Board Minutes - November 20, 2001

Home
Up
Open RFPs
Inyo Codebook
Emergency Services
Board Agenda
Board Calendar
County Jobs
Departments
Vision Statement
Representatives
Other Agencies
Privacy Practices
Gaming Fund Info
County Budget
ADA Grievance
Holidays 2006
Charleston View

County of Inyo

Board of Supervisors

The Board of Supervisors of the County of Inyo, State of California, met in regular session at the hour of 9:10 a.m., on November 20, 2001, in the Board of Supervisors Room, County Administrative Center, Independence, with the following Supervisors present:  Chairperson Julie Bear presiding, Linda Arcularius, Julie Bear, Ervin R. Lent, Carroll M. Hambleton, Jr., and Michael Dorame.   Supervisor Lent provided the Invocation, and Supervisor Dorame led the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

 

Public Comment

The Chairperson announced the public comment period.  The Auditor-Controller announced that the FY 2001-2002 Budget Book has been printed and provided the Board with a copy.

 

 

CAO-Info Serv./ DMS Software P.O.

Moved by Supervisor Lent and seconded by Supervisor Arcularius to designate JALAN/H.T.E. as the sole-source provider for Document Management Services (DMS) software and authorize the purchase of DMS software from JALAN/H.T.E. in an amount not to exceed $4,837.50.  Motion carried unanimously.  

 

P.W./Bishop Landfill Fencing Project

Moved by Supervisor Lent and seconded by Supervisor Arcularius to approve the plans and specifications for the Bishop Landfill Fencing Project and authorize the Public Works Director to advertise for bids for the project.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

Water Dept./ Garlon and JLB Oil Purchase Orders

Moved by Supervisor Lent and seconded by Supervisor Arcularius to approve the purchase of 150 gallons of Garlon 4 herbicide from Target Specialty Products in an amount not to exceed $12,720 plus tax and 500 gallons of improved JLB Oil Plus with dye from Silverado Ranch Supply in an amount not to exceed $3,600 plus tax.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

Transit/AZ Bus Sales Lease

Ms. Monika Watterson, Transit Director, provided additional information regarding the request to lease-purchase a bus.  She explained that is was a diesel engine with about 200,000 miles, that the bus had been evaluated by a mechanic, and that it would be used to provide inter-regional bus service until the new buses were delivered, at which time it would be used as a back-up vehicle for the route.  Moved by Supervisor Hambleton and seconded by Supervisor Arcularius to waive the competitive bidding requirements and approve AZ Bus Sales, Inc., as the sole-source provider for the lease-purchase of one 1993 transit bus for a period not to exceed six months, in an amount not to exceed $4,124.68 per month plus tax and authorize the Chairperson to sign the lease agreement.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

Org-B.P. C of C/ Audit Review and Funding Approval

The County Administrator provided additional information and further explanation on the Big Pine Chamber of Commerce financial audit performed by the Auditor-Controller.  Mr. Mendez explained that the Chamber is implementing or agreed to implement many of the checks and balances which were lacking and confirmed that he felt the problems arose from technical processing errors and not from misconduct, saying he felt this was an isolated case.  The Board expressed their pleasure in the County utilizing Its audit authority with regard to the Grants-in-Support Contracts, explaining that this reinforces the Board’s commitment to enforcing the County’s fiduciary responsibilities.  Moved by Supervisor Hambleton and seconded by Supervisor Arcularius to approve staff recommendations for corrective action; and approve the funding for the Big Pine Chamber of Commerce for FY 2001-02.  Motion carried unanimously. 

 

CAO-County Counsel-Water Dept. Dispute Resolution Arbitrator

The County Administrator reviewed the Dispute Resolution process for the Long Term Water Agreement, explaining that the process requires the Board to select an Arbitrator.  He explained that the City of Los Angeles would choose an Arbitrator and the two Arbitrators would choose a third Arbitrator and the City and the County would cover the costs for their choices and split the costs of the third Arbitrator.  He discussed the funding for this Contract, explaining that any unexpended funds would end up in General Fund balance at the end of this Fiscal Year.   The Board expressed a desire to have any money not spent for these contract services be returned to the Special Reserve Budget.  

Moved by Supervisor Dorame and seconded by Supervisor Hambleton to approve the following actions and direct  that the contracts for the Dispute Resolution Arbitrators be monitored and any unexpended funds from this action be returned to the Auditor-Controller Special Reserve Budget at the end of the year:

 

A) amend the FY 2001/2002 County Budget by increasing appropriations in the Auditor-Controller-Special Reserves Budget 010408, Operating Transfer Out (Object Code #5801) by $150,000, increasing estimated revenue in the General Revenues and Expenditures Budget 011900, Operating Transfers In (Revenue Code #4998) by $150,000; and increasing appropriations in County Counsel Budget 010700, Other Professional Services (Object Code #5265) by $150,000; 

B) approve the Contract between the County of Inyo and Antonio Rossmann for mediation/arbitration services in the McNally Canals Dispute for the period of November 7, 2001, through January 31, 2002, in the amount not to exceed $45,000, and authorize the Chairperson to sign contingent upon the appropriate signatures being obtained; and 

C)  approve the Contract between the County of Inyo and a Mediator/Arbitrator as designated per the Dispute Resolution Guidelines to provide mediation/arbitration services in the McNally Canals Dispute for the period of November 7, 2001, through January 31, 2002, in a not to exceed $40,000; and authorize the County Administrator to sign, contingent upon the appropriate signatures being obtained.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

BofS/Tobacco Initiative

The County Administrator reviewed the Staff Report regarding the Tobacco Settlement Funds Initiative, explaining his concerns with the Measure.  He confirmed that this year’s Tobacco Settlement funds have been budgeted to a Countywide Health Grant Program which will move forward.  He also explained that if in the future the money is not available because the Tobacco Settlement Funds go to the hospitals, then there will be no money for the Countywide Health Grant Program to continue.  Moved by Supervisor Arcularius and seconded by Supervisor Dorame to accept the analysis presented by Staff on the Hospital Initiative on the Use of Tobacco Settlement Funds and authorize the placement of this Initiative, in its entirety, on the March, 2002, Ballot.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

P.W./Dixon Area Stop Signs

The Public Works Director, Mr. Jeff Jewett, reviewed Staff’s recommendations that the Board deny the request to have two stop intersections in the Dixon Lane Area.  Mr. Jewett explained that the Caltrans guidelines are utilized by the County in evaluating the need for “stop signs” on County roads.  Mr. Jewett explained that the Caltrans criteria for the placement of stop signs had not been met in the traffic surveys conducted in the Dixon Lane area, and suggested the Board direct Staff to closely monitor the traffic volumes and speeds on these streets for future recommendations regarding traffic control.  Supervisor Arcularius explained that the mission of Caltrans, which is to move large amounts of traffic as quickly and as safely as possible on the State’s freeways and highways, is vastly different from that of the County’s, which is to provide a safe thoroughfare through our communities.  She said that the safety of the people using the streets in the Dixon area is her first priority.  She reviewed the photographs of the proposed sites for the stop signs, citing the narrow roads, the lack of sidewalks, the sight obstructions, such as trees, and the presence of children in the area, as a reason why these stop signs should be placed.  Supervisor Arcularius also noted that the people who live in the Dixon area are the ones proposing the restrictions, saying that if the majority of the people who travel the roads are willing to restrict themselves then the County should follow their wishes.  The remaining Board Members concurred with Supervisor Arcularius’ reasoning supporting the need to provide safe travel on County roads.  The Board and Staff went on to discuss the need for the County to establish Its own guidelines for assessing County roads for traffic restrictions utilizing the County’s requirements instead of Caltrans. Mr. Jack Pound, Independence Resident, asked why a stop sign could not be placed on Market Street and Highway 395 in the Community of Independence, saying the residents have been asking for a stop light at the intersection for years.  The Board explained that the intersection he was discussing was controlled by Caltrans and the County had no jurisdiction.  

Moved by Supervisor Arcularius and seconded by Supervisor Dorame to designate a three-way STOP intersection at Dixon Lane and Saniger Lane and a four-way STOP intersection at Saniger Lane and West Street; direct the Road Commissioner to place the necessary “stop signs” at these locations, and direct the Road Commissioner to formulate, for Board consideration, guidelines for traffic controls on County roads.  Motion carried unanimously.  

 

Recess/

Reconvene

The Chairperson recessed the regular meeting at 10:55 a.m., reconvening at 11:15 a.m., with all Board Members present.

 

CAO/Financial Advisor

The County Administrator reviewed why the Contract for an outside Financial Advisor was being returned for Board consideration.  He explained that the scope-of-work had been narrowed to encompass the needed financial modeling and recommendations he and other County Officials will require in evaluating the options for financing the Capitol Improvement projects.  Supervisor Hambleton thanked the CAO for bringing this item back, explaining that he did not feel that one Supervisor should be able to deny this request, recounting that at last week’s meeting the item had failed on a two-to-one vote.  Supervisor Hambleton explained that in reviewing the Staff Report the County Administrator had made a justification for this contract, which was that this Contract would facilitate Staff preparation for meetings with the Bond Counsel and the Financial Institutions.  Supervisor Hambleton explained that this is an area in which he has acknowledged his concern.  The County Administrator concurred with Supervisor Hambleton and explained further that should the entire amount of the Contract not be expended for the debt service recommendations, the Advisor would be available to assist in other areas as designated in the scope-of-work.  Supervisor Arcularius requested that the County Administrator contact RCRC to see if in the future these types of services might be needed by other counties and the possibility of pooling resources.  

Moved by Supervisor Lent and seconded by Supervisor Arcularius to approve the Contract between the County of Inyo and Public Financial Management for financial and investment services, for the period of September 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002, in an amount not to exceed $15,000; and authorize the County Administrator to sign.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

H&H-Behavioral Hlth/NNA Contract Amendment

Moved by Supervisor Hambleton and seconded by Supervisor Arcularius to ratify Amendment No. Two to the FY 2000-2001 Negotiated Net Amount Contract with the State of California for $662,650, decreasing the amount to be received by $2,194, reflecting unexpended funds for the provision of alcohol and drug prevention and treatment services in Inyo County.  Motion carried unanimously.  

 

H&H-Behavioral Hlth/Continuous Monitor Update

Ms. Gail Zwier, Behavioral Health Services Director, reviewed the Monthly Report for the Mental Health Continuous Data Monitoring Plan.  She detailed the statistics and provided an analysis of the information provided in the Report.

 

Planning-Design Review Brd/ Appointments

Supervisor Dorame nominated Rick Leslie, Kathi Hall and Doug Thompson to serve on the Lone Pine Architectural Design Review Board and thanked Beverly VanderWall for her interest in serving on this Board.  Moved by Supervisor Dorame and seconded by Supervisor Hambleton to appoint the following to the Lone Pine Architectural Design Review Board:  (a) Rick Leslie as the qualified licensed architect to be appointed to a term expiring August 19, 2002; (b) Kathi Hall as the member of the Lone Pine Chamber of Commerce to fill a term expiring February 24, 2003; and (c) Doug Thompson as the member of the public residing in Lone Pine to fill a term expiring February 24, 2003.  Motion carried unanimously.  

 

Closed Session

The Chairperson recessed open session at 11:50 a.m., to convene in closed session with all Board Members present, to discuss Agenda Items No. 19.  CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION [Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9 (c)]:  Decision Whether to Initiate Litigation/Dispute Resolution - Construction and operation of 15 new wells identified in Inyo/LA Agreement  Dispute between LADWP and County Inyo, Adjudication of Dispute  Pursuant to the Long Term Water Agreement entered June 1997 as Stipulation and Order for Judgment, Inyo County Superior Court,  Case No.  12908 and No. 20.  CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING/ANTICIPATED LITIGATION [Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(a)(c)]. One Case - Laws/McNally Canals Dispute between LADWP and County Inyo, Adjudication of Dispute  Pursuant to the Long Term Water Agreement entered June 1997 as Stipulation and Order for Judgment, Inyo County Superior Court,  Case No.  12908.  The Chairperson recessed closed session at 1:30 p.m., to reconvene in open session with all Board Members present.

 

E. Health/DWP Well Permits Laws Area - Big Pine Water System – Bishop and Lone Pine Areas

The Environmental Health Director, Bob Hurd, reviewed the recommendations for well permit approval for DWP wells in the Owens Valley.  Mr. Jason Warren representing the Big Pine Tribe provided the Board with a copy of a letter from the Tribe identifying their concerns with placement of wells near the Big Pine Reservation.  The Board, Staff and various members of the Public including Clarence Martin, of DWP, Teri Cawalti, Owens Valley Indian Water Commission (OVIWC), Stan Matlick, Bishop Resident, and Darla Hyland, OVIWC, discussed the proposed well permits.

Moved by Supervisor Arcularius and seconded by Supervisor Dorame to approve the well in the Laws area subject to the condition that this well only be used to supply water for fire flow or to be used as a backup water supply well for the Laws water system and that the well may not be used for any other purpose, unless the Technical Group has evaluated such additional use as required by Section VI of the Water Agreement and has made all other determinations required under Section VI, including the establishment of appropriate monitoring and management requirements for the well.  Motion carried unanimously.  

Moved by Supervisor Hambleton and seconded by Supervisor Dorame to approve a new well to replace the existing well that supplies the town water system and possibly the Big Pine Ditch System subject to the condition that this well only be used to supply water for the Big Pine Town Water System and that the well may not be used for any other purpose unless the Technical Group has evaluated such additional use as required by Section VI of the Water Agreement and has made all other determinations required under Section VI, including the establishment of appropriate monitoring and management requirements.  Motion carried unanimously. 

 

 

Moved by Supervisor Arcularius and seconded by Supervisor Hambleton to approve a well permit for a replacement irrigation well to replace the existing well #140 which will be converted to a monitoring well subject to previous replacement wells on the Bishop Cone and in accordance with the Hillside Degree, and subject to the condition that this well may only be operated in accordance with the past operational practices (timing and amount of pumping) of the well that is being replaced to ensure that the operation of the replacement well will not alter the environment and subject to the requirement that the well is designated as an irrigation well on the well permit.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

Moved by Supervisor Dorame and seconded by Supervisor Hambleton to approve a new well to supply water to the Los Angeles Aqueduct which is one of fifteen new wells identified in the 1991 EIR, subject to a condition that this well only be operated if the Technical Group has evaluated the use of the well as required by Section VI of the Water Agreement and has made all other determinations required under Section VI, including the establishment of appropriate monitoring and management requirements for the well.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

Recess/

Reconvene

The Chairperson recessed the regular meeting at 2:30 p.m., reconvening at 2:45 p.m., with all Board Members present.

 

P.W./2002 STIP Projects

The Public Works Director reviewed in detail Staff’s recommendation concerning projects for the 2002 STIP.  The Board and Staff discussed the future funding levels for STIP projects.  Moved by Supervisor Arcularius and seconded by Supervisor Dorame to accept and approve the projects to be submitted to the Local Transportation Commission for the 2002 STIP as recommended, reducing priority #6 – Trona-Wildrose Project from $1.6 million to $500,000, direct Staff to pursue other alternatives to meet the need for this Project and direct the Board’s representatives on the LTC to work towards maximizing local flexibility.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

Recess/

Reconvene

The Chairperson recessed the regular meeting at 3:35 p.m., reconvening at 3:45 p.m., with all Board Members present.

 

Planning/EIR and General Plan 

The Chairperson opened the Public Hearing to consider the Final Program Environmental Impact Report and Final Inyo County General Plan.  The Planning Director, Mr. Chuck Thistlethwaite, introduced Mr. Richard Rust with the County’s Consultants on the General Plan Project, BRW, and the Project Manager for the General Plan Update.  Mr. Rust provided a brief overview of the documents contained in the General Plan Update. He identified corrections and changes which were put in place based on the public input process.  He reviewed the recommendations referred by the Planning Commission for the Board’s consideration.  He explained that one issue is the need to address the Mitigation Projects in the Water Agreement versus some of the land use designations contained in the General Plan, and the other item that was also left open was the impact fees.  He highlighted changes which were being proposed for the document which all occur in the Land Use Element of the Blue Book, the Goals and Policies Report.  Specifically, one on page 416, Land Use Policy 2.11, which allows development on lots that already exist, changing it to read “all legally created parcels with a General Plan designation that allows residential use;”  one on page 418, Land Use Policy 3.4, which deals with the Resort Recreational designation that occurs primarily in the Charleston View area which allows more flexibility in this area per the Issues and Alternatives Report, clarifying that the intent was to allow development on existing lots; and one on the top of page 419, which is to scratch everything on the top, and add “that the base residential density shall be one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres.  The clustering of residential units is encouraged with the density of the developed areas allowed up to 24 units per acre.”   

The Planning Director  reiterated the two issues which had been left for the Board’s decision, which were the Water Agreement’s Mitigation Program versus the General Plan land use designations and the implementation of mitigation fees for County services.  Mr. Robert Gracey, Independence Resident, addressed the Board to request that a policy implementing mitigation fees not be included in the General Plan.  Mr. Brad Mettam, Caltrans, requested the Board consider adopting a policy implementing development fees or mitigation fees, which would allow for third party involvement, citing Caltrans issues which arose regarding the new McDonalds in Lone Pine as an example of where County mitigation fees would help resolve a problem. The County Administrator provided a different perspective on Mr. Mettam’s request, saying that the County is not in the business of collecting money for the State and explaining that even if the County implements development fees it will not mitigate the State’s issues and the fees that would be collected would offset costs for County services only.  

 

Mr. Mike Prather of the Owens Valley Committee and representing the Sierra Club, presented and read into the record a letter from the Committee requesting the new General Plan land use designations for EEM Projects be consistent with the Water Agreement and the 1992 EIR in all respects.  The letter asked that the Planning Department designate all mitigation measures and Type E Vegetation as Agricultural or Natural Resources.   Mr. Clarence Martin, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, requested that a policy be implemented in the Plan that specifically states that the provisions of the Water Agreement supercede the Plan where there is a conflict.  Mr. Jack Pound, Independence Resident, asked that the Long Term Water Agreement take precedent over the General Plan and that all Mitigation Projects identified in the Long Term Water Agreement be identified as an EEM Project in the General Plan.  Ms. Nancy Masters, Owens Valley Committee, reiterated the Committee’s position that EEM Projects be designated as such in the General Plan in order to protect these projects.  The Planning Director and Planning Staff responded to the concerns addressed by the members of the audience by explaining that no EEM Project had ever been terminated because of the land use designation assigned in the General Plan.  They also informed the Board that legally the General Plan cannot be subordinate of another agreement.  The Planning Director went on to explain that there were policies and procedures within the Long Term Water Agreement which would have to be followed in order to change an existing EEM Project.  Ms. Arlene Grider, Independence Resident, addressed the Board to support the General Plan land use designations assigned to lands in Independence, identified by the Land and Water Advisory Committee, for possible land releases per the requirements of the Long Term Water Agreement.  Mr. Robert Gracey, addressed the Board to support Ms. Grider's position and commend the County for the General Plan Document, saying that the County had done a thorough job and it was a good document.  

 

Supervisor Arcularius indicated that she had asked Mr. John Mills, the RCRC Consultant, to look at the document and she had some information provided by him, that she would like to have Staff look at and possibly comment on.  Additionally the Board indicated their desire to have language in the General Plan which would address the concerns identified by the Owens Valley Committee and the Sierra Club, explaining that while the General Plan Documents have been circulating for a long time, this was the first opportunity that the Board has had to discuss what is contained ing the documents. 

The Board considered continuing the Public Hearing to next week’s Board Meeting in order to give Staff an opportunity to comment on the information provided at today’s meeting. The County Administrator suggested the Board direct himself, the Water Director, the Planning Director and County Counsel, to draft language addressing the the concerns presented at today’s meeting, and present it at next weeks meeting.   The Planning Director reiterated that the land use designations in the General Plan will not affect any of the EEM Projects, saying that the EEM Projects are governed by the Long Term Water Agreement.  Ms. Nancy Masters, reiterated the Committee’s concern with having EEM Project lands designated in the General Plan as residential.  The Chairperson continued the public hearing to 10:05 a.m., December 4, 2001, in the Board of Supervisors Room, at the County Administrative Center, in Independence.  

 

Moved by Supervisor Hambleton and seconded by Supervisor Arcularius to direct Staff to work on language for Policy #1 to clarify the relationship between the General Plan and the Long Term Water Agreement and to not include development fees in the General Plan.  Motion carried unanimously. 

 

BofS/Minute Approval

Moved by Supervisor Dorame and seconded by Supervisor Hambleton to approve the minutes of the November 6, 2001, Board of Supervisors Meeting.  Motion carried unanimously.  

Moved by Supervisor Hambleton and seconded by Supervisor Arcularius to approve the minutes of the November 8 and 9, 2001, Special Meeting.  Motion carried on a three-to-zero vote, with Supervisors Arcularius, Bear, and Hambleton voting yes, and with Supervisors Lent and Dorame abstaining. 

Moved by Supervisor Lent and seconded by Supervisor Hambleton to approve the minutes of the November 13, 2001, Board of Supervisors Meeting.  Motion carried on a three-to-zero vote, with Supervisors Arcularius, Lent and Hambleton voting yes, and with Supervisors Bear and Dorame abstaining. 

 

 

Report on Closed Session

County Counsel reported there were no items addressed in closed session that was required by law to be reported on in open session.

 

Adjournment

The Chairperson adjourned the regular meeting at 6:05 p.m., to 9:00 a.m., December 4, 2001, in the Board of Supervisors Room, at the County Administrative Center, in Independence.

 

 

 
_____________________________________
Chairperson, Inyo County Board of Supervisors

 

 Attest:   RENÉ L. MENDEZ
         Clerk of the Board
      
 by:           Patricia Gunsolley, Assistant

  

HOME

Disclaimer: The County of Inyo reserves the right to make changes and improvements to its Web site at any time and without 
notice, and assumes no liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of errors, omissions or discrepancies.


Copyright © 2001 County of Inyo
Last Updated: May 18, 2006