LAKEPORT – The Lakeport City Council on Tuesday gave the OK to a proposed new contract with Lake County Animal Care and Control.

The contract will put animal-related services back in the county's hands, while the Lakeport Police Department – which has dealt with animal issues over the past year, since a previous contract with the county was ended – will continue administrative duties including licensing and fee collection.

The contract will go into effect May 1.

Kevin Burke, the city's police chief and interim city manager, negotiated the contract with the county over the last few months. He said it will have a cap at $30,000 annually, which is more than $41,000 less than the contract the city ended in 2008.

Burke said everyone appreciated that the city had to end the contract because of its budget challenges. While the police department can run animal control with its existing officers, the level of service they offered wasn't enough to meet the community's needs.

“It did save the city a significant amount of money,” said Burke.

He said the new contract will increase animal control service levels back to where they were previously. “We're very, very ready to get back into a relationship with the county,” said Burke. “I'd be very grateful if the council would approve this tonight.”

Burke said he plans to keep an animal control truck – which the city purchased from the county for $1,000 last year – because it's a great piece of equipment they can use in other ways.

Councilman Jim Irwin asked if there would be any additional expenses for the city resulting from the contract. Burke said no, that licensing and bill would continue to be done with current office staff and volunteers.

Last year the council raised animal license fees to put them in line with the rest of the county. So far, they've brought in $1,500 in revenue from those fees, with more expected, said Burke.

Denise Johnson, the county's animal control director, and her deputy director, Bill Davidson, were on hand to answer questions, but the council quickly decided to approve the contract.

Councilman Roy Parmentier joked that it may be the first animal control contract he votes for.

Council member Suzanne Lyons moved to approve the contract, with Irwin seconding and the council voting 4-0. Councilman Bob Rumfelt was absent from the meeting.

Following the vote, Vicki Chamberlin, Lakeport Police's animal control volunteer, showed council members pictures of feral cats, a major animal control issue for the city.

She showed pictures of the animals, many of them kittens, and said 85 percent of them are dumped by people.

“This population problem is a big problem,” she said.

Chamberlin added that feral cats are not “vicious little creatures.”

In other council action, council members voted to accept a staff report on the golden handshake early retirement plan, with an adjustment made to the job classifications to which it will be offered, and directed staff to bring back a resolution on the program for the April 21 meeting.

Previously, Redevelopment Director Richard Knoll's name and job classification had been listed. Burke said he met with Knoll, who decided he wasn't interested in taking early retirement at this time.

“I'm quite pleased that he turned it down,” said Burke.

The golden handshake is being offered as a way to avoid layoffs and reduce staff costs in the near term, said Burke. “It's an emergency measure, really.”

In response to a Lakeport Yacht Club request, the council agreed to allow the club to rent parking space in the city parking lot near the club's building on Fifth Street at the lake as additional dry dock boat storage space.

However, with the property there being considered for other uses and development by the redevelopment agency, the council concluded it was premature to allow the club to go forward with a major remodel of the building, since the building's lease expires in 2011.

The council also awarded the design of the state-funded Hartley Safe Routes to School project to Green Valley Consulting Engineers of Santa Rosa, one of 14 firms that had submitted proposals.

City Engineer Scott Harter said that, while the city wants to award projects to local firms as much as possible, “With state and federal funding, we cannot do that,” he said, noting it's against the law. “We jeopardize our funding and we jeopardize future funding.”

Nancy Ruzicka of Lakeport's Ruzicka Associates asked the council to reconsider her firm's proposal. She had made a similar request to the Board of Supervisors earlier in the day, which agreed to reconsider the firm's proposal and estimates for a Spring Valley water project.

Harter said the city's consultant selection board had not chosen the firm due to some specific issues which he didn't believe were appropriate to discuss publicly.

He urged the council to approve the award to the selected firm. If they didn't, he said the project would be “tossed out the window” because the city would miss the construction season due to the program's relatively aggressive schedule. The council approved it 3-1, with Irwin voting no.

The council put off a decision on an agreement for a pre-development loan for Avalon Cottages LLC, a proposed affordable housing development, until Knoll was present to answer questions.

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

LAKEPORT – The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday decided to ask the county's Solid Waste Task Force to bring back a modified letter to send to state Assemblyman Wes Chesbro regarding concerns about a proposed solid waste diversion bill.

The board discussed AB 479, which Chesbro introduced in January, which would increase the solid waste diversion rates from landfills by 10 percent to 60 percent by January 2015 and to 75 percent by January 2020. It also would significantly increase the fees the county pays the state on a quarterly basis for its landfill tonnage.

The board received information in recent days that Chesbro wanted members to indicate areas in the bill that they specifically oppose.

Supervisor Rob Brown suggested opposing the bill as it's currently written. “It shouldn't be an unfunded mandate either to the local jurisdictions or the ratepayers.”

Board Chair Denise Rushing said she discussed the bill on Monday with Chesbro's office, which indicated that the bill's intention is to generate funds that would stay local to help jurisdictions create diversion programs.

“The concern that I have is that this is legislation that we see all the time, one size fits all,” said Brown, adding that, in some cases, the county is way ahead of other areas in its recycling efforts and diversion.

He said he doubted the additional fees the county and ratepayers would be required to pay would actually come back to Lake County. “It never has before.”

Rushing said the county is asking for local control in the bill. Replied Brown, “We have a lot of control now.”

Supervisor Jim Comstock agreed with Brown's concerns.

“In my opinion the best way to keep the money locally is to never take it from the ratepayers in the first place,” he said. “I cannot support in any way taking more funds from us.”

Supervisor Jeff Smith was curious to know how the county's diversion efforts are going. He cited the city of Clearlake, which is struggling to meet the state's mandated 50-percent diversion rate because of its already low amount of garbage. “Their numbers started out so low, lower than Lakeport or the county.”

He said it sounds to him like having Clearlake meet 50 percent diversion is nearly impossible, and he doesn't want to see AB 479 make that diversion rate more out of reach.

“We need a lot more information, as far as I'm concerned, before we can make a decision about which way to go,” he said.

Supervisor Anthony Farrington said the bill's timeliness, considering the economy, “is probably not the best.”

He also was contacted by Chesbro's office, and believed Chesbro wants to work with the county. Farrington suggested holding off on taking a position while the county and Chesbro work out some issues.

Rushing agreed that it's premature to oppose the bill. She said the bill's intention is to create a funding stream for local diversion programs.

County Chief Administrative Officer Kelly Cox said the county would have to start paying the new fees next January. The fees are estimated to jump from $70,000 currently to $195,000 if the bill is passed.

“We've long complained about the $70,000 we pay,” he said, noting the county gets very little of the money back, and it has strings attached. Cox said the county can't afford the fee increase.

Smith suggested a California Refund Value (CRV) needs to be attached to appliances and tires, since those items are a big garbage concern for the county.

Rushing asked Brown and Comstock if they believe in the eventual goal of zero waste.

Brown said it's unattainable, and Comstock said there will always be a certain amount of waste generated.

Rushing said she believed they have a difference of philosophy, and that zero waste is possible. “I think you need to fit into natural systems, ultimately.”

Brown agreed that they have a different philosophy. He also voiced concern that special interests' influence helped craft the bill.

The bill states that 64 percent of the state's solid waste disposal comes from businesses, but he challenged that information, and also said the county's Public Services Department has worked to prevent destruction of natural resources in managing its landfill.

As to solid waste contributing to global warming, “That's a crock,” he said. Rushing replied that it's true.

Brown called AB 479 “feel good legislation.”

Cox said the letter focuses on the county's objection to the proposed fee. “That's what we were concerned about,” he said. “We do not have the ability with our current revenue stream to pay that increase in fee.”

Ruth Valenzuela from Chesbro's office said the the US only recycles about 30 percent of its waste. In California, the state diverts 58 percent of its waste stream.

The recycling process uses 75 percent less power than manufacturing from virgin materials, said Valenzuela.

She said AB 479 sets a new standard for diversion, creates shared responsibility between state and local governments, and will hold manufacturers responsible for the part their packaging plays in solid waste. It also allows the California Air Resource Board to take advantage of greenhouse gas reductions at manufacturing sites.

Rushing pointed out that the city of Santa Rosa has its solid waste trucked through Lake County on its way to a Central Valley landfill. More diversion would result in less pressure from trucks on the county's roads.

The board decided to have the Solid Waste Task Force come back with the revised letter. Main concerns suggested for addition to the text are the timing and level of the fee increase, which the economy can't support, and emphasis on keeping the new fees local.

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN UPDATED – THOMPSON'S OFFICE HAS REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF EARMARKS AND REMOVED A $93 MILLION INTERCHANGE PROJECT FROM THE LIST.

LAKE COUNTY – Approximately $18 million in projects that would benefit Lake County have been listed by Congressman Mike Thompson among his appropriations requests for the 2010 federal budget.

The list, released late last week, includes just over $308 million in total earmarks for the seven-county First Congressional District, which Thompson (D-St. Helena) represents.

“Most of our district's public organizations are struggling to fund projects which are critical to our local economies and the people of our district,” Thompson said in a brief message that accompanied the appropriations list.

“As economic conditions become more difficult, it is more important than ever that cities and counties get help for public projects that rebuild our roads and bridges, invest in research to protect our agricultural economy, provide flood protection, protect our environment, and rebuild our hospitals and health clinics,” he added.

All of the appropriations requests came from public entities and nonprofits throughout his district, Thompson noted.

In all, he received more than $1.2 billion in requests, but said he included only the district's most critical projects.

The largest single earmark in the entire list is $92 million to fund a flood control project on the Napa River, which also is proposed to receive several additional, smaller appropriations.

Thompson made $46.7 million in requests for agriculture-related research and projects, including $30 million for the US Department of Agriculture to work on containment and control of the glassy-winged sharpshooter and Pierce's disease, which are serious threats to the region's winegrape industry.

For salmon-related projects, Thompson made an additional $11.9 million in requests.

Thompson's home county of Napa came in with approximately $121.6 million in earmarks, the largest of any area in the First Congressional District, according to Lake County News research.

In Lake County, Thompson is seeking funds for a variety of projects.

The largest earmark is for $3.3 million to develop the park on Hammond Avenue in Nice.

Other appropriations for the county include a total of $7 million for sanitation-related projects, $2 million for the new Middletown Library, $1.5 million for the earthquake retrofit of the Lower Lake Schoolhouse Museum, $1.2 million for the Middle Creek restoration project, $1 million each for the Live Oak and Middletown senior centers, and $1 million for a proposed rehabilitation on the

Nice-Lucerne Cutoff.

Kelly Cox, Lake County's chief administrative officer, said the county requested all of the items. While the county didn't have any projects on Thompson's appropriations list last year, they're encouraged to make the cut this year.

All of the county's requested appropriations appeared on a list of federal priorities that the Board of Supervisors released in January.

While all of the requests are important, of special concern to the board are the wastewater system projects, particularly in Kelseyville, and Middle Creek's restoration, said Cox. “Those have long been the board's priorities.”

Many of the projects are shovel-ready, said Cox, such as the Live Oak Senior Center, the plans for which are being drawn. Hammond Park and the Lower Lake Schoolhouse Museum also are ready.

“That may be a large part of the reason why these projects made it on the list,” said Cox.

The $1.2 million requested for the Middle Creek restoration project would help identify a feasible project that would fix the substandard levee system and restore native habitat, according to Thompson's appropriations detail.

“It's the first hurdle. It's a big hurdle,” said Cox, adding that the entire Middle Creek project is “enormous.”

“This is the funding needed for another step,” he said.

The appropriations requests aren't a done deal. They must go through a lengthy process that winds its way through the House Appropriations Committee, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Lake County's appropriations requests will be divided up between four appropriations subcommittees – agriculture, energy and water, interior and environment, and transportation and Housing and Urban Development.

“I know that there's a long ways to go,” said Cox. “We can't assume that any of these will make it in the end.”

Thompson will visit Lake County Thursday morning to hold a round table discussion with the Lake County Board of Supervisors.

The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. in the board chambers at the Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport.

Board Chair Denise Rushing said this will be Thompson's opportunity to give the board an update on what's going on at the federal level. The board will reciprocate and bring Thompson up to speed on local issues.

The appropriations requests aren't on the agenda, although Cox said, “I'm sure that the federal stimulus package will be a topic of discussion.”

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

CLEARLAKE – The Clearlake City Council is set to hold a second reading of an ordinance that would rezone the property for a proposed subdivision, with the city's attorney issuing a report that the council didn't violate the Brown Act at a Feb. 26 hearing on the subdivision plan.

The council will meet beginning at 6 p.m. on Thursday, April 9, in the council chambers at Clearlake City Hall, 14050 Olympic Drive, Clearlake.

The council will hold a second reading and roll call vote on the Provinsalia rezone, which would change the project's 292 acres along Cache Creek – located at 17012, 17055 and 17065 Dam Road – from “resource protection” to “specific plan.”

Lake County Resort Partners Inc. proposes to build 565 single-family homes, 100 condominiums and a nine-hole golf course on the site, as Lake County News has reported.

At its Feb. 26 meeting, the council approved that ordinance on a first reading after holding two public hearings on the project.

The Feb. 26 meeting has since become the focus of controversy, after the council decided to limit discussion to new items released in an updated staff report – specifically, a letter from Caltrans and alleged discrepancies between the project's environmental impact report evaluations on climate change and those done by the same consultant for the Valley Oaks project hear Hidden Valley.

Victoria Brandon, chair of the Sierra Club Lake Group, alleged violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act, which governs government meetings, and filed a complaint with the Lake County Grand Jury.

The allegations caused the Clearlake City Council to delay further consideration of the rezoning ordinance in March while City Attorney Malathy Subramanian prepared a report on whether or not a Brown Act violation occurred.

Subramanian's April 3 report found no violations, clearing the way for the council to once again take up the matter.

“The City Council's actions at its meeting on February 26, 2009 did not violate the Brown Act or due process rights of any individual,” wrote Subramanian. “The Project was considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council at several meetings that contained numerous hours of unlimited testimony from the public. The public was provided with ample opportunity to comment on the Project by submitting written or oral comments at any of these meetings.”

Subramanian's review of the Brown Act led her to conclude that “although the right to address the City Council and speak on agenda items before they are acted upon is considered paramount, it is not unlimited.”

She said the act “seeks to balance the public's right to participate in local government, with the City Council's need to expeditiously conduct business and its right to make decisions regarding how to do so.”

A section of the act also allows the council to limit public testimony to five minutes or less. Subramanian noted a California Attorney General ruling stated that “a single item or several items may not reasonably be permitted to monopolize the time necessary to consider all agenda items. If the legislative body is to complete its agenda, it must control the time allotted to particular matters.”

The “reasonable” period of for public discussion, the attorney general's ruling notes, varies “with the facts and circumstances in each case.”

Subramanian's examination of the allegations noted that the council's consideration of Provinsalia's two resolutions and one ordinance “spanned several meetings and over five hours of public comment at the two City Council meetings held in February where the City Council did not set a time limit on the testimony of any speaker on this matter.”

During that time, the Provinsalia project didn't substantially change, other than the Caltrans and climate change issues that were raised. Subramanian said that, because the public had had plenty of opportunity to discuss the project in written and oral comments, the council wasn't required to allow public comment on the entire project on Feb. 26, and therefore didn't violate the Brown Act.

She suggested that, in the future, if the council continues a public hearing to another meeting, “it should indicate that the public hearing may be limited to new or limited matters to avoid misunderstanding or confusion on the part of the public.”

Subramanian also suggested, in her conclusion, that the council may want to allow public comment on the project at the Thursday meeting when it discusses the ordinance and considers its adoption.

Brown Act doesn't address public hearings

On Monday, Brandon remained firm in her opposition to how the city conducted the matter.

“Whether or not that opinion is correct from a strictly legal perspective, it seems to me that allowing public comment to be narrowly restricted to an arbitrarily selected set of subjects prevents effective participation almost as much as forbidding comment altogether would do,” she said.

She also suggested that, from a political perspective, the council would be wise to rescind the approvals it made on the project on Feb. 26 and reschedule a hearing on the basis of free speech, “since failing to do so will perpetuate the growing atmosphere of suspicion and distrust in the city of Clearlake, and encourage pressure for recall.”

Brandon added that allowing public comment on the project on Thursday without repealing the two resolutions it adopted Feb. 26 would be a meaningless gesture that some might take as an insult. “It would do more harm than good.”

Terry Francke, general counsel for Californians Aware, a group that advocates on behalf of open government, agreed with Subramanian's findings.

He also offered insight into the Brown Act that may surprise some people.

For one, “The Brown Act says nothing about public hearings,” he said. “It's not an issue the Brown Act addresses.”

The act does require agencies to provide time on their agendas for people to address both items listed on the agenda and things that aren't on the agenda but are under the legislative body's jurisdiction.

It also allows agencies to impose reasonable time restrictions on the length of the opportunity to comment – either per person, per topic or per meeting, he said.

“The Brown Act is fairly liberal and nonspecific, I would say, and there's nothing in the Brown Act or any other law that I'm aware of that requires extending a public hearing on certain issues over multiple meetings,” he said.

In this case, he found that the council did not err either under the Brown Act or under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). “Not even CEQA requires a hearing in these circumstances,” Francke said.

He said there are two Brown Acts – the actual statute, as it's been interpreted by the courts and the attorney general, and the other version of the act that's the interpretation of citizens who feel frustrated when their desire to take part in public meetings isn't satisfied.

“People tend to identify their frustration with not being allowed to speak or not being allowed to speak as much as they would like with the Brown Act, but it's just not there,” he said.

What both the Brown Act and the First Amendment of the US Constitution do, he said, is require that no particular viewpoint is discriminated against.

“And that's pretty easy to spot if that's gong on,” Francke said.

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

LAKEPORT – The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday will discuss sending a letter to Assemblyman Wes Chesbro opposing a bill he's authored that would dramatically increase recycling requirements for the state's counties.

The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. in the board chambers at the Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport. TV Channel 8 will broadcast the meeting live. The meeting also will be available for rebroadcast later at http://laketv8.pegcentral.com/.

For the full agenda visit the county of Lake's Web site, www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Boards/Board_of_Supervisors/BOS_Agendas.htm.

Among the nontimed items on the agenda is the discussion regarding Chesbro's bill, AB 479, which would raise the amount of waste that local jurisdictions must divert from their solid waste stream.

The County Administrative Office and Public Services Department are taking the item to the board, asking for a board-signed letter in opposition to be sent both to Chesbro (D-Arcata) and to state Sen. Patricia Wiggins (D-Santa Rosa).

Chesbro introduced the bill in January along with two others that he said would, as a package, create thousands of green jobs across the state while lessening dependence on fossil fuels and ensuring more solid waste is recycled and used.

“These bills move California toward a more sustainable environment and economy,” Chesbro said at the time.

However, the bill is a concern for local officials.

According to a memorandum to the board from Jennifer Hammond, a county senior administrative analyst, AB 479 would impose “a state-mandated local program for imposing new duties on local agencies with regard to adoption of commercial recycling ordinances.”

The text of AB 479 says it would require cities and counties to divert 60 percent of all solid waste through source reduction, recycling and composting on or after Jan. 1, 2015, an amount which would then rise to 75 percent by 2020.

That's an increase from the 50 percent currently required by the California Integrated Waste Management Act, AB 939, which went into effect in 1989. That bill had required cities to reach 25-percent diversion by Jan. 1, 1995, and 50-percent diversion by Jan. 1, 2000.

The bill also would increase the state's mandatory quarterly landfill fee from $1.40 per ton to $3.90 per ton on or after Jan. 1, 2010, with that extra $2.50 to be deposited in the Integrated Waste Management Account in the Integrated Waste Management Fund in the State Treasury.

The State of California's Manual of State Funds said those accounts' funds “are used to support source reduction, recycling and composting, and the safe transformation and disposal of waste, and also the protection of public health and safety through regulation of solid waste facilities.”

Hammond's report notes that, currently, the county is disposing of 50,000 tons of solid waste per year and is required to pay $70,000 per year to the state for its landfill operation. If AB 479 passed, those fees would nearly triple, growing to $195,000 per year.

AB 479 also would require businesses generating more than four cubic yards of solid waste and recyclable materials per week to arrange for recycling services. Local agencies serving more than 200,000 people would be required to adopt commercial recycling ordinances that include certain minimum requirements by Jan. 1, 2011.

The draft of the letter the board will consider Tuesday states, “Our board is extremely concerned about this bill as it will place greatly increased costs on counties in order to operate their landfills.”

The letter continues, “As you are well aware, California is experiencing an extremely challenging budget time and our local residents will not be able to afford the rate increases needed in order for counties to pay the increased fees to the state. In addition, the higher fees charged at the local landfill will result in more illegal dumping which is costly to the taxpayers and very harmful to the environment.”

The bill could end up having other implications for local agencies.

The California Integrated Waste Management Board earlier this year found in its biannual review for 2005-06 that the city of Clearlake is failing to meet the 50-percent diversion requirement.

City officials have argued they've been unable to meet the diversion rate because they already have very low waste amounts which are hard to reduce further. AB 939 allows state officials to reduce diversion rates if they can prove they're not feasible due to geographic size or the small amount of waste generated.

The city currently is working with the state on the compliance issues and is putting programs in place to meet the requirements, according to state documents.

The waste board will monitor the city during an oversight period to last from February 28, 2010, through Feb. 28, 2011. If Clearlake fails to make a good faith effort or doesn't comply with all the program requirements, it could face administrative civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day.

Other items on the board's Tuesday agenda include the following.

Timed items:

9:15 a.m.: Election of chair and vice-chair of the Lake County Local Board of Equalization for 2009, and adoption of rules and regulations for assessment appeal hearings. There also will be assessment appeal hearings for Ferdinand Comayas, 3166 Edgewood Drive, Kelseyville; Pensco Trust Co. Inc. Trust, 127 Old Long Valley Road, Clearlake Oaks; Jacob Watson, 15606 Eagle Rock Road, Hidden

Valley Lak; Daniel Tae Hwang, representing agent Jonathan Guffey, California Property Tax Associates, 3967 Hill Road, Lakeport.

9:45 a.m.: Public hearing – Consideration of proposed ordinance establishing a fee schedule for services provided by the treasurer-tax collector.

10 a.m.: Discussion/consideration of proposed resolution regarding senior populations and eligibility for entitlement programs, recognizing the impacts of automatic cost of living adjustments (COLAs), and supporting state and federal legislation that would increase protections for seniors who are disqualified from public programs/services after receiving a COLA.

10:15 a.m.: Discussion/consideration of proposed agreement between the county of Lake and Duncan Engineering Inc. for a building evaluation of the Historic Lucerne Hotel, in the amount of $25,100

10:30 a.m.: Presentation of proclamation designating the month of April as Child Abuse Prevention Month in Lake County.

10:35 a.m.: Consideration of proposed resolution authorizing cancellation of Spring Valley CSA No. 2 Capital Improvement Reserve Designation in the amount of $347,757, to appropriate funds for the water source and treatment plant upgrades; and discussion/consideration of proposed agreement between the county of Lake and CH2M Hill Inc. for engineering services for CSA 2-Spring Valley Water System Improvement Project in the amount of $302,100.

10:45 a.m.: Discussion/consideration of proposed agreement between the Lake County Sanitation District and Water Works Engineers for the Anderson Springs Wastewater Collection System Project in

the amount of $115,700.

Nontimed items:

– Consideration of request for out-of-state travel for Animal Control Officer Terrie Flynn from April 13-17 to attend the National Cruelty Investigators School Level I in Reno.

– Consideration of proposed Budget Transfer B-184, in the amount of $10,700, for the purchase of a network switch card; and consideration of proposed Budget Transfer B-185 in the amount of $20,000, for the purchase and maintenance costs for a Kace K-Box appliance, Budget Unit No. 1904 – Information Technology.

– Consideration of request to purchase 45 X26 taser units from Taser International as sole source provider at a cost of $42,356; make a determination that the competitive bidding process would produce no economic benefit to the county; and authorize the sheriff and the assistant purchasing agent to sign the purchase order.

– Consideration of request for authorization to submit a grant application to the U.S. Department of Justice for COPS Hiring Recovery Program.

– Update on the emergency action taken by the Lake County Board of Supervisors on Dec. 9, 2008, declaring the continuance of the existing local emergency in regards to the court order issued by the Sacramento Superior Court which prohibits fish stocking by the Department of Fish and Game in

water bodies in Lake County.

The board also will have a closed session for a conference with their labor negotiator, and discussion with legal counsel regarding a potential case of litigation.

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

 

 

LAKE COUNTY – April is Child Abuse Prevention Month, and local officials are asking everyone to help in preventing the abuse and neglect of the community's children.

On Tuesday the Lake County Board of Supervisors will present a proclamation declaring April as Child Abuse Prevention Month in Lake County.

In 2007, almost one million children did not know what it was like to be “safe and sound” in their homes.

Tragically, three children – of all races, genders and socioeconomic backgrounds – die each day as a result of abuse or neglect.

During April's annual observance of Child Abuse Prevention Month, the Lake County Children's Council will sponsor events to call attention to the importance of preventing these tragedies and all forms of child maltreatment, as well as to the role each of us can play in these efforts.

“It is crucial that we come together as a community to raise awareness about the negative effects of child maltreatment. Each of us can make a difference in the life of a child,” said Joan Reynolds, chair of the Children's Council.

The Children's Council has a new public awareness campaign this year, “Keep Kids Safe – Protecting our Children is Everyone's Business.”

Businesses in our downtown areas will be displaying posters and handing out bookmarks in April to demonstrate their commitment to preventing child abuse in our communities.

Local churches, agencies and schools are also being asked to show their support for keeping our children safe by displaying and distributing materials.

On April 7, there will be a flag raising event in Lakeport at 11 a.m. at the Lakeport Library Park. The council will raise the Flag of the Missing Child, a national symbol for children lost to abuse. The community is invited to come and the event's speakers and show support to the community's children.

There are also many things that individuals can do – during April and throughout the year – to keep the children in their lives and communities from becoming statistics.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Children's Bureau, Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, has teamed up with Prevent Child Abuse America to create a packet of information and resources about child abuse and neglect prevention. It contains strategies for how each one of us can get involved in preventing child abuse. The packet is available online at http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/topics/prevention.

Everyone can provide a safe place for children, and everyone can play a role in preventing child abuse. Raise the issue. Reach out to kids and families in your community. Join community prevention efforts. Take action to help ensure that the children in your community are safe and sound.

For more information about the “Keep Kids Safe” campaign contact Shelly Mascari at Lake County Childcare Planning Council, 994-4795.

For more information about activities relating to Child Abuse Prevention Month or for information about child abuse prevention programs and activities throughout the year, contact Joan Reynolds at the Children's Council, 262-4146.