HomeMy WebLinkAboutM061681June 16, 1981
81-
_~
.1002
1003
iTATE OF CALIFORNIA )
SS.
;OUNTY OF BUTTE )
The Board of Supervisors met at 9:00 a.m. pursuant to adjournment.
Present: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke, Saraceni and Chairman Moseley. Clif
Nickelson, administrative officer; Dan Blackstoek, county counsel; and
Clark A. Nelson, county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk .to the Board.
Absent: Supervisor Wheeler
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
Invocation by Clay Castleberry
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the minutes of June 9, 1981 were approved with-the following
corrections and amendments: minute order 81-968 to reflect that
Resolution 81-114A approving property tax exchange agreement for 1981-82,
for Southeast Chico Sewer Annexation District was adopted and the Chairman
authorized to sign: minute order 81-982, page 428, paragraph 2 to
reflect: Supervisor Saraceni stated he~was for it if it was public and
the board of directors were elected through the membership.
DISCUSSION OF LETTER OF RESPONSE TO CHIP REGARDING THEIR COMPLAINT TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Discussion of the letter of response to Chico Housing and
Improvement Project (CHIP) regarding their complaint to the Department
of Housing and Urban Development was held at this time.
Chairman Moseley advised the Baard it was necessary to make
the response to CHIP relative to this matter.
Supervisor Dolan stated the time had not run out. She. understood
that when the Board was approaching the 30 days, the Board advised CHIP
they were drafting the response. She £elt this was an important and
controversial item and had some comments on the proposed responses.
Dan Blackstoek, county counsel, advised the Board they were
in default at this t~.me. The response was expected to be made in 30 days.
Mr. Connerly suggested that the Board send the response three weeks ago.
The county sent a letter stating it was on its way. His advice to the
Board so there is no further problems with HUD is to respond. He
recommended that the Board take action.
Supervisor Lemke suggested that in order to satisfy the
Board members the matter should be placed on the agenda for June 23, 1981.
Staff could write a letter saying the response will be made after that
date.
Supervisor Dolan stated her concern was that she had asked the
last two weeks if this matter would be on the agenda. 'Her comments are
not with her because it was her understanding-the matter would not be
discussed this week. She wanted the matter held until it was placed on
the agenda for consideration.
Mr. Blackstoek stated they were talking about an administrative
situation with Department of Housing and Urban Development, in which they
have a complaint process. They received various charges-which were wi1d~-
charges about misfeasance=and malfeasance. HUD wrote to the Board and asked
that the Board send a copy of the response within 30 days.
Page 435.
June 16, 1981
June 1b, 1981
81-
Supervisor Dolan stated this matter was on the agenda for two
weeks and was not discussed as a Board. The Board is now in the same
situation today. It is a serious letter and a response is necessary.
Every Board member should be noticed when this type of thing is going to
be considered.
Chairman Moseley stated that Mr. Connerly would be at the
meeting later in the day. This matter could be discussed at that time.
Mr. Blackstock did not feel that delaying this matter was
doing the county any good with HUD. By delaying this item time and time
again it renders the .appearance and gives authenticity to-the statements
that have been made.
Supervisor Dolan stated the reason this matter was delayed was
in deference to the illness of a Board member. The county has notified
CHiP and they have not objected.
The matter was continued to later in the meeting.
1004
1005
1006
Chairman Moseley advised that~he Board should considex the
contract with the City of Oroville for the Oroville Redevelopment Agency
relative to the amount of tax increment funds the county would receive.
The city will be waiving the second reading of their ordinance relative
to this agency next Monday.
APPROVE OROVILLE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONTRACT
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, advised that if the Board were
to approve the contract they should authorize the Chairman to sign the
contract.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated the county
by entering into this contract has the agreement of the City of Oroville
to enter into partnership and share on a 50 - 50 basis the tax increment
monies. They would receive 9.5 percent of the increase instead
of the traditional 19 percent. This would only apply to that property
within the city limits today.
Mr. Nickelson advised that the City of Ohico were still in
negotiations with the county regarding their RDA. They have said no
to the 100 percent from the first year. The first increment will be
used for the consultant fees for the RDA.
On motion of Supervisor Saraeeni, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
and carried, the contract with Oroville for the Oroville Redevelopment
Agency was approved and the Chairman authorized to sign.
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2225: WAIVE SECOND READING~OF SALARY' ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
and carried, the second reading of the salary ordinance amendment which
adds a mediterranean fruit fly program section to the Agricultural
Department and one agricultural biologist position was waived;
Ordinance 2225 was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATION ITEMS
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the following action was taken:
1. Approved contract amendment to the Med Fly Program with
the State Department of Food and Agriculture to allow for the purchase
of second year program equipment items utilizing, first year startup
Page 436.
June'16, 1981
81-
1007
loos
June 16, 1981
funds; and acquisition of fixed assets as follows was approved: subcompact
pickup truck, $4,000; two-way radio, $1,200; and a storage box for the
truck, $100.
2. Declared property surplus and authorized the Purchasing
Officer to dispose of them by public auction on June 27, 1981.
3. Approved contract addendum No. 1 to the agreement with the
Butte County Arts Commission for technical services to reflect an additional
$2,634 in grand funds and the Chairman authorized to sign.
4. Approved penalty abatement request, change of ownership
report for Frances Kilpatrick, AP ..048-38-0-025-0
APPROVE AERIAL FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT FOR RED DEVIL FIREWORKS COMPANY
FOR SILVER DOLLAR FAIRGROUNDS
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, an aerial fireworks display permit to the Red Devil Fireworks
Company at the Silver Dollar Fairgrounds on July 4, 1981 was approved as
long as the county is named as additional insured on anyof the documents
17I~CUSSION•:OF ;LETTER OF RESPONSE TO CHIP REGARDING THEIR COMPLAINT TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSTNG AND URBAN 'DEVELOPMENT
Discussion of the letter of response to Chico Housing and
Improvement Project (CHIP) regarding their complaint to the Department
of Housing and Urban Development was held as continued from earlier in
the meeting.
Ward Connerly, Connerly and Associates, stated his only concern
was that the county was to have answered this complaint by June 4, 1981.
The county is required by HUD to answer the complaint within 30 days.
They axe beyond this point now.
Supervisor Dolan stated she objected to being told that this
would not be on the agenda and she was not prepared to discuss it at
this time. She felt that this matter should be discussed with a full
Board present. Now, the county is up against a deadline. The county
is not delaying this out of capriousness. The minutes reflect that
HUD was to be noticed of that. It was to then be put on the agenda for
discussion.
Mr. Connerly stated he brought the matter up last week and
Supervisor Dolan objected to discussing it then. It was his understanding
that the Board had said the matter was to be put on the agenda for next
week.
Supervisor Dolan stated her objection was with staff and the
m atter should be placed on the agenda. She could not believe that HUD
would not understand the reason for the delay and that it was in deference
to a Board member.
Supervisor Saraceni stated he did not want to be in a position
of not answering the complaints. He would be willing to discuss the
proposed response.
Supervisor Dolan stated she would be willing to discuss the
response next week.
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated he had advised earlier
that the county should proceed on this matter. The county is dealing
with an outside agency and the gave the county 30 days to respond.
Wage 437.
3une 16, 1981
June 16, 1981
81-
3.
The problems in the county relative to the ability to act on the letter is
not actually the problem of HUD. This has gone on a long time.. It should
have been on the agenda and because it was not is that an excuse for a
continued delay. It is unfortunate but it is not an excuse. He set out
an example of the same thing happening if the county were sued. If he
discussed the suit with one of his deputies and told him to handle it and
then went into court and tried to explain why it was not done the court
would feel this was an internal problem and it was tough.
Supervisor Dolan feat the analogy was in two lawyers taking a
ease to court and one lawyer is told the court date has been postponed
and the other lawyer is told at the time of the court date that he could
not proceed. The county deals with the federal and state agencies and
they have time limits to review matters sent to them from the county
and they do not follow through within that time period. She felt they
could understand why the county had been unable to respond within the
30 days. This needs to be placed on the agenda so the Board members are
prepared.
Supervisor Saraceni felt that if there was a time limit it was
necessary for the county to meet that time limit. He has had the
information for at least three or four weeks. He has lead the material
over already. He felt the county had to meet the time limit and answer
the letter. He was willing for Supervisor Dolan to go over anything
objectionable.
Supervisor Dolan asked that the Board delay the meeting in order
for her to go to Chico and pick up her material and come back. to discuss
this matter. The Board did not discuss this because a Board member was
absent. The county advised two weeks ago they would notice the agency
that there was a reason for taking this time to respond. If she had been
told the matter would not be on the agenda, then it should not be.
Mr. Connerly stated he would not have attended the meeting
if he had not been under the impression that the Board would-discuss
the response.
Supervisor Lemke apologized for being the one that caused the
discussion.- At the same time, the Board has to recognize that the
agenda item for additional agenda items from Board members was the mechanism
set up for handling these types of situations. That was what the mechanism
was established to handle. It is not like the Board is not aware of
what is in the response. He hesitated to do anything other than discuss
this at the end of the day with the approval of the Board. He agreed it
should have been on the agenda.
It was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
that the Administrative Officer be instructed to call HUD and advise that
a Board member was i11 and through bureaucratic mishap the item was not
placed on the agenda and one Board member would like to have a week to
fully discuss this matter with all due preparation.
Chairman Moseley stated she could not support the motion.
Supervisor Lemke felt the Board needed to take Counsel's
advise but if HUD agrees to allow the additional week then Counsel would
agree to wait for one more week so the matter can be placed on the agenda.
Mr. Connerly advised that he had the responsibility for
calling HUD.
Page 438.
June 16, 1981
81=
June lb, 1981 _ _ _ _
Supervisor Saraceni felt that the letter had to be sent back
with a 30 day response time. He felt the county was obligated to respond
back within the time limit.
Supervisor Dolan understood the time limit. That time limit was
on June 4, 1981. If the time limit was June 1b, 1981 she might be more
in agreement.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisor Dolan and Lemke
NOES: Supervisor Saraceni and Chairman Moseley
Motion fails.
1009
1010
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
and carried, consideration of the response to CHIP regarding their complaint
to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to be considered at the
end of the day for a decision. AYES: Supervisors Lemke, Saraceni and
Chairman Moseley. NOES: Supervisor Dolan.
APPROVE CONTRACT WITH CONNERLY AND ASSOCIATES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF
STATE DEFERRER LOAN PROGRAM (HCD)
Ward Connerly, Connerly and Associates,, stated that last week
the approval for submission of the state deferral Ioan program grant
application was approved. They were to come back with a contract for
administration of the program. They agreed that the cost of contract
services was $7,000 with. the Auditor`s expenses to be $500. He asked
that the Board approve the contract..
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Super~risor Saraceni
and carried, the contract with Connerly and Associates for administration
of the state deferral loan program in the amount of $7,000 for Connerly
and Associates and $500 for Auditor's services for a total of $7,500
was approved; the application was authorized to be sent to HUD for
use of the $7,500; and the Chairman authorized to sign.
Nolan Hyde, auditor's office, stated he agreed with the
contract. This has to be a separate contract and the Auditor's Office
agreed to the $500 cost.
APPROVE BUDGET TRANSFERS
On motion of Supexvisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the following budget transfers were approved:
B-279 - Fire Protection. Transfers $1,275 from special department
expense within the regular Fire budget to transportation and travel within
the Volunteer Fire budget in order to provide an additional budgetary
appropriation in the Volunteer travel account as a result of there being
more paid calls for firemen than aticipated.
B-285 - Bi s Justice Court. Transfers $200 from overtime to
office expense in order to cover current budgetary deficiencies and to
provide an appropriation for the balance of the fiscal year.
B-287 - Agriculture. Transfers a total of $29,516 from various
budgetary accounts within the Pesticide Use Grant budget, with similar
amounts going to the same budgetary categories within the Agriculture
budget. The purpose of this transfer is to transfer the entire appropriation
originally established in a subdepartment for pesticide control to the
Agriculture budget in order to more adequately account for costs for the
,ongoing state mandated program. Page 439.
', June 16, 1981
81=
b
lou
_ _ _ June 16, 1981 _ _ _ _ _ _
- - B-289 - Administration - Housin and Community_ Development. -
Transfers $4 from publications-and legal notices and $473 from infra
department transfers within the Administrative Office, together with $773
from HCD program income; increases the appropriation within the Housing
and Community Development subdepartment budget as follows: employee
benefits, $42; general insurance, $5; office expense, $266; travel, $130;
allocated costs received, $334; and intra department transfers, $473. Total
amount of this transfer is $1,250 in order to cover final budgetary closeout
costs.
B-291 - Paradise Constable. Transfers $850 from the reserve to
transportation and travel within the Constable''-s budget as travel costs
were greater than originally anticipated as a result of increased prisoner
transportation.
B-292 - Probation. Transfers $122 from maintenance of equipment
to fixed assets - equipment in order to cover the unanticipated price
increase on the purchase of three electric typewriters that were approved
in the budget.
B-294 - District Attorney - Consumer Protection. Transfers $200
from extra help, $454.from overtime, $167 from professional and specialized
services and $250 from publications and legal notices; with $200 going to
maintenance of equipment, $771 to office expense and $100 to transportation
and travel. The purpose of this transfer is to cover current budgetary
deficiencies and to provide additional appropriations for the balance of
the fiscal year.
B-295 - Veterans Service Office. Transfers $3,250 from the reserve
to regular salaries and wages in order to cover the unanticipated salary
increases brought about by changes in personnel.
B-296 - Fish and Game. Transfers. $3 ;500 from the Fish and Game
reserve with a similar amount going to special department expense in order
to provide an additional monetary appropriation which will allow the Fish
and Game Commission the opportunity to purchase 50,000 silver s8lmon for
eventual planting in Lake Oroville.
B-298 - District Attorney - Famil Support. Transfers $3,000
from regular salaries and $2,000 from jury and witness fees; with $1,100
going to maintenance of equipment, $2,70D to office expense and $1,200
to transportation and travel. The purpose of this transfer is to cover
current budgetary deficiencies and to provide an appropriation for the
balance of the fiscal year.
RECESS: 9:40 a.m.
RECONVENE: 9:58 a.m.
APPROVE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY, MENTAL HEALTH, PUBLIC HEALTH AND TREASURER-
TAX COLLECTOR ITEMS
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the following action was taken:
1. Accepted the funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
in the amount of $9,537 for the summer youth recreation/ summer food
service program for children (CAA).
2. Authorized an increase to the Public Guardian agreement
with Mental Health to $17,000 and designated $34,000 as the contract
maximum for the Fjord Smorgette contract for Mental Health.
Page 440.
June~16, 1981
81-'
b
_ June 16, 1981
3. Approved variance renewal to-:Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12
of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 4Q-29-18,
1904 Sycamore Lane, Durham area, zoning: "A-5" for Verda P. Danker.
4. Approved variance renewal to Sections 19-10 and/or 19-12
of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 39-31-003,
740 North Graves Avenue, Chico area, zoning: "A--10" for Floyd W. Ridenour.
5. Denied request for penalty relief for Rudolph C. Schulz for
AP 25-24-65, AP 3b-26-57 and AP 25-24-66.
6. Denied request for penalty relief for Robert W. Schulz for
AP 36-53-004, AP 36-27-027, AP 3b-27-028 and AP 25-24-067.
7. Denied request for penalty relief for 3ustin L. Damen for
AP 08-06-OI9.
DISCUSSION AND POLICY DIRECTION: TN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROGRAM
PROPOSAL - WELFARE DEPARTMENT
Discussion and policy direction for in-home supportive services
program proposal was held as continued from last week.
1012
Bob Crisan, welfare director, stated this was a return from
the presentation that was made last week relative to the change in the
homemaker grogram for on-staff homemakers rather than the individual
providers. He has discussed this change with individual members of
the Board. He was hopefully able to indicate the amount o£ the program that
would be on staff.
Supervisor Dolan appreciated the fact that this matter-had been
continued from last week. She had two questions relative to this change.
Was it really a better way to direct the services2 Through her talks and
discussions and research the answer-in her mind was yes. She could understand
that the county will have greater state reimbursement for this year and it
is a cost savings this year but what about next year. She did not know what
the state will mandate and how the county w®uld need to implement the
mandates. This proposal is going to be an improvement in the quality and
control of the quality. It will mean a savings to the General Fund within
the Welfare Department this year. She cautioned the Welfare Director
that the Board will watch this and they should be ready to respond to
state mandates. If there is better service and control then maybe other
counties can follow suit.
Mr. Crisan stated the state was using Butte County as a model
program. It is a large program. It is one of the programs that will
continue to grow more than the average population growth.
Chairman Mo"seley asked that the $63,000 for the building
remodel of the Superintendent of Schools old building be part of the
discussion. She had asked that this be brought back.
Supervisor Dolan stated she asked the questions relative to
the remodel for the old Superintendent of Schools building. This would
make a wheelchair access for the building. She had been aware that the
employees in the Welfare Department have been on top of each other. The
remodel is not tied into this program.
Mr. Crisan stated that the employees in this program will not
be spending any time in the office. The space for this program will be
minimal.
Page 441,
June 16, 1981
81-
b
____--__=====June lb, 1981______________ _____
- Chairman Moseley had concerns .with having two Welfare Departments.
She had concerns about the budget in the state.' The homemakers will be
getting $5.00 per hour when they have been getting-$3.35 per hour.
Mr. Crisan stated that the state budget was adopted last night
and the indications are that they will lose funding.' There will be a
decrease in the program which is the county's share.
Supervisor Lemke felt that if the county could not afford the
program next budget year, there would be lay offs from the permanent staff.
It was moved by Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
that policy direction be for proceeding with establishment of the new
in-home supportive services program proposal.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan and Lemke
NOES: Supervisor Saraceni and Chairman Moseley
Motion fails.
1013
Consideration of the in-home supportive services program proposal
and the $63,000 for the remodel of the old Superintendent of Schools building
was continued to June 23, 1981.
APPROVE PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS: ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-123 & 81-124
Ort motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the following action was taken:
1. Adopted Resolution 81-123 setting a public hearing date of
July 21, 1981 at 10:00 a.m. for consideration o£ road name changes from
Anne Circle (Centerville Road to end) to China Camp Road and Ponderosa Way
(end to Oro-Quincy Highway) to Sand Creek Drive in the Paradise and Oroville
address areas and the Chairman authorized to sign.
2. Approved the 1981-82 SB 325 transit claim requesting-funds
from BCAG to fund the county's share of its involvement in public transportation
transportation planning and pedestrian/bikeway construction with the total
amount of funds Maimed being $343,418.
3. Approved contract change order No. 1 for South Oroville storm
drain and associated facilities, Project No. 25505E-80-1 in the increasing
amount of $13,279.31 which provides for filling in a portion of the existing
ditch under an existing building and for overrun of various contract items
with funding available in the contingency fund for the project and the
Chairman authorized to sign.
4. Accepted the work of Dexter L. Rogers for the South Oroville
storm drain and associated facilities, Project No. 25505E-80-1; authorized
the Chairman to sign the notice of completion; and directed the Clerk to
record said notice with the Recorder.
5. Adopted Resolution 81 124 of summary abandonment for a portion
of Baggett-Palermo Road at Western Pacific Railroad crossing MP 4-200.6 and
the Chairman authorized to sign.
b. Approved the right-of-way contract, Skyway I'AS Y742(3) for
Harry Pendexy et ux in the amount of $4,600; authorized the Chairman to
sign and authorized the Auditor to issue a warrant-upon demand of the
county's escrow agent.
Page 442.
June 16, 1981.
81~
1014
1015
1016
June I6, 1481 __ _
- 7. Approved letter to the State Department of Water Resources -
requesting specific maintenance on Little Chico Creek. to be funded through
Maintenance Area 5 and the Chairman authorized to sign.
AWARD BID MORSEMAN AVENUE PROJECT N0. 59195C-80-1
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the bid for the Morseman Avenue, Project No. 59195C-80-L was
awarded to Butte Creek Rock Company in the amount of $49,977 with the
Auditor to retain a five percent construction contingency and the Chairman
authorized to sign the contract.
ADDITIONAL MATTER PRESENTED BY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated he had received
the first application for the beautification and litter program. The
City of-Chico is planning to use part of the money they received to
work on the Crouch Ditch. If they do not work on the ditch, the county
could work on a program for that purpose.
ADOPT RESODUTIONS 81-125, 81-126 & 81-127: PUBLIC HEARINGS: JAMES H. CRAIG,
DONALD H. FORD, AND ARNOLD W. JOHNSON ABANDONMENT OF PUBIC UTILITIES
AND RECREATIONAL EASEMENTS IN PARADISE PINES AREA
The following public hearings were held. as advertised:
1. James H. Craig abandonment of public utilities and recreational
easement, Paradise Pines Unit No: 10, Lot 71.
2. Donald H. Ford abandonment of public utilities easement,
Paradise Pines Unit 4, Lot 65.
3. Arnold W. Johnson abandonment of public utilities and
recreational easement, Paradise Pines Unit 11, Lot 87.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
1017
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
and carried, the following abandonments were approved; the following
Resolutions were adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign:
1. Resolution 81-125 abandonment of public utilities and
recreational easement, Paradise Pines Unit No. 10, Lot 7i for James H.
Craig.
2. Resolution 81-126 abandonment of public utilities easement,
Paradise Pines Unit 4, Lot 65 for Donald H. Ford
3. Resolution 81-127 abandonment o£ pub lie utilities and
recreational easement, Paradise Pines Unit 11, Lot 87 for Arnold W.
Johnson.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: LARRY AND MARGIE TIDWELL AND WALLACE WILCOX - PETITIONS
FOR VARIANCE TO SECTIONS 19-10 AND/OR 19-12 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE FOR
PLACEMENT OF A MOBILE HOME ON PROPERTY
The following public hearings were held as advertised:
1. Larry and Margie .Tidwell petition for variance to Sections
19-10 and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile
home on AP 27-06-47, 7051 Citrus Arenue, Palermo area, zoning: "A-5"
Page 443.
June' 16, 1981
81~
b
June 16,, 1981
2. Wallace Wilcox petition for variance to Sections 19-10 and/or
i9-12 of the Butte County Code-for placement of a mobile home on AP 28-19-94,
388 Mission Olive Road, Oroville area, zoning: "A-5"
Lynn Vanhart, environmental health director, set out the background
of the petitions. They are in order.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
1018
On motion of Skpervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the following items were approved for a period of one year:
1. Larry and Margie Tidwell petition for variance to Sections
19-10 and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home
on AP 27-06-47, 7051 Citrus Avenue, Palermo area, zoning: "A-5"
2. Wallace Wilcox petition for variance to Sections 19-10 and/or
19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a moble~home on AP 28-19-94,
388 Mission Olive Road, Oroville area, zoning: "A-5"
PUBLIC~iEARING: LLOYD AND ALYCE MOYA PETITION FOR VARIANCE TO SECTIONS 19-10
AND/OR 19-I2 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE FOR PLACEMENT OF A MOBILE HOME ON
AP 65-32-60 14755 NORTHWOOD DRIVE, MAGALIA AREA, ZONING: "RT-1"
The public hearing on Lloyd and Alyce Moya petition for variance
to Sections 14-10 and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of
a mobile home on AP 65-32-60, 14755 Northwood Drive, Magalia area, zoning:
"RT-1" was held as advertised.
Lynn Vanhart, environmental health director, set out the background
of the petition. This is a request by the Moyas to place a 38'x8' fifth
wheeler on a separate lot adjacent to their property to circumvent the
zoning requirement. The footage requirement for this zoning is 500 square
feet. There was some activity in the area where there were complaints
at one time about a recreational vehicle. This has been investigated by
the zoning investigator. Never before has an Aunt Minnie been used to
add a smaller unit on a separate parcel. They have never restricted the
size of the second unit on the same property. This request is for a
separate parcel.
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated there was another problem
as to whether the Board has the jurisdiction under the variance procedure
to hear this matter. There is a definition of mobile home in the ordinances.
A travel trailer or something of that nature does not come under the
definition, thus, he did not see how the county could issue a permit that
would be in violation of the ordinances where there is no procedure that
would authorize the Board to hold a hearing on that question.
The telephone call from Mrs. Lana Taylor of Mathews Real Estate
relative to this matter was acknowledged at this time.
Hearing open to the public. Appearin g:
1. Mr. Moya. Mr. Moya realized that the fifth wheeler trailer
did not comply with the 500 square foot requirement. This is not a permanent
structure. He allowd a disabled individual to use his property because he
was down and out. The individual was in a mobile home park and the rent
was raised three times in seven months. The individual has a disability
pension. The individual is trying to find a place to live at this time.
When Mr. Moya goes on vacation, he can feel at ease because someone is
watching his property. Page 444.
.Tune 16, 1981
81-
3
June 16, 1981 ______ __~_ __
2. Vern Hadley. Mr. Hadley stated he was Mr. Moya's neighbor.
About two years ago there was a problem withthss adjacent lot with a
travel trailer. Mr. Moya is trying to have~the two parcels-put together.
The original problem was a single wide mobile home on the lot for some
time and was occupied by the owner of that parcel that was not hooked
up to a septic system. Mr. Moya tried to cooperate with this individual
and finally had to purchase the property and get rid of the mobile home.
Since that time, the lot has only been used for a guest or something.
The situation is 100 percent better than it was before. The occupant
in the fifth wheeler is helping to keep the lot cleared. The neighbors
he was aware of in the area were happy with the situation. He understood
the complaint was from areal estate individual who lost a sale because
of the trailer. He supported the request.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board:
1019
Supervisor Lemke stated the first time he heard of this property
was during a Towrihall meeting with Mr. Moya making the complaint about
what was going on. Mr. Moya was unable to abate the problem of the ogen
septage. Mr. Moya ended up purchasing the property in order to get rid
of the mess. There is now a smaller unit on the groperty that is in good
shape. There have been no further complaints about health and sanitation
on the property. If there is someway to approve.this, he would like to
be able to do so. If this is two lots put into one lot~then it could fall
under Sections 14-10 and/or 19-12. The otherCitem is the size of the mobile
and the county has been fairly lenient with that. This is a temporary
situation. The cost of the application is $61 instead of $25 for the
Aunt Minnie.
Supervisor Dolan felt this was a request to vary from the
minimum size of a dwelling on the lot. She sympathized with Mr. Moya.
At the same time, the Aunt Minnie procedure would be a way to deviate
from the zoning density requirements. She wondered if it could be an
Aunt Minnie i~_the two lots were combined.
Mr. Blackstock stated that was what the ordinance pxovided.
The Board could give their intent and staff could study the matter.
The person is living there now. The Board could instruct staff to
work on this matter and bring .back a different proposal in the future.
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, a motion of intent was made to approve the petition for
variance to Sections I9-10 and/or 19-12 of the Butte County Code for
placement of obile home on AP 65-32-60, 14755 Northwood Drive, Magatia
area for L1oy and Alyce Moya with staff to work on the matter to bring
it back for a different proposal in the future.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-128: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF ROAD NAME CHANGES
IN THE OROVILLE ADDRESS AREA
'i The public hearing on consideration of road name changes in the
Oroville address area was held as advertised.
•Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background
of the road name changes. If there are any controversies relative to
any of the roads he suggested that these be sent back and taken off the
list.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Marta Autrey. Ms.
Autrey stated that they took a petition around to the people living on
Autrey Lane .and everyone signed the petition for-the name. Autrey Lane
was named for her father.
Page 445.
June 16, 1981
8TH
3.
1020
June_16, 1981 ___ _____ __
Hearing closed to the public and confined•to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni:, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
and carried, Resolution 8i-128 renaming-roads in the Oroville area as
set out below was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign:
Existing Name Termini Proposed Name
Nevada Avenue Seventh Street to River Phillips Way
Hillcrest Avenue Olive Hwy. to Almond Ave. Ridgeview Lane
Reservoir Road End to District Center Drive Butte Vista Road
Wyandotte Miners
Ranch Road Oro-Bangor Hwy. to Live Hwy. Miners Ranch Road
Carrie Court End to Mission Olive Road Ramos Court
District Center Drive End to Grubbs Road Alta Airosa Drive
Olive Avenue South Villa Ave. to Bohemia Ave. Springtime Trail
Bangor Park Cutoff Rd. LaPorte Road to End Pleasant Grove
Lane
Woodland Avenue End to District Center Drive Fortune Way
Via Castana End to Monte Vista Avenue Autrey Lane
Hearst Avenue Monte Vista Ave. to Las Plumas Ave. Autrey Lane
V-C Road Las Plumas Aoe. to Oro-Bangor Hwy. Autrey Lane
PUBLIC HEARING: BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - AMENDMENT TO BUTTE COUNTY
GENERAL PLAN, HOUSING ELEMENT (FINAL DRAFT OF HOUSTNC ELEMENT APPLICABLE
TO THE UNINCORPORATED PORTIONS OF THE COUNTY') - CONTINUED'TO SEPTEMBER 15
The public hearing on Butte County Planning Commission amendment
to the Butte County General Plan, Housing Element (final draft of Housing
,Element applicable to the unincorporated portions of the county).was held
as continued.
Bettye Blair, planning director, stated the Board had received
a copy of the memo distributed to HCD. This is in the environmental
review process. The: determination has not been made. She asked that
this matter be continued to September 8, 1981. This will be before the
Planning Commission on June 24, 1981.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Evelyne Reader. Ms.
Reader was concerned with the density in the Housing Element.
Ms. Blair stated the text recommends increased density and a
change in the minimum parcel size. She did not know whether this would
prevail. This is the first public hearing with the new text. The
recommendations as drafted encompass all the recommendations from the
Housing Element Task Force and the Planning staff. She felt there would
be increased density but to what extend she was not sure.
Ms. Reader felt there would be more problems if the density is
increased. There will be a need for more police protection. There are
not enough jobs for people in this area at the present time.
Bage 446.
June'16, 1981
si-
~.
.Tune 16, 1981 - _ _ _ _ _
o o r=- o o ~ ,. v~ o e o v a o e~ m ~- a e-- ... -----
Ms. Blair advised that copies of the draft are available at the
libraries and•in their office. There are also copies of the draft for
sale.
The hearing was continued to September 15, 1981 at 10:00 a.m.
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-129 SETTING PUBLTC HEARING DATE FOR KARL D. MAY
ABANDONMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT, PARADISE PINES COUNTRY CLUB
N0. 1, LOT 64
On motion of Supervisor Zemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, Resolution 81-129 setting a public hearing date of July 21,
1981 at 10:00 a.m. for consideration of Karl D. May abandonment of public
utilities easement, Paradise Pines Country Club No. 1, Lot 64 was adopted
and the Chairman authorized to sign.
PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET
A public hearing date of July 14, 1983 at 10:15 a.m. was set
for consideration of Heritage Estates Partners-draft environmental impact
report and rezone from "A-2" (general) to "PA-C" (planned area-cluster)
to allow a 132 unit residential complex on property located on the west
side of Kelly Ridge Road and bounded on the northwest by Heritage Road
and on the southwest by Rachel Drive, identified as AP 72-01-13, 14, 15
and 16, Oroville.
REPORT TO THE BOARD: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION DENIED REZONE
The report to the Board on Southern Cali#ornia Financial Corporation
proposed negative declaration and denied rezone from "A-R" (agricultural -
residential) to "RT-1" (minimum density residential - mobile home), property
located on the north side of Hillcrest Avenue from west of Lodgeview Drive
to east of Kelly Ridge Road, identified as AP 69-40-103 and 69-32-3I, Oroville
was received as information. •
WAIVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21.28 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY
CODE REDEFINING "MOBILE HOME" RELATING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE BILL 1960
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the first reading of the ordinance amending Section 21.28 of
the Butte County Code redefining "mobile home" relating to implementation
of Senate Bi11 1960 was waived.
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2226: WAIVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING BUTTE
COUNTY CODE SECTION 32-8 RELATIVE TO_ADDRESSING PROCEDURES
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated that this
ordinance would allow a street address at each mobile home in a mobile
home park. He contacted the postal authorities and the emergency people
relative to this matter. They said go ahead.
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the second reading of the ordinance amending Sutte County
Code Section 32-8 relative to addressing procedures was waived.
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, Ordinance 2226 amending Butte County Code Section 32-8 relative
to addressing procedures was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
AYES: Supervisors Lemke, Saraceni and Chairman Moseley. NOES: Supervisor
Dolan. ABSENT: Supervisor Wheeler.
(COUNTY COUNSEL ITEMS - CONTINUED TO JUNE 23, 1981
The following County Counsel items were continued to June 23,
1981:
1. Report to the Board concerning denial of Faith Center church
exemption. Page 447•
June 16, 1981
81~
a
1027
*~e
lots
1029
June 16=1481 _ ___ _ ______~
2. Request for advancement on the salary schedule for Leo
Battle, deputy county counsel IV, from step B (_$2,767/month) to,steg E
($3,200/month), range 32.0 in accordance with Personnel Rules Section 12.13.
REPORT TO THE BOARD ON `LIBRARY STATUS
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, regorted on the library status
at this time. He has received proposals to serve as trustees from all
banks except one. He will be sending this out to the Board for decision
on June 23, 1981. One of the unfortunate things is that the financial
consultant is unable to meet the time schedule. They are to go to bid
on June 25, 1981 for the money. This is the date of the bond sale.
They were hoping to make the bonds callible in less than ten years.
The financial consultants says that cannot be done. The bonds will be
callible in ten years. The other is that he expects to come back with
2.8, 2.9 or three million. Based on discussion with the Board members
and expressed direction and he was advised to keep it as loia as possible to
the $2.8 million which will bring the annual cost to below $400,000.
The bids will be opened in the financial consultants office on July 14,
1981. He has discussed leaving with bond, counsel. Bond counsel has assured
him that everything from now on after the decision on July 14, 1981 will
be minimal. There should be no problems. The interest rates are looking
good. Last week in Monterey on the type of bond similar to this they came
in for less than ten percent. All of the figures the county is working
on is using an anticipated interest rate of eleven percent. They are
still going with the two percent discount.
He felt the contracts with the cities should be firmed up
as soon as possible. He was happy to see that Chico placed-money in
their tentative budget. Both the City of Chico and the City of Gridley
are in their budget consideration at this time. These should be taken
care of as soon as possible.
ADDITIONAL MATTER PRESENTED BY COUNTY COUNSEL
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, advised that the CETA case was
before the District Court of Appeals. It appears the county will be getting
out of this. The judge has not ruled as yet. It is looking very good at
this point.
GIVE BLESSINGS RE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
Dan Blackstock, county counsel,-stated he had furnished the
Board with copies of the proposed by-laws for the incorporation. The
timing on this from the Board was to get OEDP incorporated as soon as
possible. They were to come back with a contract as soon as possible.
He has filed the articles of incorporation. In filing the articles
of incorporation he was filing for the smaller fee and that exemption
request has to include the by-laws. The by-laws can be amended after
the corporation is in process. There were certain problems resolved
at the meeting that was called by the Administrative Officer. The present
plan as he understood it is to go to PIC on Wednesday and to the first
meeting of the corporation on Thursday, at which time the directors will
be seated and the organization will approve the contract., He understood
the Board was going to increase the size of the appointments for directors.
There are four divisions and each Board member will be electing one additional
director. They started with the nine members presently on the committee
and then each division will elect one which will give a total of 13 directors.
In regard to the contract the Board should be talking in terms of about
$25,000. The contract with provide that the. term for the corporation
will run through September 30, 1981, which is the end of the federal
fiscal year. That idea being that a new contract will be prepared for the
following year. Tt will allow the use of these funds that would have
otherwise been lost to economic development. The Chairman would be
authorized to sign the contract: `The contract will mean the use of
' Page 448.
June 16, 1981
SI-
3
June 16, 1981
those €unds~for economic development and to implement the plan. This will
be a reimbursement type of agreement-where the funds will stay in the
county's control instead of going to the corporation. The money will
be appropriated on the expense side.
Supervisor Saracens stated he had looked over the by-laws of
the Butte County Overall Economic Development Corporation. He questioned
whether this would be an open membership and the membership to elect
the board of directors.
Mr. Blackstock stated his understanding of the minutes of
the last Board meeting, the Board decided to put the new board of
directors at 13 members. Nine of the members were to come from that
committee and four would be elected from the divisions. He did two
things with regard to the divisions. He said anyone interested could
join the corporation and vote and the appointed members of the various
types, of organizations. The membership'is still open. Any resident of
Butte County is entitled to vote in their division. Mr. Blackstock
answered Supervisor Sara¢eni's question as to whether the corporation
would be entirely separate from the control of Butte County. The Board
of Supervisors will be appointsng five members directly.
Supervisor Saracens stated that under the by-laws, the board
of directors have full power to change the by-laws after the corporation
is formed. He wondered what right the membership had to change the
board of directors.
Supervisor Lemke stated that the Board of Supervisors is the
prime sponsor.
Mr. Blackstock stated that the by-laws would have standard
corporation law and that is the power to vote on in the case of an
elected member once every two years. The Beard of Supervisors
selections would serve for a term of one year.
Supervisor Saracens asked what provisions were made to allow
the membership to come in and make a change in the board of directors
if they feel it is necessary?
two years.
Mr. Blackstock advised they would be able to vote once every
Supervisor Dolan stated the corporation would need public
attention. For any program in economic development, they will need
public information and support. Public pxessure and need to cooperate
will make the working necessary.
Supervisor Lemke stated he could not support Supervisor Saraceni's
idea. The Board is the prime sponsor and has the responsibility for the
financial ramifications without the public having the ability to reach
that point through their elected officials. The Board-would then reflect
back on this board so the electorate would have some type of handle on
the situation. He wanted the ability to make an appointment to the
board of directors.
Supervisor Saracens stated there were people who would Like
to be part of the board of directors. He was looking for the by-laws
'to be open for those parties to be able to apply or run for the board
~lof directors.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, advised one member would
be appointed by each Board member=~= .
Page 449.
June 16, 1981
June Lb, 1981
8T- - Supervisor Saraceni stated that the last set of by-laws allowed
b: for the membership to ratify the board of directors. He wanted. these
by-laws to have the same provision.
Mr. Blackstock did not see how someone could run a corporation
if the change in the board of directors had to be made with having the
whole general membership meeting and vote. There are four divisions
of general memberships in this corporation.- The Board and PIC will
be controlling the activities of the corporation by virtue of the
contract. If the Board wants to terminate the relationship with the
corporation and wants another corporation it would not be difficult to
incorporate again. There will be Board control and responsibility for
activities. He left the general membership number open as far as
a quorum. The board of directors would have a majority for a quorum.
Jim Rackerby, personnel director, stated that Mr. Blackstock
has been discussing structural nature of OEDP. He stated he would like
to discuss the planning grant. The contract will set out some of the
activities and things the county will expect for the $20,000 to $25,000
in order for the county to monitor and determine if the contract is
being fulfilled. He read the proposed contract at this time. He
asked that the Board either amend the contract as presented or authorize
the contract so he could take it to PIC. Thy propose to develop a:plan.
This would be a financial agreement between the County of Butte and
Butte County Overall Economic Development Corporation and would be a
subcontract. He set out what the corporation would be required to
provide. The contract would terminate on September 30, 1981. This-is
a standard type CETA sub grant.
Mr. Blackstock asked that the Board give their blessing on
the contract the way it is relative to the way the organization is run
and see if they want to authorize execution of the contract at this
time.
Mr. Rackerby stated that on the authorization of what has been
said, he would take this to PIC tomorrow with the idea that PIC would
act and it would code back next Tuesday for Board action. They would
then have the document for finalization on June 23, 1981.
' Supervisor Saraceni would have to stick to his feelings
relative to the by-laws. He had no objections to going after economic
development. He was not comfortable with the by-laws. He did not agree
with appointing the board of directors. He was looking for an open
membership and having the membership electing the board of directors.
Supervisor Lemke wanted the Board to have the right to appoint
five of those people. He could not see relinquishing that right of the
Board. They are the prime sponsor and have the responsibility. The
first five must come from the Board. Every member has the ability to
appoint someone they want to the board of directors. If the corporation
goes together like BEDCo went together it tn11 go flying out the window.
Everything he has ever seen on economic development from the federal
government down that is held up as a success, are all citizen members.
Every success shows interlocking boards of directors. It starts out
with first policy bodies making appointments.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that once the corporation was
established they could change the by-laws and the term of office for
the board of directors. The Board would have no control over the corporation.
Mr. Blackstock stated, that the Board would have a contract with
the corporation. The Board wou~fl"have control over the Funding.
Page 450.
June 16, 1981
81-
1030
1031
1032
_ June 16, 19.81 ______________
The reason the by-laws were via de so easy to change was hecause he-prepared
them and at some time down the-road .there mi=ght be a need for a change.
This gives an alternative.
Supervisor Lemke stated that the first time his appointee is
changed, he would be coming to the Board with a motion to stop the funding
for the corporation.
Lt was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
and carried, the Board gave their blessing to the contract with the
corporation to be considered by PIC and to come back to the Board on
June 23, 1981 for formalization of the contract. AYES: Supervisors Dolan,
Zemke, and Chairman Moseley. NOES: Supervisor Saraceni
APPEARANCE: JAMES HANSEN
Mr. Hansen stated that the power of the people is through elections.
Tf the people become dissatisfied, they should be able to remove those
people from office by election or those that have been appointed. He was
opposed to police;°power. Bureaucracy is easy to grow but hard to destroy.
PLANNING STAFF TO MAKE-RECOMMENDATION RELATIVE TO CONDITIONAL ZONES -
JUNE 23, 1981
Russ Croninger: stated he has a project has to do with the
General Plan and zoning for industrial type property. The process is
through Planning and Environmental Review Departments. The Environmental
Review Department would like to have mitigation measures on the project.
The developer has no problem with the mitigation measures. The only problem
is there can be no mitigation measures on zoning changes and General Plan
changes. He has discussed conditional zoning with the Planning and
Environmental Review Departments. There could be review at the same time
a permit is being processed so the conditions can be placed on a project.
There is no way to handle this situation at the present time.
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, advised that handling of conditions
could be placed in the General Plan itself. That would resolve the problem.
If a tentative map is filed the conditions could be placed on that map.
Earl Nelson, environmental review director, stated that what
Mr. Croninger is looking for is some way to apply some type of conditional
negative declaration. The only option available now other than if the
county were to create a mechanism to provide-for conditiona-1 approval
is to write an EIR. The County of Sacramento does have conditional
zoning. Tojbe specific the conditions would be written to the property.
They would have to be site specific. Sewage disposal functions as a
site development review process. The only problem would he is if the
property was hooked up to sewers and did not go through this review
process. On commercial zoning there would be no review except for the
building permit procedure. There is the possibility of looking into
conditional zones.
The matter was continued to June 23, 1981 with the Planning
staff to bring back a recommendation on the procedure to follow.
APPEARANCE: ROD WEYAND BCEA
Mr. Weyand introduced himself as the new staff member of BCEA.
One of the items he would like to discuss that does not really classified
as a BCEA matter but does effect the association is the use of the
agenda. The agenda is directed to anyone who wants it and is a record
of everything that will take place. There are many facts that people
need to bring up to the Soar d. Supervisor Dolan made a good point earlier
that an item was not on the agenda. County Counsel presented three items
that were not on the agenda. The Board was asked to vote on these items.
Page 451.
June'16, 1981
June 16, 1981
81- He requested that whenever possible that the Board delay voting on these
3 matters until the people of the county know what is going on. Once something
has been approved, it is hard to take the vote back.
Mr. Weyand spoke relative to the fact that the BCBA and the county
e currently in negotiations. One of the issues discussed earlier was
e library. He loved libraries but at the same time this could have
effect on the budget next year. Money paid out for the bond out of
e budget will directly affect other items including any raises or
nefits for the employees. He felt that this should be considered at
deet session.
1033 APPOINTMENT TO COUNTY' BEAUTIFICATION AND CLEAN UP COMMITTEE DISTRICT 5
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, Monte East was appointed to the County Beautification and
Clean Up Committee, District 5.
CESS: 12:00 p.m.
CONVENE: 12:12 p.m.
ERVTSOR SARACENI ABSENT AT THIS TIME
1034 APPOINTMENTS TO CORRECTIONS NEEDS ASSESSMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - CONTINUED
TO ,TUNE 23 1981
Supervisor Lemke stated he wanted the name of the committee to
be the Corrections Needs Assessment Advisory Committee and not the
Corrections Needs Assessment Study Advisory Committee.
Gerald Lively, deputq administrative officer, stated that it
s important that the committee understand they were an advisory
mmittee to the jail construction committee. It was important for
e criminal justice system that there be adequate gublic representation
the committee. The committee will provide citizen input from an
tside prospective. He felt it was a workable size unit.
SOR SARACENT PRESENT AT THIS TIME
Chairman Moseley felt that there should be representatives
from Richvale, Biggs, Gridley and Durham on this committee. There is
no one recommended from the southern part of the county.
Supervisor Dolan stated that all the proposed appointees were
from Chico.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that was a very
good point. In all due respect to the City of Chico there is a large
group that represent the Chico area and the tendency that may develop is
to have something in Chico.
Supervisor Dolan had a concern with one of the proposed appointees.
This person is a news director for a television station. She understood
that people had personal lives. She did not feel that the two could
be distinguished in this case. The jail is a story with an expenditure
of maybe $8 million. She questioned whether it was appropriate. She felt
that the news media needed to be involved other than as a public member.
She was not reflecting on the individual.
The matter was continued to .Tune 23, 1981.
Page 452.
June 16, 1981
June 16, 1981 _
81-1035 ADOPT POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANiTAL SECTION 1.01-1
$' On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor.Lemke
and carried, Policy and Procedure Manua], Section 1.01-1 providing that
no Board of Supervisor meetings be held on Tuesdays following 1KAnday
holidays was adopted.
1036 COMMUNICATIONS
Law Offices of Leverenz and Ward. The attorneys, on behalf of Roy McWilliams,
request heat the hearing scheduled on their appeal of a use permit
denial be rescheduled from June 23 to June 30. Letter to be
written advising attorney that the Board will consider his
request at the end of the hearing on June 23, 1981 as the hearing
has been advertised.
Chuck and Suzie Suppus, Oroville. Mr. and Mrs. Sugpus write in opposition
to the lowering of minimum lot sizes below 6,500 square feet.
Referred to Planning Department.
Gridley Library. Letters of support for the library 'have been received
from Jerry Shelton, Gloria Shelton and Dan Boeger. Information;
no action taken.
Mirian H. Coon, Durham. Ms. Coon writes in support of the job performed
by Ray Cobbler of the Public Works Department in the addressing
effort in the county. Information; copy to be sent to Mr.
Cobbler.
Paul G. West, Palermo. Mr. West writes in support of the Iow density,
owner-built housing (K--Code) proposal. Information; no action
taken.
Butte County Historical Society. The society writes requesting that the
county consider oiling the roadway leading to the Oregon City
schoolhouse as an alternative to paving. Referred to Public
Works Department.
County of Santa Cruz. The county writes asking the Board to support
a request that the County Supervisors Association of California
initiate, help finance and oversee a coordinated program which
will make certain that the provisions of the Constitution
mandating reimbursements to counties for state mandated costs
are fully implemented. See motion following communications.
County of Shasta. Shasta Caunty forwards-its resolution concerning
continuation of their family practice residency pragram
for information purposes. Information; no action taken.
California Rural Legal Assistance, San Francisco. The firm writes
forwarding information in follow-up to letters circulated by
Madera County with regard to refunding of the California Rural
Legal Assi"stance and the Legal Services Corporation. Information;
no action taken.
Congressman Gene Chappie. Congressman Chappie writes forwarding information
concerning funding for the Legal Services Corporation at the
federal level. Information; no action taken.
U. S_. Department of Labor. The department writes forwarding information
and requesting proposals and ideas with regard to continuation
of employment and training programs beyond the 1982 federal
fiscal year. Referred to CETAC for a report back to the Board.
Page 453.
June 16, 198I
81-
b:
It was moved by Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
that the resignation of Daniel V. Blackstock as County Counsel be accepted.
Supervisor Dolan questioned whether filling of the position
be on the agenda for next week.
Supervisor Lemke asked if the Administrative Office was
suggesting contracting with Leonard and Lyde for County Counsel services.
Mr. Nickelson replied yes. They will bring the matter back
next week for the Board to decide~.wH.ether to contract, promote or
recruit. The concept of combining the .County Counsel's Office with
the District Attorney's Office has been suggested as a possible .
alternative. That has more problems.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke, Saraceni and Chairman Moseley
NOES: None
Motion carried.
_June 16, 1981 _
Daniel V. Blackstock, county counsel. Mr. Blackstock submits his resignation
as Butte County Counsel effective-July 15, 1481. See motion
following communications.
1037
S.T. Enloe Memorial Hospital. The hospital-writes inviting the Board members
to be observers at the Butte County Emergency Medical Services
Systems 1981 Disaster Drill to be held at Butte Community
College campus on Thursday, June 18, 1981 at 6:30 p.m.
Information; no action taken.
SUPPORT COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ REQUEST THAT THE COUNTY SUPERVISORS
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA INITIATE, HELP FINANCE AND OVERSEE A COORDINATED
PROGRAM WHICH WILL MAKE CERTAIN THAT PROVI5IONS OF THE CONSITITUTION
MANDATING REIMBURSEMENTS TO COUNTIES FOR STATE MANDATED COSTS ARE FULLY
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, County of Santa Cruz's request that the County Supervisors
Association of California initiate, help finance and oversee a coordinated
program which will make certain that the provisions of the Constitution
mandating reimbursements to counties for state mandated costs are fully
implemented was supported and letters were authorized to be written.
1038 (ACCEPT RESIGNATION OF DANIEL V. BLACKSTOCK, COUNTY COUNSEL
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, advised that the
Board had received memos from both Personnel and the Administrative
Office as it relates to the Counsel's position. One of the alternatives
is investigating contracting out for the County Counsel services. He
felt the concept should be considered first because of the sequence of
time.
1039
APPROVE SENDING RESPONSE LETTER TO CHIP~REGARDING THEIR COMPLAINT TO THE
DEPARTMENT 6F HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
It was moved by Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Lemke
that the letter of response be sent to CHIP regarding their complaint
to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
*** Supervisor Dolan stated she recognized that the Board continued
this until the end of the day at her request. She had some real problems
with being involved with discussing this. She was told Friday this would
Page 454.
June 16, 1981
81=
$'
_June 16, 1981
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -- T = _ _ -
not be on the agenda. She-could not believe that-the Board voted two to
two not to call HUD to-say the Board was going to'take action.
She had some questions relative to the response. The letter from
CHIP questions the process or some of the decisions and how the decisions
were made and questions the consultant's role. She wondered why the
Board asked the consultant to draft the response, She wanted to know if
Counsel and Administration looked at the points raised and was everything
investigated from the county's viewpoint?
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, advised he did not even
thoroughly review the letter.
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, advised that many of the things
in the response are not in his personal knowledge, He relied on what
was given to him by the consultant. As far as he knew the response
answered the points raised in the letter from CHIP.
Supervisor Dolan stated that if there are going to be questions
raised to a federal agency for a program that is funded by the federal
government and run by the county, she would want each of the allegations
raised to be researched by what is supportable in the record by memos or
staff. Supervisor Dolan questioned the response listed on page 2,
paragraph 3 relative to the fact that CHIP has continually requested
that the county pre-select CHIP as the buyer o£ ODBG lots. She could
find nothing anywhere in the record,(board minutes, letters to the county),
that indicate CHIP had ever asked to be pre-selected.
Supervisor Lemke stated that pre-selected was the term used. He
saw it in the letter as the county has a number of times accepted or worked
with GRIP to provide lots without going out for a request for proposal.
Mr. Blackstock stated that was in response to four paragraphs.
They were basically talking about the requests by CHIP that was turned
down by the Board to have that very thing. They want to come in for
an option to develop those lots themselves and were requesixngthat they
have the sole option. He thought the responses were accurate in what
he saw that was before the Board.
Supervisor Dolan stated that asking for an option to buy the
lots was much different that-the statement the county alleges that they
continually request pre-selection. They are not the same.
Mr. Blackstock would interprete it the same.. They requested
options in the past and were granted those options.
Mr. Nickelson stated that previously the county dealt-with CHIP
because of the sweat equity program and it was a major element in the
grant application. The second time around was something else.
Supervisor Lemke felt that their first time around had not
been proven when they requested the lots the second time.
Supervisor Dolan stated the minutes reflect that the county
wanted to have proposals and it was the decision of the county that these
be funded through private enterprise. CHIP stated in their letter that
the county is against private nonprofit organizations is true. She did not
feel that comparing the concern that CHIP was not performing on self-help
with the Burbank School site. The problems for CHIP was the different
funding sources. She did not feel the eomp~risox~ was appropriate. She
felt the south Orovile ditch was a better comparison.
Page 455.
June~l6, 1981
June 16, 1981__-- ______________
81- Mr. Blackstock-stated that 2~Fr. Gonnerly had.writCen that portion
~, of.the letter: He was interpreting and comparing time of-being ahle to
move. It is a discussion of CHTP's ability to perform in a timely manner.
If she felt that CHIP performed in a timely-manner then that statement
could be wrong.
Supervisor Dolan stated the Board was concerned about this first.
The majority of the Board wanted the ground to be broken before they
would serll the parcels to CHIP. This is just part of-what happened with
the financing for the ditch through Farmers Home Administration.
Mr. Blackstock stated there was no comparison of financing
individual lots doing something on the ditch: -The ditch was dealing
with big money and assessment district proceedings.' There could be no
comparison between the ditch and CHIP's delay for housing.
Supervisor Dolan stated that CHIP broke ground a little bit
longer than one year and the ditch took three years. I s the same
bureaucracy and financing source. That is more appropr ate than to
other development going on that is entirely different financing. They
were ready to break ground except for the financing -from Farmers Home
Administration.
The CHIP letter raises the concern about the Burbank public
funding improvements and how the decision was made. She felt that some
of the concerns about the committee and such were appropriate. The
record shows the county under the Administrative Office had written
to the representative of the then owner and said we intended to proceed
with improvements and the next thing the Board-was aware of was a request
for Connerly and Associates to administer the program. The Board became
aware of the informal committee of the Board who met with the owner of
the Burbank School site and the consultant and made a definite agreement
to do the curbs, gutters and sidewalks and street section. The Board
was not aware of this until the point when the Board was considering
having someone else administer the program. There were complaints
about the curbs, gutters and sidewalks.
Mr. Blackstock stated there were responses on pargraphs 4 and
5.
Supervisor Dolan felt that the response was saying the county
was not clear what points CHIP was attempting to make. There are numerous
other references to that. She felt they were appropriate. The Board entered
into an agreement with John D. and. Susan Luallen. That was the only bid
that the Board received. All the negotiations proceeded and the County
were negotiating the sale to the sole property owner of Luallens. A11
during the time their signature was involved and then Mr. Richter was
here in the county. The public and the Board .knew they were dealing
with Mr. Luallen and the deed went from the Couref.y~of Butte to Mr.
Luallen and then a deed was recorded to Mr. Luallen and Mr. Richter.
Mr. Richter was a Board member when this property was purchased by the
county and now he is part owner when the property was sold. It might be
appropriate but she thought the question was raised. She still has never
had a full explanation as to why we were proceeding. with public improvements.
It was not really directly discussed or the information sent to the Board.
She saw the letter raises some concerns about Board process and complete
disclosure of what goes on.
Mr. Blackstock stated he read the letter differently. He read
that Ms. Wagstaff was liabling the Board. It accuses the Board of
criminal acts. He felt the letter was very loosely written such as she
Page .456.
June 16, 1981
June 16, 1981
81- is inclined to do. How the Board responds is the Board`s business. The
3 Board submitted the letter to-Connerly and he reviewed Mr. Connerly's
comments and modified then in some ways. He felt the Board should make
changes if they feel the facts are different.
Supervisor Lemke stated that as the Board's letter he had no
desire to change any of the letter. He has already been in receipt
of a couple of back off letters from Ms. Wagstaff's Office on some of
the charges she has made relative to Mx. Connerly`s Office. The Board
has not brought up anything about the liablist statements. He could not
help but feel that Supervisor Dolan's defense of her position was
commendable. The Board decided four to one to agreed on the process.
He did not think it was necessary to change that letter. If there are
legal challenges to the letter, the county was prepared.
Vote on motion:
AYES: "Supervisors Lemke, Saraceni and Chairman Moseley
NOES: Supervisor Dolan
ABSENT: Supervisor Wheeler
Motion carried.
1040 ADDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS
Chairman Moseley asked what the cutoff time for Board members
and department heads to have matters in for the agenda was.
Clif Mickelson, administrative officer, stated that the
policy is for Thursday afternoon. It is possible to get something on
the agenda on Friday moaning, but it is difficult.
Chairman Moseley instructed the Administrative Office to
send a memo to department heads and Board members setting out the
cutoff time fox the agenda items. The agenda items should have the
backup material attached. This is very important.
Supervisor Lemke stated that many times the Board is faced
with a decision and told the deadline is on Wednesday following the
Board meeting.
Supervisor Dolan stated that this has to do with off agenda
items. It is the Board members that do it. If the Board does not
want off agenda items, they should not vote on those matters.
Supervisor Lemke stated that many times he attends private and
public functions over the weekend or on Monday and he wants to discuss
them on Tuesday. In deference to Supervisor Dolan the Board has a
mechanism for that procedure. With prior approval of the Board, he
saw nothing wrong with the Board members bring up additional items.
Chairman Moseley advised she did not want to change the
current policy.
ADJOURNMENT
There being nothing furthex before the Board at this time,
the meeting was adjourned at 1:03 p.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, June 23,
1981 at 9:00 a. m.
ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK
RECORDER and ex-officio Clerk
t e oard of Supervisors
Page 457. Chairman, Board of upervisor
By June 16, 1981