Pubdate: Wed, 23 Mar 2016
Source: Chico Enterprise-Record (CA)
Copyright: 2016 Chico Enterprise-Record
Contact:  http://www.chicoer.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/861
Note: Letters from newspaper's circulation area receive publishing priority
Author: Ryan Olson

BUTTE COUNTY BOARD APPROVES ADDING CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF; OFFICIALS 
SHIFT CANNABIS PRIORITIES

Oroville - The Butte County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved 
using additional permanent code enforcement staff instead of part-time help.

Much of Tuesday's conversation regarding the two new officers and two 
support staff was centered on the county's ongoing enforcement of its 
medical marijuana cultivation ordinance.

Development Services Director Tim Snellings told supervisors that the 
request was based on the lessons learned during the first year of 
enforcement of the ordinance approved by voters in 2014 as Measure A. 
The county used eight extra-help employees last year, but it wasn't a 
wise use of county resources to train these employees only to let them go.

"We need the staffing. We need them trained," Snellings said.

He noted the only appeals hearing the county lost was because an 
extra-help officer was unavailable to testify.

The marijuana cultivation ordinance, which generally sets allowable 
grow areas based on lot size, remains in effect. Voters will decide 
June 7 whether to approve amendments to the rules, but the original 
rules remain in place.

The additional employees, which would return code enforcement 
staffing back to its pre-recession levels in 2008, will help improve 
efficiency and build better relationships, according to Snellings.

Each additional officer would cost $77,990 in salary and benefits. 
There was no indication Tuesday about how much the support staff would cost.

Officials said the staff could be added within the department's 
current budget and is also included in next year's budget.

County Chief Administrative Officer Paul Hahn said the goal was to 
re-establish a core, small level of code enforcement that would 
address more than marijuana code enforcement. Staff cautioned that 
extra-help may still be called on during peak times.

Supervisors welcomed restoring code enforcement personnel levels. 
Chico-area Supervisor Maureen Kirk said there were code enforcement 
issues in Cohasset that weren't related to cannabis. Regarding 
marijuana, she said officials should focus more on 
neighbor-to-neighbor complaints.

Snellings replied that people may still make anonymous complaints 
regarding marijuana cultivation, but officials will not focus on bulk 
complaints from people who report properties based on satellite 
images from Google Maps.

"The priority is going to be on the neighbor-to-neighbor complaints," 
Snellings said.

Hahn also said officials would deal more with complaints in urban and 
suburban areas over rural areas.

The indicated shift in priorities brought generally positive comments 
from the 13 members of the public that spoke on the staffing change.

One man said investigating complaints based on data from Google was a 
waste of taxpayer money. Another wanted to cease anonymous complaints 
and allow complainants to be held liable for false claims. Others 
questioned the practice of having sheriff's deputies accompany code 
enforcement officers to site visits.

Several people noted that their neighbors were visited by code 
enforcement several times, although nothing was found. Snellings said 
there was no excuse for such repeated visits.

One woman asked if the board could codify the enforcement priorities 
and specify that the new officers aren't specifically for cannabis 
code enforcement.

Board Chairman and Oroville-area Supervisor Bill Connelly later said 
the board has made its indications clear, but can't codify it now. 
Part of the reasoning is the fact that significant changes may be 
enacted after Nov. 8 election, when voters may approve recreational 
marijuana use.

"There may be dramatic changes in November and we need to live 
through that," Connelly said.

Jessica MacKenzie, director of the Inland Cannabis Farmers 
Association, was heartened to hear about the focus on actual 
complaints. However, she wasn't convinced by the county's intentions 
while her group is gathering information about officer misconduct and 
"SWAT-like tactics."

"You need to hear from those of us who have experienced those 
behaviors out in the field," MacKenzie said.

Kirk later said she has heard similar complaints from credible sources.

Snellings didn't dispute the claims and responded there's no room for 
such heavy-handed practices. Such practices aren't part of training 
and they would work to make sure it remained so. He said staff 
respects people's rights and are instructed not to trespass without 
an appropriate warrant.

In response to a question by Supervisor Steve Lambert, Snellings said 
that some of the extra-help code enforcement were former law 
enforcement personnel.

Lambert, whose district includes Durham, Biggs and Gridley, said it 
was important to get properties cleaned up. However, he said it was 
always going to use resources, referring to some complaints about the 
program costs.

"It's not our place to make money with this deal," Lambert said.

Measure A enforcement costs last year were $375,996, which was 57 
percent of what was budgeted. Staff issued 894 citations, leading to 
$2.93 million in fines, although only $171,175 was collected through 
early January.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom