On Jan. 8, the Board of Supervisors – acting as the Lake County Public Authority Board of Directors – announced the tentative settlement, as Lake County News has reported.

California United Homecare Workers, the union representing IHSS providers locally, negotiated with the county for the two-year contract.

Michelle Dibble, adult services program manager for IHSS and the Public Authority's coordinator, said as of Feb. 1 there were 1,425 IHSS providers in Lake County, serving about 1,600 consumers.

For the agreement to become official, the county's IHSS workers had to ratify it, which they have done, Scott Mann, a union spokesmen, confirmed to Lake County News on Wednesday.

“It was 98.5 percent 'yes,'” said Mann.

Public Authority Board now needs to approve it, he added, and there also is a formal state approval required.

County Counsel Anita Grant said she expected the agreement would go to the Board of Supervisors/ Public Authority Board of Directors very shortly, possibly as soon as the Feb. 19 or Feb. 26 meeting.

Once all parties have officially signed off, the contract goes into effect and is valid through 2009, said Mann.

Under the contract terms, IHSS providers immediately would go from their current wage of $8 per hour, or minimum wage, to $8.33 per hour, said Mann.

In addition, they would receive 60 cents per hour toward health care coverage, which Mann said was a critical issue for the providers.

Health coverage for IHSS providers will be offered through the Long-Term Care Workers' Health Trust Fund, said Mann, a health fund designed by and for care workers. He said the fund offers health, dental and vision coverage.

The contract calls for another wage increase for IHSS workers that would go into effect on Feb. 1, 2009, and raise wages from $8.33 to $8.75, said Mann.

Other contract terms call for establishing a labor management committee to make sure that workers have a voice on the job, Mann said.

County, IHSS providers weigh in

Public Authority Chair Ed Robey said the contract has been years in the making. The county had previously negotiated with other unions before California United Homecare Workers began representing local IHSS providers as their sole union last year.

“We thought we had something worked out a year ago,” said Robey.

At that time, the county had proposed a two-tier system which would have raised IHSS providers' pay from minimum wage – then $7.50 an hour – to $8.50 per hour if they underwent drug testing and background checks, and took additional training.

Robey said the state has to approve any rate changes to IHSS workers' pay, which was why at the public authority/board's June 5, 2007, meeting, they voted to ask the state to consider it.

He said the county cares very much not only about health care providers but also about care recipients, which is why they wanted better training and monitoring.

However, the proposal resulted in a clash between the union and the county, with the union at one time launching a recall against four supervisors, excluding Supervisor Denise Rushing.

Formal paperwork to actually carry out a recall, however, has not been filed, which Registrar of Voters Diane Fridley confirmed this week.

No parts of the two-tier proposal were named in the terms of the newly accepted contract.

Robey said he's happy about reaching an agreement on the new contract, which has moved the county and the union to a new starting point.

“It was important for us to get something,” he said.

IHSS provider Diana Wells of Clearlake has been a member of the negotiating team for three years. Like Robey, she agreed that the contract is a good start.

Wells, 58, has been a home care provider for more than 20 years, working with IHSS for 18 years. She said she cares for a single client currently, spending more than 40 hours per week caring for the wheelchair-bound woman.

The contract and its provisions for better pay and health care are important for Wells, who has worked for years at minimum wage with no health insurance.

Her situation became critical last year, when she suffered a pulmonary embolism, a serious condition caused by a blockage, often a blood clot, in a lung's artery. Wells was off of work for seven months, only just returning to work full-time on Feb. 1.

For her, the health benefits will help her not worry about having to choose between groceries and the ongoing medical care she now requires, she said.

Wells, who plans to continue as part of the negotiations team, hopes that other benefits, such as vacation, will be a part of future negotiations. “My feeling is, we're kind of starting small and we'll work up.”

She said she plans to continues an an in-home caregiver for as long as she can, noting that the connection with people is what keeps her going.

“You're their only lifeline to the world. It breaks your heart sometimes. I just fall in love with them. You can't help it,” said Wells.

Many people may think IHSS providers are “glorified housekeepers,” but it goes much deeper than that, said Wells. A very human connection is formed, and providers often are a lifeline for their clients to the outside world.

“Until you've done this type of work you really don't know what it's about,” she said. “You really don't until you've walked in our shoes and done this for years and years.”

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

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

The meeting begins at 6 p.m. at Clearlake City Hall, 14050 Olympic Drive.

Under City Council business, the council will consider amending a disposition and development agreement with Clearlake Redev 29 LLC to extend escrow on a 29-acre property in Burns Valley.

City Administrator Dale Neiman said Wednesday that staff is suggesting the council – sitting jointly as the Redevelopment Agency Board – extend escrow until July 2009 on the property, located at 2540 Old Highway 53.

The sales price, based on an appraisal, is $210,000, said Neiman.

Neiman said the agency in 2005 entered into an agreement to sell the property to a group including developer Robert Adelman, who also owns the Lake Glenn Subdivision.

Adelman also is a partner in the Clearlake Redevelopment Group with developer and redevelopment expert Jim Burns, who was involved with the formation of the Clear Lake Foundation, a group of officials and developers who say they have plans to improve and promote Clear Lake.

Plans for the Burns Valley property show it will be a residential subdivision, consisting of 22 large parcels.

The agreement establishes a schedule for moving through the sales process, said Neiman, with Adelman and his group having completed all their tasks on time. It also requires that escrow close by July 2008.

However, Neiman said the buyers are asking for a one-year extension due to the difficulty in getting financing right now. “That's going to stay that way until the market turns around.”

Neiman added, “It really makes sense for us to grant the extension.” If the redevelopment agency doesn't, it will have to start the process over, which could take between three to five years.

The council also will take another look at a state grant the city received in 2003, of which $45,000 was allocated to improve the Hot Spot Youth Center.

Neiman said the city has struggled to pin down just how $35,000 was spent, particularly during 2004. Of that, $10,000 in staff time was expensed, but time cards don't specify how staff time was spent, and no one who worked on the project is still with the city to explain it.

In 2005, the state inspected the facility and found numerous problems, said Neiman.

Another $10,000 worth of work on the center was done in 2006, and that has been properly recorded and invoiced, he said.

Nevertheless, when the city filed a reimbursement request the state refused to pay on the grant because of the problems it found in the 2005 inspection.

At the council's Jan. 24 meeting, they voted to repay $18,006 to the state Department of Parks and Recreation out of the city's general fund because of the accounting issues, as Lake County News has reported.

However, Neiman said he's suggesting that, before the council send back the money, the city should invite the state in to audit the grant. If the state discovers any money is left over, Neiman said the city can then decide how to spend it on the center.

The Hot Spot has to remain open and functioning as a youth center until October 2014, or the city has to repay all of the money based on the state's requirements, said Neiman.

The city also needs to establish a new lease agreement for the center that stipulates it will be run according to state rules, said Neiman.

The Lake County Community Action Agency is running the center, Neiman said.

In other business, Neiman is taking to the council Thursday a proposal to hire Coastland Engineering for construction management and inspection services of street rehabilitation work planned for parts of Olympic Drive, Old Highway 53 and Lakeshore Boulevard.

The $3 million project is currently out to bid, said Neiman, which he expects will be awarded at the council's March 13 meeting. Construction could begin in May or June.

Half of the money for the street work is coming from Caltrans' State Transportation Improvement Program, with the other half from Proposition 1B funds, said Neiman.

He credited interim City Engineer Bob Galusha with having an application prepared early, which resulted in the city being the first agency in the state to receive money from the bond.

Also helping push the project to the head of the line was the fact that the city already had completed the engineering on the project, using $80,000 in redevelopment funds. Neiman said the decision to do so had been a risk because the state had not given final approval to the project.

However, he had told the council last fall that he would not have proposed moving forward on the engineering had he not believed the funding would come through.

In a fourth item of business, the council will consider rejecting a claim against the city submitted Feb. 6 by Desiree Chantal Perez.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

The recently completed Merritt Road bridge, which replaces the low water crossing, will be dedicated in a ceremony planned for 11:30 a.m. Friday, Feb. 22 on the bridge's west side, according to a Wednesday statement from the county's Public Works Department.

The public is invited to attend.

Public Works reported that the county will dedicate the bridge in honor of the men and women “who served courageously and unselfishly in the defense of our nation.”

Supervisor Rob Brown took a proposal to the Board of Supervisors on Dec. 11 suggesting that the bridge be dedicated to the county's veterans. The board voted unanimously to support the idea.

Brown said Wednesday that veterans groups and dignitaries are expected to attend, with the details still being confirmed.

In order to accommodate the dedication ceremony, Public Works reported that Merritt Road – from the west end of the Merritt Road bridge to Loasa Road – will be closed to all traffic from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Feb. 22.

For more information about the event, contact Public Works, 263-2341.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

The case of Charles Fowler's 360-acre property on Adobe Creek Road – which Board Chair Ed Robey said was one of the biggest abatement cases the county has dealt with – went before the board at its Jan. 15 meeting, as Lake County News has reported.

The property is littered with old cars and appliances, garbage, dilapidated mobile homes and tons of greenwaste.

While the board voted to abate the case, they also included in that vote provision to give time for Fowler's adult daughter, Sara, to help come up with a cleanup plan to help her ailing father.

Code Enforcement Manager Voris Brumfield told the board that since the Jan. 15 meeting, they have received a proposed cleanup plan from Sara Fowler.

However, Brumfield said the agencies involved in supervising the situation – including Code Enforcement, Environmental Health and the District Attorney's Office – were concerned that Sara Fowler's plans doesn't designate time frames for cleanup, means of disposal or locations of the materials.

The agencies haven't been able to fully evaluate the newest plan, which they had only received by 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, Brumfield said.

Further hangups involved Charles Fowler denying Code Enforcement access to his property, citing concerns about erosion, Brumfield said.

She added that Code Enforcement staff has nevertheless prepared warrants to seek a judge's permission to enter the property to assess the situation.

Brumfield said the cooperating agencies working on the Fowler case met to discuss a phased abatement process. She said they plan to move forward with cleaning up the property if the Fowlers' plans don't pan out.

Robey asked Brumfield if they needed further help from the board as far as setting a course.

“At this point we feel we have been given direction by the board sufficient to move forward with the abatement of the property,” said Brumfield.

Another potential sticking point is that Sara Fowler still does not have legal authority to intercede for her father in the cleanup.

Charles Fowler told the county his daughter is acting on his behalf, but board members, including Supervisor Rob Brown, remained concerned that Sara Fowler needs power of attorney to truly take control of the situation.

For two years, Lakeport Disposal had dumped greenwaste on the property. The company has previously stated that it paid Charles Fowler $500 a month to handle the materials, while Fowler claimed he was not paid, as Lake County News has reported.

Supervisor Anthony Farrington noted in the meeting that company officials told him the greenwaste had been removed, but from the report he said he could see that wasn't the case.

Lakeport Disposal told Lake County News last month that they had gone out to the property and bulldozed the greenwaste to help distribute it, and had removed a large amount of plastic and other trash that had been mixed in with the greenwaste.

Ray Ruminski of Environmental Health said this week that his agency is conducting a separate enforcement case relating to the greenwaste being dumped at Fowler's property and not a permitted facility. Environmental Health is the local enforcement agency for the California Integrated Waste Management Board.

Environmental Health was concerned about the greenwaste because of the amount dumped, its ability to catch on fire and also because it had been placed in a watershed, as Ruminski told Lake County News last month.

District Attorney Jon Hopkins, who had spoken about his office's involvement on Jan. 15, told Lake County News Tuesday that one of his investigators and his environmental circuit prosecutor are working with the county team on the abatement process.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:3}

LUCERNE – County officials are opposing California Water Service's proposed rate hike for Lucerne customers, with the Board of Supervisors – sitting as the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors – unanimously passing a resolution on Tuesday against raising the rates.

Last July, Cal Water applied to the California Public Utilities Commission to raise rates for all of its California customers, numbering just under 450,000 in 24 districts, according to commission documents.

Those raised rates will pass on costs for “centralized services” – payroll, water quality systems, information systems, engineering, maintenance and conservation programming – from its San Jose headquarters to its various districts, including Lucerne.

The rates would bring in millions of additional dollars to the company, which is the largest investor-owned water utility in the western United States.

If granted in total, Lucerne's rates would jump 21.3 percent on July 1 and go up another 3.4 percent the following year, totaling $309,218 in additional charges to the small Northshore town's customers.

The average Lucerne residential water customer, using 5,236 gallons of water monthly, would find their monthly bill rising a total of $17.07 by the time the second hike was phased in, according to numbers provided in a Cal Water notice.

Cal Water received a 121-percent rate increase in the summer of 2006 after requesting a 246-percent increase, as Lake County News has reported. Steve Elias, an attorney who assisted community water groups in that case, said the actual rate increase is much lower for many people due to the rate reductions for low-income residents and reductions possible through conservation.

Last January, the company applied for another 14-percent increase.

Redevelopment Agency staff took the board a staff-written resolution on Tuesday, which said the rate hike is “excessive, unnecessary, and is not supported by a credible justification.”

Kelly Cox, who serves as the county's chief administrative officer and the executive director of its Redevelopment Agency, said the rate issue in Lucerne is impacting the agency's ability to carry out its programs, which are meant to fight blight and improve the economy.

The resolution also pointed out that the rate increase won't be used to improve Lucerne's aging water system.

Supervisor Denise Rushing, whose district includes Lucerne, said she had concerns about those town residents who can't afford to pay for the increase. She wondered if Cal Water can simply cut them off.

The concern was shared by Supervisor Anthony Farrington, who felt state legislators need to get involved in the matter. “People shouldn't have to choose between food and water.”

Cox said the basis “for much of this increase was just outrageous,” adding that the company had been “busted” on some of their requests.

The Public Utilities Commission's Division of Ratepayer Advocates issues a voluminous report analyzing Cal Water's requests. In particular, the agency criticized Cal Water's requests for its San Jose office, including $50,000 in patio furniture, $38,000 for media furniture, $22,500 for a lounge kitchen remodel. The Division of Ratepayer Advocates disallowed those expenses in its proposal to the commission.

“We want to do everything we can to keep the rates as low as possible,” said Cox, who added that he understands they can't prevent rates from rising entirely.

Supervisor Rob Brown suggested that the county should begin getting ready now for the next rate increase the company will put through.

Lucerne resident Donna Christopher called Lucerne “Death Valley north” when it comes to water. She said she can no longer even afford a lawn.

Craig Bach, president of the Lucerne Community Water Organization, called Cal Water's justifications for the current rate hike request “a wonderful wish list.”

He cited a speech titled “Play the Rate Hike Game” given by Cal Water President and Chief Executive Officer Peter Nelson at a conference.

“They game us,” Bach said, and the company usually gets what it wants because of the close relationship between its executives and state regulators.

Louise Talley, a former county supervisor, told the board it's a disgrace to see Lucerne's lawns drying up when the county is trying to build tourism

“Redevelopment needs to have a beautiful area to bring those tourists in,” she said. “That's so important to us.”

Talley said that her own water bill has risen to $200 for a family of four. “Something has to be done.”

Following the board's unanimous vote to support the resolution, Board Chair Ed Robey said he wished the board could do more.

“The ultimate solution would be to buy this water company and make it a publicly owned water company, but where to find the money, that's the question,” he said.

Rushing said the county's budget does contain money to analyze such a move, but there's no guarantee of success. “These water companies do not surrender territory easily.”

Responded Robey, “That's OK, we're here and they're not.”

Two sides reach settlements

The timing of the county resolution is important, as the California Public Utility Commission is hosting hearings on the request this week.

Cal Water and the Division of Ratepayer Advocates have also reached some settlements on the more controversial issues, said Tom Smegal, Cal Water's manager of rates.

One of the most contentious points is the Division of Ratepayer Advocates' allegations that in Cal Water's last rate hike, it had requested a hike to cover a large number of new employees, much as its current request does.

The Division of Ratepayer Advocates said the company didn't actually hire those new employees the last time, but actually turned around and passed on the payroll expense to its shareholders in a “significant windfall.”

Smegal responded by saying, “The statement is not correct.”

He said the company did not earn the amount of money the commission allows for in the period of the previous hike, so there was no windfall.

Just as the Division of Ratepayer Advocates faulted Cal Water for numerous accounting errors in justifying its rates request, Smegal faulted the division for its own misunderstanding of the documents.

In the current application, the company wants to add 148 employees to its staff of about 240, a 62-percent staffing increase from 2007 to 2009. The Division of Ratepayer Advocates proposes only allowing the company to add 40 new positions.

In the hearings going on this week, the Division of Ratepayer Advocates and Cal Water have settled many of their differences, including those over employment positions, said Smegal. He added that the positions allowed will be much closer to what the division's proposals are.

“The biggest dollar issues to our customers would be those payroll issues,” said Smegal.

All of the terms of the settlements haven't yet been put into a written document, said Smegal. The judge in the hearings has asked Cal Water for a status update on producing the document by Feb. 28.

More rate hikes on the horizon

Rushing told fellow board members that “the other shoe is going to fall” when Cal Water finishes its water plant upgrade in Lucerne, at which time the company is entitled to seek another rate increase. Bach confirmed that the next hike application is “already on the books.”

Smegal said the plant is costing $7.44 million to build, and is being funded through a no-interest loan through a state revolving fund program.

Cal Water has applied to charge its customers to repay the loan, which is a loan requirement, said Smegal.

The Cal Water application summary on the request explains that all customers will receive a surcharge on their meters, not on usage. A normal residence would see an additional monthly charge of $17.37.

Gay Guidotti, a Cal Water customer service representative for Lucerne, said the surcharge will apply to all customers, even those who are low income and who have been protected from higher rates by the Low Income Residential Assistance Program.

There is no mechanism in place to change the assistance program to compensate for the surcharge, Guidotti added.

Cal Water has continued to show strong earnings and greater demand, with its profits rising consistently in recent years.

Late last month, California Water Service Group's Board of Directors announced the company's 41^st consecutive annual dividend increase, from $1.16 to $1.17.

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

In January 2004, the city enacted mandatory curbside garbage, recycling and greenwaste collection, with Lakeport Disposal as its franchise hauler.

The contract between Lakeport Disposal and the city calls for the company to pay Lakeport a franchise fee of 10 percent of its actual revenues. The council has, in previous decisions, forgiven part of that franchise fee in order to help Lakeport Disposal meet growing business costs.

Lakeport City Manager Jerry Gillham took to the council a matrix that has company rising to a full payment of the franchise fee by 2010.

Gillham said the effort is to create a phased-in process that contains some certainty for both parties. He said that Mayor Pro Tem Ron Bertsch, who has been on the city's negotiating team that has worked on the contract with Lakeport Disposal, wanted a more aggressive agreement.

Joe Butcher, who owns Lakeport Disposal, told the council he was OK with the matrix with one exception – he didn't agree with paying a franchise fee on the curbside recycling that the company picks up.

Butcher said that his company sells the recyclable materials to Lake County Waste Solutions (formerly Timberline Disposal), which then charges them to take Lakeport's greenwaste. Butcher said the result is a “wash,” which means the company makes no money to warrant a fee.

He asked the counsel to remove that fee as an offset “to the cost of doing business.”

Butcher and his sons, Craig and Lance, also told the council that within the last month they have been locked out of the Lakeport Transfer Station, and must haul trash directly to the landfill in Clearlake at a cost of about $1,000 extra per month.

He said that the county charges Lakeport Disposal $37 a ton to dump trash at the landfill, as opposed to $31 for other franchise haulers working in the county. “They're discriminating against us and the city.”

Meanwhile, Lakeport Disposal pays $48 a ton to dump trash at the transfer station, Lake County Public Services Director Kim Clymire told Lake County News late last week.

Butcher told the council at the Tuesday meeting that county officials told him the transfer station could be closed as long as five months.

Councilman Bob Rumfelt said he contacted Clymire about the transfer station, and was told it was shut down right now because of a broken ram, a piece of equipment used to compact garbage.

Rumfelt said that with the ram being out of service the transfer station's capacity has been seriously reduced, and the county is concerned that having Lakeport Disposal bring in large amounts of trash may tax its remaining equipment to the point of breaking as well.

Rumfelt said Clymire was willing to work with city officials to work out a solution. He said he was told that Lakeport Disposal is charged higher fees at the landfill because they don't pay the hundreds of thousands in fees to the county that other haulers do.

Butcher said his company can endure making the south county trash runs “for only so long” before it would be necessary to make other adjustments, including raising customers' rates.

The council voted unanimously to accept the matrix as it was presented, leaving in the curbside recycling franchise fee. Council members directed City Attorney Steve Brookes to amend the original contract with Lakeport Disposal to reflect the time frames and take care of any conflicting language.

Clymire explains transfer station issues

Clymire told Lake County News late last week that the transfer station's compactor is, indeed, down, and is being backed up by an older one, which has necessitated sending all the franchise haulers to the landfill.

He said it's believed the compactor's barrel has metal fatigue, and it's being taken to for a repair estimate. Replacing the ram could cost $250,000; to replace the entire compactor unit would cost more than $1 million.

Clymire said he's putting together a report to the Board of Supervisors on the transfer station situation.

He suggested that the county will be hard-pressed to justify the cost of big repairs for the station, considering that only 14 percent of the county's waste stream – 7 percent from franchise haulers, and 7 percent from self-haulers and contractors – is taken there. The rest of the county's waste stream, said Clymire, is take directly to the landfill.

Replacing the compactor, said Clymire, “won't make any economical sense.” The transfer station is being subsidized by the landfill's revenues, he added.

“If it was my private business, I'd shut it down, because it's losing money,” he said.

He added that the transfer station's main function is as a public service to community members.

On the issue of what the landfill charges franchise haulers, Clymire said South Lake Refuse and Recycling and Lake County Waste Solutions (formerly Timberline) are, indeed, charged $6 less per ton at the landfill than Lakeport Disposal.

The reason for the difference, said Clymire, is because Lake County Waste Solutions and South Lake Refuse and Recycling have – since 1998 – contributed $1.5 million to county waste programs, including recycling education, the hazmobile and some street construction projects.

The hazmobile, he added, is offered in Lakeport thanks to franchise haulers outside of the city subsidizing it.

Clymire confirmed Rumfelt's report, that he is willing to sit down with Lakeport officials to discuss the waste stream issue.

However, he said he had done that previously, in December 2006, meeting with Lakeport Council members Roy Parmentier and Buzz Bruns, and with Supervisors Anthony Farrington and Jeff Smith.

At that time, the county asked Lakeport Disposal if they wanted to contribute to the county's waste programs and they said no, said Clymire. As a result, Clymire said the Board of Supervisors voted against changing Lakeport Disposal's rates.

By hauling its garbage directly to Clearlake, Clymire said Lakeport Disposal recognizes an $11 per ton savings; at the transfer station the company is charged $48 per ton. Company officials told the council last week that the need to haul trash to Clearlake had caused additional expenses that ate up that $11 per ton savings.

Clymire calculates that the company will save $7,500 a quarter by going directly to the landfill. Even if they rack up an additional $1,000 per month in overtime and transport costs, Clymire said, that's still a savings of $4,500 per quarter.

Ultimately, Clymire said the county wants to see all customers receive a price reduction at the curb. Customers in the county, he said, currently enjoy one of the lowest garbage rates in the state.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:2}