theSheetNews.com

You know you’re in Mono County when … a candidate wears a collared “In-N-Out” shirt to a candidate’s forum.

I attended last Friday’s forum at the Paradise Fire Station pitting two-term incumbent Hap Hazard versus challenger Fred Stump, the Long Valley Fire Chief. Among those in attendance were Mono County CAO Jim Arkens, County Finance Director Brian Muir and District 1 Supervisor Larry Johnston.

Both candidates are 30+ year County residents and both have wives named Patti.

In a meandering introduction, Hazard’s main point was that with the byzantine nature of government and the fiscal uncertainty at the state level, you need someone with experience (i.e. the incumbent).

Stump said we need better government and less internecine bickering amongst Supervisors. A strategic plan developed by staff with as little political interference as possible will lead to better project prioritization and resource allocation for the county as a whole.

“Better planning is worth a try,” Stump said in a follow-up interview on Tuesday. “The current system [of governance] … can’t be sustained.” The promise of fewer resources will only lead to more bickering, he added.

In his own follow-up interview on Tuesday, Hazard said the County already has a capital improvement plan. He thinks this is less about planning and more about politics.

As Hazard said, when Johnston took office, he immediately wanted $750,000 to put into the airport access road. Other supervisors balked at the prospect of the airport road superseding other projects in their respective districts which had been patiently waiting their turn for years.

Point being, I suppose, is that “strategery” of the plan is in the eye of the beholder.

Stump said he would prioritize based upon three principal factors: ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] compliance, critical maintenance and energy efficiency. His background as a Fire Chief appears to have inculcated a driving philosophy of reducing exposure to risk.

Airport 

In regard to Mammoth Yosemite Airport, both candidates were lukewarm, at best, to the concept of subsidizing commercial air service.

Hazard said he supports air service, but not a subsidy. “This [Alaska Airlines] isn’t a failed company in need of a bailout,” he said.

Hazard also believes that Mammoth Mountain negotiated a bad contract. 62% is too high a number (for a seat guarantee), said Hazard. Other communities negotiate contracts with guaranteed load factors in the 50 to 55% range.

“I’d rather just put the money directly into our tourism budget,” he said.

Stump said the County’s got to put money into the airport access road, and that expenditure should be counted toward its support of the airport.

As to the subsidy, Stump wants to know whether or not air service creates a floor for property values. “Is there data to support this?” he asked.

Fees 

One area in which Hazard and Stump appeared to have differences were in regard to County fees.

As Hazard explained, if you give a tax break to small business, for example, the larger tax base ultimately absorbs the hit.

He said when the County froze fees at the onset of the recession, it led to a $250,000 shortfall within six months which had to be backfilled by the General Fund.

Stump said the most recent draft report by the Sierra Business Council [SBC] shows that for Inyo and Mono counties over the past three years, median income is down, sole proprietor income is down, and yet … governmental fees are up. He pointed to one case in Crowley where a man wished to convert his garage into a residence – an improvement which would yield the County far more property tax revenue in the long term – but the planning fees may dissuade the man from moving forward. As Stump says, you can’t let the up-front fees kill an otherwise long-term gain.

D395

Stump acknowledged at the Friday forum that he can’t touch Hazard on the Digital 395 issue, and it’s D395 which promises salvation for Eastern Sierra residents. As the SBC’s Steve Frisch told Stump, “D395 is the largest infrastructure project [undertaken in the Eastern Sierra] since the L.A. Aqueduct.”

Random extras: When Stump graduated from UC Davis with a degree in political science, he took one of those tests which is supposed to determine what sort of career field you would have an aptitude for. Conclusion: Stump would make an excellent general manager of a dude ranch. He went into firefighting instead.

Hazard was the one wearing the In-N-Out shirt.

On the right track

Dear Editor:

Supervisor “Hap” Hazard stated in a recent reply (Feb. 11) to an Elizabeth Boyd letter (Feb. 4) “I receive only a salary with no employee benefits in my role as a Supervisor.”

Supervisor Hazard appears to intentionally cloud the focus of Ms. Boyd’s letter by going on to cite the questionable “dangerous” incidents he was involved in during his employment as a Deputy Sheriff. There is a question of credibility regarding these claims.

However, County records indicate our Supervisor’s receive a Board (BOS) base salary of $4,109 a month, a vehicle allowance of $790 per month, term life insurance (at an unknown cost), a generous travel allowance and  approximately $450 a month if the County does not have to purchase health care insurance on their behalf. I can find no evidence that Hazard has ever “opted-out” of any of these BOS benefits.

Ironically, after Hazard denied receiving any BOS benefits, it appears he may be the only Supervisor receiving the healthcare reimbursement for employees who do not require health insurance. My understanding is the County’s recently stopped paying this benefit for the County workforce. Did the BOS also have it taken away?

In addition to his BOS salary and benefits, Hazard receives a Sheriff’s Department retirement of approximately $5,400 a month and a retirement health care benefit worth more than $1,000 a month. I intentionally low balled these figures so as not to over dramatize their effect.

Adding it up, Hazard’s total compensation, salary plus benefits, from his two PERS (Public Employees Retirement System) jobs (Sheriff’s and BOS) is conservatively estimated to be well in excess of $ 11,400 per month. Again, if Hazard has “opted out” of receiving any BOS benefits listed above, he needs to provide some supporting documentation and I will adjust my estimates accordingly.

Ms. Boyd possibly misrepresented some of the technical aspects of “double dipping,” but she was absolutely on the right track.

Terry Padilla
Mono County Assistant Sheriff (Ret.)

Editor’s Note: At Tuesday’s Mono County Board of Supervisors meeting, Hazard requested that Board members look at freezing their salaries to be “fair and equitable to employees.”

Big “A” or little “a”?

Dear Editor:

People sometimes wonder why flights can’t divert to Bishop Airport if they are unable to land at Mammoth Yosemite Airport (MMH) due to weather. A gentleman that I rode up with on the chairlift one blustery day said he would probably have to drive to Bishop later and collect his daughter because the plane probably wouldn’t make it into Mammoth. He was right about the flight, it didn’t land in Mammoth, but his daughter didn’t end up in Bishop.

Bishop Eastern Sierra Regional Airport (BIH) is not designated as a suitable alternate airport by the airlines (let’s call it alternate with a Big “A”). This designation for the airport is not controlled by the Town but by the air carrier and the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). To a pilot, any airport is a potential alternate if your aircraft is on fire (alternate with a little “a”). However, during normal operations, it is not legal for a commercial flight to list a non-compliant airport as its alternate on the flightplan.

Besides the legality issue, there would be a number of logistical problems if a commercial flight landed at BIH. There are no passenger facilities, customer service agents, bag handling equipment or personnel, ground power carts, tow-bars, or TSA personnel and screening equipment to name a few. Not to mention that lining up several 50 passenger buses on short notice might be difficult. Could it be done? Sure … but only if you throw tens of thousands of dollars at it. The FAA would have to approve the airport as an alternate and BIH would need a Crash/Fire/Rescue unit standing by anytime a flight might arrive. There’s an old aviation adage: ‘All it takes to fly is airspeed and money.’

If weather is a problem, it is far more practical and cost effective for the airline to hold a flight on the ground or cancel it before it leaves the gate. If it’s already airborne then the aircraft might enter a holding pattern for a short time (fuel permitting) if the weather if forecast to improve. Ultimately it may continue to its next destination or return to the airport it departed from.

In addition, the airline’s aircraft routers are often concerned with having the aircraft and crew stuck out of position.

Yes it’s sometimes inconvenient … welcome to aviation. It still beats the horse and buggy days most of the time.

Lee Hughes
M.L. Airport Commissioner

The big candidate news this week comes from fishing entrepreneur Tim Alpers, who announced Thursday morning he’s challenging incumbent Vikki Bauer for District 3 Supervisor.

Alpers said in a press statement he recently retired from a 42-year career in Aquaculture to “pursue my passion for public service.” In a phone call with The Sheet, the well-known fish farmer and fishing industry activist, who has his own variety of trout named for him, said he had previously run for office in the ‘80s, and served as District 3 Supervisor in the mid-‘90s.

“I turned the administration of the [Conway Ranch] over to my partners, and I’m ready to get my old seat back,” Alpers told The Sheet. “District 3 is one of the most beautiful in all of California, but it’s also very complicated. There are lots of issues between the Town, Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, which is in the district, and the County. We need to get our collective heads together between the town and the county and get past this ‘Cowboys versus Aliens’ mentality.”

Bauer announced her plan to seek re-election last week.

“It seems like I’ve finally found my way around in the thing called government,” she said. “It would be a shame to waste all that I have learned.”

In addition, Mono County District 2 Supervisor Hap Hazard has decided to throw his hat in once again as well.

Hazard said he wasn’t initially sure he was inclined to run, but decided there’s just “too many important issues facing the county to not stay involved.” -Geisel

Mono Supervisor crafts plan to allow Cougar Gold to move forward

During a meeting with the Mono County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 15, executives from mining company Cougar Gold told lawmakers that, following completion of their 2009 exploratory work, there would be no further activity at the Bodie Hills site until Congress releases the area from Wilderness Study Area (WSA) status.

This past Tuesday, a proposed compromise was floated by Board Chairman Hap Hazard intended to appease both environmentalists in favor of having the Bodie Hills area declared wilderness and those supporting either mining, general release of the area from WSA status or both.

With only four members on the dais (Vikki Bauer wasn’t present), Hazard said he wasn’t seeking action on the compromise, but rather, consensus to send a letter of support for the idea to Congressman Buck McKeon (R-25th District), and move the proposal onto the next step of what he hoped would be a relatively swift public process

In Hazard’s proposal, the existing WSA would be released. Inside that area is a section that would be Cougar Gold’s sphere of influence for any future mining projects. Hazard offsets that by setting aside a large chunk of land to the immediate north of Bodie State Park as wilderness, which he said already has a logical border, and uses Rough Creek as part of the border on the northwest side. The Hills area is one of a group of 13 such WSAs in Mono County (and others in Inyo County) that have been in a sort of limbo since the early 1990s, when the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) submitted its recommendations for disposition. Since then, Congress has deferred action on the matter.

Hazard explained that an Ombudsman bill addressing the WSAs could soon be working its way through Congress. The Board has until on or about August to get any action by the County included as part of collateral attached to the bill.

Factored into Hazard’s timing on the compromise is redistricting, which, based on new census counts in Riverside County, might pull McKeon out of representing our district within a year or two.

Why the rush? This compromise, after all, deals with only one of the 13 WSAs. Hazard said a discussion can still be had on the rest, but those exist on a longer timeline. The Bodie Hills is a federal issue, and this compromise could be pivotal. It’s time, he said, to step up and make the hard decisions … and soon. “Let’s move this back to Washington D.C., where it belongs,” he stated.

Hazard said the Board and staff received 400 or more letters before the Feb. 15 meeting, and more than 600 for this meeting, nearly all rehashing previously made points or opinions. One new issue, however, came from the ranching community, where concerns are that the compromise’s new proposed wilderness might financially impact how they run their livestock operations, and handcuff the BLM’s ability to affect rehabilitation of sage grouse habitat.

Mining, as expected, dominated the periphery of the compromise discussion. “I’m disappointed that the WSA and mining have been inextricably linked,” Hazard remarked. “It’s caused nothing but grief.” Supervisor Tim Hansen cited a letter he received equating the use of cyanide to the Nazi death camps in WWII, which he said is indicative of how “beyond the pale” things have gotten.

Public comment was filled with much the same rhetoric from both sides. Opponents amped up their attacks with accusations of “stonewalling,” and implying that Cougar Gold’s real intent is simply to use the release as a “gift” and package the mining for a subcontractor.

Hansen’s mention of the death camps letter was punctuated by some public speculation that Cougar Gold would wantonly poison the water with vast amounts of cyanide and rape the land with massive open pit mines, then abdicate its environmental responsibilities and skip town leaving an insufficient completion bond.

Hazard stated he has no particular love for Cougar Gold, likening the executives’ business tactics to “snake oil salesmen.” He questions the company’s estimates on the number of jobs and whether most would come from Mono County. “I don’t count any Nevada jobs as beneficial to California,” he said. Hazard’s also wary of the company poaching Public Works for heavy equipment operators at three times what the County’s paying.

“Not going forward until the limbo status is decided is a reasonable business plan, but I’m not necessarily buying [Cougar Gold’s] numbers,” said Hazard. “I haven’t seen $7 million worth of positive impact to date, not a new coat of paint, not a new car.” Based on that notion, he’s skeptical that their $20 million of projected benefit will amount to any real significant impact.

Stacy Westerlund pointedly charged some of the Cougar Gold critics with being unwilling to listen. She felt Cougar Gold was forthcoming with answers to questions. Opponents who left early, she said, didn’t like the answers they were getting.

Sally Miller from the Wilderness Society rejected the compromise plan as a “closed-door plan driven by a false sense of urgency. What’s driving the proposal, and who’s leading who?” She rebuffed Hazard’s assertion that mining is a separate issue. “It’s all about mining. Yes the WSAs need to be resolved, but this is not how I do business.”

Dan Westerlund, a 40-year resident who lives on an access road to the Bodie Hills, said 100 years of use should be evidence it’s not suitable for WSA status. (The Hoover wilderness, he said, is a better example of wilderness.) The process, he said, hasn’t been rushed, but one that’s been going on in one form or another for more than 25 years.

On the dais, Supervisor Byng Hunt restated his opposition to any release of WSA at this time. Supervisor Tim Hansen, whose district would be most affected by the compromise, said he wouldn’t have voted to proceed, not because he disliked the idea, but due to what he saw as a shortfall when it came to an open process. Supervisor Larry Johnston said the compromise doesn’t reflect proper action or consideration by the Board.

Seeing no real support for swift action on the compromise, a frustrated Hazard folded his hand. “As far as I’m concerned, the issue is dead.”

Hazard updates constituents on continuing AT&T service work

In an e-mail letter to District 2 constituents late Friday, Mono County Supervisor Hap Hazard updated anxious south county residents as to the state of ongoing work on the AT&T cell service network in the area.

In the letter, Hazard said he had spoken with a higher-level Government Relations Supervisor at AT&T who has unlimited access to management, repairs, and engineering. “The short version of our conversation is that AT&T customer service and repairs does have all the complaints that have been filed,” Hazard wrote. “They clearly know they have problems in our area.”

The Supervisor, who’s been running interference between residents and AT&T, added that the company has had engineers examine and evaluate the situation and develop a strategy for making repairs, and related a distilled version of the details for those he claimed “don’t like too much tech stuff.”

Hazard explained that the wireless system has an antenna on Antelope Peak, which services the Benton area. Once the signal from a phone in Benton travels to the antenna at Antelope Peak, it’s then transferred to a microwave system and sent to Silver Peak. From Silver Peak it is handed off to the Bishop antenna via microwave signal and then sent to hard phone lines.

He said there has been an issue with the signal between the Antelope Peak antenna and the City of Bishop phone lines. It is believed that the problem with the microwave signal is on the Silver Peak tower. The second problem is in the Chalfant area and is believed to be a misaligned cell tower antenna on Silver Peak. The antenna is pointed slightly in the wrong direction to be fully functional and capture the weaker cell phone signal.

AT&T repair crews have reportedly arranged for a helicopter to transport the crews up to Silver Peak on Jan. 18, in an attempt to conduct repairs on both systems and bring them online. “If this is the case and the crews can simply adjust the equipment [that's already in place] we should have improved service before the end of the week,” Hazard stated. “If it requires additional equipment or some other repair then there could be an added delay.” All this is dependant on good weather.

A side note for those in Hammil Valley: because the crews plan to realign the antenna for Chalfant and make it more directional, residents in that area “may” get a signal. “No promises, but there is a chance of getting a signal to you, too,” Hazard advised cautiously. “This would be a real plus for the Hammil Valley area and would only be coming about as a result of our problems.”

Adora Saulque of the Benton Paiute Tribe related to Hazard that if anyone in the area has experienced a loss of service or no service at all, they can contact AT&T billing or customer service and may be able to negotiate a discount or waiver on their bill. “Keep in mind that the county can’t help you with this issue; we simply have no authority over the phone company,” Hazard said.

“I also want to let you know that Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-25th District), our U.S. Congressman, has also been monitoring [the situation] and working on our behalf,” he assured residents. Hazard closed by saying he hopes to have all the issues “resolved shortly.”

By Geisel

Mono County’s Board of Supervisors scuttled a move to enact rent controls in the Crowley Lake Mobile Home Park during its adjourned meeting Tuesday night in the Crowley Community Center.
The agenda item was called by District 2 Supervisor Hap Hazard, who chaired the public discussion, a follow-up to a previous meeting in June at which frustrated tenants expressed concern that their rents were being raised not only too much but without any reasonable explanation as to why.
In June, the tenants dominated the discussion. On Tuesday night, it was the Park’s owner/manager’s turn. Bill Wisehart, who wasn’t notified about the June meeting and therefore was not present, took full advantage of his chance to respond to comments made two months earlier.
Wisehart, the park’s owner and manager since 1988, wasted no time getting to his points. Starting by countering a tenant who previously referred to his park as “low-income,” Wisehart said he considers the park “affordable housing,” contrasting his rates against rental properties listed in the various papers that go for much more and in some cases aren’t as nice as his properties.
Moving on to the rental rates themselves, Wisehart told the Board, “No tenants ever came to talk to me.” He went on to insist he does everything possible to keep rents low, and said his average rate is $513 a month, the lowest being $495 and the highest being $565.
“If the rents really are too high, people would leave anyway,” Wisehart opined. “Some tenants have been here for more than 20 years.”
He went on to say that the average rate of increase is plus or minus 5%, and that there have been one or two years where there was no increase. (These assertions were both disputed by one 22-year tenant, who argued her rates have gone up every year but the first one, and that her averages run in the 6-10% range.)
Citing his own expenses, Wisehart did acknowledge that some increases were the result of needed capital improvements, some of which involved big-ticket expenditures, such as a new well and street repairs. He also pointed out that the park has its own water system, for which he must maintain a current license and the requisite continuing education that comes with it, as well as pay for constant water quality testing.
He also said that the electric and propane usage within the park is all submetered, and that tenants also get an additional $100 a month in benefits from water and trash services that are included in the rental rates.
“In this economy, people are hurting, suffering,” he said. But, what Wisehart seemed most disheartened about is a lack of direct confrontation by the tenants. “Not one of you came to see me; instead you went right to the County. Lack of communication only makes things harder,” he told the room.
One telltale sign of how things were going revealed itself early on, as only a fraction of the number of tenants who swarmed the June meeting were in attendance for Tuesday night’s session. Some of their final comments talked about balancing out cost increases to run the park against some possible items that may be cheaper today than in years past, such as insurance and workmans compensation costs.
No significant follow-through on those points developed, however, and one tenant summed up the general sense among those present by saying, “We get that you have increased costs; just tell us what they are so we can see them and understand them.”
Legally speaking, County Counsel Marshall Rudolph briefed the Board and those present on some background and the pluses and minuses inherent in enacting rent control. “It’s very serious,” Rudolph told the Board. “You’re essentially replacing the free market with a government system, and in doing so, you have to show that this is being done to fix a real problem.
Rudolph said that while there is no state mandate for rent control, more than 90 cities and at least one county (Tuolomne) have some form of rent control in their code books.
Rudolph said that under certain conditions, rent controls can be used to correct a perceived imbalance in bargaining between landlords and tenants, or fix problems of supply versus demand, and promote a form of affordable housing. On the flipside, however, it can be viewed as an extreme form of government intervention, and a rent control ordinance in the City of Goleta is being challenged before an 11-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Wisehart took Rudolph’s report a step further. “[Under rent control] a property owner can sell at fair market value, but a park owner can’t rent at fair market value,” he assessed. He was also critical of the modest amount of increases allowed under such controls, indicating that may mean limits on capital and other improvements that would detract from the value of the property overall.
“Sometimes you end up hurting the people you think you’re helping,” he said. “These are tough times, but rent control won’t make them any better.”
Supervisors were in general agreement with Wisehart, though they did have some advice for both he and his tenants.
Supervisor Vikki Bauer told the tenants to remember that the issue is complicated because both rent and mortgage [on the underlying property involved] are in play here. There are, she said, homeowners that are upside down on their mortgages. (Ed. Note: 21.5% of homeowners nationally at last count.) She said the County shouldn’t be involved in solving these types of problems and suggested finding a spokesperson and forming a Home Owners Association.
Supervisor Tom Farnetti said he’s for rent control. “I’m not convinced this is a county-wide problem,” Farnetti said. Board Chair Byng Hunt recalled that Mammoth went through this same issue several years ago when he was on Town Council. “We didn’t want to get into anything that complex then, and I have to say I’m a free market advocate,” Hunt commented.
Supervisor Bob Peters said he also is a free market advocate, but did chastise Wisehart somewhat. Peters said he thought there was a “failure of management to deal with the tenants’ comments” and that there were “way too many [of those] not have a fire there somewhere.”
The Board said rent control remains an option to be considered in the future, but decidedly not at this point in time.