Newspaper Archive of
Feather River Bulletin
Quincy, California
Lyft
August 26, 2015     Feather River Bulletin
PAGE 8     (8 of 32 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Full Size Image
 
PAGE 8     (8 of 32 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Full Size Image
August 26, 2015
 

Newspaper Archive of Feather River Bulletin produced by SmallTownPapers, Inc.
Website © 2019. All content copyrighted. Copyright Information.     Terms Of Use.     Request Content Removal.




8A Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2015 Feather River Bulletin m,ng Dan McDonald Managing Editor dmcdonald@plumasnews.com Acting Probation Chief Clint Armitage's attempt to beef up his department with state money Was shot down by local criminal justice partners last week. The Community Corrections Partnership Executive Committee refused to give Armitage a bigger chunk of the county's AB109 allotment -- partially on philosophical grounds, but also for legal reasons. Armitage said he wants to arm probation offwers so they can do "more intensive" enforcement. The other committee members who attended the Aug. 19 meeting in Quincy told Armitage he needed approval from the Board of Supervisors before his officers are allowed to carry guns. They said even if he gets the board's OK, the money to pay for it would have to come from the county's general fund, not from state AB109 money. Committee members accused Armitage of trying to use AB109 funds to "supplant" general fund money, something that is forbidden by state law. Armitage said he disagreed with the committee's interpretation of "supplanting." He argued the AB109 law mandates intensive supervision by the probation department. Armitage sparred with District Attorney David Hollister and Public Defender Doug Prouty about the law during the three-hour In meeting. HoUister and Prouty both questioned why the probation department needed an extra $100,000 when the county's recidivism rate was at a historically low 11 percent. "A 65 percent increase? What is the basis for that?" Prouty asked. "What is the need for an increase of over a hundred thousand dollars when you have a recidivism rate that is already low?" Hollister said the state bases its AB109 funding on a county's recidivism. He said Plumas County stands to get about $160,000 more next year because of its low recidivism. The district attorney said the reason for fewer repeat offenders is because of the county's emphasis on rehabilitation. He said he was concerned intensive enforcement by probation officers could send people to jail who shouldn't be there. He said that would unnecessarily raise recidivism and potentially cost the county hundreds of thousands of dollars. Armitage countered that his officers only arrest people who deserve to be arrested. He said public safety should be a higher priority than money. He added, the probation department, which has had four chiefs in less than three years, needs to do a better job in the field. "In the past there really hasn't been any intense community supervision. That's what we are trying to increase here," Armitage said. "We need people to do it. We need equipment to do it. Since we are beginning to increase supervision, that's why we need the money." He said enforcement was a big part of AB109 and that is why probation chiefs are required to chair the counties' CCP committees. "Probation was put at the tip of the spear to lead the charge," he said. Alcohol and Drug Services Director Louise Steenkamp was also opposed to the partnership committee funding firearms. "Because (arming probation officers) is a decision that needs to happen in public, with participation of the public, in my view would not ever be an expenditure that would be approved in CCP," Steenkamp said. "It goes against the philosophy, as well as the outline, of the priorities that we set in both our implementation plan as well as the guidelines for CCP. ... And so, for me, that would never actually be anything in CCP that I would entertain." Hollister accused Armitage of selectively, and incorrectly, interpreting a small piece of the AB109 law's wording to suit his needs. He said Armitage's proposal was inviting an audit from the state. "I don't want to feel like I'm playing a game, where it's 'what we can get away with until somebody catches you,'" Hollister said. "I expect probation, and the sheriff and alternative sentencing to follow the law, and follow the spirit of the law, and do what is expected." When the dust settled, the committee voted to allot the probation department about the same amount it received last year: $201,845. eClslon The committee appropriated $828,380 of the $969,000 it had to spend. The other $140,620 was left in reserve. The county's AB109 allotment was $532,000. It had $437,000 held over from last year. The sheriff received $361,594, and the district attorney's office received $169,500 for the Day Reporting Center. Community-based agencies receiving money were: Plumas County Literacy ($33,620), Workforce Alliance ($25,000) and Plumas Crisis Intervention and Resource Center ($36,821 for its Fatherhood Initiative). All of the CCP's budget recommendations have to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Before voting to approve its funding recommendations, the committee added stipulations that none of the probation department's money could be used for firearms. And that no department could use any of the appropriated funds to supplant county general fund money. The committee said AB109 expenditures will also be subject to quarterly review. The CCP executive committee is comprisecl of Armitage (chairman), Superior Court designee Deborah Norrie, Hollister, Sheriff Greg Hagwood, Prouty and Steenkamp. Hagwood, who said he supports the probation department's effort to arm its officers, was out of town and didn't attend the meeting. Coach awarded Former National Intercollegiate Rodeo Association commissioner, John Smith presents Jesse Segura, from Feather River College, with the 2015 Coach of the Year award earlier this season. Segura was honored by resolution of the Feather River College Board of Trustees last week. Photo submitted Newphone scam warning It has come to the attention The Court communicates of the Plumas Superior Court with prospective trial and that someone identifying grand jurors in writing by himseif as Lt. Brad Fisher, sending out written summons Badge No. 588, has been or other correspondence. making telephone calls to Court staff would never call citizens in the community and ask for money in this informing them that, because way. they missed appearing for Anyone who receives one of grand jury duty, they must these calls is asked to report send money to the Court. it to the Plumas Sheriffs This is a scam. Office. Have Only 2 53 More to Go l reporter in its | Writing skills and knowledge the community are a plus. Previous newspaper experience is preferred. The job entails some evening and weekend work. of Send resume and writing Managing Editor / Dan examples to: McDonald or call Para m~s detalles Ilame al 1-800-660-6789 ~ ~ -~i ~z: ~: 1-800-893-9555. NOTICE OF EVlDENTIARY HEARINGS REGARDING PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S REQUEST TO CHANGE RATES FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION IN 2016 AND THE RETURN OF REVENUES' FROM THE SALE OFGREENHOUSE GAS ALLOWANCES (A.15-06-001) September 10-11, 2015 Starting at 10:00 a.m. at the address below: .... California Public Utilities Commission Courtroom State Office Building 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Summary- On June 1,2015, Pacific Gas and Electric (PC&E) Company filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requesting approval for the forecasted funding required in 2016 to obtain electricity on behalf of its customers. In addition, PG&E also requests approval of forecasted revenues from the sale of emissions allowances associated with Callfomia's Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction program. This application is referred to as the 2016 Energy Resource Recovery Account and Generation Non-bypassable Charges Forecast and Greenhouse Gas Forecast Revenue and Reconciliation Application (15-06-001). If approved, this application will change electrical rates and customers' electric bills. PG&E's application primarily includes requests for approval of: 1. The forecasted recovery of $4.77 billion in electricity costs. These costs are associated with the fuel needed to produce electdcity as well as the costs of buying electricity from third parties, such as renewable energy producers 2. Charges associated with the Cost Allocation Mechanism, Power Indifference Amount, and Competition Transition 3. The forecast spending of $0.8 million for administrative and outreach expenses associated with California's GHG reduction program 4. The return of $311 million to eligible customers from the sale of emissions allowances All requests in this application may change and are subject to CPUC regulatory approval. About the filing The CPUC regulates and oversees all requests for any rate changes. PG&E would not profit from any of the requests in this application. The cost of energy is passed directly to PG&E's customers without any markup. If the CPUC approves the application, PG&E will begin to recover its costs in electric rates, effective January 1, 2016. At the same time, PG&E will apply eligible GHG allowance revenue to rates because PG&E is required to pass the revenue received from the sale of allowances on to its customers. This is done through rates and with California Climate Credits. The revenue will be returned to PG&E's residential, small business and some industrial customers, based on legislative and CPUC determined methods. The GHG allowance revenue bill credits reduce the electric rate impacts of the GHG costs. At the end of 2016, to ensure all funds are used on the customers' behalf, PG&E will compare the actual costs to produce and purchase energy against revenues collected from customers and will incorporate any differences in next year's application. If approved, PG&E estimates that a typical residential customer using 500 kWh per month would see no change in the average bill of $89.30. Individual customers' bill will ~iffer. Eligible residential customers will receive a California Climate Credit twice a year in April and October on their electricity bills of approximately $20.94. Evidentiary Hearings At the evidentiary hearings noted above, PG&E and other formal parties to the proceeding will present their evidence through testimony and will be subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (Judge). The hearings are open to the public, but only those who are formal parties are permitted to present evidence and/or crose-examine witnesses. After considering all proposals and evidence presented dudng the formal process, the Judge will issue a proposed decision which may accept PG&E's proposal, modify it or deny it. Any one of the five Commissioners may also issue an alternate decision based on the record. The proposed decision and any altemate will be acted upon at a CPUC Voting Meeting where the Commissioners will decide whether to adopt the proposed or an alternate decision. CPUC Process As a party of record, the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) reviewed this application. ORA is. the independent consumer advocate within the CPUC with a legislative mandate to represent investor-owned utility customers to obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. The ORA has a multi-disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. For more information about ORA, please call (415) 703-1584, e-mail ora@cpuc.ca.gov or visit ORA's website at http:llora.ca.govldefault.aspx. If you would like a copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits, please write to: PC&E, 2016 ERRA Forecast (A.15- 06-001), RO. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. A copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits are also available for review atthe CPUC, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94120, Monday- Friday, 8 a.m.- noon. PG&E's filing (without exhibits) is available on the CPUC's website at www.eouo.ca.gov/ouc. Please note: The Commission Courtroom is wheelchair accessible. If you wish to attend and need specialized accommodations, please contact the Public Advisor's Office (PAO) (noted below) at least five business days prior to the hearing date. Any changes to the dates, times and locations of the hearings will be posted to the CPUC's Daily Calendar. If you would like to follow this proceeding, or any other issue before the CPUC, you may use the CPUC's free subscription service. Sign up at: http://subscribecpuc.cpuc.ca.gov/. If you would like to learn how you can participate in the proceeding, or if you have informal comments or questions about the CPUC processes, you may access the CPUC's Public Advisor's Office webpage at www.cpuc.ca.gov/puc and click on "Public Advisor" from the CPUC Information Menu. You may also contact the PAO as follows: Write: CPUC Public Advisor's Office, Room 2103 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Email: public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov Phone: 1-866-849-8390 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-2074 TTY: 1-866-836-7825 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-5282 J