Board Of Supervisors — Tuesday, March 22, 2016

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Matt Perry, County Administrative Officer DATE: March 8, 2016 SUBJECT: Authorize extending the appointment of Jeff Rein as Interim Chief Deputy County Administrative Officer and Kati Galvani as Interim Deputy Public Services Director both for an indefinite period of time EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Last September your Board authorized the appointment of Jeff Rein as interim Chief Deputy County Administrative Officer for a period of six months; and in January your Board authorized the appointment of Kati Galvani as interim Deputy Public Services Director to also expire in mid-March. In concurrence with the incoming County Administrative Officer, Carol Huchingson, and Interim Public Services Director Lars Ewing, I recommend your Board authorize extension of these two interim appointments for an indefinite period of time. This action is in the best interests of the County as it will enable Jeff Rein to work on the FY 2016-17 budgets and other matters in the transition to a new CAO and allow the Public Services Department to continue to operate efficiently with Kati Galvani as the Interim Deputy Director, who will help oversee the development the 2016-17 Fiscal Year budgets, ensure compliance reports are submitted on time, support staff, etc. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends your Board authorize extending the appointment of Jeff Rein as Interim Chief Deputy County Administrative Officer and Kati Galvani as Interim Deputy Public Services Director both for an indefinite period of time. Authorize extension of appointment of Jeff Rein as Interim Chief Deputy County Administrative Officer and Kati Galvani as Interim Deputy Public Services Director both for an indefinite period of time. cc: Carol Huchingson Lars Ewing

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Jill Ruzicka, Deputy County Administrative Officer DATE: March 22, 2016 SUBJECT: Consideration of Agreement between the County of Lake and City of Lakeport for participation in the County Marketing Program EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On September 26, 2006 your Board signed an agreement between the County of Lake and the City of Lakeport for participation in the County Marketing program. To remain current with marketing trends and best practices, the County's destination marketing strategy and services have evolved. The marketing strategy and services presented in the initial contract between the County and the City are no longer representative of the work being done by the County Marketing program. This is a simple amendment to the agreement. It updates the marketing strategy and services that the County will provide to the City, to be more representative of the current approach. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends your Board approve the proposed amendment between the County of Lake and the City of Lakeport for participation in the County marketing program, and authorize the Chair to sign.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Jill Ruzicka, Deputy County Administrative Officer DATE: March 22, 2016 SUBJECT: Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to Agreement Between the County of Lake and City of Clearlake for Participation in the County Marketing Program and Authorize the Chair to Sign. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On May 23, 2006 your Board signed an agreement between the County of Lake and the City of Clearlake, for participation in the County Marketing program. To remain current with marketing trends and best practices, the County's destination marketing strategy and services have evolved. The marketing strategy and services presented in the initial contract between the County and the City are no longer representative of the work being done by the County Marketing program. This is a simple amendment to the agreement. It updates the marketing strategy and services that the County will provide to the City, to be more representative of the current approach. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends your Board approve the proposed amendment between the County of Lake and the City of Clearlake for participation in the County marketing program, and authorize the Chair to sign.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Matt Perry, County Administrative Officer Josh Jones, Deputy County Administrative Officer DATE: March 22, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve Agreement between the County of Lake and City of Lakeport, for County financial contribution toward required improvements at Westshore Pool EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: For several years the County contributed financially to support pool maintenance and operations costs. In February 2014 at the request of Supervisor Farrington your Board agreed to provide $15,000 to the City of Lakeport with the provision that it would only be eligible for use towards capital improvements to allow for continued operation of the pool. The City of Lakeport has since made the necessary capital improvements. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chair to sign the Agreement with the City of Lakeport in order for the County to make a financial contribution toward required improvements at Westshore Pool.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Matt Perry, County Administrative Officer DATE: March 22, 2016 SUBJECT: (a) Approve First Amendment to the Commercial Lease Agreement between the County of Lake and Bruno and Associates, for period of January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2018 ($814/month through 12/31/16 and $1,136.80/month through 12/31/18), and authorize the Chair to sign; and (b) Approve Subordination, Non-Disclosure and Attornment Agreement and Estopel Certificate, and authorize the Chair to sign. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Attached, for your approval is the First Amendment to the Commercial Lease Agreement between the County of Lake and Bruno and Associates. This is a Lease for Real Property located at 6312 13th Avenue, Lucerne, CA 95458 for 814 square feet that was initially intended for retail use. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Under the Commercial Lease Agreement, Lake County Behavioral Health (LCBH) is obligated to pay rent in the amount $814.00 per month for the term of one year commencing September 1, 2012 and ending August 31, 2013 with one (1) five (5) year option to extend the lease. This Commercial Lease Agreement is for additional space that is used for a variety of purposes including group therapy sessions in addition to two (2) additional offices. The original lease only covered the period from June 2012 through August 31, 2013. This Amendment covers the period through December 2018 and specifies periods cost increases. This was initially submitted by the former Behavioral Health Director in July 2014 but was not brought to the Board due to some misunderstandings that have now been resolved. Also attached is a "Subordination, Non-Disclosure and Attornment Agreement and Estopel Certificate." This document was also approved by your Board for the initial Lease Agreement for the majority of the building. When the document was previously submitted to your Board for your initial lease, County Counsel, Anita Grant, advised that the risk of a subordination agreement is that, if the lender forecloses, the subordinated lease may be canceled or the new owner may have the right to void the lease. However, this document includes the non-disturbance and attornment provisions which essentially guarantee that in the case of foreclosure, the lender won't disturb or evict the County as long as we are abiding the lease terms. FISCAL IMPACT: __ None _X_Budgeted __Non-Budgeted Estimated Cost: $814.00 per month through 12/31/16; $1,136.80 per month through 12/31/18 Amount Budgeted: $56,587.20 Additional Requested: N/A Annual Cost (if planned for future years): N/A FISCAL IMPACT (Narrative): The First Amendment to the Commercial Lease Agreement outlines the rent schedule from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2018 as follows: January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 - $814.00 January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 - $814.00 January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 - $814.00 January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 - $1,136.80 January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 - $1,136.80 Funding for this Commercial Lease Agreement is budgeted under Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), Realignment, Medi-Cal reimbursement, DUI, Mental Health, Alcohol and Other Drug Services. STAFFING IMPACT (if applicable): ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: (a) Approve First Amendment to the Commercial Lease Agreement between the County of Lake and Bruno and Associates, for period of January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2018 ($814/month through 12/31/16 and $1,136.80/month through 12/31/18), and authorize the Chair to sign; and (b) Approve Subordination, Non-Disclosure and Attornment Agreement and Estopel Certificate, and authorize the Chair to sign.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Matt Perry, County Administrative Officer Richard Ford, County Assessor-Recorder DATE: March 10, 2016 SUBJECT: Authorize County Assessor - Recorder Richard Ford to appoint Debra Olson to Assistant Assessor - Recorder II, step 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: As your Board may recall, the Assistant Assessor-Recorder classification was re-established by your Board on January 26, 2016 and Debra Olson, the Chief Deputy Assessor - Valuation was reclassified to the Assistant position. Due to the established County rules governing reclassification, the Debra Olson was placed into step 4 of the Assistant position. Due to special circumstances, we request that your Board authorize the County Assessor- Recorder to appoint Ms. Olson at step 5 of the Assistant Assessor-Recorder II classification. This reclassification is long overdue. Ms. Olson has essentially been fulfilling the duties of the Assistant Assessor- Recorder since 2012. If she had been reclassified to this position in a timely manner, she would have already had at least one year of service at step 4 and would have automatically been eligible to be advanced to step 5 without Board action. Therefore, it is appropriate to allow appointment at step 5. The Director of Human Resources concurs with this recommendation. Ms. Olson comes to the position with over 12 years of experience in appraisal and experience in the County of Lake, Assessor-Recorder's Office. She also has 4 years of experience in fee appraisal. During her experience, she has served as the Chief Deputy Assessor-Recorder - Valuations for over 5 years as well as other positions within the office. As mentioned above, she has essentially been fulfilling the duties of Assistant Assessor- Recorder since 2012. Her level of knowledge and experience is exceptional. She also possesses a Bachelor of Science in Geography with an emphasis in Rural and Regional Planning and Development from California State University, Chico. She also possesses an Appraisal Certification with advanced courses completed from the California State Board of Equalization. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends your Board authorize County Assessor - Recorder Richard Ford to appoint Debra Olson as Assistant Assessor - Recorder II, step 5, effective February 1, 2016.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Cathy Saderlund, Auditor-Controller DATE: March 4, 2016 SUBJECT: Destruction of Documents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Government Code sections 26202 and 26205 provide that the board may authorize the destruction or disposition of any record, paper or document which is more than two years old. The Accounting Standards and Procedures for Counties provided by the State Controller's Office (SCO) includes appendix D for record retention. The suggested retention period is provided by the County Accounting Standards and Procedures Committee. The appendix is limited to record retention codes impacting the Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector Offices. FISCAL IMPACT: _X_ None __Budgeted __Non-Budgeted Estimated Cost: Amount Budgeted: Additional Requested: Annual Cost (if planned for future years): FISCAL IMPACT (Narrative): STAFFING IMPACT (if applicable): ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: We respectfully request authorization to destroy the specific attached records as recommended by the State Controller's Accounting Standards and Procedures for Counties.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Members of the Lake County Board of Supervisors FROM: Don A. Anderson, District Attorney DATE: March 9, 2016 SUBJECT: Request approval to waive the normal sealed bid process as it is not in the public's interest as allowed under County Code Section 2-38.2 for the purchase of one Ford Explorer for the District Attorney's Office and authorize the District Attorney to issue a purchase order to Corning Ford for one Ford Explorer in the amount of $28,768.55. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The District Attorney's Office is requesting the Board's approval to purchase one 2016 Ford Explorer for District Attorney Investigators to utilize in the course of their duties. The vendors from whom we received quotes are as follows (quotes are provided as an attachment): Corning Ford - $28,768.55 Downtown Ford - $29,017.11 Sanderson Auto - $33,302.88 Ukiah Ford - $28,983.00 There were no local vendors that submitted a quote on this vehicle. All quotes are for the same equipment and include the delivery fee. FISCAL IMPACT: __ None _X_Budgeted __Non-Budgeted Estimated Cost: $28,769 Amount Budgeted: $30,000 Additional Requested: Annual Cost (if planned for future years): FISCAL IMPACT (Narrative): Funds have been budgeted in the DA Asset Forfeiture Fund 080-2116, account 62.72 STAFFING IMPACT (if applicable): N/A ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Request approval to waive the normal sealed bid process as it is not in the public's interest as allowed under County Code Section 2-38.2 for the purchase of one Ford Explorer for the District Attorney's Office and authorize the District Attorney to issue a purchase order to Corning Ford for one Ford Explorer in the amount of $28,768.55.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Scott De Leon, Public Works Director DATE: March 8, 2016 SUBJECT: Proclamation Designating the Week of March 20 - 26 as National Surveyors' Week in Lake County EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The attached Proclamation has been prepared to formally recognize March 20 - 26 as National Surveyors Week in Lake County. Professional Land Surveyors follow in the footsteps of some of the most prominent individuals in American history. Presidents Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln all began their careers as land surveyors, which is why surveyors of today claim Mt. Rushmore as a monument to "three surveyors and another guy." Modern day surveyors are integral to the planning, development and construction of the nation's infrastructure and private development. This event also recognizes professionals currently engaged in the field, as well as retired surveyors of which a considerable number reside in Lake County. Please adopt and authorize the Chair to sign the attached Proclamation. FISCAL IMPACT: __ None __Budgeted __Non-Budgeted Estimated Cost: Amount Budgeted: Additional Requested: Annual Cost (if planned for future years): FISCAL IMPACT (Narrative): STAFFING IMPACT (if applicable): ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please adopt and authorize the Chair to sign the attached Proclamation.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Carol J. Huchingson, Social Services Director DATE: March 2, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve Training Services Agreement with University of California, Davis in the amount of $67,150 for the period ending June 30, 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: As your Board is aware, the Lake County Department of Social Services (LCDSS) and Lake County Juvenile Probation are participating in the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) Title IV-E Waiver Demonstration California Well-Being Project (IV-E Waiver Project) in an effort to improve safety, permanency, and well-being for children in the child welfare or juvenile justice systems. As part of our commitment to this project, additional staff training, beyond what is generally provided, is needed. CDSS has established regional training academies and encourages the counties to use them to provide staff training. UC Davis is the regional training academy for Northern California, including our county, and has extensive experience providing social services training. Therefore, pursuant to the attached agreement, UC Davis will provide the needed additional staff training crucial to success in the IV-E Waiver Project. Approximately 24 staff members (Child Welfare Social Workers, Supervisors, and Program Managers) will be trained, as well as some community partners who provide services to LCDSS and Probation clients. Training is planned to be completed by June 30, 2016, the termination date of this agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: __ None _X_Budgeted __Non-Budgeted Estimated Cost: $50,362.50 Amount Budgeted: $149,310.00 Additional Requested: 0 Annual Cost (if planned for future years): FISCAL IMPACT (Narrative): There is no county cost associated with this Agreement. STAFFING IMPACT (if applicable): None. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: We respectfully recommend that the Board approve the Training Services Agreement with University of California, Davis, for LCDSS staff training, authorizing the Chair to sign two original agreements. cc: Leila Haddad

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Carol J. Huchingson, Social Services Director DATE: March 22, 2016 SUBJECT: Request to Authorize the Social Services Director to Sign the Purchase Order, Executing the Purchase of 150 Workstations, from CDW-G, in the Amount of $65,306.25. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Due to changing technology, our department is required to periodically upgrade our electronic and data equipment to keep up with the demands of the systems we are mandated to use. We are currently in need of upgrading a number of our workstations for the C-IV system. The current workstations that we have were last upgraded in 2010. Previously we were obligated to purchase all our equipment from San Bernardino County because of the agreement we had in place. Changes to that agreement in the last few months allow us to buy equipment from a different vendor. Our staff recommends that we purchase the equipment from CDW-G, a California Multiple Award Schedules (CMAS) vendor, as there would be no benefit to the County for staff to solicit other bids. Purchasing from a CMAS vendor fulfills the competitive bidding requirement so no waiver of that requirement is necessary. Purchasing from CDW-G would, in fact, save the department more than $68,000 with this purchase. FISCAL IMPACT: __ None _X_Budgeted __Non-Budgeted Estimated Cost: $65,306.25 Amount Budgeted: $75,000.00 Additional Requested: 0 Annual Cost (if planned for future years): 0 FISCAL IMPACT (Narrative): There is no County cost associated with this purchase. STAFFING IMPACT (if applicable): None ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the Social Services Director to sign the Purchase Order to CDW-G for 150 C-IV Workstations for a total amount of $65,306.25. Thank you for your consideration. cc: Jennifer Fitts, Deputy Social Services Director Edgar Perez, Program Manager

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Mark Dellinger - Special Districts Administrator Josefine Ecklor - Special Districts Deputy Administrator, Fiscal DATE: March 9, 2016 SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Amending Resolution No. 2015-119 to Amend the FY 2015-16 Adopted Budget to Authorize Cancellation of Capital Improvement Reserve Funds in Fund 281 - CSA #21- North Lakeport Water, in the Amount of $141,982.00 to Cover Loan Payment Due by CSA #21 - North Lakeport. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: CSA #21 - North Lakeport has an annual loan payment of $307,382.00 which has been being paid to California Safe Drinking Water Board every October 1st and April 1st of the Fiscal Year. Loan payment collection through direct charge tax started in FY1990-91 and was ended in FY 2014-15. The original loan assessment made in FY 1989-1990 was not sufficient to pay the principal and interests due, hence leaving CSA #21 a yearly collection deficit of approximately $30,000.00 plus the majority of the last and final bill. FISCAL IMPACT: __ None __Budgeted _X_Non-Budgeted Estimated Cost: $153,690.79 Amount Budgeted: $11,709.00 Additional Requested: $141,982.00 Annual Cost (if planned for future years): $ -0- FISCAL IMPACT (Narrative): See above. STAFFING IMPACT (if applicable): None RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution Amending Resolution No. 2015-119 to Amend the FY 2015-16 Adopted Budget to Authorize Cancellation of Capital Improvement Reserve Funds in Fund 281 - CSA #21- North Lakeport Water, in the Amount of $141,982.00 to Cover Loan Payment Due by CSA #21 - North Lakeport.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors, sitting as the Board of Directors, Lake County Sanitation District FROM: Mark Dellinger/Jill Shaul DATE: March 9, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve the Easement Deed for the Habematolel Pomo Sewer Project, APN 004-003-160 and Authorize the Chair to Sign. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Please see the attached Easement Deed from Michael John Moitozo and Elaine Sylvia to the Lake County Sanitation District for the construction of the Habematolel Pomo Sewer Project. FISCAL IMPACT: _X_ None __Budgeted __Non-Budgeted Estimated Cost: N/A Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Requested: N/A Annual Cost (if planned for future years): N/A FISCAL IMPACT (Narrative): All easement acquisition costs are borne by the Habematolel Pomo. STAFFING IMPACT (if applicable): N/A ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Easement Deed for the Habematolel Pomo Sewer Project, APN 004-003-160, and Authorize the Chair to sign. Please return the executed Easement Deed to Jill Shaul at Special Districts.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Karen Tait, M.D., Health Officer DATE: December 16, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration of Extending the Proclamation of a Local Health Emergency for an Additional Two-Week Period of Time EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Valley Fire is 100% contained. While, removal of hazardous materials and remediation of burned properties is currently under way, it is still early in the process, such that only a portion of ash and other hazardous, or potentially hazardous materials has been removed. Further, although the threat of additional fire damage to structures in impacted areas is reduced, it is not absent. Families have re-entered burned areas that may pose both acute and chronic health risks as well as threats to the environment if timely and appropriate clean-up efforts are not supported. Continuing the Proclamation of a Local health Emergency by the County Health Officer which was initiated on September 22, 2015, serves to enable assistance from state and federal agencies and provides for streamlined procedures, which are essential for the health and safety of the communities impacted by the Valley and other recent fires. Therefore, it is recommended that the Proclamation of a Local Health Emergency by the Lake County Health Officer as Amended on September 22, 2015 be extended for an additional two-week period of time. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends your Board Continue the Proclamation of a Local Health Emergency by the Lake County Health Officer.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Matt Perry, County Administrative Officer Josh Jones, Deputy County Administrative Officer DATE: March 22, 2016 SUBJECT: PUBLIC BID OPENING - Consideration of Bids to Purchase Holiday Harbor EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On January 19, 2016 your Board declared by resolution that the Holiday Harbor property was surplus and set a minimum bid price of $1,200,000. Today, March 22, 2016, is when bids received by 10:00 A.M. shall be considered. Pursuant to Government Code � 25530 all bids shall be publicly opened, examined, and declared by the Board. Of the proposals submitted which conform to all terms and conditions specified in the January 19th resolution of intention to sell and which are made by responsible bidders, the proposal which is the highest shall be finally accepted, unless a higher oral bid is accepted or the Board rejects all bids. Pursuant to Government Code � 25531 before accepting any written proposal, the Board shall call for oral bids. A responsible person offering to purchase the property according to the same terms must exceed the highest written proposal made by a responsible person by 5 percent. Subsequent oral bids must also exceed the previous oral bid by 5 percent. If the ultimately successful bid provides for a commission, the Board shall pay the named broker the commission as specified in the January 19th resolution. An earnest money deposit of 4 percent of the purchase price shall be deposited in an escrow account by the winning bidder by 2:00 P.M. on this day, March 22, 2016. The earnest money deposit shall be refundable only within the first 30 days of escrow. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Board consider written and oral bids to purchase Holiday Harbor.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Richard Coel, Community Development Director By: Michael Penhall, Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Nuisance Abatement Hearing Request for Hittle March 22, 2016 BOS Agenda, at 10:15 A.M. DATE: March 3, 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On June 24, 2015, Community Development staff received a Nuisance Abatement Hearing Request Form from the property owner Ben Hittle; see Attachment 1. The Hearing Request form listed the reasons why Mr. Hittle believes the property should not be considered a public nuisance. The Hearing Request was received due to a Notice of Nuisance and Order to Abate; see Attachment 2, being issued and sent certified mail to the property owner of record. On August 10, 2015, Code Enforcement staff contacted property owner; Benjamin Hittle by telephone. The Hearing Request was discussed with Mr. Hittle along with the violations on the property; building without permits, open and outdoor storage. Mr. Hittle was informed that for building without permits, there would be a fine of $3,138.80 that would be due; see Attachment 3. Mr. Hittle disputed the square footage of the dwelling on which the fines were based. Mr. Hittle was informed that if he provides the department with drawings of the dwelling that showed different measurements, that the fine amount could be reviewed to be reduced. Mr. Hittle then indicated that he wanted the fine amount eliminated. This property is .469 acres, zoned "SR" with NO permitted primary residence. The Lake County Zoning Ordinance; 21-2.4 & 21-2.6 and 2013 California Building Code; Chapter 1, Section1.8.4.1 does not allow for building without permits. The construction that has been performed is substandard and may be difficult to bring into compliance with the California Building Code. Engineered plans will be required due to the under-floor construction style. Because no permit application was filed, staff does not have information concerning compliance with setbacks, driveway and parking area location, or if there is an existing septic system. On January 27, 2016, Code Enforcement staff contacted Lake County Environmental Health regarding the septic system on the property. Staff was told that a Septic Permit was issued on January 22, 2014 and was only valid for one (1) year and has now expired. As of the date of contact with Environmental Health, the Septic System has not received a final inspection. Despite the property owner inadvertently being issued permits, the only records found in the Counties permit system were for temporary power and a metal re-roof. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Code Enforcement Staff recommends that the Board uphold the Notice of Nuisance and Order to Abate dated June 11, 2015 and authorize staff to move forward with the abatement process and demolish the unpermitted substandard building located on the property.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Josh Jones, Deputy County Administrative Officer DATE: March 22, 2016 SUBJECT: Establishing and Increasing Fees in Certain Departments EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Administrative Office has been working with various departments to update fees and charges county-wide. Staff intended to present a master fee ordinance incorporating every single fee and charge county-wide, but that proved to be very cumbersome and so staff will bring forth individual revised fee ordinances as they are drafted over the next few months. The first set of ordinances before your Board for consideration today includes: A) Assessor-Recorder - An Ordinance to Locally Establish Existing Assessor-Recorder Fees Authorized by State Government Code and Revise Certain Fees. This office has charged its fees under authorization of State Government Code, but this ordinance will establish the same fees locally by ordinance. Most fees will remain the same, but the recording fee is being increased substantially. For instance, a standard-sized document for the first page is increased from $7 to $14. B) Clerk of the Board - An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2817 Establishing a Reassessment Filing Fee. This office would collect the new filing fee though the impact of reassessment appeals largely impacts the Assessor-Recorder and several other offices. The fee ranges from $35 to $100 depending on the property use. C) Community Development - An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2646 to Revise the Fee Schedule for the Planning Division and Support Services. The fees in this office have not been updated in over 10 years and greatly understate the cost associated with providing each service. Most fees are being increased by 25%, which is less than the cumulative rate of inflation since the fees were last updated in 2003. The CEQA Basic Initial Study fee is being increased 100% from $250 to $500. D) Library - An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2916 to Revise the Fine and Fee Schedule for the County Library. Minimal increases are proposed. Staff proposes allowing for an automatic increase of these fees each year by no more than the Bay Area Consumer Price Index for the previous calendar year (or by state law as required). This action can be most efficiently accomplished by a Board approved resolution via a master fee schedule prior to the beginning of each fiscal year. Amending and re-amending ordinances year after year would be burdensome both to staff and with regard to tracking ordinances in the future. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Theses ordinances will each require the standard two readings should your Board wish to take action: First, a motion to waive the reading of the ordinance and read it in title only. Second, a motion to advance the ordinance on the agenda for consideration of passage. A) Assessor-Recorder - An Ordinance to Locally Establish Existing Assessor-Recorder Fees Authorized by State Government Code and Revise Certain Fees. This office has charged its fees under authorization of State Government Code, but this ordinance will establish the same fees locally by ordinance. Most fees will remain the same, but the recording fee is being increased substantially. For instance, a standard-sized document for the first page is increased from $7 to $14. B) Clerk of the Board - An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2817 Establishing a Reassessment Filing Fee. This office would collect the new filing fee though the impact of reassessment appeals largely impacts the Assessor-Recorder and several other offices. The fee ranges from $35 to $100 depending on the property use. C) Community Development - An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2646 to Revise the Fee Schedule for the Planning Division and Support Services. The fees in this office have not been updated in over 10 years and greatly understate the cost associated with providing each service. Most fees are being increased by 25%, which is less than the cumulative rate of inflation since the fees were last updated in 2003. The CEQA Basic Initial Study fee is being increased 100% from $250 to $500. D) Library - An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2916 to Revise the Fine and Fee Schedule for the County Library. Minimal increases are proposed.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Matt Perry, County Administrative Officer DATE: January 29, 2016 SUBJECT: Consideration of Continuing the Proclamation of Emergency Declaration for Wildfire Conditions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: As your Board is aware, in the afternoon of July 29, 2015, the Rocky Fire began in the area of Morgan Valley Road and continued for several weeks. This prompted the activation of the Lake OES Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and I declared a Local Emergency on July 31, 2015. On August 4, 2015, your Board ratified the declaration by Resolution no. 2015-107, confirming the existence of such emergency. The dangers of this year's fire season continued on Sunday, August 9, 2015, when the Jerusalem Fire broke out, and your Board amended the declaration of a local emergency on August 18, 2015, to include the Jerusalem Fire, by Resolution no. 2015-109. On the afternoon of September 12, 2015, the Valley Fire began. This again prompted the activation of the EOC and I declared a Local Emergency that evening. This was ratified by your Board on September 15, 2015 by Resolution no. 2015-128. As the County seeks funding and performs recovery operations related to tree removal and other fire recovery projects for the Rocky, Jerusalem, and Valley Fires, it is advisable that we continue the declaration of an emergency to support the fire recovery process. This declaration needs to be re-considered and confirmed by your Board once every 30 days to stay in effect. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends your Board extend the Proclamation of a Declaration of a Local Emergency due to wildfire conditions.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Matt Perry, County Administrative Officer DATE: March 14, 2016 SUBJECT: Consideration of Last and Final Recognized Obligation to be submitted to Redevelopment Agency Successor Agency Oversight Board EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Background Pursuant to SB 107, passed in September 2015, redevelopment successor agencies may take advantage of a new method to repay the loans from the general fund. In order to take advantage of this new method, a Last and Final Recognized Obligation Schedule (ROPS) must be approved by the Redevelopment Agency Successor Agency Oversight Board. Under this accelerated loan payment method, the loans from the County General Fund will be paid in about 15 years as opposed to taking over 40 years under the former method. Prior to presenting the Last and Final ROPS to the Oversight Board for approval, staff requests direction from your Board. In preparing the Last and Final ROPS, the Successor Agency must select an estimated annual growth factor to determine the available funds for loan repayment. The proposed Last and Final ROPS uses an annual growth factor of 2%. The Last and Final ROPS using a 2% growth factor would allow the General Fund loans to be repaid in 15 years with an annual average payment of approximately $212,000 beginning in FY 17/18 and continuing through FY 30/31. Submitting a Last and Final ROPS limits the administrative cost allowance (ACA) retained by the County. We would be able to retain an ACA only for the next three years. The amount retained is determined by a formula and fluctuates considerably. However, the total amount if averaged over 15 years is $9,997 which is a reasonable amount. Attached is a staff report providing a more in-depth discussion and analysis of advantages of filing a Last and Final ROPS and the factors and assumptions used to create the proposed Last and Final ROPS. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends your Board direct staff to present to the Successor Agency Oversight Board for their approval a Last & Final ROPS reflecting the following: 1. A growth factor of 2% annually. 2. Repayment of General Fund loans over 14 years beginning in FY 17/18 with principal payments totaling $2,229,592 and interest totaling $738,225. 3. Administrative Cost Allowance of $6,076 in FY 16/17; $117,194 in FY 17/18; and $26,693 in FY 18/19, which averages $9,997 per year over 15 years.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Jill Ruzicka, Deputy County Administrative Officer DATE: March 22, 2016 SUBJECT: (a) Presentation and Consideration of Operational Budget for PEG; and (b) Consideration of Amendment No.1 to Agreement between the County of Lake, City of Clearlake and City of Lakeport relative to the operation of a local public, educational, government (PEG) cable television channel EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On November 17, 2015 your Board signed an agreement between the City of Clearlake, the City of Lakeport and the County of Lake relative to the operation of the local PEG Channel. It was recently discovered that the agreement did not specify a time frame in which the required annual reporting was to occur. There was also no specification for how and when to remit the annual allocation. This is a simple amendment to that agreement. It adds a reporting date of no later than April 1 of each year; and directs that annual allocations will be made within 15 days after the report has been made to the respective political entities. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: (a) Approve Operational Budget for PEG (b) Approve Amendment No. 1 to Agreement between the County of Lake, City of Clearlake and City of Lakeport relative to the operation of a local public, educational, government (PEG) cable television channel and authorize the Chair to sign.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Matt Perry, County Administrative Officer DATE: March 10, 2016 SUBJECT: Consideration of formation of committee to negotiate with the City of Clearlake regarding the use of sale proceeds subsequent to the sale of former Pearce Field Airport property. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City of Clearlake is proceeding with the sale of the former Pearce Field Airport property for the development of a shopping center. The airport property had been owned by the Clearlake Redevelopment Agency. Pursuant to State law addressing the dissolution of the agency and selling its assets, the other tax receiving entities would receive a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the airport property. The City of Clearlake wishes the County to contribute all or a portion of the County's share of the sale proceeds towards the project since development of the site would increase the sales tax and property tax generated from the property. As the Board is aware, while developing the airport property would generate more taxes from that site, it may decrease the amount of sales taxes generated from the unincorporated area. Given the sensitive nature of these issues, staff recommends your Board appoint a committee to meet with City of Clearlake representatives and determine whether an agreement may be negotiated which may be helpful to the City of Clearlake and the proposed project while still maximizing revenues to the County. If the committee is able to negotiate such an agreement, it would be presented to the full Board for approval. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends your Board appoint a committee consisting of Supervisor Jeff Smith, Chairman Rob Brown, and the County Administrative Officer to meet with the City of Clearlake representatives as described above. cc: Greg Folsom, Clearlake City Administrator

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Josh Jones, Deputy County Administrative Officer DATE: March 22, 2016 SUBJECT: Update on Community Choice Aggregation Request for Proposals EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: As directed by your Board on December 15, 2015 staff released Lake County's RFP for Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) Development and Operations Services on February 1, 2016. The submission period ended on March 11, 2016 and we received four responses. An initial staff review at the time of this writing reveals a wide range of options from the following firms: California Clean Power (CCP) - represented by Peter Rumble. Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) - an existing CCA, represented by Geof Syphers. Tanoak Energy Advisors (Tanoak) - represented by Kelly Foley. The Energy Authority (TEA) - represented by Jeff Fuller. Changes in the CCA World - PG&E and Use of Revenues As your Board is aware, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) was successful in increasing the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) fee that is only charged to CCA customers. These actions have reportedly caused Marin Clean Energy (MCE) to become slightly more expensive than PG&E and SCP to be +/- 1% of PG&E's rates. Our special legal counsel on energy matters, Andrew Brown, has strongly advised the County to not view CCA net program revenues as being unrestricted general fund discretionary revenue. Any use of CCA net program revenues must have a nexus to the CCA program. Admittedly, these two developments make a CCA less viable and appealing within the context of your Board's initial interest in CCA. What remains is that most of our RFP respondents are still claiming that there are still some savings to be had though there are considerations that should be noted. Future of the Market RFP respondents have noted that it is an ideal time to enter the world of CCA right now because of the depressed energy market. While nobody can predict future market conditions it is important to consider what a Lake CCA might look like in 10 years - both ideally and under less than ideal conditions, which might include an increasingly competitive energy market and continuing detrimental actions by PG&E. Bottom Line: Local Control = Local Responsibility The bottom line of a Lake CCA is that we likely are not looking at limitless double-digit ratepayer savings or a new source of unrestricted revenue. The rewards may be softer and less tangible in nature and might include: reduced greenhouse gas emissions through a more sustainable energy mix, ability to procure some power from providers within our locale (which may preserve/advance local jobs), etc. With increased local control and benefits come increased local responsibility and risk. Your Board is no stranger to the strong feelings that CCA can invoke, and may still invoke with regard to selection of a firm, setting of rates, use of program revenues, level of reserves to maintain, etc. The rewards and risks of CCA are very real and before committing Lake County to one direction or another it is worth mentioning that SCP is the outlier amongst the RFP respondents since it is an existing CCA that may look into expanding service to Lake County. While joining a well-respected and well-established CCA certainly presents less risk it consequently offers less of a reward. STAFFING IMPACT (if applicable): Staffing Difficulties Despite the fact that a majority of the work would be outsourced to a firm, most of the RFP respondents have noted that developing internal capacity in the form of a County employee (up to 1 FTE) is crucial for program launch and operation. As your Board is aware, Lake County experiences great difficulty in recruiting highly skilled employees and recruiting in a niche field like CCA could prove to be exceedingly costly and/or a prolonged process. Once recruited, however, the position may very well be funded through CCA program revenues. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff has identified the following options for consideration by your Board: Option One - Least Risk and Reward Your Board may want to "try on CCA for size" and work with Sonoma Clean Power to expand service to Lake County while fleshing out what such an arrangement would look in terms of risks and rewards. The timeline for this process could be flexible and the fiscal impact would be minimal. Option Two - Greatest Responsibility and Reward Your Board may wish to further investigate the three commercially managed CCA service providers by forming a Consultant Selection Committee (CSC) per County Policy. Along the lines of greater responsibility comes greater investment in the process both in terms of staff time and fiscal contribution and thus staff would recommend amending the contract with Andrew Brown, Aldyn Hoekstra, and Teresa Marrinan to provide assistance in evaluating the very technical RFP responses, which are each nearly 100 pages long. Since CCA is new, and commercially managed CCA services have yet to occur in the State of California, it may prove difficult for a CSC comprised of lay staff and volunteers to vet the firms and validate their claims without assistance from energy experts. Alternatively as a cost savings measure, a lay CSC may be able to narrow the field to a top choice after which the energy experts could investigate that one, single firm prior to entering into a major contract. Option Three - Status Quo Your Board may decide that the potential risks and impact to Lake County outweigh the potential benefits of CCA. Discussions regarding CCA could be resumed at any time, particularly after other jurisdictions successfully test the commercially managed model. At this time it does not appear that there is a specific reward tied to being the first jurisdiction in California to test this model.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Sara Shucart, Administrative Assistant DATE: March 9, 2016 SUBJECT: Consideration of appointments to the Fish and Wildlife Advisory Board and Glenbrook Cemetery District Board of Trustees EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Fish and Wildlife Advisory Board - Two (2) vacancies - District 2 Representative and Land Conservation category Application received: Kirk Andrus - new applicant, Land Conservation Glenbrook Cemetery District Board of Trustees - One (1) vacancy - General Membership Application received: Stephen Barnes - new applicant, General Membership FISCAL IMPACT (Narrative): STAFFING IMPACT (if applicable): ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION:

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Members of the Lake County Board of Supervisors FROM: Don A. Anderson, District Attorney DATE: March 9, 2016 SUBJECT: Request authorization for out-of-state travel to Colorado for the District Attorney to meet with Colorado District Attorneys regarding prosecution under new California marijuana laws now similar to Colorado marijuana laws. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: With the soon to be implemented new marijuana laws in California I am requesting authorization to use a County vehicle to travel to approximately ten different District Attorney Offices within the state of Colorado and to incur related travel costs. The purpose is to meet with District Attorneys to research various issues concerning their offices' prosecution under their marijuana laws and how the regulation of marijuana has affected their offices. The scope of the topics to be discussed will include how the new marijuana laws have impacted their office; the problems they face in their prosecution; any increase in related crimes; asset forfeiture; the range of punishment and sentencing; the fiscal impact to their offices; organizational issues within the office; and several other issues related to the new California marijuana laws. The cost of travel is estimated to be $1,500 and will be entirely paid for by the District Attorney Office's asset forfeiture funds in Fund 080. This expenditure will not financially impact the General Fund. FISCAL IMPACT: __ None _X_Budgeted __Non-Budgeted Estimated Cost: $1,500 Amount Budgeted: $1,500 Additional Requested: Annual Cost (if planned for future years): FISCAL IMPACT (Narrative): Funds have been budgeted for travel costs in the DA Asset Forfeiture Fund 080-2116, account 29-50. If needed, a budget transfer within 080-2116 can be prepared to accommodate costs exceeding the estimate. STAFFING IMPACT (if applicable): N/A ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Request authorization for out-of-state travel to Colorado for the District Attorney to meet with Colorado District Attorneys regarding prosecution under new California marijuana laws now similar to Colorado marijuana laws.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Scott DeLeon, Public Works Director DATE: March 17, 2016 SUBJECT: Consideration of Amendment One to Agreement between the County of Lake and Tetra Tech, Inc., for Valley Fire Arboricultural and Hazardous Tree Removal Monitoring Services EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On November 12, 2015, the County entered into an Agreement with Tetra Tech, Inc. for Valley Fire Arboricultural and Hazardous Tree Monitoring services. The scope of services includes arborist services to identify and assess fire-damaged trees that present a safety hazard to the general public as a result of the Valley fire, as well as monitoring efforts during tree removal operations. The purpose of the monitoring efforts is to verify that the work completed by the hazard tree removal contractor, AshBritt, is within the contract scope of work, and to provide the required documentation for FEMA Public Assistance grant reimbursement. For FEMA to determine the eligibility of debris removal operations, examples of what the County must provide for each hazard tree include arborist inspection, GPS locations, photos, private property approval documentation, regulatory commitment verification, debris removal quantities, disposal method tracking, and final disposal locations. FEMA requires the County to monitor all contracted debris operations to document this information and ensure that our contractor removes eligible debris. If the County does not monitor contracted debris removal operations to this extent we jeopardize Public Assistance funding for the project. The need for the Amendment is multifaceted. One issue is that the scope of work for the Agreement covered an initial work period of 60 days based on the operational forecasts at the time. Due to circumstances beyond Tetra Tech's control the project has extended beyond this initial time period. Tetra Tech has continued with their work at risk in order to ensure the County has the necessary monitoring efforts for FEMA compliance. To support the continued level of effort that is necessary to monitor and document the tree removal work requires additional funding to the Agreement. Another issue is that the Agreement did not define Tetra Tech's private property debris removal efforts since, at the time the Agreement was executed, the County did not have an approved private property debris removal program with FEMA from which to establish a scope of work. For example, the level of effort assumed that the County would be able to use the private property right of entry forms that were previously secured by the County for the structure debris removal project managed by the State. CalOES would not accept the use of that right of entry for our project, thereby drastically expanding the County's private property level of effort. Additional requirements for the private property debris removal program are now better defined and are included in the Amendment One scope of work. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve Amendment One to the Agreement between the County of Lake and Tetra Tech, Inc., for an amended Agreement total not to exceed $1,519,104

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Jim Brown, Health Services Director DATE: March 22, 2016 SUBJECT: Approval of Agreement Between the County of Lake and Questa Engineering Corporation for Completion of Health and Safety Inspections for On-Site Wastewater Systems Impacted by the Valley Fire in the Amount of $145,200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Health Services Environmental Health Division sent out a Request for Proposal (RFP) in December of 2015 asking for responses to complete health and safety inspections of the On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) for approximately 600 properties that were damaged or destroyed in the Valley Fire. Requests for Proposal were sent to the following entities: � Questa Engineering � North State Engineering � RSA Engineering � Lescure Engineering Proposals were submitted by both Questa Engineering and North State Engineering. Upon review by the selection group, it was determined that Questa Engineering was the best choice based on their years of experience in conducting OWTS inspections and assessments throughout the State of California. The Health Services Department is recommending Board approval to award this contract to Questa Engineering Corporation Questa Engineering will work closely with the Environmental Health Division who will oversee the evaluation of the OWTS on the properties impacted by the Valley Fire with the specific objectives to evaluate for safety and public health risk to the community and environment and the suitability of the system to be placed back into use either "as is" or with needed repair. Properties served by OWTS in the Anderson Springs area and/or property owners that have already paid an inspection fee to Environmental Health to conduct a similar survey will not be included in the contract. Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact myself at 263-1090 or Raymond Ruminski at 263-1164.FISCAL IMPACT: __ None _X_Budgeted __Non-Budgeted Estimated Cost: $145,200 Amount Budgeted: Additional Requested: Annual Cost (if planned for future years): N/A FISCAL IMPACT (Narrative): N/A STAFFING IMPACT (if applicable): N/A ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Your Board's approval to award this contract to Questa Engineering Corporation is requested and recommended. Thank you for your consideration of this request.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Board of Supervisors FROM: Anita L. Grant, County Counsel DATE: March 2, 2016 SUBJECT: Consideration of proposed Ordinance Amending Specified Sections of Article I of Chapter 2 of the Lake County Code Relating to Meetings of the Board of Supervisors EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On May 5, 2015, by the initiation of an ordinance amendment, the Board of Supervisors determined to adjust the number of meetings of the Board from four meetings per month to three meetings per month. This adjustment was made after consideration of the limited number of agenda items for some meetings of the Board at that time as well as the amount of staff time expended in preparation for and in attendance of those meetings. Supervisor Brown has requested that this matter be revisited and consideration be given to the Board's return to four regularly-scheduled meetings each month. Should your Board wish to return to the four-meetings-per-month schedule, a draft ordinance is attached for your consideration. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: This ordinance will require the standard two readings should your Board wish to take action: First, a motion to waive the reading of the ordinance and read it in title only. Second, a motion to advance the ordinance on the Agenda for consideration of passage.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Jeff Rein, Chief Deputy County Administrative Officer DATE: February 4, 2016 SUBJECT: Consideration of (a) Pole Attachment Agreement between the County of Lake and Pacific Bell Telephone Company; and (b) Amendment to Tower and Ground Space License Agreement between U.S. Cellular Corporation, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, and the County of Lake EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Four years ago AT&T (aka: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC) approached the County about upgrading the electric utility service that provides power to the communications site on Buckingham Peak via an overhead power line which begins at the Riviera West Subdivision and extends the top of Buckingham Peak. That communications site consists of a County-owned tower (and equipment building) and an AT&T-owned tower (and equipment buildings) which reside on property leased from the County. The current electric utility service has only enough capacity to support the County's tower and equipment building. As a result, AT&T and its tenant, US Cellular (of which the County receives 50% of the US Cellular's rent), utilize propane generators that run 24 hours a day to support their operations. The long-term financial cost of continuously running generators as well as the resulting impact to air quality provided AT&T and US Cellular with incentive to invest in such an upgrade. An upgrade would also be in the County's best interest because 1) the existing utility poles are 40� years old and in a severely declining state, 2) the restricted power capacity limits the County's ability to support additional tenants, and 3), the new power lines and the type of power utilized (3-phase vs single phase) will provide for more efficient delivery of power, 4) it would secure the long-term tenancy of AT&T and US Cellular from which we currently receive $51,000 per year. In the initial approach to this project, AT&T evaluated undergrounding of the utility service. They invested considerable resources in that assessment including engineered plans, environmental studies, geotechnical reports, easement acquisition and permitting. Nonetheless, AT&T abandoned the project after soliciting bids for the undergrounding work which came in at an unexpectedly high cost of 2.1 million dollars. At that point AT&T notified County staff that it was no longer willing to invest staff time in the project. Consequently, County staff picked up the ball and pursued an approach that provides for replacement of the power poles and overhead utility lines. AT&T verbally committed to funding this approach if the cost was reasonable. Besides the incentives noted above, they are especially motivated to abide by their funding commitment because their ground-lease with the County expires May 31, 2016. Since then, staff has coordinated the necessary components of the project including surveying, engineering, easement acquisition, permitting and cost-sharing agreements with AT&T and T-Mobile who will also benefit from the upgrade. Collectively, these parties will cover the entire cost of the project based on the project budget of $745,000.00. The project budget is outlined in the attachment entitled "BUCKINGHAM PEAK POWER UPGRADE PROJECT BUDGET." Risk Factors: The Utility Agreement establishes $745,000.00 as the total project costs, consisting of design costs ($138,261.00) and construction costs ($606,739.00). Under the terms of the Utility Agreement, the County is obligated to collect $100,000.00 from its licensee, T-Mobile Corporation, to pay for part of the total project cost, and the County shall be solely responsible to pay this $100,000.00 in the event it fails to collect said amount from T-Mobile Corporation. Also under the terms of the Utility Agreement, AT&T is responsible for any design and construction work related to the project under its contract with Pacific Gas & Electric in the amount of $85,000.00, and AT&T is responsible for payment of any amount in excess of this $85,000.00. In addition to this $85,000.00, AT&T is also responsible to pay for the remainder of the total project costs estimated at $560,000.00 after application of the aforementioned $100,000.00 payment amount. In light of the foregoing, the County will be responsible for both the aforementioned $100,000.00 payment and any costs in excess of AT&T's responsibility of $560,000.00. In a project of this complexity, that does impose a risk upon the County. This risk mainly consists of the possibility that the total project costs would exceed $560,000.00 and the County might be responsible for subsequently paying significant cost overruns due to circumstances unforeseen or unanticipated by the pertinent contracting parties (e.g. the construction contractor). In exchange for assuming this risk, AT&T agreed to cap the reimbursement they are to receive from the "utility buy-in" fee that will be collected from most future users of the upgraded utility service. AT&T's reimbursement from the utility buy-in will be capped at $245,000.00 and T-Mobile will not receive any reimbursement at all. Because a utility buy-in could be a disincentive to potential future tenants, staff believes it is extremely important to limit the application of that utility buy-in to future users. Because the construction contracts are governed by the Contractor's Guaranteed Maximum Price, the aforementioned risk of construction cost overruns is partially mitigated. Nevertheless, the Guaranteed Maximum Price is subject to the exceptions found in all County construction contracts such as any County-initiated changes to the project and County-responsibility for certain subsurface conditions. In this project, the most likely factor to result in a cost overrun is the finding of rock that complicates the digging of the holes for the utility poles. There will be 14 holes that are 2 feet in diameter and 6.5 feet in depth. To mitigate this risk to the County, the Contractor has agreed to accept cost responsibility for any complications he may encounter in digging these holes to a 6.5 feet depth. The risk of any other subsurface conditions impacting this project is further mitigated by the following factors: 1. These holes are being dug immediately adjacent to the existing utility poles and so the area in question has already been subject to prior excavation. 2. The following contractual language which is intended to reduce the County's risk of cost overruns by holding the contractor responsible for the accommodation of the Project Site conditions that were reasonably discoverable by him. "3.6.3 Except for environmental conditions and subsurface or other conditions that could not have reasonably been discovered by a reasonable inspection of the Site within the scope of access the owner has granted, Contractor is responsible for accommodating all Site conditions in the Final Plans and construction of the Project Work, regardless of when the Site condition is discovered, but shall not be responsible for any conditions of the off-Site Staging and Lay Down Areas, except to the extent that such conditions were disclosed by the drawings and other information provided by Owner to Contractor. Notwithstanding a failure by Contractor to perform its Site investigation due diligence consistent with the access Owner has granted under this Section, Contractor shall be responsible for successfully constructing the Project Work without adjustment of the Guaranteed Maximum Price." 3. The construction contract includes a 15% contingency fund. Approval of Plans and Specifications (Subject No. 2) The plans and specifications for construction of the Buckingham Peak Power Upgrade Project are complete and a copy has been filed with the Clerk of the Board and presented herewith for your approval. Award of Energy Services Construction Contracts (Subjects No. 1, 3 & 4): Because of the complexity of this project, staff's first step in developing these plans was to identify a contractor who was qualified to not only build the project but to assist in the design of such a unique project. For the most part, design-build projects are prohibited by statute. This project, however, qualifies for one of the exemptions by virtue of Government Code Section 4217.10 et seq. which allows us to both forego the normal bidding procedures and utilize a design-build approach when the project includes energy conservation measures, which this project clearly provides for the reasons stated above. To effectuate this exemption, the attached resolution must be approved at a noticed public hearing. After making numerous inquiries, Northern California Power was consistently recommended as the "go-to" contractor for such a project. Since then, acting in the capacity of an unpaid consultant, Northern California Power has been instrumental in the development of the plans by virtue of their willingness to share their expertise and coordinate input from AT&T, PG&E and the design engineer who actually drafted the plans. In light of the foregoing, staff recommends award of the attached construction contracts to Northern California Power Company. The estimated time for completing the construction phase is four weeks baring weather or other unexpected delays. Acquisition of Easement and Right-of-Way (Subjects No. 5 & 6): The existing utility line occupies a 10 foot corridor which begins at the edge of the Riviera West Subdivision and extends up the side of Mt. Konocti to Buckingham Peak. Because the new utility line will have to be constructed prior to deconstruction of the existing utility line, new boundaries for this corridor had to be defined which in turn necessitates acquisition of new right-of-ways and/or easements from the two property owners on which the corridor resides, (BLM and Harbor View Mutual Water Company). BLM does not provide permanent easement rights and instead issues temporary Right-of-Way Grants that have a maximum term of 30 years, the total cost of which is $12,004.43. Harbor View Mutual Water Company has agreed to sell a permanent easement to the County at the appraised cost of $2,400. Attached are documents required to effectuate these acquisitions. Utility Agreement (Subject No. 7) As stated above, AT&T and T-Mobile are willing to fund costs related to this project. T-Mobile's funding commitment was previously memorialized in an amendment to its Licensing Agreement. AT&T's commitment is memorialized in the attached Utility Funding Agreement. Amendments to Ground Leases with Crown Castle and U.S. Cellular (Subject No. 8 & 11): Although the original ground lease is with AT&T, Crown Castle, Inc., who is the largest holder of communications towers in the US, recently acquired the rights to approximately 9700 of AT&T's tower properties nationwide, including the ground lease on Buckingham Peak. As such, AT&T and US Cellular become tenants of Crown Castle. In light of the fact that the current ground lease expires on May 31, 2016, it is in the interest of both Crown and its tenants that their continued occupancy of the site is assured. Consequently, in return for arranging AT&T's funding of this project, Crown Castle has asked for a 30 year extension of the ground leases with AT&T and US Cellular. The proposed ground lease amendment provides for extension of the Term as well as acceptance of AT&T's assignment of their interest in the ground lease to Crown Castle. Staff, including the County's Communications Site Manager, supports this new arrangement including the new Term since it is consistent with industry standards and will provide the County with a continuing source of revenue that is guaranteed to increase by at least 3% each year. The proposed ground lease amendment is attached for your consideration. Pole Attachment Agreement with AT&T (Subject No. 9): Although the cell carriers are funding the power upgrade project, the County retains ownership of the entire infrastructure including the utility poles. The Pacific Bell Division of AT&T desires to install fiber optic cable to the Buckingham Peak communications site which necessitates use of these utility poles and adjacent County-owned property. Having access to fiber optic on Buckingham Peak may prove to be beneficial to the County at some point in the future. Permission to utilize these County resources is granted by the attached Pole Attachment Agreement and Easement Grant. Utility Payment Agreement with U.S. Cellular (Subject No. 10): As previously stated, this new utility line will be solely owned by the County. As such, the utility bill will be the responsibility of the County. Nevertheless, the tenants that occupy the communications site will be responsible for payment based on the electric utility usage. Consequently, an Agreement that memorializes this arrangement with U.S. Cellular is needed. A similar arrangement with AT&T (New Cingular Wireless) is incorporated in the above referenced Utility Agreement (Subject No. 7). Inspection and Testing Agreement with Streamline Engineering (Subject No. 12): The purpose of this contract is to provide construction quality assurance with the primary purpose being to ensure that the construction work is completed in accordance with the Final Plans. This is the only expense that will not be reimbursed by the funding partners. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Although it has taken over four years and many hours of discussion and negotiation with the eight entities involved in this project, staff believes that the approach outlined herein achieves the most cost-effective and long-term solution to providing reliable and sufficient power to the Buckingham Peak Communications Site. Although, like any project, the construction phase of this project has a risk of a cost overrun, staff believes that it has mitigated that risk by transferring as much as possible to the Contractor, as discussed above (see also "Project Risk/Reward Profile" below). Consequently, staff recommends your Board's approval of the attached documents in order to effectuate commencement of the outlined approach. Power Upgrade Project Risk/Reward Summary PROJECT RISK/REWARD PROFILE Reasons to Support of the Project: 1. The existing poles are at risk of collapsing. 2. Although use of Buckingham Peak is the most cost-effective alternative for AT&T in its delivery of cellular service to Lake County, it does have alternatives approaches as evidenced by Verizon's approach which utilizes multiple lower altitude sites in lieu of one higher altitude site. 3. The current power capacity is very limited and this project provides significantly more power which in turn provides opportunity to attract additional tenants. 4. It secures AT&T's tenancy and U.S. Cellular's license for the foreseeable future from which we currently receive $51,000 per year. 5. The power upgrade will provide an alternative to the continued use of propane powered generators. Not only will this have a positive impact on air quality but it will also eliminate the weekly trips that the propane company has to make to the top of the mountain which in turn reduces wear and tear to the road and improves safety of those otherwise using the road (e.g. hikers, bikers, and other vehicles). Consequently, this project qualifies as a conservation measure as defined in Government Code Section 4217 et al. because it reduces energy use and/or makes for a more efficient use of energy. Reasons to be Concerned about the Project: 1. The potential for a cost overrun in the construction phase. That potential, however, is limited by the following: The construction contractor has agreed to a guaranteed maximum price subject only to these exclusions: (a) Any increase or decrease in the Cost of the Project Work resulting from the imposition of additional requirements or reallocation of the Cost of the Project Work by a Tenant of the Owner (such as AT&T, in which instance AT&T would cover the cost); (b) Any increase or decrease in the Cost of the Project Work resulting from any Change Order made pursuant to those reasons set forth in the General Conditions and Supplementary General Conditions.* (c) Any increase in the Cost of the Project Work resulting from the Owner's failure to cooperate reasonably with Contractor, including without limitation owner's failure to carry out its duties. *Those General and Supplementary Conditions reflect the County's standard subsurface exclusions but they have been further narrowed by the following; Section 3.6.3. Contractor acknowledges and agrees that it was required to inspect the Site to determine the scope of work and difficulties to be encountered and assumes all risks that could have been discovered by that inspection. Except for environmental conditions and subsurface or other conditions that could not have reasonably been discovered by a reasonable inspection of the Site within the scope of access the Owner has granted, Contractor is responsible for accommodating all Site conditions in the Final Plans and construction of the Project Work, regardless of when the Site condition is discovered, but shall not be responsible for any conditions of the off-Site Staging and Lay Down Areas, except to the extent that such conditions were disclosed by the drawings and other information provided by Owner to Contractor. Notwithstanding a failure by Contractor to perform its Site investigation due diligence consistent with the access Owner has granted under this Section, Contractor shall be responsible for successfully constructing the Project Work without adjustment of the Guaranteed Maximum Price. Section 5.3. In accordance with Section 3.6.3 of this Agreement, Contractor acknowledges that it has reasonably inspected the Site within the scope of access the Owner has granted for the purpose of digging holes necessary to fully perform the Project Work to a depth of no less than 6.5 feet and has had the opportunity to perform any and all advisable testing as dictated by the Site inspection and the professional expertise of the Contractor. Therefore, with the exception of unusual conditions differing materially from what would normally be encountered given the topography of the Site and subsurface information, any incurred costs in excess of or otherwise not covered by the Guaranteed Maximum Price resulting from Contractor's failure or inability to dig holes measuring 6.5 feet in depth as part of the Project Work shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors, LACOSAN FROM: Mark Dellinger, Administrator Jan Coppinger, Compliance Coordinator DATE: March 9, 2016 SUBJECT: (Sitting as the Lake County Sanitation District, Board of Directors) - Consideration of Resolution Authorizing and Designating Special Districts Administrator, or his designee, to Sign and Submit a Funding Agreement and any Amendments thereto for Funding Under the State Water Resources Control Board for Planning and Design of the Middletown Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On February 2, 2016 your Board approved resolution #2016-21, authorizing Mark Dellinger to sign and submit a funding application with the State Water Resources Control Board. The State Water Resources Control Board has requested that the resolution be resubmitted, without naming an individual, but inserting the title of the authorized agent. The funding application is for a planning grant for the Middletown Sewer Treatment Plant. The Middletown Sewer Treatment facilities are nearing their hydraulic and treatment capacity and improvements will be necessary to accommodate increased wastewater flows and maintain regulatory requirements. A Construction funding application was submitted to State Water Resources Control Board with the intention of implementing a rate increase to secure and satisfy the funding agency's requirements. The community of Middletown was severely impacted by the Valley Fire in September 2015, and the Middletown Sanitation District lost over 200 SFD equivalents. It is not feasible to implement a rate increase while the community is recovering from the Valley Fire. If approved, these funds will be used to update the preliminary design report that was completed in 2010. The resulting product of this phase of the project will be a description and analysis of existing facilities and needed improvements to meet current and future wastewater flows based on projected growth. The project will include final design with bid ready documents and an updated cost estimate. FISCAL IMPACT: XX__ None __Budgeted __Non-Budgeted Estimated Cost: N/A Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Requested:N/A Annual Cost (if planned for future years): FISCAL IMPACT (Narrative): See above. STAFFING IMPACT (if applicable): N/A ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: (Sitting as the Lake County Sanitation District, Board of Directors) - Adopt Resolution Authorizing and Designating Special Districts Administrator, or his designee, to Sign and Submit a Funding Agreement and any Amendments thereto for Funding Under the State Water Resources Control Board for Planning and Design of the Middletown Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors, LACOSAN FROM: Mark Dellinger, Administrator Jan Coppinger, Compliance Coordinator DATE: March 9, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve resolution authorizing Special Districts Administrator to sign and submit funding application in the amount of $500,000 with the State Water Resources Control Board for Anderson Springs Sewer System EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On 02/02/2016, your Board approved resolution #2016-22 authorizing Special Districts Administrator, Mark Dellinger to sign and submit a funding application with the State Water resources Control Board for the Public Sewer System for Anderson Springs. The State Water Resources Control Board has requested that we resubmit the resolution without naming a specific individual, but placing the title of the authorized person instead. The community of Anderson Springs surrounds Anderson Creek, a small natural stream that flows into Putah Creek. In 1990, an engineering report found that Anderson Springs was located in a poorly suited area for on-site sewage disposal because of small lot size and shallow, course soil conditions. Water samples taken within and downstream of Anderson Springs showed elevated fecal coliform levels. The elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria represent a significant degradation of surface water quality in Anderson Creek and Putah Creek. A preliminary design report was completed in 2009. The report identified two options for a wastewater collection system that would send flows to the Middletown Sewer Treatment Plant. The community was opposed to any further investigation into a sewer system at that time. In September 2015, 198 of the 212 homes in the Anderson Springs Community burned in the Valley Fire. Many of these homes cannot be rebuilt under current building and set back codes without a sewer system. The community has asked Special Districts to investigate options for a sewer system. We are proposing to submit a funding application for Planning and Design Funds from the State Water Resources Control Board. The application will be for 100% grant funding of $500,000. The tasks and deliverables in the plan of study will include competitively selecting an engineering firm to provide a description and analysis of the options for a collection system that will meet current and future wastewater flows based on growth and projections of homes being rebuilt. It will also include an update to the 2009 Preliminary Design Report. The final product will include final design, bid ready documents and an updated cost estimate. FISCAL IMPACT: _XX_ None __Budgeted __Non-Budgeted Estimated Cost: N/A Amount Budgeted:N/A Additional Requested:N/A Annual Cost (if planned for future years): FISCAL IMPACT (Narrative): See above./ STAFFING IMPACT (if applicable):None. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve resolution authorizing Special Districts Administrator to sign and submit funding application in the amount of $500,000 with the State Water Resources Control Board for Anderson Springs Sewer System. Staff recommends that your Board approve the resolution authorizing the Special Districts Administrator (or his designee) to sign and submit funding application in the amount of $500,000 with the State Water Resources Control Board for Anderson Springs Sewer System.

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Scott DeLeon, Public Works Director DATE: March 17, 2016 SUBJECT: Consideration of Temporary Fee Waiver of Construction Traffic Impact Fees for Homes Damaged or Destroyed by 2015 Wildland Fires EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff is currently working on this item to be presented to the Board on March 22, 2016. As the memo/backup become available, they will be uploaded to granicus and/or presented in hardcopy at the meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: __ None __Budgeted __Non-Budgeted Estimated Cost: Amount Budgeted: Additional Requested: Annual Cost (if planned for future years): FISCAL IMPACT (Narrative): STAFFING IMPACT (if applicable): ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION:

..Title ..Body MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Scott DeLeon, Interim Community Development Director DATE: March 17, 2016 SUBJECT: Consideration of Accela Subscription Agreement with Terms and Conditions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item is being brought back to the Board because the Subscription Agreement with Terms and Conditions was not presented to the Board for action. There may have potentially been confusion as to the way the attachments were titled for presentation to the Board. The document Exhibit D in last week's Board presentation is "Exhibit A - Statement of Work" as referenced in the Service Agreement. To further clarify, the presentation of materials from last week have been renamed and attached hereto. ..Recommended Action RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends your Board approve Accela Subscription Agreement with Terms and Conditions and authorize the Chair to sign.