HomeMy WebLinkAboutM062381June 23, 1981
OF CALIFORNIA )
SS.
OF BUTTE )
81-
-s
1041
The Board of Supervisors-met at 9:00 a.m. pursuant to adjournment
Present: Supervisors Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley. Clif Nickelson,
administrative officer; Dan Blaekstock, county counsel; and Clark A. Nelson,
county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk to the Board. Absent:
Supervisors Dolan and Zemke
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
Invocation by Supervisor Saraceni
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Sugervisor
Moseley that the minutes of June 16, 1981 were approved as mailed.
SUPERVISOR LEMKE PRESENT AT THIS TIT1E
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Lemke, Saraceni and Chairman Moseley
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Dolan
ABSTAINING: Supervisor Wheeler '
Motion carried.
1042
1043
1044
APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS FROM BOARD MEMBERS TO BE ADDRESSED AT
THE END OF THE DAY
Supervisor Wheeler stated she would be bringing a change in the
truck ordinance relative to the overnight parking of trucks on residential
streets up at the end of the day.
SUPERVISOR DOLAN PRESENT AT THIS TTME
ADDITIONAL ITEMS PRESENTED BY SUPERVISOR LEPfKE
Supervisor Lemke stated that he would be leaving the meeting
early today and would like to have several of the items taken out of
order. He will be going into the hospital for heart surgery within a
week or two and will be recovering for two to three months.
APPROVE PLANNING CRANT AND CONTRACT RE: CETA TITLE VII WITH BUTTE COUNTY
OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Jim Rackerby, personnel director, reported on the economic
development grant. This has been processed through PIC and they are in
concurrence with the actians taken by the Board last week. The OEDP
Committee met and authorized execution of the contract. The OEDP
Committee elected Jay Lyman chairman.
Supervisor Lemke stated that his appointment Dan Halvig
resigned. He would like to appoint E.M. West to replace Mr. Halvig.
He asked that a letter of appreciation be sent to Mr. Halvig.
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the planning grant not to exceed $25,000 for the remainder
of this fiscal year for CETA Title VII funds for economic development
was approved and the Manpower Director authorized to sign; the contract
between the county and the Overall Development Committee was approved and
the Chairman authorized to sign. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke, Wheeler
and Chairman Moseley. NOES: Supervisor Saraceni
rage 458.
June 23, 1981
81~ 1045
a
1046
June 23, 1981
ADDITIONAL MATTERS PRESENTED BX SUPERVISOR LEMKE
Supervisor Lemke advised that Supervisor Dolan would be taking
over his position on CETAC and that Supervisor Wheeler would be taking
his place on the Jail Construction Committee.
CONTINUE WITH IN-HOUSE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE: START RECRUITMENT FOR
NEW COUNTY COUNSEL
Procedures for appointment of new County Counsel was held at
this time.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that both the
Personnel Director and himself sent the Board memos with thoughts as far
as replacement for County Counsel. 'The main issue he was pushing was the
concept of contracting out County Counsel's Office. The decision would
need to be made either pro or con. If the Board decides not to contract,
the next step would be to promote within or recruit.
Supervisor Wheeler stated she had read the proposal from staff
regarding this matter. She was not acceptable to contracting out the
service. The county is involved in a great deal of litigation and she
felt that contracting out would cause a great deal of disruption within
the office. The Board would be dealing with budget considerations, that
she did not have the time to analyze. Maybe the Board might want to consider
contracting out the services at some date in the future.• She was concerned
with people not being accessible. She was agreeable to the suggestions
that the Administrative Office staff made as far as usage of Counsel's
services. She did not feel comfortable with a private contract.
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, answexed Supervisor Lemke's
question as to how overworked his office was. The activities have
increased quite a bit. There are cases coming in faster than those
being settled. Some of the cases go on for years. They also have to.
provide services to the schools. Their office does a lot of work that
does not include the county. Counsel has a legal responsibility for the
schools. The schools have hired an administrative advisor, who is
deputized. The schools pay for that salary. His office is also responsible
for special districts. The county presently has two contracts with
outside firms. The firms bill the county on an hourly basis when they
are working on a case. The rates are fairly good. The rate is lower than
what the county would be paying if they went out to bid. The hourly
rate charged for their office is $30 per hour by the Auditor's Office.
Supervisor Lemke stated that the last contract that was let
in this county for outside legal work for municipal work was the Town
of Paradise at a cost of $80 per hour.
Mr. Nickelson stated that was a very lucrative contract. That
includes the clerical help. The Board is going to have to cut services
somewhere to balance the budget. As the county cuts services to others
maybe the county should take a look at cutting services for the county.
If the Board makes an appointment for County Counsel, the term of the
appointment is for four years. Perhaps Supervisor Wheeler is right
that his memo was too mercurial for coming up with the proposal.
If contracting for Counsel's Office does not make sense, then how does
contracting for public defender services make sense.
Supervisor Wheeler stated she did not say it didn't make sense.
She has used legal counsel many times, particularly in the area of land
use. If she had to call a private contractor, she might not have the
access to them. She felt that for the protection of this county it was
necessary to maintain a County Counsel's Office.
Page 459.
June •23, 1981
81-
3
June 23, 1981
It was moved by Supervisor Lemke seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
that the county continue with in-house County Counsel's Office and start
recruitment of a new County Counsel from within and outside going statewide.
Supervisor Wheeler stated she would very seriously consider the
recommendations made by staff in items 1 through 4 on the last paragraph.
Supervisor Dolan stated that when Mr. Mickelson brought up the
subject of contracting-for Counsel's services, she thought about it and
called supervisors in other counties. When some of the counties were
smaller they contracted for these services. The size seemed to be the
break off point. She agreed that the services need to be in-house. Mr.
Mickelson is right, the county needs to look at reduction of services.
This is a whole area of specialities. There is legislation and ordinances
that need to be considered all the time.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman
Moseley
NOES: None
Motion carried.
1047
Supervisor Dolan asked what the county would do in the meantime
before a new counsel was appointed? Since the recruitment will take some
time, she did not want to see a void in the office.
Supervisor Wheeler asked if Mr. Blackstock would consider working
for the county until his replacement is appointed.
Mr. Mickelson stated there were several ways to accomplish this.
The Board could have County Counsel resign thirty-days later. The Board
could allow him to moonlight into the work he is going to do. He would be
paid his salary from the county and still be County Counsel even though
he was not on the site. The other way would be to contract with him for
his services during the interim period.
Supervisor Wheeler was primarily concerned with administration
of the office during the time of the transition and the library situation.
Mr. Blackstock stated that the library is set now. On June 25,
1981 there will be a corporation meeting which will go along with sending
out for bid for the money. The bids will be opened on July 14, 1981 in
San Francisco. They will call in the results of the bids and the Board
will be able to be in a position to know what it will cost. The situation
after that time should be ministerial. He is getting the details taken
care of. He would like to get back to the Board regarding an extension
of his services with the county. He will discuss the matter with his
new associates and try to work something out with Mr. Mickelson and bring
it back to the Board on June 30, 1981. With regard to the library, they
are now to the policy stage and the Board will have a decision to make.
All the contracts are prepared. Another thing for the Board to consider
with the library is discussion of the contracts with Chico and Gridley.
APPROVE IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROGRAM 'PROPOSAL FROM WELFARE DIRECTOR
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the in-home supportive services program proposal for
improving the quality of services to the aged, blind or disabled and to
establish amore favorable financial status as presented by the Welfare
Director was approved. •. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke and Wheeler NOES:
Supervisor Saraceni and Chairman`T~oseley.
Page 460.
June 23, 1981
June 23Z 1981
81-1048 DISCUSSION OF BUILDTNG REMODELING COSTS FOR WELFARE OFFICES
b Discussion of building remodeling costs for Welfare offices held
at this time. Chairman Moseley felt that the county was going in the wrong
direction and setting up another layer.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that Chairman Moseley
had asked that this matter be placed back on the agenda for discussion.
Staff expands to fill space available.
Supervisor Dolan stated she looked into this matter very
carefully and the remodel and the move are not connected with the in-home
services program.
Supervisor Lemke stated he was looking forward to the major
changes and reorganization proposal when the budget session is considered.
The Board might want to think about County Counsel's position through
attrition rather than hiring another attorney. Maybe the alternative
would be for someon?from the office to become County Counsel and leave
their position vacant and there is more than a ten percent reduction.
Bob Crisan, welfare director, stated that SB 633 provides
sufficient funding according to this fiscal year. The county will receive
one hundred percent funds up to the expenditures of last year for this
fiscal year. Another will have to match with county funds. Anything in
excess of the allocation would be one hundred percent county funds. At
that point they would have to have something done. This bill was $256
million transferred to the county in services programs.
Supervisor Lemke asked what would happen when the federal government
sends all the money to the state?
Mr. Crisan felt they would all have to face decreases. They know
better ways of doing the job with decreasing services.
Supervisor Lemke felt that the departments.in the state would
not decrease. When the block grant comes down from the federal government
there will be an added department to handle it.
Mr. Crisan stated the State Department of Social .Services is
mandated to decrease. The ten percent match of county funds would be on
all funds that exceed this year's expenditures. The medical program
provides a medical indigent program. These funds would be released to
the counties for all those funds spent in the county. This is a great
program for counties with a county hospital. Butte County might be
in for a shock as medical costs will have to be incurred at the county level.
They have authorized medical cards with some $19.9 million expenditures
under the medical program. There are 1,800 individuals on the medically
indigent program.
C1if Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that Butte, Colusa
and Siskiyou do not have county hospitals. The county's medical indigent
c osts last year were around $20,000. The state will help county hospitals.
The county could be hit with at least $100,000 not reimbursed by the state.
Mr. Crisan stated that last year the state spent in Butte County
an average payment fox recipients of medical care from $183 to $186. There
are about 14,000 to 16,000 with medical cards on the program. There will
be 1,800 transferred to state programs.
No action taken on the building remodeling costs for Welfare
offices. Action previously approved.
Page 461.
June 23, 1981
3une 23, 1981
81-1049
3
1050
1051
REPORT TO THE BOARD CONCERNING DAMAGE AND REPAIR ON PHILBROOK ROAD
Clay Castleberry, public works director, reported to the Board
on the damage and repair on Philbrook Road. He has been in contact with
counsel and the insurance company for the operator of the Carr Mine.
He was invited to submit a bill to the company for repair work on the
area. He has had good cooperation with the operator as far as his department
is concerned. His office did the repair work on the road at a cost of
about $10,000.
There has been heavy hauling on the Nord Cana Road. The CHP
ticketed one truck with six tickets. They are going to attempt to go
to the company for repairs for damages to the road.
REPORT TO THE BOARD CONCERNING DENTAL OF FAITH CENTER CHURCH EXEMPTION
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, reported to the Board concerning
the denial of Faith Center Church exemption. This was an appeal to the
Board relative to a denial by the Assessor of the tax exempt status. The
Board does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The appeal would be
to the courts in this situation. It is either a tax exemption or it is not.
Counsel to write a letter advising the Board has no jurisdiction
in this matter.
RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING RELATIVE TO REQUESTS FOR CONDITIONAL ZONES
REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION AND STUDX OF CONDITIONAL
ZONES AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Bettye Blair, planning director, reported to the Board on the
requests for conditional zones at this time. She has provided the Board
with copies of agreements for both conditional zones. It was her understanding
that the Board was looking for a vehicle in which developments might be
approved subject to something occurring. In the county at the present time,
the only way is a "PA-C" zoning. Napa County has used development agreements
as provided for in the planning law. Sacramento County has used conditional
zoning agreements. The overlay zone is more commonly used for avogation,
flight approachs, flood planes and so on. She did not believe the overlay
zones could be site specific enough. She would like to pursue conditional
zones.
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated that conditional zones
have been knocked over twice. The case of Scranton vs County of Sacramento
was tried in 1969. This matter has been discussed in County Counsel's
Association for some time. The concensus of the County Counsels was to
avoid it. There is no specific use for the zone. All you are talking
about are improvements. What is the county going to do if the applicant
does not comply with the conditions. All Sacramento County is doing now
is using development agreements. That would be the way he would recommend
that the county go. A development agreement is specifically provided for
in the code. There is a set procedure and it gives that much more flexibility
in the handling of the situation. If the Board wanted to go into that
procedure, the Board should adopt an ordinance to set out the procedure
'to be used.
Ms. Blair stated she had discussed this matter with County Counsel
at length. She thought it was interesting that development agreements are
provided for in the Government Code. She would assume that the ability to
clean up a zoning violation. would be the same stance as what the county now
has. She felt that the two or three cases in Sacramento County were rather
minimual. She felt the county should take a look at either one.
She strongly felt that in suggesting this that there be a manner that
provisions of CEQA are covered with the initial ordinance. The developer
would have the assurances that the county will not change their minds.
Page462.
June 23, 1981
June 23, 1981
81-
a
Supervisor Saraceni stated he had something coming forward where
the parties have applied for five acre zoning and there are mitigation
circumstances with the road work in the area. The developer would like
a condition for this road.
Ms. Blair advised that this matter would be before the Board
later in the day on a hearing that is scheduled.
Supervisor Dolan felt that a lot of things in the planning law
are similar to development agreements and conditional zones that seem to
have the same requirements. There are use permits and CC&Rs.
Nr. Blackstock advised those were different situations. The
basic problems the Board is talking about is whether conditional zones
are considered or the method he has suggested, which is a requirement
in the code. The county has to have internal procedures. There is a
good and strong legal argument that the one year provision does not apply
to rezones. This is the position the county is taking because a rezone
is a legislative act and as such would not be controlled under development.
There is no case law to support the county's position. Development
agreements are provided in the Government Code. It is subject to referendum
and then recorded and adopted by ordinance. Conditional zones are in the
zoning ordinance itself. If the county has an agreement they are in a
much better position to enforce.
The matter was referred to the Planning Commission for study and
recommendation relative to conditional zones and development agreements.
ESTABLISH CORRECTIONS NEEDS ASSESSMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND MAKE
APPOINTMENTS
Discussion of appointment of public members to the Corrections
Needs Assessment Advisory Committee held at this time.
1052
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that the
reason the people were listed on the memo relative to public members was
they happened to be at the conference that was held. There is no limit
as to how many or how few public members can be on the committee.
Supervisor Wheeler stated she was supportive of the people on
the committee.
Supervisor Dolan stated that one of the members is a news director
of a television station. There will be an on-going interest because of
the job the person is in. She felt there were certain jobswhere it was
hard to say when the job ended and the person started being an individual.
The news media will have on-going concern.
Supervisor Wheeler did not feel they should remove a member
because they were involved with the media. Maybe they could be a little
more objective because they seek out information before it is given to
-the public. She had no problem with the individual being on the committee.
Supervisor Dolan did not necessarily disagree. It is a story.
If the county builds the jail there is an $8 million expenditure. She was
not saying the news media should be excluded. She felt they should come
as the news media and not as a member of the committee.
Supervisor Wheeler felt that was a consideration. She had no
problems with that.:
Page 463.
June 23, 1981
June 23, 1981
81-
3
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, secanded'by gupervisoY Lemke
and unanimously carried, the Corrections Needs Assessment Advisory Committee
was established as an advisory committee to the Jail Building Committee to
be chaired by the Chico Municipal Court Judge w1th the following county
departments being appointed as listed in the June 11, 1981 memo and the
following public members being appointed:
District Attorney {Hal Brooks)
Public Defender (Jerome Warren)
Publid Works (Director or designee)
Adult Probation (Director or designee)
City law enforcement (John Bullerjahn)
Alcohol/substance abuse (Gene Lundin)
Mental Health (Dr. Gerald Maguire)
County Counsel (Department head or designee)
Public member (Ed.Bronson)
Public member (William Bernheim)
Public member (Herbert Petsche)
Public member (Lynn Moyle)
1053
1054
1055
APPOINTMENTS TO THE ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD -- CONTINUED TO JUNE 30 1981
Appointments to the Assessment Appeals Board were continued to
June 30, 1981.
APPOINTMENT TO THE PARADISE MEMORIAL HALL COMMITTEE
On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and unanimously carried, Paul H. Sly was appointed to the Paradise Memorial
Hall Committee.
Supervisor Lemke stated the county is considering having one year
appointments for the Memorial Hall Committees. The county sent this to
the Butte County Veterans Council that sent an answer to the Board. This
was then sent to the various veteran committees and the county has not
heard from them as yet. He asked that this be a one-year appointment to go
with the commander's term of office. This appointment as .it stands is
for 1983. If the county is going to change the policy, he would not want
to make a decision now that could affect the policy. in the future. The
-Hurd received a communication from the Butte County Veterans Council informing
the county that the county should no longer communication with the various
veterans groups and should go through the council. The county is getting
differing opinions coming back on that communications. He did not know
if all the veteran organizations had firmed up agreeable procedures as to
the operations of the halls.
Steve Musselman, administrative analyst, stated that Mr. Sly's
nomination was recommended to fill the unexpired term of William Holding
That term was to have expired in September 1983 under current policy.
Supervisor Lemke felt that this was probably the only way to go
at this time.
AUTHORIZE RE UEST FOR PROPOSALS ON PUBLIC DEFENDER CONTRACT SERVICES
Supervisor Dolan set out what the committee had done relative
to study of the Public Defender services. The committee was to take
the report that was presented by Judge Janes and other public contact
and make a recommendation. Earlier a report had been to ask for direction
of a bifrucated system with the present contractors. The committee would
like the Board to go out with a request for proposals on a bifrucated
system. That is the announcement and is outlined in the information
the Board has received. -The meeting they had settled a great deal on the
cost of the system and the county has received a bargain over the last
ten years. In her mind the increase in cost eliminated the present
Page 464.
June 23,-1981
June 23, 1981
81-
3
1056
1057
negotiations with the contractor. She was not requesting that the county
go out to bid and necessarily accept the low bidder for cost. They have
set out the er.iteria while there is definitely a money amount that will
be put in the proposal but should not be the sole consideration. It should
be based on the representation and the services allowed. The amount should
be $175,000 per contract. It does say in the proposal the county should
set out the total amount that would be considered both under and above.
Oa motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and unanimously carried, the county authorized a request for proposals
for a public defender contract' on a bifrucated contract system as outlined
in the memo from County Counsel June 19, 1981.
RECESS: 10:25 a.m.
RECONVENE: 10:40 a.m.
SUPERVISOR LEMKE ABSENT AT THIS TIME
APPROVE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TO CITY OF GRIDLEY RE: GRIDLEY FIRE DEPT
Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, stated that in
1974 the City of Gridley purchased the entire parcel of which 100 feet
is part of it and then they deeded the entire parcel to the county with
the condition that the county build: a fire station. The joint powers
agreement deals with the fact that if the property is no longer used for
that purpose it should go back to the city. The city wants 100 feet in
the back deeded back to them for storage. He asked that the Board authorize
the Administrative Office prepare the transfer document and when it is
completed with the city council then the Chairman would be authorized
to sign the documents.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the transfer of property subject to conditions of sale to
the City of Gridley for a portion of land adjacent to the Gridley Fire
Department for city usage was approved with the understanding that the
conditions not be listed on the title and the Chairman authorized to sign
the transfer documents.
RESOLUTION 81-130, 81-131 & 81-131A: PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSITION 4
APPROPRIATION LIMITATIONS
The public hearing on Proposition 4 appropriation limitations
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 Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the following resolutions were adopted and the Chairman
authorized to sign:
1. Resolution 81-130 agreeing to appropriations limit adjustments
for newly incorporated Town of Paradise and County of Butte,. as required
by California Constitution Article 13-B, Section 3(.a).
2. Resolution 81-131 establishing appropriations limit for County
of Butte for fiscal years 1980-81 and 1981-82 as required by Section 7910,
Division 9 of the California Government Code.
3. Resolution 81-131A establishing appropriations limit for
special districts under the control of the Board of Supervisors for fiscal
years 1980-81 and 1981-82 as required by Section 7910, Division 9 of the
California Government Code. Page 465.
June 23, 1981
June 23, 1981
**
81-1058
a
1059
ADOPT NEW DAILY RATE FOR JUVENILE HALL
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the new daily rate of $40.02 per day which is an increase from
$35.21 was approved for Juvenile Hall to be effective"July 1, 1981.
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2227: PUBLIC HEARING: S~TTLLIAM H. NOLAN - APPEAL OF DRAFT EIR
AND PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF REZONE FROM "FR--10" (FOOTHILL RECREATIONAL
10 ACRE PARCELS) TO "FR-5" (FOOTHILL RECREATTONAL - S ACRE PARCELS) PROPERTY
LOCATED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CRAIG RECREATION ACCESS ROAD, APPROX. 500 FEET
NORTH OF LUMPRIN ROAD, IDENTIFIER AS AP 71-15-01, APPROX. 15 MILES NORTHEAST
OF OROVILLE
The public hearing on William. H. Nolan appeal of draft environmental
impact report and Planning Commission denial of rezone from "FR-10" (,foothill
recreational - 10 acre parcels) to "FR-5" (foothill recreational - 5 acre
parcels), property located on both sides of the Craig Recreation Access
Road, approximately 500 feet north of Lumpkin Road, identified as AP 71-15-O1,
approximately 15 miles northeast of Oroville was held as continued.
Bettye Blair, planning .director, set out the background of the
peal. In as much as the Planning Commission made their report to the
rd on April 7, 1981 and the Code requires that the Board take action
thin 90 days the final day for action by the Board would be June 30, 1981.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Bi11 Nolan. Mr. Nolan
stated that about two years ago he started the application for rezone.
In July, 1979 he submitted a tentative map. He has met with Supervisor
Saraceni and the Planning Staff regarding-this matter. There was some
question relative to the Craig Access Road. He believed there was a
solution of this. Mr. Castleberry has indicated there is a vehicle in
the system that would permit him to proceed with the project.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that he had met with Mr. Nolan
and his Planning Commissioner and Mr. Castleberry.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated he would not speak
to the land use issue. If that was resolved, and the mitigation measures
resolved there would be a way to handle the access problem. The zone by
itself does not create divisions or smaller parcels which the Board is
addressing. The road conditions would be handled at the time of the
map process. There are road agreements for land divisions.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
It was moved by Supervisor Saraceni, seconded .by Supervisor Wheeler
finding that the Craig Mooretowa Ridge rezone EIR certified on March 4,
1980 is applicable to this project and that it was considered in arriving
at a decision, finding that approval of this rezone is not expected to
result in significant environmental effects in that the potential significant
environmental effects identified in the initial study checklist can be
mitigated in connection with the processing of a subsequent tentative
subdivision map, finding the~proposed._project is in conformity with the
General plan and is consistent with conditional zoning and development
criteria; the rezone from "FR-10" (foothill recreational - 10 acre parcels)
to "~'R-5" (footbill recreational - 5 acre parcels), property located on both
sides of the Craig Recreation Access Road, approximately 500 feet north
of Lumpkin Road, identified as AP 71-15-01, approximately 15 miles north-
~ast. of Oroville be approved; Ordinance 2227 be adopted and the Chairman .
be authorized to sign.
Supervisor Dolan stated that the only part of the motion she could
with is that she considered the Craig Mooretown Ridge EIR in arriving
Page 466.
June 23, 1981
sl-
b
_June 23, 1981 _
at her decision.- She agreed with the Planning Commission in which they
listed all but one of the conditional zoning criteria that would not comply.
The listed six zoning factors that are not being met. It was clear to her
that this was not just access of Craig Access Road. This would be a change
in the character of the area allowing for some parcel split but not some
divisions. This was community design and-the slopes adjacent to Lake Oroville
was taken into consideration.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley
NOES: Supervisor Dolan
ABSENT: Supervisor Lemke
Motion carried.
1060
ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-132: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF ROAD NAME CHANGE,
PARADISE ADDRESS AREA
The public hearing on consideration of road name change in the
Paradise address area from Culp Lane (.end to Neal Road) to Red Sky Lane was
held as advertised.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, set out the background
of the change. This is located on the west side of Neal Road southwest of
Paradise.
Hearing open to the public Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
1061
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the road name change in the Paradise Address area from Culp
Lane (end to Neal Road) to Red Sky Lane was approved; Resolution 81-i32
was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.
PUBLIC HEARING: KELLY RIDGE INVESTMENTS, LTD. (.J. R. FERGUSON, INC.) APPEAL
OF ADVISORY AGENCY'S CONDITION 9 ON SUNRISE KNOLL TENTATIVE SUBDIVISTON
MAP, AP 36-060-14, 161 LOTS, PROPERTY LOCATED ON ADRIATIC ROAD, NORTH
SIDE OF MT. IDA ROAD, APPROX. 1/4 MILE WEST OF WYANDOTTE MINERS RANCH ROAD,
EAST OF OROVILLE
The public hearing on Kelly Ridge Investments, Ltd.- (J. R.
Ferguson, Tnc.) appeal of Advisory Agency's condition 9 on Sunrise Knoll
tentative subdivision map, AP 36-060-14, 161 logs, property located on
Adriatic Road, north side of ~1t. Ida Road, approximately 1/4 mile west of
Wyandotte Miners Ranch Road, east of Oroville was held as advertised.
A telephone call was received asking that the hearing be
withdrawn. A letter is to follow.
The hearing was withdrawn; no action taken.
106
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2228: PUBLIC HEARING: BUTTE COUNTY-BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -
PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REZONE FROM INTERIM "12 3" (MEDIUM DENSITY
n n
RESIDENTIAL} TO R-3 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF SACRAMENTO AVENUE, APPROX. 200 FEET WEST OF OAKLAWN AVENUE,
IDENTIFIED AS AP 43-26-4 & 5 CHICO
The public hearing on Butte County Board of Supervisors proposed
negative declaration and rezone from Interim "R-3" (medium density residential)
to "R-3" (medium density residential), property Iocated on the south side of
Sacramento Avenue, approximately 200 feet west of Oaklawn Avenue, identified
as AP 43-26-4 and 5, Chico was held as advertised.
Page 467.
June 23, 1981
81-
a
•-_____-=====June 231981___________________
Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the
rezone. This was initiated by the Board to reflect assessments in the
drainage district.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: No one.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
1063
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, finding the draft negative declaration has been considered
in coming to a decision on this project, the negative declaration was
adopted; the rezone from interim "R=3" (medium density residential) to
"R-3" (medium density residential), property located on the south side
of Sacramento Avenue, approximately 200 feet west of Oaklawn Avenue,
identified as AP 43-26-4 and 5, Chico was approved finding it consistent
with the General Plan; Ordinance 2228 was adopted and the Chairman authorized
to sign.
PUBLIC HEARING: THOMAS WHITE - CONSIDERATION OF ARCHAEOLOGY MITIGATION
MEASURE ON PARCEL MAP, AP 47-23-95, 96, 97 AND 98 (OLD AP 47-23-79), FOUR
LOTS, PROPERTI' LOCATEB ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF KEEPER ROAD, ADJOINING
HEGANRIDGE COUNTRY SUBDIVISTON, NORTH OF CHLCO
The public hearing on Thomas White consideration of archaeology
mitigation measure on parcel map, AP 47-23-95, 96, 97 and 98 (old
AP 47-23-79), four lots, property located on the northwest side of
Keefer Road, adjoining Heganridge Country Subdivision, north of Chico
was held as advertised.
Earl Nelson, environmental review director, stated that this
project was approved by the Board on May 12, 1980 with a mitigation
measure relative to archaeological sites. Subsequently there was a court
case and the archaeological mitigation was challenged and the Judge
has directed that the Board reconsider the archaeological mitigation
with regard to whether the Society for California has resources to complete
the necessary study and whether one year time period is long enough. At
the conclusion of the hearing, the Board will have to make a redetermination
as to whether the mitigation measures meet the requirements of the
state ETR guidelines. Section 15032.5 defines mitigations. He suggested
that during the course of the hearing, the Board consider this section.
He read the section at this time. There have been meetings with the
project applicants and other interested parties in an attempt to resolve
the situation.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1. Keith Johnson, Society for California Archaeology. Mr.
Johnson stated that originally they did not have a chance to speak to
the issue during the Board meeting. He would like to clear up their
position on this matter. It is nat possible for the Society to mitigate
this problem by excavation of the site. They have neither the personnel
nor the funding for excavation. The Society has about 800 members. The
members belong by paying ,yearly dues of $7.50 or $10.00. The total
operating budget per year is about $8,000. With that kind of money there
is no way to possibly excavate or mitigate _: all the sites in California that
will be disturbed by land divisions. The Board originally gave the Society
one year to mitigate this particular situation. That also is not feasible.
It would take probably more-than one year to get someone in there to do
the work. It would take considerably longer if the work had to be done
for free. It is difficult to get archaeologists to excavate sites for
nothing. There are two ways this situation can be mitigated. The best
alternative would be tc leave the sites alone. That way it costs no one
Page 468.
June 23, 1981
S 1-~
3
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = June 23 L 1981_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
:he cost of excavation and the information is preserved in the ground.
'hey attempted to find ways in which the land owner could plant kiwis on
he site with a minimum of disturbances. They were unable to reach an
agreement. This brings them back to the point where the best mitigation
_s not to have the sites dug up but to preserve them as Long as necessary
mtil such time as someone is able to do the excavation as the owner
rants. He could not give a datefor the-time. The funding is not aval7able
iow. Their purpose as archaeologists is to preserve sites and not excavate
.hem feeling that if they preserve this diminished resource, the sites on
Lock Creek, they will have the money and technology in the future to
rork with the data and to get to it. They do not own this land and anything
.hat happens_to the land would have to be in agreement with the Society
ind the landowner.
Supervisor Wheeler asked if the site was significant enough?
Ct was her understanding that if this were a significant site, the state
could come in and buy the sites. She was wondering if this site is that
significant, why there haven't been overtures made to compensate the
property owner for this land. The Society wants this land untouched in
perpetuity so when there is funding they can come in and~do the excavation.
Mr. Johnson stated that was one alternative. He has no knowledge
rf the state buying property. The City of Redding_purchased property.
Supervisor Wheeler stated that back east people that are interested
in preserving certain things, are purchasing the land and it is being farmed.
Mr. Johnson stated that the state does not buy the land. Some
people do buy large tracts of land. As far as being fair, it is very
difficult to make an estimate of what is fair. This is just one more
type of regulation in a special situation. This in not the only thing
that keeps people from doing what they want with their land. Tn this
instance the sites are valuable enougY.. to be preserved somehow. They
are willing to have activity in the site including kiwis and they need a
ninimum of disturbance to the sites.
Supervisor Wheeler felt that if the Society was wanting to have
a partnership in the land, they should pay the taxes and bear the cost of
aaintaining the property. There is a mechanism in the free market.
If the Society approached Mr. White he might sell the property. She did
some background with the people who own the property. Since the lawsuit,
there is added cost and burden since this matter was tied up in court for
one year of over $22,000. Who did Mr. Johnson think was picking up that
cost. The property owner is picking.up that cost.
Mr. Johnson stated Mr. White could have spent less money and
had the property excavated.
Supervisor Wheeler did not feel it had been shown that this was
a significant site.
Mr. Johnson stated the project is 90 acres and this is one acre
or less that has some archaeological significance. Going all over Butte
County is not the case.
Supervisor Dolan stated the record indicated that the Board made
the findings there would be significant impacts because of these sites.
The court said the Board has to share the responsibility of making that
finding.
Page 469.
June 23, 1981
June 23, 1981
81-
a
2. Tom White. Mr. White stated he was the property owner. This
is one year later. He has been working around the site and working toward
this day. The one acre being discussed happens to be in prime ground.
He started with 92 arses, which 50 acres are lava cap. -This one acre is
one-tenth of his useable land. He is having to work around this area.
The Board will be faced with a minority group. If they were in the
majority people would back them. They could then pay Mr. White for the
inconvenience and taxes. The private property owner has to have first
rights to the land.
3. Donna White. Mrs. White stated that the property was their
property. She felt there were a couple of things misrepresented by Mr.
Johnson. There was a meeting and she was not called until Friday that
there would be a meeting at 3:00 p.m. on Monday before the Board meeting
to settle. They have incurred a great deal of expense. Thev are behind
on planting the one acre of land. They will never get that year back.
They agreed they could live with it for one year. The Society needs to
recognize they have rights too. They were willing to-work as well as they
could in the beginning. They cannot afford to keep the property unless
it pays"for itself. She could sympathize with the Society`s lack of money.
They are also in that position. They are paying taxes and making payments
every month.
Supervisor Dolan stated the memo to the Board indicates that
Counsel and the Environmental Review Director were tentatively scheduled
to meet with the applicant and opponents. It seems like the goals are not
that far apaxt. Couldn't the Board ask them to meet one more time.
Supervisor Wheeler felt there were only two questions to be
answered. She felt that adequate time had been allowed.
Supervisor Dolan stated that the county are by state law and
the court order mandated to mitigate and just one meeting with no agreement
reached, why couldn't the Board ask that they meet again.
Mr. White stated he was not at the meeting yesterday. He discussed
this matter before it went to court. There was discussion of planting and
how deep the roots went on Kiwis. He had a question relative to irrigation
fox overhead frost protection and was advised that was out. He did not call
back after that discussion and neither was he called regarding another
meeting. It was said he was completely negative and he was not. The Society
is talking about an indefinite time forever to have an easement into their
property. He did not think that was right. He felt that there should be
a definite time set for the excavation. He owned that land. Why is he
being burdened with an easement? The only way anything can be valuable
is to not leave it in the ground but to make it public and be shared.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that Supervisor Wheeler had mentioned
figures in cost. Is this an evaluation of time in hearings. Is ~t for
additional time besides the money to work out the problem.
Mr. White stated there was additional time.
Supervisor Saraceni asked if there was any reimbursement for
those costs.
Mr. White advised there had not been. He will never get any
reimbursement. He will always have to drive around a corner of the property
and' avoid it.
Supervisor Saraceni stated the total burden has-been on Mr. White
and his family. Page 470.
June 23, 1981
81-
b
_____ June 23, 198_1_________ ______________
Supervisor Dolan understood that. In developing land the
costs are necessarily the burden of the property owner. There is a site
of value to history and the Society which makes apart of the land have a
physical limiting factor. Part of the land is not farmable.
4. John Luvaas representing the Society. Mr. Luvaas re-emphasized
that the court has mandated the county to look at this situation in a way
the county has not looked at before. The court has made it rather clear
that if a private organization is not able to mitigate a program voluntarily
on its own that there has been no mitigation. If there is no mitigation
then the court has made it clear then the county has not met the judgment.
One option would be to go back and have the developer doing an EiR and see
if there are overriding considerations. He did not think this~was a realistic
approach. This would take time to do the study. It is simply not productive
if the overriding consideration is the need for more lots when there are lots
in Chico that are not selling with sewer and annexation.
The second option used in Orange County is that the county in order
to resolve the archaeological sites require the developer to gay for the
excavation and if the county finds this is unreasonable for the developer,
then the county pays for the excavation. The option of forcing a private
organization to voluntarily do the work for the public is like asking the
medical society or engineers to go in and provide engineering without pay
for work of the public or private benefit. How can. the Board distinguish
the Society from any other group of professionals who are never forced to
do work for the public benefit. Another option by San Diego County requires
dedication of open space requirements to prohibit use of the land or limits
use so as to not destroy the site. Another option the Board has is to
reject the division altogether because of the lack of mitigation measures.
He did not feel that-was the case. He was not pushing for full rejection
of any land division unless the Board is willing to take steps to protecting
the sites. He felt the Board was trying to ignore the location of the sites
and allow division without mitigation. This would be a very unfair move
to the public and the developer because the Board would guarantee another
year or two in court. That would cost the developer more money. He did not
suggest that at all.
Supervisor Wheeler asked Mr. Luvaas why he suggested it then?
Mr. Luvaas stated that was what is going to result if the county
ignores the clear opinion of the court.
Supervisor Wheelex felt that maybe it was time the appellate court
made that decision.
Mr. Luvaas stated that the appellate court had made decisions in
the past. He encouraged the county to follow one of the two available
options, those by Orange and San Diego Counties. Accept the responsibility
of mitigation either by the county paying for excavation or requiring the
developer to pay for it. They do not really want that alternative because
it would mean more delay and more expense and the technology is not that
great yet. Their preference is that the site be protected until the science
is advanced as much to allow full excavation of the sites. He did not
believe it was necessary to prevent the use of the land. He felt they could
work something out with the landowner to allow the property to be used and
have protection of the sites. It is clear the property owners do not want
to consider this unless they have no choice. He thought the county should
say that the property owner pay or not use the area or work with the
Society for an easement. This would not allow the Society to come in at
any time of their choice. They are asking that the landowner not destroy
the underlying sites while undertaking use of the land. The property
Page 471.
June 23, 1981
81-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = June .23 i 1981 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
owner is complaining about not heing able to go deep in the digging up of
the property. How does that differ from gicew.entng the landowners from putting
a well within 100 feet of a septic tank. The county puts restrictions on
the property owner everytime they approve'a division. All of them result
in expenses to the developer and are permanent restrictions to the land.
He felt these restrictions would be less than others that are imposed.
The only way it will happen is through cooperation of the landowner. He
felt the county should leave it up to the Society and the land owner to
settle. Who is responsible for that. The Society went into court and
asked the judge to enforce the law. The judge says the county did not
follow the law. The county is responsible and to an extend Mr. White is
particularly responsible. They could have prevented the delay by working
out the problem earlier. He felt it was very .important to show good faith.
The Society was hired more than a year ago to initiate a study on the property
with a contract with Mr. White. They entered into the agreement to pay for
that work. That has never been paid. Who is in good faith here? Who has
followed the law and who has not? All they are asking is a means be worked
out to protect the resources that are important public resources. The public
has the responsibility along with the Board. They have offered help to
(protect it. They have not asked for the job, have not asked to be hired.
He did not care who paid for the excavation as long as it was not free.
He offered to work to help to try to resolve the problem by sitting down
further with Mr. White to try to work out a settlement. The Whites could
have excavated for far less cost. He asked that they not be put in a
position of more delays by actions that will take the matter back to court.
Chairman Moseley stated that the Whites were acting in good
faith. He could have plowed it under. She felt those people acted in
good faith.
Mr. Luvaas stated that even though the lawsuit had been filed,
they went ahead and sold the lot. The court has ruled the land division
is illegal. They did not pay the bill they agreed to pay.to the Society
for services rendered.
Supervisor Wheeler found that truely amazing. The Society because
of CEQA are able to have studies done with no fee schedule that is charged
and can charge whatever they want to walk across the ground. The last point
of clarification is that Mr. Luvaas has indicated that Mr. White is a
developer. He is not a developer but a young family wanting to make a
living. The reason they sold the parcel was to be able to pay for the
mortgage. The members of the Society are mostly college professors in
this area. They had the entire summer plus the weekends and she thought
the burden should have been placed on them to go in there to do the digging.
Mr. Luvaas had trouble understanding why professional archaeologists
were different from professional engineers and not being paid for their time.
Supervisor Wbeeler stated that professional engineers were not
asking. for access to land to do their digging.
Mr. Luvaas stated he did not care who had the job. There are
other organizations similar to the Society. If they can come up with someone
else to protect the sites, this is fine.
Supervisor Wheeler asked who preordained them to protect this?
Supervisor Dolan stated this was a resource the Board was talking
about. The village site is historical. The court cries icized the Board.
It seems reasonableness could be accomplished by allowing kiwis to be
.planted and not damaging the site.
page 472.
June 23, 1981
.June 23, 1981
81- Supervisor Wheeler felt that one year had been reasonable.
Supervisor Saraceni stated that Mr. Luvaas had mentioned that
some of the restrictions have been put on the property owner by the county.
They differ a little in that some of the restrictions have to do with
health and safety. This situation has nothing to do with health-and safety.
He saw the impact of the cost going to only one party and that. has to be
of some significance as far as he was concerned in representing the people
of the Butte County. If the Society cannot finance the excavation and do
the things then it would be impractical to put the burden on the individual
owner.
Mr. Luvaas asked who besides the individual owner was getting
the benefit of the land division? Who pays for on-site improvements? The
person that benefits is expected to do the work. In counties that recognize
the need to preserve areas recognize the cost is relatively small. He
understood that developers did not worry about it anymore because they
realize it is a small expense and it could have been here too if they had
gotten down to the process of excavation some time ago. Now they are looking
at more months of delay. The cheapest way to the developer is to excavate
or undertake some limited restrictions so to allow protection with no
excavation. He felt this was possible to work out with very little impact
on the resources, then the cost is minimal or insiginificant. It is a small
portion of the total acreage involved. It is maybe one-half acre or less.
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board.
It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
that the Board reaffirm the mitigation measures as previously adopted by
this Board and further find that only the people or the entity that would
be interested in excavation and investigation of the archaeological site
would be the members of the Society; and further to the issue of finances
or personnel that the Society is composed of many people, a number of them
being actively involved in the Chico area, some university professors; and
also find that there is no requirement that the county fund such excavation
nor that they require the developer to fund excavation; in terms of the
Society's ability to do such investigation and excavation, I believe that
it is reasonable for the Board to conclude and to find that the members of
the Society.,.particularly those professors who have completed their year's
employment of teaching could have easily proceeded to do excavation on their
own, particularly in the summer months; further that such excavation could
have occurred on weekends if the members of the Society so desired; to the
fact that the Society may not have any funds in its treasury to hire
specific people to do it should be determinative of whether tine Society
or members of the Society can undertake the excavation and investigation;
in regards to the question of one years time whether it is adequate
or not; considering the fact that the members of the Society, some of which
who do live in the Chico area, could have been undertaking such investigation
and excavation during the weekends and during the summer months, does
.indicate that a significant amount of work chould have been accomplished;
',in reality I find that the Society is asking that this applicant or this
(developer preserve a piece of his property free from any development or
disturbance to allow the Society at its leisure to do an investigation;
from a realistic standpoint nobody else is going to be interested in going
in there and doing investigation so actually what it really amounts is that
the Society is asking or wants to obtain the right to use property for its.
purposes, naiaely, archaeological investigation if at not cost to it;
considering that, I further find that it is not reasonable to require the
developer to make hi s. property available to members of the Society when
they choose to da investigation; further I find that it is reasonable to
determine that if the .Society is truely interested in the preservation
page 473.
June 23, 1981
June 23, 1981
8].- or the investigation of this site and its significance, that the Society
~' could have accomplished this within one year; I feel that it is unreasonable
for the developer to be required to maintain the property for the Society's
investigation whenever it chooses to do so.
Supervisor Dolan could not agree with the first finding, that
the only ones interested in preserving are the Society. She did not think
that just the members of the Society were interested in preservation.
Vote on motion:
AYES: Supervisors Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley
NOES: Supervisor Dolan
ABSENT: Supervisor Lemke
Motion carried.
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Sup erviso~Saraceni
nd carried, the decision of the Board on the garcel map was reaffirmed.
YES: Supervisors Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley: NOES:
upexvisor Dolan. ABSENT: Supervisor Lemke
1064 RESENTATION BY BILL GOOLD, CALIFORNIA STATE FAIR, CONCERNING PLANNED
CTIVITIES OF THE FAIR
Bill Goold, California Snate Fair, made a presentation concerning
lanned activites of the fair. The state fair. is progressing now. It lias
ecome viable and profitable to the extent of improving financial operation
f the fair. They are asking for less support from the state and making
ore-money on the fair. There has been increased participant attendance
f 100,000 which is about 23 percent increase. The income is up by about
$1/2 million. They will be making several investments in the next
couple of years. Industry is becoming more involved in the fair. He
ppreciated the fact that Butte County participated in the fair with an
xhibit.
1065 PEARANCE: CARL WORTHINGTON
Mr. Worthington wanted to thank the Board for their support of
he Magalia Community Church being placed on the state and national
egister for historical places. The state met and accepted the church
o be a state historical place. This will be sent to the federal level
or approval. One of his sources has indicated that if this was passed
y the state the acceptance by the national register-was almost automatic.
1066 PEARANCE: ROD WEYAND BCEA
Mr. Weyand advised the Board that he was running into a problem
'n several areas for the agenda items and paperwork for the agenda items.
hen he goes to the Clerk's Office to obtain information relative to
he agenda, many times that information is not at that office. He requested
hat when there are matters on the agenda and the Board receives information,
he other side would like the information also.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, advised that if Mr.
and wants any information that they distribute, he is welcome to come
their office or to the Personnel Office.
Mr. Weyand stated there were items in the minutes of the following
k that make reference to documents and when a person goes to get them
one has that information. He felt that the paper of the county should
accessible and the perfect place is in the Clerk's Office.
Supervisor Dolan asked what the perfect place was?
Page 474.
June 23, 1981
June 23, 1981
81-
b
1x67
Mr. Nickelson stated that 1`1r..Weyand happens to be talking about
Personnel and Administration. Those departments have that information. Copies
of all things they send to the Board are not filed in the Clerk's Office.
It is not necessary.
PUBLIC HEARING: DANIEL L. MC WILLIAMS _ PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
DENIED USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SECOND SINGLE 'FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY ZONED
"TM-5" (TIMBER MOUNTAIN - 5 ACRE PARCELS), LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
WHISPERING PINES ROAD, APPROX. 1/4 MILE EAST OF COHASSET ROAD, COHASSET
AREA, IAENTIFIED AS AP 56-12-65
The public hearing on Daniel L. McWilliams proposed negative
declaration and denied use permit to allow a second single family dwelling
on property zoned "TM-5" (timber mountain - 5 acre parcels), located on the
south side of Whispering Pines Road, approximately 1/4 mile east of Cohasset
Road, Cohasset area, identified as AP 56-12-65 was held as advertised.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: Ted C. Black.
Chairman Moseley advised Mr. Black that the hearing would be
continued to June 30, 1981 and it might be better for him to give his
presentation on June 30, 1981 if he could come back.
The hearing was continued to June 30, 1981 at 10:30 a. m.
~~*
1068
RECESS: 12:08 p.m.
RECONVENE: 1:35 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS
IN BUTTE COUNTY
The public hearing on consideration of Fire Department standards
for new developments in Butte County was held as advertised.
Bill Teie, fire warden, set out the background of the standards
and the revisions to the standards. There are ten parts to the standards,
there are nine and ten the water requirement for lot splits and subdivisions.
The first two paragraphs have to do with disposal of vegetation. He was
asking that these paragraphs be put in the subdivision ordinance. He set
out paragraphs 3 to 10:
3. Access to structures. In many cases buildings are built that
the Eire Department cannot get to either from too small bridges or whatever.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, concurred with this
recommendation. Nose of the county road ways meet this requirement.
There are some ba~idges with eight and ten ton limits. There are one
percent of county roads that would not meet the requirement and many private
roads.
4. Street names in the county ordinance. He asked that this
be clarified. It is being done now.
5. Retarded roof covering. There were 65 homes lost in Napa
County worth $2.6 million estimated. Most of the homes had shake roofs.
Roof covering of afire retardant type would be required on new construction
in the wildlife area east of Highways 99, 149 and 70.
6. Fire walls in large buildings. They are asking far compartment
size buildings and two-hour walls. There are different square footage
based on occupation. Commercial buildings are 10,000 square feet and
industrial buildings, 12,000 square feet. If they cannot meet this they
will have to have sprinklers or go to Type 3 construction. This is for
Page 475.
June 23, 1981
81-
3
Tune 23, 1981
other than agricultural buildings that do not require building permits.
7.. -No structures over four stories high. The longest ladders
on the trucks are about 50 feet. They are asking-that no building over
four stories be constructed without being fully sprinklered. There is only
one such structure in the county at the present tine, Richardson Springs
Hotel.
8. More detectors. They are asking for more detectors. This
would be for multi-family structures. Single family dwellings...are only
required to have one detector.
9. Access to swimming pools. This is being asked for if
practical. There would be some internal policy that they do not take
more than 18 inches out of any one source. The average pool is about
10,000 to 15,000 gallons and this would be taking about 2,000 gallons.
They would have to have something they could drive up to or be within
ten feet without doing damage. The best way is to pipe the water.
They have done tests and through a six inch pipe they can get 500 gallons
per minute. '
10.. Water. This has had considerable revisions. They would like
fire hydrants in front of every house. If there is development of four
or less or the divisions are three acres or more, there is no water
that will be required. If there is 1,000 feet of domestic storage put in,
they want access to the water. If the water is there in adequate amounts
they would like to connect to it with their engines. For tracts and
subdivisions of less than 29 lots they will require some type of water
source but not a full blown fire hydrant system. The developer is responsible
for water. If a tract of 20 homes is put in and the first person buying
the property puts in a pool, they are asking that the developer provide
the pool. It is perferable to have fire hydrants.
Hearing .open to the public. Appearing: Bi11 Priel. Mr.
Priel had some problems with the standards. He felt the standards were
long overdue. There is nothing in this about rural construction. Under
some of the present laws for industrial complexes in agricultural areas
that is agriculturally related those buildings are prone to fire. These
would be almond hullers, rice and grain elevators. He felt that the
agricultural area should also be included under item 6. He felt that
agriculture should be added to the standards. He felt there were several
ther things in the standards that did not particularly add to the cost
of building. There would be added costs for the agricultural areas and
the commercial and industrial areas. Mr. Priel was also concerned with
the electrical systems for the areas where the electricity for the well
went through a home. If the home were on fire, the well would not work
and the fire could not be put out. He was also concerned in the agricultural
areas where there are three or four outbuildings connected by a fence.
He felt that possibly the county might want to take it upon themselves
to provide water storage for some of the outlying areas, if the county
is going to provide urban fire protection services to the rural areas.
Mr. Teie stated that he had met with Mr. Priel. There is
probably less staff input than the developer input in these standards.
With regard to the question in agricultural areas, they were trying
to apply the standards to loss and greater value to the community.
They tried to target those of greater loss. He did not know of any plan
to provide urban fire services to the rural areas. He felt that volunteer
fire departments were the only way to provide the services. The City of
Chico standards are considerably higher than those proposed.
Page 476.
June 23, 1981
June 23, 1981
gl- Mr. Friel felt there would be more and more industrial developments
3 in the agricultural areas. If this is a preventative thing, he would like
to see agricu]ture included. The requirements should be in the buildings
built.
Supervisor Wheeler felt that Mr. Friel had raised some valid
points. She would like a week to sit down and discuss this further relative
to industrial uses in agricultural areas.
Mr. Teie felt that if agriculture should be included it could
be included at a later time after study had been done on the matter.
He would like to see the Board consider adoption of the proposed standards
at this time. He would also like to explore the possibility of using
agricultural wells for fire protection.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor 5araceni
and carried, the Board approved going with the fire standards as proposed
and directed staff to develop appropriate ordinance to implement the
proposed fire standards. and to also look into the points brought ug.
SUPERVISOR WHEELER ABSENT AT THIS TIME
1069" ADOPT RESOLUTIONS 81-133 81-134 81-135: APPROVE ADMINISTRATION ITEMS
On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried,. the following action was taken:
1. Approved annual Grand Jury/Board of Supervisors audit
contract with the firm of Slower, Roster and Lotspeich in the amount of
$18,000 and the Chairman authorized to sign.
2. Approved the following penalty abatement requests, change of
ownership report:
a. M. Franklin and Sondra J. Godfrey, AP 008-15-0-009-0
b. Thomas A. and Kim L. Stewart, AP 045-21-0-085-0
c. Dale P. and Iola J. Newton, AP 008-29-0-076-0
d. John W. and Carol A. McKune, AP 042-34-0-064-0
e. Richard P. and Constance A. Nielsen, AP 064-72-0-004-0
3. Adopted Resolution 81-133 pursuant to Government Code Section
25210.9c and Board Resolution 75-82 to appropriate $250 from county service
area loan fund to County Service Area No. 23 (Pleasant Valley Drainage
District) as a result of increased drainage maintenance with the loan to
be repaid in 1981-82 and the Chairman authorized to sign.
4. Adopted Resolution 81-134 approving property tax"exchange
agreement with Richvale Sanitary District waiving- their rights to property
taxes for a current annexation proposal and the Chairman authorized to sign
the resolution and agreement.
5. Adopted Resolution 81-135 approving property tax exchange
agreement with North Burbank Public Utility District waiving their right to
property taxes for two current annexation proposals and the Chairman authorized
to sign the resolution and agreement.
SUPERVISOR WHEELER PRESENT AT THTS TIME
Page 477.
June 23, 1981
June 23, 1981
81-1070 ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-136 APPROVING THE PROPOSED 1981-82 BTTDGET SETTING A
'b PUBLIC HEARING DATE
Discussion of budget hearings held at this time. Supervisor Dolan
stated that if the Board was going to proceed as proposed and have lengthy
budget .sessions with the budget on the agenda, she would like-adequate
time to read it. She thought the Board was not going to meet on-July 7,
1981. She would like to avoid having the budget session at the end of
the Board meeting.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that the budget
is about 5.6 million out of balance with that much more expenditures than
revenue to fund the budget. There were some surprise revenues that came
in. When they get through making proposals there will be around $4 to
$4-1/2 million of that amount. They will be dealing with about $1 million
in pencils and papers, jobs and services. The Board has until the end
of August to make a decision. If the Board waits long, there will have
to be even more reductions in order to make up for money spent after
July 1, 19$1.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, Resolution 81-136 approving the 1981-82 proposed budget and
setting a public hearing date of July 9, 1981 at 9:00 a. m. was adopted
and the Chairman authorized to sign.
1071 APPROVE BUDGET TRANSFERS
Supervisor Wheeler stated the Board was approving more money coming
from the reserve.
Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that on page 5
of the proposed budget there is available surplus which is part of the
funding, which was $7 million in 1980-81 and down to $5,800,000 or a
$1,700,000 drop. Everything is in there. That drop is department spending
up to the hilt and transfers from the reserve. The Board does not have
much choice but to approve three transfers.
Supervisor Dolan felt that most of the transfers from the reserve
have been for the courts. The Board cannot tell them not to spend money.
There is a tremendous increase in the whole justice system.
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the following budget transfers were approved:
B-303 - Oroville Justice Court. Transfers $5,800 from the reserve;
with $300 going to maintenance of equipment and $5,500 to professional and
specialized services in order to cover current budgetary deficiencies and
provide an appropriation for the balance of the fiscal year.
B-306 - Environmental Review. Transfers $1,000 from regular salaries
and $400.from employee benefits; with $1,300 going to office expense and $100
to transportation and travel in order to cover current budgetary deficiencies
and to provide an appropriation for the balance of the fiscal year.
B-307 -Paradise Justice Court. Transfers $770 from the reserve;
with $220 going to office expense, $418 to professional and specialized
services and $132 to transportation and travel in order to cover current
budgetary deficiencies and to provide an appropriation for the balance of
the fiscal year.
B-308 - Public Works - General Services. Transfers $ 4,500 from
the reserve to professional and specialized services within th~Rock Creek -
Mud Creek Storm Maintenance District project within the budget to cover the
Page 478.
June 23, 1981
June 23, 19.81
a1-
d
agreement with McCain and Associates for establishment of a county service
area. This transfer is in accordance with Board. of Supervisors action on
May 26, 1981;.Minute'Order 81-867.
B=309 ~- Superior Court. Transfers $1,000 from extra help, $1,200
from overtime, $300 from maintenance of equipment, $310 from membexships
and $5,000 from office expense; with a total of $7,810 going to professional
and specialized services to cover enrrent budgetary deficiencies and to
provide an appropriation for the balance of the fiscal year. This transfer
is necessary as a result of the increase in serious cases being tried and
investigated.
APPROVE 1981-82 SENIOR SERVICES PROGRAM CONTRACTS
Oa motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the following program contracts were approved in the amounts
indicated; continuation of the programs without interruption was authorized,
if necessary, utilizing county funds in the interim period: Senior Nutrition,
$242,385; Homemaker Aid Program, $73,000; and Supportive Services for Senior
Nutrition (transportation), $18,443 with funding coming from the Area Agency
on Aging for the program year beginning July 1, 1981.
lo7z
PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET
A public hearing date of July 14, 1981 at 10:00 a.m. was set
for consideration of Stella McMahan petition for variance to Sections
19-10 and/or 19--12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home
on AP 30-18-2-2, 1176 12th Street, Thermalito area. Zoning: "A-2"
107;
APPROVE VARIANCE RENEWALS
On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
-and carried, the following were approved:
1. Ernest Harris .renewal of variance to Sections 19-10 and/or
~19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on
SAP 36-02--2-22, 4400 Lower Wyandotte, Oroville area. Zoning: "AR-MH"
2. Charles W. Phillips renewal of variance to Sections 19-10 and/or
19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 36-30-81,
6330 Carmel Avenue, Palermo area. Zoning: "AR MH"
3. Lonnie 0. Taylor renewal of variance to Sections 19-10 and/or
19-12 of the Butte County Code for placement of a mobile home on AP 24-23-016,
Central House Road, Oroville area. Zoning: "A-5"
1074
OLOSED HEARING: THERESA GEORGE APPEAL OF ADVISORY AGENCY'S CONDITION 4
(PROVIDE PERMANENT SOLUTION FOR DRAINAGE) ON TENTATTVE PARCEL MAP,
AP 42-14-74, TWO LOTS, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF NORD AVENUE
AT THE INTERSECTION OF OAK WAY, CHICO AREA
The closed public hearing on Theresa George appeal of Advisory
Agency's condition 4 •(provide permanent solution for drainage) on tentative
parcel map, AP 42-14-74, two lots, property located on the south side of
Nord Avenue at the intersection of Oak Way, Chico area was held as
continued.
1075
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated that they have
not yet received the recommendations from the Land Development Committee.
He asked that the matter be held over until that recommendation has come
forward.
The matter was continued until the Board receives the recommendation
from the Land Development Committee.
Page 479.
June 23, 1981
June.23, 1981
8].-1076 APPROVE PUBLIC WORKS 1TEM5;-ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-137
,~ On motion of Supervisor.Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, the following action was taken:
1. Approved the deposit by the developer in the amount of $1,176.47
for taxes or special assessments which area lien, but not yet payable;
approved the final map for Kelly Ridge Unit No. 8,.51 lots, AP 34-04-103,
property located on the north side of Hillcrest Arenue and`^west side of
Lodgeview Drive, and east of Kelly Ridge Road, Oroville area and accepted
easements described in items 1 and 2 of the owner's certificate; and grant-
in-fee of Osborne Court; and authorized the Chairman to sign the subdivision
agreement.
2. Approved the use of the East Ridge Assessment District in
lieu pf normal bonding requirement for the East Ridge Subdivision map.
3. Approved the deposit by the developer for taxes or special
assessments which are a lien, but not yet payable; approved the final
subdivision map for East Ridge Subdivision, 24 lots, AP 34-50-27 (portion),
property located on the northeast corner of Kelly Ridge Road and Heritage
Road, Oroville area, and accepted easements described as 1, 2 and 3 of the
owner`s certificate as offered for dedication; accepted grant-in-fee right-
of-way for East Ridge Court, Oakridge Court, Rogers Ridge Court; and
authorized the Chairman to-sign the subdivision agreement.
4. Approved contract amendment No. 4 to the Oroville Express
contract for operation of the Oroville Express through 1981-82 at the
current level of service (24 hours/day, 7 days/week) with the total net
cost to the county being $56,000 and provides for payment to the contractor,
Oroville Bus Lines, the amount of $2.35 per regular ticket (15C increase)
and $6.70 per wheelchair van ticket (increase of 70~) and a patron fare
of 85~ per ticket and the Chairman authorized to sign..
5. Approved contract amendment No. 1 to the contract with the
Town of Paradise for continuation of the Paradise Express agreement whereby
the County Public Works Department adminsters and prints tickets for the
subsidized taxi system for an annual fee of $3,700, with the operation of
the Paradise Express funded solely by the Town of Paradise and the Chairman
authorized to sign.
6. Approved contract amendment No. 3 to the existing contract for
operation of the Chico Clipper through 1981-82 on a seven day/week, ten
hour/day basis and also provides for evening service two nights per week
and extends the service area boundary from Lassen Avenue north to Eaton
Avenue to provide service in an area which is urbanized and contiguous to
the area now being served by the Clipper with .the total net cost to the
County in 1981-82 being $88,000 and provides for payment to the contractor
in the amount of $3.40 per ticket (increase of 30C) and maintains the fare
for county patrons at 80p per trip and the Chairman authorized to sign.
7. Authorized the Public Works Director to sign the contracts
on behalf of the county to pay non-profit groups for their litter cleanup
projects, subject to-State Solid Waste Management funding.
8. Adopted Resolution 81-137 approving the contract with the
State Department of Transportation changing the designation from freeway
to controlled accessway for State Route 70 (Wicks Corner to Jarbo Gap) was
adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign the resolution and contract.
Page .480.
June 23, 1981
June 23, 1981
81-1077
MAKE FINDINGS PD1tSUANT TO SECTION 20-66 PARAGRAPH.3 AND SET PUBLIC HEARING
DATE FOR APPEAL OF CONDITION 11 ON TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, AP 36-22-31, THREE
PARCELS, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF FOOTHILL BLVD, WEST OF
LOWER WYANDOTTE "ROAD; OROVTLLE AREA FOR I+7ARIC "STRINGER
It was moved by Supervisor Wheeler, seconded .by Supervisor Saraceni
to authorize an amendment of condition ll (meet the requirements of the
Butte County Fire Department} for Mark Stringer, tentative parcel-map,
AP 36-22-31, three parcels, property located on the northeast side of
Foothill Boulevard, west of Lower Wyandotte Road, Orovi:lle area to meet
the present Fire Department standards which would eliminate the requirement
for installation of fire hydrants, finding it is reasonable to amend it.
Supervisor Dolan wondered if they could approve this without
first, holding a hearing on the matter.
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated that the Fire
Department standards the Board is considering now does not require fire
hydrants. The Board has allowed land appeals making the determination
they are reasonable.
Dan Slackstock, county counsel, advised the Board had passed
an ordinance setting forth specific procedures which is that the
applicant files an appeal relative to the condition and gives the grounds
as to why the matter was not appealed at the time and if the Board makes
the findings and there is reasonable grounds then the Board would set
a hearing date.
Supervisor Dolan stated the procedure was there. She understood
the Board was going to change the standards and people will not have to do
things. There are public hearings and people can come and make a presentation.
Motion withdrawn.
1078
The Board made the findings pursuant to Section 20-66 paragraph 3
of the Butte County Code relative to this appeal.
A public hearing date of July 14, 1981 at 10:30 a.m. was set for
consideration of the appeal.
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2229: WAIVE SECOND 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 Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Dolan
and carried, the second reading of the ordinance amending Section 21.28
of the Butte County Code redefining "mobile home" relating to implementation
of Senate Bill 1960 was waived; Ordinance 2229 was adopted and the Chairman
authorized to sign.
1079 REQUEST FOR ADVANCEMENT ON THE SALARX SCHEDULE FOR LEO BATTLE, DEPUTY COUNTY
COUNSEL IV, FROM STEP B ($2,767/MONTH} TO STEP E ($3,200/MONTH), RANGE 32.0
1N ACCORDANCE WITH PERSONNEL RULES SECTTON 12/13
Discussion of the request for advancment on the salary schedule
for Leo Battle, deputy counsel counsel IV, from step B {.$2,767/month) to
Step E ($3,200/month), range 32.0 in accordance with Personnel Rules 12/13
was held at this time..
Rod Weyand, BCEA, stated he had some issues he would like to
discuss. Just now he was in receipt of the memo from the Administrative
Office which was obtained from the press. He spoke regarding the wording
of the Personnel Rules that County Counsel makes reference to. He realized
the wording was such that it can be taken many ways. The intent of that
Page 481.
June 23, 1981
Sune 23, 1981
81- ule was for hiring purposes, so it could .be brought to the Board for hiring
3 taff in order to fi,li positions. This is not an open position, it is simply
to raise the incumbent's salary. -The memo addresses the fact that the
erson is a very competent employee and deserves-this. There are many other
competent employees within the county. There is a merit system. He noticed
n the memo the Administrative Office sent to the Board that the gentleman
started in October, 1979 at $1,467 pax month. He has had an 85 percent
'ncrease in salary in 17 months and now this is another 15 percent raise,
so that in 17 to 18 months he would have received a l00 percent increase
in salary. It was a shame that Supervisor Lemke was not present for this
iscussion. There was an inference made in the memo that maybe the man
fight not stay here. Supervisor Lemke in the past has always claimed that
hen an employee threatened to quit let him because there are three that
ant his job. BCEA is willing to back this 100 percent as long as this
roposal establishes a precedent that all county employees can have this,
of just a select few. The other item is that they are in negotiations
for salary increases now, which amounts to 15 percent increase. If the
county signs off on that then there is no need for the I5 percent raise
at this time.
Supervisor Dolan stated the information she has received is that
unty Counsel is requesting the step advancement. She has not seen Mr.
the begging for the raise. She agreed and accepted everything she has
and that Mr. Battle is a fine and valuable employee. She had problems
th this because the county does not have a procedure for giving recognition
r high and quality work. The merit system does not allow for this. She
d problems being preceived and accept the other argument that other county
ployess will see this as arbitrary.
Supervisor Wheeler felt that Supervisor Dolan had raised a valid
pint. She felt the Board should deal with this as soon as possible. She
elt the Board should implement a procedure and policy that gives department
cad the ability to make evaluations. She has been working with some people
ho have been assistant putting together and structure and outline. She
asked that Supervisor Dolan work on this with her.
Supervisor Saraceni felt it was commendable for people .that are
capable and doing a good jab. He felt the Board should look into some way
f being able to recognize these people but at this time they are not able
o do so.
Supervisor Wheeler stated she could bring some information back
o the Board for consideration in the future.
The request was put on the list as one item to be looked at.
o action taken on the request at this time.
1080 POINTMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIDN DISTRICT 2 TO BE POSTED
Supervisor Dolan advised that Bill Collins, her appointment to the
and Development Commission, had resigned.
The Administrative Office to post the vacancy and write a
etter of appreciation to Bill Collins.
1081 CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FROM CHAPMANTOWN AREA RESIDENTS FOR THE FORMATION
OF A MUNICIPAL ADVISORX COUNCIL
Supervisor Dolan report tbthe Board that the Chapmantown and
lberxy area residents have been j.nvestigating the possibility of forming
municipal advisory council. This is just for information and she will
e sending additional information to the Board as it is available. There
are somewhere is excess of 20 MACS through the state.
Page 482.
June 23, 1981
81-1083
a
1084
June 23., 1981
COMMUNICATIONS
McKinney Brothers, Ine., Chico. The firm writes in follow-up to their
original letter in opposition to the rezoning of their property
in Chico from "A-2" to "SR--1" which was listed on the May 5, 1981
agenda. County Counsel to send a letter advising them they will
have to seek rezoning for the property if they wish a commercial
venture.
Robert E. Boyden, Oroville. Mr. Boyden writes with regard to the Board's
action on the owner-built rural home code and also requests a
replacement for himself on the committee. Administrative Office
to follow up and post vacancy if necessary.
Ward H. Dover et al, Challenge. Mr. Dover writes requesting that the Board
support citizens in keeping a portion of Bean-Clipper Road (between
Marysville-LaPorte Road and the Yuba County line) open for
continued public use. Referred to Public Works.
City of Chico. The city writes forwarding information w~ah regard to their
support in funding improvements for the proposed Chico Library.
Discussed; no action taken.
City of Chico. The city writes concerning funding for improvements on
Cohasset Road, between Mangrove Avenue and Rio Lindo Avenue.
Referred to Public Works Director for answering.
Chico Hotel-Motel Association. The organization writes advising that they
are circulating a petition concerning the utilization of bed tax
revenues. Administrative Office to send letter advising the
Board will be considering during budget time.
Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento. The department forwards a copy of
their Sacramento River and tributaries bank protection and erosion
control ivestigation's environmental assessment requesting informal
comments on the report which will evolve into a draft environmental
impact statement. Referred to Public Works Director.
Selective Service System. The State Director for California writes foxwarding
information with regard to the Selective Service System and requests
nominations for membership for local board member candidates.
Administrative Office has application forms.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Wheeler stated that people have petitioned for
'a change in the truck ordinance. Supervisor Saraceni has raised questions
over the wording. When the ordinance was adopted there was a play on words
that made the ordinance weak. She asked that the words between 10:00 p.m.
and 8:00-.a.m. be struck. The neighbors are being harassed by this person
(with the truck. She felt a public hearing on this matter would be fine.
hearing.
The ordinance to be brought back in the form of a public
1085 WAIVE REAPPLICATION FEES FOR RUSSELL MOUNT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP ON
AP 45-412-79
Clay Castleberry, public works director, stated that Mr. Mount
had a specific time to file his final map. Through a typographical error
in a letter to Mr. Mount the time for filing the final map was later.
He asked that the Board approve the waiver of the reapplication fees.
Page 483.
June 23, 1981
June 23, 1981
81- On-motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded.by Supervisor Saraceni
~ and carried, the teapplieation fees for Russell Mount tentative parcel
map, AP 45-412-79, two parcels, north side, of vallombrosa Avenue, Chico
were waived.
1086 SET AMOUNT OF THE'PROP05ED'BUDGET FOR SALE TO THE PUBLIC
1087
~*~*
On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
and carried, $4.00 was set for the cost of the 1981-82 proposed budget.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Board recessed at 3:02 p.m. to hold an executive
session regarding litigation and meet and confer.
RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 4:00 p.m. following an executive session
regarding litigation and meet and confer. No announcements to
be made at this time.
APPOINT BANK OF AMERICA AS TRUSTEE FOR LIBRARY LEASE AND LEASEBACK FUNDS
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated that under the lease and
leaseback situation the funds are not held by the county but held by a
trustee. The trustee holds the money for payment to the contractor in
a timely manner. The trustee also receives the rent from the county and
pays the bond holders. In terms of prior experience on these types of
items, Bank of America has done a considerable number of them. Wells
Fargo Bank have done some of these. He solicited proposals from the
banks doing business in Butte County. There was a misunderstanding with
Central Bank. The proposal was telephoned to the district office here.
His reason for making sure that Central Bank got a shot at this is because
about eleven years ago they saved the county money for the lease and lease-
back for the Superior Court. They were willing to go along with the county.
Their proposal confuses him. They put a minimum annual fee in their proposal.
With the annual fee of $5 per bond for 530 bonds Central Bank gets a little
expensive.
As far as timing the financial consultant is adamant about being
able to print the statement which is about so thick. It is a prospectus for
the money. This contains the name of the trustee so it need to be in it.
By not having the selection of the trustees the county will be delaying
in having the prospectus printed. June 25, 1981 is the due diligence
meeting. They will be talking to various county officials. The Library
Corporation will meet at 3:00 p.m. that afternoon and the statement will
be authorized and they will be out in the market for the money and we will
be opening proposals for financial investors on July 14, 1981. It is his
hope that on Juiy 14, 1981 when they received this information the Board can
make a determination on proceeding and he will set up the closing which will
take place in about ten days. There is a tremendous amount of paperwork
on the closing.
In reviewing the proposals it would appear that Security Pacific
is possibly the lowest bidder. The amount of funds they are talking
about is different with each proposal. He would not personally be inclined
to jump at the low bidder. The Board backed the financial consultant on
that basis. He set out the difference in the proposals at this time.
Jim Johansen, auditor, stated the proposals were difficult to
assess. He agreed with Mr. Blackstock that the minimum bid is not necessarily
the one the Board should consider.
Mr. Blackstock stated he had no experience with Security Pacific.
Wells Fargo helped on the school buildings. Bank of America has been used
in the past. He has not personally worked with Crocker Bank either.
Looking at five years down the line experience can certainly be of critical
significance.
Page 484.
June 23, 1981
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ .Tune .23,_ 1981 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
81- On motion of Supervisor Wheeler; .seconded by Supervisor Saraceni
~ and carried, Bank of America was appointed as the trustee for the library
lease and leasback funds.
There being nothing further before the Board at this time, the
meeting was adjourned at 4:22 p.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, June 30, 1981
at 9:00 a. m.
ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER
and ex-officio Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors
G -~---
Chairman of the Board f Supervi ~
By
Page X85.
June 23, 1981