Supervisors to discuss new fiscal year budget, treasurer-tax collector appointment

LAKEPORT, Calif. – It’s budget time again, and this week the Board of Supervisors will hold a discussion of the recommended budget for the coming fiscal year and also continue consideration of an appointment to the treasurer-tax collector job.

The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. Tuesday, June 18, in the board chambers on the first floor of the Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport. It will be broadcast live on TV8.

In an item timed for 9:46 a.m., the board will consider the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Recommended Budget as well as a proposed resolution establishing FY 2013-14 position allocations to conform to the recommended budget. They also will consider requests for authorization to purchase capital assets and fill positions prior to final adoption of the budget.

In an untimed item, the board will hold its third discussion of an appointment to the treasurer-tax collector job.

The board is looking to appoint a successor to Sandra Shaul, who this spring took a job in Marin County. It’s an elected position but the board can appoint a replacement until the job next comes on the ballot, which is in November 2014.

In other untimed items, the board will consider applying to the United States Army Donations Program for a helicopter to be placed at the Kelseyville County Park and will discuss a proposed memorandum of understanding between the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, and the county of Lake for a temporary addition to the court exclusive-use area at the South Civic Center Courthouse.

The full agenda follows.

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).

9:15 a.m., A-5: Public hearing, (a) consideration of the proposed FY 2013-14 Lake County Air Quality Management District Budget and request for board direction on various policy issues; and (b) consideration of proposed resolution transferring funds into Fund #299 Budget #8799 Building Reserve, Vehicle Reserve, and Air Monitoring Equip/Station Reserve.

9:20 a.m., A-6: (a) Consideration of proposed HUD-50077-CR Civil Rights Commission Certification Form (PHA Certification of Conformity with Civil Rights Act); and (b) consideration of proposed Resolution granting authority convenes as the Lake to the Executive Director of the Lake County Housing Commission County Housing Commission over all aspects of the Successor Redevelopment Agency (c) Board of Directors) Consideration of proposed revisions to Lake County Housing
Commission FY 2012/13 Budget; and (d) Consideration of proposed Lake County Housing Commission FY 2013/14 Budget.

9:40 a.m., A-7: Presentation of Final CDBG Grantee Performance Report for Grant #09-EDEF-6539 for Business Loans, Microenterprise Technical Assistance and Facade Improvement Loans.

9:45 a.m., A-8: Continued from Nov. 8, Dec. 13, 2011, Aug. 21 and 28, and Sept. 11, 2012, and April 9 and 23 and May 14, 2013: public hearing, consideration of proposed ordinance adding Article Seven to Chapter Seven of the Lake County Code to provide support for Public, Educational and Governmental (PEG) Cable Television Access Facilities. (THIS ITEM WILL NOT BE TAKEN UP AT THIS MEETING. IT WILL BE CARRIED OVER TO AUG. 6, 2 013, AT 9:15 A.M.)

9:46 A.M., A-9: (a) Consideration of Fiscal Year 2013-14 Recommended Budget; (b) Consideration of proposed resolution establishing FY 2013-14 position allocations to conform to the Recommended Budget; and (c) consideration of requests for authorization to purchase Capital Assets and fill positions prior to final adoption of the budget.

10 a.m., A-10: Assessment appeal hearings: Peggy Chaves – Application No. 331-2010 - 13365 Ebbtide Village, Clearlake Oaks, CA (APN 035-811-300-000); Vicki Newberry – Application No. 325-2010 - 4340 Lakeshore Blvd., Lakeport, CA (APN 029-331-020-000).

NONTIMED ITEMS

A-11: Supervisors’ weekly calendar, travel and reports.

A-12: Continued from June 4 and 11. Consideration of appointment of treasurer-tax collector.

A-13 Supervisor Rushing Consideration of proposed letters to Senators Steinberg and Leno regarding SB 439 relating to medical marijuana cooperatives, collectives and business entities.

A-14: (a) Consideration of proposed resolution establishing salaries and fringe benefits for management employees for Fiscal Year 2013-14; (b) consideration of proposed resolution establishing salaries and fringe benefits for confidential unit, Section A, for Fiscal Year 2013-14; (c) consideration of proposed resolution establishing salaries and fringe benefits for confidential unit, Section B, for Fiscal Year 2013-14; and (d) consideration of proposed resolution adopting a memorandum of understanding by and between the Lake County Deputy District Attorney’s Association, Unit 8 and the County of Lake for Fiscal Years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

A-15: (a) Consideration of proposed letter of thanks to the Napa County Sheriff’s Department for its mutual aid response; and (b) consideration of proposed letters of thanks to the many agencies
involved in the search for Mikaela Lynch.

A-16: Consideration of application to United States Army Donations Program for a helicopter to be placed at the Kelseyville County Park.

A-17: Consideration of proposed memorandum of understanding between the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, and the county of Lake for a temporary addition to the Court exclusive-use area at the South Civic Center Courthouse (AOC #17-B1).

A-18: Consideration of proposed street racing event on a portion of Bartlett Springs Road, Lucerne, CA on July 20, 2013, requiring road closure and sign posting.

A-19: Consideration of request to amend policy restricting purchase of bottled water for county offices.

A-20: Consideration of proposed cancellation of reserves for the renovation of the Narcotic’s Task Force facility.

A-21: Consideration of fourth amendment to the agreement between the county of Lake and the Regents of the University of California for sediment sampling in Clear Lake.

CLOSED SESSION

A-22. 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-22: 2. Public employee performance evaluation: County Administrative Officer Matt Perry.

A-22: 3. Conference with real property negotiator: (a) Property located at: 3980 Gard Street, Kelseyville (APN 024-081-01); (b) negotiating parties: for county: Supervisor Rob Brown, Child Support Services Director Gail Woodworth, County Administrative Officer Matt Perry and Deputy County Administrative Officer Alan Flora. For seller: Kelseyville Unified School District representatives. (c) Under Negotiation: Lease terms.

A-22: 4. Conference with legal counsel: Existing Litigation pursuant to Gov. Code Sec. 54956.9(d)(1): California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) (CalWater).

CONSENT AGENDA

C-1: Approve minutes of the Board of Supervisors meeting held on June 11, 2013.

C-2: (a) Award Bid No. 13-10 to Westgate Petroleum and authorize chair to sign bid award; and (b) approve five-year agreement between the county of Lake and Westgate Petroleum for supply of propane fuel (at $0.22 price differential over the weekly San Francisco (BPN)), and authorize the chair to sign.

C-3: Adopt Resolution increasing the change fund for the Department of Animal Care & Control (an increase to $50 total).

C-4: (a) Waive the formal bidding procedure, due to the unique nature of the goods and services to be provided; (b) authorize the Public Works director/assistant purchasing agent to issue a purchase order (payment to be made in FY 2013-14) to EZ-Liner Industries, in the amount of $225,000, for the purchase and reconditioning of one 2010 Mitsubishi Fuso FM330 truck.

C-5: Approve plans and specifications for exercise yard enclosures at the Lake County Main Jail, and authorize the Public Works Director/Asst. Purchasing Agent to advertise for bids.

C-6: Approve plans and specifications for Chippewa South Pavement Rehabilitation in Lake County, and authorize the Public Works director/assistant purchasing agent to advertise for bids.

C-7: (a) Approve grant deed and direct clerk to certify for recordation (a portion of APN 013-028-54 - James Bolander, Jr. and Carolyn Bolander), and (b) approve purchase agreement between the county
of Lake and James Bolander Jr. and Carolyn Bolander for the St. Helena Creek Bridge Project, and authorize the chair to sign agreement.

C-8: (a) Approve grant deed and direct clerk to certify for recordation (a portion of APN 014-210-24 - Paul Yoch and Jennifer Yoch), and (b) approve purchase agreement between the county of Lake and Paul Yoch and Jennifer Yoch for the St. Helena Creek Bridge Project, and authorize the chair to sign agreement.

C-9: (a) Approve grant deed and direct clerk to certify for recordation (a portion of APN 014-210-06 - Charles Morse), and (b) approve purchase agreement between the county of Lake and Charles Morse
for the St. Helena Creek Bridge Project, and authorize the chair to sign agreement.

C-10: (a) Waive formal bidding process, determining it would produce no economic benefit; (b) approve purchase of five HVAC units for the Lake County Jail/Hill Road facility; and (c) authorize the sheriff/assistant purchasing agent to issue a purchase order to Baker Distributing Inc., in the amount of $20,248.70, for five HVAC units.

C-11: (a) Waive the normal bidding process, determining it would produce no economic benefit; (b) approve purchase of CMAS upgrade to Moducom system for Central Dispatch; and (c) authorize the sheriff/assistant purchasing agent to issue a purchase order to Modular Communications Systems, in the amount of $99,638.30 for CMAS upgrade to Moducom system.

C-12: Approve Agreement #EW-2013-14 between the county of Lake and the Regents of the University of California, in the amount of $71,100, for FY 2013/14 training services, and authorize the chair to sign.

C-13: (a) Approve agreement between the county of Lake and Megabyte Systems Inc., for FY 2013-14 MPTS property tax system maintenance, in the amount of $172,197.84, and authorize the chair to sign; and (b) approve web services addendum to the agreement between the county of Lake and Megabyte Systems Inc., for FY 2013-14 online tax bills and e-payment processing services, in the amount of $4,109.74, and authorize the chair to sign.

LAKE COUNTY WATERSHED PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

C-14: Approve agreement between the Lake County Watershed Protection District and Pestmaster Services of Lake and Mendocino, in the amount of $11,415.50, for vegetation control for various flood control works, and authorize the chair to sign.

C-15: Approve purchase agreement for property located at 8340 and 8300 Reclamation Road, Upper Lake (APNs 004-016-31 and 32 - John Irwin) for the Middle Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project, 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: 16 June 2013

Lakeport City Council to consider approving marijuana cultivation ordinance, annual budget

LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Lakeport City Council this week is set to consider giving final approval to a new marijuana cultivation ordinance and the city's new 2013-14 budget.

The council will meet beginning at 6 p.m. Tuesday, June 18, in the council chambers at Lakeport City Hall, 225 Park St.

The council will hold a public hearing as part of its second reading of the final draft of its proposed medical marijuana cultivation ordinance, which received the council's unanimous approval at its May 21 meeting, as Lake County News has reported.

The proposed ordinance, which city officials said is meant to be complaint-driven, prohibits outdoor cultivation and requires grows to be contained in accessory outdoor structures.

The council also will consider approval of resolutions to adopt the Fiscal Year 2013- 2014 and Establishing the Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Appropriations Limit.

The proposed budget for the coming fiscal year has $14.42 million in revenue and $16.72 million in total expenditures, according to the document.

In other council business, Planning Services Manager Andrew Britton will introduce to the council a proposed ordinance to revise regulations pertaining to mobile catering businesses as well as a fee resolution.

Police Chief Brad Rasmussen will ask for approval of a contract between the city and county of Lake for an upgrade for the police department's server, and Public Works Director Mark Brannigan will seek support for a proposed increase to the commercial sewer allotment from eight units to 10 units.

The council also will discuss allowing Zumba instructor Melissa Maberry to utilize Library Park and the Gazebo to conduct Zumba classes and will conduct a public hearing to review the Community Development Block Grant #09-EDEF-6531 VII.

On the consent agenda, which includes items that are not considered controversial and which usually are accepted on one vote, are ordinances; minutes; warrants; a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute documents on behalf of the City of Lakeport for CDBG Grant #09-EDEF-6531; and a letter of support for the appointment of Lakeport Finance Director Dan Buffalo to the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee.

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.

061813 Lakeport City Council agenda packet

Details

Written by: Elizabeth Larson

Published: 16 June 2013

Clearlake City Council sends marijuana cultivation ordinance back to staff for reworking

CLEARLAKE, Calif. – A proposed medical marijuana cultivation ordinance that received unanimous support from the Clearlake City Council last month failed to get council approval at a required second reading Thursday night, and now will go back to city staff for retooling.

The proposed ordinance, recommended for passage by the Clearlake Planning Commission, is based on a county ordinance passed last summer.

It limits plants according to parcel size, from six plants on parcels of half an acre or less up to 48 plants on 40 acres or more, and also prohibits growing in mobile home parks – unless garden areas are established and specified by management – and multifamily dwellings, limits processing to the number of plants that can be grown on on the site and establishes other basic rules such as screening.

During the council's May 23 discussion, the council had agreed to a change proposed by Mayor Jeri Spittler, who wanted daycare centers removed from the definition of schools.

The ordinance requires a distance of 600 feet between grows and school facilities, and Spittler suggested that “activists” could open daycares in order to try to prevent grows nearby.

At that time Spittler's council colleagues agreed to remove daycares from the definition, but asked for “licensed daycares” to be added back to the schools definition at Thursday night's meeting.

The proposed ordinance had garnered little public comment at the May 23 meeting.

But it was a different matter on Thursday evening, with several community members coming forward to raise concerns about the impact of marijuana cultivation on the community.

“I think we should not allow the growing within this community,” said Clearlake resident Dave Hughes.

Hughes questioned who would monitor compliance, and referencing the California Supreme Court's recent decision regarding a Riverside case that upheld the right of local governments to regulate medical marijuana through zoning, pointed out, “You don't have to allow it.”

Another city resident, Pete Gascoigne, told the council, “I'm against this ordinance, the whole thing.”

He was particularly upset about eliminating daycares from the school definition and the associated distance requirements.

“Marijuana does hurt the community,” he said.

Lower Lake attorney Ron Green, who initially had come to the council to ask for clearer language in the ordinance, reminded the council that, for some, marijuana offered important medical uses. “It's a miracle drug,” he said.

Following public comment, Council member Gina Fortino Dickson said she researched city daycares and found there were nine small daycare facilities and five family daycares, serving a total of 142 children.

Concerns for keeping children safe caused her and fellow council members to ask to have daycares restored to the school definition, despite Spittler's continued opposition.

With the council unwilling to move forward on the ordinance in its present form, it was handed back to City Manager Joan Phillipe for additional work.

Phillipe said Friday that she'll begin reworking the ordinance, following council direction to put  “licensed daycare” back in the school definition.

A review period also will be added; Phillipe said it would call for revisiting the ordinance a year or some other period of time after it goes in effect to see if it is working and whether it needs changes.

She'll also consider adding clarifying language suggested by Green regarding plant numbers and parcel sizes.

Green had sent a memo to the council before the meeting, with Phillipe and the city attorney initially not recommending the changes to the council because they would deviate too much from the county ordinance, which the council had wanted to closely mirror in its own.

Regarding other potential changes, the ordinance in its current form calls for violations of its guidelines to be treated as misdemeanors, with fines of not more than $100 for the first offense, $300 for the second offense, and for the third a $500 fire or a six-month jail sentence, or both.

Phillipe said she will look at increasing those fine amounts to $100 per plant on the first offense, $300 per plant on the second and $500 per plant for the third, plus creating language that after a third fine an individual will be prohibited from growing at all.

In addition, she will consider creating language for the revised document that places a frequent offender “red flag” on properties were police respond multiple times, with possible cost recovery for nuisance situations.

“I will be reviewing the code enforcement ordinance to see if it can be used as a 'companion' ordinance and use the administrative and cost recovery components of it,” Phillipe told Lake County News.

Because of the proposed changes, Phillipe said the revised document will have to be reintroduced at a future council meeting.

She said she anticipates having it back on the council's June 27 agenda to discuss which of the proposed changes can and can't be included – in particular, she believes the allowable fines may be statutorily set, and she also needs to speak to the city attorney about whether they can legally “red flag” nuisance properties.

“Depending on where I end up after reviewing it all, the ordinance could conceivably also be on the next agenda but it may not be until July,” she said.

Phillipe added, “Inasmuch as the ordinance, when adopted, will not be effective until Jan. 1, 2014, there is a time constraint.”
 
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: 15 June 2013

Supervisors decide against giving employees who violate new dress code paid time to change

LAKEPORT, Calif. – At its Tuesday meeting, the Board of Supervisors decided against a proposed policy addition that would allow employees to be paid to leave work to change clothes on their first violation of a new county dress code.

Social Services Director Carol Huchingson went to the board with a request for conceptual approval of the policy addition.

Huchingson said the new county dress code policy will go into effect on July 1, and replaces an earlier version of a similar policy that calls for professional dress in the workplace.

That previous policy, she said, allowed room for “considerable judgment around what is professional.”

Copies of the full policy weren't provided for the Tuesday discussion.

“The new policy provides very specific guidelines for what is allowable, both in terms of professional dress and appearance in general,” said Huchingson.

She said the new policy has been subject to meet and confer with county employee associations, and the county made considerable revisions to it based on input from staff and Lake County Employees Association representatives.

In preparation for implementing the new policy, Huchingson said department supervisors are being trained to ensure that the policy's enforcement is fair and consistent.

For situations in which an employee violates the dress code for the first time, Huchingson proposed that, as a show of good faith to support employees as they learn to comply, the county pay the employees to go home and change when they first violated the policy.

She said that the amount of time allowed would need to be predetermined when the employee is directed to go home to change, but she said it would never exceed more than an hour and half.

Huchingson said she had worked extensively with county Human Resources Director Kathy Ferguson in working out the details, and that Ferguson supported the concept.

“I acknowledge that my request may be a bit out of the ordinary,” said Huchingson, adding that it really was a matter of better service and a more professional workplace.

In the Social Services Department in particular, Huchingson said, they offer a lot of counseling to people on how to improve their lives, and she suggested that they need needed to model the behavior that they wanted to see.

The board members, however, for the most part did not support paying employees to go home and change when they violated the work place dress code policy, even on a first-time basis.

Supervisor Rob Brown also raised concerns about having a policy for one department that was in place for other departments.

“Is this going to be a countywide policy?” He asked

He said Huchingson, in this case as in others, was at the forefront of the issue.

Huchingson said Animal Care and Control has a dress code based on the previous county dress code version.

She said in discussing the matter with Animal Care and Control Director Bill Davidson, he'd relayed that they hadn't had problems with enforcing it. Huchingson added, however, that Animal Care and Control is a much smaller department.

Unlike her colleagues on the board, Supervisor Denise Rushing favored the idea of putting the policy for paid leave to change clothing in place, at least on a trial basis.

She suggested that they could put the one time change of clothing with pay in place as a pilot program and work out the details. She pointed out that some departments have field work while others have office work.

“It seems to me the need is important here, and why couldn't we just go ahead with a pilot right now and get a sense of what it costs,” she said.

Rushing said she believed that it would be only a handful of employees who didn't get the policy and that that would quickly be sorted out.

Huchingson said that was her belief as well, that a small number of employees initially may have issues and that after a rocky few weeks it would be sorted out.

Brown said he didn't have a problem with going forward with the policy, but added that if they thought sending an employee home with no pay the second time they had violated the dress code would have meaning, think about what would happen when they were sent home without pay the first time.

“They either get it or they don't,” Brown said.

Board Chair Jeff Smith asked Huchingson if the paid clothing change policy would need to go to meet and confer. Huchingson replied that it would only need to if it was approved.

Supervisor Jim Comstock thanked Huchingson for taking on the matter. “This shouldn't be an issue, but it is,” he said.

With all of the training employees are being provided, Comstock said he believed they should understand the dress code requirements.

He said his first inclination would be to give them a chance and pay them to change the first time, however with so much training, to get paid with public funds to go home and change didn't seem right.

“I guess I have a slightly different view of this,” said Rushing, who believed it really came down to the frontline supervisors in the departments.

“It's a really hard job to be a frontline supervisor anyway,” Rushing said.

It's a hard decision, she said, to send someone home without pay for what is a minor infraction. She felt that while that was being sorted out, it would make sense to give supervisors a tool.

Rushing said sending someone home without pay is a disciplinary action, and it would be a tough call for a supervisor to make.

Smith said he also felt there was a happy medium. He said he agreed with the other supervisors about not wanting to compensate employees for dressing inappropriately.

“We're also losing productivity by sending them home,” he said.

He suggested that the happy medium was to have the employees stay at work for the rest of the day, warn them and give them a written notice, and tell them that if they returned dressed inappropriately the next day they would be sent home for a full day without pay.

Huchingson responded that keeping a person in the workplace who is not dressed appropriately actually affects others.

In the end the board's consensus was not to add the paid change provision to the new dress code policy.

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: 12 June 2013