News

Details

Written by: Elizabeth Larson

Published: 12 August 2020

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – Following more than three hours of discussion that illustrated deep divisions not only amongst supervisors but the county’s residents, the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday narrowly approved the first reading of an ordinance to enforce Public Health orders issued in the spring to address COVID-19.

Supervisor EJ Crandell put forward the enforcement ordinance, telling his colleagues on Tuesday that it would first emphasize education before enforcement.

Crandell was joined by Board Chair Moke Simon and Supervisor Tina Scott in passing the ordinance, while Rob Brown and Bruno Sabatier voted against it.

The ordinance places the authority for enforcement in the hands of the county’s Health Services director and Community Development director or their designees, and any official designated by the Board of Supervisors.

It focuses on violations including failure to adhere to masking, social distancing and mandated hygiene requirements, and failure to close specific business sectors when required.

Enforcement officers are first to request correction and offer training and information, allowing a “reasonable time” of not less than five days to make corrections. If compliance isn’t achieved, the administrative fine structure, based on Government Code section 25132, subdivision (b), allows up to $100 for a first violation, up to $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation and not more than $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.

Those who receive violation notices can appeal to the Board of Supervisors, which would make the final decision about imposing fines.

Unless the board takes action to extend it, the ordinance would sunset on Oct. 1, 2021.

The ordinance applies in the unincorporated county and not the cities of Clearlake or Lakeport, where they have their own mechanisms – including the administrative citation process – to enforce Public Health orders.

Crandell said the ordinance is meant to protect against the county’s funding through the CARES Act – the coronavirus relief bill Congress passed in March – from being jeopardized, as the state had indicated it would withhold that funding from counties that did not comply with its health orders.

“I feel it is an olive branch to show that we are moving towards compliance,” said Crandell.

This was the third time an enforcement ordinance has been presented to the board.

In June, Simon brought forward a proposed urgency ordinance that similarly would have used administrative fines to enforce Public Health orders. After a contentious discussion, the matter wasn’t even put to a vote as it was clear that it wouldn’t get the minimum requirement of four aye votes.

Last week, Crandell had brought forward a different iteration of an urgency ordinance which also would have enforced fines for failure to comply. That was pulled at Crandell’s request after a brief discussion and before a vote.

While an urgency ordinance requires at least a four-fifths vote, a regular ordinance only needs three supporting votes. Both Brown and Sabatier raised issues with the ordinance being presented in such a way that it could get the needed votes.

“It doesn’t feel right. Something’s strange to me,” Sabatier said.

Sabatier said he had trouble with enforcing penalties, wanting instead to focus on offering incentives for compliance – in his words, a carrot – rather than the stick of fines and enforcement.

He questioned if penalties would give the desired outcomes, and proposed that the county offer complying businesses with funding assistance for masks and sanitation efforts. “I think this is the time that we help each other,” he said.

Both Brown and Sabatier also would point to the county’s COVID-19 case data, which doesn’t show businesses as being a major source of cases. Only four of the county’s cases so far have been attributed to occupational contacts, and Public Health hasn’t specified if those are people who work in Lake County. Close contacts with known cases and social gatherings have proved bigger case sources.

Brown said doing the right thing is very subjective. “I’m not the right thing police.”

He said the ordinance was about appeasement and symbolism. “We’re making decisions that ultimately affect businesses,” he said, adding that not only are existing businesses harmed but that the situation has led to others deciding not to open businesses here.

Brown said the state Legislature is taking advantage of the situation to do everything from releasing close to 10,000 prisoners to limiting volunteer and inmate firefighters, as well as using legislation like AB 5 and SB 10 to force out mom and pop businesses.

“We’re not social engineers,” he said, adding, “I’m done with this.”

Scott said she was concerned because Public Health Officer Dr. Gary Pace told the board the county was teetering on the edge of being placed on the state’s watch list, which would lead to stricter regulations and impacts on some industries.

As of Tuesday, Lake – with 253 cases and two deaths – was one of 20 counties that have so far not had high enough case rates to be added to the list.

“We’ve seen it blow up in other counties and other states,” said Scott.

She added, “I’m just concerned that people are starting to ease up,” also pointing to the in-person opening of some local schools and local businesses not following the health orders.

Simon said an enforcement ordinance is a step meant to help the county maintain local control of its reopening. As a tribal member, Simon said he’s a part of a vulnerable community.

“It’s getting closer to each and every one of us,” he said.

Simon maintained that the ordinance will be a tool to help the Public Health officer, the community and businesses. “Not everyone is going to be affected.”

Sabatier said they always knew that reopening would lead to higher case numbers, with management important. “We need to continue on the same path.”

He said that Mendocino County started enforcing its orders with fines on July 1 and Sonoma County began its enforcement on Aug. 6. Both of those counties have far higher caseloads than Lake County; as of Tuesday, Mendocino had 478 cases and 10 deaths, with Sonoma reporting 3,825 cases and 51 deaths.

Community members divided

The board heard comments from numerous community members, some urging them to take action, others suggesting it was an overreach.

Those who supported the ordinance said it was needed to protect the community and keep local control of the reopening.

Several of those who opposed it spoke in support of allowing herd immunity to develop or questioned the effectiveness of masks. A few challenged whether COVID-19 actually rises to the level of a pandemic. Three speakers made reference to Nazis or Adolph Hitler in speaking against the enforcement ordinance.

Paul Marchand, a practicing emergency room doctor who lives in Kelseyville, said he’s dealt with COVID-19 patients in his work, seeing some with symptoms and some without.

Marchand said being reactive is not the best approach, and told the board, “You need a carrot and a stick to get the best possible learning.”

Lakeport resident Nathan Maxman said big gatherings are a problem for passing the virus, but the ordinance does nothing to address it. He said there needs to be a tool to address those gatherings more immediately.

Michael Green of Lakeport offered his strong support, saying it was too bad it had taken so long. He said the ship had sailed on the urgency ordinance and it was best to move forward with the current document.

He added that a $100 fine isn’t going to hurt businesses and that he was over the argument about the ordinance violating constitutional rights.

Frank Dollosso of Lakeport asked the board not to pass it. “I don’t see where the emergency is. Not saying the virus isn’t real, not saying the virus hasn’t killed anybody.”

He said there is no emergency, the county already is under stress and it has low case numbers.

Middletown resident Monica Rosenthal told the board, “I’m so lost, I don’t even know what the purpose of this ordinance is anymore.”

She said it seemed overly punitive to businesses. “Do we really need this ordinance?” she asked, noting they already have a mask mandate.

Rosenthal asked about the percentage of Lake County businesses that are out of compliance with current health orders.

“My vote is for positive, proactive action, rather than this ordinance, which appears to be proactive but negative in its approach,” she said.

Brown said her question about the percentage of complying businesses was a fair one and asked if anyone had an answer. Pace said he didn’t have a specific number.

Darrell Davis of Lakeport told the supervisors that they opened a big can of worms and that it was clear to him that three of them already had their minds made up. “You’ve brought a lot of misery on yourselves and other people by even bringing this to the board.”

Davis said people in Lake County have pretty good sense, but that the board has them running around scared. He asked who would enforce the ordinance and if they would wear brown shirts, a reference to a paramilitary group attached to the Nazi party.

Sabatier asks for future review

Maintaining that education is a type of enforcement, Sabatier told fellow board members that they needed to be sincere in what they were discussing – which was just adding penalties.

He asked that the document return to the board for review, noting they are reviewing their protocol for employees and remote work, and that he wanted to make sure it’s doing what is anticipated and not going overboard or not going far enough.

“I just think that passing this and walking away and expecting everything to be great is a little naive and we need to make sure that this comes back to us so we’re very aware of what’s going on with it and how it’s impacting our community or impacting our numbers,” he said.

He also asked if the enforcement would start with the courthouse, pointing out that many county offices aren’t complying with the rules.

“We are talking about others when we really should be looking at us first and how are we doing because we should be leading by example if we’re going to be setting up this type of ordinance and I do not believe that we are leading by great example,” he said.

Ultimately, however, the majority of the board didn’t take his proposal for having a future review of the document.

Brown wanted to know who is responsible for enforcement. County Administrative Officer Carol Huchingson said the county’s intention is to use CARES Act funding to hire additional staff under the health officer.

Brown said the county can’t fill the vacancies it already has. “If it passes, you’re creating an expectation that is unfulfillable, and I think not being able to admit that is a sign of weakness, it’s not a sign of leadership or strength.”

Crandell said the ordinance included a lot of compromises. “It’s not always about winning. It’s about compromise for the greater good.”

He said it wasn’t about politics but about the health and safety of others.

Crandell moved to waive the full reading of the ordinance and read it in title only. The vote was 3-2, with Sabatier voting no and Brown saying, “Hell no.” To which Simon responded, “Hell, yeah,” when it was his term to vote.

The board then voted 3-2 to pass the first reading of the ordinance.

The ordinance will come back for its second and final reading on Tuesday, Aug. 18.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

081120 Lake County Board of Supervisors COVID-19 enforcement ordinance by LakeCoNews on Scribd