Thomas P. Guarino, County Counsel;
PUBLIC MEETING to Discuss the Intention of the Board of Supervisors to Consummate the Purchase
of Unimproved Real Property Located at 11th and Bullion Streets and 10th Street in Mariposa County
from the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA); and Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the
Board of Supervisors Chair to Sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the Court for use of the
Courthouse Construction Funds for the Purchase of the Property and Authorize the Board of
Supervisors Chair to Sign the Certificate of Acceptance, Contract for Phase I Environmental Review,
and any other Documents Necessary to Complete Escrow and Purchase of the Property
Thomas P. Guarino presented the staff report to consummate the purchase of SPCA property.
Supervisor Bibby expressed concern with the size of the parcel and the location, road impacts and she
asked who is responsible for the improvements.
Input from the public was provided by the following:
Dick Hutchinson noted that with the present Courthouse facility, that if the Board has an
agenda item that draws a large number of people, that there isn’t enough parking available in the area.
He feels that this project would further impact the parking; and he doesn’t feel that the side streets are
wide enough to provide for parking. He expressed concern with the location of the facility in relation to
the Library. He stated he feels that another location needs to be found that is more suitable for the
facility and has room for expansion. He stated he feels there needs to be a secure place for bringing the
prisoners in; and he suggested that Highway 49 would be a better place for the facility.
Jim Allen, Sheriff, advised of a meeting that he attended with the Administrative Office of
the Courts two or three years earlier, and he advised that he raised the concerns that he has heard today.
He has a concern with the parking. Safety is a great concern, and he needs a secure facility for the
judges, attorneys, and the public. He agrees that we need a new Courthouse, and he would like to see a
facility next to the jail – but he does not know if this is feasible.
Paul Chapman stated he feels it will be twenty years before a facility is built. He feels
parking is a problem. He noted that the County purchased land before for a Courthouse, and he cited
Government Code section 25515. He expressed concern with the lost of tax revenue, with the costs
already incurred, and with the lack of architectural control. He noted that both houses on the parcel are
listed on the National and County Register; and he stated he feels the project should require a CEQA
and Fish and Game review because of the drainage and wetlands. He stated he does not feel that there
are sufficient funds in the Courthouse Construction Fund for this purchase.
Ruth Sellers stated she has a concern with this piece of property being used for a
Courthouse, but she can understand the County’s interest in the property because of the hope that the
County obtain its own facilities versus renting facilities and because the property is adjacent to other
County facilities. She asked if the recreational sports complex property could be used for this project,
and she noted that it is close to the jail.
Supervisor Bibby asked if there has been a permit issued to burn down the houses. County
Counsel stated he does not know whether the private property owners applied for permits; and he
provided input relative to review by the Historical Sites and Records Preservation Commission of the
buildings and the processes. He advised that there is available funding in the Courthouse Funds 502
and 503 for the purchase, and he referred to the MOU provisions and use of the property. The matter
was continued to May 15th at 9:00 a.m., and Chair Bibby advised that public comment will continue to
be accepted at that time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAY 15, 2007
http://ca-mariposacounty.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=257

Thomas P. Guarino, County Counsel;
CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING to Discuss the Intention of the Board of Supervisors to
Consummate the Purchase of Unimproved Real Property Located at 11th and Bullion Streets and 10th
Street in Mariposa County from the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA); and Adopt a
Resolution Authorizing the Board of Supervisors Chair to Sign a Memorandum of Understanding with
the Court for use of the Courthouse Construction Funds for the Purchase of the Property and Authorize
the Board of Supervisors Chair to Sign the Certificate of Acceptance, Contract for Phase I
Environmental Review, and any other Documents Necessary to Complete Escrow and Purchase of the
Property (Continued from May 8, 2007)
BOARD ACTION: Thomas P. Guarino provided an updated status report; and he advised of
requested changes from the SPCA for a limitation of $1,000 to locate the corners of the property,
$22,500 penalty clause – and he is not recommending these items, and concerning the by-laws – he has
verified that the organization is current with the State. He advised of revisions in the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Court. Supervisor Bibby asked about the status of the structures on the
property and demolition/preservation plans. County Counsel advised that at one time the SPCA was
seeking to remove the buildings, but he could not find anything from the County to obtain a burn
permit. If the County purchases the property, it will need to go through a process for the buildings.
Supervisor Turpin asked about the $1,000 limitation to locate the property corners; and County Counsel
advised that there were changes in the SPCA leadership during the negotiations and their requests
changed.
The public portion of the hearing was opened and input was provided by the following:
Supervisor Pickard noted that both of the Superior Court Judges were present. Chair Bibby
introduced Presiding Judge Dana Walton and Judge Wayne Parrish.
Dick Hutchinson referred to his comments of May 8th relative to the parking concerns, and he
noted that it was very difficult to find a parking space for this meeting; and he feels the new facility will
further impact parking. He does not feel that this is the place for the Courthouse, and he questioned
whether the State is directing this location. He feels a better location is Highway 49 North, where the
Sheriff/Jail and CHP facilities would be close-by.
Judge Walton advised that the parking problems occurred this morning because they called 250
jurors for a trial. He stated he feels it is important to look at the history of how we got to where we are
with the SPCA property location. He noted that a number of years ago, the Court was notified that it
was on a short-list for funding for a new facility. A committee was established with members of the
Board of Supervisors (Supervisors Balmain and Pickard), the former County Administrative Officer,
County Counsel, and members of the history groups (Scott Pinkerton, Leroy Radanovich, and Tom
Phillips). They met with the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and started the process for the
architectural work. He advised that the following sites were reviewed:
- SPCA property;
- The former Baptist Church property/the demolition costs were too high and it is smaller lot
than the SPCA lot; and
- Property by the Jail/they recognized that the Jail would need to have room to expand, and the
Sheriff was involved in the process.
They took into consideration the location of the Behavioral Health, District Attorney, and Probation
offices, and the location of the offices of the attorneys that work in the Courthouse, and they selected
BOARD ACTION: Thomas P. Guarino provided an updated status report; and he advised of
requested changes from the SPCA for a limitation of $1,000 to locate the corners of the property,
$22,500 penalty clause – and he is not recommending these items, and concerning the by-laws – he has
verified that the organization is current with the State. He advised of revisions in the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Court. Supervisor Bibby asked about the status of the structures on the
property and demolition/preservation plans. County Counsel advised that at one time the SPCA was
seeking to remove the buildings, but he could not find anything from the County to obtain a burn
permit. If the County purchases the property, it will need to go through a process for the buildings.
Supervisor Turpin asked about the $1,000 limitation to locate the property corners; and County Counsel
advised that there were changes in the SPCA leadership during the negotiations and their requests
changed.
The public portion of the hearing was opened and input was provided by the following:
Supervisor Pickard noted that both of the Superior Court Judges were present. Chair Bibby
introduced Presiding Judge Dana Walton and Judge Wayne Parrish.
Dick Hutchinson referred to his comments of May 8th relative to the parking concerns, and he
noted that it was very difficult to find a parking space for this meeting; and he feels the new facility will
further impact parking. He does not feel that this is the place for the Courthouse, and he questioned
whether the State is directing this location. He feels a better location is Highway 49 North, where the
Sheriff/Jail and CHP facilities would be close-by.
Judge Walton advised that the parking problems occurred this morning because they called 250
jurors for a trial. He stated he feels it is important to look at the history of how we got to where we are
with the SPCA property location. He noted that a number of years ago, the Court was notified that it
was on a short-list for funding for a new facility. A committee was established with members of the
Board of Supervisors (Supervisors Balmain and Pickard), the former County Administrative Officer,
County Counsel, and members of the history groups (Scott Pinkerton, Leroy Radanovich, and Tom
Phillips). They met with the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and started the process for the
architectural work. He advised that the following sites were reviewed:
- SPCA property;
- The former Baptist Church property/the demolition costs were too high and it is smaller lot
than the SPCA lot; and
- Property by the Jail/they recognized that the Jail would need to have room to expand, and the
Sheriff was involved in the process.
They took into consideration the location of the Behavioral Health, District Attorney, and Probation
offices, and the location of the offices of the attorneys that work in the Courthouse, and they selected the SPCA site.
The AOC agreed with the site selection as they wanted what the community felt was
appropriate. He advised that the Court wants to work with the County on this matter, and they are
supportive of this site. He also noted that the County is no longer on the short list for funding;
however, if the upcoming bond measure passes, it will bring the project back to the short-list. He
expressed concern that if we do not move forward, we will need to look at other options and the State
will be more involved and will make a decision on where to build if need be. He advised that they are
locked into this site with the MOU for the Courthouse, and this gives the County more control than the
State finding a location. Supervisor Fritz asked whether consideration was given to this location as it
would make it easier to continue use of the historic Courthouse. Judge Walton agreed, and advised that
they still plan to use the historic Courthouse. He also noted that given their recent experiences, he does
not feel that there will be enough space in the original design for the proposed facility for high profile
cases. Supervisor Aborn stated he agreed with the close proximity of the facilities. Supervisor Bibby
asked about the parking concerns and architectural design. Judge Walton advised that the design
involves on-street parking and additional parking above the Probation Department and within the
complex itself; and he commented on options. He noted that in his experience in working with the
AOC, they involve the County in the process. He advised that a miniature jail is being planned for the
new facility so that prisoners can be held in a secure area. Supervisor Bibby noted that her research
shows that the County is number 47 on the funding list with an estimated cost of 21 million dollars for
the new facility. Judge Walton responded that 300 projects are ranked in the list, and he provided input
on the funding and the projects. Supervisor Pickard asked about being able to continue the portion
contained in paragraph nine in the MOU concerning space needs issues for the Board and the Court to
further review the language and to being something back for this. Judge Walton stated he would be
willing to work with the County on other options. This hearing was continued for the following
hearings to be opened.
10:00 a.m. The public hearings for fee changes for recreation facilities and for the Building
Department were opened and continued to after the following items.
County Counsel advised that the SPCA asked for an opportunity to meet; and he suggested that
direction could be given today to proceed and continue this item to May 22nd to bring back the
documents in final form.
Ruth Catalan, SPCA President, referred to the parking concerns and advised that it was
discussed on May 8th that there would be 36 parking spaces and 18 occupied by employees. She
advised that she will meet with County Counsel and the SPCA and they hope to have the requested
documents (by-laws and articles of incorporation) to County Counsel by the end of this week.
Paul Chapman stated he feels parking is still an issue. He feels every Tuesday (with the Board
meeting and the Court in session) that parking is a problem. He stated he feels the Courthouse facility
could be located anywhere.
Jeanetta Phillips expressed concern that with the increase in population and crime, that there
will not be room to expand this facility and she feels it is small to start with.
Bob Brown, District Attorney, stated he is not weighing in on where the Courthouse should be,
but he feels everyone should be aware of certain considerations for the facility. He feels the
Courthouse needs to be in close proximity to the District Attorney facilities, and he asked the Board to
take into consideration this need. He referred to a meeting with the AOC and they were advised that if
the District Attorney is housed with the Courthouse facility, the County would need to fund the portion
of the costs for the District Attorney facility and he does not feel that will happen. He noted that if all
of the growth projections are accurate and with the bulk of the growth occurring in the North County,
he feels we need to start thinking about a satellite facility in the North County. He noted the need to
plan for safety with parking. He also advised that he still has one room in the Courthouse that is
County operated and that is important to him. Judge Walton responded that the design for the new
facility included witness rooms for the District Attorney’s use and for use by the defense attorneys, as
well as attorney conference rooms.
Skip Skyrud commented on his experience as a juror this morning trying to find a parking space.
He suggested that the Board move its meeting to Monday or Wednesday, and there be coordination
with the Court so that everybody isn’t coming to the civic center on Tuesdays. He asked whether the
site plan will ever come to the Planning Commission, and he asked that the County share the
information with the Commission. Supervisor Pickard responded that this facility is like the schools,
they are under the State Architect’s jurisdiction. County Counsel referred to paragraph 7 of the
proposed MOU relative to the meet and confer condition, and he advised that the Board would have the
ability to ask for input from the Planning Commission. The State Architect has the ultimate decision
making authority, but this has been a collaborative process. County Counsel noted that the proposal is a
concept, and the CEQA process will determine how many parking spaces will be needed and mitigation
of the impacts will be addressed at that time.
Jeanetta Phillips stated she feels the design control by the State Architect for a facility in the
Historic District is another reason to change the location of the facility.
County Counsel provided input on the hearing process and advised that it would be appropriate to
take public comment on the revisions on May 22nd. Discussion was held concerning the process.
(M)Pickard, (S)Aborn, direction was given to County Counsel to further clear-up the language with
regards to locating the corners of the property and with regards to the five percent additional cost for
default in the purchase agreement; to work on the language in paragraph nine of the proposed MOU to
include direction that discussion will come back within thirty days concerning the space needs issues
with the Court and the District Attorney; direction was given to the County Administrative Officer and
County Counsel to review the by-laws and articles of incorporation for the SPCA; and this hearing was
continued to May 22, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. with the public portion being held open/Ayes: Aborn, Turpin,
Fritz, Pickard; Noes: Bibby.
------------------------------------------------------------
MAY 22, 2007
http://ca-mariposacounty.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=258
Thomas P. Guarino, County Counsel;
CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING to Discuss the Intention of the Board of Supervisors to
Consummate the Purchase of Unimproved Real Property Located at 11th and Bullion Streets and 10th
4 5-22-07
Street in Mariposa County from the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA); and Adopt a
Resolution Authorizing the Board of Supervisors Chair to Sign a Memorandum of Understanding with
the Court for use of the Courthouse Construction Funds for the Purchase of the Property and Authorize
the Board of Supervisors Chair to Sign the Certificate of Acceptance, Contract for Phase I
Environmental Review, and any other Documents Necessary to Complete Escrow and Purchase of the
Property (Continued from May 15, 2007)
BOARD ACTION: Discussion was held with Thomas P. Guarino, and he advised that late the week
before he received a copy of the Articles of Incorporation and the by-laws for the SPCA, but they were
not fully executed. Then he received a telephone call from the SPCA President that gave rise to
concerns with how the SPCA was operating, and he was informed that the Attorney General sent
correspondence to the SPCA concerning their ability to dispose of property and assets. At this time, he
is unable to tell the Board that the SPCA has the ability to enter into the transaction with the County.
He advised of the proposal agreed to by the attorney for the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).
Discussion was held. Supervisor Pickard clarified that the SPCA is working on what is needed to be
compliant. County Counsel advised that the SPCA President told him that they were looking at getting
counsel to help resolve the issues.
Input from the public was provided by the following:
Judge Parrish, Superior Court, thanked the Board for its work and advised that he shares the
concerns expressed; and he advised that the Court cannot release the funds for the purchase until the
matter with the SPCA is resolved.
Kori Smith, Catheys Valley Real Estate realtor representing the SPCA, suggested that the SPCA
might be able to get the issues resolved in thirty days and that the purchase could proceed, but that no
costs be incurred until things are resolved.
Frank Bartholomew, SPCA Board member, commented on their changes and goal to sell the
property to the County and he advised that they hope that they can get everything cleared up with their
administrative filings with the State and proceed with the sale of the property.
Paul Chapman stated he does not feel that 30 to 60 days will be enough time to work with the
Attorney General’s Office – he feels all we can do is wait.
Chair Bibby closed the public comment portion. Discussion was held. (M)Aborn, (S)Turpin,
authorization was given for County Counsel to continue as the negotiator for the real property and to
continue to work with the SPCA and the realtors to keep this process open; and giving additional time
for the SPCA to resolve the issues. Further discussion was held and the motion was clarified that it
keeps the lines of communication open and that this matter would be brought back when the SPCA gets
its issues resolved. Supervisor Bibby referred to her previous concerns and stated she does not support
this site location. Ayes: Aborn, Turpin, Fritz, Pickard; Noes: Bibby.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE- No further mention of this purchase is found in Supervisors Minutes through November, 2007
I will add more extractions as I  continue to search forward through the BOS minutes.