The Board of Supervisors, sitting as the Lake County Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors, voted 4-0 to spend redevelopment funds to address the center's serious roof problems. Supervisor Rob Brown was absent from the Tuesday meeting.

As Lake County News reported earlier this week, Kelly Cox, the county's redevelopment executive director and county chief administrative officer, and Deputy Redevelopment Director Eric Seely made the request for funding on the center's behalf.

Seely and Cox made a report to the board Tuesday about the roof's poor condition. Seely himself went up onto the building's roof to get a look, he reported.

The roof had previously been worked on two years ago but the company doing the work didn't do it right, which resulted in leaks, staff told the board.

Cox said Seely has been trying to get roofing contractors out to the site to make a bid, which has been difficult because many such contractors are very busy at this time of year.

He added that Seely is set to meet a contract at the senior center later this week.

Seely said the roof's configuration won't allow them to simply place a tarp over it during the bad weather.

In the short term, Seely and Cox suggested they might need $4,000 for temporary roof repairs before taking on a full reroof later, at a cost of about $30,000.

The board chambers' gallery was filled with people who came to express their support for the county's aid in repairing the building.

Board Chair Ed Robey asked for a show of hands to see how many supported the roof repair. Everyone raised their hand.

Lucerne property owner Scotty McNeil suggested to the board that, in addition to repairing the roof, they should look to see what mold damage might have resulted from the roof leak.

“Thank you very much for your quick response to this important issue,” McNeil told the board.

Senior center volunteer Wanda Quitiquit said she has started the application process to seek historical status for the building. That status, she said, could help bring funds for building repairs.

Debbie Blake told the board she doesn't live in Lucerne but she visits the center. She asked the board to consider helping the senior center with a solar setup to help them with their power bill.

JJ Jackson, who recently left his post as executive director of the Lucerne Senior Center to take the same job at the Lakeport Senior Center, came to express the Lakeport center's support for the board's help for Lucerne.

District 3 Supervisor moved to approve the funds, which the board unanimously supported, a vote which earned them a round of applause from the senior center's audience full of supporters.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:3}

Voris Brumfield released a statement Monday saying that she will not seek Robey's District 1 supervisorial seat.

"After much thought and soul searching, I have decided not to file for the June 3 primary,” Brumfield said in her Monday statement.

“There are a number of reasons, all of which relate to my current service to the people of Middletown and Lake County. In the coming weeks you will hear more of my future activities,” she said.

Currently, Brumfield is manager of the county's Code Enforcement Division. She previously served as District 1 Supervisor from 1984 through 1992.

Last August, Robey – now in the last year of his third term on the Board of Supervisors – told Lake County News that he was not seeking reelection.

Brumfield confirmed over the summer that she planned to run for the District 1 seat, which put her among an early group of hopefuls for the job.

“The effective representation of District 1 will be a challenge and I appreciate the candidates and their desire to serve,” she said Monday.

Brumfield had already taken out a “declaration of intentions” Form 501 to begin soliciting funds for the campaign, as Lake County News reported in December.

Other candidates who so far have taken out those forms are Jim Comstock, Scott Fergusson, Susanne La Faver and Bobby MacIntyre.

Because of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, Lake County News could not contact county officials Monday to inquire of any additions to that field thus far.

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 item will be on the board's regular meeting agenda at 11 a.m. on Tuesday. The meeting starts at 9 a.m. at the Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport.

The Lucerne Alpine Senior Center, which offers important services to seniors as well as offering the community its primary meeting place, has struggled in recent years with finances and back taxes, which in turn have prevented center staff from pursuing much-needed maintenance and repair.

Kelly Cox, who is both the county's chief administrative officer and redevelopment executive director, is seeking the board's approval for the agency to provide the funds necessary to repair the building's roof.

No funding amount was included in Cox's memo, dated Jan. 15. Deputy Redevelopment Director Eric Seely has contacted local roofing contractors, said Cox, and will forward the bids to the board as soon as they arrive.

In the first week of January, Seely and Jennifer Hammond – who Cox said administers the county's contracts with the senior centers – toured the building to see how the Redevelopment Agency could help with making improvements.

“During the inspection many needed improvements were noted but the most pressing need, by far, is repair of the building's roof,” Cox wrote to the board. “The current condition of the roof is causing significant damage to the interior of this historic and very important community building.”

He added that the situation is so severe that the center's staff have indicated it needs attention “on an emergency basis.”

The roof hasn't been repaired, said Cox, because the center's administration has not had “the financial resources to move forward with such a project, regardless of the consequences.”

Hammond and Seely found during their visit that multiple roof leaks have saturated the plaster on the building's ceilings and walls, which has resulted in sections of plaster falling off and exposing bare lath boards, Cox reported.

The situation calls for immediate attention, Cox reported to the board, especially because of the center's use as a place for preparing and serving meals to seniors.

“Your Board is aware of the importance of this building to the community of Lucerne and in particular to the seniors living in the Lucerne area,” wrote Cox. “The building is structurally sound and of historic significance, being one of the oldest buildings in Lucerne.”

Cox said the county can use Redevelopment Agency funds to repair the buildings if it finds that the improvements are “consistent with the Agency’s goal of eliminating blight.”

He added, “We believe that such a finding can and should be made.”

Cox is suggesting that the board approve using funds currently budgeted for the Lucerne Clubhouse's repairs to instead repair the senior center.

The clubhouse project, Cox said, hasn't yet moved forward “due to uncertainties over what will ultimately be done with that building (i.e., remodeled in its present location, relocated, replaced with a new structure, demolished or other).”

With no final decision expected soon on the clubhouse, Cox told the board that funds for that project aren't expected to be needed until the 2008-09 fiscal year.

Last year, in an effort to help the center, the county purchase its thrift shop building for $150,000, funds used to pay off back taxes and bills that the center's administration said a previous executive director had failed to pay.

The Board of Supervisors' meeting will be broadcast on TV Channel 8.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:3}

Supervisors decided to hold off on making a decision on the Eachus View Estates Subdivision until Feb. 5 because Supervisor Anthony Farrington – in whose district it would be located – was absent from Tuesday's meeting due to a family health emergency.

Developer Mark Mitchell of Origin Construction is proposing the subdivision, located at 3453, 3565, 3585 and 3595 Hill Road in Lakeport.

Mitchell wants to subdivide a 90-acre parcel zoned for agricultural into four residential parcels ranging in size between 2.13 and 3 acres, each with building envelopes, and one agricultural parcel of 76.15 acres. The plan also calls for rezoning 10.75 acres from agriculture to suburban reserve.

The staff report presented to the board explained that the project plan has been modified. Mitchell originally had wanted the subdivision to include eight lots.

“There was considerable controversy throughout the hearing process,” the report stated.

At a June 14 meeting the Planning Commission told Mitchell they could not support that original configuration based on concerns over conversion of ag lands and prime soils, buffer zones, biological resources, noise, hydrology and groundwater usage and noise.

Mitchell was given time to modify the project, and when it went back to the Planning Commission on Sept. 27 it was approved 3-2.

However, Johnnie Lee, Brad Peters and Harry Whitlock – neighbors of the project – appealed the decision.

The prevailing issue during the board's Tuesday discussion centered on conversion of agricultural lands.

Community Development Director Rick Coel told the Board of Supervisors Tuesday that there are no clear guidelines in county policy that solve the question of when agricultural conversion should be allowed based on population levels.

He suggested that once 85 percent of land within a community boundary has been developed, it may be appropriate to extend boundaries to offer for additional development. The project, Coel added, is outside of the Lakeport Area Plan.

Testifying before the board, Mitchell said, “I had no idea that this little subdivision would cause such a stir.”

Mitchell is partnering with his college roommate Matt Boeger on the vast Cristallago project, which proposes 650 single family homes and 325 resort units on an 861-acre site off Highway 29, also north of Lakeport.

Opponents of his project, said Mitchell, “think that this project is going to set a precedent for Cristallago. that's what it comes down to.”

Mitchell, who at times sounded angry during his comments, called that idea “absurd.”

“The General Plan allows for this project to take place on this property,” he said.

Mitchell said he's not asking for anything more than anyone else has done. He said that numerous properties on Hill Road have been subdivided into parcels of three acres or less over the last 20 years. Only a few parcels on Hill Road, he added, have agricultural zoning.

“If you guys are going to hold this over or make this a part of Cristallago, I'm going to have a serious problem with that,” he told the board. “It's just not fair, plain and simple.”

Mitchell said both the Planning Commission and county staff agree with him on the project's appropriateness. “To single me out because I'm a partner in Cristallago is just wrong.”

Community members weigh in

Sierra Club Lake Group Chair Victoria Brandon agreed with Mitchell that it's unfair to single him out, but she disagreed that she's concerned with a precedent for Cristallago.

Rather, Brandon said she's focusing on a more critical precedent – the infringement on agricultural lands.

The community has developed “a really strong concern and will” to keep agriculture viable locally, said Brandon. Allowing suburban growth to eat into agricultural areas isn't a way to ensure that viability.

The property doesn't have sewer and water hookups, and is “quite sensitive biologically,” she said, adding that Eachus Lake, a large vernal pool, is a focus of concern for the Department of Fish and Game.

“The main consideration here is the effect on agriculture,” she said – not just for that parcel but for the whole county.

Johnnie Lee, one of the three neighbors who filed the appeal against the subdivision plan, said he speaks against all of Mitchell's projects, not based on a personal attack but because of his overall concerns about them.

“This really is a debate on how growth is going to go forward in Lake County, Lakeport, into the future,” he said.

The Planning Commission voted to support owners' rights taking precedence in such projects, said Lee. “I'm afraid I just disagree.”

There is a greater good to consider when looking at development, said Lee. To think Mitchell's project won't set a precedent for future growth is “naive,” he added.

Neighbor Tom Powers spoke in defense of Mitchell, saying he has no issue with the subdivision, and that it conforms with codes and the General Plan. The only agriculture in the area has been grazing, Powers added.

Brad Peters, another of the appellants, responded to Mitchell's drawing a connection to Cristallago. “This definitely has nothing to do with Cristallago for me,” said Peters. “This has to do with what I feel is right for the area.”

Peters has a seven-acre property, which came from a larger 20-acre parcel his family subdivided previously. On his land he has a business building racing engines, which he ships around the United States.

“I just don't think that that area is ready for that type of development,” he said.

Upper Lake resident Janet Cawn said she thinks considering development projects separately is a problem.

Protection of agricultural land is the highest priority of the General Plan and the Local Agency Formation Commission, Cawn said.

“I would say we've already set a precedent, but it's a poor one,” she said.

Clearlake Oaks resident Judy Barnes suggested that any agricultural land conversion needs to be looked at closely, for the simple reason that, once it's converted, it can't go back.

Taking another opportunity to speak during the public hearing, Mitchell said he's already done a dozen projects in Lake County, and said that Lee has only visited the projects next to his property.

He also criticized Peters, who has himself subdivided property. Peters' business, said Mitchell, “makes a lot of noise and he doesn't want complaints.”

Mitchell said the General Plan and zoning are tools based on time. There are plenty of properties zoned for agriculture that aren't used for agriculture, he said; there also are commercially zoned properties with residences.

The land in question, said Mitchell, has never had a prime agricultural use. “These properties don't and have never produced anything.”

Oak trees on the property won't be cut down, he said, because the county's new grading ordinance won't allow it. Neither is farming the land the best way to preserve its wetlands.

If the land isn't developed now, it will be in the future, said Mitchell.

Board holds over a decision

Supervisor Rob Brown asked Coel how the property could currently be divided. Coel responded that it could be divided into two – agricultural parcels can't be broken up into less than 40-acre parcels according to county code – with one home on each parcel plus one farm labor housing unit, for a total of four homes. The number of wells is unlimited.

Supervisor Denise Rushing said strict maintenance of urban growth boundaries is necessary to prevent sprawl and preserve a way of life. She pointed out that in Europe, large cities are in close proximity to rural lands; within a few minutes of leaving Paris you're in the French countryside.

“That didn't happen by accident,” she said. “That happened because they really did not want to grow beyond a certain limit.”

Lee suggested to the board that just because there are smaller parcels to the south of the project – as Mitchell had pointed out – that it doesn't automatically mean the parcels to the north should divide, too.

Brown had asked to wait for Farrington's return, although Farrington had told the board they could go ahead and vote without him.

However, Supervisor Jeff Smith suggested that they should wait, since he guessed the vote could come down to a tie. That will necessarily make Farrington the tiebreaker when it's continued.

The subdivision will go back to the board at 9:45 a.m. Tuesday, Feb. 5.

Coel told Lake County News that in addition to the five parcels proposed for Eachus View Estates, Mitchell has been involved in subdivision projects totaling about 78 parcels, although not all of those projects are actively being built.

Those projects are only in county jurisdiction, said Coel, who did not have information on possible Origin plans in the cities of Lakeport and Clearlake.

Cristallago, Coel added, is still being processed by Community Development Department staff and going through the environmental impact report.

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 VOTE COUNT HAS BEEN CORRECTED; IT WAS 3-2, NOT 4-1 AS REPORTED. 

LAKEPORT – The Lakeport City Council on Tuesday granted a rate increase to its franchise garbage hauler, Lakeport Disposal, as part of an annual cost of living adjustment. {sidebar id=52}

The 2.5-percent increase will take effect immediately and be retroactive to Jan. 1. The franchise contract between the city and Lakeport Disposal calls for the annual rate adjustments.

Besides the issue of the rate increase, the council and representatives from Lakeport Disposal – owner Joe Butcher and his son, Craig – engaged in a lengthy discussion on sticking points in the original franchise contract.

That contract went into effect on Jan. 1, 2004, when the city commenced its mandatory curbside garbage, recycling and green waste collection program, according to the franchise agreement.

The sticking points

City Manager Jerry Gillham took to the council a list of 10 ongoing items relating to the franchise agreement, but only four of them continued to be an issue, he said.

Those specific issues included the city taking over billing for bins for commercial customers, conflicting language regarding franchise fee payments, increasing the portion of the franchise fee that the city has previously forgiven and wintertime green waste pickup.

The Butchers appeared most concerned about language in the contract that appeared to allow the city to take a franchise fee off a recycling buyback company that Joe Butcher said is separate from Lakeport Disposal.

Gillham, however, indicated that the most critical issue for the city – and a key impasse – revolved around the franchise fee, and when it would start to receive the full amount from the company.

The franchise agreement calls for the city to receive a franchise fee that amounts to 10 percent of the company's actual revenue.

Gillham told Lake County News Wednesday that the precise number for the fee has been changing. “The debate is, what are the actual numbers?”

A recent audit showed Lakeport Disposal had annual revenue of $600,000, which would equate to roughly $60,000, the number Gillham is anticipating to receive in the 2007-08 fiscal year. It's a number, he added, that he believes is about $15,000 less than it should be.

Over the last three years the franchise fees Lakeport Disposal has paid the city have decreased, said Gillham, in part because of an agreement reached two years ago that allows the company to pay a 3-percent fee rather than the full 10 percent on all commercial customers.

In the 2004-05 fiscal year, Lakeport Disposal paid $113,000, which dropped to $69,000 in 2005-06 and $55,000 in 2006-07, Gillham reported.

Gillham said the understanding reached between the city and the company was that the fee would be negotiated and eventually returned to the full amount. That is currently under negotiation now, he added.

Gillham said the initial agreement called for the full fee returning in 2009, but the Butchers argued that point Tuesday night, saying that timeline is too aggressive considering their growing costs of doing business and needs for new equipment.

Another key issue for the Butchers is green waste pickup.

The city has allowed Lakeport Disposal to reduce its winter pickup to once a month. Joe Butcher told the council Tuesday that the council is losing money on green waste. The company also isn't paying a franchise fee on curbside recycling, which the company said it was awarded to offset the cost of green waste.

“We’re still losing money. We’re paying more on green waste than we’re making on recyclables,” Joe Butcher said.

He told the council that he would immediately start paying the city the full franchise fee if it would do away with the green waste pickup requirement. Either that, he said, or charge city customers as much as $9 a month additionally for those services.

On Wednesday Craig Butcher told Lake County News that the company couldn't give up green waste collection, that his father was merely pointing out the company's challenges. “The green waste is part of the unit so it can never be taken off.”

City Councilman Bob Rumfelt suggested the company offer green waste pickup every other week, a suggestion Joe Butcher said would help reduce costs.

The council asked Gillham to try to resolve all the outstanding issues by its next meeting, which Gillham said he could do.

Councilman Ron Bertsch, however, asked what would happen if the issues aren't resolved. Attorney Steve Brookes said the city would notify Lakeport Disposal that it was in breach of the contract.

“Legally, they’re in breach of the agreement now, because they’re not following the contract,” said Bertsch.

Bertsch – along with Councilman Jim Irwin – has been a member of a negotiating team that has worked with Lakeport Disposal for several months to try to settle the contract discrepancies.

Mayor Buzz Bruns said the Butchers have been around a long time and their word is good. “I have all the faith in the world in you guys.”

Councilman Roy Parmentier added, “If three weeks if we don’t have a contract, we're going to go to war. That’s the easiest way to put it.”

The council voted 3-2 to approve the rate increase. Irwin said he voted no because he felt the contract issues needed to be resolved first. “Nothing against you guys,” he said to the Butchers.

The cost of living increase actually will mean less than 50 cents more per billing period for residential and commercial customers using cans. For bins, the costs will rise as follows per billing period: one yard, $2.77; two yard, $5.54; and 2.5 yard, $6.96.

Dumping issue not part of Tuesday's discussion

Not mentioned at the Tuesday meeting was Lakeport Disposal's involvement in what county officials have concluded was an illegal dumping case on Charles Fowler's Kelseyville property. Craig Butcher told Lake County News in an interview earlier this week that they had been approached by Fowler who wanted the materials for compost. The agreement also saved the company money.

However, the company has been under scrutiny by Lake County Environmental Health for taking green waste – which had some garbage mixed into it – and dumping it at the Fowler property, which is not an approved handling facility. County enforcement, however, is focusing more on Fowler than the company.

Gillham said Wednesday that the city has discussed the Fowler case with Lakeport Disposal. “They've given us full assurances that they're complying with the law.”

By taking the green waste to Fowler's, which isn't an approved facility, Gillham said Lakeport Disposal could be interpreted as being out of compliance with its franchise contract with the city.

Gillham emphasized that it's Lakeport Disposal's responsibility to make sure solid waste materials are taken to correct facilities.

However, Ken Stuart of the California Integrated Waste Management Board told Lake County News that jurisdictions such as Lakeport also have a responsibility to make sure their franchise haulers are complying with the law. That means taking materials to facilities licensed to handle waste.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

KELSEYVILLE – County officials say Charles Fowler's 360-acre property near Kelseyville has suffered environmental damage due to his dumping of junk and green waste. {sidebar id=51}

It's a case, however, that is far from simple. There are numerous local agencies that have been called to the property to inspect it, with Code Enforcement and Environmental Health now moving through separate but complementary processes that seek to have the property cleaned up.

Fowler's daughter, Sara, said her father was ill during the latter part of last year, having a tumor removed from his pituitary gland. While he is still recovering she is partnering with him to move forward on the cleanup.

There are, however, other people involved in the case, including the Butcher family, who run Lakeport Disposal, the company responsible for depositing green waste on Fowler's property over the last two years.

Lakeport Disposal, in turn, is the franchise hauler for the City of Lakeport's mandatory garbage program which includes garbage, recyclables and green waste.

The investigation deepens

While the main focus is on Fowler, there is also the question about the possible consequences for both Lakeport Disposal and the City of Lakeport.

As far as fines and penalties against Lakeport Disposal, Environmental Health Director Ray Ruminski said, “We're not sure about that.”

“One thing we are investigating is that this green waste program is supposed to be an environmentally beneficial thing to divert certain waste streams away from the landfill into a more planet-friendly, green-friendly use,” said Ruminski, referring to a composting facility.

He added, “Dumping it in an oak woodland in a sensitive watershed is not the intent of these diversion programs.”

The City of Lakeport and Lakeport Disposal “may have some embarrassment or some legal culpability there,” Ruminski said.

Because of Lakeport's mandatory – or universal – garbage, recycling and green waste collection, “everyone in the city is a participant in this program,” said Ruminski.

He said of Lakeport, “Their yard waste is not being diverted to an approved facility, it's being diverted into an illegal dumping operation. We think that's a bad thing.”

The green waste, even as compost, presents a number of problems, said Ruminski.

For one, it had trash – including plastic wrappers, cardboard and even pressure-treated fence posts – mixed into it, said Ruminski.

The green waste also can lead to runoff and stream pollution in its current location, which is stretched across several half-acre and one-acre areas, said Ruminski.

The compost also presents a potential fire danger. Ruminski explained that when the materials decompose, the center of the pile warms up. If the outside of the pile gets dry, the compost can catch fire.

Another serious environment/health issue on the property, said Ruminski, is that Fowler installed the old mobile homes as housing, without permits and with illegal septic systems.

Ruminski said his department is acting as the local enforcement agency for the California Integrated Waste Management Board.

He said his staff will consult with the waste board's staff on how to handle the issues associated with Lakeport Disposal.

“The city as a jurisdiction has an obligation to manage their waste stream and accomplish a certain amount of diversion,” said Ruminski.

A law passed in 1989 required municipalities to divert 50 percent of their waste stream – either through recycling or green waste – by the year 2000. But, Ruminski said, that diversion must be done at approved facilities.

A branch of the California Integrated Waste Management Board evaluates jurisdictions and gives them credit for meeting that diversion requirement, said Ruminski.

Lakeport, he said, could lose that diversion credit, or suffer possible penalties.

“I do not want the City of Lakeport to say, 'It's not my fault,' for obvious reasons,” said Ruminski. “As far as I can see, everyone's culpable.”

Ruminski said Environmental Health sent Lakeport Disposal a letter about the Fowler case.

“It basically said, you guys did a bad thing and we expect you to make it right,” said Ruminski.

Lakeport Disposal didn't respond in writing, he said. Rather, one of Joe Butcher's sons left a message saying they would take care of the situation.

Ruminski said Environmental Health still needs to follow up with Lakeport Disposal. He added that it's “too soon to comment on whether they will be prosecuted.”

Lakeport Disposal defends itself

For its part, Lakeport Disposal's owners say they have done nothing wrong, and have tried to improve the situation on Fowler's property.

Lakeport Disposal has had a franchise agreement with the City of Lakeport since January 2004 which covers the city's mandatory garbage collection. That service also collects green waste and recyclables.

Craig Butcher, Joe Butcher's son, said Lakeport Disposal has taken green waste to the Fowler property for the past two years, but stopped in the middle of last October.

The company paid Fowler a $500 per month handling fee for the materials, said Butcher. Previously, they had taken the green waste to a Potter Valley facility, where fees to accept the materials rose dramatically, from $3.60 per ton to $31 per ton.

The Butchers also said they have taken carp from local carp shoots out the property for about 12 years, where Fowler used the fish to enrich his soil. That was never a problem until recently, they said.

All of the materials, said Craig Butcher, were understood to be organic and acceptable for Fowler to accept under the “right to farm” ordinance.

In November, the company rented a bulldozer and used it to spread out the materials, which Butcher said Fowler was supposed to do but didn't.

While they were there spreading out the materials, Butcher said they filled an 18-yard debris box with plastics and other materials that had been mixed in with the green waste.

In the spring, after the ground dries up, Butcher said they'll go out again and do some more cleanup. He estimated that they could retrieve another nine yards of debris at that time.

Butcher disputed that there has been any environmental damage and groundwater contamination, explaining that the materials are already breaking down.

Craig Butcher said the company and the City of Lakeport discussed the case and that the city is “afraid it might come back on them.”

Meanwhile, The company still isn't entirely sure where it stands in the case, and the Butchers believe they're being caught up in other issues that are Fowler's responsibility.

Butcher said Environmental Health hasn't updated them on the case. “They send us threatening letters but they don't really tell us anything.”

The City of Lakeport's response

Ruminski sent a letter dated Dec. 11, 2007, to Lakeport City Manager Jerry Gillham, which was copied to the entire Lakeport City Council and City Attorney Steve Brookes.

In the letter – a copy of which was obtained by Lake County News – Ruminski outlined the violations in the Fowler case.

“It is the position of Environmental Health that this property owner is operating a solid waste facility without the required Compostable Materials handling Facility Permit,” Ruminski wrote.

The letter continues: “Our investigation indicates that the compostable materials found on the Fowler property have been transported there by Lakeport Disposal. Further, the source of these compostable materials is the green waste from the City of Lakeport's green waste curbside pick-up program.

“Lakeport Disposal, under a contract with the City of Lakeport, has been hauling green waste to the Fowler property, an un-permitted facility, in violation of state law and in contravention of industry standards,” the letter states. “This operation has created significant environmental damage and public health and safety hazards.”

Ruminski told Gillham that the dumping has resulted in “extensive degradation to the land and the sensitive watershed.

“All of those responsible for this damage will face substantial civil liability in the form of fines, penalties and clean-up costs,” Ruminski wrote.

“Please take all necessary measures to ensure that no further hauling to the Fowler property of any green waste materials occurs,” Ruminski added, noting that only permitted facilities can accept such materials.

The franchise agreement between the city and Lakeport Disposal does not state specifically that the company must take its solid waste materials to an approved facility.

However, Brookes points out that the agreement does stipulate that Lakeport Disposal must follow the law when disposing of materials.

Responding to Ruminski's comments about the city's possible culpability, Brookes said that unless the city had absolute knowledge of the activities beforehand, “I think that's a stretch.”

Illegal dumping is the last thing the city would want to have happen, said Brookes. “We want a good service for the customer and a stable franchisee.”

Brookes said the city hasn't yet gotten to the point of considering how this case might affect its franchise agreement with Lakeport Disposal.

The franchise contract states, however, that the city can end its contract with Lakeport Disposal should the company break applicable laws.

At a Lakeport City Council meeting in December, council members had complained that certain items in the contract had not been honored by the company, which is now seeking a cost of living increase.

Brookes said a recent audit of the company found that the customer count was too high, therefore resulting in inflated revenue figures that were much higher than reality. He said the city and company need to jointly develop and circulate a customer satisfaction survey to address some of the outstanding concerns.

Gillham said the city has no role in monitoring Lakeport Disposal's environmental compliance, which he asserted is the county's role.

It's up to Lakeport Disposal to follow the law, Gillham added.

What happens between Lakeport and its franchise hauler could play out in a variety of ways. The Butchers and Fowler could clear all regulatory hurdles and move forward; they could be assessed a large fine; or they could receive a fine with ongoing penalties that could put the company in more financial distress than it's already in.

At that point, said Gillham, the city might need to reassess the franchise.

Gillham said the city is not interested in continuing a contractual agreement with anyone violating the law.

The determination of whether laws have been broken, Gillham added, “would depend upon what the county and state regulatory bodies did with regard to the Butchers.”

State: Solid waste oversight is a local issue

In a world where it sometimes seems that state government exercises excessive control, solid waste haulers actually have little accountability in the form of state licensing.

Ken Stuart, who coordinators the illegal dumping program for the California Integrated Waste Management Boad, said there isn't a licensing program for solid waste haulers in California.

That responsibility, he said – along with permitting and inspecting landfills, transfer stations and compost facilities – falls to the local Environmental Health division.

“This is a local government issue,” said Stuart.

However, Stuart said Environmental Health doesn't necessarily have authority over the franchise hauler, which is responsible to its jurisdiction, in this case Lakeport.

It's up to local jurisdictions to include enforcement authority of solid waste haulers in their laws, which should include penalties for taking materials to unlicensed facilities, said Stuart. The California Penal code, Fish and Game code and state water code also have penalties for activities such as dumping.

In cases like these, local jurisdiction is crucial, said Stuart, which is why Code Enforcement becomes more powerful.

Since the green waste came from Lakeport, Stuart said it was up to the city to make sure that the materials were taken to the proper facility. “The real key is the City of Lakeport has a responsibility on that.”

Since the state also doesn't have power to review solid waste franchise agreements, it again falls to local jurisdictions to make sure their franchise haulers are meeting their contractual obligations, said Stuart.

Ultimately, the waste board has grant funding available to help come in and clean up certain properties, said Stuart, with a bill then being given to the landowner, or a lien placed on the property if they can't pay the bill.

Cities and counties need to divert certain materials – such as green waste – from their landfills, said Stuart. Because of this dumping issue Lakeport could lose its diversion credit.

The city, according to state records, also is coming up for a regular diversion audit, said Stuart.

Interestingly enough, Stuart is family with the area around Fowler's property; he said he grew up near Kelseyville.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:2}