HomeMy WebLinkAboutM032382March 23, 1982
OF CAI.TFORN7A )
SS.
OF BUTTE )
8:
The Board of Superva~sors met at 9:DO. a. m. pursuant to adjournment.
resent: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler.
ike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer; Del Siemsen, county counsel; and
lark A. Nelson, county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk to the Board.
ledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
vocation by Supervisor Moseley
501
RING 1N OF SUPERVISOR FULTON "
Supervisor Fulton was sworn in and received the oath of office
Supervisor, Fifth" District.
502 ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-46 IN APPRECIATION OF SERVICES OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
nd unanimously carried, Resolution 82--46 in appreciation of services of
lanning Commissioner Rae Wheeler was adopted and the Chairman authorized
o sign.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
nd unanimously carried, the minutes of February 23, 1982, minute order
2-327, page 236, second and third paragraphs were amended to reflect.as
ollows:
503
Everett Bosworth, tax collector, distributed to the Board a letter
Exom Bank of America regarding cash flow deficit financing. There are two
types of deficit. Mr. Johansen indicated the deficit the county is facing
at the budget hearing two weeks ago. He discussed the interest on revenues.
The reduction in interest revenues in the 1982-83 budget from those budgeted
in 1981-82 would be $1/3 million to $1/2 million and that the county could
recoup this amount through deficit financing by notes. As cash balances go
down they get into the red. They do fund borrowing. The cash flow deficit
financing would be good for the county. Inter-fund borrowing costs money.
Other municipalities are finding difficulty in financing. They can borrow
on notes that are tax exemptions. They immediately invest this and work
on the capital. It will refurbish their fund balance and restore their
fund balance and earning power. He set out the attachment to the Bank of
America letter at this time. Because of the work involved, the county should
get an early start so that they can sell the notes on July 1, 1982 which
is the earliest date possible and would pro}~ably give the county abetter
rate than if issued at a later date in the fiscal year. Tt is a-good too 1.
Cie feels Butte County is going to have to go with this. He would like authority
to work on this concept with the Auditor and County Counsel as to which would
be the best for the county.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and
carried, gave direction to Tax Collector, Auditor-Controller and County Counsel
to move forward with the issuance of anticipated notes (cash flow deficit
financing) for the coming year and authorized the Treasurer, Auditor and
Counsel to review proposals by municipal finance consultants for this purpose.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
unanimously carried, the minutes of March 16 and March 17, 1982 were
oved with the following amendments:
Minute order 82-471, page 295, paragragh 8 to reflect Supervisor
lan. Page 307.
March 23, 1982
8;
b
504
505
_ _ March 23, 19_82_ _
- I?inute order-82-498 to reflect: Resolution 82-43 in recognition of
the Chinese Gymnastic Allstars-and Resolution 82--44 in recognition of the
United States Gymnastic Allstars were adopted and the Chairman authorized
to sign instead of just one resolution.
Minute order $2-500 to reflect; Resolution 82-45 consolidating the
election on the Chico, PID and Town of Paradise measures with the Primary
Election was adopted instead of Resolution 82-44.
ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS BY BOARD MEMBERS TO BE ADDRESSED AT END OF DAY
Supervisor 1~foseley would lie reading two letters from the Butte
County Rice Growers Association concerning highways and roads.
Chairman Wheeler would have a rough draft of a letter she
would like to have sent to Caltrans. She would also be bringing up the
issue by the cattlemen in the north part of the county concerning the ability
of land divisions in the Meridian-Munjar area to the county line and would
like to discuss the possibility of an interim zoning for that area.
DISCUSSION: FINANCIAL PROJECTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1982-83,
Jim Johansen, auditor, set out the revised projections for the
1982-83 budget year. In January, the projections indicated a $6 million
deficit using the fund balances available through November. He had also
indicated he had not taken into consideration the proposed changes in the
state budget that might effect the budget year. Since the time of the
preliminary report and the revised projections of fund balances available
through February, he anticipated the deficit at $7-3/4 million for this
budget year. The biggest reason for the increase is the relationship to
the state budget and the proposed reduction of $200 million in motor vehicle
in-lieu funds from the counties, which will mean about $1.1 million ffrom~".;
Butte County. In the past, Butte County has received about $2-1/4 million.
The increased deficit is also due to the loss of the waiver provision for
the~:mental health program. The county will have to come up with the match
in this program. There is another problem with the cash flow as it relates
to Short-Doyle funds on reimbursement to the counties for the mental health
program. The state has not been all that fast in making the payments to
the county. The requirement of SB 34 that requires the state to advance
one-twelfth of the payments to the county based on the proposed budget will
help the cash flow problem. The local share of the welfare program was
projected at about $2 million and there will be an increase of $400,000
more for this program. The fund balances available projection has been
reduced by about $1/2 million based on the additional data. Offsetting
that figure will be some money available from the SB 325 funds or perhaps
federal aid secondary funds because of the low bids in the recent projects,
which will be approximately $1/2 million increase.
Mr. Johansen explained why it appears that Butte County is suffering
serious problems. The Governor's budget has an offsetting proposal to local
agencies by taking away motor vehicle in-lieu funds and giving the county's
a local option of reassessing property more often. The proposal would allow
the county to have two supplemental rolls. These two rolls would consist
of any changes that take place between March 1 tn.. July 1 and July 1 to:'.
December 31. Legislative Counsel has determined that this was probably
unconstitutional because of the local option and the Governor's estimates
were overstated.
Supervisor Dolan advised there would also be a problem with
producing the supplemental rolls because there were administrative costs
and the estimates for that administrative cost is unjustly low.
Page 308.
March~23, 1982
8:
b
March 23, 1482
Mr. Johansen set out the report from the State Controller and
the State Board of Equalization which will show why Butte County has the
problems they are facing. Before Proposition 13, Butte County was the
fifteenth lowest tax rate. Under the Proposition 13 formula for sharing
the one percent of the property tax, the former tax rate was considered and
now the county receives 21 percent of all taxes received. The state average
is 33 percent. As a percentage of the total revenue, property tax would
constitute a smaller portion of the budget because only 14 percent of the
total revenue comes from property taxes as opposed to the other counties
who receive 21 percent. About 66 percent of the revenue comes from state
and federal funding compared to 60 percent for other counties. The state
wide revenue source funding represents seven percent of the revenues and
Butte County receives only three percent of their revenue from fee structures.
From all these things, he thought this provided a good base for explaining
why the county is in the situation they are in and could perhaps support the
need for additional local revenue in order to maintain the level of services.
Butte County receives approximately eight percent of their revenue from sales
tax, while other counties receive an average of three percent, but this is
susceptible to annexations.
Mr. Johansen set out the expenditures by function in relation to
the statewide average: general function, 13 gercent for Statewide average
and approximately the same for Butte County; public protection, statewide
average for 80-81 is 24 percent and budgeted for Butte County was originally
shown as 27 percent; public ways and facilities, 12 to 13 percent for Butte
County and 5 percent for the statewide average. He felt Butte County's
share was overstated somewhat.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, advised that the county
had a double federal aid project this year and last year had a bridge that
would throw the projections off.
Mr. Johansen set out the other functions at this time: health and
sanitation, 13 percent for statewide average and Butte County approximately
7 percent (because there is no county hospital); education and recreation,
the statewide average and Butte County are in the same percentage area.
The shortfall for the 1982-83 fiscal year is about $7-3/4 million
and the cash balances for this year are reflective of the serious financial
situation the county is in. He felt the general fund would be in the red
before the April 10, 1982 collection of taxes. Later in the meeting the
Board will be considering an inter-fund transfer resolution, which points
up and includes the need to do as much and as soon as they can to change
as much as possible,to balance next year's budget.
Supervisor Fulton felt that the reason Butte County received
such a small amount from the property taxes as compared with the state
average was related to the tax rate prior to the adoption of Proposition l3.
Mr. Johansen set out the formula for the Proposition 13 percentages.
There was a three-year average of the taxes collected in all counties, with
about 120 taxing entities. Because this county had for at least one of
the three years a much lower tax rate than the other counties, the figure
for this county was about $2.00 and the other counties had a figure of $3.00
or $4.00. The county average was about 20 percent of the property taxes,
while the schools receive about 60%. The other districts in the county
receive 11 percent with the statewide average being 15 percent. The cities
within the county receive 9 percent with a statewide average of 13 percent.
The most important part of the financial picuture is that most of the
money that comes into the county is from state and federal governments that
come assigned to a specific program and the funds are not there without the
program. When there is a cutback,"it is not done in these areas but in
Page 309.
March 23, 1982
_ _ March 23, 1982 _ _ _ __ _
_ _ ~ _ r ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
the-discretionary funding. Much of the local match is required by law for
some of the state and federal .funding.
Chairman Wheeler. advised that she had some proposals to make
regarding economic stability. These are in rough draft form at this time
and she wanted to refer them to staff for review before they are presented
to the Board. She would like to share one of the items at this time
relative to the fact that there should not be any major purchases made through
the end of this fiscal year or expenditures on projects so the county will
have a larger carryover balance.
Mr. Johansen stated the Board would have to weight the pros and
cons as to whether there is a valid reason for purchase of a particular
item or whether it could be continued to next year and considered. The
county has maybe fifteen months to save $7-3/4 million. If they wait until
June or July to start making the savings, they will have approximately
twelve months to save.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, all further spending and purchases on major items
approved during this fiscal year, this budget year, be stopped subject to
executive review by the Administrative Office and Auditor,
Chairman Wheeler stated staff would be screening all requests to
purchase fixed assets and the items that are not released and the department
head feels should be considered will be placed on the Board's agenda for
consideration.
506 CONSIDERATION OF CETA SUS GRANT AUDIT FOR ON-THE-JOB TRAINING .(O:TT) FINAL
DETERMINATION CONTTNUED TO APRIL 6, 1982
.... Consideration of the CETA subgrant audit for on-the-job training
(OJT) final determination for tha.subgrant to the State of California
Employment Development Department for the period October 1976 through
September 30, 1979 which expires March 25, 1982 was continued to April 6,
1982.
507 ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-47 ADJUSTING LAW LIBRARY FILING FEE FROM $7 TO $9
It was moved by Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
that Resolution 82-47 adjusting the Law Library filing fee from $7 to $9 for
each first filing be adopted and the Chairman be authorized to sign.
Supervisor Saraceni advised that the Law Library voted unanimously
to rescind the adoption of the increased fees because they would be coming
from the general funds. When the recommendation for the increased fees was
made, that matter was not known. They would like to see what other ways
this could be increased without having to go to the general fund.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman
Wheeler
NOES : None
Motion carried.
WAIVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE CALTFORNIA INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT FINANCING ACT
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the first reading of the ordinance for participation
in the California Industrial Development Financing Act was waived,
Page 310.
March 23, 1982
March 23, 1982
8:
5
_ 509
510
APPRO'UE CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS 7_& 8 ON CHICO LIBRARY
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and carried, contract change order No. 7 that provides for furnishing and
installing a second book depository for the use by small children and the
handicapped at an increased cost of $1,049.90 and contract change order No.
8 that provides for sandblasting all exposed surfaces on contract columns
and walls to remove excess material and provide a finished surface at an
increased cost of $500 were approved with the costs for the change orders
being appropriated from the construction contingency fund and the Chairman
authorized to sign. AYES: Sugervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley and Chairman
Wheeler. NOES: Supervisor Saraceni
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE SHERIFFS PATROL CARS CONTINUED UNTIL NEXT BUDGET
YEAR FOR CONSIDERATION
Consideration of the request to purchase seven patrol vehicles
as approved in the budget from the state contract at a cost of $8,786.47
each, including sales tax and the request for Board authorization of an
additional patrol car in order to provide coverage in the Biggs area was
held at this time.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, set out the request
at this time. The Sheriff requested seven patrol vehicles in the 1981-82
budget and was wishing to speak to the Board concerning request for the
eighth vehicle for the Biggs area. Their office was not necessarily re-
commending that the Board approve the eighth vehicle. If the eighth vehicle
were approved it would be subject to a budget transfer. There has been
some discussion between Supervisor Saraceni, Public Works Director and
Purchasing Agent relative to putting back in service two of the vehicles
presently in the Public Works yard that have been surplused.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he had also made contact with Capt.
Gray relating to this matter.
Mr. Pyeatt advised that by not purchasing the seven cars, there
would be a much higher level of maintenance since the present vehicles have
over 100,000 miles. The maintenance program is part of the program, but '
there is also a replacement program that has been to trade in a vehicle
that has over 100,000 miles.
Capt. Gray stated he had held several meetings with Supervisor
Saraceni and the message was very clear. They could make it through this
year but there is an effect at the end where they will have about eighteen
or nineteen vehicles with over 100,000 miles. They may have to come to
the Board later for a budget transfer to provide for the maintenance of
the vehicles.
Supervisor Saraceni stated they had been going over ways they
could look at what cars there are and whether they should be maintained
and what can be done to stretch the maintenance as much as possible. They
might have to possibly use some of the parts that are in storage and put
together and activate cars for use. He felt that was what the county
would have to be doing in the future.
Capt. Gray reported that in the past, every 24 months the
vehicles were changed out. Last year they requested fifteen vehicles
and received seven of those fifteen. They have extended their program
to a 36-month program and now looking at possibly four year program.
Mr. Pyeatt stated that in looking at the vehicles the mileage
and extensive maintenance costs were looked at. There are very good records
kept on the maintenance of the ,~ehicles. At some time in the future the
age 311.
March 23, 1982
S1
V
March 23, 1982 ___ _____ ____
county is going to have to replace the vehicles. They could forego the
vehicles at this time, but he did not know how long they would last.
Capt. Gray advised he would let the Board know when the vehicles
were no longer cost effective.
Consideration of the vehicle purchases continued until next budget
511
512
513
514
515
516
817
year.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-48 SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR ANNEXATION TO CSA 69
(LINDO GARDENS STREETLIGHTS)
On motion of Supervisor Bolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, Resolution 82-48 setting a public hearing date of
April 27, 1982 at 10:30 a.m. for consideration of annexation to County Service
Area 69 (Lindo Gardens Streetlights) for Netters Circle was adopted and the
Chairman authorized to sign.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-49 AUTHORIZING PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE AGREEMENT RE: FRIEDA
HART MARTIN ANNEXATION WITH NORTH BURBANK PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, Resolution 82-49 authorizing property tax
exchange agreement on the Frieda Hart AFartin annexation with North Burbank
Public Utility District was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
INITIATE REZONE PROCESS FOR WILLIAMSON ACT AGREEMENT PROPERTY OWNED BY ARMIN
SPECKERT
On motion of Supervisor R4oseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, cancellation of Land Conservation Act.agreement
property, AP 056-21--0-057-0, owned by Armin Speckert and rezone to "TPZ"
(timber preserve zoning) process initiation was authorized.
APPROVE BUDGET TRANSFERS
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the following budget transfers were approved:
B-17$ - Community Action Agency 1982 Block Grant. Establishes
operational line item appropriations in accordance with. the budget approved
by the Office of Community Services submitted t?arch 15, 1982.
B-179 -Veteran's Service Officer. Transfers $50 from office expense
to fixed assets - equipment to cover the cost of sales tax on a typewriter
previously approved by the Board of Supervisors.
AUTHORIZE SUBMISSION OE APPLICATION TO DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG
PROGRAM (PREVENTION PROTECT AGREEMENTS)
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, application to the Department of Alcohol and Drug
Program in the amount of $10,708 for an amendment to the Prevention Project
Agreement with the State and amendment to the Prevention Project Subcontract
with the North Valley Parent Education Network (PEN) was approved for
submission and the Chairman authorized to sign.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, a public hearing date of April 6, 1982 at 11:30 a.m.
was set for consideration of a General Assistance variance, Case No. 04-90-
48616, to the Welfare Department regulations.
PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET
PUBLTC HEARING DATE SET
A public hearing date of April 13, 1982 at 10:00 a.m. was set for
consideration of Harry Marsh pe~~r~ieon for variance to Sections 19-10 and/or
3i2.
March 23, 1982
82
_ March 23, 1982
19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 36-11-3-54,
3432 Oro Bangor Highway, Oroville area. Zoning: "Interim AR-MH"
APPROVE VARIANCE RENEWALS
On moion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, the following were approved:
1. G. F. Sizelove renewal of variance to Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12
of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on 2470 Watt Lane,
Oroville area, zoning: "A-5"
2. L. W. and L. H. James renewal of variance to Sections 19-LO and/or
19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement o£ a mobile home on AP 47-13-39,
Anita Road, Chico area, zoning: "A-40"
3. Mary J. Rider renewal of variance to Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12
of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 26-14-3-19, 1921
Palermo Road, Palermo area, zoning: "A-2"
APPROVE APPLICATION FOR'MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH FUNDING
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, application for additional funds not to exceed
520,000 for Maternal and Child Health Program for Public Health Department
was approved and submittal to the state was authorized.
518
5i9
RECESS: 9:53 a.m.
RECONVENE: 10:02 a.m.
520
PUBLIC HEARING: BUD TEMPLE APPEAL OF CONDITION 5 ON TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM
SUBDIVISION, AP 46-23-50, TEN UNITS, 750 FEET SOUTH OF 22ND STREET ON SNRR
RIGHT-OF-WAY, PARALLEL TO PARK AVENUE 1N CHICO AREA
The public hearing on Bud Temple appeal of condition 5 (construct
one-half street section on Park Avenue to City of Chico standards) on tentative
condominium subdivision, AP 46-23-50, ten units, property located 750 feet
south of 22nd Street on SNRR right-of-way, parallel to Park Avenue in Chico
area with this item being categorically exempt, Class 1 (o) from environmental
review was held as advertised.
520
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background of
the appeal. This is an industrial commercial subdivision east of Park Avenue.
The City of Chico was asking that the developer put in the improvements along
Park Avenue when the property owner has frontage on Park Avenue of a driveway.
The property owner's frontage is on the railroad.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Cal Bachman, representing
Mr. Temple. Mr. Bachman stated Mr. Castleberry had set out the appeal.
This is a condominium conversion and the buildings are there. He asked for
support of the appeal.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the appeal of condition 5 (construct one-half
street section on Park Avenue to City of Chico standards) on tenative
condominium subdivision, AP 46-23-50, ten units, property located 750 feet
south of 22nd Street on SNRR right-of--way, parallel to Park Avenue in
Chico area which item is categorically exempt, Class 1 (o) from environmental
review for Bud Temple was upheld and the condition was waived.
Page 313.
March 23, 1982
March 23, 1982
S 2- 521
3''
PUBLIC HEARING: DRAINAGE 'DISTRICT N0. ONE APPEAL OE ADVISORY AGENCY'S APPROVAL
OF ARNOLD STEWART TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND BOUNDARY LINE MODIFICATION ON
AP 24-054-23, THREE PARCELS, PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE CITY LIMITS
OF- GRIDLEY
The public hearing on Drainage District No. One appeal of the
Advisory Agency's approval of proposed negative declaration and Arnold
Stewart tentative parcel map and boundary line modification on AP 24-054-23,
three parcels, property located southeast of the City of Gridley limits.
was held as advertised.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background of
the appeal. The appeal is being based on the fact the county-has not adopted
the master drainage plan for charging fees. He has been meeting with~the
City of Gridley and the engineer toward adoption of the drainage plan. With
some misgivings he has forwarded the plan to the Planning Department for
consideration and adoption. This is a long process and there are some un-
answered questions.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Robert Millington, representing Drainage District No. One
and Reclamation District No. 2056. The drainage district was formed about
1906 and the Reclamation District in 1920 and were designed to drain one-half
inch of rainfall for 24 hours indefinitely. In January, they had six to
eight inches of rain. This has made the drainage problems in this area very
complex due to urbanization. ..Under the State Map Act, if the county and city
adopt a drainage plan, they can collect fees on parcel splits and building
permits that would be placed into a fund for use on the drainage problems.
With the urbanization, he could see the day when the districts will have to
dig a deep drain to the river and have pumping stations or forced mains to
the river. They now drain to the south and now get a little drop .in the
land, maybe one foot to the mile and maybe not. These two districts are on
maintenance and operation budgets and do not have the money to continue and
still make expensive improvements. There is a need for the improvements
because of the culverts under the county roads and the state highway. There
are three-foot culverts in the roads and the water backs up and goes over
the top of the county road because it cannot get through the three-foot
culvert. The City of Gridley has adopted the master drainage plan. Mr.
Stewart came along when the issue aras surfacing and every parcel sp it from
now on wil~_ be appealed by the districts until the drainage plan is adopted.
They were not directly opposing the project before Che Board except for
the fact that the drainage is inadequate.
Mr. Castleberry advised the plan was in the process. There has
to be an environmental study done by the county on the plan.
2. Ernie Hatch, representing Reclamation District 833. The
uistrict is 38,000 acres and was installed about 1920 to embrace the area
south of the Oroville afterbay to one-half mile south of the City of Gridley,
from Larkin Road to Cherokee Corner and out to Butte Creek. He was not
hear to oppose the parcel split but to point out that it is much later
than they think when it comes to facilitating drainage waste in the City
of Gridley. The Bann Ranch was annexed to the City of Gridley. He pointed
out the magnitude of tree necessary levees for the city. He also set out
the fees the City of Gridley felt would accommodate each lateral. The estimate
they received for considering an undercrossing under the Biggs-West Gridley
laterial was a fee of some $70,000. He felt that someone would have to pay
the cost for improvement to the system and the people who are there now should
not have to pay for all the cost.
Page 314.
March 23, 1982
8
b
March 23, 1982 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3. Clair-Campbell, trustee of Drainage District No. One. Mr.
Campbell emphasized the comments made by Mr. Millington as to the needs
in Drainage District No. One for improvement of the facilities. He felt it
was imperative fa'the Board to adopt the ordinance so they could collect
fees in this area.
4. Bill Harkey, representing Reclamation District 2056. Mr.
Harkey stated the main drain for Reclamation District 2056 goes through
his property and the drainage problems are getting worse and he has seen
it go over the road. Off Lukey Road there is a six-foot pipe and the water
backs up and goes over the top of the pipe.
5. Robert Millington. Mr. Millington stated they were not
here primarily to object to the project before the Board but because they
wanted a forum to discuss the matter of the drainage in the area with the
Board. Anyone who files a map after February 8, 1982 will have an appeal
filed on the map by the districts.
Supervisor Dolan stated there were land divisions approved prior
to this project that have contributed to the problem and~how could the Board
get a handle on that if they move posthaste. The Board will need their support
when a district comes forward.
b. Dick Sannar,~representing Mr. Stewart. Mr. Sannar stated there
would not be three separate parcels created. One of the parcels will be
a boundary modification to the south and there will be the creation of two
parcels on the north ,side. There will be one house constructed and the
rest will be in kiwis for financing. He would not like to see this matter
delayed because it would cause a financial hardship on Mr. Stewart.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
Supervisor Moseley stated what she was hearing was not an appeal
on this project but an appeal to get the county to adopt the plan and fee
schedule for the purpose of drainage. The county has the mechanics to
proceed like they are being requested.
Supervisor Dolan stated there was something brought up that would
have to be addressed and that is people axe creating and contributing to
those drainage problems. The county is having problems in the Thermalito
area and they adopted a plan and will be able to collect fees.
Mr. Castleberry suggested the Board recognize the petition of
those expressing concern and overturn the appeal on this project and
instruct staff to get with it and on the process for having the study
adopted.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the appeal of Drainage District No. One to the
Advisory Agency's approval of the proposed negative declaration and Arnold
Stewart tentative parcel map and boundary line modification on AP 24-054-23,
three parcels, property located southeast of the City of Gridley limits
was denied and staff was instructed to pick up on the study and get back
to the Board as soon as possible relative toy-the master drainage study
for the Gridley area.
Page 315.
March 23, 1982
March 23, 1982
82-522
a
PUBLIC HEARING: JOHN D. DRAKE & HOWARD ISOM SPECIFIC PLAN FOR LOCATION AND
REGULATIONS OF LAND USES ETC. ON PROPERTY LOCATED EAST SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 32
AND HUMBOLDT ROAD, APPROXIMATELY FIVE MILES NORTHEAST OF CHICO
The public hearing on John D. Drake and Howard Isom specific plan for
the location and regulation of land uses, buildings, roads, water supply, waste
disposal, conservation of natural resources, and open space - allowing a residen-
tial development of 109 parcels of 1/2 to 3 acres, including common open space
and public facilities to be maintained by a county service area (CSA) on approx-
imately 1,050 acres located on the east side of State Highway 32 and Humboldt
Road, approxim~ely five miles northeast of Chico, identified as AP 46-71-17,
46-71-18 (portion), 46-35-4 and 46-35-23, northeast of Chico was held as
.,a...._.._ __~
Steve Streeter, planning department, set out the background of
e plan. There is information provided by Planning Department relative
specific plans and by LAFCo relative to sewer maintenance districts.
e Planning Commission recommended separating the specific plan from the
A-C" zoning because of their concern about sewer maintenance and open space
intenance into perpetuity. LAFCo approval is needed for the sewer district
d this would have an effect on the zoning if it was deemed that the district
s an important part of approval of the plan. There is a significant area
open space as set out in Planning Commission Resolution 82-1 which was
ad at this time.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised that in reviewing this matter,
t appears that the specific plan is being split off from the "PA-C" zoning
nd the EIR was not sent forward for publication regarding the specific plan.
ince this is the beginning of the project, at this point, the Board could not
o forward unless the EIR is considered. Ae suggested that this be continued
or publication of the EIR. The hearing could be continued for one week to
flow for publication of the EIR.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Jere Bolster, representing the developers. I+ir. Bolster stated
was his understanding that the hearing would be continued for one week.
there are no questions at this time, he would perfer to caait until after
testimony has been given to proceed with his presentation.
2.Bruce Burke, Stilson Canyon. Dr. Burke stated that he had objections
o the project. He did not believe in leap frog development. He felt with the
ounty's financial situation, there will be a cost to the county in services
rovided to developments and there would be a negative cash flow into those
evelopments. He felt that the sewage situation was the most important problem.
e was concerned about possible pollution to the creek. He recently heard
bout the San Jose sewage district that is polluting the Bay and they are in
itigation which could continue for years while the problems will fester. This
s a small project in comparison but there are real concerns about the quality
f workmanship in the fragile environment. He felt the Board was being asked
o be the consumer and buy the sewer system. He asked that the Board consider
eking for a second opinion on the system from another engineer before it is
pproved. He understood the sewage treatment facility near Butte Creek with
he three ponds are having problems and there is only one pond that will work
t a time due to rodents and other forces that cause the ponds to leak. He was
oncerned about the buildings that would be built. His parents live in North-
ood Commons, another development by the developer, and their home has grass
rowing in tte dining room. The property management firm has contacted Drake
omes and received no response. When a sewer system is put in, it must be
one right ad quality control should be monitored.
Chairman Wheeler placed into the record the copy of the letter from
. Burke to the Planning Commissa.orier. .
Page 316.
March 23, 1982
March 23, 3982
Ss
.5
3. Kelly Meagher, Honeyrun Road. Mr. Meagher stated he had many
ncerns which might relate to-the EIR. He would wait until next week on
ose concerns. He was concerned about the waste disposal system. He had
~ncerns abat the waste disposal system and held a conversation with
my Lantis, engineer for Regional Quality Control Board, who expressed
~ncern after an on-site tour and also had not received enought information
. this and the possible location of the ponds and where the sewage will be
sposed. The representatives of the development have not responded back
Pir. Lantis.
4. Dr. Frank Bennett. Dr. Bennett advised that he and Rae Wheeler
ad been researdbng land trusts. They have been concerned since the Butte
'reek East rezone Cohen they were looking for some type of vehicle to care for
he open spae to make sure it would not be developed. They were very concerned
ith the sewage problems. He felt there was a resolution to the sewage
roblems with a district to care for the expenses and to take the expense
urden from the tax payer. The Board has received a copy of the booklet
ublished by Ev Schiffman from the college on land trusts. Mr. Wheeler and
e went to San Francisco far a full day workshop on this matter. The east
,oast of the country has used land trusts for 100 years. 'There are nine
ounties dealing with land trusts. Aland trust is a non-profit corporation
hich is tax exempt and legally empowered to maintain the open space. The
.and trust is composed of concerned citizens. The people in the project own
nd pay the taxes on the open space and have the use of the property for
hatever the association decides except they do not have the right to
evelop the land. That xight is vested in-the land trust. The public does
of have access to the land. It would take four to eight months to have a
,and trust set up in the county. He and Mr. GTheeler will be helping to get
his started. He will step aside as soon as it is a functioning entity.
he imposition of the condition to form a sewer maintenance district will
lso take time. He felt these two items would remove much of the apprehension
nd worry of the people who are objecting to the project.
Supervisor Dolan questioned how the public information regarding the
tion of a land trust would be provided.
Dr Bennett stated that the only way to proceed with a land trust is
o get a group of public spirited citizens involved and have the people from
an Francisco come up and present the information. They envisioned a broad
pectrum of people from the community being involved. When the development.
f the land is taken away, this depreciates the value on the property. There
ould be more than one land trust used in the county.
The hearing was continued to March 30, 1982 at 10:30 a.m. with
he EIR to be advertised and the hearing to remain in an open status and
o include the ETR.
523 RESENTATION OF RESOLUTION 82-46 TO PLANNING COMMISSIONER
524
Supervisor Moseley read Resolution 82-46 at this time and presented
t to Planning Commissioner Rae Wheeler.
Mr. Wheeler expressed his gratitude for the resolution. The county
as an on-going Planning Commission working hard for the county.
Dr. Frank Bennett, planning commissioner, stated it had been a great
rivilege to serve on the Planning Commission with Mr. Wheeler. He felt the
oard would have a difficult time trying to replace Mr. Wheeler on the
lanning Commission.
ARANCE: TOM TURK, OROVILLE
Mr. Turk stated he represented 50 to 80 sportsmen in the Oroville
Chico area. He was concerned.-about the fact that the Butte County Fish
Page 317.
March 23, 1982
March 23, 1982
8:
3
and Game Commission was recommending laws without the sportsmen being notified
of the meeting dates and recommendation prior to the recommendations being
sent to Sacramento. The major portions of the funds for the fish and game
program come from purchase of licenses by sportsmen. All axe concerned about
proper game management of fish and wildlife. He felt they would like to be
included in some of the decisions which are made. He has attended thirteen
fish and game meetings in the past and was concerned about the lack of public
notice and no agendas at the meetings. He had no fdea what was being proposed.
He asked that the Board create some coordination between the commission and
the people involved.
Supex~sor Saraceni stated he represented the Board on the Fish and
Game Commission and would be willing to work with staff to put together
information to report to the Board and Mr. Turk.
APPEARANCE: BILL SANDS
?~?r. Sands spoke regarding the correspondence he had sent to the
Board relative to work schedules and utilization of county staff. The proposal
is fairly self-explanatory and is a voluntary participation proposal. He has
also distributed copies of the proposal to BCEA and the Administration Office.
The county would need a response from the employees to know if they are interest-
ed in this proposal. He encouraged the Board to do a survey of all county
employees to find out if there is an interest in the proposal. This could be
done with BCEA. He felt of great benefit to the county and the employees'
association was to make contact with New Ways to Work, a private non--profit
organization in San Francisco. This organization is willing to put on a
one--day workshop for either the county and/or any interested employees'
association at little cost, which would include travel to Oroville at about
$75 to $80. The organization has implemented programs in other counties.
525
the Board.
The proposal was referred to staff to review and comment back to
CESS: 11:15 a.m.
CONVENE: 11:20 a.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: BUTTE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (BCEA) - APPEAL OF THE
DETERMINATION MADE BY THE COUNTY EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS OFFICER TO CONDUCT
DECERTIFICATION ELECTION AND A REPRESENTATION ELECTION OF THE MANAGEMENT,
CONFIDENTIAL AND SUPERVISORY UNIT
The public hearing on the Butte County Employees Association appeal
to the determination made by the County Employmegt Relations Officer to conduct
a decertification election and representation election of the Management,
'Confidential and Supervisory unit was held at this time.
Mary Mocine, representing BCEA Local 916, set out the history of
the MCS unit. The management and confidential personnel were represented
Eby BCEA since 1977. At that time, there was an election in the unit made
up of management and confidential employees. The only issue in that election
was do you want to or do you not want to be represented. The supervisory
,personnel were added in 1978 without benefit of an election. In 1981
a decertification petition was filed for the MCS unit. The election was held
April 13, 1981 and the results were not set until April 27, 1981. BCEA won
that election. On January 27, 1982 a decertification petition was filed and
on February 10, 1982 the Personnel Director found the petition to have been
filed in accordance with the rules and appropriate along with notice of intent
to hold an election the first week of March. By letter dated February 10,
1982, BCEA was given notice that a decertification petition had been filed.
On February 24, 1982 BCEA filed an appeal of that decision and this hearing
is the result of the appeal. page 318.
March 23, 1982
526
March 23, 1982 _
The basis for the appeal is that the decertification petition is
not only untimely but inappropriate. She cited Section 11.5 of the Personnel
Rules which stated there will be no.more than one election petition within
any one year. There can be. no election pursuant to any petition within a
twelve-month period. The petition was filed three months before the year
was up. The letter to the Board pointed out other time problems allowing
the petition. The rules allow a 30-day period after notice of representation
petition for allowing appeals to be filed. The notice of election is only
18 days after the notice that the election was to be held March 1, 1982.
The rules provide that a decertification election will be held within 15
days of the notice finding the petition appropriate.
On one hand the rules allow far 30 days for an election and on .the
other hand 15 days for notice. Also, a recognition petition is suppose to
have a challaxging petition allowed after the notice. The problem is that
the rules say adecertification by an employees' association is done by
means of a recognition resolution. If the 15 day rule were complied with,
that would mean an election would be held in less than one year after the
prior election, if the decertification rules were followed. The reason for
the one-year period, window and decertification section 'mentioning having to
wait one fuT1 year has to do with maintaining, stability and allowing employees
and employers and employee organizations to be able to attend toward building
a relationship and reaching an agreement on MOUs, representing employees on
day to day issues rather than dealing all the time with decertification
attempts. Most labor boards statutes and ordinance recognize this time of
bar. She had never seen a set of rules that did not have that time period
in them. When the time period is not in the rules, the federal labor relations
Board sets up the rules. Between the date of the decertification petition and
the last electirn is about five months when this was not an issue. That is
not enought time to take care of other things. The ,association would submit
that having the process occur more than once a year is just too often and
destroys tte xela~onship and employees' rights to be represented. On the
other side is the employees' rights to decertify. This cannot be allowed
so often as to destroy the whole system.
~~
She was also concerned with the cost of the election using county
money for these elections.. The county ended up paying for the entire process
during the last election. The- association contends that allowing of the
petition was not only untimely, but inappropriate. The association was
given a copy of the petition this morning without signatures. The last time
the election w~ held the association representative was denied a copy of the
petition. It is difficult to respond to the petition. The rules require
that the petition include information relative to who notice is to be sent
to and whdthe off icers are. It is difficult to respond when they do not
know who t send notices to. The association did respond as best it could
and filed a challenging petition. Under the recognition rules, the petition was
filed on the grounds Ghat the unit vote by decertification. The group was
not appropriate in that .the unit should not be MCS but instead management
should be in one group and confidential, supervisory in another group.
She felt that it would be a more expeditious way of dealing with
the questions the=have been raised to direct that meet and confer take place.
She felt that kind of meeting and conferring was required by the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act, Section 3504, 3505 and 3507. The rules are unclear and
confusing. The rules seem to have been adopted a number of years ago with
an initial item in mind and not adopted with an eye toward certification or
decertification. She would also like to have the 15-day and 30-day portions
clarified. Exclusive representation is only by election and yet the
supervisory group was added in an agreement without election. They were
I added to a unit where BCEA was already the representative.
Page 319.
March 23, 1982
March 23, 1982
82- Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised the procedure before the Board
~', was a hearing on whether or not the petition for decertification by the MCS
unit should be proceeded with. This is not a hearing on the rules and regula~5.
tions of the personnel system. Tf the association wishes to meet on that
issue, they should set up a meeting.
Ms. Mocine stated the point in bring up these issues"was to
seek direction to meet and confer and reach a point of what is an appropriate
unit. Section ll.b refers to the fact that decertification is defined and
should be a recognition petition and is to otherwise comply with these rules.
This could be de entire set o£ rules pursuant to the ordinance. The rules
cover over 100 pages. She felt the rules referred to were employee, employer
relationship rules. The Personnel Director is to determine whether the petition
complies and it is not clear what is incorporated, There is a conflict between
decertification and recognition petitions. Section 11.8 relative to unit
modification states petition only timely during the period specified in the
new rules. It does not tell which rules or which period. Is it 12 month
election bar, contract window period, which is basically January in the
decertific~ion rules, or the end of the contract could be when the time
does not need to comply within 180 days before the end of a contract. If
the contract ended some time in September then the window would be some time
in March, not January. Sections 3504, 3505 and 3507 of the Meyers-Milias-
Brown Act refer to the fact the employer must me~t",and consult including so
on the request of either party and defining good faith meeting and consulting
and the meeting and consulting about rules establishing units. It does not
make sense to hold a decertification election, when they do not know what the
unit is going to look like. The association was asking that the matter be
referred back to Personnel Director to work something out and come to an
understanding as to their request for meet and confer relative to unit designa-
tion, election and decertification.
Jim Rackerby, personnel director, stated he had an opportunity to
iscuss the matter with Ms. Mocine this morning and they had an understanding
~f what the presentation would be concerning. The key element of the union`s
resentation is there are existing rules and to accomplish what they would like
o accomplish it would require an amendment to the rules. As an administrator
ie dealt with the existing rules. The Board must make their decision on the
ules that exist today. Referring to Section 3500 of the Government Code, there
s a specific section that has a basis that it is the right of the employee to
oin or refrain from joining and participating in associations and having a
hoice of associations. Mentioned in Section 3507 is the fact that procedures
ay be set up through adoption of rules and regulations for an orderly process
0 occur. Those consultations have been held in past years and as a result,
he county has rules and regulations in effect. Section 11.7 stated it is
lear the intent is not to deprive the employees of a right to choose an
ssociation of their own choosing, but to strengthen that right. He felt the
ules were etremely clear. He was a party to the negotiations with the
ssociation when the rules were adopted and there was clear understanding
hey would accomplish a variety of things to allow for recognition of choice
or representation. When the unit was determined, the employees chose the
ssociation. He thought the Board could chose to recall the association.
here is an MCS group, in an appropriate unit, who propose to recall the
ssociation and develop an election for that purpose to determine whether or
of to decertify the union, to be represented by another union or to chose
o representation at all. What he saw was a clear set of rules that provide
or initiation of recognition, and BCEA is a recognized association, and then
o provide recall by petition of the employees or to provide additional re-
resentation by other agencies.
There axe two questions before the Board without getting into the
question of whether the unit det~~iniation is right because there is a unit
Page 320.
March 23, 1982
8 2-
$ ',
March 23, 1982 '
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ T ~ ~ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ -
He read Section 11.5 that once the decertification petition has been reviewed
and approved; that there be "Employer Relations Officer shall axr-.ange on or
about 15 days after sudinotice of election, an election shall be conducted."
It also says there shall be no more than one valid election in a period of
12 months. Before the county is a decertification election which was made
in late April and was actually made in early March. He felt that if the
election was held after April 21, 1982, it would be a proper election. The
decertification petition was filed appropriately during January and the
procedure on tie election issue would be the proper time and not the March
date. The letter says that is the proposed date. The association did not
come forw~l to discuss the matter with him, they filed appeal to the Board.
The question of whether or not there is a new labor organization that seeks
decertification of the existing organization, is in fact filing petition for
recognition underSection 11.2 or is filing petition for .certification with
recognition election under Section 11.6 has to be considered in the context
of what they really say. An employee association, may in addition to the
decertification petition, file a petition under Section 11.6 in the form of
a recognition petition, which permits the employee organization to comply
with the 30 percent rule. It does not say go back to the recognition rules.
If, in fact, they wish to modify the established appropriate unit, the
procedure is set out in Section 11.8 and the only time to do so is in January.
Section 11.3 talks about a unit unrepresented and that there be a
time period with the employees in that unit for the opportunity to get other
labor organizations into the game so they too can be on the ballot for
recognition. With BCEA, there is no way to get them on the ballot because
they are already the recognized association. He concurred that the 12-month
date should be after April 21. The form and manner in which the petition
was presented w~ properly done under the window to set aside the 30 day
period is not applicable because the association already represents the
employees and tYe election should go forward and should be held. Over 50 percent
are requesting the opportunity to vote on whether they wish to decertify and
have a recognized new organization or not represented by an organization at
all. His actias were proper with regard to the petition. If the union wishes
to discuss the rules they should bring them to the bargaining table and he
would be happy to discuss them.
Ms. Mocine pointed out the problem of the election being held
within 15 She did not think that meant two or three months. From
February 10, 1982 to April 22, 1982 is no where near her impression of
15 days. Ta hold an election that late would be in direct violation of
the time for determining a decertification election. She read a portion of
the rules regarding recognition petitions at this time. The petition may
be filed in the form of a recognition petition and what was not read was
that it must otherwise conform to the requirements of these rules. What
those are is nct char and not specified. Under subsection (i) relative to
a unit being appropriate, is an issue in this hearing in addition to the
timeliness issue. Section 3507 of the Government Code does guarantee rights
and talks .about election bars and holding none within one year. The rules
do not prohibit the election but petition as well. There will not be more
than one petitim pursuant to a petition in a 12-month period. She felt this
barred the petition as well. The fundamental question she saw was what about
the rights of the supervisors who were placed in this unit without being
given an election, when Section 3507 subparagraph (d) requires an election
before employees are represented by an exclusive organization. If the
decertification proceedings continue, they will not really have an election
now. She felt the serious issue could be resolved by conferring to work
out the designation of the units first.
Lynn Vanhart representing the MCS unit petitioning for decertification,
was not sure of~the background o the units. They have been functioning as a
~age321.
March 23, 1982
82
b'.
March 23, 19$2
unit for some tme and over 50 percent of the group signed the petition to
decertify. He would Like to get on with it. He would like to see the
election held.
Chairman Wheeler felt that in reviewing the rules that they were
applicable at dis time. If there are problems, then that is something that
should be disassed. With over 50 percent of the management wanting to have
an election to decertify, she thought the rules were applicable at this time.
She felt if changes needed to be made, they should be done at the bargaining
table.
Supenasor Dolan stated that the unit determination had been done.
She felt the question before the Board was whether the decertification petition
followed the ru3~, as to whether Section 11.b was followed. As she read and
listened- to the presentations made, it does and the election procedures
would be Secrion11.5 in her mind. There is agreement that the election date
would be no sooner than one year after the other election date.
Ms. Mocine stated there was no agreement on that issue. Their
contention~.s that the petition coos not timely and there is no way for the
petition to be filed within one year of April 21 and that the election is
untimely.
Super~sor Dolan stated there is the window time and the election
called is determined by the Employer Relations Officer. She understood this
was being eozztended, but it was her belief that the election should go forward,
and the appml be denied.
It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
that she so moved the election should go forward and the petition was validly
filed and deny the appea]r:',"
Ms. Mocine state the official tally was April 22, 1981 and she
contended there could not be an election before April 23, 1982,,
Superasor Wheeler amended her motion that the existing rules are
applicable and get on with the decertification election.
Vde on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman
Wheeler
NOES: None
Mdion carried.
S: 12:08 p.m.
VENE: 1:33 p.m.
527 DENY REQUEST FOtPENALTY RELIEF - JOHN F. GO_RMAN
On:•~motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the request for penalty relief of John F. Gorman
for 1981-82 taxes on AP 044-22-3-007 was denied.
528 (ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-50 GRANTING CERTAIN AUTHORITIES TO TRANSFER FUNDS AS MAY
BE NECESSARY BETWEEN POLITICAL SUBDTVISTONS WHOSE FUNDS ARE IN CUSTODY OF THE
COUNTY TREASURZ- INTERFUND TRANSFER
On motim of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
d unanimously carried, Resolution 82-50 granting certain authorities to transfF
nds as may be necessary between political subdivisions whose funds are in
stody of the County Treasury, interfund transfer, was adopted and the Chairman
thorized to sign. page 322.
March 23, 1982
529
March 23, 1982
CONSIDERATION OF NEAL ROAD LANDFTL•L k'EES CONTINUED TO APRIL 6 1982
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the request
for a fee increase for the Neal Road landfill. In accordance with the
contract, it provides for an annual cost of living increase for the gate fees.
The contractor did not apply for this increase last year. The proposed fees
are not quite as high. as the contractor asked for. The fees would not be
effective for two months.
Chairman Wheeler advised that she had received calls on this
matter. _:She would like to have this continued for two weeks to allow for
input_ Since the Board has had a practice~in the areas of fee increases to
allow input she felt this should be continued and perhaps the media could
print the increased fees proposed.
The matter was continued to April 6, 1982.
*a~:
530
531
DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION: NEAL ROAR LANDFILL SEPTAGE PONDS
Clay Castleberry, public works director, reported on the
Neal Road landfill septage ponds., His concern was the need to construct
septic ponds and the study indicated the best location for those ponds.
The operator of the landfill has indicated if the volume of material that
the county determined is increased in-six months, the operator would go to
his bank and build the ponds on the increasing volume. If the volume of
material is not up as far as his recommendations, the contractor will build
the ponds §ubject to Public Works approval in six months of a 1/4G ger gallon
surcharge, not borne by the county.
He contacted the property owner relative to lease of the property
and was told they did not want to do business with the county. He suggested
that the county in writing make an offer for the property. He hoped that
the Board would allow that if the property owner did not accept the offer,
that he would be allowed to come back and ask for eminent domain proceedings
to begin. If the county bought the property across the street, they would
have to condemn it as well. They are trying to acquire 100 acres as well
for garbage space. He suggested that the Board accept the proposal and
authorize him to contact the property owner in writing to generally suggest
that the Board-would consider eminent domain proceedings if they could not
negotiate a price. He did not feel the Board or county should meet with
the property owner. If the Board expressed a need of the property for public
purposes and indicating the county will go to condemnation proceedings, he
felt the subject would be kept on a formal basis.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, the recommendations of the Public Works Director
were approved.
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTED TO HOLD HEARINGS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW UTILITY METERS IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS
Clay Castleberry, public works director, asked that the Board
consider allowance of electrical and gas utility meters in the side yard•~-
setbacks. This has been a problem and the present ordinance does not allow
the meters in the setback area. They have had a problem with the utility
companies wanting to put the metexs on the property line rather than in the
center of the property. He felt that as long as there is access for fire,
the utilities :meters could be allowed inside the side yard setbacks.
Tt was moved by Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
that the Board allow for the change in the ordinance for the side yard setback.
Mr Castleberry stated that the Planning Director had written a
memo to the Board dated January 8, 1982 regarding side yard setbacks.
Page 323.
Mardi 23, 1982
8
March 23, 1982
_~_ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ W
Phe Planning Commission appointed a committee to study the request of the
?G&E representatives and it was the opinion of the committee that it would be
granting a special privilege. ,The commission concurred with the committee s
findings.
Steve Streeter, planning department, felt the Planning Commission
;could probably agree with their earlier decision but the request for re-
consideration should certainly go to them.
Del Siemsen, oounty counsel, questioned what the motion reflected
and advised that it should reflect that the Planning Commission was directed
to hold hearings on this matter.
Motion amended to reflect: The Flanning Commission was directed to
hold hearings on a proposed amendment to the zoning coda to allow utility
meters in the side yard setback areas.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni anal Chairman
Wheeler
NOES: None
Motion carried.
532
DISCUSSION: PAVEMENT OVERLAY PROGRAM FOR BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 1981-82
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the request for
the paving overlay project in the amount of $377,000 identified in the fiscal
year budget 1981-82 to be changed to repair, oil and chip seal. Their
department recognizes the Board's concerns relative to the budget and they will
cooperate and have cooperated in the past and he felt the Board recognized
that fact. They are holding purchases and eight positions at this time with
asking that one position be filled. He hoped the Board would consider
approval of the project, which is maintenance of the roads. The money was
budgeted and can be used to hold the roads together.
Discussion continued to later in the meeting.
533
5341
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-51 SETTING PUBLIC HSARTNG DATE FOR INTENTION TO RENAME
PRIVATE ROADS IN BUTTE COUNTY
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by 3pervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, Resolution 82-51 setting a public hearing date
of April 27, 1982 at 10:00 a.m. for consideration of intention to rename
private roads in Butte County: Crooked Way (end to Nopel Avenue) to
Scotty Lane and Blue Gravel Lane (Centerville Road to end) to Quail Run
Drive was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
APPROVE CHANGING OF PAVEMENT OVERLAY PROJECT TO REPAIR, OIL AND CHIP SEAL
FOR FISCAL YEAR BUDGET 1981-82
Clay Castleberry, public works director, advised that the money
was budgeted foY a thick overlay and there is so much damage to the roads
he chose to recommend they do more roads and twice the distance.
It was moved by Supervisor Moseley that the paving overlay
project ($177,000) identified in the fiscal year budget 1981-82 be changed
to repair, oil and chip seal on the following roads: Esplanade - city limits
north to Highway 99 ($40,000 - part of work would include installing a
continuous left turn lane consistent with city); 2iliners Ranch Road - 1.6
miles ($20,000); Foothill - city limits to Edgewood ($10,000); Lumpkin
Road - Forbestown Road to Bridge ($37,000); Hagen Lane - Midway west 1.25
miles (.$10,000); Vallombrosa ($10,000); Humboldt Road - Butte Meadows area -
Page 324.
March 23, 1982
8 2--
v
March 23, 1982
extremely bad ($30,000); and Oroyille-Gridley Road -Route 70 west two-miles
($20,000). -
Supervisor Saraceni seconded the motion for discussion purposes.
What Public Works was trying to do was to take the money going into one or
two areas and split them out to try to keep the county out of lawsuits and
maintain: the roads. Was this the minimum that could be done.
Mr. Castleberry stated it was the maximum that could be done with
this amount of money. Public Works through good bidding process will have
a substantial carryover, which will help the funding of the budget for next
year and would allow the Board some discretionary use of money. He felt
his department was managing the way the Board wanted them to manage. They
have not filled positions and have tightened their belts in order to be able
to do the repair work this spring. He thought there would be $500,000 more
in carryover than anticipated.
Supervisor Dolan felt the Board had to look at their decisions in
light of what the Auditor had given to' the Board. The Board made the
decision to put purchases under administrative review. The same kind of
argument for doing the roads would be the same kind of arguments for the
Sheriff's vehicles and typewriters. What does the Board do, tell people
they will repair the roads but are facing serious budgetary crisis. If the
county is facing serious budget crisis, they do not spend money. She knew
the Esplanade was falling apart and there are 16,000 cars per day on the
the road. She was sure each one of the Board members could come up with
a similar number of roads to be repaired. She looked at some of the roads.
Supervisor Saraceni felt tfiat maybe the Board should place this
matter on hold and take a look at it later in light of the budget.
Supervisor Moseley stated she had made the motion to approve the
project, but there is only $20,000 in her district. The roads will be in
bad shape if the county does not take care of them.
Mr. Castleberry stated the matter had been on the Board's agenda
for three weeks. They are trying to do the best job on these roads that
he could. A car can be repaired and new parts can be purchased but if the
roads are not repaired what do you have. The Esplanade is probably the
worst road but they are all of concern or they would not be included. Did
the Board want him not to take the measures of management that he has tried
to do for the Board if they do not approve this project? r
Supervisor Saraceni stated that if they were not in,the position
of where the finances were so bad and he would love to say go'ahead with the
project. They are trying to find whatever money there is budgeted.
Supervisor Moseley read the two letters from the Rice Growers
Association relative to the maintaining of roads, which were submitted for
the record.
Supervisor Dolan stated it was cheaper to repair the roads than
to redo them. The Esplanade is falling apart and is unsafe. It seems like
the Board gets this item and then has pangs of fiscal responsibility. There
are hundreds of people who live on the Esplanade and who travel on that
road. It would be easy to do because they have the cooperation of the
department head. The Board should think of the votes they have not approved
and for the same reasons but chose not to do for other reasons.
Supervisor Fulton stated the Board had received the Auditor's report
and the question is where does the county start making the painful decisions.'
He did not want to start with Publtiic Works Department.
Page 325.
March 23, 1982
8"<
March 23, 1982
Mr. Castleberry felt it was strange to make a decision in this
way because the Auditor has indicated there will be a plus on this department's
side. It is a shame when the Board penalizes and does not encourage the
prudent management of the departments. The Auditor's report showed the only
plus was in the Road Aepartment balance.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that not going with the project does
not mean the Board is not going to proceed on the project at a11, it means
that it may not be right to get started at this time.
Chairman ti~eeler felt that if the Board was going to hold this
type of funding, it seemed like it would have been done on the Skyway project
also. The reason she voted for the funding of the Skyway project was for
the health, welfare and safety of the people.
Mr. Castleberry advised there had been two people killed while
they were waiting for this project.
Supervisor Fulton pointed out there was drunk driving involved in
those accidents.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: Supervisor Saraceni
Motion carried.
535 (DISCUSSION: RESIDENTIAL ENERGY STANDARDS
Board discussion of residential energy standards for building
permits held at this time.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated that Valerie
Tamborie of the California Energy Commission and John Cook from Solar Cal
were present to discuss the new residential energy standards.
John Cook stated that Solar Cal was a local government commission
made up of elected supervisors and city councils who have come together for
affordable energy conservation. He supported the new Title 24 residential
energy ~ standards that are scheduled to become effective July, 1982. He
gave an overview and review of some of the policy standards for the state.
The Title 24 standards were developed by the Energy Commission with the
assistance of several groups including the architects and engineers.
These are an update of the current conservation standards in effect in
California now. The current standard were adopted in 1977 and there have
been about $4 million worth of rate increases approved for energy which
required the upgrading of the standard criteria for the state. For homes
built after July, 1982, the utility bills will be 80 percent less than
homes build in 1977. The standards are set up for 60 different climate
zones. He set out how the standard would apply. The builder could either
use a budget as established by the zones or as an alternative could chose
one of the three packages from the commission, passive solar design or
adding more insulation to traditional housing. The three designs will fall
within the energy requirements. Typically, in this area the Title 24
standards will add around $3,000 to the cost of a new home. This cost
will lower the cost of living in the house for decades to come because
there will be a savings of 80 percent in utility bills and the monthly
utility payments will offset the mortgage payments. Over the next 30
years, there could be a savings of up to $30,000 in utility bills. Statewide
the conservation equates to 235 barrels of fuel by the year 2000. This would
Page 326.
March 23, 1982
March 23, 1982
82- eliminate the need for nuclear plants or two coal-fired plants. Conserving
~' energy is the only affordable option for the state. In an all electric
home in Northern California in the years to come, the utility bills could
be over $1,000 per month.
Chairman Wheeler stated that people have been grappling with
the increased utility bills. The people over the last ten to fifteen years
have to bear part of the burden because there are many hydroelectric plants
that could be constructed and working as well as other energy producing
plants that have been stopped, right, wrong or indifferent are part of
the rising costs. She wondered if the $495 to $3,800 average for passive
buildings based on square footage.
Mr. Cook advised that Ms. Tamborie would have to answer that
question. So far they have been discussing the effects of rate increase
and Title 24 on the individual home buyer. According to the Institue of
Local. Self Beliance 85~ out of every dollar leaves the local economy.
When the utility bills went from $100 per month to $200 per month, that
meant there was $100 less to spend locally, and, $85 of that left the economy
completely. By spending money on conservation, people are able to spend
money in the local communities. Local government is the key to making
Title 24 work. This is where the approval process takes place for the
buildings and there will be some additional costs. There are workshops
planned by the California Energy Commission for the training of local
inspectors, builders and architects. .
Valerie Tamborie, State Energy Commission, stated their office
developed the new residential building standards. They have been in the
process of implemention of the new procedures. For the implimentation,
there is an advisory committee composed of a dozen members representing
the various building trades. There have been meetings with the committee
who has provided useful information on implementation of the standards.
There are three alternate component packages. One is passive solar which
is basically a normal building exposed with more of the wall for brick or
rock and~a wall for the fire glace. There is a third alternative that
is a typical building with the use of a solar water heater. The builder
can go with the budget performance or with a computer program. There are
three programs certified to show that the building does meet the requirements
of the standards. If the builder does not want to go with the three alternate
component packages, they can go on the point system for indicating the energy
impact. This allows for trading off and allows for greater flexibility.
The county is made up into two climate zones, 16 and 11. Each manual for
a particular climate is a complete document that includes the standards.
The manual presents the point system, computer program and three alternatives.
In order for the standards to work it is necessary to get it to the people
and train them in the use of the manuals. The commission has contracts
for the training of personnel for the use of the manuals. This training
is provided free at no cost to the Building Department personnel. There
is training available for the various building industries at a cost and
also at the community colleges. In regard to savings that will be realized
with these standards, the banks in California consider the utility bill in
determining if a person qualifies for a loan.
Supervisor Dolan stated there was a comment raised by the California
Building Industry Association that the time between now and the implementation
was too short for good implementation to occur and that the energy savings
are theory and have not been tested.
Ms. Tamborie responded to the energy savings theory. A building
was visited in Placerville where the costs for the additions were $800 to
meet the standards and they are receiving a savings by paying only $75 per
Page 327.
March 26, 1982
March. 23, 19.82
Ss
a
nonth while their neighbors are paying $275 per month. This is a new
subdivision of homes. They are all new constructian homes. There have
slso been other homes considered. There is a current study of the homes.
Phe building industry has been aware of the standards coming into effect.
Phe standards have been available to the public for about ten months.
Phere was a bill introduced that the standards would not go into effect
until after the manual was certified bythe cammission and this was done
on January 13, 1982.
Chairman Wheeler stated there was legislation pending asking that
the commission hold operation of the standards until July, 1984 because of
the slump in the economy and the building industry is in the greatest slump.
Ker concern was that they might be pricing the low and middle income people
out of the market.
Ms. Tamborie was not in a position to make a statement on the
commission's policy on the pending legislation. She felt that with the lending
institutes measuring the energy bills as part of the mortgate payment ability,
an energy efficient home could have a positive effect.
Supervisor Dolan stated that was exactly the case of the variable
financing particulary where the monthly mortgage payment is lower in the
earlier term and increases later.. Tn every instance the homeowner faces'
utility bills and is part of the cost.
Chairman Wheeler advised that the east coast has been dealing
in variable interest rates longer than the west coast has and people are
losing their homes. She knew the financing institutes were having
problems dealing with the innovative financing.
Supervisor Dolan stated that the utility bills are considered of
the straight 30 year loans. The situation with the current PG&E rate is
that some bills are greater than the mortgage payment on the homes. The
people are borrowing money at 18 percent interest to pay the utility bills.
She has talked to many people who have had their bills increased from $100
to $400 per month.
Chairman Wheeler advised that the rising utility bills are not
the only consideration. It seemed like everyone was getting a strangle
hold on the consumer and the costs axe so great that people just cannot
afford it.
Ms. Tamborie felt that an additional $3,000 on a mortgage was
a very small amount even at today's rates when the savings on the utility
bills would be as great as they will be.
Mr. Castleberry stated the county is allowed to charge a fee
equal to the cost of the additional processing of the new standards.
They are already in the processing of checking some energy standards that
were adopted a few years ago. Butte College is interested in helping and
has courses in this area. He knew there was additional cost involved but
he subscribed that they would be savings. He has never had a $100 utility
bill in his solar home. These standards will be adopted for the Board
sometime.
Supervisor Fulton stated that in reading the requirements of
the packages for climate 11 the costs will run from $2,500 to $5,000.
Ms. Tamborie stated that package C was about the most expensive
way to go. There could be trade offs by using points ar the computer
programs, which could reduce the cost. The packages are the most expensive
and restrictive way to go. Page 328.
March 26, 1982
March 23, 19.82
Hearing open to the public. Appealing:
1. 12o11and Berger. Mr. Berger spoke in support of aggressively
implementing Title 24 in the county as soon as they could get started. The
country is destroying themselves with the unnecessary consumption of energy
through the purchase of exported oil. This problem will become increasingly
serious unless the country addresses this problem. If the amount of money
spent for the oil were put into good energy conservation and rehabilitation
of existing building structures, the country could eliminate-the need for
the importation of crude oil. Tf homes were built five percent smaller
then there would be no additional cost. There should be modification for
energy efficient structures and the size of home a person could afford to
live in. It need not cost any more. The country-has to adjust to a short
supply o£ energy. He felt that if the Title 24 standards were postponed,
they would be sending out a message that energy conservation is not that
important. The standard are not difficult or complicated and his students
built 3,700 square feet at a cost of 4~ per day to heat and cool.
2. Don Blake., Mr. Blake stated he had an experience before the
commission and his personal opinion is that the commission is the most
ungodly collection of intelligent idiots he had ever seen. It is not a
situation of saving energy but bureaucratic expansion.
3. Marvin Root, Butte College. Mr. Root stated he had been
offering courses on energy standards for three years. The students were given
their final examination on the new standards. They are offering a seminar
on May 21, 1982 at 6:30 p.m. for the local building contracts to go through
the new requirements. The seminar will be at Butte College campus. He
disagreed with the total cost for the new standards. By doing a calculation
in class with one of the contractors there is a much higher cost involved
for this area. There were a number of things he did not totally agree with.
He felt that if they started enforcing what they already have there might
not be the need for the increased requirements. Butte College has a good
program for solar heating.
4. Roger Cole, carpenter and designer in Chico. Mr. Cole felt
the standards were important at this time. He agreed with Mr. Berger.
If the cost for energy for the last two years was traced it would be about
$20 billion to the State of California. This is money they cannot afford
to send overseas. His friend's home in Chico has R-30 ceilings and R--19
walls and the utility bills are $17 per month and there is afire in the
fireplace once every three days. There are only single glaze and no solar
features. This home was a barn of 7.,000 square feet that was rehabilitated
and insulated. There is no cost comparable because the owner did his own
work.
5. Cindy Heismann, student at Butte College. Ms. Heismann stated
she was a student in the building inspection program. As a potential building
inspector and property owner who plans to build, she felt the time had come
for strict enforcement of the building code. The 1978 Building Code has
been in effect and she did not think it had been enforced in the county.
She lived in Cohasset which falls under the climate 16 zone. Cohasset is
at about 2,800 feet elevation although zone lb emcompasses the entire Sierra
Nevadas from Truckee to the northern California border. The requirement
is for g.38 in the ceilings. The house she is living in is 1,400 square
feet and her PG&E bill is $30 per month with two feet of snow. She has
used other ~aethods for cutting the cost of energy,.
Ms. Tamborie stated that originally the proposal was for the zones
to be by county line to aid in enforcement. These came under protest because
county lines do not follow climatic conditions very well. The commission
7?age 329.
March' 26, 1982
8
*~**
March. 23, 1482
held 22 hearings on the standards and igodified-the climatic zones based on
the survey to all building departments in the state. The resulting 16 zones
were based on the pu~alic hearings as well as on the information provided
by the building departments.
,7im Glander, building department, stated that he and two other
members of the staff would be attending a seminar in Susanville the first
part of April. He was sure he would be back before the Board to give the
costs of these standards and their effect to the department. The costs will
be considerably more than the first energy standards they are now required
to inspect at the present time.
Chairman Wheeler thanked everyone for coming and taking the time
to educate the Board as well as the public.
RECESS: 3:08 p.m.
RECONVENE: 3:27 p.m.
536 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TO SEND LETTER TO FEATHER RIVER RECREATION DISTRICT
ADVISING THEM OF THE BOARD'S POLICY TO NOT GRANT WAIVERS ON BUILDING PERMIT
FEES
Del Siemsen, county counsel, reported on the request of the
Feather River Recreation District for the waiving of building permit fees.
The Board may waive the fees.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he had discussed this matter with
Hal Higgins from Feather River Recreation District and let him know what
the county was facing. The possible waiving of permit fees is one of the
things the Board has to decide as to whether the county is going to allow
for waiver and consider the cost based on the money that comes into this
county. He did not feel the Board should waive some of the fees because
of the impact on the county's budget.
Mr. Siemsen stated that the fees are based on an average inspection
cost that is 'to cover the cost of doing business.
Supervisor Saraceni, stated that Mr. Higgins had no problem with
the Board not granting the waiver as long as that was the policy and the
Board would not waive the fees for someone else. He felt that the waiver
of the fees would have a cumulative effect on the entire fee schedule.
Supervisor Dolan agreed that the Board did not waive the permit
fees for the water systems from the schools because the £ees were determined
by the cost of inspections.
Administrative Office to write a letter to the district to inform
them of the policy of the past and it would continue in the future.
537 ADOPT ORDINANCE 2274: WAIVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 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
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, the second reading of the ordinance 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 waived; Ordinance
2274 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
Page 330.
March 26, 1982
March 23, 1982
82- 538 APPROVE AGREEMENT AUTFIORIZING TRANSFER OF .FUNDS HELD BY COUNTY FOR IMPROVE-
'b', MENTS WITHIN THE TOtiIN OF PARADISE
On motion of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the agreement authorizing transfer of funds held
by the county for improvements within the Town of Paradise was approved
and the Chairman authorized to sign.
539
540
DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO SECTION 32-12 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY
CODE RE: AGRICULTURAL NUISANCES
Discussion of the previously adopted ordinance on Section 32-12
of the Butte County Code relative to agricultural nuisances was held at
this time.
Supervisor Saraceni was against the requirement to recording and
signing of a document on the agricultural nuisances. He wondered if the
county could do as the state does and not require the recording of the
document.
Supervisor Dolan felt this was the best way of notifying people
was by recording a document.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he had received many calls from geople
on this matter. The county is requiring more than the state requires.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised that the amendment that was
just adopted brings the ordinance into the state statutes. The signatures
on the document are required to be signed before a notary. There will be
the cost of recording for the building permit.
Supervisor Saraceni questioned whether there had been any complaints
made without the recording requirement.
Supervisor Dolan advised there were many complaints about the
agricultural community. This does not alleviate the problem of sprajxing.
It does say normal agricultural practices. The amendment to the ordinance
does not affect the signing requirement.
Mr. Siemsen advised that the ordinance is only dealing with
whether there would be a public or private nuisance.
PRESENTATION OF EGONOMIC STABILITY PROPOSAL BY CH~AIRM3~N~:"- WHEELER CONTINUED
TO MARCH 30 ,- 1482
Presentation of the economic stability proposal by Chairman Wheeler
was continued to March 30, 1982.
541 CONSIDERATION OF REORGANIZATION OF THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY MEDICAL
CARE COUNCIL CONTINUED TO MARCH 30, 1982
Consideration of reorganization of the Northern California Emergency
Medical Care Council was continued to March 30, 1982.
542
APPOINTMENTS TO THE OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE/NON--PROFIT
Discussion of the appointments to the Overall Economic Deve
Committee/rion-profit corporation was held at this time.
Supervisor Fulton wanted to know how long the terms of the appointees
would be. He found a difference between the appointment to the Overall Economic
Development Committee and the non-profit corporation.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised they were talking about two
different entities. The peopl~ being considered by the Board for appointment
age 33.1':
March 23, 1982
March 23, 1982
to the Overall Economic Development Committee are the same people-being
proposed in the resolution for the non-profit corporation.
Supervisor Fulton questioned how long the terms of office would
be since there are two different terms of office. The Overall Economic
Aevelopment Committee expires December 31, 19.82.
Mr. Siemsen advised that the people proposed for the Industrial
Development Financing Corporation are the same people proposed for the OEDP
Committee but they have different terms for both entities. There are three
different terms proposed for the non-profit corporation and are staggered.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the following were appointed to the Overall Economic
Development Committee for 1982:
Steven Howell, District 1
Jay Lyman, Bistrict 2
Vernon Fish, District 3
Elmer Ames, District 4
E. M. West, District 5
543
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-52 & 82-53 RE: SHORT-DOYLE FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH
PROGRAM
Chairman Wheeler asked that the Board ask CSAC to help the county
carry an amendment to AB 251 which would allow for the ten percent match
requirements being picked up and allowing for a waiver by the counties.
Gerald Livel~*, deputy administrative officer, set out the back-
ground of the request for legislation effecting the up front money to the
counties as allowed by SB 34. He asked that the county contact Senator
Garamendi, author of the bill, to amend it to eliminate the population
provision so that Butte County could also participate in this funding whereby
they would receive one-twelfth of the funding.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, Resolution 82-52 asking CSAC to help carry an
amendment to AB 251 to be able to continue the ten percent waiver match
for the county on Short-Doyle funding for the mental health program was
adopted; copies to be forwarded to Senator Johnson, Assemblyman Herger,
Assemblyman Statham and Assemblyman Tom Bates from San'Francisco; and the
Chairman authorized to sign.
544]
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, Resolution 82-53 asking Senator Garamendi to
amend SB 34 to eliminate the population requirements that allow for the
counties to receive one-twelfth of the Short-Doyle funding for mental
health programs prior to service being performed was adopted; with copies
to be forwarded to CSAC, Senator Johnson, Assemblyman Herger and Assemblyman
Statham; and the Chairman authorized to sign.
~PDLICY: DESIGNATING AUTHORITY TO APPROVE WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS UP TO
$10,000
Del Siemsen, county counsel, set out the background of the
requested policy relative to the designation of an authority to approve the
workers' compensation claims up to $10,000. Gates, McDonald Company handles
the workers' compensation for the county and many times they can settle
a case at a reasonable amount for the county but if the request must come
back to the Board for approval that settlement might not be accepted due
to the waiting for approval. This would be similar to the approval by staff
on liability claims under $5,000.
Page 332.
March 23, 1982
March 23, 19.82
_ _ _ _ = W _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded-by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried; the policy for designating authority to. approve
workers' compensation claims up to $10,000 was adopted.
545
COMMUNICATIONS
Ron Graves & Associates, Oroville. The engineers, on behalf of Elmer
Stebbins, appeal the Advisory Agency's denial of tentative parcel
map, for which no environmental document has been prepared,
AP 71-01-96, four parcels, property located on Deer Meadow Road,
approximately 800 feet southwest of Turnagain Lane, Harts Mill
area. Set for hearing April 13, 1982 at lOi.J~S_a.m.
Geddis, Driscoll, Christofferson and Lenhardt, Oroville. The engineers,
on behalf of Manford Schideck, provide information and request
certain actions to clear title on AP 28-17-64. See discussion
following communications.
Chapman Mulberry Advisory Committee. The committee requests active
participation in the work effort to rezone the unincorporated
portions of Chapmantown from "A-2". Discussed; Planning Department
will be working with committee giving technical assistance.
Ronald Wilson, Oroville Board of Realtors. The President of the Oroville
Board of Realtors writes in opposition to certain land use designa-
tions in foothill areas as proposed by the Plannin~Department staff.
Information; hold until the matter is before the Board.
Bill Sands, Oroville. Mr. Sands offers suggestions regarding work schedule
and utilization of county staff. Handled earlier in the meeting.
Cities of Pittsburg and Antioch, California. The mayors express concern over
AB 699 enacting Government Code Section 53066.1 regarding
jurisdiction of cable TV franchies. The Board does not regulate
rates within the county on this matter.
Chico Redevelopment Agency Project No. 2 - negative declaration. The Chico
Redevelopment Agency forwards a draft negative declaration for
review and comment. See motion following communications.
546
LETTER FROM GEDDIS, DRISCOLL, CHRISTOFFERSON AND LENHARDT, ENGINEERS, ON
BEHALF OF MANFORD SCHIDECK, PROVIDING INFORMATION AND REQUESTING CERTAIN
ACTIONS TO CLEAR TITLE ON AP 28-17-64 REFERRED TO COUNTY COUNSEL
Discussion of the letter from Geddis, Driscoll, Christofferson
and Lenhardt, Oroville, engineers, on behalf of Manford Schideck, providing
information and requesting certain actions to clear title on AP 28-17-64
was held at this time.
Sohn Mendonsa, public works department, stated this property
was the result of a land division because of a court case and the county
became the beneficiaries of the property. Mr. Schideck would like to divide
the property and has run into a problem of how would a deed of trust be
segregated. This is one parcel and Mr. Schideck would like to divide it
into four parcels.
DeI Siemsen, county counsel, advised that if Mr. Schideck attempted.
to sell one parcel, the entire amount of the deed of trust would be due. `.
The engineers are asking that the county segregate and apply to four parcels
the deed of trust that is held by the county. In that way Mr. Schideck would
be able to sell one parcel and only pay that portion of the deed of trust
on that particular parcel. The county is receiving monthly payments on this
deed of trust. The question before the Board is whether they want to split
Page 333.
MarcYi 23, 1982
March 23,_1982
8e
the deed of trust into one-fourth pieces. There may or .may nat be more work
involved for the county since there iaould he four deeds of trust as opposed
to only one at the current time. The $oard might want to renegotiate the
interest rate on the present note since it is 7 or 7-1/2 percent interest.
It is up .to the Board what they want to have as interest rates. These
would b.e four new notes if the deed of trust were segregated. The interest
rate today is going for i5 to 17 percent. There are problems involved in
the selling of the parcels. Many times-the notes are paid off on a monthly
payment and the people do not have the cash to pay off the existing notes.
The county would run up against a problem of a separate note unless there was
something to lead them to believe that the security was threatened if the
property was sold off or the Board wanted to have an accelerafed rate go
into effect. The county would not necesarrily receive the entire amount of
the deed of trust on the property as it was sold off. There has been a
Supreme Court case in which you have to show that the security is threatened.
If the Board segreated the note into four new parcels, they might be in
trouble trying to accelerate the payments-for one-fourth of that property.
If the Board had the entire note and the owner tried to sell off one-fourth
of the property, he felt that then the security would be threatened.
The matter was referred to County Counsel for a report to the
Board on this matter and whether the owner could get as good a deal from
the private sector and to report on the interest rates.
547 I
DIRECT STAFF TO PUT TOGETHER A LETTER SETTING QUT THE CONCERNS OF THE COUNTX
RE: CHICO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROJECT N0. 2, NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Discussion of the letter from Chico Redevelopment Agency Project
No. 2 relative to the draft negative declaration that has been forwarded
for review and comment was held at this time.
Chairman Wheeler advised that the Auditor is working on this matter
and setting up meetings with the City of Chico.
Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, stated they were
looking at two questions relative to this project. There is no real descrip~-
tion of the project. The second question is if this project is for
industrial purposes, why is the project encompassing the runways at the
airport. Would that require the preparation of an EIR instead of a negative
declaration.
Supervisor Saraceni felt the county should comment as soon as
possible and address the economic impact to the county.
Mr. Lively stated this had been placed on the agenda for the
Board's review and comment. The city must make the economic impact comments.
Supervisor Dolan stated they were developing tax information, service
cost, per capita cost and incremental costs. That is different than-this
negative declaration. The purpose of the RDA is to get more money to build
more.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that if the Board had any comments those
could be forwarded to the Planning Department pursuant to the letter. If
there are economic impacts, the county had better say so in the response.
Steve Streeter, planning department, stated there is the Airport
Environs EIR that discusses concerns.
Supervisor Dolan felt the Board had to first establish the scope
of the project before they could respond to the fiscal impacts of the project.
The response on the negative declaration is due by April 12, 1982.
Page 334.
March 23, 1982
_ March. 23, 1Q82 _ _ _ _
82- _ Supervisor Saraceni felt the county should look at what the economic
v impact to Butte County would tae, what margin of tax increment the county
would receive and the adjustment for more growth and what will take place.
If the designated area has.a portion of the tax increment money, that will
effect the county's need to know.
Supervisor 1~Ioseley stated the Soard did not come on like they
should have the first time this was before the Board.
Supervisor Saraceni would tie happy to work with Mr. Lively on
this matter. -
Chairman Wheeler advised the Board needed a report back from
Mr. Lively and then all of them would be involved.
Supervisor Dolan stated the Board discussed this issue and there
was some dissention but the majority of the Beard voted on the committee
working with the RDA and the notice of intent to file a negative declaration.
It is necessary for the Board to respond by asking what the project is and
was. sure -the response would be completed in time. '
It was moved by Supervisor Dolan that the Board direct staff
to put into letter form the concerns of the county, specifically, what is
the project area, description, purpose, function etc. of the RDA so the
county can respond.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he would second the motion and asked
that the motion be amended to add the comment of what are the costs that
will face Butte County when the RDA is formed and to have the information
to the Board by April 12, 1982.
Supervisor Dolan stated that unless the county had the scope of the
project and the intent, the impact to the county would be only guessing.
Supervisor Saraceni stated the impact would be the decision on the
tax increment adjustment and the fact the county cannot have the money unless
they show proof there is a financial problem. The city will not advise the
county what the tax impact will be. He wanted the Board to direct that this
be included in the letter.
Mr. Lively advised that he would discuss this matter with t~ir.
Davis to see what he could receive. There is no problem with preparing a
written report but they need to go to the city to get an adequate description
of what they are doing. At this point, he could construct the report being
requested by Supervisor Saraceni and comment comprehensively. The Auditor's
Office is taking all kinds of things on with the RDA without additional
staff. He would not be able to have the information Supervisor Saraceni
was requesting by next week. The information will be available prior to
April 12, 1982.
Vote on motion:
AXES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman
Wheeler
NOES: None
Motion carried.
Page 335.
Mardi 23, 1982
March 23, 1882
548
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2275: INTERIM "A-160" {,AGRICULTURAL - 160 ACRES).ZONING FOR
SECTIONS 4 THROUGI~€ 9, WOOKEY ROAD AitEA OFF MERIDIAN ,I~tlAT3AR: DIRECT STAFF
AND PLANNII3G COMMISSION TO CONSI_DER•THAT TYPE OP' ZONING FOR THAT AREA.
Chairman Wheeler submitted a letter-from Mrs.. Roney to Senator
Johnson relative to the open government lots in the township plats asking
what the U.S. Geodetical Survey's purpose taas as far as these lots being
recognized cots or for descriptive purposes also. The District Attorney
is also pursuing this matter. He has held a-meeting with the agricultural
interests-and they realized there are many old s.,ulidivisions that supercede
the zoning.
John Mendonsa,,~public works, department, advised there were more
old subdivisions than the old crossing subdivisions and they supercede the
zoning for that area.: The old government lots are where the township and
range lines meet for the 36 square miles and then they were surveyed into
640 acre sections. The government set up these lots when they could not
make these 36 square miles. The county has always taken the positions that
',these are legal lots done in the 18605 when the survey was done.
Chairman Wheeler proposed that the Board consider reversion of
acreage similar to what the County of Tehama has done. She will bring
a plat back to the Board on the old sections that are reflected as grazing
on the General Plan and are "A-2" zoning where there are old underlying
boundary adjustment lots. She would like to have the matter submitted to
the Planning Commission based on an interim 160 acre minimum zoning. If
the area is not maintained as agriculture, it could be joepardizing the
agriculture in the county as far as the cultural pursuits of the captle
people. She would like the Planning Commission to consider that and once
that is being done to bring information forward and possibly consider
merging of the old lots county wide and this would effect Palermo, Thermalito
Nelson Durham and Chico. This is a much greater issue than just the greenline
for the City of Chico .in the preservation of agricultural land. There are
existing underlying subdivisions that if they had sewer capacity, there
could be houses in the agricultural areas. She would possibly like to
exclude the areas contiguous to the urban development, for instance in
Thermalito, because the ordinance would be written because of the
areas being agricultural.
It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
that interim "A+160" (agricultural - 160 acres) zoning be placed on T23N,
R1E, Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 leaving out the lot areas that have non-
conforming uses be adopted for a period of 120 days; that Ordinance 2275
be adopted and the Chairman be authorized to sign.
Chairman Wheeler stated this would negate the ability of those
who own underlying subdivisions to sell those lots.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised that the county has been
using the government survey maps. In the past the county has treated these
lots as being created legal lots. He did not think the Board could stop
someone from selling one of the lots.
Chairman Wheeler stated that by pretending the problem does not
exist will not get any answers for the county. She would like to take
'this a step further to have staff come forward to bring a list of the
'lots available in the county so they can look at all areas. She felt
(this was the first step to bringing public awareness to the problem and work-
ling on a land merger ordinance.
Supervisor Dolan stated what they needed to do was to legally erase
those lines. Page 336.
March 23, 1982
S`e
3
March 23, 1982
kFr_ Siemsen stated that the county was subject to the State Map
Act and some of the lots cannot be merged. He did not want the Board to
have the idea .that all the parcels could b-e brought in to be placed under
a parcel.
Supervisor Dolan felt the Board should try to do the ones they
are able to merge. She wanted to know what they were able to do and what
they were not able to do.
Mr. Siemsen advised that the Board had discussed mergers in the
past and the decision was no they were not going to merge the lots.
Supervisor Moseley stated that the problem in Nelson was taken
care of when the Health Department requires that two parcels be put together
in order to comply with the sewage disposal requirements.
Supervisor Saraceni wondexed if these .lots were all under one
ership. He felt the Board had to hear from the property owners also.
the Board going to place an interim on the property without discussing
s with the property owners first?
Chairman Wheeler stated the property owners would come in and
discuss this at the Planning Commission level.
Supervisor Dolan stated that by placing the interim on the
property, the holding pattern for the section would be held in the largest
lot size possible until the study is completed.
Mrs. Roney stated she could represent over one-half of the
landowners in the area and they were in favor of the interim zoning.-.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman
Wheeler
NOES: None
Motion carried.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and unanimously carried, the Planning Commission was directed to consider
that type of zoning in that area for "A-160" zoning.
lines.
Chairman Wheeler directed staff to look at the underlging lot
AUTHORIZE LETTER TO CALTRANS ASKING THAT THEY APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD ON
EITHER APRIL 13, 1982 OR APRIL 20, 1982
549
Chairman Wheeler read a letter she would like to have sent to
Caltrans with a copy to the county's legislative representatives asking
that they come before the Board to speak to the Board on the State
Transportation projects that have been excluded from the STIP list for
the county including the Gianelli Bridge on Highway 32. The letter would
be to ask Leo Trombatore to come before the Board and she would be
attaching a copy of the article from the Ozoville-Mercury relative to
the fact that the state has shorted Butte County on road funds.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, a letter to Leo Trombatore, Caltrans, asking that
he speak before the Board on Aril 13 or April 30., 1982 relative to the
age 337.
March 23, 1982
_ _ _ -- _ _ _ _ _ _ ^March 23,=1982 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ W = _ _
road funds with copies of the letter to go the the legislative
representatives.
550
Chairman Wheeler advised that there would. be the Great California
Resource Ralley from April 19, 19$2 to April 25, 1982. This item to be
placed on the Board's agenda for March 30, 1982.
Chairman Wheeler stated th¢Board had received a thank you from
Mrs. Winston for the resolution. a
Supervisor Moseley submitted two letters from the Butte County
Rice Growers Association relative to roads for the record.
There being nothing further before the Board at this time, the
meeting was adjourned at 4:37 p.m. to xeconvene on March 30, 1982 at 9:00 a.m.
ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK-
RECOR-ER and ex-officio Clerk '
of the Board of Supervisors ~,,
By
Page 338.
a/i
rman, tsoaru or ~upervrsors
March 23, 1982