Lakeport City Council reviews midyear budget, makes adjustments

LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Lakeport City Council reviewed the city's budget at the midyear point during its Tuesday night meeting, adopting amendments to update the document's appropriations.

City Finance Director Dan Buffalo presented the midyear budget review, touching on revenue highlights and areas where modification was needed to meet expenses.

Among the highlights, Buffalo said the major general fund revenues are up 4 percent from last year, with sales tax up 16 percent, while Measure I revenues – used for streets and other major projects – are down 2 percent, although still better than anticipated.

He said property receipts are higher than the budget estimated due to the continuing impacts of the dissolution of redevelopment.

Departmental expenditures are on pace with expectations, with legal costs being one of the exceptions, Buffalo said.

He would propose to the council during the meeting an increase of $114,478 in the professional services budget to cover the additional legal costs, which City Manager Margaret Silveira said included $60,000 for the city's lawsuit against Sheriff Frank Rivero and the county due to Rivero cutting Lakeport Police off from the records information management system last spring.

A judge ordered Rivero to restore the police department's access last August pending a permanent injunction proceeding, as Lake County News has reported.

Buffalo told the council that water and sewer revenues are up and in line with budget estimates due to rate increases, now in year two for water services and year one for sewer.

The water enterprise fund's revenue is up 32 percent over the previous year due to the hikes, with the sewer fund showing a 17-percent revenue increase, he said. Total expenditures also are on pace with the budget.

The dissolution of the city's redevelopment agency is ongoing, with the remaining element being debt service, Buffalo said.

This year's budget has expenditures higher than anticipated revenue. Buffalo said that difference is covered by $200,000 from last year's surplus that's being split between capital expenditure projects – $100,000 for new docks and $100,000 to augment roadwork.

Buffalo said the city is entitled to $250,000 annually to cover administrative costs to wind down the former redevelopment agency. “Ironically we're more busy now then we were when the agency was around.”

Councilwoman Stacey Mattina wanted to know if they could expect $250,000 again next year. Buffalo said it's up to the local oversight board, but he cautioned that the State Department of Finance – which has the final say – may not approve it, so the city is looking at options to absorb the hit, including reassigning staff and reducing workload.

Regarding the budget adjustments, Buffalo said several accounts had been identified as needing appropriations increases, some of which would be offset by decreases in other areas. Year-to-date adjustments totaled $10,000.

The appropriations changes to all funds totaled $148,123.

Among the fund changes in that total: $114,478 for professional services and the contract for the city attorney; $6,000 for the city engineer to purchase a new truck; $6,450 for roof repairs for the administration office at the city's corporation yard; $9,500 for dump truck repairs; $15,000 for a three-dimensional crime mapping system; and $35,000 for new mobile audio video units for Lakeport Police cars and officer vest cams, part of which will be covered by $20,000 in asset forfeiture funds.

Buffalo told the council that prep work on the 2014-15 budget already has begun, with Silveira meeting with department heads to assess goals.

Budget hearings are expected to take place at meetings on June 3 and June 10, with the final budget possibly going before the council on June 17, Buffalo said.

With no public input, Councilman Tom Engstrom moved to approve the budget amendments recommended by staff, with Mattina seconding. The council voted 5-0.

Also on Tuesday, the council appointed Pam Harpster to the Lakeport Economic Development Advisory Committee and Suzanne Lyons to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

Details

Written by: Elizabeth Larson

Published: 06 February 2014

County, city of Lakeport sued over senior mobile home park rent control initiatives

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – A local resident and a group of mobile home park owners are seeking to have a judge decide whether senior mobile home park rent control initiatives set to go on the ballot in the county and city of Lakeport this year are legal.

Kerry Smith, daughter of a county park owner, and the Lake County Mobilehome Park Owners Association filed for a writ of mandate on Jan. 21 in the case Smith et al. v. Chapman, et al.

They're taking action against a county initiative – which the Board of Supervisors in December voted to place on the June ballot – and a city measure, approved by the Lakeport City Council last September for this coming November's municipal election, that were sponsored by the local “Save Our Seniors” group.

The two initiatives differ slightly in language. The city measure defines senior parks as those where at least 80 percent of the homes have at least one person age 65 or older, while the county initiative's definition requires that 80 percent of the homes in a senior park have at least one person over age 55.

Both would roll rents back to those in place on Jan. 1, 2012, and require that rent increases be tied to rises in Social Security benefits.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development reports that there are about 100 mobile home and RV parks in all of Lake County. So far, it's not been determined how many of those would be affected by the initiatives if they were approved.

Lakeport resident Nelson Strasser, a member of Save Our Seniors who helped spearhead the rent control efforts, wrote the Lakeport initiative and collected signatures, also has been named a real party of interest and served in the case.

Strasser told Lake County News on Tuesday that he hadn't yet seen the suit and didn't want to make comment until he had.

“The whole point of this is to have the court look at this to determine if it is violative of law,” said County Counsel Anita Grant.

If that's the court's findings, it could then direct both the county and city to take the initiatives off the June and November ballots, respectively, according to Grant.

Lakeport City Clerk Janel Chapman and county Registrar of Voters Diane Fridley are named in their official capacities in the suit.

In the case of Fridley, Grant said she has no authority to make a decision on whether to allow the initiative to remain on the ballots. Rather, only a judge can make that decision and tell the local officials whether the measures can remain on the ballot.

Grant said the elections code is written in such a way as to give the registrar no choices in which measures go on the ballot and those which don't, which is an effort to prevent partisanship from interfering in the initiative process.

Charles Bell Jr. of the Sacramento law firm Bell, McAndrews and Hiltachk, is representing the mobile home park owners.

Bell, who also is general counsel to the California Republican Party, and his firm specialize “in providing legal counsel to proponents and opponents of state and local initiatives and referenda, including drafting and analysis, advice regarding qualification, campaign related legal issues and post-election matters,” according to the firm's Web site.

Bell said the Lake County Mobilehome Park Owners Association is an informal group and Smith is a community member who is allowed to pursue the action under election law.

The suit, he said, is focusing on the constitutional issues of violation of due process and an illegal taking. There also are state preemption issues that come into play, Bell added.

“The initiative is really poorly crafted and doesn't provide any mechanisms that are required by numerous court cases to assure that there's opportunity for a process to ensure a fair return on investment,” said Bell, noting that his firm has been successful in challenging similar initiatives.

If the initiatives are deemed clearly unconstitutional, the courts may remove them from the ballot, Bell explained. If they're less clear, they're often left to go before voters.

In the cases of the local initiatives, Bell noted, “We think we have a good argument” that they're unconstitutional.

Park owners take action

Doug Johnson, a regional representative of the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association, had warned the Lakeport City Council last year that it could expect litigation over its measure, and sent the Board of Supervisors a December letter calling the county initiative “grossly defective” and flawed by constitutional shortcomings, including a violation of due process.

Johnson told Lake County News that the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association is not a party to the suit, but added, “A lot of our members contributed to supporting the suit.”

Johnson said the initiatives, if passed, would harm the park owners.

“We respect the electoral process,” and believe everyone has the right to author an initiative, said Johnson, adding the parks owners also have property rights and the right for redress in court.

The association was contacted by park owners concerned about the initiatives, he said. “We work for the park owners. We work for our members. And one of our jobs is to protect property rights.”

Johnson said the Lake County Mobilehome Park Owners Association was a “self-forming” group of park owners in the city and county, with many of its members having been among those who responded to a previous rent control push several years ago.

In September 2008 the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution calling for rent stabilization for all of the county’s mobile home residents, with the agreement – which Johnson said was accepted by about 75 percent of county park owners – calling for a maximum rental increase of between 3 and 7 percent at a time.

He's not sure of how many park owners continue to offer that memorandum of understanding, but he said he believes it's a high number.

Concerns over constitutionality

Interim Lakeport City Attorney David Ruderman has suggested to the council during its consideration of the city measure last September that the city of Lakeport could ask a court to set aside the initiative, which he predicted would be the focus of litigation.

Ruderman said he believed the city measure would be invalidated by a court because it constitutes a regulatory taking and is preempted by state law.

Grant, in her discussion with the Board of Supervisors in December, held that the board really had only two choices – accept the measure as a county ordinance without changes or put it before voters.

She also had pointed out that the county measure might not survive judicial scrutiny, and that the board could direct her to seek a writ of mandate to challenge the initiative's legality, an option which the board ultimately chose not to pursue.

Grant also advised the board at that time that appellate and state courts have been divided on when it's best to review such measures – before or after elections.

She told Lake County News that courts often are hesitant to intrude in the democratic process.

But if there are bad laws, she added, “It’s kind of hard to let those pass.”

Grant said she doesn't recollect legal action being taken against a ballot initiative in Lake County previously.

With the county measure currently set to appear on the June 3 primary ballot, Bell said he's pursuing an expedited court schedule, meaning the county, city and other parties named will have less than the normal 30 days to respond.

Bell said his firm has reached out to the city and county to see if they can reach an agreement and stipulation regarding the accelerated briefing and arguments schedule.

He said the goal is to have a hearing early in March, before the county ballot materials go to print.

Grant said she was working on the county's response to the suit, and had been awaiting direction from the board on Tuesday, when the matter was to be discussed in closed session.

After the meeting, she said the board took no reportable action out of closed session, and she'll be moving forward with a response. She said she will agree to an expedited – but “reasonable” – briefing schedule.

The Lakeport City Council also took no action out of its closed session discussion on the suit Tuesday evening.

Ruderman told Lake County News after the meeting that he, too, would support the expedited briefing schedule in the case.

Strasser does not have to file any paperwork in the case, Bell said, but he will have a right to speak in court on the matter.

Johnson said that, statewide, there are 110 mobile home park rent control ordinances currently in force. Of those, only 15 were enacted by initiative, with the rest passed by local councils or boards.

He said 381 of 481 cities and 48 of 58 counties don't have rent control ordinances.

As for preelection review of such rent control ordinances, as is now set to happen in Lake County, “I don't think I've seen that in quite a while,” Johnson said.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

Details

Written by: Elizabeth Larson

Published: 05 February 2014

Supervisors vote to place county marijuana cultivation ordinance on June ballot

LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted to place its marijuana cultivation ordinance – which has been challenged by a referendum – before voters this June.

The referendum effort launched in response to County Ordinance No. 2997, passed in December, qualified to go on the June primary ballot, Registrar of Voters Diane Fridley told the board Tuesday.

Supervisors Rob Brown, Jim Comstock and Anthony Farrington voted to send the ordinance to the ballot – rather than rescind it – and let voters decide on the referendum after hearing from Fridley and a number of community members at the Tuesday meeting.

In the vote, Board Chair Denise Rushing abstained and Supervisor Jeff Smith voted no, wanting to wait until March 4 – the deadline to place the ordinance on the June ballot – to allow County Counsel Anita Grant to research if possible modifications could be made to the ordinance.

Ordinance No. 2997, approved by the Board of Supervisors unanimously on Dec. 17, bans outdoor cultivation in community growth boundaries; limits plant numbers on parcels larger than one acre outside of community growth boundaries to six mature or 12 immature plants; prevents grows on vacant parcels; limits indoor grows to 100 square feet or less; keeps outdoor cultivation 1,000 feet from schools, parks or other facilities serving children, and 100 feet from water bodies; offers quicker abatement; and make the Lake County Sheriff's Office responsible for enforcement.
               
Last month, the referendum proponents – the Community Alliance to Ban Illegal Cannabis Cultivation – submitted approximately 4,222 signatures to Fridley's office. The group needed 2,115 verified signatures from Lake County residents registered to vote.

Fridley said that her office only looked at 3,706 of those signatures, not counting signatures from 516 county residents who registered to vote after Jan. 1. Of those, 2,150 signatures were found valid.

This is the third referendum the county has faced on marijuana-related rules.

In October 2011, the board rescinded a medical marijuana dispensaries ordinance passed the previous August after a referendum challenged it. All dispensaries in county jurisdiction later would be closed because county officials held that the zoning ordinance doesn't allow for uses that it doesn't specifically include.

Then, in January 2012, the board rescinded a marijuana cultivation ordinance after a referendum qualified for the ballot, with that effort supported by Lake County Citizens for Responsible Regulations and Lake County Green Farmers Association, members of CABICC.

Those groups submitted an initiative, Measure D, which failed by a two-to-one margin in June 2012.

Farrington said another referendum had seemed inevitable, and he believed that if the county's current interim cultivation ordinance – which runs out this July – wasn't immune to referendum, it would have been similarly challenged.

On this third go-round with a referendum, the board decided to let its ordinance stand, and offer the voters the final say.

Clearlake Oaks resident Herb Gura asked the board to withdraw the ordinance and come up with a “thoughtful” compromise.

But Brown said “thoughtful” had different meanings for him and for Gura, and that the board had listened to county residents in coming up with the latest rules.

“We've heard our constituents. They don't want it in their neighborhoods. Out of that came this ordinance,” Brown said, adding that he was absolutely convinced that many people who signed the referendum were defrauded and given bad information by the professional signature gatherers.

CABICC campaign manager Daniel McLean urged the board to rescind the ordinance, reporting that the group wanted to help create an ordinance that will be “effective and efficient.”

He also wanted the current interim ordinance to be left as a “placeholder.” CABICC, McLean added, is in the final stages of drafting its own ordinance. So far, the group has not publicly released any of the proposed document’s language.

Smith was concerned about having the county's ordinance go to the ballot, which would mean that if it was approved, the board wouldn't be able to make any changes to it.

He said he wished the county's medical marijuana cultivation advisory board – disbanded in July 2012 after member Don Merrill sued over the interim cultivation ordinance – could have finished its work of developing an ordinance.

Rushing said she also had wanted to see the committee finish the process. “You know, there's really only one law that makes sense – but the devil's is in the details – and the law is you can grow whatever you want as long as you don't negatively impact the environment or your neighbors,” she said.

However, Rushing noted that there was so much negative impact that the new ordinance was the reaction to it.

“There were a lot of people out there growing who didn't care what their neighbors were feeling or thinking and that's why this happened,” she said.

Rushing wanted to hear from Sheriff Frank Rivero, who attended the meeting, about whether the interim ordinance was sufficient while the county tried to work out another option.

“I believe the interim ordinance was problematic but was hobbling along. It was difficult to enforce and there was a lot of gray area that made it a problem for code enforcement, for law enforcement,” said Rivero.

He said he's received hundreds of nuisance complaints related to marijuana grows, with people concerned that their due process rights have been ignored when it comes to the grows entering their neighborhoods.

“They're faced with a nuisance with no recourse, and that's frankly unfair,” Rivero said.

Rivero also was concerned about the possibility of having the voters turn down the county ordinance June 3, leaving the county with only 30 days to come up with an alternative before the interim ordinance expires.

Having no ordinance at all “would be absolutely disastrous,” said Rivero.

Rivero added that progress in stopping unmitigated large grows and organized crime had occurred with the interim ordinance.

Considering options

Grant told the supervisors that they had time to consider their approach, reminding them of the March 4 deadline. There also was the issue about how much change the board could effectuate to its ordinance now that it's been placed on the ballot.

“There may be some distinction that can be drawn between an initiative measure, which clearly cannot be changed, and something that has now been the subject of a referendum,” Grant said, adding she was happy to research those issues if the board wished.

Community Development Director Rick Coel told the board, “The interim ordinance was very problematic in the community areas” because it's tied to nuisance abatement procedures that included having unarmed inspectors posting notices.

Despite the interim ordinance being in effect, the Northshore communities of Upper Lake, Nice and Lucerne have had large grows in residential areas, he said.

“My opinion is that the interim ordinance does not work well in the neighborhoods,” Coel said, adding it worked well on vacant properties.

He warned that even if the board dropped the permanent ordinance it could still run the risk of a referendum on any new measure it produced. Additionally, the courts may not allow the county to implement new rules right away.

“We could still go through another grow year, unfortunately, with no regulation. It's extremely complex,” Coel said.

Ron Green, a Lower Lake attorney speaking on behalf of NORML, part of the Emerald Unity Coalition, also asked the board to rescind Ordinance No. 2997 and implement the urgency ordinance on a “temporary permanent” basis before reassembling an advisory committee. He said the coalition was drafting its own proposed initiative.

“It's time to learn to live together, respect each other and make this thing work,” he said.

In response to calls to reestablish the medical marijuana cultivation advisory board, Rushing, who chaired the committee, noted, “One of the most contentious issues was how to handle neighborhood grows.”

She added, “I personally know that committee wasn't close on that one.”

Farrington criticized the referendum proponents' tactics, reporting that a professional signature gatherer he encountered in Lakeport used misleading and incorrect information in an effort to get him to sign the petition.

He said the purest action the board could take was put the ordinance on the ballot.

Farrington noted that he's received threats over his position on Ordinance No. 2997. “This last ordinance was far from perfect. None of them were perfect,” he said.

“We've seen this three times now,” Farrington said, referring to the two previous referenda. “I knew darn well where this was headed.”

Comstock noted that growers don't honor their neighbors, and are profit driven.

“We do support the patients' rights. The growers don't support the patients rights, the for-profit growers that have driven this whole situation. They're not going to change. They don't care what we pass,” Comstock said.

Brown said it wasn't possible to create an ordinance that would please everyone, and that he supported sending the county ordinance to the ballot.

“I think this is a flawed ordinance but it's better than nothing,” said Rushing, who had voted for it in December.

She said she wished it didn't encourage indoor grows, and added it should have allowed for small grows in neighborhoods. Limiting outdoor grows to parcels 20 acres in size or larger also was problematic, as she didn't think enough agricultural land is available.

Rushing said she also wanted to see dispensaries brought back into play as soon as possible.

She wanted to know what, if any, changes the board could make to the ordinance now that it's headed for a referendum, which also was Smith's position.

Farrington felt the only way to get a framework was to put the matter before voters, and he moved to have the ordinance put on the ballot, with Brown seconding.

Smith said he wanted more time to allow Grant to do her research. “What's four more weeks?”

Farrington responded that his motion stood, with the board voting 3-1-1.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

Details

Written by: Elizabeth Larson

Published: 05 February 2014

Supervisors to discuss reduced-cost spay/neuter program for pit bulls, marijuana referendum, budget

LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Board of Supervisors this week will discuss a proposal to offer a reduced-cost spay/neuter program to pit bull owners, get a report from the County Elections Office on the signatures collected for the referendum on the county's marijuana cultivation ordinance and hold the midyear budget review.

The board will meet beginning at 9 a.m. Tuesday, Feb. 4, in the board chambers on the first floor of the Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport. TV8 will broadcast the meeting live.

At 9:15 a.m. Animal Care and Control Director Bill Davidson will take to the board a proposal to offer county pit bull owners a reduced-cost spay/neuter program that also will waive the annual vaccination fee.

Davidson's written report to the board noted that the shelter has continually had to euthanize a higher percentage of pit bulls as opposed to any other breed.

He estimated that over the last three years 40 percent of the dogs euthanized have been pit bulls, specifically stray animals that get loose in the community and end up at the shelter.

“Our department, in conjunction with the Animal Control Advisory Board, has developed a plan to offer assistance to these pet owners that will begin to help alleviate the problem,” Davidson said in the report.

Davidson said the proposal is to offer low cost spaying and neutering to pit bull owners two days a month, one day for males at $50 per dog and one day for females at $70 per dog. The program also would include a one-time free annual DHLPP vaccine “and help to attract those people who otherwise wouldn't normally alter their pet.”

The offer, Davidson explained, would be extended to all pit bull owners, not just low-income residents.

He estimated 250 pit bulls could be spayed or neutered annually, allowing Animal Care and Control to reduce the number of pit bulls in the community and the number of the dogs euthanized annually.

Davidson said the recommendation is that the program stay in effect until the number of pit bulls euthanized for a two-year period is equal to or less than the next breed of dog that is most frequently euthanized.

Davidson also will ask the board to approve the Adoption Amnesty Program for 2014.

The program, which allows for up to four adoption events annually in which the county portion of adoption fees are waived, has been a success, and led to more adoptions, according to Davidson's report.

At 9:30 a.m., the board will discuss the midyear budget review and consideration proposed resolutions amending the FY 2013-14 Adopted Budget and position allocations for selected budget units.

At 9:45 a.m., the board will consider the bid award for the elevator in the Lucerne Hotel, which is necessary to prepare the building for Marymount California University's use of the building as its third campus. The university now is accepting applications for fall 2014 classes.

At 10 a.m., Registrar of Voters Diane Fridley will present to the board the certification of signatures for the referendum on the county's marijuana cultivation ordinance, approved by the board in December. Fridley's report was not included in the agenda packet for the Tuesday meeting.

In an untimed item, Supervisor Anthony Farrington will ask the board to consider a request to provide funding for capital improvements to the Westshore Pool in Lakeport.

The full agenda follows. Some of the items are out of order due to the issuance of two addendums.

TIMED ITEMS

9 a.m., A-1 to A-4: Approval of consent agenda, which includes items that are expected to be routine and noncontroversial, and will be acted upon by the board at one time without discussion; presentation of animals available for adoption at Lake County Animal Care and Control; consideration of items not appearing on the posted agenda, and contract change orders for current construction projects.

9:05 a.m.: Citizen's input. Any person may speak for three minutes about any subject of concern, provided that it is within the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors and is not already on the agenda. Prior to this time, speakers must fill out a slip giving name, address and subject (available in the clerk of the board’s office, first floor, courthouse).

9:10 a.m., A-5: (a) Presentation of Proclamation commending Dwight Holford for his years of service to East Lake Resource Conservation District; and (b) presentation of proclamation designating February 2014 as Black History Month.

9:15 a.m., A-6: (a) Consideration of staff request to offer reduced cost spay/neuter services and waive fee for annual vaccination to all Lake County pit bull owners; and (b) consideration of approval of Adoption Amnesty Program for 2014.

9:30 a.m., A-7: (a) Presentation of mid-year budget review; and (b) consideration of proposed resolutions amending the FY 2013-14 Adopted Budget and position allocations for selected budget units.

9:45 a.m., A-8: Consideration of award of bid for Lucerne Castle elevator.

9:50 a.m., A-9: Consideration of proposed interim inter-facility transfer operating procedures for Lake County ground ambulance providers.

10 a.m., A-17: Consideration of Elections Official’s Certificate of Examination of Referendum Petition protesting the adoption of Ordinance No. 2997 (medical marijuana cultivation).

NONTIMED ITEMS

A-10: Supervisors’ weekly calendar, travel and reports.

A-11: Consideration of appointments to the Area One Developmental Disabilities Board.

A-12: Consideration of proposed 2014 County Legislative Priorities.

A-13: Consideration of proposed first amendment to agreement between the county of Lake and Aramark Correctional Services LLC for food services to the Lake County Jail and Juvenile Hall.

A-14: (a) Update on Community Development Department and Code Enforcement activities; and (b) consideration of request for board direction regarding 2014 Community Development priorities and filling of vacancies.

A-16: a) Consideration of request to provide funding for capital improvements to the Lakeport swimming pool; b) reallocation of money already appropriated for swimming pool operational costs; and c) any other actions to expedite the repair of the swimming pool.

CLOSED SESSION

A-15: 1. Conference with labor negotiator: (a) county negotiators: A. Grant, L. Guintivano, S. Harry, M. Perry, A. Flora and C. Shaver; and (b) employee organizations: Deputy District Attorney's Association, Lake County Deputy Sheriff's Association, Lake County Correctional Officers Association, Lake County Employees Association and Lake County Safety Employees Association.

A-15: 2. Conference with legal counsel: Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Sec. 54956.9(d)(1): Kerry Smith, et al. v. Janel Chapman, et al.

A-15: 3. Conference with legal counsel: Anticipated litigation pursuant to Gov. Code Sec. 54956.9(d)(4), decision whether to initiate litigation. Number of potential cases: One.

A-15: 4. Employee Disciplinary Appeal Hearing - EDA 2014-01.

CONSENT AGENDA

C-1: Approve minutes of the Board of Supervisors meetings held on Jan. 28, 2014.

C-2: (a) Adopt proclamation commending Dwight Holford for his years of service to East Lake Resource Conservation District; and (b) adopt proclamation designating February 2014 as Black History Month.

C-3: Approve the county of Lake Veteran Identification Card Policy.

C-4: Approve first amendment to agreement between the county of Lake and California Forensic Medical Group for medical services to the Lake County Detention Facilities (increasing jail nursing staff by 1.4 FTE, an increase of $68,100), and authorize the chair to sign.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

Details

Written by: Elizabeth Larson

Published: 03 February 2014