The Sierra County Board of Supervisors met on Tuesday February 19 in Loyalton. After the call to order and Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. The Board immediately recessed and called the County Service Area Board of Directors to order . They approved the Minutes from County Bd of Directors meeting held January 8. An agreement for appraisal services for appraisal of two parcels, a County parcel and a Fish and Game parcel, proposed for land exchange in relation to the Sierra Brooks Phase 2 water project was held over to the next meeting. They adjourned.
The Board of Supervisors reconvened and they then held over an agreement for appraisal services related to the proposed acquisition of property from the City of Santa Clara to expand the boundaries of the Loyalton Landfill.
An Amendment to Agreement 2006-103, Cooperative Joint Use Agreement for Sierra Ville School to reflect revised terms going forward recommended as a result of a meeting with Stan Hardeman, School District Superintendent, in early December, in light of the impending relocation of the School District Office was approved.
A Resolution approving Pledge of Revenue Agreement for Water related and Non water related Corrective Action Plan cost estimates for the Loyalton Landfill was approved.
The Board approved a leetter of support of Assembly Joint Resolution 9 authored by Assemblyman Dahle for the Secure Rural Schools funding : see below from TSPN, Amador County:.
“Assemblyman Brian Dahle urges Congress to continue the Secure Rural Schools program
This week Assemblyman Brian Dahle (R-Lassen) introduced Assembly Joint Resolution 9 which is sponsored by RCRC and which urges the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate to continue the federal Secure Rural Schools program. The Secure Rural Schools Act, first enacted by Congress in 2000, allows forest counties throughout the country to receive payments based on pre-2000 levels of timber harvesting activity on federal lands. In California, these federal payments are made to the state and then forwarded primarily to schools and counties. Counties use these funds for their road programs. The Act has been reauthorized several times since 2006 including last June when Congress granted a one-year extension. Unless the Act is re-authorized this year, the program will expire and payments to forest counties will cease. The Secure Rural Schools Act is administered by the U.S. Forest Service and provides nearly $35.7 million to counties and school districts in California’s forested counties.
“Assemblyman Dahle and the other legislators who have coauthored AJR 9 are to be commended for their effort to reauthorize the federal Secure Rural Schools program. The continuation of this program is greatly needed help to ensure that our county roads don’t continue to deteriorate and become less safe,” said Supervisor Kevin Cann of Mariposa County, Chair of the RCRC Board of Directors.
In addition to Assemblyman Dahle, AJR 9 is being co-authored by Senator Tom Berryhill (R-Stanislaus), Senator Ted Gaines (R-Placer), Assemblyman Frank Bigelow (R-Madera) and Assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Yuba).
Story from press release, edited by Tom Slivick, “
Director Tim Beals gave a concise overview of the general plan amendment and zoning code revision project.
Zoning Code Update: the outline of the contents of the County zoning code update and the existing working draft of this zoning code now exceeds 300 pages in length. Final edits will trim this number down but a substantial amount of work has been completed on the zoning code. This phase is by far the most time consuming task and once we get this phase resolved, the process will move with more definition and be more time certain. All articles (1-7) have been drafted and revised between staff and the consultant with only one article remaining to be completed and this would be article 2 (zoning districts). This is the most tedious and detail-driven article and contains the land use tables and details for each zoning district, including overlay districts. Staff continues to work on the land use tables and overlay districts and expects to be fully completed with this task by March 1. Once this final article is provided to the consultant, all articles will be melded and a cohesive administrative draft can then be issued by the consultant for final review prior to public release.
General Plan Amendment/Housing Element: The forty proposed amendments directed by the Board for consideration are organized and the specific language of the amendments is included in the proposed zoning code update so that implementation of the new general plan directives (40) will be consistent between the proposed zoning code and the General Plan. Much of this work is drafted since it is necessary to have the implementing language within the zoning code. Two current areas where work continues on the general plan amendment is the completion of review for the community general plan maps and the completion of revisions to the housing element. We have established a deadline for the general plan maps to be completed by March 1 to coincide with the completion of the final staff review of article 2 of the zoning code. The housing element revisions are ongoing and we are now formulating responses to the reply received from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the draft of the housing element update. The housing element is a “moving target” and we are making efforts to provide responses to HCD that will be current and prevent the need for an update again in the near future.
EIR: The environmental impact report will not be completed until the zoning code and general plan amendment documents (including the housing element) have been released for public review.
Will Clark of Downieville was appointed to the Sierra County Economic Development Committee.
Health Insurance Benefits for County Supervisors were once again discussed at the request of Chair Scott Schlefstein. Shlefstein tried to demonstrate that various Board members would be making close to minimum wage and suggested the benefit cuts, because of actions previously taken by the Board to take the same cuts that all county employees have received, was unfair to certain Supervisors, including himself.
Comparing the duties of the Board with two Board meetings a month to a 40 hour a week or 173 hour a month work schedule, likely more if you’re in law enforcement, a month for the average employee, in a short staffed environment due to budget cuts and the County facing a $500,000 deficit seems odd. So let’s be realistic and give a Board member 16 hours a month for board meetings, maybe another 16 hrs of prep time such as a reading board packet, and throw in another 16 hrs for committee meetings, so now we have 48 hours, here are a few extra hours, just to be fair, another 12 hrs That makes sixty. So suppose they make $1900 a month, that appears to be $31.66 an hour, I believe quite a bit more than the average county employee. The Board determines budgets and votes on items where the hands on work is done by county employees, staff consultants and department heads. The Board represents us, the taxpayers and constituents who step up to the plate with lowered expectations of county services during budget deficit times.
It seems if one needs a job with fulltime pay and fulltime benefits, one should have a full-time job. Our county employees have full time jobs and they have bitten the bullet and accepted they can’t have everything they want, it is time for the Supervisors to do the same.