HomeMy WebLinkAboutM040682i4pril 6, 1982
STATE OF CALIFOR3+17A )
', ) SS.
COUNTY OF BUTTE )
82 ', The Board of Supervisors met at 9-:O.O a.m. pursuant to adjournment.
'8' ', Present: Supervisors Dolan, x'ulton, kfoseley., Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler.
', Mike PyeaCt, interim administrative officer; Del Siemsen, county counsel; and
', Clark. A. Nelson, county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk to the Board.
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
Invocation by Chairman Wheeler
585 APPROVAL OI' MINUTES
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, the minutes of March 23 and 30, 1982 were approved
as mailed.
586 ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS BY BOARD MEMBERS TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE END OF THE DAY
Supervisor Moseley was concerned with this item being the first
item of the day because there were items she would like to bring up at a
later time.
Chairman Wheeler was inclined to agree with Supervisor Moseley.
The Board has policies and procedures to be readdressed and the Board has
discussed in the past redesign of the agenda. Maybe the Board should take
a look at the entire structure of the agenda after budget.
Discussion of consent agenda held at this time. Supervisor
Fulton appointed to chair a committee with staff to consider consent agendas.
Supervisor Saraceni would like the opportunity to discuss items
that are not listed on the agenda.
Supervisor Dolan stated that she liked this item and it was voted
by a majority of the Board to have this item on the agenda.
Supervisor Dolan would be bringing up a request from the Pine Creek
Cemetery District to have a building burned.
Chairman Wheeler advised she would be bringing information on
redevelopment agency legislation. There was a meeting on Friday with the
League of Cities. She would be bring a message to the Board from the Northern
Supervisors Association relative to Emergency Medical Care Council.
Chairman Wheeler clarified action for Administrative Officer.
Supervisor Fulton has been appointed to chair a committee to meet with
administrative staff under no time constraints to analyze the entire agenda
structure and come back to the Board with a recommendation.
587 AUTHORIZE FIVE-YEAR AUDIT PLAN FOR DRAINAGE DISTRICT N0. 1
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, set out the background
of the request by Drainage. District No. 1 relative to their proposed five-
year audit plan. The Auditor has supplied the Board with a memo setting
forth his concerns that five years was a rather long period of time to be
conducting and audit, primarily because of change overs in personnel of a
district and record retention. He recommended a two-year audit:.for Drainage
District No. 1 and that the authorization not be a blanket authorization but
for each particular district to be considered if they request a longer than
one-year audit.
Page 366.
April 6, 1982
6 2-
a
April 6, 1982
- $ohert,Millington, representing Drainage District No. 1, stated
this was a new statute that applied to their district. Their budget for
last year was only= $16.,00.0 and they do not anticipate any more of a budget
for this year. Since 19.26. his. office has been the district office and
his father and himself, since in 1950, have acted as secretary. and attorney
and provided office space. There has not been a turn over in this district.
There is a district supervisor for the district, who receives $75 per month.
Mr. Millington advised that he received $150 per month. for rental, acting
as secretary and attorney. Everything in the district is done by contract
with the monthly-minimum of warrants being five and the maximum being eight
or nine when there is spraying or digging of the ditches. The district
includes 5,400 acres and the budget is $10,000 to $15,000 per year. There
is a $3.00 per acre assessment this year. The receive about $6,500 in
tax revenue and pay $450 per year for the Auditor`ssservices. The Board
must establish a limit in the budget if they approve the five-year plan.
He suggested that anything under $50,000 or $30,000 would be a good amount.
He felt there would be a savings to the taxpayers and the money could be
used for services. The cost is around $2,250 or $2,300 for an annual audit
and his estimate for a five-year audit would be less than $1,000. The City
of Gridley has their audit done form $1,500 to $2,000. Ide agreed that every
district should be looked at independently to see what kind of business there
is. Reclamation District No. 833 has a big budget with a large payroll and
their own maintenance man. His district operates without any employees or
equipment. By going with this proposal, he felt they could save $1,250 to
$1,500 in auditing services that could be spent more beneficially for services
to the district.
Tt was moved by Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
that Drainage District No. 1 be authorized to have five-year ,audits on anything
under $50,000 annual budget.
aim Johansen, auditor, spoke regarding his memo to the Board on
this matter. He felt the memo was self-explanatory. The audit for the
district is provided by a CPA and this is permitted under the code as long
as the Auditor accepts the audit. The recommendations for a two-year audit
is not because of concerns about Drainage District No. 1 but because of
overall concerns fox fiscal accountability. He understood there would
be a reduction of governmental cost and yet he attempted to weight this
against the serious and important purpose of proper accountability of
public funds and this was why he compromised and recommended that an
audit be performed every two years.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman
Wheeler
NOES: None
Motion carried.
588
APPROVE CETA AGENDA ITEMS
Jim Rackerby, personnel director, set out the background of the
CETA special grants (vocational educations modification. This comes
about because of the assurance of funds from the state being reinstituted.
Congress passed a resolution for commencement of the program again. This
program will send the participants to Butte College or adult school.
The CETA Title VII modification is the result of about $130,000
of unplanned money from Title VII to meet unexpected needs in the private
sector this year. These are funds from when the county is taking back the
OJT program, on-the-job training, The expectations were under estimated from
Page 367.
April' 6, 1982
8 2-
a
589
590
- - - - -April 6; 1982_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
EDD results. They found $30.0.;000 in Title IIB finds that. will he allocated
to the private employers:. There have been good results with this program.
The Butte County Overall Economic Development Corporation, Inc.
(OEDC) snb.contract modification reflects ttie request for relief of contract
and the county has asked them to sustain an $11,0.00 cut in the program.
CETAC endorsed the program with changes in the .dates and removing some of the
report requirements, allowing for quarterly reports instead of monthly reports.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, the following action was taken:
1. Approved the CETA special grants (.vocational education)
modification to the financial and nonfinancial agreements under the CETA
special grants program and theDirector was authorized to sign.
2. Approved the modification to the Title VII subpart which
would include an on-the-job training {OJT) element; authorized the Chairman
to sign the statement of concurrence; and authorized the Director to sign
the modification. '
3. Approved the Butte County Overall Economic Development Corpora=
Lion, Inc. (OEDC) subcontract modification to operate economic development
activities because of the recently announced reduction of funding levels in
that program and the Director was authorized to sign.
.AUTHORIZE FINAL DETERMINATION OF CETA OJT.SUBGRANT AUDIT .AND BILLING OF EDD
Jim Rackerby, personnel director, set out the background-of the
CETA on-the-job training (OJT) sub grant audit. The procedure for denial
would start the appeal process time.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, the final determination concerning disallowed costs
for the CETA on-the-job training (OJT) subgrant audit to the State of
California Employment .Development Department (EDA) for the period October 1,
1976 through September 30, 1979 was authorized; the Director was authorized
to sign the final determination and the Auditor was authorized to bill EDD
fox $6,485.55.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-5b RE: AB 90 APPLICATION FOR FUNDS FOR COUNTY JUSTICE
SYSTEM SUBVENTION PROGRAM: DISCUSSION OF SB 90 FUNDI23G
Discussion of SB 90 funding held at this time. Chairman Wheeler
set out the discussion by a consultant at the Northern California Supervisors
Association meeting advising that consultants should be hired to get SB 90
funding for the county.
Jim Johansen, auditor, stated there were consultants who did
typse types of things, but they felt fairly comfortable with what they
have been doing. SB 90 is the law that provided that wherever the state
issued mandates, they would provide the money for the disclaimers.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, advised that the
Board was discussing AB 90 funding that relates to criminal justice system
funds.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, the application to the California Department of
Youth Authority County Justice System Subvention Program in the amount of
$394,284 for fiscal year 1982-83 for AB 90 funds was approved; submittal
authorized; Resolution 82-56 giving assurances of nonsupplantation of county
(funds was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
age 368.
April 6, 1982
82r 591
~'''
_ _ _April6, 19.8_2 _ ____________
DISCUSSION OF ANIMAL CONTROL INCREASE IN USER FEES - CONTINUED TO APRIL 13,
1982
Discussion of the animal control increase in user fees held at
this time. Letter from. Mr..~'rench.of Animal Control and Health Services
dated March 31, 1982 requesting amendment to the licensing fees considered
at this time.
Copy of current contract to, be provided to Supervisor Fulton.
The matter was continued to April 13, 1982.
592
593
APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF CHICO FOR REPAYMENT OF CHP PARKING TICKET
REVENUES
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, set out the background
of the agreement with the City of Chico relative to repayment of CHP parking
ticket revenue from July 1980 through July 1981. This is an agreement in
the amount of $60,000 where the city will return to the county that sum.
There was a problem in the allocation of the funds in which-the city received
more money than originally estimated. The county did not receive as much
as was estimated for thirteen months. The responsible agency changes the
sharing relationship of the fine money. For thirteen months the CHP citations
involving the city went to the city and the county never received funds.
This problem has since been corrected. After discussion with the city,
CHP, court and county,: it was felt that it would take a considerable amount
of staff time to tie the money down and the feeling was the amount did not
vary much from $60,000. There was the question of records available to
complete the audit. There was an audit done of a three-month period for
determining the amount of money in this agreement.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the agreement between the City of Chico and the
County of Butte for the repayment of CHP parking ticket revenues inadvertently
collected by the city for the period July 1980 through July 1981 was approved
and the Chairman authorized to sign.
INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION OF LOCAL AREA CERTIFICATION STUDY - CONTINUED
TO APRIL 13, 1982
Information and discussion of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development report on the comparative study and review between county
subdivision approval standards and those of HUD/FHA was held at this:, time.
The matter was continued to April 13, 1982.
594
APPROVE PENALTY ABATEMENT REQUEST, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP REPORTS
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, the following penalty abatement requests, change
of ownership reports were approved:
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Link, AP 028-27-0-008-0, AP 028-27-0-009-0
Mr. Gary F. Baker, AP 069-24-0-039-0
Wiley Hatter, AP 012-20-1-012--0
George Quinn, AP 066-47-0-003-0
Mr. & Mrs. Paul Jackson,. AP"010-15-2012-0
Mr. & Mrs. Alf redo .C. Trevino, AP 005-06-4-005-0
Neil D. Stanfield, AP 065-21-0-021-0, AP 065-21-0-081-0
Christabelle R. Mahan, AP 005-10-6-0-05-0
Mr. & 1Krs. Robert G. James, AP 047-57-0-0640
Carroll Stone, AP 027-OI-0-003-0
Gary A. Klein, AP 071-34-0-004-0, AP 071-34-0-005-0
Raymond E. Appleton, AP 046-13-2-012-0, AP 046=13-2-011-0
Donald D. Krause, AP 065-39-0-035-0
Page 369.
April 6, 1982
8 2'-
b'
595
596
597
598
_-_____=---=April 6_ 1982___________________
Mr. & Mrs..-Robert Hicks., AP 061-34T0--A24-Q
Wayne J. & Roberta Paul, AP 05fi~•17-Q.TIl20.r0.
Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Hardesty, AP 045-~$-3-014-0
Craig J. Horner,, AP 030-•22-4-030-0
Gene & Carina Grass Aubry, AP 043-21-Ora39=O.
APPROVE B.UDGET'TRANS~'ER
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimo~as~ly carried, the following budget transfer was approved:
B-183 --~ Community Action Program. Transfers $992 between line
items to increase the appropriation to cover the costs of workers' compensa-
tion insurance charges for 1981.
PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET
A pulilic hearing date of April 27, 1982 at 10:00 a.m. was set for
consideration of Eugene C. Harrison petition for variance to Sections 19-10
and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on
AP 31-21-3-6, 1961 5th Street, Oroville area. Zoning: "AR MH"
APPROVE VARIANCE RENEFTALS
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, the following act inn was taken:
1. Approved Bolib Gowen renewal of variance to Sections 19-10 and/or
19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 48-06-1-43
and 44, 2700 Mariposa, Chico area, zoning: Interim "RT-1"
2. Approved Tris Solis renewal of variance to Sectians 19-10 and/or
19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 72-05-20,
7040 Feather Falls Star Route, Oroville area, .zoning: "C-2"
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-57 ESTABLISHING FEES .FOR HEALTH INSPECTTONS PERMITS FOR
RESTAURANTS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Discussion of the fees for health inspection permits for restaurants
held at this time.
Supervisor Saraceni stated the Board had discussed the health
inspection fees based on one and on two inspectors. He felt they should
charge one-half the fees being proposed by staff and to have one inspector
as opposed to two inspectors for this program. The basic reason for this
is in looking at the cost of vehicles and other things necessary for the
inspector.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised that there was a resolution
with fees in existence now and there are two proposed resolutions before
the Board at this time. One of the proposed resolutions deals with
the hiring of one inspector and at one-half the fees and the other resolution
deals with the full amount of fees and two inspectors. If the Board
adopts one of the two proposed resolutions, it would replace the existing
resolution.
Supervisor Fulton felt that after listening to staff and the other
concerned people when this was before the Board in the past, he felt that
staff had a proposed program they felt they could wank with. It seemed to
him that in terms of revisits, there would be a need for two inspectors.
It was moved by Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
that Resolution 82-57 establishing the fee schedule for the Environmental
Health Department to include the fee structure for two inspectors for the
health inspection permits for restaurants be adopted and the Chairman author-
ized to sign. Page 370..
Apri1.6, 1982
8 2-
3'
_ =Agri„]. 6.t~$2- - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _
Supervisor Saraceni felt that the Board had to consider fiscal
restraints. They can always put a second inspector posztion on board if
ther-e is the need. He went out on an inspection and.felt there would only
be the need for one inspector. There are 1,1QQ permits and a number of those
are not year around. Considering 230 working days in a year using three or
four inspectors this would allow for aver 1,QOR inspections that could take
place. There are fiscal i-mpacts to the county in fuel, cars, insurance for
the second employee. The ,fees would be passed on to the .owners and this
might not be necessary. He felt that they might be gutting on more than
was necessary to perform the program.
Supervisor Moseley stated that many people in the business spoke
to theBoard and explained what they thought of the new increased fees. She
felt that everything the county added would make it a little more difficult
for the people.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton and Chairman L+Theeler
NOES: Supervisors Moseley and Saraceni
Motion carried.
599
CONSIDERATION OF NEAL ROAD LANDFILL FEE INCREASE CONTINUED TO APRiL 13, 1982
Bill Cheff, public works department, set out the background of
the Neal Road landfill fee increase that would be effective June 1, 1982.
According to the contract, the contractor is entitled to an increase or
decrease in fees according to the price index. The Auditor has advised
their office that the request by the contractor follows the CPI. The contract
runs until 1993. Each year the contract is entitled to a cost of living
increase.
Supervisor Fulton advised that he had received information from
Jerry Hagenbart who did not feel that new bonds were necessary but there
should be an audit by the county of the operations before the new fees are
passed. Mr. Hagenbart felt that the county should satisfy themselves that
the fees were necessary, and that the Health Department should be monitoring
the three ponds more closely.
Supervisor Dolan stated the Board was considering fees for the
solid waste disposal and not the development of the lagoons for septic tank
waste.
Discussion open to the public. Appearing:
1. Bill Crowder, Crowder Rubbage Service, Chico. Mr. Crowder
spoke in opposition to the increase in fees. This would increase his
operational overhead by $300 to $400 per month. He is paying about
$1,500 toward fees at the present time and has reduced his rate of collection
because of .the recession, He felt that any increase in fees at this time,
due to the high unemployment figures in the county, would create a hardship
for individuals and the commercial businesses at the same time. Many years
ago, people went to the dump for nothing and now the increase would be from
$2.00 to $2.50 for cars. People are dumping their trash in the commercial
business bins and they are having to install locks on these bins. He felt
tfiis matter should be looked at a little closer.
2. Jessie Weibel. Mr, Weibel stated his expenses had gone up
tremendously and he needed an increase in the fees. He lost money last year.
The operation was turned into aself-sustaining service in 1978 and in order
to keep up with the lava cap and the expense of ripping the increase is
inecessary. Page'.371.
April 6, 1982
8 2-
~',
___ _ _ __April6, 1982 ___ _ _______
3. Ed-,7ohnson, Butte County Disposal. Mr. Johnson questioned -
~ether the Board had already, decided to grant the rate increase. He questioned
tether the contract had an automatic increase clause relative to the CPI.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, advised that the
contract called fpr an annual review`of fees and the increases are spelled
out in the contract that is based on.two=thirds of the CPI over a specific
pexiod of time. This is an on-•going contract until 1193 and .the fees are
set out in the contract. The, Board has the contract and the obligation to.
fulfill the terms of the contract.
Supervisor Dolan did not feel this process was a rubber stamp
process. There are changes that can lie made and the obligation is to
treat the contractor fairly in the twenty year contract. That clause
comes into being when the contractor requests an increase.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised that the contract required
compensation to the contractor which shall be adjusted annually either
through fees or whatever. The Board does not have to raise fees to come
up with the money.
Supervisor Dolan stated that if they did not raise the fees, they
would have to subsidize the program w~ah general fund revenue. She just did
not believe this was a rubber stamp grocess.
Mr. Johnson stated he totally disagreed with the rate increase.
He ran a personal audit at the dump. Everything is based on the CPI for
this just like PG&E and never mind the margin of profit. He felt the
margin of profit was great enough:... He felt there was mismanagement at the
Neal Road landfill. Mr. Weibel has discussed the lava cap. He has seen
the hollow at the site than could be blown up but instead it was filled
up. He felt the margin of profit should take care of the increase in
fees.
4. John Shay, North Valley Disposal. Mr. Shay agreed with the
other collectors and did not want to see a rate increase. His bill last
month at the site was $8,700. He knew the operational fees had gone up at
the site because the operators fees have gone up. He felt the problem in
the county was the method of picking up garbage. He felt that there was
a duplication of services and this was the problem and not the rate at the
dump. He would like to see the county sectioned off because it would be
more efficient and less costly to the consumer and would benefit the
operators as well.
5. Pat Butler, manager, Neal Road landfill. Mr. Butler invited
all five members of the Board to take a tour of the dumpsite. He would
like to speak regarding mismanagement and the hole being filled in that
was set out by Mr. Johnson. The canyon was being filled when they took
over operation of the site. The county was buying dirt at the time they
took over operations. They found they could rip the lava cap and this
increased the capacity of the dump within the present limits.
Consideration of the fee increase for the Neal Road landfill was
continued to April 13, 1982.
RECESS: 10:06 a.m.
RECONVENE: 10:20 a.m.
600
PUBLIC HEARING: BUDGET TRANSFER B-175 & 8=176
The public hearing on the foliowi:ng budget transfers was held
as advertised:
Page 372.
April 6, 1982
6 2-
b',
April 6, 1982 _ _ _ _
B-175 r Housn and Community Development. To increase appropriation
in the 1980-81 Housing and Community Development Grant street improvements in
order to coyer additional engineering charges for the South Oraville Improve-
ment Project - Phase TTI. .This transfer utilizes .unanticipated revenue in
th.e amount of $270.,93 from HCD program income.
B-176 - Community Action Program. The transfer establishes
appropriation between various .line items in the Community Action Agency
1981-82 Senior Program per budget modification ~~2 approved by the Area
Agency on Aging February 10 ,. 1582. The transfer also utilizes=; $4,598 of
unanticipated revenue - participants' donations in the establishment.pf
these appropriations.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
601
On motion of. Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, the following budget transfers were approved:
B-175 - Housing and Communit Development. To increase appropriation
in the 1980-81 Housing. and Community Development Grant street improvements in
order to cover additional engineering charges for the South Oroville Tmprove-
ment Project - Hase III. This transfer utilizes unanticipated revenue in
the amount of $270.93 from HCD program income.
B-I76 - Community Action Program. The transfer establishes
appropriation between various line items in the Community Action Agency
1481--82 Senior Program per budget modification 4t2 approved by the Area
Agency on Aging February 10, 1982. The transfer also utilizes $4,698 of
unanticipated revenue - participants' donations in the establishment of
these appropriations.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-58: PUBLIC HEARING: NOTICE: OF'INTENTTON TO RENAME A
PRIVATE ROAD TN BUTTE COUNTY, PHANTOM DRIVE (YANKEE HILL ROAD TO END} TO
YANKEE VISTA DRIVE
The public hearing on the notice of intention to rename a private
road in Butte County, Phantom Drive (Yankee Hill Road to end) to Yankee
Vista Drive was held as advertised.
Bill Cheff, public works department, set out the background of
the notice of intention. There was a petition signed by the property owners
in the area.
Hearing open to thepublic. Appearing: No one.
Hearing ,closed to the public and confined to the Board.
602
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, the renaming of a private road in Butte County,
Phantom Drive (Yankee Hill Road to end) to Yankee Vista Drive was approved;
Resolution 82-58 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
PUBLIC HEARI.NG: L. B. WEBSTER PETTTION FOR VARIANCE TO SECTTONS 19-10 AND/OR
19-12 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE FOR PLACEMENT OF A MOBILE HOME ON AP 26-19-2-12,
2420 WILLIAMS AVENUE, PALERMO_ AREA, ZONTNG: "A-2"
The public hearing on L. B. Webster petition for variance to
Sections 19-10 and/or 19--12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a
mobile home on AP 25-19--2-12, 2420 Williams Avenue, Palermo area, zoning:
"A 2" was held as advertised.
Page 373.
April' 6, 1982
8 2-
,~'
603
April 6, 1982
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - T ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to th.e Board.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, the petition for variance to Sections 19-10 and/or
19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 26-19-Z-12,
2420 Williams Avenue, Palermo area, zoning; ",A-~2" was approved for :.a period
of one year.
PUBLIC HEARING: 2~1ARTIN SKINNE'.R CONSIDERATTON OF ADVISORY AGENCY'S DECISION
ON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RELATING TO AN INTERPRETATION A5 TO THE NUMBER
OF PARCELS, AP 28 3 2144 & 146, PROPERTX LOCATED ON A PRIVATE ROAD WEST OF
MISSION OLIVE ROAD, OROVILLE AREA
The public hearing on Martin Skinner consideration of Advisory
Agency's decision on a certificate of compliance relating to an interpreta-
tion as to the number,of parcels, AP 28--32~-144 and 146, property located on
a private road west of Mission Olive Road, Oroville area was held as advertised.
John Mendonsa, public works department, set out the background of
the appeal. When the property was purchased, it was purchased as one parcel
of property. The assessor's office described the property as two garcels
of ground. The request was to have the Advisory Agency, grant certificates
of compliance on each parcel but this would be saying the county agreed there
were two parcels. The description for the one parcel was one the deed.
The assessor's office shows the property~as two parcels.
Supervisor Dolan understood that there might be one parcel with
one or more assessor's parcel numbers. The assessor's office could split
the property for mapping purposes and not have parcels that are legally
split.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Martin Skinner. Mr.
Skinner stated he purchased two parcels when 'fie purchased the property.
He purchased the property from Mr. Culet, who was selling the property in
five acre parcels. He owns ten acres or two five-acre parcels. When the
deed was written, it was written for one parcel. The property was purchased
in 1974 and. he has received two tax bills on this property.
Supervisor Saraceni stated there was nothing the Board could do
for Mr. Skinner except issue the certificate of compliance for the one
parcel because the description for the property shows one ten-acre parcel.
The only way the county could issue two certificates of compliance would
be if Mr. Sk"inner could show the legal description for the property as
two five--acre parcels.
Mr. Skinner stated he was not able to have a surveyor do a
survey for the two five-acre parcels. He was to comply with the county on
everything after Mr. Culet went to court in 1978. He filed for a certificate
of compliance, which he should„not have had to do, because Mr. Culet was
required to do so by the courts.
Supervisor Saraceni did not feel there was any problem with issuing
a certificate of compliance for the one parcel but there was a problem with
the county issuing two certificates of compliance. Legally the county cannot
issue two certificates of compliance for this property.
De1.Siemsen, county counsel, advised that the county has never
agreed there were two five--acre parcels. This parcel was illegally created
by Mr. Culet. The county could grant a certificate of compliance on the
entire ten-acre garcel. This would not allow the county~ao create a new
Page 374.
April 6, 1982
8 2.-
~'
April 6, 1982
parcel through the issuance of two certificates of compliance. Even if
Mr. Skinner obtained a record of survey showing tw.o five acre parcels, the
county could not issue two certificates of compliance. A preliminary
title report would not be evidence of two parcels.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
604
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, the appeal of Mrtin Skinner of the Advisory
Agency's decision on a certificate of compliance relating to an interpreta-
tion as to the number of parcels, AP 28-32-144 and 146, property located on
a private road west of Mission Olive Road,• Oroville area was denied on the
splitting of the two parcels.
PUBLIC HEARING: ROLLS, ANDERSON AND ROLLS, ON BEHALF OF JON LITTLE, APPEAL
OF ADVISORY AGENCX'S CONDITION 4 ON TENTATTVE PARCEL MAP, AP 42-07-138, FOUR
PARCELS, PROAERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH[tiTEST CORNER OF CUSSICK AVENUE AND
HENSHAW AVENUE,__CHTCO AREA.
___. The public hearing on Rolls, Anderson and Rolls, on behalf of
Jon Little, appeal of Advisory Agency`s condition 4 on tentative parcel
map, AP 42-07-138, pour parcels ,; property located on the southwest corner
of Cussick Avenue and Henshaw Avenue, Chico area was held as advertised.
John Mendonsa, public works department, set out the background of
the appeal. The parcel is west of SUDAD. The appeal is on the drainage
condition. There is no permanent solution for drainage in the area.
Supervisor Dolan stated that there is still a large amount of
agricultural development in the area, but the area is zoned "S-R" zoning.
Sometime later, the potential is for less than one acre parcels and the
only difference between this is that all the parcels front on streets rather
than cul-de-sacs.
Hearing-open to the public. Appearing:
1. Jon Little. Mr. Little stated that even with the heaviest
storm this year, the drainage was not a problem. The residents of the
area are not in. favor of high density housing and feel that one-acre parcels
avoid the high density. The residents do not want a drainage district
situation.
2. Ray Rolls. Mr. Rolls stated they were making the appeal
on the basis of equity and the position it is not financially feasible to
provide drainage on the property all the. way to Mud Creek.
Supervisor Saraceni questioned whether Mr. Little would be willing
to be involved in a drainage district if the requirements were ever necessary.
Supervisor Dolan felt that if the parcel sizes stayed one acre in
this area of vina loam there would be no need for a district. She suggested
that the zoning be changed so it would not be necessary for an urban drainage
system. If development were to go to the railroad, there would be drainage
and traffic problems. This area does not include curbs and gutters in the
higher density area.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
*~
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded liy Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, given the parcel size,.chaxacter of. the area and
past actions of the Board the appeal of Jon Little on condition 4 on tentative
parcel map, AP 42-07--138, four parcel, property located on the southwest
corner of Cussick Avenue and Renshaw Avenue, Chico area was upheld and the
condition deleted. Page 375.
April 6, 1982
82r 605
'~
606
April 6, 1982
CONFIRM OPERATING LOSS OF CHICO CLIFPEIj ZS BEING FUNDED FROM BORROWED SB 325
FUND IN ANTICIPATION OF RECEIP-T OF uMTA SECTIQN 5 -0PERATING ASSISTANCE
Fred Cavanah,, public works department, spoke regarding the Chico
area designation as. an urban mar transportation operating systems. All of
the systems that operate in the area will.be eligible for those funds from
UMTA Section 5. operation assistance funds. The Chico Clipper is one of
those systems. The county was eligi151e to begin using UMTA funds on April 1,
1982 but the funds will not come in until after FY 83 begins. The Board
must take action so that UMTA is aware of the fact the county is expecting
the funds. The same will lie done with the. Chico Urban Transit System.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, action that beginning April 1, 1982, 50 per-
cent of the net operating loss of the Chico Clipper is being funded from
borrowed SB 325 funds in anticipation of receipt of UMTA $ection 5 operating
assistance was confirmed.
LETTERS TO BE WRITTEN TO CITIZES RE: PROPOSAL OF JAMES G. WORTH TO PLACE
ADVERTISTNG BENCHES AT BUTTE COUNTY TRANSIT STOPS
Discussion of the proposal by James G. Worth to place advertising
benches at the Butte County Transit stops held at this time.
Fred Cavanah, public works department, stated that Mr. Worth's
proposal would include the supplying of the benches at his own cost and they:
would be paid for by the advertising on the benches. The county would receive
20 percent of the advertising revenue and would retain control over what type
of advertisements were approved. The county's share would be approximately
$2,000 to $3,000 per year and the county had allocated approximately $5,000
to purchase the benches. This would be a savings of approximately $3,500.
The savings would be offset by the county personnel cost to implement and
mohitor ahe program. The other problem with. the proposal concerns the
bus stops in the cities. They would need unanimous appraval by the cities
to make the program cost effective.
The alternate their office had suggested that is included in the
1982-83 budget is to purchase the benches for 72 locations. The county's
share of that would be approximately $1,000 and they would expect to spend
approximately $500 per year on maintenance. There is money in the 1981-82
budget to make the purchases. He recommended that the county send letters
to the cities asking whetfier-they would be 'interested in the proposal.
After additional analysis of the monies involved, he would recommend that
the county buy the benches and place them at the locations. He felt there
was a trade off as it relates to the fees that would be coming into the
county with this proposal. Mr. Worth gave the county the low bid on the
benches if the county decides they would like to purchase the benches.
He would be happy to look into this matter further.
Supervisor Dolan stated that she had received nothing on thi s
report. The Board did receive a letter and referred it to the Inter-city
committee. She knew the committee had discussed the letter. Now she is
hearing that they have gone out to bid already and are ready to accept
the low bid.
Mr. Cavanah stated the committee did not make recommendations on
the benches. He has received indications from the City of Oroville that
tfiey were not interested in advertising within the city. He has taken
that indication to Mr. Worth and others and assumed the cities would probably
go along with the City of Oroville. The only way for a cost effective
program would be if all the cities allowed for advertising on the benches.
They would have to purchase benches for those cities that did not want
advertising. He felt there would be a great deal of staff time involved
Page 376.
April 6, 1982
8 2-
a
607
~,pril 6, 1982
if one city was. interested since. the county would have to do the placement
of the benches in the cities. that wexe not interested and monitor the
benches in the dity that was. interested. Thei'Y office would send letters
to all the cities. He and. two other people in the office would be working
on the monitoring of the benches if they-went with the proposal by Mr.
Worth. There would also be some cost to the Auditor`s Office as well.
Public Works Department was directed to go back. to the cities
and get their response to the proposal made by Mr. Worth.
PUBLIC HEARING: GEDDIS „DRISCOLL, CHRISTOFF'ERSON, LENHARDT, INC., ON BEHALF
OF 3AME5 STREET, APPEAL OF PROP05ED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADVISORY AGENCX'S
DENTAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL 'MAP, AP 62-04-205, 'FOUR PARCELS, PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ORO- UINCY HWY AND SEMINOLE DRIVE BERRY CREEK AREA
The public hearing on Geddis, Driscoll, Christofferson, Lenhardt,
Tnc., on behalf of .lames Street, appeal of proposed negative declaration and
the Advisory Agency's denial of tentative parcel map, AP 62-0%-205, four
parcels, praperty located on the southwest corner of Oro-Quincy Highway and
Seminole Drive, Berry Creek area was held as advertised.
Bettye Kircher, planning director, set out the background of the
appeal. This was a denial based on the General Plan designation. The area
is shown as agricultural-residential both to the north and south of the
subject property. This map was filed after the new General Plan policy
was adopted on February 1980. There are small parcels to the north and
south of the property the majority of the parcels are large: The forester
said the property was not conducive to timber and some property had been
put into timber preserve that was not conducive to timber harvesting.
Discussion of the letter of appeal held at this time. The letter
from the forester discussed at this time, also.
Supervisor Saraceni stated there were single family residential
uses that existing in that area especially to the south.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. John Christofferson, representing Mr. Street. Mr. Christofferson
was challenging the findings of the Planning staff on the basis in which the
the property lines in transition between the agricultural residential and
timber mountain zoning to the north. There are some harger parcels to the
north and east and some of the parcels to the west are held in 160 acres
and larger. He felt this property could possibly be forest service and
timber company property. When he examined the property to the south of
applicant property, along Galen Creek, the drainage clears small parcels
and as you proceed to Lake Madrone, the property is subdivided in that
area. Because of the size of the General Plan map, it is difficult to see
where the division changes at one property line or another. He felt each
property should be considered on an individual basis when it lies in a
transitional zone. To find out whether the property was conducive to
timber, they hired Randy Vasquez, a forester, who designated the property
as class three site that is not conducive to timber production because of
the topography and the southerly exposure and the property is crossed with
right--of-way. He received a report from Mr. Saunders yesterday and could
furnish the Board with a copy of that letter if they would like. Basically,
Mr. Saunders agxees with Mr. Vasquez's report. If the property is not
conducive to the General Plan zone of timber, there should be abetter use
for the property.
Mrs. Kircher stated that at one point it was low density residential
transitional-and a negative declaration was prepared in 1978. This has been
Page 377.
April 6, 1982
', ___ _ A~ri16, 1982 ______
82-, revised for this project since the General Plan qr~,~.changed after the 1978
~ ' date.
', xearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
It was moved by Supervisor Saraceni., seconded by Supervisor Moseley
that finding the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment, a negative declaration fie adopted; finding the proposed project
in conformance with the General Plan; the appeal of tenative parcel map,
AP 62-04-205, four parcels, property located on the southwest turner of
', Oro-Quincy Highway and Seminole Drive, Berry Creek area for James Street
be upheld and the project be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Verify legal access.
2. Provide two-way traversable access RS-B-LD-I to each parcel from a
county maintained road or state highway.
3. Access to be reserved in deeds as per county ordinance and offered for
dedication on the final map.
4. Show 50-ft. building setback line measured from centerline of access
easement.
S. Provide road maintenance agreement.
6. Indicate a 55 ft. building setback from the centerline of Oroville
', Quincy Highway.
7. Show all easements of record on the final map.
8. Provide street name signs per requirements of the Department of Public
Works prior to recordation of the final map.
', 9. Pay off any assessments.
10. Provide cul-de-sac at the end of the street.
11. Obtain encroachment permit and construct standard road approach
providing adequate sight distance at the intersection of Oro-Quincy
', Highway and access road.
', 12. Pay any delinquent taxes.
13. Parcel must be numbered, not lettered.`
14. Show a 50-ft. leachfield setback from the drainage way on parcels
', A and D.
15. (rove that the required quantities of domestic water are available
or place the statement on the map that "there is no evidence that
domestic water is available" for Parcels A, B, C and D.
Supervisor Fulton asked if the fiscal impacts had been addressed
by the county?
Mrs. Kircher stated. they had not done a study on the fiscal.
impacts at this time.
Chairman Wheeler advised that this is really a division of parcels
and until there is• a building there would not be~any people.
Page 378.
April 6, 1982
a 2'-
d',
Apri_1 6, 1982
a ~ = - _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ T _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~- _ _ _ _
Supervisor Dolan stated they did not have hearings on building
permits. The report shows two homes 'on the siCe. There will be two- new
sites that will .be created. At some point, .yes there will be an impact.
Supervisor Saraceni felt the issue could b.e whether the impact
of marginal land versus agricultural land was important also.
Chairman Wheeler felt that the point that homes are built and
there is increased value could also be an argument. That increased value
is to offset the cost of the services.
Supervisor .Fulton felt the Board's job at the moment was to try
to get control of the budget deficit and there seems to be some question
since Proposition 13 as to whether or not developments pay their way.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman
Wheeler
NOES: None '
Motion carried.
608
609
610
611
APPEARANCE: ANNA WEST
Auna West submitted a letter which she read concerning the need
for the Libraries to remain open.
APPEARANCE: HENRY MC CALL
Henry McCall spoke regarding the designation of the three cemeteries
as historical points of interest. He submitted information relative to the
cemeteries and the monuments that will be erected.
APPEARANCE: JOE BANDY, AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER
Joe Bandy, agricultural commissioner, presented the Agricultural
Crop Report for 1981 at this time.
APPEARANCE: ARTHUR DEWITT
Arthur Dewitt asked for clarification relative to the purchase
of the vehicle for the Administrative Officer. It was his understanding that
the Administrative Officer volunteered to not purchase a vehicle in last
year's budget and now has a new vehicle, a T-Bird.
Mr. Dewitt was advised that this was not a new vehicle but a Hertz
rental that was purchased by the county. It was purchased as a payoff instead
of continuing the lease payments on the other vehicle. This was a savings to
the county.
Mr. Dewitt questioned whether the county would have to pay interest
on the money the county borrowed from the special districts in order to meet
the payroll.
Mr. Dewitt was advised that the Board had approved inter-fund
transferring. The money used is money collected by the county and there
could be interest paid depending on what funds were borrowed from. This is
not unique to Butte County.
Mr. Dewitt was concerned with the budget and felt many budgets were
not• being looked at. He agreed with the idea of haying a citizens committee
to lootc at the budget.
Page 379.
April 6, 1982
82- 612
a.
613
614
April 6, 19.82
pUBLIC HEARING; GED-TS, DRISCOLL, CHRISTOFFERSON, LENHARDT, INC., ON BEHALF
OF JOE LEMA, APPEAL 0~ ADVISORY AGENCY'S CONDITLQN5,3, 5, 10 & 13 ON TENTATIVE
PARCEL ~1AP, AP 69-11-0.9, THREE PARCELS, LOCATED ON LODGEVIErrT DRIVE, APPROX.
350 FEET~TORTH OE HTLLCREST AVENUE,'OROViLLE AREA
The public hearing on Geddis, Driscoll, Christofferson, Lenhardt,
Inc., on behalf of Joe Lema, appeal of Advisory Agency's conditions 3, 5, 10
and 13 on tentative parcel map, AP 69-Z1-0.9, three parcels, located on
Lodgeview Drive, approximately 350 feet north of Hillcrest Avenue, Oroville
area was held as advertised.
Chairman ~dheeler,advised she had been asked by the applicant
to continue to the hearing for one week.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Gordon Riggs, vice
president of Oro Ridge Properties. Mr. Riggs advised the Board had received
a letter and map that sets out their position on this matter. They were
against the subdivision of this property.
the hearing was continued to April 13, 1982 at 10:45 a.m.
CLOSED HEARING ON GENERAL ASSISTANCE FAIR HEARING CASE N0. 04-90-48616
The hearing on the General Assistance fair hearing Case No. 04-90-
48616 was continued to later in the meeting.
DISCUSSION OF RESOLUTION 82-56 AND APPLICATION FOR AB 90 FUNDS
Kay Stevens, work referral program, spoke regarding the application
for AB 90 funds. Ms. Stevens asked that the Board consider the use of AB 90
funds in place of General Fund monies to support this program. This program
was not listed in the AB 90 grant that was approved for submission. They did
request funds from the AB 90 committee on March 6, 1982. They were advised
at that time there was no funding available for the program. She was
requesting that the Board modify the application to approve their program.
If each of the programs funded by AB 90 were reduced by five percent, the
program could be funded. She suggested that .the Board might want to consider
review of the programs approved by the AB 90 committee,since she did not
believe there was any great hurry about sending in the application, in
terms of cost effectiveness and the number of people served by the programs.
Mike Pyeatt, interim county administrative officer, advised that
Ms. Stevens did meet with the Juvenile Justice Subvention Committee last
month to request funding. The committee felt that the funding was such that
it liarely meets the needs for the other programs that are funded and the
money is not available for this program as well as other needs that exist.
There is one program the committee fias indicated as a higher priority and
that is the Female Abuse Officer Program, which they are unable to fund
at this time. He set out who was on the committee. There axe many programs
they are not able to fund due to the lack of AB 90 funding. The question is
whether the Board is going to fund some of the programs adequately to
operate or to strangle all the programs in order to fund all the programs
partially.
Supervisor Dolan was appointed to research-the matter and bring
it back to the Board for consideration.
CLOSED SESSION: The Board recessed at 11:50 a.m. to hold a closed session
regarding meet and confer.
RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 12;28 p.m. following a closed session
regarding meet and confer. No announcements to be made at this
time.
Page 380.
April 6, 1982
', April6, 1982 -__ _--- _ _
82,- RECESS: 12,29 p.m.
$ ' RECONVENE: 1:32 p:m.
615 REPORT TO THE BOARD ON REQUEST OF MANFRED SCHTDECK TO CLEA12 TITLE ON
AP 28-17-64
Del Siemsen, county counsel, repozt to the Board on the request
of N.anfred Schideck to clear title on AP 28-17-64. The parcel map is waiting
for recordation. Part of the condition of approval is that everyone with
interest in the property has to sign off and the county 'holds an interest in
the property due to a lawsuit involving illegal parceling. rir. Schideck has
requested that the county-sign off on the znap and allow for recording.
The recommendation is that ~Ir.~Schideck either-pay off the lien,or if
the notes are segregated, they be carried with anew interest rate. The
Board requested information relative to whether this was a standard practice
and what the going interest rates world be. He has spoken to three different
brokers and the interest rates on segregated notes would be between 12 and
13 percent. The Board can do several things. The county can sign off on
the parcel map and continue the existing note on all four parcels subject
to the note. The county can require the note be segregated and have each of
the parcels carry one-fourth of the note at 7 percent or•the interest could
be increased. The county could also sign off on the map but reduce the
amount of security on the note, and only hold the note on one or two parcels.
He would not recommend that course of action.
The matter was continued to April 13, 1982.
616 ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-59 TRANSFERRING FUNCTIONS RELATING TO THE CORRECTION
OF THE ASSESSMENT ROLL
Del Siemsen, county counsel, set out•the background of the
proposed resolution transferring functions relating to the correction of
the Assessment Ro11. This would be changing the resolution that was adopted
in 1970.
On motion of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, Resolution 82-59 transferring functions relating
to the correction of the Assessment Roll was adopted and the Chairman authorized
to sign.
617 AUTHORIZE RESPONSE TO CITY OF CHICO RE: CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
Discussion of the comments to the City of Chico relating to the
Chico Municipal Airport Redevelopment Project was held at this time.
Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, read the letter
written to him from Tom Lando, City of Chico. The letter advised that.jthe
plans are already in existence with the Chico General Plan, Airport Environs
Plan and the Airport Specific Plan. This project is the mechanics to imple-
ment the Airport Specific Plan. Mr. Lively advised that the Administrative
Office provided a series of remarks and statements centered around the concerns
of the Board relative to not being provided with a complete description of
the project and expressed potential economic impacts with respect to what
is happening in this area. He contacted Mr. Lando and read his files. Mr
Lando did not advised him that this project was included in the General Plan
or any other plan. He had been told the plan was not yet written. He-
did read what was being written and held a discussion with Mr. Lando.
There is no description for the RDA. The Chico General Plan
and the Airport Environs Report are not RDAs. The negative declaration seems
to be inappropriate or premature.
Discussion of losing tax increment monies for the newly annexed
territory held at this t9.me. gage 381..
April: 6, 1982
8 2-
'~ '.
April 6, 19$2
Supervisor Dolan felt theee wexe three issues: tax sharing property
ix for newly- annexed territory, tax increments. for RBA previously formed;
id tax increments for negotiations £or the RDA being proposed. and does
iisrproject warrant a negative declaration. Can the county assess the
ipact and do they have a description on RDA.~12?
Mike Pyeatt, interim adTainistrative officer, advised that the
oard is now considering the negative declaration. -Mr. Lively went to the
ity of Chico regarding this matter. Mr. Pyeatt advised that he had held
conversation with Fred Davis, City of Chico, and was told that the city
as developing the description in draft and it was not available. There is
till not a project description.
Mr. Lively advised that there were concerns about the project and
that was why a project description was needed. What are they going to do
', with the sewage once the area is developed? According to the letter from
', the city, they will be conveying wastewater liy gravity flow to a future
', interceptor on Eaton or to Philsbury and Cohasset Roads. There is concern
about the plans for annexation of the North Valley Mall by the city. If
', that is happening, the county needs to know because they need to plan due
', to a major impact on funding. He felt the negative declaration was being
presented before there was even a project description. He interpreted the
cityds intent for this project as being an industrial development. He basically
agreed with what the city was trying to do. He did not know how this would
', impact county government. If the city develops on the west side of the
airport, are they going to join county roads. It might not be appropriate
*** ' to cross the clear zone. There are a number of questions and any one could
', effect the county budget.
It was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
that the county respond to the City of Chico's request for comments on the
draft negative declaration for the Chico Municipal Airport Redevelopment
Project in a manner such as outlined by the Administrative Office staff
in a memo revised March 26, 1982, but the basis is that the county cannot
respond because there is not an adequate project description and to include
the discussion with regard to sewage, impacts on county roads and drainage
concerns.
Devere Pace stated the City of Chico had access on a road from
Hicks Lane to the airport. He wanted to know if the county could force the
city to take care of the drainage water from the airport that runs to Hicks
Lane and goes into Sycamore Creek.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman
Wheeler
NOES: None
Motion carried.
618
ADDTTTONAL MATTER PRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN WHEELER
Chairman Wheeler advised that CSAC has been meeting with the League
of Cities relative to redevelopment agencies. They cannot come to agreement
on the change in the wording as it deals with redevelopment agencies,
particularly in the word lilighted. CSAC has withdrawn their request for
legislation at this time. There will be another meeting for formulating
legis lation for submission.
Yage 382.
April'6, 1982
82'- 619
620
April 6, 1982
REPORT TO THE BOARD RELATI'yE TO CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL. ZONE REQUIREM_ENT$,' j
Bettye Kircher, planning direction, report to the Board relative
to consideration of General Plan amendment to Chang of agricultural residential
zone requirements. She has forwarded infox7nation to the Land Development
Commission and has not received-the information back. from them. She asked
that this tie continued for. two weeks and she will bring the matter back.
The Planning Director to bring the Tnatter hack after responses
have been received.
REPORT TO THE BOARD ON POPULATION
Bettye Kircher, planning director, report to ttie Board on the
draft relating to population. She would like to have written responses from
the Board. This is the first report to Ehe Board on the 1980 census
information forecast. She requested that this be continued two weeks to
gather information back from the cities.
The matter was continued to April 20, 1982.
621
622
623
PUBLIC HEARING DATE SEE
A public hearing date of April 27, 1982 at 10:15 a.m. was set
for consideration of Dan Hays proposed negative declaration and rezone ,from
"A 2" {general) and "A-40" {agricultural - 40 acre parcels) to "M-1" (light
industrial), property located on both sides of State Highway 99 at the
Durham-Oroville Highway Pentz Road interchange, identified as AP 40-12-22,
23 and 24, southeast of Chico.
LETTER TO BE WRITTEN TO REPRESENTATIVE G.B. MONTGOMERY IN SUPPORT OF
LEGISLATION GIVING PROPER BURIAL FOR TNDTGENT.VETERANS
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, a letter is to be wxitten to Congressman G. B.
Montgomery in support of legislation giving proper burial for indigent
veterans.
REORGANTZATION OF THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE COUNCIL
CONTINUED TO APRIL 13, 1982
Consideration of the reorganization of Northern California
Emergency MEdical Care Council was held at this time.
Chairman Wheeler advised that Patrick Tillman, chairman of the
Northern California Emergency Medical Care Council, was in the process of
forming a new committee on emergency medical care. The transitional new
committee is made up of two supervisors, two hospital administrators, two
physicans and two emergency medical care council representatives and one
member-at-large. Possibly the bottom line is similar to what they had
sent to the county before.
Chairman Wheeler stated she kept hearing that if the county did
not put up the balance of their share for Medcom it would stop. That will
not stop because the county does not appropriate their funding and they
will not pull the services away from the county. The council has enough
money until January 1, 1982 to operate the program. The other counties
are using the Medcom system for other emergency systems also. She advised
the council that Butte County was. subsidizing other counties for their
emergency systems. The biggest difference in the new proposal would be the
number of administrative staff. The only service provided to Butte County
is the counaunications system. She felt that given the fact the council is
not going bankrupt and is in a transitional period, the county should let
this happen before they decide on whether or not to fund Medcom. This would
allow for answers to questions and to see if the county could acces the state
system. Page 383.
April 6, 1982
8 2'~
a
,Apri1621982-- ------~__--__--
She felt the Board needed to review the .new proposal. Trinity
County put up the balance o~ their funding because. they were told that if
they did not the system would be bankrupt and they would lose Medcom. Butte
and Glenn Counties are the only two counties dragging their feet.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that one of the things they are
looking at is that the. county was asked to rescind the. joint powers agreement
if they so desires and the council would then go into a.nine member committee.
The county has put in $12,000 toward the radio system that is in operation.
Chairman Wheeler felt that one of-the biggest objections wash the
fact that the money used to carry this program forward until 1982 is interest
on the county's money that was .invested. She objected to that and would
rather that the county invested the money and gave it to the council in
small increments. The council has not provided the necessary services for
the kind of money tYie county has paid.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, advised that in
discussions with Dan Speaks, Sack Becker's assistant, he has determined
that the additional $12,000 requested from Butte County for equipment for
the county has been purchased and is there. They went ahead and purchased
the equipment on the basis that the county had appropriated the full $24,000.
Chairman Wheeler stated that during the meeting held at the
Northern California Supervisors Association she asked the question that if
the county allocated only the most for the Medcom system would they have
to fund ail others. She was told no.
Mr. Pyeatt advised that might be why they were looking at next
year's requirement for Butte County at $8,250 instead of the $24,000.
Supervisor Saraceni wondered if the county was really interested
in funding a radio system when they are looking at funding to come from
other areas. He has heard that this money would be to come up with a
radio system that the county is not using but is being used by ambulance
and hospitals. He felt it was up to those people to take care of the
funding for that area.
Chairman Wheeler advised thatt the system would continued until
1983 and the county will derive benefits. During that time, all the answers
will be back to the Board, whether to pay the additional amount or to
establish their own EMC in Butte County or to have a joint powers agreement
with Glenn County. She felt they drew enough interest on Butte County's
money without the $12,000. She would like to have copies of this information
available for all Soard members.
The matter was continued until April 13, 1982.
624
625
626
GREAT CALIFORNIA RESOURCE RALLY CONTINUED TO APRIL 13, 1982
Consideration of the Great California Resource Rally was continued
to April 13, 1982 for further information back to the Board.
REPORT ON COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING PERS CONTINUED TO. APRIL 13 1982
Report on communications regarding PERS was continued to April 13,
1982.
LETTER OF RECOGNITION TO BE SENT RELATIVE TO FIEEK OF APRIL 19 AS VICTIMS
RIGHTS WEEK
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, secanded by Supervisor Ruston
and unanimously caxried, a letter of recognition is to be send recognizing
the week of April 19 as Victims Rights i~Teek, for educating and promoting
victims rights with copies to Probation Officer and Rape Crisis.
Page 384.
April 6, 1982
82- 627
b ''
April 6, 1982 - - _ _ _
APPOINTMENT TO ATR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAI'2~COMMITTEE
On .motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor .5araceni
and unanimously carried, the following were appointed to the Air Pollution
Control Task. Force Study Program Committee;
Dennis Robinson (OEDP representative}.
Bi1I Morris (OEDP representative)
Gerald Geiger (Agricultural Advisory Commission representative)
Don Heffren (Agricultural Advisory Commission representative)
Larry Rinehart (Agricultural Advisory Commission alternate)
Hugh Santos (Agricultural Advisory Commission alternate)
Michael Greer (Cady representative)
Bill Thebach (City representative)
Supervisor Dolan
Supervisor Saraceni
Joe Bandy, agricultural commissioner
62S
Supervisor Dolan stated the committee would report back to the
Board as soon as possible on Air Pollution Control fee recommendations.
COMMUNICATIONS
Brown, Vars & Malone. The attorneys submit a claim on behalf of Gregory
Charles Nugent in the' amount of $5,000,000 as a result of a traffic
accident occurring January 12, 1982. See motion following
communications.
County Supervisors Association of California. Larry Naake, executive
director, submits information on the financing of CSAC building
renovation. See motion following communications.
California Board of Corrections. Norma Phillips Lammers, executive officer,
provides scoring information on Butte County's Round II Jail
Construction Grant application. Discussed; proposals will be
presented during budget session.
City of Chico. Fred Davis, city manager, provides information regarding
negotiations on the agreement between Butte County and its cities
regarding the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues relating
to jurisdictional changes. Referred to Administrative Office for
negotiation purposes.
League of Women Voters of Butte County. Marge Fredonburg, president, urges
the Board of Supervisors to take certain measures to Formulate and
implement water policies on behalf of Butte County. Continued to
April 13, 1982 for information from Chairman Wheeler. See motion
following communications.
Gerald F. Kowalkowski, Paradise. Mr. Kowalkowski submits a complaint
regarding an informal public shooting area adjacent to the Skyway.
Referred to the Sheriff and Planning.
Pleasant Valley Mobile Estates. Everett Beich writes expressing concern
that the Chico Elks Club is installing a baseball diamond in an
area contiguous to the mobile home park. Referred to Planning
Department.
California Air Resources Board. Mary D. Nichols., chairperson, provides
information regarding the temporary restoration of subvention
fundings for 1982-83 at the 1981-82 level and urges Air Pollution
Control Boards/Districts to implement a fee system for future
funding. Information' copy to be provided to Air Pollution
Control Officer. gage 385.
April 6, 1982
B2-
$'
• April 6, 1982 _ ________
other River Opportunity Center, Orovlle. Rosa Bettencourt, rehabilitation
counselor associate, invites members o~ the Board to attend Butte
County's Special Olympics April 24, ~,nformation; no action taken.
629 JECT CLAIM OF GREGORY CHARLES~NUGENT
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
d unanimously carried, the claim of Gregory Charles Nugent in the amount
f $5,000,000 as a result of a traffic accident occurring January_12, 1982
as rejected and referred to County Counsel and Risk 23anagement Coordinator.
630 SPONSE'TO'CSAC ON FINANCING OF BUILDING RENOVATTON BY BUTTE COUNTY IS NO
Ori motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, response for financing of CSAC building renovation
y Butte County to CSAC is no. •
631
CESS STATE TO FIND OUT WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE PUMPS ON THE AFTERBAY WITH
LETTER TO BE SENT TO THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS ON WHAT I5 BEING DONE ON
E SITUATION WITH THE WATER
Chairman Wheeler advised that SB 1923 is relating to groundwater
it relates to Tehama, Glenn and Butte Counties for formation of a commission.
e had information she would like to present to the Board on April 13, 1982.
.ere is a need to do a careful analysis. She would like the Board to be
le to respond on the county~s vote relating to a joint powers agreement.
partment of Water Resources has people pusfiing a water initiative which
uld impair the control force on the county of origin on water in California.
is would give control to size State Water Quality Control Board. She hoped
at the legislation relating to Tehama, Glenn and Butte Counties would
percede the initiative. She would like the Board to look over the
.formation on the forming of a joint powers agreement and the forming of
water advisory commission who are advisory to the Board of Supervisors.
The Board should advise the League of Women Voters the county is
rking on legislation and send them a copy of the proposed legislation.
Chairman Wheeler stated she was quite concerned with the afterbay
s on the Oroville Dam which are pumping the ground water to maintain a
ain level of water in the area so that people can farm. Her concern
what kind of control and how much water is being pumped out of the
Supervisor Moseley stated that seven pumps were placed there to
p the surface water. Some of the wells are 70 and 50 feet deep. It
something the county should be checking on.
Chairman Wheeler felt the county should write to Department of
ater Resources to find out this information of how deep the wells are and
ow much is tieing pumped out. They calibxate that amount. The state
onitors those wells very closely. She wanted to know how much was being
umped into the afterbay and being sent elsewhere.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, a letter is to be written to the state to find
out what is happening. with the pumps on the afterbay and a letter is
to be sent to the League of WomezVoters advising them what is happening
on the situation with the water.
632 TALLOW FIRE DEPARTMENT TO BURN STRUCTURE LOCATED. AT PINE CREEK CEMETERY
Supervisor Dolan advised that Pine Creek. Cemetery District would
like to have the County Fire Department burn an abandoned structure within
the Pine Creek Cemetery District. The Fire Department needs authorization
from the Board to burn this structure for training.
Page 386.
April 6, 1982
April 6, 1982 - - - - -
82- On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded liy Supervisor Fulton
~'', and unanimously carried, the County Fire Department was authorized to burn
down the structure that. is abandoned and located in the Pine Creek Cemetery
for training purposes.
633 CLOSED HEARING ON GENERAL ASSISTANCE k'AIR HE.AIilNG CASE NO. 04-90-48616
• The hearing on General Assistance Fair Hearing Case No. 04-90-48616
as continued from earlier in the meeting was' continued to April 20, 1482.
at 11:15 arm.
b34 DISCUSSION OF AB 90. FUND APPLICATION
Discussion of the application for AB. 90 funding held at this time.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer,. stated that if five percent
were taken from everyone else, it would provide enough money for. the Court
Work Referral Program to operate at their desired level of service. The
amount of the application is $394,000 which includes a five percent
cost of living allocation. The AB 90 Committee heard the request for this
program and while they support the activities because of the amount of money
that is received they did not feel they could recommend funding of the
program. There is another priority program that is not being funded at this
time and that is the Female Abuse Officer Program because of lack of funds.
April 15, 1982 is the deadline for submission of the application but it can
be modified after that date.
Supervisor Doian appointed to research the matter and bring it
back to the Board.
635 ADAITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS
Chairman Wheeler advised that the state does not want to come up
with the money to rebuild Giannelli Bridge but they are ready to declare it
a historical site.
RECESS: The.-.Board recessed at 3:12 p.m. to reconvene on Wednesday, April 7,
1982 at 10:00 a.m.
Page 387. Apri1.6, 1982