance.
The Board did discuss the shake roofs at that time and there was concern in
the wildfire lands.
Supervisor Saraceni was concerned that the county would be adopting
more restrictions in the code than what the state has today. He disagreed
with that. He wanted to know what cases the county has had xelative to
problems with shakes.
Mr. Teie stated they':were trying to put a stoplight in before
anything happened. If this is adopted, they would not see the results for
years. There are 22,000 he knew of that had shake roofs. This is a local
problem. Other counties have enacted this type of law in the past. T,rhen
Title 19 is written, it will be more restrictive.
Supervisor Saraceni had a problem with penalizing people who
would like wood-type roofs by making them treat the wood. He had no
problems with adoption after the state has adopted it as part of their
code.
Mr. Teie stated that since 1945 the state has said the wildlands
are the state•°responsibility. The Department of Forestry has funded money
for that responsibility. Local governments have allowed growth in those
areas. After the Napa fire, the state said that was enough and they would
have to step in and do something. He disagreed that the county would be
restricting a person. This is a real impact on the Fire Department and
the neighbors. They park their trucks next to homes with shake roofs because
they know they will lose that roof. The person without that type of roof
will be having less fire protection. He understood the Board's problem
and would try to help to do something about it. The state law will
:pre-empt the county ordinance, but that is some time off.
Page 272,
March 2, 1982
82
a
March 2 , 1982 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _
~,_ ~ T - - _ ~ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - -
t4r.^Teie stated that during a wildlan.d fire, his department has
to commit additional farces of 10, 20 or 30 engines to protect .the structures.
This effects the total response when there are shake roofs in the area.
Supervisor Dolan stated this must be considered in the preparation
for fires. Therefore, they have to budget a number of people, equipment,
training and everything else to plan for this. This is due to the fact that
the Board approved development of varying types in the rural area and they
are impacting the fire protection services. She recognized this was not
within the state law, but if they can recognize local conditions and plan
ahead to protect local. areas, then they should. She was not willing to
wait for the state to tell the county what to do. She felt this was
something the Board had to do because it,is a responsible move to recognize
and plan locally when they can.
Supervisor Saraceni felt this was clearly another step of costing
more. people money at a time when there is such an effect on the economy.
People could be told that if they wish to treat their roof they can, but
to impose this without a specific reason does not make good sense to that.
Tt was moved by Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor
Moseley that the Board waive the first' reading of the ordinance adopting
the 1979 Uniform Building Code and 1979 Uniform Plumbing Code with the
elimination of the provision for treatment of shake roofs.
Supervisor Dolan stated there had not been one house yet but
she did not want someone saying why didn't someone tell me. The county
can plan because they know the number of cars for roadways, but to
appropriate monies to avoid minor changes in aesthetics for safety
purposes.
Chairman C,rheeler felt the Board had to considex the public
cost as well. She hoped- they could legislate effectively the health
and welfare of the people. She wanted to be able to implement ordinances
for the health and safety of the people, but did not want to be in a
position of bringing more cost to the people.
Supervisor Saraceni felt this was a good motion and it was not
preventing someone from treating their roof if they chose to do so.
Supervisor Dolan stated that the fact that a person has that
type of roof in the wildlands when a fire starts, it is the county fire
department that does respond and that is saying its the way it has to
be. She was concerned when they used public resources Co take care of
the aesthetics. "
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, r4oseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: None
Motion carried.
403 ~ ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TO WRITE LETTER TO GOVERNOR ADVISING THAT THE BOARD
IS HANDICAPPED WITH THE FACT THEY DO NOT HAVE FIFTH SUPERVISOR
Chairman Wheeler directed the Administrative Office to write
a letter to the Governor advising him that the Board is handicapped due
to the fact they do not have a fifth Supervisor.
Page 273.
March 2, 1982
404
405
406
407
408
March 2, 1982
CONSIDERATION OF [dAIVING OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION
14-48 AND ADDING ARTICLE III TO CHAPTER 26 AND.`REPEAi~TNG SECTION 32-12
AND ADDING SECTION 32A-12 TO THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE WAS CONTINUED TO
MARCH 16z 1982
Consideration of waiving the first reading of the ordinance
amending Section 14-48 to the Butte County Code relative to parking of
commercial vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or more in residential areas;
adding Article III to Chapter 26 of the Butte County Code relative to
drainage plans; and repealing Section 32-12 of the Butte County Code and
adding Section 32A-12, relative to agricultural nuisances was continued
to March 16, 1982.
APPOINTMENT TO THE MENTAL HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supprvisor Moseley
and carried, Matthew D. Jackson was appointed to the Mental Health
Advisory Board as a community member.
APPOINTMENTS TO BUTTE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, DISTRICT 2, CONTINUED TO
MARCH 9, 1982
Consideration of the appointments to the Butt e• County Housing
Authority, District 2, was continued to March 9, 1982.
CONSIDERATION OF REORGANIZATION OF THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY
MEDICAL CARE COUNCIL CONTINUED TO MARCH 16, 1982
Consideration of reorganization of the Northern California
Emergency Medical Care Council was continued to March 16, 1982 for
a recommendation back from the Board of Directors of the Nine Northern
Counties Supervisors Association.
WAIVE FEES FOR VERN MC MATH DUE TO CONFUSION ON IDENTIFICATION OF APPROVED
ACCESS FOR PARCEL MAP LOCATED AT AP 63-04-61. DOE MILL ROAD
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the Public Works and Environmental Health fees were waived
for one-half of the amount of the fees and all the Environmental Review
fees were waived for Vern McMath's request for waiver of filing fees due
to confusion on the identification of approved access for a parcel map
located at AP 63-04-61, Doe Mill Road.
409
CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE AGRICULTURAL DESIGNATION
REQUTREMENTS CONTINUED TO MARCH lb, 1982 WITH COPIES OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO BE FURNISHED TO PLANNING DIRECTOR AND PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A RESPONSE
Consideration of a General Plan amendment to~hhange the agri-
cultural residential designation requirements was continued to March 16,
1982 with copies of the proposed amendment to be furnished to the Planning
Director and Planning Commission for a response back to the Board.
410
DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE ORDINANCE SUPPORTING AB 1826 (PARR) RELATTVE TO
PAYING COST FOR SUPERVISOR ORIENTATION
Chairman Wheeler advised she had received information from
CSAC relative to the allowable appropriation for new Supervisors to
attend orientation classes.
Mike Fyeatt, interim administrative officer, stated this bill
clarified a gray area that has existed for years. CSAC was able to pick
up some funding in past years for orientation for new Supervisors. Many
Supervisors coming into office would benefit tremendously from the information
at these orientations by CSAC.
Supervisor Saraceni agreed 100 percent.
Supervisor Dolan stated that a new Supervisor is elected in November
and not sworn in until the followiAg January. This bill allowed for the
Page 274. '
March 2, 1982
S
3
411
412
413
March 2, 1982
counties to pick up the cost of the orientations by CSAC. Before that,
the new Supervisor could attend the orientation but at 'their own expense.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, staff was directed to pxepare an ordinance in support of the
provisions of AB 1826 (Farr) relative to the paying of new Supervisor
orientation classes sponsored by CSAC.
RECESS: 3:26 p.m.
RECONVENE: 3:37 p.m.
SET TIME FOR SEPTAGE STUDY AND ETR FOR MARCH 16, 1982
Consideration of the final EIR and the septage study will be
held on March 16, 1982.
APPEARANCE: GREG JOHNSON, CROCKER NATIONAL BANK
Mr. Johnson stated he was the assistant vice president of Crocker
National Bank and wanted to thank the Board for the opportunity to participate
in proposals for municipal finance consultants to handle proposed issue of
Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes to finance cash flow 'deficits during
the 1982-83 fiscal year.
COMMTINICATIONS
Robinson Rancheria, Fair Oaks. Bernadine Tripp writes request support
for their Indian child welfare grant application Handled earlier
in the meeting.
Jennie Liss, Oroville. Ms. Liss writes expressing satisfaction with
her participation in a Community Action Agency energy conserva--
tion program. Referred to CAA Director for information.
Department of Finance. On behalf of Governor Brown, the department provides
a response to an inquiry regarding legislation which does not
provide funding to local governments for the cost of state
mated programs. Information; no action taken.
U.S. Department of Labor. The department provides the result of their
assessment of the CETA program performance in Butte County
for the quarter ending December 31, 1981. Information; no
action taken.
U.S. Department of Labor. The department indicates they have reviewed the
preapplication for federal assistance under the CETA program
and are tentatively designating Butte County as prime sponsor
for fiscal year 1983. Information; no action taken.
City of Gridley. The City Council appeals the decision of the Advisory
Agency approving a land division for Arnold Stewart, AP 24-054-23,
Gridley. Handled earlier in the meeting.
Drainage Distil ct No. One/Reclamation District No. 2056, Gridley. Robert
Millington, on behalf of the districts, requests the adoption
of a drainage fee collection ordinance pursuant to the Master
Drainage Plan far the Gridley area. Infonaation; to be
considered with the Arnold Stewart land division.
Butte County Employee's Association. Lynn Gould, president, offers an
appeal to the determination made by the County Employment Relations
Officer to conduct a decertification election and a representation
election in the Management, Confidential and Supervisory unit
Referred to Counsel to respond with Personnel Director.
Page 275.
March 2, 1982
8:
v
March 2, 1982 _ _ _ _ _ _
Drainage District No. One, Gridley. The district writes relative to a
request for adoption of drainage fees on the Master Drainage
Plan for the Gridley area and asked that the Board consider
adoption of the plan. Handled earlier in the meeting.
Drainage District No. One, Gridley. Robert Millington, on behalf of''the
district, appeals the decision of the Advisory Agency approving
a land division for Arnold Stewart, AP 24-054-23, Gridley.
Set for hearing March 23, 1982 at 10:00 a.m. Letters from
drainage and reclamation districts to be considered at the
time of the hearing.
LETTER OFSUPPORT TO BE SENT TO STEVE ZANER AT CSAC RE:''AB 2607 (SEBASTIANI)
ON CHANGES TO AB 189 RELATIVE TO FINES AND SURCHARGES
Chakinan Wheeler advised that Judge Rutherford had written a letter
of support for AB 2607 (Sebastiani) to separate the parking surcharges
from the fines. AB 2607 would amend AB 189 relative to the fines and
surcharges.
414
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, aietter of support is to be sent to Steve Zaner at CSAC
with carbon copies to the Legislators on AS 2607 (Sebastiani) on amending
AB 189 relative to fines and surcharges with the information from Judge
Rutherford to be sent with the letter.
ADDITIONAL M2aER PRESENTED BY CKAIRMAN WHEELER
Chairman Wheeler advised that the next budget workshop wauld
be on March 17, 1982 at 1:30 p.m.
415
ADJOURNMENT
There being nothing further before the Board at this time, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:42 p.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, March 9, 1982
at 9:00 a.m.
ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK-
RECORDER and ex-officio Clerk
of th=_Board of Supervisors
~j/w C irman, Board of Supervisors
Page 27b.
March' 2, 1982