theSheetNews.com

Knight argues the merits of SB 1148 to Mono Supes

CalTrout was clearly swimming against the current at Tuesday’s Mono County Board of Supervisors meeting when it made its case for Senate Bill 1148, currently sitting on Governor Jerry Brown’s desk awaiting his signature or veto.

Until Tuesday, the Board had only heard from those opposing the bill such as Retired State Senator and current Stanislaus County Assessor Dave Cogdill and local District 3 Supervisor-Elect Tim Alpers.

CalTrout Conservation Director Curtis Knight claimed that rather than trying to squash the language in Assembly Bill 7, which gives funding prioritization to fish hatcheries, SB 1148 had been written with the intent of reinvigorating the bill.

“We wanted to create a piece of legislation to remind legislators that trout are important,” Knight said. “SB 1148 keeps the issue on the front-burner. We are not trying to tip the balance any one way.

“It’s the way to get things to work in the messy world of Sacramento,” he added.

One of the major goals of SB 1148, according to Knight’s presentation, was to earmark funding for seven staffing positions for the wild trout program.

“SB 1148 added at least $2 million for the wild trout program, which would be used largely for staffing permanent positions,” Knight said.

This money would be taken out of the Hatcheries and Inland Fisheries Fund (HIFF), which was created as part of AB 7, first and then the remainder would be used for hatcheries.

While Knight pointed out that $2 million was 10% of the HIFF, so hatcheries would still be receiving 90% of the fund, Cogdill, who was also present at Tuesday’s meeting, felt that wasn’t the point. AB 7 put hatcheries first on the list to receive HIFF funding, so SB 1148 would be reversing the approved order.

“The language in SB 1148 says heritage and wild trout programs are the priorities, not hatcheries,” Cogdill said. So, if license fee sales drop, so would the amount of funding hatcheries receive because they would not be able to dip into the HIFF barrel until $2 million was pulled out for the heritage and wild trout programs.

“How are hatcheries not going to come up short,” Cogdill asked. “We’re going to end up having to raise fishing license fees, which ultimately makes families suffer. If license fees increase, fewer people will buy them and again it will hurt the hatcheries.

“This bill does not get us all where we want to be,” Cogdill added. He felt the process of creating SB 1148 had been truncated. He didn’t hear about the bill until June when it had already made its way through several steps in the process of becoming law.

“1148 was a wetlands mitigation bill at first,” Cogdill claimed. “CalTrout tried to sneak it in.”

Even after some eventual conversation with CalTrout over the past month, both Cogdill and Knight said they didn’t see eye to eye at the end of the day.

Both agreed that AB 7 had never been implemented properly, but while Knight said SB 1148 was the solution for that problem, Cogdill believed the new language fell short.

“AB 7 needs to be revisited and strengthened but SB 1148 does not do that,” Cogdill argued. “CalTrout was a major opponent to AB 7 at first and tried to block it because they saw it as a threat to their funding.”

The Department of Fish and Game is another agency that hasn’t been fond of the production goals of AB 7.

“There have been a lot of politics back and forth,” Cogdill said. “From the beginning there was language in AB 7 that said the production goals would be difficult to achieve. This was in the language signed by the governor and it gave DFG an out to not comply with AB 7 from the start. We need legislation with more teeth.”

Knight pointed out that SB 1148 would give hatcheries $1 million right off the bat to help them build up their facilities and meet production goals.

Cogdill, however, pointed out that the $1 million was a one-time allocation.

Supervisor-Elect and hatchery expert Tim Alpers got to the heart of the matter by pointing out that the bottom line was getting fish in the water.

“If the hatchery system is impaired any further, fishing [which is a large portion of Mono County’s economy] will go downhill,” Alpers said. “Without the hatchery system we can’t perpetuate fishing and get younger fisherpeople on board. You need funding continuity to properly grow nicer, bigger fish on a regular basis.”

These bigger fish are what will attract more fisherpeople to the waters.

Despite CalTrout’s presentation, the Board came to consensus to send two letters to the governor: one asking him to veto SB 1148 and another asking him to support SB 505, which, according to Cogdill, just restates the obvious points of AB 7.

“The DFG is just doing what it wants and is not following the law,” said Supervisor Larry Johnston. “The tail is wagging the dog and DFG will probably just ignore this bill, too.”

“It’s good we came to the table, but it’s the wrong table here at this Board level,” added Supervisor Vikki Bauer, in reference to the alleged truncated 1148 process.

“There are possible consequences, intended or unintended, from SB 1148,” Cogdill said. Since it has made it to the governor’s desk, Cogdill felt it would likely be signed.

“It’s never a done deal, especially with this governor, but the Department [DFG] is behind it so he is going to have a lot of pressure to sign it,” Cogdill said.

And other Mono County briefs

With the departure this week of Mono County Assessor Jody Henning and Assistant Assessor Chris Lyons, Mono County’s Board of Supervisors began discussions of how to fill the posts at its regular meeting Tuesday in Bridgeport.

The Board has authorized advertising for candidates for the assistant position, and later re-evaluating moving them up into a fulltime slot.

Henning and Lyons are both leaving independently for new job opportunities.

In the short term, County Administrative Officer Jim Arkens said he will oversee the department, and at this point, no decisions have been made on any candidates. Once a candidate or candidates for the positions are lined up, Mono County Supervisor Larry Johnston agreed to sit in on any interviews.

In addition, the Board is considering reallocating the Assessor’s Office mapping duties to the Information Technology department.

In one of her last statements to The Sheet, Henning said only that she wishes the County well, hopes the Board will “think outside the box” when looking for candidates, and consider other assessors to find “the very best qualified applicants, who will keep the progress we’ve made moving forward.”

Fees-Fi-Fo-Fum 

Mono County Supervisors on Tuesday adopted a new fee schedule with $70,800 in new or increased fees for certain County permits and other services, most in emergency services.

Coming prior to development and adoption of the County’s Fiscal Year 2012-2013 budget, most fee schedules were set so that departments can use them in budgeting, according to County Finance Director Brian Muir.

Most of the Board seemed okay with the modest increases, but Supervisor Larry Johnston remained steadfastly opposed to any increases during what he indicated were lingering economic hard times in the county.

“Philosophically we’re in an economic downturn and have lots of people out there suffering, and we’re raising fees,” he charged. “Fees need to reflect what’s going on in the economy. We need to hunker down and reduce some of the fees. I’m not saying we should do away with them altogether, but we should find ways to make do with other revenue.”

Byng Hunt countered that discussing these types of fees “always comes down to fairness,” adding that the people who get the benefit from these services are the ones who should pay for them. “I’m not in favor of any across the board cuts,” he said. “Given the struggles we’re going to have to face in the coming 12 to 24 months, we’re going to have to cover our costs.”

Fees for the process of recording surveys were changed to hourly to make them more affordable, but Johnston held his ground against any fee increases, casting the lone dissenting vote.

GBUAPCD says yes to County

The Board was briefed on approval by the Governing Board of the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District of a County Public Works – Road Division Clean Air Projects Program (CAPP) application for $300,000 to replace two 1958 snow blowers with two new MT Trackless blowers.

An additional $13,000 for wages and advertising necessary for bid development, equipment preparation, training, maintenance and grant administration, which is not part of the grant, will be covered by the Road Fund. CAO Jim Arkens said the County should have no problem finding the extra money. A second grant application for ventilation upgrades will come forward as a separate item with a separate match, according to Arkens.

4-Way Stop in June

Supervisors also approved a resolution designating the intersection of Knoll and Crawford Avenues in June Lake as a 4-way stop intersection and gave Public Works a go ahead to put up stop signs.

Right now, the stop is a two-way stop, at which one of the remaining signs has been hit and taken out, thus making it essentially a one-way stop. The sign is meant to be more of a controlling measure, and not necessarily patrolled, since traffic flow doesn’t warrant any major monitoring. CHP will still investigate traffic accidents at the intersection, and Bauer said she hopes the signs help during the winter when the roads are icy.

“I’ve been flying this flag and found no one who opposes it. It’s been my legacy … woo-hoo, a four-way stop,” enthused Bauer, whose term on the Board will come to an end this year. Bauer was recently defeated for re-election in District 3 by Tim Alpers.

Jan Huggans one of the three candidates for District 4 Mono County Supervisor

If you do nothing else on June 5, get out and vote. The race for Mono County Supervisor has the potential to change the majority of the current Board and with it the future path of the County.

This week, we profile the candidates in Mono County’s District 4, the only County district with three candidates, and the only district with no incumbent in the race. It’s also the district with the biggest geographical diversity. Its constituency is made up of the Antelope Valley, Bridgeport and a portion of Mammoth.

Ladies first … 

Jan Huggans, 69, may be the candidate with the longest history in District 4, but what does Huggans stand for besides constitutional knowledge of the Bridgeport area?

“I care for the county,” Huggans said. “Bridgeport is struggling and it’s hard for me to see that. We need to do something. We can’t wait for something to happen.”

While common sense is one of Huggans’ strengths, she admits that public speaking is one of her weaknesses. Stricken with Bell’s palsy in 1994, which affected the left side of her face, Huggans doesn’t smile much either, which could be off-putting to those approaching her.

But she’s not letting any of this keep her down. When asked if she felt overshadowed by her opponents, Huggans claimed she felt “confident not overshadowed in my thinking.”

“I just want to help and I work hard,” she added.

Huggans has served on the Mono County Planning Commission and currently serves on the Bridgeport Public Utilities District as its Chair, which recently wrapped up an embezzlement investigation. If elected, she would step down as the PUD Chair.

“Both [Planning and PUD] have important issues,” Huggans said. “It’s important to serve if you can.”

Huggans is the only District 4 candidate that has not jumped on the Internet, social media bandwagon.

“Between the candidates’ nights and letters [she’s sent out], people know me,” Huggans explained of that decision.

On the issues, Huggans is against using tax money to subsidize the Mammoth-Yosemite Airport.

“I don’t have anyone subsidizing me,” she said from her view as a small business owner. “The air service people need to find a way to make it profitable.”

The biggest issue she sees for Mono County right now is the economy.

“I don’t see the light at the end of the tunnel yet,” she said. “At this point people are running out of their savings.” She pointed to a quieter than usual fishing opener in Bridgeport as proof of the continued down economy. “I’ve never seen it like this.”

Huggans believes there are going to be less people taking trips, and therefore there will be stiffer competition to get visitors to tourist-based areas such as Mono County.

“We need to spend as much if not more on tourism,” Huggans said. “Promotion of Mono County is critical.”

Through her campaigning in Mammoth, Huggans has found that the newest addition to District 4 has the same economic issues she sees in the North County. People in both areas are just trying to hang on.

In closing, Huggans said, “I know what is right and what is wrong and I

have strong convictions. I don’t have a silver tongue, but I get the job done.”

If you have any last minute questions for Huggans, contact her at huggansjw@schat.net.

Age before beauty … 

Bob Peters

At 72, Bob Peters is the oldest District 4 candidate in the running, and in his mind, the wisest and most experienced, having already served a short term as a Mono County Supervisor in 2010. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed Peters to the District 4 seat following the passing of Bill Reid.

Prior to 2010, Peters ran against Reid for the seat in 2006 following the passing of then District 4 supervisor, John Cecil.

This year marks the first opportunity Peters has had to run again for the seat.

“In order to get the 2010 appointment, I had to agree not to run in the election that year,” Peters explained. But his brief time in office gave him anj opportunity to build a track record, he said.

Peters also feels that the economy is the biggest issue for Mono County right now. He sees Digital 395 as one of the answers to the problem.

“It will take a few years to get going, but once it does, it will help start up businesses in communities. People will be able to move here. It will create opportunity for young people.”

Peters added that in order to attract more young people to the area, schools need to be up to par, which means finding a way to restore property values and in turn property tax revenue.

“We need to get rid of pipe dreams and focus on what we can really do,” he said. “Government shouldn’t make life more difficult for everything. We need to make sure investors aren’t hammered with high fees. We need to be welcoming.”

Peters also believes that the County needs to work on employee morale.

“You can’t favor one group over another,” he said. “Employees and geography make up the County.”

In regard to polarization among his District 4 constituencies, the only issue Peters currently sees is the potential bankruptcy in the Town of Mammoth.

“The impacts to the Town and County could be uniting or divisive,” he said. Ultimately, however, Peters felt that the whole county needed to “focus on selling togetherness, without singing Kumbaya.”

Peters has been accused of using people’s names in his campaign literature in a way that made it look as though these people were supporting him when in fact, they plan to vote for another candidate.

“I never used a name and claimed they supported me if they did not,” Peters rebutted. “I put a flyer together listing the things I have worked on and the people who helped me with my successes. I was giving credit to the people who helped.” He claimed it was a misunderstanding and he apologized privately to the two people who were affected.

As for other accusations that he has taken credit for projects he should not, Peters simply stated that his accusers are “wrong.” To learn more about Peters or find out how to contact him, visit www.bobpeters.org.

Last but not least … 

Tim Fesko

Tim Fesko believes that government is around to serve the people and wants to steer Mono County back in that direction. At 52, Fesko is the youngest candidate, and in his mind, the most passionate.

“I want to fix things,” he said. “I get that from my mother.”

And one thing he thinks needs fixing is employee morale at the County.

“Right now there is an appearance of favoring one group over another [at-will vs. union employees],” he said. “It makes morale bad, which leads to bad service.”

Fesko believes the door is always open for change and that government should listen to all ideas in order to find the best notions.

“We need to get supervisors to think outside the box,” he said.

Fesko claimed that if elected, he wouldn’t be afraid to say no if necessary. “You’re not going to make everyone happy all the time. I never pander to anyone and I don’t have to be on the winning side of a vote.”

He has already promised some constituents that he won’t become a “good old boy” if elected.

“I will come to the table prepared, but will always keep an open mind,” Fesko said.

He believes that in order to deal with polarizing issues among his constituents, people must be educated.

“You may not be able to change someone’s mind, but you can help them understand where you’re coming from,” he said. “We have more similarities than differences.”

Fesko is in favor of reducing county fees to stimulate the economy as well as taking the supervisors’ salaries back to the 2008 level, two items that current District 1 Supervisor Larry Johnston has previously brought to the dais without success.

In order to push these items through, Fesko claimed he would bring all the facts to the table.

“It goes back to being prepared,” he said.

Fesko, who’s main tagline while campaigning has been transparency and accountability in government, has also been on the receiving end of some campaign smears in the last month, including a public discussion of a lawsuit he is currently involved in with his brother. However, he doesn’t believe that issues such as this should sway voters for or against him.

“If you’ve been in enough contracts, someone is going to get upset,” he said. “It’s the same with the Mammoth lawsuit … are people going to stop liking Mammoth because of it? These issues are just trying to get the people and myself unfocused from County issues.”

Besides, Fesko concluded, “This isn’t about me, but about the County. The next Board will set the tone for the next 20 years and the future of Mono County.”

One of Fesko’s main promises is not just listening to, but actually hearing the public.

“You can literally kick me in the butt if I’m not hearing you,” he said.

Learn more about Fesko and how to contact him at www.fesko4supervisor.com.

The Sheet will run capsules on all the Mono County Supervisor races as well as look at Inyo County’s District 2 contest in next week’s edition

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.

“It’s always politically charged when you talk about supervisor’s salaries,” said Mono County Supervisor Vikki Bauer at Tuesday’s regular Board meeting in Bridgeport.

Her fellow Supervisor Hap Hazard was looking for consensus to continue the current freeze on Board salaries His goal was to show support for the employees who have also been on a pay freeze for the past few years.

Supervisor Larry Johnston took Hazard’s idea one-step further and suggested that the Board also take a 4.3 percent reduction in pay.

Johnston has already taken a voluntary reduction in his pay by choosing to refund 25 percent of the car allowance available to him per month. This allowance is considered part of the supervisor’s salary.

Ultimately, each supervisor may choose what to do with his or her salary, according to County Counsel Marshall Rudolph, which meant that the Board’s discussion on Tuesday was non-binding.

As Hazard stated, “we are just making good faith motions.”

Plus, any changes the Board came to consensus upon would only be in relation to future terms. No current seat or current candidate for a seat on the Board would be affected by the Board’s decision on Tuesday.

“When you file candidacy paperwork you are essentially accepting the current ‘contract’ for the Board of Supervisors,” Rudolph explained.

The soonest any change would be enforced would be two years down the road.

Rudolph added that irrevocably waiving pieces of salary, such as Johnston had, makes that portion of the salary non-taxable.

“You never receive the pay so it isn’t taxed,” Rudolph said.

“I’m glad to take a 5 percent cut to show we’re serious,” said Supervisor Tim Hansen.

Supervisor Byng Hunt, however, referred to the 23-county salary survey the County has been using as a reference point to compare its salaries to other counties throughout the state.

“We are right in the middle of the survey pack,” Hunt said. “We’ve shown we’re serious. Really this begs the bigger question of what supervisors should be getting.”

Johnston made a motion to reduce pay but it failed 3-2 with only Hansen voting with him in support.

According to the salary survey, which was compiled earlier this year, according to Mono County CAO Jim Arkens, Mono County supervisors make $4,109 per month which includes all of their benefits, car allowance, PERS, etc. (Note: According to Supervisor Larry Johnston, however, that $4,109 is the base pay for a normal supervisor. The Board Chair receives a slightly higher salary and car allowance according to Johnston. Supervisors receive PERS, health benefits and a car allowance on top of this base pay, but that’s where it gets tricky. Each supervisor can choose to take or not take the benefits available to them. “It is confusing,” Johnston stated.)

In comparison, El Dorado supervisors make more than $6,000 per month while Tehama County supervisors collect just a little more than $1,000 per month. The average pay, according to the survey is $3,997.

The Board ended up breaking their remaining votes into three separate motions.

First, it voted 3-2 to continue the freeze on its salaries. Johnston and Hansen voted no because they wanted to see a cut in salary, not just a continued freeze.

Second, the Board voted 3-2 to not increase its pay until employee’s pay could also be increased. Again Johnston and Hansen voted no.

“I’m voting no because this is completely nebulous,” Johnston said.

“It’s no less nebulous then making a motion to reduce our pay that can’t be enforced for two years,” Bauer said heatedly, referring to Johnston’s earlier, failed motion.

The Board was able to unanimously agree, however, on the final motion to take up the salary discussion again whenever the salary survey changes.

“I love it when we end the day with all of us agreeing,” Bauer concluded.

When Americana author Laura Ingalls Wilder coined the title for her book series, she had no way of knowing it would come back as a buzzword for what could be an addition to Mono County’s building code.

That addition might stem from a little known part of California Regulations called “Limited Density (LD) Owner-Built Rural Dwellings.” During the Board of Supervisors’ Tuesday meeting, a workshop by Mono Community Development’s Brent Calloway explored the potential for a possible “LD” ordinance in Mono County, which would allow for a “relaxed building standard” in certain rural areas.

With so much undeveloped land in Mono County, LDs would potentially make building small, less intricate buildings easier, cutting down on staff time for plan approvals, permitting, inspections, etc.

The LD ordinance can trace its lineage back to the counterculture movement of the 1960s, and was born, figuratively, in a cabin in Mendocino County that served as the springboard for what became statewide legislation. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, Bay Area refugees seeking a more “organic” way of life caused an influx of population.

As one might expect, some conflict arose between the older established population, and the new counterculture denizens putting down roots, literally, in the more rural environment. The new owner-builder community that sprang-structured up soon found itself targeted by county inspectors, even though those same inspectors weren’t red-tagging the established residents, who were themselves also in flagrant violation of code.

That led Governor Jerry Brown (during his earlier term, before limits) to enact the Class K Code, a less prescriptive building code that relies more on the touchy-feely assessment of building department officials, rather than just strict, written code. Drawings and structural analysis aren’t required unless a structure is deemed very complex. Reasonable judgment is used to determine compliance with basic safety and other standards. The code doesn’t, however, allow neglecting any responsibility to national water and power standards.

Calloway pointed out the ordinance is designed to be flexible, and fit with the density and zoning in any given specific area. But the proposed ordinance won’t come together without meeting some challenges. First, the County’s General Plan doesn’t encourage development of remote property. It would also have to conform to environmental health requirements for approved water, septic and power, as well as fire and access requirements, including Title 24 green sprinkler standards. And Calloway didn’t discount other yet unknown legalities.

Class K has since been folded into the state’s Title 25 Housing and Community Development Codes, which regulate mobile home, as well as LD construction.

Supervisor Tim Hansen, while not opposed to the idea, posited that on one hand, LD could be construed as encouraging off-the-grid type building. On the other hand, Hansen suggested the hippie, unapproved commune buildings that don’t meet any codes could be perceived as a form of “class warfare” against those who are building within existing code.

Supervisor Byng Hunt wasn’t so pessimistic. “It could be something that would fit our character … a few small hunting or ski cabins, but I’d like to limit that and specify the areas,” he said.

“I see safety factors in it … finding one of those cabins in a big storm could keep people alive until we can get some SAR teams to rescue them,” Board Chair Hap Hazard added.

Calloway outlined four scenarios: 1.) Use existing code right out of Title 25, though the code wasn’t written with Mono County in mind. 2.) Develop a “prescribed code” with maximum sizes and locations, though that could take a lot of staff resources to develop. 3.) Allow the code to develop over time, which demand more staff time as it evolves, and could lead to more conflicts than it solves. 4.) Develop a code specific to a case-by-case scenario, though how legal that process would be is debatable.

Title 25 does give the County the ability to define snow loads and other standards. Hazard pointed out, however, that certain disclaimers would need to be added for clarity, including exact specifications and the fact that in remote areas there’s no fire protection.

Geographically, the LD code provides some latitude for defining “rural” and how it’s applied countywide.

Suggestions for a so-called “little house on the prairie” approach included exploring a 500-square foot size, and perhaps a five mile between homes distance allotment, among other ideas to limit the buildings to a sort of bigger ski hut type of dwelling.

“I don’t think there are going to be that many built, but we should at least have the option for them,” Supervisors Larry Johnston added.

Supervisor Vikki Bauer was still uncomfortable with the idea. “I’m having backwash already,” she said. “I’m beginning to think there are unintended consequences of this we can’t even begin to imagine.”

Consensus was reached to have Calloway add more specifics and bring back a more refined draft of what the ordinance might look like for future review.

Mono Supes blast BLM, proposed WSA legislation

Salt in an open wound. A paper cut with lemon juice on it. Call it what you will, but after all the hoopla and gnashing of teeth that came as part of an earlier push for release of the Bodie Hills Wilderness Study Area, the last thing Mono County’s Board of Supervisors wants to take up at the moment is anything having to do with wilderness.

Nonetheless, the Board did just that earlier this month, in the form of a pair items pertaining to public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

The first was a letter from James Wesley Abbott, Acting State Director for the BLM California, regarding a proposal by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar for a bipartisan wilderness agenda to designate areas of public lands that have strong local support for permanent protection as wilderness under the Wilderness Act.

The second was what, if anything, to say in response to H.R. 1581, the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011, currently circulating through the U.S. Congress, which if passed would release millions of acres of wilderness study areas nationwide, including the Bodie Hills in Mono County.

Abbott’s letter relayed an idea from U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar asking states, tribes and local communities to identify so-called “crown jewel” public lands, specifically administered by the BLM. The lands would then be forwarded to Congress for consideration as new “wilderness” areas. Several Democratic and Republican congressmen have already lobbed in ideas for lands in various states, including some in California by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-49th District.).

Salazar said in a separate letter that he planned to take any lands submitted for the overall list to Congress on Oct. 15, leaving the Board only a handful of weeks to mull submittal of any lands and vet those through public process … hardly enough time, the Board generally concluded.

The Board, however, slammed the brakes on joining that process, particularly regarding the Bodie Hills WSA.

“Bodie Hills isn’t a crown jewel wilderness. Congress has been reluctant to do its job and has been complacent these many years,” District 4 Supervisor Tim Hansen posited. “People use them for enjoyment but one day it’ll be locked up and people will say, ‘Wow, we should have done something about that.’”

As to H.R. 1581, only Hansen was vocal in his support for the sweeping measure. “I’m for 1581, because I think most of my constituents support it, and it’s widely supported across the U.S. WSAs are being misused to lock up these areas,” Hansen said, reiterating his previously stated positions on the matter.

Supervisor Byng Hunt also reaffirmed his stand, but in the negative. “I stated my case four weeks ago. I’m totally opposed to 1581; it’s too blanket, universal and one-sided,” Hunt said. As to Secretary Salazar’s issue of ‘jewels,’ Hunt indicated he thought Salazar’s intent was essentially good. “I think he wanted to get a handle on some areas that are relatively non-controversial trying to get more information out of local communities. Either the communities are behind it or they’re not,” he posited. “That said, it’s not appropriate for us to take any action.”

Board Chair Hap Hazard was against generating any response to either item. “Both are out of town, out of this area,” he reminded his fellow supervisors. “If [Secretary Salazar’s plan] is a chance for us to say we want to be given an assurance that if we work together and have a stakeholder interest, then he should give us a period of time, and a commitment that [Congress] is going to follow through and resolve it. Otherwise, I’m not interested in going backwards.”

“My preference is to oppose 1581,” Supervisor Larry Johnston remarked. “I do appreciate Secretary Salazar’s letter … sometimes these decrees are just handed down from the government. At least this is an ‘asking’ thing. That said, I don’t’ think I’d like to nominate something that hasn’t been vetted through public process. And I don’t think we should have to ask permission from the federal government to preserve things we think are worthy.”

“I don’t think federal officials can give anyone assurance they’re going to act on anything, especially at the county level,” Sally Miller said during public comment on the items. “I don’t see that the public is banging on the doors to negotiate another Hoover-style blanket piece of legislation.” Miller added that, given what she thinks is a historically controversial topic of wilderness vis a vis the Board and the community, there should be more “responsible constituent-level conversation between parties who don’t necessarily agree with each other.”

“There’s work to be done, and it truly has to happen from the ground up before it comes before the board again,” she concluded.

The Board came to consensus on no reply to either item, except, as Hunt suggested, on an individual basis between elected representatives, without speaking on behalf of the Board or the County.

The Inyo County FY 11-12 Budget Hearing on Aug. 12 in Independence was less doom-and-gloom than one might have been expected, considering this year’s recommended budget marked a $1,206,287 (1.5%) decrease from the FY 2010-11 approved budget.

However, the recommended budget was received with appreciation rather than anger in part because it required no cuts to staff; although three positions were eliminated, said CAO Kevin Carunchio, “The positions that remain are functioning at full capacity. We’re not cutting any services.”

On the other hand, there’s also no money left over to set aside for a rainy day.

Carunchio noted at the beginning of the hearing that FY 2008-09 had marked the “zenith” of Board approved expenditures; since then, the county budget has shrunk by 6.4%, or $5,333,819.

This year the total recommended budget comes to $77,865,291, with $49,421,830 in General Fund expenditures, down $251,511 from last year, and $28,443,461 in Non-General Fund expenditures. General Fund revenues were projected at $45,828,056, while Non-General Fund revenues were projected at $24,516,171.

These revenues have decreased 9.68% since the ‘zenith’ in 08-09, in part because of a recent decrease in LADWP property tax payments, as well as decreases in unsecured property tax revenue.

To balance the deficit between General Fund expenditures and revenues, the recommended budget is looking to use $3,799,535 of the General Fund balance (or rollover) available from FY 2010-11, a move that made some supervisors at Monday’s meeting nervous.

District 2 Supervisor Susan Cash referred to this annual General Fund rollover as a “drip line” the county needed to wean itself off of. “We could do it in baby steps,” she suggested: “say next year we’ll only rely on 3.5 million; the next year only 3.4 million, and so on.”

Currently, the County uses every last drip available.

But as Carunchio noted, reliance on this rollover (accrued when positions go unfilled or when anticipated projects get shelved for some reason) is nothing new to the county, nor is it unusual for other counties, cities and states.

“My dream if we weren’t using the Fund Balance is we could actually start budgeting earlier,” he said after the hearing. “We could potentially get the budget done as soon as June.” The county waits to complete its budget until September not only because it takes the state that long to “get its act together,” but also because the county is relying on the Auditor-Controller to certify the General Fund Balance.

Not using the Fund Balance this year would mean more than $3.5 million in cuts – inevitably to staff and services.

The county’s self-described conservative approach to budgeting has allowed it to avoid these cuts so far. Even Supervisor Cash admitted “the belt’s been tight since I was a county employee 15 years ago.”

The recommended budget was received favorably for the most part by Supervisors and the assembled public. One voice of dissent came from County Coroner Leon Brune, who requested the Board consider giving his employees a raise. But the recommended budget will not have the funding to approve any Department Requested Personnel Actions this year, including requests for employee equality adjustments, career ladders, and reclassifications. Carunchio was sympathetic to Coroner Brune’s request, and stated, “I don’t have any issue with what he’s recommending, other than that I’m not recommending any personnel adjustments.”

The Board promised it would do its best to accommodate the request in the future, when it had a chance to look at overall classification issues in January.

Considering that state revenues are already 10% lower than projected, “trigger cuts” from Sacramento seem inevitable come December and could create mid-year adjustments.

Carunchio pointed out in his 50-page budget message, “one must consider whether the county could ever hope to have adequate contingencies for the level of carnage the State’s ongoing fiscal drama has the potential to visit on county finances.”

“It’s the uncertainty that makes it tough,” Carunchio continued. “The county has to provide services, but when the state baits and switches, for instance with reimbursable public safety grants, the county can get left footing the bill.”

Nevertheless, said District 3 Supervisor Rick Pucci, “I think this budget is a very good document. This is a very difficult time as we all know for economic stability, and I think you have to be self-sufficient as much as possible. I think that’s what this staff is trying to do.”

The budget is expected to be adopted Sept. 20. For more information visit www.inyocounty.us.

Supes back air subsidy afterall

Mono County’s Board of Supervisors took to the air on Wednesday, beginning deliberations on the 2011-2012 fiscal year budget. The three-day process offers a comprehensive review, department-by-department and line-by-line, giving the Board a last chance to make any changes, before voting on the final budget to be enacted.

According to a briefing by Mono County Finance Director Brian Muir the total budget amounts to $63 million, including $37 million in general fund expenditures and $26 in miscellaneous other funds. The total is a decrease of $8 million from last year overall and $4 million in general fund spending.

In an unexpected deviation from its previous flight plan, however, the Board changed policy course when it came to the turbulent issue of air service subsidies. Last year, the Board made a much haggled over $45,000 commitment to put some critical lift under the wings of the “shoulder season period” for commercial air service at Mammoth Yosemite between the end of summer and mid-December. Earlier this year the Mono Tourism Commission and other air service partners including Mammoth Lakes Tourism, the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, had hoped to boost that commitment by as much as $215,000 to help fill the gap left by MMSA, which is focusing on fully subsidizing winter air service, its busiest time of year.

That $215,000 figure, however, initially met with considerable resistance from four of five Supervisors.

On Wednesday, Alicia Vennos from Economic Development, and Mono County Tourism Commissioners Danna Stroud and Chair Jimmy Little, lobbied for at least some amount in Horizon Air subsidies. No one on either side of the dais, however, had any illusions that it would be anything close to $215,000. Vennos also said the County has been invited to be a player in the revived concept of an Eastern Sierra Air Alliance (ESAA), which would include the Town of Mammoth, Mammoth Lakes Tourism, MMSA and other stakeholders.

Perhaps the biggest, most significant shift in position was that of Board Chair Hap Hazard. Yes, he reiterated previous concerns about not only the expense but the fundamental concept of the County’s backing air service. Ironically, however, it was Hazard who pitched the notion of an increase that started the discussion down the runway.

Regardless of any related anecdotal success stories, Supervisor Larry Johnston, along with Supervisor Tim Hansen, would like to see non-anecdotal, hard numbers indicating the bang the County’s getting for its buck.

Hunt asserted that the County should want to have a seat at the ESAA table, and Stroud echoed that point, emphasizing what she said were millions that are being spent by airlines and destination marketing organizations on emerging markets such as China and Brazil, and having year-round access to the region can only help bring more travelers to Mono County.

Muir was critical of the subsidy, at least for now, positing it was essentially giving money away to a “private enterprise,” which it must be assumed is already profitable. He recommended deferring any action to mid-year, saying if there’s evidence of TOT or other revenue gains, the Board can act at that point. Hansen agreed. “I’m all for air service, but we should let this thing grow on its own, and determine how valuable it is, instead of just throwing money at it,” he commented.

Little waited patiently during the initial discussion, but commented that he sees it as purchasing a service, not purchasing “seats,” equating the potential of air service to that of any other startup business. Instead of a cart before the horse scenario — last time, service was committed to with no plan — this year he said a plan is being developed to frame the commitment with marketable data. Next year, if service continues, he suggested the County can promote it immediately, and travelers will be able to plan and book ahead.

“I think [Mammoth Lakes Tourism Director John Urdi] is doing a good job, many questions are being addressed and we’ll have statistics this year that we didn’t have last year,” Hazard said. “I do think we got the return on our $45,000, and am willing to increase that by $40,000, which will get us through to January. Do I think we have a good deal and good relationship with the rest of the partners? Not yet, but I’m willing to put $85,000 on the table to further the discussion.”

The $85,000 would be in the form of guarantees, but only the amount owed at the end of the season would be charged against it. At that point, any amount left over, even if it were the whole amount, could be transferred into the contingency fund or turned around and spent for additional marketing, over and above that generated by the airline for promotional materials.

That amount, Stroud indicated, could result as much at least $265,000 in the form of in-kind promotion and collateral material from both Horizon Air and Mammoth Lakes Tourism. (That figure was based on the calculated return from last year’s $45,000 commitment.)

“In any case, we need to have skin in this game and remain a partner with a seat at the table,” Supervisor Vikki Bauer noted. That, she said, means showing a commitment and in turn means increasing participation, both points on which Hunt agreed.

Johnston cautiously supported Hazard’s $85,000 compromise, on the condition that it remained a placeholder in the budget and no checks needed to be cut until January’s mid-year review.

The policy change passed 4-1, with Hansen dissenting largely on the grounds that “District 4 benefits least by far from air service.”

Budget in brief

Muir said the budget will require a an additional $1,250,000 in General Fund department trims to bring it into balance. No employee step increases or cost-of-living allowance (COLA) increases were budgeted.

After balancing the proposed budget, there is a remaining General Fund balance of $500,763 available to fund policy items and contingency, without appropriating any funds from the General Reserve. The General Reserve funds available are $2,273,212. A policy item is included to establish a contingency at 1% of General Fund expenditures per the Board’s budget policy.

In addition, a policy item is included to loan an additional $750,000 to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund to make up for the shortfall that occurred between the start of last fiscal year and the recent implementation of a tipping fee increase.

Looking ahead, Muir said he doesn’t see a lot of major change in the County’s budget forecast. Property tax revenue projections indicate a flattening trend, or at most a 2% decline. The budget was set for final changes and a Friday vote. For updates, visit www.thesheetnews.com.