Medical marijuana patients seek restraining order against county over interim cultivation ordinance

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – Just days after the Board of Supervisors passed an interim urgency ordinance to address the county’s burgeoning marijuana cultivation, three medical marijuana patients are seeking a temporary restraining order to stop the county from moving forward with the regulations.

County Counsel Anita Grant said her office received notice on Wednesday of the hearing, which is scheduled to take place Thursday at 4:30 p.m. in Lake County Superior Court. The matter is to go before Judge David Herrick in Department 1.

Attorney Joseph Elford arranged for the hearing. He is chief counsel for Americans for Safe Access. However, both Elford and Americans for Safe Access spokesman Kris Hermes told Lake County News that the group isn’t bringing the action.

Elford said he’s representing three clients whose names are not being released. “Right now they want to remain anonymous,” he said. “There is a significant risk of retaliation, unfortunately.”

The two men and one woman are being named as John Does and Jane Doe, respectively, in the action, the documents for which Elford plans to file ahead of the hearing on Thursday.

Grant said Deputy County Counsel Bob Bridges and Community Development Director Rick Coel will represent the county at the Thursday hearing.

Elford’s filing is in reaction to the supervisors’ 4-1 vote on Monday to pass a 45-day interim urgency ordinance. The vote followed a heated seven-hour meeting at the Lake County Fairgrounds.

The ordinance allows for up to six plants to be grown outdoors on a half acre or less, 12 plants with a 75-foot setback on parcels of half an acre to one acre, 18 plants and a 150-foot setback on parcels one to five acres in size, 36 plants and a minimum 150 foot setback on five- to 40-acre parcels, and a maximum of 48 plants on parcels 40 acres and larger.

There also are screening requirements, and the potential for fines and jail time for growers who are out of compliance.

Supervisors Anthony Farrington and Denise Rushing, who are members of a board-appointed marijuana cultivation advisory committee, advocated for changing the original, stricter plant numbers Coel had proposed with numbers closer to what had been proposed by the committee.

The majority of the board accepted those numbers, with Board Chair Rob Brown the dissenting vote due to his concerns that the plant numbers were too high. He said at Tuesday’s board meeting that he considers the ordinance the most liberal of its kind in the state.

Elford’s filing came in advance of the issuance of the final ordinance document, which Coel was still reworking to the board’s specifications Wednesday afternoon.

“They don’t even have the ordinance in their hands yet to know what they’re trying to sue us on,” Coel said.

Attorney: Ordinance doesn’t meet medical needs

Elford said the ordinance is “mildly better” than what was proposed a few weeks ago, however he maintained it’s still preempted by state law.

“State law is clear here,” he said, referring to the 1996 Compassionate Use Act.

He said the law allows for medical marijuana patients to cultivate and possess whatever is necessary to treat their medical conditions.

“For one person that may be a single plant,” Elford said.

However, as an example, Elford said that, in the case of one of his three clients in the case, the six-plant limit for a small residential parcel is only a fraction of what he needs.

That man has lung cancer, lives on a residential parcel that’s less than half an acre in size, and lacks the financial ability to cultivate indoors, meaning he must take advantage of the limited outdoor growing season to grow the supply he needs for the year, Elford said.

Elford said his client uses marijuana in edible form to treat his nausea and chronic pain. When marijuana is ingested rather than smoked, Elford said it takes three to five times the supply to meet the need.

“He needs, realistically, 18 plants to satisfy his medical marijuana needs for a year,” Elford said.

Elford said SB 420, enacted by the state Legislature in 2004, attempted to apply limits to what medical marijuana patients could possess. However, the California Supreme Court ruled in the case People v. Kelly that those attempts by the Legislature to amend a voter initiative were unconstitutional.

What’s not clear is how the county can move forward with regulating marijuana grows, which even halfway through the season are continuing to spring up in large numbers around the county.

Both Grant and Coel said the county’s interpretation has been that, according to zoning law, if a use – like marijuana cultivation – is not specifically allowed, it’s not legal.

“It’s in three different sections of the zoning ordinance,” Coel said.

That interpretation has been held up repeatedly throughout the country, according to Coel.

Elford argued that Proposition 215 supersedes those zoning rules.

However, while marijuana advocates argue that the Compassionate Use Act gives them the right to grow, Grant noted, “There isn’t any right that’s absolute,” adding there always are restrictions.

“There has never been a court decision that said there was unfettered authority to just grow, cultivate anywhere,” Grant said.

Grant said the law on medical marijuana in California remains in flux, and she’s hoping the California Supreme Court will offer clarifications.

Coel said the right to violate basic zoning isn’t given to other more longstanding uses.

He said the county wouldn’t allow someone to go into the middle of town and put in a pear orchard. Neither are beehives or livestock allowed on residential parcels.

Coel is concerned that Lake County took too long to tighten up its regulations, which other jurisdictions around Northern California have been doing.

Coel has researched other jurisdictions, noting that many of them have prohibited outdoor cultivation – including the city of Ukiah and, locally, the city of Lakeport. Neighboring Mendocino County also doesn’t allow outdoor cultivation on parcels under a certain size, he said.

Those rules have stood, according to Coel.

“There’s no other place for them to go,” he said of growers, adding that Lake County has become “ground zero for the fight now.”

Coel said he plans to meet with sheriff’s staff soon to plan how to move forward on nuisance grows.

Considering other options

Coel said it’s hard to get an injunction on urgency ordinances, which also are immune to referendums.

“It’s really difficult because these are immediate, serious health threats going on,” he said.

Elford argued that if a serious emergency had existed, the board would have acted earlier than it did – such as before the growing season started.

He said the temporary restraining order he’s seeking will be carefully crafted to allow the county to move forward with addressing issues involving grows on vacant parcels.

People don’t have the right to squat and camp on property and plant, Elford said. “That’s by no means what we’re saying.”

He suggested the ordinance can go away and the county still has ways to address nuisance issues.

However, he said the county must prove grows are a nuisance, and not apply broad findings that don’t take into account personal medical needs.

“They’re just basically saying, we’re going to call this a nuisance per se, and you can’t prove your innocence,” he said.

Elford said case law elsewhere has established that just because a jurisdiction makes an emergency finding doesn’t mean one actually exists.

“We’re not asking for the world here,” he said.

“All we’re trying to do is maintain the status quo so this can be sorted out in a judicial fashion,” he said, noting his clients want a hearing before irreparable harm is caused by the sheriff carrying out abatements.

If the temporary restraining order isn’t granted, Elford is prepared to take other steps, including going directly to the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco, where he said petitioners are entitled to an immediate appeal.

Grant said it’s premature to try to guess what the court might do.

However, she said that even if the temporary restraining order that Elford is seeking is granted, there wouldn’t necessarily be a permanent consequence for the county.

She said the Board of Supervisors and its marijuana cultivation advisory committee could continue efforts to set up cultivation rules.

“This doesn’t end the conversation, no matter what,” Grant said.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Details

Written by: Elizabeth Larson

Published: 12 July 2012

Clearlake City Council to consider options for sales tax measure proposal

CLEARLAKE, Calif. – The Clearlake City Council this week will continue its consideration of a proposed sales tax measure for November to tackle the city’s road maintenance and code enforcement needs.

The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. Thursday, July 12, in the council chambers at Clearlake City Hall, 14050 Olympic Drive. TV8 will broadcast the meeting live.

City Manager Joan Phillipe is bringing back several options for pursuing the sales tax measure, after the council decided on June 28 to forgo participation in a countywide measure and instead pursue its own effort, as Lake County News has reported.

Phillipe’s report to the council notes that the council has several decisions to make, including the tax amount, percentage breakdown for road improvements and code enforcement, and whether there will be a sunset clause.

The city currently has a half-cent sales tax, Measure P, passed in 1996, which funds the Clearlake Police Department. Based on what Measure P generates, Phillipe estimated that a new one-cent tax would bring in $1.4 million annually.

A one-cent sales tax with a 50-50 split would raise $700,000 each for roads and code enforcement, while a 75-25 split would raise $1,050,000 for roads and $350,000 for code enforcement, Phillipe’s report explained.

Her report also considered a $0.75-cent tax. Phillipe said a 50-25 split would generate $700,000 for roads and $175,000 for code enforcement.

Phillipe said she’s still waiting to confirm with Clearlake’s legal counsel that the city can in fact combine into one measure two different tax categories. She expects to have that question answered in time for the meeting.

Also at Thursday night’s meeting, the council will hold the first reading and introduction of an ordinance to prohibit aggressive panhandling, which Clearlake Police staff told the council is a growing problem in the city.

In other business, the council will discuss scheduling of the 2012-13 budget workshop and the redevelopment trailer bill AB 1484.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Details

Written by: Elizabeth Larson

Published: 11 July 2012

Supervisors institute less strict interim urgency ordinance on marijuana cultivation

LAKEPORT, Calif. – Hundreds of people packed a seven-hour Monday hearing on a proposed interim urgency ordinance the Board of Supervisors approved in an effort to control marijuana cultivation in the county.

Due to an overflow crowd that shut down the discussion at the meeting last month, a special meeting on the proposed interim urgency ordinance was set for Monday at Fritch Hall, located at the Lake County Fairgrounds on Martin St. in Lakeport.

An estimated 500 people attended the meeting, filling the hall and lining the back of the building. That number was reduced by about half after the hour-and-a-half-long lunch break.

Based on direction from the Board of Supervisors, Community Development Director Rick Coel crafted the interim document, the initial draft of which would have limited outdoor marijuana grows in residential areas to three plants on lots less than half an acre in size, with grows prohibited on vacant parcels and up to six months in jail for each day a grower was not in compliance.

However, by the end of the meeting, the board voted 4-1 – with Supervisor Rob Brown voting no – to pass a version of the ordinance that was substantially different that what Coel had proposed. The ordinance needed a four-fifths vote to pass.

The ordinance the board retooled before acceptance allows for up to six plants to be grown outdoors on a half acre or less , 12 plants with a 75-foot setback on parcels of half an acre to one acre, 18 plants and a 150-foot setback on parcels one to five acres in size, 36 plants and a minimum 150 foot setback on five- to 40-acre parcels, and a maximum of 48 plants on parcels 40 acres and larger.

Violations could carry fines of $100 for the first offense, $300 for the second and $500 for the third, along with up to six months in jail.

Coel said the Lake County Sheriff’s Office has asked for the misdemeanor provisions in order to allow them to act on the nuisance grows.

The ordinance is in effect for 45 days, at which point the board can choose to extend it for another 10 months and 15 days.

The meeting – which began at 9 a.m. and ended just before 6 p.m. – was, for the most part, heated.

Low points included an elderly veteran, terminally ill with cancer, who was jeered and booed because he didn’t use the drug and complained about its impact on his neighborhood. At the same time, vets who voiced pro-marijuana sentiment received cheers and shouts of “thanks for your service.”

The conflict wasn’t always between pro-marijuana and anti-marijuana. At the end of the meeting, two marijuana proponents appeared to be headed for a physical confrontation before they left the building.

Throughout the meeting, Brown repeatedly warned the crowd to stop talking over speakers in an effort to keep order. Supervisors Jeff Smith and Jim Comstock also found themselves interrupted as they tried to offer comments while the board was deliberating.

At the meeting’s beginning, Brown had told the crowd, “This decision is not going to be made by how many people on one side or the other fill this room.”

A placeholder ordinance

During his presentation on the ordinance, Coel told the board that the interim ordinance was intended to be a temporary placeholder to establish rules about plant limits and locations – including a prohibition against plants being grown on vacant lots – while a board-appointed marijuana cultivation advisory committee worked out permanent guidelines.

He said the document was meant to bulk up the county’s ability to deal with nuisance grows. Coel said it was clear that after Measure D – a marijuana cultivation initiative – failed last month in a two-to-one margin that citizens wanted reasonable regulations to limit cultivation, particularly in residential neighborhoods.

His original proposal of three outdoor plants on the smallest residential parcels of half an acre or less was meant as a compromise, as originally there was a proposal by the county to allow no outdoor grows on those parcels.

While some might argue that the limits were counter to state law, “Such an opinion is misguided and flies in the face of longstanding land use principles,” he said.

Coel said a permanent ordinance is being contemplated but it’s nowhere close to being complete, and likely will take at least another six months to work through the public hearing process.

While warned to keep to the issue of zoning, many people on both sides of the issue offered emotional appeals to the board during the hearing.

Marijuana supporters voiced their belief in their rights under California law as patients or caregivers, accusing the board of trying to make them criminals and denying them safe access.

Many repeated the benefits of the drug for their particular health issues, from cancer to paralysis from accidents.

They also maintained that marijuana contributed a significant amount to Lake County’s economy – with some venturing to estimate that it contributed as much as 40 to 50 percent.

On the other side were concerned landowners and unhappy neighbors, who said they've watched their neighborhoods turn into frightening, dangerous places, with their ability to enjoy their property severely diminished.

Some recounted being shot at near large grows, witnessing environmental degradation due to grading and dumping of soils and human waste.

Approximately 87 people commented – some of them more than once – most speaking in favor of medical marijuana.

Several proponents, like Dwain Goforth of Kelseyville, told the board that there was no urgent need for the ordinance, arguing that there already were measures available to deal with illegal grows. “What we need is enforcement.”

Goforth also accused the county of creating two classes of people based on who owned land and who didn’t, as he read the ordinance as giving landowners more rights than renters.

Middletown grower Riversong chided other marijuana proponents in the room for yelling down people with whom they disagreed.

“It’s bringing hate on me and my family,” he said.

He also said he didn’t appreciate people coming into the county and growing 99 plants when he was growing a much smaller amount and following the law.

Riversong said he had urged the board last year to establish a cap of six outdoor plants per patient. He said he voted against Measure D, but told the board, “It’s your job to find the balance.”

Kelseyville attorney Peter Windrem told the board he supported the ordinance. “It’s well thought out, it’s appropriate and it’s absolutely necessary,” he said.

Working in real estate law, Windrem said he’s had the chance to see the impacts on property in Lake County that marijuana grows have had. He said illegal growth of the drug is posing a serious threat to the community’s well being, and causing a loss of trust.

Windrem asked the board to vote unanimously for the ordinance and send a message to the world that Lake County is not for sale for those who engage in criminal conduct.

He was followed to the microphone by Lower Lake attorney Ron Green, who asked the board not to pass the ordinance – which he called “draconian” – arguing there was no more urgency this year’s growing season than two or three years ago.

He said the committee should be allowed to continue its work, and that action shouldn’t be taken in the middle of the growing season.

In response, Supervisor Brown said he found it ironic that the person who wrote Measure D – Green – would say that nothing should be done during the growing season, when the campaign in support of the initiative had argued that it was needed because there were no rules.

Green said people were under the impression that there would be no rules under Measure D.

“I’m pretty sure you don’t speak for all the people,” replied Brown, suggesting that Green had people bused in to the meeting.

At that point the audience began to boo and jeer, with Green turning to the crowd and lifting his arms repeatedly in an effort to whip up the crowd.

Kelseyville resident Marilyn Holdenried, who has called the county her home for more than 50 years, told the board, “This is one of those critical votes that you will make, that will set the overall vision of our county.”

She said many people did not want Lake County to become the marijuana capital, and she asked the board to support Coel’s original proposal, which she said was fair.

As she ended her comments she, too, was booed, with Brown telling the crowd, “That’s enough.”

Stephen Holland of Lakeport said he’s found human waste, creeks filled with red-orange foam, and he’s had his gates cut.

He begged the county to adopt an ordinance to limit unrestricted growing on unpermitted properties. “I’m lucky to be standing here to tell you this,” he said, noting he’s been shot at four or five times.

Supervisor Jim Comstock told the group, “The reason we’re here is because there has been a incredible proliferation in grows between last year and this year,” estimating the number this year is 10 times what it was in 2011.

Several speakers had urged the board to let the advisory committee continue its work. Responding to that, Comstock said he’s happy to do so, but noted that the growers aren’t stopping in the meantime.

Supervisor Denise Rushing, who along with Supervisor Anthony Farrington serves on the marijuana cultivation advisory committee, said the committee has made progress but, “we have a ways to go.”

Middletown resident Patrick McMahon said in his neighborhood the number of plants on properties adjacent to his has tripled from 49 to 260. “So I do think it is an urgent issue.”

He said the disrespect being shown to those speaking against marijuana is the same disrespect that law abiding property owners are getting from marijuana growers. “And we’re tired of it.”

Pharmacist Bill Kearney, who sits on the marijuana cultivation advisory committee, said one thing the committee had that was lacking in the room Monday was respect for each other. “We all listen to other people,” he told the board.

He suggested that no progress would be made the way some of the audience were treating others.

Regarding the committee, “We’re working together and we’re accomplishing something.”

During the committee’s first two meetings, he said they sat and stared at each other across the room, wondering if they wanted to be friends.

Kearney, who said he sees benefits to medical marijuana, knows that the rules the county ultimately creates won’t please everybody, but added that they had to come to a conclusion that is going to work for both sides. He agreed that something had to be put in place while the committee continued working.

Community member David Williams asked the board to be reasonable. He noted that marijuana grows only smelled once a year. “Just like the lake,” he said.

Board seeks compromises

Public comment ended at about 4:15 p.m., with the board deliberating an hour and a half.

Brown said that people have grown marijuana in the county for years and it wasn’t a problem until they started growing it in town and being disrespectful to neighbors.

He said disrespectful growers were at the heart of the problem, telling the group they knew who those growers were.

“Some of them are in this room, hiding behind the patients,” he said.

Rushing said it was an emotional issue on all sides, with many residents wanting to obey the law. She wanted something that “turns the flame down on everyone’s emotion.”

As the board worked through various adjustments to the ordinance, Coel told the board, “I don’t think it’s Lake County’s obligation to serve medical marijuana to the rest of the state,” urging supervisors to keep the rules as simple as possible.

Farrington, who had sat quietly listening throughout the day, said during board deliberations that growing on vacant parcels was a nonstarter for him. He said people were lobbying him to not be reactive, but he added, “This has been going on for three years.”

He said he wanted the ordinance’s numbers to more closely reflect proposals from the marijuana cultivation advisory committee.

Brown said those numbers were too high. He said he’d gotten no phone calls from constituents about the numbers being too low.

In his campaign against Measure D, Brown said he’d spoken not only to a lot of his own constituents, but to constituents in his board colleagues’ districts.

He said that if they weren’t careful, they will lose Lake County. “Packing a room with people who disagree with me is not going to change my mind.”

Rushing suggested that the board could be silent on the smaller residential grows and deal with the larger, more urgent grows.

“Based on the emails I get, both are equally important,” Brown said.

At one point, as the crowd started to become loud again, Farrington said he was willing to go back to the three outdoor plant maximum for smaller parcels and start again if the outbursts continued. “I don’t do well with threats,” he said.

Farrington ultimately would make two motions, one to waive the reading of the full ordinance and read it in title only and then the final reworked ordinance itself.

Both votes were 4-1, with Brown voting no.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Details

Written by: Elizabeth Larson

Published: 10 July 2012

Supervisors to continue sales tax discussion

LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Board of Supervisors will continue a discussion on proposed county sales tax measures for roads and lake-related projects when it meets on Tuesday.

The meeting will take place beginning at 9 a.m. Tuesday, July 10, in the board chambers on the first floor of the Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport. The meeting will be broadcast live on TV8.

In a discussion timed for 10 a.m., the board will consider draft expenditure plans for revenue generated by a countywide transportation sales tax measure. At its June 26 meeting the board had directed staff to prepare the plans.

The supervisors also will consider proposed resolutions authorizing the countywide sales tax measures.

It’s possible that the board will not move forward with the plans after the Clearlake City Council on June 28 decided to forgo involvement in a countywide effort and instead move forward with its own measures.

County staff had reported at the June 26 board meeting that the county would need to partner with the cities, as there is no mechanism for an unincorporated county to do such a measure on its own.

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).

9:10 a.m., A-5: Presentation of proclamation designating the week of July 16-22, 2012, as Invasive Weed Awareness Week

9:15 a.m., A-6: Presentation of Clear Lake Advisory Committee Quarterly Report Committee.

10 a.m., A-7: (a) Consideration of draft expenditure plans for various funding amounts generated by a countywide transportation sales tax measure; (b) consideration of draft expenditure plans for various funding amounts generated by a countywide lake program sales tax measure; and (c) consideration of proposed resolutions authorizing countywide sales tax measures for transportation and/or lake programs.

10:45 a.m., A-8: Consideration of proposed agreements between the county of Lake and Middletown Towing, Kelseyville Auto Salvage and Last Mile Auto Dismantlers for the removal of abandoned vehicles.

NONTIMED ITEMS

A-9: Supervisors’ weekly calendar, travel and reports.

A-10: (a) Consideration of proposed amendment to resolution establishing salaries and fringe benefits for management employees; and (b) consideration of clarification of at-will status for peace officer
management employees.

A-11: Consideration of proposed amendment to agreement between the county of Lake and Kappe and Du Architects for the Middletown Senior Center and Middletown Library.

A-12: Consideration of request for partial waiver of capacity expansion fee and system capacity fee, property located at 3725 Lincoln Ave., Clearlake (APN 039-454-50 - Jane Thom); and (b) consideration of request to authorize department to accept payment plan for the balance.

A-13: (a) Consideration of request to waive the formal bidding process and make a determination that competitive bidding would produce no economic benefit to the county; and (b) consideration of proposed agreement between the county of Lake and SHN Engineers & Geologists Inc. to provide monitoring and reporting services for Eastlake Landfill.

A-14: Consideration of proposed agreement between the Lake County Watershed Protection District and GHD Inc. for professional environmental services in the Middle Creek Flood Damage Reduction Ecosystem Restoration Project area.

A-15: (a) Consideration of request to waive the formal bidding process and make a determination that competitive bidding would produce no economic benefit to the county; and (b) consideration of request to purchase one 2012 Ford F-250 4x4 crew cab pickup.

CLOSED SESSION

A-16: 1.Conference with Labor Negotiator: (a) County Negotiators: A. Grant, L. Guintivano, M. Perry and J. Hammond; and (b) Deputy District Attorney’s Association.

A-16: 2. Employee Disciplinary Appeal ED 2012-05.

A-16: 3. Conference with legal counsel: Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code Sec. 54956.9 (a): EEOC Complaints of Francisco Rivero and Mike Morshed.

CONSENT AGENDA

C-1: Approve minutes of the Board of Supervisors meeting held on June 26, 2012.

C-2: Adopt proclamation designating the week of July 16-22, 2012, as Invasive Weed Awareness Week.

C-3: Carried over from June 26, 2012 – approve amendment to county policy regarding reimbursement of travel expenses and use of county vehicles for volunteers (adding wording to include the Office of the District Attorney, including the Victim-Witness Division).

C-4: Adopt resolution accepting official canvass of the Presidential Primary Election held on June 5, 2012, and declaring certain county officials duly elected; and declaring candidates for the Democratic
Party County Central Committee, candidates for the Republican Party County Central Committee, and candidates for the Green Party County Counsel elected in lieu of holding an election.

C-5: (a) Approve certification of county elections official of result of the canvass of the Presidential Primary Election returns; and (b) accept certification of county elections official of results of the write-in votes cast for qualified candidates at the June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election.

C-6: Approve out of state travel for Environmental Health Specialist Pheakdey Preciado to attend the National Association of County and County Health Officials and Food and Drug Administration Grantee Conference from August 20-24, 2012 in Washington, DC.

C-7: Adopt resolution approving Environmental Health to apply for a grant through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA), Division of Federal-State Relations (DFSR), and the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN).

C-8: Adopt resolution approving the 2011-12 CDC Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP), State General Fund (GF) Pandemic Influenza and HHS Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP), and authorize the Chair to sign a Non-Supplantation Certification.

C-9: Adopt resolution amending Resolution No. 2012-71 establishing position allocations for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 (correcting typographical errors).

C-10: Approve renewal for the CSAC-EIA group and supplemental life insurance plans through June 30, 2014 (at the current rate), per the recommendation of the Group Insurance Committee, and authorize the chair to sign the renewal confirmation.

C-11: Approve Late Travel Claims of Mental Health Specialist Allison Hillix, Substance Abuse Counselors Robyn Rosin, Selena Jackson and Terrance Rooney, Client Support Assistant Harold LaBonte, Substance Abuse Compliance Monitor Anna Tyrell and Senior Mental Health Specialist Jacqueline Smythe, for a total amount of $432.21, as recommended by Mental Health Director’s memorandum dated June 26, 2012.

C-12: Approve agreement between the county of Lake and Mendo-Lake Alternative Services, for FY 2012-13 alternative sentencing service, in the amount of $39,000, and authorize the chair to sign.

C-13: Adopt resolution approving application for funding from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) for the Used Oil Payment Program (OPP3).

C-14: Approve agreement between the county of Lake and Teichert Construction, for the donation and delivery of approximately 900 cubic yards of asphalt grindings to the Lower Lake Road Yard, and authorize the chair to sign.

C-15: Approve plans and specifications for Riviera Heights CSA Slurry Seal and Improvements in Lake County (Bid No. 12-16), and authorize the Public Works director/assistant purchasing agent to advertise for bids.

C-16: Approve participation in the Northern California Regional Partnership in applying for a federal grant issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Service Administration for Children and Families (to implement expanded services to families affected by substance abuse and involved with the Child Welfare Services System), and authorize the Social Services director to execute and submit any documents necessary for the grant application.

C-17: Approve fourth amendment to agreement between the county of Lake and Industrial Employers and Distributors Association (IEDA) for Public Authority Labor Negotiations Consultant services (extending term of contract through June 30, 2013), and authorize the chair to sign.

C-18: Approve annual renewal of Veterans Subvention Program Contract and Medi-Cal Cost Avoidance Program Certificate, and authorize the chair to sign.

C-19: Approve job description for extra-help mussel decontamination station worker and establish salary at grade A12.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Details

Written by: Elizabeth Larson

Published: 09 July 2012