Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM092078September 20, 1978 RECONVENED: The Board reconvened at 10:00 a.m. pursuant to recess. Present: Supervisors Lemke, Madigan, Moseley, Richter and Chairman Winston, Clif Mickelson, administrative officer; Dan Black stock, county counsel; W. R. Lawrence, auditor; and Clark A. Nelson, county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk to the Board> 78-1827 REPORT ON ANIMAL CONTROL MEETING: RESCIND MOTION OF INTENT TO CONTRACT WITH SAN GABRIEL VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETX Supervisor Lemke reported on the meeting that was held regarding the animal control proposed contract. The committee has heard the second proposal from ACHS Companyo Because of the second proposal the committee has decided the County will write specifications for a contract and have available for a meeting on Octoher 10, 1978 and then on that date invite bids. On motion of Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Richter and unanimously carried, the motion of intent to contract with San Gabriel Valley Humane Society was rescinded. 78-1828 CLARIFICATION OF BOARD°S INTENT RE: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NEEDS IN CITY OF CHICO Supervisor Richter stated that there is a misunderstanding regarding the $20,000 in the claim for public transportation. The Board never agreed that when the $20,000 was included in the claim that they recognize the need for bus service in Chico. The $20,000 was put in the claim as the county's portion of future acquisition of equipment. He objected to this and-the Board agreed to investigate the need. Mr. Castleberry recommended that the Board place~~ the $20,000 in the fund. ', Chairman Winston stated that it was his understanding that when the Public Works Director requested the additional $20,000 it was ', a kind of good faith gestured If the City of Chico agrees that a system is need there is $20,000 set aside. On motion of Supervisor Richter, seconded by Supervisor Madigan and unanimously carried, it was not the Board`s intent to recognize,. that pup+lEi.<.: transportation needs for the City of Chico may be reasonably ', met by fixed bus system. 78- 1829 DISCUSSION: ALLEGATIONS REGARDING OPERATION RUN BY MRSo COLEMAN, SUPERIOR CALIFORNIA HUNT:9'NE SOCIETY Supervisor Lemke reported that the Sheriff's Office had made inquiry as to the allegations that Mrs. Coleman did not run a good animal. control operationso She was given a clean bill of health. 78- 1830 BUDGET HEARINGS The continued public hearing on the 1978/79 budget and final hearing on revenue sharing was held as continued. Bill Lawrence, auditor, made a statement at this time. His office has been in contact with the Legislative Offices of Resarch. Most of the questions were regarding budgeting for the Library services. He took the liberty of .telling them that the Boated had agreed to approve the Library budget for the 1978-79 year to the level required to maintain the services with the understanding ~ if sufficient general fund monies are available to make up the necessary difference. The office is gathering information for creation of a bill. The Library is the hardest hit because they are so dependent on tax money. They had a shortage of $425,000 and using anti-recession funds of $153,000. He told them that the county might have to curtail other activities in order to fund the shortage for __',,,_,;r Page 306. September 20, 1978 September 20, 1978 the Library from the general fund. There is a possibility that there will be supplemental money coming forward after January for the Library, Tf that occurs, then the money could be reverted to the general fund. Supervisor Richter asked if it could be possible that legislation would be framed in such a way for the full reimbursement of funds that could preclude money coming to the county if the Library budget was funded in total2 Would it be wise to budget less $250,000 and be in a position to fund down the road? Mr. Lawrence stated that he had mentioned this the other day. The county is looking at a base for future funding for the Library. He is going to a meeting with the districts and will be telling them the same things, If certain conditions are in limbo, it should be left in a position of not:;knowing what to do in adopting a budget< They should budget to needs regardless of funding, and then if funding does not come in the budget can be reduced. The budget cannot be raised. The county should put any of this uncertainty into a reserve status,,,,. clear spending to solid revenue and leave the difference i_= a state of flux. Supervisor Richter stated if the Board were to place the general fund monies in the reserve would it be possible to say to the Librarian that eit,is the intent of the Board to fund out of the reserve the additional money needed to run if it were at full capacity? to. Mr. Nickelson stated that this is what the Auditor was referring Mr. Lawrence stated that he has heard from the Department of Finance that there will be additional money available for special districts. The original intent was that the special districts would apply directly to the Department of Finance, The Department decided to put it back on the Boards of Supervisors for a decision, If the money is received, it will be up to the Board to go through the allocation of funds. He stressed the mosquito abatement districts as having the most needs. This will not affect the County budget unless the Board wishes to use some for the Library. Mr, Lawrence fs in the process of preparing a memo to the Board recommending that they reduce the available funds by 10% of the anticipated tax revenues, He felt that there is going to be some type of order requiring the assessor to drop back to the other formula. There is going to be a class action suit to enforce this. The County might suffer about 10% drop in revenue. The reason for this is the manner in which the assessor went about their reappraisal of property. Chairman Winston stated that'as he recalled the provisions of Proposition 13 stated that the values shall be rolled back to 1975 values and a provision of factoring up at 2% per year. If a property had not been reappraised for a period of time prior to 1975 that property could be revalued to the 1975 value, What is a reasonable time? The property was reappraised in 1975 and then in 1978 the Assessor feels that the figure was off, He did not subscribe to that. If a person was told in 1975 the value was a certain amount it should be that amount. Nr. Lawrence stated that the assessed value is 25% of the appraised vallue. If the assessed value did not equal 25% then the county was allowed to bring up to the 25% level, The old concept of 25% of the appraised value will no longer apply. He felt the Assessor will have to change their way of thinking. The wording in SB 154 was construed to Page 307. September 20, 1978 September 20, 1978 mean that they could~go back and reappraise. Supervisor Richter stated that the Legislagure and the State Board of Equalization have not viewed it this wayo The legal aspects will be worked out. If anyone has been over appransed~that it would be wrong. He did not see any way of implementing Proposition 13 without bringing everyone up to the 1975 value. There has to be equity in the taxing. ', Mr. Lawrence stated that the County was very lucky in having unexpended revenue sharing monies and some random sources of revenue from the government and some of the road balances that were available. The only place there was a significant reduction was in the Welfare budget. That budget is all state financed. He recommended that the Board adopt to the funding this year. The Board will have to give serious consideration to cutting back next year. This year is forced spending and the county is not able to cut back because they would be penalized, Under the circumstances the Board has done a good job. The Board should start to consider attrition and reducing staff so that when the freeze on income and possible spending comes it will be easier to cope with. 78-1831 POLICY: BOARD DOES NOT INTENT TO EXPAND POSITIONS THIS YEAR It was moved by Supervisor Madigan and seconded by Supervisor Richter that there be an immediate hiring freeze on positions. Clif Nickelson, administrative officer, stated that presents some problems. The county is trying to slowly phase CETA into regular slots. If there is a hiring freeze they could will not be able to phase out of CETA program and that means serious problems next year. He agreed philosap~freally with the motion. Supervisor Madigan stated that if a department has a staff of 50 people they should be able to replace the ones that retire or quit but not increase their staff. Supervisor Madigan amended his motion to reflect that it is the policy of the Board not to allow an increase in positions over what is in the budget for this year. Supervisor Richter seconded the amendment. Mr. Nickelson asked for clarification of the motiono The proposed budget shows six positions that the Board has not removed. It was fQlt~the sax positions should remain and that from 10:55 a.m. on September 20, 1978 there would be no new positions added to the county staff. Jim Rackerby, personnel director, stated that a hiring freeze is unappropriate. It should be a Board policy that if it is the Soard's intent that those positions vacant now should be filled and no .new positions be added next year. Mr. Nickelson made two points relative to AB 90 funds. There are two positions proposed with one in Proba'tion._ and one is under victim witness program. There is also one gosition under work furlough program. Mr. Rackerby stated that the county cannot add regular help positions without coming to the Board with a salary ordinance. The Board has absolute control. Page 308. September 20, 1978 September 20, 1978 Vote on motion: AXES: Supervisors Lemke, Madigan, Moseley, Richter and Chairman ', Winston. NOES: None Motion carries, 78-1832 BUDGET REVIEW Budget review was held at this timed k'edexal Revenue Shari Allocations a e 42, Clif Mickelson, administrative officer, stated that the Auditor in the figures had left about $500,000 of funds that were net budgeted revenue sharing funds. Actually the fugure could have been raised to $3y100,000 and still balanced out, Dick Puelicher, chief accountant, stated that the $500,000 included $369,000 in revenue sharing funds and other anti-recession funds. Mr, Mickelson felt the $369,000 could be used for the El Medio ditch for $166,000. Mr. Puelicher set out how the surplus was to be used, The Board directed that the surplus be used to fund equipment acquisition. Discussion: El Medio ditch proiect, H.CD. Supervisor Richter fielt that revenue sharing money should be used for the projects in El Medio and Chapmantown. He wondered why the pipe for the EZ Medio ditch was being placed by the roadway and not down the original ditch, Possibly the cost could be less if the pipe were placed down the ditch instead of tearing up roads and digging another ditch for the pipe, Larry Brooks, administrative analyst, stated that was the original proposal, Apparently the Engineer feels the existing ditch is going to create problems for right-of-way and maintenance. There is some question as to easement that is used at the present time. Counsel feels that the county has prescriptive rights. Supervisor Richter stated that the ditch drains the area. He felt that the people owning the property should be willing to provide the necessary rights-of-way in view of the work that is being done in the area. Mr. Brooks set out the preliminary engineering report. The ditch traverses 35 lots. The maintenance access is non-existent. Tt was felt that the result of putting the pipe in the ditch would be more costly and result in a second rate storm drain, The Engineer recommended abandoning the original site, Supervisor Richter asked that the Board get another opinion. on the analysis of the relocation of the ditch. Jim Cook, BCEA, stated that he would like to see what it would cost to put the pipe in the ditch, Page 309. September 20, 1978 September 20, 1978 Mr, Mickelson stated Counsel has rendered a legal opinion as to the County's responsibility. They had originally anticipated a laxge concrete pipe down the ditch. He asked that the Board proceed and approve $168,000 in the budget and his office will demand scrutiny as to the cheapest way to do the project. There is $72,922 for the Chico Animal Shelter which can be used. He felt the Auditor could work the matter out one way or the other. Mr, Brooks stated that the transfer could be made within the HCD budget with block grant funds being used. Auditor instructed to provide for the funds necessary and another engineer to be asked for an analysis. Sheriff-Coroner, page 116, Mr. Mickelson reported on the meeting to negotiate the fees charged by the funeral directors. The $125 per Coroner's case was reduced to $28 per case. There would be a chaxge of $25 for use of the autopsy room whenever necessarye The net result is the cost to the county next year will be about $18,000 to $20,000 per year instead of $65,000 that has been budgeted, Supervisor Richter stated that he hoped that the Board would realize that this is not just a foothold to add onto. It is a good amount for them. This is estimated on the fact that the fees could be effective for at least 10 years, Account 36, Reduce by $35,000. Mr. Mickelson stated that this matter would come before the Board on Tuesday for final action on the feese Supervisor Madigan commented on the budget transfers for the Sheriff's Office last year. They totalled $242,000 plus. This budget should be looked at carefully this yearn Mr. Mickelson felt that the transfers had been made because the Board added additional deputies and the budget is based upon a deputy. Discussion of deputies allowed to take vehicles home.. held at this time. Supervisor Madigan has received complaints from deputies. as to the deputies allowed to take cars home. No action takeno Discussion: Grant application_services for EDA Mr. Mickelson stated that during budget deliberations there was some talk about $5,000 for an EDA grant service. Tt was felt that this matter could be handled by other means within the county, Discussion: Gridley Ambulance Service and Animal Control contracts with Cit of Oroville and Cit of Chico The Gridley Ambulance Service Area contract requires a 90-day cancellation clause. Mr. Mickelson felt the Board is going to have to consider the matter next year. He suggested that the Board reduce the cancellation time on the contract or make a motion: of cancellation. The agreements with the City of Oroville and the City of Chico for animal control should also be considered the same way. The matter to be considered this spring. Page 310Fr September 20, 1978 September 20, 1978_ _________W_ 78-1833 COUNSEL TO MAKE REPORT ON ACCEPTANCE OF EMERGENCY VEHICLE FOR BUTTE COUNTY SEARCH AND RESCUE UNIT RELATIVE TO PAYMENT OF NOTE ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1978 Clif Mickelson, administrative officer, stated that there re some questions relative to purchase of the emergency vehicle for the Butte County Search and Rescue Unit. The vehicle has been accepted and the county is licensing the vehicle. The county would be paying for something they already have if they were to pay off the note at this time. It was moved by Supervisor l~emke that the acceptance of the - emergency vehicle for the Butte County Search and Rescue Unit be rescinded. Motion dies fox lack of a second, Counsel to review the matter and make a report to the Board on September 26, 1978. 78-1834 BUDGET REVIEW CONTINUED ', Budget review was continued at this tame. Board of Su ervisors a e 2. Dick Puelicher, chief accountant, stated that Iast year the Board authorized Paradise MAC funds out of their budget. At the time the proposed budget was put together the Auditor's Office was unaware of the election bills for the November election that was over $4,000, He suggested that the amount be added to the Board of Supervisors budget for 1978-79. Account 4I. Add: $34113 N3lc~e Pyeatt, deputy administrative officer, stated that there is nothing in the budget for MAC for this fiscal year, Any expenses are being absorbed by the Board of Supervisors budget. The Board could establish a county service area for collection of the fees necessary. The service charge would probably have to be by a 2/3 vote of the people. Dan Blaekstock, county counsel, stated that it was his understanding that the MAC election was held at the same time as the regular election in Paradise, He suggested the Board look into the cost of the election to see if this was just for the MAC election. Auditor to check the actual appropriate and take care of the matter. 7$7.835 FEE SCHEDULE FOR HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO BE CONSIDERED SEPTEMBER 26, 1978 Clif Mickelson, administrative officer, set out the status of the proposed fee schedule for the Heatth Department. The matter is out at Counsel's Office for legal review. This would be about $50,000 in additional revenue. The anticipated revenue is $170,000. Counsel to research and bring the matter back on September 26, 1978. 78 1836 ADDITIONAL BUDGET MATTERS DISCUSSED Clif Mickelson, administrative officer, stated that there are some minor changes in the CCCJ fund regarding Consumer Protection Unit, Chico Municipal Court, Rape Crisis and the Court referral program. Auditor to handle the matter. Page 311. September 20, 1978 September 20, 1978 Nr. Nickelson stated that the question regarding the six-month statement that must be filed by elected officials was Proposition 9 on the ballot and cannot be changedo RBCESS: The Board recessed at 11:50 aom. to reconvene on Tuesday, September 2b, 1978 at 9:00 aomo Page 312. September 20, 1978