Good morning. It's Tuesday, June 13th, 2023. This is a regular meeting at the Motop County Board of Supervisors.
All now called this meeting to order. Supervisors, star. Could you leave us in the pledge please?
Good morning. I'd like to leave you in two of the line in the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.
My nation, I'm honored in a visible, with liberty and justice for all.
I'll also ask everyone's silence, your electronic devices, please. And now I have a moment of prayer. Good morning.
Dear Lord, we're just coming for you today, Lord, and thankful for the great beautiful day given us this day.
Lord, we just pray your protection upon our county, upon our cities, and the Lord, and upon our police officers, hybrid patrol, sheriff, firefighters.
Lord, it's been a lot of rain. We appreciate that, but Lord, it's going to cause a problem with the fire.
And so we just pray, Lord, that you help everybody be careful and keep your hand on our firefighters.
And I think great stuff to get it done, get it fixed quick with no injuries. And so, Lord, we just pray for that.
To pray, Lord, as we have to end angle days coming up next month, Lord, that you would just as everybody is preparing for that.
Lord, you help to help to be just a great time. And that's a big boost for the economy of our town.
And Lord, we just pray for supervisors to make decisions to fix us all that you give them.
God, we wish them to come from above. And Lord, we just also want to pray for all the church's Lord.
I keep them safe and protected. And we ask that in Jesus name. Amen.
Thank you.
Public comment. This is the time set aside for citizens to address the board on matters on the consent agenda and matters not otherwise on the agenda.
Comments should be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the board.
If your comment concerns an item shown on the agenda, please address the board after that item is open for public comment.
By law, the board cannot take action on matters that are not on the agenda.
Unless otherwise announced, the chair reserves the right to limit the duration of each speaker to three minutes.
Speaker may not see it there time.
The agenda items, at times listed, will be considered at that time. All other items will be considered as listed on the agenda or as deemed necessary by the chair.
Can you call that comment?
They're being done.
Approval or addition installations to the agenda.
Supervisor Co.
I wish to pull from the consent agenda item four V is in Victor.
Okay. So, for V, which will now be,
we have a motion in a second on paper.
Those extensions motion carries.
Correspondence. Is there additional correspondence as well?
Chair, we have two items to add to correspondence.
The first one is from the state of California State Board of Equalization.
Regarding the 2023 taxpayers bill of rights hearing to be held on Tuesday, August 29, 2023.
And the second piece of correspondence is from the California Water Board State Water Resources Control Board.
Regarding a notice of water right application A025517x01.
And both of these items will be on record in the Clerk of the Board's office.
Thank you.
The additional correspondence.
A correspondence received from the Official Bank Commission.
Notice of the proposal.
For emergency regulations regarding the next assignment.
I'm going to need to pardon him reports.
I do one, one A, administrative services.
Consideration action.
Requesting approval and authorization for the chair of the Board to sign a contract.
According to the County of Moda and mattress recycling council for mattress recycling.
Effective upon ratification.
Just to remember it's an administration.
So back at the end of last calendar year, we did a master contract with the mattress recycling council.
Our goal was to we applied for a grant.
They would allow us to backfill.
There was the recent deceit of the owner of the local recycling center.
Which also had the contract with the mattress recycling council.
After that, what we're trying to do is alleviate there's been a lot of mattresses just being dumped.
Including here in town of the former center.
So by engaging in this master contract and the grant application.
Our goals to have free mattress and accepted at the Alters Transfer Station.
Which we'll do a public hearing.
But this contract will enable us to engage in grants in order to fund some of the facilities.
And also work with them so that we can get funding to basically send the mattresses to a recycling facility down in Sacramento area.
To approve.
We have a motion in the second.
We have a comment.
Additional discussion of the board.
If I may.
The Chester just real quick walking me through.
Is there going to be storage facility over at solid waste now that people will be able to do that mattresses?
So the mattresses is what we're going to do is the grant that you approve for us to apply for under contract back last fall.
This contract plus the fee schedule that we're meeting allows us to get funding.
We will build a ramp.
There were people can drive up to it and then it's going to have an enclosed trailer somewhere around 50 feet long.
And also we're going to purchase forks that they can work with the equipment at the transfer station.
So the tenant can basically lift those and put them into an enclosed trailer.
So you don't have rats and mice infesting everything.
And that's going to be off to the west of the existing facility.
And will we be doing any marketing or advertising about this new service?
Once we construct it.
So our goal is not to have until we have the facilities in place because we'll just have to send it into the regular supply chain,
which is because they get infested with mice and everything.
So what we have to do is have this contract, what we have approved in December.
And the men the fee schedule, which is also scheduled for today.
That then has to be submitted to them before they will engage in the contract to do the construction.
And then it'll probably take us to the three months to construct the facility.
And we have to order a trailer.
Once all those things are in place, then we'll begin advertising.
Okay.
And to summer early.
Yeah.
Thank you.
All clearer?
Ah yes.
인터뷰.
Alright.
I'm trying to pull it up.
Finding it because I did the long version.
Right to 53.
There we go.
There it is.
It's Thomas Tony and Tony Thomas C.
And recommendation for a refund of $32.
It's one appeal.
So I didn't have the name without pulling it up.
That's the staff required.
Before further, can you proponents those in favor?
Would you just think?
Opponents?
Those that are against?
Any further discussion by the court?
Those they carry at $10.
I'm going to open another public here.
OK.
Yes.
To be is a public hearing of the motocapt any transfer station fee schedule.
You can respond to your MIPSPIG regarding the intangible process.
PIC
The child can.
Okay.
So this we need one clarification
certification on the resolution need to insert the word alters, because we have multiple
transfer stations, and the only approved site that we will be accepting of free, because
I can't have people send on a free to a location that doesn't have the appropriate recycling
facility in there.
We may phase in and try to get grants for subsequent locations, but the current grant won't
even give us enough to build the existing facility for alters.
So, I'll add that in there, but by amending this fee schedule, there's a number of other
changes that we're going to come back to later in the summer, so just to give you a global
overview, we're having significant increase in all of the cost in the solid waste division.
Our transportation costs have increased dramatically, because it's indexed largely to gas,
so our largest cost is the hauling it from the transfer station to Lockwood.
We're going to have to do just rates as a relit to that.
We also are going to need to amend the library of state regulations for the recycling of some of
the e-waste, so we're going to have to write up that schedule.
But what we're trying to do is, the number of those also need to go through a public process.
We want to get this program moving as quickly as possible, given that there's no longer any of the
running local or cycle center for mattresses.
So, this fee schedule will amend the alters site only and would basically make mattresses free.
And that's our role proposal.
I don't think we're going to have to do that.
Public work, guys, by guidance.
The A, consideration action, requesting approval or denial for the fiscal year of 2023,
2022, 2023, 2023, 2023 solid waste of yields.
Recommendation for approval, the original assessment was 45.
You should be a $13 assessment due to how often the occupancy of the residents and so
Recommendation should over refund of $32.
Any questions you approve?
Second.
Any other motion?
Any second?
Any public comment?
Any comments from the board?
On favor, signify by signifying?
All right.
Those sentient special papers.
I don't read the consideration action.
Requesting approval of a vessel motion.
If it's a low dot county transportation fee schedule.
Just to include in your motion, the word alters on that fee schedule.
Motion to approve?
With the addition of the word alters transfer.
Thank you.
Second.
Present.
Present?
Present.
So should you approve his amended?
Second.
On Fiat or CPC?
On Fiat.
On CPC?
On the constitution.
Correct.
Here.
5-8.
consideration, action.
Pressing the approval of a resolution,
or in support of the California State Association
of Countries.
CSA.
That's all planned.
Madam Chair.
These presenters have requested this item to be at 1030.
We tried to estimate as best that we could, but we're still about 15 minutes out for them coming online.
Good morning, Ms. Drowsky.
I'm sorry as you know, we received a request from Hollowite Scott McDonnell.
We don't be half of the rest-create by the great subdivision to bring some of the roads within the subdivision
into the county maintain road system.
So, as a result of that request, I put together an analysis at the roads.
There's a copy in the package, as long as it is a copy in the package.
In particular what I was looking at is the roads,
finding as it applies to the county resolution for the free roads into the system,
and for the state minimum fire situation.
So, the first hand looked at was the current existing roadway conditions,
and the road surface.
Does not appear to be engineered materials that have been placed on the road surface of this not recently.
I think that the sub base is pretty strong because there's not a lot of writing where up there, we're going to be spreading wet.
So I think the sub base is good. I think that there needs to be engineered, released, material placed on the roadway.
The only exception there was some muddiness and rudding, but there was beyond the area that don't question the rerunative systems in the community issue.
Also, at the turnaround, the requirement of fire safety regulations, there is one turnaround that meets the standards in timber lane.
I hear that two roads do not turn around, so that we need to have the turnaround constructed on those two roadways, and also the road currently easement is not wide enough to accommodate turnaround.
So there would need to be easements created on the private property in order to have space to build the turnaround.
And the third thing that we need to look at is drainage.
We didn't look closely at that while I was up there, but I didn't see any red flags. It wasn't any damage and we've had pretty wet.
I think most of the drainage can be pretty good, but again, I didn't look closely called with subjective conditions.
So if we've said before, we just said something that we definitely have to look at closely.
The second thing I look at is the funding, because obviously if we're going to raise into the system, it's going to cost more money to maintain it.
And, of course, the first question that pops in mind is how much more gas tax we can receive through the system.
So the gas tax fluctuates from year to year, such in the three year average of the last three years.
For a half mile roadway, which is being requested to come into the system, the average of those three years would be $2,600 per mile.
So over that three year period, we would receive revenue of $7,800.
And for comparison, I looked at the other road that's in the subdivision just to be more.
So the revenue over that three years, it's just under $8,000, and expenses over 23,000 in seats.
It's not a money making.
We're gale to bring more money to the system.
It doesn't benefit us financially.
I should also mention that, if we don't have a lot of money, we're going to have a lot of money.
We're going to have a lot of money.
I should also mention that the gas tax in the RMR funds that each $7,000 is capitalated from.
That doesn't all go to the review.
So that includes all of our operating costs.
So the administration insurance, basically everything that it takes to run the business in the room.
So one way that we can close the gap is right there.
One way that we can close the gap is right now.
The expense is about three times more than revenues we received in the gas tax.
One way is that gap is to create county service area or CSA.
What that is is it creates the county service area.
It contains all of the lots that are adjacent to the roadways.
And they all have a fee that is applied to their annual tax bills.
But that money is separated into a special account.
We're doing a future major maintenance activities in the case of gravel road that would be revisiting the roadway.
So the county would do all the so-called filing off-grading, discriminates, and so forth.
That money would just be used for major maintenance activities.
And the estimate that I came up with for that funding would be for each lot to pay $400 per year.
That would be each parcel would be $400 per year.
That's based on placing three tens of foot or about four inches of aggregate these every six years.
So the in my recommendation that before the board consider bringing these roads into the system.
If you do two things one is we have the separation and further road to the immediate standards.
The part that's our separate relations and counter-resolution.
And also to create CSA in order to fund the future major maintenance activities.
And just for clarity to bring the road into standards.
It would require the engineered rock applied to it.
And the construction of the two turn-or-outs and the associated easements.
We have to do a more in-depth analysis to confirm that six inches we've been at.
Just on a service inspection.
So the $450.
$450.
$400.
Okay.
How many months would be on that one level?
I believe that was $20.
Okay.
Would the CSA just be in those 29 blocks?
So we'll be in corporate the entire submission.
I'm just kind of a lot simply and it's just a benefit.
Just in ones that are decent to bring into the system.
So there are some roads on the headway where the road is not proposing to bring the whole road into the people.
That end of the road would not happen.
If I were to assume more want to bring in that annual break would go down.
And not really because you bring in to get more and more lots.
We'd also be bringing in the risk to have the risk to succeed in pushing the road.
So it's a good estimate that it's going to stick to that.
Kind of along those lines.
Is there some sort of a formal commitment to landowners to move forward with the CSA or is this strictly a verbal conversation?
I would hate to see them carry to a certain degree move forward and then this not pass.
Yeah, this was the 29 blocks.
Just being a discussion item today when it can only information out.
You have a discussion as much details we can.
But I would like to do this part of the recognition of the two is having provided this information.
In a separate region, I could help with finding materials based on this estimate.
If you want to talk about trackers, then I do a pause.
And I hope you also want to talk to the surveyer and I do that.
I'm not going to give you the key chance to return around the reasons for you.
And then also talk with the neighbors in order to create the CSA.
The CSA is created by the left, which I'm not that familiar with the last go, but I believe at least half of the law.
We need to agree to create the CSA and have to be applied to law.
Thank you.
How are we going to talk about talking to the other hand owners?
Are we going to send them letters?
Or should I go door to door?
How is that going to proceed?
I don't know.
I'm not sure.
I'm going to act.
If you have access to all the names and the contact information.
So would it be appropriate to send everybody a letter and just click the county, send everybody a letter.
And let everybody know it's going on.
I think I can start them all the time.
I think the county wouldn't do that.
It'd be up to seven days and a few days and a few days and a few days.
Okay.
So I just kind of, whenever the time's right, I would just need to know how I should go up.
I could have door to door and talk to everybody and get a signature or
It's an infurbity, a letter and way to start them all the time.
How should I do that?
I didn't think about signatures and what that would be like.
I would interject to the, that hasn't worked in Tom's Creek in the,
MRE because some of the residents weren't the property owner.
So when they go through a county service area, the 50% threshold that actually has to be the property owners.
So when they did the, the other one had was CSA that was created was,
Consisted of one property owner had multiple lots and that before they subdivided.
But usually what would recommend is having the assessor's office get you a list of all the actual
Real property owners by that and how probably a mail goes.
So you're, you're, you're mailing to all the people that are actual property owners to get an initial taste.
Because that's the way that you're going to have it if the CSA is created.
It's going to go to the, they're going to send a test letter that would go to the actual property owners.
And do we leave it a certain amount of time that they are to respond or help?
When they create the CSA, they would have to go through a legal time response.
How you would do it to do your initial assessment to see if people are interested.
Because you kind of want to assess before you go through that formal process because it's fairly lengthy.
Now, all our lots don't have houses, but I have talked to all the people who live around there that live in Consistence,
which everybody is elderly.
Every one of them.
Every year's getting harder and harder, they can't get emergency medical up there.
I mean, and so far, everybody I've talked to is on board.
The people that live there, anyway.
So the ones that have just lots, I don't know.
But I own four of them, I'm all on board for this.
The units, it's working over here.
The wind is just, and they're in the old ruins.
They're not, they're not.
They come to the podium.
The old ones are, they come to the podium.
Thank you.
Well, elderly people there, the 400, you know, that's really didn't
strap them through the cost.
I don't see them wanting to do it.
Someone said, don't have houses.
No.
The older, like one, didn't.
I don't.
But they didn't know how much it was going to be.
Since we've seen it, the cost of it.
I don't know if I've been doing all the road work.
So it's all coming out of me.
So, I mean, when they see how much it costs and everything, I think that.
It's getting to the point where it's not going to be that.
Yes.
It does.
And so, this is what we're talking about.
It's never fine.
Everybody at the cost and getting.
I understand, but I also see the reality of it, too.
Yeah.
It was much more than we thought.
But we have no choice, but to push.
It is.
Oh.
It's horrible up there.
Disorable.
You can't get in and out.
Don't ever call an ambulance.
I mean, it's not getting out.
And it used to be, and long time ago, it used to be housing development.
And it shut down.
And so, when that happens, I don't know how it gets adopted.
And the county when something is shut down like that.
But this is something that really, at some point, needs to be pushed through, because it can't.
The burden can't be on one person.
And now he's having health problems.
Who's going to do it now?
It's getting, it's getting that bad.
Somewhere down the road, it's going to, it's going to really hurt.
One of the residents out there, because someone's going to happen in the winter.
And they're not going to get there.
And it happened last year.
I mean, we had somebody get stuck in the road.
You're not getting out of there.
You are not.
It's just that desperate.
And I have a request to read your books and stake your name for the record.
Follow why?
Scott McDonald.
Thank you.
They don't.
I mean, he does.
But nobody sees the work that goes into keeping a road.
Yeah.
I do.
Because I do it.
You know.
The folks there is what we're going to do too.
Yeah.
He does.
And the money and everything.
It all comes out of us.
And again, it's just something that's not going to be able to be continued.
That's why we're asking for this.
I mean, praying honestly.
I mean, it's just.
It's you.
Nobody will be talking about it years before last year.
Really brought it to our attention for anybody.
Because it's been all day and all night out there.
And everybody.
And it's not that you put up the word.
They shouldn't get in the now.
Yep.
And they're all elderly.
So it's going to fall on the youngest.
Oh.
And then.
Yeah.
And then.
Yeah.
Imagine anything further.
Just.
Comment that unfortunately that's something that we see in quite.
We've seen a few of the subdivisions in the effort of years that we weren't initially established in a way that there was escalation factors of fees, or even a way to collect the fees.
Besides not too, it's pretty tough to, of course, it's a real action within that constitution.
I mean, kind of, but at the same time, to continue to take in more loans, we've got the CSA in place, and if it really drains California, it's a burden on that.
I think it will be for their own good and our good as well, and I hope that they will all be on board with it.
If you do have more than half that are on board with that, then if you want to come back to me and then I can put these in the back of the board as an action item.
Again, again, I need some advice that the exactly how I approach people, am I gonna, if I send them all a letter and they don't send back a reply, is that a goat we're going forward with it or.
Not sure how to handle that.
The final decision would be to use that to take a letter would be a good start.
If you're not going to call it, we have a contact information.
Then this is something that's so desperate. Is there a time factor if we sent out a letter, maybe they had a certain amount of time to reply if they don't.
Yes, I can interlude real quick.
Chester, I kind of like to throw this into your court, but I know you had something to say real quick.
So I have recommendations on first steps.
Like your contact information, you have an offer to direct information.
In the next few days, the last one is a sort of personal point.
Some letter might want to evaluate a bit of options when the CSA is formed.
So let me see if I would like the assessments that we've had to carry in the board.
Those assessments, that's all.
Okay, it's my work about that.
So if you're going to pay an order for instance, and that's what we've done.
That's what we've done.
That's what we have to pay an order to talk to the CSA for the first time.
There are one way of structure, so that the CSA will have to pay an order for the CSA.
So I'll have a reference for steps.
Would you connect you with the one way to see the creation of the CSA?
That's a separate jurisdiction for the CSA.
And you can create your options.
And then you can present the options to the CSA.
And then you can present the process to the CSA.
Some discussion we have about the CSA.
We don't want to have a CSA.
But the association you make in groups and CSA.
And I have to do that.
People sometimes don't know what they say.
They make it as they can do something.
But also, you have to probably have to do it.
And also, you can really do that.
Thank you.
The only thing I would just add off of that is when you're way down stairs.
Stop by the assessors office so you can get names and contact information for the property owners.
I think between those two, you're well underway then.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Excuse me.
Thank you.
Do we want to have the Road Commissioner do six weeks?
I think that should be a route of like a quick one, so that he can get on with it.
Get on with his day.
That would be good.
Thank you.
Sixty consideration action requesting approval of a resolution,
authorizing the expenditure of this green year of 2023, 2024,
Road maintenance and rehabilitation account.
This is the annual resolution that's required to receive our RMR refunds.
And the budget list is the same as we discussed earlier in the share.
Motion to approve.
Second.
We have to speak both.
I'm.
Actually.
You can't get out.
We're going to have anyone.
Remove it from the.
We have no.
We fixed the final, it's really going to be a problem.
They're very public comments.
They're being done on paper.
All right.
Both sentient motion appears.
If we will now go to item 5A,
consideration action requesting approval of a resolution
and supportive of the California State Association of Countries,
CSAC, FOMP plan.
Good morning.
Thank you.
We're not hearing you.
We're having some trouble hearing you.
Check your sound settings.
All right.
Let's try this.
Is that one better?
That one's real faint.
Scott, would you mind saying something like
and determine whether it's our side or theirs?
It's our side.
It's going to be good.
This is going to be hearing.
We're not hearing you.
Can you go find my resources?
Yes, call for a five minute research.
to
the
second. We're going to head back in. Sorry. We took a quick
basis for the technical difficulties. Thank you. And
got any can you hear me now? Well, yep. Oh, great.
The advisors is back in session. We are in five. A in this 10. 40.
Good morning, Shareperson Rhodes. Members of the board. I'm
hopeful that you can hear me just fine. Yes. Yes.
Beautiful. That is fantastic. Thanks so much for
carving out a few moments this morning to chat about homelessness and
work that we are doing along with our colleagues. Really across the
whole county family. I'm going to spend a few moments talking through
what it is that we've done and how we've gotten here. But before I do
that, I do understand that there is a very brief video to play. So if
that is, that can be queued up to highlight what it is that we are trying
to accomplish.
Due to the politics, polarization and pandemic that started in 2020, the
face of homelessness has changed. In fact, the face of homelessness
has been changing for years. It's not just people with drugs or alcohol issues.
It's not just people with legitimate mental health issues. The newest faces
are working people and families. People who went to school,
worked hard, played by the rules, and then the world changed. Which means
that we've got to change how we look at and address this issue.
C-sex at whole plan does just that. When the key components of at home
is accountability, both institutionality and individuality.
In all legislators, I'll submit to you that this is the time to make an
alternative investment in the future of Californians by giving them all permission to
dream. And remember this, we are all powerless and powerful at the same time.
Powerless meaning that we cannot change the past, but powerful because we can't create the future.
And we can't start right here at home.
Great. Thank you for that very much. We're very fortunate that Mr. Chris
Gardner for suit of happiness was willing to volunteer some of his time and drop it
in. It is truth around homelessness. We've spent the better part of the past year
developing at home, which is accountability, transparency, housing, outreach, mitigation and
economic opportunity. And we've done that from the bottom up and the top down concurrently.
And so we have been building a coalition that includes the whole county family and our
colleagues at the Royal County Representative to California and the Irving County to
California, Sheriff's Probation, Behavioral Health Rectors, Human Services and others as part of
this overall effort. We've had a 11 supervisor action team that has been in an area that has helped
driven this. That's included both supervisor's Griffiths from Inno and supervisor Crits from Ono.
And we had a four or five person county working group that had homelessness
corporate communities and multiple BIOs in County Council, Health and Human Services,
Probation and Sheriff, all the whole gamut of the county family to craft this plan, which is intended to address
the single missing gap that exists around homelessness in California and frankly in every other
state, which is there's actually not a system. Zero. There's nothing in state law that determines what
is the state should be doing. What county should be doing, what city should be doing. And yet at the
same time the state wants to hold all of us accountable for making significant progress. And the
two things are incompatible. And so at home is intended to to change that. We're fortunate that we
had very broad representation, urban, suburban, and rural in our overall development efforts.
And so there were two rural CIOs. One of the two county councils involved. I'm came from
to all in the county and a number of other folks coming from rural counties because it's so incredibly
important that whatever we do we're recognizing the differences in urbanized communities and rural
communities. Because your infrastructure isn't the same, your capacity isn't the same,
what cities can or can't do the same and the scale and the county isn't the same. And so we wanted to craft
something spoke to that. And so the coalition that we're building is focused around accountability,
which at its course about the funding, who's responsible for what, linked to ongoing funding,
real accountability for the state, counties, and for cities as well. And to make that workable,
we call on an ongoing commitment of funds from the state, overarching transparency at all levels of
government about what needs are in ensuring that there are region of public or statewide unified
plans that include all the relevant players within your community around homelessness. That's certainly
the nonprofit community, the faith-based community, the business community, cities, all together
create one plan that would be funded over a three year period. That plan would need to be flexible
to address the differences community to community. And there would be a significant minimum allocation,
which is particularly relevant.
Development for Modock, the significant minimum allocation for every county in state to ensure that you're not left behind because the scale isn't big enough in order to really make progress.
And so things like part costs related to infrastructure need to be looked at differently than a per capita kind of funding amount.
And so we've thrown the per capita largely out the window to instead focus on something that ensures that every community has
the resources, the authority and the flexibility to do fits in the way that makes sense to them.
And that is exactly how we think this should play out.
We have proposed language to put in statute with the state budget that will be voted on in two days.
And we are pushing hard to build this broad coalition so that the state is accountable.
And counties would be accountable. Cities would be accountable.
Communities would be armed with the resources and the authority to make progress on homelessness.
We're fortunate that we're well into the 30s in terms of the number of counties that are formally endorsed, including half of the rules.
But more broadly in this coalition includes the California Chamber of Commerce.
In fact, which is a large church network across California.
A number of business councils throughout the state in urban and rural areas.
All of our county wide related partners are CRC, UCC, the Sheriff's Association,
Health Human Services and on and on and a number of growing number of nonprofits that are part of this effort as well.
And so we're making traction.
We just announced this coalition yesterday morning at a press conference and we're having active conversations with the governor's office and the legislature.
There's this is a very, very, very big lift.
And it takes every county and every community to really impart the voice of local government to ensure that you are not held accountable for things that you cannot control.
And that you are only held accountable for those things that are lying to your authority and your resources with an investment from the state to carry that out.
That's ultimately what at home is all about.
Huge thanks to supervisor co, who sits on our CSAC executive committee.
And so he's one of the leaders on behalf of supervisors across the state.
Driving this and many other priority issues for California counties.
I look to the day where I get to spend time with you in person.
Low dock is one of the priority counties for me as someone that grew up in humble.
I have a strong affinity for northern rural communities in California.
That's that's what I live in breathe.
They're at least I did throughout my youth.
And I want to hand it back to the board for any dialogue or questions that you may have around at home.
So Graham, we will hold you to that visiting the other end of Highway 289.
I know that you and I had talked about it one one time previously and the weather was not going to be cooperative so it was put on hold.
Now it was a beautiful time up in Motoc, but getting back to the item before us, the at home plan.
It's just mind-boggling to me that the state has spent billions and billions of dollars without any kind of accountability process of who is responsible for what task.
Whether it's this state or the county or the city.
And so I asked for this item to come before the board that we could sign on at one of the 30 plus counties so far that supported the resolution and hopefully put enough pressure on the legislature to start moving forward.
And instead of just throwing money blindly at a huge problem for the entire state.
Worked towards some solid solution.
It's super, super.
So I appreciate all the work that's gone into this.
I think it looked like a great idea and I'm echo what you say.
My concerns of course being on the budget committee are always budget.
So we have these three year grants we're talking about they're going to fund all these responsibilities on the counties.
You're planning up in comments and all the stuff.
So what happens after three years?
What we're asking for is ongoing funding linked to ongoing responsibilities and the two things have to be aligned.
And so if we're recommending that there be a three year planning cycle and so that there would be effectively ongoing funding in three year increments.
To fund those plans and so to the key that the responsibilities are not funded in the responsibilities fall away they only exist at the local level to the degree that they are funded by the state.
And so this is structured to ensure that it does not become an unfunded mandate on the part of the state and frankly the expectations currently.
What almost require it to be an unfunded mandate which we're trying to change because there are expectations that cannot be met around solutions to homelessness because they're not funded.
And money that is going now is going in all sorts of different directions and creating barriers.
For example in Santa Cruz County to have a rapid rehousing program and that rapid rehousing program requires 10 different funding sources from different programs six different state departments and so they're spending an inordinate amount of their resources actually chasing the rules.
Of reporting the six different state departments and serving a slightly different population and we're suggesting that should go away there should be the state should focus on.
What should occur who should do it and fund it and then you all figure out how you accomplish that locally and we don't need.
A ridiculous set of complex rules about that get in the way of what makes the most sense in your community we need to empower your community to do it in a way that makes sense.
And to empower your board to make decisions that are in the best interests of your community and so that's what this is structured on there are very clear city outline responsibilities.
That that include encampment sanitation and clean up and that include really that the zoning.
Components for housing shelters transitional housing and permanent supportive housing and so there would be for the first time ever clear responsibilities for cities related to this.
But perhaps most important of all there would be a real system that exists like there exists in transportation or disaster response or child welfare or key 12 education.
In every other area that is deemed to be a high priority for the state of California.
There's actually a structure of who supposed to do what and this is the exception to that and we may not always agree on how the state determines who should do what.
But at least there's a real system that is in place and funded and that doesn't exist around homelessness and so that needs to change and so that's really what we're trying to accomplish the three year planning cycle is.
We believe in improvement over what is currently in place which is you kind of doing on a as you go basis using one time money and we all know just like in our family budgets you cannot use one time money for ongoing.
Expectations and ongoing progress you need to have an ongoing commitment so that's the ask of the state as part of this.
One hundred percent up to your part.
Thank you.
I guess I just have a few comments.
First of all I appreciate the presentation and struck by a couple things it was interesting listening to the video and the discussion about how homeless this used to look like people with drug problems alcohol.
Mental illness and now it's families it's young families it's established families seniors and I'm glad.
We decided that this is a priority in the state because even in our little community I know with me when I drive home I.
There are times of the year where I see people walking alongside the road and wonder where are they going to sleep tonight and I can also say I know some young families in this town that can't find affordable housing and they've got children.
So I'm glad it took maybe the families for us to say they really is a problem.
I guess it's kind of appalling that to think about all this money that has been.
Invested towards homelessness that.
How how do we do that without some strategic vision that has sustainability for this priority issues it's not going to go away in three years.
And so for this to finally come to light now it's a little bit disappointing but I'm grateful it's here and I hope the vision is beyond three years because it's probably a ten or fifteen year and we need some big changes in.
Places for people to live it's affordable and the whole support system so hopefully this is the baby step that will get us.
Working together defining those responsibilities.
And not expecting that small counties like us can solve it all by yourself.
Beautifully put.
Thanks. Thank you.
I mean right through the legislation especially creating that three year funding cycle I think is brilliant and way past do so I'm glad to see efforts of.
Everyone at sea sack and thank supervisor co for getting this going and bringing it to our board.
What is next step for sea sack should this get approved.
It's looking at all the other.
The O in the in home.
What are what are going to be next steps after this.
Yeah it's a really it's a very good question the.
I mean we're focusing on the A in at home to your to your point and because we have to start first with some rational.
System and strategic approach to homelessness there are dozens and dozens of other policy recommendations throughout at home that touch on.
How to ensure that there's real transparency and and that there's data to know what's working and what's not working.
How to address housing and communities in a way that is more effective.
And ensuring that there's this sufficient workforce in both from private public and private sectors to actually do the service work in communities.
For those experiencing.
As we turn to all of those things we would also.
We would also.
Outline what's what do we know that is working in different parts of the state.
There are successful models that are that have been developed almost entirely at the local level in different and we want to share those out.
We did a version of that about five years ago and the world has changed so much since then.
That we need to refresh that so that we can all learn from each other around that and we're having active conversations with our city colleagues.
We did in April have the first time ever seesack and Cal City joint legislative event on homelessness and so we that's a that was a very big step and we're continuing to work together.
So that we're not this isn't just counties on on our own it also includes the other parts of local government because it needs to in order to be successful.
And so we would continue that as well and we likely have a significant package of policy recommendations that would move forward.
We would see can move forward next year after putting this in place but first we have to.
Accomplished what is immediately before us which is not an easy task and so we will be working through this budget and through the end of this session to accomplish every element of accountability and share responsibility that we can get put into statute and funded.
Thank you.
You have a big task ahead.
Let's move to approve.
Second.
Thanks all very much.
Thank you.
17.
Consideration.
Action, requesting approval of a budget modification for fiscal year 2022-2020 to general fund 0.01, payroll, 11.20, auditor, 11.30, elections, 13.00, and clerk, 26.00, modifying expenditures for a net zero impact.
So, yes, this is a year-end cleanup that we like to do. There is some emergency expenditures in there as well, but the cleanup mostly consists of additional costs for communications and utilities.
I don't think inflation is going to be going away anytime soon. But then we also had, I think it was last year or the year before we had IT come through and kind of redo our computers, adding stuff to them.
And then they did an assessment and they said, you know, we really suggest you I think computers and maybe staggered them. So that was the plan.
Up until we had a couple of them completely dioness and they could not have been be saved by IT. So, looking at our budget, we had some savings in salaries because we lost an extra help person in January.
And then we lost a permanent staff member, I think, around March and she's been helping out with extra help and we're flying up positions.
I had some money in salaries to make an emergency purchase of computers. So, we hopefully don't have any more dioness, but it all came to a net zero impact for our budget support.
Motion to approve?
Second.
I have a motion in a second. Can you give up a comment?
Discussion on the board.
All in favour?
All in favour? All in favour? All in favour? All in favour? All in favour? All in favour?
Item 8, behavioral health items, APA.
Institution action requesting approval and authorization for the chair of the board.
And the Director of Health Services decided to contract between the county of Modock and cow MPSA
for the count M.H.S. A workforce loan program.
Not to exceed $200,000 insubjective April 1st 2021, 3rd.
December 31st 1207.
Good morning, Stacey Spardrector of Health Services.
This is a participation agreement for CalMesa.
We've done workforce loan repayment programs in the past internally,
which was very successful for us.
As we all know, it's really hard to recruit people outside of
Moda County, too, Moda County that have special licensures,
such as the Health clinicians and nursing.
And so we really foster the grow our own model,
which has been very successful for us.
In the past three years, we've actually had three four case
managers actually get licensed as clinicians.
At this point, we want to continue fostering that.
We've been flying a clinician position for a couple of months now
with not one applicant.
So, but we do have people in the pipeline,
again, that's interested in going back to school and getting licensed.
This funding is comes out of our MHSA.
So, it's our CSS funding and the community services and support
that we would move over to the workforce education bucket of MHSA.
And so, as our money already, we're just contracting
with Cal Mesa to run the program for us.
Motion do a group.
Second.
Motion in a second.
Any other comment?
For the discussion from the board.
They're being done on paper.
Hi.
Post-subjects questions here.
Thank you.
At a nine, measure tax collector items.
Nine, a consideration action requesting a review and approval
to accept the 2021-2022 Treasury Oversight compliance audit
performed by OConnor and Company.
Good morning.
So, OConnor and Company did it this year.
Did it this year?
It's just Michael OConnor, it's a CPA that was with
Rekardi a few years before and he started his own CPA firm.
So, that's he just continued to do ours.
At this time, I felt like it went through way more review because he's kind of on the line
with Brazil and product.
So, anyway, not much different.
We're just the big, tiny word.
We're in compliance with the government code and with our investment policy
throughout all the items and just always have the one finding for the hospital debt.
Next year, at least we can say it's less.
So, we made a big payment.
So, anyway, I'm just requesting that you approve the Treasury Oversight Committee
reviewed it and also approved it.
Motion to approve.
Second.
Motion to approve.
Second.
Any other comment?
discussion from the floor.
On paper.
request lightly, but I just wanted to offer her something that's competitive to what she's
making in the work-in-per-private company, but she's the whole package, I'm really excited to
have her join my team. She's been and why I'm asking for her to be jumped up is because she's
been running the office for Harbor, the whole, I mean all of the operations payroll accounts
payable, accounts receivable, you know, all the reports reporting to the state, everything
she has reconciled, the audits, she's worked with the auditors to do their, you know, yearly
audits, and get everything, a lot of things cleaned up, and she's just got a lot of experience
for the last eight years, and I think she's deserving of a little higher step than the A.
So, did a board member sit on the interview committee?
No, no, I did not ask the person the way he had to do it, okay?
You've got a number of air in your head, so we're just two amazing positions.
We have four members of the work available for some of the finest payments available, and we've got
one way to have the audits, plus positions in the audits.
I guess I would just pay the hand did.
In a future, a board member would be good with our policy, and I think if it's this kind of background,
we should take our board member Kathy, we've got the most experience that the county members are
and so I would just be my recommendation for the chief deputy job.
Definitely I wanted a panel.
But yeah, I will take that, I want to consider it.
What should you do for us?
I'll second.
Any questions in the second?
Can you cover comment?
I'm sure the discussion from the board, they're being called papers in by by saying aye.
Aye.
Those are extensions, motion carries.
Thank you very, very much.
I'm TAN, Social Services, I think.
Ten A.
Consideration action requesting approval and authorization for the chair of the board to sign a memorandum of understanding
between the Motoc County Department of Social Services and the Motoc County Sheriff's Office for the mandatory
pre-release medical application process data sharing agreement.
Effect of June 13, 2023 through June 30, 2005.
Morning, Tom Sanaged Director Social Services.
So California Advancing and Innovating Medical, it's also known as Calane,
is a long-term commitment by the state of California to transform and strike the medical offering
to California in a more equitable, coordinated and person-centered approach.
The part of that is supporting just as involved populations by providing pre-release medical enrollment.
So this is the first step in the justice-involved, involved initiatives,
and to support a very important component which is access to 90-day pre-release services.
That's expected to potentially go live no sooner than April 2024.
But what that basically means is that individuals who are inmates have access to services that will assist
in going back into our community in a safe and supported way.
So the first step is ensuring that they are actually approved for medical services.
The data sharing agreement is the last component of the requirements for the pre-release
medical application process and the agreement allows our department and the sheriff's department
to exchange information without a release of information or an authorized rat.
That's important.
Number one, so that individuals have questions about who's on medical.
We can freely share that.
Suspending, there's certain windows where the medical has to be suspended.
And then when we're notified that an individual may be released within a 90-day period
then that goes off of suspension.
And so it gives us the opportunity to freely share that information.
Additionally, it also puts us in compliance with the recommendations or the requirements
set by DHCS.
Question some of the words.
Question your proof.
Second.
I have a motion in the second.
Is there any public comment?
For the comments from the board?
On paper?
In the consideration action requesting approval to award good and authorized the purchase of one.
In 2023.
Superroot?
Cent?
A redding superroot?
And the amount of $39.046.
And the $0.246.
So this is for the purchase of another vehicle where
The inventory of vehicles are getting outdated, getting worn.
We plan on budgeting for additional vehicles in the next budget cycle, but we had capacity
to purchase one with the current budget.
We received five formal sealed bids.
This writing Subaru came in, meeting bid, set specifications, was a little bit, and also
can estimate the estimate delivery as soon as out of other bids.
So I did also make note that they did provide verbal confirmation that the delivery
fee was included in the bid as well.
In the director of health services, the sign is street, outreach grant, agreement between
moda, county health services, and partnership health plan of California, effective June
1st, 2023, due to our COVID-31st, 2023.
Stacy's Fire Director of Health Services, again.
A few months ago, you guys approved health services to participate in a grant with partnership
called the Housing and Homeless Incident Program, HHIP.
We are partnering with MISCA Health Services with MISCA to also engage in that grant activities
and they've been doing so.
Part of this funding here that we have before you the $10,000 is to support services for that
initial HHIP grant to go out and do street outreach to community members.
MISCA has already been working through teach with the Housing Manager to do the street outreach.
They've begun the services.
They also have been partnering with some raise of hope, which is our image as a funding
funded wellness center to do a lot of street outreach.
So this will disarmment those services.
Question.
Oh, it's not, it's not, it's not.
11 C. This iteration action requesting approval and authorization for the chair of the board and the director of
bill services, the sign and agreement between the county of MOTOT and the sound, generations, project, finance, nationalized, and services agreement.
In the amount of $3,600 effective, June 13, 2023, June 13, 2021.
California have lost significant staffing. We've been lucky here in MOTOT that we didn't see the turn over the other counties have seen.
But to help mitigate that CDPH put out some grants to help with the workforce retention and recruitment.
This was done in before the governor's May revise. This was supposed to be a really robust career ladder program, but with the revise a lot of the funding was cut.
And so we did submit one proposal for a current LVN to increase her education to get her RN and then eventually her PHN certificate so this funding would go towards that.
What's your name in second?
Any public comment?
Session from the board?
On favorite?
Aye.
First, extension, solution, curious.
Let us see.
Incideration action requesting approval and authorization for the chair of the board and the director of bill services.
The sign and agreement between the county of MOTOT and sound, generations, project, and finance, master, licenses.
The service agreement in the amount of $3,600 back at the age of 13, 2021, 2021, 2021.
So for this public health has been doing a robust data gathering throughout the county.
Really looking at the gaps and strengths of our community around health.
And one of the gaps that have been identified through this stakeholder process is really around older adult programs.
We don't have in-home health supports or we have, I just says, but we don't have hospital like home health and such.
So for that, there's big gaps in the older population around chronic disease management.
And so public health is creating a program for those over 65 or that have been newly diagnosed with the chronic disease within the last six months, where they'll have nurse case managers going out and helping the individual.
We have to take these around, they're checking blood sugars, checking blood pressure, kind of doing that.
The age on getting them back in a primary care specialty care.
So this system would allow us to train at to 10 people to do the chronic disease management program.
We're going to keep it in-house at the 10 of our health health services staff.
And it also as a component that it allows us to have a data system, where we'd have three users inputting data into the system.
So we'd have kind of that continuity of care.
We currently got an allocation from the state, it's through the CDC for caspy funding.
So this program would be fully funded through that caspy funding.
We get a hundred and twenty thousand a year for that.
We'll second.
Any public comment?
Questions on the forward?
I have quick comment.
When this gets up and going, would you mind maybe six months or so come back report to the board and how it's going?
Absolutely.
On paper.
Aye.
Post.
Stentions.
Motion.
Thank you.
I'm 12 sheriff corner items.
12 A.
Consideration action requesting approval and authorization for the chair of the board.
And the county sheriff's office.
To sign a purchase agreement between the county of Moda and
for the child of the city of Moda, and back on
Enterprise and incorporated to the purchase of 12.
Aksson Beau-Arenn Tameris and Equipment.
Not to exceed $8,898.
In 65 cents.
Effective upon signature by all authorized representatives.
Through the June 2022.
Good morning, text out.
You might not be sure of.
So we're.
I'm looking to get body cameras for deputies.
on the field. This quote also includes a body camera for our bailiff as well. So that person
would have this camera on it as well. The unique thing about the axon program is these
cameras do things that others currently are not doing. For instance, when the body cameras
be in war and you turn on your lights in your patrol car, the camera is activated. When you pull
your firearm from your holster, the camera is activated. When you're around others wearing axon
on body cameras, within, I believe, 15 feet of each other. It activates everybody's camera,
so you get different angles of an event. We've had a prior contract with axon that we're
just came out of for tasers. I did discuss updating our tasers however the cost was way too high
and I felt it was more important to have body cameras on our deputies that they're not happening
think about when they're running to a call. It just happened, it just turns on and we're not getting
events that occur in front of us that we failed to get our cameras turned on and we don't get that
recording. As we know, transparency is key right now with law enforcement and we also recognize that
not only does a public demand as those recordings, the media does as well and if we're not getting that
information out, then it's believed that we're hiding something and that's just not the case.
So with that being said axon originally I talked to them about a contract on just cameras.
I felt it was more important. You had the cameras on the on the person versus we're still going to
have the tasers. We're just not going to update the tasers right now. The camera will be activated multiple
times a day in most cases where the taser is maybe comes out of the out of the holster
once every two or three weeks or longer. So the tasers that we have are still perfectly good
and we believe that they'll last for many more years to come so that's why I'm asking questions.
Excuse me.
If it's 12 cameras is that one that will be assigned to a particular officer and or will you have spares
or they'll be complicated out where you have to stay.
They will all be allocated out to include myself in the undershirt and again that also includes a bailout.
Good question.
Dad, a storage for these. I don't recall seeing anything in the part of this program is we will
be involved in the evidence.com so all this will get stored to the cloud so it's an offsite location.
So we don't have to deal with storage here. The other thing I like that I enjoy about the evidence.com is
the fact there's limited access. So administration will have access to get in and transfer those videos
to a district attorney, the courts, whatever the case may be. So this is going to require our in-house
IT or anything like that. No. Motion to approve.
Incorporated for the water training and skills program. Effective October 1st, 2019 through September 30, 2022.
So this retroactive agreement was discussed between I believe stepping will my or our auditor as
well as the Board of State and Community Corrections one of their representatives and it was suggested
that we go through this process. So therefore we can get teach page.
I've got a question before we take a motion.
And I was trying to find it on the page here but per the email from the state it seemed like the
period of the retroactive agreement needed to be October 1st, 21 through September 30, 2022,
not 2019. Let me take a look at it and I'll continue trying to find that here.
Japanese emails.
So this would cover the whole contract and I think it would just be a CYA for everybody.
Good.
And I'll second that.
So this is one of those things that we're just trying to do clean up at the end of the year and
move some money around to cover to put back into the share budget.
Motion to approve.
Second, motion in the second and need public comment.
For the discussion from the Board.
on favor.
Close prevention motion queries.
12D.
Consideration action requesting approval of a budget modification
for fiscal year 2022 through 2023.
General funds 001 dispatch 2615.
Modifying expenditures for a net zero impact.
Once again just trying to do some clean up at the end of the year.
at the end of the year this will be this money will be moved around within the budget
the dispatch budget unit.
Motion to a group?
Yeah.
So, question on the maintenance of equipment that went from $500 to total of $12,750.
Is that item in particular?
Or maintenance.
I don't have an answer for you.
I don't know.
I would have to look that up.
Just that one jumped out at me.
I can see that.
Yeah.
That may, and going back that may be part of the cat system and updating that.
And we didn't budget for it.
I'm not sure though.
I'll have to look for it.
I don't have any in this batch.
Yeah.
Okay.
Motion to stay.
Second, second.
Second.
Second, second.
Second.
on favour?
All right.
Most extensions, most in carry.
Thank you.
13 probation items.
13 ha.
Consideration action requesting approval of a use
of force policy for the Moda County
Probation Department effective.
June 1st, 2023.
20.
Good morning, Chairman.
Members and board supervisors.
Thank you for those.
Squeezing me into the calendar today.
I appreciate it.
I think what we have in front of me today are
repuls these regarding use of force and
army for the Moda County Probation Department,
which right now would just include
army and myself.
Do you believe that it's in the best interest of
the department to have myself armed?
For a number of reasons which I've discussed with the Board. So I was just wondering if there was any questions regarding the policies presented in front of you, I know that.
I think this long has. Margaret has reviewed them and approved them. So I'm open for any questions regarding the policies.
Thank you.
The term in which our concerns will be armed.
If there is a use of force on a shooting death that a cheap probation officer will take this action this action.
And my question is because you will be really armed person who takes the place of being that supervisorly.
And that supervisorly role should you be involved in a shooting for a thing.
I believe it would be either.
I'm guessing that sheriff would maybe one or the chief police to investigate those things or the body supervisors can.
What's the word I'm looking for?
Recommend somebody or appoint somebody to oversee that review.
And I know I did notice that it wasn't actually didn't state what would happen if I had to use a force.
But I'm guessing that we could appoint the sheriff or the chief of police to do any investigation that needed to be done.
So as I ask these questions, I don't think I'm not really looking for the answer today but the fact that throughout the policies that we set records.
And so we are only authorizing you at this point.
I think the policy needs to have some clarification to it with your voice.
To several pieces.
And I share my thoughts with kind of council.
And the other thing is I was curious about what it speaks to teaching.
And you being the only authorized person who will teach you or certify you or make sure that you are a profession.
And I can imagine who that will be.
But again, the policy doesn't.
It's not clear what we're going to do.
So the policy is not clear on that but it does allow me the flexibility to choose who I want to train the staff or myself.
So I can choose to train with the sheriffs.
I have already qualified with the sheriffs with my own personal firearm.
I will continue to qualify with the sheriff.
And then it would be incumbent on me to determine which training to send either myself to or in the future which training I would send my staff to.
Based on what I think isn't the best needs of the department and where.
What training they actually need.
So I can.
Create a contract with the sheriff APD or I can use some of the surrounding.
Probation departments which I've already reached out to a Cisco county who has.
Express interest in saying that they could send somebody down for.
Trainings for us for use of force and force options trainings should we require that.
So there are avenues there.
It is not specific but it does allow me flexibility to utilize more than one source of training and sometimes utilizing.
More than one source could benefit officers and myself.
I do believe that there's option several options because of relationships within the county and and outside.
And my broader question would be.
As the policies written is that that quit in terms of county councils I should something happen.
Or does it mean some language modification.
And I can't answer that.
My last point would be it talks about the review board.
And there's a listing of positions that can be selected on to create the review board.
And what about having a county order supervisor is one of those positions that can be selected on.
I looked at some positions.
I don't understand the review board.
You know, those kind of relationships.
But it seems to me that.
If any of that that there is a use of force and.
Responsibility, liability also.
Rest with.
I don't want to supervise it's like.
You like.
You know.
First of all.
And maybe somebody that has experience with weapons and guns and.
So that's just something to consider.
So as you look through there.
And it talks about responsibility.
So who's doing what again.
Because you are.
You're going to be the only one armed.
Who's going to fill that point.
Should you be the person.
That's involved in the use of force.
And then the final comment is.
I'm not going to.
This guy is a place for.
I just want.
Us to be clear.
In the death that there is.
A use of this.
Authority.
That.
There's clarity on.
Who goes.
So I have a quick question on section.
Three zero three point five point four.
Alcohol and drugs.
And it.
Currently says.
Partway through it.
Who has consumed.
And amount of alcohol.
Is that correct or is that.
Should that be any.
amount.
I believe it.
Should be any.
I mean I think and amount.
Just.
If you've had anything in your system.
Then you're.
Then zero.
So I would say that probably should be.
Any.
To be clear.
We can make that.
Okay.
And there was just a couple of places going.
Through the policy that I think probably was a matter of.
When it was being copied.
And.
Configured around and stuff that.
Space in between words got lost and.
And.
And you.
I think it be helpful if it was run through a spell chat.
Grammar.
Program.
Yeah.
To do some cleanup on it.
Yeah.
Unfortunately.
It's in a PDF and to get it to a word.
It doesn't always.
It's definitely was mentioned.
It doesn't always come out.
Correctly.
Yeah.
And we printed out in a PDF and providing.
Copies is also an option to so.
But we want to make sure.
The board had it prior to today.
So I like this.
This is good.
Thank you for reading this to us.
So.
dismissed.
Yeah.
No.
For this.
It's all.
All right.
So it's all.
So I'm going to.
I'm going to the.
This is the.
So.
And the.
And.
It's.
And.
going to front of the board, getting County Council's approval.
There are processes to which I would even consider Armin.
My staff, they're going to have to be able to go out in the field and utilize their verbal skills
before I even consider Armin them.
There is 832 arrest, which they will have done, but not 832, which is the second half of 832, which is the actual Armin.
Being able to go through use of force and defensive tactics and gun retention, weapon retention, all those things will have to be demonstrated to me.
And demonstrated at a level where I'm comfortable that any staff that I consider Armin can defend themselves without a fire alarm.
And I don't foresee that happening within the next, at least not for two years.
My staff have to get through their basic training, their basic understanding of what a probation officer is.
And then they have to demonstrate to me that there are some skills that make me comfortable considering an Armin them.
And then they actually have to go through the actual 3-day training, where they go training with a fire alarm.
And of course once we decide that that's about we want to go, we have to decide how are we going to purchase fire alarms and how much ammunition do we have to purchase.
What's the ongoing training? Is there ongoing training that's in place for multiple staff?
So there's a lot of things to consider, which obviously I would have to put in front of the board to make sure that we have the funding to do those things and to do it appropriately.
So I would assume that it's not only skill-leveling or assessing that they're psychological capabilities or abilities.
Being brought on board, they have done a full psychological exam.
The staff that I'm bringing on, I'm going in.
Their interview and hiring process is such that they are with the intention of being armed.
So they do a full psychologically evaluation when they're brought on board.
So that has done now, and that also gives me the year of probation to see whether how they're going to work out.
But yes, we're doing a full psychological evaluation with any officer that I bring on board for that purpose.
Because as we all know, the last thing we want is somebody unstable with the fire alarm.
Just kind of long as lines, I think this does set up enough side boards for the county that it can be evaluated going forward by the chief.
So I think it's good that we have this in place at this point.
And I think the sheriff actually was going to see at least comment on the first question.
First concern that Elizabeth had brought up.
The next outing mode, I can't be sure.
I'm in absolute support of the probation department and currently the chief being armed.
As we all know, that things happen even in small communities.
Often times if we have a major incident in the city or the county during the daytime,
with our staffing levels trying to get more staff out there in the evening time versus the early morning hours,
we might have to rely having that extra person to help us who is armed.
You know, for an active, she's got forbid, we have an active shooter of anything like that.
So having the chief armed is a step in the right direction, for sure.
As far as training, we've already had some discussion with the chief and we're willing to support them anyway.
We can as far as the training and they're invited to our trainings and can participate in our trainings and we encourage that.
So as far as that goes, I would suggest in a shooting incident.
They would follow the same protocols that we would, which I believe is would be the right way to go about that.
By me, I'm sure it reviewed the policy as written.
Are you doing with it?
I actually haven't seen their policy.
I see its lexipopolacy, however, we all know that lexipopolacy varies from county to county depending on our needs.
So that I'd be happy to review it.
I just have not.
I would like to get your feedback on it.
Absolutely.
For my standpoint, I think it's good how written.
I would like to see a little stronger language on the two probation officer reporting to the Board of Supervisors.
And we'd be in the responsible body that reviews his certification for our handling and training.
I don't know that, I'm good with it.
I'd move to approve.
But I know these people are suggested or.
I'm not sure how we incorporate that, but.
You'd like to ask you to play a motion.
I mean, yes.
So, I don't know what the time frame that you need is by, but perhaps if some of the language that these guys have asked for and the type of stuff fixed in there would be.
Good to bring it back in another meeting to being fixed.
Given the standard lex, I'm from administration standpoint, I'd like us to be able to move forward and bring back amendments to you.
Because they're coming on the upcoming fiscal year.
There's STC training dollars.
One of the requirements for us to move forward on this.
We have to post policy under state law now they changed with law.
I have to post a policy on the probation department website.
And we have some orders to draw with the orders office that we'd like to be able to process.
I'm sure part of the range master component and some of the, you know, ammunition for training.
In order to process those, she needs us to have a policy in place.
And I also need to get a policy posted on the state website, you know, on the website to meet state rigs.
Then we can come back in short order and amend some of those as it relates to.
The CPO in answer from admin, what we would do is in addition to.
Because it, you know, a use of force could involve just the probation department, but it could all.
Also involve other law enforcement agencies. So, the situation, the policy does allow you to have different investigating agencies, but, as a matter of practice, even with the existing flexible policy and the sheriff department, we've, through County Council's office, then it retain, out of area, third party experts that are used to force specialists that do that for a living, to review, as in addition to having investigating agencies. So, we've had, within our own agency, we've had investigations with external law enforcement agencies.
And we've complimented those with, third party investigators, and if we had something involved, a material position like the chief probation officer, Council legal counsel, our self would be in front of the board, getting a, third party investigator in addition to.
So, how about, just, discussion-wise, at this point, approving today with the creation of who supervisors to work with the chief on, on some amendments that have been discussed today.
And bring it back within, three months, six months, something like that.
That, that's, is right now.
Yeah.
Three months is probably sufficient. I mean, we can make the, let's say, pull changes within, matter of days, it's just a matter of getting a language created.
I think, three months will probably be sufficient for any changes that we need to make or amendments.
So, yes, I so moved.
No, second to motion.
I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Yes.
This actually came up recently with some purchases from the sheriff's department, we're related to firearms.
So, I might as well just make this out there now.
I just kind of read over it a little bit and it talks about either a department issue firearm or a personal.
Probably going to be looking at some amendments to assets, whether he uses his own or he has one.
Firearms don't typically reach the asset item for capitalized because they're under the dollar amount.
But we are going to be adding them under capitalized assets.
Anyways, for equipment, so we can start tracking firearms. So just FYI.
And then if you do use your own personal, maybe we can look at getting something to say what it is.
So when you request like an ammunition purchase, you know, for sure it's your gun.
Especially since you're the only one who are going to be in the office at the site.
Any comment from the board?
On paper?
I don't know.
Central, special care.
Thank you.
Thank you for your support.
You've motioned head to supervision.
Thank you.
That's a bad thought.
These two that had to change, I think.
That's a bad thought.
Supervisor starts.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I want to keep going.
We've got this.
This is what we really need shortly.
And then we have to.
Absolutely wonderful.
If we could speak our meeting last year.
Certainly because of commitments.
Meeting commitments.
Apple.
I vote for three.
Do I hear two or three?
I'm 14.
I think department items.
14. A consideration action.
Requesting approval and authorization for the chair of the board.
And the county administrative officer.
Sign an agreement between the county of Motoc.
And policy consulting associate.
LLC or preparing a municipal service review.
And spirit of influence study.
But the city of Alters.
Not to exceed 21,500 dollars.
Effective June 13, 2023 to May 30, 2024.
Good morning.
We have Gary Price on on zoom there.
Our planning consultant that's been.
I instrumental in putting this together with Chester and Jackie.
So I would.
This is.
This item in the next item or the two primary expenditures.
From the rate grant that the city or the county received.
Some time ago.
And we do have an extension.
We think for implementation.
But both these projects are.
Here towards.
Planning as we as a relates to.
Housing production.
And this one is for a.
Municipal services review often called the MSR.
For the for the city.
And I would turn.
This over to Gary for any questions.
Hi.
Members.
Good to see you all.
I think Sean covered it all pretty well.
Happy to answer any questions that you have.
Just a quick one.
Gary real quick.
When was the last time with a master service review.
Was done for the city of Alters.
It's been a long time.
As I recall.
I've done that in my full year.
But it's a.
It's way outdated.
Let's see the current sphere and.
Master service element.
It's going to 2009.
Sir.
I thought I had read 2009 somewhere.
In.
This or in Lafca.
And then who will be the point of contact.
The city of Alters.
The staff.
Yeah.
We'd be working with the staff.
We would really need to come.
I'm not taking the lead.
And helping.
Found the.
Managed.
Project.
So we see John.
Critical role.
In.
According to.
The.
And.
It was.
But,
But with an.
Is.
I.
I think of the city level.
Bad.
There.
They have a staff member identified yet.
I understand.
You've got.
They're going through some.
But a whole.
But a lot of the- when I've been through those before back.
the.
business. So when I anticipate as the consultants will do a request for information and they'll
pull existing publicly available data, including financial data, the water system reports.
There's a whole series of stuff that it will basically be a composition of existing records
that they use in review and make determinations.
The final question is what is the expected outcome of this report? What are we going to be able
to use it for? Well, every five years we go through a housing, another cycle of housing,
and this is just going to update the information available in this case for the city.
We've just gone through the process where the state told us how many units are supposed to be
created, knowing that in fact they can't create them, but they also told us that there was
no option for the final number, the county in the city could switch numbers back and forth if they
wanted between as long as the total will remain the same, but they're getting appear to be any
advantage in that and so ultimately it's just background for housing cycle. Gary, you can get into a little
detail maybe. That's fine. Just like John said, it really helps us identify really that
when we were talking about how we're going to be housing, which is kind of the key to how the state
of the funds was considered affordable housing. We need to have in terms of our general plan on
adequate infrastructure to support that level of government. So, it kind of really didn't have
very many areas that it gave a density of requirements for affordable housing by a person,
and thus, we have four out of two of those public products that will give it to the world. We have
played a higher level of density with the state rights to see in terms of what they call affordable housing,
how they will go. So, we are going to do a behind the updating, it gives us more accurate
current or for no concern for the city and what the county to use to identify those areas in the
bottom work. We can move on, we go out and allocations on the floor.
Thank you.
Motion to approve.
Second.
We have a motion in a second. Any public comment? Any further discussions on the board? On favors?
Post, extension, social care. 14 feet.
Thank you.
Consideration action requesting approval and authorization for the chair of the board and the county
administrative officer to sign an agreement between the county of Modoc and pace engineering,
for preparing a water master plan for the community of Canby, not $184,000.
The effect of June 13th, 2023, 3 May 30th, 2020 court.
So, this is the second primary project under the re-brand.
We went through some fairly extensive outreach with Canby and the powers would be there.
Obviously, we know there's a real need for water there because we've got individual wells going dry.
We have a partial system there that the ice-soughts manage.
And we agreed, I think, internally, that if everybody in the community could work together that this planning
project would be, it's probably the best suited that we found in the county for this expenditure.
Again, tied back to housing, which is the intent of the grant entry request.
Second.
I'm just going to work with the nature of the funding.
The state's trying to address additional housing capacity.
But what we're starting with is trying to redeem existing housing capacity.
So, if you go through the Canby community, there's a number of unoccupied residences.
There's a number of those have no water well that's operational.
In addition to having a water quality issue.
So, what we made the case of the state is, can we...
The starting place, you know, the state seems to have an advance of goal.
Adding capacity, what about redeeming existing capacity?
That's, we had slated this for either Aiden or Canby, but believe this community has the most genuine interest.
They've displayed it aggressively through community meetings that they've self-organized.
They've had fundraising events.
So, I want to go and record publicly showing gratitude that the community that raises its hands for these funds.
Because we have a number of unincorporated communities that were interested.
This one has showed the most legitimate interest in addition to having both water quality and dry wells.
The challenge and the challenge and dealing with the state and providing potential for housing,
as you have to have those areas that have both water and sewer.
From a county standpoint, that's pretty well limited to renewal.
But, newals problem is another one of these cookie cutter approaches.
The lots aren't a lot of the lots, and new aren't big enough to meet the state standard.
So, the Chester said, let's start from square one.
And the first step to having areas with both water and sewer is water.
In this particular case, and they have pulled together out there to work with us on this.
We've come at some point.
All three of us, those?
Stentious nation carries.
What can see?
Citeration action requesting approval and authorization for the chair of the board.
And the county administrative officer beside agreement number,
CEP, 22-273, between the county of Motoc and the California Energy Commission,
for the Cal AEP Cal App program in the amount of $40,000.
Effective May 5, 2023, you may 31st, 2020.
Just for our words in the administration, so actually learned about this, their supervisor, co, our CRC had identified grants that the rural agencies may be available to obtain.
In short, the state is moving towards continued stream line, permit streamlining for solar.
The majority has a multitude of laws at its past, including we have 48 hours to either deny or accept the permit business hours.
So if you could not this weekend that was passed as a three years ago, I believe.
And also there's property tax exemptions. There's mortgage reform.
As they've rolled out those reforms, a lot of the agencies were not able to meet the permit streamlining timeline requirements.
So the state had energy commission got together with National Renewable Energy Labs, they created a standard software platform called CalApp, but they've also generated several other opportunities.
They're out there. We selected go with the CalApp. We're not going to have a lot of solar applications like other jurisdictions, but if we don't use this opportunity to purchase and train staff on the software, it's basically going to be an unfunded mandate further down the road.
So our belief is to use the grant opportunity. Well, it's out there and thanks to Supervisor Co for pointed out to us.
In Jackie, you'll be our project manager on that and then it requires separate people, so the auditors, the fiscal manager and I'm.
Some other manager in there, three of us have to be there's to be three points of contact. So those are the people are razor hand.
Motion in the second, any public comment.
Question from the board.
On paper.
All right.
Post.
Stentions.
Motion carries.
We'll continue with Sean. Then go through the resource.
Alice, if we want to greet.
Yeah, okay.
15A.
Consideration action requesting approval of a resolution,
join the multiple year coalition against proposed Bureau of Land Management and the United States Forest Service rules.
Thank you.
The draft resolution that you have in your packet, you have a new draft coming around.
I'll point out the couple of changes when everybody gets one,
essentially we have a proposal from the BLM to make major changes in and how they govern BLM land.
You'll see in some of this where it says BLM, of course, the Forest Service proposal has been extended for 30 days.
So we'll bring back comments related to the Forest Service setup at a future meeting.
So what I'm talking about today will just be BLM, although hopefully if you approve the resolution that takes care of being part of this group as we address the Forest Service rules in a couple and a month or so.
I made I added a fourth where if you go down to where as is number four, BLM and Forest Service or required to coordinate such proposed changes.
I added that.
And then to cover all the requested actions, I added two more results at the end.
And I can go into some detail on the on the proposal.
But the short nutshell approaches, there's two problems that we have once procedural, once content.
The procedural is these are appear to be an end run around the federal land policy management act, which is the organic act of the BLM and it appears to regulation.
They're trying to change things in the law, that's Congress's job, not the agencies job.
And the other part is that in their limited number of public meetings, they have.
The ability to answer questions, I mean essentially what they just said is we don't have the answers, ask those questions in your comments.
Well the problem with that is there's not another bite at this apple.
So we don't know if the answers aren't satisfactory, we don't have an opportunity to deal with that.
Real quickly the major problems we've got with the content.
One is it's adding conservation to the act as a use like the ones that are specifically named and they specifically named the activities that are to be managed on this ground and it's raising timber recreation wildlife and mining.
Those are specifically named now they want to buy regulation rather than buy congressional act they want to name conservation.
It creates a conservation lease that would very likely be in conflict with an already authorized use that's going on out there.
For example they might sign a lease with a Sierra Club to restore a piece of ground out there that already has grazing on it.
So how do you manage those two activities out there that may be in conflict with each other.
It applies the range land health standards that were developed for grazing to every activity out there.
And quite frankly they don't work very well for grazing and they don't have the capacity to administer it.
For livestock grazing are they going to have the capacity to administer to everything.
And lastly and maybe even though it's smaller and more important and conceptually is that we have small areas out there that they call areas of critical environmental concern ACEs and those are supposed to be small pieces of ground.
So it's like sage grass wax like fins like I don't know perhaps a spring area something like that that is specifically designated in the resource management plan as needing special management.
Well resource management plans are developed and concert with local government among other partners.
And this not only broadens what an ACEs could be to create many wildernesses perhaps areas but it takes it takes it out of the land use planning process which in cuts out in this case local government.
So the approach we're taking and for those that had been on the board back in 2015 when the BLM proposed their last set of planning rules there was a coalition formed.
The counties across the west to address that they submitted joint comments and they were preparing to file litigation if necessary but when administration changed and President Trump got elected they withdrew those planning rules and so we never went forward.
So this is taking that same approach at this point there's probably eight or nine counties so far there'll be more but we're kind of limited in time comments are due to the 20th.
So what the request of the board is to approve the resolution to authorize the chairman to sign the comments which will be prepared by an attorney that is being paid for by.
Several of the counties that will be signatures on letter that have oil on gas royalties at stake so they have one they have money to pay the attorney and two they have way more stake than maybe than a county like us.
Although having a county in California as part of this group and right now they're all either Utah Colorado or Mexico.
Broadens the spectrum gives a little more weight to the group and the third thing that is a request is.
We this same group of counties with specific we send the letter.
Sign a letter to the director specifically requesting that the BLM coordinate this regulation proposal with these with the with the group on behalf of individual counties.
The comments will not be ready till the end of the week.
So have you reached out to Cisco and climate County for working with the post mail.
I send it I send it over there there will be time to.
More people into it as we move forward.
Yeah quite frankly it's it's been enough of the logistical challenge just to pull the small group together in the last ten days.
And we'll have to do whatever we have to do if you prove it to get the signature forward the term signature forward it to.
The the coordination letter.
Now is really not much more than a reiteration of what's in start a land policy act.
Which is attached at the back the last page.
And it.
It's kind of.
They're not going I mean I think we can last time we did exactly the same thing on the planning rules and they.
There was a couple of letters back and forth and then they find it said we'll we don't have to do that.
And that's.
That's one of your.
Litigation points.
When they fail to do that.
Let's do a proof.
Third fourth.
Thank you guys.
Thank you Sean appreciate the.
Part you played in bringing this group together.
You know it's hurting cats but utilizing American stores of liberty is the.
As the point of contact makes it easier and and they work individually with most of these counties and signing it anyway so.
If there's no further comment on favorite.
I see.
15.
Consideration action.
The question approval and authorization for the chair of the fort.
The sign of memorandum of understanding.
Between the county of mo do.
And a land.
of land management by the cooperating agency, authorized officer in the primary representative,
effective on signature by all authorized representatives.
Well, we've killed a lot of trees here today, let's take a look at this, so aside from
this other effort, this proposal from the BLM to redo their grazing regulations has been
ongoing for a little while, and our initial request to be a cooperating agency, I submitted
in November, and finally with a little help from some third parties, we've got some response.
Just in connection to the action the board just took, this is the way, with an epe document,
is the way they should be moving forward with the conservation language aside from the fact
that it ought to be done by Congress, instead of proposing something in April and having comments
to do in general.
So the advantage to the county and being a cooperating agency on grazing regulations is primarily
The cooperators get the proposed language before the general public does and has more of an opportunity to analyze it and submit comments.
They've been going chapter by chapter. They've agreed to sit down with me if this is approved.
And catch up where we are, because we're probably three chapters into how many chapters it's going to be.
But, and I guess that's their attempt to try and play Kate the fact that they stole on this thing for months.
We would need, whether approval, if you go to the last page, we would need the authorized officer, which I'm assuming would be the chair.
And the primary representative, which I assume would be designated as.
And this does not impact the county's ability to demand coordination at some point.
The two cooperators in the coordination are not mutually exclusive. Both can exist at the same time.
Do you want to include that the chair is the, but is it authorizing a officer and the John is the representative in that motion?
Yeah. I'll second it then.
The motion in a second.
The public comment for the discussion from the board.
On paper.
All right.
Yeah.
To break for lunch.
Second.
On paper.
On the turn, we'll resume at I.
Of 16 air pollution control district.
Thirty-one and a board of supervisors, has written me.
Motion to recess as the board of supervisors and convenes the air pollution control district.
Is that good?
We have a motion in a second. On paper.
All right.
Both essential solution carries.
Do we need to do roll call vote?
No. She's not online.
Okay.
She's not online.
Thank you.
Okay.
16 A.
Consideration action requesting approval and authorization for the chair of the board.
Design an annual grant agreement.
Number G-22-CAP-17.
Between the mode out county air pollution control district and the California air resources
for not to exceed 12,074 dollars.
Effective August 1st, 2023.
Your June 30th, 2027.
Just a Robertson administration.
So this makes provision for some funding for air monitoring cost.
As you know, we have the purple air monitors and also then staff time.
Currently have a staff person working to get those deployed at a federal government location.
And some people are real excited they gave us the green light but then some employees are.
It's been challenging.
Just a located device can be.
You'd be amazed how much staff time it takes.
So that's what this grant does is it helps pay for those types of costs.
That employees.
Thank you.
Move to approve.
Is that it?
Motion in a second.
There isn't any public comment for the discussion from the board.
On paper.
All right.
Those sentient motion carries.
16B.
Consideration action requesting adoption and approval and authorization for the chair of the board.
And the CAO to sign the Motoc County California Air Resources Board.
AB 617.
Incentive policy and procedures manual.
Effective June 13, 2023.
Staff.
So in order to comply with receiving funds and moving forward with these programs.
We have to adopt policy and procedures manuals.
This template that came from.
State and other air pollution control districts.
Bonnie.
Developed it in cooperation with all of them.
I don't have any of the details of it.
But that's the general.
Just.
Motion in a second.
The motion in a second.
Any comment from the board.
On paper.
All right.
Post sentient motion carries.
Motion due during is the air pollution control district.
And we can be in support of supervisors.
Sorry.
On paper.
Post sentient motion carries.
Item 17.
Agriculture items.
17.
Decidation action requesting approval and authorization for the chair of the board.
To award the noxious weed program.
I'm a group of side did.
To nutrient solutions in the amount of 65,981.
And 54 cents.
I don't believe I was present today.
I think they're actually a meeting in Hat Creek.
So this was the only better this year.
And the bid is inclusive of sales tax.
And also the delivery and the pesticide mill assessment of 2.1%.
That's also included.
And then your packet shows the entire bid solicitation that went out.
And the response.
Move to approve.
Second.
The motion in a second.
Any discussion from the board.
Yes.
There is any public comment.
On paper.
Hi.
Post sentient motion carries.
Item 18.
Administrative Services items.
18.A.
Inciteration action requesting approval of a resolution.
Amending the face schedule.
Outline of benefits.
And supplemental pay.
For non represented.
Exempt.
Competential management.
For ease.
But the county.
A motoc.
Effective July 1st.
2023.
Chester Roberts.
Administration.
So included in your packet.
You have three different.
Actually four different items.
The resolution itself.
It makes some specific findings.
Then the actual.
Outline of benefits.
Which is a document.
I believe it's 12 pages.
Then the template evaluation form.
And then the actual salary schedule.
So we also.
Went over these proposed changes.
And it's different from what we hit before to.
The staff at a meeting.
So we invited all of our.
Middle management staff.
Exempt employees.
To come and take a look at this.
Then we had subsequent meeting.
Also for appointed officials to look at a proposed packet.
Then we come into subsequent date.
And then we're also looking at stuff.
As it relates to elected officials.
We gave reasoning and why both for budgetary reasons.
We were unable to address the entire county at one time.
We've stayed at this podium before.
But that seemed to be an issue for a number of employees in the county.
So we reiterated that.
And we've also done that in a joint fiscal meeting.
This will allow us by phasing it to be able to pay the appropriate place to start.
Obviously as we represent public.
We have to take care of the people.
Then we have to take care of our part-time extra help.
And our represented employees.
And then we move into various management layers.
So we told them we believe we're going in the appropriate sequence.
Rather than starting.
The management level moving down.
We're moving up through the ranks with that as we phase in.
The cola and adjustments.
Unlike with the represented unit that phase.
The health benefits over time dealing with the.
Calpers issue with longevity and addressing.
Compensation.
This addresses all of those in one resolution.
Now it's coming later.
Starting off on here we have a 12% so the salary table.
Includes a cola that has the 12% adjustment in there.
That is the same as given to other employees.
Otherwise you start having disparities where people want to do management positions.
We also included in the table.
If we look at the salary table.
Which looks like this.
The adjustments for the longevity issue.
Which we've discussed many times at the podium before.
Our initial concerns will obviously for represented employees.
Because we had a number of people that were already being adversely impacted.
But if we move over a period of time.
We have more potential for this to adversely impact management.
Level employees.
Because they tend to be more senior and have many years of service.
And that means that you start going over the amount of your compensation
Correlated with longevity.
We're not having adverse impacts on any of them yet.
But in anticipation of that same issue.
It shortens it so we don't have an infinite number of steps.
It also calipers recommendation.
It addresses having minimum and maximum ranges on the salary table like we did for
Representative employees.
Examples of why that would be needed.
There's an inclusion of why rating language for employees.
So that they have so much service.
They get why rated.
And that means a certain portion of their compensation would no longer be
Pursable.
Other examples of someone that would fall in the minimum.
Maximum is someone that would be getting in for instance the exempt minimum wage.
But didn't have enough years of service on the tables.
And so that determines that they can get a amount.
That's not the exact dollar amount on the range.
You can get anywhere up to a dollar between the next range, if you will.
The minimum is what?
Well, if everybody will get when they're on the normal schedule with these rare exceptions,
which are becoming less and less rare due to the minimum wage impact.
The length of service.
We have other things where people had certain types of promotions.
I don't know.
We had several.
There's like five or six examples.
People tried to have us where we get more specificity.
And we said, each one of those is a case by case when they're being violated.
In the meeting that we had with employees, we had a number of people didn't like the
white rating language.
And we said, well, even the auditor's office expressed a little frustration.
That's language came specifically with CalPERS to our county council, including Scott McLean,
who's on the wine.
So that's a direct quote from PERS that we're putting in there.
And we gave some examples and each of our gave some examples.
And employees and payroll gave examples of when it would apply.
What else do we have in there?
The updated schedule reflects some consolidation of positions.
I happened to do the reclassification process for management.
Primarily in the social service department was where there's most changes where we
closed out a number of positions and incorporated them.
The next thing that's also on there is
In addition to addressing the CalPERS longevity issue, the wide rating of employees
is we formally recognize in the document the change for pepper employees for the employee
share contribution, which HR will talk about in the next agenda item.
But that's in there.
And then we document in the resolution that we made an offer for all employees to come.
Not all of them did attend, but they had the opportunity to come in on that.
We also took it incorporated comments that received not only in that meeting, but some people
wanted to bring their comments individually forth to us.
At the meeting, some changes were requested.
One of the areas that a lot of employees are talking about, including management.
A point of effect shows the represented employees was the health insurance.
So this proposal does not take it above what represented employees, but with
match what they get.
So the health insurance has been fixed since 2010 for the management level employees and
people appointed out what incentive would we have when such a large portion of our pay
would go to pay the employee share for health insurance.
It doesn't offset because that dollar amount has grown so much over the years that the employee
has to pay by not raising that cap.
So like we did, we've done it three times, I believe, for the represented
employee like in the DSA over the years.
This would raise it to this current level.
However, it reverts at the end of the year just like we had in there because we had,
we're not able to come to agreement with all the other employees.
The direction I had was to match what we had for everybody.
So there's consistency, say, for in the organization of people promote you don't have
an incentive or a disincentive it basically matches the same for the management unit
employees.
What else did we have in here?
There was a request on item number three which is page five of the document create a schedule
for vacation time that is accrued and we did legitimately look into that request.
The auditors office began building a schedule.
What we learned is there's so many permutations depending on people's accrual rates.
Years of service.
How it accrues based on the language there that the table was bigger than the actual salary table.
So when payroll printed out for us it's all built into the formulas and the system with ADP.
And we realized there's a reason that probably most agencies just put the language provision
in there and not a table is it translates to the table.
So we decided to not make it, which means people have to do some, either they got a touch base with their fiscal officer
or touch base with HR or they have to do some math based on the table and set how many years of service to have.
There's a lot more permutations than even I thought.
It's like three quarters of a page.
We did not make that change but took it into consideration.
Some more formalized language related to retirement and CalPERS and the use of vacation balance, which is just some cleanup language
to make it work for CalPERS.
And then the floating holidays there was discussion about people's requests for two.
What we did is learned that there was some disparity in practices around the county for management level employees.
So what we're doing is grandfathering those in but any employee.
This management level mirrors the language that we have elsewhere in the county that are newly hired or rehired after July 1 of 2023.
She'll be permitted to take one floating holiday into additional hours.
And we also grandfathered in currently for the current year because people began already taking their floating holiday starting January 1 of 2023. So we have some language in there.
Some people already taken to.
Others haven't taken any yet.
So we make sure that we address that with having an effective date of January 1, 2023, which is retrodate for the grandfathered employees.
And the y-rated, there's additional, there's two places where the y-rated language shows up at page 8 of 12.
If any of you have questions, but that's basically where it addresses that.
The next section where there was quite a bit of discussion was under supplemental pays on call compensation.
We, again, are trying to bring some element of consistency practice throughout the county.
And we had a proposal of making a fixed dollar amount like we had in the sheriff department.
Afterwards, I had a member of employees that were very concerned about that.
So their concern was that would adversely impact them because they carry a lot of the on call burden.
Well at the same time, they were hearing comments from other people that said, hey, if I respond to call just a little bit, we had this.
We pulled up the FLSA language and there's a number of core cases on that.
And it isn't like if you just respond to a phone call.
It really goes in depth as were you available.
Did you have to materially alter your life?
Were you available to immediately respond to the workplace or did you have to be at the workplace?
And we thought about quoting all that, but what we did is we have basically a nice summary on the on call assignment policy.
With four major categories is to be ready and to remain immediately available for calls for service to be reached by telephone paid to a radio to remain within a specific distance from their normal workstation.
And refrain from activities which in pair is her ability.
We need to add her probably before there because it only has his ability to perform is her assigned duties.
The other thing that we changed from when we had the meeting based on feedback is we went back to the three dollars an hour for on call.
This will have probably less of an impact on the budget.
So what we were looking at is if we had gone to the fixed amount, you would have to increase the you would have to budget in some departments and others would have seen a decrease.
And we're not able to address that change you'd have some employees with unrest and others that would set out of these people getting this benefit.
So we're sticking with that FLSI language and we're going to stick with the three dollars per hour.
I do anticipate with this that it's you're going to see a larger dollar amount budget in the health department than we historically have had because it will bring the consistency of that practice into that department.
I think everything else is fairly standard including having a standardized employee performance evaluation for mental management employees, which a little bit more closely.
Meers.
What we're using for other employees rather than a wide variety of practices.
There was questions about having them tailored because lots of department units are different.
I said that's why there's a section called other in my hope is it each department would use the other section for department specific.
Stuff that we should still have the consistent evaluation of all those other categories.
Any questions anything else you need to have for major.
So does the dress code apply in this level of management.
I know that on the MOU for the unions.
That's a good question.
That's a good idea.
Is our dress code a kind of white policy I don't know.
Yeah, because everyone will follow.
Well they've been in the past they've been following the MOU but by not including it in this, that would not make it apply to the middle management employees.
That's a valid point.
My goal was I would if we do bring that back.
I would want to bring it back in for adoption rather than hold all these people up for payroll and they're all anticipating it.
We can't just include it.
That is a care and pass it with it in it.
You could.
I'd be open to that.
But I would.
Yeah.
I know Kathy and I were concerned about open to and choose if working people getting heard.
And she said if that meeting there were lots of people wearing.
Got it.
I was listening but I was looking at fashion statements.
That's my nature.
Or the act there.
And so anyway.
I would like that.
How do you feel, man?
It sounds reasonable to me to include it in this.
That way there isn't any question.
Well that's a county white one we've adopted.
Yeah.
But we'll take a comprehensive look of other ones that we could add on.
It's a good idea.
I'll make a motion to approve this with the addition of the dress code language.
It's out of the variable you.
It's a second back.
It's a good sketcher.
I'll take her.
18 beats.
Session information.
Discussion regarding the public employees pension reform.
Pepper.
The closure of contribution rate increased to help first pension.
Through CalPERS.
Circular letters.
And also some webinars that we were informed that the employee rate was going to be increased from 6.75 to 7.75.
One whole point.
Out of their payroll checks just on the employee portion site.
So we did was we put together a letter and milled them out to all of the employees.
It would affect that we're pepperate employees.
And those are employees that have been hired after January 1st 2013.
And then we met in the meeting and discussed it as well with all of the management employees.
And email was sent out as well to all the fiscal officers and department heads to inform their employees of this as well.
So that we could cover all bases.
And that's what this.
This item is about that it will be increased July 1st with payroll.
Sounds good.
We did this information because it's highly likely that we didn't get contacted by one or another people saying that we
legally started doing a charge or they didn't get notified.
We tried to get as many points to contact.
It is significant.
Basically taking another percent of the people's payroll.
And this wasn't like years in advance or people didn't take their jobs knowing this.
This is a state law that we have to implement.
So we just want to make sure that we're so making the board aware that this change is coming.
Good thing they all just got a 12% increase.
We placed them as a solution that helps not only address inflation, but increase in medical costs with their experience in them also.
The fact that they're going to have more employees here going out.
Thank you.
Any time.
Thank you.
It can see consideration action requesting approval and authorization to purchase California irrigation management information system.
Weather station equipment from western weather group, not to exceed 11,630 dollars and 78 cents.
And approve of a bid exemption, pursuant to county code V2 effective June 13, 2023.
15 Martinez assistant county administrative officer.
This is the last portion of the sigma grant that we have to complete before we finalize it.
They did provide an extension for this because DWR has been working for quite some time on agreement with the landowner for where the location of this device will be placed.
And they have not concluded with that agreement at this point.
So they've extended it out.
The purchase of this equipment was also communicated that they were going to be providing it and now it is within our county to do that, which is not it not a problem.
We have plenty of grant funds to do that.
So we went ahead and moved forward with that.
I did ask a few questions regarding this just to make sure that we weren't committing the county anything that was long going on going costs.
We won't have to be providing any of the cell service that the semistation requires.
DWR will activate the service for the station during the installation.
Additionally, I asked if they would be need for fencing to go around this station.
And they responded that they have the panels already and that they would be constructing that design around the station.
I also asked if they were going to be the ones installing it and taking care of all of that.
They said that DWR will be doing all of that work.
I also additionally asked a DWR to be responsible for the maintenance and calibration of the device because that is something that is going to be an ongoing cost.
They did respond that the cooperator that they're working with for the landowner agreement is going to be doing the maintenance on the device.
I'm going to be checking it quarterly on the station.
And then additionally we're asking for a bid exemption due to the fact that you'll see that DWR staff responded to us that this is the only company that can get all of those items in a package and will meet the semistation requirements that they need to be able to be a semistation.
So therefore there is no ability for me to get additional quotes on this item.
There's a few in-house items that I was able to purchase.
Those would be items as I detailed in the agenda packet, 20 through 24 with the exception of item 24.
24 had to come through this company so that is included in the flow.
And the company said the shipping is free so there is no shipping included in this.
Those taxes included.
And shipping.
That's on now I say.
When we hear a portion of that back, right?
Motion to approve.
Second.
Motion and a second.
Any any public comment for the discussion from the board.
Onfavor.
Hi, opposed sentencing motion carry's 18 indeed consideration action requesting approval of the budget modification for fiscal year 2022 dash 2023 to general fund, 001 16 funny bombs and insurance modifying nowhere buying revenues and expenditures in the amount of $10,547 dollars.
Just remember it's in administration, so this is money in and money out.
It's the salvage from a vehicle that has totals in the Farmed Biser's office.
We revolve it in because we have to pay it back to our insurance.
And seeing this very much in the past, it's because the dollar value of the vehicle goes
higher.
We have more than one layer of insurance.
And so our insurer also has to pay money to our re-insurer.
And this has enough salvage value that they get audited to have to document.
So really, a portion of this comes back to us in our self-insured banking layer.
But a portion of it has to be remitted to another carrier.
And the salvage company's office always remit the funds to the people in which the title is held.
So money in and money out.
But we've already been paid in full for the vehicle and paid our deductible.
Motion to do it for you.
Back up.
Motion to do the second.
And it's about the comment.
For the discussion, can the board?
On paper?
Post, extensions, motion carries.
Item 19, Board of Superb, pardon me.
Board of Supervisors, items, 19A.
Discussion information.
Discussion on the public engagement process for the Cal Fires to keep your plan of date.
And I'm chair.
Yes.
I'm wondering since Superbizer Kavasa was in here and she's kind of our fire person.
If I see the date's June 30th, could we post on this?
So the next meeting or is there some reason to do it today?
I think she should be in on that discussion.
Okay.
Good.
Yeah.
If you do have any comments, give us a meeting in the world budget and the first thing
to do the timeline so that people have to date comments from the other board board members to date
for a free date.
So you want to go ahead and do it today?
Well, if you all have any comments, you want to go to the meeting and build the most of the
time.
We have a point you will be there.
We have to do the work.
Otherwise, we'll be the direction.
We'll be there.
We're going to the time.
We'll see.
But there's more ways out.
Yeah.
I don't know.
I wonder if the board members have comments that could present them early in writing?
That would be helpful.
We could submit it to us and then we could start drafting whatever needs to be drafted
in writing our stuff.
That's the pressure of the board.
Post-pulling it.
Second up.
Okay.
All in favour?
Aye.
That was such a question here.
Just to notice possibly as a reminder that both comments need to be submitted early.
19th, the consideration action, requesting approval of a letter of support for the award of $2,600,000
in funding for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act around two funding solicitations.
So we're handing out a letter that went around the comments for June Friday, and so they have been submitted
just to note that the actual funding amount there is an error on the agenda and the packet is actually $2,640,000.
It's not awarded at this point. This were comments that were due just to provide support.
The award amount went out and they had a 15-day public comment period.
I received the note from the DWR staff on Thursday that they would like people that were awarded potential funds to please put in comments.
So we reached out to the last and county along with the Farm Advisors office and ourselves to submit comments regarding this.
Just nothing new that we experienced or counties are all struggling and we're just advantage communities in this big valley basin.
So any grant funding that we can obtain will help us to further the efforts that we've done and talk about the unique collaboration that we've done in this basin to make funds go long ways to achieve the results that we have.
I'll show you a proof.
So I can.
Give a motion and a second.
Any public comment.
Comment or a question from the board.
On paper.
All right.
Next item is 19C, which has been a change to the agenda.
Prior, it was on a consent agenda under 4V as a victim.
Consideration action requesting approval of the March 28, 2023 Board of Supervisor meeting minutes.
Supervisor code.
In the minutes on item 4.
There was no listed maker of the motion or second.
I would move to approve with that correction.
I'm occurring.
Second.
We have a motion and a second.
Any further discussion from the board.
On paper.
All right.
Those extensions motion carries.
All right.
20 comments and reports.
Public comment.
Administrative Services report.
Just enough data is related.
Emily, you was Shasta County.
I'll expire for the end of the month.
The Shasta County did renew their contract.
Point for another four-year term of commissioner.
Rula.
However, he has declined to move forward as.
The commissioner.
So we have a draft contract in place.
Coming together with their deputy commissioner.
And it is a.
That placement at the next regular board meeting.
And we'll also go before the Shasta County Board of Supervisors.
And anticipate.
No.
Problems with Shasta County on that.
However.
You really don't know because they're in process of having.
Turn over staff at all levels.
Including administration.
They haven't.
System administrator.
Remember, I mean, it's rough down there.
So we hope for streamlining there.
Yeah.
I did want to make one quick comment on that at home.
I have concerns.
As the dedicated source of funding rolls out.
We.
I anticipate that's going to lead to success in other places.
And we're going to see an increase in people coming to rural jurisdictions.
So what I am very supportive is that they give a minimum.
Allocation to rural jurisdictions.
Because what we're going to see is that that change.
As a result of.
Trying to address the problem elsewhere in the state.
The second thing that that I noticed Graham.
He pointed out in there that we are likely to have trouble workforce.
Issues.
You know, where they're going to find all of the people.
If the funding materializes.
We're already seeing that where.
As they've rolled out a number of new programs in the state.
They simply have been recruiting from the core service.
Egencies and core service departments.
So as you're moving forward.
Because these policy debates are going to.
This is an evolving thing on a statewide basis.
And a lot of it's going to happen.
Your level is board members.
Particularly.
Neds.
But also.
I know there's discussions of these kind of things at our CRC.
I think what we want to.
Keep it the forefront is where the workforce from this going to come from.
And.
And is that workforce going to do what we're seeing happen in.
In many other programs where simply recruits are existing workforce.
They make it so.
It needs to be properly funded.
But if it's funded so great.
Your your core services are already collapsing.
Not only in our jurisdiction, but all over the state.
Because they're trying to roll out so many fixes and new programs.
And one suggestion that I would throw out there in the policy circles.
Historically what worked when they rolled out substance abuse programs.
Back in the day was we had almost.
It was almost expected that you would have former substance.
Users and users.
That have become clean.
That we're acting in that field.
Right.
And they became the counselors.
We played some role sometimes of support staff.
And we've had success with that with a number of other programs.
CalWorks and some of our work programs and public works.
I would think that one of the solutions of states going to need to look at is how to
you incorporate some of the people that they're providing the services.
Into that workforce.
It's going to do that.
And I think.
Saying it and actually playing out of two different things.
People are having the dialogue at the policy level.
I've already seen it play out on all these other programs.
The people can't they're not eligible for higher because of their history.
Or criminal history, drug history.
Any kind of thing.
They're the agencies that get the money.
You know they'd be risky to have for workers comp.
They don't have adequate training.
The reality is if they're not incorporated in that in the policy.
It's going to roll out from multiple counties.
Multiple jurisdictions cooperating within those counties.
But on a statewide thing.
That should be at the forefront.
Where's this workforce going to come from?
Just throw that out for your consideration when you're in those.
Because I don't that's going to.
This is a new program.
It's.
It's just like what we we saw a roll out of foster care since I've been on the job before.
I'm before I was hired.
I watched in my early time on the periphery of government.
Expansion of a lot of the substance abuse programs.
We've had multiple programs and.
Every one of these has been a challenge and this is going to be a lot of money.
So.
Things to think about.
How to conference call with.
The.
Cal trends about having.
Clean California money come to our area.
And I'm going to meet with the waste management committee.
But.
The three options that we dialed in.
They did get a legal clearance.
To be able to do cleanup of cars.
But they have rolled it out in two counties in the state.
And have not found it to be the most cost effective.
And they give such a small allocation.
So the other things that we're talking about is having appliance clean up.
Which they're doing in number counties were vouchers.
And so I will get with committee.
But if you have any strong feelings for those categories.
Feel free to give them put because of our goals to have a contract coming before you.
If not at the next meeting, but the first or second meeting in July.
I think.
What's that?
Are the rest of the entire.
It would probably not meet the timelines in the current year contract because I have to have.
Julie and I are working on getting our current renewal where our current.
Provider with color cycle where they have to be licensed and all this stuff.
And what we want to do is have a target before we get to the snow falls.
And these other three categories would be much quicker.
We can meet all the regulatory threshold and have vendors that actually can clean up the sites.
We'd like to have target dates and probably just September.
For this type of stuff.
When I work on tires.
That's all I have.
Permission reports.
No.
Or supervisor reports.
So I start supervisor.
Okay, thank you very much on May 24th.
I had a salary review and we class committee.
But supervisor roads on May 25th and June 5th.
Try county zoom meeting.
Supervisor codes also moment.
June 12th.
Our CRC officers in meeting.
And tomorrow I'm headed to our CRC GSFA.
GSA executive committee.
Thank you.
Supervisor star.
June 2nd.
I had an introductory meeting with a new chief probation officer.
Steven Spenich.
Very well.
My name is June 5th.
I had a partner's meeting for the being California grant with a railway park.
Application.
June 8th.
Had a sked loan committee meeting.
Oh.
Other than Sunday.
Elizabeth Klaus Open.
May 24th.
North County MS board meeting.
And interestingly, they have been informed by their legal counsel that.
Because they are comprised of counties that have to.
Complied with the Brown Act then therefore they do and we're trying to figure out.
How we can continue to do remote only meetings.
In this new arena.
So that that may make a real challenge for that in the day that the meeting.
It's.
Trinity.
Motoc.
Plumus.
Sierra.
And last.
May 25th.
As of.
President.
And to get it.
Try counties meeting.
May 28th.
Tended the Fort Midwell.
Fire Department.
barbecue.
May 31st.
Tended the Motoc.
Fish game and recreation commission meeting.
June 2nd.
Surprise.
Molly Chamber.
First Friday.
June.
Fifth.
Try counties meeting.
Also on the fifth.
North.
Naco.
Update call.
On the federal debt ceiling agreement.
And impacts the counties.
And was reassured that.
COVID money.
To the counties.
And the public lands.
Six or five money.
All been allocated.
So therefore they were not impacted.
Also on the fifth.
It was a busy day that day.
Naco.
Public lands committee.
And western interstate region.
Monthly meeting.
And June 9th.
I also had a meeting with.
The majority of the members of the district.
And lives.
I heard the.
And the amount of here.
We have.
I heard.
The number of that.
More about the department.
About him.
And.
Some of.
Concerned.
There.
committee meeting, May 25th or a health meeting. June 1st,
US Forest Service Recreation meeting, June 5th,
Tax Collector Treasurer, Precision Interviews, June 6th,
Motocony Transportation Commission, and Motoc Transportation Agency meetings.
June 7th employee exempt confidential management meeting,
following this board meeting, supervisor co in myself,
have a laugh called meeting.
If I tried to forget that.
Okay, I will read the closed session items into the record.
21A closed session, pursuant to California Government Code 54957,
performance evaluation, title, director of health services.
21B closed session conference with legal counsel,
an initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision C,
a government code section by 4959.9,
number of cases, one county council.
21C closed session, pursuant to California Government Code 54957,
performance evaluation, title, county administrative officer.
Motion to go in a closed session.
Sorry.
We have a motion in a second, all in favor.
Okay.
We have a motion.
Motion carries.
21A evaluation, held.
Yes, with regard to item 21B.
The board has authorized the county a Motoc to participate in a
a joint Amicus Curei support brief with SISCU County and possibly Curei County in Oregon
in support of an appeal in the matter of the york tribe at all the in-stage Bureau
of Reclamation.
This is an Oregon district case number 19-cv-044-05-w-h-o and this involves the issue of whether
I'm with project operations, our non-dispressionary actions to which Section 7, sub-A sub-2 of the ESA Act does not apply.
I should also indicate that, and I'm sorry, I should have just also added that the board head has authorized the county to share in the amount of the briefing and an amount not to exceed 75% of the dollars.
I'm sorry for the interruptions.
Move to adjourned.
No, my hold.