County revenues are down due to
the economy, state budget and other factors. This has affected the amount of money
available in the County’s General Fund to spend on basic services, (Sheriff, Jail,
District Attorney, Public Defender, Probation, County Counsel, Tax Collector, Assessor,
Auditor, Administrator, County Clerk, Library, Agriculture, Farm Advisor, Building,
Planning, Veterans Services, County Fire and the Museum.) Departments have been asked to
review their current fee schedules to ensure that individual services are adequately
supported by their recipients, and not the general taxpayer. In many cases, it has been
found that these fees have not been increased in several years and are among the lowest in
the state.
Currently, the Board of Supervisors is reviewing proposed fees from
the Public Health and Community Development Department and the Agricultural Department.
Public Health is proposing to increase some rates on individual immunizations. There are
also discussions on fees for the state-required medical marijuana I.D. card and perhaps
permit fees on each plant allowed under the state law to cover program implementation and
verification expenses.
The Building Department is no longer self-sustaining by the fees
charged. These fees are currently 65% below those charged by local cities. The proposed
new fee schedule would bring that to 25% below the amount charged by local cities.
The Agricultural Department proposes to raise fees for weights and
measures. There is also a proposal to prohibit the burning of any “flammable
vegetation, waste, debris or any other flammable material” without first acquiring a
written permit from the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District. Substantial fines
of from $250-$1,000 would be imposed for burning without a permit. In addition, there is a
resolution to raise fees for permits for open burning (agricultural, slash, range
improvement and forest/wildland management,) and to impose a new permit on residential
burning in areas of the county where burning is currently allowed under state law. These
ordinances will be discussed again at the October 21 Board of Supervisor’s meeting.
It should be noted that I am opposed to the burn ordinance and
resolution as currently written. For starters, the ordinance does not differentiate
between wood burning for heat and for yard waste. Wood heat is a principal source of
essential heating for many county residents. Also, the state has made it a wise policy to
require fuel reduction around residences. Locally, we have encouraged the formation of
Fire Safe Councils to help protect communities. The additional requirement of a
residential permit with accompanying regulatory conditions would work as a deterrent to
the goal of reducing fuels. Currently, those of us who live in the woods spend a
substantial amount of time out of fire season raking, trimming and burning. We call the
burn day line to check if it is ok to burn. We get a conditional permit from CalFire to
burn out of season. It is difficult enough to get the physical conditions and personal
time aligned in order to do the work, let alone comply with a raft of new conditions
possible under a permit. To top it off, if you get caught burning without the $5-$50
proposed permit, you get a large fine. This seems more of a “speed trap” gotcha
type of regulatory scheme than one which is actually necessary. I oppose the ordinance and resolution for these
reasons.
The local Siskiyou County Fish and Game Commission recently brought
forward a proposed County Deer Management Plan. The hefty document includes a variety of
recommendations that would affect private property and public lands. For instance, the
proposal would delineate deer wintering ranges on the entire Klamath National Forest
– imposing another layer of management considerations. Also it proposes that a deer
habitat rejuvenation plan be developed throughout Siskiyou County – including private
lands. The County General Plan currently contains zoning considerations for preserving
“deer wintering range.” The new management plan proposes to assess parcel size
requirements and preservation of critical habitat for deer to be incorporated into the
Land Use section of the County General Plan.) The plan would also review and address road
mortality issues, which conceivably could affect speed limits. It also encourages
conservation easements and oak recruitment and retention.
I am very concerned about the potential regulatory and land use
aspects of this proposed plan. It will be brought back for consideration by the Board of
Supervisors on November 4. I urge the public to review the document and provide their
comments to us. |
