HomeMy WebLinkAboutM042782April 27r 1982
OF CALIFORNIA )
SS.
OF BUtTE )
82
a
741 I
742
743
744
745
The Board of Supervisors net at 9.00 a:m. pursuant to adjournment.
Present: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Qiairman Wheeler.
Mike Pyeatt, interim ad~i'nistrative 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 Super-visor Moseley
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, the minutes of April 6, 7, 13, 14 and 20, 1982
were approved as mailed with the corrections to April 6~, 1982 minutes,
minute order 82--602, page 375, paragraph 3, last sentence: Sometime later,
the potential is for less-than one acre parcels and the only difference between
this and others the Board has considered is that all the parcels front on the
street. paragraph 8, last sentence: Tkiis area does not include curbs and
gutters except in the higher density areas.
ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS BY BOARD MEMBERS TO BE ADDRESSED AT TEIE END OF THE
DAY
Supervisor Moseley would like an answer relative to the matter
..brought before the Soard about one and one-half years ago concerning the
patient of Clara PalTner that was brought to the Board room when she had
not received payment for this gentlemen. The county has not paid for this
,yet and she would like some answers from either Mental Health or the Public
Guardian. She would like the answers this afternoon.
Supervisor Fulton stated he would be discussing the Glenn County
budget and who it is balanced and also a letter from the Paradise Pines
Property Owners Association.
Supervisor Dolan would lie discussing the State Parks and Recreation
performing work on county owned land and the Durham Cemetery. She would have
a report on AB 90 funds and the public defender that will be put on the
agenda.
Chairman Wheeler would 6e reporting back on the water hearing and
asking for. direction from the Board for a proposal for this. She will also
be discussing the CSAC joint conference with representatives next month.
WAIVE FIRST READING OF SALARY ORDTNANCE AMENDMENT REDUCING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SALARY BY TEN PRRCENT
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, the first reading of the salary ordinance amendment
reducing the Board of Supervisors salary by ten percent was waived.
AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF TESTING SECU'RI:TY AGREErTENT WITH WOLLACK AND ASSOCIATES
On motion of Supervisar Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the County Administrative Officer and Personnel
Director were autfiorize to execute an-employment examination test security
agreement with Wollack and Associates.
ELIMINATE MERIT INCREASES AT PRESENT TIME AND REDUCE DEPARTMENT HEADS SALARIES
BY TEN PERCENT
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, report on the
merit increase for the Planning Director which has been postponed and also
on the report on merit increases for department heads and the policy of the
Board. Page 443.
April 27, 1982
April 27, 1982
82- Chairman Wheeler asked ,that this matter be held until she had
{~' an opportunity to review in depti5~. She asked for action relative to the
', Planning Directors ~€terit increase at this time.
It was moved by Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor
Moseley, that the Board not approve merit increases and Bold department
heads at the flat rate at the present level eliminating merit increases at
', the present time and to reduce department Bead salaries by ten percent to
conform to the reduction taken fiy the Board of Supervisors.
Motion amended-to'eliminate merit increases at the present time
and reduce department heads salaries by ten percent to conform to the
reduction taken by the Board of Supervisors.
Supervisor Dolan advised that the memo points out there are thirteen
appointed department heads, with three who have not reached the E step in
their ranges, and ten elected department heads. Sfie asked whether the Board
could include the elected officials in tfie motion.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised he could not really tell the
Board for sure. The Charter provides for the Board to sat the salary for
department heads. The Constitution at one tune would not allow it but that
section was repealed and now says that the Charter allows for setting of
department head salaries. He was not saying the county would not get sued.
From what Iie has researched the Board could reduce elected as well as appointed
department head salaries.
Supervisor Fulton felt it might be better to wait and see if the
department heads came forward with a recommended salary decrease since the
motion when tfie Board approved reduction in their salary was to encourage
the department heads to come forward with a salary reduction. He felt that
they would get this action from the department heads once they established
the budget.
Supervisor Saraceni stated they had asked many people to come forward
and they have not done so. He felt they should take the action now. It will
take time for the ordinance to go into effect.
Supervisor Dolan felt Supervisor Fulton had a good point. It seemed
to her that when they reduced their own salary there was no open invitation
nor directive at that time. She felt it would occur and was a question of
timing and openness in their approach to department heads. She felt it
was appropriate to place this matter on the agenda since the agenda item
before the Board was confusing and this action could create more problems.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he did not go into a voluntary action
on the salaries for the Board and the Board did not ask for the lnemliers.to
come forward to contribute what they wanted to contribute. He thought they
had to follow through down the line. They should start at the top and
carry on.
Supervisor PToseley felt that they had been discussing carryover
for the budget and they have approved slightly more than $100,000 and if
this action is not taken they will 'not have a carryover.
Mr. Pyeatt advised they will be expecting a great deal from the
department heads to come up with innovative ideas in-order to operate their
departments with less. The Board is asking management to come forward and
assist the Board and at the same time are suggesting they take a ten percent
reduction and in the case of the Planning Director the reduction will lie
,more than that.
Page 444,
I April 27, 1482
B 2-
a
April 27, 1282
Chairman Wheeler recognized whatTMr. Pyeatt was saying. They must
set the leadership role if they are going to be in any way discussing the
issues like this with the rank and file workers.
Supervisor Moseley stated. that when the Board was approached by
the department heads for a pay increase the Board was told that the department
heads would make up the difference in their departments. If they are not
doing that now they are derelict in their budgets. If they are not working
every day to get innovative ideas to Help the county then they are not going
to come to the Board either.
Mr. Pyeatt advised that the Board received a report two weeks ago
to the effect that departments were carrying 88 vacant positions. The
departments are doing something.
Supervisor xIoseley stated that in discussion relative to giving
up positions, the department have given something ug but they have put on
54 new positions. When those new positions are subtracted what do you have?
She felt they needed to look at the personnel rules so that people will be
allowed to do overlapping jobs.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman
Wheeler
NOES: None
Motion carried.
746
747
CONSIDERATION OF UTILIZING PURCHASE OPTION CREDITS TO ACQUIRE CARE 1900 DATA
ENTRY SYSTEM CONTINUED TO 21AY_4, 1982
Consideration of utilizing purchase option credits to acquire the
CADE 1900 data entry system at a cost of $31,615 was continued to May 4, 1982.
REQUEST FQR RELEASE {7F T'OSITIONS FROM HIRING FREEZE FOR WELFARE AND MENTAL
HEALTH DEPARTMENTS CONTINUED TO-MAY 11 1982 FOR 'REPORT FROM STAFF
Discussion of request for release of positions from Hiring freeze,
three eligibility worker positions, in Welfare Department and, one mental
health nursing care specialist, in 'Mental Health Department held at this
time.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, set out the background
of the request for release of positions from the hiring freeze for the
Welfare and Mental Health Departments. The position in the Mental Health
Department deals with clinical services at the home set up for patients out
of several counties in northern California. This position is paid for
by all state funds.
Chairman Wheeler felt uncomfortable with fillung hhese ~~positions.
The Board lias said theee will be a hiring freeze on positions until the
adoption of the budget. She could not vote for release of the positions.
Supervisor Fulton could not vote for release of the positions either.
He understood the code and opinion of counsel relative to not defunding in
position in administrative review.
Mr. Pyeatt did not know what effect the continuation of the
~ freeze for the Mental Health Degartment would have on the facility maintained
by the county. The department might be forced to seek clinical services
from the outside. Tf the Board chosen not to fill the position, he would
meet with the department to discuss this hatter.
Page 445.
April 27, 1982
April 27, 1982
8 2-
748
Supervisor Dolan had no willingness to fill the positions at this
time but felt the matter should be researched and looked into. ,She was
concerned with putting the entire program into jeopardy. She was aware of
the workload statistics in,the Welfare Department and knew that if there
were more cases assigned to one person there could be an increase in the
error rate which could result in claim cuts from the state that could cost
the county more.
The matter was continued until 'May 11, 1982 for staff to research
the issues and report back to the Board.
APPROVE BUDGET TRANSFERS: BUDGET TRANSFER B-160 CONTINUED TO I~AY 4, 1982
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the following budget transfers were approved:
B-197 -District Attorney. Transfers $34,500 from District Attorney -
Administration to the Family Support Division. The appropriation transfer is
necessary to cover the cost of 1981-82 services performed for the Family
Support Division by the District Attorney Administration section. These
costs were determined by an indirect cost rate recommended and developed
by the cost plan consultant and provisionally approved by the Department
of Social Services.
B-198 - Fire Protection - Regular. Transfers $3,700 from maintenance
of structures ISF and $1,300 from special department expense to fixed
assets - structures in the Volunteer budget to correct an erroneous transaction
by B-169. The appropriation increase should have been to fixed assets -
structures in the Volunteer Fire Department instead of Regular Fire
Department Account 31.101. Additional amount required to cover the deficit
in Account 62 taken from Account 41.
Budget transfer Br160 relative to Data Frocessing was continued
to May 4, 1982.
749 (POLICY DIRECTION RE: PUBLIC WORKS EQUIPMENT PURCHASES-HELD OVER AT THIS TIP•xE
Clay Castleberry, public works. director, set out the background
of the requested policy direction concerning purchase of the following
equipment items presently held under administrative review: 1-1/2 to 2-ton
roller, $20,000; dual axle trailer, $14,500; 16,000 GVW truck with 11-foot
stencil bed, $26,000; and a 5ryard dump truck, $25,000. There was $74,900
worth of equipment postponed or 47 percent of the equipment purchases this
year. He asked that the Board allow for the purchase of the above equipment.
He is holding the $74,900 worth of purchases until next year.
Chairman Wheeler asked whether 1~Ir. Castleberry could hold the
purchase of the $164,000 in equipment for at least two months until after
budget session.
1~1r. Castleberry stated it was whatever the Board wanted to do.
He had to recommend purchase of the items because they have been cited by
OSHA for some of the equipment. In December, he recommended elimination
of four positions, one of which was in the paint crew, based on purchase of
the stencil truck. If he could not buy the truck he was stupid in proposing
elimination of that position.
Supervisor Saraceni was aware of what Mr. Castleberry was trying
to do. The Board is faced with what they have put into place for hold overs.
He felt they should look into what is used since there are businesses who
are going out of business.
Page 446.
April 27, 1982
April 27, 1982
82'- ~ - - Nr, Castleberry felt there were-two critical items from the above
'b' list of equipment, which were t-he stencil truck and the tilt back trailer.
3e would Be willing to use a tilt back trailer if it were used.
Supervisor Saraceni advised he would lie happy to come back with
a report to the Board or just hold tfie request. He would be willing to
ork with Mr. Castleberry in researching whether they could purchase used
', equipment.
',~ Supervisor -olan was amenable to approving the two items of the
tilt back trailer and the stencil truck. She understood that because of
savings made in the reduction of staff the purchases of equipment can be
ade.
Chairman Wheeler stated the Board did not allow the Sheriff
to purchase eight vehicles and that was a safety item as well.
Supervisor Saraceni was opposed to any purchases at this point
' but was not opposed to looking into the matter. He realized it was a
The zuatter was held over at this tune.
750 MOTION TO 'RESCIND PREVIOUS ACTION OF APPROVAL OF OIL AND CHIP SEAL FOR ROADS
FAILS ~+
1~Like Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, set out the background
of the request for policy direction on material purchases for the $177,000
chip and seal program which is presently held under administrative review.
On the same date the Board approved this matter, they authorized the
Administrative Office to review and place a hold on the purchase of fixed
assets. Immediately after the Board's action, he sent the Board a memo
indicating that the $177,000 represented 100 percent discretionary revenue.
He felt given the circumstances, the Board would need these Funds for funding
a portion of the 198 283 budget.
Supervisor Saraceni was opposed to the expenditure of the funds
for the reasons that have been previously stated. He felt they could hold
of£ on this matter.
Supervisor -olan advised that the majority of the Board had voted
to approve tfiis item. She knew the actual purchase was held up under
administrative review.
Supervisor Saraceni felt fie could consider this item if it were
SB 325 funds that is restricted for transportation or road purposes. This
is totally discretionary funding. There should be a hold on discretionary
funding until budget considerations are completed.
Supervisor Dolan stated that SB 325 money was-not a bottomless
pit. The money goes for transportation and then if there is any left, it
goes for roads. She was not aware of S$ 325 money that would total $177,000.
Chairman Wheeler stated one of the reasons she voted for this item
when it was previously before the Board was because she knew if they did not
have preventative maintenance, it could cost more later down the road.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated that he planned
to begin the program now. He was going to try to have this work done in
the spring. There would be a need to call for bids and it would take time
for the contractor to prepare for getting the materials for the projects.
They need thirty days to obtain that much material. If they waited until
Page 447.
April 27, 1982
8 2-
b''
April 27, 1982
my or August, they might get the road-work done this year. If not, they
ill let the roads go, ht is something that needs to be done. He was under
he impression that the Board planned to make enought cuts in his budget and
tfier tiudgets for next year tfiat they would consider ttaings in this year's
Supervisor Fulton agreed with Bolding certain matters over. He did
agree with taking-money out of the budget which concided towarded safety
keep the items Held over in order to reduce the impact of the budget cut
1d be to do what has been done in the past and for a long time. If they
really serious-and want to get tough about holding matters over then
a year they will have to go over what they are doing. He felt the county
:ded to be reduced and reorganized. The Board is thought to be somewhat
,hy washy and not ready to do that.
Supervisor Saxaceni stated they have to look at the fact that
nce this approved and there is the drawing of the funds, there is no coming
ack, when they start to diacuss savings and emergencies. When he started
o see what was coming down the line with regard to cutting the 'Fire Deparments
nd to reduce personnel, he was- looking at maybe changing from chip and seal
nd going to patcfiing starting to hold items in order to see what they are
oing to need for next year.
Chairman Wheeler had assumed that a four to one vote was final and
hat that was the direction the Board Bad taken. She would like to discuss
reventative maintenance. This is one problem they are facing in the jail.
he facility is a little over fifteen years old and now there is major
aintenance to bring it up to the minimum standards. She understood the
eed for fire trucks but unless there are good road systems for them to
un over, they will be creating a great many problems also. She felt this
tem was a form of good management and, preventative maintenance.
Supervisor Saxaceni stated that today they are looking at costs
ng down i:n the private sector because the work is not available. The bids
coming in for less money as they go more into tYie recession. He was not
Besting they take.~.the money away. There could be a savings by holding this
ter since the costs are going down.
Supervisor Dolan felt the Board should review how they got to this
nt. In this budget, there was the inclusion of the pavement overlay.
also recognized that maintenance would prevent greater expenditures down
road. There was money in the budget for pavement overaly in the amount
,5177,000. They Board gave direction to do more with less and Public
'ks came in and said they could do more for less by using chip and seal.
re was a discussion when this item was previously before the Board. The
Ord voted to go ahead with the proposal to do more for less and now it
back before the Board because of administrative review on the bid for the
It was moved by Supervisor Saxaceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
that the Board rescind their previous action approving the $177,000 chip and
seal road project.
Supervisor Moseley stated the Board was aware of the high priority
she placed on the roads, She remembered what the Auditor said in that the
Board shall balance the budget. SBe felt they could fiold off on this item
for two months.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors 2loseley and Saxaceni
NOES: Supervisors Dolan.;-''Fulton and Chairman Wheeler
Page 448,
April 27, 1982
', ~,pril 27, 1982
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ T
82'- Motion fails.
'b -
751 ADOPT RESOLUTION 82x68 APPROVING REVISION TO SUBDI`DSSflN ROVEMENT STANDARDS
On motion of Supervisor Saracen, seconded by Supervisor xioseley
and unanimously carried, Resolution 82-b8 approvi'ng the revisions to the
subdivision improvement standards was adopted and the Chairman authorized
to sign.
752 ADOPT ORDINANCE 22781 WAIVE SECOND READING OF SPEED LIMIT FOR GARNER LANE
f7n motion of. Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, the second reading of the ordinance designating
', Garner Lane as 35 mph speed limit from Esplanade to Keefer Road~was waived;
Ordinance 2278 was- adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
753 POLICY DIRECTION: PUBLIC WORKS TO CONTINUE TO PURSUE PURCHASE OF BUTTE COUNTY
TRANSIT ITENTS
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out-the bbackground
of needed purchases for the transportation system. Transportation funds are
used for this and for no otherpurpose. They are working with the community
on whether the cities raant advertising on tfie benches. In order to use the
SB 325 funds for other-than transportation, it is necessary to make the
findings that there are no public transportation needs that can be reasonable
met before the money can be spent on roads. The Board and BCAG has already
made the decision that these funds are necessary for public transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, Public Works was to continue to pursue purchase
of the following Butte County Transit items using SB 620/SB 325 funds:
bus shelters (estimated county share ~- $13,0000 and bike locker units
(estimated county share - $1,650).
RECESS: 10:00 a.m.
RECONVENE: 10:16 a.m.
SUPERVISOR MOSELEY ABSENT AT THIS TIME
754 PUBLIC HEARING: BUDGET TRANSFER B-192 COUNTY SERVICE AREA LOAN REVOLVING
', The public hearing on budget transfer B-192 ~ County Service Area
Loan Revolving was held as advertised.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the following budget transfer was approved:
B-192 - Count Service Area Loan Revolving, Transfers $400 from
the reserve to the County Service Area Loan Revolving Account in order to
record a loan to County Service Area 68 (Crestwood StreetligTiting Maintenance)
to cover the energy costs for four additional streetlights that have been
installed.
755 UBLIC HEARING: BUDGET TRANSFER 8-196, COMMUDTITY ACTION PROGRAM, CRISIS
INTERVENTION PROGRAM
The public Bearing on budget transfer B-196 -- Community Action
rogram - Crisis Intervention Program was held as advertised.
', Hearing open to the public. Appearing. No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
Page 449.
April 27, 1982
82-
a.
756
April 27, 1982 _
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor^Fulton
and carried, the following budget transfer was approved;
B=196 --~ Corimuriity Action Pro ?' Crisis I"ntervent3on Pro ram.
Increases the liudget for the Community Action Agency 1982 Crisis Intervention
Program in the amount of $30,000pursuant to Contract 'Modification No. 1 as
approved by the State Office of Economic Opportunity. The appropriation is
far: salaries and wages, $3,806; benefits, $6913 travel, $337; consumable
supplies, $350; and otfier costs, $24,816.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82x69. PUBLIC HEARING: NOTICE OF INTENTION TO RENAME PRIVATE
ROADS TN BUTTE COUNTX '
The public hearing on the notice 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 held
as advertised.
'Clay'.Castleberry, public works director, set out the background
of the renaming of the private roads in the county.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
757
~`` On motion of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the renaming of 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 approved; Resolution 82-69 was adopted
and the Chairman authorized to sign.
PUBLIC HEARING: EUGENE C. HARRISON -PETITION FOR VARIANCE TO SECTIONS 19-i0
AND/OR 19-12 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE FOR PLACEMENT OF A MOBILE HOME ON
AP 31-21-3-6, 1961 SIFT STREET OROVILLE AREA ZONING: "AR-MH"
The public hearing on Eugene C. Harrison petition for variance to
Sections 19-IU and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile
home on AP 31-21-3-6, 1961 5tfi Street, Oroville area, zoning: "AR-MK" was
held as advertised.
Hearing ogee to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board,
758
SUPERVISOR MOSELEY PRESENT AT THIS TIME
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 31-21-3-6,
1961 5th Street, Oroville, area, zoning: "AR-MH" was approved for a period
of one year.
PUBLIC HEARING: 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 HWY 99 AT THE DURHAM
OROVILLE HIGHWAY PENTZ ROAD INTERCHANGE, IDENTIFIEB AS AP 40-12-22, 23 & 24,
SOUTHEAST OF CHTCO
The public Bearing on Dan Hays proposed negative declaration and
rezone from "A-2" (gene-ral) 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 Coco was held as advertised.
Page 450.
April 27, 1982
8 2-
b
April 27, 1982
Bettye Ki.~rcher, planning director, set out the background of the
rezone. This was one of the General Plan amendments the Board approved last
year on the negative declaration regarding environmental i~tupact. Prior to
approval, an ETR was required because of concerns on tfie original consideration.
The Board made the decision that a negative declaration would lie applicable.
This was the project that bxought up the discussion of pursuing conditional
zoning or development agreements.
Supervisor Fulton listed his concerns at this tune. He was
concerned about the worka~5ility of individual septic systems, fire protection
noted unnecessary by establishment of afire station at Butte College,
water avaiaability not proven, drainage problems-, traffic impactis, which
are noted By Caltrans.
rLs. Kircher advised that the negative declaration was certified
by the Board. During the Board's discussion at that time the concerns were
supposedly to 6e answered at the time of the development agreement. The
staff recommendations were that the concerns relative to impacts without
a development agreement would tie the recommendation that an EIR be
prepared. The~ma.jor thrust of the meeting was that the Board would be
considering conditional zoning or development agreement that a straight
zoning would not achieve.
Del Siemsan, county counsel, stated that the request was for
a rezone to "TAI-1" zoning, which allows several activities to take place without
without review of the Board. When the General Plan change was made there
was inference to the fact that the developer would enter into a development
agreement and then the impacts would lie-mitigated. There will be further
hold on the impacts unless in reviewing a negative declaration the Board
required an EIR.
Supervisor Dolan stated that the enema and minutes from last
December and January all centered on the fact there were recognizable
concerns of drainage on impacts of agricultural land, aestetic concerns
and not wanting continue or~tnagnify the mistake and traffic impacts. It
was discussed that the industrial use would have as great an impact. The
memo indicates that a development agreement could answer the questions of
aesthetics, traffic and drainage. The minutes of December 15, 1982 indicate
an agreement could mitigate the concerns.
Sup'prvisor Wheeler submitted a letter from Ron Imhoff to the
effect that if zoning was implemented, there is a manufacturing firm
interested in building in the area. T3ie interest in the site is because
of the equal distances between the three major metropolitan centers.
Hearing opent;to the public. Appearing:
1. Hobert Sanders, 9554 Esquon '$oad, Durham. Mr. Sanders concerned
with the Planning Department and District Attorney's Office. There are
problems at the intersection at the present time. He felt there were concerns
relative to industrial zoning. There are acres of industrial zoning in the
city and ttie county tfiat is vacant land. He felt Supervisor Fulton had many
good concerns. People worked hard on putting this property into grazing
land on the General Plan.
2~Irs. Kircher advised that before the General Plan the designation
open and grazing and the zoning was "A 2"' zoning. The "A-40" zoning
on the westerly side of the highway.
2. Kelly'MeagFeer, 98-Honeyrun Road. Mr. 1~Ieagher recalled that
the previous hearings before the Board, there was~more of a promise that
Page 451.
April 27, 1982
B 2-
a
,~pril'i.27, 1982
there would he a development agreement-that would address the concerns raised.
It was understood the decision-regarding the EIR was going to lie changed
and some pf the-maybes would be changed to no so the development agreement
would set tfii~s~ matter out,. H.e concur--red with Planning and Supervisor 'Fulton
relative to the concerns that could be add-ressed in an E1R. Drainage is
a serious problem and when tfie Board made the determination on this matter,
they were under the impression that Caltrans would improve the intersection.
He was concerned with fire protection servrces with this being an industrial
development. The fire station that would handle this area would be a volunteer
force and the Board liad to consider the safety of the workers. The response
tune would not be as great. He felt the Board should require an EIR so the
impacts can be identified.
3. Russ Croninger, Ringel and Associates, representing i~Ir. Hays.
TTr, Croninger stated thelnap was started in 2fay or June of last year. They
had~nade application for a General Plan change and a rezone. At that time,
there were questions on an EIR and Earl Nelson, Steve Streeter, Bettye Kircher
and he discussed tfii~s item, The items can be mitigated. The soil has a
high runoff value and if landscaping were created the land would lie leachable.
There is water in the area with deep wells. Fire protection was not part of
the discussion relative to an EI'R because of the response times for Durham,
Chico, Oroville and Butte College. These ran from flue or six minutes to
twelve'€ninutes. The percolation and leaching tests were done on the property
on the standard conventional leachfield standard. The leach pits that were
dug, were not tested because of the amount of water required. There was
never an alternative for Caltrans. Butte County has a right-of-way adjacent
to and on Pentz 'Road. There is approximately 250 feet of access. On Old
Pentz Road there is total access. There is access from the Oroville-Chico
Highway. Development agreements were discussed in December along with
conditional zoning. The Board adopted a resolution in .7anuary of this year
allowing for proceeding with development agreements,' From the time they
received the General Plan change to this date there were numerous meetings
with regard to development agreements, They asked the county what was
required with. regard to land scaping, fi eigfit of liuilflings, and type of uses.
The only thing the county said they did not want was a junk yard and animal
kennel. The uses permitted under the zoning Have site requirements, Uniform
Building Code requirements, Fire .Department regulations with regard to height.
All tfie things people are wanting with this project for control are within
the zoning requirements. If the county wanted a development agreement that
would say they did not want an animal kennel or junk yard they would be willing
to enter into an agreement,
Supervisor Dolan stated that when the negative declaration and
development agreement were discussed, they Board discussed screening and
there was a unofficial commitment for screening. There was considerable
discussion about the traffic generated in an "M-1" zone. Once the zone
is approved there could be any range of development. She was aware of the
parcel requirements for drainage and knew the problems with that condition.
The discussion was not whether water would run off the parcels, but what
might be in the water tTiat would run into Hamlin Slough. With a development
agreement, they would know the drainage and water runoff. Fire protection
is not so much a problem .but water availability on the sites is a consideration.
The water needs for industrial sites are different than for residential sites.
There is no pressurized water in the area.
NIr. Croninger stated that this matter was brought up on Hagan. Lane
and there is a pressurized system done Hy wells-in that area. The fire
standards for the "~I-1" zoning would apply and take care of problems.
Development agreements take a long time- to do. This project has been
an the books for one year plus. CJhen the General Plan amendment was approved,
he had thought that both the amendment and zoning would be considered at the
Page 452.
April 27, 1982
,April 27, 19.82
82- name bale. Th.e application was for both items. The comments of the notice
~ ', speaks to the General ~'1an and rezone. He Chou-ght all the issues-had been
discussed with.the~•B-oard and at least twice with the Planning Commission and
', now they are back again to the same things,
4. Allen Bv.rchett, attoxney at law representing Mr.. Hays. 1~Ir,
Burchstt felt that this was a matter of fairness rather than a matter of
legal import. The original application was filed in February, 1981. There
was application for a General Plan amendment and for a rezone. They started
through the procedures and made it through the appeal of the environmental
review and went back down and came liack up and somewhere along the way the
application was separated. Section 65862 of the Government Code recommends
and encourages that these tfiings be processed concurrently, but it is not
a legal requirement. They have lieen involved with this project for sixteen
to eighteen Tnontlis and 2ir. Hays owns the property. 'Mr. Hays believes there
is a need for industrial property in this county. They have a letter that
one client is interested. There is a problem with unemployment, Industrial
areas provide a tax base and additional employment, This property is
centrally located to all municipalities. They thought this was a good
location and the Board apparently agreed with the change'in the General Plan
to industrial. He had a copy of the resolution relative to development
agreements, which have never been used in the county before. The agreements
are not bad planning tools, but he did not think they were designed to
address the kinds of problems and concerns with this project, particularly
sihce`Mr. Hays does not Have the project sold out. Tfie project has not
had an architect. There Have been several people contact Mr. Hays about
the property and when they found the property was not zoned for industrial,
they looked elsewhere. The Board would like to know what is there and what
kind of problems will be created. The property has not been sold and there
are no specific plans for how the property will be developed, The resolution
requires these kinds of things for a development agreement. They are not
sure what kind of uses will be provided on the property. Tfiey will guarantee
the uses will fit with tfie "II 1" zoning .relative to height and size of the
buildings. The agreement also requires the proposed time of commencement
and completion. They do not know when that could occur and it would probably
take 20 years to find purchasers acid for them to build. He did not feel
that development agreements would answer tfie questions the county wanted
answered. They might want to consider a landscaping ordinance that would
deal with building permits. Tf the agreement is required, the project will
be another year away. The procedure for a development agreement is not
to sit with staff but to prepare an application to be submitted to Planning
for a period of time for comment and then for public hearings by the Commission.
It must go through the environmental process.' The commission would then make
recommendations to the Board and the Board would hold hearings and then
must adopt an ordinance if approved.
Supervisor Dolan stated that part of the reason for the discussion
and debate of what would occur on the project was because it did not come
forward with a development agreement. The reason they discussed development
agreements was because of this project.
5. Susan Murphy, Nelson. Ms. Murphy advised that since the
General Plan change, there was concern over the change on the west side of
the road and over the development. At that time, they were assured there
would be a development agreement. She felt an agreement was necessary.
Mr. Hays will sell the land and does not want to be encumbered by the
agreement. She felt the agreement would go with the land and as each
person purchased, they would have to submit plans.
Mr. Siemsen stated the agreement would only be applicable to
Mr. Hays. Any agreement enterePd into would Sie applicable to purchasers.
age 453.
April 27, 1982
April 27~ 1982 - - -
8?- The question is whether theBoard wants to approve an ~'2?--1 F' zoning on the
b' property and xely on the uses far that zone, when thQ applicant .is not coming
in with a development agreement,,
', Ms. MurpYiy hoped the Board would requ3:re a development agreement.
6.. Mr. Sanders, 2Sr,_ Sanders asked what the Board was considering
at this hearing, was it the zoning and negative declaration.
Chairman Wheeler advised 2:r. Sanders that the issue being considered
was the negative declaration and zoning with he understanding that the zone
'; being proposed is~tnuch more restrictive than the "A-2" zoning on the property
at the present tune.
', Supervisor Moseley stated s~ie had concerns about traffic, drainage,
circulation and fire protection and felt the problems will be mitigated when
the project was in there. They are talking about a project over a period of
twenty years. She felt the landscaping would help with the mitigation of
runoff of water. She felt something would happen with Caltrans and the
roads in this area in the future.
', Hearing closed to the puT~lic and confined to the Board,
It was moved by Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
that finding the environmental documents have been considered, the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act have been completed and a negative
declaration regarding environ*.nental impact be adopted; and Finding the project
substantially in conformity with the policies of the Butte County General
Plan; and that an ordinance rezoning AP 40-12-22, 23 and 24 from "A-2" (general)
and "P.-40" (agricultural - 40 acre parcels} to "M-1" (light industrial) be
adopted and the Chairman toe authorized to sign.
Supervisor Saraceni felt they were taking the property and having
it conform to the General flan, when it was previously "A-2" zoning. He
could find no problems with the zoning or the project. He felt the
restrictions rn the Health Department and Public Works Department would
handle any problems.
Supervisor Bolan felt that the issue was fairness. The attorney
was promoting the applicant's views and she was here in fairness for the
public. When the Board, against staff's recommendations and advise, changed
the maybes to nos on the environmental check list it was because the matter
would be taken care of when the zoning came forward with a development
agreement. She thought it would tie done at this point, and now, they are
telling the public it would be addressed down the road. There is a zoning
violation and legal action on the property across the street from this
development about tfie drainage impacts. Now, they w ill have the same
problems across the street.
Supervisor Saraceni felt they had discussed development agreements
for a considerable time. He felt that zn looking at the rezone, this did
not mean the applicant could do anything they wanted to do because of the
laws and controls the project would have to conform to. They must meet
the requirements of the Health Department and restrictions the county has.
The Zegislature put through a way to improve on the length of time on General
Plan designation changes.
Mr. Siemsen advised that not all of the uses permited under the
'"M-l" zoning would be sul5ject to the Board's control as some will be under
a use permit. Some will perhaps be in front of Environmental Health but
will not tie considered in terms: of the entire area. A building permit might
not address the traffic impacts'. Some of the uses will not loe subject to the
same type of control as an agreement.
Page 454.
April 27, 1982
8 2-
3'
~~z127~ 1982 ~-_--- --- ____-_
Chairman Wheeler-felt that careful consideration needed to be given.
Some of the issues rased needed to be part o~ the record, such as the-
possibility and probability of creating jobs and near taxbase sources of
revenue far the county. There is not a great deal of industrial zoning in
the county since the cities keep annexing ,those lucrative properties. This
may be an opportunity for the county to attract light industry to the area.
She would like to ask that the matter be continued fvr one week. in order
for her to consider some of tfie issues and do research regarding them.
Motion withdrawn.
The closed hearing was continued to May 4, 3982 at 11:00 a.m.
759
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82~-70; PUBLIC HEARING+. PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO CSA 69 (LINDO
The public hearing on the proposed annexation to County Service
Area No. 69 (Lindo Gardens streetlights) was field as advertised.
Bill Turpin, LAFCo, set out the background of the annexation.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing; No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
760
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, the annexation to County Service Area No. 69 (Lindo
Gardens streetlights) was approved; Resolution 82-70 was adopted and the
Chairman authorized to sign.
PUBLIC HEARING: ELMER STEBBINS APPEAL OT' ADVTSORX AGENCY'S DENIAL OF TENTATIVE
PARCEL 27AP FOR WHICH NO ENVIRONMRNTAL DOCUMENT HAS.BEEN PREPARED, AP 71-01-96,
FOUR PARCELS, ON DEER MEADOW ROAD, APPROX, 800 T'EET SOUTHWEST OF TURNAGAIN
LANE, HART MILL AREA
The public hearing on Elmer Stebbins appeal of Advisory Agency's
denial of tentative parcel map for which no environmental document has been
prepared, AP 71-01-96, four parcels, on Deer Meadow Road, approximately
800 feet southwest of Turnagain Lane, Harts Mill area was held as continued.
Bettye Kirchex, planning director, set out the background of the
hearing. The hearing was continued at the request of the Board for the
applicant to propose Tnitigations on the environmental determination. In
order for the Board to fiear the environmental determination, they w ould
have to reset the hearing on the parcel map.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, advised that the Board would h ave
to determine whether a negative declaration or EIR would have to be
provided and to hold the hearing at a later date as continued open and
to hold a hearing on the document as determined by the Board. The Board
could not adopt a negative declaration at this time, they would have to
propose a negative declaration to be set for hearing tiy:the public. If the
Board felt a negative declaration could die used, they would set the hearing
on the negative declaration witfi mitigation measures.
Hearing open to the public, Appearing: Mike Evans, Ron Graves
and Associates. hlr, Evans set out the proposal they had submitted to the
Board. They had revised the project to four parcels with eleven plus acres.
They concur with the mitigation measures as proposed and worked out.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, a public hearing was set for May 4, 1982 at 10:30 a.m.
for consideration of a proposed mitigated negative declaration on the project.
Page 455.
April 27, 1982
82- 761
a
762
763
764
April 27~-1482
APPEARANCE; ,TACK FRENCH ACHS
Mr. French spoke zegardng the cx~rrent r4,ni1nal Control .and Health
Services- contract. There has been strme i~ueston about tfie entertaining
a new animal control contract at this point,, Animal Control and Health
Services have not indicated they wish to terini'nate the contract and based
on the Board''s•feeling February 24, 1982, Animal Control and Health Services
are performing the terms and responsibilities of the contract in an outstand-
ing manner. The apparent interest 1;y the county in exploring contract
biddy is undermining morale of the people serving the constituents of the
county. He requested that the county refrained from discussing bid alternatives
until ACHS or the Board gave notice of termination.
Chairman Wheeler advised that tYie Board went on record when they
approved the economic stability proposal they would ask that Administration
look at all of the existing provate contracts with the possibility of lolling
those back by ten percent,
APPEARANCE: KAY STEVENS 'COURT WORK REFERRAZ PROGRAM
Ms. Stevens requested that the Board approve an application for
the Green thumb program for use by the Court Work Referral Program. This
would be at no-cost to the county.
The request was continued until later in the meeting for a
recommendation from the Administrative Office staff.
APPEARANCE: L. W, LORD, DAYTON ROAD
Mr. Lord read and submitted a letter regarding his concern about
a retail fertilizer processing plant between the Compton and Lord Ranches.
He asked for an investigation into this matter.
The matter was referred to the Planning Director for a report
flack on May 4, 1982,
APPEARANCE: FRED DAVIS, RE: RENEGOTIATIONS ON PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE AGREEMENT
Fred Davis, city of Chico manager, spoke regarding their efforts
to consumate a negotiation with the Board for the purposes of renegotiating
the extisting property tax exchange agreement: they have with the Board con-
cerning the split of taxes on annexations. They have also been trying for
almost one year to negotiate with the Board relative to the matter of giving
the Board their appropriate share of the tax increments- in the RDA. The
city submitted three annexations to LAPCo which all involved the northeast
Chico sewer district. These three annexations include two small" parcels
of land now owned by the city. There are no property taxes or non-property
taxes involved. There is one commercial area on th e northwest corner
of Cohasset Road and East Avenue, The LAFCo executive officer, or the
deputy, provided the city with proper notice of filings. Subsequent to
that, they received a telephone call and letter indicating County Counsel
had advised they should withdraw the filings on the basis the city had
given notice to the county under annexation property tax split agreement
to terminate the agree. The city gave notice they would like to negotiate
the agreement, The agreement provides that if they do not reach an agreement,
the funds are impounded until they reach agreement, County Counsel has
advised that there are non-property tax revenue funds for the county and
the county and city have not reached agreement on that tax split. He was
asking that this matter be placed on the LAT'Co agenda for next week. He
asked that the Board direct County Counsel to withdraw any objections on
the part of the Board at this time so the filings would not he withheld.
He assured the Board they would continue to received all the property taxes
in these three annexations for tTie 1982-83 fiscal year,
Page 456,
April' 27, 1982
a2-
~'.
April 27, 1482
Del Semsen, county counsel, advised that yfr, Davis was referring
to the master agreement between the cities and the county on the splits of
property tax in annexations, There is substantial sales tax on~that property.
That was 'one of the z'easons he asked that this lie pulled from the agenda
because it was not subject to the agreement. The city has taken the position
they want to renegotiate the split set out on the original agreement and
this does not constitute termination of the agreement. Section 99 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code stated that the executive director for LAFCo
cannot file until Both parties agree to the split of property taxes. The
fact they are wanting to renegotiate all property tax splits from the
past, is that they Have no agreement as required and therefore, LAFCo
cannot certify any annexation agreement. Mr. Davis has-said the city was
willing to give the county all the property taxes for this next year.
The agreement spells that out and they are not giving the county anything.
On the southwest sewer- assessment district, they want to zenegotiate for
the next coming year. His position was there was still no agreement
as to the split of taxes on these annexations and therefore under Section
99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code LAFCo cannot agree.
Mr. Davis felt it was inappropriate for them tp stop the annexation
when they have been trying to negotiate, The Board has urged them to
form sewer districts. He felt they had adequate time for negotiations and
the money could be impounded until agreement is reached.
No p,ction taken'on request at this time.
765
766
767
APPEARANCE:"MRS. L,W. LORD, DAYTON ROAD
'Mrs. Loxd asked that the Board take immediate action relative
to the letter submitted earlier by her husband regarding the concerns about
the retail fertilizer processing plant between the Compton and Lord Ranches.
Mrs. Lord was advised that the Board would have a report back
next week on this matter.
APPEARANCE: JACK'MADIGAN
Mr. 'Madigan spoke regarding his nomination papers that were missing
in 1974 and asked that either the County Clerk or Assistant Registrar of
Voters respond to the matter since it had not be done. He spoke regarding
the groblems with the-missing documents that the County Clerk had not
taken care of. Some of them effect him personally and he would like the
matter cleared up before Mr. Nelson left office.
The matter was referred to staff for a report back on the matter
with a copy to go to Mr. 'fladigan.
RECESS: 12:02 p.m.
RECONVENE: 1:30 p.m.
APPROVE APPLICATION FOR GREENTHUMB PROGRAM FOR COURT ~dORK REFERRAL PROGRAM
Kay Stevens, court work referral program, advised she had met
with the Administrative Office on her request for approval of the Green-
thumb program application. They had recommended that the application
be approved.
Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, advised this
program was involved with federal funding. Any layoffs in the county would
require the immediate layoff of the greenthumB person.
On motion of Supervsior Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, application for the greentliumb program for the
Court Work Referral Program was authorized and the Chairman authorized
to sign. Page 457.
April: 27, 1482
82- 768
~''
769
770
771
772
773
774
_ April 27a 1182 - - - - -
ADOPT RESOLUTION 82--71 OE INTENTION TO RENA[~ ROADS SDI BUTTE COUDITY SETTING
PUBLIC HEA'RZNG ~ "DATE
On motion of $upervisor Dolan, seconded by Supe-rvisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, Resaliction'82:71 setting a public h caring date
of June 8, 1982 at 1000 a,~m, of intention to reneame roads in Butte County:
Olive Highway (Higfiway 162 to I'ortiestown Road) to Old Olive Highway was
adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
ADOPT. "RESOT~UTiON 82-72 DE CLA'RI'NU THROTJG£i HIGHWAYS
On~motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, Resolution 82.-72 declaring tfirougH highways on the
following was adopted and the Chairman authorized~to sign: Oroville-Bangor
Highway from Miners Ranch Road to LaPorte Road; Faothill Boulevard from
Wyman Ravine to 'Miners Ranch Road; LaPorte Road from Lower Honcut Road to
Oroville-Bangor Highway; and LaPorte Road from Los Ver~eles Road to Yuba
county.
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION REVISING GATE FEES FOR OPERATION
AND 23AINTENANCE OF NEAL ROAD SANITARX LANDFILL TN BUTTE COUNTY WITHDRAWN
Consideration of adoption of resolution revising gate fees for
operation and maintenance of Neal Road Sanitary Landfill in accordance
with contract wit&drawn as it has been taken care of earlier.
APPROVE CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER N0, 11 TABLE MOUNTAIN BLVD BRIDGE-PROJECT
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, contract change order No. 11 in the increasing
amount of $4,111.34 providing additional concrete support blocks for a
30-inch waterline installed in the bridge with all costs to be paid by
California Water Service Company was approved and the Chairman authorized
to sign.
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2279 REZONE TO"TP-160" FOR ARMIN SPECKERT
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Fulton
and unanimously carried, Ordinance 2279 rezoning property identified as
AP 56-21-57, into "TP--160" (timber preserve - 160 acre parcels) zone
pursuant to Government Code Section 51113.5 and Section 24-190 (C) of
the Butte County Code was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
APPROVE AMENDED CONVEYANCE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND OPEN AREA EASEMENT
FOR ANDREW AND .7ANET BERTAGNA
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, the amended conveyance of development rights and
open area easement for Andrew and Janet Bertaffna to comply with condition
of approval of use permit was approved and Chairman authorized to sign.
PUBLIC HEP:RING DATE SET.
A public hearing date of May 18, 1982 at 101;.15 a.m. was set for
consideration of Sohn D. Drake and Howard Isom rezone (item on which an
environmental impact report was previously certified) from "A-2" (general)
and "S'-H" (scenic highway) to "PA-C" (planned aria-cluster) to allow a
residential development of 109 parcels of 1/2 to 3 acres each and a
common open space with public facilities to be tnaintai:ned liy a homeowners
association on approximately 1,050 acres located on the east side of State
Highway 32 and Humboldt Road, approximately 5 miles northeast of Chico,
identified as AP 46-71-17, 46-71--18 (portion), 46-35-4 and 46-35-23.
No hearings to Tie scTieduied on May 18, 1982 agenda from
10;15 a.m, to 11:00 a.~n.
Page 458.
April 27, 1982
b
**~
775
776
April 27, 1982
'APPROVE CHILDREN~S HOME SOCIETY GROUP"HOME RATE INCREASE
On motion of Supervisor Fulton, seconded by 5 pervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the recommendation from the Bay Area Placement
Committee (BAPC) recommending a 9.2 percent increase in rates for board
homes and institutions utilized by the department in Butte County for
ChiTdren~s Home Society was approved.
CONSIDERATION OF ANT~IAL CONTROL AND HEALTR SERVTGES LETTER REQUEST USER
FEE INCREASES ""FOR'ANTMAL CONTROL CONTINUED TO'y1AX 4 "11.482
Consideration of Animal Cantrol and Health Services (ACHS) letter
.requesting user fee increases for animal control was held at this time.
Supervisor Dolan advised that she and Chairman [dheeler met with
the contractor. The letter from the contractor indicates why and sets"`the
amounts. Her recommendation was to approve the rates. Tt is a doubling of
the dog license fees plus the setting of a fee schedule for trailers.
It is also setting the split between the contractor and the county.
Presently the split is 95 - 5% and it would be 90 -- 10% which would be
up to $57,000 and would then go to 50 -- 50%.
Supervisor Moseley had a protilem with approving such a high
increase in fees.
Supervisor Saraceni questioned whether labels could be obtained
at a lower cost in order to send out notices for licensing.
Supervisor Dolan advised that all were thoroughly discussed.
Someone would have to pay the costs for the labels.
Jack French, ACHS, stated they had some problems with use of
the computer. It is impossible to purchase gasoline through the county
because of the exise tax regulations. All items have been explored.
The only one that could work is a user pay basis. At this point, it would
take a total of $57,000 per year in license fees in order to underwrite
the monthly osses by the contractor. It was the feeling of his board that
they would no longer subsidize the operation of the county animal control
program out of their pockets. The Northwest BPCA contracts with him and
in exchange the City of Oroville contracts with them to pick up dogs in the
city. The $21,000 for animal shelter for 80D dogs per month will cost him
$42,000 next year. He understood why some of tfie problems were happening.
Their costs are going up and they want to expand the shelter. He would
like to be able to find shelter facilities he could operate himself.
They could use runs as a temporary basis until. a shelter was built,"-but could
not use them on a permanent basis.
Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, advised that it
would take an ordinance amendment to change the fees and a contract
amendment to change the percentage of payment between ttie contractor and
the county. The contract expires April 30, 1982 and it takes 120 day
notice to terminate the contract.
Idr. French stated he would not be opposed that if after this
year they would cut back the license fees. They are trying to contract
with other jurisdictions. If they could satisfactorily contract with
other jurisdictions, they could compensate for the loss so they are breaking
even and they would be willing to roll more of thepercentage over to the
county.
Supervisor Fulton questioned whether the county could be
divided into regions fox animal control purposes. This could eliminate
the amount of travel and gasoline that is spent, if the county were divided
into two or three areas. Page 459.
April 27, 1982
8 2-
~xl 27r 1982
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ~ W ~ _ _ _
Cha~.xrgln ~Iheeler ;felt tTi.s ~cras
look at and being back,
somethingsta~f.could take a
31r. French stated they [aauld have to do a comparison study of
the upper ridge since this is the only other area wFiere someone is interested
in animal control work, They w~iild still be doing work in the south county
and Gray Lodge. He did not think the number of calls would-make that
great. of difference, People on the upper ridge are working with them in
keeping the dogs at home.
Supervisor Bolan stated that hex notes show that in one of the
yearly reviews of the contract of this four year contract, they discussed
maybe termination just about .Tanuary and.recommending the 120-day cancellation
notice, Her notes were to continue with the present contract and to direct
staff to take the time to consider alternatives- and do an analysis of costs
and explore the consolidation of cities and by area and assessing the
services. That was more than one year ago.
Gerald Lively; deputy administrative officer, stated he had not
worked with. tTie animal. control contract in the past. His first question
would be what level of service does the Board want, The Board migfi t not
want them to do the unincorporated areas and maybe just do the urban areas.
They migfit want to consider something county wide to address the logistical
questions.
Supervisor Fulton felt the contractor had problems making ends
meet because it was very expensive to travel from one end of. the county
to another. To have an operation that covers the entire county , in order
to get to Paradise Pines, the contractor would have to travel through
Paradise. He felt they could-maybe regionalize and cut costs in the travel.
~'Jr. French felt that one of the ways there could be savings is
to have one fragment off and go into another area and expand to the
in between area, wFiich was his preference. if they had Paradise base,
they would have local people on the ridge doing the job. They do have a
proposal into the Town of Paradise when that contract is up, The Town
Council has requested bids, They submitted a bid and did not try to under-
cut the current operator, if that were to come through, it would eliminate
the need for a substantial license increase.
Phil Mace from Paradise stated that the week~:of 'May 2, 1982 is
"Be Kind to Animal Week" and would be a good time to discuss animal control:
He is presently the executive director of the .Superior California Humane
Society, which is a nonprofit organization. They provide services to several
areas of California and provide that service to the Tocari of Paradise through
contract. They have had the animal control services in the Town of Paradise
since 1978. He set out the background of how the county began contracting
out their animal control services. In 1978, he went to the Administrativ
Office and presented a proposal that could save the county money by
contracting out. After working out the fundamentals of the county contract,
the veterinarians came in with a proposal. Superior California Humane
Society has made an offer to pick up the present county contract and carry
it out with no increase in cost, but with a decrease of $26,000 estimated.
The reason this can be done is because they consider the license money as
special tax revenue to offset other fees and charge 30 percent and turn
70 percent back. to the county or city, Tfiat percentage is a realistic
cost for selling. They then do not have to worry about the licenses.
He was concerned with the 150 percent increase in the dog license.
Until tTiis increase came to their attention, he felt that ACHS was long
suffering and try~iig' to make a profit in animal control. A i50 percent
license increase in a rabies area would be the anticipation of a possible
Page G60.
April 27, 1982
8 2'-
~'
~pxi:1_27 a ].982 = ~ ! = ~ ~ _
reduction i.n ~xom 7~OQO.,to 4,000 licenses,. This means ths,t 3aQ00 dogs will
not be vacc~,na,ted ~^n the xabies program, The legal_bas.s for the rabies
control is for b.ealth ~uxposes, The proposed fee-increases would set the
program back. and destxoy the public health program for rabies control as
far as the unincorporated axea is concerned', The standard is that one out
of ten dogs are licensed, There will be may ten percent of the animal
owners paying 150 percent and the nfinety percent of the problems would
come from those who do not comply, His organization takes exception to
consideration of a move like this unless- there is information the are not
aware of. They did not bid on the county contract because there were
a group of veterinarians wtio tTiought they could make money in animal control.
Others felt theysociety wanted to establish low cost neuter and spay clinics.
Others felt they could establish a 24=hour emergency center because of the
amount of money, He urged that if the Board wanted to improve the license
program, that they increase the penalties Ep $20.00; This would increase
the licensing of dogs, and there would be more revenue coming in faster.
He asked that the Board examine the nature of the losses ACHS has had.
There is no profit in animal control. The county claims on the animal
control contractor is that they owe $12,000 for sfielther, The Town of
Paradise believes the contractor owes its citizens $8,000 in revenue,
which the contrator collected for 1980--81 under the two-year license
program. The Town of Paradise Council bas authorized the town attorney
to file legal action for return of that revenue, The Board cut all the
top people in the county ten percent including themselves and the last
time he talked to the executive in ACHS the salary was $48,000 per year.
The assistant executive director of Supezior California Humane Society
does not get that much in tier duties of a 375,000 jurisdiction in San Gabriel.
He was concerned with the shelter brokering. The Humane Society provide
their own shelters. He did not know how the present shelter for the
contractor could only charge $40,000 per year when the average cost is
around $100,000 per month. Shelter is provided on a-per diem basis.
The fee will not be less than $3.00 per day for shelter. ACHS was canceled
in Yuba County. Regionalization is a very valid position, This has been
discussed with the City of Chico to have a north county shelter. He
guaranteed that neither the .American Humane Society or the California Humane
Society would suggest that the Oroville shelter is adequate for both the
city and caunty.
Supervisor Fulton stated that he had not discussed this matter
with Mr. 'Mace.
Mr. dace stated that regionalization were his words. H e had
not received a formal response from his letter of March 11, 1982. He did
discuss their proposal of the March 11, 1982 letter with Mr. Fulton and
asked whether the Board was interested. He felt that regionalization would
be good in two or three areas of the county, if there was adequate shelter
space and competent praviders in the three areas.
Chairman 4lheeler advised that the information presented by Mr.
Mace was referred to staff. The Board should consider all information before
making a decision on this matter.
Mr. Mace stated that he had prepared and will be submitting a d
detailed backgxound study. The Board-bas not solicited this information.
Chairman Wheeler suggested that rtr. 1~1ace make whatever information
he has available to the Administrative Office staff so it can be presented
to the Board because there will tie a decision next week,
Mr, 'Mace suggested that the Board had a level of service and that
was 240 hours of patrol per week. The contractor does not ?Hake a report.
Fage 461.
April 27, 1982
.~ ~2'-
777
_ _ _ April 27 a 1482 - - - - - - -
He did not know~how the contxactox and staff ~rere.keep~ng tta do of the
patrol Fiouxs, 7~?any features of ,this contxact a;re not'.at all 1il~e the.
standard contracts in the state, He felt at t~ifis point the program was
out of control thxougfi no problem of tlie-Board. He iai'11 provide the
information to the Administrative Office by Thursday-.
CONSIDERAT20N OF BUSS CRONINGER PROBLEM CONCERNING EASE~``ENT FOR DRAINAGE IN
EASTWOOD OAKS'SUBDIVTSTON TN CHI CO SET ASIDE
Chairman Wfieeler advised the Board kzad received information-relative
to Russ Croninger`s problem concerning easement for drainage in Eastwood Oaks
Subdivision in CFiico.
No action taken,
778
779
780
RECESS: 2:27 p.m.
RECONVENES 2:39 p,m.
GET OUT OF FUNDING OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA URGENCY 2•'T;DICAL CARE COUNCIL AND
LEAVE UP TO PRIVATE 'SECTOR TO DO SOMETHTNG'IT'_THEY G1ISH TO'DO SO
Chairman Wheeler suggested that the county get out of the Northern
California Emergency Medical Care Council and explore an organization with
Tehama and Glenn Counties. Those counties have suggested that they look
into th? possiblity of a joint powers agreement.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded By Supervisor Moseley
and unanimously carried, the county will get out of funding the Northern
California Emergency'Medi:cal Care Council and left it up to the private
sector if they want to do something.
Chairman Grheeler suggested they look at writing a letter advising
the position of the Board and saying the equipment appropriated for the
county be sent the county's way. She asked that Supervisor Saraceni access
Glenn and Tehama Counties to see what the further considerations would be
and to report back to the Board,
APPOINTMENTS TO EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE - CONTINUED TO MAY 4 1982
Appointments to Emergency Medical Services- Committee continued to
May 4, 1982.
DISCUSSION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE COUNCIL
Discussion of previous action with regard to Northern California
Emergency Medical Care Council held at this time.
Supervisor Saraceni felt the Board should think. about the invest-
ments in the past if tfiey were to just withdraw to the point of paying the
additional funds to see what else is happening and the may have some
protection of the funds they have. I~,aybe if the council is being dismantled,
the county could say that the fiscal committee voted for funding 50 percent
of the amount as the 100 percent amount to the council. Rather than saying
the county is not going with tkie additional funding, they might want to
say they have paid the 100 percent funding. If there is an dismantling of
the council; he wanted to see the county received their equipment.
Chairman '4~heeler advised they were saying they did not want to
be a part of the new committee that is Being considered.
Supervisor Dolan stated they would not get any-more money this
year.
Page 462.
April 27, 1982
82' 781
v'
782
783
April 27, 1982
COMMONI'CATIONS
David Anthony ~tootenr 1~?anteca. k~~'. ~~UOten sulimzts: a claim in the amount of
$500", 000', alleging-false arrest and other in,~ures. See-motion
following communications.
Barry- Myers, Chico. 3?r. 3~Iyers sulimits a claim for $4 related to the Board of
Supervisors poli:ey per Section 1T7.18 of the California Code of
Civil Procedures. Referred to County Counsel to otitain response
from CSAC and to make written response liack to the Board on-May 4,
1982 or May il, 1982.
Petitioners - Aspen Street, Chico. 'Various residents in the vicinity of Aspen
Street in Chico submit a petition in complaint of a large number of
dogs roaming in the area. Discussed; no action taken.
Golden Featfier'Volunteer Fire Company. William Wolibe, chairman of the
Volunteer Fire Company, provides information on the condi tion of
the roads in the vicinity of the Golden 'Feather Volunteer Fire
Company stationhouse. Referred to Public kTOrks Director.
REJECT CLAIM OF DAVID ANTHONY WOOTEN
On motion of 5'upervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, the claim of David Anthony Wooten in the amount of
$500,000 alleging false arrest and other injuries was rejected and referred
to County Counsel and Risk 'Management Coordinator.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS
Chairman tdlieeler advised that Supervisor Moseley had receved a
letter from Mr. Lundberg on the good work.
Supervisor 'Moseley stated that the item relative to the patient
she discussed earlier had been cleared up for hex. It has been turned aver
to the Public Guardian for a report back to the Board.
Supervisor Dolan stated there was some question of whether the
land along the river is owned by the state or the county.
Supervisor Dolan would report to the Board in a written report on
May 11, 1982 relative to AB 90 funding and the history.
Supervisor Dolan would make a report on May 11, 1982 relative to
the Public defenders Advisory Committee meeting.
Supervisor Dolan commented on the Durham Cemetery relative to the
newspaper article about the difficulty of a person wishing to be buried.
What was the county waiting for and why are they not going after the family?
Del Siemsen, county counsel, stated that as far as the burial of
people, this is a county cemetery so the county has the say as to who will be
buried there. FIe assured the Board there would be no problems like the last
time. There will only be the question as to whetfier the person is entitled to
be buried in the cemetery. Mr, Abbott and xIr, Remmerde of the District
Attorney's Office had gone to Carmel to discuss the verification of the
amount of money-spent on the property in Cfii•co with the Hays family. The
family has been .putting the county off on tfii~s matter. The District Attorney's
Office is giving the family two weeks to get the documents to the county
otherwise they will consider the agreement null and will file criminal actions
in court again.
Supervisor Dolan hoped so since two declines for filing tax returns
has passed. She had been tel3ing people they could contact the county if
they had questions as to burial rights. She felt the Board should be notifed
in the future.. Page 463. April 27, 1982.
8 2-
~'
April 27~ 1982
^ Supervisar Fulton commented on tlie••newspaper article relative
to the_hudgettbeing balanced in Glenn County. He iced the article with
interest to see how they balanced tfie budget and -the article said they do
not know wfiy it is balanced. He wondered i~ they could send the Auditor
over to f~lenn County to see what they di'd and maylie they have an answer
for the fiscal problems of Butte County.
Auditor instructed to make a;.call to Glenn County before driving
over to see if answers can-lie obtained,
Supervisor Fulton submitted a letter from the Paradise Pines
Property""Owners Association offering space i:n the POA area for a Sheriff's
Department substation. He would like the Board to officially accept this
letter. He had written them thanking them for the offer and would like
an answer from the Board thanking them for their consideration.
Supervisor Fulton stated he had located a trailer in the Public
Works Yard that could be used for the Sheriffs substation in Paradise
Pines and be parked at the Fire Station. Mr. Castleberry has assured him
the trailer is not being used and would be made available. He would like
to move the trailer to the site this Friday morning if possible. He
discussed this matter with the Sheriff.
Chairman Wheeler advised that the deputies were currently using
the Paradise building as a substation to write reports and make landline
calls. Since the services required are in the upper pines area, if there
were not cost other than what was being paid at present she would have no
objection.
Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, stated that he had
no feelings about the trailer in Paradise Pines. The substation in Paradise
is necessary for the holding cell far the court. They could not really
close that building as such as long as there is a court in the building.
It is also a place for the deputies to ?Hake reports etc.
Supervisor Fulton stated ne was not advocating that the substation
in Paradise be closed. He felt this should be taken a step'at a time.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated that he and
Supervisor Fulton had discussed this matter with the Sheriff, who would
appreciate something like the trailer in Paradise Pines. This would allow
the deputies to be closer to the people and outside of Paradise, which is
not within the jurisdiction of the Sheriff. The trailer is available.
Tt has been sitting for about eight months and they will be declaring it
surplus unless the Sheriff wants it. -
Administrative Office to make report back to the Board on the
cost of trailer setup, any maintenance repair, providing lights and heating.
The report to include what that means in terms of the operation versus what
is going on in the Paradise substation with the court.
Chairman Wheeler ased the Board permission to develop a county
position for the CSAC rally on the budget on May 19, 1982 at the State
Capitol. She would firing the matter back to the Board for approval on
May 4, 1982. Supervisor Dolan and Chairman uTheeler to meet with Auditor
to develop position for consideration.
Supervisor Fulton and Chairman Wheeler appointed as a committee
to consider an equity format for the figure to be placed in the budget and
to instruct the administrative staff to come liack with the figures.
Page 464.
April 27, 1982
82- 784
~''
785
April 27, 19:82
ACCEPT pR01'OSALS FOR GIATER ADVTSORY COrII~fl~TTEE
Chairman Wheeler reported on the water meeting sfie attended in
~lillpws of the Super-or California Nater Association. There are many people
Lnterested in water. She had put together some information for the Board's
consideration relative to the water issue. She suggested that the water
Legislation Be sent Back to the drawing Board. The current legislation with
the amendments is not applicable to the county Fs needs. She would like to
;it down and write legislation applicable to the three county area, and at
the same tune contacting Senator .Tohnson relative to this legislation. The
Legislation would, still kiave the same number and Be placed in an interim
status until it is rewritten. She felt they should continue to work with
Senator Johnson and the Assemblymen to improve on the legislation to identify
all areas of water and loss of water. Stie read the written proposal at
this time.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and unanimously carried, the proposals one to four presented by Supervisor
Wheeler relative to a water advisory committee were accepted.
Meeting scheduled fore- May 4, 1982 at 7:30 p.m.~ canceled at
this time.
Del Siemsen, county counsel, discussed the proposed legis lation
and pending initiative. There was no way of knowing if there would Be a
conflict. He suspected there would not be a conflict because both of
these items would be state statutes. The conflict would come when southern
California runs out of water. That is anticipated some time down the
road in the future. At this point there is no real conflict between the
two actions.
Supervisor Fulton stated that as he understood it, the farmers
objected to SB 1953 as written. That bill estaBlishes some control. He
felt after reading the news article that what the farmers wanted was a
tri-county water district, which insured there would be no regulation of
groundwater except not allowing the sate to come in.
Chairman Wheeler advised that their concern was that this nat
become a political Body.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BX BOARD 1~MBERS
Chairman Wheeler asked that the Board members go back and review
the economic staliility program as she planned to have it back on the
agenda for review and to finalize. If the Board needed a continuance they
should let her know.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he had a list of the entire vehicles
in the county.
RECESS: The Board recessed at 3:22 p.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, April 28,
1982 at 1:30 p.~n.
Page 465.
April 27, 1982
8 2-
786
787
April 28, 1982
RECONVENE: The Board of Supervisors met at 1:30 p.m. pursuant to recess.
Present: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and
Chairman Y7heeler. Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer;
and Clark A. Nelson, county clerk-recorder, by Nancy Wilson,
deputy clerk.
RETIREMENT PARTY FOR COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER
Chairman Vdheeler announced there would be a retirement party for
Clark Nelson, Clerk-Recorder on Thursday, April 29, 1982 from 2:00 p.m. to
4:00 p.m. at the Recorder's office. They appreciated his work for the county.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONSIDERATION OF DEPARTMENT PROPOSED BUDGETS
Chairman Wheeler stated the Board was here today to form a committee
to analyze the budget considerations and try to set figures that are most
equitable with the discrestionary funds that the Board can give you. What
figures each administrative head is to take back to the department and write
your budget according to that. In approximately two weeks after you have
worked up a budget and referred it back to staff for review. After the
budget is presented to administrative staff, during the third week of that
time, the Board will consider and hear each budget. Administrative staff
will set a hearing date for their proposals. She would hope within the fourth
week they would be able to have a proposed tentative budget adopted. Then the
Auditor can take it back to the drawing board for final adoption.
James Johansen, auditor-controller, stated he hoped for early
June if possible.
Mike Pyeatt, interim administrative officer, stated he would like
to highlight some of the Auditor's reactions to the 10 percent reduction in
his memo. Also presented to staff was the mathmatical calculations from the
Auditor. He set out contents of the memo at this time.
Mr. Johansen referred to the column sheet. In the memo Tables
A, B and C indicated that they had developed this and made allowances based
on judgements made last January in his office. They were not found just
judgements. Mr. Johansen discussed the three sheets indicating Substantial,
Moderate, and Kittle or No control of discretionary revenue. In making their
decision on Substantial Control", they did not consider the need for a paid
service, only if they were required legally. County Counsel was substantial.
There is a need to defer questions in court, that was taken into consideration.
They applied the percentage based on the discrestionary revenue required in
the 1982-83 budget. That method would not take into consideration departments
that requested additional personnel. Did not take into consideration that
staff may have been reduced last year. When they attempt to understand what
you did and make a decision on that basis. Sheet 1, Table 1, were from the
correct 1981--82 final budget. The 2 percent salary increase was included as
the final budget last year was adopted prior to the salary increase approval.
Page 7, Table 1, they have summarized the action exstensively of the committee
picking and chosing from administrative and what effect that would have if
they were adopted by the full Board. There are many implications that may effect
revenue in these figures. They should not be considered as exact. It was
recommended to revise down to $6.7 million and they came t,o $9 million. This
would bring the budget approximately $4~ million less than the 1981-82 final
budget. There would be a net savings reduction from approximates. There will
not be equipment savings. Mr. Johansen corrected the bottom page on net result
to $57,970,548. This is a $4,618,583 reduction of the 1981-82 budget.
Chairman Wheeler thanked staff for all of the help.
Supervisor Fulton stated he would like to underscore the compliments
to Mr. Johansen. It was a brhrough. In the first column of the-Committee
Page 466:
April 28, 1982
8 2-
~'
__ _ __ _A,pri1_28,=1982 ___________ _________
Recommendations they gave the money they will get as a result of Proposition 13
mandate to the realized figures then the 1982-83 requests. In the last
column the figures in parenthesis are Welfare and Mental Health. They do
not have any control over those budgets. The request is all reductions
from the 1981-82 budget. Some are more severe than others.
Chairman Wheeler stated this was the Committee's recommended
amount to department heads. They are black lined.
It was moved by Supervisor Fulton to adopt the Committee Budget
Recommendations for 1982-83 Summary as a tentative working budget, a budgetary
plan with the writer that if they can. come up, which it appears they can
come up with a savings, do not want to put it backwards so they do not have
to face the same problem next year; to come up with something in the neighbor-
hood of $1 million savings and it to go into fire.
Mr. Fulton stated if there were funds available, their priority
would be in the fire department.
Chairman Wheeler stated it was important to recognize they
are looking to put money into the reserve accounts.
Supervisor Dolan seconded the motion.
Supervisor Dolan reviewed comments which had been made. They
would review departments and analyze them on a priority basis. There is
rearrangements which could be done.
Supervisor Fulton stated this county is overdue for reorganization.
This will be the impetus.
Chairman Wheeler stated staff had suggested they direct the
Auditor and Administrative Office staff to approve the tentative figures,
then give them to the ..Administrative Office. In two weeks time they
would be before the Board.
Supervisor Dolan stated the Committee calls for a dollar amount
based on departments coming in and this is not service and county work the
dollar amount will buy. That is where the assessment of need vs demand is
done. That is right reorganization is long overdue.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he felt they should have time to
digest the material presented. He just received the information within the
.last 10 minutes.
Chairman Wheeler felt he would have that opportunity within the
next two weeks. They will discuss with department heads if they can live
with those figures and then they break from the Committee recommendations.
Supervisor Fulton stated the Auditor had developed a simple
schedule for adoption of the budget. By May 14th the revised budget is
to be submitted to the Administrative Office. The revised budget will
come to the Board on May 19th. Seven days later department heads will
speak to the Board.
Chairman Wheeler stated the May 19th date should be changed.
They should all be in Sacramento on that date. The date for budgets to
the Board was changed to May 26th.
Mr. Pyeatt stated they would need more than two days to get the
information out to the Board, even for them to consider it on the 26th. He
'had'no problem with the 26th for an opportunity for department heads to
address the Board. All budgets could not be considered on one date.
Page 467.
April 28, 1982
8 2-
'~ ''
April 28, 1982 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
z~~ ~ _ _' _ _ - ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ - - - - _ : - - - -
Chairman Wheeler stated they could move for adoption of the budget
to the 9th or 16th and this would allow the department heads an. opportunity
to come and .speak. Administrative staff review would be on May 14th and
to the Board May 26th. The budget could then be adopted by June 2nd.
Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, stated they would
hand them Schedlue 6 of the entire budget in a package. It will not have
the Administrative Officer's remarks until the proposed budget is adopted.
They may prepare a summary sheet.
Discussion was held regarding the figures for the Fire Department.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman
Wheeler
NOES: None
Motion carried.
RECESS: 2:10 p.m.
RECONVENE: 2:22 p.m.
Roman LaFevre, Upland Road, Bangor, spoke as a representative
of the community of Bangor. They are concerned about the Bangor Fir•,e
Station. They are advocates, but concerned citizens to provide input into
the budget process. They only receive the services of the fire, police and
roads. Their prime concern is the fire station. Volunteers could not handle
the protection needed in that area. It would change there fire classification.
Mickey Morgan, assistant chief, Bangor Volunteer Fire Department,
spoke regarding the cooperative effort with Yuba County. They live in a
critical fire area. Most of the calls are flue structures and medical aid.
Yuba County provides structure aid.
Chairman Wheeler suggested Supervisor Saraceni look into the
issue of whether Butte County is compensated for responses.
Supervisor Saraceni stated it is a border line. It is almost
common practice to have mutual aid. They do cooperate.
William Brower, Old Bangor Highway, purchased property in the
Sangor area and recently moved her and built a. house. They feel strongly
about the fire protection. Tt is too far for Oroville to respond.
William Benberg, Paradise Pines, retired from San Mateo where
he spent many years as a fire dispatcher. One of the most important things
is the response time in emergency services. There could be a liability
factor. If they close down Station 33, they are violating mandates. They
will kill people and burn down homes.
Discussion was held regarding mandates coming from Sacramento.
The county does not have the funds to implement all of the programs sent down.
Bille Dunn, Bangor, stated her home caught fire recently and would
have been destroyed if it had not been for the efforts of the Bangor Fire
Department. They do save homes.
VETERAN SERVICE OFFICER BUDGET
S: 2:45 p.m.
VENE: 3:04 p.m. Page ~4~6'~8.
April 28, 1982
8
April 28, 1982 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - W ~
Ed Brown, Veterans Council Legal Committee, set out the background
of the proposal presented to the Board. He hoped they had reviewed it. 1t
is a substantially smaller budget. This is a minimal service. They suggested
closure of the Oroville office. To encourage people in Paradise and Oroville
to use the county bus system to travel to Chico. CSU-Chico has stated there
are veterans available to work in the office.
Supervisor Fulton questioned if they would have trouble finding
to do the job with the level of salary proposed. and recommended.
Mr. frown stated there are young veteran males and females that
be interested in this even if they did not keep them for ever. Tf the
would consider another salary range, that would be fine.
Chairman Wheeler questioned if Mr. Brown was aware of the three
ies surrounding Butte were considering the regional concept.
Mr. Brown did not want to defer the proposal. It may or may not
be effective. The regional concept could still be pursued.
Mr. Pyeatt stated his office had heard. the same rumor. He is
sending correspondence indicating to the other counties to consider the
involvement of Butte County. They would speak to it once a proposal came
before the Board. They presently have a qualified Veteran Service Represent-
ative in the Oroville office. There is not much difference in the salary
range of the proposed Veteran Service Officer and the Veteran Service
Representative. He felt Mrs. Boswich could handle the duties.
it was moved by Supervisor Fulton, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
implement the budget for the Veteran Service Office as proposed by the
terans Council Legal Committee per the memo of April 20, 1982.
Supervisor Dolan stated she would like to settle this issue. A
t of time has been spent on this smaller budget than the total county budget.
e set ovt the five requests from the memo at this time.
Mr. Pyeatt questioned if the subvention would be a greater or
sser amount. The VSO need not be a department head or a seperate department
r the Veterans Service Office. One aspect is the VSO be a notary. Mrs.
swich is presently a notary. They should consider the salary they set,
it should be a department head and what department and where it should
consolidated until something more permanent could be done.
Chairman Wheeler stated they could accept the proposal and later
uld come back and address the issues raised by Administrative staff.
Motion amended:
Subject to Auditor's review.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman
Wheeler
Motion carried.
There being no further business before the Board at this time
meeting was adjourned at 3:23 p.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, May 4, 1982
9:00 a.m.
Page 469..
April 28', 1982
April 28~, 1982_ _
82- ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK-
{, ', RECORDER and ex-officio Clerk ~~
of the Board of Supervisors
', ~ ~ ~ an, Board of Supervisors
Page 470.
April 28, 1982