Three head-to-head contests

1. Do you view the Greenline as a firm demarcation or flexible boundary—and why?

Bill Connelly: The Greenline was meant to be a demarcation to protect ag from development. It will continually be challenged as there is no perfect fix when great soil is being built over. So, in most cases, it will stay in place with my support.

Ian Greene: The Greenline is fine as it is. Boundaries for development are necessary. Growing food needs to be considered just as important as housing, and there are lots of other areas in Butte County that aren’t as agriculturally rich.

Sue Hilderbrand: The Greenline is and should remain a firm demarcation between development and farmlands. The development that is coming to Butte County must be well-planned so it doesn’t result in sprawl, costing the taxpayers more money to provide the services for these developments. There are many places in the county that would be more appropriate areas for development than our precious ag lands. We must protect the county’s small town feel and beautiful ag land.

Tod Kimmelshue: The Greenline is a firm demarcation. We must protect our agricultural lands and promote smart growth. I am honored to be endorsed by retired county Supervisor Jane Dolan, the biggest champion of the Greenline.

Doug Teeter: I consider the Greenline a firm boundary. We should not build on prime ag lands. I have also supported the 300-foot setback of new developments to protect ag operations. Protecting ag land, farming and ranching has been a priority of mine and is why I am endorsed by the Butte County Farm Bureau and Butte County Cattlemen’s Association.

Henry Schleiger: Where exactly the limit lies is flexible, but we need to have a long-term plan for any further development into unincorporated land. Using the incentive of developing large lot, high-end housing in the periphery—to leverage partnerships to help create urban renewal and low/middle income appropriate housing, within the city limits—has the potential to shape a future county that fills the needs of a growing economy, and is affordable for its workers.

2. According to the biennial point-in-time survey, homelessness countywide has increased 16 percent. What should the county do to better address this issue?

Bill Connelly: Homelessness is on the rise for many reasons, from losing a job to self-induced through drug use. The best use of funding would be to get the mentally ill off the street and into supervision. This may be impossible until the courts understand our personal and public safety is best served by forcing the mentally ill to take prescribed drugs and rehabilitate. Laura’s Law is a start. Veterans with issues should be given priority.

Ian Greene: Tiny houses seem to be the homelessness panacea of the past few years. Whenever the homeless question pops up, just say the magic words and people think that the candidate has a solid plan. Tiny houses are good and all, but they aren’t addressing the issues that cause homelessness. We need long-term behavioral health facilities, low-cost/affordable housing and living-wage jobs that provide health care in this county.

Sue Hilderbrand: The cities generally have the problem of homelessness, but the county provides mental health services, drug/alcohol addiction services, and low-income housing options. These services are overwhelmed since the Camp Fire. The county must collaborate more effectively with cities and neighboring counties to create more low-barrier shelters, and ultimately a regional mental health facility for the severely mentally ill. Collaboration creates opportunities and lightens the burden on each local government, while offering better solutions and funding.

Tod Kimmelshue: I believe the county should work more collaboratively with our cities in order to address the increase in homelessness. We need to ensure that state and federal dollars coming into the county are being appropriately allocated to housing and service programs that produce results.

Henry Schleiger: It’s time to grow. This county cannot afford to drag its feet into the future any longer. But we must grow smart, and that can be done with a general plan that prioritizes urban growth, transportation efficiency, and housing for students, workers and those trying to get a fresh start. The other key piece is mental health. We have to figure out a way to create options to meet the diverse needs on the streets.

Doug Teeter: I support building accessory dwelling units (granny units), which would facilitate more affordable and smaller housing options. Plans could be pre-approved, especially those able to use slab construction. New home construction should encourage a separate rentable unit. For those homeless with severe addictions and challenging mental health issues, we need state hospitals built to rehabilitate or house them. Meth and heroin dealers should be held strictly accountable for causing the destruction of lives.

3. In terms of policy, what should the Board of Supervisors do to address climate change?

Bill Connelly: Climate change generally isn’t in the supervisor’s purview. This is being addressed or a least reacted to on a state level. New construction is under new codes to slow climate change. Many codes are helping cut A/C costs. That’s good, but sometimes in frivolous ways. Example: putting tin foil on the bottom of roofing plywood will cut down cooling bills a tiny amount while reflecting heat through your roof, ruining the felt and shingles.

Ian Greene: We need to follow in the footsteps of the counties that are successfully addressing climate change. One-hundred percent renewable electricity at all county facilities is an attainable goal. Santa Clara County is almost there and they’ve made $3 million in renewable energy credits while getting to that point.

Sue Hilderbrand: While updating the county’s outdated general plan, we must incorporate strategies to address climate change. For example, housing development and community centers should include walkable, bikeable and public transportation options to reduce traffic and emissions, and incorporate energy efficiency into the planning such as solar and water reducing landscapes. The county should also take advantage of all state and federal grant funding to upgrade equipment, including old heating systems, and install solar energy.

Tod Kimmelshue: The Board of Supervisors must continue to support agriculture. Why? Because local agriculture helps sequester carbon and improve the overall air quality in the region. Research proves that Butte County agriculture has been affected by climate change, but also that it can be part of the solution.

Henry Schleiger: Reducing sprawl and the total number of miles traveled will always be critical, even if we widely adopt vehicle energy alternatives to fossil fuels. To this end, we must densify our cities, reduce housing costs there, reduce commute miles, and of course encourage mass transit, and bicycles and other human-powered alternatives. I’d also like to see Highway 99 replace stoplights with proper interchanges, from Neal Road all the way to Esplanade.

Doug Teeter: The county is updating the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Action Plan; we will need to create attainable action items addressing the assessment’s findings in areas such as temperature change and shifting precipitation patterns. Continue investing in a county Water Department, providing scientific research in how our aquifers need to be sustainably managed. Support the creation of a local power purchasing agency with green energy choice, so folks can directly choose how their electricity is generated.

4. Given what happened during the Camp Fire, should the county allow further development in Butte County’s eastern foothills where open space currently exists? If not, why? If so, what kind of development?

Bill Connelly: The first issue with rebuilding in the foothills is property rights. Someone owns the land and will be allowed to rebuild to newer, more fire-resistant standards. In some places it may be very hard to provide second exits, and that should fall on personal responsibility; the acceptance of the risk. The greatest threat to homes is the lack of proper forest management practices, something that has gone on far too long on both private and public lands.

Ian Greene: Given what happened during the Camp Fire, I believe that development is desperately needed! If by development you mean widening roads and clearing vegetation along escape routes. Or by development you mean making rebuilding possible for the fire survivors without them being nickled and dimed with inflated permit fees. Camping fees to live on their own land?! After an investor-owned utility company burned down their home?!

Sue Hilderbrand: The county must begin updating the general plan to avoid a repeat of the Camp Fire. Fire experts and climatologists must be included in the planning process in order to advise stakeholders about best practices and the best science, and incorporate the most recent building practices. Through the process of updating the general plan, we can decide what is the best direction to take to restore the Ridge in a responsible way.

Tod Kimmelshue: The short answer is: it depends. If you’re looking for a no-growth county supervisor, that’s not me. But that doesn’t mean I support irresponsible growth. I currently serve as the president of the Northern California Regional Land Trust, where I have served on the board since 2008. Since then, the Land Trust has conserved 17 easements totaling about 19,005 acres of prime agricultural lands, rangelands, open spaces and wildlife habitat.

Henry Schleiger: I’ve heard the idea of instituting a Redline, because of the inherent fire danger in the foothills; I’m not opposed to that idea. Much of this area has been annexed already, and so it’s up to the city to decide how far to grow in that area. But they should be using the same incentivization plans I mentioned earlier (in No. 1) to achieve goals in their core when greenfield development is proposed.

Doug Teeter: The 5th District already limits land subdivision in Magalia and Butte Valley. County zoning limits other areas. I strongly supported the Butte Creek Overlay, which does not permit clustered development. Clustering allows more houses when much of the land is unbuildable. However, I find it unsuitable when it would negatively impact existing evacuation routes. New developments and their homes designed and built for fire resistance and with sufficient evacuation routes should be considered and allowed.

5. In terms of rebuilding on the Ridge, given the lack of evacuation routes, should the county incentivize a smaller population? If so, how could this be accomplished? If not, why?

Bill Connelly: As far as rebuilding on the Ridge, that is a risk to be taken on by the residents that choose to live there. Butte County shouldn’t tell Paradise what to do. In the county areas, the rebuilding will be to a higher fire standard. Evacuation routes are necessary but not the only consideration of where to grow in the foothills. Stay-in-place fire protection is becoming more common and is proven adequate with proper preparation.

Ian Greene: I’m not quite sure how a county would incentivize a smaller population. We have a moral obligation to ensure that there are adequate escape routes for the people who return and to the ones who are already there. Any private development beyond that needs to coincide with escape route expansion and improvement.

Sue Hilderbrand: The job of supervisor is to gather the best information and make decisions for what is good for the county. During a general planning process, fire and land-use experts should guide the rebuilding of the Ridge. The area must be evaluated in terms of safety and carrying capacity. We must skillfully balance the desire for rebuilding quickly, and the need for rebuilding safely. Remember: If this were easy, we would have done it already.

Tod Kimmelshue: No, I do not think the county should incentivize a smaller population returning to the Ridge. The county and the town are in the process of making the Ridge more resilient. The state and federal governments must also do their part to reduce risk, which in turn will also aid with greater insurance access and affordability.

Henry Schleiger: I’m not going to say that we need a smaller population, but we need to think more carefully about the way it’s distributed. I believe that the county should be buying lots in Magalia and Paradise, and using the opportunity created by having so many on the market, to undo some of the illegal/unwise creation of small lots that happened with the blind eye or rubber stamp of previous county government officials.

Doug Teeter: I don’t believe it necessary if evacuation routes have sufficient clearance from trees and bushes so vehicles escaping and first responders entering won’t be subjected to life-threatening flames and heat. A bottleneck was traffic signals at the valley floor, which will be fixed. However, an incentive to reduce buildable lots could be a building density bonus to developers who buy Ridge lots and build in other areas or reduced fees to those merging lots.

6. In the wake of the fire, California’s auditor criticized Butte County (and other counties) for inadequate disaster planning and preparedness. Considering that the potential for disaster on the Ridge had long been feared (see the 1993 CN&R cover story “Inferno in Paradise,” reprinted on Jan. 10, 2019), what must be accomplished to avoid a similar scenario in the future?

Bill Connelly: California’s auditor is a typical bureaucrat that ought to stay in their area of expertise. The same type of person that knows how to manage our forests into becoming a burn pile for the next high-wind electric storm. So I don’t really care what they have to say.

Ian Greene: We need a better alert system and improved escape routes. People need to be able to escape the next fire with their lives. That is our responsibility. If the county doesn’t have the necessary funding, then the board needs to bang on the governor’s and legislators’ doors until they fund a modern, cohesive, fire prevention/disaster plan. Also, why is the company that caused all of this devastation still selling us our energy?

Sue Hilderbrand: Planning, planning, planning. The entire region must be evaluated in terms of safety, particularly around escape routes. With 20 years of experience in long-term strategic planning and public policy, I know that the devil is always in the details. I also know that not including land-use planning experts, fire expertise, and public health experts in the process produces bad public policy. We must use the best research and hard sciences for a safer future.

Tod Kimmelshue: We need better evacuation routes. We need better emergency technology. We need improved communication systems. We need a healthier forest. We need advanced warning systems. We need more resilient water infrastructure for fighting fires. We need homeowners to manage their property more responsibly. We need our loved ones to have a better emergency action plan.

Henry Schleiger: Not to mention “Time Bomb,” April 12, 2018 (the publishing, and subsequent ignoring, of that story was one of my inspirations to run)! Structural changes like reducing sprawl into the wildland urban interface (WUI) will help in the long-term, but we also need to learn how to safely use prescribed fire in our neighborhoods, and to organize neighbors to prevent wildfire. We should also find a way to create value in the harvest of dangerous fuels, building the foothill economy.

Doug Teeter: Already homes built to current building codes have superior resistance to flying ember ignitions. I support banning flammable materials within the first 5 feet of a structure. Wood fences and flammable landscaping started many structure fires. [The] public will need to decide how serious we inspect and enforce defensible space. California needs to treat biomass energy as green energy, which would facilitate unmarketable tree and brush removal, permitting carbon sequestering verses uncontrolled wildfires’ massive CO2 emissions.

7. There is a proposal for water conveyance between Paradise Irrigation District and Cal Water Co. in Chico. The idea is that PID could sell surface water to Cal Water, and thus help sustain valley groundwater supplies. Do you support such a plan? Why or why not?

Bill Connelly: Paradise Irrigation District is in a dire financial position after the Camp Fire. A study to see if they may stay in place and keep their water rights is [just] a study. I fully support the use of Butte County water in Butte County. Now if the delivered water is treated water, then PID just gained some customers. If that helps farmers, so be it; agriculture is the No. 1 industry in Butte County.

Ian Greene: I am all for this plan with the stipulation that we replace “Cal Water” with Butte Municipal Utility District. With a municipal utility district we will be able to ensure that the water needs of every Butte County resident will be met at a fraction of the cost.

Sue Hilderbrand: The most important question facing Butte County is about water, so all decisions must be made with complete transparency. For this proposal, we need more information including: 1) Who will pay for the proposed pipeline, and will costs fall to taxpayers? 2) What are the legal repercussions of this deal, and are PID’s water rights at risk of being forever lost? 3) Is there a connection between this proposal and the proposed Tuscan Water District?

Tod Kimmelshue: This project should be studied to figure out how much it would cost, how it could operate and how it could benefit the town, the residents of Chico, and the county’s groundwater basin. During this recovery period, I think it’s irresponsible not to at least look at potential solutions that could make our county more resilient.

Henry Schleiger: The biggest problem with the plan is the timeline; by the time water is flowing through a Skyway pipe, the population of Paradise will begin to demand most of the water again. I think they should figure out a way to transfer PID and county water down Butte Creek and sell it to local ag users, in lieu of their pumping the aquifer. We must maintain public control!

Doug Teeter: I support the study be done and if feasible we build the project. PID won’t be able to use all of its water rights in the future due to increasing state-mandated conservation measures. If we don’t use the water in county, unused water rights could be taken away by the state (given to others). It makes sense and is more cost effective to have a regional water treatment plant and use our water locally.

8. The state of California recently granted a harm reduction group the authority to operate a needle-access program in Chico. Among other things, the group gives away and collects needles and sharps containers. Butte County’s Department of Public Health has come out in support of the program and presented the science to back up that stance. Do you support or oppose such programs—and why?

Bill Connelly: Needle exchanges sound good, but are not a good fit in our county. Nobody is collecting one needle for another, so they end up on the streets in the parks and on school grounds. The innocent, the children, should be protected over those who choose to shoot up. In the end that is their choice; nobody quit but of their own free will.

Ian Greene: As I said at the League of Women Voters forum, the ability to receive needles is state-mandated and I believe it should be up to each municipality, not the county, to decide how and where it is appropriate for needles to be distributed.

Sue Hilderbrand: Good public policy is based on data, not ideology. Policy formation considers all available data about the problem and chooses the appropriate course of action. County and state health experts support this program to reduce disease. The real problem that needs to be addressed is lack of proper disposal of dirty needles. We should not “throw the baby out with the bathwater” and instead focus on keeping needles out of our community spaces.

Tod Kimmelshue: I oppose free needle distribution programs. It was recently reported that officers with the Chico Police Department were called to a scene where they spent precious time collecting 100 discarded needles. Our law enforcement officers are already stretched too thin. They shouldn’t be taken off patrol to collect dirty needles around town. I have yet to see how this program is benefiting Butte County.

Henry Schleiger: I respect the science and ethics behind harm-reduction and housing-first policies generally. I believe that all of humanity (and especially governments) should operate within the confines of the Golden Rule, in all matters, and that when you do—civilization is better for it. I understand that there is no “exchange requirement” at the needle program currently, but I do think they should somehow incentivize the return of used needles, to keep them off the street.

Doug Teeter: Outside our county, data supports the opioid crisis increased injection drug use and science exists that communicable diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis C, increase with injection drug use. Locally it is too early to tell if needle access will result in fewer infections. This program needs to prove that it does not attract out-of-area drug users, actually reduces needle litter and crime, and reduces infections. If it doesn’t, I would not support it.

9. Should the county allow commercial cannabis sales? Why or why not?

Bill Connelly: The county should not allow pot sales. There is no need for the unincorporated parts of the county to take on such an obligation. There is, by California law, delivery in the county right now. If a city wants to believe the money will offset the costs of enforcement, let them implement pot sales. Hemp is now legal by state and federal law, and I support little or no regulation of hemp.

Ian Greene: We are one of the poorest counties in the state. California voters voted to make cannabis legal. I feel that banning sales of a legal substance and refusing the revenue that it would generate is based on an antiquated taboo that should have been left behind with the turn of the last century.

Sue Hilderbrand: I have long considered the consequences of this issue and strongly believe that the sale of commercial cannabis should be left up to the individual municipalities. Similar to other regions of the North State, this option gives our towns and cities the ability to make the decision that best suits their needs and culture. I do not think the county should be circumventing the local municipalities by opening sales in the county jurisdiction.

Tod Kimmelshue: I support the current ordinance on the books for commercial and recreational marijuana cultivation and sales.

Henry Schleiger: Yes. The cannabis industry has long lived and thrived in Butte County, largely without hurting anybody. It’s time to take marijuana out of the shadows, allow cultivation, processing, and sales—safely—and allow our infrastructure, schools and society to benefit.

Doug Teeter: Technically commercial sales do occur as the county does not regulate mobile dispensary deliveries originating from outside the county. The county’s voters have repeatedly not supported expanding cannabis activities beyond the personal grow rules in place. I stand with the majority of the voters.

10. Should tax measures be considered to raise more discretionary general fund dollars? Why or why not?

Bill Connelly: We need more creative ways to do business at the county level. We need to regionalize many of our services for greater efficiency. Butte County is moving toward integrating our computer systems into a full service system for the community. We need the state to quit implementing programs without fully funding them. The Lake Oroville facilities cost Butte County $7 million a year out of pocket. We need a settlement to offset those costs.

Ian Greene: Sure, tax the cannabis dispensaries and commercial cannabis farms that should also be at least explored in a pilot program.

Sue Hilderbrand: Yes, all options should always be considered to improve Butte County. Funding deficits restrict the county’s ability to provide services, including mental health and drug/alcohol services, and affordable housing for our elderly and veterans. This results in a crisis on our streets, emergency rooms and jails, creating a financial burden for us all. With a strategic general plan, the county can use any additional funding more cost-effectively to address the root causes of these problems.

Tod Kimmelshue: No, I would not support a discretionary tax increase. If the people of Butte County decide to tax themselves for a specific purpose like roads or public safety, I would be open to that. But before we go there, we should first see how the PG&E settlement plays out. Also, I think there is opportunity to generate revenue through the ongoing Oroville Dam relicensing saga.

Henry Schleiger: While we certainly need the money, most of our prime demands—mental health services, housing improvement, education, public safety—are largely funded by state, federal and other grants. I would use tax increases only with the most care, and only where doing so would unlock many times more outside funds (increasing greatly the benefit to the community). Our people are burdened enough already.

Doug Teeter: I believe voters are more inclined to support tax measures that go specifically to services they desire. As such, creation of a fire district would allow “district” voters to determine the level of service and be assured that revenues raised go to that service. The voters in the town of Paradise showed strong voter support to increase service levels; the county unincorporated area may as well. I’m open to furthering those discussions.