[0:33] [Captioner present]
[3:46] >> It is 9:01.
[3:53] We're going to call to order the meeting of the Mendocino County
[3:58] Board of Supervisors.
[3:59] Supervisor Klein is going to lead us in the pledge today.
[4:25] We'll open the podium up to public comment on non agenda
[4:29] items.
[4:38] >> Good morning, supervisors.
[4:40] With the chair's permission we would like to address item R
[4:46] five on the agenda this morning .
[4:51] At noon yesterday voting on the tentative agreement
[4:54] between the county and SCIU tend to were closed.
[4:58] We are proud to announce an overwhelming 96.9% approval.
[5:02] We would like to thank the bargaining team the Contract
[5:05] action team and the membership for their time,
[5:09] and active participation in negotiation activities.
[5:13] We would like to thank the management teams
[5:15] and heads of all departments for supporting an environment where
[5:19] staff felt safe to engage in their constitutional right
[5:21] to participate in collective bargaining
[5:23] and we would also like to thank you the Board of Supervisors
[5:26] for listening in for bargaining in good faith.
[5:28] No unfair labor practices were filed this time around.
[5:33] Marked improvement over last time.
[5:35] We almost had it done on time.
[5:37] We know how much we all don't love retro contracts
[5:40] but it gives us something to work towards in two
[5:42] and a half years so thank you very much.
[5:44] We urge you to vote yes on item R5.
[5:50] Thank you.
[5:53] >> Thank you.
[6:00] >> Good morning.
[6:01] Lisa wiki.
[6:02] We are here today to support and celebrate Sarah
[6:06] being here in her new role.
[6:07] We are very excited about that.
[6:09] I wanted to share with you that we've
[6:11] done some great work with the County of Mendocino
[6:13] with Caltrans and P G and E and different organizations
[6:16] and here for a resource for you as you
[6:20] rock all the multifaceted different projects you all
[6:22] have to do so I wanted to share that
[6:24] and we are excited and happy to be a support here.
[6:27] Number two, we would love to be Agendized.
[6:32] We had 40 North Bay Construction Corps high School seniors
[6:36] from the County of Mendocino graduate this year.
[6:38] They are out working.
[6:39] Some of them are employed and we would
[6:42] love to come if you would give us a little bit of time
[6:44] maybe only ten minutes on the agenda
[6:46] to share with you about that program.
[6:47] It is a county wide program but I think you have a lot of hope
[6:51] and some pretty amazing young people
[6:52] out there wanting to be a part and stay in this county
[6:55] and work so I wanted to share that.
[6:56] And third, I can't help it but from the Construction Trade
[7:02] association we are obviously nervous about any change that
[7:05] happens in planning and building so anything we can do to make
[7:08] sure that permits still get out the door as expeditiously
[7:11] as we can and done the right way.
[7:14] We are excited and would like to be a part of any changes
[7:17] you make there.
[7:18] Thank you very much and thank you for your work.
[7:21] >>.
[7:22] We will get you on the agenda.
[7:23] Thank you.
[7:34] >> Good morning.
[7:34] My name is Edward F. I'm just a citizen here
[7:37] and originally I was going to speak
[7:40] on behalf of the emergency ordinance
[7:47] on the moratorium for data centers.
[7:52] Data center processing centers.
[7:57] I started doing research on this and there
[8:00] is a mountain of research out there on it
[8:02] which I'm sure you will discover in the process
[8:06] but since today it's not on the agenda it's moved forward,
[8:11] I just want to mention a couple of things.
[8:15] First of all when these guys come
[8:18] looking to build a data center they're looking for cheap land,
[8:23] water and power and if they can't find it,
[8:28] they will build power plants and they will declare eminent domain
[8:33] for power line installation and they will buy properties.
[8:41] They were spending at one point, one rural landowner,
[8:50] they were paying him $45,000 an acre just as a sample.
[8:56] But so they create a lot of noise
[8:59] and they create air pollution.
[9:02] They pollute all the water they use
[9:05] which is millions of gallons of water a day.
[9:08] More than the city of Ukiah uses in a day of potable water.
[9:12] They return the water unusable.
[9:17] They also have noise pollution that will go a mile.
[9:23] It sounds like it constantly blower all day long 24/7.
[9:32] So.
[9:33] Okay.
[9:37] They like to use non-disclosure agreements
[9:41] to prevent local officials and workers from sharing information
[9:45] until the public input opportunity has passed.
[9:49] They've looked for any loophole in local ordinances
[9:52] to legitimize their process and so all I can say
[10:03] is I congratulate you for taking this on
[10:06] and I really hope you are successful
[10:10] and whatever you do with the ordinances and this moratorium,
[10:17] make it airtight because they have expensive lawyers.
[10:21] They can find any loophole in order
[10:23] to get their foot in the door.
[10:25] Anyhow thank you very much for doing what you are doing.
[10:28] >> Thank you.
[10:31] Supervisor Haschak.
[10:34] >> Yes.
[10:34] Just for the speaker's knowledge,
[10:36] that is coming back on September 1st.
[10:41] >> Anyone else in the room?
[10:43] Madam clerk?
[10:44] >> Seeing no further comment online.
[10:46] >> Thank you.
[10:47] We will move on to consent calendar.
[10:53] >> Proper notice has been established in all
[10:55] correspondence of any received has been sent to your email.
[11:00] >> Supervisor Haschak has asked for C 26 to be pulled
[11:04] for a separate consideration.
[11:06] Is there any other item that needs to be pulled?
[11:10] Supervisor Mulheren
[11:11] >> Thank you.
[11:12] I would like it if county council could provide
[11:14] a brief comment on item C nine related to any
[11:18] that the board received because (Indistinct)
[11:24] >> With the chair's permission, we received a Letter requesting
[11:32] item C9, which is the certification of the election .
[11:41] The certification of the election
[11:43] has to go through pursuant to state code
[11:45] whether the board approved it or not is sort of irrelevant.
[11:48] It would go through as certified anyway.
[11:50] The issue was related to the third district
[11:53] and whether there was residency there and with regard
[11:58] to the mandates of the Registrar of Voters
[12:01] in terms of the candidate, they are not
[12:07] required to verify or determine if a candidate meets
[12:10] the qualifications.
[12:11] They are by law entitled to rely on that candidates declaration
[12:16] under penalty of perjury, and they do not
[12:20] have any kind of investigative unit.
[12:23] Again, if citizens have concerns in terms of residency
[12:28] there are actions that citizens can take
[12:30] but not that the county would take.
[12:33] >> Thank you.
[12:35] Supervisor Haschak.
[12:38] >> On item C6 just for information supervisor Klein --
[12:48] Cline and I were meeting with the Council
[12:53] and we are happy with the outcome of it.
[12:57] Part of the changes made to the contract are the accounting
[13:03] of actual expenditures for inland versus the coast will be
[13:08] laid out and provided to the board in quarterly reports
[13:12] and also the California Welcome Center will be funded with
[13:17] a $10,000 matching funds and so the issue came up
[13:23] because the inland hoteliers that we were talking to were not
[13:28] happy with the representation from B and so we think this is
[13:37] a step forward.
[13:39] >> I just want to echo those comments and appreciation
[13:42] for the collaboration that did happen between the various
[13:44] stakeholders.
[13:45] There wasn't necessarily agreement at the onset
[13:48] but I think we are in a good place now
[13:49] and we are going to continue the conversation
[13:52] and make sure that we are getting the best
[13:53] results for our community.
[13:56] >> Thank you.
[13:57] We will open the podium to the consent calendar.
[14:00] Any public comments?
[14:13] >> Good morning.
[14:14] I Lucatelli chief probation officer.
[14:17] I wanted to quickly before addressing item C19I just
[14:21] wanted to take a minute to offer chief Probation Officer Marlon
[14:27] Washington of Marin County and his sudden tragic passing
[14:30] during our state Association meeting two weeks ago.
[14:32] This was definitely heartbreaking and unexpected.
[14:36] Prayers to his family and the Marin County Probation
[14:40] Department.
[14:41] C 19 is a proclamation.
[14:46] Probation Services Week July 19th through July 25th.
[14:49] If the board wouldn't mind I'd like
[14:51] to just read the proclamation and make a quick comment.
[14:54] Probation Services Week is observed annually to recognize
[14:58] and celebrate the important work performed by probation
[15:01] professionals throughout the nation and whereas probation is
[15:04] an alternative to incarceration and the Mendocino County
[15:07] Probation Department delivers pretrial release monitoring
[15:10] supervision and rehabilitation services to justice involved
[15:14] individuals being diverted from incarceration and reentering
[15:16] the community after incarceration and whereas
[15:19] probation professionals play a unique and essential role
[15:22] in our justice system and communities as trained experts
[15:25] with instruction in areas such as trauma informed care
[15:28] cognitive behavioral therapy and emotional intelligence
[15:31] and ensuring they are well equipped to address the complex
[15:34] needs of justice involved individuals and whereas
[15:36] probation is a connector in the justice system bridging the gap
[15:40] and maximizing
[15:41] the resources available within the courts
[15:43] local law enforcement behavioral health schools crime survivor
[15:48] organizations nonprofits and the community
[15:50] to reduce recidivism by carefully balancing
[15:53] direct human services and research based programing
[15:56] interfaces probation staff protect the public safety
[15:59] via proactive interventions.
[16:01] They are diverse trained professionals
[16:03] who provide supervision and treatment resources to protect
[16:06] and help people, families and communities address the problems
[16:10] that drive crime and whereas the probation staff respect victims
[16:13] rights and work to provide services
[16:16] and protection for victims and warehouse probation
[16:18] professionals are firm, consistent and focused
[16:22] on rehabilitation as they hold adult offenders
[16:24] in delinquent youth responsible for their actions,
[16:27] provide opportunity for behavioral changes
[16:31] and suitable incentives and sanctions
[16:33] and Whereas the Mendocino County Probation Department provides
[16:36] cost effective community based alternatives to incarceration
[16:39] by offering evidence based programing and connecting
[16:42] individuals to essential services such as mental health
[16:45] care,
[16:46] substance abuse treatment and housing support and lastly
[16:50] whereas the association focuses on supporting and advocating
[16:52] for policies that help justice involved individuals transition
[16:56] back to our community safely with a balance
[16:58] between opportunity and accountability
[17:00] and assure these policies will effectively
[17:02] address diverse needs of Mendocino County.
[17:05] I just want to take another minute
[17:07] to thank chair Norvell and Vice Chair Williams
[17:13] for sponsoring this proclamation.
[17:16] I'd like to thank my staff, these public safety
[17:20] professionals who play a critical role in the long term
[17:23] safety of our communities.
[17:24] Thank you.
[17:26] >> Thank you, sir.
[17:28] Supervisor Williams.
[17:32] >> Question for County Counsel.
[17:33] Just a reminder I was a candidate in the election
[17:36] we are certifying.
[17:37] The county doesn't see any conflict there?
[17:40] >> There would be no need to recuse yourself.
[17:43] >> Thank you.
[17:44] >> Anyone else in the room?
[17:46] Madam clerk?
[17:47] >> Seeing no further comment online.
[17:50] >> Okay.
[17:51] Back to the board for discussion and action
[17:53] on the consent calendar minus C 26.
[18:01] >> Move approval.
[18:01] >> Second.
[18:03] >> By Supervisor Cline, Second by Supervisor Haschak.
[18:12] We all vote by the button.
[18:15] >> The motion carries unanimously.
[18:17] >> Thank you.
[18:22] >> Through the chair it appears interim CEO for C26I wanted
[18:24] to make one comment that it's going to require a 4/5 vote
[18:28] because it's a budget appropriation.
[18:32] The agenda says majority but it is a 4/5 >> Thank you.
[18:38] Supervisor >> With this appropriation of funds
[18:43] it's an extra $90,000 Going to the IWPC.
[18:51] A couple of years ago we were contributing 70 or 80,000 then
[18:58] it went up to 125,000 and then we were asked for another 90,000
[19:03] on top of that and our resolution that we passed was
[19:09] in support of the IWPC and what their position is in the work
[19:17] they are doing to create water security for the county and I
[19:21] totally support that.
[19:23] I just want to make sure that when we approve this,
[19:29] we are approving along with the money, our position in support
[19:39] of the IWPC and their actions because we've
[19:42] had a lot of controversy lately about IWPC
[19:50] versus the Elsinore Water District coming in
[19:54] and Trump administration getting involved in this.
[19:58] I think that for local control, IWPC
[20:02] has the path forward for water security in Mendocino County.
[20:07] So I'm moving approval of this action for the 9000
[20:14] with Support of the IWPC's position and control
[20:28] of local water resources.
[20:33] >> I'm going to ask you to hold that motion until public
[20:37] comment.
[20:38] Does anyone else have any discussion on this item?
[20:41] I'm going to open up comments to the room?
[20:44] None.
[20:44] Madam clerk?
[20:46] >> Seeing no comments online.
[20:48] >> Back to the board for questions or discussion?
[20:51] >> I will make the motion that I just made.
[20:57] >> Can I hear the motion again or maybe the clerk can read it
[20:59] back?
[21:01] >> I was going to ask for a clarity statement.
[21:04] >> Okay.
[21:05] So the motion is to approve the 900 $0 from the water agency
[21:11] fund with support of the IWPC's position and local control
[21:22] of our water security.
[21:27] >> Supervisor Cline
[21:28] >> Can we make a recommendation on policy in addition
[21:32] to approving this budget item?
[21:34] It seems like we are trying to conflate two different issues
[21:37] that are completely separate.
[21:43] >> So I think the motion is to do the appropriations,
[21:46] which is listed as the agenda item.
[21:50] I think the board can -- they can't direct what IWPC but we
[21:59] are a member there.
[22:00] They can ask for direction or request.
[22:03] I don't think they can condition the appropriations
[22:05] on that mandate so based on what we are doing here.
[22:11] But they can ask for a letter to go
[22:14] over stating their request for that position.
[22:22] >>.
[22:22] I guess for me I think, with board approval of the resolution
[22:26] that you are mentioning, I think that's the board direction.
[22:32] I understand where you are coming from but I do struggle
[22:34] a little bit with putting in -- seems a little bit like
[22:39] a political opinion into a motion for an appropriation
[22:42] of funds so I do struggle with that.
[22:44] I think the board passing the resolution and then this board
[22:48] supporting the $90,000 says exactly what you are trying
[22:51] to say, in my opinion.
[22:54] Supervisor Williams.
[22:56] >> I don't have a problem advocating for local control
[22:59] and I think we should approve that.
[23:00] I support the 90,000 so I will second the motion.
[23:10] >
[23:13] >> It is $90,000 and it's a political statement about where
[23:15] we stand because this is taxpayer money and they want
[23:18] to know hey.
[23:19] If we are giving the money through this entity,
[23:23] we support what they are doing.
[23:25] So that's the statement.
[23:30] >> Supervisor Haschak, who is wanting to know?
[23:32] You just said that they are wanting to know so
[23:34] who asked the question?
[23:37] >> Certainly people are talking to me about it. .
[23:40] >> Do you mind sharing any more information?
[23:43] >> It is not really relevant to the discussion we are having
[23:45] but -- >> It was relevant enough to bring up for an appropriation
[23:50] following a policy that the board has already approved.
[23:54] >> Well, I don't think it is I need to tell you who I'm talking
[23:59] to.
[24:01] >> Interesting.
[24:02] >> Well.
[24:03] Can you tell us who you're talking to?
[24:06] >> Thank you.
[24:06] We are going to move on.
[24:07] We've got a first and a second.
[24:12] A first by Supervisor Haschak, second by Supervisor Williams.
[24:25] We will vote by the button.
[24:38] >> The motion carries unanimously.
[24:40] >> Thank you.
[24:41] All right.
[24:43] Moving on to regular agenda item R1 discussion
[24:52] and possible action including acceptance
[24:55] of informational reports from the assessor registrar of voters
[25:03] auditor controller district attorney Sheriff treasurer tax
[25:07] collector and various department heads or >> Good morning, board.
[25:14] I just wanted to give you some additional information.
[25:17] You do have the information that we reported to the state
[25:21] for the June 18th report that I am anticipating that we are
[25:27] moving the auction up till spring.
[25:29] Hopefully sometime between January and March.
[25:32] We do have several factors that impact that, many of which
[25:37] I can't get into.
[25:38] They are personal related but they are not
[25:41] performance related.
[25:42] I wanted to give you some additional information.
[25:45] I did meet last week with one of the vendors that
[25:48] provides the collection services for the TOT and bid.
[25:57] I've asked them to go back and give me some information.
[26:01] The fee schedule doesn't quite work for what
[26:03] we have in Mendocino County.
[26:05] They would consider the campgrounds
[26:07] a hotel which pushes them into a much higher fee category
[26:11] and I know because the board does dedicate the TOT
[26:16] camp to fire we would like to minimize the cost
[26:20] impacts with that.
[26:21] I did just inform Scott from the Tourism Commission or sorry,
[26:27] Tourism Alliance outside that the initial response if we were
[26:31] to go bid only would be considerably more money
[26:33] than they are paying right now so I'm trying to work
[26:35] through some of these details.
[26:37] It really would require the county
[26:39] to be willing to move the full TOT collection also to them
[26:45] which I'm not opposed to but I would
[26:47] like to work out the real cost and benefit of doing that.
[26:49] One other area I would seriously like to consider
[26:52] is moving the business license renewal and collection
[26:55] piece to them as well if we go with that particular vendor.
[26:58] That may indicate a need for an increase in our business license
[27:02] fee but our business license fee is really very low,
[27:06] because it is just an annual renewal of $40 per month
[27:10] it does not include any type of gross revenue percentage
[27:13] or anything like that so I do hope that if we see that
[27:18] as a good move that the board will support
[27:21] a potential increase to that fee.
[27:23] That would definitely allow staff
[27:25] to focus on collecting secured and unsecured taxes rather
[27:29] than business license which frankly is not
[27:31] a very good revenue source for the county at the moment the way
[27:34] it is structured.
[27:35] I just wanted to give you those brief updates.
[27:38] I'm not sure if you have any questions for me.
[27:43] >> Supervisor Mulheren.
[27:45] >> Thank you for the advanced receiving the letter.
[27:47] I'm a little bit caught off by the business letter.
[27:51] Are we bringing back a complete restructure or just
[27:54] an increase in the fee?
[27:56] >> The business license renewal at $40 is not very effective
[27:59] to the county in general but it does require a significant
[28:03] portion of one of our staff people to actually send
[28:06] the notices out and do the collections for that every year
[28:09] and so frankly it's a service that particular vendor provides
[28:14] throughout the state and is very efficient in terms of kind
[28:18] of coordinating adding new business licenses and collecting
[28:21] that.
[28:22] The overall implementation and fee structure
[28:26] if we ask them to do more services
[28:29] is better overall than if we just ask them to do one piece.
[28:33] So if we just ask them to do the bid collection
[28:35] that is actually quite a bit of money just for the bid piece.
[28:38] If we roll that into the TOT and bid
[28:44] there's another good savings to that
[28:46] but if we give them another function like business license
[28:48] it continues to spread some of those other fees
[28:51] to actually make the whole contract more favorable to all
[28:56] those different pieces.
[28:58] >> Okay.
[28:59] And so again, thank you for the letter
[29:03] that you sent out to the state so
[29:05] that we had a little bit of time to think about it.
[29:07] I think the outstanding property tax is obviously
[29:12] a concern to the county to bring those funds in but it also
[29:15] is really a concern to our constituents.
[29:19] Some of them feel like there is an unknown out there
[29:22] whether or not they will be receiving this bill so I just
[29:24] wanted to make sure that you have everything
[29:26] that you need from the board.
[29:28] Is there anything that we can do to help this
[29:33] happen a little bit sooner?
[29:35] Basically like how can we help you?
[29:40] >> I'm sorry.
[29:41] Are you referring to the auction piece?
[29:43] Everybody has received a bill for the auction piece?
[29:47] Right?
[29:47] Those are defaulted properties so there is not
[29:50] an additional bill going to the constituent.
[29:52] They have not paid the bill but the confusion
[29:57] that I think a lot of taxpayers have is this $30 million
[30:01] that was referred to by the state is not $30 million
[30:03] that is going to go to the county general fund.
[30:06] It is not.
[30:07] It is money that is for the teeter plan
[30:09] and so if the teeter plan recovers all of that revenue
[30:13] and also all of the interest and penalties through auction
[30:17] or payment, there is potentially money
[30:20] that may be transferred to the general fund
[30:22] if we are above the threshold required for the tax loss
[30:26] reserve fund.
[30:27] But that is not $30 million.
[30:29] It might be a couple million dollars
[30:30] but it is not $30 million so I just
[30:33] want to be clear that when we talk about That $30 million, is
[30:40] it is not revenue to the general fund.
[30:45] >> Right.
[30:46] What I wanted to talk about is that everybody included
[30:48] in that should have received a bill so there should not
[30:51] be any surprise bills moving forward.
[30:53] That is a concern to people and they are not
[30:55] expecting to have a large property tax bill.
[30:58] >> Yes.
[30:59] I would not even be able to quantify
[31:00] that if they had not been given a bill so if they are
[31:03] on the default list they've been given a bill in the system
[31:06] they've also been given a notice of delinquency permit
[31:09] that happens every year.
[31:12] The delinquency publication happens every year.
[31:16] >> Thank you.
[31:21] Supervisor Haschak.
[31:24] >> With the business license fee have you looked at jurisdictions
[31:27] in other counties and what they are doing for their licensing
[31:30] fees?
[31:31] >> I'm not sure exactly what the question entails.
[31:35] Whether you are just talking about collecting?
[31:37] It is not my office's role to really determine
[31:40] if you want to change the entire fee structure of the business
[31:43] license because that is a significant impact
[31:46] to the business community.
[31:49] I do know there is some contention obviously
[31:53] that certain actions taken to expand territories
[31:56] may impact the business license because the business
[31:59] license in some jurisdictions is based on gross receipts
[32:02] or revenues and so that significantly changes
[32:05] the business license cost.
[32:07] Presently Mendocino County you are not
[32:10] basing your business license fee on receipts or anything else.
[32:13] Everybody pays the same amount whether they make a lot of money
[32:15] or whether they make no money.
[32:18] I'm not researching that in terms of that may be something
[32:21] you want to direct other staff to explore.
[32:23] Certainly that is something somebody else would do
[32:26] but my office just collects the fee
[32:29] that has been determined by the board that is due for business
[32:32] license renewal.
[32:34] >> Okay.
[32:35] So it would be on us to provide some direction.
[32:38] Thank you.
[32:40] >> Thank you.
[32:55] >> Good morning.
[32:56] Katrina Bartlam assessor county clerk recorder registrar
[32:59] of voters.
[33:01] I do not have my state audit report done yet.
[33:05] I'm working on it and have been working on it
[33:07] but it is not ready to send yet so I wanted to let you know.
[33:12] Since the election, we've had some problems
[33:17] in our office related to personnel.
[33:20] Our key personnel, our Registrar of Voters is out on a medical
[33:28] and she will be out for another couple of weeks
[33:30] so we have had to limp along.
[33:32] It is a tough job for both of us to do and for just one of us,
[33:38] it has put us double Dutch we were able to certify
[33:40] and everything on time but it has put us behind.
[33:43] Also right after the election after we certified,
[33:46] we got a call from the Secretary of State's office
[33:52] that there was a potential recount for the governor's race.
[33:57] 61 candidates and that would be a manual recount.
[34:00] They have seven days to respond --
[34:05] we had seven days to respond to the person who asked
[34:10] for the recount, which all 58 counties did with an estimate
[34:15] on how much this would cost a day.
[34:19] In Mendocino County it would cost about $3,250 a day and we
[34:24] estimated it would take us about 27 days minimum to complete
[34:28] this.
[34:29] When you have a recount, part of it
[34:33] is the person who asks for it has to pay for it
[34:36] and that is all within the election law.
[34:38] And so he of course wanted it to be free, no charge.
[34:44] The Secretary of State's office set him clear on that
[34:47] and we all did that.
[34:49] So he finally responded to me on Monday,
[34:56] last Monday when we would have had to start
[34:58] the recount by Thursday.
[34:59] We would have had to send out an email to every candidate telling
[35:04] them that we were going to start this on Thursday
[35:08] and how long we thought it would take and everything else.
[35:13] So the person who asked for it never --
[35:20] he never sent any money.
[35:22] He was going to start it in Shasta County
[35:26] if he had deposited the money and that didn't
[35:31] happen so the recount is off.
[35:34] But it took me several days to prepare for that.
[35:38] I had to get employees ready to come in on a day's notice.
[35:43] Extra help employees who helped with the election
[35:46] to start with and so it was quite an endeavor
[35:50] to find out that we didn't have to
[35:52] but I was worried that if I didn't prepare for it,
[35:56] it would have gone forward and we would have been behind.
[36:00] So we've been a little busy.
[36:01] We certified the election.
[36:03] We closed the roll and I promised
[36:06] to get my report to the state and I've reached out
[36:10] to the head auditor that came to the county,
[36:13] but I'll have it done within the next couple of weeks.
[36:20] >> Great.
[36:21] Thank you very >> You're welcome.
[36:24] Thank you.
[36:24] Have a good day.
[36:30] >> I just wanted to thank Miss Bartlemy for all the work
[36:32] in your office for the election.
[36:34] It seemed like things went really well so thank you.
[36:42] >> Good morning chair Norvell members of the board County
[36:48] council clerk of the board and members of the public.
[36:51] My name is Megan Hunter auditor controller
[36:53] and I'm here today to provide a brief update on the state audit
[36:58] responses that were provided in June.
[37:00] The status of our annual financial audit
[37:04] and some staffing updates within our office.
[37:07] We did submit our responses to the state recommendations
[37:11] on time and some of those recommendations
[37:14] included our policies and procedures
[37:17] which we are working on a full office manual
[37:20] that we anticipate having completed in June of 2027.
[37:24] It will cover basically all of our financial procedures.
[37:28] We have implemented operational improvements
[37:32] while continuing to work on our comprehensive procedures manual.
[37:42] There are several items that we continue to work on.
[37:47] We are in the process of implementing
[37:49] an electronic journal entry workflow which
[37:52] will reduce a lot of the time and backlog of our journal
[37:57] entries.
[37:57] We've established journal entry deadlines and county
[38:01] trainings have been completed.
[38:03] The departments are showing increased compliance
[38:05] and are working really closely with our office
[38:09] to ensure that issues are tackled ahead of time instead
[38:12] of after the fact.
[38:16] We've also continued our partnership
[38:19] with regional Government services who
[38:20] will be helping in this upcoming audit
[38:23] as well as ensuring that some of the Gasb standards
[38:29] are implemented and we will continue
[38:31] to educate staff on this new standards as they are released.
[38:34] We've also started working on the reimplementation
[38:40] of our finance system.
[38:43] There has been a steering committee established.
[38:46] We are working very closely with Information Services
[38:49] and the CEO's office.
[38:51] We do plan on meeting with a couple
[38:53] other sites in August who are currently utilizing Eunice
[38:59] to determine their best practices
[39:01] and kind of set up a roadmap for our reimplementation.
[39:05] We have also evaluated a lot of the functionalities
[39:09] so we can potentially implement those in the process
[39:14] since this is going to be such a long reimplementation.
[39:17] It takes probably 3 or 4 years before we will
[39:21] be completed with the project.
[39:23] We continue to meet monthly with the executive office
[39:27] and our communication has really improved vastly
[39:31] with all of the departments and we will continue
[39:34] to bridge those relationships.
[39:37] We've established regular fiscal deadlines.
[39:41] We have conducted countywide year end trainings
[39:45] and we've also conducted journal entry trainings.
[39:53] For our audit, we are on schedule to publish the act --
[40:07] acfr December 31st.
[40:10] We've already begun preparing for the audit providing
[40:14] documentation as well ahead of time
[40:15] so we ensure that the field work will continue smoothly
[40:18] and we are hoping to reduce delays and improve efficiencies
[40:23] in this upcoming audit.
[40:26] And then lastly I have some staffing updates.
[40:29] We hired an account specialist supervisor
[40:32] which was filled at the end of June
[40:34] and she is kind of getting her bearings and settling in well.
[40:38] We have a new accountant auditor two who joined the office today
[40:42] and the recruitment is still ongoing for the Assistant
[40:46] auditor controller position but we
[40:48] do have a candidate that we are vetting at this time.
[40:51] So if you have any questions for me I'd be happy to answer.
[40:55] >> Thank you much supervisor Williams.
[40:57] >> Thank you for the thorough presentation
[40:58] and the collaboration with departments.
[41:03] >> Can I just ask one clarifying?
[41:04] I think you said August is the fieldwork.
[41:07] Is it October?
[41:09] >> Oh sorry.
[41:10] It is October.
[41:11] I put down August.
[41:12] I was thinking the other thing so thank you.
[41:16] Which is the normal schedule time.
[41:19] Generally it's a little bit later in the month of October
[41:23] but we are hoping to get everything ready for them
[41:25] before they arrive at.
[41:27] >> Thank you.
[41:29] Supervisor Mulheren.
[41:31] >> Thank you.
[41:32] I just wanted to thank you for the update
[41:33] and for being here and the same thing.
[41:35] Let us know if there is anything we
[41:38] can help keeping in mind the work you guys are trying
[41:41] to do over there.
[41:42] Thank you.
[41:43] I appreciate that.
[41:45] >> Thank you very much.
[41:48] Madam clerk seeing none other in the room
[41:50] do we have any staff online?
[41:52] >> We do have one staff online. (Indistinct)
[41:59] >> Good morning.
[42:00] Melissa Hanham County library director.
[42:01] I wanted to let you know that we are having a library
[42:08] software upgrade so limited services are
[42:10] going to be available during the system migration.
[42:13] We are entering an exciting new phase of modernization
[42:19] this summer with the integration of a new integrated
[42:22] modern library system Polaris.
[42:24] The upgraded system will be shared
[42:26] through our regional consortium of libraries
[42:30] helping to streamline operations and improve
[42:33] services for patrons.
[42:34] As part of this upgrade, the library
[42:38] will launch a new online catalog and mobile app.
[42:41] These tools will make it easier to discover new titles,
[42:45] browse audiobook and DVD collections
[42:48] and explore reading through a Staff Picks feature.
[42:50] Another feature called rollup will allow patrons to view all
[42:54] available formats of a title including print books,
[42:58] audiobooks and e-books in a single search result.
[43:01] To complete the transition the library will migrate data from
[43:05] the current system to Polaris from July 27th through August
[43:09] 4th.
[43:11] During this period some library services
[43:13] will be temporarily unavailable.
[43:15] During the migration patrons must bring their library card
[43:20] to check out materials.
[43:21] The online catalog will be unavailable.
[43:23] We will not be able to issue new library cards.
[43:28] Materials cannot be checked in.
[43:30] Renewals will not be available.
[43:33] Fines and fees cannot be paid and new holds cannot be placed
[43:37] so to minimize any inconvenience during the period of June 29th
[43:41] through July 26th, all due dates have been extended to six weeks.
[43:48] Patrons are welcome to keep their checked out materials
[43:51] until the new system is fully operational.
[43:54] The last day to place holds was July 12th.
[43:58] All services are expected to return to normal on August 5th
[44:03] when Polaris, the new online catalog in the mobile app will
[44:07] officially go live.
[44:15] >> I'm not seeing any questions thank you.
[44:17] >> Thank you.
[44:23] >> Seeing no further Department heads online.
[44:26] >> We will open the podium to public comment on item number
[44:29] one.
[44:30] Madam clerk.
[44:32] Any online?
[44:35] >> Seeing none online.
[44:37] >> Okay.
[44:39] Discussion or motion for acceptance
[44:42] of the informational reports?
[44:45] >> Move approval.
[44:51] >> First by Supervisor Cline, second by Supervisor Haschak.
[44:59] We'll vote by the button.
[45:01] >> The motion carries unanimously.
[45:03] >> Thank you.
[45:04] Item R two possible action including
[45:06] acceptance of presentation of the 2025 Leadership Academy
[45:10] graduates.
[45:12] >> Good morning.
[45:13] Sherry Johnson human resource Director and I do
[45:16] believe Mandy will be in soon to share.
[45:18] It's my pleasure to recognize the 2025 graduates
[45:22] of our Leadership Academy.
[45:24] Our 2025 Academy consisted of nine courses offered twice
[45:28] annually and totals nearly 30 hours of interaction.
[45:31] Its purpose is to ensure unified effectiveness in our leadership
[45:35] and equip each leader with a common foundation of leadership
[45:38] skills and values allowing us to move forward together.
[45:42] Course topics include high performance organization,
[45:48] personality styles and emotional intelligence,
[45:52] leading with effective communication building trust
[45:55] and teams performance management, policies
[45:58] and procedures, facility skills and change management.
[46:04] I would like to congratulate the following graduates
[46:08] of the Leadership Academy under management.
[46:12] Rose Britton Jessica Byers Heather Correll Rose Juanita
[46:17] Dryland Katie Ford John Gall Melissa
[46:21] Hannah Travis Kilmer Angela Lewis Sarah McBurney
[46:27] Kathy white.
[46:30] Supervisors Ryan Cameron Kayla Carlson Nicole French Christina
[46:37] Griffith George Aubry Hannah Lee Ulysse Lopez Antonio Renteria
[46:44] Ryan rose Amanda stoner Megan Zaid Mary Logan.
[46:51] And the emerging leaders graduates.
[46:55] Lori Brown James Canfield Amber Garces Christy Garde Katherine
[47:03] Miller Tamara Sams Ana Sanchez and Amanda Tyrrell.
[47:09] Thank you all for participating.
[47:11] Your dedication to learning and commitment
[47:14] to leadership, professional growth and excellence
[47:18] strengthens our organization and community.
[47:20] I would also like to thank Katie Ford and Lori
[47:22] Brown for their lead in the Leadership Academy and all
[47:26] the HR team for assisting with these courses.
[47:30] The 2026 Academy courses will be starting August 6th.
[47:36] >> I'm not seeing any questions.
[47:37] Thank you for bringing this forward.
[47:40] >> Thank you.
[47:42] >> Any public comment on R2?
[47:50] >> Seeing none online.
[47:51] >> Back to the board for acceptance of the presentation.
[47:54] >> Move acceptance.
[48:01] >> I'll second.
[48:04] >> First by Supervisor Haschak, seconded by myself.
[48:14] >> The motion carries unanimously.
[48:16] >> Item R3 discussion and possible action including
[48:19] acceptance of presentation regarding rural county
[48:22] Representatives of California Strategic plan.
[48:26] >> Thank you for having me here today.
[48:28] I appreciate the opportunity to provide you
[48:31] an update on some of our priorities and activities.
[48:34] One of the things I wanted to say at the start
[48:36] is please don't hesitate to stop me along the way
[48:39] where you've got a question or want to provide feedback.
[48:41] I recognize you've got a pretty full agenda today
[48:44] so I want to move pretty quickly through it
[48:46] but do stop me anywhere you have a question.
[48:50] I don't know if you are able to pull the slides up or not
[48:53] but I will continue on while that is underway.
[48:55] Today I want to cover not only RCRC but some of our affiliate
[49:02] entities.
[49:02] Over the years we've started a couple
[49:05] of private and public entities.
[49:07] I wanted to note at the start that our board adopts
[49:10] a three year strategic plan and within that plan
[49:12] I think you would find a number of topics
[49:14] that are ones you are very familiar with from broadband
[49:17] to rural health access to economic development
[49:20] opportunities.
[49:20] One of the things that is unique about our strategic plan
[49:24] is that our board has set a dual vision for us.
[49:27] One is to be the premier advocate in both Sacramento
[49:30] and Washington D.C. On behalf of rural counties
[49:33] but secondly is to be their innovative service provider
[49:36] and so think of us as the entrepreneurial arm
[49:38] of rural counties.
[49:39] When there is a challenge too big for a small county they will
[49:42] come to us to see if we can get economies of scale through
[49:45] our 40 members and over the years that has led
[49:47] to the creation of some of those affiliate entities I will talk
[49:51] about in a little bit as well so that gives you some sense of why
[49:53] we have those entities but I wanted to start with
[49:56] our advocacy work and our policy emphasis areas and if you want
[50:00] to move on to a couple of slides to the next one -- perfect.
[50:06] Thank you.
[50:07] Advocacy has long been the cornerstone of RCRC and the work
[50:13] that we do on behalf of rural counties.
[50:15] Again I think the topics you would see
[50:17] are ones you are very familiar with.
[50:19] What I wanted to draw your attention to
[50:20] is the one labeled Key topics.
[50:23] Our board forms ad hoc committees
[50:26] to address high priority issues.
[50:28] I want to thank Supervisor Cline.
[50:31] I think you are on all three of our ad hoc committees this year.
[50:35] One is recruitment and retention of public employees.
[50:39] Unusually high vacancy rates have persisted
[50:41] for a number of years.
[50:43] One county had a 100% vacancy rate of behavioral health
[50:46] therapist as an example so are there
[50:49] ways from a policy perspective we can assist
[50:51] with recruitment and retention.
[50:53] The second is predator management ad hoc.
[50:57] This was really born out of impacts
[50:59] the wolf population as having but it also
[51:02] includes mountain lions and bears
[51:03] and so we've got membership throughout the state
[51:05] looking at basically our policy around those areas
[51:08] and interacting with the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
[51:11] They've had speakers come in and talk to them.
[51:13] The goal of the ad hoc is to develop updated policy
[51:16] for consideration by our full board.
[51:19] The last one is a sustainable Groundwater Management
[51:23] Act permit this came to life out of recognition
[51:26] that the legislation has been in place several years
[51:29] now merging some of the mandatory reporting
[51:33] thresholds (Indistinct) the legislation did not contemplate
[51:37] some of the changes that would be needed now
[51:39] that we have better data whether it is boundaries or off ramps.
[51:43] Potentially looking at how you fund
[51:45] those reporting requirements.
[51:46] The committee is evaluating all of that
[51:48] and we will look at updated policy
[51:50] again to bring back to our board on those fronts
[51:52] from a couple of other areas I wanted to mention.
[51:56] One is mandates.
[51:57] We are all familiar with the challenge
[51:59] the state imposes upon us with mandates
[52:01] and if you look back in time counties had
[52:03] a regular process for filing test claims
[52:06] before the state Mandates Commission
[52:07] and when legislation becomes law it has the potential to it
[52:11] is either a new requirement upon counties
[52:13] or adds a service level upon counties
[52:16] in order for counties to get reimbursement under the mandates
[52:19] clause.
[52:19] They must submit a test claim to the state Mandates Commission
[52:23] and if one county submits that claim and is approved then
[52:26] all 58 can take advantage of it.
[52:28] That test claim must be submitted
[52:29] within one year of a county triggering that cost
[52:32] and it was indicated there was a regular cadence of this
[52:35] historically but then it dropped off over the last 15 years.
[52:38] We've been working to basically pick up that ball
[52:41] and run with it so RCRC has two entities under contract to file
[52:47] test claims on behalf of member counties.
[52:51] We are working with Sutter County.
[52:54] We are working with Butte County on a claim.
[52:56] We are working with Sutter County
[52:57] and then we also found an arcane provision of the law
[53:00] called Legislatively Determined Mandates for when a bill is
[53:03] tagged as a potential mandate we can
[53:05] file a claim with the Department of Finance or Ldm.
[53:10] The legislator said this is a mandate.
[53:12] We can preempt the mandate Commission test claim process
[53:15] by agreeing on what the mandate should
[53:17] be so we are doing that for everyone that comes out now.
[53:20] The Department of Finance has not been thrilled with that
[53:23] and has kicked them back to say you need to go through the test
[53:25] claim process but we've accomplished two things
[53:27] in doing that for my one is it tolls the statute of limitations
[53:30] so when we file those legislative determined mandates
[53:33] until such time as the Department of Finance response
[53:36] we've extended out the statute of limitations
[53:38] to file a test claim.
[53:40] Second it puts the Department of Finance and the legislature
[53:43] I noticed that no longer are we going
[53:45] to let these mandates slip by without filing test claims
[53:47] and so for each one that the legislature passes
[53:49] there is an almost immediate response now
[53:52] of sending those through legislatively
[53:54] determined mandates.
[53:55] Step one of our mandate process is helping
[53:58] counties file more test claims.
[54:00] Step two is discovering that not all of the counties
[54:05] are getting all of the reimbursements
[54:07] they are eligible for.
[54:08] We have 5 or 6 counties that did not
[54:10] get any mandate reimbursement.
[54:11] We have another nine that are well
[54:14] below the statewide average for reimbursement.
[54:16] We put out a test for proposals basically
[54:19] that all those involved in the mandate reimbursement world
[54:21] to say give us your best ideas on how
[54:24] you can help our small counties increase their mandate
[54:27] reimbursements.
[54:28] RCRC may ultimately put together a contract
[54:32] to assist those counties in doing that work.
[54:34] Those proposals are due in August so more
[54:36] to come on the mandates initiative.
[54:38] I just wanted you to know we are putting a lot of effort
[54:41] into that space.
[54:42] The last one I was going to mention on this slide
[54:45] is Jail Medical Services.
[54:46] We have 25 counties and five regions participating in a study
[54:50] to look at long term options for providing jail medical services.
[54:53] Whether you are one of those 25 counties are not,
[54:57] I think you are going to benefit from the results that come out
[55:01] of it because those results are going to look
[55:03] at a variety of options.
[55:05] If you were to meet the national accreditation standards
[55:07] for providing jail medical care, what
[55:10] are the different ways you can provide that care?
[55:14] It could be regionally?
[55:15] It could be originally going through the contract procurement
[55:18] and administration process to procure a private vendor.
[55:21] It could be originally having a single vendor provide
[55:24] that service.
[55:24] It can be regionally having a public agency model
[55:27] or doing all that same work by county.
[55:29] These analysis will look at that array of options
[55:31] and do detailed financial analysis associated with them
[55:35] so counties can look at that and say okay.
[55:36] For the long run this may make the best option
[55:39] because we do know counties are seeing significant cost
[55:42] increases with renewables not unexpected
[55:44] when the primary provider went through bankruptcy here
[55:47] 6 or 8 months ago and has emerged from it
[55:50] but the expectation of the reality
[55:53] is that we are seeing significant cost increases not
[55:55] only with that provider as a result but also
[55:57] a few of the other providers have come into the marketplace
[56:00] so we know costs are going up.
[56:02] We know the risks in litigation are going up
[56:04] and we are working closely with those counties
[56:06] to know what the long term options are.
[56:08] That's a quick analysis of some of our advocacy efforts.
[56:11] I was going to switch to affiliate entities now.
[56:14] I'll just make sure there aren't any questions on advocacy
[56:18] and we can come back to it at the end if there are.
[56:21] >> We have one.
[56:21] Thank you.
[56:23] >> I have two questions.
[56:24] The first is regarding AB 2494.
[56:27] As you know our county has taken a position that we
[56:32] are in support and of course it is co-sponsored
[56:34] by our state representatives.
[56:36] Assemblymember Rogers and Assembly Member Conley soon
[56:40] to be Senator Conley, Senator McGuire and I
[56:46] see that RCRC has taken a position opposing ours.
[56:50] We are arguably the most impacted county out of all 58.
[56:55] Now that you see that we have a different perspective on this,
[56:58] would RCRC be willing to back us?
[57:04] I understand this decision was made
[57:05] without consulting our county.
[57:08] >> That is a difficult needle to thread because while Mendocino
[57:10] is supportive we have multiple counties that are opposed unless
[57:15] amended.
[57:16] Our board policy says that while we support efforts
[57:18] that will lead to increased wildfire resistance and carbon
[57:23] sequestration we oppose measures that
[57:26] are going to put additional impact on timber harvest.
[57:30] At the end of the day the Senate Committee on Natural resources
[57:35] was to bring everybody in and try to identify collaboratively
[57:39] a landing place that could meet everyone's interests
[57:41] and I suspect that exists.
[57:43] I do think there are potential amendments that could address
[57:46] the concerns that are being expressed around durable on site
[57:51] carbon storage, around the mature forest language that
[57:55] is in there.
[57:56] I think there are solutions so I am
[57:57] hopeful that that will be what happens next
[57:59] and we will reach an agreement.
[58:02] >> So I guess my concern is less about the specific instance.
[58:05] More about the abstract that we weren't consulted.
[58:08] Is that a way to remedy that going forward?
[58:12] I understand none of the five of us
[58:15] were asked what is the county's position.
[58:17] We didn't have a seat at the table.
[58:20] We didn't vote in it.
[58:21] Can you describe what that process
[58:23] is so we have an opportunity to weigh in next time?
[58:25] Even if we are on the losing end we
[58:27] want the opportunity to be part of the conversation.
[58:30] >> I think that is great feedback we can carry back
[58:32] to the team in terms of how do we strengthen that going
[58:35] forward.
[58:36] Ultimately the idea is to be able to check in
[58:37] with supervisors that we know have interest in that area.
[58:42] Doesn't sound like that work to your satisfaction
[58:44] at this point so that's great feedback for me
[58:46] to take back and talk to the team
[58:47] and evaluate how we can strengthen that going forward.
[58:50] I don't have the exact remedy today
[58:52] but I do want to work on it.
[58:55] >> Appreciate it.
[58:55] The second question is regarding broadband.
[58:57] We were one of the early members for global State Connect
[59:01] Authority.
[59:01] I still think it's the best way to roll out
[59:03] broadband in rural counties and it's certainly not
[59:06] on RCRC to fund.
[59:08] You are helping us with state and federal funds.
[59:11] It seems after about $57 million is allocated
[59:15] to Mendocino County we will have collected
[59:17] zero last mile and our unincorporated which is really
[59:20] hard to explain to taxpayers.
[59:21] Do you have any thoughts on how together we
[59:24] can lobby for true equity?
[59:27] Equity means it costs more to deploy broadband
[59:30] to some parts of the state.
[59:32] Right?
[59:32] You have children trying to do education.
[59:34] You have seniors trying to get health care online in places
[59:39] that cost more and it seems that the state direction has
[59:44] been spent the dollars to cover as many people as possible which
[59:47] is the opposite of equity.
[59:48] It means cherry pick the areas of density
[59:51] which is exactly what the commercial providers have
[59:54] done for decades.
[59:55] Any thoughts on how we can work together
[59:57] to drive the state towards true equity?
[1:00:01] >> I'm going to have a slide on GSK in a second.
[1:00:03] The short answer right now is I think
[1:00:05] we need to increase the cadence of our participation
[1:00:08] at California Public Utilities Commission meetings themselves
[1:00:11] to make the statement you just said and they need
[1:00:14] to hear directly from community leaders community
[1:00:17] interest in that front.
[1:00:19] One of the commissioners has said to me
[1:00:21] those voices are compelling to them.
[1:00:23] There is another county right now
[1:00:25] that is on the verge of CPU c taking back their allocation.
[1:00:33] Staff are concerned that it doesn't meet
[1:00:36] the letter of the resolution.
[1:00:38] I disagree.
[1:00:38] I say all that to say that it's going to be another lost
[1:00:42] opportunity you are describing where those monies will revert
[1:00:44] back into a fund and disappear and in all likelihood never
[1:00:48] see those funds come back.
[1:00:49] We share the concern.
[1:00:50] I think we need to amplify our voices at the CPUC.
[1:00:57] Golden State Finance Authority is an agency made up
[1:01:02] of all 40 counties including Mendocino
[1:01:04] that provides financing for an array of uses from if you have
[1:01:08] somebody in your community that wants
[1:01:11] to buy a home gold State Finance Authority can provide
[1:01:16] assistance.
[1:01:16] One of the most recent things we've done
[1:01:18] is financing so if you have a district or city that
[1:01:23] received a big grant but has to put the money out first
[1:01:26] before they can get reimbursed by the grant
[1:01:28] we provide bridge funding for that.
[1:01:31] The latest one is for Plumas County for $1 million.
[1:01:35] If you go to the next slide one thing
[1:01:40] I wanted to call out the GSFA provides
[1:01:46] an assist to own programs so you can get up to 3.5% down payment
[1:01:51] assistance at zero cost.
[1:01:53] That means there is never payments due.
[1:01:56] Interest never Amortizes.
[1:01:57] It just sits there.
[1:01:59] The principal time is the second until such time you
[1:02:02] sell your home at which time the principal only
[1:02:04] is due at the end of 30 years you would need to refinance.
[1:02:07] The cost of that are borne by Golden State Finance Authority.
[1:02:10] It was something our board did out of recognition of a tool
[1:02:14] to help increase retention.
[1:02:17] I think you've had many people take advantage to buy homes.
[1:02:21] I just want to stress it so everyone
[1:02:24] knows it is a tool that can be available for them.
[1:02:27] Now on the Golden State Connect Authority
[1:02:30] this is our newest joint powers agency
[1:02:33] that came to life five years ago roughly.
[1:02:37] Supervisor Williams has been a board member since its inception
[1:02:39] and it came to life because at that point
[1:02:42] the state had just passed SB 156 which
[1:02:44] was going to put a lot of money out for broadband deployment
[1:02:49] and our small county said we don't have the capacity
[1:02:51] to go after those dollars so we formed GSCA to do that
[1:03:01] and a couple of years later we had pulled down 185 million
[1:03:06] for construction.
[1:03:07] We paired that with 110 million for private investment
[1:03:11] and we are just now in the final stages of putting together
[1:03:14] about a $220 million contract to complete
[1:03:17] all of our initial project areas that unfortunately don't include
[1:03:22] Mendocino County but were awarded into hammer Glen Amador
[1:03:28] Alpine Mono and Imperial Counties.
[1:03:30] We are already in construction in Glenn County.
[1:03:33] So to take a new public agency that didn't exist five years ago
[1:03:37] and now on the precipice of 220 million in construction I think
[1:03:41] is impressive and we're excited to get that work underway.
[1:03:44] There is a lot more to go so think of this as the foundation.
[1:03:47] Once we get this system in place the idea
[1:03:49] is to start to build out in concentric ways
[1:03:52] to get more and more unserved rural areas.
[1:03:55] One of the challenges has been exactly what Supervisor Williams
[1:03:59] references which is that these areas are costly to build in
[1:04:02] and sometimes it seems like the lower risk higher density
[1:04:05] projects get prioritized for funding for Mac
[1:04:07] I think we are going to amplify our voices with the CPUC.
[1:04:19] We have work to do still on that front.
[1:04:21] I hope that answers your questions.
[1:04:24] The next entity is Golden State natural resources formed
[1:04:32] to help the state advance the pace and scale of forest
[1:04:36] resilience projects.
[1:04:37] We've reached a little over 500 thousand
[1:04:39] and now it is declining.
[1:04:40] It is declining because those treatments take state
[1:04:44] and federal subsidies to occur.
[1:04:45] Presently there's large piles of low diameter biomass left behind
[1:04:49] that either decomposes in place or is burned in place.
[1:04:53] Our goal has been to find a commercially sustainable outlet
[1:04:56] for that material so that the proceeds of that
[1:04:58] can be reinvested to get more forest resilience projects done.
[1:05:02] We are working closely with entities
[1:05:05] like Lawrence Livermore Labs and others
[1:05:07] to complete an environmental document which will hopefully
[1:05:09] be out in August or September that will
[1:05:12] look at forest treatment occurring
[1:05:14] within 100 miles of two sites.
[1:05:16] One in Lesson County.
[1:05:18] One in Tulum County transporting the low diameter
[1:05:21] biomass to those two sites then converting it to woodchips
[1:05:24] and shipping it by rail as far south as Kern County
[1:05:26] or as far north as Oregon or potentially Reno or the Bay
[1:05:32] area.
[1:05:32] That said, that type of commercial user
[1:05:36] does not exist in California yet so we are working
[1:05:39] to find what are the array of potential users in the future
[1:05:42] and it's likely to be someone in the alternative fuels field.
[1:05:48] Hydrogen or an alternative wood product and we
[1:05:51] are working with University of Berkeley Wood Innovations Lab
[1:05:54] to identify what the future alternative innovative wood
[1:05:58] products would look like.
[1:06:00] The point of our projects is to de-risk the supply side
[1:06:03] so if one of those users does come into California
[1:06:05] we will have de-risked the biomass supply
[1:06:08] side so they can get that material
[1:06:09] and have it at their ready.
[1:06:13] The environmental document again will come out this fall
[1:06:16] hopefully.
[1:06:17] Next slide.
[1:06:19] Environmental Services joint Powers Agency.
[1:06:23] >> Excuse me.
[1:06:24] We do have one question.
[1:06:26] >> Going back to that biomass idea.
[1:06:27] Does that have to do with the pellet plant that was going on?
[1:06:34] >> It did but our board last summer basically pivoted away
[1:06:38] from the international market in pellets to looking at a future
[1:06:41] domestic market that relies on wood chips and there were two
[1:06:44] reasons they made that pivot.
[1:06:46] One is that the market for pellets
[1:06:48] changed while demand remains strong.
[1:06:51] Supply had increased exponentially namely
[1:06:53] from Vietnam during the time we were
[1:06:56] doing our environmental analysis and that
[1:06:57] had the effect of softening prices
[1:06:59] to the point where it did not pencil out any more.
[1:07:02] Secondly there was a lot of concern
[1:07:03] with using that biomass to ship overseas
[1:07:05] so our board looked at that and the financial modeling and said,
[1:07:11] we're going to pivot to the domestic market.
[1:07:13] We recognize that as a risk because commercial users don't
[1:07:16] yet exist in California but they felt
[1:07:18] that was the right thing to do for the long term
[1:07:20] and so that is where our work has been devoted since.
[1:07:23] >> Okay.
[1:07:24] Thank you.
[1:07:25] >> Okay.
[1:07:26] Environmental service joint powers authority.
[1:07:29] This is made up of 26 of small rural counties
[1:07:32] basically to help them with calorie cycle regulation
[1:07:35] regional Water Quality Control board regulations
[1:07:37] so they come together and achieve economies of scale
[1:07:41] through that process.
[1:07:43] This is our last one.
[1:07:44] The rural Advancement Institute is
[1:07:46] a 501 C3 the board brought back to life to do two things.
[1:07:50] One is to focus on primarily urban legislators
[1:07:52] and their staff.
[1:07:53] We've held two tours one in Mariposa County
[1:07:56] and one in Monterey County and we are planning a third now
[1:07:59] in Tehama County and we've had increasing attendance at each
[1:08:02] of those to get them out into rural communities
[1:08:04] to talk about everything from ag to natural resources
[1:08:06] and all the typical issues you might expect
[1:08:09] but to familiarize those urban participants with those issues.
[1:08:13] The second is to partner with academic institutions
[1:08:16] to do research around topics of key interest to rural counties.
[1:08:20] The most recent 1st May be of interest to you.
[1:08:23] We just finished a published report
[1:08:25] with UC Santa Barbara looking at the issue of fire
[1:08:29] and EMS capacity in rural counties
[1:08:32] and the twin capacities of increasing call volume
[1:08:36] and decreasing volunteer availability and couple
[1:08:38] that with insufficient funding for staffing
[1:08:40] and it's a challenge for many of our counties.
[1:08:42] I think if you were to read that report you
[1:08:45] would find it nothing new.
[1:08:46] Is probably something you are living and dealing
[1:08:48] with every day here in Mendocino County
[1:08:50] but many in the legislature were fully unaware of that challenge.
[1:08:55] Many legislators have no idea when
[1:08:58] they are driving from LA to mammoth that they are depending
[1:09:01] on a basic life support ambulance system staffed
[1:09:04] by volunteers that may or may not be available to respond
[1:09:07] if there's an accident on 385 and I just
[1:09:09] used that as an example that may resonate with them.
[1:09:12] So this report really identifies that.
[1:09:14] It's the first I've seen of the California
[1:09:17] specific statewide report that does that
[1:09:19] and then it lays out recommendations.
[1:09:21] Step two is to take those recommendations and build them
[1:09:24] out so professors are going to be --
[1:09:27] the data is a little uneven across jurisdictions for that
[1:09:31] first report so it's going to be reaching out directly
[1:09:34] to jurisdictions to tighten up some of the data then secondly
[1:09:36] working on those recommendations but doing so in an interesting
[1:09:40] way that I think will resonate with the legislature which is
[1:09:43] looking at health outcomes.
[1:09:44] Part of what we suspect that the report is going to show
[1:09:47] is that there are lower health outcomes in rural areas because
[1:09:52] of this gap in fire and EMS capacity and health outcomes
[1:09:56] is a topic near and dear to many in the legislature
[1:09:58] so trying to tie it together in a way that resonates
[1:10:01] with terminology and issues they are used to studying
[1:10:04] but gets to the underlying issue which is the challenge for fire
[1:10:09] and EMS capacity in rural areas so
[1:10:12] look to that to come out in the following year.
[1:10:17] >> Great presentation.
[1:10:19] >> I just want to say thank you to Pat for coming in and giving
[1:10:22] this update to the board.
[1:10:23] It helps for not only the full board but also
[1:10:25] the community to be aware of.
[1:10:27] One of the amazing things we get to participate in ,
[1:10:33] RCRC is a bright spot.
[1:10:36] I love working with your amazing staff.
[1:10:38] It's such a great team.
[1:10:39] Always having really important conversations
[1:10:41] about the most important policy issues facing rural communities.
[1:10:46] I'm looking forward to connecting you with our fire
[1:10:49] chief association to talk about fire and EMS capacity
[1:10:53] as well as county staff working on this issue.
[1:10:56] The Sigma work has been really helpful.
[1:10:59] It is something that is really challenging
[1:11:01] for a lot of property owners.
[1:11:02] There is opportunities for us that
[1:11:04] are going to come out of the jail medical work
[1:11:06] and I could go on and on just the benefit is
[1:11:09] huge for Mendocino County to participate in RCRC.
[1:11:14] Just thank you again.
[1:11:16] >> Thank you for coming today and thank you for that
[1:11:18] presentation.
[1:11:19] I hope that maybe the executive office can
[1:11:22] share some information about the importance of RCRC
[1:11:26] and why we participate because I think that especially
[1:11:30] highlighting some of the affiliate agencies
[1:11:32] and I know that I talk about the home opportunities with Golden
[1:11:36] State Finance Authority often.
[1:11:38] Because it is really a benefit I think that other agencies
[1:11:42] don't offer and especially when as a rural county we are trying
[1:11:46] to be competitive and especially when we are looking at law
[1:11:50] enforcement and other positions that are so key to our community
[1:11:55] that really is a benefit that cannot be seen in other agencies
[1:12:01] so really appreciate all of the work that you do for us.
[1:12:04] >> Appreciate that and if ever we can participate in a realtor
[1:12:08] association locally to get the word out about assistance
[1:12:11] programs we're happy to do it.
[1:12:13] >> I have no more questions.
[1:12:15] Thank you.
[1:12:16] Any public comment on this item?
[1:12:19] Madam clerk.
[1:12:22] >> Seeing no comments online.
[1:12:25] >> Back to the board.
[1:12:26] We are looking for a motion for acceptance.
[1:12:29] >> Move approval.
[1:12:31] >> First by Supervisor Williams.
[1:12:33] Second by Supervisor Cline.
[1:12:37] We will vote by the button.
[1:12:44] >> The motion carries unanimously.
[1:12:46] >> Thank you.
[1:12:48] Item R4 discussion and possible action
[1:12:52] including approval or denial of request from department heads
[1:12:55] and elected officials regarding budget
[1:12:56] impacts funding and recruitment of vacant or new positions
[1:12:59] following the strategic hiring process.
[1:13:03] >> Good morning.
[1:13:03] Sherry Johnson Human Resource Director.
[1:13:05] We have a department that would like
[1:13:07] to make a request to the board this morning
[1:13:09] and so we have the Sheriff's office.
[1:13:10] Thank you.
[1:13:12] >> Thank you.
[1:13:19] >> Good morning .
[1:13:21] Sheriff Matt.
[1:13:22] I have with me captain Jason Cardillo.
[1:13:25] We are requesting to fill more positions
[1:13:27] for the Sheriff's office.
[1:13:28] Currently we are dealing with some pretty violent crime
[1:13:31] and whatnot that you probably have seen in the paper.
[1:13:34] More homicides and more issues and we
[1:13:36] are running short on personnel.
[1:13:37] We have currently eight personnel out on injury.
[1:13:41] Several of those folks we don't believe
[1:13:42] are going to make it back due to the type of injuries
[1:13:45] that they have.
[1:13:45] We have a few that we need to dual fill those positions
[1:13:49] because I just don't think we are
[1:13:51] going to see them back to work.
[1:13:52] We also have some injuries that we will have our folks back
[1:13:56] but we've got one subject who broke a bone.
[1:13:58] We have to wait for that bone to heal.
[1:14:01] We have to wait for a subject who had some serious tendon
[1:14:05] damage during an arrest.
[1:14:06] Things like that.
[1:14:08] Right now we are dealing with some pretty serious crime
[1:14:10] because the illicit marijuana has blown
[1:14:14] up again in Mendocino County.
[1:14:16] Particularly in the North.
[1:14:18] It has gotten completely out of control.
[1:14:20] We have transnational drug trafficking organizations
[1:14:23] that are working in our areas.
[1:14:26] We are dealing with homicides and things
[1:14:27] like that including human trafficking
[1:14:29] so we are going to have to start hiring up again.
[1:14:32] We need to get these positions refunded.
[1:14:34] A big portion of that funding is going to come from the grants
[1:14:38] that we've been working on but we are still about 33%
[1:14:42] behind on being able to pay for that based on those grants
[1:14:45] and so Captain Cardillo will talk about the fiscal impacts.
[1:14:50] >> Good morning chair and members of the board.
[1:14:53] Jason Cardillo administrative captain at the Sheriff's office.
[1:14:56] As you are probably aware and as the Sheriff
[1:14:59] stated we are looking to fund the five positions that
[1:15:03] have been (Indistinct) as a cost savings measure
[1:15:09] that we've worked hand in hand with the CEO's office
[1:15:11] to show some cost savings for the county.
[1:15:14] As the Sheriff stated we are definitely
[1:15:16] in a critical point in time with our department.
[1:15:20] At one of the last board meetings
[1:15:23] they discussed at 33% vacancy rate
[1:15:25] we have at the Sheriff's Office that doesn't include the eight
[1:15:29] individuals we had out at leaves that
[1:15:31] are going to push that even higher probably into 44 or 45%
[1:15:36] vacancy rate.
[1:15:37] That is impacting our services to some extent
[1:15:39] as members of the board are probably
[1:15:41] aware hearing from your outlying areas
[1:15:44] the North sectors as well as the coast right now our main area
[1:15:49] where we are really struggling for personnel is out of ukiyo e.
[1:15:53] 50% of our culture service come out of that sector.
[1:15:57] We do have some relief in sight.
[1:16:02] We've hired three deputies one of them being a lateral we
[1:16:07] sworn in yesterday.
[1:16:07] We have another three laterals that are
[1:16:09] looking to be hired in August.
[1:16:11] One on August 3rd and then two on August 17th.
[1:16:16] Our hope is for the board to continue
[1:16:17] to work with us to get our numbers up so that we can
[1:16:21] provide the level of service that the County deserves
[1:16:23] and with that being said, we've had
[1:16:26] top 64 with the hard work of Lieutenant Eric Clark
[1:16:30] as well as Megan Z from our Financial Services Bureau.
[1:16:35] They were able to put us in a position where we received this
[1:16:39] funding from prop 64 which will cover two full time positions
[1:16:43] which would equate to just a little bit less than $500,000
[1:16:47] in savings over a five year period or actually fund those
[1:16:52] two positions that are $500,000 costs over the course
[1:16:56] of the next five years.
[1:16:58] One of our key needs at this point
[1:17:01] is that our supervisor level.
[1:17:03] First line supervisor for the Sheriff's office
[1:17:05] would be a Sergeant position.
[1:17:07] The Sheriff mentioned we are down
[1:17:09] Firstline supervisors in two sectors which
[1:17:14] is critical for County council I'm sure can attest
[1:17:17] is very critical for the Sheriff's Office
[1:17:18] to ensure we have proper supervision of all
[1:17:21] our personnel.
[1:17:22] Right now we are going on at least two shifts
[1:17:25] without firstline supervisors which
[1:17:27] is requiring our lieutenants who are tasked all over the board
[1:17:31] right now not only acting as deputy sheriffs
[1:17:34] but acting as supervisors reviewing reports the day
[1:17:37] to day operations of the jail at the supervisor level
[1:17:40] and being tasked with day to day managerial responsibilities.
[1:17:45] We have one shift out at central sector
[1:17:47] right now that only has one deputy and a Sergeant
[1:17:49] and it is a day shift and it is one of the busiest
[1:17:52] shifts we presently have.
[1:17:54] We are having to fill the other shift with overtime
[1:17:57] so you've seen or you are going to see --
[1:18:00] I've spoke with CEO Sarah Pierce earlier in the week
[1:18:04] about the huge amount of overtime
[1:18:05] that's going to be coming in from our homicide
[1:18:08] as well as having to cover these vacant shifts so we would really
[1:18:11] appreciate if you would look at funding those five positions.
[1:18:14] It would be a cost to the general fund of a little over $1
[1:18:18] million and I understand that the county's position with
[1:18:23] the budgetary constraints that we are in but you also have
[1:18:27] to understand the Sheriff's position and that we've worked
[1:18:30] the best we can with the Sheriff by working with less and doing
[1:18:34] more and now we are at a very critical inroads that is going
[1:18:38] to be a situation that is going to --
[1:18:44] I don't see anything positive coming if we are not
[1:18:46] able to continue to recruit for the positions
[1:18:52] and have the positions that were allotted actually funded.
[1:18:56] As everyone is aware we spoke to this before.
[1:18:58] It takes us about six months to get someone hired so immediately
[1:19:02] you are going to see some budget savings in that six person
[1:19:06] request in that it probably wouldn't be until January
[1:19:11] or December, hopefully, that we could actually
[1:19:18] look at having those positions filled if we have some interest.
[1:19:22] Right now we are having a lot of interest
[1:19:24] with laterals specifically.
[1:19:26] That is a cost savings to the department.
[1:19:28] We could get them over.
[1:19:29] We could get them working in a shorter amount of time
[1:19:32] and we are not having to invest on the front end in terms
[1:19:35] of their training and their academy day
[1:19:36] so we are open to questions if there are any.
[1:19:39] >> Thank you.
[1:19:42] Supervisor Haschak.
[1:19:45] >> With the prop 64 money, what will be the duties of those two
[1:19:54] deputies, I assume will be used with that grant money?
[1:20:00] That will be used for illegal marijuana
[1:20:03] or what is the purpose for that?
[1:20:06] >> The purpose would be backfilling the assignment
[1:20:10] of two new investigators.
[1:20:12] Part of their duties would be investigating illicit marijuana
[1:20:16] grows but with that comes the violence associated so they
[1:20:20] become generalized investigators that
[1:20:22] may have a specialty in the marijuana realm
[1:20:25] as well as with the human trafficking entity of it.
[1:20:29] >> Okay.
[1:20:29] So it is on overall community safety.
[1:20:32] Yeah.
[1:20:34] >> If I may through the chair We will be bringing an item forward
[1:20:37] on September 1st about prop 64 in more detail.
[1:20:41] >> Thank you.
[1:20:43] >> I'm not seeing any more questions.
[1:20:44] Thank you both.
[1:20:50] >> We will open this item up to the public.
[1:20:52] Anybody in the room like to speak on this?
[1:20:54] Madam clerk?
[1:21:00] >> Seeing none.
[1:21:01] >> Okay.
[1:21:01] Back to the board.
[1:21:06] Supervisor Haschak.
[1:21:07] >> Just a question for the acting CEO.
[1:21:09] We just passed a balanced budget so this $1 million.
[1:21:14] Do you have an idea where this will come from?
[1:21:17] >> If I may through the chair so the million dollars is the cost
[1:21:22] for a full year as the memo states and Captain Castillo just
[1:21:26] said it's probably going to be closer to I would say about half
[1:21:29] $1 million once we get him hired and through background.
[1:21:33] So I would turn it to the board.
[1:21:36] Just public safety is your number one mandate.
[1:21:38] We do have a balanced budget right now.
[1:21:44] We did balance with one time funds
[1:21:47] so there is a potential you could use one time
[1:21:49] funds for this year then identify ongoing funding
[1:21:52] streams for future years.
[1:21:53] The Sheriff's Office was a great partner in our budget
[1:21:57] conferences and they did come in and only
[1:21:59] ask for what they thought at the time
[1:22:00] and now they're coming back and saying that we
[1:22:03] need additional positions.
[1:22:05] They are looking at other grants as well.
[1:22:09] So right now there is not an identified source
[1:22:11] except for one time so I turn it back to the board
[1:22:15] to see what other funding streams
[1:22:18] that you guys may be aware of or additional cuts somewhere else.
[1:22:24] >> Okay.
[1:22:24] So I think for me I think we've had
[1:22:26] this discussion for as long as I've been here with the budget
[1:22:30] and staffing and what are going to be the priorities
[1:22:33] and we are going to get to a point
[1:22:35] where we have to make a decision.
[1:22:36] What is the priority?
[1:22:38] And I'm willing to make a motion to approve this item
[1:22:43] and for me I think today is that day.
[1:22:47] We're going to have to decide.
[1:22:48] Do we want to fund the Sheriff's office
[1:22:50] or not to keep them operational in the way that they see fit
[1:22:55] and so I'm in 100% support of this.
[1:23:05] >> I will second that motion.
[1:23:07] >> Okay.
[1:23:08] First by myself.
[1:23:09] Second by Supervisor Haschak.
[1:23:17] Supervisor Cline.
[1:23:19] >> I want to appreciate your comments.
[1:23:20] I agree completely we are at a crossroads for the county
[1:23:23] where we will at some point have to soon make
[1:23:25] some tough decisions on what the county is going to agree to fund
[1:23:28] and public safety is our number one mandate and certainly
[1:23:31] worth funding.
[1:23:32] I appreciate the transparency from the Sheriff and his staff
[1:23:36] today sharing about why we came to this request
[1:23:39] and look forward to supporting it.
[1:23:43] >> Seeing no more questions we will vote by the button.
[1:23:51] >> The motion carries unanimously.
[1:23:52] >> Thank you gentlemen.
[1:23:53] We are going to move on to R5 discussion and possible action
[1:23:59] including adoption of resolution and approval of a Memorandum
[1:24:03] of Understanding between the County of Mendocino
[1:24:06] and the Service Employees International Union Local some
[1:24:09] 21 for the term of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th 2029.
[1:24:19] >> Good morning again.
[1:24:21] Sherry Johnson Human resource Director.
[1:24:22] It's my pleasure to bring forward SEIU MoU.
[1:24:30] And to highlight some of the enhancements.
[1:24:33] It is a three year term and we had some language clean up.
[1:24:38] We had salary enhancements for three years.
[1:24:41] We have a bronze plan which is a high deductible health plan
[1:24:44] which is employee only at 100%.
[1:24:47] On call premium increase.
[1:24:50] Bilingual pay increase, and an additional holiday
[1:24:57] adds Juneteenth.
[1:24:59] Those are some of the enhancements for the contract
[1:25:02] and I do want to say I want to thank you
[1:25:04] through the negotiating team me Christina Jeff Jackie Traci
[1:25:08] Patrick and also a cash and thank you to this board
[1:25:13] and also the county team that works at the table
[1:25:17] also with the teams so interim CEO Sarah Pierce HR manager
[1:25:26] and we had Luke and Sam from our labor team also.
[1:25:30] So thank you.
[1:25:32] >> Any questions for Miss Johnson?
[1:25:35] Supervisor Haschak.
[1:25:38] >> I would just like to say thank you to SEIU 1021
[1:25:42] for negotiating and their comments earlier today.
[1:25:46] It was really appreciated by the board
[1:25:49] and I think this is just recognition
[1:25:52] that we are in tough times financially
[1:25:55] but our greatest assets are the employees.
[1:26:04] >> Supervisor Cline.
[1:26:05] >> I wanted to thank all of the stakeholders involved with all
[1:26:08] the negotiations.
[1:26:09] It's always challenging and my comments
[1:26:11] are about this item in the next few items.
[1:26:13] I appreciate the Cola for fiscal Year 27-28 and 28-29.
[1:26:31] I appreciate the thoughtfulness and looking forward
[1:26:37] to continuing the collaboration moving forward.
[1:26:40] >> Not seeing any more questions.
[1:26:42] Thank you.
[1:26:48] Anyone in the room like to comment on this item?
[1:26:54] Madam clerk?
[1:26:57] >> Seeing no comments online.
[1:26:59] >> Okay.
[1:26:59] Bring it back to the board.
[1:27:02] Supervisor Williams.
[1:27:05] >> Move approval.
[1:27:08] >> Second by Supervisor Haschak.
[1:27:12] We will vote by the button.
[1:27:15] >> The motion carries unanimously.
[1:27:17] >> Item R6 discussion and possible action including
[1:27:23] adoption of a resolution and approval of a memorandum
[1:27:26] of understanding between the County of Mendocino
[1:27:28] and the Teamsters Local 856 for the term of July 1st 2025
[1:27:33] through June 30th 2029.
[1:27:36] >> Good morning again.
[1:27:37] Sherry Johnson Human Resource Director.
[1:27:39] I am again pleased to bring this MOU and resolution forward
[1:27:43] for the Mendocino County Public Attorney's Group.
[1:27:46] We do have a four year contract as they have been out
[1:27:49] of contract since July 1st of 2025.
[1:27:53] It is very similar terms to the prior with SEIU,
[1:27:59] but this is a four year term with salary enhancements Colas
[1:28:04] and health insurance the same and also adding
[1:28:06] the holiday of Juneteenth.
[1:28:08] I would like to thank the negotiating
[1:28:11] team for the public Attorney's group
[1:28:13] which is Frank me and Robert from Teamsters.
[1:28:16] So thank you.
[1:28:21] >> Great.
[1:28:22] Thank you.
[1:28:22] Supervisor Williams.
[1:28:24] >> Do we have public comment?
[1:28:29] >> Anybody in the room like to speak on this item?
[1:28:32] None?
[1:28:34] Madam clerk?
[1:28:35] >> Seeing no comments online.
[1:28:38] >> Supervisor Williams.
[1:28:41] >> Move approval.
[1:28:42] >> Again, motion made by Supervisor Williams seconded
[1:28:47] by Supervisor Haschak.
[1:28:49] We'll vote by the button.
[1:29:05] >> The motion carries unanimously.
[1:29:10] >> Okay.
[1:29:12] Thank you.
[1:29:13] Item R7 discussion and possible action including adoption
[1:29:16] of a resolution and approval of a memorandum of understanding
[1:29:20] between the County of Mendocino and the Teamsters local 856
[1:29:24] for the term July 1st 2026 through June 30th 2029.
[1:29:30] >> Thank you board.
[1:29:31] Sherry Johnson human Resource director.
[1:29:33] I am also pleased to bring forward
[1:29:35] the MOU for the Probation Unit MOU
[1:29:40] and resolution for a three year term with Cole
[1:29:44] is actually seen in three years also with the triggers
[1:29:48] as mentioned by supervisor Cline modified to the health insurance
[1:29:55] and with the addition of the Juneteenth holiday
[1:29:58] and I would like to thank the team from Teamsters
[1:30:01] with Chelsea, Nicole and Michael and also Robert Maddox
[1:30:05] so thank you.
[1:30:06] I would also like to say thank you to all the labor negotiating
[1:30:09] teams from SEIU and Teamsters for their professionalism,
[1:30:16] kindness and passion for the county.
[1:30:18] They were good representatives so thank you very much.
[1:30:21] >> Questions from the board?
[1:30:23] Any public comment on this item?
[1:30:25] Madam clerk?
[1:30:28] Any >> Seeing none.
[1:30:32] >> Supervisor Williams?
[1:30:34] >> Move approval.
[1:30:36] >> First by Supervisor Williams.
[1:30:39] Second by Supervisor Haschak.
[1:30:44] >> The motion carries unanimously.
[1:30:52] >> Okay.
[1:30:54] Item R8 notice public hearing discussion and possible action
[1:30:59] including adoption of resolution amending exhibit X Mendocino
[1:31:02] County Master fee schedule effective September 19th 2026
[1:31:08] unless coded policy require longer adopting fee
[1:31:12] modifications for health services.
[1:31:16] It is 10:28.
[1:31:20] We will open public hearing.
[1:31:23] >> Proper notice has been established in all
[1:31:25] correspondence received has been sent to your emails or mailbox.
[1:31:29] >> Thank you.
[1:31:30] The hearing has been opened.
[1:31:31] The clerk has announced any correspondence.
[1:31:34] We will have staff presentation, public input or comment
[1:31:39] from staff can present final remarks
[1:31:42] on the Board of supervisors can ask questions of staff.
[1:31:45] The public hearing will be closed
[1:31:47] on the matter will be sent back to the board
[1:31:49] and a public comment will be accepted after that.
[1:31:53] Yes?
[1:32:13] >> Good morning supervisors.
[1:32:14] Ashley law, administrative analyst
[1:32:19] with the executive office.
[1:32:23] The board requested the administrative health services
[1:32:26] emergency dispatch fee be left intact
[1:32:28] and brought back for further review
[1:32:30] after an original meet and confer with ambulance transport
[1:32:33] providers we are bringing back the proposal
[1:32:35] to eliminate the current flat dispatch fee
[1:32:38] and replace it with a volume based multi-tiered structure set
[1:32:41] in relation to the number of calls for service.
[1:32:43] Doctor Miller Director of Health Services
[1:32:45] is here to provide further information and insight
[1:32:48] to assist the board with making a decision on how
[1:32:51] to appropriately set these fees.
[1:32:54] >> If I may through the chair Before we turn it over to Tammy,
[1:32:56] I would like to say that we did update a modified memo from
[1:33:01] Health Services.
[1:33:02] The last page at the bottom had some incorrect monthly amounts
[1:33:06] so that has been uploaded this morning.
[1:33:08] Thank you.
[1:33:11] >> Good morning Chair Norvell and members of the board.
[1:33:15] Tammy Bartolomé, public health services EMS Program Manager.
[1:33:22] As explained, before you today are the updated EMS
[1:33:28] dispatch fee schedule.
[1:33:30] This item transitions our county from an outdated flat rate
[1:33:34] to a volume based cost recovery framework so this follows
[1:33:40] the direction in April to pause and bring our ambulance
[1:33:45] providers into the conversation.
[1:33:48] Following those extensive meet and confer sessions
[1:33:51] we worked with the providers and came up with a fee schedule
[1:33:54] that we believe is fair and sustainable.
[1:33:58] To support that goal we built two key balancing measures
[1:34:02] into this framework.
[1:34:04] An attrition rate.
[1:34:07] We applied a 30% reduction to raw Cal fire dispatch data
[1:34:13] to better reflect dry runs and cancellations.
[1:34:17] After consulting with Cal Fire leadership
[1:34:20] we confirmed this baseline data already
[1:34:23] excludes routine administrative logs like an ambulance checking
[1:34:28] in or checking out of service.
[1:34:31] By filtering out those status changes
[1:34:34] and cutting the remaining workload data by a full 30%
[1:34:38] we built what we believe is a strong baseline safeguard
[1:34:43] to address non-transport calls.
[1:34:45] So I would like to also point out with this 30% attrition
[1:34:51] rate being applied, this takes providers
[1:34:56] such as MedStar from tier four to tier three,
[1:35:02] a cost savings to them.
[1:35:05] We also implemented a three year glide path.
[1:35:11] We structured a transition for providers
[1:35:15] facing these adjustments to give them three years
[1:35:17] to come up with the full cost amount
[1:35:21] and then as outlined in your packet,
[1:35:25] Venice Health has agreed to this structure
[1:35:29] so they will move to their transition fee
[1:35:31] and they will not need the three year glide
[1:35:35] path that we established.
[1:35:37] So we believe this framework is a direct product
[1:35:40] of our meet and confer sessions and staff recommends approval
[1:35:45] of this updated EMS dispatch fee schedule
[1:35:49] to stabilize our regional emergency network
[1:35:52] and I am available for questions.
[1:35:56] >> I'm not seeing any questions.
[1:35:58] Thank you.
[1:35:59] We will open this item up to the public.
[1:36:02] Anybody in the room?
[1:36:06] Madam clerk?
[1:36:08] Any online?
[1:36:11] >> Seeing none.
[1:36:16] >> Okay.
[1:36:17] Any final comments from staff?
[1:36:23] >> Just thank you for reconsidering this and we really
[1:36:25] believe we came up with a fair process and we worked really
[1:36:29] hard on this so thank you.
[1:36:32] >> Thank you.
[1:36:35] >> Thank you for the extra effort to meet and confer
[1:36:37] working with providers.
[1:36:38] I will move the recommended action.
[1:36:41] >> If I may through the chair, what the executive office
[1:36:46] brought forward is our standard fee schedule that shows
[1:36:48] the tiers so I think we need to modify the recommended action
[1:36:51] to accept the department's proposed changes to have the Med
[1:36:55] Star tier three be phased in over three years.
[1:37:00] >> So moved.
[1:37:03] >> Okay.
[1:37:05] It is 10:34.
[1:37:08] We close the public hearing.
[1:37:11] Please restate your motion.
[1:37:13] >> If I may through the chair we would need a modified motion
[1:37:16] to accept the department's recommendation to phase
[1:37:19] in the tier three from Med Star over three years.
[1:37:31] >> Supervisor Williams are you okay with that?
[1:37:34] We have a second, Supervisor Haschak.
[1:37:42] >> We received a letter from MedStar and was that letter
[1:37:44] before this was worked out or after?
[1:37:46] Are there still concerns that their viability might
[1:37:50] be at risk?
[1:37:51] What do you know about that?
[1:37:55] >> So they did express concern with the cost of rising gas
[1:37:59] another cost increases.
[1:38:00] They are concerned of that and that
[1:38:03] is where the three year phase plan came into effect
[1:38:06] or what we felt was fair.
[1:38:09] But as far as viability, fees are going up
[1:38:16] and costs are going up and I can't
[1:38:21] project what they are long.
[1:38:25] Of course nobody wants their fee to increase.
[1:38:28] >> Right.
[1:38:29] So we've done all we can to present a fair approach?
[1:38:34] >>.
[1:38:34] We met with MedStar specifically several times.
[1:38:37] >> Thank you.
[1:38:41] >> Supervisor Mulheren.
[1:38:42] >> Thank you.
[1:38:43] I just wanted to appreciate the work that staff and MedStar did
[1:38:45] together and understand the concerns
[1:38:47] that they have and it is challenging
[1:38:49] when fees have to increase.
[1:38:52] One of the challenges that the community faces,
[1:38:55] whether that is ambulance services or businesses, people
[1:39:01] that are trying to develop their properties or contractors.
[1:39:07] When fees go up it is a challenge
[1:39:08] and I think that what the county can do
[1:39:10] is continue to have important conversations, come up
[1:39:14] with strategies that hopefully can at least be
[1:39:17] helpful to the folks that have to pay the fees
[1:39:19] and of course to make sure that we are providing the best
[1:39:22] level of services that we can and when we are not, to adjust.
[1:39:33] So I wanted to express that I appreciate that fees going up
[1:39:37] is always a challenge and I appreciate what staff did.
[1:39:41] >> First by Supervisor Williams.
[1:39:43] Seconded by Supervisor Cline.
[1:39:47] We will vote by the button.
[1:39:53] >> The motion carries unanimously.
[1:39:55] >> Thank you very much.
[1:39:56] Moving on to item R9 discussion and possible action including
[1:40:02] approval of the appropriation request in the amount
[1:40:05] of $170,000 of one time funds increasing the total Bauer Park
[1:40:10] Restoration and Improvement Project budget from $2,442,440
[1:40:14] to $2,612,440 to fully fund the proposed project improvements
[1:40:22] and authorization for the purchasing agent to issue change
[1:40:25] orders to the contractor to complete the project pursuant
[1:40:29] to Public Contract Code section 20142.
[1:40:36] >> Good morning.
[1:40:36] My name is Doug Anderson.
[1:40:38] I'm the capital Projects manager for the County.
[1:40:47] This item is -- we have negotiated a final phase two
[1:40:54] contract with the contractor Mars construction,
[1:41:02] Mars engineering who has been working on Bower Park since
[1:41:06] October.
[1:41:07] They have made good progress given the weather conditions
[1:41:12] over the winter or now.
[1:41:16] We are now geared up to proceed with phase two.
[1:41:20] The issues we encountered in getting
[1:41:23] to this final agreement for phase two,
[1:41:28] given the limited budget resources
[1:41:31] we had through the grant, meant that several features
[1:41:35] of the project design are not included in the phase two
[1:41:42] agreement.
[1:41:42] We were pretty much aware of this when we went into this
[1:41:47] agreement because our budget -- our contract proposal exceeded
[1:41:53] the budget for the project even at the beginning.
[1:41:56] So what we've done now is clarified the scope that is not
[1:42:00] included in the current phase two,
[1:42:03] and we are here before you today to try
[1:42:07] to understand if there is any interest in helping
[1:42:10] to fund the balance of those features
[1:42:13] so that we can include some or all of them
[1:42:17] in the final contract that we have
[1:42:18] with the current contractor.
[1:42:22] Briefly, the items that are not included in the current scope
[1:42:26] is the electrical and lighting that we had some security
[1:42:34] lighting under the entrances.
[1:42:36] The landscaping and irrigation work that was enhanced
[1:42:40] landscaping around the front entrance
[1:42:42] areas of the building of the site
[1:42:46] and then also some important repairs
[1:42:50] to the fencing in the park.
[1:42:53] We do have limited fencing around the ball
[1:42:56] fields and the tennis court that need to be repaired so those can
[1:43:00] be used as intended but there is quite a bit of fencing repairs
[1:43:04] that is not included.
[1:43:05] I just want to make sure that you understand that we have been
[1:43:12] able to include in the current phase two is all
[1:43:15] of the recreational facilities that were planned in this
[1:43:20] project , so baseball, tennis, basketball court
[1:43:32] in the recreational playground equipment is all funded
[1:43:36] and included in the existing phase two that we have
[1:43:39] so at this point we are just looking for your interest
[1:43:46] in supporting the final phases of the project that we were
[1:43:50] hoping to get done with this grant.
[1:43:55] >> Thank you.
[1:43:57] Supervisor Cline.
[1:43:59] >> Question for staff.
[1:44:01] What will happen if this phase is not funded?
[1:44:04] >> Through the chair, the only thing we are not going to be
[1:44:08] able to complete if we don't get the additional funding is
[1:44:11] the lighting, fencing repairs, landscaping and irrigation
[1:44:19] improvements.
[1:44:20] So we have pared it down to those things and those
[1:44:23] are things that in our mind we believe can be deferred
[1:44:27] to future opportunities permit
[1:44:31] >> Thank you.
[1:44:34] >> Not seeing any more questions we are going to go to public
[1:44:37] comment.
[1:44:37] Anybody in the room like to speak on this item?
[1:44:47] >> Good morning chairman and members of the Board
[1:44:50] of Supervisors my name is Kevin Evans.
[1:44:53] I'm the chair of the Walhalla Municipal Advisory Council.
[1:44:56] I support and our board supports $170,000.
[1:45:01] We would like to see our park completed as intended.
[1:45:05] I just have a few questions that I hope can be answered.
[1:45:10] Staff just mentioned what amenities
[1:45:12] are included in phase two that they are planning on funding
[1:45:16] and we support that.
[1:45:18] My other question is does the 170,000 if approved fund county
[1:45:25] and employee expenses and contract services or is all
[1:45:29] of the money going to materials and time?
[1:45:33] The other question I have, and I did not see it and maybe it is
[1:45:39] somewhere in the line item -- what is the board's plan
[1:45:42] to maintain the park once it is completed?
[1:45:45] We look forward to your answers.
[1:45:47] We would love to share that information
[1:45:49] back with our residents in Walhalla and the surrounding
[1:45:52] areas.
[1:45:52] Thank you very much.
[1:45:55] >> Thank you.
[1:45:55] Anyone else in the room?
[1:46:07] >> Good morning chair Norvell and fellow supervisors my name
[1:46:16] is Dave Buck and I serve as chairman of the Recreation
[1:46:18] and Parks District.
[1:46:19] I encourage you to approve the park restoration.
[1:46:28] I would like to remind you of the interest in the long term
[1:46:32] success of this crucial South Coast the infrastructure.
[1:46:34] Our park has provided affordable recreation opportunities
[1:46:39] for decades to people of all ages
[1:46:41] and economic circumstances on the South Coast
[1:46:43] and in the Bay County Community of Walhalla
[1:46:46] providing public access and a broad range
[1:46:49] of recreational activity.
[1:46:50] There is nothing like this park within a 90 minute drive
[1:46:54] for coastal residents or visitors.
[1:46:57] MCRPD supported this sport when you adopted the resolution
[1:47:03] in pursuit of state funding to renovate and improve Bower Park.
[1:47:08] In June 2024 the Board of Directors adopted a resolution
[1:47:13] to transfer almost $178,000 in one time state per capita grant
[1:47:18] funds to help the county implement the complete project
[1:47:21] scope including items that you just heard about today.
[1:47:24] This board accepted the transfer by adopting resolution 24110
[1:47:30] on July 9th, 2024.
[1:47:35] While this previous contribution to the project budget is
[1:47:39] strangely absent from the project report
[1:47:41] for today's proposal we trust that the county and state staff
[1:47:44] have accounted accurately for the $170,000 budget shortfall.
[1:47:49] Acknowledging the FC board's proactive partnership
[1:47:53] and in compliance with this board certification on January
[1:48:00] 24th, 2023 please approve the full funding request.
[1:48:05] The MCRPD has expressed interest to members
[1:48:08] of your board and the County Executive Office staff
[1:48:10] in creating a partnership to operate and maintain
[1:48:13] our part in perpetuity for the district the extent of funding
[1:48:17] available to this partnership is dependent on accurate
[1:48:21] accounting of annual property tax allocations
[1:48:24] based on actual data used to build property owners
[1:48:27] within district boundaries.
[1:48:28] All district requests and accounting for the data
[1:48:31] have been refused.
[1:48:32] A partnership with MCRPD would also be contingent
[1:48:38] on demonstrated commitment to operate our infrastructure
[1:48:42] Promethean certain funding for the park maintenance
[1:48:46] in the fiscal year budget you just adopted is confusing
[1:48:49] and concerning particularly in consideration
[1:48:52] of your certification on January 24th, 2023.
[1:48:59] MCRPD solution of this project and asks that you
[1:49:06] keep your long term promise.
[1:49:08] Help MCRPD partner with the county to competently
[1:49:13] operate and maintain Bower Park for everyone forever.
[1:49:16] Thank you for receiving my comment.
[1:49:19] >> Thank you Primack supervisor Williams.
[1:49:22] >> For the last speaker, I don't know that the full board has
[1:49:28] a copy of the refusal.
[1:49:30] Would you be able to share that?
[1:49:36] >> Of course.
[1:49:36] To whom shall I send it?
[1:49:43] >> The BOS email at BOS at Mendocino county.gov.
[1:49:52] >> For the speakers there's a question about the maintenance.
[1:49:55] I kind of went through those numbers at the history of it
[1:49:58] very quickly though can you lay it out again?
[1:50:01] What you think that the county's obligation is
[1:50:05] for the maintenance of the park versus the recreation district .
[1:50:13] >> Thank you for asking that question.
[1:50:15] The county a number of years back
[1:50:18] did a study of all the parks within the portfolio
[1:50:21] and came up with a cost estimate.
[1:50:23] At the time I think it was about 5 or 6 years now behind us
[1:50:26] of about $75,000 a year to maintain Bower Park and that
[1:50:31] again was a snapshot at that time.
[1:50:32] As you all are probably painfully aware,
[1:50:36] costs have escalated astronomically.
[1:50:39] Everything is much more so to keep our park
[1:50:42] although it may not be as expensive in the early years
[1:50:44] given the new work that has been done ultimately
[1:50:46] to keep our park it probably is reasonable to estimate
[1:50:49] that there is something in the ballpark of 100 grand per year.
[1:50:53] The district has approached the county multiple times
[1:50:57] at different levels and you've heard
[1:50:58] me speak about this informally in these settings.
[1:51:02] To partner on maintaining Bower Park
[1:51:06] the district has access to a different cost structure,
[1:51:13] potential economies of scale that
[1:51:15] would improve the efficiency of taxpayer resources
[1:51:17] to maintain that park and operate it.
[1:51:22] However, the district has learned
[1:51:24] through a number of challenging mistakes
[1:51:26] in the past to be very cautious of Overcommitting
[1:51:29] its financially.
[1:51:30] Particularly when it comes to the commitment
[1:51:34] of structural funding and that structural funding
[1:51:37] is allocations derived from property tax contributions.
[1:51:41] The district has attempted to come
[1:51:42] to grips with those numbers in a much more accurate and objective
[1:51:49] way, most recently through the preparation
[1:51:53] of a municipal Service review.
[1:51:55] This issue came up as a question and at that time
[1:51:59] was also rebuffed, allegedly because the question involves
[1:52:04] the scope of work that is beyond the traditional scope of effort
[1:52:07] for a municipal service review.
[1:52:09] The question remains unanswered about what the district could
[1:52:12] afford to contribute and how that partnership could
[1:52:15] be structured.
[1:52:16] The district continues to be interested
[1:52:18] and sees Bower Park as perhaps the best prospect for supporting
[1:52:23] South Coast Recreationists yet we need to know how much we can
[1:52:26] afford so that we avoid making mistakes that have been made
[1:52:30] in the past of overcommitment that have subjected
[1:52:32] the district to serious jeopardy.
[1:52:35] I don't have a number for you specifically.
[1:52:39] I'm very interested in finding that number and with your help,
[1:52:43] we will find it and find a way to make sure
[1:52:47] that Bower Park stays up and works well for everybody.
[1:52:49] Thank you.
[1:52:51] >> Thank you.
[1:52:54] >> Anybody else in the room like to speak on this item?
[1:52:58] Madam clerk, and the online?
[1:53:04] >> Seeing none.
[1:53:06] >> Supervisor Williams.
[1:53:08] >> I want to move the recommended action for all
[1:53:11] of the reasons stated and also note that I think it's important
[1:53:14] to show the state that the county has good follow through.
[1:53:17] This took five years and some of that is on us.
[1:53:20] The execution was slow and cost inflated
[1:53:22] during that time period.
[1:53:23] I think the next time we go to ask for money
[1:53:26] it would be helpful to show that we
[1:53:27] were able to fully follow through
[1:53:29] on the original commitment.
[1:53:31] >> Thank you.
[1:53:33] Supervisor Cline.
[1:53:35] >> I wanted to quickly note this funding is being proposed
[1:53:38] to come from carryover funding so it is a one time cost and I
[1:53:41] feel that is appropriate for the scope of the work.
[1:53:47] >> I believe we have a first by Supervisor Williams.
[1:53:51] Supervisor Haschak.
[1:53:52] >> I guess a question for Supervisor Williams.
[1:53:55] Do you have a long term plan for after we
[1:53:57] get these capital improvement projects done then
[1:53:59] how is it going to be maintained?
[1:54:00] And then we have our law enforcement expenses
[1:54:05] trending at a steeper slope than our revenue.
[1:54:11] Not sustainable.
[1:54:12] The county museum is not sustainable.
[1:54:14] Just about every service we look at provided by the county
[1:54:18] is not financially sustainable.
[1:54:19] We have a revenue shortfall projected
[1:54:21] as far as we can see so I don't think we have a plan here
[1:54:25] and it is certainly not the highest priority
[1:54:27] but I think we have a lot of taxpayers
[1:54:29] far from the county seat that aren't
[1:54:33] getting a lot of services.
[1:54:34] This is one of the few things that they get
[1:54:37] and I think it is more than just recreation.
[1:54:40] There is not a lot of public lands available to children
[1:54:44] in that part of the county.
[1:54:47] So I think the immediate is we need to follow through
[1:54:50] on this grant.
[1:54:51] The long term how do we sustain it
[1:54:52] I think it is a general sustainability question
[1:54:55] for all county services.
[1:54:58] >> We have a first by Supervisor Williams.
[1:55:02] I will second.
[1:55:03] Any more discussion?
[1:55:05] We will vote by the button.
[1:55:14] >> The motion carries unanimously.
[1:55:15] >> Thank you.
[1:55:18] It is 10:52.
[1:55:22] We are going to take a 15 minute break and come back.
[2:12:08] >> A presentation from Behavioral Health and Recovery
[2:12:10] Services regarding the behavioral Health Services Act
[2:12:14] provide direction to staff providing direction to staff
[2:12:19] regarding county electronic providers and an agreement with
[2:12:23] Anchor Health Management Incorporated medical support
[2:12:26] services in the amount of 2,200,000.
[2:12:28] Mendocino Coast Hospitality Center in the amount of 640,000.
[2:12:34] Mendocino County Youth Project in the amount of 750,000.
[2:12:37] Redwood Community Services in the amount of $10,664,056
[2:12:41] and Tapestry Family Services in the amount of $4,952,300
[2:12:48] to provide special mental health services to eligible Medi-Cal
[2:12:53] beneficiaries of Mendocino County for a total combined
[2:12:56] of $19,206,356 effective July 1st 2026 through June 30th 2027.
[2:13:13] >> Thank you.
[2:13:13] We are here to talk about behavioral health
[2:13:16] services for the county and some of our contracted providers
[2:13:20] are larger contracted providers.
[2:13:21] First I want to do a quick breakdown of how
[2:13:24] the special mental health system works
[2:13:26] in the state of California.
[2:13:28] As you know the county contracts with the Department
[2:13:33] of Health Care Services.
[2:13:34] Mental Health Services are a carve out from your main health
[2:13:38] care plans and they are contracted through each county
[2:13:41] to provide mental health services.
[2:13:42] Also there is a couple of cities but most of this
[2:13:45] is county driven.
[2:13:46] The state many years ago contracted out
[2:13:49] special mental health services to the counties
[2:13:51] to provide those services with the agreement of also providing
[2:13:56] 1991 and 2011 realignment dollars.
[2:14:00] That is where we fit in.
[2:14:03] And it's important that we are what
[2:14:05] we call know it used to be more called a mental health plan.
[2:14:08] We are now called a behavioral health plan
[2:14:10] as this data has really started to merge
[2:14:13] mental health and substance use into the same plan.
[2:14:15] We have a substance use health plan for many years
[2:14:18] but now they're trying to look at that model
[2:14:20] as a behavioral health model starting
[2:14:22] to see more of that integration even
[2:14:24] with our contracts with the state starting
[2:14:27] to integrate with both mental health and substance
[2:14:30] use information.
[2:14:31] As you know we are a carved out system
[2:14:33] and so we are funded through Medi-Cal or Medicaid as the feds
[2:14:39] would call it.
[2:14:41] Medi-Cal in California and the way our services are funded
[2:14:44] is that we build Medi-Cal for a service.
[2:14:47] It is based on a reimbursement.
[2:14:50] We like to say it's like a 60/40 reimbursement permit the federal
[2:14:56] reimbursement is about 60% give or take in the county
[2:14:59] reimbursement through alignment dollars is a 40% reimbursement.
[2:15:03] Generally we can get some 100% but on a basis
[2:15:07] it's really kind of a 6040.
[2:15:08] When you look across our whole system of care
[2:15:10] there has to be a match dollar for us to build services
[2:15:13] so we are always leveraging those match dollars
[2:15:16] to the Medi-Cal billable dollars we
[2:15:18] receive through federal financial participation.
[2:15:22] We often get asked if we have -- how much the county general fund
[2:15:29] puts into behavioral health and this is behavioral health
[2:15:31] as a whole talking about mental health and substance use.
[2:15:38] There is not a maintenance of effort requirement of the county
[2:15:41] to give any general funds into the substance abuse side
[2:15:45] of the House but on the mental health side of the House there
[2:15:47] is a general maintenance of effort that was set by the state
[2:15:51] many years ago to be able to receive realignment dollars
[2:15:53] and draw down Medi-Cal funding and that is set at $28,840
[2:15:58] so that is the only general fund that goes into the mental health
[2:16:04] system to provide services throughout Mendocino County
[2:16:07] through the special Mental Health System.
[2:16:09] As I noted, we get federal financial participation
[2:16:14] through Medicaid at the federal level
[2:16:16] and that comes through the state and then
[2:16:18] we have that contract with the state to reimburse for services.
[2:16:21] We are also funded through 91 realignment, 2011 realignment
[2:16:28] and the Behavioral Health Services Act.
[2:16:31] We will touch on a little bit changes with prop one.
[2:16:35] Those changes took up July 1st for us and we are walking
[2:16:37] into a new era when we look at mental health versus Behavioral
[2:16:41] Health Services Act.
[2:16:42] As noted, we are here with our main five contractors today.
[2:16:48] We do have other contractors that we contract with
[2:16:50] and we are still in the process of finalizing these contracts.
[2:16:54] The contracts in front of you are preliminary contracts.
[2:16:58] We are still working on the Behavioral Health Services Act
[2:17:02] piece of those contracts which means it could come back
[2:17:06] mid-year or sometime in the fall as we work
[2:17:08] on the behavioral Services Act.
[2:17:10] As we did an RFP for the Behavioral Services Act
[2:17:13] we are still finalizing that.
[2:17:14] The state put into requirements that we
[2:17:17] have evidence based practices that we
[2:17:18] have to meet this year as part of Behavioral Health Services
[2:17:21] Act so we are really working on making sure
[2:17:23] that behavioral Services Act evidence based practices
[2:17:26] are the priority of where we are spending our FSP dollars
[2:17:31] so we are still fine tuning that and working with providers
[2:17:33] on what does that look like to make sure we are meeting all
[2:17:36] of our mandates for Behavioral Services Act
[2:17:38] so there could be some changes to these contracts
[2:17:41] in the next couple of months.
[2:17:43] We also have requests from additional contractors asking
[2:17:45] to come into Mendocino County and we
[2:17:47] are working on those to provide services in Mendocino County.
[2:17:50] With the current contracts in front of you
[2:17:52] we have an estimated 3845 clients that will be served.
[2:17:57] We usually go over that amount but that is an estimate we throw
[2:18:01] out based on current contracts with a total cost
[2:18:03] for beneficiary at almost $5,000 per minute we know that
[2:18:06] vacillates between the beneficiaries based on whether
[2:18:09] or not a beneficiary ends up being conserved or having
[2:18:13] multiple hospitalizations versus just having generalized
[2:18:16] outpatient services.
[2:18:19] We included in here our consumer perception results.
[2:18:22] We've been trying to include these so you can see.
[2:18:25] This is completed by the client and family members.
[2:18:29] It is broken down into family responses youth responses
[2:18:33] adult responses and older adults.
[2:18:35] It looks at the client rating their services --
[2:18:41] how they feel their services were for the year.
[2:18:44] This is a multi-page so there is multiple surveys that
[2:18:46] were completed.
[2:18:47] I only hold a couple for you.
[2:18:50] This is program overall outcome satisfaction.
[2:18:52] You can see where the county rates
[2:18:55] compared to the state rating.
[2:18:57] I included in there 2024-25 how adults feel about their service
[2:19:14] compared to how we feel about other counties.
[2:19:18] This is analyzed by UCLA.
[2:19:20] This is not done by the county.
[2:19:22] It is done by UCLA for the whole state of California.
[2:19:25] Clients can complete this survey either in paper form
[2:19:28] and mail it in or they can do it electronically
[2:19:30] and a lot of clients are starting
[2:19:32] to move to the electronic version
[2:19:34] but I would say it's about half and half
[2:19:36] that we saw this last year.
[2:19:37] These are the results of how many have been
[2:19:39] arrested within the 12 months.
[2:19:41] Also as you will see here it is 2024 25
[2:19:45] it looks at youth and adults and also compares us to the state
[2:19:48] and how we are comparing to the state
[2:19:50] when you look at our county to the state.
[2:19:52] This next slide looks at how many
[2:19:56] people reported that they had an encounter with law enforcement.
[2:20:00] Of course this is self-reported.
[2:20:02] Both of them are self-reported and it includes in there
[2:20:05] as I said 2020 425 and the county
[2:20:08] reimburses the state on those metrics.
[2:20:11] We also require that all of our providers
[2:20:16] do a lot of data reporting.
[2:20:17] We provide data on a pretty regular basis monthly and then
[2:20:21] quarterly , biannually and annually.
[2:20:28] We have a quality assurance provider
[2:20:30] that meets to see if they are in compliance or out of compliance,
[2:20:35] what our timeliness looks like and looking at hospitalizations.
[2:20:40] This gives you a day to look at some of the additional data
[2:20:43] we pull that we look at to see how clients are doing.
[2:20:46] This gives you a report out of how those clients are doing
[2:20:49] looking at fiscal year 22 23 through fiscal year 24-25.
[2:20:58] It looks at the number of people who
[2:21:01] entered the service this year.
[2:21:02] Those who utilized crisis service this year,
[2:21:07] those who utilized crisis service last year
[2:21:09] but didn't need to utilize it this year
[2:21:11] and the number of people in the system who
[2:21:13] did not utilize crisis service.
[2:21:15] The number of people who needed to be conserved.
[2:21:18] Those who got off conservator and stayed off
[2:21:21] and the number of people that were
[2:21:24] housed in the system this year compared to the last three
[2:21:30] years.
[2:21:31] We also are working -- one of the new requirements with
[2:21:35] the state of California is HEDIS.
[2:21:42] They roll it out to the behavioral health plans.
[2:21:48] They are looking at HEDIS measures and client care.
[2:21:56] These four are for the Metro health plan.
[2:21:59] The substance use plan has a couple
[2:22:02] of other HEDIS requirements.
[2:22:04] This is what they are judging on looking at fines and fees.
[2:22:08] They have a requirement that would be at 50%
[2:22:10] or above in all of our HEDIS measures.
[2:22:15] I want to draw out that they rated us
[2:22:18] on this last year and then where we fell in those rates.
[2:22:21] We were not allowed to release the state rates
[2:22:23] so I did do a mean state compliance rate so
[2:22:26] that they had a low and a high and so what I was able to do
[2:22:30] is I could show our rates and I could show the mean state
[2:22:33] rates to see how did we look at from our HEDIS measures
[2:22:38] compared to the state's overall mean compliance
[2:22:41] rate at the state level of four counties are at.
[2:22:44] That doesn't mean that there were not
[2:22:46] counties that were lower.
[2:22:47] There were and that doesn't mean that there were not
[2:22:49] counties that were higher then that mean rate.
[2:22:51] This gives you a look at the HEDIS measures.
[2:22:56] They don't have 2025 yet released
[2:22:58] but it gives you a look at 2024 compared to 2023.
[2:23:01] Last year you guys were able to see 2023.
[2:23:05] These are all counties where you can see where Mendocino is
[2:23:08] and where they are looking at quality performance measures
[2:23:11] from the state to see how the counties are doing.
[2:23:13] You will see that Mendocino moved up closer to the top
[2:23:18] there when you are looking at23-24.
[2:23:25] I also included 22-23.
[2:23:36] The state is in the process of completing a behavioral health
[2:23:41] dashboard.
[2:23:41] They just released the first version of it
[2:23:43] last week where we can see how work comparing
[2:23:46] to this native California.
[2:23:47] It does allow you to look at individual counties
[2:23:51] but it does allow us to compare to where we are at compared
[2:23:53] to the state of California.
[2:23:54] A lot of it is looking at timeliness data which we haven't
[2:23:59] I think over the next couple of years
[2:24:02] we are going to really see those data metrics build out
[2:24:04] so we are able to bring some of that data to probably
[2:24:07] next year a little bit different than we have this year.
[2:24:09] We get asked a lot about outcome measures
[2:24:12] and I know we talked a lot about ANSA over the years.
[2:24:19] I wanted to bring this today as there
[2:24:21] was a question asked of me of can
[2:24:23] we tell how clients are doing?
[2:24:24] There are a lot of different measures
[2:24:26] we can look at about how clients are doing.
[2:24:28] The state is looking at which outcome measures they
[2:24:31] want to potentially make a requirement for the adults
[2:24:35] in the children's system.
[2:24:37] We are required to use the cans 50 which is moving the cans IP
[2:24:43] and that is what the state looks at for kind of our outcome
[2:24:46] measures so I added this slide in so that you guys can
[2:24:49] see what that looks like from like I
[2:24:52] asked for a random sample.
[2:24:53] I did not ask for the best clients.
[2:24:55] I said if we pulled nine clients from different providers what
[2:25:00] would that show us and you can see it shows our oldest cans.
[2:25:05] You can see the oldest two.
[2:25:07] The most recent.
[2:25:08] You can see the change from did they improve
[2:25:10] and the percentage of improvement.
[2:25:13] We also are looking at are we seeing improvement
[2:25:16] in their cans and ANSA.
[2:25:22] We are always looking at are we able to maintain people and keep
[2:25:26] them out of crisis.
[2:25:27] And that is one thing you will see with the HEDIS measures.
[2:25:32] Our clients compliant and are they having follow up care.
[2:25:37] I just wanted to show that this is
[2:25:40] additional metrics we do look at to see our clients improving.
[2:25:46] We didn't cherry pick.
[2:25:48] You will see that some of these did have a crisis need
[2:25:51] and some did not and we are looking at that
[2:25:53] as we look at our whole system of care
[2:25:56] and I'm going to hand it over to Karen
[2:25:57] to talk a little bit about behavioral health from
[2:26:00] and then we have one >> On that last slide is
[2:26:05] it possible to give us an indication of how
[2:26:07] we are doing on average relative to state
[2:26:10] or some other comparator?
[2:26:13] >> For the ANSA?
[2:26:20] Currently there isn't.
[2:26:22] I do believe that if the state comes up and says yes
[2:26:25] this will be the outcome measurement we
[2:26:27] use I think the state will probably put in our dashboard
[2:26:31] those outcomes permit currently the state doesn't
[2:26:33] ask for this information and they are still
[2:26:35] vacillating between three different outcome measurement
[2:26:38] tools they are looking at so not today unfortunately.
[2:26:41] >> So how should the board interpret this?
[2:26:43] Are we winning?
[2:26:45] Are we losing?
[2:26:46] What do these numbers mean in your eyes?
[2:26:49] >> When I look at our HEDIS measures compared
[2:26:53] to our timeliness to access, our percentage rates of how many
[2:26:59] people are getting service, our percentage rate for people
[2:27:04] getting into service was like 5.38% and I looked at some other
[2:27:07] counties and it was 2% so I feel like that doesn't mean we are
[2:27:11] perfect.
[2:27:12] We always have room for improvement.
[2:27:14] We always will.
[2:27:14] We will never have enough money in mental health.
[2:27:17] There's always going to be barriers at different levels.
[2:27:20] I feel like when you look at our HEDIS measures,
[2:27:27] you look at our timeliness to access and look
[2:27:29] at our ability for people to get into services
[2:27:31] we are really up there.
[2:27:32] I think we are doing pretty well.
[2:27:34] That is not to say we don't have areas for improvement.
[2:27:37] We always will.
[2:27:44] >> Karen Lovato Deputy Health services.
[2:27:49] As far as highlights it wasn't initiated
[2:27:51] by proposition 1 in 2024 which created new regulations,
[2:27:56] primarily expanding the mental health services
[2:28:00] health to the behavioral health Services Act
[2:28:03] including substance abuse conditions.
[2:28:04] It changed the funding organization
[2:28:07] from the prior components to three primary components
[2:28:10] with 30% of the funding going for behavioral health
[2:28:14] housing, 35% for full service partnerships
[2:28:18] and 35% for behavioral health services and supports.
[2:28:22] New regulations prioritize funding
[2:28:24] for the most severe and chronic conditions or prevention
[2:28:28] and they require use of funding or reserves of funding
[2:28:32] for evidence based practice where appropriate so
[2:28:34] the 30% Housing intervention is for individuals
[2:28:37] with serious mental illnesses or substance
[2:28:39] use plus chronic homelessness with 50% required
[2:28:42] to be focused on street level encampment based homelessness
[2:28:46] and a maximum of 25% to be able to be
[2:28:48] used for capital facility's development.
[2:28:51] Full service partnerships is similar
[2:28:53] to the prior organization and it is 35% for behavioral health
[2:28:57] treatment and supports with whatever it takes model,
[2:29:01] really trying to help the individual overcome barriers
[2:29:05] but there are requirements for appropriate for partners
[2:29:09] to be triaged with and treated with evidence based models.
[2:29:13] The behavioral health services and supports component
[2:29:16] with 35% remaining is for all the remaining services
[2:29:20] that have previously been funded under MH
[2:29:23] with 51% of the component required to be spent on services
[2:29:29] for individuals 25 and under with prioritization
[2:29:33] of early psychosis intervention with transitioning
[2:29:38] and experiencing early psychosis.
[2:29:40] The remaining percent is for early intervention programs
[2:29:43] that are not evidence based practice
[2:29:50] outreach and any other qualified expense.
[2:30:20] >> (Indistinct) confusion about what is happening with
[2:30:22] the county electronic health record and what is going on with
[2:30:25] providers going into avatar and there has been different
[2:30:28] directions given at times about everyone going into the county
[2:30:32] system or could we create interoperability so we decided
[2:30:35] to bring this back to the board for a final decision on how you
[2:30:38] guys would like to see what's going forward with that.
[2:30:44] We have electronic health record avatar.
[2:30:48] We've had it since about 2006 and we've obviously
[2:30:52] had different providers using different systems and one
[2:30:55] of the things that has changed for us is that the state has now
[2:31:02] the dash I guess it's always been required through CMS
[2:31:05] M for Medicaid Medicare but not really pushing back on the state
[2:31:10] to make sure behavioral health plans are also really making
[2:31:12] sure that we had a P data accessible to clients.
[2:31:16] So that does create a little bit of a change for us
[2:31:20] of having to have a patient portal in a sense
[2:31:23] and making sure API data is available
[2:31:26] not only to the clients but also to the state
[2:31:29] and there are some requirements that we
[2:31:31] have to do that within 24 hours, get it posted.
[2:31:37] We've been working on looking at what is happening within avatar.
[2:31:41] We did create a second system so we have a route one
[2:31:45] system and a route two system so that the providers could have
[2:31:49] access into avatar without going into the county's
[2:31:51] main system because of confidentiality and the fact
[2:31:54] that we have rolled substance use and public health
[2:31:58] into the route one system.
[2:31:59] We needed to have that firewall so created a second route
[2:32:02] system.
[2:32:03] Currently we have a hospitality center
[2:32:06] in Mendocino County youth projects are in avatar
[2:32:09] and our other three providers are currently
[2:32:12] within their system asking for a hybrid model.
[2:32:16] We are rolling out the organized delivery system
[2:32:20] for drug Medi-Cal.
[2:32:21] Obviously there are some changes with partnerships
[2:32:23] so we are working with those new providers coming in
[2:32:26] and most of them are willing to go into avatar
[2:32:30] and not require a hybrid model so that will help a little bit.
[2:32:35] In your Powerpoint presentation we kind of
[2:32:39] said these are our mandates of what
[2:32:41] we have to be able to provide.
[2:32:43] I know there has been some thought of the county has
[2:32:47] to provide it but the law actually
[2:32:48] says if the county subcontracts we are still
[2:32:52] required to provide the data that our subcontractors are
[2:32:54] doing.
[2:32:55] So even if we are not doing the service
[2:32:57] we have to provide the data for our subcontractors.
[2:32:59] It has to be posted.
[2:33:01] It has to meet the timeliness standards
[2:33:03] so we do have to have a patient access API, provider access
[2:33:10] API, prior authorization API, interoperability standards
[2:33:18] privacy and security public reporting and governance.
[2:33:21] These are where the state is getting into on our reporting
[2:33:26] requirements.
[2:33:26] We are aware there is no guarantee
[2:33:28] these won't change tomorrow so we
[2:33:30] know what we have to do today.
[2:33:31] We know what the state and federal level
[2:33:32] they could continue to put new requirements on that could make
[2:33:36] us have to expand what we are doing today and it does
[2:33:38] seem like every day we have something new we have to do.
[2:33:42] I put in there what the county responsibilities are so
[2:33:45] that you can see that to make an informed decision
[2:33:48] and what the contracted providers must do.
[2:33:52] We did a detail of what are the three systems right like if they
[2:33:56] just use their own system and did not
[2:33:58] have interoperability what would be the impact for the county?
[2:34:01] If everybody was an avatar what would
[2:34:03] be the impact for the county and then a hybrid model.
[2:34:06] What does that look like?
[2:34:08] Obviously in all transparency we know everyone being in avatar
[2:34:12] is the easiest model.
[2:34:13] We also know that that may not be the easiest
[2:34:18] model for all of our providers.
[2:34:20] So we get a quick breakdown of kind of that our recommendation.
[2:34:26] The easiest model is everybody goes into avatar.
[2:34:29] We also don't want to not support them.
[2:34:31] We know that it can be difficult for our providers
[2:34:35] to go through that system so in front of you is two options.
[2:34:40] Requiring that everyone goes if they
[2:34:43] want to contract with the county for behavioral health services
[2:34:46] that they use the county avatar system.
[2:34:48] We are currently working with the Sheriff's office
[2:34:52] on Tech Care, their health record system
[2:34:56] to create full interoperability with avatars
[2:34:58] so we have a county record in-house
[2:35:01] should there ever be a change.
[2:35:07] Or, looking at a hybrid model.
[2:35:10] We've kind of outlined what are the impacts of a hybrid model
[2:35:12] and what it would require.
[2:35:14] We do know that a hybrid model will probably
[2:35:16] be more work on the providers but also
[2:35:18] we do feel that we will have more work on the county also
[2:35:22] and so a little bit of possibly 1 or 2 more staff
[2:35:26] needed to meet those needs.
[2:35:28] In that we also are making recommendations.
[2:35:31] If the board decides on a hybrid model,
[2:35:36] these are the recommendations from the department
[2:35:38] to move forward with hybrid model.
[2:35:40] That is really to make sure that there is an interface, that we
[2:35:47] limit the number of hybrid models
[2:35:48] so we don't have 20 different providers
[2:35:50] in 20 different systems needing to create interoperability
[2:35:53] because we have to build it every time between the two
[2:36:00] systems.
[2:36:01] There is a requirement that it is
[2:36:03] done within a year from the contract.
[2:36:05] Interoperability has to be built in avatar needs
[2:36:11] to be accomplished within a year and then obviously the cost
[2:36:14] needs to be double the cost of everything
[2:36:17] needs to be held by the provider asking for interoperability.
[2:36:20] Those were the main things.
[2:36:22] You can see the other requirements in there
[2:36:24] and that we definitely have to make sure everything is posting
[2:36:28] in there able to stay in compliance with state
[2:36:30] and federal regulations so that we are not out of compliance.
[2:36:32] The state really is moving to sanctions, fines and fees.
[2:36:39] Sanctions we might be able to get the funds back
[2:36:41] when we get into compliance.
[2:36:42] If they do fines or fees we lose the funding.
[2:36:45] That funding is not going to come back
[2:36:47] to us so those are things to make sure
[2:36:48] that every time we are out of compliance the state
[2:36:51] is moving to really starting to do sanctions fines
[2:36:53] and fees on counties and that will impact our budgets if we
[2:36:56] are not staying in compliance on the behavioral health side.
[2:37:00] We are happy to answer any questions.
[2:37:07] >> Just real quick, could you help the public and perhaps
[2:37:10] the board understand a little bit more about what specialty
[2:37:13] mental health is?
[2:37:14] And then after that, describe what
[2:37:18] you would see as a successful outcome for somebody
[2:37:23] in specialty mental health.
[2:37:25] >> Sure.
[2:37:27] Specialty mental health is different.
[2:37:29] So there is what you hear across the state is
[2:37:33] mild, moderate and severe and we are the severe provider.
[2:37:37] I always say if you were going to see your primary care
[2:37:40] and they said you had a heart condition
[2:37:42] and they referred you to your cardiologist, that's us.
[2:37:47] We the cardiologist of mental health in a sense
[2:37:50] that we are not serving them mild to moderate.
[2:37:52] If you could go to your primary care you are not coming to us.
[2:37:55] If you need a specialist level care like a cardiologist
[2:37:58] that is us.
[2:37:59] So we are the top tier.
[2:38:01] We are serving most of the individuals in the county
[2:38:04] and that is our mandate through the state.
[2:38:06] That is what carved out meant.
[2:38:08] When they carved us out they give the managed care
[2:38:11] plans to mild to moderate.
[2:38:12] They gave the county the severe clientele and so most
[2:38:15] of our clients are not going to -- you know,
[2:38:22] their mental illness isn't going away.
[2:38:25] They're going to live with it for the rest of their lives.
[2:38:27] When we look at mental health success for our client
[2:38:30] is we are not expecting that our clients are probably going
[2:38:32] to be able to go get a job.
[2:38:34] That is probably not realistic but if they
[2:38:36] can keep their housing, they can stay out of crisis
[2:38:40] and don't need to be conserved, they
[2:38:43] are medication compliant and functioning at their baseline
[2:38:47] that is success to us and baseline for every client
[2:38:49] is different.
[2:38:50] There is not a set baseline.
[2:38:52] Every client's baseline is different
[2:38:54] so we are really working to make sure
[2:38:55] we get the client to their best baseline
[2:38:57] and that they maintain at that baseline
[2:39:00] and that might mean that they have to have high level services
[2:39:02] the rest of their life.
[2:39:03] That might mean that sometimes for a severe client,
[2:39:10] once they're at baseline they are able to step down and become
[2:39:13] more of a moderate level client but that is not
[2:39:15] the majority of our clients.
[2:39:17] The majority of our clients are going to stay with us
[2:39:19] and need some form of probable case management therapy rehab
[2:39:22] and medication support the rest of their lives.
[2:39:25] >> Thank you for that.
[2:39:26] Supervisor Williams.
[2:39:28] >> Overall I think the contracts are a lot better.
[2:39:30] Appreciate the effort.
[2:39:31] They are all a lot longer for one.
[2:39:34] Took me a while to get through them but I
[2:39:35] don't have any questions there.
[2:39:37] I would prefer we have one standard for record keeping.
[2:39:42] I think this idea of a hybrid system,
[2:39:46] I don't think we will get it done in time.
[2:39:48] I think at some point we will find there is inconsistencies.
[2:39:51] There will be finger pointing about which integration layer
[2:39:54] and which vendor is it has a problem
[2:39:56] and it will be the county that gets sanctioned
[2:39:58] and you see the direction that mandates are trending.
[2:40:00] At some point that model may not allow us to meet mandates
[2:40:03] so I would think it's smarter from the start
[2:40:06] to standardize on one system maintained by the county.
[2:40:09] Does the director have any issue with that?
[2:40:12] >> We support -- we will support whatever the board decides.
[2:40:18] We also know that for our providers it's a lot of changes
[2:40:22] so we are also trying to support the providers.
[2:40:26] I've -- like I said having everyone in avatar is easier
[2:40:33] but it might not be the easiest model for all of our providers.
[2:40:37] >> I understand there's a little bit of pain and change
[2:40:39] but I'm suggesting this one time change is a long term gain
[2:40:43] compared to the alternative of having hybrid systems supported.
[2:40:47] Is there any way for us to support our providers
[2:40:49] making that transition?
[2:40:50] Are there any resources to help them
[2:40:52] use our standardized system?
[2:40:55] >> I know there is two of them here and they may have comments.
[2:40:58] I know that some of the concerns that I think we can support them
[2:41:03] with the technology needs and try to be that support.
[2:41:05] I know that some of the concerns they have expressed
[2:41:08] and so I want to make sure they are heard
[2:41:10] is that they also don't just serve Mendocino County
[2:41:13] clients so if they come into the county system,
[2:41:16] how do they put their non Mendocino County
[2:41:19] clients into the county's database
[2:41:21] because then we have access to client data
[2:41:23] we shouldn't have so that has been the hedge.
[2:41:26] They could get their own avatar system.
[2:41:30] Avatar is not cheap and so coming into the county system
[2:41:37] (Indistinct) really reduces the cost
[2:41:38] but it means you're in the county system
[2:41:40] so I know that has been one of their struggles.
[2:41:42] >> Thank you.
[2:41:44] >> Can you talk a little bit about the extra work your staff
[2:41:48] has to do through the hybrid model for people who are not
[2:41:52] in the avatar system?
[2:41:54] >> Yes.
[2:41:55] Is our electronic health record manager
[2:41:57] and he is our expert so he can probably
[2:41:59] give more detail on that.
[2:42:03] >> Tony Loomis, health services.
[2:42:08] So we would expect a lot of data validation
[2:42:12] that we would have to take a look at as far as
[2:42:15] if they were in the system and we would have to do that
[2:42:22] on the QA side and the manager side
[2:42:24] if that answers your question.
[2:42:27] >> I guess so it's -- if they're not in the avatar system,
[2:42:32] they prevent a paper file to you.
[2:42:36] Is that right?
[2:42:37] Then your staff enters it into the system?
[2:42:40] >> If they are not in the avatar system,
[2:42:42] we would start a model where they would administer some
[2:42:48] of that data and chart within our system and get that data
[2:42:56] to us in that real time.
[2:42:57] That is what the hybrid model is proposing
[2:43:00] is that they would enter the system
[2:43:03] and do the administrative work with their administrative staff.
[2:43:08] >> So no extra work for your staff?
[2:43:14] >> Again it would just be validation.
[2:43:16] They would have to take a look at it
[2:43:17] and make sure that it is entered correctly
[2:43:19] and then do the data reporting.
[2:43:22] >> Thank you.
[2:43:24] >> I'm not seeing any more questions.
[2:43:26] We will go to public comment.
[2:43:30] Staff, you are finished?
[2:43:34] Is that correct?
[2:43:35] >> Good morning.
[2:43:37] Dan Anderson with Anchor Health.
[2:43:38] I'm the chief operations officer there
[2:43:41] and I wasn't really prepared to comment and talk
[2:43:48] on this, so the slides that the behavioral health
[2:43:53] director provided, this is the first time
[2:43:57] I'm seeing those so talking a bit off the top of my head
[2:43:59] here this morning and want to make sure that maybe we
[2:44:02] can add some context here.
[2:44:05] I want to say thank you to the Behavioral Health Department
[2:44:09] for their work on the EHR issue.
[2:44:11] We have actually been working on this for several years
[2:44:15] and trying very hard to go find a solution to what the board had
[2:44:23] actually voted a couple of years ago,
[2:44:26] that all the behavioral health providers would go and use
[2:44:29] avatar as their primary EHR.
[2:44:32] We were in fact ready and planning to do that,
[2:44:38] had agreed to that, but when the second root system came out
[2:44:45] we realized there were a number of significant barriers
[2:44:49] that would be there that would prevent
[2:44:55] an organizational provider such as Anchor Health being
[2:44:58] able to do the work that we needed to do.
[2:45:00] Some examples of that are we would not be able to get --
[2:45:08] when you enter client data there is a lot of stuff that goes
[2:45:11] in there in terms of their demographics,
[2:45:14] their Social Security number and so forth.
[2:45:17] Turned out that we would not be able to control
[2:45:19] that data, that we would have to get reports built
[2:45:23] by the county for us to be able to track the clients served,
[2:45:30] the number of services they received and timelines.
[2:45:33] All of that data that we used to manage our services,
[2:45:38] we wouldn't be able to control that or have access to it.
[2:45:42] Part of that is because the county system has
[2:45:44] all of the county's clients in it
[2:45:46] and so it just was going to create
[2:45:49] a significant challenge for us to be
[2:45:51] able to manage our services.
[2:45:53] Secondly, we don't just serve Mendocino County Medi-Cal
[2:45:59] beneficiaries we serve other counties.
[2:46:01] We serve folks with other payers,
[2:46:06] grants, other funding sources and so what do we do with those?
[2:46:11] There was not a system for us as an organization
[2:46:14] to do that all in the county system
[2:46:16] because those are not Mendocino County beneficiaries so it
[2:46:19] created these challenges that we couldn't figure out
[2:46:23] how to solve.
[2:46:25] Avatar couldn't figure out how to solve.
[2:46:27] We kind of ran into this wall here.
[2:46:29] So we began looking at what other counties are doing.
[2:46:34] We brought in our EHR folks.
[2:46:39] We use X and.
[2:46:40] We brought in their programmers, their engineers.
[2:46:45] Other counties are using a hybrid system.
[2:46:47] There is still work going on county
[2:46:49] wide to create this interoperability.
[2:46:51] It is not ready to roll out yet.
[2:46:57] But there is progress being made.
[2:47:00] So I guess what we are recommending and hoping
[2:47:02] and asking the board to consider is some flexibility around this
[2:47:08] as the technology gets developed.
[2:47:10] It's not ready to go right now.
[2:47:13] LA County is using their health information exchange
[2:47:17] as a way to get this information into the county
[2:47:20] system in a timely way.
[2:47:23] Other counties are using where they are using flat files, where
[2:47:30] they are able to provide that information on a real time
[2:47:33] basis in terms of patient encounters.
[2:47:36] There is a whole range of things that
[2:47:39] are going on around the state and my hope
[2:47:42] is that the board just doesn't say well the simplest
[2:47:46] solution here is everybody go into the county system
[2:47:49] without recognizing the challenges and the barriers
[2:47:52] and the impact that it will have on your partners
[2:47:55] here at the community based organizations.
[2:47:58] It's not as simple as it sounds.
[2:48:01] If it was we would have done this two years ago.
[2:48:04] We've been having weekly and monthly meetings
[2:48:06] for two years on this and they are still trying
[2:48:08] to figure out paths forward.
[2:48:10] Our electronic health provider and their engineers
[2:48:15] are part of this conversation.
[2:48:17] Say well we could do this or we could
[2:48:19] do that but it has to go back to avatar
[2:48:21] and avatar says well we can do this
[2:48:23] or we can't do that so it has just been really challenging.
[2:48:27] So my hope is, and I can provide you an outline and a report
[2:48:35] on this that presents our concerns
[2:48:38] and the issues and the barriers.
[2:48:40] I don't have it in front of me so this
[2:48:42] feels like I'm kind of operating a little bit with one hand tied
[2:48:46] behind my back and this isn't blaming anybody.
[2:48:49] It is just saying that is the problem here this morning.
[2:48:52] So if you take a quick vote this morning and say yes
[2:48:55] everyone should be in avatar, which is the simplest thing
[2:49:00] but it just really creates a serious impact
[2:49:02] on our ability to do the work and let
[2:49:05] me add one more thing to this.
[2:49:07] Anchor has added a mental health rehabilitation center
[2:49:11] to our operations.
[2:49:13] We do bill through the mental health system.
[2:49:16] But DHS requires us to do a whole host of other tracking
[2:49:21] and documenting things from physical health exams
[2:49:25] to monitoring the medication delivery
[2:49:28] so we use what is called an EMAR,
[2:49:34] it's an electronic medication system
[2:49:38] that tracks when medications are handed out.
[2:49:40] We can't do that without a lot of expense and development
[2:49:43] in avatar right now.
[2:49:44] So to go in and say hey use avatar,
[2:49:48] it's not available to work because of the technology
[2:49:53] required to make it happen.
[2:49:55] That is just one example and I can give you
[2:49:57] 15 or 20 other examples of how this would require
[2:50:00] a huge amount of engineering which is possible
[2:50:02] but the technology is not there right now.
[2:50:05] >> Sir you've got to roll over but the supervisor does have
[2:50:08] a question for you.
[2:50:10] >> Without being able to white bar the problem and understand
[2:50:14] it I have a hard time with this hybrid because I see the county
[2:50:16] has hybrid systems today.
[2:50:18] We've seen the problems that have come out of that
[2:50:21] so I don't want to create another one of those situations
[2:50:24] but I also see the hardship for the organization.
[2:50:26] You have clients from multiple counties.
[2:50:28] How do you integrate?
[2:50:30] You need a system for all of your clients.
[2:50:32] We need one for all of our patients
[2:50:34] and those are two separate needs.
[2:50:36] Could we continue with the mandate
[2:50:39] that we are standardizing on avatar but ask you to come back
[2:50:42] and present maybe with an engineer what the difficulties
[2:50:46] are on a road map?
[2:50:50] Maybe we could work with avatar to provide an API
[2:50:54] so you could get direct access to your patients that
[2:50:57] are in our system and you could backfeed your separate software
[2:51:01] and do your own reporting and there
[2:51:03] may be a way to do integration in the reverse so instead
[2:51:06] of the county working with the hybrid maybe
[2:51:09] your organization could work with the hybrid
[2:51:11] so you have a way to pull your data out of our system.
[2:51:14] There may be options that facilitate
[2:51:16] both needs but I don't want to today decide on a hybrid system
[2:51:19] because it's creating a long term
[2:51:21] trajectory of possible fines from the state
[2:51:24] and compatibility with future mandates
[2:51:26] and the sort of support headache we
[2:51:28] have with our other hybrid systems today.
[2:51:33] >> Thank you.
[2:51:35] >> Can I just respond to?
[2:51:36] I would love to be able to come back
[2:51:40] and we actually could bring the engineers from Exom.
[2:51:46] I'm not an IT expert so my language and ability to describe
[2:51:51] this is probably limited but I would love to bring back
[2:51:53] and we've been trying to do this within our EHR work group.
[2:51:57] I think there are paths forward here and I understand the need
[2:52:02] for simplicity and obviously none of us wants sanctions
[2:52:06] but this is a complex -- if it was simple the state would have
[2:52:10] solved it and they haven't.
[2:52:12] Every county is doing it differently right now.
[2:52:13] Every county is and that is because it is just complicated
[2:52:18] so I would hope there is some space and time here
[2:52:22] for some creative work through here.
[2:52:25] Thank you.
[2:52:26] >> Thank you.
[2:52:34] >> Supervisor Cline, did you have a question?
[2:52:37] >> It can wait till after the comment.
[2:52:40] >> Good afternoon.
[2:52:41] Redwood Community Services.
[2:52:42] I can say exactly what Dan just said
[2:52:44] but I will echo my support on the majority of what
[2:52:48] he described.
[2:52:50] We are in a different EHR than even anchor health.
[2:52:54] We did make a shift a couple years ago.
[2:52:58] We have been operating under a contract,
[2:53:02] working toward interoperability for this last year
[2:53:07] and so I, too, am a little taken aback that there
[2:53:12] was a position for the board to make a decision on if we
[2:53:16] are doing that or not today.
[2:53:22] We've had a significant amount of investment
[2:53:25] into what interoperability will mean for us as an organization
[2:53:28] but also us as a partner with Mendocino County.
[2:53:30] We do operate in other counties.
[2:53:32] We do have other grants.
[2:53:34] We also are really pushing our private insurance which
[2:53:39] has been a mandate within our contract
[2:53:41] with the crisis residential treatment,
[2:53:46] and to expand our services and access to private insurance.
[2:53:49] That would pose a barrier.
[2:53:51] Avatar does cost a significant amount more.
[2:53:54] If we had the ability to go with avatar when
[2:53:57] we made our initial shift we would have.
[2:53:59] It is significantly out of range.
[2:54:03] The other issue around if we have to be in avatar,
[2:54:09] we will have to have another EHR.
[2:54:12] We won't be able to work with avatar with our other funding
[2:54:16] streams and grants and other counties.
[2:54:17] We will have to continue to operate a second EHR
[2:54:20] so all costs within avatar within this contract
[2:54:23] will have to be like that is a whole other separate
[2:54:26] conversation.
[2:54:32] I do want to echo the last thing.
[2:54:35] I have been hearing our county partners concerns
[2:54:38] about this for a long time.
[2:54:40] As a provider in the state I have
[2:54:41] been pushing for advocacy at the state level
[2:54:45] to address interoperability because this is something
[2:54:47] that the state needs to take on.
[2:54:49] This is not something that individual counties should
[2:54:52] be taking on and so under some of our membership organizations
[2:54:55] and advocacy we have been pushing
[2:54:58] to say we need to be addressing how providers and counties are
[2:55:03] building interoperability so we can make this work.
[2:55:06] There is technology out there that can make this work
[2:55:08] and it doesn't have to be archaic
[2:55:10] and it doesn't have to mean that we aren't
[2:55:12] going to meet our data points.
[2:55:16] We have technology available that
[2:55:18] can make this work so I agree.
[2:55:20] I just would temper the decision today and try and get
[2:55:24] more information because it has a big ripple effect.
[2:55:27] So thank you.
[2:55:29] >> Thank you.
[2:55:36] >> Good afternoon Kim with Anchor Health Management.
[2:55:40] Again I'm beyond words.
[2:55:41] I don't know how to actually say about the presentation
[2:55:44] as such but I was hoping maybe Supervisor Williams,
[2:55:47] you have a lot of experience in investment
[2:55:50] knowledge in this field and in this work
[2:55:52] and we have been spending a long time on a lot of effort
[2:55:54] trying to come up with something that will help us have our data,
[2:56:00] be able to take care of our numbers
[2:56:02] and understand what we do so we can do it better,
[2:56:07] support and assure none of us have the mandates
[2:56:09] and sanctions and the things that were presented here today.
[2:56:11] Would it be possible to do an ad hoc meeting
[2:56:14] and have you join us?
[2:56:15] Your expertise could be really helpful to getting us
[2:56:18] over the line.
[2:56:21] Before making a real firm decision
[2:56:23] based on the presentation here today.
[2:56:25] That is what I would ask at this point,
[2:56:28] to maybe be able to close the chapter on this.
[2:56:31] Everyone has spent a long time and a lot
[2:56:34] of work trying to get there.
[2:56:37] There is so much more to share and a public meeting
[2:56:40] wouldn't be able to meet.
[2:56:42] That's my personal ask.
[2:56:44] >> Thank you.
[2:56:46] Supervisor Cline.
[2:56:48] >> I want to thank the commenters for their insights
[2:56:50] and ask the director what kind of timeline she envisions this.
[2:56:54] Appreciate you bringing this to the board for our awareness.
[2:56:57] When do you need to have a decision made
[2:57:01] around electronic health record?
[2:57:04] >> I'm not sure that we have to have a decision today.
[2:57:06] I think the question is, every day we are spending
[2:57:11] more money both the providers and us to build interoperability
[2:57:14] and I don't want to keep pushing for something
[2:57:16] if the board is going to push back and say no.
[2:57:19] Everyone should be in avatar.
[2:57:21] We announced at the Behavioral Health Advisory Board
[2:57:25] that this was coming forward about the avatar.
[2:57:27] Multiple board members have asked me
[2:57:29] why everyone is not in avatar because that
[2:57:31] was the direction by this board so I was asked to bring it
[2:57:34] back today as a question because several board members believed
[2:57:38] that was the direction, and so we've been trying
[2:57:44] to pursue interoperability.
[2:57:45] Said for several years we have been at the table meeting
[2:57:49] every other week with Exium.
[2:57:55] We were meeting with credible and that came to a halt
[2:58:01] after a couple of months but we have
[2:58:03] been trying to move it forward.
[2:58:04] The question for us is do we continue
[2:58:07] doing this knowing we've been putting money
[2:58:13] into building a system.
[2:58:15] Because I've had several questions asked of me
[2:58:19] why is everyone not in avatar, it really
[2:58:22] was a decision of what are you asking for the department now?
[2:58:26] Because we are spending money to try to build interoperability
[2:58:28] but I've also heard some feedback that I thought everyone
[2:58:31] was going in avatar so that's why we're here today.
[2:58:34] >> Thank you for that.
[2:58:36] I appreciate it.
[2:58:37] Comments to my colleagues I think
[2:58:38] it might be appropriate for us to have
[2:58:40] some sort of ad hoc forum to work on this issue.
[2:58:43] It was suggested by one of the commenters
[2:58:46] and I'm supporting that idea as we work through this issue
[2:58:49] because it is pretty detailed.
[2:58:51] >> Thank you.
[2:58:53] Supervisor Mulheren.
[2:58:55] >> Thank you.
[2:58:56] I just want to say first that the agenda was properly noticed
[2:58:58] and had the presentation that had all of the information
[2:59:01] about what the discussion was going to be
[2:59:03] today so that anybody would be surprised surprises me.
[2:59:07] I will say that I am one of the people that
[2:59:09] has been asking why is everybody not on avatar
[2:59:12] because that was a board discussion.
[2:59:13] I also am aware that the department and the service
[2:59:18] providers have been meeting regularly
[2:59:20] to try to work through this and I discussion.
[2:59:25] The service have been meeting regularly
[2:59:30] to try to work through this and I
[2:59:33] understand that there are actually maybe even.
[2:59:38] Over 20 other counties that are going
[2:59:42] through a different system.
[2:59:43] Trying to figure out their hybrid model.
[2:59:46] It seems like through all 58 counties
[2:59:48] in the state of California this is a challenge.
[2:59:51] Trying to figure out how service providers and county agencies
[2:59:55] can work together to meet the mandates of the state.
[2:59:58] I do agree.
[3:00:00] This is a statewide issue that we
[3:00:02] should be working with our legislation and our NGOs.
[3:00:07] And our affiliated agencies on.
[3:00:10] To improve.
[3:00:11] At the end of the day -- it's the people that get lost
[3:00:18] in these systems of whether or not a flat file downloads
[3:00:22] correctly.
[3:00:22] And whether or not somebody is reporting to the same system.
[3:00:26] There is a person that is impacted by that decision.
[3:00:30] So -- I don't want to be flippant.
[3:00:32] It is just one of the other.
[3:00:35] Here is where we need to be.
[3:00:37] I think an ad hoc is probably appropriate.
[3:00:42] To figure out where we go next.
[3:00:44] The board did give a direction.
[3:00:45] Was direction that everybody should
[3:00:48] be in avatar by 1 or 2 years.
[3:00:50] Here we are at this point.
[3:00:52] That didn't happen.
[3:00:53] A more detailed workgroup I think is appropriate.
[3:00:57] >> Thank you.
[3:00:58] Supervisor Williams.
[3:00:59] >> I agree with Supervisor Mulhern.
[3:01:00] I don't think our providers are being difficult.
[3:01:03] They just want to wait to work with us.
[3:01:06] There may be some possibility that we are not going
[3:01:09] to touch on in this session.
[3:01:10] I'm fine working offline.
[3:01:12] The board already made a decision.
[3:01:16] Everyone wants to use avatar.
[3:01:17] Status quo.
[3:01:18] We take no action is coming we are
[3:01:19] continuing in that direction.
[3:01:20] I would say until such time as we can come forward with a proof
[3:01:25] that it's not possible for them to perform
[3:01:28] their role in our system.
[3:01:30] Does our staff understand why they can't use avatar
[3:01:34] for our patients?
[3:01:36] And use the avatar API to backfeed their systems?
[3:01:40] Do I understand why providers are not?
[3:01:44] >> That's what I would do.
[3:01:45] Mendocino County patient comes in come I would use the county
[3:01:48] system avatar.
[3:01:49] And then use the avatar API to read it
[3:01:52] into another system come if they want
[3:01:54] to do their own data analysis.
[3:01:58] >> Some accounts, some providers.
[3:02:01] We have two providers locally.
[3:02:05] Youth project and hospitality Center that are in avatar.
[3:02:08] And then we have some of the drug Medi-Cal providers
[3:02:11] that are coming in.
[3:02:12] Their model is come they have their own EHR.
[3:02:14] They use the county's EHR for when they see county clients.
[3:02:18] If they're serving one provider who does medication management
[3:02:22] services, they have 30 counties they work with.
[3:02:26] They use avatar.
[3:02:27] The county's avatar for those counties
[3:02:30] that are that county's client.
[3:02:31] They have their own EHR.
[3:02:34] They also use Smartcare for their other clients.
[3:02:37] Depending on, they will use whatever the county
[3:02:41] EHR is, they will use that EHR.
[3:02:43] They have their own EHR they can transfer data to and from.
[3:02:47] >> Exactly.
[3:02:47] Is a reason that can't be done in this case?
[3:02:51] Um it could be done
[3:02:54] >> It could be done.
[3:02:57] The community stated they can't pull their own data from our EHR
[3:03:02] system.
[3:03:02] There's an API to pull.
[3:03:05] >> There's an API that goes to the patient access which is
[3:03:07] third party application.
[3:03:09] That is the mandate.
[3:03:11] However, that is a third party that
[3:03:14] is not contracted with them.
[3:03:18] >> Can we help them with that please?
[3:03:20] >> We can look into that and talk to Netsmart avatar and see
[3:03:24] those options.
[3:03:25] We do know it is that barrier they can't pull reports
[3:03:28] without us creating them.
[3:03:29] We did offer to create whatever reports they need.
[3:03:32] It does mean they're waiting on the county
[3:03:34] to create some of those reports.
[3:03:35] We can look at the API.
[3:03:37] >> They could also pull all of their data from avatar
[3:03:40] into another system and do their own reports in that system.
[3:03:44] >> Yes.
[3:03:45] As long as were written for them to pull it.
[3:03:48] >> We would write it in the database.
[3:03:49] They would generate it.
[3:03:51] >> Okay I agree with Mulhern I agree.
[3:03:54] It's not fine conversation.
[3:03:56] Is the director comparable with this
[3:03:58] taking the recommended action today?
[3:04:01] Leaving this part out, keeping status quo until we
[3:04:04] are able to have some ad hoc discussions?
[3:04:07] May I get one clarifying question?
[3:04:11] Do the contracts currently being brought forward state
[3:04:13] that there is a requirement?
[3:04:15] Do we need to modify?
[3:04:17] >> We'll need to modify.
[3:04:27] From the perspective of interoperability
[3:04:29] we were saying status quo.
[3:04:30] Will say they're using avatar until such time.
[3:04:33] Unless you guys want to leave them
[3:04:35] with the information regarding interoperability?
[3:04:39] >> It's up to the board.
[3:04:41] My preference would be -- to make the right decision once.
[3:04:45] I don't think we have enough information to do it now.
[3:04:48] I'd rather keep status quo.
[3:04:50] But come open the door to conversations
[3:04:52] about general impossibility with integration.
[3:04:54] You know.
[3:04:55] We may have to update our requirement
[3:04:58] if we can't find a solution.
[3:05:01] >> If I may comment does this mean we would bring
[3:05:03] the contracts back on September 1st as retroactive?
[3:05:06] As well?
[3:05:11] >> I would recommend if you could, you know --
[3:05:15] approve the contracts, knowing will amend them with
[3:05:18] the language or avatar.
[3:05:19] In other words, they go a month without payment.
[3:05:23] I won't be able to pay them.
[3:05:25] They are providing services.
[3:05:26] It's going to be like a 2 or 3 month lag for payment.
[3:05:29] That wouldn't be fair to the provider.
[3:05:35] >> Okay.
[3:05:36] We also have public comment.
[3:05:37] Supervisor go ahead.
[3:05:39] >> Yeah.
[3:05:40] I agree with that approach.
[3:05:41] When you look at page 24 of the slides -- you know,
[3:05:46] there's a lot of impacts to the county.
[3:05:50] You know -- with the county impact with technology
[3:05:54] and infrastructure.
[3:05:55] All of those things listed.
[3:05:59] The right way to do it is to move towards this avatar.
[3:06:05] We thought we were doing.
[3:06:07] We are hearing that progress is being made.
[3:06:09] At the same time, there is all these barriers that are,
[3:06:15] let's keep working on that.
[3:06:17] The intent is to move in that direction.
[3:06:21] >> Thank you.
[3:06:22] Anybody else in the room like to speak on this item?
[3:06:25] Madam clerk?
[3:06:27] Any other item?
[3:06:29] I'm seeing none maybe I'm great.
[3:06:31] Back to the board.
[3:06:32] >> Can we ask Council is there a reason we just can't amend
[3:06:35] and approve today?
[3:06:36] Why does it have to come back?
[3:06:43] >> So what part do you want to amend?
[3:06:45] I'm sorry.
[3:06:48] >> Maintaining the status quo of use avatar.
[3:06:52] >> It would be amending.
[3:06:54] It would be the avatar portion of the contract.
[3:06:57] >> It would need to be brought back through cobblestone.
[3:07:00] >> Why?
[3:07:01] Normal course here we approve contracts.
[3:07:03] Subject to amendments made during the meeting.
[3:07:06] Why is this any different?
[3:07:09] >> As far as I know we've not approved a contract that has
[3:07:15] a different schedule that's attached.
[3:07:17] I think we would need to appropriately then reattach
[3:07:20] the schedule.
[3:07:22] >> Different approach.
[3:07:23] Simple finance.
[3:07:24] What if we were to keep contracts as is.
[3:07:27] No amendment today or ever?
[3:07:29] And the board clarifies what interoperability means.
[3:07:33] It's enabling our service providers
[3:07:36] to interoperate with avatar to pull
[3:07:39] the data for their own uses.
[3:07:41] Right?
[3:07:42] They do need some interoperability.
[3:07:44] It's a question of do they put our patient
[3:07:47] data in separate systems from ours
[3:07:50] or do they put it all on ours?
[3:07:52] They have interoperability with pulling that data back
[3:07:54] into theirs?
[3:07:55] To do their own analysis?
[3:07:56] I think it's open to interpretation.
[3:07:57] We need to solve that problem for them.
[3:07:59] I don't need come I don't know we need to modify our contract.
[3:08:05] >> The model, that interoperability.
[3:08:07] I just want to be clear that's kind of the term hoc
[3:08:10] they're going to pay for the build down and stuff.
[3:08:13] I don't know if an option is.
[3:08:15] I wouldn't go back through cobblestone
[3:08:16] if we could just pull the back piece out.
[3:08:19] They can prove.
[3:08:19] We can try to go back to the office I'm in the mall really
[3:08:22] quickly, pull up that pace.
[3:08:23] You guys got to prove it.
[3:08:26] >> May I?
[3:08:27] >> Prefer that otherwise we're approving a contract
[3:08:30] that's saying a message we want them to begin spending
[3:08:32] their money building out a hybrid system that this board
[3:08:35] actually doesn't support.
[3:08:36] At least today.
[3:08:38] >> If I may to the chair comment you to remove section C.
[3:08:41] I think it's exhibit.
[3:08:42] I think it's exhibit.
[3:08:44] Think A is a main and then B is a B. I think it's exhibit C?
[3:08:49] We would remove all the avatar.
[3:08:51] The interoperability language out.
[3:08:57] >> Doctor Miller.
[3:08:58] Could you restate what your preference would be in this?
[3:09:00] Based on the discussion?
[3:09:03] >> My preference is to make sure the contractors get at least
[3:09:07] the contract approved today, so they can get paid between now
[3:09:09] and September 1st.
[3:09:11] I am happy to go back to the office
[3:09:13] and have my team just pull out the language regarding
[3:09:16] interoperability.
[3:09:17] We can bring those back in separate contracts.
[3:09:19] Can have that not even be part of this.
[3:09:22] We can make sure there are two separate contracts going
[3:09:24] forward.
[3:09:25] I think that will make probably more sense.
[3:09:28] I'm happy to come as long as County council thinks we can.
[3:09:32] We just pull nothing but pull that language out, then
[3:09:35] bring it in, we can get it back to the board today.
[3:09:41] >> I would have to look at it a little more carefully in this
[3:09:42] situation.
[3:09:43] This is something that we have given to the other parties.
[3:09:48] They've signed on.
[3:09:50] >> That's correct.
[3:09:51] And so if we are changing contract terms,
[3:09:53] we do need to go back to the persons we are contracting with.
[3:09:57] I'm not sure what you're saying.
[3:10:01] Which contract do you want to go forward today?
[3:10:05] >> It would be all five of the contracts pulling out a portion
[3:10:08] of the contract term is only about avatar.
[3:10:11] >> You could approve two.
[3:10:13] Youth project.
[3:10:14] We could pull these apart.
[3:10:17] Youth project and hospitality house or an avatar.
[3:10:20] Their contracts are totally different.
[3:10:21] There's not a conversation about interoperability framework
[3:10:24] they're using avatar.
[3:10:25] They've been using avatar for the last year.
[3:10:27] They are totally fine.
[3:10:29] Those contracts.
[3:10:30] We could pull that as a separate.
[3:10:32] You guys could make this a separate.
[3:10:33] Youth project and hospitality center are already using avatar.
[3:10:36] They're in the languages in their.
[3:10:37] We continue to use avatar and reimburse
[3:10:40] for the number of users they have.
[3:10:42] You are only looking at three.
[3:10:45] >> Thank you Supervisor Mulhern.
[3:10:48] >> Thank you.
[3:10:49] I'm just wondering -- at this point --
[3:10:52] the contracts have been signed by the providers come up with
[3:10:55] the provision in them that they would be using avatar.
[3:10:59] It is in
[3:11:04] >> They would be using the administration part of avatar.
[3:11:07] They would still be using their own system.
[3:11:10] >> Right.
[3:11:11] It has to continue work with us.
[3:11:13] The contracts could move forward today.
[3:11:15] >> The ad hoc could work on whether or not the requirement
[3:11:20] would be to switch avatar to their actual system.
[3:11:23] The contracts could be approved today come as they are listed.
[3:11:27] It's the way that we've been operating.
[3:11:29] And then an ad hoc could determine,
[3:11:32] could bring back to the board, a recommendation about
[3:11:35] whether or not they fully implement avatar.
[3:11:38] >> Do you agree?
[3:11:41] >> Yes.
[3:11:42] As long as the board agrees.
[3:11:43] There wouldn't be status quo.
[3:11:44] Could be status quo to what we're doing today.
[3:11:46] It wouldn't be status quo to what the board voted
[3:11:49] on which I think it's the same status
[3:11:52] quo everyone has to use avatar.
[3:11:53] I think you guys have to make that decision.
[3:11:56] I would want their contracts to move forward at some level
[3:11:59] today.
[3:12:00] To make them wait until September for payment
[3:12:02] is not realistic.
[3:12:04] >> Supervisor Williams.
[3:12:05] >> With the contract to move forward as well.
[3:12:07] I have full support County council could get it done.
[3:12:09] We have very long closed session.
[3:12:11] We are busy for hours if you come back and take this
[3:12:13] at the end of the day.
[3:12:15] Supervisor Mulhern's comment.
[3:12:17] I think it's a mistake right now our providers are
[3:12:22] expected to use avatar.
[3:12:23] This contract tells them no.
[3:12:24] You can do a hybrid.
[3:12:25] We come back in a month and say we want you to use avatar again.
[3:12:28] We have to amend the contract.
[3:12:30] That thrashing isn't good for either side of the agreement.
[3:12:34] Is it possible to make the change and have the county sign?
[3:12:39] The other party can sign later.
[3:12:40] As far as we are concerned.
[3:12:48] >> I would just need to understand on those three
[3:12:50] contracts.
[3:12:50] Is there an agreement with our contractors for that amendment?
[3:12:55] >> We will have to ask?
[3:12:56] If not the contract will go forward.
[3:12:59] >> It status quo.
[3:13:00] We're not introducing anything new here.
[3:13:02] Our agreements have been for the last couple of years.
[3:13:07] >> The other suggestion is to amend the term.
[3:13:10] And just do a term until October 1st.
[3:13:14] Come back and amend after you've had that chance to negotiate.
[3:13:19] Just shorten the term.
[3:13:20] I think that's fine.
[3:13:23] >> Thank you.
[3:13:23] Supervisor Mulhern.
[3:13:25] >> Thank you.
[3:13:25] I think using the term status quo for something that
[3:13:28] didn't happen is an awkward way to phrase this conversation.
[3:13:32] Because it's confusing people.
[3:13:34] Supervisor Williams you were referring to status quo
[3:13:36] as what the board previous direction was.
[3:13:38] Everybody switches to avatar.
[3:13:39] I want to make sure that all five board members agree
[3:13:42] that a hybrid model may not be a viable option for the providers.
[3:13:47] I am not decided on yet.
[3:13:52] In reviewing, there are essentially
[3:13:55] half the counties using an entirely different model.
[3:13:58] None of the providers have mentioned the county is not
[3:14:01] using the state of California.
[3:14:03] That other providers that are using avatar system
[3:14:08] are also struggling.
[3:14:09] Trying to figure out their management of,
[3:14:12] with their providers in the county has an agency.
[3:14:15] I still have more questions.
[3:14:17] And so I would like to see the contracts move forward.
[3:14:23] Which is a model that would allow
[3:14:26] them to continue to use their system
[3:14:28] and share the information with the county.
[3:14:30] So the county has information they need.
[3:14:33] Can then come come back to the board with no
[3:14:37] you must be on avatar.
[3:14:40] Maybe I'm alone in that.
[3:14:42] That would be fine.
[3:14:43] I do want to hear from the other board members.
[3:14:45] The way things are being described
[3:14:46] can be a little bit confusing right now.
[3:14:49] >> That mirrors your earlier idea.
[3:14:51] Plus filming an ad hoc to get through that process.
[3:14:55] Correct?
[3:14:56] Would you like to form that into a motion?
[3:14:59] >> I would.
[3:15:00] I would like to ask supervisor first.
[3:15:05] >> I was going to make a motion.
[3:15:06] To approve as is -- items two.
[3:15:11] Which is the hospitality center.
[3:15:14] And three.
[3:15:15] The youth project contract.
[3:15:17] And then with the others, we do a short term contract.
[3:15:23] For three months.
[3:15:24] Can have the ad hoc work with them, to try to figure out that.
[3:15:31] >> Second.
[3:15:32] >> Miss Miller those contracts would then again have to come
[3:15:35] back.
[3:15:36] Right?
[3:15:37] The providers would have to agree to the short term
[3:15:40] contract.
[3:15:41] >> Yes.
[3:15:42] The providers would have to agree to the short term
[3:15:44] contract.
[3:15:44] Yes.
[3:15:46] >> Okay.
[3:15:47] >> All right.
[3:15:48] We do have a first supervisor seconded by Williams.
[3:15:52] Madam clerk.
[3:15:53] Could you restate the motion please?
[3:16:03] >> Approve the second and third contract that being --
[3:16:07] the youth project and Mendocino County.
[3:16:09] Excuse me.
[3:16:11] Mendocino Coast Hospitality Center.
[3:16:12] And approve a short term contract for the other three,
[3:16:15] for three months.
[3:16:17] The ad hoc works with the company's.
[3:16:20] >> Okay.
[3:16:21] Thank you supervisor.
[3:16:22] Question
[3:16:23] >> I need more clarity.
[3:16:24] I'm trying to understand how these short term contracts would
[3:16:27] work?
[3:16:27] I'm understanding we're under the timeline of today.
[3:16:33] I would like to staff for clarity
[3:16:35] about what that would really mean in terms of a short term
[3:16:37] contract.
[3:16:39] >> It would mean that we would go back to the office.
[3:16:42] Change the date.
[3:16:43] We would just edit the dates.
[3:16:44] We would have to consult with the three contractors
[3:16:47] like I said.
[3:16:48] The two are already in avatar.
[3:16:51] Make sure they will agree to sign those short term contracts.
[3:16:54] Would mean we would need an ad hoc committee pretty quickly.
[3:16:58] We need to make a decision and be back
[3:17:00] in three months to this board, so that we are not putting them
[3:17:06] without the contract.
[3:17:07] And without payment.
[3:17:09] Thank you.
[3:17:10] >> Okay.
[3:17:11] Before we vote --
[3:17:12] Supervisor Mulhern.
[3:17:14] Could you restate what your motion would have been?
[3:17:27] >> Yeah.
[3:17:27] My motion would have been to move forward
[3:17:32] with the recommended action regarding
[3:17:35] the County electronic health record usage contract providers.
[3:17:40] The request for the recommended action was to provide direction.
[3:17:46] My direction would have been to create an ad hoc
[3:17:49] of Supervisor Williams.
[3:17:51] To work with Behavioral Health Department.
[3:17:55] And the providers to determine whether or not
[3:17:59] moving forward with an only avatar
[3:18:02] model versus a hybrid model.
[3:18:04] What the recommendation from the Board of Supervisors ad hoc
[3:18:06] would be.
[3:18:07] Thank you.
[3:18:08] Supervisor client.
[3:18:09] >> I would be supportive of that action.
[3:18:11] Maybe you would or not?
[3:18:14] I would to.
[3:18:17] Supervisor.
[3:18:18] Well I'm not in support of that.
[3:18:21] I don't want to be on that ad hoc.
[3:18:23] I don't have an expert.
[3:18:26] Okay.
[3:18:27] >> So, yes.
[3:18:29] Supervisor Williams.
[3:18:30] >> Not unsupportive.
[3:18:31] I think supervisor has a good idea.
[3:18:33] My only concern is I don't want to sign
[3:18:36] a contract for 12 months come up before the hybrid system.
[3:18:40] We don't know the answers.
[3:18:43] >> Right.
[3:18:44] Maybe after some fact finding.
[3:18:45] We find there's a solution to use avatar for everyone.
[3:18:47] I don't want to put that off for a year.
[3:18:51] This idea of passing a contract today until June of 27.
[3:18:55] Doing the fact finding and coming back trying to amend it.
[3:18:59] Doesn't seem like the best flow.
[3:19:00] It would be better to get that answered first.
[3:19:02] That's what I think supervisor approach of three month
[3:19:06] extension basically so we can do the fact finding.
[3:19:08] Can reach the right answer.
[3:19:10] Put pressure on everyone to get to that answer soon.
[3:19:14] >> Okay.
[3:19:16] If
[3:19:17] >> If I may?
[3:19:18] >> Yes.
[3:19:20] >> The motion that's on the table for supervisor Haschak
[3:19:22] does not create the ad hoc that the motion itself is
[3:19:26] referencing.
[3:19:26] A creation of an ad hoc I believe,
[3:19:30] would be needed to make, would need
[3:19:34] to be in the motion to make the ad hoc.
[3:19:36] Is that correct County Council?
[3:19:45] >> Couldn't the chair create the ad hoc after the vote?
[3:19:49] >> If I could?
[3:19:51] There's debate on this.
[3:19:52] There's also preference of your clerk of the board.
[3:19:55] The preference is that it's part of the motion,
[3:19:59] in order to track it more successfully.
[3:20:07] >> Through the chair if I may.
[3:20:08] Isn't there rules and procedures I believe that an ad hoc
[3:20:10] must be formed in a motion.
[3:20:11] Thank you for that.
[3:20:12] My understanding as well.
[3:20:14] Supervisor Mulhern.
[3:20:16] Supervisor Haschek has stated he doesn't.
[3:20:20] I don't want to put you on the hot seat here.
[3:20:22] I would challenge anybody.
[3:20:24] Certainly in this room -- or at the county aside from Doctor
[3:20:28] Miller and her staff.
[3:20:29] To have a better understanding of the system
[3:20:31] a behavioral health and substance abuse.
[3:20:33] All of that.
[3:20:34] So, whether this motion passes or not,
[3:20:40] we are going to need an ad hoc.
[3:20:43] I would ask for you as well as Supervisor Williams to be on it.
[3:20:53] >> I'm not in favor of supervisor motion.
[3:20:55] More in support of yours, if that helps.
[3:20:59] So
[3:21:02] >> I have to say I have got some confusion here premature people
[3:21:06] saying they would like to make a motion.
[3:21:08] I don't know.
[3:21:09] >> We do have a first and a second.
[3:21:11] We're having a discussion on the motion.
[3:21:13] The discussion right now is around who's
[3:21:15] going to be on the ad hoc.
[3:21:18] >> So who made -- >> Supervisor Haschak was the first.
[3:21:22] Supervisor Williams was the second.
[3:21:24] Supervisor Haschak.
[3:21:26] >> With that, I would just say --
[3:21:29] if we are going to form an ad hoc,
[3:21:31] let's form an ad hoc with Supervisor Williams.
[3:21:34] And, supervisor Mulheren.
[3:21:42] >> Okay.
[3:21:43] >> Can I get one more clarifying question?
[3:21:46] >> Yes.
[3:21:47] >> If this motion passes we're bringing this back at the end
[3:21:49] of the day which is likely past 630 or 7:00?
[3:21:52] >> I think that would be the best route.
[3:21:54] Supervisor Mulhern.
[3:21:56] >> Yeah.
[3:21:56] Just for clarification.
[3:21:57] Supervisor motion passes behavioral health staff
[3:22:00] will have to go back and revise contracts.
[3:22:03] Have to get approval to change the three months.
[3:22:05] If that happens.
[3:22:08] >> Supervisor?
[3:22:10] >> Chair.
[3:22:11] We basically have some pulling of the motion, you know,
[3:22:14] before we vote?
[3:22:16] >> We can.
[3:22:17] I think my understanding is we are at least 3 to 2 in favor
[3:22:20] of Supervisor Mulhern's.
[3:22:22] Does that satisfy your question?
[3:22:25] >> Yes.
[3:22:26] Thank you.
[3:22:27] >> We will vote by the >> Yes.
[3:22:31] >> Chair if I may clarification --
[3:22:33] did the maker and the second want to add the creation
[3:22:38] of the ad hoc to the motion that's being voted on currently?
[3:22:44] >> Yes.
[3:22:46] >> For clarification of the record,
[3:22:47] was that Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Mulhern?
[3:22:50] >> Yes.
[3:22:51] Supervisor Williams has a second.
[3:22:54] >> Yes.
[3:22:55] >> Okay.
[3:22:56] Will vote by the button.
[3:23:12] >> The motion.
[3:23:14] The motion supervisor supervisor Mulhern and supervisor .
[3:23:24] >> Supervisor supervisor Mulhern recommended action.
[3:23:26] Motion for the recommended action
[3:23:27] to accept the presentation from health and Recovery
[3:23:30] services regarding specialty mental health services
[3:23:32] behavioral Health services act.
[3:23:34] And provide direction to staff regarding the County
[3:23:37] electronic health record to create an ad hoc supervisor
[3:23:40] Smallhorn and Williams.
[3:23:42] Bring back a recommendation to the board.
[3:23:45] Of fully implementing avatar with our entire system.
[3:23:51] Or creating a hybrid model.
[3:23:54] >> Second.
[3:23:55] >> First by Supervisor Mulhern.
[3:23:57] Seconded by Klein.
[3:23:58] Supervisor.
[3:24:00] >> If I may to the chair.
[3:24:01] Is it an approval of the contracts?
[3:24:05] >> Supervisor.
[3:24:07] >> I think there needs to be a time set for bringing it back.
[3:24:11] It's not open ended.
[3:24:13] >> Thank you supervisor Williams.
[3:24:15] >> Yeah.
[3:24:16] Just to clarify a question.
[3:24:18] Do we foresee -- this decision that's made about how to move
[3:24:25] forward on health records?
[3:24:26] Impacting the next contract after June 2027?
[3:24:31] Where do we say that information happiness renegotiate
[3:24:35] with the providers?
[3:24:36] The contract?
[3:24:38] So for the ad hoc is formed -- and the answer comes back in two
[3:24:44] months.
[3:24:44] The board supports it.
[3:24:46] Will we be renegotiating a couple of months in?
[3:24:49] Or will we be seeing that takes effect
[3:24:51] at the end of the contract?
[3:24:54] >> I think that will be a recommendation that the ad hoc
[3:24:57] brings back.
[3:24:57] In consultation with behavioral Health Department
[3:25:00] and the service providers.
[3:25:01] I think at this point everybody understands
[3:25:03] the direction of the Board of Supervisors
[3:25:05] was to get everybody on to avatar.
[3:25:07] We were going to have a conversation about
[3:25:08] whether or not the hybrid model continues.
[3:25:10] If the recommendation is that we go to avatar
[3:25:14] and the entire board approves that action,
[3:25:17] the contractors are aware that is
[3:25:20] something that could potentially impact their contracts.
[3:25:26] >> Okay.
[3:25:26] >> I have a follow up question for county counsel County
[3:25:29] counsel agree that we are able to amend the contract after both
[3:25:34] parties sign and they perform services we pay within that year
[3:25:37] period?
[3:25:39] >> So that was my concern.
[3:25:41] In terms of both parties signed this contract.
[3:25:44] It's very large contract.
[3:25:46] I was trying to look at it at the last second.
[3:25:50] I'm concerned in terms of the procedure.
[3:25:53] Usually, we can't just amend, unless we get their agreement.
[3:25:59] If they say no, we don't have any recourse until the contract
[3:26:05] ends and start of the next fiscal >>
[3:26:10] Thank you supervisor Haschak.
[3:26:12] >> Two things.
[3:26:12] One is the composition of the ad hoc.
[3:26:14] Hasn't been clarified.
[3:26:17] The other is why wouldn't we go to a shortened contract
[3:26:25] can the maker kind of explain that?
[3:26:28] >> Supervisor client.
[3:26:30] >> I believe we had a comment from a director of behavioral
[3:26:32] health director.
[3:26:33] >> I believe all of our contracts have termination
[3:26:36] clauses.
[3:26:36] We can term without cause.
[3:26:39] I would say if they didn't want to amend.
[3:26:43] We were saying you had to be an avatar.
[3:26:45] We would have the ability to give
[3:26:46] a 45 day notice of termination.
[3:26:49] I just want to make sure that all of our contracts
[3:26:52] have term clauses.
[3:26:53] >> My comment has been, we have two of the service providers
[3:26:57] represented here today.
[3:26:58] We could do a litmus test for if they
[3:27:01] are agreeable to this process.
[3:27:04] Two supervisor hash and supervisor Williams point.
[3:27:07] Make sure this is an okay process with our partners.
[3:27:12] >> Seeing nodding heads.
[3:27:14] Supervisor Mulhern.
[3:27:15] Did you have a question?
[3:27:20] Okay.
[3:27:20] Miss Bearden can you reread the motion?
[3:27:25] You can't.
[3:27:28] >> To the chair if I may.
[3:27:30] I am missing if portions that I was
[3:27:33] going to go back and look at.
[3:27:35] If you could restate it.
[3:27:37] I could fill in that portion.
[3:27:38] >> I cannot.
[3:27:41] >> Miss Mulhern can you?
[3:27:43] >> The motion is to approve the recommendation,
[3:27:46] recommended action from the Behavioral Health and Recovery
[3:27:51] Services Department.
[3:27:52] And the direction to staff regarding the county
[3:27:55] electronic health record is to create an ad hoc
[3:27:57] of supervisors Mulhern and Williams.
[3:27:59] To bring back for consideration to the board full implementation
[3:28:03] of avatar versus the hybrid model.
[3:28:06] A recommendation to the board.
[3:28:14] >> The second agree.
[3:28:14] >> Second agree.
[3:28:15] Second being supervisor hashtag you have a client on a motion?
[3:28:18] >> Yeah.
[3:28:18] Is there going to be a time limit
[3:28:20] to bring back a recommendation?
[3:28:23] >> No.
[3:28:26] >> As soon as it's finished.
[3:28:29] >> Yes.
[3:28:30] >> Okay.
[3:28:31] >> All right.
[3:28:31] We have first and second.
[3:28:32] We will go by the button.
[3:28:41] >> The motion carries unanimously.
[3:28:43] >> Thank you.
[3:28:44] Thank you Miss Miller.
[3:28:51] Yeah.
[3:29:06] >> I think that was assumed the contract.
[3:29:08] I haven't yet.
[3:29:08] I was just looking.
[3:29:09] I think we are. .
[3:29:18] >> Miss.?
[3:29:19] We have a time session for close.
[3:29:19] >> If I may to the chair we do not have a time session
[3:29:22] for the closed.
[3:29:22] We have a time session being back and open at 130.
[3:29:25] >> Okay.
[3:29:26] >> For the Rotax items.
[3:29:28] >> Okay.
[3:29:29] We've got come on we can knock out a couple other things here.
[3:29:34] >> Yes we can.
[3:29:35] We do have a closed session though.
[3:29:37] Which I think will take about half an hour.
[3:29:40] >> That's not timed.
[3:29:42] Is a preference from the board?
[3:29:44] Do you want to knock some more work out now?
[3:29:49] Okay.
[3:29:55] >> We will need a little break though for staff for lunch
[3:29:57] as well.
[3:29:58] >> Right.
[3:29:59] What time is the time to?
[3:30:02] 130?
[3:30:03] >> Closed will be about a half hour.
[3:30:05] >> Another 20 minutes.
[3:30:06] Does that work?
[3:30:07] >> It does.
[3:30:08] Staff needs a lunch break.
[3:30:11] >> You will keep us on track?
[3:30:13] Thank you.
[3:30:14] All right.
[3:30:23] >> If I may through the chair.
[3:30:25] We're looking for an item come on we
[3:30:26] can talk about the Board of Supervisors reports.
[3:30:29] Or you can do the grand jury ad hoc.
[3:30:33] >> Let's start there.
[3:30:33] Are 13 discussion a possible action including appointment
[3:30:36] of an ad hoc committee regarding the response to the 2526 Grand
[3:30:40] jury reports common title from Policy to Practice.
[3:30:43] Digging deeper into the Board of Supervisors
[3:30:45] oversight of planning building services and continuity.
[3:30:49] Compliance report.
[3:30:51] Pardon me.
[3:30:54] Pardon me pardon me.
[3:30:57] My apologies.
[3:31:07] >> Thank you.
[3:31:07] Would the sponsor like to introduce the motion
[3:31:07] to introduce the item?
[3:31:10] >> Other than the title, no.
[3:31:12] We do have an obligation to report back to the grand jury.
[3:31:17] We need to form ad hoc to do that you and I were
[3:31:21] the last two.
[3:31:21] I prefer not to be on this one again.
[3:31:27] I would, my only recommendation is that whatever the ad hoc
[3:31:32] comes back with, it is on a regular and not consent.
[3:31:38] >> Board discussion.
[3:31:41] Supervisor?
[3:31:42] >> Thank you.
[3:31:43] I wanted to express my desire to see
[3:31:47] at least some continuity from the last ad hoc
[3:31:50] to this next ad hoc.
[3:31:51] Maybe that's not possible.
[3:31:53] I do think it would be important to have
[3:31:54] someone who is involved with the last ad hoc, continue on.
[3:31:58] And then I as individual do not have the bandwidth
[3:32:01] to participate in this ad hoc.
[3:32:03] I'm still healing from some medical stuff that caused
[3:32:06] me to miss the last meeting.
[3:32:08] Just preference that I cannot participate.
[3:32:18] >> Let's go to public comment.
[3:32:20] Any public comment in the room?
[3:32:22] Those online can use the raised hand feature.
[3:32:35] >> Good morning.
[3:32:36] Afternoon.
[3:32:36] D Harrison district five.
[3:32:37] Hearing Ukiah.
[3:32:38] There are several important issues
[3:32:40] identified in this current grand jury report.
[3:32:43] I believe the most critical is the failure to implement.
[3:32:46] 4290.
[3:32:48] And California Code of Regulations
[3:32:49] title 14 the state Minimum fire safe regulations.
[3:32:52] I spoke to last year about the failure
[3:32:55] by PBS to fully implement.
[3:32:56] 4290 and title 14.
[3:32:59] Importance of you addressing this failure.
[3:33:01] Response to my comments, Supervisor Williams
[3:33:04] asked the Planning and Building director to respond.
[3:33:08] Director Krog stated there appeared
[3:33:10] to be a gap between the information
[3:33:11] I received from Cal Fire com and what PBS had received
[3:33:15] from supervisor Williams made the comment that we quote don't
[3:33:18] want to leave this dangling.
[3:33:20] Supervisor has stated quote we need to clear this up,
[3:33:23] so everyone understanding is the same.
[3:33:25] As a result, included in your motion
[3:33:27] common clear direction to PBS to contact Cal Fire.
[3:33:30] To get the necessary clarification
[3:33:32] to fill these gaps comment to come back in a month
[3:33:34] or so to report back.
[3:33:36] Director Krog acknowledged this direction.
[3:33:38] We never heard back from Director Krog on this item.
[3:33:42] Now we have a new grand jury report
[3:33:44] that indicates this is still an unaddressed problem.
[3:33:47] As I shared at the last meeting comment
[3:33:49] appears great strides are being made
[3:33:51] to in fact implement recommendations
[3:33:53] made in last year's report.
[3:33:55] And yet come to nothing addresses the implementation of.
[3:33:58] 4290 title 14 in its entirety.
[3:34:01] I did reach out to Cal Fire myself.
[3:34:03] Both locally and at the state level.
[3:34:05] Cal Fire clarified that one, the definition of preexisting
[3:34:09] in the context of.
[3:34:11] 4290 and title 14 is any structure built prior to January
[3:34:15] 1st 1991.
[3:34:16] In the SRA. In the very high fire Hazard Safety zone come
[3:34:21] anything built after July 1st 2021.
[3:34:23] And two common order for Cal Fire to conduct 4290 inspection,
[3:34:28] they must receive an application.
[3:34:29] And three a quote from Cal Fire official.
[3:34:33] Is not our job due to the county how to do their job.
[3:34:36] The two largest gaps I see here are one, the misinterpretation
[3:34:39] of preexisting by the county.
[3:34:41] And two, the counties not referring
[3:34:43] all residential and commercial structure
[3:34:45] permit applicants to Cal fire.
[3:34:47] The state minimum fire safe regulations are very clear.
[3:34:50] Suggest you read them.
[3:34:51] Especially sections 1270 .04.
[3:34:55] 1270 .05.
[3:34:56] 1270 .04 States in part, the local jurisdiction
[3:35:00] shall provide the Director of Cal Fire
[3:35:02] with notice of applications for building permits,
[3:35:04] for construction or development within the SRA.
[3:35:07] The local jurisdiction shall ensure the applicable sections
[3:35:11] of this subchapter become a condition of approval section
[3:35:15] 1270 .05 States in part, subchapter two
[3:35:18] shall serve as a minimum wildfire protection
[3:35:20] standards applied in the SRA. And the Very High Fire Hazard
[3:35:24] Safety Zone.
[3:35:25] Reminds you that since you are at the top of the command
[3:35:28] structure, you are in fact our building official.
[3:35:31] And the responsibility sits on your shoulders.
[3:35:34] When those that you have delegated that authority to --
[3:35:38] fail to fully and correctly interpret and implement state
[3:35:41] law -- and so jeopardize the health and safety of all
[3:35:45] Mendocino first responders and residents.
[3:35:47] Of the Board of Supervisors to give clear direction
[3:35:51] to that effect please do the right thing.
[3:35:53] Thank you.
[3:35:59] >> I'm not seeing any more public comment in the room.
[3:36:02] No public comment online.
[3:36:02] Back to the board for discussion.
[3:36:03] Supervisor.
[3:36:06] >> Well, I will acknowledge that the speaker had it correct.
[3:36:10] We did give direction to have Cal Fire and Director
[3:36:16] of Planning and Building come com and kind of address
[3:36:19] this issue before us.
[3:36:20] Kind of work it out.
[3:36:22] That never happened.
[3:36:23] You know.
[3:36:28] That is on us.
[3:36:29] We are not making sure that happens.
[3:36:43] >> Is there a motion?
[3:36:49] >> Go ahead supervisor.
[3:36:50] >> I would like to ask supervisor Hashtag
[3:36:50] if he's willing to serve as supervisor Williams on this ad
[3:36:53] hoc.
[3:36:54] And then I will make a motion.
[3:37:07] >> Yeah.
[3:37:07] I will do it.
[3:37:07] >> I move that we appoint.
[3:37:08] >> Go ahead.
[3:37:09] >> I have a comment.
[3:37:10] You go ahead.
[3:37:13] >> I would like to appoint the supervisors Williams and Haschak
[3:37:17] regarding response to the 25, 26 grand jury report from Policy
[3:37:21] to Practice.
[3:37:22] And the Continuity Compliance Report.
[3:37:25] >> Second.
[3:37:26] >> There's a first and there's a second.
[3:37:27] I have a comment.
[3:37:30] Our last ad hoc to work on this.
[3:37:33] I found it extremely frustrating.
[3:37:35] The dynamic between being guided by county counsel
[3:37:39] and the grand jury being indicted by different county
[3:37:43] Council works with us.
[3:37:44] I don't want to experience that again.
[3:37:47] If I'm on the ad hoc it should get
[3:37:51] to the bottom of this comment come up
[3:37:52] with what needs to be done and these solutions.
[3:37:54] We couldn't make any progress last time.
[3:37:57] The process.
[3:37:58] Is this a repeat of the last go around?
[3:38:02] Is this a problem that can't be solved by the grand jury
[3:38:05] approach, that they generate a report?
[3:38:08] All we can work with is that report.
[3:38:10] We can have a dialog to clarify?
[3:38:12] If there's specific cases that are called out,
[3:38:15] we don't know what they are.
[3:38:16] We can't get clarification.
[3:38:17] We can't have a sit down.
[3:38:18] All we can do is rely on our staff
[3:38:21] to ask are we in compliance.
[3:38:22] If our staff says yes come on we're
[3:38:24] going to come back with a report that says we disagree.
[3:38:26] We are in compliance.
[3:38:27] We are going to have the same public comment
[3:38:29] that we are not doing our job.
[3:38:31] This county council needs to look
[3:38:34] at how we can be productive at solving
[3:38:36] the concerns at this time.
[3:38:47] >> It's a bit of a compound question.
[3:38:48] If I understand.
[3:38:49] You are wanting to go beyond what your responses are
[3:38:52] to have a dialog?
[3:38:54] >> I don't want have a repeat of what we had last time we had two
[3:38:57] supervisors trying to solve a problem.
[3:38:58] And found that process didn't allow
[3:39:00] us to do anything productive.
[3:39:02] That's not going to be a good look
[3:39:04] if we do that exercise again.
[3:39:06] >> So in response.
[3:39:08] Responses.
[3:39:09] And how they are supposed to be prepared are laid out actually.
[3:39:13] In the penal code.
[3:39:15] In terms of what you do.
[3:39:17] And, many times when a grand jury is doing investigations,
[3:39:21] they ask questions.
[3:39:23] I find a lot of times, departments
[3:39:25] start to solve those problems by having questions asked.
[3:39:30] Sometimes by the time a report gets
[3:39:32] to the Board of Supervisors.
[3:39:34] Some of the issues have been resolved.
[3:39:38] There's different ways of doing it.
[3:39:41] The Board of Supervisors can have an ad hoc.
[3:39:44] Usually it's more staff based.
[3:39:46] In terms of getting the answers etc..
[3:39:49] And then would work with the Board of Supervisors
[3:39:51] to finalize that.
[3:39:53] The issues that are brought up in terms
[3:39:57] of being able to move forward and do something,
[3:40:00] would be something you might agendize
[3:40:01] for a meeting in the future.
[3:40:03] In terms of using the responses to the grand jury report,
[3:40:07] it's fairly limited in terms of legally.
[3:40:11] >> So one of the difficulties is the grand jury report is finding
[3:40:15] that PBS isn't adequately compliant with state
[3:40:19] regulations.
[3:40:20] The ad hoc is going to ask the same staff.
[3:40:24] Comply with state regulations?
[3:40:25] I think that staff is going to say yes.
[3:40:27] We are.
[3:40:28] Then what?
[3:40:31] >> Last time I went to the Cal Fire unit chief and asked can
[3:40:34] you look at this.
[3:40:35] We're are we doing something wrong?
[3:40:40] If not I want to fix it help me.
[3:40:42] The response I got was affirming that staff is doing it right.
[3:40:44] Where do we go from here to be productive?
[3:40:49] >> Again, I think working directly with the CEO's office
[3:40:52] oversees the planning department,
[3:40:54] would be very important.
[3:40:55] And some follow up.
[3:40:59] You've got a limited time in which you respond to these.
[3:41:02] You might not get all of those answers.
[3:41:03] You do actually have to rely on your staff for some of that.
[3:41:09] >> So the board, do you want Williams and the on hag,
[3:41:14] Williams and Norvell couldn't make progress.
[3:41:16] I will do if you assign it to me somebody else
[3:41:19] would like to take a swing at it, by all means.
[3:41:21] >> I think the fact that you know the issues.
[3:41:23] You pointed them out so clearly.
[3:41:25] I would support you still being on there.
[3:41:36] >> Supervisor Mulhern.
[3:41:37] >> Thank you.
[3:41:37] I think one of the challenging things for this particular issue
[3:41:37] come is that Miss Hallinan has been coming to our meetings
[3:41:40] and bringing to our attention.
[3:41:42] She is not on the grand jury.
[3:41:44] There's nothing that prevents any member
[3:41:46] from the Board of Supervisors including Supervisor Williams,
[3:41:49] from sitting down.
[3:41:50] We could even have staff sit with,
[3:41:54] there's nothing against the rules
[3:41:56] that would allow us to have a conversation with a constituent.
[3:42:00] Versus the statutory requirements
[3:42:03] responding to the grand jury I agree with Supervisor Williams
[3:42:06] is very frustrating.
[3:42:07] Whatever requirements are.
[3:42:08] To be clear --
[3:42:10] any member of the Board of Supervisors
[3:42:12] could meet with a member of the public that has a concern.
[3:42:23] >> Supervisor Klein.
[3:42:24] >> A follow up question for County Council based
[3:42:26] on supervisor Williams questions.
[3:42:27] As an individual in reading the report.
[3:42:30] Not a part of the response.
[3:42:32] Am I allowed to reach out to the grand jury
[3:42:35] and ask to engage in conversation around
[3:42:37] that specific report?
[3:42:45] >> I want to give you this explanation.
[3:42:47] This is something that persons don't understand
[3:42:48] about the grand jury.
[3:42:49] The grand jury they wrote their report does not
[3:42:52] come in no longer exist.
[3:42:53] They are gone.
[3:42:55] They left you all.
[3:42:57] You were there.
[3:42:59] One report does not move to the other report.
[3:43:03] In fact, they are prohibited from doing that.
[3:43:07] I have two, when I work with department heads.
[3:43:10] They get frustrated that the same questions come year to year
[3:43:13] from grand juries.
[3:43:15] I always explain, that's because each grand jury
[3:43:19] has to start uniquely.
[3:43:21] They don't carry over information from one jury
[3:43:25] to the other.
[3:43:26] Unless it's an ongoing investigation and therefore
[3:43:29] if it was ongoing, you would not have received a report.
[3:43:33] >> There is still continuity in some individuals that have
[3:43:36] continued on the grand jury.
[3:43:38] Even at the swearing in yesterday.
[3:43:39] They spoke to how their reports are
[3:43:42] reflected of their organization year after year.
[3:43:44] So even if, maybe not every answer is complete.
[3:43:49] My question is, am I allowed to go and reach out
[3:43:51] to the grand jury?
[3:43:52] And have a conversation with them about the report?
[3:44:01] >> I don't really see a process for that.
[3:44:03] They hearing this, they could reach out to the supervisors.
[3:44:05] Absolutely.
[3:44:06] >> Is there a prohibition in state law that doesn't allow me
[3:44:09] from reaching out to them?
[3:44:10] >> No.
[3:44:10] There's no prohibition.
[3:44:12] There's policies and procedures.
[3:44:14] In terms of what they would follow.
[3:44:17] The grand jury and the state rules.
[3:44:20] >> Thank you.
[3:44:21] >> Careful to not create a surreal meeting.
[3:44:23] All right?
[3:44:30] >> Again, they -- anyone supervisor could talk
[3:44:32] to the grand juries.
[3:44:34] Often grand jurors do meet with, and sometimes they
[3:44:38] meet with all the departments.
[3:44:40] That is something we did.
[3:44:43] I would say in Nevada County.
[3:44:44] They would set up meetings individually.
[3:44:47] You could say to the grand jury, I
[3:44:51] would appreciate being able to meet.
[3:44:53] Could sort of figure out what their process
[3:44:55] would be to do that.
[3:44:57] They have various committees.
[3:45:00] They have a very specific way of doing
[3:45:03] this I'm not going to be offended if they tell me no.
[3:45:05] I'm asking from County Council said.
[3:45:07] There's something that is restrictive of me
[3:45:09] as an individual supervisor reaching out?
[3:45:12] >> Absolutely not.
[3:45:13] >> All right.
[3:45:14] There's a motion.
[3:45:15] I'm not seeing any further discussion.
[3:45:17] Supervisor Haschek.
[3:45:20] >> Just to get clarity on what you're saying.
[3:45:23] Each new grand jury files their own report.
[3:45:29] This report that we have is a continuation
[3:45:32] from the previous report.
[3:45:42] >> So to better explain, they cannot pass the items that they
[3:45:44] reviewed if they finalize the report, it's done.
[3:45:48] None of the interviews or the investigation
[3:45:51] move to the next grand jury.
[3:45:54] What a grand jury can do is read the public report
[3:45:59] that a previous grand jury did.
[3:46:01] And then conduct all of its own interviews and investigation
[3:46:05] before releasing the new report.
[3:46:08] That is where that continuity comes with.
[3:46:11] I'm just trying to explain what the process is.
[3:46:14] It's not misconstrued.
[3:46:23] >> So what you're saying is they recommendations came from a new
[3:46:25] round of interviews and everything?
[3:46:30] >> A new round from the year before.
[3:46:32] Yes.
[3:46:33] That grand jury that issued that report in practicality
[3:46:38] no longer exist.
[3:46:40] Although many of the numbers are still there.
[3:46:50] >> All right.
[3:46:51] Let's vote by the button.
[3:46:56] >> The motion carries unanimously.
[3:46:58] >> Thank you.
[3:46:58] We are going to move to closed session
[3:46:58] I believe we just have one item CS1
[3:47:00] that we are going to go to now.
[3:47:01] Is that correct?
[3:47:03] >> If I may to the chair, >> Thank you item c one.
[3:47:11] Any public comment on CS1?
[3:47:12] Madam clerk?
[3:47:14] >> Seeing none.
[3:47:16] >> Okay.
[3:47:16] We'll go into closed.
[3:47:17] We will return no sooner than 130.
[3:47:20] Correct?
[3:47:22] >> Correct.
[4:33:56] >> You can hazards where you work where you live and where
[4:33:58] your kids go to school.
[4:33:59] Only plan and prepare page you will find the plan template.
[4:34:02] It's important to know what you're
[4:34:03] going to do what you're going to take with you.
[4:34:05] How you're going to communicate.
[4:34:06] Where you're going to go.
[4:34:07] How to get there.
[4:34:08] >> One great way to prepare is to pack a go bag.
[4:34:10] Each member of your family should have their own go bag.
[4:34:13] Visit our website Mendel.org to get a list of items
[4:34:17] that should be in your go bag.
[4:34:19] >> Gathering and organizing important documents before
[4:34:21] an emergency is an important part of preparedness.
[4:34:24] Visit ready.org today.
[4:34:26] Where you could find a list of important documents
[4:34:29] that you should have ready near your go bag in case
[4:34:32] you have to evacuate.
[4:34:33] >> Not every emergency requires people to evacuate.
[4:34:36] An emergency kit will have supplies for you
[4:34:39] to remain self-sufficient for 72 hours.
[4:34:42] Find a list of supplies for disaster kits on our website.
[4:34:46] Dot org.
[4:34:48] >> A prepared community is a community.
[4:34:51] >> It's 132.
[4:34:52] As far as closed session item CS one.
[4:34:55] Direction was given by the board to staff.
[4:34:57] We are going to move on to item R 11.
[4:35:02] Discussion and possible action including
[4:35:04] adoption of an ordinance adding chapters.
[4:35:06] Excuse me chapter 51602 title five com of the County Code
[4:35:11] imposing 1% County transportation
[4:35:13] sales tax and use special tax, in the unincorporated areas
[4:35:16] of the county, with said tax being
[4:35:18] used to fund pavement preservation
[4:35:20] and corrective maintenance for county roads
[4:35:22] to improve road maintenance.
[4:35:25] Staffing.
[4:35:26] Public transportation.
[4:35:29] >> Good afternoon Mr. Chair.
[4:35:30] Ladies and of the board.
[4:35:31] I'm Howard Deshield.
[4:35:32] Your Director of Transportation.
[4:35:34] With me here today is deputy Director solid Waste and Water
[4:35:38] Amber cassette.
[4:35:40] Deputy director for our engineering division.
[4:35:44] Alicia Winokur.
[4:35:45] They are going to be, they work extensively
[4:35:49] on the detailed slides.
[4:35:50] For the public and the boards information.
[4:35:54] The attachments with the item today, are kind of the line
[4:35:59] by line budget analysis for ten years.
[4:36:01] That's what you're looking at now.
[4:36:03] And then the other attachment we have --
[4:36:06] is they look at the first seven years of what I will define
[4:36:11] later during the slide show, as a 20 year plan.
[4:36:14] The corrective preventative maintenance plan.
[4:36:17] I just want the public and the board
[4:36:19] to know, we can go back to this detail,
[4:36:21] if we want to get into the details.
[4:36:24] With that, I really want to go to the presentation.
[4:36:27] I know the board time is short today.
[4:36:31] I want to do this as a quick overview.
[4:36:34] Just know that we can address specifics, and get
[4:36:38] into the details.
[4:36:39] It's all there for you.
[4:36:40] The other thing I want to say for the sake of the public.
[4:36:43] I know the board knows this.
[4:36:45] At the county website for the Department of Transportation,
[4:36:49] we have a tab for current projects.
[4:36:53] And the current projects tab, you can find the 20 year plan.
[4:36:57] You can find all our projects that department engaged in.
[4:37:01] The bridges and the safe busses schools.
[4:37:06] The traffic safety mitigation plans.
[4:37:10] Or projects that we funded through grants from the public
[4:37:14] can always go there and look.
[4:37:17] Also specific to this potential local sales tax for roads,
[4:37:22] we have a tab there that is called
[4:37:25] potential sales tax for roads.
[4:37:27] There's a fact sheet there.
[4:37:30] There's also a ability for the public
[4:37:34] to click and fill out a form, were they ask a question.
[4:37:40] Dot staff will respond to that question.
[4:37:43] Because I know County council is there,
[4:37:46] I know she wants me to say this.
[4:37:47] We have big disclaimers that our department will not advocate
[4:37:52] for or against this measure.
[4:37:54] We will only answer technical questions or specific questions,
[4:38:00] about the use of the funds.
[4:38:03] How they would be spent.
[4:38:05] And the details.
[4:38:06] We would not advocate.
[4:38:08] With that, I guess we'll go to the next slide.
[4:38:13] So we were, we were asked to really share
[4:38:17] with the public, how the road fund is done.
[4:38:21] There are three budget units.
[4:38:23] That can be confusing.
[4:38:25] 3010 is kind of the basic you know,
[4:38:29] operational budget unit for the department.
[4:38:31] That's where your staff is at.
[4:38:34] That is where your equipment is at.
[4:38:37] That's the crew you see out there working on the roads.
[4:38:41] All runs so that 3010 budget.
[4:38:43] The 3010 budget, is where the money gets placed.
[4:38:48] Mostly gas tax.
[4:38:50] In an incremental property tax.
[4:38:51] There are some special smaller contributions.
[4:38:56] We will get you a pie chart on that.
[4:38:57] 30 3030 has been separated out, because that is our disaster
[4:39:05] response budget unit.
[4:39:07] We used to just say storm damage come
[4:39:09] because that's all we ever had.
[4:39:11] Here lately, we've seen fire damage.
[4:39:15] And even pandemic stuff.
[4:39:16] A lot of different things have gone through 3030.
[4:39:21] And then 3041.
[4:39:23] Is the project budget.
[4:39:25] That's the budget unit where the bridges are.
[4:39:30] That is our biggest program.
[4:39:32] Dollar wise.
[4:39:34] Any of the other projects.
[4:39:37] Safe bus to school.
[4:39:40] Again.
[4:39:40] I said the Highway Safety Improvement
[4:39:42] program grants we have.
[4:39:45] Here recently, we got two big grants
[4:39:48] we are going to talk about, which
[4:39:50] we're to look at planning emergency routes connecting
[4:39:54] routes.
[4:39:55] Redmyre road extension.
[4:39:57] And the Brook Burrows second access all that
[4:40:00] will go through 3041.
[4:40:01] It becomes important in a minute,
[4:40:03] when we get to talking about you know --
[4:40:07] why these different plots.
[4:40:09] They're really different functions they don't necessarily
[4:40:12] commingle.
[4:40:12] If you get money for disaster recovery,
[4:40:14] or you get money for projects, it's
[4:40:16] not like you can just use that in your operational budget.
[4:40:20] In fact, the operational budget ends up
[4:40:23] supporting the other two budget units.
[4:40:25] 3030 and 3041.
[4:40:28] In that, if there's any local match required,
[4:40:31] or there's ineligible expenses, that
[4:40:34] has to be borne by your operational budget
[4:40:37] year 3010 budget unit.
[4:40:39] Next slide.
[4:40:40] So we were asked to so, we were asked to track you know,
[4:40:45] how those budget units rolled.
[4:40:48] Of course at the end, we've got this huge spike.
[4:40:50] Again come I attribute a lot of that
[4:40:53] to two really big bridge projects.
[4:40:55] We've been working on.
[4:40:57] We just finished Acraman Creek.
[4:40:59] We've got Lambert Lane and Boonville.
[4:41:01] We have those two very large $12 million each
[4:41:05] come on for Brooke Trails and Redmyre Road.
[4:41:08] That's like $24 million to do the environmental study.
[4:41:13] If you really look at the more basic usual budget
[4:41:17] for the department, those lines you see.
[4:41:21] You're talking really between 20 and 30 million.
[4:41:24] That spike in the end is really an anomaly.
[4:41:27] Next slide.
[4:41:29] So this this is a slide that just shows
[4:41:33] the increment of property tax.
[4:41:36] Rolls pretty consistently.
[4:41:38] I guess it varies a little bit based on assessment.
[4:41:42] All right first a pie chart.
[4:41:46] Basically the dark green or forest green at the bottom.
[4:41:51] The 44%.
[4:41:52] That's the basics projects.
[4:41:55] We were talking about bridges.
[4:41:59] Special projects that we get grant funding for.
[4:42:03] And then those upper portions in blue.
[4:42:05] The dark blue is our staff.
[4:42:08] Their wages what do we call the thousand series.
[4:42:11] The 2000 series.
[4:42:13] The Orange is material.
[4:42:15] The blue light blue sky blue 22% is largely operational.
[4:42:22] There's a note in the bottom.
[4:42:24] A lot of that is equipment maintenance permit
[4:42:27] and internal charges, insurance.
[4:42:30] That sort of thing.
[4:42:32] The other smaller portions you can read for yourself.
[4:42:36] You will note that equipment is really small.
[4:42:40] Part of the reason for that is --
[4:42:42] when I first started 21 years ago,
[4:42:47] we were under a program with the Air Resources Board,
[4:42:52] to replace any of our non-compliant equipment that
[4:42:55] didn't comply with air quality rates.
[4:42:57] The department invested millions over that 20 years.
[4:43:01] A little bit at a time.
[4:43:04] Their resources board gave us time.
[4:43:06] That's why we don't have to buy a lot of equipment now.
[4:43:10] We kind of got that all done.
[4:43:12] Basically, we are just maintaining that equipment.
[4:43:16] Next slide.
[4:43:17] Okay.
[4:43:17] So if you look at the yellow and the green, this is the revenue.
[4:43:23] That's 44%.
[4:43:24] It's a snapshot for one year.
[4:43:27] It's typical.
[4:43:28] Those are the projects.
[4:43:30] The rest of the pie is broken out there
[4:43:34] on the various different types of taxes.
[4:43:38] I know some people get upset with all the acronyms.
[4:43:41] Like state who.
[4:43:43] That's the highway users tax in town.
[4:43:45] The state highway users tax is a different color.
[4:43:49] It was basically every time the state increased the gas tax,
[4:43:54] they gave it a different name.
[4:43:55] A different bill.
[4:43:56] Same thing down there on prop 111.
[4:43:59] I think that was the last time they increased by increment
[4:44:04] the gas tax in the 90s.
[4:44:07] Of course the big one.
[4:44:08] The one I really want to talk about.
[4:44:10] The forest green 20%.
[4:44:14] That is the RMRASB1.
[4:44:16] That is the 2017.
[4:44:22] Last time the state increased gas tax by $0.12 a gallon
[4:44:26] with an inflation escalator.
[4:44:28] It was $0.12 in 2017.
[4:44:31] It's more than that now.
[4:44:34] That is the area we try to sequester and really spend
[4:44:40] what we call road maintenance and repair account.
[4:44:44] RMRA.
[4:44:45] Road maintenance repair account.
[4:44:47] That's really key.
[4:44:50] What everybody will want to talk about today.
[4:44:52] Can really the focus of the department's ask to the public.
[4:44:57] Or this potential sales tax, is something
[4:45:01] that we can do more towards pavement surface condition.
[4:45:06] Or the PCI.
[4:45:08] Which is the pavement index.
[4:45:10] We will get into slides on that.
[4:45:13] The public can go back and look at our presentation
[4:45:16] on the seventh of this month.
[4:45:18] The last meeting where we went in depth
[4:45:21] into the pavement condition index.
[4:45:24] It's basically a scoring of the roads.
[4:45:26] 0 to 100.
[4:45:28] 100 being the best.
[4:45:29] Zero being the worst.
[4:45:32] We've taken that dark forest green slice of pie.
[4:45:37] We developed the 20 year plan.
[4:45:39] I think the next slide might help.
[4:45:41] Well now this one.
[4:45:44] All this slide really shows.
[4:45:46] The reason the lines go so close together.
[4:45:48] The lower lines are if we stay on our present projection.
[4:45:52] We don't actually get calm even though we show revenues
[4:45:56] for projects -- we have to spend the money.
[4:46:00] Front the money.
[4:46:01] Then the state or federal agency reimburses us.
[4:46:05] If we don't.
[4:46:06] Project gets delayed, or something happens.
[4:46:10] And we don't spend money, we don't get reimbursed.
[4:46:13] That's part of why those lines run together.
[4:46:15] The second set of lines would be if the public granted us
[4:46:20] the sales tax measure.
[4:46:22] We would basically increase it by about 5.5 million.
[4:46:25] The reason they run so close together -- you spend the money.
[4:46:30] Then you get the money.
[4:46:31] It's pretty much an in and out situation.
[4:46:35] Next one.
[4:46:36] Okay.
[4:46:37] One more on difference between grants and one time funds.
[4:46:41] That's bridge replacements is the biggest part of that.
[4:46:45] Disaster damage repairs.
[4:46:46] The highway safety improvement program.
[4:46:49] The second access route.
[4:46:52] Fish game sediment.
[4:46:53] That's a minor one.
[4:46:55] We get money for special projects.
[4:46:57] That is earmarked.
[4:46:59] We can't spend it on normal summer routine maintenance,
[4:47:04] or on pavement condition improvement.
[4:47:06] In the past I would say during Arnold Schwarzenegger
[4:47:10] administration in the state, they
[4:47:12] had a prop one B. We actually got some money for just
[4:47:17] routine pavement improvement.
[4:47:19] Then later on in 2009 -- the Obama administration.
[4:47:23] We got a r a.
[4:47:25] The American Recovery and Restoration Act.
[4:47:27] There is actually some money there
[4:47:31] that would just improve pavement condition.
[4:47:33] Those are rare.
[4:47:35] The last rounds of all the infrastructure money.
[4:47:38] I know I was asked about that.
[4:47:41] Why aren't you getting all this infrastructure money to just
[4:47:44] improve our pavement condition?
[4:47:45] They didn't do that this time.
[4:47:48] You know.
[4:47:49] The grants are very specific to what they want.
[4:47:53] It's rarely ever for pavement improvement.
[4:47:56] It's these things.
[4:47:58] Okay okay funding sources.
[4:48:00] Where they come from.
[4:48:02] You know again, most of immigrants are 80 to 100%.
[4:48:06] Any percentage is not covered, comes out at 3010 budget unit.
[4:48:11] Federal highway Administration.
[4:48:13] Caltrans local assistance.
[4:48:15] Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[4:48:18] The Office of Emergency Services.
[4:48:20] Even Mendocino Council of Governments.
[4:48:22] I might add that the Executive Director Barrett is in the room
[4:48:27] to answer questions.
[4:48:28] We do get monies through M cog.
[4:48:32] All the agencies that are member get a certain amount
[4:48:35] of funding to.
[4:48:37] That's some of the smaller slices of the pie
[4:48:39] on that second slide.
[4:48:42] Next one.
[4:48:44] Okay the real heart of what I want to talk about.
[4:48:47] 20 year plan.
[4:48:49] Corrective preventative maintenance.
[4:48:50] That's the SB one funds that came through.
[4:48:55] It's defined road maintenance and rehabilitation account.
[4:49:00] The funds.
[4:49:01] Basically that 20% forest green slice of the pie
[4:49:06] that we looked at.
[4:49:08] Is that plan.
[4:49:10] That rolled out in 2019 after the 2017 SB one pass.
[4:49:15] Was enough money in 20 years, to treat roughly half
[4:49:19] of our surface miles.
[4:49:21] 357 miles.
[4:49:24] Total of 690.
[4:49:25] You know come a part of our ask and what
[4:49:28] we are trying to get to here.
[4:49:30] By the way, the amount there 220 million needed for ten years.
[4:49:35] That is a published need in the latest.
[4:49:40] The one we just completed.
[4:49:41] PCI assessment report.
[4:49:44] I also advise the public they can always go to save California
[4:49:49] streets and roads.org.
[4:49:50] They can see statewide, all the counties and cities.
[4:49:55] What the unmet needs are.
[4:49:58] What their needs they would need to get to pieces of 82 100.
[4:50:03] It's a big number for the cities and counties
[4:50:07] in Mendocino County.
[4:50:09] 574 was the number we talked about on July 7th.
[4:50:14] There's actually a brand new report that
[4:50:16] just came out on that website.
[4:50:17] It has that number at 612 million.
[4:50:22] Point is, we will never get to 80 or 100.
[4:50:27] Those numbers are too big.
[4:50:29] So what the department has resorted
[4:50:31] to, is trying to spend as it says there on our 20 year plan
[4:50:36] comments have hundred and 20, we will spend 65.8 million.
[4:50:41] We will do things like you see here.
[4:50:42] We will do an in recycle.
[4:50:44] That is grinding up our road.
[4:50:47] We're utilizing the asphalt and aggregates.
[4:50:50] Mixing cement.
[4:50:51] That's the white cement you see there.
[4:50:54] Reshaping the road and the double chip ceiling at.
[4:50:57] Its cost effective.
[4:50:58] We can do that for much less than say
[4:51:02] trying to achieve a state highway level type 82 100 PCI.
[4:51:08] We are trying to get to 50 6070.
[4:51:12] Somewhere manageable.
[4:51:13] We've got a slide on that later.
[4:51:16] Next slide.
[4:51:17] Okay.
[4:51:18] Here is the evaluation of the first seven years.
[4:51:23] It shows.
[4:51:24] O. Do I sound that hoarse?
[4:51:27] Thank you.
[4:51:28] I thought drink was not allowed in the board chamber?
[4:51:32] Thank you thank you Sherry.
[4:51:35] Sherry is very nice.
[4:51:37] So -- there is, you know, what projections were what we
[4:51:43] actually delivered at.
[4:51:45] The truck right up there was very nice in that --
[4:51:49] the Stip funds that came through Mhclg allocation,
[4:51:52] allowed us to do a much better job in year six.
[4:51:56] We were actually working on Mountain View Road, which
[4:52:01] is a real important road when the state
[4:52:03] highway is closed down.
[4:52:05] If you haven't driven it lately, it is much improved.
[4:52:08] We are going to have a slide on what the improvements are.
[4:52:11] Next slide.
[4:52:12] There is the slide.
[4:52:13] This shows how much better the PCI score
[4:52:17] has got come in the roads that we treated.
[4:52:20] You know -- those scores.
[4:52:23] The trouble with pavement is -- it immediately starts running
[4:52:26] down.
[4:52:27] That deterioration curve.
[4:52:29] When we push most of these up into the 90s --
[4:52:32] within a few years, they will run down a little bit.
[4:52:34] We definitely got the averages up a lot higher than they were.
[4:52:39] That is the other problem with road work.
[4:52:44] You fix it and then it just starts wearing out.
[4:52:47] The other thing about Mendocino County roads --
[4:52:51] not just traffic on the road where is that out.
[4:52:54] We've got geology.
[4:52:56] Especially road like Mountain View road.
[4:52:58] At a lot of our roads that are up in the mountains
[4:53:01] or are subject to slip out slides.
[4:53:04] Geological movement.
[4:53:05] Just the weather.
[4:53:06] The weather wears them out.
[4:53:08] Water is real hard on a road.
[4:53:11] It will start decomposing.
[4:53:13] Okay we were asked to look at what would
[4:53:17] happen with the annexation.
[4:53:20] The Ukiah City annexation of 19.65 miles.
[4:53:25] Basically, bottom line, you know,
[4:53:28] that will result in 410 455,000 per year.
[4:53:33] Over the 20 year plan.
[4:53:36] Which I liken to a sliver of that green forest
[4:53:40] green 20% piece of pie we looked at.
[4:53:43] That would be available to us elsewhere in the county.
[4:53:46] That's a $6 million piece of pie.
[4:53:50] It's kind of nice to get back for the 500,000 uses elsewhere
[4:53:56] paramedic okay.
[4:53:57] The sales tax.
[4:53:58] Obviously it's important to have well maintained roads.
[4:54:01] If the roads are in better shape,
[4:54:04] they cost less to maintain.
[4:54:06] The county crews have a much easier time keeping them
[4:54:10] in better shape.
[4:54:13] And again, there's the half of the roads that
[4:54:16] aren't in the plan that we could cover over 20 years
[4:54:20] if we had this additional sales tax revenue.
[4:54:25] Let's go to the next one.
[4:54:27] This is just a slide that shows that Mendocino Counties
[4:54:30] current sales tax rate is 7.875.
[4:54:33] If we increase it by a percent we
[4:54:36] would be the same as the city of Ukiah.
[4:54:39] We'd even be a little less than the other three
[4:54:42] incorporated cities in the county.
[4:54:43] The taxes only for the unincorporated area.
[4:54:47] Not the cities.
[4:54:49] The money is only spent in the unincorporated area
[4:54:52] outside of the cities.
[4:54:54] The next slide.
[4:54:56] Okay permanent the expenditure plan, we do a mixture with it.
[4:55:01] We think we will get approximately 5.5 million
[4:55:05] annually.
[4:55:06] That's almost like another piece of forest green pie.
[4:55:10] Two pieces of pie.
[4:55:11] Roughly we will double what we are doing.
[4:55:14] We would preserve good roads.
[4:55:16] We always go into an area.
[4:55:18] Road can be salvaged or segment we preserve it,
[4:55:22] with some kind of preservation treatment.
[4:55:24] Which is much less expensive.
[4:55:27] We grind them up and do a full corrective maintenance.
[4:55:30] That's the only real solution.
[4:55:32] If it's past the point that it can be preserved.
[4:55:35] We also want to have 10% for restoring some of our road crew
[4:55:40] positions.
[4:55:41] And bolstering the routine maintenance
[4:55:44] capabilities the department has.
[4:55:47] Next one.
[4:55:48] The benefits.
[4:55:49] Again, I can't harp on it enough.
[4:55:52] RMA road maintenance and repair account,
[4:55:54] is only approximately half the surface roads.
[4:56:00] This additional money would let us do the 317 miles that
[4:56:04] are not in that plan.
[4:56:07] It would restore 7 to 11 positions.
[4:56:10] And would improve the county's ability
[4:56:12] to also do better routine maintenance.
[4:56:16] Along with corrective and preventive maintenance.
[4:56:19] Okay.
[4:56:20] This slide.
[4:56:23] Just one of many you can go look at if you
[4:56:26] looked at the presentation from the seventh.
[4:56:28] Basically, the good road versus the really bad poor,
[4:56:33] failed road.
[4:56:33] The crew has a hard time maintaining
[4:56:35] the road on the bottom.
[4:56:38] There's pothole on top of pothole.
[4:56:40] Many of you drive on these sorts of roads.
[4:56:43] Around the county.
[4:56:44] The crew basically in the winter when
[4:56:46] the rains come and it gets wet double
[4:56:48] s they just patch them back up.
[4:56:50] It's it's not very effective.
[4:56:53] It's not permanent.
[4:56:55] It just gets us by.
[4:56:56] If we had roads more like the fair to good pieces at 50 to 70,
[4:57:04] then you get an occasional pothole maybe every mile.
[4:57:07] The crew can do a really good job on that.
[4:57:10] It just a little bit.
[4:57:12] They can take the time to correctly repair it.
[4:57:14] The picture on the bottom is just a mad dash.
[4:57:18] Just trying to make the road passable.
[4:57:20] So this slide demonstrates this slide demonstrates in orange
[4:57:25] where we will go, if we just have the funding
[4:57:28] source that we have right now.
[4:57:30] That does get us from 47 to 50.
[4:57:34] With the additional money come if the voters did grant us
[4:57:39] the sales tax measure, we can get to 64 again,
[4:57:43] that's the average county wide, which means we'd have roads
[4:57:47] in the 70s or higher.
[4:57:48] And we would have roads probably lower than 50.
[4:57:52] It would be, we wouldn't have the terrible 0 to 25 roads.
[4:57:57] We have 80 to 100 either.
[4:58:00] We would have roads that are manageable.
[4:58:02] Roads the crew could repair.
[4:58:06] Roads that, the potholes would be spread out enough
[4:58:10] that they could take their time.
[4:58:12] And keep the road in a lot better shape.
[4:58:15] The first seven years of the MRA plan have demonstrated that.
[4:58:19] Once we go in and fix the road.
[4:58:22] It's not perfect.
[4:58:23] It's not repaved.
[4:58:25] It's double chips.
[4:58:26] The crew is much more able to maintain those.
[4:58:31] They're not so bad that the few things that fail
[4:58:34] can't be repaired.
[4:58:36] Next slide.
[4:58:38] All right.
[4:58:39] There was one public comment I read.
[4:58:43] Comment.
[4:58:44] I want to deal with that here.
[4:58:45] The tax revenues are definitely in a special fund
[4:58:49] that is only for roads.
[4:58:52] That state law.
[4:58:54] It's locked in.
[4:58:57] There will be.
[4:58:58] We can do a tax expenditure plan to take the board every year.
[4:59:03] Just like we do now for our MRA.
[4:59:06] Every year before July usually in April or May --
[4:59:10] we have an agenda item.
[4:59:11] You can look at the one from this year.
[4:59:14] Winning on May 5th.
[4:59:15] We present the plan .
[4:59:21] The CTC.
[4:59:23] California Transportation Commission gets a copy of that.
[4:59:26] They post all the counties and cities that get SB one funds.
[4:59:30] The roads they're doing or the projects they're doing
[4:59:33] are not only posted at our web page which you can read com also
[4:59:38] at the state web page.
[4:59:42] My feeling on citizen oversight is
[4:59:44] that the department could do the same thing for the sales
[4:59:48] Tax Commission we could prepare a plan every year.
[4:59:51] The only difference is before we would take it,
[4:59:53] before the board -- we could go before the standing committee.
[4:59:57] We could have public stakeholders who sign up
[5:00:01] and get notice to extend that standing committee meeting.
[5:00:04] Just like the Drought Task Force works now.
[5:00:08] We would go over the details of what the department plans to do.
[5:00:14] There could be input.
[5:00:15] We could look at the results of the year
[5:00:17] before in depth at that standing committee,
[5:00:19] before we bring it before your full board
[5:00:22] just like we do our MRA.
[5:00:25] Next slide questions.
[5:00:27] Next slide.
[5:00:29] Go to this one.
[5:00:30] I'm still going to take questions.
[5:00:32] These are the links the public can
[5:00:34] use to look at the 20 year plan and to look
[5:00:39] at that tab we have in our website for input and facts.
[5:00:48] That was long.
[5:00:50] I'll drink some water.
[5:00:51] I'll take your questions.
[5:00:53] >> Thank you sir.
[5:00:54] Any questions from the board?
[5:00:56] I'm not seeing any.
[5:00:59] Supervisor.
[5:01:02] >> Yeah.
[5:01:02] We had an ad hoc that was working with the department
[5:01:05] comment to come up with a more specific plan.
[5:01:10] Does this encompass the different plan?
[5:01:22] >> Not for me.
[5:01:23] There was a lot of work that went
[5:01:24] into the ad hoc and meeting.
[5:01:26] I think staff did a really good job
[5:01:29] at trying to answer some of the questions that I had.
[5:01:36] I still have concerns about the county's
[5:01:39] overall fiscal transparency.
[5:01:44] Taking sales tax to the voters.
[5:01:49] I don't think it necessarily provided
[5:02:00] opportunities for future opportunities for future
[5:02:03] plans I think one of the challenges
[5:02:05] that the department has, essentially
[5:02:08] a plan is to bring more information back each year.
[5:02:14] I don't know if Supervisor Williams has --
[5:02:19] >> I felt like I got most of my questions answered.
[5:02:22] Some of it has been incorporated into these slides.
[5:02:26] There's a lot more the director is able to answer directly.
[5:02:29] I think the bottom line is putting
[5:02:33] inflation outside we do spend about 60 million
[5:02:35] per year per the state.
[5:02:36] Not going to spend that.
[5:02:38] Worry about 16 now.
[5:02:39] If we want better roads we have to pay for it.
[5:02:44] The system allocations at state level does not seem quite fair.
[5:02:47] I'm not holding my breath for legislators in L.A.
[5:02:50] And San Francisco Metro to decide to give Mendocino more.
[5:02:54] I think this is our only pathway we want better roads.
[5:02:57] We have to self-fund.
[5:02:59] I think there's other projects that
[5:03:03] are probably dependent on this.
[5:03:05] The annexation talk.
[5:03:06] I've been a proponent of annexation
[5:03:09] that strengthens the county and the city of Ukiah.
[5:03:13] Every time we chip away at funding?
[5:03:16] This would be a big chip.
[5:03:18] 5.5 million.
[5:03:18] That possibility becomes more bleak.
[5:03:21] For a host of reasons I think it's appropriate to move forward
[5:03:25] with this.
[5:03:25] And let voters and taxpayers decide together pretty
[5:03:28] we want to buy better roads?
[5:03:32] >> Supervisor.
[5:03:34] >> Yeah.
[5:03:34] There was a slide on the previous
[5:03:37] when you give the presentation earlier.
[5:03:39] The other meeting.
[5:03:41] About the cost of kind of doing nothing or status quo .
[5:03:49] The overall cost increases throughout the years before you
[5:03:54] know it, we have a $600 million gap between what we want
[5:04:01] our roads to be and what we have .
[5:04:06] I wish we had that one on this slide.
[5:04:09] Hope it's available on the website.
[5:04:12] I think that's really important for people to understand.
[5:04:16] We just do what we are doing, we are digging
[5:04:19] a bigger hole for ourselves.
[5:04:27] >> For the public that presentation is still
[5:04:29] on the July 7th board meeting.
[5:04:31] They can go and look at it.
[5:04:32] I think it was R five?
[5:04:35] >> Okay.
[5:04:36] I'm not seeing any more questions.
[5:04:37] Any more from the staff before we go to the public?
[5:04:40] >> Yes sir interim I did want to call it the agenda item also
[5:04:47] this one says majority.
[5:04:48] It is a 4/5 vote requirement.
[5:04:51] I just want to make that note.
[5:04:52] I just wanted to thank the staff for bringing forward
[5:04:54] all the information.
[5:04:55] It was a quick turnaround.
[5:04:58] We tried to address everything that was there.
[5:05:00] I understand there's still some questions potentially
[5:05:03] on general fund.
[5:05:05] I wasn't able to get full clarity from what
[5:05:08] was being requested on that.
[5:05:10] In future, I will just be asking questions
[5:05:13] on what data is needed.
[5:05:14] I really do believe we are trying to be
[5:05:16] as transparent as possible.
[5:05:18] We've got more data for the last 3 to 5 years.
[5:05:22] I just want to thank the staff for all the hard work
[5:05:26] that you guys have done.
[5:05:28] >> Thank you for that, supervisor.
[5:05:30] >> Yeah.
[5:05:31] I also wanted to thank Natalia Barrett and the staff at.
[5:05:35] They've done a lot of work on getting these ready to.
[5:05:38] It is a collaboration to get to this point.
[5:05:43] My feeling is -- we hear people complaining about the roads all
[5:05:48] the time.
[5:05:48] They are coming to the board meeting from far away
[5:05:52] to complain about the roads.
[5:05:57] The easy thing to do would be to just say no.