[1:19:08] >> Great, thank you. Good

[1:19:09] morning. We are reconvening

[1:19:12] from closed session, and I, as

[1:19:16] for folks that weren't here,

[1:19:17] last time we met, I wanted

[1:19:21] to reaffirm our commitment

[1:19:23] to civility. And at the start

[1:19:25] of every board meeting,

[1:19:27] I'm going to remind everyone

[1:19:30] what our commitment is

[1:19:31] on civility, and I'll read the,

[1:19:33] our civility statement. And

[1:19:36] then I have opening remark real

[1:19:38] quick,

[1:19:40] and then we'll get right on

[1:19:41] along to the agenda. So, the

[1:19:44] commitment to civility is the

[1:19:45] Board of Supervisors has

[1:19:46] adopted rules and procedures

[1:19:48] for which include our

[1:19:52] commitment to civility.

[1:19:53] To assure civility

[1:19:55] in its public meetings,

[1:19:56] the public is encouraged

[1:19:58] to engage in respectful

[1:20:00] dialogue that supports the

[1:20:01] freedom of speech and values

[1:20:03] of diversity of opinion. Board

[1:20:05] members, staff, and members

[1:20:07] of the public are expected to

[1:20:09] establish and maintain a

[1:20:10] cordial and respectful

[1:20:12] atmosphere

[1:20:14] during discussions, and foster

[1:20:16] meaningful dialogue free

[1:20:18] of personal attacks. Members

[1:20:19] of the public must adhere

[1:20:20] to the speaking time limit.

[1:20:22] The board welcomes comments

[1:20:24] including criticism

[1:20:26] about the policies, procedures,

[1:20:27] programs, or services

[1:20:29] of the county,

[1:20:31] or the acts or omissions

[1:20:32] of the board. Speakers shall

[1:20:33] not use threatening, profane,

[1:20:35] abusive language which

[1:20:37] disrupts, disturbs, and

[1:20:39] otherwise impedes orderly

[1:20:41] conduct of our board meeting.

[1:20:43] The county is committed

[1:20:45] to maintaining a workplace free

[1:20:47] of unlawful harassment and

[1:20:49] mindful that county staff

[1:20:51] regularly attends the board

[1:20:52] meeting. Discriminatory

[1:20:55] statements or conduct that

[1:20:57] would potentially violate the

[1:20:59] Fair Employment and Housing

[1:21:01] Act, for example,

[1:21:02] statements or conduct that is

[1:21:03] hostile, intimidating,

[1:21:04] oppressive,

[1:21:06] or abusive is disruptive to our

[1:21:08] meeting and will not be

[1:21:09] tolerated. So, good Tuesday

[1:21:10] morning, Tuesday, March

[1:21:15] 24th. I wanted to just also

[1:21:17] acknowledge the terrible news

[1:21:19] that we heard from last week

[1:21:23] about Cesar Chavez. Many are

[1:21:27] still in shock and grappling

[1:21:30] with the news. That someone we

[1:21:32] respected highly and thought

[1:21:35] of in favorable light has shown

[1:21:38] that that is not true. It's

[1:21:41] rocked the foundation

[1:21:43] of what many people fought

[1:21:45] for tirelessly for many years.

[1:21:46] To the survivors,

[1:21:49] we believe you. We honor the

[1:21:51] immense courage it took

[1:21:52] to step out

[1:21:54] of darkness and speak, speak

[1:21:55] about what happened and not

[1:21:57] remain silent anymore. If

[1:22:00] you're a survivor, I want to

[1:22:01] remind you that there are

[1:22:03] amazing resources

[1:22:04] in our community like Family

[1:22:06] Justice Center, Verity, YWCA.

[1:22:08] Laura in the county family

[1:22:13] emailed last week and she

[1:22:15] reminded me

[1:22:17] of our founding principles as

[1:22:18] in our country, that is,

[1:22:21] we are a government of laws,

[1:22:23] not of men. And it's a reminder

[1:22:25] that the activism is more than

[1:22:27] one person. It's a hope and a

[1:22:29] fight for a better future

[1:22:31] for us, for others. One person

[1:22:33] doesn't take away all that has

[1:22:36] been sacrificed and achieved

[1:22:38] and transformed. The farmworker

[1:22:41] movement was a collective

[1:22:44] action by thousands

[1:22:46] of women and men to support and

[1:22:48] uplift our farmworkers,

[1:22:50] and that can't be undone.

[1:22:51] With that said,

[1:22:54] later today we are going to be

[1:22:55] presenting a gold resolution,

[1:22:57] if you'd like to stay around,

[1:22:59] for our farm workers

[1:23:02] in recognition of Farm Worker

[1:23:04] Week. I have given direction

[1:23:06] to staff to visit, circle back

[1:23:09] with nonprofits and our labor

[1:23:12] leaders to identify the county

[1:23:15] holidays we celebrate As

[1:23:17] previously established,

[1:23:21] Tuesday, March 31st will be a

[1:23:24] county holiday. And

[1:23:26] with that, we are going

[1:23:29] to shimmy on into our agenda.

[1:23:31] Those were my opening remarks.

[1:23:33] Thank you all for being here.

[1:23:34] And again, you can come back

[1:23:35] for the Gold Resolution after

[1:23:37] about 1 o'clock. And oh,

[1:23:39] pledge. Look, just me shimmying

[1:23:43] on by. Let's, I can't even

[1:23:45] think of who should lead.

[1:23:47] Let's just all do it together.

[1:23:48] Yay!

[1:23:50] >> Right, that's the best way.

[1:23:52] >> That collective action.

[1:23:53] Good job.

[1:23:54] >> I pledge allegiance

[1:23:55] to the flag of the United

[1:23:56] States of America and to the

[1:23:58] Republic for which it stands,

[1:24:00] one nation under God,

[1:24:02] indivisible,

[1:24:04] with liberty and justice

[1:24:05] for all.

[1:24:07] >> Thank you. Okay.

[1:24:09] Now we're going to move on

[1:24:11] to approval of the agenda.

[1:24:12] Item 2A added by addendum.

[1:24:14] Item 45 removed

[1:24:16] from regular calendar

[1:24:18] to consent. If there are any

[1:24:20] changes, if not,

[1:24:23] can I get a motion?

[1:24:26] >> So moved.

[1:24:27] >> Second.

[1:24:28] >> All those in favor?

[1:24:29] >> Aye.

[1:24:31] >> Any opposition? Seeing none,

[1:24:32] the motion passes. Thank you.

[1:24:40] Okay, consent. A public comment

[1:24:43] on consent calendar items 3

[1:24:46] through 35 and number, oh nope,

[1:24:49] 45's gone. Oh yeah, 45.

[1:24:52] Sorry. If there's anyone to,

[1:24:54] that would like

[1:24:56] to provide public comment

[1:24:57] on consent calendar items.

[1:25:01] >> Yes. Good morning,

[1:25:02] everyone.

[1:25:03] >> You'll have 2 minutes.

[1:25:04] >> Thank you. My name is

[1:25:05] Duane Dewitt. I'm from

[1:25:06] Roseland. Number 13 is very

[1:25:08] important. Excuse me.

[1:25:10] For a number of years,

[1:25:12] I've known a man,

[1:25:13] and he's an 85-year-old veteran

[1:25:15] with a disabled son,

[1:25:16] and he's facing eviction

[1:25:18] from his home. And this would

[1:25:20] be a terrible thing

[1:25:21] to have happen,

[1:25:23] and he could perhaps become

[1:25:24] shelterless,

[1:25:25] I'm very supportive

[1:25:27] of this program Committee

[1:25:29] on the Shelterless. And I'm

[1:25:31] hoping you might also be able

[1:25:32] to read today's Press Democrat

[1:25:33] because there's a story

[1:25:35] in here

[1:25:36] about this man who lived

[1:25:37] in the home for 54 years so

[1:25:39] far. And, excuse me,

[1:25:43] he's also an Army veteran

[1:25:45] that's done a lot

[1:25:46] of good things in his life.

[1:25:47] One

[1:25:48] of the dilemmas that we face in

[1:25:50] this current administration and

[1:25:51] current business climate

[1:25:53] nationally is a very cutthroat

[1:25:55] business approach towards the

[1:25:57] way regular folks live. It's

[1:26:01] very difficult

[1:26:03] for an elderly person

[1:26:05] to be able to find housing that

[1:26:07] they could afford should they

[1:26:09] lose what they have, I'm hoping

[1:26:12] that you folks could become

[1:26:13] supportive of any efforts to

[1:26:16] keep people sheltered. I'm very

[1:26:18] supportive of the fact that you

[1:26:20] people also help to finance

[1:26:21] legal aid and other types

[1:26:24] of activities. We're just

[1:26:27] in a very difficult time,

[1:26:28] and I understand it may get

[1:26:31] worse. I'm hoping that you

[1:26:33] folks will have the compassion

[1:26:34] to reach out. I don't know

[1:26:36] specifically what district this

[1:26:38] gentleman's in, but it's over

[1:26:40] to the southwest of Santa

[1:26:41] Rosa. It's

[1:26:43] in the right district

[1:26:45] for the city of Santa Rosa. We

[1:26:47] need people to step up and help

[1:26:50] our elderly. Someday I'd like

[1:26:51] to be there myself,

[1:26:53] not just stepping up

[1:26:55] but being elderly. And it takes

[1:26:56] having a place to live

[1:26:58] to be able to do that, please,

[1:27:00] if you can in any way, shape,

[1:27:02] or form,

[1:27:03] have your workers reach out to

[1:27:04] this 85-year-old veteran. I

[1:27:06] haven't mentioned his name

[1:27:08] for privacy, but you can read

[1:27:09] the newspaper article today,

[1:27:10] front page, Press Democrat.

[1:27:12] Thank you kindly.

[1:27:14] >> Thank you.

[1:27:18] >> Good morning, board Patrick

[1:27:19] McDonald, I'm the housing team

[1:27:20] supervisor at Legal Aid of

[1:27:22] Sonoma County. I don't think

[1:27:23] Mr. Dewitt even knew that I was

[1:27:24] behind him, but, I, our office,

[1:27:26] has represented the gentleman

[1:27:29] that he's mentioning in the

[1:27:30] Press Democrat, and so I can

[1:27:31] also be a source for questions

[1:27:33] if you have any based

[1:27:36] on that story. I'm actually

[1:27:38] here to speak in support

[1:27:39] of the proposed funding

[1:27:40] for the Keep People Housed

[1:27:42] program. Legal Aid of Sonoma

[1:27:43] County is part

[1:27:44] of the coalition for Keep

[1:27:46] People Housed, which allows

[1:27:47] basically bridge funding

[1:27:48] for folks who are

[1:27:49] at imminent risk

[1:27:51] of losing their housing

[1:27:52] to make sure that they do

[1:27:53] in fact stay in that housing.

[1:27:55] We've been working

[1:27:57] within this program

[1:27:58] for almost 2 years now. It's

[1:27:59] been an essential lifeline,

[1:28:00] and I know that I don't have

[1:28:01] to explain this to any

[1:28:03] of you, right? But you never

[1:28:04] get adequate credit for all

[1:28:05] of the folks that you keep

[1:28:06] in housing, right, and the cost

[1:28:08] savings that are associated

[1:28:09] with those upstream

[1:28:11] investments. The Keepable

[1:28:12] Housing program is absolutely

[1:28:13] such an investment. The county

[1:28:14] saves enormous amounts

[1:28:16] of money by ensuring that

[1:28:17] people do not end up

[1:28:19] on the street, right? And once

[1:28:20] folks fall

[1:28:22] through the cracks,

[1:28:23] the amount that is required

[1:28:25] to get them back

[1:28:26] into housing is basically

[1:28:27] about 10 to 1 compared

[1:28:30] to what it keeps what it takes

[1:28:31] in terms of funding

[1:28:33] to keep them in housing, it's a

[1:28:34] tremendous upstream investment.

[1:28:35] We're proud to be a part

[1:28:37] of it, and we thank you

[1:28:38] for your support.

[1:28:39] >> Thank you.

[1:28:53] >> Good morning,

[1:28:54] board. I wanted to speak

[1:28:55] on the Litten tribal mitigation

[1:28:57] funds. I'm requesting for

[1:28:58] Supervisor Gore to recuse

[1:29:00] from this item, being that

[1:29:02] during his run for Senate, he

[1:29:04] received approximately $5,000

[1:29:06] from Larry and Tristan

[1:29:09] Stidham, each individually,

[1:29:11] as well as Chairman Mejia. And

[1:29:13] so that is a conflict. I'm

[1:29:15] specifically concerned

[1:29:16] regarding the NGO funds. I see

[1:29:19] that $600,000 will be allocated

[1:29:21] to Russian River Russian

[1:29:22] Riverkeeper. However, as I

[1:29:24] speak

[1:29:26] with enrolled tribal members,

[1:29:27] they're not aware of the

[1:29:28] Potter Valley Dam

[1:29:29] decommissioning,

[1:29:30] and it appears that Russian

[1:29:31] Riverkeeper advocates

[1:29:32] for policy, under Winter's

[1:29:34] Doctrine, I was actually

[1:29:35] at a meeting to advocate

[1:29:37] for tribal water rights

[1:29:39] recently in Alexander Valley,

[1:29:40] and Supervisor Gore and several

[1:29:42] other individuals

[1:29:43] at that meeting had me escorted

[1:29:44] out by 3 deputies

[1:29:46] for sitting there to try

[1:29:47] to find out

[1:29:48] about tribal water allocation,

[1:29:50] under Winter's Doctrine, The

[1:29:51] Round Valley Tribe is

[1:29:53] guaranteed water. However, the

[1:29:56] other tribes are filing motions

[1:29:57] to intervene, and we have no

[1:29:59] idea what the allocations will

[1:30:01] look like, there seems to be no

[1:30:02] genuine concern regarding the

[1:30:03] fact that we will have valid

[1:30:06] water supply for everybody.

[1:30:10] It's been extremely

[1:30:11] controversial and extremely

[1:30:13] upsetting outside in the

[1:30:14] Alexander Valley where certain

[1:30:16] individuals are represented who

[1:30:18] happen

[1:30:20] to be wealthy vineyard owners,

[1:30:21] yet we're excluding BIPOC

[1:30:23] people that we claim

[1:30:24] to serve, I thank you

[1:30:26] for listening. God bless you.

[1:30:28] >> Thank you.

[1:30:40] >> Hello, good morning, Chris

[1:30:41] Cabral, CEO from COTS,

[1:30:42] just here to say thank you

[1:30:44] for supporting the Keep

[1:30:46] People Housed program. He

[1:30:47] already did a great job talking

[1:30:48] to you about the upstream

[1:30:50] investments and how great it's

[1:30:51] been

[1:30:52] for the community. I just

[1:30:53] wanted to throw a couple

[1:30:54] of stats at you that I think

[1:30:55] are really impressive,

[1:30:56] over the last 12 months,

[1:30:58] we've been able to serve over

[1:30:59] 800 individuals with less than

[1:31:00] a million dollars, which is an

[1:31:02] incredible investment

[1:31:03] for the community. And

[1:31:04] something that's really unique

[1:31:06] about this program within the

[1:31:07] homeless services portfolio is

[1:31:08] that more than half of the

[1:31:10] households we serve are a

[1:31:11] female head of household

[1:31:13] with children, it's really,

[1:31:14] really important. It's a really

[1:31:16] critical program

[1:31:18] for the community, thank you

[1:31:19] for your support,

[1:31:20] and it's nice to see all

[1:31:22] of you this morning.

[1:31:23] >> Thank you. And

[1:31:24] before I forget, if you,

[1:31:25] if anybody needs headsets,

[1:31:26] please let us know. We have

[1:31:28] some out here on the table.

[1:31:30] Welcome. Thanks

[1:31:32] for coming back.

[1:31:33] >> Thanks for that. I'm here to

[1:31:35] say that I'm putting my

[1:31:38] comments on one side because I

[1:31:40] just wanted

[1:31:42] to acknowledge that David

[1:31:43] Manning has approached me and

[1:31:45] provided me with plan sets,

[1:31:46] and I really appreciate that,

[1:31:48] I'm here just to acknowledge

[1:31:50] that my request has been

[1:31:52] responded to.

[1:31:55] >> Thank you.

[1:31:56] >> Thanks.

[1:32:03] >> Chair Hermosillo, and

[1:32:04] members of the Board of

[1:32:05] Supervisors, my name is

[1:32:06] Gregory Ferrin. I'm here

[1:32:08] in support of 3 items

[1:32:09] on the consent calendar, 7,

[1:32:11] 13, and 29. Improving the

[1:32:14] operation

[1:32:16] of your commissions,

[1:32:19] helping keep people housed,

[1:32:21] and appointing a friend

[1:32:23] of mine to your behavioral

[1:32:24] health board are 3 examples of

[1:32:25] the progressive actions you all

[1:32:26] take every week that are on the

[1:32:28] consent calendar that you know

[1:32:31] are meaningful, and I want

[1:32:33] to thank you for them. They are

[1:32:34] examples of the work that you

[1:32:37] do and you're going

[1:32:39] to continue to have to do,

[1:32:41] and we all need

[1:32:42] to help you do that. Thank you.

[1:32:44] >> Thank you. Good morning.

[1:32:58] >> Good morning.

[1:32:59] >> Good morning.

[1:33:00] >> My name is Rose Hammack. I'm

[1:33:01] the current chairwoman for

[1:33:04] Yakima Indian Education and

[1:33:05] Development Corporation. I'm

[1:33:07] here with our vice chair,

[1:33:08] Angelica.

[1:33:09] >> Hello, my name is

[1:33:11] Angelica Smith, and I'm the

[1:33:12] vice chair at Yakima

[1:33:13] Educational Center.

[1:33:15] >> We just wanted to come and,

[1:33:17] represent our board of

[1:33:19] directors and thank the

[1:33:20] community

[1:33:21] for the support we have a lot

[1:33:24] of plans to use the funds to,

[1:33:25] get our building back up to par

[1:33:27] and provide more education

[1:33:29] resources for our Native youth

[1:33:31] and families,

[1:33:33] and looking forward

[1:33:35] to finding opportunities

[1:33:37] to welcome the community

[1:33:38] to our property over in

[1:33:40] Forestville. Thank you

[1:33:41] for your support,

[1:33:42] and thank you

[1:33:43] for having us today.

[1:33:44] >> Thank you.

[1:33:53] >> Hi, I'm Karen Alvis, and I'm

[1:33:54] also here to speak about the

[1:33:56] Litten Funds. I'm representing

[1:33:59] People for Parks from

[1:34:01] Windsor. They are the nonprofit

[1:34:03] that is supporting a mural

[1:34:05] project we're doing in

[1:34:07] Windsor, and I'm really proud

[1:34:08] to be here with Rose Hammock

[1:34:11] and Angelica Smith, who are two

[1:34:13] people that are consulting

[1:34:15] with us on this mural. It's

[1:34:18] called Water is Life, and we

[1:34:20] are excited because this mural

[1:34:23] really has crossed over, not

[1:34:28] just, a partnership with the

[1:34:30] Town of Windsor Public Works,

[1:34:32] but also with the Native

[1:34:34] community. And so, yeah,

[1:34:36] so thank you very much

[1:34:39] for considering this item.

[1:34:41] >> Thank you. Any more public

[1:34:47] comment

[1:34:48] on consent calendar items?

[1:34:51] Seeing none. Is there, sorry,

[1:34:59] anybody want to say anything?

[1:35:01] Comments? Discussion? No?

[1:35:03] Okay.

[1:35:05] >> If just a couple comments on

[1:35:06] consent calendar is now an

[1:35:07] appropriate time. Yeah, I just

[1:35:08] wanted to, it's beautiful

[1:35:10] to see the members from

[1:35:12] Yakima, and,

[1:35:15] now is not the right forum, but

[1:35:16] it's just a beautiful history

[1:35:17] that I've learned. I've been

[1:35:18] there too. Some of the

[1:35:20] community events that you all

[1:35:22] have hosted, some

[1:35:23] of the most beautiful, deeply

[1:35:25] resonant drum circles that I've

[1:35:26] just been an outsider. And it

[1:35:28] was just beautiful

[1:35:29] to see the welcoming aspect

[1:35:30] of that, of being invited

[1:35:32] from other members. And this

[1:35:33] property,

[1:35:35] for those who don't know, is,

[1:35:36] is right next to Schoene

[1:35:38] Farm. It's Forestville, but

[1:35:40] it's a property that accesses

[1:35:41] the ocean. And it has an

[1:35:43] amazing history

[1:35:44] of the repatriation you know,

[1:35:46] the battles and when there's

[1:35:48] protests in Alcatraz and land

[1:35:50] take back. And I know, you

[1:35:52] know, it provides vital

[1:35:54] services, but the buildings and

[1:35:56] other things,

[1:35:58] there's just a lot

[1:35:59] of need there. And while you

[1:36:01] get programs, money

[1:36:02] for programs to run programs,

[1:36:04] you don't get stuff for that.

[1:36:05] So, you know, my hope is that

[1:36:07] even as a board member who's

[1:36:09] stepping off this board now is

[1:36:10] that this is a part of a start

[1:36:12] of a long-term partnership

[1:36:13] because we have many new parks

[1:36:15] going down in the area

[1:36:17] down there, new trails, you

[1:36:19] know, respecting traditional

[1:36:21] access and rights. And I would

[1:36:24] just, if there's ever an

[1:36:26] opportunity when the work's

[1:36:27] being done, is

[1:36:28] for other board members,

[1:36:31] not just myself, to come

[1:36:32] out and see what's happening,

[1:36:34] because I just think it would

[1:36:36] engender just much more, you

[1:36:37] know, a wonderful place

[1:36:39] to learn, and I just,

[1:36:41] I just thank you. I also, you

[1:36:43] know, there was a claim,

[1:36:44] I want to state that even

[1:36:46] though these are called the

[1:36:47] Litten funds,

[1:36:48] these are county general funds.

[1:36:49] They are not tied specifically

[1:36:51] to the Litten tribe or

[1:36:52] whatever, once again,

[1:36:55] more false accusations from the

[1:36:56] same person who stalks me all

[1:36:57] the time. It's really good

[1:36:59] to see you. You know, it's

[1:37:01] interesting when you file

[1:37:02] hundreds of complaints that are

[1:37:04] really not investigations.

[1:37:06] They just keep getting sent

[1:37:07] down. It's fascinating how

[1:37:08] people work with that. So, wow,

[1:37:10] I hope that God finds the

[1:37:15] people who talk about God

[1:37:17] but don't really follow

[1:37:18] in his footsteps, amen. Thank

[1:37:20] you

[1:37:21] to all the other projects.

[1:37:22] Russian Riverkeeper stood up.

[1:37:24] They're doing amazing,

[1:37:25] amazing things. This is

[1:37:26] for a 3-year deeper dive

[1:37:28] into the Russian River

[1:37:29] watershed. This is just really

[1:37:31] magic stuff. And the goal

[1:37:32] at the initiation

[1:37:33] of this process was, was to

[1:37:35] allocate these dollars towards,

[1:37:37] the area in and around the

[1:37:41] Litten, housing development.

[1:37:43] Once again, those are general

[1:37:45] funds that have been sitting

[1:37:47] here for a long time. And so,

[1:37:48] it's beautiful

[1:37:49] to see those projects.

[1:37:50] There'll probably be some more

[1:37:52] allocations. These have been

[1:37:53] really engaged with community

[1:37:55] about assessments. So, and

[1:37:56] Karen Alvey's If you're still

[1:37:58] here, I want to just thank you

[1:38:00] for being here and being a

[1:38:01] champion in that area

[1:38:02] of all things good. And I know

[1:38:04] everyone's going

[1:38:05] through a lot, and I want to

[1:38:07] let you know that we're praying

[1:38:08] for you too and your family.

[1:38:09] Amen. Thank you.

[1:38:12] >> Thank you. Supervisor

[1:38:13] Hopkins.

[1:38:15] >> Yeah, I just was looking and

[1:38:16] it wasn't, I'm not seeing, or

[1:38:18] no, okay, never mind, I do,

[1:38:19] I do see it. It wasn't

[1:38:21] in the summary,

[1:38:22] but I was just double-checking

[1:38:23] on the VB 707, Item 7

[1:38:25] resolution. I hadn't seen the

[1:38:28] Coast MAC, but I did find it,

[1:38:29] so we're good. I want

[1:38:31] to make sure both of our MACs

[1:38:32] were covered. I actually want

[1:38:33] to say thank you to County

[1:38:34] Council for that item,

[1:38:35] and this is, I think,

[1:38:36] is an opportunity

[1:38:37] to increase recruitment for our

[1:38:38] municipal advisory councils,

[1:38:40] especially thinking about the

[1:38:41] Sonoma Coast where we've got

[1:38:42] about 55 miles and folks

[1:38:44] sometimes have to commute, you

[1:38:45] know, late at night

[1:38:46] in the winter, big storms,

[1:38:48] all the way down from the

[1:38:49] Bodega Bay or vice versa. And

[1:38:50] so really appreciate that item

[1:38:52] coming forward. I also wanted

[1:38:54] to commend Supervisor Gore for

[1:38:56] the excellent work and really

[1:38:58] building community

[1:39:00] through those funds. And wanted

[1:39:02] to give a shout out also

[1:39:04] for item number 8, where we are

[1:39:05] also funding a number

[1:39:06] of amazing CBOs. I get to work

[1:39:09] in my job with really,

[1:39:10] really good people,

[1:39:11] and what you just saw today you

[1:39:12] know, testifying on behalf

[1:39:13] of the investment. That's the

[1:39:15] magic. That's where all the

[1:39:16] good stuff happens,

[1:39:17] is when folks work, you know,

[1:39:18] across community groups,

[1:39:20] across cultures

[1:39:21] to bring beauty and improvement

[1:39:22] to the community,

[1:39:24] I just wanted to honor that and

[1:39:25] commend my colleague

[1:39:26] for the work that went

[1:39:28] into that agenda item.

[1:39:30] >> Great, thank you.

[1:39:32] Supervisor Rabbitt.

[1:39:34] >> Not to rain on the parade,

[1:39:35] but I'll be voting against the

[1:39:36] magic as item number 8, which

[1:39:39] is the tourism impact funds

[1:39:40] because those same funds are

[1:39:41] not available to me

[1:39:42] in my district for the magic

[1:39:44] in the South County. Thank you.

[1:39:46] And I don't need

[1:39:47] to pull the item,

[1:39:48] and I just wanted to let Noel

[1:39:49] that I'm going

[1:39:50] to register a no vote

[1:39:51] on that.

[1:39:52] >> Great. And with Supervisor

[1:39:54] Hopkins, just want to note that

[1:39:55] those items actually will be

[1:39:56] funding some work in the

[1:39:57] South County. Um, it is funding

[1:39:58] Rebuilding Petaluma

[1:39:59] organization as well.

[1:40:01] >> So, as I read that item

[1:40:02] though, that Rebuilding

[1:40:03] Petaluma contract is

[1:40:04] within the D 5, again, I think

[1:40:06] this is a discussion that we

[1:40:08] need to have. These are labeled

[1:40:11] tourism impact funds,

[1:40:12] but really it's a return

[1:40:14] to source that needs

[1:40:15] to be addressed

[1:40:16] at the appropriate time. And

[1:40:18] hopefully there's 3 votes

[1:40:19] to change that.

[1:40:22] >> Well, now that we've

[1:40:23] properly been rained on,

[1:40:24] considering items 5, 10, 14,

[1:40:27] 16 through 19, 21, 22, 24,

[1:40:30] require 4/5 vote. Do I

[1:40:33] have a motion to approve?

[1:40:35] >> Move to approve.

[1:40:37] >> Is there a second?

[1:40:38] >> Second.

[1:40:40] >> All those in favor?

[1:40:41] >> Aye.

[1:40:44] >> Any opposition? Recorded.

[1:40:47] Great, that motion carries.

[1:40:49] Item 3 through 35, number 45.

[1:40:53] And then is there a roll call

[1:40:55] vote for the Sonoma Valley?

[1:40:57] You want to do a motion? Is

[1:40:59] there a motion?

[1:41:00] >> Move the item.

[1:41:02] >> Second.

[1:41:09] >> For items 25 and 28, Mayor

[1:41:11] Wellander is absent.

[1:41:13] Supervisor Coursey?

[1:41:14] >> Yes.

[1:41:15] >> Chair Hermosillo?

[1:41:16] >> Yes. Great, thank you so

[1:41:18] much. And with that,

[1:41:20] we are going to move on

[1:41:21] to public comment

[1:41:22] on matters not listed

[1:41:24] on the agenda but within the

[1:41:25] subject matter jurisdiction of

[1:41:26] the board and board members'

[1:41:29] reports. If there's anyone who

[1:41:30] wishes

[1:41:31] to provide public comment,

[1:41:33] good morning, you will have 2

[1:41:35] minutes.

[1:41:38] >> Okay, good morning. My name

[1:41:40] is Paul Zerrer. I live in

[1:41:41] West Sonoma County, about 12

[1:41:43] miles west of the Sonoma

[1:41:45] County Airport. I want

[1:41:47] to be very clear, I support our

[1:41:48] airport. I support air travel

[1:41:51] in Sonoma County, and I'm not

[1:41:52] here to ask to reduce flights

[1:41:54] or restrict operations or

[1:41:56] discuss rates. I am here

[1:41:57] because of recent changes in

[1:42:00] flight patterns that are

[1:42:02] causing real harm to dozens

[1:42:03] of communities and thousands

[1:42:06] of people. Until recently,

[1:42:07] the departing flights

[1:42:09] from our airport followed the

[1:42:10] Highway 101 corridor, where

[1:42:12] background noise and traffic

[1:42:15] in city life runs to around 60

[1:42:16] to 75 decibels. Aircraft noise

[1:42:19] blended in and people barely

[1:42:21] noticed. A new FAA procedure

[1:42:22] called Redhead 1 changed all

[1:42:26] that. Now almost every

[1:42:28] departure banks west and tracks

[1:42:29] directly over rural West

[1:42:31] Sonoma County. Today, jets

[1:42:33] flying 2,000, 3,000 feet at

[1:42:36] full thrust throttle are

[1:42:38] passing over Sebastopol,

[1:42:39] Graton, Forestville,

[1:42:41] Freestone, Occidental,

[1:42:42] in thousands of residents and

[1:42:43] homes and farms, sometimes in

[1:42:45] less than 5-minute intervals.

[1:42:47] Acoustic science tells us that

[1:42:50] noise isn't about volume, it's

[1:42:52] about contrast. A 75-decibel

[1:42:54] aircraft over a 65-decibel

[1:42:57] highway corridor is barely

[1:42:59] perceptible. The same aircraft

[1:43:02] over a 30-decibel rural

[1:43:04] landscape is 45 decibels

[1:43:06] above normal. It's a jackhammer

[1:43:08] in a library. And noise

[1:43:10] complaints have gone from

[1:43:12] 1,135 in 2023 to, get this,

[1:43:17] 26,494 in 2025. We're asking 3

[1:43:23] things. Petition the FAA

[1:43:26] for a dispersal procedure

[1:43:27] between Redhead 1 and Charlie

[1:43:30] 8 corridor. No fewer flights,

[1:43:32] just share the burden. And

[1:43:33] commission a formal Part 150

[1:43:35] noise study. And 3, the FAA

[1:43:37] approved Redhead One under a

[1:43:40] categorical exclusion.

[1:43:43] >> Thank you. And your time is

[1:43:46] up.

[1:43:48] >> Thank you. Do what you can.

[1:43:49] We appreciate it.

[1:43:51] >> Thank you.

[1:43:56] >> Hello. I thank you

[1:43:57] for all your efforts and time.

[1:43:59] My name is Guy Gullion. I live

[1:44:01] at 16,600 Coleman Valley

[1:44:05] Road, 1.7 miles west

[1:44:07] of the tranquil hamlet of

[1:44:11] Occidental. There is no finer

[1:44:13] place in the world than West

[1:44:14] Sonoma County. Idyllic, serene,

[1:44:17] peaceful, a place of healing

[1:44:19] in a world of pain. Or rather,

[1:44:21] it was such a place

[1:44:24] of healing,

[1:44:26] and we mourn deeply the loss.

[1:44:28] Tragically, in February 2024, a

[1:44:31] new departure route named RRHD

[1:44:35] or RED was imposed by the FAA

[1:44:38] without due process. What had

[1:44:40] been a dispersed departure

[1:44:42] route roughly tracking the 101

[1:44:44] corridor south, where the jets

[1:44:45] were just another sound

[1:44:47] in the urban mix,

[1:44:50] has been replaced by a narrow

[1:44:53] jet engine highway creating a

[1:44:55] shattered landscape and

[1:44:58] soundscape of 18 and counting

[1:45:01] jets departing Sonoma County

[1:45:05] Airport. It is an indifferent

[1:45:07] conveyor belt of industrial

[1:45:10] waste just thousands of feet

[1:45:14] above our head. West Sonoma

[1:45:18] County Jet Noise Coalition is a

[1:45:20] group of hundreds

[1:45:22] of people who've been meeting

[1:45:23] to address this issue. We are

[1:45:27] bet, and we have a petition of

[1:45:31] over 750 signatures

[1:45:32] on change.org begging anyone

[1:45:33] with the power

[1:45:36] to change things

[1:45:37] for the better

[1:45:38] to please do so, because it's

[1:45:39] getting worse rapidly. This is

[1:45:41] where the Board of Supervisors

[1:45:42] comes in. The FAA controls what

[1:45:44] the planes do in the air. This

[1:45:46] board controls how many are

[1:45:49] on the tarmac at the airport.

[1:45:53] We agree with your March 2025

[1:45:56] letter to the FAA,

[1:45:59] and we thank you so much.

[1:46:01] >> Thank you.

[1:46:05] >> Hi, I'm Kenny Meyer. I'm

[1:46:06] here to talk about Thomas

[1:46:07] Lutke's case, Sonoma County

[1:46:09] versus Thomas Lutke, SCV

[1:46:11] 272556, another case from

[1:46:13] Sonoma County that reeks

[1:46:15] with fraud. You, Linda

[1:46:17] Hopkins, code enforcement, and

[1:46:19] Broderick, the civil judge,

[1:46:21] refused to acknowledge an

[1:46:22] 18-inch sewer pipe running

[1:46:24] through Mr. Lutke's septic

[1:46:26] tanks across the property and

[1:46:28] into the Petaluma River. This

[1:46:29] 18-inch pipe runs

[1:46:31] through the hills of Petaluma

[1:46:33] gathering sludge and

[1:46:34] contaminants and runs through

[1:46:37] Mr. Lutke's 3 septic tanks

[1:46:39] bringing sewage and pollution

[1:46:42] directly to the Petaluma

[1:46:43] River. If you go to permits

[1:46:45] from Sonoma and look up the

[1:46:47] permit history of 3698

[1:46:49] Petaluma Boulevard, you will

[1:46:51] not find the address or any

[1:46:53] permits

[1:46:54] on the septic or the pipes.

[1:46:57] The county, mainly Tyra

[1:47:00] Harrington, took all evidence

[1:47:01] of the pipe and Mr. Lutke's 3

[1:47:03] septic tanks off the books.

[1:47:05] Took, including the address.

[1:47:07] Broderick, the civil judge,

[1:47:09] refuses to see the 15 permits

[1:47:11] that Mr. Lutke has pulled to

[1:47:13] demolish these septic systems

[1:47:15] and the 18-inch pipe. Mr.

[1:47:18] Lutke intends

[1:47:19] to take this case to court if

[1:47:21] necessary. I will be hosting an

[1:47:23] open house to show the

[1:47:25] constituents that protect the

[1:47:26] river your lies and gross

[1:47:28] negligence. Your days of lying

[1:47:32] and harming the good people

[1:47:33] of Sonoma County are quickly

[1:47:36] coming to an end.

[1:47:37] >> Thank you.

[1:47:50] >> Supervisor Gore, you are

[1:47:51] horrifically racist. It's

[1:47:52] disgusting. Yeah, walk away.

[1:47:53] >> Personal attacks.

[1:47:54] >> No, no.

[1:47:55] >> Personal attacks.

[1:47:57] >> Please stop. That's

[1:47:58] disgusting. Absolutely not.

[1:47:59] >> That's interrupting the

[1:48:00] meeting.

[1:48:01] >> No, I'm not.

[1:48:02] >> You're interrupting the

[1:48:03] meeting.

[1:48:04] >> Let me talk.

[1:48:05] >> Pause her time. I'll remind

[1:48:07] you about our commitment

[1:48:08] to civility. If you would like

[1:48:10] to comment respectfully,

[1:48:11] please go ahead.

[1:48:15] >> Okay. Wow. This is why I

[1:48:16] don't want to live here in this

[1:48:17] county where we declared racism

[1:48:19] a public health crisis and I

[1:48:20] have Latina leaders telling me

[1:48:22] to be quiet

[1:48:24] to appease a racist white man,

[1:48:26] Dolores Huerta, right

[1:48:28] before this PSA came out,

[1:48:30] Ruth Sanchez actually filed a

[1:48:32] lawsuit sued

[1:48:33] against the foundation in

[1:48:34] September of 2025 because she

[1:48:35] claims that

[1:48:38] $95,000 in grant funds were

[1:48:39] misappropriated. She was

[1:48:41] working over 60 hours a week

[1:48:43] without meal breaks and what

[1:48:44] have you. So your former equity

[1:48:45] officer, Alegria de la Cruz,

[1:48:46] she was the government affairs

[1:48:49] director for the foundation.

[1:48:51] She also was on the board. So

[1:48:53] all of a sudden, Alegria

[1:48:54] leaves. She and Supervisor

[1:48:57] Gore founded the equity office

[1:48:58] here. And Alegria got run up

[1:49:00] out of Salinas because she

[1:49:02] served

[1:49:03] on the agricultural board,

[1:49:04] sold out the farm workers,

[1:49:05] and then came to Sonoma county

[1:49:07] to do the same thing. So when

[1:49:08] he just left,

[1:49:10] we were discussing the

[1:49:12] Agricultural verification pass,

[1:49:13] which Dolores Huerta, her

[1:49:15] foundation, supported. They

[1:49:17] wrote a letter

[1:49:18] to support that. So Alegria

[1:49:19] advocated for that.

[1:49:20] Supervisor Gore supported it.

[1:49:23] So when our people here,

[1:49:26] they evacuate

[1:49:27] during the fires. The farm

[1:49:29] workers are

[1:49:30] forced to continue

[1:49:31] to work and inhale smoke,

[1:49:33] and it is absolutely harmful,

[1:49:34] Dolores and Alegria made that

[1:49:36] happen, you have no sincerity

[1:49:37] regarding victims

[1:49:40] of sexual assault. I,

[1:49:41] I'm their advocate. I'm

[1:49:42] in court. You know this,

[1:49:43] Supervisor Hermosillo, please

[1:49:44] stop scapegoating the sheriffs

[1:49:46] with things like the

[1:49:47] agricultural verification pass.

[1:49:48] Sheriff Ingram is absolutely

[1:49:50] wonderful, as is his staff.

[1:49:52] They're one of the only

[1:49:53] departments whenever I have

[1:49:54] concerned, they get back

[1:49:55] to me the same day. And I also

[1:49:56] appreciate County Executive

[1:49:58] Rivera. She's been very kind

[1:50:00] and wonderful,

[1:50:01] a wonderful leader

[1:50:02] for your community, I thank

[1:50:04] you, God bless you. But that,

[1:50:05] that was disgusting,

[1:50:06] Hermosillo.

[1:50:11] >> Seeing no other public

[1:50:12] comments on,

[1:50:14] matters not listed

[1:50:16] on our agenda, oh, Supervisor

[1:50:19] Hopkins.

[1:50:20] >> Yes, I just wanted

[1:50:21] to say thank you

[1:50:22] for the feedback,

[1:50:23] and then we can't get

[1:50:24] into a discussion, but

[1:50:25] with respect

[1:50:26] to the airport noise,

[1:50:27] we have been

[1:50:28] in communication. You know that

[1:50:29] we held a joint meeting,

[1:50:30] between D4 and D5. I do want

[1:50:31] to note though that the number

[1:50:33] of flights is actually

[1:50:34] determined

[1:50:35] by the general plan,

[1:50:36] and we are in the process

[1:50:37] of updating the general plan.

[1:50:38] It's in,

[1:50:39] I believe the circulation

[1:50:40] element, if there is interest

[1:50:41] in that issue,

[1:50:42] it would be good to sort

[1:50:44] of work with Permit Sonoma and

[1:50:45] attend meetings on the general

[1:50:46] plan update process,

[1:50:48] just wanted to mention that

[1:50:50] for the record. And we continue

[1:50:51] to advocate with the FAA,

[1:50:53] and we'll share information to

[1:50:54] the group leaders who I know,

[1:50:55] I also added myself to the

[1:50:56] Facebook group,

[1:50:57] so I am monitoring the concerns

[1:50:59] on, you know, at least a

[1:51:01] multiple times a week basis and

[1:51:02] hear you and feel you, and,

[1:51:04] and we're working on it.

[1:51:08] >> Yeah, I just want

[1:51:09] to add a little context

[1:51:10] for that

[1:51:11] for the other board members.

[1:51:12] This is in partnership

[1:51:13] with airport management, with

[1:51:14] John Stout,

[1:51:15] with the consultants. There's a

[1:51:17] lot of work that's gone

[1:51:19] into it. We are

[1:51:20] at a point where, you know,

[1:51:21] sometimes we talk

[1:51:22] about disruptions

[1:51:24] around the airport

[1:51:25] in the sense of like, you know,

[1:51:27] there's a different level of

[1:51:29] nuisance versus full-blown

[1:51:31] changing operations and these

[1:51:34] planes banking at 100, 200,

[1:51:37] 300, 400, 500, you know,

[1:51:39] It's, it's huge. It's, we have,

[1:51:42] we have, we have gone

[1:51:43] from having like, like

[1:51:45] on annual, you know, hundreds

[1:51:47] to thousands and thousands,

[1:51:51] 8,000 per year, even airport

[1:51:53] management,

[1:51:56] they're putting a lot

[1:51:57] of staffing time

[1:51:58] into managing. And this change

[1:52:00] in the redhead approach, which

[1:52:02] was really a federal decision

[1:52:04] out of for helping the Bay

[1:52:06] Area, and we just got kind

[1:52:10] of the crap at the end

[1:52:11] of the, the avenue. There is

[1:52:13] the study process going

[1:52:15] on that's being revised

[1:52:17] by the Aviation Commission that

[1:52:18] will probably come to us,

[1:52:20] and that is going

[1:52:21] to propose a new plan

[1:52:22] with the FAA. Outside

[1:52:24] of that,

[1:52:25] we have an interim request that

[1:52:26] Airport Manager Stout and

[1:52:29] others are working

[1:52:31] on and informing the Aviation

[1:52:33] Commission, which is really

[1:52:34] to put more pressure

[1:52:36] on the FAA to go to,

[1:52:37] to just go back

[1:52:39] to what we were doing

[1:52:40] before they made that change,

[1:52:41] before they gave us the,

[1:52:43] the ripple that is rippling

[1:52:45] through our community from, I,

[1:52:47] I would really say that

[1:52:49] Supervisor Hopkins and I,

[1:52:51] there's a difference between

[1:52:53] times where we've had neighbor

[1:52:55] airport neighbors and sometimes

[1:52:56] we haven't been able

[1:52:58] to address it. Like, I've had I

[1:53:00] mean, you have all kinds,

[1:53:01] but these are very germane,

[1:53:02] very real, very disruptive.

[1:53:04] They've really impacted new

[1:53:06] cities, new routes,

[1:53:09] not just the rural neighbors.

[1:53:11] And so just want the board to

[1:53:13] know that there'll be more that

[1:53:15] comes forward,

[1:53:16] but we're doing, we're looking

[1:53:17] to do some articles. We're

[1:53:18] looking to do the collection

[1:53:20] of signatures, put pressure

[1:53:22] on the FAA to allow us

[1:53:24] to go back to what was what's

[1:53:26] working instead

[1:53:27] of just the bureaucratic no,

[1:53:28] I'm glad you, you were here

[1:53:31] for that. I think I just wanted

[1:53:33] to take the opportunity

[1:53:34] to talk with the board

[1:53:35] about the action,

[1:53:36] which is a combined effort.

[1:53:42] >> Thank you so much. And

[1:53:43] with that, we're going to go

[1:53:44] on to, seeing no more comments,

[1:53:46] going, to item number 36,

[1:53:48] department head personnel

[1:53:50] service agreement

[1:53:51] for executive director

[1:53:53] Community Development

[1:53:54] Commission, and we have

[1:53:55] Janelle Crane and Michelle

[1:53:58] Whitman. Thank you, welcome.

[1:54:07] >> Good morning, Chair

[1:54:08] Hermosillo, members

[1:54:09] of the board, CEO Rivera, and

[1:54:10] Council Myers. I'm Janelle

[1:54:11] Crane, the Human Resources

[1:54:12] Director, and

[1:54:13] with me here today is

[1:54:15] Michelle Whitman, and I'm

[1:54:17] pleased

[1:54:18] to present a first amendment

[1:54:19] to her Personal Services

[1:54:20] Agreement as the Executive

[1:54:21] Director of the community

[1:54:22] development commission. Ms.

[1:54:25] Whitman was appointed as the

[1:54:27] executive director on April

[1:54:29] 18, 2023, and this amendment

[1:54:32] extends the term

[1:54:33] of that agreement through

[1:54:35] April 18th of 2029. The

[1:54:39] executive director of the

[1:54:40] Sonoma County Community

[1:54:41] Develop Commission is appointed

[1:54:42] by and reports to the county

[1:54:43] executive and is responsible

[1:54:45] for organizing,

[1:54:47] directing and coordinating the

[1:54:48] Community Development

[1:54:51] Commission's programs and

[1:54:54] operations. This first

[1:54:55] amendment to the Personal

[1:54:56] services agreement places Ms.

[1:54:57] Whitman's salary at the I step

[1:54:59] of the salary range, which is

[1:55:00] $240,186 annually, again

[1:55:04] with a term ending on April

[1:55:06] 18, 2029, and maintaining

[1:55:08] eligibility

[1:55:09] for other county benefits

[1:55:11] in accordance

[1:55:12] with the salary resolution.

[1:55:13] And Ms. Whitman is here, and

[1:55:15] I'm here if you have any

[1:55:16] questions.

[1:55:18] >> Great. Thank you. Public

[1:55:21] comment on agenda item number

[1:55:22] 36. Yes, Supervisor Gore,

[1:55:25] you're right. We'll get

[1:55:26] to that

[1:55:27] in just a hot minute.

[1:55:31] >> Chair Hermosillo, members

[1:55:32] of the board, my name is

[1:55:33] Gregory Ferrin. As most

[1:55:35] of you know,

[1:55:36] I've been involved

[1:55:37] in homeless housing and housing

[1:55:38] in general for a long time and

[1:55:39] been an advocate of trying to

[1:55:41] bring the city and the county

[1:55:42] and everybody else together.

[1:55:43] You also may know I'm also

[1:55:48] on the Housing Authority

[1:55:49] for the City of Santa Rosa.

[1:55:50] And in that capacity and

[1:55:51] in other capacities,

[1:55:52] I've worked with Michelle and

[1:55:53] with the Community

[1:55:54] Development Commission

[1:55:55] for a long time. And I'm happy

[1:55:56] that she's going to continue

[1:55:57] to work with us. We've got to

[1:55:59] build a bigger continuum and a

[1:56:01] lot more people collaborating

[1:56:02] if we're going to get

[1:56:04] through the next few years.

[1:56:05] And I look forward to working

[1:56:06] with her and her staff greatly.

[1:56:07] Thank you.

[1:56:10] >> Thank you. Seeing no other

[1:56:12] public comment,

[1:56:13] I'll bring it back

[1:56:15] to the board. Supervisor

[1:56:16] Hopkins.

[1:56:18] >> I just want to say that one

[1:56:19] of the greatest joys of being

[1:56:20] in my position is getting

[1:56:21] to work

[1:56:22] with people who have the heart,

[1:56:23] the natural talent,

[1:56:24] and the experience

[1:56:25] for the work. And you bring all

[1:56:26] of that, and you do such a

[1:56:27] wonderful job stewarding this

[1:56:29] department and really working

[1:56:30] with all of our county and city

[1:56:32] partners. And so thank you so

[1:56:34] much for your dedication and

[1:56:35] for what I know can sometimes

[1:56:37] be long days and sleepless

[1:56:38] nights and appreciate the

[1:56:40] sacrifice that comes

[1:56:41] with it as well.

[1:56:45] >> Supervisor . Vice Chair

[1:56:46] Coursey .

[1:56:48] >> Thanks for all you do,

[1:56:49] Michelle. Chair Hermosillo,

[1:56:52] when you're ready. I'll move

[1:56:53] this item.

[1:56:54] >> Great. I just want

[1:56:55] to supervise. We will get there

[1:56:57] in just one second. Look

[1:56:58] at us.

[1:57:01] >> I can't help but just say

[1:57:02] thank you

[1:57:03] for all the great work,

[1:57:04] Michelle. And I'm a big fan and

[1:57:05] I'm so glad that you are

[1:57:06] in this position.

[1:57:07] >> Just great work.

[1:57:08] >> A lot of moving pieces,

[1:57:10] especially with all everything

[1:57:14] at the state and certainly the

[1:57:15] federal government.

[1:57:17] But you've been on top of it

[1:57:20] constantly and just totally

[1:57:22] appreciate your work and look

[1:57:24] forward to continuing working

[1:57:25] together.

[1:57:28] >> And I super seeing none.

[1:57:29] None. Yep. Right. What does one

[1:57:34] say? I just want to thank you

[1:57:36] for your collaboration, your

[1:57:38] leadership, your commitment

[1:57:40] to our community. Some of the

[1:57:43] work that you do is really

[1:57:45] essential to ensuring that

[1:57:46] families remain stable

[1:57:48] in their homes. And it's a lot

[1:57:50] of hard work that is often hard

[1:57:52] to leave at the office. So

[1:57:55] thank you

[1:57:56] for all that you do. And

[1:57:58] with that,

[1:57:59] is there a motion?

[1:58:01] >> Yes.

[1:58:02] >> Second.

[1:58:08] >> We'll call vote.

[1:58:12] >> Supervisor Rabbitt.

[1:58:13] >> Aye.

[1:58:14] >> Supervisor Coursey?

[1:58:15] >> Yes.

[1:58:16] >> Supervisor Gore?

[1:58:17] >> Yes.

[1:58:19] >> Supervisor Hopkins.

[1:58:20] >> Absolutely.

[1:58:22] >> Chair Hermosillo.

[1:58:23] >> Yes. And with that,

[1:58:24] Supervisor Gore had started.

[1:58:25] Thank you so much.

[1:58:37] Consolidated fee hearings,

[1:58:42] item 37. We have Andrew

[1:58:45] McLaughlin. We have. Oh, you're

[1:58:49] going to kick us off. Great.

[1:58:51] Thank you.

[1:59:44] >> Good morning. Go for it.

[1:59:46] Take it away.

[1:59:47] >> Thank you. Good morning,

[1:59:49] Chair Hermosillo and members

[1:59:51] of the board, County Council

[1:59:53] Myers and CEO Rivera. My name

[1:59:55] is Andrew McLaughlin. I'm an

[1:59:58] analyst in the operations and

[2:00:00] budget unit

[2:00:01] in the CEO's office. I work

[2:00:03] for Peter Bruland, who

[2:00:05] in years gone

[2:00:07] by gives this presentation.

[2:00:08] But he, he handed me the

[2:00:10] winning lottery ticket this

[2:00:11] year so.

[2:00:13] >> I can see him just staring

[2:00:14] at the back

[2:00:15] of your head right now.

[2:00:16] >> Not judging,

[2:00:17] not listening critically.

[2:00:19] >> You'll be just fine.

[2:00:20] >> Did you pre-plan any jokes

[2:00:21] though? That's the big thing.

[2:00:22] >> I lack his immediacy

[2:00:23] of wit, and I do

[2:00:25] like the pencil,

[2:00:27] but maybe I'll. Maybe I'll get

[2:00:29] there next year.

[2:00:31] >> Yeah, you calculate you're

[2:00:32] ready.

[2:00:33] >> I'm ready to go with my

[2:00:34] pencil. So, yeah, we'll walk

[2:00:37] through the presentation I have

[2:00:39] prepared here. You not really

[2:00:43] strangers

[2:00:44] to what we're doing here today.

[2:00:45] Every year,

[2:00:48] departments that charge fees

[2:00:49] for services bring items

[2:00:52] forward to make adjustments

[2:00:54] to their. To their fees. Our

[2:00:56] office consolidates those

[2:00:59] items, bundles them up and

[2:01:02] presents them here today. And

[2:01:09] so what I'll be walking you all

[2:01:12] through today is an overview of

[2:01:13] those items as briefly as I

[2:01:15] can, a discussion

[2:01:17] of the changes, the additional

[2:01:19] revenue that's expected or not,

[2:01:20] and then we'll make a

[2:01:22] recommended action. So

[2:01:24] off we go. There we go. So,

[2:01:33] yeah, why do we do this? We

[2:01:36] bring this fee hearing package

[2:01:40] item forward in the spring so

[2:01:41] that departments can include

[2:01:42] the additional revenue that

[2:01:44] they project to receive

[2:01:45] into the recommended budgets

[2:01:48] for 26, 27. So the timing is

[2:01:50] good at this time of year and

[2:01:52] we consolidate and bundle

[2:01:55] everything for efficiency and

[2:01:56] transparency. Talk about each

[2:01:57] department that's bringing

[2:01:59] items and where those cost

[2:02:00] increases may be happening.

[2:02:02] It's, it's. Yeah, it's board

[2:02:07] policy that where permissible

[2:02:10] by law. The fees that

[2:02:12] departments charge should cover

[2:02:13] all their costs of operations

[2:02:15] unless they're otherwise

[2:02:16] directed by your board. Fees

[2:02:20] offset costs for specific

[2:02:22] benefits. I'm coming forward

[2:02:25] to permit Sonoma to get a

[2:02:28] planning permit or an

[2:02:30] inspection permit

[2:02:31] for my home, or I'm going

[2:02:32] to the sheriff's office

[2:02:34] to get my fingerprints done for

[2:02:36] a concealed carry weapons

[2:02:37] permit. These are specific

[2:02:38] services that are provided to

[2:02:39] specific individuals or

[2:02:42] organizations, not

[2:02:43] to the general public. And

[2:02:45] that's where you can. That's

[2:02:46] where you can charge fees this

[2:02:49] year. As you can see,

[2:02:50] the types of changes that are

[2:02:51] occurring are mostly fee

[2:02:54] increases. There are some fee

[2:02:57] decreases and there's some

[2:02:59] elimination

[2:03:00] of fees. I'll be focusing today

[2:03:01] on the increases primarily,

[2:03:03] and we'll look at some

[2:03:07] of the other changes as well.

[2:03:08] But there are about 1,000

[2:03:09] changes of increase,

[2:03:11] decrease or elimination. And

[2:03:13] that's about what we saw last

[2:03:14] year as well.

[2:03:16] In round numbers, it's about

[2:03:19] 1,000. This is a good slide

[2:03:22] to focus in on the rate

[2:03:23] of increase. The blue half are

[2:03:24] those fees that are increasing

[2:03:32] by 3% or less. And those

[2:03:35] increases are tied to the

[2:03:36] salary and benefits costs,

[2:03:40] primarily countywide. So that

[2:03:41] is what we would really sort

[2:03:43] of expect

[2:03:45] to see are the majority

[2:03:46] of fees tied

[2:03:47] to those that type

[2:03:49] of cost going up by

[2:03:50] about the same amount. There

[2:03:51] are some other larger

[2:03:53] increases. You can see

[2:03:54] about a third

[2:03:56] of fees are increasing

[2:03:58] by more than 10%. Why is that?

[2:04:00] That is because the costs

[2:04:05] for certain services, certain

[2:04:07] supplies, insurance contracts,

[2:04:08] all those have gone up more

[2:04:11] sharply. And so those are

[2:04:13] typically where we're seeing

[2:04:15] larger percentages. And we can

[2:04:18] dial in on those when I go

[2:04:20] through each department here.

[2:04:23] This table shows the projected

[2:04:25] revenue that each department

[2:04:27] anticipates

[2:04:29] for the coming fiscal year.

[2:04:30] And this is

[2:04:31] in descending order

[2:04:32] of revenue. Permit Sonoma

[2:04:34] expects to get about 1.2

[2:04:35] million. Public infrastructure

[2:04:38] for the airport only expects

[2:04:40] to get about a million. And it

[2:04:42] goes down the line

[2:04:43] from there. Health services,

[2:04:44] about 300,000. Sheriff's

[2:04:45] office, 25,000. Ag weights and

[2:04:47] measures, about 20,000. And

[2:04:48] there are two fees that our

[2:04:50] office brings forward

[2:04:51] on behalf of the sheriff. And

[2:04:54] I'll talk about those too.

[2:04:56] Those are going up by about

[2:04:57] $9,000. And this amount

[2:04:58] actually is almost exactly

[2:04:59] identical

[2:05:01] to what the amount was

[2:05:03] increased by last year. It's

[2:05:05] about 2.6. So here we go.

[2:05:10] We'll start with Permit

[2:05:11] Sonoma. Of the 614 fees that

[2:05:14] are increasing, more than half

[2:05:16] of those are currently

[2:05:17] subsidized

[2:05:18] by the general fund. 221 fees

[2:05:22] are increasing by around 3%,

[2:05:24] 76 are increasing by 7 and

[2:05:25] another 268 are increasing

[2:05:27] by more than 10%. Permits

[2:05:29] Sonoma is interesting in that

[2:05:32] there has been an existing gap

[2:05:33] between the rate of cost

[2:05:36] recovery and the actual costs.

[2:05:38] And this year these increases

[2:05:41] are an effort to close,

[2:05:42] incrementally close that gap.

[2:05:46] So they're not going all the

[2:05:47] way to full cost recovery,

[2:05:48] but they are trying

[2:05:50] to edge closer and recover more

[2:05:51] of their cost

[2:05:53] of doing business. The general

[2:05:54] fund subsidy that has been

[2:05:57] in place for Permit Sonoma will

[2:05:59] remain in place, and I made a

[2:06:00] note here that permits them. A

[2:06:03] staff will plan to talk

[2:06:05] about this more during April

[2:06:07] budget workshops and you'll

[2:06:08] hear more about their efforts

[2:06:10] along those lines. They are

[2:06:16] bringing one new fee this year

[2:06:18] for the fully burned hourly

[2:06:19] rate for a new professional

[2:06:21] geologist position. We'll move

[2:06:24] on to Pie, which is the

[2:06:29] airport. You probably already

[2:06:32] know that the airport is an

[2:06:33] enterprise and operates

[2:06:35] at full cost recovery. They

[2:06:36] don't receive any discretionary

[2:06:37] general fund support. They have

[2:06:39] 87 fees increasing. The median

[2:06:41] rate is 8% this year. Last year

[2:06:43] was about 6.8%. The airport has

[2:06:45] done sort

[2:06:46] of a similar systems comparison

[2:06:50] to other airports

[2:06:52] in the region, Santa Barbara,

[2:06:56] SLO, Monterey, et cetera,

[2:06:58] and found that they are

[2:07:00] about middle of the pack

[2:07:02] for their cost of business and

[2:07:04] the fees that they're charging.

[2:07:05] They are recommending the

[2:07:07] implementation of 13 new fees

[2:07:09] for terminal advertising,

[2:07:11] ground leases,

[2:07:12] special events. Most revenue

[2:07:15] that they are anticipating is

[2:07:18] associated with terminal rates

[2:07:19] and charges and rates

[2:07:21] for advertising signage. Now

[2:07:26] we're moving on

[2:07:27] to health services.

[2:07:28] In their package,

[2:07:30] they are recommending 183 fees

[2:07:34] to increase

[2:07:35] across four service areas.

[2:07:36] Animal services,

[2:07:38] the public health laboratory,

[2:07:40] environmental health and

[2:07:41] behavioral health. Most

[2:07:43] of that 183 are increasing

[2:07:46] by 3% or less. Again, those are

[2:07:48] tied to the county staff

[2:07:49] salaries and benefits costs.

[2:07:52] Some are increasing

[2:07:54] by quite a bit more than that.

[2:07:55] And that's very specifically

[2:07:56] because pharmaceutical costs

[2:07:59] have increased,

[2:08:00] vaccine costs have increased.

[2:08:02] Other animal care supplies have

[2:08:05] increased by more than 3%. And

[2:08:07] so you see large increases

[2:08:09] there. The Very specific

[2:08:11] reasons why those are going up

[2:08:12] that much. Health services is

[2:08:16] proposing 15 new fees this year

[2:08:19] for among other things,

[2:08:20] cannabis dispensaries,

[2:08:21] local farmers markets,

[2:08:23] food safety and soft serve

[2:08:26] inspections, frozen yogurt.

[2:08:34] Okay, we'll go on

[2:08:35] to the sheriff's office. The

[2:08:36] sheriff's office charges fees,

[2:08:38] as I mentioned earlier. One

[2:08:39] example is fingerprinting for

[2:08:40] concealed carry weapons

[2:08:42] permits. They charge fees for

[2:08:44] like arcades, gaming, gaming

[2:08:46] centers, a number

[2:08:50] of other fees. Most

[2:08:51] of them are going up

[2:08:52] by that sort of nominal 0

[2:08:54] to 3% level. Larger increases

[2:08:56] are due

[2:08:57] to updated time studies. We've

[2:09:00] seen increased costs for

[2:09:02] vehicles and fuel and there are

[2:09:04] several fees that are going up

[2:09:06] to recapture some

[2:09:08] of the costs associated with an

[2:09:10] upgraded telecommunications

[2:09:11] network. The overall

[2:09:13] anticipated revenue at the

[2:09:15] Sheriff's office is 24,000 and

[2:09:17] that's net

[2:09:19] of increases and net of other

[2:09:21] decreases that are occurring

[2:09:22] through their department. Ag

[2:09:24] weights and measures. Here

[2:09:30] again, as you can see,

[2:09:34] most fees are going up by

[2:09:35] about 3%. Couple are going up

[2:09:36] by way more than 10%.

[2:09:38] But there are specific reasons

[2:09:40] for that. One large increase is

[2:09:43] because of a new contract

[2:09:44] for the ACELA permitting system

[2:09:45] in use

[2:09:47] over there and another one

[2:09:49] for the Certified Unified

[2:09:50] Program Agency Hazardous

[2:09:51] Materials Information System.

[2:09:53] Most

[2:09:56] of the revenue that they expect

[2:09:57] to receive in this coming

[2:09:58] fiscal year is associated

[2:09:59] with the Land Stewardship

[2:10:00] Division, specifically Vesco.

[2:10:02] This is the Vineyard and

[2:10:04] Orchard program. Here's the two

[2:10:12] fees that our office,

[2:10:13] the county Executive's office

[2:10:15] brings on behalf of the

[2:10:16] Sheriff's office. These are the

[2:10:17] fees pursuant

[2:10:21] to state law that are

[2:10:22] associated with the jail. The

[2:10:26] first one is the jail booking

[2:10:28] fee. This fee is, is kind

[2:10:30] of unique. It's never been

[2:10:33] charged because it can only be

[2:10:35] charged if the state fails

[2:10:37] to appropriate a certain amount

[2:10:40] of funding into its enhancing

[2:10:41] Law Enforcement activities sub

[2:10:44] account at the state. Well,

[2:10:46] they've never,

[2:10:47] they've never not done that.

[2:10:49] So we've never charged this

[2:10:50] fee. It is legally required

[2:10:51] to go up

[2:10:54] by the CPI locally plus 1%.

[2:10:57] For this year it's 4.3%. The

[2:10:58] second fee, and I should

[2:11:03] reiterate, is not going

[2:11:05] to be charged. The second one

[2:11:07] is the jail access fee.

[2:11:08] Again, per state mandate,

[2:11:09] this fee is charged to local

[2:11:12] law enforcement agencies when

[2:11:15] they exceed a rolling

[2:11:19] three-year average

[2:11:23] of non-felony sort

[2:11:24] of misdemeanor offenses. And

[2:11:26] even certain misdemeanors are

[2:11:28] excluded. Domestic violence

[2:11:30] misdemeanors, DUI misdemeanors,

[2:11:33] anything. That's not that.

[2:11:34] This is meant

[2:11:36] to deter local law enforcement

[2:11:38] from bringing people

[2:11:40] to the jail sort of

[2:11:41] unnecessarily when they could

[2:11:42] just as easily cite and release

[2:11:43] them, give them a court date.

[2:11:45] And, you know,

[2:11:46] it's interesting

[2:11:49] to see how the rolling

[2:11:51] through your average is the

[2:11:54] rate at which local law

[2:11:55] enforcement is exceeding that

[2:11:56] average has gone

[2:11:57] down as we come out of COVID

[2:11:59] It's more difficult

[2:12:00] to exceed your rolling

[2:12:05] through your average,

[2:12:06] basically. And so the sheriff's

[2:12:07] office and our office

[2:12:09] anticipates not that many

[2:12:11] agencies going

[2:12:12] above that threshold this year.

[2:12:14] So the. The revenue that we

[2:12:16] expect to receive

[2:12:17] from that fee is quite low.

[2:12:19] $9,000. I can't believe I'm

[2:12:27] here already. Those are all the

[2:12:29] departments that have brought

[2:12:31] fees

[2:12:32] in this consolidated package.

[2:12:33] There were six of them just

[2:12:34] to review last year. The

[2:12:36] regional parks was part

[2:12:38] of this. This year,

[2:12:40] I think they are going

[2:12:41] to be bringing their own items

[2:12:42] in a few weeks, I think in

[2:12:43] April. But the items

[2:12:45] before you today, we recommend

[2:12:48] that you approve them as they

[2:12:49] are. And I think that's all.

[2:12:52] Take questions or anything

[2:12:56] else.

[2:12:58] >> Great. Thank you so much.

[2:12:59] With that, I'll bring it

[2:13:00] to CEO Rivera.

[2:13:02] >> Thank you, Chair, and thank

[2:13:03] you, Andrew, for taking

[2:13:04] on the baton this year

[2:13:05] in our office. It's a great way

[2:13:07] to get to know about the other

[2:13:09] departments and really be able

[2:13:10] to support across different

[2:13:11] assignments.

[2:13:14] >> Yes.

[2:13:15] >> And thank you, Peter,

[2:13:16] for laying

[2:13:17] out such a great template

[2:13:18] for years before. I want

[2:13:19] to thank not only the CEO

[2:13:20] of staff, but also the

[2:13:22] departments who are here to

[2:13:23] help answer questions and

[2:13:25] listen to the conversation and

[2:13:26] deliberations for this. As

[2:13:27] Andrew stated, this is, if you

[2:13:29] will,

[2:13:31] your first action associated

[2:13:34] with starting to lay

[2:13:35] out the financial plan

[2:13:37] into the 26-27 budget. So thank

[2:13:39] you again,

[2:13:42] and I'll turn it back to the

[2:13:43] chair so she can open the

[2:13:44] hearing. And

[2:13:45] like I said before,

[2:13:46] when it comes back

[2:13:47] for board deliberation,

[2:13:48] we do have representatives from

[2:13:49] the departments who will be

[2:13:51] able

[2:13:52] to answer questions the board

[2:13:53] may have. Thank you.

[2:13:55] >> Thank you. And with that, I

[2:13:56] am officially opening the

[2:13:57] hearing. And if anybody would

[2:14:01] like to make a comment

[2:14:02] on the hearing for all items

[2:14:05] 37 through 43.

[2:14:13] >> Chair Hermosillo, members

[2:14:14] of the board, my name is

[2:14:15] Gregory Ferrin. I want to give

[2:14:16] you a little story that gives

[2:14:17] reality to what this is all

[2:14:19] about and how important this

[2:14:20] hearing is. 50 years ago, when

[2:14:23] I was a student body president

[2:14:25] at College of Marin, students

[2:14:27] came to me and said they're

[2:14:28] charging two bucks a page

[2:14:30] for transcripts,

[2:14:32] which wasn't the cost

[2:14:33] of actually making the copy,

[2:14:34] but it was what they had

[2:14:36] evolved with no hearing and no

[2:14:38] examination. So I took them

[2:14:43] to court. I filed a writ

[2:14:44] of mandate in Superior Court

[2:14:45] in Marin County and a judge

[2:14:47] agreed with me that no one had

[2:14:49] ever looked at it,

[2:14:50] and he ordered four years'

[2:14:53] worth of free transcripts

[2:14:55] at every community college in

[2:14:57] California as a result. So it's

[2:14:58] important that you look

[2:15:01] at how you charge fees,

[2:15:02] what you charge them for and

[2:15:03] what they're paying for. And I

[2:15:05] thank you for this hearing

[2:15:07] because it helps give light

[2:15:09] to the public about what it is

[2:15:11] they're being charged for.

[2:15:13] Thank you.

[2:15:20] >> Good morning. Ron Busch,

[2:15:22] Sonoma County Fire District I

[2:15:23] just want to address the fee

[2:15:24] study that you're doing or the

[2:15:25] fee increase for the Sonoma

[2:15:26] County Airport. I'd like to

[2:15:28] express my ongoing concerns

[2:15:29] regarding the increased

[2:15:31] funding, operational and safety

[2:15:32] costs associated

[2:15:33] with the STS,

[2:15:34] particularly as we begin to

[2:15:36] expand the commercial and

[2:15:38] private aviation activity. The

[2:15:39] activity levels continue

[2:15:41] to grow and so does the demand

[2:15:43] for fire service, emergency

[2:15:45] medical response and hazardous

[2:15:47] materials readiness.

[2:15:50] At present,

[2:15:51] a significant portion

[2:15:52] of the costs are being absorbed

[2:15:53] by the taxpayers of the

[2:15:54] Sonoma County Fire District.

[2:15:55] Without dedicated or

[2:15:56] proportional funding mechanisms

[2:15:57] tied

[2:15:58] to the airport operations,

[2:15:59] STS continues to head towards

[2:16:02] 1 million passengers annually

[2:16:04] and the risk only increases.

[2:16:05] These are high risk,

[2:16:08] low frequency incidents. When a

[2:16:09] commercial airlines lands hard

[2:16:11] with 77 passengers,

[2:16:13] there's nobody there

[2:16:14] to take care of them.

[2:16:15] Currently, SCFD receives no

[2:16:16] revenue from the county of

[2:16:18] Sonoma to respond to STS. When

[2:16:19] a commercial airliner has an

[2:16:21] emergency fire and emergency

[2:16:22] rescue response is provided

[2:16:23] by the taxpayers of the

[2:16:25] Sonoma County Fire District.

[2:16:26] That means we strip

[2:16:29] around five or six companies

[2:16:30] around the outside

[2:16:32] of the airport. We're

[2:16:33] in support

[2:16:34] of the increased fees to STs,

[2:16:35] but nowhere does it address

[2:16:36] funding to the district

[2:16:37] for emergency response.

[2:16:38] Currently, SCFD does not

[2:16:40] receive a penny

[2:16:41] for any responses that occur

[2:16:42] out there. We respectively

[2:16:44] request some transparent,

[2:16:45] detailed accounting

[2:16:47] of true costs

[2:16:48] of the response,

[2:16:50] providing those services along

[2:16:51] with comparisons

[2:16:52] to funding models used

[2:16:54] in similarly situated airports.

[2:16:55] This is a matter of fairness

[2:16:58] and physical sustainability and

[2:16:59] ensuring that critical life

[2:17:01] safety services remain

[2:17:03] adequately resourced to the

[2:17:04] communities that we serve. So I

[2:17:05] just want

[2:17:06] to real briefly say that we are

[2:17:08] in total support. We're in good

[2:17:09] collaborative conversations

[2:17:11] with STS and airport

[2:17:13] operations. However, we

[2:17:14] received $0 to respond to the

[2:17:16] airport currently and we'd

[2:17:18] like to revisit that

[2:17:19] at some point. So thank you.

[2:17:21] >> Thank you. Anyone else?

[2:17:27] Public comment

[2:17:28] before we bring it

[2:17:29] to the board for questions,

[2:17:32] comments, deliberations,

[2:17:36] Supervisor Vice Chair

[2:17:37] Coursey.

[2:17:39] >> Thank you. Have a couple

[2:17:42] of questions for Permit

[2:17:43] Sonoma.

[2:17:49] >> If T. Scott Orr can skip

[2:17:50] to the dais.

[2:17:55] >> Good morning. Good morning

[2:17:59] from Listening to Andrew's

[2:18:03] presentation, it sounds

[2:18:12] like permit Sonoma plans

[2:18:15] to wean itself

[2:18:16] from the general plan

[2:18:22] to some extent, whether that's

[2:18:23] full cost recovery or somewhere

[2:18:28] nearer full cost recovery. And

[2:18:30] I think it's important

[2:18:31] to highlight that and want to

[2:18:32] make sure that I understand

[2:18:33] correctly that

[2:18:34] in the next few years,

[2:18:35] we should all expect

[2:18:36] for those fees to more

[2:18:37] of those fees to go higher than

[2:18:38] the 3% and maybe higher than

[2:18:40] that. Maybe you can talk a

[2:18:41] little bit about what those

[2:18:42] increases might look like and

[2:18:44] how long that process is

[2:18:46] expected to take.

[2:18:50] >> Okay, thank you

[2:18:51] for the question. So

[2:18:52] for the increase this year,

[2:18:56] it's largely to, you know,

[2:18:57] fill the gap between the fee

[2:18:58] nexus study that was approved

[2:19:01] as part of the consent calendar

[2:19:04] this morning, which will take

[2:19:05] about a year to complete, and

[2:19:09] then that will inform the board

[2:19:11] on whether we do want

[2:19:13] to shift towards that model of

[2:19:15] full cost recovery or continue

[2:19:16] to utilize some

[2:19:19] of the general fund

[2:19:21] to help bridge the gap between

[2:19:24] what the fees ultimately end up

[2:19:25] being and the cost

[2:19:26] to provide service. So while we

[2:19:28] are taking the incremental

[2:19:29] approach this year, ultimately,

[2:19:30] we'll bring it back in front

[2:19:32] of the board

[2:19:34] for the full discussion

[2:19:35] about whether we want to go to

[2:19:36] that full cost recovery model.

[2:19:37] So the decision being made

[2:19:41] today does get us closer,

[2:19:42] but it doesn't kind

[2:19:44] of mandate any future decision

[2:19:47] by the board regarding that.

[2:19:48] >> You'll bring the results

[2:19:51] of that fee study back and

[2:19:52] check to see what the appetite

[2:19:54] of the board is.

[2:19:55] At what point,

[2:19:57] how long do you expect that

[2:19:58] to take?

[2:19:59] >> So the fee study process

[2:20:00] will take about a year. So the

[2:20:01] intent is that we finish

[2:20:02] in time to inform the fee

[2:20:05] process and budget process next

[2:20:07] fiscal year. So the fees that

[2:20:10] are reflected in that fee study

[2:20:14] would inform fiscal year 27-28.

[2:20:18] >> All right, in.

[2:20:19] In your report on this, you

[2:20:23] said that there would be a

[2:20:26] shortfall of about 3.7 million

[2:20:29] by the end of this fiscal year

[2:20:31] and potentially as high as

[2:20:33] $4.5 million by the end

[2:20:35] of next fiscal year. Was that.

[2:20:38] Are those numbers the result of

[2:20:42] these actions today or has if

[2:20:46] we approve this,

[2:20:47] what's brought forward today,

[2:20:50] do those numbers change?

[2:20:52] >> So Interim Assistant

[2:20:53] director Michelle Arellano will

[2:20:55] correct me, but I believe all

[2:20:56] of the estimates were with the

[2:20:58] expectation that the

[2:21:00] recommended action was taken

[2:21:01] and that they were approved.

[2:21:03] >> Correct.

[2:21:07] >> She says correct.

[2:21:08] >> Good. Good job. Thank you

[2:21:10] both.

[2:21:13] >> Any other questions?

[2:21:15] Comments from my colleague,

[2:21:16] Supervisor Rabbitt?

[2:21:17] >> Yeah. No, thank you. Thank

[2:21:18] you, Andrew, for all the great

[2:21:20] work. I appreciate that. Thank

[2:21:22] you for the briefing that you

[2:21:24] provided me and to Peter

[2:21:26] for joining that as well. Fees

[2:21:27] have always been

[2:21:29] for me an important topic. And

[2:21:31] I appreciate the fact that many

[2:21:32] years ago we brought forward a

[2:21:33] fee policy that basically had

[2:21:35] departments justify any

[2:21:36] increase

[2:21:37] over admittedly the higher

[2:21:39] of the two, which is the Bay

[2:21:40] Area CPI and or the county cpi.

[2:21:44] And you mentioned that. I mean

[2:21:46] the county or the Bay Area CPI

[2:21:48] I think for the last 12 months

[2:21:50] was only two and a half

[2:21:51] percent. I mean it was higher

[2:21:53] previous years. Going forward,

[2:21:55] I do think it's important

[2:21:57] to kind of keep note

[2:21:58] of that because so many

[2:21:59] of our fees are not driven

[2:22:00] by any market force. There are

[2:22:03] a few veterans building rentals

[2:22:07] and over the years we've had to

[2:22:09] adjust those because we became

[2:22:10] noncompetitive with other

[2:22:11] options. I don't know if the

[2:22:13] same, well,

[2:22:14] the airport perhaps

[2:22:16] in hangars,

[2:22:17] people having the opportunity

[2:22:19] to go to other airports,

[2:22:20] municipal airports and whatnot.

[2:22:21] So I just think it's important

[2:22:23] to kind of keep that

[2:22:24] in the back

[2:22:25] of our mind as we go forward.

[2:22:27] And you mentioned, of course,

[2:22:28] there's been an incredible

[2:22:29] increase in overall costs,

[2:22:31] especially the insurance

[2:22:32] conundrum. But that insurance

[2:22:34] conundrum is also embedded

[2:22:36] in that two and a half. And

[2:22:37] even if you look at wages and

[2:22:39] benefits and whatnot,

[2:22:40] it's also embedded

[2:22:41] in that and people had

[2:22:43] to absorb a lot

[2:22:44] of those costs. It will burst

[2:22:47] through at some point in the

[2:22:48] future as economics dictate.

[2:22:49] But I do think it's important

[2:22:52] that piece I'm supportive of

[2:22:54] going forward today. I

[2:22:56] appreciate the fact that

[2:22:57] departments kept things within.

[2:23:00] I think everyone expects things

[2:23:01] year over year to go up. They

[2:23:03] may grumble as we all do. I do.

[2:23:05] But

[2:23:06] at the same time we all expect

[2:23:09] to make more money year

[2:23:10] over year. So we can't be

[2:23:12] hypocrites

[2:23:13] about costs going up. It's when

[2:23:14] they go up, you know,

[2:23:16] really high

[2:23:19] for the same service. And just

[2:23:20] to be able to look at that with

[2:23:23] a fine-tooth comb and make sure

[2:23:24] that we understand that. And

[2:23:25] every year I know that we have

[2:23:27] fees, we have regulatory

[2:23:28] obligations that are passed

[2:23:31] down

[2:23:32] to us that increase our fees.

[2:23:33] And I know that some of these

[2:23:35] fees are also are dictated

[2:23:37] by other material costs like

[2:23:38] health lab stuff that's

[2:23:41] happening and just the ability

[2:23:43] to buy all those materials. So

[2:23:44] with that said, I also very

[2:23:48] much appreciate the quality fee

[2:23:51] studies that are not numerator

[2:23:53] over denominator because I

[2:23:55] think that for years after

[2:23:58] Prop 13, I think that was the

[2:23:59] crutch that a lot of cities and

[2:24:00] undoubtedly the county used

[2:24:02] to set fees. But if the fee is

[2:24:04] set correctly, it can be

[2:24:06] adjusted correctly going

[2:24:07] forward based upon the County

[2:24:08] CPI based upon the additional

[2:24:12] material costs. And it can be

[2:24:13] something that we can really

[2:24:15] turn to someone and say, this

[2:24:16] is why that fee is justified

[2:24:18] going forward. So I just wanted

[2:24:20] to put that out there. The

[2:24:22] other thing we talked briefly

[2:24:24] about,

[2:24:25] and I know it's not going

[2:24:26] to be a topic today,

[2:24:27] but I do want

[2:24:28] to mention it within. And I

[2:24:29] think I mentioned it also to

[2:24:30] Director Orr within planning

[2:24:32] and the 100% cost recovery

[2:24:35] model of projects that are

[2:24:37] controversial, that may have a

[2:24:39] lot of neighborhood input,

[2:24:41] which may translate into a lot

[2:24:44] of neighborhood questions that

[2:24:45] then get billed at 100% to the

[2:24:51] applicant and the consequences

[2:24:53] of that and the transparency

[2:24:55] of that. We just need to think

[2:24:56] about how to put guardrails

[2:24:57] around it so that you're not

[2:24:59] susceptible

[2:25:01] to a savvy neighborhood,

[2:25:08] basically making a project

[2:25:09] wholly unaffordable

[2:25:10] by peppering planners,

[2:25:11] attorneys, whomever it may be,

[2:25:12] with so many questions that the

[2:25:13] applicant cannot write the

[2:25:16] check to continue the

[2:25:17] processing. I think that we

[2:25:19] have a vulnerability there

[2:25:20] personally that we need

[2:25:21] to kind of look at

[2:25:23] with some sort

[2:25:24] of policy direction. Lastly, I

[2:25:25] do think while 100% cost

[2:25:26] recovery is fine

[2:25:29] for certain billings or fees,

[2:25:32] building, for instance,

[2:25:35] a building permit totally get.

[2:25:36] It should be 100% cost recovery

[2:25:39] should be the minimum amount

[2:25:41] of time spent

[2:25:42] to process the fee. So the

[2:25:44] efficiency still matters. But

[2:25:45] there are community benefits,

[2:25:47] especially on the planning side

[2:25:48] that I think. And the reality

[2:25:51] is, I think we do planning and

[2:25:52] the regulatory process

[2:25:55] within planning,

[2:25:56] really more so

[2:25:57] for the community, the

[2:25:58] neighbor, than perhaps even the

[2:26:00] applicant themselves. They're

[2:26:01] part of that. But it's a shared

[2:26:03] responsibility, which means,

[2:26:04] to me,

[2:26:07] it should be a shared expense.

[2:26:08] And that's just a kind of a

[2:26:09] philosophical thing that I've

[2:26:12] always had,

[2:26:13] and especially as an architect,

[2:26:14] seeing that in different

[2:26:15] jurisdictions be used in

[2:26:16] different ways. I think there's

[2:26:18] a. And I. I do believe that the

[2:26:19] county is so much better at

[2:26:21] this than many other

[2:26:23] jurisdictions, which is great.

[2:26:24] But I think it's always

[2:26:26] something to kind

[2:26:28] of keep your eyes

[2:26:29] on as we go forward. So I

[2:26:31] appreciate the opportunity

[2:26:32] to get those things

[2:26:33] off my chest. And again,

[2:26:34] thank you

[2:26:35] for all the work.

[2:26:36] >> Thank you.

[2:26:39] >> Supervisor Hopkins.

[2:26:40] >> Thank you. I just want to

[2:26:42] say that I appreciate the fact,

[2:26:43] and I'm looking at Christine

[2:26:45] Sasko, that we are not having a

[2:26:46] conversation

[2:26:47] about dairy fees today. So that

[2:26:48] was nice. So I just had

[2:26:49] to say that. And hopefully that

[2:26:51] doesn't kind of create any.

[2:26:52] Any friction.

[2:26:54] But one thing that I wanted

[2:26:55] to ask. I don't quibble

[2:26:57] with any of the fee proposals

[2:26:58] before us today. And I don't

[2:27:00] have any concerns about the Ag

[2:27:01] weights and measures fee

[2:27:03] increases,

[2:27:04] but I did have a question

[2:27:06] about timing. And I'm wondering

[2:27:08] if this might be something that

[2:27:09] we could delve into further

[2:27:10] on the Ag Workshop that's

[2:27:11] coming up. I have heard

[2:27:13] feedback and concern

[2:27:16] from growers who, partly,

[2:27:17] in some cases,

[2:27:19] they actually haven't been paid

[2:27:20] for grapes that they delivered

[2:27:21] to wineries in the past,

[2:27:22] that it's hard for them

[2:27:23] to afford to pay a Vesco fee up

[2:27:25] front when they are removing

[2:27:26] grapes under financial duress

[2:27:28] right now. And so the question

[2:27:29] is, you know,

[2:27:31] while still holding onto that

[2:27:32] fee, is there an opportunity

[2:27:34] to apply for that

[2:27:36] in the future? Right. You know,

[2:27:37] without having to do it at the

[2:27:39] time that the grapes are

[2:27:40] removed? So it's really kind

[2:27:41] of a question

[2:27:42] of timing and not

[2:27:43] of the dollar amount collected.

[2:27:44] The other thing is that not

[2:27:45] everyone knows whether or not

[2:27:47] they will replant grapes

[2:27:49] in the future, and that kind

[2:27:50] of depends

[2:27:51] on the way that the market

[2:27:52] goes. But this is kind

[2:27:54] of a. A process,

[2:27:55] not overall amount. And so I

[2:27:56] was going to ask Ag

[2:27:57] Commissioner Andrew Smith if

[2:27:59] that's something that maybe we

[2:28:00] should discuss at the Ag

[2:28:01] Workshop. Does that seem

[2:28:02] like the appropriate place

[2:28:03] to do that? It's not something

[2:28:06] that's exactly

[2:28:07] before us today, but I think

[2:28:08] that it's related and perhaps

[2:28:09] we could have further

[2:28:11] conversations about this. And

[2:28:14] this is partly to also avoid

[2:28:15] what we have had concerns with

[2:28:17] on the orchard side

[2:28:18] of things, where you actually

[2:28:19] have abandoned orchards that

[2:28:20] then become pest magnets, which

[2:28:21] actually creates then a concern

[2:28:23] and actually increases pressure

[2:28:24] for spraying

[2:28:25] on adjacent properties, which

[2:28:27] is something that we don't

[2:28:29] want. Right. Is sort

[2:28:31] of more pesticide application,

[2:28:32] because there are these places

[2:28:33] that are just collecting

[2:28:35] agricultural pests because

[2:28:38] they've been abandoned.

[2:28:40] >> Yeah, we could definitely

[2:28:42] talk about that. If the ad hoc

[2:28:43] wants to discuss that

[2:28:45] at the workshop, I think we

[2:28:46] could also discuss it outside

[2:28:47] of the workshop. There's

[2:28:50] definitely concerns. I think

[2:28:52] I'd bring it up during a topic

[2:28:53] around fallowing,

[2:28:56] because there's interest

[2:28:58] in pulling vines ahead

[2:29:01] of applying for a replant

[2:29:03] permit and we do allow crop

[2:29:08] swap, or if we can prove that

[2:29:11] someone's been cultivating the

[2:29:12] land

[2:29:13] with alternative other crops

[2:29:14] for five years previous,

[2:29:16] that they do qualify

[2:29:17] for a replant permit. And so

[2:29:18] we'd want to work

[2:29:20] with council and dig into

[2:29:21] Vesco and see what we can do

[2:29:26] without bringing any liability

[2:29:29] on the county.

[2:29:31] >> Great. And then another

[2:29:32] question, because I know I've

[2:29:33] had conversations about sort of

[2:29:34] what counts as a crop swap and

[2:29:35] I believe that it was sort of

[2:29:37] anything that does involve

[2:29:38] cultivation, but, like,

[2:29:40] would a regular row cropping. I

[2:29:41] mean, sorry, cover cropping

[2:29:43] count, for instance,

[2:29:44] as long as you are sort

[2:29:46] of planting out bell beans,

[2:29:47] even if you're not necessarily

[2:29:49] harvesting them,

[2:29:51] but you're just turning them

[2:29:52] under

[2:29:53] to maintain the space

[2:29:54] >> Yeah that's definitely

[2:29:56] something that we should

[2:29:57] discuss when we're talking

[2:29:59] about fallowing, say,

[2:30:00] in an ag ad hoc workshop.

[2:30:02] >> Great. Because I think that,

[2:30:03] you know, in many ways,

[2:30:05] those are best practices.

[2:30:06] Right. And so we actually want

[2:30:07] to support that and not make it

[2:30:10] more difficult to do what are

[2:30:12] really best management

[2:30:13] practices for the land,

[2:30:15] for carbon sequestration and

[2:30:17] all of those things. And we

[2:30:18] definitely don't want

[2:30:19] to end up with situations where

[2:30:21] we do have derelict vineyards

[2:30:22] the way that we have had,

[2:30:23] unfortunately,

[2:30:25] some derelict orchards of. In

[2:30:29] properties that just end up

[2:30:30] breeding lots

[2:30:31] of coddling moths. So.

[2:30:32] >> Absolutely.

[2:30:33] >> Anything to add

[2:30:34] on that one? Or just sort

[2:30:35] of table that for with April

[2:30:36] 7th. Right. So it's just right

[2:30:37] around the corner. Yeah.

[2:30:38] Great. Thank you.

[2:30:39] >> Any other comments,

[2:30:40] questions? Seeing none, I will

[2:30:41] officially close the hearing

[2:30:42] and bring it back

[2:30:43] to the board. And we're going

[2:30:44] to do a separate roll call vote

[2:30:45] for each one. Is there a

[2:30:46] motion? Sorry.

[2:30:47] >> Move to approve.

[2:30:49] >> Is there a second?

[2:30:54] >> Yes.

[2:30:56] >> Great. Thanks. Separate

[2:31:00] votes for each one. 38.

[2:31:05] >> For item 38. Supervisor

[2:31:08] Rabbitt.

[2:31:11] >> Aye.

[2:31:13] >> Supervisor Coursey.

[2:31:14] >> Yes.

[2:31:15] >> Supervisor Gore?

[2:31:16] >> Yes.

[2:31:17] >> Supervisor Hopkins?

[2:31:18] >> Yes.

[2:31:19] >> Chair Hermosillo?

[2:31:20] >> Yes.

[2:31:23] >> Number 39 motion. Do you

[2:31:29] need a motion for all

[2:31:30] of them separately?

[2:31:31] >> Okay.

[2:31:32] >> All right, kids,

[2:31:33] since they're separate items,

[2:31:35] >> Is there a motion?

[2:31:36] >> 39 move to approve.

[2:31:37] >> Is there a second?

[2:31:38] >> Second.

[2:31:39] >> There you go.

[2:31:44] >> Yeah.

[2:31:45] >> Roll call votes for all

[2:31:46] of them?

[2:31:47] >> Yeah.

[2:31:49] >> Hearings for item 39.

[2:31:52] >> Supervisor Rabbitt?

[2:31:53] >> Aye.

[2:31:54] >> Supervisor Coursey.

[2:31:55] >> Yes.

[2:31:56] >> Supervisor Gore?

[2:31:57] >> Yep.

[2:31:58] >> Supervisor Hopkins.

[2:31:59] >> Yes.

[2:32:00] >> Chair Hermosillo?

[2:32:01] >> Yes.

[2:32:02] >> 40 moved to approve.

[2:32:03] Second

[2:32:06] >> for item 40. Supervisor

[2:32:07] Rabbitt.

[2:32:08] >> Aye.

[2:32:09] >> Supervisor Coursey?

[2:32:10] >> Yes.

[2:32:11] >> Supervisor Gore?

[2:32:12] >> Yes.

[2:32:13] >> Supervisor Hopkins?

[2:32:14] >> Yes.

[2:32:15] >> Chair Hermosillo?

[2:32:16] >> Yes.

[2:32:17] >> 41. Move to approve.

[2:32:18] >> Second

[2:32:19] >> We got on the ball.

[2:32:21] >> Item 41. Supervisor

[2:32:22] Rabbitt.

[2:32:23] >> Aye.

[2:32:24] >> Supervisor Coursey.

[2:32:25] >> Yes.

[2:32:26] >> Supervisor Gore?

[2:32:27] >> Yes.

[2:32:28] >> Supervisor Hopkins.

[2:32:29] >> Yes.

[2:32:30] >> Chair Hermosillo?

[2:32:31] >> Yes.

[2:32:32] >> 42. Move to approve. Did I

[2:32:33] just do 42? No. Did I?

[2:32:34] >> You did 41.

[2:32:37] >> This is 42.

[2:32:38] >> 42.

[2:32:39] >> I am keeping track right

[2:32:40] now.

[2:32:41] >> Second.

[2:32:44] >> I should second. There you

[2:32:47] go.

[2:32:50] >> Item 42. Supervisor

[2:32:51] Rabbitt.

[2:32:52] >> Aye.

[2:32:53] >> Supervisor Coursey.

[2:32:54] >> Yes.

[2:32:55] >> Supervisor Gore.

[2:32:56] >> Yes.

[2:32:57] >> Supervisor Hopkins.

[2:32:58] >> Yes.

[2:32:59] >> Chair Hermosillo.

[2:33:00] >> Yes.

[2:33:01] >> Number 43, move to approve.

[2:33:03] Is there a second?

[2:33:07] >> Second.

[2:33:10] >> Supervisor Coursey seconds.

[2:33:11] Roll call.

[2:33:13] >> Item number 43. Supervisor

[2:33:14] Rabbitt.

[2:33:15] >> Aye.

[2:33:16] >> Supervisor Coursey.

[2:33:17] >> Yes.

[2:33:18] >> Supervisor Gore.

[2:33:19] >> Yes.

[2:33:20] >> Supervisor Hopkins.

[2:33:21] >> Yes.

[2:33:22] >> Chair Hermosillo?

[2:33:23] >> Yes.

[2:33:24] >> Thank you, Chair and board

[2:33:25] members. Thank you, Andrew. We

[2:33:26] are going to have regional

[2:33:28] parks fee study separately. So

[2:33:32] those will come back later.

[2:33:33] >> Yes.

[2:33:34] >> Thank you.

[2:33:35] >> Thank you. And now we're

[2:33:36] going to item 44.

[2:33:39] >> Thank you. Next time I would

[2:33:45] like a joke, please. Or three.

[2:33:52] >> Energy independence program.

[2:33:53] We have our auditor,

[2:33:55] controller Eric Roger,

[2:33:56] Kathleen Parnell. Terry. Hi.

[2:33:58] Good to see you. And Brianna.

[2:33:59] No.

[2:34:08] >> Good morning, Chair

[2:34:09] Hermosillo, members

[2:34:10] of the board, CEO Rivera, and

[2:34:13] Council Myers. Introductions

[2:34:15] were already made. We all

[2:34:19] represent the Sonoma County

[2:34:21] Energy Independence Program

[2:34:22] in various capacities,

[2:34:24] and we're here

[2:34:26] before you today with the

[2:34:28] semiannual bonding

[2:34:29] authorization for the Sonoma

[2:34:30] County Energy Independence

[2:34:32] Program, also known as SCEIP.

[2:34:36] The recommended actions before

[2:34:39] you today will allow the

[2:34:42] program to continue

[2:34:43] to fund SCEIP assessments

[2:34:45] from April 1st of this year

[2:34:46] through September 30th of

[2:34:47] 2026. And the recommended

[2:34:49] actions include resolutions

[2:34:52] to issue the Skype revenue

[2:34:56] bonds and authorize the

[2:34:59] treasurer, county Treasurer,

[2:35:01] myself and the Sonoma Water

[2:35:02] Agency to invest in those bonds

[2:35:05] as long term investments. I

[2:35:09] would like to add that we came

[2:35:11] to your board in July of 2025

[2:35:12] with a recommendation to wind

[2:35:17] down residential Skype as a

[2:35:21] result of the Consumer

[2:35:23] Financial Protection Bureau

[2:35:26] rulemaking requirements. And

[2:35:27] that action was approved

[2:35:28] by your board. As of March 1st,

[2:35:31] of this year, the program is no

[2:35:33] longer entering into

[2:35:34] residential contract

[2:35:36] assessments. We currently have

[2:35:40] seven residential contract

[2:35:42] assessments waiting

[2:35:45] to be bonded, and we anticipate

[2:35:48] that those will be bonded

[2:35:58] hopefully before the

[2:35:59] authorization period expires

[2:36:00] in September, but it may go

[2:36:01] beyond that depending

[2:36:02] on the individual projects.

[2:36:03] And lastly,

[2:36:04] staff does continue

[2:36:05] to monitor commercial activity.

[2:36:06] And we will return

[2:36:07] to your board

[2:36:08] with comprehensive update on

[2:36:09] July 14th of this year. And

[2:36:10] with that, we are available

[2:36:11] for questions.

[2:36:13] >> Great. Thank you. Is there

[2:36:15] any public comment

[2:36:17] on item number 44? Seeing none.

[2:36:20] I'll bring it to the board if

[2:36:22] there's any questions.

[2:36:23] Comments? Thank you. Thank you

[2:36:28] for your work. Is there a

[2:36:30] motion to approve?

[2:36:32] >> Move to approve.

[2:36:33] >> And thank you

[2:36:34] for your work, sincerely.

[2:36:35] >> Okay, thank you. And do we

[2:36:38] need a roll call vote? All

[2:36:42] those in favor?

[2:36:44] >> Aye.

[2:36:45] >> Aye.

[2:36:47] >> Any opposition? Seeing none.

[2:36:48] That motion passes. Thank you.

[2:36:52] And now we are moving on

[2:36:57] to item number 46, the

[2:36:59] ordinance

[2:37:00] to amend proposition provisions

[2:37:03] in chapter 14 of the Sonoma

[2:37:05] County Code, including

[2:37:06] provisions concerning cannabis

[2:37:08] dispensaries,

[2:37:10] repealing obsolete provisions,

[2:37:12] and adopting a resolution

[2:37:15] to establish environmental,

[2:37:16] health and safety fees. And we

[2:37:20] have Director Sullivan,

[2:37:21] Christine Sasko and Vern.

[2:37:23] >> Oh, thank you.

[2:37:25] >> Chair.

[2:37:26] >> Yes.

[2:37:27] >> I don't see any issues,

[2:37:28] but I recused myself earlier

[2:37:29] on an ordinance thing

[2:37:30] around dispensaries. And so I'm

[2:37:31] going to step out and let you

[2:37:32] guys have the fun and septic

[2:37:34] systems together as one. Enjoy

[2:37:35] your deliberation.

[2:37:37] >> Come back swiftly for

[2:37:38] Measure O. Thank you. And

[2:37:42] pizza.

[2:37:54] >> Good morning, Chair

[2:37:55] Hermosillo and board members,

[2:37:57] CEO and County Attorney. My

[2:37:58] name is Nolan Sullivan,

[2:37:59] Director of Health Services.

[2:38:00] As Supervisor Gore mentioned,

[2:38:01] we have a great presentation

[2:38:02] today on cannabis and sewage.

[2:38:03] We will be talking about an

[2:38:05] ordinance update and

[2:38:07] association. None

[2:38:08] of these fees were included in

[2:38:10] the fee hearings we just heard.

[2:38:12] We're bringing them separately

[2:38:13] today because the ordinance and

[2:38:14] the fees go hand in hand. So we

[2:38:15] have our subject matter expert

[2:38:17] here, Christine Sasko, who's

[2:38:19] going to tell us all

[2:38:20] about some updated changes to

[2:38:21] indoor consumption lounges and

[2:38:22] a variety of things that come

[2:38:25] along with that. And then we

[2:38:26] have Vern here to answer any

[2:38:27] technical questions that come

[2:38:28] up on the legal end

[2:38:30] of things. So with that,

[2:38:31] I will hand it off to

[2:38:32] Christine.

[2:38:38] >> Good morning.

[2:38:40] >> Good morning, Chair. Chair

[2:38:41] Hermosillo and members

[2:38:42] of the board. I'm going

[2:38:44] to go ahead and start talking

[2:38:45] about the changes to the

[2:38:47] cannabis health ordinance. So

[2:38:49] we're looking at adopting a

[2:38:53] resolution introducing the

[2:38:56] ordinance. And there's two

[2:38:58] different changes here. One

[2:39:00] would be in chapter 14, which

[2:39:01] is the health and sanitation

[2:39:02] ordinance, and we're looking

[2:39:05] to amend provisions

[2:39:07] around cannabis dispensaries,

[2:39:10] and this would allow for

[2:39:12] cannabis consumption lounges,

[2:39:14] and then also make other minor

[2:39:15] updates to that ordinance. And

[2:39:20] then looking at an amendment

[2:39:23] in chapter 24, which is the

[2:39:25] sewage, sewage and sewer

[2:39:28] disposal, and it's

[2:39:30] for septic haulers. And

[2:39:31] in that program, we're looking

[2:39:34] to eliminate the requirement

[2:39:36] for a bond and make minor

[2:39:39] cleanup changes there, too.

[2:39:41] And then as a second part,

[2:39:44] we're looking

[2:39:45] to adopt a fee resolution to

[2:39:46] establish environmental health

[2:39:49] fees for the cannabis lounges

[2:39:53] associated with this item. So

[2:39:54] state law AB 1775 came around

[2:39:58] in 2024, and it authorizes

[2:40:01] local jurisdictions to allow

[2:40:03] for

[2:40:05] on site consumption lounges.

[2:40:06] To do this, local jurisdictions

[2:40:08] must modify both their zoning

[2:40:09] and public health ordinances

[2:40:11] to permit the cannabis lounges.

[2:40:14] Sonoma county recently revised

[2:40:15] the local zoning land use

[2:40:17] ordinance to. To allow cannabis

[2:40:18] consumption lounges. So now the

[2:40:21] health ordinance must be

[2:40:22] updated to allow cannabis

[2:40:25] consumption lounges also. So

[2:40:42] the current situation, the land

[2:40:43] use ordinance now allows

[2:40:44] cannabis consumption lounges,

[2:40:46] and it allows those in the

[2:40:48] unincorporated areas and. And

[2:40:49] then the public health

[2:40:52] ordinances, chapter 14, which

[2:40:53] is health and sanitation,

[2:40:54] that prohibits

[2:40:56] on site consumption currently.

[2:40:57] And then Chapter 32, the

[2:41:00] Smoking Ordinance, prohibits

[2:41:01] indoor smoking uses,

[2:41:06] which includes cannabis. And so

[2:41:09] as a result,

[2:41:11] lounges cannot operate within

[2:41:12] unincorporated county right now

[2:41:15] due to without these ordinance

[2:41:18] amendments. So in chapter 14,

[2:41:24] the current code allows retail

[2:41:27] sales,

[2:41:30] but no on-site consumption.

[2:41:32] What we're proposing

[2:41:34] to change is to authorize

[2:41:36] consumption lounges. And this

[2:41:38] would be part as part of the

[2:41:41] permitted cannabis dispensary

[2:41:42] storefront retails operations.

[2:41:45] And then they would be required

[2:41:49] to have the health cannabis

[2:41:52] lounge permit. They'd be

[2:41:54] required

[2:41:55] to have land use approval for

[2:41:57] the appropriate jurisdiction if

[2:41:59] required, and then compliance

[2:42:01] with a document of health

[2:42:03] officer requirements and then

[2:42:06] approval from department

[2:42:10] of cannabis control. So within

[2:42:16] the health officer

[2:42:18] requirements, we list health

[2:42:20] and safety requirements. And

[2:42:23] some of the more strict

[2:42:28] requirements and protections

[2:42:29] that are put in there are, you

[2:42:30] know, a very advanced

[2:42:32] ventilation and filtration

[2:42:34] standard that's required of the

[2:42:35] consumption lounge and then

[2:42:38] also of the area

[2:42:41] around the consumption lounge

[2:42:44] to make sure that that smoke

[2:42:46] does not leave that premises.

[2:42:48] There's a physical separation

[2:42:51] required from the retail area

[2:42:53] and then employee protections

[2:42:57] for secondhand smoke

[2:42:58] for those working in the

[2:43:00] consumption lounge area and

[2:43:02] then protections for

[2:43:03] neighboring businesses and

[2:43:05] residences. So any shared walls

[2:43:08] or that, and then a consumption

[2:43:12] lounge can also not sell or use

[2:43:13] or have anybody use tobacco or

[2:43:18] alcohol within that lounge.

[2:43:19] And then odor control and

[2:43:23] operational standards are set

[2:43:25] forward in these health officer

[2:43:28] requirements. There's a signage

[2:43:31] requirement. They're not

[2:43:33] allowed to have those sandwich

[2:43:34] boards and such out front

[2:43:35] to advertise people

[2:43:36] to come in. And then there's

[2:43:38] employee training requirements

[2:43:43] on like ID checks and all those

[2:43:46] safety practices. And this is

[2:43:50] modeled

[2:43:51] after the state regulations.

[2:43:53] And also San Francisco and city

[2:43:55] of Hollywood have allowed

[2:43:59] consumption lounges

[2:44:00] for a while, so we modeled off

[2:44:01] of theirs too, the impacts

[2:44:07] on the cities. Vern, do you

[2:44:10] want to grab this one?

[2:44:18] >> So the health officer

[2:44:20] authority applies

[2:44:21] within the cities

[2:44:22] by agreement, and the chapter

[2:44:23] 14 is currently enforceable

[2:44:29] within the cities as an

[2:44:31] extension of the health officer

[2:44:35] authority. There's been

[2:44:36] negotiations and discussions

[2:44:37] with the cities about how much

[2:44:38] county authority exists

[2:44:44] in the form of ordinances

[2:44:45] within city limits

[2:44:46] with discussions with policy

[2:44:50] and what is being suggested.

[2:44:52] There's not a desire

[2:44:55] for the county

[2:44:56] to throw its weight around,

[2:44:58] but it is a desire

[2:44:59] to implement a program within

[2:45:01] the cities if they want them.

[2:45:03] So in this particular case,

[2:45:04] this part of chapter 14 will be

[2:45:07] effective as proposed if the

[2:45:10] cities opt in

[2:45:11] to having cannabis regulations

[2:45:12] by the Department

[2:45:14] of health services

[2:45:16] within city limit.

[2:45:18] Separately, there's a

[2:45:22] discussion about clarifying the

[2:45:23] legal relationship between the

[2:45:25] health officer and the cities

[2:45:28] in a memorandum of

[2:45:32] understanding that will make

[2:45:34] sure that everybody's on the

[2:45:35] Same page about the extent

[2:45:36] of the county authority

[2:45:38] within city limits.

[2:45:42] >> Thank you. So now we're

[2:45:45] going on to septage vehicles.

[2:45:46] So chapter 24, we're looking

[2:45:50] at doing a cleanup,

[2:45:51] this cleanup. Currently our

[2:45:54] regulation requires that

[2:45:56] haulers have a performance

[2:45:58] bond. What we've realized is

[2:46:00] this,

[2:46:03] the regulations have changed.

[2:46:05] It's no longer a requirement.

[2:46:07] And the enforcement through

[2:46:08] penalties is a much more

[2:46:10] effective process for us than

[2:46:12] these performance bonds. So

[2:46:13] we're eliminating the

[2:46:14] requirement for the performance

[2:46:16] bond and then we will use the

[2:46:17] enforcement and penalty process

[2:46:18] in its place. And there's no

[2:46:23] changes

[2:46:26] to public health protections

[2:46:27] through this ordinance change.

[2:46:29] And then the second part of

[2:46:33] this is environmental health

[2:46:36] fees. Normally, environmental

[2:46:40] health fees are done through a

[2:46:41] time task analysis or a fee

[2:46:43] study. And we set fees to

[2:46:49] recover the reasonable

[2:46:50] regulatory costs

[2:46:51] of running the program

[2:46:54] in compliance with Prop 26 and

[2:46:55] then also health and safety

[2:47:00] code. And so what we're looking

[2:47:01] at right now is these are new

[2:47:04] fees for a cannabis consumption

[2:47:07] lounge. And this would be our

[2:47:09] plan review fee,

[2:47:10] which is based on a 10-hour

[2:47:13] minimum plus an hourly rate.

[2:47:16] And then the plan review fee,

[2:47:18] which would also be for

[2:47:20] like minor remodels. And that's

[2:47:23] at a five-hour minimum plus

[2:47:24] hourly rate. A site review fee

[2:47:27] is at a two-hour minimum plus

[2:47:30] hourly rate and then additional

[2:47:33] review hours. Our hourly rate

[2:47:34] right now is 2, 261 an hour.

[2:47:36] And then the annual permit

[2:47:39] would be 2,483. And then the

[2:47:45] fiscal impact of adding this

[2:47:46] program would be an estimated

[2:47:50] increase of revenue

[2:47:51] for fiscal year 26-27 of

[2:47:53] $19,060. And

[2:47:55] for fiscal year 27-28,

[2:47:58] an estimated increase of

[2:48:02] 19,632,000. And there's no

[2:48:08] general fund impacts with this

[2:48:09] and it's a fully fee supported

[2:48:13] program. So bringing it back.

[2:48:17] Our requested actions are we're

[2:48:19] requesting that the board adopt

[2:48:23] the proposed resolution

[2:48:24] introducing the ordinance

[2:48:26] amendments and finding a CEQA

[2:48:28] exemption and then also

[2:48:30] adopting the environmental

[2:48:33] health fee resolution. I think

[2:48:36] that's. I should go back.

[2:48:37] >> Thank you. And

[2:48:39] with that we'll go

[2:48:40] to public comment. Seeing none.

[2:48:44] I'll bring it back to the board

[2:48:45] if there's questions.

[2:48:49] Comments? Supervisor Rabbitt?

[2:48:50] >> Yeah. I just want

[2:48:51] to say thank you for working

[2:48:52] through this. Thank you,

[2:48:54] Vern, for working

[2:48:56] through the. The city issue as

[2:48:57] well. What? There's only two

[2:49:00] cities I know of in California

[2:49:02] that have their own public

[2:49:07] health officer. Right.

[2:49:09] Berkeley and Long Beach. And I

[2:49:10] think sometimes our cities here

[2:49:11] kind of forget that there's a

[2:49:12] collaborative approach that we

[2:49:13] need to take

[2:49:14] on certain issues. So thank you

[2:49:15] for all that. I appreciate that

[2:49:16] approach. I'm curious because I

[2:49:17] don't want to be a hypocrite.

[2:49:20] And we had this discussion, I

[2:49:21] think, during the briefing. Do

[2:49:22] we have legal

[2:49:23] like cigar and cigarette

[2:49:24] lounges in the county?

[2:49:25] >> So we do. I don't believe

[2:49:28] that any are

[2:49:30] in the unincorporated area,

[2:49:31] but I would have

[2:49:35] to confirm that it is a. Not a

[2:49:38] function of local authority,

[2:49:39] though, because it's exemption

[2:49:40] in the state smoking law. So

[2:49:43] those are specifically governed

[2:49:47] by the state smoking law, and

[2:49:49] which includes a preemption

[2:49:51] provision. So interestingly,

[2:49:53] we don't have authority

[2:49:54] at all,

[2:49:55] nor do the cities really

[2:49:56] over that, except maybe on a

[2:49:58] business license basis.

[2:50:00] >> So all of our. So what

[2:50:02] you're saying is that every.

[2:50:03] All the times that the lung

[2:50:04] association used

[2:50:07] to come and try to get us

[2:50:08] to get an A plus or whatever

[2:50:10] on the ordinance,

[2:50:12] that was really just. We're

[2:50:13] always following the state law

[2:50:15] necessarily, do we. We don't

[2:50:16] have any

[2:50:17] of our own laws that add to

[2:50:18] that.

[2:50:20] >> I would not say that. I

[2:50:21] would say that we deserve our a

[2:50:22] plus. We have.

[2:50:26] >> I just don't want to be a

[2:50:27] hypocrite saying that you, hey,

[2:50:29] you can go and smoke

[2:50:30] in one lounge, but you can't,

[2:50:32] you know, And I do worry,

[2:50:33] obviously. I mean,

[2:50:35] smoke is smoke in my book. If

[2:50:37] it's unhealthy,

[2:50:38] it's unhealthy. So that is my

[2:50:42] point and I appreciate that. I

[2:50:44] take it that as we go

[2:50:48] down this path, is there. Are

[2:50:50] there performance metrics for,

[2:50:51] I take it that the air exchange

[2:50:52] would have to be adequate

[2:50:53] for the capacity

[2:50:54] of the lounge, the maximum

[2:50:56] capacity and everyone exhaling

[2:50:58] at once or something to make

[2:50:59] sure that we can provide some

[2:51:03] sort of safety. I do worry

[2:51:05] about the employee safety,

[2:51:07] but I suppose that's going

[2:51:10] to be between the establishment

[2:51:11] and their own employees,

[2:51:14] and we don't have any liability

[2:51:15] within that. Did I say anything

[2:51:16] wrong?

[2:51:20] >> No. I would say Christine

[2:51:21] and I facilitated a

[2:51:25] conversation with Permit

[2:51:27] Sonoma about just what was

[2:51:28] appropriate given the nature

[2:51:30] of this. And

[2:51:32] after a discussion with

[2:51:34] Deputy Director Nathan

[2:51:36] Quarles, the decision was made

[2:51:40] that an engineered H VAC system

[2:51:42] is required on these. That it

[2:51:43] actually has to be not. Not a

[2:51:46] run of the mill sort

[2:51:48] of contractor. And that that

[2:51:50] has to do with just sort

[2:51:52] of the higher level of

[2:51:55] complexity that you were

[2:51:59] pointing out.

[2:52:00] >> Yeah, again, I'm supportive.

[2:52:01] I just had those questions and

[2:52:03] or comments and appreciate the

[2:52:05] work. Thank you.

[2:52:08] >> Thank you.

[2:52:09] >> Vice Chair Coursey.

[2:52:13] >> Thanks. Thanks for the work

[2:52:14] on this. It feels like it's

[2:52:16] been a process I think we.

[2:52:19] We've discussed this

[2:52:20] at least three times

[2:52:21] over the last six months or so.

[2:52:22] And from the lack

[2:52:25] of public comment, I'm assuming

[2:52:27] that things have worked out

[2:52:29] with the community that's

[2:52:31] interested

[2:52:33] in this. I didn't hear anything

[2:52:35] about the outdoor areas

[2:52:40] around these lounges. Is this

[2:52:42] all to take place indoors, no

[2:52:44] consumption patios or anything

[2:52:47] like that?

[2:52:51] >> A lot of the outdoor areas

[2:52:52] are covered

[2:52:55] through the permit Sonoma, the

[2:52:56] land use ordinance and the

[2:52:58] mitigation there. As far as the

[2:53:01] smoke and smoke not leaving

[2:53:04] that outdoor patio,

[2:53:05] that will be part

[2:53:09] of the discussion. I mean,

[2:53:11] how you keep it confined

[2:53:13] in an outdoor patio is going

[2:53:14] to be difficult. But as far as

[2:53:16] setbacks and that all that

[2:53:19] approval will go

[2:53:23] through your land use.

[2:53:25] >> Okay.

[2:53:27] >> I would add one. One detail

[2:53:28] just to highlight it for you,

[2:53:30] Supervisor, which is that the.

[2:53:31] The county's smoking ordinance,

[2:53:35] chapter 32, does have

[2:53:38] applications outdoors

[2:53:40] in a lot of.

[2:53:44] In the unincorporated area.

[2:53:45] And what the ordinance does is

[2:53:47] make events exempt

[2:53:49] from chapter 32 if they are

[2:53:51] permitted by the Department

[2:53:54] of Cannabis Control. So there

[2:53:56] really won't be help permitting

[2:53:59] of things like the fairgrounds.

[2:54:01] I'm anticipating that would be

[2:54:04] an example. And then the

[2:54:06] smoking ordinance also has

[2:54:09] designated smoking areas that

[2:54:13] are required in certain outdoor

[2:54:16] smoking situations, and that

[2:54:17] ordinance will still apply.

[2:54:19] >> Okay. And as far as

[2:54:23] employees in these lounges,

[2:54:24] how does. How does OSHA Cal.

[2:54:29] OSHA figure into that?

[2:54:30] >> They are required to comply

[2:54:39] with OSHA requirements.

[2:54:41] In a nutshell,

[2:54:43] I believe that that's part

[2:54:44] of the plan that's required

[2:54:47] to protect the state law

[2:54:51] on this did make it mandatory

[2:54:55] for these businesses

[2:54:57] to allow their employees

[2:54:59] to wear masks and at the.

[2:55:01] At the business's expense. So

[2:55:07] the legislature had that in

[2:55:09] mind when it authorized this

[2:55:10] use.

[2:55:13] >> Okay. It is addressed. All

[2:55:15] right, thank you.

[2:55:16] >> I would just add that

[2:55:20] Chapter 32, the Smoking

[2:55:21] Ordinance still is applicable.

[2:55:23] Like in the front

[2:55:24] of the business and

[2:55:26] around a business. There's no

[2:55:28] smoking allowed

[2:55:29] out front.

[2:55:31] >> Thank you.

[2:55:33] >> Thank you. I did. I did have

[2:55:35] one question. What outreach has

[2:55:37] been done with our city

[2:55:39] partners and what city partners

[2:55:41] have been chatted with?

[2:55:48] >> So we've spoke with the city

[2:55:50] managers and city council and

[2:55:54] done outreach there,

[2:55:57] but we've also done a lot

[2:55:58] of outreach through the

[2:55:59] community groups and the

[2:56:01] different tobacco. Tobacco

[2:56:06] groups in the area and also the

[2:56:08] cannabis working groups and

[2:56:09] their legal representatives.

[2:56:12] >> And is it all cities

[2:56:14] in the county?

[2:56:19] >> So chapter 14 does,

[2:56:20] by default

[2:56:21] of the health officer, apply

[2:56:23] to all cities in the county.

[2:56:24] What's different about the

[2:56:26] cannabis subsection is it's

[2:56:27] going to require the cities

[2:56:28] to opt in. So in a sense,

[2:56:32] whereas we are have

[2:56:33] historically taken the position

[2:56:34] that our existing cannabis

[2:56:36] permits are valid and are

[2:56:38] required in the city limits

[2:56:39] in all cities. Yes, this will

[2:56:41] require that the cities opt in

[2:56:43] to these permits,

[2:56:44] particular requirements. We've

[2:56:46] had extensive discussions

[2:56:49] through the city managers

[2:56:50] meetings, city,

[2:56:52] that is the name

[2:56:54] of the group, I guess,

[2:56:57] and then also through council

[2:56:58] with the city attorneys. And we

[2:57:01] don't have a list

[2:57:05] of cities that are anticipating

[2:57:08] to opt in, although I will say

[2:57:09] that the separate MOU that I

[2:57:11] mentioned, the city of Santa

[2:57:13] Rosa, has already said through

[2:57:15] their council that they are

[2:57:17] going to opt in. And some of

[2:57:19] the other cities have more

[2:57:20] detailed questions. Frankly,

[2:57:22] it's an interesting legal

[2:57:24] question because city attorneys

[2:57:25] typically do not deal

[2:57:26] with health

[2:57:28] for the reasons that

[2:57:29] Supervisor Rabbitt identified.

[2:57:32] So, you know, it's an ongoing

[2:57:35] discussion and there have been

[2:57:36] extensive discussions

[2:57:37] with each

[2:57:40] of the city attorneys and

[2:57:42] with all

[2:57:43] of the city managers.

[2:57:45] >> Thank you.

[2:57:46] >> I want to thank the staff

[2:57:47] because they have been

[2:57:48] judicious

[2:57:49] about taking advantage

[2:57:51] of when I am invited to the

[2:57:53] monthly city managers and think

[2:57:54] once, if not twice, certainly,

[2:57:56] I think. Christine, explain

[2:57:58] with the help of Vern

[2:58:01] to the city managers. You know,

[2:58:02] how they've been trying

[2:58:05] to weave in the conversation as

[2:58:08] surprise. Rabbitt said that we

[2:58:09] have, you know, smoking

[2:58:11] cessation and no smoking type

[2:58:13] of thing. And also businesses

[2:58:14] that are were designed to do

[2:58:16] some lounge cannabis

[2:58:18] consumption. So I'm very

[2:58:22] grateful for the way that staff

[2:58:23] brought it up because we are

[2:58:25] maintaining our no smoking

[2:58:27] in the unincorporated area,

[2:58:29] but we are not. We're not

[2:58:31] foregoing that opportunity

[2:58:32] for the cities who want

[2:58:34] to opt in. So we have been in

[2:58:36] constant contact and been able

[2:58:38] to educate them

[2:58:41] along the way because as Vern

[2:58:44] said, the public health officer

[2:58:45] portion of the business is not

[2:58:48] something that the cities do.

[2:58:51] >> Thank you. Great. Thank you.

[2:58:52] Seeing no more questions

[2:58:53] for my colleagues. Is there a

[2:58:54] motion?

[2:58:55] >> So moved, Rabbitt.

[2:58:57] >> Is there a second?

[2:58:58] >> Second.

[2:59:00] >> Can I get a roll call vote?

[2:59:06] >> Supervisor Rabbitt?

[2:59:08] >> Aye.

[2:59:09] >> Supervisor Coursey?

[2:59:10] >> Yes.

[2:59:11] >> Supervisor Gore recused.

[2:59:12] >> Supervisor Hopkins?

[2:59:14] >> Yes.

[2:59:15] >> Chair Hermosillo?

[2:59:16] >> Yes.

[2:59:18] >> Thank you.

[2:59:21] >> And with that, Director

[2:59:22] Sullivan, don't go far. We're

[2:59:23] moving on

[2:59:24] to measure O and we have

[2:59:26] Director Sullivan, Aleya

[2:59:30] Tantarelli and David Heidt.

[2:59:33] >> Make sure that he comes in.

[2:59:38] >> Sio Rivera is going

[2:59:41] to wrangle. Supervisor Gore.

[2:59:44] Give us one second. Stop it.

[3:01:08] That's aggressive tone. Right

[3:01:12] now. We're all ready.

[3:01:13] >> All right. All right.

[3:01:14] Well, good afternoon now.

[3:01:15] Supervisor Hermosillo and

[3:01:17] board. Thank you so much

[3:01:18] for the audience today. Saving

[3:01:19] the best for last,

[3:01:21] which I really appreciate. So

[3:01:22] thank you for that. We have a

[3:01:23] really great presentation today

[3:01:24] for you on Measure O. We do

[3:01:26] recognize that we're standing

[3:01:27] between you and lunch, so we'll

[3:01:29] make this education educational

[3:01:30] but expeditious. First thing I

[3:01:31] want to point out,

[3:01:32] and I see some

[3:01:33] of you reading it,

[3:01:34] we have our brand new hot

[3:01:35] off the presses. They're

[3:01:36] probably still warm. Annual

[3:01:38] Measure O report, full of

[3:01:39] really great stats and data and

[3:01:40] sharing all

[3:01:41] of the wonderful things

[3:01:42] with the public that we do.

[3:01:43] And so this is kicking

[3:01:44] off sort of our public

[3:01:45] information campaign on all of

[3:01:47] the wonderful things that are.

[3:01:48] That are Measure O. So if you

[3:01:50] have any questions there or

[3:01:51] comments or concerns, please

[3:01:52] let us know and we will dive

[3:01:53] into our presentation today.

[3:01:55] So. So I am Nolan Sullivan, the

[3:01:56] Department of Health Services

[3:01:58] director. I am joined here

[3:01:59] today by David Hyatt and

[3:02:00] Aliyah Tantrelli. And I wanted

[3:02:01] to thank these two really quick

[3:02:02] before we dive in. These

[3:02:03] presentations oftentimes come

[3:02:05] to the board and they look

[3:02:06] packaged and simple and clean

[3:02:07] and easy to follow. These two

[3:02:10] have put in probably hundreds

[3:02:12] of hours of work. They are

[3:02:13] expert cat herders and really

[3:02:15] have just done a wonderful job

[3:02:16] sort

[3:02:17] of wrangling the enigma that is

[3:02:18] Measure O. The ad hocs,

[3:02:19] the oversight committees

[3:02:20] meeting with different

[3:02:22] electives and just. They are

[3:02:23] the smartest,

[3:02:24] most dedicated people that I

[3:02:25] get to work with. And I'm just

[3:02:26] really proud

[3:02:27] of their work today. So I want

[3:02:28] to thank them before we dive in

[3:02:30] today because they're awesome.

[3:02:31] Next slide, please. We are

[3:02:34] going to dive in and talk

[3:02:35] about all sorts

[3:02:36] of different things today.

[3:02:37] What I hope you will take away

[3:02:38] from today and what I hope the

[3:02:39] public will take away today and

[3:02:40] I hope the press will take away

[3:02:41] from today is the impact that

[3:02:42] measure I was making every

[3:02:43] single day in Sonoma County.

[3:02:45] You know, one of the things

[3:02:46] that is really hard with the

[3:02:47] behavioral health system is

[3:02:49] to explain what a dollar does

[3:02:51] for a psychiatric bed or

[3:02:53] substance use treatment or

[3:02:54] crisis system of care and

[3:02:56] really explaining the sheer

[3:02:57] impact and value that it is

[3:02:59] providing all over the place.

[3:03:01] Lots of our different electeds

[3:03:02] and constituents are concerned

[3:03:03] about where Measure O is going.

[3:03:05] They have questions. They're

[3:03:06] right. I understand why they

[3:03:07] have questions. But it is

[3:03:09] making a tremendous difference

[3:03:10] in the county. So much so that

[3:03:12] it is pumping about 55 million

[3:03:13] back into Sonoma county to fund

[3:03:16] our critical behavioral health

[3:03:18] safety net. And of that $55

[3:03:20] million,

[3:03:21] it helps us leverage so 33

[3:03:23] million as direct Measure O

[3:03:24] expenditures. And we're able to

[3:03:26] leverage an additional 20/

[3:03:27] million dollars in Federal

[3:03:29] money. So if we didn't have

[3:03:30] Measure O,

[3:03:31] not only we would not have the

[3:03:32] 30 million that we spent,

[3:03:33] we would not have 20 million

[3:03:34] extra dollars in federal

[3:03:35] revenue that we're able

[3:03:36] to draw down. So a huge gift

[3:03:38] for. For us. We're going

[3:03:39] to talk about a couple

[3:03:41] different things today. We're

[3:03:42] going to talk

[3:03:43] about who the county serves.

[3:03:44] Oftentimes people say we're

[3:03:45] like the behavioral health czar

[3:03:46] of the county. That is not,

[3:03:48] in fact, the case. And we'll

[3:03:49] talk briefly about that. We'll

[3:03:50] go really quickly into what

[3:03:51] Measure O is. We'll talk

[3:03:52] about the expenditure plan.

[3:03:54] We'll tell you all about where

[3:03:55] we expended and where we

[3:03:57] received revenues

[3:03:58] from EZERO this year. We'll

[3:04:01] talk a little bit

[3:04:03] about the gross expenditures

[3:04:05] by program. I do want

[3:04:06] to spend some time on the fund

[3:04:07] balance. I've got some good

[3:04:08] news and some bad news there.

[3:04:09] We'll talk

[3:04:10] about that today a little bit,

[3:04:11] too. And then really next steps

[3:04:12] and kind of where we're going

[3:04:13] to head with Measure O will

[3:04:14] close us out. So the first

[3:04:15] slide here, please. I started

[3:04:16] with this slide on purpose, and

[3:04:18] I think it's really important

[3:04:20] to ground the conversation

[3:04:21] whenever we're talking

[3:04:22] about county behavioral health,

[3:04:23] on what the county is actually

[3:04:24] responsible for. So this chart

[3:04:26] that you're seeing ahead of you

[3:04:28] is really the behavioral health

[3:04:29] system of care

[3:04:30] for the entire county. So

[3:04:31] We've got about 470,000 people

[3:04:35] here in Sonoma County, and

[3:04:36] everyone gets to their

[3:04:37] behavioral health care, whether

[3:04:39] that be mental health care or

[3:04:40] substance use care

[3:04:41] in different ways. And so

[3:04:43] oftentimes you'll hear folks or

[3:04:45] you'll hear the community,

[3:04:46] or you'll have people come up

[3:04:47] to the dais and say, county,

[3:04:49] you need to fund X, Y or Z.

[3:04:50] You need to do better in this

[3:04:53] behavioral health category.

[3:04:54] The county runs a mental health

[3:04:56] plan through Medi Cal, and we

[3:04:58] are required to serve the SMI

[3:05:00] population only. And I want

[3:05:01] to be very clear about that.

[3:05:03] So the county's mandate,

[3:05:05] what we're funded for, for what

[3:05:07] we get medical revenues for,

[3:05:08] what we can use Measure O

[3:05:11] dollars on, is about 4,000

[3:05:12] people in Sonoma county that

[3:05:13] are on Medi Cal that are very

[3:05:14] mentally ill or are really

[3:05:16] struggling

[3:05:17] with substance use. And then

[3:05:18] about 200ish folks that are

[3:05:20] in jails. So they're either

[3:05:21] in the jail, they're

[3:05:23] in the court system, they're

[3:05:24] in some sort

[3:05:25] of correctional setting. So

[3:05:26] oftentimes you'll have folks

[3:05:27] say, why don't you fix

[3:05:28] depression or anxiety

[3:05:29] across the county,

[3:05:30] we don't have the resources,

[3:05:31] we don't have the mandate, we

[3:05:32] don't,

[3:05:33] we don't have the charge. Our

[3:05:34] responsibility is that 4000-ish

[3:05:35] people and 200 folks

[3:05:36] in a forensic setting. And so

[3:05:37] really just setting the stage

[3:05:38] there. I know many of our

[3:05:40] school district partners have

[3:05:41] come and asked for funding.

[3:05:42] It's just not our purview

[3:05:44] to give dollars out

[3:05:46] across the board. Again, we

[3:05:47] have this very small population

[3:05:48] who is super expensive

[3:05:50] to serve. But again,

[3:05:52] these are folks that are

[3:05:53] in lock facilities. They've got

[3:05:54] bipolar disorder, really

[3:05:55] intensive behavioral health

[3:05:56] needs. Second

[3:05:58] to that is our mild

[3:05:59] to moderate population. This is

[3:06:00] the rest of the folks on Medi

[3:06:01] Cal in the county. So again,

[3:06:03] mild to moderate, lower levels

[3:06:04] of anxiety, depression, ADHD,

[3:06:05] kind of basic behavioral health

[3:06:07] needs. And they're on Medi

[3:06:09] Cal, they are serviced through

[3:06:11] their managed care provider

[3:06:13] which is Partnership or

[3:06:14] Kaiser. So just

[3:06:15] like you or I go to the doctor

[3:06:16] if we need antidepressant meds

[3:06:18] or we need anxiety meds

[3:06:20] through Kaiser, et cetera, et

[3:06:21] cetera, et cetera,

[3:06:22] folks then go through

[3:06:23] Partnership or they go

[3:06:24] through Kaiser

[3:06:25] to see their regular doctor

[3:06:26] to access that care either

[3:06:27] at an FQHC, at a Kaiser

[3:06:28] facility or wherever they get

[3:06:30] care. And then there's about

[3:06:31] 350,000 people, the general

[3:06:33] public, they have care

[3:06:34] through a variety of different

[3:06:36] means and that's private payer,

[3:06:37] that's

[3:06:38] through their work insurance,

[3:06:39] that's through a variety

[3:06:40] of other tools and

[3:06:41] in some cases uninsured. We do

[3:06:42] have some responsibility

[3:06:43] in the uninsured category,

[3:06:45] but that's a tale

[3:06:46] for another day. So again

[3:06:47] grounding this discussion,

[3:06:48] the county's responsibility,

[3:06:50] what we're funded for,

[3:06:52] our mandate is 4,000 people

[3:06:54] that are really sick. And this

[3:06:55] is children and adults or

[3:06:56] about 200-ish

[3:06:57] at any given time that are

[3:06:59] in some sort

[3:07:02] of institutional setting. So

[3:07:04] this is where those measure o

[3:07:06] dollars should be going and

[3:07:08] this is our responsibility.

[3:07:11] Next slide please. So again,

[3:07:14] a quick measure overview. You

[3:07:15] guys have heard this several

[3:07:16] times before. This was a voter

[3:07:18] approved quarter cent sales tax

[3:07:19] that was approved in November

[3:07:20] of 2020. It was dedicated for

[3:07:21] 10 years, and it is dedicated

[3:07:22] to mental health, substance use

[3:07:23] and homeless support. We get

[3:07:24] about $30 million a year. It

[3:07:25] fluctuates a little bit up and

[3:07:26] down, but generally it's

[3:07:28] about $30 million a year. And

[3:07:29] this funding is not

[3:07:30] discretionary. So

[3:07:31] within the ballot language,

[3:07:32] the board is confined

[3:07:34] to what is written

[3:07:35] in the ballot that was approved

[3:07:36] by voters. And there are some

[3:07:38] very specific ways that we have

[3:07:39] to spend that Money, Some very

[3:07:41] specific ways we have

[3:07:42] to account

[3:07:44] for that money and some very,

[3:07:45] very specific reporting

[3:07:47] requirements. One

[3:07:49] of which is today is to have a

[3:07:51] public hearing and discuss our

[3:07:54] expenditures. Next slide

[3:07:56] please. This is the expenditure

[3:07:57] categories that are stipulated

[3:07:58] in the actual measure. So we

[3:07:59] cannot deviate from this.

[3:08:00] Things do kind

[3:08:01] of fluctuate a smidge. But

[3:08:02] in general the measure

[3:08:03] of dollars have to be spent by

[3:08:04] the voter approved categories

[3:08:05] that are on the ballot.

[3:08:06] Behavioral health facilities

[3:08:08] coming in at 22%. The big, the

[3:08:09] big expenditure here really is

[3:08:11] emergency psychiatric and

[3:08:12] crisis services at 44%. And in

[3:08:14] fact we're seeing that category

[3:08:16] continue to grow even though

[3:08:17] it's the largest category

[3:08:19] today. Mental health and SUD

[3:08:20] outpatient services at 18%,

[3:08:21] behavioral health and homeless

[3:08:23] care at 14 and a little teeny,

[3:08:24] teeny bit for transitional and

[3:08:26] permanent supportive housing.

[3:08:27] So a lot of times folks, they

[3:08:30] measure O as a homeless grant.

[3:08:32] It really isn't. And so I know

[3:08:34] the campaign rhetoric, or maybe

[3:08:36] whatever happened way back when

[3:08:38] the campaign was run,

[3:08:40] promoted it

[3:08:42] for homeless services. We

[3:08:44] cannot spend those dollars

[3:08:45] unless they're out

[3:08:46] of that 2% pot or

[3:08:47] to some degree the 14% pot.

[3:08:48] But that's a bit

[3:08:49] of a stretch. So unfortunately

[3:08:50] a lot of folks are sort

[3:08:51] of misinformed in that space

[3:08:52] and that causes some

[3:08:53] frustration

[3:08:54] with our partners as well. We

[3:08:55] do have the ability

[3:08:56] to adjust funds

[3:08:57] within these categories

[3:08:58] in a single budget year. It

[3:08:59] requires a 4 5th vote

[3:09:00] by the board. And periodically

[3:09:01] we do come and ask

[3:09:02] for a slight adjustment. We

[3:09:03] don't think we'll need to do

[3:09:04] that this year and we haven't

[3:09:06] had to do that for some time.

[3:09:07] But we do have the ability

[3:09:08] to start switch

[3:09:10] between categories in a single

[3:09:11] fiscal year. I suspect

[3:09:13] at the latter stages

[3:09:15] of measure O, we're going

[3:09:16] to need a lot more money in

[3:09:18] that emergency psychiatric and

[3:09:22] crisis services column and less

[3:09:23] money in the others. So we will

[3:09:24] probably come back

[3:09:27] to the board for that.

[3:09:28] But again we have that ability

[3:09:29] with a 4 5th vote

[3:09:30] by the board that is

[3:09:31] in the ballot measure. And I

[3:09:32] think that is my last slide.

[3:09:33] And I'm going to hand it off

[3:09:34] to David to talk

[3:09:35] about the finances..

[3:09:36] >> Yeah, good morning. What we

[3:09:37] have here is the gross

[3:09:38] expenditures by category. As

[3:09:39] you see, this is a little bit

[3:09:40] of a shift for us

[3:09:41] in reporting that we've done

[3:09:42] in previous years. Typically

[3:09:43] we've used net expenditures.

[3:09:44] So this shows basically what

[3:09:45] we've spent before we have any

[3:09:46] reimbursements like FFP,

[3:09:47] federal financial

[3:09:49] participation. And really

[3:09:51] because we want to shift

[3:09:53] to this, it shows you the

[3:09:54] overall impact that Measure O

[3:09:56] has on the community. Here we

[3:09:58] break it

[3:10:03] down a little bit further

[3:10:04] by subcategory as laid out in

[3:10:07] the expenditure plan or

[3:10:08] individual programs. Probably

[3:10:10] something better suited for

[3:10:12] offline consumption here. A

[3:10:13] little difficult

[3:10:15] to read maybe. And this

[3:10:19] actually really demonstrates

[3:10:20] well, one of the reasons why we

[3:10:21] have chosen to look

[3:10:23] at gross expenditures. Because

[3:10:25] the reimbursements vary a lot

[3:10:27] between programs. So it gives

[3:10:30] you a good overall view once we

[3:10:32] add in reimbursements,

[3:10:33] but it can really undersell

[3:10:34] some of the programs that

[3:10:36] receive a lot

[3:10:37] of reimbursements. So you see

[3:10:40] the total expenditures

[3:10:42] down the bottom as reflected

[3:10:44] in the previous slide,

[3:10:46] and then the reimbursements.

[3:10:48] And once we end up

[3:10:51] with the net expenditures

[3:10:53] really in line

[3:10:55] with what we have spent

[3:10:56] in previous years. So speaking

[3:10:57] of previous years,

[3:10:58] what we have here is

[3:10:59] combination

[3:11:00] of net expenditures,

[3:11:02] is the line going up there,

[3:11:04] and relationship between our

[3:11:06] fund balance and revenues. You

[3:11:09] see, with the early years,

[3:11:10] it took a little while for us

[3:11:13] to get caught up as programs

[3:11:15] were spinning up

[3:11:16] to bring the fund balance down,

[3:11:17] bring expenditures up. So as it

[3:11:18] expanded, we've allowed us

[3:11:20] to support a broader and more,

[3:11:22] excuse me, mature set

[3:11:24] of ongoing services. And now

[3:11:25] you see how the fund balance is

[3:11:27] projected to decline

[3:11:29] over the next couple years,

[3:11:31] both this year and into next.

[3:11:37] These are both kind of point

[3:11:38] in time estimates. And overall,

[3:11:39] what we reflect here is the

[3:11:42] plan progression, building up

[3:11:43] services, using them

[3:11:46] over time as we move

[3:11:47] into full implementation.

[3:11:56] >> Right, and now we're going

[3:11:57] to talk about the individual

[3:11:58] categories today. And again,

[3:11:59] I'm going to try and make these

[3:12:00] slides not look so graphy and

[3:12:01] boring and explain what they're

[3:12:03] actually funding. Right. And

[3:12:04] this is the story that we all

[3:12:05] need to tell. What does this

[3:12:07] mean to the average resident

[3:12:09] of Sonoma County? Right. So

[3:12:10] measure O every single day is

[3:12:11] helping some

[3:12:12] of the most sick, most

[3:12:14] behaviorally needy folks here

[3:12:15] in the county. And if we didn't

[3:12:17] have this resource, quite

[3:12:18] frankly, the behavioral health

[3:12:20] team would be sunk. And so in

[3:12:21] the behavioral health category,

[3:12:22] last year, we spent $15

[3:12:24] million, and that $15 million

[3:12:25] was able to serve 208

[3:12:27] individuals

[3:12:29] in psychiatric hospitals. And

[3:12:31] again, these placements can be

[3:12:32] a million dollars

[3:12:34] for a single placement,

[3:12:35] a million dollars

[3:12:37] for a single client. So if we

[3:12:38] did not have this funding or

[3:12:40] these contracts or these

[3:12:41] abilities,

[3:12:43] these are folks that have

[3:12:44] schizophrenia, bipolar, really

[3:12:45] severe behavioral health

[3:12:46] issues. And oftentimes they're

[3:12:47] homeless or they're

[3:12:48] on the streets or in and out,

[3:12:49] or they don't have access

[3:12:50] to these services

[3:12:51] in these facilities. And

[3:12:52] in many cases,

[3:12:53] we don't have medical revenues

[3:12:54] to cover these for a variety

[3:12:55] of reasons. And we also don't

[3:12:56] have enough realignment fund

[3:12:57] balance to really cover these

[3:12:58] expenditures. And so, you know,

[3:12:59] talking to cities and talking

[3:13:01] to our constituents

[3:13:02] about the value this provides,

[3:13:03] these are 208 people that are

[3:13:05] really ill, that are able

[3:13:07] to receive treatment,

[3:13:08] that are hopefully able

[3:13:09] to recover, that are able

[3:13:10] to heal and get back

[3:13:12] into care. Once folks have

[3:13:13] their immediate kind of

[3:13:14] psychiatric crisis stabilized,

[3:13:15] they have to step down,

[3:13:16] right? So you don't just get

[3:13:17] out of the psych hospital and

[3:13:18] go back to your normal life.

[3:13:20] It takes some time. And so

[3:13:21] we've got a variety of

[3:13:22] residential care facilities as

[3:13:23] well. So when folks step down

[3:13:24] from that crisis,

[3:13:25] maybe it's a psychiatric break,

[3:13:27] a psychotic episode,

[3:13:28] an attempted search suicide,

[3:13:31] they stabilize,

[3:13:32] then they are able to go

[3:13:33] to a residential care facility.

[3:13:34] Right? And so at that

[3:13:35] residential care facility,

[3:13:37] they're able to again continue

[3:13:38] their treatment plan, get

[3:13:39] better, recover,

[3:13:40] and hopefully get back

[3:13:41] in the community.

[3:13:42] In some cases, they may never

[3:13:43] recover. So in some cases,

[3:13:44] folks have behavioral health

[3:13:45] issues where they need to be

[3:13:46] in a residential care facility

[3:13:48] for life. And these are folks

[3:13:49] that are conserved. You've

[3:13:50] heard these stories

[3:13:51] in the newspapers. You've heard

[3:13:52] these heartbreaking tales

[3:13:53] from parents trying to treat

[3:13:54] their adult children or

[3:13:55] children trying to reach their

[3:13:57] older adult parents trying

[3:13:58] to find a place to keep them.

[3:13:59] This funding paid

[3:14:01] for 328of those placements.

[3:14:02] And again, they're very

[3:14:03] expensive and they come

[3:14:04] from every part

[3:14:05] of the county,

[3:14:06] every incorporated city,

[3:14:08] from the unincorporated, again,

[3:14:10] paying for services

[3:14:11] for folks. 81,448 bed nights

[3:14:13] just last year. Right? That's a

[3:14:16] huge number

[3:14:17] of beds that we're able to pay

[3:14:18] for in this service. And then

[3:14:19] again,

[3:14:20] getting folks transitionally

[3:14:22] housed, right. Maybe you get

[3:14:23] out of residential facility,

[3:14:25] you're kind of getting back

[3:14:26] on your feet. You know, how do

[3:14:27] you actually integrate back

[3:14:28] into society? And so again,

[3:14:29] serving 325 clients,

[3:14:31] really going

[3:14:32] from probably the worst moment

[3:14:33] of their life back

[3:14:34] into society. And so without

[3:14:36] Measure O, none

[3:14:37] of these services would exist.

[3:14:38] And again, I know the public

[3:14:40] doesn't see it. Many of our

[3:14:41] city council peers don't see

[3:14:42] it. Sometimes the police chiefs

[3:14:43] don't see it. But Measure O is

[3:14:45] paying for a whole shadow

[3:14:46] system that really makes a

[3:14:47] tremendous impact every single

[3:14:48] day. Next slide, please. This

[3:14:50] is the big dog in terms

[3:14:52] of spending. And this is where

[3:14:54] the spending unfortunately is

[3:14:56] rapidly growing. This is our

[3:14:57] emergency and psychiatric

[3:14:58] services tab. We spent about

[3:15:00] $30 million there. Again,

[3:15:01] almost the Entirety

[3:15:02] of what we earned in measure O

[3:15:04] last year was spent just

[3:15:05] on this one category. And

[3:15:07] again, this also includes the

[3:15:08] medical revenues that we bring

[3:15:09] back in. But I can't underscore

[3:15:11] enough how much this category

[3:15:12] is growing off the charts.

[3:15:13] This thing funds all,

[3:15:14] all sorts

[3:15:15] of different things. And we'll

[3:15:16] talk a little bit

[3:15:17] about CAPE and Mobile Crisis

[3:15:19] on the two subsequent slides.

[3:15:20] But this funds our entire

[3:15:21] crisis system of care. So

[3:15:22] whether it is our CSU,

[3:15:23] which we've talked a lot about,

[3:15:24] the costs there are going up.

[3:15:26] We've almost reached $10

[3:15:28] million. And that provides a

[3:15:29] resource for folks to go

[3:15:31] to when they are in crisis.

[3:15:32] Right. It's an emergency room

[3:15:33] when you're having a behavioral

[3:15:34] health or substance use crisis.

[3:15:36] The residential crisis

[3:15:37] services, which we talked

[3:15:39] about a minute ago, you know,

[3:15:40] folks need to put place

[3:15:41] to stay. We're

[3:15:42] in their crisis. You can't just

[3:15:43] stay in the CSU. You've got

[3:15:44] to find a place to step down.

[3:15:45] And unfortunately,

[3:15:46] we're spending about $10

[3:15:47] million on in patient hospital

[3:15:48] treatments as well. So this is

[3:15:50] again, if you've got a loved

[3:15:51] one or a family member that is

[3:15:52] experiencing psychosis,

[3:15:54] a severe bipolar disorder,

[3:15:55] a mental break, it's a really

[3:15:57] scary and awful situation.

[3:16:00] This is paying

[3:16:01] for those resources for people

[3:16:02] to be treated locally. And

[3:16:03] again, working

[3:16:05] in several county systems.

[3:16:06] This does not exist

[3:16:07] in the counties that I've

[3:16:08] worked in in the past. And

[3:16:09] again, it's sort

[3:16:10] of this hidden system

[3:16:11] behind the scenes.

[3:16:12] But the voters of Sonoma

[3:16:13] County have really created a

[3:16:14] very robust crisis system to

[3:16:15] treat folks that are extremely

[3:16:16] mentally ill. And I can't

[3:16:19] stress enough how many folks

[3:16:20] we've served. I won't go

[3:16:22] through all the stats

[3:16:23] to you there, but again,

[3:16:25] for the Crisis Stabilization

[3:16:26] Unit, we served about 655

[3:16:27] clients last year. The Mobile

[3:16:29] Support team. So Mobile Crisis

[3:16:30] is broken

[3:16:32] into three different teams.

[3:16:33] Mobile Support Team is the

[3:16:35] county's team that covers the

[3:16:36] entire incorporated and any of

[3:16:37] the cities that don't have a

[3:16:38] team in response. Covers

[3:16:40] Santa Rosa, within Santa Rosa

[3:16:42] city limits. SAFE covers

[3:16:43] Petaluma, Cotati, Rohnert Park

[3:16:45] and Sonoma State University.

[3:16:47] And you can see the call rates

[3:16:48] there. So again, 1,469 total

[3:16:50] dispatches

[3:16:51] from mobile support team.

[3:16:52] 5,800 calls for service

[3:16:55] within response, 13,000 plus

[3:16:57] calls for safe. The one thing I

[3:16:59] want to point out,

[3:17:00] there was an article in the

[3:17:02] paper last week and I'm not

[3:17:03] making a judgment call are

[3:17:04] saying what happened or didn't

[3:17:06] happen, but a lot

[3:17:07] of times when someone's Having

[3:17:08] a mental health crisis, you

[3:17:09] want a mental health crisis

[3:17:11] responder to respond,

[3:17:12] not a police officer. Right.

[3:17:13] We've seen in this county

[3:17:14] in the past, oftentimes law

[3:17:15] enforcement gets put

[3:17:16] in situations where they've got

[3:17:17] to use their firearm. We have

[3:17:18] really awful results. 71%

[3:17:19] of the responses from the

[3:17:21] mobile support team were done

[3:17:22] without law enforcement. 4800

[3:17:24] calls in Santa Rosa were done

[3:17:26] without law or were law

[3:17:28] enforcement diversions. So

[3:17:30] again, diverting to a mental

[3:17:31] health crisis clinician. And

[3:17:32] we're not collecting all that

[3:17:33] data just yet for safe,

[3:17:35] but we'll share that

[3:17:36] at a later date. So again, the

[3:17:37] community years and years ago

[3:17:38] asked

[3:17:39] for an ultimate response. They

[3:17:41] asked to keep people safe.

[3:17:42] They asked

[3:17:43] for something different

[3:17:44] during the time of George

[3:17:45] Floyd and after. And we have

[3:17:46] produced that here

[3:17:47] in the county. Doesn't always

[3:17:48] work 100%. Right. We saw that

[3:17:49] last week. But again, 71%

[3:17:50] of the calls without law

[3:17:52] enforcement is something

[3:17:53] to be proud of that this board

[3:17:54] has a established and sort of

[3:17:55] launched a couple years back.

[3:17:57] We'll talk a little bit about

[3:17:58] Cape on the next slide. And

[3:18:00] again, 292 individuals served

[3:18:01] at our inpatient hospital here

[3:18:02] at the Los Guilicos campus.

[3:18:04] Next slide. I wanted

[3:18:08] to do a specific call out.

[3:18:09] >> Yes, hi, sorry, Supervisor

[3:18:11] Hopkins has a question.

[3:18:12] >> I had some questions

[3:18:13] about sort of MST

[3:18:14] in response and safe. Should I

[3:18:15] wait until.

[3:18:16] >> We have a slide come up

[3:18:17] next.

[3:18:18] >> Okay, great.

[3:18:19] >> Thank you.

[3:18:21] >> So I want to talk a little

[3:18:23] bit about cape. And the reason

[3:18:24] I wanted to bring this up today

[3:18:25] is we've had a variety

[3:18:27] of requests come

[3:18:29] from different school districts

[3:18:30] to fund their behavioral health

[3:18:37] programming. So I wanted

[3:18:40] to frame the discussion

[3:18:41] on who the county serves

[3:18:43] with that first slide.

[3:18:44] But I also want

[3:18:45] to talk a little bit

[3:18:46] about what we're actually doing

[3:18:47] on school campuses. And so the

[3:18:48] CAPE program is essentially a

[3:18:52] mobile crisis response program

[3:18:53] for our high school Systems and

[3:18:54] some junior and elementary

[3:18:55] schools. We service over 34

[3:18:56] campuses last year,

[3:18:57] and we were able to respond

[3:18:58] to 56 different crises, 33

[3:18:59] on campus crisis responses,

[3:19:00] and then 23 phone

[3:19:01] consultations. We had 109 early

[3:19:02] intervention referrals and

[3:19:03] 2,240 prevention participants

[3:19:04] through education and outreach

[3:19:05] activities. So again,

[3:19:06] you have a lot of your

[3:19:08] constituents and partners

[3:19:10] asking for funding to support

[3:19:11] programs. I wish we had the

[3:19:12] most money to do it,

[3:19:13] but I want to remind the county

[3:19:14] that we are injecting our

[3:19:16] services into 34 different

[3:19:17] campuses across Sonoma

[3:19:19] County. This is a full listing

[3:19:20] of those campuses. And there's

[3:19:21] actually a couple more that

[3:19:23] actually aren't on there. But

[3:19:25] we are actively staffing these

[3:19:26] campuses with county employees

[3:19:28] and we're really trying

[3:19:29] to do our best

[3:19:31] to backfill that crisis level

[3:19:32] of care.

[3:19:33] >> Thank you. Vice Chair

[3:19:34] Coursey has a question

[3:19:35] for you.

[3:19:36] >> This does this represents a

[3:19:37] broader population than the

[3:19:38] 4000 that you mentioned

[3:19:40] in your one

[3:19:41] of your first.

[3:19:43] >> It does. It does.

[3:19:44] >> These are young people who

[3:19:46] are in need of some help. And

[3:19:47] we're not asking them to call

[3:19:48] their insurance company.

[3:19:51] >> This is any student that

[3:19:55] needs it. We're responding to

[3:19:56] 100% any student that needs it.

[3:19:58] And then we do our best

[3:19:59] to connect them

[3:20:01] to follow up care through

[3:20:02] whatever insurance they have

[3:20:04] afterwards or

[3:20:05] through us if it's Medi Cal.

[3:20:07] So this is a no. It doesn't

[3:20:08] matter if you have private

[3:20:09] insurance. Medi Cal, no

[3:20:10] insurance. We don't ask. We

[3:20:11] just service the state

[3:20:12] situation. We don't have enough

[3:20:13] data yet. But I'm hearing great

[3:20:14] anecdotal stories

[3:20:15] about significant reductions

[3:20:16] in youth suicides

[3:20:17] on campuses. And again,

[3:20:18] any child on those campuses can

[3:20:19] access those services. This is

[3:20:20] not all of our schools.

[3:20:21] Right. So we'd like to continue

[3:20:22] expanding this program and

[3:20:23] frankly, we're going to

[3:20:24] struggle a little bit

[3:20:25] financially

[3:20:26] over the next couple years.

[3:20:27] This is one

[3:20:28] of the programs we may have

[3:20:29] to pare back or reduce because

[3:20:31] of funding issues. But

[3:20:32] at these campuses today, any

[3:20:33] student can access these

[3:20:34] services and sometimes we even

[3:20:36] have help staff. Great.

[3:20:37] >> Thank you, Supervisor

[3:20:39] Rabbitt.

[3:20:40] >> Just to follow up on that.

[3:20:41] And you said that's not all the

[3:20:42] schools, but that's 20 and I

[3:20:44] don't. Outside of Rancho and

[3:20:45] Rona Park, Petaluma City

[3:20:47] schools not represented

[3:20:48] at least on this. Are they one

[3:20:51] of those schools that aren't.

[3:20:54] >> They are not a major

[3:20:55] participant yet. And so again,

[3:20:56] it's dollars and expansion is

[3:20:57] the problem for us. The Cape

[3:20:58] team was actually pulled back a

[3:20:59] few years back and then sort

[3:21:00] of re expanded. So. So we would

[3:21:02] like to continue to expand.

[3:21:04] Unfortunately, these are the

[3:21:05] main programs today and we do

[3:21:06] have some outreach

[3:21:07] at other campuses,

[3:21:08] but this is where the bulk

[3:21:09] of the service.

[3:21:10] >> What's the obligation

[3:21:11] of the actual of the district

[3:21:13] for expansion? Yeah.

[3:21:14] Financially or otherwise.

[3:21:15] >> Right now, the county is

[3:21:16] covering it pretty much 100%.

[3:21:17] >> Okay.

[3:21:18] Look forward to that further

[3:21:19] expansion.

[3:21:23] >> Any other questions

[3:21:24] on this slide?

[3:21:25] >> No.

[3:21:26] >> Okay, great. So again,

[3:21:27] I just want to state, you know,

[3:21:28] I know that a lot of our school

[3:21:29] districts right now are having

[3:21:30] success,

[3:21:32] significant financial issues.

[3:21:33] The first place they're going

[3:21:34] to look to cut is their

[3:21:35] behavioral health services.

[3:21:36] And it's awful. It is the

[3:21:37] number one place that students

[3:21:38] can access services,

[3:21:39] whether they're insured,

[3:21:40] medical, et cetera, et cetera.

[3:21:41] However, the county is doing

[3:21:42] our best to chip in

[3:21:44] through cape. You know,

[3:21:45] it's not enough, but

[3:21:46] with a finite system

[3:21:47] of resources, this is what

[3:21:48] we've got right now. So just

[3:21:49] wanting to put this out there

[3:21:51] for the board and the public

[3:21:52] that we are

[3:21:53] in fact investing millions

[3:21:54] in our local schools for their

[3:21:55] crisis response systems. We've

[3:21:57] got a long way to go,

[3:21:58] but we've got some dollars

[3:21:59] in the game.

[3:22:00] >> Another question

[3:22:01] for you.

[3:22:02] >> Sorry just before we leave

[3:22:03] this. Does In Response or SAFE

[3:22:06] MST respond

[3:22:09] to schools as well?

[3:22:10] >> Generally, no. Generally we

[3:22:13] prefer that as CAPE. However,

[3:22:15] in areas where we don't have a

[3:22:17] CAPE team member or we don't

[3:22:18] have adequate coverage

[3:22:19] in response,

[3:22:20] MST or SAFE could. They

[3:22:21] certainly could be dispatched.

[3:22:22] The CAPE clinicians really

[3:22:24] though are children's

[3:22:25] clinicians. Right? This is what

[3:22:27] they went to school for,

[3:22:28] this is what they do. So we can

[3:22:29] cover both. It would not be

[3:22:31] advisable to say remove CAPE

[3:22:32] altogether and have MST and

[3:22:33] those different groups kind

[3:22:35] of COVID It is sort of two

[3:22:36] different population basis,

[3:22:38] but

[3:22:39] in a pinch they could.

[3:22:42] >> Yeah, I was just wondering

[3:22:43] about, you know,

[3:22:44] potential holes in the system

[3:22:45] and whether they can be filled

[3:22:47] that way.

[3:22:49] >> Good question.

[3:22:50] >> Thank you.

[3:22:51] >> Next slide please. This is a

[3:22:53] very simple slide, but this is

[3:22:54] a very rocky situation that is

[3:22:56] sort of waiting

[3:22:57] for the state budget

[3:22:58] to come out. The mobile crisis

[3:22:59] system of care

[3:23:00] across the county,

[3:23:02] as I mentioned earlier,

[3:23:03] is comprised

[3:23:04] of three different systems.

[3:23:05] To date, we have invested

[3:23:06] about $12 billion just

[3:23:08] in our partners alone. This is

[3:23:09] $12 million going directly

[3:23:10] to cities, going directly

[3:23:11] to our partners outside

[3:23:13] of the county

[3:23:14] through the SAFE and

[3:23:15] In response program. That

[3:23:16] doesn't include a lot of

[3:23:17] in kind staff work as well.

[3:23:18] In fact,

[3:23:20] we provide eight clinicians

[3:23:21] to the city of Santa Rosa

[3:23:23] in kind to run their

[3:23:25] in response program. As I came

[3:23:26] on board, just hitting my 10

[3:23:28] month mark, one

[3:23:30] of the big things for me

[3:23:31] to dig

[3:23:32] into was mobile crisis. The

[3:23:33] costs continue to escalate. We

[3:23:34] went from a few hundred

[3:23:35] thousand dollars to almost $6

[3:23:36] million a year just over the

[3:23:37] last two or three years. And

[3:23:38] the costs continue to grow.

[3:23:39] One of the areas that we're

[3:23:40] actively focusing

[3:23:41] on right now is billing Medi

[3:23:42] Cal. So as it stands today,

[3:23:44] there is a Medi Cal mobile

[3:23:46] crisis benefit that pays almost

[3:23:48] $4,500 per instance per call.

[3:23:50] The only system today that is

[3:23:52] able to bill Medi Cal and is

[3:23:53] actively billing Medi Cal

[3:23:54] for those Calls is MST. And so

[3:23:56] right now the county system is

[3:23:57] doing that we are working with

[3:23:58] in response and safe

[3:23:59] to get there. Safe can bill

[3:24:01] for a much lower Medi Cal

[3:24:03] crisis benefit, but it's not

[3:24:07] the mobile crisis benefit. We

[3:24:08] we're talking hundreds

[3:24:09] of dollars, not thousands

[3:24:10] of dollars. And so one

[3:24:12] of the requirements for both

[3:24:14] of these programs

[3:24:16] to really continue to receive

[3:24:17] county partnership support or

[3:24:18] funding is they have to build

[3:24:19] Medi Cal. We just don't have

[3:24:20] the measure of dollars

[3:24:21] to continue to grow it. We

[3:24:22] don't have other revenues

[3:24:23] to continue to support it. And

[3:24:24] most of the cities don't have

[3:24:25] the money either. The problem

[3:24:26] with this is in the governor's

[3:24:28] proposed budget back in

[3:24:29] January, there was a

[3:24:30] stipulation added sort of at

[3:24:32] the last minute that makes the

[3:24:34] mobile Medi California crisis

[3:24:35] benefit move from mandatory

[3:24:36] to optional. That sounds fair

[3:24:38] enough, right? Give counties

[3:24:39] more choice and a semblance

[3:24:41] of choice. It actually reduces

[3:24:42] the reimbursement rate

[3:24:43] by thousands of dollars. And so

[3:24:45] it is a major blow

[3:24:46] to this system of care. And

[3:24:48] frankly,

[3:24:49] we're keeping all eyes on the

[3:24:50] may revise to see what happens

[3:24:51] in the budget. If the governor

[3:24:53] in fact keeps that change

[3:24:54] in the budget, it will most

[3:24:55] likely kill mobile crisis

[3:24:57] across the county. I just don't

[3:24:58] see any other way we can fund

[3:24:59] it. There's not room

[3:25:01] with measure O. And so that's

[3:25:02] something we're sort

[3:25:04] of waiting for. There's been a

[3:25:05] lot of advocacy so far. We've

[3:25:06] written our own legislators;

[3:25:07] we've worked

[3:25:08] with different advocacy groups.

[3:25:09] We've worked

[3:25:10] with our lobbyist and Will and

[3:25:11] his team. We are sincerely

[3:25:12] hoping that the governor

[3:25:14] changes his mind on this

[3:25:15] because this system has

[3:25:16] provided real benefits for

[3:25:17] Sonoma County. And without

[3:25:19] Medi Cal sort of being the

[3:25:20] central funding issue, Measure

[3:25:21] O just isn't going to cut it. A

[3:25:23] couple other things that I want

[3:25:24] to add is there is a lot of

[3:25:25] duplicate and there's probably

[3:25:26] some room for synergy and maybe

[3:25:27] a single system here. We're

[3:25:30] sort of edging

[3:25:31] to that right now. You know,

[3:25:33] we all run 24/7 operations,

[3:25:34] which was a big part

[3:25:35] of why the cost increased. We

[3:25:37] all have our own dispatchers,

[3:25:39] which is kind

[3:25:40] of redundant as well. You know,

[3:25:41] we've got lots of different

[3:25:42] staff and duplication and

[3:25:43] policies and processes and

[3:25:44] staff and technology

[3:25:46] in some cases in response. And

[3:25:48] safe specifically are using a

[3:25:49] lot of their programs

[3:25:51] for homeless response,

[3:25:52] which is fantastic. But that's

[3:25:54] also not really what measure O

[3:25:55] is for. And that's definitely

[3:25:56] what Medi Cal can bill for. So

[3:25:58] to some degree, you know, we're

[3:26:00] not really doing direct

[3:26:03] homeless response for MSC. It

[3:26:04] really is a pure mobile crisis

[3:26:05] clinical program in response.

[3:26:07] And SAFE both have components

[3:26:08] and providers that do some

[3:26:09] of that homeless work,

[3:26:11] which is great, but it's also

[3:26:12] not really an area that we have

[3:26:13] the funding to support. And

[3:26:15] then lastly, as of today, the

[3:26:16] only teams that have verified

[3:26:18] clinicians are the county EMST

[3:26:20] team. And in response, it

[3:26:21] doesn't mean SAFE doesn't want

[3:26:23] to. They're working towards it,

[3:26:25] and we are working hopefully

[3:26:26] on iteration of a deal that

[3:26:27] will get us there. The reason I

[3:26:28] bring all this up again is

[3:26:29] there's just a lot

[3:26:30] of discussion from our city

[3:26:33] partners wanting more funding.

[3:26:34] There's a lot of discussion

[3:26:35] at the state level

[3:26:36] about overall Medi Cal funding.

[3:26:38] And this will be a very hot

[3:26:39] topic over the next couple

[3:26:40] of years. To be frank, we're

[3:26:42] running three duplicate

[3:26:43] systems. Doesn't make a ton

[3:26:44] of sense to me. I think there's

[3:26:45] probably a better way

[3:26:46] to do this across the county

[3:26:47] with partners

[3:26:48] with the cities together, but

[3:26:50] this is an area where the costs

[3:26:51] are growing out

[3:26:52] of control and we are starting

[3:26:53] to lose key revenue sources,

[3:26:54] and measure just does not have

[3:26:55] the fund balance to support.

[3:26:57] So I do anticipate more

[3:26:58] of this information coming back

[3:26:59] to the board. I anticipate

[3:27:01] you'll hear

[3:27:02] from city managers,

[3:27:03] city council members. This is

[3:27:04] an area that. That we are a bit

[3:27:06] concerned. I'll pause here

[3:27:07] for questions.

[3:27:09] >> Supervisor Hopkins.

[3:27:10] >> Thanks. I apologize

[3:27:11] in advance

[3:27:12] for a preamble followed

[3:27:13] by a leading question, but,

[3:27:15] you know, I will say that I had

[3:27:17] heartburn when we initially

[3:27:18] funded these programs. Maybe it

[3:27:19] was PTSD from working so hard

[3:27:21] on fire consolidation,

[3:27:22] where we're trying

[3:27:23] to get towards fewer systems.

[3:27:25] And I'm like, yeah, here we are

[3:27:26] creating these systems with

[3:27:27] their own unique identity and

[3:27:28] branding. And yet, you know, we

[3:27:29] approved this and we supported

[3:27:31] it, really, in the hopes of

[3:27:32] inspiring further collaboration

[3:27:33] with the cities and really also

[3:27:34] just supporting their vision

[3:27:36] for their communities. That

[3:27:37] said, it's crazy to me that we

[3:27:38] don't have consistent access

[3:27:40] to services across the county

[3:27:41] and that we are funding these

[3:27:42] all and that it. You know,

[3:27:43] if you call in on one side

[3:27:44] of the line, right,

[3:27:45] you don't have access

[3:27:46] to homeless services, but you

[3:27:48] have everything else cross the

[3:27:50] line and suddenly, okay,

[3:27:51] homeless services, but, you

[3:27:52] know, you don't. You can't

[3:27:54] actually get any reimbursement

[3:27:55] for the funding, right? Then go

[3:27:56] on to another line, right,

[3:27:57] and you have the homeless

[3:27:58] services, but not even access

[3:27:59] to clinicians and only partial

[3:28:00] reimbursement. So I just feel

[3:28:02] like we have to move away from

[3:28:03] a system which creates de facto

[3:28:04] inequities. It's, it's not

[3:28:05] fair. And it also,

[3:28:06] I think creates confusion.

[3:28:07] Right. And, and so I,

[3:28:08] I just feel like it's, it's

[3:28:09] very, very problematic. And I

[3:28:11] think that we need

[3:28:12] to have like, you know,

[3:28:13] these tough conversations

[3:28:14] with our city partners

[3:28:15] of how do we get to sort

[3:28:16] of a one team,

[3:28:17] one dream approach. Because,

[3:28:19] you know, we,

[3:28:20] and we had this conversation

[3:28:21] of like, you can't have

[3:28:22] like platinum,

[3:28:23] gold and silver depending

[3:28:24] on where you live,

[3:28:25] like what do you have,

[3:28:26] have access to? It's sort

[3:28:27] of antithetical to, I think,

[3:28:28] our vision,

[3:28:29] which is a safety net that

[3:28:30] really, you know, meets folks

[3:28:31] where they are and provides

[3:28:32] equal access

[3:28:33] to services no matter what side

[3:28:34] of the line you are in,

[3:28:35] what city. Right.

[3:28:36] Unincorporated incorporated.

[3:28:37] So I guess my leading question

[3:28:39] is like, how do we get

[3:28:40] to that? And then I guess the

[3:28:42] other question is, but I guess

[3:28:45] it doesn't matter if the whole

[3:28:46] system crumbles because,

[3:28:48] and the state just kind

[3:28:50] of drives a stake

[3:28:51] in its heart. Is that,

[3:28:53] is that kind

[3:28:54] of the message that I'm getting

[3:28:55] from you?

[3:28:56] >> Yeah. There's two pathways

[3:28:57] today. I think the first

[3:28:58] pathway is really the pathway

[3:28:59] that you discussed

[3:29:00] in the first section

[3:29:01] of your statement. And we are

[3:29:02] getting on board today

[3:29:03] to issue one year contracts

[3:29:04] with the hope of longer term

[3:29:05] contracts that drive us

[3:29:06] toward a single system. So

[3:29:07] today we don't have the same

[3:29:08] reporting data, we don't have

[3:29:09] the same policies and

[3:29:10] procedures,

[3:29:11] we don't have the same

[3:29:12] staffing,

[3:29:13] we don't have the same billing.

[3:29:15] To participate or

[3:29:16] to receive county funding for

[3:29:17] Participation as of July 1st or

[3:29:18] forward this year, you have to

[3:29:19] be billing medical and you have

[3:29:21] to have the similar data sets

[3:29:22] and reporting that we're

[3:29:23] requesting. That one year

[3:29:24] contract will

[3:29:25] at least get us all

[3:29:26] on the same page. We'll have

[3:29:27] apples to apples data. We'll

[3:29:28] all be billing medical

[3:29:29] to some degree. And that puts

[3:29:30] us in a position

[3:29:31] to have a larger discussion

[3:29:32] for the next couple of years

[3:29:34] in terms of a single system,

[3:29:35] collaboration, et cetera,

[3:29:36] et cetera. And I,

[3:29:37] and I also want

[3:29:38] to say that our partners at

[3:29:39] Safe and Mobile Crisis, or I'm

[3:29:41] sorry, in response, they do a

[3:29:42] wonderful, wonderful job. I'm

[3:29:43] not saying the county does a

[3:29:44] better job. I'm not saying the

[3:29:45] county does a worse job. And

[3:29:47] frankly,

[3:29:48] I don't necessarily care if

[3:29:49] it's MST,

[3:29:50] if it's safe or it's.

[3:29:51] In response to your point,

[3:29:52] we need a Single provider

[3:29:53] across the county. You know, if

[3:29:54] we had three ambulance

[3:29:55] providers in the county

[3:29:56] in different little pockets, it

[3:29:58] would be an absolute nightmare.

[3:29:59] And so we're,

[3:30:00] we're working towards that.

[3:30:01] And I think the city partners

[3:30:02] have come

[3:30:03] to that realization. Many of

[3:30:04] their electeds are also saying

[3:30:05] the same thing. So that's

[3:30:06] great. So I think we're

[3:30:07] on that path where we're kind

[3:30:08] of moving slow and soft and

[3:30:09] collaborative, which is good,

[3:30:11] but I think we're nudging

[3:30:12] in that direction. The nuclear

[3:30:13] option, unfortunately,

[3:30:15] is if the state budget goes

[3:30:16] through the way it was

[3:30:17] proposed, it really isn't worth

[3:30:19] discussing any of this because

[3:30:20] we just don't have long term

[3:30:21] revenues to support. So we can

[3:30:22] do our best with measure O

[3:30:24] for the next couple years. It

[3:30:26] won't cover the full cost of

[3:30:27] the program and honestly it's

[3:30:28] capped already and then it's

[3:30:29] set to expire a few years

[3:30:31] out as well. So that's pretty

[3:30:32] much game over, most likely

[3:30:33] for MST, unless we decide

[3:30:35] to inject a whole lot of

[3:30:36] funding that doesn't exist

[3:30:37] today from cities and

[3:30:38] from the county. So we're sort

[3:30:40] of waiting to see what happens

[3:30:41] with that. May revise,

[3:30:42] hopefully that stays intact.

[3:30:44] We do have at least a year

[3:30:45] Runway. The benefit runs

[3:30:47] through the end of next year.

[3:30:48] But is it really worth

[3:30:49] developing systems, hiring

[3:30:51] staff, doing all this stuff

[3:30:52] for a benefit that's going to

[3:30:53] go away is the big question.

[3:30:54] >> So if the state funding goes

[3:30:55] away, do we just have

[3:30:57] to revert to what now feels

[3:30:58] like a very antiquated model

[3:30:59] where it is only always a law

[3:31:00] enforcement response or is

[3:31:02] there some opportunity

[3:31:03] to say, transport right. To,

[3:31:05] you know, a facility

[3:31:07] like I just. What does that

[3:31:08] look like?

[3:31:10] >> I think we'll come back and

[3:31:11] bring the board options if

[3:31:12] in fact that is the case. And

[3:31:13] it may look like something

[3:31:14] like Instead of having 247

[3:31:15] coverage, maybe we have peak

[3:31:16] hour coverage. Right. Or maybe

[3:31:17] we have one vehicle that

[3:31:18] services the entire county

[3:31:20] versus a fleet of vehicles,

[3:31:23] so response times grow. It may

[3:31:24] be, you know,

[3:31:26] if you give us this much extra

[3:31:27] funding, we can do X or Y or Z,

[3:31:29] but we just kind of won't know

[3:31:32] until we know we do have some

[3:31:34] plans. I don't suspect it will

[3:31:35] completely unravel,

[3:31:36] but it won't look anything

[3:31:38] close

[3:31:39] to the way it looks today.

[3:31:40] >> And then last question,

[3:31:41] just

[3:31:42] since you mentioned that, you

[3:31:43] know, a couple of the models

[3:31:44] have actually heavily tilted

[3:31:45] towards homeless services. How

[3:31:46] do you feel when we look

[3:31:47] at the county in terms of, you

[3:31:48] know, homelessness, outreach,

[3:31:50] team access? Right. Because if

[3:31:52] These. If some

[3:31:53] of these teams, at least,

[3:31:54] are sort of focusing on that

[3:31:56] inside these city

[3:31:57] jurisdictions,

[3:31:59] then what is happening Right.

[3:32:02] In the other cities in

[3:32:03] unincorporated communities that

[3:32:05] is, is or is not equivalent?

[3:32:07] Because that seems like another

[3:32:09] really important thing is how

[3:32:10] do we ensure, again, that sort

[3:32:11] of equity of service, you know,

[3:32:12] access in terms

[3:32:13] of homeless services

[3:32:14] across the county?

[3:32:15] >> Yeah. I think, you know,

[3:32:16] the Swiss army knife approach,

[3:32:17] I think is the absolute best

[3:32:18] practice if you can do that.

[3:32:19] And I think in many cases, you

[3:32:20] know,

[3:32:21] within response and was safe,

[3:32:22] they are running programs where

[3:32:23] if it's a nuisance call,

[3:32:24] if it's a homeless call,

[3:32:26] if it's a mental health call,

[3:32:27] if it's a gray area call,

[3:32:29] that's probably not law

[3:32:30] enforcement, they can respond,

[3:32:32] which is great. And I think,

[3:32:33] honestly, having programs

[3:32:34] like that are amazing. But

[3:32:36] Measure O is a behavioral

[3:32:38] health funding source,

[3:32:39] and you can't bill Medi Cal

[3:32:43] for those other things.

[3:32:45] Right. So MST only deploys for

[3:32:46] clinical crisis calls that are

[3:32:47] very rigid and there's a set

[3:32:48] criteria. Would I love

[3:32:49] to have like, the Swiss army

[3:32:50] knife approach

[3:32:51] across the county? Absolutely.

[3:32:52] But how do we fund it is the

[3:32:53] big question. So, you know,

[3:32:54] again, if you can go back one

[3:32:55] slide, really quick,

[3:32:56] one more. Sorry. The reason I

[3:33:01] want

[3:33:02] to show you this is you look

[3:33:03] at the number of calls there,

[3:33:04] right? Mobile support's 1469.

[3:33:06] They are literally covering the

[3:33:07] entire county. It's the

[3:33:08] unincorporated,

[3:33:09] but also several cities. The

[3:33:10] populations

[3:33:12] for mobile support team in

[3:33:13] response and SAFE are roughly

[3:33:14] the same. Same the number

[3:33:15] of citizens

[3:33:16] in those districts. If you look

[3:33:17] at the call differences,

[3:33:18] though, so 1500

[3:33:19] for mobile support team, 5800

[3:33:21] for in response, and then

[3:33:23] 13,000 plus for safe. Those

[3:33:25] calls are not apples

[3:33:26] to apples, Right. So one

[3:33:28] of those is an apple. One's a

[3:33:29] banana, one's a cucumber. And

[3:33:30] so the 13,000 calls they're

[3:33:31] seeing for SAFE are not the

[3:33:33] highest need clinical calls

[3:33:34] that MST is saying. I'm not

[3:33:35] saying those are bad calls.

[3:33:37] They're wonderful. But we are

[3:33:39] not providing the same services

[3:33:40] today. And it's expensive,

[3:33:42] right? It's expensive

[3:33:43] to respond to those calls. So

[3:33:44] that is a big part of the issue

[3:33:45] is we are offering three sets

[3:33:46] of services

[3:33:47] across the county. More is

[3:33:50] always better,

[3:33:51] but more costs a lot

[3:33:52] of money.

[3:33:53] >> Thank you so much

[3:33:54] for that.

[3:33:56] >> Supervisor Rabbitt.

[3:33:59] >> Thank you very much. I

[3:34:00] appreciate all the work and

[3:34:01] appreciate the. Well, yeah,

[3:34:02] I appreciate the conundrum

[3:34:07] we're in and waiting

[3:34:08] for the state

[3:34:09] to see where they go. And I

[3:34:10] take it that. And I know that

[3:34:11] part of this was collecting the

[3:34:12] data. And again we had the

[3:34:14] Supervisor, Coursey and I,

[3:34:16] and you were there as well,

[3:34:18] had the meeting down in

[3:34:21] Petaluma talking about safe,

[3:34:24] which is a great program. When

[3:34:26] we, you know, to be truthful,

[3:34:27] right when we started this

[3:34:28] thing,

[3:34:31] MST predated everything.

[3:34:32] Jeremiah Chass, I think was the

[3:34:35] instigator or the impetus

[3:34:37] there. And then, you know,

[3:34:39] the idea was to have this

[3:34:42] one-year pilot program. The

[3:34:43] great thing is that everything

[3:34:45] got there was a lot

[3:34:46] of ownership by the cities of

[3:34:48] these programs and they love

[3:34:50] them. Well, I understand why

[3:34:51] and I live in Petaluma and I

[3:34:52] know that those 13,000 calls,

[3:34:53] a lot of them are the homeless

[3:34:54] outreach piece where for me

[3:34:55] personally that's also helping

[3:34:58] the city out and the city then

[3:35:00] should be a financial partner

[3:35:01] in that. And I was going to ask

[3:35:03] if I know you're collecting

[3:35:05] data but do you have any data

[3:35:06] yet that starts to talk about

[3:35:10] of those,

[3:35:11] what percentage overall are

[3:35:12] truly, you know, mental health

[3:35:16] crisis calls versus homeless

[3:35:17] check.

[3:35:22] >> We really don't and we

[3:35:23] probably won't until starting

[3:35:24] July 1st with a new MOU and new

[3:35:25] data requirements. And again,

[3:35:26] we're tracking data completely

[3:35:28] differently.

[3:35:29] In some cases we have it,

[3:35:30] some cases we don't. And that's

[3:35:31] just the way the three systems

[3:35:32] were sort

[3:35:33] of set up unfortunately.

[3:35:35] >> Yeah, and the last thing

[3:35:36] I'll say,

[3:35:37] I mean I as my colleague said,

[3:35:38] I'm all for opportunities.

[3:35:39] They should be equal throughout

[3:35:40] the county. This is said that

[3:35:42] earlier on another item

[3:35:43] but this is true for here. You

[3:35:45] know, I don't know if, I don't

[3:35:49] know if there's a plan C or D.

[3:35:51] But many years ago I think

[3:35:53] including when I was

[3:35:54] on city council in Petaluma, we

[3:35:56] had non uniformed police

[3:35:59] officers roam the river

[3:36:02] at that time checking in

[3:36:03] on folks and maybe there's a

[3:36:07] way to embed or some other less

[3:36:09] NGO led and maybe more towards

[3:36:12] a grant funding for whether

[3:36:13] it's law enforcement or

[3:36:15] through the sheriff's office or

[3:36:17] through whomever that if there

[3:36:20] is a call that they can respond

[3:36:22] to. Again, just looking for

[3:36:24] other alternatives because I

[3:36:26] think that you're right if it

[3:36:27] goes away because

[3:36:29] of the state budget crisis,

[3:36:30] people will be clamoring to

[3:36:34] find alternative sources and

[3:36:36] it's a big ticket item that is

[3:36:38] going to be tough

[3:36:39] to find those dollars. So

[3:36:41] appreciate that. Thank you.

[3:36:43] >> Absolutely. I guess the only

[3:36:44] thing I add really quickly too

[3:36:46] is the board could direct us

[3:36:48] to spend measure of dollars

[3:36:49] elsewhere. I mean it's pretty

[3:36:52] much fully expended today

[3:36:53] but you could Say we want you

[3:36:54] to cut program X to give mobile

[3:36:56] crisis more dollars. And that's

[3:36:57] a choice we could make. The

[3:36:59] problem is there's no extra

[3:37:00] fund balance or extra money.

[3:37:01] So we'd literally have

[3:37:02] to decide where do we want to

[3:37:03] cut throughout this

[3:37:04] presentation

[3:37:05] to give more dollars elsewhere.

[3:37:06] And that's the decision point

[3:37:07] that could be discussed as

[3:37:08] well. Next slide, please. And

[3:37:10] so we're kind of rolling

[3:37:11] through here. And again, these

[3:37:12] are the much smaller categories

[3:37:13] of Measure O's,

[3:37:14] mental health and substance use

[3:37:15] to outpatient services. I won't

[3:37:17] go too far

[3:37:18] into the weeds here,

[3:37:20] but again, this does a lot

[3:37:22] of work in providing access

[3:37:23] to substance use disorder. The

[3:37:24] opioid settlement funds,

[3:37:25] frankly, have been a godsend

[3:37:27] in this area and have allowed

[3:37:28] us to sort

[3:37:29] of reduce expenditures

[3:37:30] to use those dollars instead.

[3:37:31] Those dollars are finite. And

[3:37:32] so we're, you know, kind

[3:37:33] of squirreling away a nest egg

[3:37:34] for some time away.

[3:37:35] But we were able to spend

[3:37:36] about 3.7 million and treat

[3:37:38] hundreds, almost 1,000 folks

[3:37:40] for mental health and SUD

[3:37:41] treatment over the last year.

[3:37:45] Next slide, please. And these

[3:37:47] are the two smaller categories.

[3:37:48] So again,

[3:37:49] there was a very small

[3:37:50] component

[3:37:51] of behavioral health,

[3:37:53] homeless and care coordination,

[3:37:54] about $5 million. This went

[3:37:55] to a variety of areas. This is

[3:37:57] the primary funding source for

[3:37:58] our heart and soul teams here

[3:38:00] in the county. We were able

[3:38:02] to service 250 chronically

[3:38:04] homeless individuals this year

[3:38:05] and get 86 individuals

[3:38:06] permanently sheltered and

[3:38:07] housed. And again,

[3:38:08] we had some other funding kind

[3:38:09] of go out to a variety

[3:38:10] of different places to

[3:38:11] emergency shelter and a few

[3:38:12] other components as well. This

[3:38:13] is an area where I feel

[3:38:14] like we can probably bill more

[3:38:15] of our internal staff time to

[3:38:17] grants and other funding

[3:38:19] sources. And so through future

[3:38:20] budget processes,

[3:38:21] we are trying

[3:38:22] to become less and less reliant

[3:38:23] on Measure O for our internal

[3:38:25] homeless services and more

[3:38:26] reliant

[3:38:27] on behavioral health funding,

[3:38:28] billing, Medi Cal and other

[3:38:29] homeless grants that are

[3:38:30] related here. So this is an

[3:38:31] area we have some opportunity

[3:38:33] to maybe squeeze some savings

[3:38:34] out over future years. Next

[3:38:35] slide. And then the last one is

[3:38:37] the TES portion of Measure O.

[3:38:40] It's the transitional and

[3:38:41] permanent supportive housing.

[3:38:43] And this predominantly went

[3:38:44] to supporting Project Home Key

[3:38:45] project this year. 312 beds.

[3:38:46] Seven sites are actively

[3:38:47] in development

[3:38:49] across the county. But, you

[3:38:50] know,

[3:38:51] if someone needs a small amount

[3:38:52] of money

[3:38:53] to close a gap or they're, you

[3:38:54] know, got a bridge financing,

[3:38:55] this is a great tool for us to

[3:38:57] provide a couple hundred

[3:38:58] thousand dollars or up

[3:38:59] to a million bucks

[3:39:00] to help kind

[3:39:01] of close that deal

[3:39:02] to get some PSH beds. So again,

[3:39:03] a Very small amount actually

[3:39:04] spent

[3:39:05] on homelessness and housing.

[3:39:06] Even though a lot

[3:39:07] of folks feel like Measure O

[3:39:08] was a homeless and housing

[3:39:09] grant, it really wasn't based

[3:39:10] on the language in the

[3:39:11] in the voter approved measure.

[3:39:13] Next slide. This is an area

[3:39:16] that I want to point

[3:39:17] out is a little nerve wracking.

[3:39:18] And so whenever you have a

[3:39:22] sales tax measure, you start

[3:39:23] collecting the sales tax

[3:39:24] after it passes. It takes a

[3:39:25] while to really ramp up,

[3:39:27] right? So you've got

[3:39:28] to hire staff, you've got

[3:39:29] to establish contracts,

[3:39:30] you kind of have

[3:39:31] to get the program running. We

[3:39:32] had a very,

[3:39:33] very high fund balance in

[3:39:34] Measure O

[3:39:35] for the first couple years of

[3:39:36] Measure O. And again,

[3:39:37] that's kind of normal. It takes

[3:39:38] time to get staff on board. It

[3:39:39] takes time to get contracts,

[3:39:40] takes time

[3:39:41] to get those billings in. We

[3:39:42] are fully in the swing

[3:39:43] of things now. And again,

[3:39:44] like the Measure O machine is

[3:39:45] pretty much fully expanded and

[3:39:47] running. We started this last

[3:39:49] year with a $35 million fund

[3:39:53] balance and that will drop

[3:39:54] down to 13 million by the end

[3:39:56] of the fiscal year. So again,

[3:39:57] we are spending down that fund

[3:39:58] balance very fast. There is not

[3:40:00] a secret pot of Measure O money

[3:40:01] hidden somewhere. We're not

[3:40:03] squirreling away Measure O

[3:40:04] money

[3:40:05] to support other things. It is

[3:40:06] a very expensive program.

[3:40:08] Now. We're spending pretty much

[3:40:09] what we're taking. In the end

[3:40:11] of 2627, we project that fund

[3:40:13] balance to drop even further

[3:40:14] down to $10 million. And

[3:40:15] at the end of Measure O

[3:40:17] in a couple years from now, we

[3:40:21] project that we'll actually end

[3:40:22] at just about zero. So we're

[3:40:24] about negative $600,000 today

[3:40:25] with our future projection

[3:40:27] through the life of Measure

[3:40:28] O. So again, ending really

[3:40:30] with no fund balance, no

[3:40:31] change, no. No extra there,

[3:40:33] we're kind of right on track.

[3:40:34] So that's a good thing. We're

[3:40:35] not over expending. We're right

[3:40:36] on budget. But I think the

[3:40:38] notion that the county has

[3:40:39] extra measurable to hand out,

[3:40:40] we really just don't. So if we

[3:40:42] want to fund things with

[3:40:43] Measure O, we have to cut

[3:40:44] things that are being paid for

[3:40:45] in Measure O,

[3:40:46] basically is the moral

[3:40:47] of the story. Next slide. And I

[3:40:48] think a couple things coming up

[3:40:51] in the future that we wanted

[3:40:52] to call out. We're really

[3:40:53] excited about this. We talked a

[3:40:55] little bit about external

[3:40:57] Measure O funding requests

[3:40:58] today. A couple that have come

[3:41:00] through and I think a couple

[3:41:01] of things coming up

[3:41:02] in the future that I went

[3:41:04] to call out,

[3:41:05] we're really excited

[3:41:06] about this. It has been decided

[3:41:08] that we will not take kind of

[3:41:09] One off funding request,

[3:41:11] they have to go through a new

[3:41:12] NOFA or public process. So I

[3:41:13] know there's a lot

[3:41:14] of community needs. You often

[3:41:15] get emails from constituents or

[3:41:16] other folks asking for Measure

[3:41:18] O funding. It has to go

[3:41:19] through a NOFA. And

[3:41:20] to remind folks,

[3:41:21] this board just gave out $10

[3:41:22] million last month in Measure O

[3:41:24] funds, all

[3:41:26] to community partners,

[3:41:27] cities and other groups.

[3:41:28] That's probably the last time

[3:41:29] we'll be able to give

[3:41:30] out a big chunk of Measure O

[3:41:31] funding, if any more Measure O

[3:41:32] funding

[3:41:33] through a NOFA process. So

[3:41:34] unfortunately those external

[3:41:35] requests at this point are

[3:41:36] pretty much DOA. Unless we

[3:41:37] start cutting other

[3:41:38] programming, we are hoping

[3:41:39] to bring sort of Measure O

[3:41:40] on the road. We know there's a

[3:41:41] lot of concerns

[3:41:42] from your peers

[3:41:43] on city councils. There's a lot

[3:41:44] of confronts

[3:41:45] from city managers. What are

[3:41:46] you spending the money on?

[3:41:47] Return to sender. You know,

[3:41:48] what is the county doing

[3:41:49] with all these funds? I hope to

[3:41:50] have a presentation very

[3:41:51] similar to today that really

[3:41:52] explains those psychiatric

[3:41:53] beds, the emergency system

[3:41:54] of care, the crisis

[3:41:55] residential, all those things

[3:41:57] that a typical city council

[3:41:58] member, city elected or just an

[3:42:00] average constituent wouldn't

[3:42:02] think about. But frankly, if we

[3:42:03] lost tomorrow would be

[3:42:04] absolutely devastating

[3:42:05] to the county. So that is

[3:42:06] coming up soon. Again, big

[3:42:08] thank you to the ad hoc

[3:42:09] for helping guide us

[3:42:10] through that process. We kicked

[3:42:11] that off in June with the

[3:42:12] Mayors and Councils

[3:42:14] association, which is great.

[3:42:15] So we'll get a draft

[3:42:16] to this board at some point

[3:42:17] in time before that. And then

[3:42:18] lastly, we are ultra focused

[3:42:21] on Measure O renewal. And so

[3:42:24] again, Measure O has the

[3:42:28] possibility to be renewed. It

[3:42:29] produces about $30 million. I

[3:42:30] would say it makes a

[3:42:31] significant impact,

[3:42:33] a vital life or death impact

[3:42:35] to hundreds of residents in

[3:42:37] Sonoma County every single

[3:42:38] year. So we are working

[3:42:39] with the county

[3:42:40] Administrator's office and

[3:42:41] folks to start prepping for

[3:42:42] that renewal campaign and

[3:42:43] getting all those ducks

[3:42:45] in a row. We've got a couple

[3:42:46] years out, but that is

[3:42:47] something we certainly intend

[3:42:48] to put back on the ballot. We

[3:42:49] hope the voters will grace us

[3:42:50] again

[3:42:51] with their vote and continue

[3:42:52] to support this vital benefit.

[3:42:53] But that is

[3:42:55] on our radars as well. And then

[3:42:56] last but not least,

[3:42:57] I just wanted to thank,

[3:42:58] thank our Measure O oversight

[3:42:59] committee. So Measure O is

[3:43:00] required to have an oversight

[3:43:01] committee that reviews every

[3:43:03] single cent

[3:43:04] of expenditure that Measure O

[3:43:05] expends and makes sure it

[3:43:07] matches the guidelines

[3:43:08] in the voter approved measure.

[3:43:10] We've got Mr. Fear

[3:43:11] on here today. Who sits

[3:43:12] on that,

[3:43:13] that oversight committee.

[3:43:15] Thank you, Gregory, for that,

[3:43:16] your service. But I want to

[3:43:18] assure the taxpayers we are

[3:43:19] spending your money wisely.

[3:43:20] And there's literally a group

[3:43:21] of appointed officials

[3:43:22] literally looking

[3:43:23] at every single expenditure to

[3:43:24] make sure we're spending money,

[3:43:25] those dollars wisely. And then

[3:43:26] lastly, the ad hoc Supervisor

[3:43:27] Gore and Supervisor Coursey,

[3:43:28] you guys have been invaluable

[3:43:29] at providing us guidance and

[3:43:30] input and feedback and kind

[3:43:31] of helping push us through this

[3:43:32] process. I know you're fielding

[3:43:33] a lot of requests

[3:43:34] in other areas, but we really

[3:43:36] appreciate your support. So

[3:43:38] with that, I think I am pretty

[3:43:39] much wrapped up. I promised I'd

[3:43:41] be expeditious,

[3:43:42] and I wasn't. I apologize.

[3:43:43] But our last slide here,

[3:43:44] we've got questions,

[3:43:45] and I ultimately just want to

[3:43:49] thank the voters and the

[3:43:50] taxpayers of Sonoma County.

[3:43:53] Without their support,

[3:43:54] we would not be able

[3:43:55] to serve thousands of people.

[3:43:56] And it is providing some of the

[3:43:58] most intensive needed supports

[3:44:00] to people in Sonoma County that

[3:44:01] really, really need it. So. So

[3:44:03] thank you to them. And that

[3:44:04] closes my presentation.

[3:44:07] >> Thank you so much. And

[3:44:08] with that, we will go

[3:44:09] to public comment.

[3:44:17] >> Chair Hermosillo and members

[3:44:18] of the board, I'm Gregory

[3:44:19] Ferrin, and as Director

[3:44:20] Sullivan indicated, I serve on,

[3:44:22] on your behalf on the

[3:44:23] Oversight Committee. There's

[3:44:25] absolutely nothing that the

[3:44:26] Oversight Committee would

[3:44:28] disagree with what Director

[3:44:30] Sullivan indicated. We've been

[3:44:32] totally briefed,

[3:44:33] we've been totally involved,

[3:44:35] and we've done our best to make

[3:44:37] sure that the voters get what

[3:44:39] they expected and where we have

[3:44:41] to make changes,

[3:44:43] we support that. If there's any

[3:44:45] one particular area that I

[3:44:47] personally still have some

[3:44:49] qualms about,

[3:44:51] which is substance use. But I

[3:44:52] know that the department's

[3:44:54] working real hard

[3:44:55] on reinstating that services,

[3:44:56] those services to our county.

[3:44:59] I'm really frightened that we

[3:45:01] aren't going to be able

[3:45:02] to tell a story well enough

[3:45:03] to the public about the value

[3:45:05] of this pot. It is, as

[3:45:07] Director Sullivan indicated,

[3:45:10] the only really saving grace

[3:45:14] that I can see. It was

[3:45:16] mentioned earlier that this is

[3:45:18] magic. If this is magic,

[3:45:20] Director Sullivan and his staff

[3:45:22] is the wizard of O. And they

[3:45:24] are helping keep this system

[3:45:26] together. So I urge you

[3:45:29] to make the hard decisions on

[3:45:32] the recommendations that are

[3:45:34] made and keep this and the

[3:45:36] entire system alive.

[3:45:44] >> Thank you. Seeing another,

[3:45:45] Supervisor Gore.

[3:45:50] >> I really appreciate being on

[3:45:51] the ad hoc. I'm even more

[3:45:53] appreciative that we're here

[3:45:55] with the rest of the board

[3:45:56] members weighing in.

[3:45:57] Supervisor Coursey, it's ironic

[3:46:00] because we asked

[3:46:01] for this ad hoc

[3:46:02] at a time when we had a surplus

[3:46:04] in Measure O unspent dollars,

[3:46:06] and that was the impetus

[3:46:08] for the creation

[3:46:09] of the ad hoc was to see if

[3:46:11] that money was being accruing

[3:46:12] too much or if it was

[3:46:15] programmatic or if it was going

[3:46:16] to be. One time we were having

[3:46:17] piecemeal items come back and

[3:46:19] being funded and so couldn't be

[3:46:21] a different state

[3:46:22] of play that once we sat down.

[3:46:25] It's really about a couple

[3:46:26] different things. Things one

[3:46:27] about the renewal of Measure O

[3:46:29] and that needing to come back

[3:46:30] to the board. I want to remind

[3:46:34] the board that whether that

[3:46:35] comes back as a request RFP

[3:46:38] to go out

[3:46:39] for consultants looks

[3:46:41] like that. We're trying

[3:46:42] to decide if that with county

[3:46:43] administrator and others,

[3:46:44] if that comes back as a request

[3:46:46] for this year's contingencies

[3:46:47] or next year's budget.

[3:46:49] But I just want the board to

[3:46:50] know that that's happening and

[3:46:51] engage with the county

[3:46:53] administrator and others if you

[3:46:54] have serious concerns. We don't

[3:46:56] see other ways to be able

[3:46:57] to do that. So I just wanted to

[3:46:58] put that forth and thank you

[3:47:00] all for your efforts. You did a

[3:47:01] lot of research and background

[3:47:02] on how to put together a look

[3:47:04] at a renewal. And I think the

[3:47:07] first part

[3:47:10] of it is that we absolutely

[3:47:11] have to go and tell the real

[3:47:14] stories because just

[3:47:15] like you have today,

[3:47:17] because the renewal of Measure

[3:47:19] O is

[3:47:21] of the utmost importance for.

[3:47:22] For our safety net and our

[3:47:24] behavioral health net and our

[3:47:25] homeless services. So it did

[3:47:28] well last time it's delivered

[3:47:32] and it needs to be renewed. If

[3:47:34] it doesn't, we have

[3:47:36] to be very clear, not

[3:47:38] in a way that is just throwing

[3:47:40] around fear to people, but that

[3:47:41] the behavioral health system

[3:47:43] will buckle. Many other

[3:47:45] counties that do not have

[3:47:47] Measure O, I mean, how many

[3:47:48] counties have a similar measure

[3:47:50] as us?

[3:47:51] >> We're pretty rare. There's a

[3:47:52] few homeless measures

[3:47:53] out there,

[3:47:55] but this is pretty much it for

[3:47:56] purely behavioral health.

[3:47:57] >> There's some that have

[3:47:58] housing, LA, I mean,

[3:47:59] bigger places that vote

[3:48:00] for things too. There's nobody

[3:48:01] of our commensurate size that

[3:48:02] has something

[3:48:03] like this that's allowed

[3:48:05] to deal with the system. One

[3:48:06] of the reasons that we needed

[3:48:07] Measure O was to fill gaps

[3:48:08] from two different sides

[3:48:11] of the world. One was just gaps

[3:48:13] that we wanted that we

[3:48:14] endeavored to move into MST and

[3:48:16] other things that we did a full

[3:48:17] volition. The other reason that

[3:48:19] we had some significant

[3:48:23] failures and internal controls

[3:48:25] that we had to catch up

[3:48:27] on compliance. First question

[3:48:28] for you is how are we

[3:48:29] on that compliance side

[3:48:31] of things

[3:48:32] with our internal billables?

[3:48:33] Because just as much as we have

[3:48:34] to look at other programs like

[3:48:37] the SAFE program and others,

[3:48:38] they have to spend more money

[3:48:40] to get clinicians in it's hard

[3:48:44] to hire those kind

[3:48:45] of individuals,

[3:48:47] but if you don't, per instance,

[3:48:48] $4,500 per individual,

[3:48:49] that's millions and millions

[3:48:50] of dollars. And so that's the

[3:48:52] goal. My first question is,

[3:48:54] are we able to look at the

[3:48:56] public and say that we have the

[3:48:57] issues that came up when I

[3:48:59] think it was Director Robinson

[3:49:00] and we were doing the review of

[3:49:02] all our contracts and how we

[3:49:03] had low rates

[3:49:05] of reimbursements compared

[3:49:06] to what we needed. Where are we

[3:49:07] internally right now?

[3:49:09] >> Yeah, I'm very happy

[3:49:10] to report that we are 100%

[3:49:11] in compliance on the behavioral

[3:49:12] health side or the mental

[3:49:13] health side

[3:49:14] of behavioral health. So we are

[3:49:15] actually completely caught up

[3:49:16] on our Medi Cal billings

[3:49:17] on the mental health side. We

[3:49:18] are about four months back

[3:49:20] on the substance use side of

[3:49:22] the house and we're making

[3:49:23] progress every single day. So

[3:49:24] we've made a tremendous amount

[3:49:25] of progress in that space.

[3:49:26] Secondarily, we have issued

[3:49:28] behavioral health contracts

[3:49:29] for the first time

[3:49:30] in probably a decade

[3:49:31] on time this year for our

[3:49:32] providers so they can get paid

[3:49:33] on time. And so

[3:49:35] over the last nine or 10

[3:49:36] months,

[3:49:37] we have made a tremendous

[3:49:38] amount of progress

[3:49:39] in that space.

[3:49:40] >> Well, I would encourage that

[3:49:41] to be a part of our messaging

[3:49:42] because you can't have the

[3:49:43] sense be out there that

[3:49:44] government is failing. And

[3:49:46] that's why we're asking people

[3:49:47] to extend the budget. We had

[3:49:49] done the work prior the

[3:49:50] recontracting the contract

[3:49:53] with Harvard, I think, and

[3:49:54] others, and all

[3:49:55] of the analysis,

[3:49:56] and restructured all

[3:49:57] of our agreements.

[3:49:58] But that needs to be a part

[3:49:59] of the discussion. The second

[3:50:00] thing is, I won't belabor the

[3:50:02] things that were brought up

[3:50:03] by my colleagues,

[3:50:05] but I'll just speak direct

[3:50:07] to them that we have a request

[3:50:08] from Santa Rosa, very public

[3:50:10] request,

[3:50:12] that maybe you can state

[3:50:13] to me if this is different,

[3:50:15] but Santa Rosa City Schools

[3:50:16] already receives, as a part of

[3:50:18] those jurisdictions listed

[3:50:19] funding for cape. What Santa

[3:50:21] Rosa is asking us to do is

[3:50:22] to fund the enhanced programs,

[3:50:25] and I applaud them for that.

[3:50:26] But the enhanced program

[3:50:28] programs that they went

[3:50:30] into as a part of a good budget

[3:50:31] cycle and ARPA and other things

[3:50:33] like that. Is that correct?

[3:50:34] >> Yeah, they're asking

[3:50:35] for funding for their core

[3:50:36] behavioral health support,

[3:50:38] kind of your basic run

[3:50:39] of the mill programs,

[3:50:40] which are wonderful,

[3:50:41] amazing programs. But again, it

[3:50:42] is not it. CAPE is not that.

[3:50:43] >> And we, you know,

[3:50:45] applaud them for that. But.

[3:50:47] But one jurisdiction,

[3:50:48] even if it's the largest,

[3:50:50] asking for millions of dollars

[3:50:51] to fund something above and

[3:50:53] beyond what the other, what the

[3:50:55] other jurisdictions are already

[3:50:57] receiving. They have financial

[3:51:01] woes. But I don't want that

[3:51:02] to get lost

[3:51:03] in the politics and

[3:51:05] in the messaging out there

[3:51:06] to be very clear that, you

[3:51:07] know, if we would do that,

[3:51:08] then every jurisdiction, all of

[3:51:10] the school districts

[3:51:11] throughout,

[3:51:12] we'd be basically committing

[3:51:14] to that because all

[3:51:15] of us would be saying, God, the

[3:51:16] rural, you know, Cloverdale

[3:51:17] for me, Geyserville school

[3:51:20] district. You know,

[3:51:21] if you manage your. If you

[3:51:22] manage your budgets correctly,

[3:51:23] if you have the behavioral

[3:51:24] health systems,

[3:51:25] I know the size changes it,

[3:51:26] but I just want to hear

[3:51:28] from my colleagues, too,

[3:51:29] because I think we need

[3:51:30] to send you to be able

[3:51:31] to go have these conversations,

[3:51:32] knowing what the board has

[3:51:33] said. Right. This might not be

[3:51:35] policy, but we are. But you're

[3:51:38] in a position right now where

[3:51:40] all

[3:51:41] of you are going and

[3:51:42] negotiating with people who are

[3:51:43] making requests to us,

[3:51:45] and you have to be able

[3:51:46] to have our backing to say

[3:51:48] these are the lines you need

[3:51:49] to hold because

[3:51:50] of the programmatic issue. So

[3:51:52] I'll just say the same thing.

[3:51:53] For safe and on the.

[3:51:55] In response side is, first and

[3:51:57] foremost,

[3:51:58] I know you've had conversations

[3:52:00] with them about being able

[3:52:02] to bill Medi Cal $4,500 per

[3:52:08] instance. You know, but, you

[3:52:12] know, there's no way that we

[3:52:14] can continue services. If they

[3:52:15] want to make a request for

[3:52:17] homeless outreach management,

[3:52:19] then that's different. That is

[3:52:21] not included in the MST or the

[3:52:23] cahoots program or any of the

[3:52:25] other things that we did.

[3:52:27] Right. I just. I think that has

[3:52:28] to be clear. And I want

[3:52:29] to know what you need

[3:52:31] from us as well. If it's a

[3:52:33] letter from the board,

[3:52:34] if it's a letter

[3:52:35] from the chair or all

[3:52:36] of us saying,

[3:52:37] we had this conversation.

[3:52:38] Here's a few things that you

[3:52:39] are being given in terms

[3:52:41] of future discussions. Because

[3:52:43] the goal here is not to get

[3:52:44] into a fighting match over

[3:52:45] people not supporting measure O

[3:52:48] because we're not able to get

[3:52:50] them the direct contracts that

[3:52:52] they need to do

[3:52:53] in their specific cities. The

[3:52:55] goal is for us to say,

[3:52:56] to be able to move this county

[3:52:58] forward or not retract. We need

[3:53:00] to have these systems. So I

[3:53:05] would love for you to have

[3:53:06] something that as a formal

[3:53:07] mention from the board and I

[3:53:12] would propose that we. This

[3:53:13] doesn't have

[3:53:14] to be hard language,

[3:53:15] but this is something like,

[3:53:16] you know,

[3:53:17] the board had a hearing with

[3:53:18] Major O. We know

[3:53:19] of the city's questions. We

[3:53:20] know of the school. Send it

[3:53:21] to the school districts,

[3:53:22] your requests. There was a

[3:53:23] couple

[3:53:24] of key things that came up

[3:53:25] during this discussion that

[3:53:26] included, you know,

[3:53:27] requests that are coming in

[3:53:28] from individual jurisdictions.

[3:53:30] We can't, you know, I mean,

[3:53:31] like three pillars that come

[3:53:32] out and whether the chair wants

[3:53:34] to sign that on behalf

[3:53:36] of the board or all

[3:53:38] of us sign it. I think you have

[3:53:39] to be going in

[3:53:40] with a picture. So I'm really

[3:53:42] interested in my colleagues

[3:53:44] about some

[3:53:45] of those things because we want

[3:53:46] to embrace the cities and the

[3:53:47] schools as the future

[3:53:48] of this, but it can't be

[3:53:49] about just trying to contain

[3:53:52] their own individual things.

[3:53:54] And then I think

[3:53:55] in that letter, too, it has

[3:53:57] to be very clear as well,

[3:53:58] like whether it's a letter

[3:54:00] to our partners or it's a

[3:54:01] letter to the public. If the

[3:54:02] budget goes the way it does,

[3:54:05] the full programming

[3:54:08] for MST cahoots models is

[3:54:11] under extreme duress. And I

[3:54:12] just think we have

[3:54:15] to be clear. While not. I mean,

[3:54:17] this is not the sky is falling.

[3:54:25] This is real. So I'd love your

[3:54:27] responses on that or I'd love

[3:54:28] my colleagues weigh in,

[3:54:29] because I just want

[3:54:31] to respectfully engage

[3:54:32] with the cities.

[3:54:33] But I don't want you trying

[3:54:34] to go out, all of you, and make

[3:54:36] them happy or the ad hoc

[3:54:37] meeting with them individually.

[3:54:38] I don't think we can play

[3:54:39] politics. I think we have

[3:54:40] to set policy and say,

[3:54:42] find a way to work together.

[3:54:44] Thank you.

[3:54:46] >> Thank you, Vice Chair

[3:54:47] Coursey.

[3:54:50] >> Thanks. Seems like we've

[3:54:51] talked

[3:54:52] about this a lot lately, and,

[3:54:53] you know, I agree with

[3:54:56] everything my colleagues have

[3:54:57] been saying. I think the tone

[3:54:59] and tenor of your presentation

[3:55:02] is exactly what we need

[3:55:03] to be saying

[3:55:05] to the community. There is a

[3:55:07] sense of urgency here. We are

[3:55:09] doing what we can with

[3:55:12] Measure O. We're doing what we

[3:55:14] were asked to do

[3:55:16] by the community with Measure

[3:55:22] O. But there are limits

[3:55:24] to it. This is. This is not

[3:55:25] the. This is not ARPA. It's not

[3:55:29] the Sonoma County Rescue Plan

[3:55:31] Act. It has its parameters and

[3:55:41] it also has a limit to it.

[3:55:42] So, you know, we have to kind

[3:55:43] of walk and chew gum

[3:55:45] at the time. Same. Same time

[3:55:47] right now. Keep the pedal

[3:55:49] to the metal

[3:55:50] with how we're doing this

[3:55:51] but understand that we're going

[3:55:52] to run out of gas

[3:55:54] in a few years and we have

[3:55:55] to find a gas station or figure

[3:55:57] out how that's going to work

[3:55:58] going forward. I think it's

[3:56:01] incumbent on all of us

[3:56:03] to tell this story

[3:56:05] to our constituents, to the

[3:56:08] community. I'm not sure that a

[3:56:13] slideshow with pie charts and

[3:56:15] spreadsheets is the best way.

[3:56:17] It's one way, but we need

[3:56:21] to also have a narrative way

[3:56:25] to do this so we could Talk

[3:56:26] to people so we can talk

[3:56:27] to groups,

[3:56:29] but also individuals. We need

[3:56:30] an elevator speech. We need a

[3:56:32] 700-word op ed. We need an

[3:56:34] understanding of all

[3:56:38] of us and frankly,

[3:56:41] an agreement with all

[3:56:43] of us as Supervisor Gore is

[3:56:44] talking about,

[3:56:48] to say what we will do, what we

[3:56:50] can do and what we can't do.

[3:56:52] So really appreciate your

[3:56:57] comments on that, James.

[3:56:58] Supervisor Hopkins was

[3:57:00] absolutely right earlier,

[3:57:02] talking about as we put the

[3:57:04] crisis response money

[3:57:07] into the community, the

[3:57:10] expectation was that that was a

[3:57:11] pilot program,

[3:57:12] that it was going

[3:57:13] to be consolidated

[3:57:14] into one program. Nolan has

[3:57:17] heard me say several times,

[3:57:18] you know, sometimes we have

[3:57:19] to be the people saying no

[3:57:20] in this conversation. Nolan

[3:57:23] likes to say yes. I. I told him

[3:57:26] it's time for him

[3:57:27] to be the bad cop and us

[3:57:29] to be a good cop every once

[3:57:33] in a while.

[3:57:34] But we can all be bad cops

[3:57:35] on this. When we say we are not

[3:57:37] able to keep doing this as we

[3:57:39] have been doing it, we have

[3:57:40] to get back to something that's

[3:57:41] more efficient,

[3:57:46] that makes more sense, that is

[3:57:47] billable, and we have

[3:57:50] to create one system out

[3:57:51] of this somehow. So all this

[3:57:53] has been said multiple times.

[3:57:55] Again, thank you all for,

[3:57:57] for your work

[3:57:59] on this. I know this has been

[3:58:00] on your minds a lot and

[3:58:03] appreciate, along with

[3:58:05] Supervisor Gore being in there

[3:58:06] with you.

[3:58:08] >> Supervisor Hopkins.

[3:58:10] >> I wholeheartedly agree

[3:58:11] with Supervisor's Gore and

[3:58:12] Coursey and just want

[3:58:13] to highlight that I think

[3:58:15] in his last sentence,

[3:58:16] Supervisor Gore said something

[3:58:17] about policy. And I think that

[3:58:18] that's what we need

[3:58:19] to establish. And I know that

[3:58:21] this is just. It's not an

[3:58:22] action item,

[3:58:23] it's a receiver report. But if

[3:58:24] we could provide directions,

[3:58:25] and maybe it does make sense,

[3:58:26] you know, for there actually

[3:58:27] to be

[3:58:28] like a letter that comes back

[3:58:29] on consent. So it's not just

[3:58:30] sort of the chair signing it

[3:58:31] on her own, but it really,

[3:58:32] truly is the voice

[3:58:33] of the full board of

[3:58:34] Supervisor s essentially

[3:58:35] establishing that policy. And I

[3:58:36] do go back to, you know, fire

[3:58:37] services, and we had a policy

[3:58:39] with fire services, and it was,

[3:58:40] you are not going to get money

[3:58:42] unless you consolidate,

[3:58:43] period. Suddenly, people

[3:58:45] started consolidating. And so,

[3:58:46] you know, I sort

[3:58:47] of recognize that we need. We

[3:58:48] have a need to throw lifelines

[3:58:49] in order

[3:58:50] to facilitate this process.

[3:58:52] And we also did that

[3:58:54] with fire services.

[3:58:55] But I do think that, you know,

[3:58:56] we need to establish a policy

[3:58:59] that creates equitable access

[3:59:00] to opportunities, you know,

[3:59:01] for service,

[3:59:03] so that we don't have this kind

[3:59:04] of patchwork or differing

[3:59:05] levels of service, depending

[3:59:06] on what side of the

[3:59:07] jurisdictional line that you

[3:59:08] stand on. But also,

[3:59:09] that leads us ultimately

[3:59:11] towards consolidation, which I

[3:59:12] think provides some

[3:59:13] efficiencies of service

[3:59:14] in addition to creating, you

[3:59:15] know, sort of a one size.

[3:59:18] Not. Not that there's. It's one

[3:59:20] size fits all because every

[3:59:21] case is responded

[3:59:23] to individually.

[3:59:24] But it creates consistency

[3:59:25] in the approach

[3:59:26] across jurisdictions, which I

[3:59:27] think ultimately also creates

[3:59:28] consistency

[3:59:29] for law enforcement and kind

[3:59:30] of a better understanding

[3:59:31] from the community as a whole.

[3:59:32] So I think it's. It really

[3:59:33] benefits also in terms of even

[3:59:34] like common branding. Same

[3:59:35] phone number, same. You know,

[3:59:36] it's like one door, right.

[3:59:37] That everyone knows and is

[3:59:39] aware about, as opposed to, oh,

[3:59:41] wait, I've heard about this

[3:59:43] thing and I thought it was

[3:59:44] mobile. No, it's.

[3:59:45] In response. No, it's safe.

[3:59:46] And, you know,

[3:59:47] I've heard people in the

[3:59:49] community actually be confused.

[3:59:50] I also just wanted

[3:59:51] to take a moment

[3:59:52] to say thank you

[3:59:53] for your presentation to the

[3:59:54] Sebastopol City Council,

[3:59:55] because I also learned,

[3:59:56] right. That there was a lack

[3:59:57] of information or understanding

[3:59:58] about the services that the

[4:00:01] county, you know, provides,

[4:00:02] even

[4:00:03] at the city council level. And

[4:00:04] so, you know, I think that also

[4:00:05] is partly because they're like,

[4:00:06] oh, well,

[4:00:07] other cities are doing it, so

[4:00:08] we must not have any services

[4:00:09] here. Right. So not really

[4:00:10] realizing that they're actually

[4:00:11] covered by the county system.

[4:00:13] So just really appreciate all

[4:00:14] of the work and also want

[4:00:15] to thank my colleagues

[4:00:16] for serving

[4:00:17] on the ad hoc and getting

[4:00:18] into the weed on some really

[4:00:19] difficult subjects. Also want

[4:00:20] to highly recommend having your

[4:00:21] spouse as your NO coach.

[4:00:23] That's what my husband, he's

[4:00:24] like,

[4:00:25] I'm your NO coach. I'm going

[4:00:26] to teach you how to say no. So

[4:00:27] don't say yes to joining

[4:00:28] another board or commission.

[4:00:29] Say no. So just passing

[4:00:30] on that. That suggestion.

[4:00:31] >> Supervisor Rabbitt.

[4:00:35] >> You know, thank you very

[4:00:36] much, I agree with everything

[4:00:37] that's been said. And this is

[4:00:39] about geographic equity

[4:00:40] countywide. It's also

[4:00:41] about setting expectations.

[4:00:42] And I think that if there was a

[4:00:44] something to look back upon,

[4:00:45] it was the expectation

[4:00:47] of what Measure O is going

[4:00:48] to do. You touched

[4:00:51] on that briefly,

[4:00:52] but I think it's not too late

[4:00:53] on this tour and the

[4:00:56] discussions that we have and

[4:00:57] really kind

[4:00:59] of telling people, cities and

[4:01:01] city council members who

[4:01:02] of course love their programs.

[4:01:05] And now

[4:01:07] in the last five years or so,

[4:01:08] ever since, certainly like home

[4:01:11] key and all these other things,

[4:01:13] getting into much more social

[4:01:15] service sides, I think of Rona

[4:01:17] park,

[4:01:18] who historically never was

[4:01:20] in that realm,

[4:01:21] now is we also need

[4:01:22] to make sure that we're, you

[4:01:23] know, providing the best

[4:01:25] to them as possible as well.

[4:01:27] And even the Cost per bed

[4:01:29] on a home, key projects which

[4:01:31] vary greatly. You know,

[4:01:33] what's the policy going

[4:01:35] to be there going forward.

[4:01:36] But you know, I look at how

[4:01:38] Measure M or Measure M, excuse

[4:01:42] me, Measure O has been reported

[4:01:44] and the messaging and it's a

[4:01:47] scapegoat

[4:01:48] for never having enough and

[4:01:49] for the all, you know, quote

[4:01:51] unquote our community's

[4:01:53] failures when the reality is

[4:01:54] just the opposite that as was

[4:01:56] mentioned earlier there are

[4:01:58] rare as the county that has the

[4:02:00] opportunities that we've had

[4:02:01] to do and

[4:02:02] to provide those services

[4:02:05] to those people. Each one

[4:02:07] of them is a life-changing,

[4:02:10] hopefully a life-changing event

[4:02:12] and touching them

[4:02:14] in that way and that rarely,

[4:02:16] that message rarely gets put

[4:02:17] out. Instead, it's just look

[4:02:19] at it as an endless bucket of

[4:02:20] money and if you can't provide

[4:02:22] it,

[4:02:23] it's a failure that is anything

[4:02:24] but the truth. And it's

[4:02:26] unfortunate that it gets

[4:02:27] reported that way. So I think

[4:02:29] that the messaging needs

[4:02:30] to be continue needs to

[4:02:31] continue especially if we have

[4:02:33] any hope in making sure that we

[4:02:35] can convince the voters that

[4:02:36] this is something that actually

[4:02:37] you see benefit

[4:02:39] from each and every day. And

[4:02:40] even if that benefit is not you

[4:02:42] personally, it's your neighbor

[4:02:44] that is being taken care of.

[4:02:45] And it's a, you know,

[4:02:47] it's a hard sell

[4:02:49] but it's doable. So again,

[4:02:50] thank you for all the work.

[4:02:51] Appreciate it.

[4:02:54] >> Thank you. With that I will

[4:02:56] summarize that I agree

[4:03:00] with my colleagues. They've

[4:03:01] covered all the topics that

[4:03:03] that I wanted to mention. It

[4:03:05] looks like we have a direction

[4:03:06] to go ahead and move forward

[4:03:08] with basically a PR campaign to

[4:03:11] help spread the good work

[4:03:13] that's been done through

[4:03:15] Measure O. Bring back a letter

[4:03:16] on consent and thank you.

[4:03:18] Thank you very much.

[4:03:25] With that we are going

[4:03:28] to go back to closed session.

[4:03:30] We will be back. Thank you. We

[4:03:33] will be back

[4:03:36] at approximately 1:30.

[4:03:37] [CLOSED SESSION]

[4:45:29] And we are reconvening from

[4:45:30] closed session and a few bites

[4:45:32] of food. And we're going

[4:45:34] to move on to Gold resolutions

[4:45:36] and we are going to start

[4:45:38] with adopting a gold resolution

[4:45:41] to proclaim March 2026 as

[4:45:44] American Red Cross Month. And

[4:45:47] for that we have Andy and

[4:45:49] Denny is Andy and. Hi, welcome.

[4:45:56] Good to see you too. Welcome

[4:45:57] you to say a few remarks.

[4:46:03] >> Gore and Supervisor Rabbitt

[4:46:05] for their service. We expect

[4:46:07] that they might not be here

[4:46:08] when we come visit you next

[4:46:09] March. So thank you for their

[4:46:11] service and the remaining four.

[4:46:13] We'll see you again next year.

[4:46:15] As you all know, Red Cross

[4:46:18] partners closely with Sonoma

[4:46:19] County

[4:46:20] for disaster preparedness.

[4:46:21] Your emergency services

[4:46:23] department works closely with

[4:46:24] The Red Cross. But emergency

[4:46:26] responses are not all we do.

[4:46:29] We have a lot

[4:46:30] of preparedness activities. We

[4:46:32] do. I lead a program called

[4:46:33] Pedro Prepare with Pedro, which

[4:46:36] is a classroom program

[4:46:37] for K2 students

[4:46:40] to prepare them what to do if

[4:46:41] there's a home fire. I also

[4:46:44] work closely with Sound the

[4:46:45] Alarm, which is the

[4:46:46] installation of smoke alarms

[4:46:47] in the homes at no cost

[4:46:49] to the residents. And we have

[4:46:51] done hundreds of homes in

[4:46:53] Sonoma County, making them

[4:46:54] safer in case

[4:46:55] of home fire. A couple

[4:46:57] of other programs that we do,

[4:46:58] Disaster Assistance Team and

[4:47:01] Service the Armed Forces.

[4:47:04] Denny Sigman is going

[4:47:06] to talk a little bit

[4:47:07] about those. But again,

[4:47:08] thank you very much for the

[4:47:09] proclamation and thank you

[4:47:11] for the close work with the

[4:47:12] Red Cross.

[4:47:14] >> So my name is Denny

[4:47:15] Sigmund. I've been doing Red

[4:47:16] Cross for a boy

[4:47:17] about three or four years.

[4:47:19] Andy is my stepdad. My mom also

[4:47:21] does Red Cross, and my wife

[4:47:23] also does Red Cross. So it's a

[4:47:24] family affair. I do DAT,

[4:47:27] which is Disaster Action

[4:47:28] Team. So when you have a flood

[4:47:30] or a fire or somebody loses

[4:47:31] their home, Red Cross comes

[4:47:33] in and tries

[4:47:34] to take some backup and says,

[4:47:35] look, there's somebody here

[4:47:36] to help you. And it may be

[4:47:37] in the form of, you know,

[4:47:38] helping them with money,

[4:47:40] getting them back-up

[4:47:41] on their feet or whatever.

[4:47:43] Just shows that someone is

[4:47:44] actually there. And then I also

[4:47:45] do services to the armed

[4:47:46] forces. I'm not military,

[4:47:48] but we go

[4:47:50] out there and we go help out

[4:47:51] with the armed forces and

[4:47:53] veterans and showing them that

[4:47:54] someone does care if they need

[4:47:55] help getting

[4:47:56] through the VA and stuff

[4:47:57] like that. Red Cross can assign

[4:47:58] somebody

[4:48:00] to help and go that way. So

[4:48:01] that's pretty much. And also I

[4:48:03] do stuff with Andy, which is

[4:48:05] sound the alarm and still love

[4:48:07] it. Still great thing

[4:48:09] to be able to help out. That's

[4:48:12] it.

[4:48:13] >> Well, it's not completely.

[4:48:14] One thing that neither of us

[4:48:15] mentioned is blood drives.

[4:48:17] American Red Cross is the

[4:48:18] greatest, largest collector

[4:48:20] of blood for hospitals

[4:48:22] in the country. We have blood

[4:48:24] drives across Sonoma County,

[4:48:26] and we encourage Sonoma

[4:48:28] County Board of Supervisor s

[4:48:31] members of the audience

[4:48:32] to sign up for Red Cross blood

[4:48:33] drive and help out. There's a

[4:48:35] critical blood shortage in

[4:48:36] America. Thanks again very much

[4:48:38] for the proclamation that

[4:48:39] you're about to present.

[4:48:41] >> Thank you.

[4:48:42] >> Thank you. And we have

[4:48:43] Supervisor Rabbitt that would

[4:48:44] like to say a few words.

[4:48:45] >> I just want

[4:48:46] to say thank you. And I just

[4:48:47] wanted to let this. Put this

[4:48:48] fact out there. In the last 15

[4:48:49] years, there's been 24, 24

[4:48:50] locally declared disasters in

[4:48:53] Sonoma County. 12 of those have

[4:48:55] been state declared and nine of

[4:48:57] those have been federally

[4:48:59] declared. It is a constant

[4:49:01] thing amongst us.

[4:49:04] But every step of the way,

[4:49:05] the Red Cross is there. So

[4:49:06] thank you so much for.

[4:49:08] For being there for that.

[4:49:10] >> Thank you.

[4:49:11] >> Thank you.

[4:49:12] >> And thank you for your work

[4:49:13] with Prepare with Pedro. I

[4:49:14] appreciate it. And as

[4:49:16] Supervisor Rabbitt says,

[4:49:18] wherever there's been many

[4:49:20] disasters and whenever we've

[4:49:21] had it, especially locally,

[4:49:22] you all have been there. And I

[4:49:23] appreciate the blood dries and

[4:49:25] your little thing of juice.

[4:49:26] Let's take a picture. Thank

[4:49:29] you.

[4:49:31] >> Disaster here, every

[4:49:32] Tuesday.

[4:50:55] >> Thank you so much. And

[4:50:57] with that, we are now going

[4:50:58] to move on to adopting a gold

[4:51:00] resolution honoring the 25th

[4:51:02] anniversary of the Russian

[4:51:04] River Sisters. And for that,

[4:51:06] we have Guard Ian. Sister

[4:51:08] Saranda Dabooty, VP Mistress

[4:51:14] of Novices. I feel like I

[4:51:15] really should change my name.

[4:51:17] Welcome.

[4:51:20] >> Thank you for having us.

[4:51:28] Wait. All right. Hi. Thank you

[4:51:32] very much

[4:51:34] for this proclamation today.

[4:51:35] We really,

[4:51:36] really appreciate it. Any

[4:51:37] of you

[4:51:39] on the board are invited

[4:51:40] to our anniversary party next

[4:51:42] Friday night. It's Good

[4:51:44] Friday. We make it a very good

[4:51:45] Friday. Our theme

[4:51:47] for our party is still

[4:51:50] sparkling after 25 years.

[4:51:59] But there's. There's a

[4:52:00] beginning part.

[4:52:01] >> Silver and still sparkling.

[4:52:03] >> There we go.

[4:52:04] >> I just looked it up.

[4:52:05] >> Thank you, Linda. I

[4:52:06] appreciate you always having

[4:52:07] our backs. So we will be giving

[4:52:09] saint medallions

[4:52:11] to new saints. We will be

[4:52:13] giving people grants

[4:52:16] for their hard work and

[4:52:20] Sonoma County and yeah,

[4:52:25] I've seen a lot of kiddos here

[4:52:26] and I know that some

[4:52:28] of them are local. We do a. Or

[4:52:31] local to West County. We do a

[4:52:32] yearly holiday toy drive where

[4:52:35] we give students to Monterio

[4:52:42] School, Guerneville School,

[4:52:43] Forestville School. The

[4:52:45] opportunity to spend $20 at

[4:52:47] local businesses and have some

[4:52:49] kind of a gift. A lot

[4:52:51] of them give it

[4:52:52] to their family,

[4:52:53] which is totally fine. And

[4:52:55] that's us. For those

[4:52:57] of you who are here and go to

[4:52:58] Forestville School or

[4:53:00] Guerneville School. Thank you.

[4:53:07] >> And. And it's not just those

[4:53:09] three schools. It's also the

[4:53:10] associated preschools. We also

[4:53:13] have a Nuns of the

[4:53:16] above scholarship fund

[4:53:18] for graduating seniors of

[4:53:19] West County High Schools and

[4:53:22] returning students for SRJC.

[4:53:26] We do a lot

[4:53:28] in the community. A lot

[4:53:30] of people maybe don't reckon,

[4:53:33] don't know that if they don't

[4:53:36] know us. Our anniversary party

[4:53:39] is in fact an all age thing.

[4:53:41] So if any

[4:53:43] of the kiddos here want

[4:53:44] to attend, that would be

[4:53:46] lovely. I do have brochures if

[4:53:49] anyone is interested

[4:53:52] in learning more about us.

[4:53:54] But we can't do what we do

[4:53:57] without the Sonoma County

[4:53:59] community. And it's

[4:54:01] through everyone's generation.

[4:54:03] Generate. Sorry, I have a head

[4:54:07] injury. Generosity that we are

[4:54:10] able to then give back

[4:54:13] to the different organizations.

[4:54:18] And I must say, my very first

[4:54:20] year, one

[4:54:22] of the grants we gave out was

[4:54:23] to Monte Rio Little League, and

[4:54:27] they came

[4:54:28] to us and they said,

[4:54:30] we just need dirt. We don't

[4:54:33] have dirt for our infield. And

[4:54:37] we were able to grant them

[4:54:39] $500 to get dirt. And it's just

[4:54:41] that simple. If there's a need,

[4:54:44] we want to try and fill it. So

[4:54:48] thank you so much

[4:54:50] for this opportunity.

[4:54:53] >> Thank you.

[4:54:56] >> Don't go far. Don't go far.

[4:54:58] Supervisor Hopkins has a few

[4:54:59] words.

[4:55:01] >> I just want to say, and I

[4:55:02] say this a lot. I do believe it

[4:55:03] with every kind of bone

[4:55:06] in my body that I have the best

[4:55:07] 100,000 bosses

[4:55:08] in the world. I love working

[4:55:09] for West County. You can't have

[4:55:11] favorite kids, but I do have

[4:55:12] some more favorite bosses. And

[4:55:13] I just want to say that the

[4:55:15] sisters are absolutely

[4:55:17] on that list. You bring so much

[4:55:19] beauty and joy and good change

[4:55:21] to the community. And if you

[4:55:24] all haven't been

[4:55:25] to a bingo night, you need

[4:55:26] to get to a bingo night because

[4:55:27] it is so much fun and it raises

[4:55:29] money for the community and it

[4:55:31] goes straight back

[4:55:32] into all kinds of little tiny

[4:55:34] organizations where $500 makes

[4:55:35] that difference, right in a

[4:55:37] brand new sports field that you

[4:55:39] couldn't otherwise afford. And

[4:55:40] so just thank you

[4:55:42] for being a part

[4:55:43] of the community,

[4:55:44] for being who you are, and for,

[4:55:46] as the sisters always say,

[4:55:48] we love you, and there isn't a

[4:55:49] damn thing you can do

[4:55:50] about it. And that love shows

[4:55:52] in what you do. So thank you so

[4:55:53] much.

[4:55:55] >> Thank you.

[4:55:59] >> Let's do a photo.

[4:56:02] >> And Beth, are you going

[4:56:04] to come up with. Sit

[4:56:05] in the back there. Come on.

[4:56:06] >> I'll just also say whatever

[4:56:07] head injury you were

[4:56:08] referencing made you pretty

[4:56:09] awesome because it's a blessing

[4:56:10] to be with you.

[4:57:59] >> Thank you so much. And

[4:58:01] with that, we're going

[4:58:02] to now move on

[4:58:03] to presenting a gold resolution

[4:58:05] in honor of National Farm

[4:58:08] Worker Awareness week,

[4:58:10] which is March 25th

[4:58:11] through the 31st. If you were

[4:58:14] here this morning, you would

[4:58:16] have heard my remarks

[4:58:17] addressing the holiday on

[4:58:21] Tuesday. And so I and I welcome

[4:58:25] folks back

[4:58:26] for this gold resolution. And

[4:58:28] with that, we have Anadias

[4:58:31] representing Rosalynn,

[4:58:33] Candido Morales with Latinos

[4:58:35] Unidos, Dr. Mariana Martinez,

[4:58:37] Anita with Great Day labor

[4:58:40] center, and Maria Membrilla

[4:58:42] with Sonoma Valley

[4:58:43] Collaborative. And who is going

[4:58:45] to come to the mic to say a few

[4:58:46] words and accept this gold

[4:58:47] resolution?

[4:58:59] >> Good afternoon, everyone.

[4:59:00] So I guess I will be going

[4:59:02] first. Bear with me

[4:59:08] on the right. Okay. Good

[4:59:14] afternoon, Supervisor s. Today

[4:59:16] I want to begin acknowledging

[4:59:17] Farm Workers Day and Farm

[4:59:18] Worker Awareness Week. A time

[4:59:20] to recognize the fruit

[4:59:22] of my people's labors, their

[4:59:23] resilience and contributions

[4:59:24] to those who feed this county,

[4:59:26] sustain our economy,

[4:59:27] and often go unseen. I'm here

[4:59:31] to talk about something deeper

[4:59:32] than policy. I'm here to talk

[4:59:34] about the people. It's easy

[4:59:36] to show up to events,

[4:59:38] to take photos

[4:59:39] at celebrations such as Cinco

[4:59:41] de Mayo and Roseland, to stand

[4:59:42] alongside the community and

[4:59:43] moments that are visible.

[4:59:46] But real support for our farm

[4:59:47] worker community is not

[4:59:48] measured in appearances. It's

[4:59:50] measured in actions and follow

[4:59:53] through and whether lives are

[4:59:57] actually improving. We have

[4:59:59] organizations doing real work

[5:00:01] every day. Groups like Sonoma

[5:00:04] County Library, Redwood

[5:00:06] Empire Food Bank, Latinos

[5:00:08] Unidos del Condado and very few

[5:00:11] others. They provide free

[5:00:15] services, support families,

[5:00:16] and even create scholarships

[5:00:18] for students

[5:00:19] from farm worker families.

[5:00:21] Latinos Unidos especially is

[5:00:22] entirely a volunteer run. No

[5:00:24] paid staff,

[5:00:26] and just people committed

[5:00:28] to uplifting their community.

[5:00:31] But that's what real supporting

[5:00:32] support looks like.

[5:00:34] But when it comes to housing,

[5:00:35] we are falling short. We cannot

[5:00:37] ignore what happened in Wood

[5:00:39] mark Apartments. Housing that

[5:00:41] was meant for farm workers that

[5:00:42] did not reach them in time.

[5:00:43] And many of us didn't know when

[5:00:45] the applications were open.

[5:00:48] The lack of outreach matters

[5:00:49] because while opportunities

[5:00:51] pass, farm workers were

[5:00:52] displaced, leaving the county,

[5:00:54] becoming homeless,

[5:00:55] or even sleeping

[5:00:56] in their cars and parking lots

[5:00:58] of many. If the community has

[5:01:03] been informed, many of us could

[5:01:04] have helped ensure those units

[5:01:06] reach the people they were

[5:01:07] built for. At the same time,

[5:01:09] we have to talk about funding

[5:01:14] and accountability. Farm worker

[5:01:16] emergency funds were brought

[5:01:17] before this board increased

[5:01:19] to nearly $1 million and was

[5:01:21] meant

[5:01:22] to support this community

[5:01:23] in the crisis of time

[5:01:24] during the floods.

[5:01:29] Unfortunately, the remaining

[5:01:30] amounts were given to

[5:01:31] nonprofits such as CPI and

[5:01:33] code. This raises a serious

[5:01:37] question. And then there's the

[5:01:39] Ag Pass program. Research

[5:01:41] from UC Berkeley has made it

[5:01:43] clear that the Ag Pass does not

[5:01:46] truly protect our farm workers.

[5:01:48] It allows the work to continue

[5:01:50] during dangerous conditions,

[5:01:52] but not the center

[5:01:54] of safety and wellbeing

[5:01:55] of the farm workers themselves.

[5:01:58] Because at the same time,

[5:02:00] farm workers are being pushed

[5:02:01] out of housing, farm workers

[5:02:03] are leaving the county or

[5:02:04] living in their cars. Outreach

[5:02:05] is not being reached to the

[5:02:07] program or the very people that

[5:02:09] these programs were designated

[5:02:10] for. And I want

[5:02:12] to make it clear

[5:02:13] about something else. This

[5:02:14] movement was not

[5:02:15] about one person. It was

[5:02:17] about the people. People

[5:02:19] like my grandfather Campesinos

[5:02:21] workers who wake up

[5:02:23] before sunrise, who labor

[5:02:26] through heat, through floods,

[5:02:28] through smoke and uncertainty,

[5:02:30] who have built their lives and

[5:02:33] their local economic or economy

[5:02:35] through sacrifice and

[5:02:36] resilience. When I speak today,

[5:02:39] I speak

[5:02:40] for them not as symbols,

[5:02:42] but as real people who deserve

[5:02:44] to be seen, heard,

[5:02:46] and supported. The shirt that I

[5:02:48] am wearing today represents

[5:02:49] them. It represents a movement.

[5:02:52] It represents dignity. What

[5:02:57] we've seen recently shown that

[5:02:58] government can act quickly when

[5:03:00] it chooses to. Name changes

[5:03:03] to holidays is one. This gives

[5:03:05] me hope. I also want

[5:03:07] to acknowledge, acknowledge

[5:03:08] Mr. Zeke Guzman, who cannot be

[5:03:11] here today,

[5:03:12] an elder who has been

[5:03:14] in this fight

[5:03:15] for years and continues to show

[5:03:16] up supporting the community

[5:03:17] through Hardines del Pueblo.

[5:03:19] The kind

[5:03:20] of commitment matters. Some

[5:03:22] of you will be moving on

[5:03:23] from this board. But

[5:03:24] before you, I ask to think

[5:03:26] about your legacy. And I thank

[5:03:27] you

[5:03:28] for your service as you move

[5:03:29] on to the next,

[5:03:30] to the next movement

[5:03:32] of your life. Stand with farm

[5:03:36] workers not just today,

[5:03:37] not just

[5:03:38] in moments that are visible,

[5:03:39] but always invest

[5:03:42] in outreach, be accountable

[5:03:43] with funding,

[5:03:45] and ensure that programs

[5:03:47] created for farm workers truly

[5:03:48] reach them. Because at the end

[5:03:50] of the day, it's not

[5:03:51] about the programs or

[5:03:52] about the money. It's

[5:03:54] about our people. And you know,

[5:03:55] one thing that I'm super proud

[5:03:57] about when it comes

[5:03:58] to my district, when you walk

[5:04:01] into my supervisor's office,

[5:04:03] there's a farm worker smoking

[5:04:05] on his lunch break. And that's

[5:04:07] Mr. Chris Coursey. So I want

[5:04:10] to thank you all

[5:04:11] for your service. James Gore, I

[5:04:13] know you're on your way out.

[5:04:14] Mr. Rabbitt, you too. Thank you

[5:04:17] for your time and

[5:04:18] for your service.

[5:04:22] >> Thank you.

[5:04:27] >> As a reminder,

[5:04:30] we have headphones. If anybody

[5:04:33] needs headphones, they're here

[5:04:34] on the table. Just raise your

[5:04:35] hand and we'll get you

[5:04:36] headphone.

[5:04:37] >> Good afternoon.

[5:04:38] >> Good afternoon.

[5:04:40] >> My name is Candido

[5:04:41] Morales, and I'm here

[5:04:43] representing our president,

[5:04:46] Zeke Guzman, who is

[5:04:48] on business in Sacramento. I'm

[5:04:53] on the board of directors of

[5:04:56] Latinos Unidos del Contado de

[5:04:58] Sonoma, a community-based

[5:05:00] organization incorporated in

[5:05:03] 1966. Mr. Pasalaqua, an

[5:05:10] attorney at the time, was the

[5:05:14] one that filled the papers

[5:05:16] to go to Sacramento

[5:05:18] for incorporation. And Josh

[5:05:22] Ortiz, a personality that most

[5:05:25] of you know, was one

[5:05:31] of the founders as well,

[5:05:32] except for George and Mr.

[5:05:37] Baudelio Salazar. The rest

[5:05:39] of the board

[5:05:40] of directors were farm workers,

[5:05:42] and they came from Sonoma,

[5:05:46] Tetaduluma, Grayton,

[5:05:48] Sebastopol, Kashaville in

[5:05:52] Healdsburg. Latinos unidos has

[5:05:58] a scholarship program,

[5:06:03] as mentioned

[5:06:05] by the young lady that preceded

[5:06:07] Me. And we help students who

[5:06:08] are graduating

[5:06:11] from high school and also

[5:06:14] for people who are already

[5:06:16] in college

[5:06:17] but need financial assistance

[5:06:19] to continue their studying.

[5:06:23] And this year,

[5:06:26] the presentation

[5:06:27] of scholarships will be on

[5:06:28] September 20th at the

[5:06:30] Guadalupe center

[5:06:35] at 2pm and you are invited

[5:06:38] to join us. We estimate that

[5:06:41] anywhere from 60 to 65 students

[5:06:48] will receive a scholarship

[5:06:51] from Latinos Unidos. We want

[5:06:55] to commend you for the

[5:06:58] proclamation that you called

[5:07:02] the Gold Resolution. And with

[5:07:06] that you are acknowledging the

[5:07:09] contributions,

[5:07:10] the many contributions

[5:07:12] of farm workers in Sonoma

[5:07:15] County. Thank you very much.

[5:07:18] >> Thank you.

[5:07:30] >> [SPANISH]

[5:07:36] >> If anybody needs headphones,

[5:07:37] please let us know and then

[5:07:39] give us, my colleagues,

[5:07:40] a minute to put on their

[5:07:42] headphones.

[5:07:45] >> [SPANISH]

[5:09:10] >> Gracias.

[5:09:11] >> Gracias.

[5:10:12] >> [SPANISH]. So I'm going

[5:10:20] to say just a few remarks

[5:10:22] on this Gold Resolution and

[5:10:24] acknowledge that we don't have

[5:10:28] enough headsets for me

[5:10:29] to do it in Spanish. So today

[5:10:35] we honor Farm Worker Week

[5:10:36] in a time where there is a lot

[5:10:40] of negative rhetoric from D.C.

[5:10:45] and I know that they don't feel

[5:10:48] the support that they deserve

[5:10:50] nationally, but locally we know

[5:10:53] and we see they are the

[5:10:54] backbone to our community.

[5:10:57] They are our friends and

[5:10:59] neighbors,

[5:11:00] and they are what makes

[5:11:02] Sonoma County so amazing and

[5:11:03] beautiful. And Anna's right.

[5:11:08] The farm workers rise

[5:11:09] before dawn, work long,

[5:11:11] extenuating hours in sometimes

[5:11:14] not great conditions. Their

[5:11:17] work is not only physically

[5:11:19] demanding, but often done

[5:11:21] without recognition, the

[5:11:23] recognition they so richly

[5:11:25] deserve. This week gives us an

[5:11:27] opportunity to change that and

[5:11:30] really pause and reflect and

[5:11:32] express our sincere gratitude

[5:11:34] for their contributions

[5:11:36] to our community, our community

[5:11:38] that we are raising our kids

[5:11:40] in. And I agree, appreciation

[5:11:43] alone is not enough. Farm

[5:11:45] Worker Week also calls on us to

[5:11:48] ensure that farm workers have

[5:11:50] fair wages and working

[5:11:52] conditions and homes they can

[5:11:55] move into without having

[5:11:59] to jump through hoops. Their

[5:12:00] wellbeing is directly connected

[5:12:03] to our strength and our

[5:12:04] resilience as a community. As

[5:12:08] we present this Gold

[5:12:09] Resolution, we are recommitting

[5:12:13] and recognizing that we

[5:12:15] understand and we see the vital

[5:12:18] contributions that farm workers

[5:12:19] make on our community every

[5:12:21] single day, regardless of it

[5:12:24] just being one week. I want

[5:12:27] to encourage everyone here

[5:12:28] to come back, please, on April

[5:12:30] 7th to see more tangible

[5:12:33] recommitments

[5:12:35] to our community that is

[5:12:37] under attack. And if I may pass

[5:12:40] the mic onto Vice Chair

[5:12:43] Coursey to share about a

[5:12:47] program that also is an example

[5:12:48] of our recommitment

[5:12:49] to our community. Vice Chair.

[5:12:53] >> Thank you, Chair

[5:12:54] Hermosillo. First of all,

[5:12:56] I want to say welcome,

[5:12:57] and it's nice to see Senor

[5:12:59] Morales here again. It's been a

[5:13:02] while

[5:13:04] since we've seen you here

[5:13:05] in front of the Board of

[5:13:06] Supervisor s. I want

[5:13:10] to acknowledge that, you know,

[5:13:12] we've been hearing a lot

[5:13:14] about farmworkers

[5:13:15] in the past week,

[5:13:17] about the farm worker movement,

[5:13:19] about the leaders

[5:13:20] of the farm worker movement.

[5:13:21] Much

[5:13:22] of that has been negative news.

[5:13:25] Today we get to actually sit

[5:13:29] down and celebrate farm workers

[5:13:32] as farm workers should be

[5:13:35] celebrated. You know,

[5:13:37] we have a Farm Worker

[5:13:39] Appreciation Week resolution.

[5:13:40] We should all appreciate

[5:13:42] farmers every day. They are the

[5:13:44] backbone

[5:13:45] of our agricultural community.

[5:13:47] They are the backbone

[5:13:48] of our community. And I just

[5:13:54] want to mention, when farm

[5:13:55] workers actually get a paid day

[5:13:57] off, a paid holiday on Farm

[5:14:01] Workers Day, then we will

[5:14:02] succeed in treating farm

[5:14:04] workers as we should be.

[5:14:06] There's been mention about, I

[5:14:11] guess, performative support

[5:14:13] for farm workers showing up

[5:14:17] at events for pictures or doing

[5:14:18] resolutions. I want you all to

[5:14:22] know that this board has

[5:14:23] provided tangible support and

[5:14:27] will continue

[5:14:29] to supply tangible support

[5:14:31] for farm workers. Supervisor

[5:14:32] Hermosillo talked

[5:14:34] about next month. The date is

[5:14:36] the

[5:14:37] >> April 7th.

[5:14:38] >> The seventh,

[5:14:39] which is our next meeting,

[5:14:40] because we're skipping next

[5:14:41] week. At our next meeting,

[5:14:43] we'll be deploying two mobile

[5:14:45] vans that will be bringing

[5:14:49] services out

[5:14:50] into the community

[5:14:51] for farm workers and others in

[5:14:53] the community who are not able

[5:14:55] to access health services,

[5:14:57] human services, child support

[5:14:59] services, other services that

[5:15:01] the county offers here

[5:15:03] on our county campus and

[5:15:05] in county buildings around,

[5:15:06] mostly around Santa Rosa and

[5:15:08] Guerneville and east county

[5:15:12] also. But the idea is

[5:15:14] to bring the services

[5:15:16] to the people who need them,

[5:15:17] where those people are. That

[5:15:20] includes farm workers and

[5:15:21] anyone else who isn't able

[5:15:23] to access services here. We've

[5:15:27] also put aside resources and

[5:15:29] put our lobbying efforts

[5:15:32] into reopening what at the

[5:15:35] state level is called the

[5:15:39] Farmworker Resource Center

[5:15:40] Pilot program, which would

[5:15:43] perhaps bring more mobile

[5:15:45] resources

[5:15:46] for farm workers directly

[5:15:48] to farm workers

[5:15:49] in the county, perhaps have a

[5:15:50] brick and mortar spot for farm

[5:15:53] workers devoted directly

[5:15:54] to farm workers somewhere

[5:15:56] in the county. We're hoping

[5:15:58] for the state

[5:16:00] to redo that program that

[5:16:01] exists

[5:16:04] in a few other counties. We've

[5:16:05] put some work into that,

[5:16:07] and we hope to have more news

[5:16:08] about that

[5:16:10] from the legislature, perhaps

[5:16:11] on Farm Worker Day

[5:16:15] on the 31st. That would be

[5:16:16] great to have it then.

[5:16:18] Anyway, again, thank you

[5:16:20] for being here today. Thanks

[5:16:22] for your words, thanks

[5:16:24] for your presence, and

[5:16:25] for all farm workers,

[5:16:27] thank you for your work.

[5:16:34] >> And with that, thank you,

[5:16:35] and let's do a photo.

[5:19:56] >> Or so for moving on

[5:19:57] to item number 48.

[5:19:59] >> You're right.

[5:20:00] >> Agenda item 48. So this is a

[5:20:02] Z removal

[5:20:03] to allow the construction

[5:20:04] of an accessory dwelling unit

[5:20:06] in the future. It meets all

[5:20:08] requirements of the action,

[5:20:09] and we offer to wave the

[5:20:12] presentation provided public

[5:20:14] comment and we can answer any

[5:20:16] questions as needed. Thank you.

[5:20:17] >> We like those offers. Often

[5:20:19] make it more

[5:20:21] of a regular practice. Just

[5:20:24] kidding. I know. Good job.

[5:20:27] We're going to go

[5:20:28] to public comment

[5:20:29] on item number 48. The zone

[5:20:31] change to remove the Z overlay

[5:20:33] for Lytton Station

[5:20:35] Geyserville. Oh. Open a public

[5:20:38] hearing. Officially open the

[5:20:40] public hearing. Is there any

[5:20:42] comments on this agenda item?

[5:20:44] Seeing no one raced to the

[5:20:48] podium. I'll bring it back

[5:20:50] to my colleagues

[5:20:51] for questions. Comments.

[5:20:52] Supervisor Gore.

[5:20:53] >> How many

[5:20:54] of these are left?

[5:20:56] >> There are still thousands.

[5:20:57] >> And just remind me why did

[5:21:00] we approve to not do this

[5:21:01] for thousands? But I mean the

[5:21:03] only thing that this is doing

[5:21:04] effectively is keeping certain

[5:21:06] permit processors

[5:21:07] in business. Which is. Okay.

[5:21:09] >> So through the chair

[5:21:11] on the key issues calendar

[5:21:13] for November 2026 will be the

[5:21:15] comprehensive removal

[5:21:17] of the rest of the Z's.

[5:21:19] >> Okay. Okay.

[5:21:20] >> Will you waive the

[5:21:21] presentation then?

[5:21:22] >> Thank you.

[5:21:26] >> How about a comment?

[5:21:29] >> Just kidding. Seeing no

[5:21:30] other comments

[5:21:32] from my colleagues. Questions

[5:21:34] closing the hearing. Bring it

[5:21:37] back to the board. Again, no

[5:21:38] questions, comments.

[5:21:40] >> Is there a motion move

[5:21:42] to approve?

[5:21:43] >> Second.

[5:21:47] >> Do you need. We need a roll

[5:21:49] call vote.

[5:21:53] >> Supervisor Rabbitt?

[5:21:54] >> Aye.

[5:21:55] >> Supervisor Coursey?

[5:21:56] >> Yes.

[5:21:57] >> Supervisor Gore?

[5:21:58] >> Yes.

[5:21:59] >> Supervisor Hopkins?

[5:22:00] >> Yes.

[5:22:01] >> Chair Hermosillo?

[5:22:03] >> Yes. Thank you. And

[5:22:05] with that the motion passes.

[5:22:09] Thank you all. We are going

[5:22:10] to move on

[5:22:12] to agenda item number 49. The

[5:22:15] Neighborhood Parks Workshop.

[5:22:16] And Director Whitaker. Scott

[5:22:19] Orr Misty Arias and Johannes.

[5:22:21] Where's Johannes?

[5:22:28] >> And I'll start it.

[5:22:29] >> CEO Rivera will start us.

[5:22:30] Thank you.

[5:22:33] >> Are you guys looking

[5:22:34] for technical assistance

[5:22:35] over there?

[5:22:37] >> Okay. Scott has it. Got it.

[5:22:38] Very good.

[5:22:40] >> Chair is there. I can frame

[5:22:43] it and then I'll give it back

[5:22:45] to you in case you want

[5:22:47] to manage public comment.

[5:22:49] >> Yes, please.

[5:22:50] >> Wonderful. Thank you. So I'd

[5:22:52] like to frame it. This is an

[5:22:53] item coming back to the board

[5:22:55] to have a discussion about

[5:22:56] neighborhood parks which is an

[5:22:57] important community asset that

[5:22:58] has been sprouting

[5:23:00] in our different neighborhoods.

[5:23:01] They support health,

[5:23:04] connection and quality

[5:23:05] of life. And today's workshop

[5:23:06] is an opportunity to align and

[5:23:07] get clear understanding

[5:23:09] from the board

[5:23:11] of how we can improve

[5:23:13] on this axis and how it aligns

[5:23:14] with our plans in the

[5:23:18] unincorporated areas. I want

[5:23:20] to thank the staff. This is a

[5:23:22] multi-department effort. So

[5:23:23] this is Wonderful, because

[5:23:25] you'll see the quality

[5:23:26] of the information. We're going

[5:23:28] to lay out the information as

[5:23:29] we know it, and like I said,

[5:23:30] we're going to provide most

[5:23:31] of the time for the board to

[5:23:33] have a discussion and provide

[5:23:35] us direction. We are looking

[5:23:37] for your board guidance,

[5:23:38] specifically your feedback

[5:23:40] on how to prioritize this,

[5:23:41] particularly in how the county

[5:23:44] should focus its role in its

[5:23:46] limited resources towards this

[5:23:48] goal. This is the beginning

[5:23:51] of the conversation in

[5:23:52] addressing neighborhood parks

[5:23:55] needs and will require

[5:23:56] sustained coordination,

[5:23:57] partnerships and continued

[5:23:58] discussion. We expect you will

[5:23:59] need more information,

[5:24:03] and we'll be happy

[5:24:04] to provide it, but this will

[5:24:05] give us a little bit more

[5:24:06] refined tool

[5:24:07] to figure that out. Finally, I

[5:24:08] want to recognize that this

[5:24:09] conversation did start, start

[5:24:11] with the unincorporated ad hoc

[5:24:14] committee, which it was one

[5:24:16] of the topics of discussion.

[5:24:17] The board has heard that in

[5:24:19] their scope and it has raised

[5:24:20] important questions

[5:24:21] about district,

[5:24:22] about possibilities of district

[5:24:24] formation and the different

[5:24:25] ways in which our

[5:24:27] unincorporated communities are

[5:24:28] finding ways

[5:24:29] to create these assets

[5:24:30] on their own. So again,

[5:24:32] we'll be looking

[5:24:33] for your guidance. And

[5:24:34] with that, I will pass it back

[5:24:35] to the chair.

[5:24:38] >> Great. Thank you. And give

[5:24:39] me one second.

[5:24:48] >> Great.

[5:24:50] >> We're going

[5:24:51] to do things a little bit out

[5:24:52] of order. I know there's some

[5:24:53] folks in the audience. If you

[5:24:56] are here and you would like to

[5:24:57] provide public comment and need

[5:24:58] to leave, if you could, please

[5:25:00] raise your hand so I can get a

[5:25:01] sense for how many folks are

[5:25:02] here that needs to shimmy

[5:25:03] on out. Okay, great. If you can

[5:25:05] get in line, everyone will have

[5:25:08] two minutes and then we'll go

[5:25:09] to the presentation. I know

[5:25:12] we're doing it a little

[5:25:13] backwards, but we'd like

[5:25:14] to hear from constituents

[5:25:15] before they have to run,

[5:25:16] if you can. Yes, there will be

[5:25:21] after the presentation. So if

[5:25:23] you're not in a rush,

[5:25:24] hang tight. We'll listen to the

[5:25:26] presentation and then we can go

[5:25:27] from there. If you have

[5:25:29] comments, please get

[5:25:31] in line right now. They're not

[5:25:35] going

[5:25:36] to waive the presentation,

[5:25:37] so I'm going to say 10 minutes.

[5:25:39] 10 minutes. Does nobody need

[5:25:45] to speak now? Okay, great.

[5:25:47] Thank you. Go ahead.

[5:25:52] >> All right. Good afternoon.

[5:25:54] Thank you

[5:25:55] for the introduction, CEO

[5:25:56] Rivera. And thank you, Chair

[5:25:57] Hermosillo. Board Members,

[5:25:59] Council Myers. So, my name is

[5:26:02] Bert Whitaker. I'm the director

[5:26:04] of Sonoma County Regional

[5:26:06] Parks. And just a quick

[5:26:07] overview of our role. So the

[5:26:09] Regional park system today

[5:26:10] encompasses over 60 facilities

[5:26:11] managing nearly 20,000 acres.

[5:26:13] These are predominantly larger

[5:26:15] parks for residents and

[5:26:16] regional visitors

[5:26:17] to gain access

[5:26:18] to open spaces,

[5:26:19] trails and outdoor recreation.

[5:26:20] They protect unique county

[5:26:22] natural and color cultural

[5:26:24] resources and provide access

[5:26:25] to our coast and Russian river

[5:26:26] and the county wide bikeways

[5:26:29] and regional trails we have

[5:26:30] developed connect our

[5:26:31] communities to one another and

[5:26:32] the surrounding open spaces.

[5:26:34] Scott, you want

[5:26:35] to do a quick intro?

[5:26:39] >> Good afternoon,

[5:26:40] everybody. I'm Scott Orr, the

[5:26:41] director for permit Sonoma.

[5:26:45] >> I'm Misty Adias. I'm the

[5:26:47] general manager for Sonoma

[5:26:48] County Agricultural

[5:26:49] Preservation and Open Space

[5:26:50] District.

[5:26:52] >> And anticipated to be

[5:26:53] with us was Johannes Hovric,

[5:26:54] our director

[5:26:55] of public infrastructure. And I

[5:26:57] just texted him. Any word.

[5:26:58] >> Okay.

[5:27:01] >> All right, so let's talk

[5:27:02] about parks a little bit. So

[5:27:04] in Sonoma County, we've got a

[5:27:05] wide variety of types

[5:27:07] of parks. Okay, Just

[5:27:08] to paint the picture here,

[5:27:09] so we've got state parks,

[5:27:10] we've got a number of them,

[5:27:12] and they are rather large,

[5:27:13] typically over 5,000 acres

[5:27:14] in size. We've got regional

[5:27:15] park system,

[5:27:16] typically several hundred

[5:27:17] acres, up to thousands

[5:27:18] of acres in size. We've got a

[5:27:20] variety of community parks,

[5:27:21] typically 10 to 40 acres linear

[5:27:24] parks, also known as bikeways

[5:27:26] in many instances. And then we

[5:27:28] have neighborhood parks. So

[5:27:30] with the focus

[5:27:31] on neighborhood parks, really

[5:27:33] the general themes you see here

[5:27:34] is they act as a recreational

[5:27:35] and social hub

[5:27:36] for the community. They are

[5:27:37] smaller in scale than regional

[5:27:38] or community parks,

[5:27:40] typically less than 10 acres

[5:27:42] and often much smaller than

[5:27:44] that. They're

[5:27:45] within walking distance to

[5:27:46] neighborhoods or the population

[5:27:48] the park is intended

[5:27:49] to serve. And the focus is on

[5:27:50] immediate neighborhood needs as

[5:27:51] opposed to a countywide or

[5:27:52] regional amenity. While

[5:27:53] sometimes managed

[5:27:54] by the county, neighborhood

[5:27:55] parks are often maintained

[5:27:57] by local park districts,

[5:27:58] community service districts,

[5:27:59] local nonprofits, or

[5:28:00] neighborhood groups. I'll talk.

[5:28:01] Turn over here to Director

[5:28:05] Orr.

[5:28:08] >> Thank you very much. So this

[5:28:09] is another good example of how

[5:28:12] the general plan affects pretty

[5:28:14] much everything we talk about

[5:28:16] on anything, whether it's

[5:28:18] airports or today parks. And so

[5:28:20] our public facilities element

[5:28:22] in Our General Plan 2020 does

[5:28:23] reference the importance

[5:28:25] of parks. And I do want

[5:28:29] to make it clear that we, it

[5:28:30] says, assure that park and

[5:28:31] recreation. We do have more

[5:28:33] than one park. But this is the

[5:28:35] verbatim language in our 2020

[5:28:37] general plan.

[5:28:39] But more recently, this last

[5:28:41] summer, the board adopted a new

[5:28:42] environmental justice element,

[5:28:44] which tasks the county staff

[5:28:45] to coordinate

[5:28:47] with each other. So we are here

[5:28:50] today coordinating

[5:28:52] with each other. It's usually a

[5:28:53] good sign that we are carrying

[5:28:54] forth what's

[5:28:56] in the general plan. The way

[5:28:59] that the general plan most

[5:29:00] directly interacts

[5:29:02] with parks is, at least

[5:29:05] through my office is

[5:29:06] through the permitting process.

[5:29:08] So one of the things that will

[5:29:09] be an important discussion as

[5:29:10] part

[5:29:11] of the upcoming general plan

[5:29:12] Is, you know, how do we want to

[5:29:14] make it easier or reduce

[5:29:15] barriers

[5:29:17] for things that we want

[5:29:18] to see. So one example

[5:29:20] of this is right now,

[5:29:21] someone needs to go

[5:29:22] through a use permit process in

[5:29:23] every single zoning district if

[5:29:25] they want to make a park

[5:29:26] in their neighborhood. So we

[5:29:27] know that that's a time

[5:29:29] consuming, arduous process. So

[5:29:31] it's something that we expect

[5:29:32] to talk about

[5:29:34] during the general plan.

[5:29:35] Another thing that the

[5:29:36] environmental justice element

[5:29:38] tasks us with looking at is

[5:29:40] utilizing underutilized spaces

[5:29:46] such as public rights of way.

[5:29:47] And so some

[5:29:48] of the examples that are going

[5:29:49] to be covered today by Sonoma

[5:29:50] county public infrastructure

[5:29:51] are showing how we're already

[5:29:55] doing that, which is another

[5:29:56] good sign that the content

[5:29:57] in the general plan aligns with

[5:29:58] what we're prioritizing today.

[5:29:59] And then I'd also like

[5:30:01] to add that just

[5:30:02] to make sure that someone

[5:30:03] from Permit Sonoma hears all

[5:30:04] of public comment, I'm going

[5:30:07] to be switching with Deputy

[5:30:08] Director of Planning Cecily

[5:30:09] Condon, because I have a

[5:30:11] conflict for the rest

[5:30:13] of the day.

[5:30:14] >> Thank you.

[5:30:15] >> Great. Thank you, Scott. So

[5:30:16] across Sonoma County, there are

[5:30:17] a lot of local examples

[5:30:18] of how parks are created,

[5:30:20] created and operated. The

[5:30:21] primary provider of

[5:30:23] neighborhood parks actually are

[5:30:24] the nine incorporated cities

[5:30:25] and

[5:30:26] in the unincorporated areas.

[5:30:28] Public agency led parks include

[5:30:29] park districts. We have three

[5:30:31] park districts in Sonoma

[5:30:32] County and Camp Meeker,

[5:30:33] Monterillo and Russian river.

[5:30:35] And those are funded

[5:30:36] with parcel taxes and

[5:30:37] from their service areas. The

[5:30:38] regional park system does

[5:30:40] provide some

[5:30:41] of these services,

[5:30:43] primarily because of two

[5:30:44] dissolved park districts, the

[5:30:45] Del Rio woods and the Valley

[5:30:46] of the Moon park and

[5:30:48] Rectangle District. The county

[5:30:52] does receive some revenues

[5:30:53] to help offset operating costs

[5:30:54] for those facilities. School

[5:30:55] sites in our rural areas play

[5:30:56] an important role providing

[5:30:57] park spaces and state laws

[5:30:58] require those facilities be

[5:30:59] available when school is not

[5:31:00] in session. Sonoma Water has

[5:31:02] ownership

[5:31:03] of multiple locations

[5:31:04] with park services operated

[5:31:05] by regional Parks and recently

[5:31:06] acquired a location along

[5:31:08] Mark West Creek in the Wikiup

[5:31:09] area. And community service

[5:31:11] districts that are able

[5:31:12] to provide a mix of services,

[5:31:14] commonly including water,

[5:31:15] wastewater,

[5:31:16] parks or street lighting. And

[5:31:18] we have three

[5:31:19] of those currently

[5:31:20] in the county in Occidental,

[5:31:21] Grayton and Cazadero. Notable

[5:31:22] the Parmito park in Cazadero.

[5:31:24] And our county public

[5:31:25] infrastructure department

[5:31:27] operates the Guerneville Plaza

[5:31:28] and the Guerneville Community

[5:31:29] Plaza. Development driven parks

[5:31:30] are very common

[5:31:32] in our incorporated cities,

[5:31:35] but there are some good

[5:31:36] examples in the unincorporated

[5:31:37] areas as well. Most recently,

[5:31:39] Helen Putnam Regional Park has

[5:31:40] been expanded two times

[5:31:41] with soon to have a third

[5:31:43] expansion as nearby

[5:31:44] subdivisions were created that

[5:31:45] improved neighborhood access

[5:31:47] to this regional facility.

[5:31:48] The Fetter Springs Project

[5:31:51] in the Sonoma Valley.

[5:31:52] >> Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Who

[5:31:54] got that check? Did somebody do

[5:31:55] the politician thing and like

[5:31:56] get a check that they could

[5:31:58] donate to right there? Yeah,

[5:32:03] that's me.

[5:32:04] >> We're not to that comment

[5:32:06] yet. We'll get there, James.

[5:32:07] >> Thank you, Supervisor

[5:32:08] Gore.

[5:32:10] >> Yep.

[5:32:11] >> So the Federer's Hot Spring

[5:32:12] project in the Sonoma Valley is

[5:32:13] a modern example

[5:32:14] of a development Creating

[5:32:15] neighborhood parks that serve

[5:32:16] the residents and regional

[5:32:18] needs were also supported with

[5:32:19] a developer incorporating and

[5:32:20] building a section of the

[5:32:22] Central Sonoma Valley Bikeway

[5:32:25] Trail. Many

[5:32:26] of the subdivisions in the

[5:32:27] county have HOAs that support

[5:32:28] neighborhood parks and projects

[5:32:30] like the Sonoma Developmental

[5:32:31] center will also have need

[5:32:32] for neighborhood parks.

[5:32:34] Community driven parks are also

[5:32:35] quite common

[5:32:36] across many communities with

[5:32:37] local control and management

[5:32:38] by nonprofit groups. Examples

[5:32:40] include the Marquest Community

[5:32:42] park shown here

[5:32:43] in this photo. Very celebratory

[5:32:45] experience. The Riverkeeper

[5:32:47] park in downtown Guerneville

[5:32:50] operated by the Russian

[5:32:51] Riverkeeper, Our Great and

[5:32:52] Green park operated by the

[5:32:53] Great and Green group. The

[5:32:55] Forestville Youth park and

[5:32:56] nonprofit the Pen Grove park

[5:32:58] managed

[5:32:59] by the social firemen. The

[5:33:00] Petaluma river park managed

[5:33:01] by a foundation, number

[5:33:03] of small facilities managed

[5:33:05] by the Ecology center and

[5:33:06] of course Bear Farm owned

[5:33:07] by the city and operated by

[5:33:09] Land Paths. Temporary pop-up

[5:33:11] parks is not really a formal

[5:33:12] category,

[5:33:13] but this concept exists

[5:33:14] in our communities. These are

[5:33:15] temp facilities

[5:33:16] with low cost, often used to

[5:33:18] test a park or activate an

[5:33:19] underused space. And a recent

[5:33:21] example here is the Springs

[5:33:22] Plaza where some trees and

[5:33:24] picnic tables were installed

[5:33:25] for the community

[5:33:26] to utilize the parking lot

[5:33:27] for that purpose. This chart

[5:33:31] help details the most common

[5:33:32] approaches across Bay Area

[5:33:33] counties. Incorporated cities

[5:33:35] are where you see the highest

[5:33:36] concentration

[5:33:37] of neighborhood type parks,

[5:33:39] typically developed

[5:33:40] with funding

[5:33:41] from park impact fees or

[5:33:42] by developers

[5:33:43] with ongoing maintenance costs

[5:33:44] from the General's operating

[5:33:45] the city's general operating

[5:33:46] funds.

[5:33:48] In the unincorporated areas

[5:33:49] of the Bay Area counties,

[5:33:50] it is common to have local park

[5:33:51] district districts, community

[5:33:53] service districts or community

[5:33:54] service areas. Also,

[5:33:56] in some counties,

[5:33:57] neighborhood parks are provided

[5:33:58] through their parks department

[5:33:59] or public works department.

[5:34:01] Regional Park agencies and

[5:34:02] districts are rarely a direct

[5:34:03] provider. We do currently

[5:34:05] operate several neighborhood

[5:34:06] and community parks. Most

[5:34:08] recently we developed Andy's

[5:34:10] Unity Park in Southwest Santa

[5:34:11] Rosa that is likely

[5:34:12] to be included

[5:34:13] in future annexations by the

[5:34:14] city and open space districts.

[5:34:17] Rare rarely play a direct role

[5:34:18] in operating or maintaining

[5:34:19] smaller facilities but can have

[5:34:21] an indirect role such as the

[5:34:22] Community Spaces Matching

[5:34:23] Grant program administered

[5:34:24] by our local AG and Open

[5:34:26] Space. And before I turn this

[5:34:28] over to Misty, just wanted to

[5:34:29] make a final comment here that

[5:34:30] it really is important as we've

[5:34:31] done this research to see that

[5:34:32] across our region, you know,

[5:34:34] all agencies tend to see their

[5:34:35] partnership and funding roles

[5:34:36] growing to meet this needs

[5:34:37] because they are very

[5:34:38] important. Thank you.

[5:34:40] >> Thanks, Bert.

[5:34:42] >> So, as Bert just mentioned,

[5:34:44] Ag and Opens and base. We have

[5:34:45] a unique opportunity here in

[5:34:47] Sonoma County because we're a

[5:34:48] special district that was

[5:34:49] created

[5:34:50] by our visionary voters and

[5:34:51] to conserve natural,

[5:34:52] agricultural and open space

[5:34:55] lands. And as a part

[5:34:56] of that vision, they did ensure

[5:34:57] that funds could go towards

[5:34:58] matching grant or competitive

[5:35:01] grants for urban or community

[5:35:02] open space projects. And these,

[5:35:07] these grants. So this is our

[5:35:08] community spaces matching grant

[5:35:09] program. These grants go

[5:35:11] towards to nonprofit, public

[5:35:12] agency and tribal partners

[5:35:14] to realize open space projects

[5:35:16] within or near communities that

[5:35:18] could be incorporated cities or

[5:35:19] unincorporated communities. We

[5:35:20] prioritize funding

[5:35:23] for projects that are in areas

[5:35:26] that lack open space and parks.

[5:35:27] And I'll show a little bit

[5:35:29] about how we do that in a

[5:35:30] moment. I think it's important

[5:35:32] to note that we don't drive

[5:35:33] these projects. We really

[5:35:34] follow the community lead here

[5:35:35] and, and applicants who are

[5:35:37] advocating for projects that

[5:35:40] are important and needed

[5:35:41] in their communities. Our role

[5:35:43] is to ensure that the land, it

[5:35:45] remains open and undeveloped

[5:35:47] and that our conservation goals

[5:35:48] are met. And we provide funding

[5:35:49] for planning, design,

[5:35:52] construction and

[5:35:53] implementation.

[5:35:56] But these grants do not,

[5:35:57] they do not provide funding for

[5:35:58] ongoing operations and

[5:36:00] maintenance

[5:36:01] of these parks. I think, you

[5:36:04] know, Bert got

[5:36:05] into this a little bit, but

[5:36:06] I'll share a couple high level

[5:36:08] statistics and I won't go

[5:36:10] into great detail

[5:36:11] about the projects just

[5:36:12] to spare us all some time.

[5:36:14] But I did want

[5:36:15] to highlight that through our

[5:36:16] Community Spaces program,

[5:36:17] we have completed 45 grant

[5:36:18] projects awarding $33.4 million

[5:36:20] in funding for these open space

[5:36:22] community type projects. A

[5:36:23] really unique opportunity

[5:36:24] for those of us who live in

[5:36:25] Sonoma County. And we're

[5:36:28] currently working, working

[5:36:29] on an additional 26 projects

[5:36:31] totaling $23.8 million

[5:36:33] in funding. And these

[5:36:35] on the slide here,

[5:36:36] you see some examples

[5:36:37] of these projects. This is just

[5:36:39] narrowing in

[5:36:40] on projects that kind of meet

[5:36:41] that neighborhood park

[5:36:42] definition that Bert mentioned

[5:36:43] earlier. And as Bert mentioned,

[5:36:45] these are done in a myriad

[5:36:46] of ways. So

[5:36:49] with nonprofit partners,

[5:36:50] we have Russian River Rec and

[5:36:52] Parks, Monorillo Rec and

[5:36:54] Parks, we have nonprofit

[5:36:55] community organizations. So

[5:36:57] for instance, in Forestville

[5:37:00] Forever Forestville, that's the

[5:37:02] Forestville Planning

[5:37:03] association. There are

[5:37:04] community groups who have been

[5:37:05] created, informed

[5:37:07] to help support these projects.

[5:37:08] Also, some of our Macs have

[5:37:10] been supportive for community

[5:37:11] services districts. And I would

[5:37:13] say lastly, just that the top

[5:37:17] projects are completed. Those

[5:37:18] are implemented open

[5:37:20] to the public forever.

[5:37:22] Forestville is partially open,

[5:37:23] but not has been fully

[5:37:24] realized. And then the projects

[5:37:26] under in development are

[5:37:28] projects we have accepted

[5:37:29] into the program for funding.

[5:37:30] And then pre application. We

[5:37:34] have received a pre-replication

[5:37:35] and provided technical

[5:37:37] assistance for the

[5:37:38] Forestville Skate Spot and

[5:37:40] Community Park. And that

[5:37:41] project has been invited

[5:37:42] for a full application.

[5:37:45] Lastly, I mentioned park need

[5:37:46] in response to our board. So

[5:37:49] both our board of Directors and

[5:37:51] the County Board of Supervisor

[5:37:52] s. Wanting

[5:37:54] to know what are the needs of

[5:37:55] parks throughout our community

[5:37:57] Regional Parks and AG and

[5:37:59] Open Space partnered to develop

[5:38:00] a digital tool so that we could

[5:38:02] help identify communities in

[5:38:03] Sonoma county that are actually

[5:38:05] lacking publicly accessible

[5:38:06] land, open space and parks.

[5:38:07] And we did this by using

[5:38:11] technology and standards that

[5:38:12] have been established by

[5:38:14] California State Parks and the

[5:38:15] Trust for Public Land, which

[5:38:17] analyzes areas that are

[5:38:19] accessible

[5:38:21] within a 10-minute walk

[5:38:22] to a park or open space. And

[5:38:23] that means the entrance, not

[5:38:25] like a back fence

[5:38:27] of the park or open space. And

[5:38:28] so you can see that

[5:38:30] on the map here, everything in

[5:38:31] green is an area that is

[5:38:32] actually within a distance of

[5:38:34] 10 minutes

[5:38:35] of a park or open space. And

[5:38:37] then also you'll notice

[5:38:38] on this map is our portrait

[5:38:39] of Sonoma Human Developmental

[5:38:41] Index which we also use

[5:38:42] to help prioritize projects.

[5:38:43] With that I will turn it over

[5:38:49] to Johannes.

[5:38:51] >> Good afternoon, Board

[5:38:52] members. Chair Members of the

[5:38:53] Board Johannes

[5:38:54] with public infrastructure.

[5:38:56] The Department of Public

[5:38:57] Infrastructure has been working

[5:38:58] for over eight years

[5:39:00] on one project and three years

[5:39:02] on another project that you

[5:39:04] will see here. We have been

[5:39:06] working on projects within

[5:39:07] District 4 and 5. The

[5:39:09] Geyserville community Plaza,

[5:39:11] Occidental, Russian river and

[5:39:13] Forestville Skate Spot. We have

[5:39:16] been tasked with designing the

[5:39:17] projects not going,

[5:39:20] not taking them all the way to

[5:39:22] construction or operations

[5:39:23] remaining. So the public

[5:39:25] infrastructure is only

[5:39:26] designing these projects. We

[5:39:27] work with the community. All

[5:39:29] the projects came to us and as

[5:39:31] grassroots movements

[5:39:32] from the community. Searching

[5:39:33] for a place where the community

[5:39:35] can gather and exercise.

[5:39:37] In this case

[5:39:39] of the skate park,

[5:39:41] the properties are owned

[5:39:45] by either road Fund or transit

[5:39:46] Fund. There are properties

[5:39:49] parcels that are not the most

[5:39:54] developable state. Two

[5:39:56] of them flood

[5:39:57] during the winter,

[5:39:59] which is ideal

[5:40:01] for the use that we want

[5:40:04] to do. We expect that in the

[5:40:06] future we'll deliver the

[5:40:08] project up to design. And it

[5:40:09] will be at some point that a

[5:40:10] decision would have

[5:40:12] to be made how to fund the

[5:40:14] construction and the

[5:40:16] maintenance and the operations

[5:40:18] of the facility. That is not

[5:40:19] the scope of our involvement

[5:40:20] at this time. The estimated

[5:40:21] cost of construction

[5:40:22] of the projects are on your

[5:40:23] On the last column,

[5:40:25] one caveat. On the Geyserville

[5:40:29] community Plaza, that number

[5:40:31] reflects on hand funding,

[5:40:34] secure funding

[5:40:36] for the project,

[5:40:39] not necessarily what the cost

[5:40:40] of the project is going

[5:40:43] to be. We can only expect that

[5:40:47] the cost will rise

[5:40:49] with time.

[5:40:50] >> Can you clarify? Is that

[5:40:51] the. What you're referring to

[5:40:52] is the estimated construction

[5:40:53] cost or is that the other

[5:40:55] column?

[5:40:56] >> So for the three other

[5:40:58] projects, Supervisor

[5:41:00] Hermosillo, the cost includes

[5:41:03] design and construction.

[5:41:04] For the Geyserville project, it

[5:41:06] only includes the funding that

[5:41:07] has been secured up to date.

[5:41:10] And that is funding from MSTI's

[5:41:15] program and some other state

[5:41:16] program.

[5:41:19] >> Got it.

[5:41:20] >> We hope that it would come

[5:41:21] to a million and a half, but we

[5:41:23] don't expect that it could

[5:41:25] change. So we haven't estimated

[5:41:26] the construction cost.

[5:41:27] >> So that is what. When you

[5:41:30] say it's secured, it's not the

[5:41:31] grant total amount that has

[5:41:33] been received?

[5:41:35] >> It is.

[5:41:37] >> Okay, thank you.

[5:41:38] >> Great. Thank you. We'll turn

[5:41:44] it back to the chair

[5:41:45] for discussion.

[5:41:47] >> Well, there goes the

[5:41:48] discussion. Thank you so much.

[5:41:50] I appreciate it. We're going

[5:41:51] to go

[5:41:52] to public comment if you would

[5:41:54] like to speak

[5:41:55] on this agenda item. Everyone

[5:41:57] will have two minutes. If you

[5:41:59] could line up

[5:42:01] to be efficient. Thank you.

[5:42:08] >> Thank you workshoppers.

[5:42:11] Appreciate it.

[5:42:19] >> Go ahead. Thank you, Chair

[5:42:21] Hermosillo, Supervisor

[5:42:23] Hopkins, Supervisor Rabbitt,

[5:42:26] Coursey and Gore. And also, to

[5:42:28] the park workshoppers really

[5:42:30] appreciate this important

[5:42:32] topic. Thanks for bringing it

[5:42:33] to the agenda. I'm Jackie

[5:42:35] Brazil. I've lived in

[5:42:37] Forestville for 27 years. In

[5:42:40] 2014, my son and I founded

[5:42:42] Forestville Skate Spot

[5:42:43] to create a safe local space

[5:42:45] for our youth. Today we have a

[5:42:48] designated county parcel, a

[5:42:50] site plan that keeps it green

[5:42:52] and open,

[5:42:53] and a community spaces grant

[5:42:54] in progress, as you heard. But

[5:42:55] we have hit a wall and that's

[5:42:58] maintenance

[5:43:02] for an unincorporated,

[5:43:03] underserved community. The

[5:43:05] hurdles to create even a small

[5:43:08] park are massive. Forming a

[5:43:09] special district or passing new

[5:43:12] parcel taxes is insurmountable

[5:43:13] for us and not desired

[5:43:15] by our community. Our due

[5:43:16] diligence is clear. Park

[5:43:20] maintenance should be the

[5:43:22] responsibility of a dedicated

[5:43:23] parks department,

[5:43:25] not a grassroots nonprofit.

[5:43:28] This is exactly what we

[5:43:29] believed Measure M was for.

[5:43:33] Unincorporated Sonoma County is

[5:43:34] lacking

[5:43:35] in public neighborhood parks.

[5:43:38] While we love regional parks,

[5:43:41] many are 30-minute drive away,

[5:43:44] so not within the 10-minute

[5:43:45] walkable allotment

[5:43:48] of the park,

[5:43:49] making them inaccessible

[5:43:51] to rural youth. Measure M was

[5:43:52] billed as parks for all, yet it

[5:43:54] primarily funds larger regional

[5:43:55] spaces and city parks but

[5:43:57] leaves small town parks behind.

[5:44:03] We aren't asking regional parks

[5:44:05] to build our park. We're asking

[5:44:07] to be your partner as your new

[5:44:09] belonging's framework aspires

[5:44:11] to. Our community is already

[5:44:14] raising funds and we will

[5:44:16] provide stewardship,

[5:44:18] stewardship for the park. We

[5:44:20] only ask that the park's

[5:44:21] department handle maintenance.

[5:44:23] A two point.

[5:44:24] >> Thank you. That is your

[5:44:25] time. Oh, okay.

[5:44:26] >> Thank you.

[5:44:28] >> And then.

[5:44:33] >> Good afternoon. My name is

[5:44:34] James Williams. I'm a

[5:44:36] Forestville resident, a local

[5:44:37] business owner and a board

[5:44:38] member of the Forestville

[5:44:39] Skate Spot. I want

[5:44:40] to thank the board

[5:44:42] for holding this workshop and

[5:44:45] for the support provided thus

[5:44:47] far in our effort

[5:44:49] to establish a neighborhood

[5:44:51] park in our town. Growing up

[5:44:52] skateboarding

[5:44:53] in the 80s and 90s,

[5:44:54] I spent my youth being chased

[5:44:55] out of parking lots and plazas.

[5:44:56] I'm here today because I wish

[5:44:57] someone had advocated

[5:44:58] for a safe, dedicated space

[5:45:00] for me to skate back then.

[5:45:01] Now, as a business owner and

[5:45:03] neighbor, I feel it's my duty

[5:45:04] to be that advocate

[5:45:07] for youth growing up today.

[5:45:08] Forestville Skate Spot has been

[5:45:10] active for over a decade

[5:45:11] raising community awareness and

[5:45:13] support,

[5:45:14] raising funds and making plans

[5:45:15] for an inclusive welcoming

[5:45:17] space. What we're missing is a

[5:45:18] formal plan

[5:45:19] for long-term maintenance. We

[5:45:21] believe the solution is

[5:45:23] Sonoma County Regional Parks.

[5:45:25] They already operate a

[5:45:26] maintenance hub at

[5:45:28] Forestville's El Molino campus

[5:45:29] which is just a two-minute

[5:45:31] drive from our site. This seems

[5:45:32] to be a common sense, efficient

[5:45:34] partnership that bridges the

[5:45:35] service gap

[5:45:36] for unincorporated towns

[5:45:37] like ours. Forestville Skate

[5:45:38] Spot is ready to serve as the

[5:45:39] long-term stewards

[5:45:41] of the park. But we need a

[5:45:42] county agency partner

[5:45:43] to make this vision a reality.

[5:45:45] We respectfully ask the board

[5:45:46] to empower and fund regional

[5:45:48] parks to take on this role

[5:45:49] for our neighborhood. Thank you

[5:45:51] for your time and support.

[5:45:53] >> Thank you. Hi. You can

[5:46:00] adjust the podium if that's

[5:46:01] helpful.

[5:46:07] >> Hello, my name is Lila and I

[5:46:09] would like a skate park in

[5:46:10] Forestville because it would be

[5:46:11] easier to get to it instead

[5:46:13] of driving. Instead of driving

[5:46:15] like 20 or 30 minutes to get

[5:46:17] to it. And also I would take

[5:46:19] good care

[5:46:22] of it and not destroy it.

[5:46:24] Thank you for your time.

[5:46:28] >> Thank you.

[5:46:33] >> Hi, my name is Camille.

[5:46:34] Lyla is my daughter.

[5:46:36] Skateboarding has provided my

[5:46:37] kids with a low key,

[5:46:38] inviting and inclusive place

[5:46:40] to do sports. My daughter feels

[5:46:43] empowered and it is a

[5:46:45] multi-generational community

[5:46:46] sport. Forestville has strong

[5:46:48] community engagement across

[5:46:50] generations as you can see

[5:46:51] by this effort to build a skate

[5:46:52] park that has been going on

[5:46:55] for over 10 years. I have no

[5:47:00] doubt that we will be able

[5:47:01] to provide regular,

[5:47:02] strong involvement in helping

[5:47:04] to take care of the skate park

[5:47:05] and it would be treasured and

[5:47:06] valued.

[5:47:10] >> Thank you. Thanks Bert.

[5:47:23] >> Good afternoon. My name is

[5:47:25] Oscar A.B. foster. And I live

[5:47:27] in Forestville. And attend

[5:47:29] Forestville Elementary

[5:47:31] School. Our town needs a skate

[5:47:32] park where my. I can. Where I

[5:47:34] can go skateboarding. And spend

[5:47:37] time outside with my friends.

[5:47:39] If I want

[5:47:41] to go skateboarding now,

[5:47:43] my parents have to drive me

[5:47:45] to Monte Rio Skatepark. Or

[5:47:47] somewhere else even. Even

[5:47:49] farther away. If I'm lucky,

[5:47:51] I can go over to my friend

[5:47:52] Heath's house. And we can

[5:47:54] skateboard together

[5:47:56] in his driveway. But it would

[5:47:58] be better if we had our own

[5:47:59] park in Forestville. Where

[5:48:02] other kids who want to go

[5:48:03] to who want to go to who want

[5:48:05] to skate can go. Not everyone

[5:48:09] can drive to Monte Rio or go.

[5:48:11] And not everyone can go

[5:48:12] to his house. Thank you.

[5:48:17] >> Thank you.

[5:48:19] >> All right.

[5:48:33] >> Good afternoon. My name is

[5:48:34] Timothy Foster. I am one

[5:48:36] of the parents of Oscar. Who

[5:48:37] you just heard from. We are

[5:48:38] residents of Forestville. I am

[5:48:41] here today to encourage the

[5:48:42] Board of Supervisor s to act

[5:48:43] by removing any impediments.

[5:48:46] That exist now and may exist

[5:48:49] in the future. That would

[5:48:50] prevent the creation of

[5:48:51] Forestville's skate park. As

[5:48:54] well as other community parks.

[5:48:55] And similarly overlooked

[5:48:57] unincorporated communities in

[5:48:58] Sonoma County. I believe the

[5:49:01] skate park and community

[5:49:02] garden. Would be a vital part

[5:49:04] of supporting our youth. And

[5:49:06] develop athletically,

[5:49:07] socially.

[5:49:10] In supporting our parents

[5:49:11] by giving them a nearby option.

[5:49:12] To foster the interests

[5:49:14] of their young skaters. And

[5:49:16] to support the wider community.

[5:49:18] By being a place where

[5:49:20] neighbors can come together.

[5:49:22] Forestville has two other local

[5:49:23] parks. The Forestville Youth

[5:49:25] park. Is home to several

[5:49:27] Little League baseball teams. A

[5:49:29] playground. And hosts many

[5:49:31] birthday parties throughout the

[5:49:33] year. There's also the downtown

[5:49:34] Oaks Park. That is home to

[5:49:35] Forestville Farmers Market. An

[5:49:37] annual Pie in the park

[5:49:39] Fundraiser. And on May 9th,

[5:49:41] we'll be the host

[5:49:43] to the third annual

[5:49:44] Forestville Skate Spot 5K Fun

[5:49:47] Run. But neither

[5:49:49] of these parks are equipped to

[5:49:50] serve the skateboarding

[5:49:52] community. These parks are

[5:49:53] privately owned and funded.

[5:49:55] By the residents of

[5:49:56] Forestville. Because they are

[5:49:57] vital to our community. I

[5:49:59] encourage the board

[5:50:01] to recognize the value.

[5:50:02] Of the Forestville Skates

[5:50:03] Park Project and others

[5:50:05] like it. And do as the

[5:50:07] residents of Forestville have

[5:50:09] already done. And support our

[5:50:10] parks and support

[5:50:12] Forestville. Thank you.

[5:50:31] >> Hi. My name is Sage and I

[5:50:38] live in Forestville. I go to

[5:50:41] Forestville Elementary. When I

[5:50:42] first moved here, I joined the

[5:50:45] skateboarding club and it has

[5:50:46] been so much fun. What I love

[5:50:49] most is being with my friends

[5:50:52] while skateboarding. I would

[5:50:53] love skate park that's

[5:50:55] near me, that's not 30 minutes

[5:50:56] away. I promise I'd take good

[5:50:57] care of it. Thank you

[5:50:58] for your time.

[5:50:59] >> Thank you.

[5:51:00] >> Hello. My name is N.

[5:51:02] Sagado. I made this skate park

[5:51:05] last year. Awesome. Why? I

[5:51:11] think. I wish it. I think I

[5:51:14] should. We should have the

[5:51:15] skate park is because I don't

[5:51:16] have to go all the way to

[5:51:18] like monorail skate park or

[5:51:19] like go to like Durnville

[5:51:20] to go skateboarding and so like

[5:51:23] everyone can come together and

[5:51:27] just start skateboarding.

[5:51:30] Thank you.

[5:51:31] >> Thank you.

[5:51:43] >> My name is Heath. I'm nine

[5:51:45] years old and I live in

[5:51:48] Forestville. I think we deserve

[5:51:50] a skate park in Forestville

[5:51:54] because I don't want to have

[5:51:57] to drive 30 minutes to

[5:52:01] Monterrey and I just want

[5:52:02] to skate with my friends.

[5:52:03] Thank you.

[5:52:05] >> Thank you. Okay, go ahead.

[5:52:19] >> Hello, my name is Leo and.

[5:52:22] And I'm six years old. I think

[5:52:24] we should have a skate park

[5:52:26] in Forestville. It's because.

[5:52:30] It's because I like to. I

[5:52:32] like to. I like to go on my

[5:52:36] bike and also I think it's. I

[5:52:39] don't think we should drive 30

[5:52:43] minutes and I. Sometimes I get

[5:52:46] bored in the car.

[5:52:51] >> Good job.

[5:53:07] >> Hi, I'm Camille and I'm also

[5:53:09] a resident of Forestville and

[5:53:11] I'm on the board of Volunteer

[5:53:13] board of Forestville Skate

[5:53:14] Park. Those are my kids. And we

[5:53:19] often travel to Maxwell Farm

[5:53:21] Skate Park, Monorillo

[5:53:23] Creekside park, and the

[5:53:25] Carson Warner Memorial Skate

[5:53:26] park in Healdsburg. Skate parks

[5:53:28] are essential Parks

[5:53:29] for youth. They teach my kids

[5:53:30] valuable skills like resilience

[5:53:31] and problem solving, and they

[5:53:33] provide healthy outdoor

[5:53:35] activities. Forestville is a

[5:53:37] small town and unfortunately,

[5:53:39] in the patchwork of special

[5:53:41] districts that cover the rural

[5:53:43] parts of Sonoma county, our

[5:53:44] town doesn't have an agency

[5:53:46] that can provide management and

[5:53:47] oversight

[5:53:49] of public parks. I'm here today

[5:53:51] to ask the Board of

[5:53:52] Supervisors, Public

[5:53:54] Infrastructure Department,

[5:53:55] Sonoma County Regional Parks,

[5:53:57] to collaboratively find a

[5:53:58] solution to fill this gap

[5:53:59] in services so communities

[5:54:01] like ours can also have access

[5:54:03] to public parks. I realize it's

[5:54:06] difficult for county agencies

[5:54:07] to take on new projects. Many

[5:54:09] are overwhelmed. We aren't

[5:54:11] aware of all the barriers and

[5:54:13] reasons why taking

[5:54:14] on management

[5:54:15] of the park is so difficult.

[5:54:17] We just feel frustrated that we

[5:54:18] don't have access

[5:54:19] to public parks

[5:54:21] in our neighborhood.

[5:54:22] Forestville Skate Spot is

[5:54:24] willing to be a partner in the

[5:54:25] long term maintenance and

[5:54:28] operations of the future park.

[5:54:29] But we ask that Sonoma County

[5:54:30] Regional Parks share openly

[5:54:32] their hesitation

[5:54:33] with partnering

[5:54:34] with us so that we can help

[5:54:36] to find a solution. And I

[5:54:37] invite you all to collaborate

[5:54:39] with us and overcome challenges

[5:54:40] and obstacles to establishing

[5:54:42] the long term maintenance

[5:54:44] of our park. And just want

[5:54:46] to say thank you to the Board

[5:54:47] of Supervisors, the AG and

[5:54:49] Open Space District County

[5:54:50] Public Infrastructure

[5:54:52] for your support

[5:54:53] of our project. And also thank

[5:54:55] you to Sonoma County Regional

[5:54:57] Parks for your work

[5:54:59] across the county on all the

[5:55:01] beautiful parks that we have

[5:55:02] access to. And we welcome an

[5:55:05] open and collaborative

[5:55:06] relationship. Thank you.

[5:55:07] >> Thank you.

[5:55:15] >> Hi, I'm Tara Racine. I'm

[5:55:17] Sage's mom and we live in the

[5:55:19] Forestville School District.

[5:55:22] When we moved here last year,

[5:55:23] we were thrilled that Sage

[5:55:25] could join the Forestville

[5:55:27] Skate Spot

[5:55:29] after school program. And

[5:55:30] for such a small town, this is

[5:55:32] an incredibly impressive

[5:55:34] organization. It's a positive,

[5:55:36] supportive group, as you can

[5:55:38] see, focused on building both

[5:55:40] physical skills and good

[5:55:43] character. As parents,

[5:55:46] we love seeing our kids

[5:55:48] outdoors, moving their bodies

[5:55:51] and connecting

[5:55:53] with real people

[5:55:56] in real time. It's no secret

[5:55:58] that kids today are

[5:56:00] in a crisis. Parents need help

[5:56:02] physically,

[5:56:05] socially and mentally. Due

[5:56:07] to the sedentary nature

[5:56:08] of digital life. Experts,

[5:56:11] doctors and therapists are all

[5:56:12] telling us the same thing. Our

[5:56:15] children desperately need

[5:56:16] to move their bodies,

[5:56:18] get outdoors and spend time

[5:56:20] with the local community,

[5:56:23] connecting with people. The

[5:56:29] Forestville Skate Spot

[5:56:31] Community park isn't just a

[5:56:34] hobby. It's a solution

[5:56:36] to those challenges. That's why

[5:56:39] I'm asking you

[5:56:41] to designate funds to support

[5:56:44] Sonoma County Regional Parks

[5:56:46] in order to support the

[5:56:48] Forestville Skate Spot

[5:56:49] Neighborhood Park's long term

[5:56:51] maintenance. You have the

[5:56:53] Power

[5:56:55] to make a massive lasting

[5:56:57] impact on a rural town here

[5:56:59] in West County.

[5:57:02] By approving this funding, you

[5:57:04] will help create a public space

[5:57:06] in our town unlike any other,

[5:57:07] where kids and families can

[5:57:09] exercise and connect. Please

[5:57:13] provide Sonoma County

[5:57:14] Regional Parks

[5:57:16] with the resources they need

[5:57:18] to serve our youth. Thank you.

[5:57:20] And our rural community. Thank

[5:57:22] you. Thank you. That's as

[5:57:29] opposite goes.

[5:57:31] >> I thank you all

[5:57:41] for your time. My name is

[5:57:43] Mose Portal. I'm a skateboarder

[5:57:45] from the Russian river and a

[5:57:46] committee member for Safe

[5:57:48] Spaces Skate, including having

[5:57:50] done work with the Monterey

[5:57:53] Skate park and now the

[5:57:54] Forestville Skate Spot. The

[5:57:56] reason Forestville is

[5:57:57] in dire need of a skate park is

[5:57:58] because when I grew up here, my

[5:58:00] friends got bored and didn't

[5:58:01] have a safe place to have fun

[5:58:04] or challenge themselves. And we

[5:58:05] know how, we all know how

[5:58:06] dangerous that can be

[5:58:08] for developing minds.

[5:58:10] Skateboarding saved me and kept

[5:58:11] me from trying any drugs or

[5:58:13] alcohol my entire life. And I

[5:58:14] owe it so much for that. Yay

[5:58:17] for skateboarding. It's helped

[5:58:21] me become a man and I want

[5:58:22] to see kids, my friends, many

[5:58:24] have shown up here today and I

[5:58:25] have something to look forward

[5:58:27] to in Forestville for years

[5:58:29] to come. The location is

[5:58:31] perfect, right on

[5:58:32] Packinghouse Road as you're

[5:58:33] heading into Forestville from

[5:58:35] Grayton. And the time is better

[5:58:37] than any. The people have

[5:58:38] spoken with their dollars

[5:58:39] of support and

[5:58:40] to the cause and we want

[5:58:41] to deliver. So we need a long

[5:58:43] term maintenance and operations

[5:58:44] providers. Forestville is

[5:58:45] unincorporated, so we

[5:58:47] respectfully ask that you

[5:58:48] address the areas in need with

[5:58:50] any potential solutions. I've

[5:58:51] been a long time supporter

[5:58:53] for upkeep on skate parks and

[5:58:54] volunteer myself to be a

[5:58:56] steward when this park's vision

[5:58:57] is finally seen. I hope we can

[5:58:59] work with the regional parks

[5:59:00] and the community

[5:59:02] to make sure this park stays

[5:59:03] in immaculate condition

[5:59:05] for years to come. Thank you

[5:59:07] for having me here

[5:59:08] to speak.

[5:59:09] >> Thank you.

[5:59:16] >> Good afternoon. My name is

[5:59:17] Ellery and I am here today as a

[5:59:19] skateboarder, as a member

[5:59:21] of the Forestville community,

[5:59:22] and as my mom said earlier,

[5:59:24] one of the founding members

[5:59:26] alongside her of the Forestville

[5:59:27] Skate Spot project. For me,

[5:59:29] skateboarding has never been

[5:59:30] just a hobby. It's something

[5:59:31] that's given me confidence,

[5:59:32] a sense of purpose,

[5:59:33] and it has taught me

[5:59:35] to overcome risk aversion

[5:59:36] in all areas of my life. It

[5:59:37] keeps people like me active,

[5:59:39] focused, and as we just heard

[5:59:40] from Mose, keeps us out

[5:59:42] of trouble. But right now in

[5:59:44] Forestville, we don't have a

[5:59:45] safe place to skate. And

[5:59:48] because of that Skaters are

[5:59:49] forced to leave their own very

[5:59:50] community just to participate

[5:59:52] in the activity that they love.

[5:59:53] A skate park isn't just a safe

[5:59:54] place to ride. It's a place

[5:59:56] that brings people together and

[5:59:57] gives youth a positive outlet,

[5:59:58] whether you choose

[6:00:00] to skateboard or not. As

[6:00:01] skateboarders, we also

[6:00:03] understand the responsibility

[6:00:04] that comes with having a space

[6:00:05] like this.

[6:00:06] Across communities,

[6:00:07] skaters take pride

[6:00:08] in maintaining their parks,

[6:00:09] picking up trash,

[6:00:11] respecting the space,

[6:00:12] and looking out

[6:00:13] for one another. If and when

[6:00:14] Forestville builds a skate

[6:00:15] park, we will take ownership of

[6:00:16] it alongside the entity that

[6:00:18] decides to maintain it

[6:00:20] with us. The benefits of a

[6:00:22] skate park extend much further

[6:00:23] than just to those who skate.

[6:00:25] We've already heard from Bert

[6:00:27] here, and we've seen what a

[6:00:28] skate park can do

[6:00:29] for a community. Nearby in

[6:00:31] Santa Rosa. The one I'm

[6:00:32] speaking of is Andy's Unity

[6:00:34] park, and it was built

[6:00:35] with the help

[6:00:36] of regional parks. It became a

[6:00:38] place for youth, families,

[6:00:41] and also for connection.

[6:00:42] But that space only came

[6:00:43] after a tragedy, the loss

[6:00:45] of a young boy, Andy Lopez. It

[6:00:46] should never take a tragedy

[6:00:48] to create a safe place

[6:00:49] for young people

[6:00:52] in any community. So today we

[6:00:54] have the opportunity

[6:00:56] to build something positive,

[6:00:58] something that supports youth

[6:00:59] and promotes community. I ask

[6:01:01] you to consider what a skate

[6:01:02] park could mean

[6:01:03] for this community, not just

[6:01:04] for skaters, but

[6:01:06] for everyone. Thank you.

[6:01:13] >> And let's all be aware that

[6:01:14] that young man,

[6:01:15] this was a senior project

[6:01:16] over 10 years ago,

[6:01:17] and he's the guy who kind

[6:01:18] of started it all. So thanks,

[6:01:20] Ellery, for that. Go

[6:01:23] down a little bit. My name is

[6:01:24] Lucy Hardcastle. I am president

[6:01:26] of what is now known as the

[6:01:28] Forestville Partnership

[6:01:29] alliance, formerly the

[6:01:31] Forestville Planning

[6:01:32] Association. And I'm here

[6:01:35] to speak on behalf the county

[6:01:38] in front of all of you, to ask

[6:01:39] to open up your minds a little

[6:01:42] bit and see if there is a way

[6:01:44] to work together

[6:01:46] with community parks. We

[6:01:48] probably all know that study

[6:01:49] after study shows that people,

[6:01:51] humans,

[6:01:52] do better when they have access

[6:01:53] to nature and the outdoors.

[6:01:56] Some of our population, easy

[6:01:57] access, state, city, county

[6:01:59] parks, Others, not so much,

[6:02:02] especially the young and the

[6:02:04] elderly. It's important

[6:02:05] for us as well to have access

[6:02:07] to green spaces where we can

[6:02:10] relax, renew, and even play.

[6:02:11] You can find a lot

[6:02:13] of these spaces tucked

[6:02:14] into cities themselves. Little

[6:02:15] tiny parks

[6:02:17] within walking distance.

[6:02:19] But not so much

[6:02:20] in unincorporated West

[6:02:22] County. As a matter of fact,

[6:02:25] almost all

[6:02:28] of the open space you see in

[6:02:29] west county is privately owned.

[6:02:30] It's inaccessible. Some scrappy

[6:02:32] nonprofits have carved

[6:02:35] out privately owned

[6:02:37] but publicly open

[6:02:38] to the public, parcels which

[6:02:40] very much serve a community

[6:02:41] need. But more even important

[6:02:43] than that is they create a

[6:02:44] strong community

[6:02:45] by their very existence. The

[6:02:47] forceful farmers market,

[6:02:48] the fun runs, pie

[6:02:50] in the park,

[6:02:53] holiday tree lighting at the

[6:02:56] Forestville downtown Oaks park

[6:02:58] comes to mind. Also known as

[6:03:00] Forever Forestville

[6:03:02] for ag and open space folks,

[6:03:03] the youth park has served up

[6:03:05] decades

[6:03:06] of small town community fun.

[6:03:07] Residents have spent their

[6:03:09] summers at the youth park

[6:03:12] playing baseball. Maybe their

[6:03:13] first job was working the

[6:03:15] concession stand. Family

[6:03:16] attends movies in the park.

[6:03:18] Easter egg hunt coming up

[6:03:19] pretty soon, April 4th. And

[6:03:21] thousands enjoy their youth

[6:03:23] park barbecue. These

[6:03:24] experiences,

[6:03:26] as vital as they are

[6:03:27] to the spirit

[6:03:29] of our community,

[6:03:30] are not that easy to create.

[6:03:32] Thank you so much. So hope you

[6:03:33] can help us.

[6:03:38] >> Hi, I'm Bess Da Copestakes.

[6:03:39] I've been a resident of

[6:03:41] Forestville for 36 years. Both

[6:03:43] of my granddaughters were

[6:03:45] skaters with skateboards and

[6:03:48] very long boards. Everything

[6:03:50] you can put wheels

[6:03:51] on your feet.

[6:03:53] But we always had

[6:03:54] to take them other places.

[6:03:55] Monoria was one of the best

[6:03:57] because it took them 10 years

[6:03:58] to establish that skate park.

[6:04:00] But you have to get

[6:04:01] on a bus if you're an

[6:04:03] individual to get there or rely

[6:04:04] upon parents

[6:04:05] for transportation. Other than

[6:04:06] that, we went to other towns

[6:04:08] for skates. Forestville is very

[6:04:10] oriented towards families.

[6:04:13] It's family friendly

[6:04:14] Forestville. So everything we

[6:04:15] do is family oriented. The

[6:04:17] youth park is team sports. The

[6:04:19] downtown park is community

[6:04:21] gatherings. But we really need

[6:04:23] something that's for

[6:04:24] individuals and individuals,

[6:04:26] especially children who can

[6:04:27] come out

[6:04:28] of their school and go straight

[6:04:30] to a skate park

[6:04:31] to spend time, maybe

[6:04:32] until their parents pick them

[6:04:33] up after school. It's also

[6:04:35] accessible to Grayton because

[6:04:36] the regional park's West

[6:04:38] County Trail goes all the way

[6:04:39] from Sebastopol to. To

[6:04:41] Forestville and ends right

[6:04:43] there. It's an opportunity

[6:04:45] for not just Forestville youth

[6:04:46] and families, but also for the

[6:04:48] surrounding communities because

[6:04:50] the buses will go right there

[6:04:51] too. It's so easy and

[6:04:53] accessible.

[6:04:55] But the one thing we don't have

[6:04:56] around the whole,

[6:04:59] in our whole, all our parks is

[6:05:00] maintenance that's paid

[6:05:01] for outside

[6:05:03] of our volunteer time. And so

[6:05:04] we all take care

[6:05:06] of our parks, all

[6:05:07] of our parks.

[6:05:08] But this is one that's probably

[6:05:10] beyond us. And that's why we

[6:05:11] really need some help. It's a

[6:05:12] very structured and serious

[6:05:14] infrastructure creating this

[6:05:15] skate park. So it would be

[6:05:17] essential, in essence,

[6:05:18] to have that help from

[6:05:20] Regional Parks, which is

[6:05:22] already in Forestville

[6:05:24] with the West County Trail and

[6:05:25] their maintenance yard up

[6:05:27] at the El Molino campus. So

[6:05:28] it's perfect. Absolutely

[6:05:30] perfect. Right. Thank you.

[6:05:32] >> Thank you.

[6:05:41] >> Hello. My name is Deborah

[6:05:43] Cabria. I live in downtown

[6:05:45] Sebastopol. I was volunteer

[6:05:48] with a nonprofit West County

[6:05:50] Skate park. We got the Lagoon

[6:05:52] Escape Garden built

[6:05:54] with the help from Kenyon

[6:05:57] Webster, the city planner and

[6:05:58] other city officials, the

[6:06:00] youth, parents, grandparents

[6:06:02] and all the other volunteers.

[6:06:03] It brought the youth together

[6:06:05] to rally for their park. It was

[6:06:07] a wonderful experience

[6:06:08] for all involved and continues

[6:06:10] to be enjoyed by all. We dealt

[6:06:14] with questions that came up and

[6:06:16] we all solved them together.

[6:06:18] We persevered. What a great

[6:06:20] experience and lesson to teach

[6:06:23] our children. I believe it's

[6:06:25] the most used park in

[6:06:26] Sebastopol. We had and have

[6:06:28] volunteers that participate

[6:06:31] in activities. For example,

[6:06:33] the volunteers that were set up

[6:06:34] for locking the park

[6:06:36] in the evening.

[6:06:38] Till this day,

[6:06:40] a volunteer locks it

[6:06:41] at night and keeps in touch

[6:06:43] with city officials. I also

[6:06:44] remember being in touch with

[6:06:46] Dante who used the public work,

[6:06:47] who used to be the public work

[6:06:49] superintendent to ask any

[6:06:50] questions. I urged the board

[6:06:53] to designate and fund Sonoma

[6:06:55] County Regional Parks as long

[6:06:57] term maintenance provider

[6:07:01] for the Forestville Escape

[6:07:03] Spot Neighborhood Park. SCRP

[6:07:07] already has a maintenance hub

[6:07:08] in El Molino just a two minute

[6:07:09] drive from our site. This is an

[6:07:11] efficient, common sense

[6:07:13] solution that honors the intent

[6:07:14] of the Measure M parks. For all

[6:07:17] funds our community

[6:07:19] overwhelmingly supported.

[6:07:21] Please provide SCRP the

[6:07:22] resources they need to serve

[6:07:26] our youth and families. Thank

[6:07:27] you very much.

[6:07:30] >> Thank you.

[6:07:32] >> Thank you.

[6:07:38] >> Greetings. My name is

[6:07:40] Timothy, last name is Lane. I

[6:07:41] live in Sebastopol and I've had

[6:07:43] the pleasure of working with

[6:07:44] Deborah and many other people

[6:07:46] in Sebastopol to get our skate

[6:07:47] park built and maintained

[6:07:50] over the years. It's been 18

[6:07:52] plus years now and it's been

[6:07:53] been a real honor to be part

[6:07:55] of that. And I'd like

[6:07:56] to thank you all

[6:07:57] for your service

[6:07:58] to our communities. I moved

[6:07:59] to Sebastopol from San

[6:08:00] Francisco in 1996. Great place

[6:08:01] to raise my kids and I'm now

[6:08:03] proudly. I'm going to be a

[6:08:04] second grandfather here coming

[6:08:06] up next month. And I'm just

[6:08:08] deeply grateful for everything

[6:08:09] that my children were able

[6:08:10] to receive

[6:08:12] from the communities here.

[6:08:14] Jackie called to kind of get

[6:08:17] the ball rolling years ago when

[6:08:19] she needed a little bit

[6:08:22] of feedback and information

[6:08:23] about our experiences. And

[6:08:26] these are the small steps that

[6:08:28] we take as community to share

[6:08:29] our knowledge and experiences

[6:08:31] together

[6:08:33] to enrich our community.

[6:08:35] There's no doubt that, I mean,

[6:08:37] it's a tough act to follow when

[6:08:38] you've got these amazing kids

[6:08:39] bringing tears to our eyes,

[6:08:40] you know, expressing themselves

[6:08:41] and it's just truly incredible.

[6:08:45] I guess the Best thing I could

[6:08:47] say here is in Sebastopol,

[6:08:48] we've done our best

[6:08:50] to maintain the community, or

[6:08:52] rather the park and ensure that

[6:08:53] it's a clean,

[6:08:55] positive environment

[6:08:56] for kids. And we,

[6:08:59] as a skateboard community,

[6:09:01] we do the best that we can to

[6:09:04] self police and if something

[6:09:05] that maybe is inappropriate is

[6:09:09] happening, we speak up. And

[6:09:11] that in turn, generationally,

[6:09:13] I guess you could say,

[6:09:15] is passed on. You know,

[6:09:16] there was kids that I had

[6:09:18] to put in check 10 or 15 years

[6:09:19] ago and I'm friends

[6:09:20] with them now. And every time I

[6:09:22] go to the skate park,

[6:09:23] I've got a new, you know, 14,

[6:09:24] 20 year old friend or whatever.

[6:09:26] So as an old geezer that still

[6:09:28] is out there skating,

[6:09:29] I'm grateful for this

[6:09:31] opportunity and grateful

[6:09:33] to be part of this community.

[6:09:34] Thank you for your time.

[6:09:36] >> Thank you.

[6:09:42] >> Good afternoon, I'm

[6:09:43] Jennifer Trauman and I am a

[6:09:45] Forceville resident and a board

[6:09:47] member of the Forceville

[6:09:49] Skate Spot. I wanted

[6:09:51] to thank the board, the public

[6:09:52] infrastructure, regional parks,

[6:09:53] for this opportunity

[6:09:55] to discuss, you know, this very

[6:09:57] needed neighborhood parks.

[6:10:00] When I retired 36 years ago,

[6:10:03] or no, no, not 36 years ago,

[6:10:09] that makes me really old. I

[6:10:10] retired from 36 years

[6:10:11] of county service. It was

[6:10:13] Supervisor Hopkins that thanked

[6:10:14] me for my years

[6:10:15] of service and she said,

[6:10:16] you no longer work for us. We

[6:10:18] as the board work for you. And

[6:10:19] I never thought

[6:10:21] about it that way,

[6:10:23] but here I am. So I am

[6:10:25] passionate about this skate

[6:10:27] park and this project

[6:10:29] for our beautiful town. We are

[6:10:31] in desperate need of a place

[6:10:33] for kids to play and families

[6:10:34] to gather. I raised my kids

[6:10:36] in Forestville and although

[6:10:38] they love the community,

[6:10:40] they dubbed our town

[6:10:42] Boersville due to the lack

[6:10:45] of things

[6:10:46] to do. I often drove them up

[6:10:48] to Healdsburg to skate there.

[6:10:50] It would have been a fantastic

[6:10:52] opportunity to have a park

[6:10:53] to walk to. The process to

[6:10:56] maintain and operate a

[6:11:00] neighborhood park is not

[6:11:02] realistic for our small team

[6:11:03] and limited resources. We did

[6:11:06] understand that maybe measure M

[6:11:07] could address this. The

[6:11:09] infrastructure in place at

[6:11:10] regional parks makes sense as

[6:11:12] they are equipped with the

[6:11:14] personnel and the expertise

[6:11:17] to operate parks. The costs

[6:11:20] associated with the maintenance

[6:11:21] and operations

[6:11:23] of our very small park are low.

[6:11:26] And with the stewards

[6:11:28] of the state skate park

[6:11:29] in conjunction

[6:11:31] with regional parks, it makes

[6:11:32] it achievable and inexpensive.

[6:11:35] We highly encourage the board

[6:11:36] to consider assigning the

[6:11:38] maintenance and operations

[6:11:39] of the forceful skate spot

[6:11:40] to regional parks. And thank

[6:11:42] you for your time.

[6:11:48] >> Let's give it up for these

[6:11:50] kids that showed up today,

[6:11:51] huh? How awesome

[6:11:54] to stand up here. You guys are

[6:11:56] awesome. So good and well

[6:11:57] Behaved, right. Awesome.

[6:11:58] Great. So let's give them a

[6:12:01] skate park already. Come on.

[6:12:03] Right. My name is Eric. I've

[6:12:05] been skateboarding, obviously

[6:12:07] for over four decades.

[6:12:09] Inherently. I'm a builder too,

[6:12:11] you know,

[6:12:12] being a skateboarder. And so we

[6:12:14] know how to, you know,

[6:12:15] if you build it right, it won't

[6:12:16] need hardly any maintenance

[6:12:18] at all. It's

[6:12:20] like the easiest thing. What

[6:12:21] you need a broom, right? And

[6:12:22] the kids skate in it,

[6:12:23] are going to take care of it,

[6:12:24] Trust me. They're going

[6:12:25] to be there every day.

[6:12:27] Like they said. It was going

[6:12:28] to take them 30 minutes to get

[6:12:29] to the closest park. That's an

[6:12:31] hour round trip, Wednesday,

[6:12:33] school day, whatever. They

[6:12:35] don't have time for that.

[6:12:36] Right. Get out of school,

[6:12:37] hit the park every day, 15,

[6:12:39] 20, 30 minutes, boom. And

[6:12:40] they're going to be awesome

[6:12:41] at skateboarding. It's not just

[6:12:43] about skateboarding. They're

[6:12:44] going to own the space,

[6:12:45] they're going to take care

[6:12:46] of it. It's going

[6:12:47] to give them a pride

[6:12:48] of ownership,

[6:12:49] you know what I mean?

[6:12:50] Like an empowerment. And

[6:12:51] there's just so many other

[6:12:52] benefits. This is such an easy

[6:12:54] thing. And the return

[6:12:55] on investment is so incredible.

[6:12:56] It's like,

[6:12:57] why haven't we done this yet?

[6:12:59] Let's give them a park. Let's

[6:13:00] give them the responsibility,

[6:13:03] taking care of it. We maintain

[6:13:04] it ourselves. We take

[6:13:05] out the trash, we clean it,

[6:13:07] keep it clean because we want

[6:13:09] to skate. It's a passion thing.

[6:13:10] So let's, let's give it

[6:13:11] to them.

[6:13:13] >> All right, thanks. Thank

[6:13:14] you.

[6:13:20] >> Hello, my name is William

[6:13:22] Tobler. Thank you all

[6:13:23] for allowing me to speak,

[6:13:25] people

[6:13:26] of the board and the parks,

[6:13:27] for taking your time

[6:13:28] to come out. I am here to talk

[6:13:29] about skate parks and my

[6:13:32] experience of 40 years

[6:13:33] of skateboarding in the Sonoma

[6:13:35] county community. Helping build

[6:13:37] private projects and DIY spots

[6:13:39] and knowing what it takes

[6:13:40] to build, maintain, and keep

[6:13:42] those things up. I've been

[6:13:45] skateboarding at Santa Rosa

[6:13:47] Skatepark since it opened

[6:13:48] Sebastopol. I have multiple

[6:13:50] friends who have helped build

[6:13:52] it and maintain it. And so I'm

[6:13:54] also the instructor at the

[6:13:56] after school Forestville

[6:13:58] Skateboard Program. I've been

[6:13:59] doing that since it started.

[6:14:01] And work with these wonderful

[6:14:02] kids who took their time

[6:14:03] to come out today. Missing

[6:14:05] school. We all know how bad

[6:14:06] that is. And so I would just

[6:14:08] like

[6:14:09] to let everybody know that we,

[6:14:11] we know how to maintain the

[6:14:12] parks and we could work well

[6:14:14] with you guys to set up a

[6:14:16] viable option that is low cost

[6:14:18] and low hours, man hours

[6:14:21] for you guys to where

[6:14:23] skateboarders such as myself

[6:14:24] and older generation can teach

[6:14:26] the younger ones, as Eric was

[6:14:28] saying, that they know how

[6:14:30] to take care of it and pick it

[6:14:31] up and occasionally you have

[6:14:33] chipped concrete and things

[6:14:34] like that. And it doesn't take

[6:14:36] very much to fix that. So I

[6:14:37] would just like

[6:14:38] to say thank you

[6:14:40] for allowing me to speak and I

[6:14:41] hope that we can work well

[6:14:42] with each other

[6:14:43] in the future. Thank you.

[6:14:44] >> Thank you.

[6:14:50] >> Hi, my name is Robin Shop

[6:14:52] Bell and I live in

[6:14:53] Forestville. Also, thank you

[6:14:54] very much for being open minded

[6:14:56] and creative as we work

[6:14:57] together

[6:14:59] to support the creation

[6:15:00] of a joyful, rejuvenating park

[6:15:02] in Forestville. When my

[6:15:04] neighbors and I voted

[6:15:07] to increase our taxes

[6:15:11] for parks, Skate Spot was

[6:15:12] exactly what we imagined. This

[6:15:14] clean,

[6:15:15] safe park will be a great space

[6:15:16] for connection and recreation,

[6:15:18] for building,

[6:15:20] strengthening community.

[6:15:22] But much

[6:15:24] like a free democratic society,

[6:15:26] a park requires consistent,

[6:15:29] dedicated care and maintenance.

[6:15:32] We must secure a plan to upkeep

[6:15:35] this park so that it fulfills

[6:15:37] its promise into the future.

[6:15:39] So I'm urging the board

[6:15:42] to designate and fund Sonoma

[6:15:45] County Regional Parks as the

[6:15:47] long term maintenance provider

[6:15:49] for the Forestville Skate Spot

[6:15:51] neighborhood park. Thank you

[6:15:54] for considering this common

[6:15:55] sense approach for maintaining

[6:15:57] our newest neighborhood asset.

[6:15:58] Thank you.

[6:16:06] >> Hi, my name is Kim

[6:16:08] Lockhart. I'm the co owner

[6:16:09] of the Monterio Theater. I'm

[6:16:11] actually not here to talk

[6:16:13] about the Forestville Skate

[6:16:14] park, but we did a fundraiser

[6:16:15] for you guys and we know

[6:16:17] they're wonderful neighbors and

[6:16:19] they're so worth it. And so I'm

[6:16:20] happy they're here supporting

[6:16:23] their cause. And I wanted

[6:16:24] to say that actually

[6:16:25] on the same topic,

[6:16:27] we would love

[6:16:29] to turn the lawn area next

[6:16:30] to the Monterio Theater

[6:16:31] into a public park. The

[6:16:33] Monterio Theater has been there

[6:16:35] for now 76 years. We've done so

[6:16:36] many events

[6:16:38] for the community,

[6:16:39] which they love. And we know

[6:16:40] they love it because they come

[6:16:42] out. So it's movies, it's live

[6:16:43] music, it's costume contests,

[6:16:44] it's fundraisers,

[6:16:46] it's any kind

[6:16:51] of school fundraisers.

[6:16:52] Anything you can imagine,

[6:16:54] we've done. We painted it pink

[6:16:55] for Barbie, as you may have

[6:16:57] seen.

[6:16:58] But when we approached looking

[6:17:00] into a grant for community

[6:17:01] space a few years ago,

[6:17:03] the issue for us since

[6:17:05] Monterio Parks and Rec was our

[6:17:07] only public agency,

[6:17:09] is they also felt daunted

[6:17:11] about the maintenance. And that

[6:17:12] was the reason they didn't want

[6:17:13] to be our partners because it

[6:17:15] seemed too much to take on,

[6:17:16] even though they're really our

[6:17:18] only applicant. So I would love

[6:17:20] to ask Bohemian Grove to be our

[6:17:24] funder. I think they have a

[6:17:25] huge history like we do.

[6:17:28] But I do need help figuring

[6:17:29] out who could be the applicant

[6:17:31] to do the part. As the steward

[6:17:33] and maintenance, it does seem

[6:17:34] to be the issue that comes up.

[6:17:36] So I appreciate any help

[6:17:37] with that. Thank you.

[6:17:38] >> Thank you.

[6:17:43] >> Greetings, everyone. I'm

[6:17:45] going

[6:17:46] to bring this full circle. I'm

[6:17:47] John Koontz, and I live

[6:17:49] in the afterglow

[6:17:50] of my amazing wife, Jackie

[6:17:52] Brazile, and our son, Ellery.

[6:17:53] And I'm going to finish the

[6:17:55] thoughts that she began just

[6:17:57] when the public convent

[6:17:59] started. We aren't asking

[6:18:01] Regional Parks

[6:18:03] to build our park. We are

[6:18:05] asking to be your partner as

[6:18:06] your new belongings framework

[6:18:09] aspires to. Our community is

[6:18:12] already raising the funds and

[6:18:14] will provide stewardship. We

[6:18:16] only ask that the parks

[6:18:18] department handle maintenance.

[6:18:21] A 2.8 acre neighborhood park is

[6:18:22] minimal compared to the vast

[6:18:24] acreage the county already

[6:18:26] expertly manages. When Measure

[6:18:29] M is up for renewal, please

[6:18:31] consider dedicating a

[6:18:32] percentage of funds

[6:18:34] for unincorporated towns like

[6:18:35] Forestville, Geyserville and

[6:18:37] Occidental that lack their own

[6:18:39] park departments. Finally,

[6:18:41] Forestville is doing its part.

[6:18:43] We pay Measure M taxes. We host

[6:18:46] Regional Parks west county

[6:18:48] operations at the El Marino

[6:18:51] campus. And there you are,

[6:18:53] just two minutes away

[6:18:54] from our hopeful skate spot.

[6:18:56] So we're asking

[6:18:57] for inclusion. Please welcome

[6:18:59] our neighborhood park

[6:19:01] into your county park family.

[6:19:03] Thank you guys so much. Thank

[6:19:06] you.

[6:19:07] >> Thank you.

[6:19:13] >> Hi. I'm Gretchen Krebs. I'm

[6:19:21] here from Geyserville, and I

[6:19:22] want to thank. We'll adopt you

[6:19:24] into West County. You know,

[6:19:25] I feel

[6:19:26] like you can join us. I want

[6:19:27] to thank you

[6:19:28] for having this workshop today.

[6:19:30] This is really important for

[6:19:31] Geyserville as well to be to

[6:19:32] have this subject talked about.

[6:19:35] But I want to say wow for us.

[6:19:36] So that was really impressive.

[6:19:37] I know that Adrienne's

[6:19:39] listening in over zoom. So that

[6:19:41] is two thirds of our really big

[6:19:43] committee that put together the

[6:19:45] Guysville Park Plaza. When we

[6:19:49] started on this project,

[6:19:52] I often heard, wow, you know,

[6:19:54] in unincorporated areas,

[6:19:56] you have to do things that city

[6:19:58] councils would be doing. And I

[6:19:59] prefer

[6:20:01] to think that we get to. And

[6:20:02] it's been with a lot of help

[6:20:06] from all of you, from Jimmy

[6:20:08] for getting us funds from.

[6:20:09] For our Mac to get started

[6:20:13] from public infrastructure,

[6:20:15] from Sonoma AG and Open

[6:20:17] Space. We couldn't have done

[6:20:19] any of this without your

[6:20:20] financial help and your

[6:20:24] expertise. So thank you very

[6:20:26] much. But now we are at the

[6:20:27] point where we need your help

[6:20:28] with maintenance. So, you know,

[6:20:31] we are volunteers. This isn't

[6:20:33] what we do for a living. We're

[6:20:34] willing to learn,

[6:20:36] we're willing to work

[6:20:37] with you, but we appreciate any

[6:20:38] help that you can give us

[6:20:40] to work with us. This will be

[6:20:43] the only park in Geyserville.

[6:20:44] The nearest park

[6:20:46] to us is seven miles away. We

[6:20:48] do have an elementary school

[6:20:50] that gets used as a park,

[6:20:53] but when school is

[6:20:54] in session,

[6:20:56] that's not an option. So

[6:20:57] for younger families or

[6:20:59] for older adults outside

[6:21:00] of the school age,

[6:21:03] there's nothing. So we really

[6:21:05] appreciate you doing this

[6:21:06] workshop. Thank you.

[6:21:08] >> Thank you. Seeing no more

[6:21:13] public comment,

[6:21:14] I'll bring it back

[6:21:15] to the board

[6:21:16] for questions and comments.

[6:21:19] Supervisor Hopkins.

[6:21:22] >> All right, I had a bunch

[6:21:24] of questions, but I know that

[6:21:25] there have been young members

[6:21:27] of the audience who've been

[6:21:28] super patient. So I'm just

[6:21:29] going to, you know, cut

[6:21:31] to the chase, which is that I

[6:21:33] think either we need

[6:21:34] to dedicate Measure M funding

[6:21:35] to unincorporated communities

[6:21:37] the same way that we dedicate

[6:21:38] it to cities,

[6:21:39] because that will be on the

[6:21:40] ballot later this year and we

[6:21:41] could amend the language, or I

[6:21:43] think that regional parks need

[6:21:44] to step up and take

[6:21:45] responsibility for these

[6:21:46] unincorporated community parks.

[6:21:47] And I'm going

[6:21:48] to give some examples. I mean,

[6:21:50] I looked

[6:21:51] at regional parks list.

[6:21:52] Maddox Andes, Unity Park,

[6:21:53] Shopland Fields, Kenwood Plaza

[6:21:55] Park, Larson Park, Shaw Park,

[6:21:56] Arnold Field, Morin Goodman

[6:21:57] Park, Ernie Smith. Those are

[6:21:59] all small community

[6:22:00] neighborhood parks. And I would

[6:22:02] actually add Ragle and Maxwell

[6:22:03] to those lists because they

[6:22:04] basically have a park

[6:22:05] within a park,

[6:22:06] even though there's sort

[6:22:07] of broader open space. They

[6:22:08] also have sports fields and

[6:22:10] maintain things that are just a

[6:22:11] draw to the entire community.

[6:22:12] Last year, fiscal year 2526,

[6:22:14] Mezuram, 33% of that went

[6:22:17] to a $5.3 million pass through

[6:22:19] to the cities. As I understand

[6:22:21] it, that was based

[6:22:22] on population. That means that

[6:22:24] the city of Sebastopol,

[6:22:25] population 7000ish,

[6:22:27] and the city of Katati,

[6:22:28] population 7000ish,

[6:22:30] get dedicated funding,

[6:22:32] and the whole lower Russian

[6:22:33] river in excess of 12,000

[6:22:34] people doesn't get any. That,

[6:22:36] to me, is not equitable. When

[6:22:37] we go

[6:22:39] to the voters and we say, you

[6:22:40] know,

[6:22:41] regional and neighborhood

[6:22:43] parks, that was in Measure M's

[6:22:44] language,

[6:22:45] and that's what they voted for.

[6:22:47] And when maintenance was

[6:22:48] actually called out in the

[6:22:49] ballot analysis as an eligible

[6:22:51] funding source,

[6:22:52] I feel that we need to fulfill

[6:22:54] this promise and that if we go

[6:22:55] back to the ballot, you know,

[6:22:56] and we ask voters

[6:22:57] to support us,

[6:22:59] and we can't say yes to a

[6:23:00] project that has so much

[6:23:01] community support, we are not

[6:23:03] doing our due diligence so the

[6:23:04] other thing that I wanted

[6:23:06] to share is that one

[6:23:08] of the other reasons, it's

[6:23:09] amazing the community

[6:23:11] organization that Jackie has

[6:23:13] single handedly brought

[6:23:15] together. And there are things

[6:23:18] that she legally cannot do that

[6:23:20] we can do. Like example,

[6:23:21] SB1003, which was basically a

[6:23:23] skate park limiting liability

[6:23:26] bill or as they called it,

[6:23:28] hazardous recreational

[6:23:30] activity. Immunity only applies

[6:23:32] to public agencies. So if she

[6:23:33] were a nonprofit. Right. She

[6:23:34] wouldn't actually be eligible

[6:23:36] for the state law that says if

[6:23:37] someone takes place, you know,

[6:23:39] enjoys skating and hurts

[6:23:41] themselves,

[6:23:42] they can't sue you. Right. And

[6:23:43] so, you know,

[6:23:45] that's a problem. Right.

[6:23:46] That's why you really need a

[6:23:47] public agency partner. And I

[6:23:49] feel like now is the time

[6:23:50] to actually deliver on the

[6:23:51] promises that I really believe.

[6:23:53] When we made,

[6:23:54] when we asked voters

[6:23:56] to support Measure m,

[6:23:58] that's my 2 cents and my

[6:23:59] request. I guess my question is

[6:24:01] sort of what is the timeline

[6:24:02] for Measure M and how can we

[6:24:04] look at amending that language

[6:24:05] or can we get a commitment

[6:24:07] from regional parks to provide

[6:24:08] the support that's needed

[6:24:09] to take these

[6:24:11] across the finish line? And I

[6:24:12] do want to say a shout out

[6:24:13] to ag and open space. I felt

[6:24:15] like

[6:24:16] for years we were hammering on

[6:24:18] how can you fund unincorporated

[6:24:19] communities who don't have the

[6:24:21] capacity. You all stepped up

[6:24:22] with technical assistance.

[6:24:23] Public infrastructure jumped

[6:24:25] into the for fray and, you

[6:24:26] know,

[6:24:27] helped write applications.

[6:24:29] Right. Submit applications

[6:24:30] to ag and open space. And so we

[6:24:31] now have a mechanism

[6:24:33] to get the funding. But the

[6:24:34] project delivery is still the

[6:24:35] challenge. Right. And that

[6:24:37] technical expertise, we have

[6:24:39] amazing community knowledge.

[6:24:40] We also have opportunities

[6:24:42] for grants, as I understand

[6:24:43] that, you know, Jackie and

[6:24:44] everyone has been looking

[6:24:46] at opportunities through

[6:24:47] various foundations that

[6:24:48] support, you know,

[6:24:50] skate parks.

[6:24:51] But we need someone to kind of

[6:24:53] take ownership and move this

[6:24:54] thing forward. So I'm just

[6:24:55] curious about the Measure M

[6:24:57] timeline and also about,

[6:24:59] I feel like for you and James

[6:25:01] and I kicked this around for

[6:25:02] like 10 years. It was like 10

[6:25:03] years ago. And we're like,

[6:25:05] when are you going to take on

[6:25:06] the small unincorporated parks?

[6:25:07] And I think the answer was ten

[6:25:08] years from now. And so here we

[6:25:09] are. And so I'm calling the

[6:25:11] question.

[6:25:12] >> Thank you, Supervisor

[6:25:14] Hopkins. So the timeline for

[6:25:15] Measure M. So just

[6:25:16] to also reflect on 2018, when

[6:25:17] this board, you know, put that

[6:25:19] on the ballot for the voters

[6:25:20] to consider. The story and the

[6:25:22] narrative of that time was we

[6:25:23] had a system that had extensive

[6:25:25] deferred maintenance. We had an

[6:25:27] incredible opportunity because

[6:25:28] of public lands have been

[6:25:30] acquired to expand access and

[6:25:31] to bring those on board

[6:25:33] into the system. And we had

[6:25:34] this new need from the fires

[6:25:36] of 2017 that kicked us

[6:25:37] in the head, like we got

[6:25:39] to take care of this stuff and

[6:25:40] maintain those natural

[6:25:41] resources. I'm pleased

[6:25:42] to say, in my opinion, the

[6:25:44] measure has been very

[6:25:46] successful at delivering

[6:25:47] on its promises

[6:25:49] to the voters. And we are

[6:25:50] looking to bring it forward

[6:25:51] in May for a potential new

[6:25:52] ordinance that would supersede

[6:25:53] Measure M, for the board

[6:25:55] to consider that for this fall

[6:25:56] of 26 election cycle.

[6:25:57] To your question around, does

[6:25:58] the existing ordinance preclude

[6:26:00] regional parks

[6:26:01] from getting involved

[6:26:02] in this? And I think the answer

[6:26:04] is no, it does not. I think

[6:26:05] what's important about today's

[6:26:06] discussion is an opportunity

[6:26:07] for the board

[6:26:09] to have a conversation. This is

[6:26:10] a big question

[6:26:11] with our community,

[6:26:12] these neighborhood parks.

[6:26:13] There are needs all

[6:26:14] over the place. And I would

[6:26:15] just my conversations with our

[6:26:17] county executive office,

[6:26:18] it's been around. What is the

[6:26:19] platform of how we can do this

[6:26:20] within the financial means we

[6:26:21] have available? Measure m is

[6:26:22] about $10 million

[6:26:24] of regional parks budget,

[6:26:25] about 25%. But it is very much

[6:26:26] leveraged right now

[6:26:28] to delivering on hundreds

[6:26:29] of capital projects, many

[6:26:30] of them

[6:26:31] in the fifth district. That's

[6:26:32] going to have impacts. We need

[6:26:34] to look at that and have that

[6:26:35] conversation and make sure that

[6:26:36] we can deliver and actually

[6:26:37] speak truthfully to what the

[6:26:38] county regional parks,

[6:26:39] what the board's going

[6:26:41] to be able to do.

[6:26:42] >> And to be clear, sort

[6:26:43] of my, the way I see it is

[6:26:44] either we need

[6:26:45] to dedicate funding from

[6:26:46] Measure M

[6:26:48] to local parks districts, CSDs

[6:26:49] or community based

[6:26:50] organizations. But really the

[6:26:52] problem is that a community

[6:26:53] based organization, again,

[6:26:54] doesn't have the limitation

[6:26:56] of liability. And honestly,

[6:26:57] it's challenging even

[6:26:58] for public agencies

[6:26:59] to get insurance right now.

[6:27:00] And so it's prohibitively

[6:27:02] expensive if you can even get

[6:27:03] it right as a nonprofit

[6:27:04] to operate something

[6:27:05] like this,

[6:27:06] especially absent the sort

[6:27:07] of state granted limitations

[6:27:09] of liability.

[6:27:10] But I just believe that, you

[6:27:11] know, parks needs

[6:27:12] to either make a commitment

[6:27:13] to taking these on or we need

[6:27:15] to figure out a way

[6:27:16] to fund these areas and

[6:27:17] to provide them

[6:27:18] with ongoing funding. And I

[6:27:19] know they weren't able

[6:27:20] to be here today,

[6:27:22] but I also had a meeting

[6:27:23] with the Grayton Community

[6:27:24] Services District and you know,

[6:27:25] they went and took, did the

[6:27:27] bold thing and created a

[6:27:28] downtown plaza and took it

[6:27:30] on all themselves. And they

[6:27:32] actually need money for

[6:27:33] maintenance and they're finding

[6:27:35] out, you know, it's really,

[6:27:36] you can fundraise for things

[6:27:38] like a capital project

[6:27:39] to say, you know, build

[6:27:40] something,

[6:27:42] but it's really hard

[6:27:43] to fundraise just

[6:27:45] to mow the grass every year.

[6:27:46] And we do have community

[6:27:48] volunteers, especially in

[6:27:49] Forestville, Forestville Youth

[6:27:51] park, who just have been doing

[6:27:53] these things for decades. And

[6:27:54] yet, right. One person retires

[6:27:56] or can't do it anymore, and

[6:27:57] suddenly you have a budget gap

[6:27:59] that you can't fill and no

[6:28:00] revenue source to do it. So

[6:28:01] I'll just sort of throw it

[6:28:02] down and say that I would

[6:28:03] really like

[6:28:04] to either see a revision to

[6:28:06] Measure M or a willingness

[6:28:07] to take on things like this

[6:28:08] Gate park, because I see all of

[6:28:09] these precedents and other

[6:28:11] parts of the county's county

[6:28:12] where we have actually taken

[6:28:13] on small neighborhood parks.

[6:28:14] And yet I don't understand why.

[6:28:15] The answer is yes there,

[6:28:17] and the answer has been no in

[6:28:18] Forestville. So I just want to.

[6:28:19] I would ask for the support

[6:28:21] of my colleagues for one

[6:28:22] of those alternatives.

[6:28:25] >> Vice Chair Coursey

[6:28:29] >> Thanks. I just want

[6:28:32] to say if. If these kind

[6:28:35] of decisions were just based

[6:28:37] on the tenaciousness over time

[6:28:40] of a community,

[6:28:42] the sheer numbers that you

[6:28:44] bring to public comment,

[6:28:47] and the cuteness per capita

[6:28:49] of those numbers,

[6:28:51] these would be easy decisions.

[6:28:54] But Forestville Skate park is

[6:28:56] not the only one. Almost we're

[6:28:59] the only one here. How easy

[6:29:01] would that be? Unfortunately,

[6:29:03] we've got a big county with big

[6:29:05] needs. I have a couple

[6:29:08] questions for you Bert and

[6:29:13] company workshoppers, as you

[6:29:14] were dubbed earlier today.

[6:29:17] First of all, Bert, did

[6:29:19] Measure M anticipate new

[6:29:22] neighborhood parks?

[6:29:26] >> No.

[6:29:27] >> As I described earlier,

[6:29:28] Measure M really was looking

[6:29:30] primarily at the existing

[6:29:31] system and these larger tracts

[6:29:32] of land that have now been

[6:29:33] transferred

[6:29:34] from AG and open space

[6:29:35] ownership

[6:29:36] to county ownership. The

[6:29:37] measure language does talk

[6:29:39] about regional and neighborhood

[6:29:40] parks. And that language really

[6:29:41] is crafted, was intended

[6:29:42] around the city portion

[6:29:43] of the funding going in where

[6:29:44] the city's predominant business

[6:29:45] is more of the neighborhood

[6:29:47] park type facilities.

[6:29:48] >> When did neighborhood parks

[6:29:49] become a county thing?

[6:29:55] >> As we tried to kind

[6:29:59] of articulate the presentation,

[6:30:01] the neighborhood parks we have

[6:30:02] in these unincorporated areas

[6:30:03] have evolved. As Supervisor

[6:30:06] points out, there's a number

[6:30:07] of them in the county system.

[6:30:09] And those stories go back

[6:30:10] over the 50, what, nine years

[6:30:12] the regional parks have been

[6:30:15] in existence. But it really,

[6:30:17] as far as the mission of

[6:30:19] regional park parks and the

[6:30:20] last several decades

[6:30:22] of work product, it has been

[6:30:23] something where we're not,

[6:30:24] it's not incorporated

[6:30:25] into our cip,

[6:30:26] our capital improvement

[6:30:28] projects planning,

[6:30:29] but it's not currently factored

[6:30:31] into our park mitigation fees

[6:30:32] for developments where these

[6:30:34] things are based

[6:30:35] on new populations coming in.

[6:30:37] And we've done our best

[6:30:39] to support within the community

[6:30:41] that has interest in these,

[6:30:42] to provide some Technical

[6:30:44] support and guidance,

[6:30:47] but they have not, you know,

[6:30:48] squarely landed on a process

[6:30:50] county wide where regional

[6:30:51] parks has been directed

[6:30:53] to go and figure this out.

[6:30:55] And, and it's an evolving

[6:30:56] landscape and the community is

[6:30:58] changing and something. I think

[6:30:59] it's great

[6:31:00] for having a discussion

[6:31:01] around how we grapple

[6:31:02] with this.

[6:31:03] >> You mentioned great needs

[6:31:05] for. For these type of parks

[6:31:07] around the unincorporated areas

[6:31:08] of the county. Do you have any

[6:31:10] idea

[6:31:12] of what the numbers would look

[6:31:13] like and how many

[6:31:17] of those could we afford

[6:31:19] to operate and maintain

[6:31:21] over how many years? And I'm

[6:31:24] guessing you don't know what

[6:31:25] the answer is

[6:31:27] to that question.

[6:31:28] >> So I think the conversation

[6:31:29] has gone the furthest several

[6:31:31] years back in the

[6:31:32] unincorporated governance ad

[6:31:34] hoc where really to look

[6:31:36] at that, that the request

[6:31:37] for that ad hoc back

[6:31:39] to the board during a budget

[6:31:40] deliberation was some dollars

[6:31:41] for our county executive office

[6:31:42] to hire the consultants as

[6:31:44] similar to how a city

[6:31:45] incorporated jurisdiction would

[6:31:46] look at that

[6:31:48] to have a comprehensive look

[6:31:49] at the county. And that would

[6:31:50] tie into the different types

[6:31:52] of costs, facilities,

[6:31:53] funding structures and things

[6:31:54] for the board

[6:31:55] to consider.

[6:31:58] >> Seems like I remember that

[6:32:00] the unincorporated governance

[6:32:01] ad hoc also,

[6:32:02] and maybe these existed

[6:32:05] before that. I was fairly new

[6:32:07] to the board, but talked about

[6:32:09] district formation and you

[6:32:11] mentioned several park and rec

[6:32:15] districts that exist. I don't

[6:32:18] think any

[6:32:20] of those have been created

[6:32:22] in the last, I don't know, 50

[6:32:24] years. Most of them have been

[6:32:27] in existence for a long time.

[6:32:30] But is. Is a district, whether

[6:32:31] one district or several small

[6:32:33] districts, part

[6:32:36] of a solution here,

[6:32:38] of being able to take

[6:32:41] on the administrative task,

[6:32:43] the administrative expertise,

[6:32:46] the liability issues that you

[6:32:48] mentioned, Supervisor

[6:32:52] Hopkins, is that part

[6:32:55] of a solution?

[6:33:00] >> One of the challenges is

[6:33:02] actually that our local parks

[6:33:03] and rec districts in the

[6:33:04] Lower Russian river are

[6:33:05] currently paying hundreds

[6:33:06] of thousands of dollars

[6:33:08] to the county as part

[6:33:09] of redevelopment. So they have

[6:33:12] an absolute bare bones duct

[6:33:14] tape budget until redevelopment

[6:33:16] is paid down. And because we

[6:33:17] consolidated all

[6:33:18] of the redevelopment agencies

[6:33:20] in the county into one,

[6:33:21] they are paying until the last

[6:33:24] project's debt is paid off.

[6:33:25] Which means that the Russian

[6:33:26] river park and Rec and

[6:33:28] Monorio Rec and Park are both

[6:33:30] paying into projects outside of

[6:33:32] their jurisdictional boundary

[6:33:33] because of how the debt

[6:33:35] financing was handled. And so

[6:33:36] it's many, many years

[6:33:37] until they will have any kind

[6:33:39] of capacity. And as a result

[6:33:40] they've really struggled even

[6:33:41] to keep staff and

[6:33:42] to perform sort of basic

[6:33:45] maintenance. I would still

[6:33:46] argue that's partly why I would

[6:33:48] argue that, you know, sort

[6:33:49] of a set aside. I also wanted

[6:33:51] to respond to. I think that the

[6:33:52] sort of conversation

[6:33:53] about the funding being for

[6:33:54] cities was insider baseball,

[6:33:56] where it was in negotiations

[6:33:57] with city managers and city

[6:33:58] councils. I mean,

[6:34:00] if you actually read the ballot

[6:34:01] question, it just says

[6:34:02] to improve and protect Sonoma

[6:34:03] County's regional and

[6:34:04] neighborhood parks. That's the

[6:34:05] first clause I'm saying

[6:34:07] about whether you're

[6:34:08] in a city or outside

[6:34:09] of a city. So I think someone

[6:34:10] from, you know, Forestville

[6:34:11] voting for that would sort of

[6:34:12] assume that it could

[6:34:14] potentially support, you know,

[6:34:15] protecting and improving a

[6:34:16] neighborhood park. And if we

[6:34:17] have the opportunity

[6:34:18] to build it

[6:34:19] with AG and open space funds,

[6:34:21] which I believe we will, the

[6:34:22] question then just becomes how

[6:34:23] do we, you know, maintain it?

[6:34:24] But that's. That's the real

[6:34:25] challenge with our parks

[6:34:26] districts is they are basically

[6:34:27] broke from redevelopment.

[6:34:29] >> And I. I get that. I was

[6:34:30] wondering

[6:34:32] about new district formation.

[6:34:35] Just an idea. The other thing

[6:34:37] Supervisor Hopkins was asking

[6:34:39] about, you know, some kind

[6:34:42] of a set aside, some kind

[6:34:43] of a solution here

[6:34:46] in the next measure, M,

[6:34:48] whatever letter that turns out

[6:34:53] to be. I don't have an

[6:34:54] objection to that. I just

[6:34:56] wonder what that would look

[6:34:58] like. Have you given that any

[6:34:59] thought? It's probably not the

[6:35:01] first time you've heard

[6:35:03] about it today.

[6:35:06] >> Yeah, I've not given any

[6:35:07] thought other than I think the

[6:35:10] conversations thus far with our

[6:35:11] city partners have been very

[6:35:12] positive in the sense that the

[6:35:13] current structure of the

[6:35:14] measure is very adequate,

[6:35:15] and I would discourage the

[6:35:16] board from doing anything

[6:35:18] to disrupt the current 1/3,

[6:35:20] 2/3 funding split

[6:35:21] of the dollars. As I said,

[6:35:23] in the remaining two thirds,

[6:35:24] there's not really a

[6:35:25] prohibition, per se,

[6:35:27] against spending

[6:35:28] on any regional parks facility.

[6:35:29] As long as it's a park. It

[6:35:30] would be an eligible expense

[6:35:31] under the measurement direct

[6:35:33] to source dollars based

[6:35:35] on population. We have done no

[6:35:36] analysis on that.

[6:35:39] >> And I also just wonder

[6:35:41] about, you know, even if we did

[6:35:43] have a dedicated portion

[6:35:44] of a sales tax

[6:35:47] for neighborhood parks,

[6:35:48] for maintenance, whatever,

[6:35:50] it's not going to be enough

[6:35:51] to deal with all the needs

[6:35:52] out there. I understand. And I

[6:35:54] remember that Forestville has

[6:35:57] been here many,

[6:36:01] many times.

[6:36:03] >> Bravo, kids.

[6:36:05] >> Thank you, guys.

[6:36:08] >> Sorry. Bravo. They've been

[6:36:09] here many times. They've been

[6:36:11] here, you know,

[6:36:12] for many years.

[6:36:14] But how do you equitably,

[6:36:16] really equitably decide who has

[6:36:18] access to that money now and

[6:36:20] in the future? How is that.

[6:36:23] How's that decided? It's a

[6:36:28] rhetorical question. That's all

[6:36:29] I got right now.

[6:36:31] >> Supervisor Gore.

[6:36:33] >> I'm gonna throw a couple

[6:36:35] things down and then I'm gonna

[6:36:38] leave because my daughter is

[6:36:40] frustrated about my tardiness

[6:36:42] to get her

[6:36:43] to volleyball practice. So I

[6:36:44] apologize. So a couple things

[6:36:46] for me. You gotta pay

[6:36:48] to play. We have

[6:36:49] to put money towards this,

[6:36:50] whatever it is. I think I

[6:36:51] appreciate the conversation.

[6:36:52] Cause on one side, yeah,

[6:36:55] absolutely. What's the budget?

[6:36:56] I think what we need

[6:36:57] to do is price

[6:36:58] out what it would be

[6:37:00] to do maintenance on some

[6:37:01] of these projects. That's a

[6:37:02] completely different question

[6:37:04] than the infrastructure and the

[6:37:07] investment costs ag and open

[6:37:09] space coming

[6:37:10] in and doing that. You know,

[6:37:11] even right now,

[6:37:12] I put quite a bit of the

[6:37:13] district infrastructure funds

[6:37:14] one time funds into Mark west

[6:37:16] park. We're scrapping together

[6:37:17] for the golf course park,

[6:37:19] which is up in Mark West

[6:37:20] Geyserville. We're looking

[6:37:22] at all kinds of things

[6:37:23] in partnership. So, you know,

[6:37:25] getting these up to that area.

[6:37:26] I would just be interested,

[6:37:27] I don't know, because I'd

[6:37:29] rather give you the budget than

[6:37:30] come back

[6:37:32] to the board and get $80,000 to

[6:37:34] create a community services

[6:37:35] district to tax Mark west

[6:37:38] people who already pay property

[6:37:39] taxes and pay the sales tax.

[6:37:41] So if to me there's a part

[6:37:42] of this that like, I just don't

[6:37:44] know. I've always been of the

[6:37:46] proclivity that if we needed

[6:37:49] to create the districts, we

[6:37:51] create the districts and we do

[6:37:53] it.

[6:37:54] But there is this point about,

[6:37:55] okay, now to be able

[6:37:57] to create the districts,

[6:37:58] we're spending a bunch

[6:37:59] of money to create the

[6:38:00] districts and then we still

[6:38:01] have these liability issues.

[6:38:03] And then further than that,

[6:38:04] we also are sitting here

[6:38:05] in a position where we have

[6:38:06] to ask them for more revenue.

[6:38:07] And even if they want

[6:38:09] to pay it, they're asking,

[6:38:10] why would you ask me to do a

[6:38:12] supplemental property tax when

[6:38:13] as an unincorporated

[6:38:14] residential and all my property

[6:38:15] taxes already taken

[6:38:17] into the county? And you don't

[6:38:18] give that back

[6:38:20] for a local parks district,

[6:38:21] even though we kind of do

[6:38:23] to you. So for me, I'm kind

[6:38:24] of interested

[6:38:25] in the real costs of that. I am

[6:38:27] here to. I would never move

[6:38:28] before a colleague

[6:38:30] in her district. But yes, yes,

[6:38:32] yes. Skate park,

[6:38:34] I can't ride because I will

[6:38:37] die. But like, but, but we,

[6:38:40] but,

[6:38:42] but I would just say we have,

[6:38:44] we have created a solution

[6:38:46] space, albeit imperfect

[6:38:48] for the, the capital investment

[6:38:50] and then some of it

[6:38:52] like being land that's. That's

[6:38:54] sitting in abeyance as a part

[6:38:56] of our county system and

[6:38:58] Sonoma public infrastructure. I

[6:39:00] mean the smart thing would be

[6:39:01] to do is like we got

[6:39:02] to come back

[6:39:03] to the board or come

[6:39:04] through these mechanisms

[6:39:05] to do the up, you know, you

[6:39:06] know, the initial public access

[6:39:07] land purchases. Then we figure

[6:39:09] out what the maintenance is.

[6:39:10] And even if we need

[6:39:11] to say like, okay, I mean,

[6:39:13] do we divert some

[6:39:14] of the money that accrues into

[6:39:15] a district formation account

[6:39:16] currently and have that go

[6:39:18] towards maintenance instead?

[6:39:19] Because I'd rather give you a

[6:39:21] check for $70,000 to take care

[6:39:22] of those parks per year.

[6:39:24] Unless you tell me it's

[6:39:26] actually 300,000. Right. I just

[6:39:28] don't know what that really

[6:39:29] means. So to me, I was going

[6:39:33] to ask here today to come back

[6:39:35] with a lot of conversations

[6:39:36] about CSA 40 or 41, whichever

[6:39:38] one is. Which one is it?

[6:39:39] Yeah, but one of the fire. The

[6:39:41] other 1 is the 41 is the 1

[6:39:43] where we basically brought all

[6:39:45] these districts in.

[6:39:47] Like we can as a vote

[6:39:49] of this board approve. And then

[6:39:51] we would be the board

[6:39:53] of the district. That's the

[6:39:55] problem is lafco. If they go

[6:39:57] through their own process,

[6:39:58] you have to have all these

[6:40:00] community groups and all these

[6:40:01] things. You don't have

[6:40:03] capacity.

[6:40:04] But then do we really want to

[6:40:06] be once again the board and

[6:40:07] having CSA 41 five more

[6:40:09] districts or is this a budget

[6:40:10] issue? So for me, you know,

[6:40:14] I'm open to the conversation

[6:40:15] about district formation

[6:40:16] dollars rather than spending a

[6:40:18] bunch of money on consultants

[6:40:19] to try and pass a major to

[6:40:21] increase people's property

[6:40:22] taxes. You know,

[6:40:24] my interest is to solve for

[6:40:25] Geyserville and two places in

[6:40:26] Mark West. And quite honestly,

[6:40:28] we don't have much. We don't

[6:40:29] have anything else

[6:40:31] in my mind that is a desert

[6:40:32] out there that could be a part

[6:40:34] of a policy. Like I'd love to

[6:40:37] know how much it would be if

[6:40:38] you looked at those and said

[6:40:39] this is what it would cost me.

[6:40:42] And even if we decide that it's

[6:40:43] not parks to do it,

[6:40:45] then I could fight

[6:40:46] for some other way

[6:40:48] to do it.

[6:40:49] >> Okay, Misty and then

[6:40:51] Supervisor Rabbitt

[6:40:52] >> I just have a quick

[6:40:54] clarifying question

[6:40:55] on estimating cost costs. And

[6:40:56] Bert and I haven't chatted

[6:40:57] about this,

[6:40:58] but we do have a lot of other

[6:40:59] partners raising the same issue

[6:41:00] that aren't necessarily

[6:41:02] neighborhood level like Camp

[6:41:04] Meeker or Mark westwickiup.

[6:41:06] And so I'm just wondering when

[6:41:08] you give the direction to look

[6:41:10] at what the cost might be,

[6:41:11] is it just for these four

[6:41:13] public infrastructure projects

[6:41:14] or I'm just

[6:41:15] in case that gets asked

[6:41:16] of us.

[6:41:17] >> I mean, I mean for me it

[6:41:18] doesn't have

[6:41:19] to be a comprehensive list. It

[6:41:20] could be something that gives

[6:41:22] it a scale. Right. It's very

[6:41:23] hard to do that.

[6:41:24] But you know, I mean,

[6:41:25] I don't know about,

[6:41:26] for everybody,

[6:41:27] but I don't think we're

[6:41:28] in a position to throw a list

[6:41:29] of 40 together. And say

[6:41:30] everybody that could want a

[6:41:31] park in the future. What we

[6:41:32] could do is say,

[6:41:34] these are the ones

[6:41:35] in the pipeline. Right. We are

[6:41:36] going. You know, for me,

[6:41:37] those are Geyserville and the

[6:41:39] two in Mark west,

[6:41:40] even though one of them's held

[6:41:41] in water agency property. And

[6:41:43] it's probably less

[6:41:44] of a community park and more of

[6:41:46] a hiking trail and weed

[6:41:47] management.

[6:41:49] But maybe neighborhood.

[6:41:50] But if it does become that,

[6:41:52] then it would have

[6:41:53] to have a different plan. We'd

[6:41:54] have to put a policy document

[6:41:56] together that says if we're

[6:41:57] going

[6:41:58] to increase the investment

[6:41:59] in the management

[6:42:00] of this community park. Is it

[6:42:01] really a regional park

[6:42:02] at this point, then maybe. Is

[6:42:03] there a local ballot major that

[6:42:04] does it? But I think there

[6:42:05] should be some standards that,

[6:42:06] like this is bare label

[6:42:08] maintenance and then solving

[6:42:09] for this liability issue that I

[6:42:11] just think is so relevant. I

[6:42:12] mean, that's one

[6:42:14] of the reasons that we took

[6:42:15] Del Rio woods into the county

[6:42:17] family was because they had a

[6:42:18] special district. They. They

[6:42:20] had accrued money. They weren't

[6:42:22] able to manage it. They weren't

[6:42:23] able

[6:42:25] to get the permits anymore.

[6:42:27] They weren't putting money

[6:42:28] into the. And we saw it as an

[6:42:29] asset on the river. Right.

[6:42:31] So, I mean, I would just say it

[6:42:33] might be mixed up, but

[6:42:34] for me, I'd love to see what

[6:42:35] that money would be annually.

[6:42:37] Like, I don't know, Bert, if

[6:42:38] you're going

[6:42:40] to come back and. And be like,

[6:42:41] that's to visit and do basic

[6:42:43] maintenance and weed abatement,

[6:42:44] that's going to be 100,000 a

[6:42:47] year, or it's a million a year

[6:42:48] for three parks.

[6:42:50] >> No, thank you. And as we've

[6:42:53] done a lot of research

[6:42:54] over the years and trying

[6:42:57] to figure out that answer

[6:42:59] to that question. It depends.

[6:43:00] We can tell you pretty much

[6:43:01] what a bathroom costs

[6:43:02] to service it, you know,

[6:43:03] once a day,

[6:43:04] how much it costs seasonally

[6:43:05] to go to vegetation.

[6:43:07] But different parks still,

[6:43:08] even with that,

[6:43:09] have different costs

[6:43:11] for labor and personnel.

[6:43:12] Andy's Unity park,

[6:43:13] for example,

[6:43:14] our average cost is

[6:43:15] about 150k a year.

[6:43:16] But some years it's 70, some

[6:43:17] years it's over 200. It just

[6:43:18] depends on what's going on to

[6:43:19] keep that park safe and

[6:43:20] appropriate for the public. So

[6:43:22] we can. We can definitely work

[6:43:23] on getting some numbers,

[6:43:25] but there is always a bit

[6:43:26] of a range and a bit

[6:43:27] of a guesstimate

[6:43:28] on the reality.

[6:43:29] >> Thank you, Supervisor

[6:43:30] Rabbitt.

[6:43:31] >> Thank you very much. Always

[6:43:32] appreciated conversation

[6:43:33] regarding parks. And I go back

[6:43:35] to and I'll probably said this

[6:43:36] before I originally ran

[6:43:38] for office in Petaluma, all

[6:43:40] about parks and playing fields

[6:43:42] and the lack thereof. And at

[6:43:43] that time they had a standard.

[6:43:45] And I talked to Bert and

[6:43:47] friends about this, I think

[6:43:49] just this week because the

[6:43:51] QUIMBY act,

[6:43:52] which is that method

[6:43:53] to subdivisions to pay

[6:43:55] for park impact fees of, you

[6:43:57] know, they had a total of 5

[6:43:58] acres per thousand residents.

[6:44:00] And, and for years I've been

[6:44:02] honestly trying to get what is

[6:44:03] the county's overall park goal

[6:44:05] and how close are we

[6:44:07] to achieving it. And we used

[6:44:09] to talk about it didn't matter

[6:44:10] if it was a state park,

[6:44:12] federal park, local park, city

[6:44:13] park, whatever, regional park,

[6:44:15] what is that kind

[6:44:16] of goal and how does that work?

[6:44:18] And it goes to park deserts. I

[6:44:20] believe I must say that I have

[6:44:23] a hard time really using what I

[6:44:24] consider a city standard

[6:44:26] of the 10 minute walk

[6:44:28] to a park. Petaluma doesn't

[6:44:29] meet a 10 minute standard. I

[6:44:31] doubt if Santa Rosa meets a 10

[6:44:34] minute standard. Petaluma gets

[6:44:35] close,

[6:44:37] but it doesn't meet it. You

[6:44:38] know, I moved

[6:44:39] across the street from a park

[6:44:41] because my kids grew up in the

[6:44:42] park and I did that cautiously

[6:44:44] and it was less than a 10

[6:44:46] minute walk.

[6:44:47] But I do think that we need to

[6:44:49] still have that discussion

[6:44:50] about, you know, when,

[6:44:52] when I remember early on

[6:44:55] in my career here with now,

[6:44:56] you know, Mike McGuire, when

[6:44:59] Carol didn't see an, an acre of

[6:45:01] land that could not be a park

[6:45:03] and with all the state land

[6:45:05] that was being turned over

[6:45:07] right or bought and then not

[6:45:08] being able to be afforded. And

[6:45:10] the question

[6:45:11] at that time post recession,

[6:45:13] which was real, is like,

[6:45:14] how the hell are we going

[6:45:15] to afford to take care

[6:45:17] of these, you know,

[6:45:18] all these acres? And I know

[6:45:19] that some remember that and

[6:45:20] that was a huge question that

[6:45:22] there wasn't an easy answer to.

[6:45:24] We land bank some but it still

[6:45:25] had ongoing costs and

[6:45:26] maintenance. So I think we need

[6:45:28] to continue the conversation

[6:45:29] about this overall goal. Where

[6:45:31] are those places

[6:45:33] within the county? I, you know,

[6:45:34] I guess I am a process person,

[6:45:36] but I do think that it needs

[6:45:37] to be an equitable,

[6:45:38] county wide kind of overview of

[6:45:40] our park systems and how it

[6:45:42] works. And I do think that I

[6:45:44] look forward to that. Again, I

[6:45:46] think the, you know, Measure M

[6:45:54] was 2/3, 1/3. The per capita is

[6:45:56] heavily weighted on the,

[6:46:01] on the unincorporated side. If

[6:46:02] you just do the population

[6:46:04] with the amount

[6:46:05] of dollars that are coming in.

[6:46:06] And then I think we just need

[6:46:07] to kind of, you know,

[6:46:09] really look for those

[6:46:11] additional dollars. I spent

[6:46:12] $2.9 million of my community

[6:46:14] investment funds, all

[6:46:16] on parks. And that's more than

[6:46:18] what's shown on these slides

[6:46:20] for the parks that are here

[6:46:22] from I believe

[6:46:23] in two districts. So there's,

[6:46:25] there's sources there that can

[6:46:27] be tapped into. TOT has a

[6:46:28] dedicated park fund. Does that

[6:46:30] need to be increased? And to my

[6:46:32] colleague's point regarding,

[6:46:34] you know, the budget, I think I

[6:46:37] asked that same question

[6:46:39] in our briefing about ongoing

[6:46:42] maintenance costs. And I

[6:46:43] totally get it. It's like

[6:46:45] on a trail, right? That first

[6:46:46] quarter mile is the quarter

[6:46:47] mile that'll be the biggest

[6:46:49] mess because that's where

[6:46:51] people get in. And then once

[6:46:52] you're past that,

[6:46:53] it's a lot easier. So I think

[6:46:55] that we need to kind

[6:46:56] of continue going

[6:46:57] in that direction. And then

[6:46:58] finally, you know,

[6:47:00] it always comes down to

[6:47:04] financially sustainable

[6:47:06] projects where you have one

[6:47:07] time funding versus ongoing

[6:47:08] maintenance or ongoing expenses

[6:47:10] and really trying to

[6:47:12] differentiate the two and

[6:47:14] having a funding source that is

[6:47:16] not limited, you know, I think

[6:47:17] when you pass a special tax

[6:47:22] like measure M, it's for those

[6:47:25] deferred maintenance items,

[6:47:27] it's for those one time capital

[6:47:29] projects, it can't be for

[6:47:31] ongoing maintenance pieces

[6:47:32] because it's not guaranteed

[6:47:33] into the future. And

[6:47:35] at some point you're going

[6:47:36] to have to face the music

[6:47:37] of perhaps, you know,

[6:47:38] there's no guarantees in life

[6:47:40] and there's no guarantees

[6:47:41] at the polls either. So that,

[6:47:43] and I will also say how what's

[6:47:45] true too in park world. Tell me

[6:47:47] if this is false. Park needs

[6:47:48] change over time based upon

[6:47:52] where the community is. I can

[6:47:53] tell you down my way,

[6:47:55] we have an influx

[6:47:56] on the west side

[6:47:58] of younger families, but we

[6:47:59] still have an aging community

[6:48:00] overall. You know, I bet you

[6:48:02] trails and dog walking trails

[6:48:03] are in much more demand now

[6:48:04] than the swings

[6:48:05] in the playground were. Partly

[6:48:07] because I don't fit in the

[6:48:09] swings anymore and probably

[6:48:11] kill myself. But you know,

[6:48:12] there's, I think you need

[6:48:13] to look at everything

[6:48:14] holistically and I appreciate

[6:48:16] having a workshop in order

[6:48:17] to kind of bring these subjects

[6:48:18] matters up.

[6:48:20] But I do think that we need

[6:48:21] to kind of have that overall

[6:48:23] both a overall land use plan

[6:48:25] for the county of what,

[6:48:26] what are we really trying

[6:48:28] to achieve and how are we

[6:48:29] trying to achieve it. And I

[6:48:31] again will say that the 10

[6:48:32] minute walk thing in the

[6:48:33] unincorporated county just

[6:48:34] doesn't work for me. You know,

[6:48:36] whether it's an acreage per

[6:48:37] resident, whether you want

[6:48:39] to parse out urbanized areas

[6:48:42] and do something that works

[6:48:44] within those areas. So at least

[6:48:46] we have a goal and it's fair

[6:48:47] and equitable

[6:48:48] across the county

[6:48:50] down my way. I will say Pen

[6:48:52] Grove has its own private park.

[6:48:53] It's open to the public,

[6:48:54] but it's Pen Grove social

[6:48:56] firemen. Bloomfield has its own

[6:48:58] private, privately owned park

[6:49:00] that is open to everyone. And

[6:49:02] look at Petaluma. They're

[6:49:04] embarking on probably one

[6:49:05] of the larger park projects

[6:49:07] in the county, in the Petaluma

[6:49:08] river park,

[6:49:10] which is 100% private. So, you

[6:49:12] know, we need to kind

[6:49:14] of push all this stuff together

[6:49:15] to make sure that we can

[6:49:17] continue going in a way that I

[6:49:19] think it will be financially

[6:49:20] sustainable long term and not

[6:49:22] put undue pressure

[6:49:23] on park's budget

[6:49:25] in future years, but have them

[6:49:27] be truly skating forward on a

[6:49:29] good financial platform.

[6:49:35] >> Thank you,

[6:49:37] supervisor.

[6:49:39] >> I just wanted to briefly

[6:49:40] note that it would appear that

[6:49:41] March 24, 2026, is the first

[6:49:42] time that Supervisor Rabbitt

[6:49:44] and I have agreed on how

[6:49:45] tourism dollars should be

[6:49:47] spent. I would wholly support

[6:49:49] more going into parks

[6:49:51] to fund that work. And also

[6:49:53] just want to say thanks

[6:49:55] for sharing about Bloomfield

[6:49:56] and Pen Grove. I had always

[6:49:57] thought that it was just

[6:49:59] Forestville that was one

[6:50:00] of the ones that had this, you

[6:50:01] know, sort of only nonprofit,

[6:50:02] you know,

[6:50:03] not government funded.

[6:50:04] But it's. It's great to hear

[6:50:05] of other opportunities

[6:50:06] in the community and there may

[6:50:08] be other opportunities

[6:50:09] to support some

[6:50:10] of that work as well.

[6:50:11] >> Thank you so much. Thank you

[6:50:12] for bringing this workshop

[6:50:15] forward. I appreciate it. I

[6:50:17] think that I agree with a lot

[6:50:19] of my colleagues in this is an

[6:50:21] important conversation and

[6:50:24] making sure that what we are

[6:50:27] delivering is a park that meets

[6:50:32] the needs of each community.

[6:50:34] It will be a little bit

[6:50:36] different for each district.

[6:50:38] And even in those districts,

[6:50:39] those areas. I agree with

[6:50:41] Supervisor Rabbitt. Maybe the

[6:50:43] 10 mile, 10 minute criteria

[6:50:48] won't work. It won't work

[6:50:49] in the Springs. It won't work

[6:50:50] in, you know, Bennett Valley.

[6:50:53] And so really assessing the

[6:50:54] county as a whole so that we

[6:50:56] can prioritize the needs

[6:50:58] of the community,

[6:51:00] of the county,

[6:51:02] and also as part of that,

[6:51:04] to deliver for constituents,

[6:51:06] how do we incorporate the cost

[6:51:08] to maintain those parks? And if

[6:51:11] we have to guess

[6:51:14] at the maintenance number,

[6:51:16] I think we should. It should be

[6:51:18] a line item that is part

[6:51:20] of the planning for parks for

[6:51:22] our community. I also know that

[6:51:24] oftentimes when budgets are

[6:51:28] stretched, we're asked to dip

[6:51:33] into general funds. And those

[6:51:35] are safety nets

[6:51:36] for the entire community. And I

[6:51:39] will restate that this year and

[6:51:42] next and maybe the next year

[6:51:44] after, we're going to have to

[6:51:46] make some really tough choices.

[6:51:47] So

[6:51:49] of the parks that you presented

[6:51:50] in your slideshow, I'd like

[6:51:52] to have.

[6:51:54] >> Bring that back and have a

[6:51:55] more comprehensive plan

[6:51:56] in conversation of

[6:51:58] like what is moving forward,

[6:51:59] get board support and. And know

[6:52:00] that we have limited resources

[6:52:03] with that. Thank you. I think

[6:52:08] this is informational. Yes. CEO

[6:52:10] Rivera.

[6:52:12] >> Thank you, Chair. So it is a

[6:52:14] workshop and it's a workshop

[6:52:15] that looks to get direction,

[6:52:17] majority direction

[6:52:18] from the board. And it sounds

[6:52:20] as we would narrow the focus

[6:52:23] down to these parks that are

[6:52:25] underway, if you will,

[6:52:27] to provide. No.

[6:52:29] >> Okay.

[6:52:30] >> I'm trying

[6:52:31] to understand what comes back.

[6:52:32] Right. We can come back

[6:52:33] for certain. Right. With more

[6:52:34] information and some ranges

[6:52:35] of costing

[6:52:37] of operations and maintenance.

[6:52:39] But what I'm missing is what's

[6:52:41] the scope of that? And once we

[6:52:45] create this scope,

[6:52:47] is it four parks? Is it all the

[6:52:49] parks, but not including the

[6:52:51] regional parks.

[6:52:53] >> Right. Because we may still

[6:52:54] have gaps in our even current

[6:52:55] parks right now,

[6:52:57] like the gophers at Raygo

[6:52:59] Park. And then what is the

[6:53:03] universe. More costing. Okay,

[6:53:04] and then what do we do

[6:53:06] with that? Do we then present

[6:53:08] options such as, okay, the TOT

[6:53:14] policy provides this much

[6:53:18] for tourism impact funds, but

[6:53:19] we can redirect those dollars

[6:53:23] now onto parks. I just trying

[6:53:24] to figure out what is the

[6:53:26] product that would be helpful

[6:53:27] for the board to continue the

[6:53:28] conversation and if this is a

[6:53:29] product that is intended

[6:53:31] to occur in time for budget

[6:53:33] deliberations. I think I'm also

[6:53:35] challenged with that. So

[6:53:36] looking for clarity,

[6:53:38] >> I just wanted

[6:53:41] to also forgot that

[6:53:43] in a previous iteration of the

[6:53:45] unincorporated governance ad

[6:53:46] hoc, I believe this was back

[6:53:47] when it was me and Supervisor

[6:53:49] Gore, we actually did have a

[6:53:51] heat map to Supervisor

[6:53:52] Rabbitt's point about sort of

[6:53:54] where are the park deserts and

[6:53:55] what. And I think that AG and

[6:53:56] Open Space has actually used

[6:53:58] that data to help prioritize

[6:53:59] matching grant projects. Is

[6:54:00] that correct? Because we

[6:54:02] actually did look

[6:54:03] at what's the density

[6:54:04] of population,

[6:54:05] how far are they

[6:54:07] to the nearest community park.

[6:54:08] So we do have some stuff that

[6:54:09] could be shared with the board

[6:54:10] that was already a matter

[6:54:11] of public record previously,

[6:54:13] I think. Is that correct?

[6:54:14] >> And it is a link to the

[6:54:15] PowerPoint, the gap analysis.

[6:54:16] Okay.

[6:54:18] >> On that same page where the

[6:54:19] gap analysis is found are also

[6:54:20] other enviro screens that

[6:54:21] you're talking

[6:54:22] about that was. Yep. The enviro

[6:54:24] screen, I think, was what I

[6:54:25] was. I was talking about. And

[6:54:26] then. And then I guess my

[6:54:27] request would just be that

[6:54:29] we're able

[6:54:30] to have this conversation

[6:54:31] before suddenly we're having an

[6:54:32] up and down vote

[6:54:33] on a measure M measure. You

[6:54:34] know,

[6:54:35] is there some opportunity

[6:54:37] of looking

[6:54:38] at unincorporated parks? And I

[6:54:39] wouldn't Want to exclude if

[6:54:40] there are. I mean,

[6:54:41] I'm. I'm thrilled to have

[6:54:42] Forestville and Guernville

[6:54:43] on the list,

[6:54:44] but I also wouldn't want

[6:54:45] to exclude if there are, say,

[6:54:46] needs in Pen Grove or, you

[6:54:48] know, I mean, Moreland has

[6:54:49] Andy's Unity park, but if there

[6:54:50] are any other unincorporated

[6:54:51] areas of D3 or, you know,

[6:54:52] D1 that don't have, you know,

[6:54:53] their funding needs met.

[6:54:55] But I, you know, I would love

[6:54:56] to look at is there group in

[6:54:57] tot that we could potentially

[6:54:58] invest in this and

[6:55:00] to have that conversation

[6:55:02] before it's up or down on

[6:55:04] Measure M 2.0.

[6:55:08] >> Supervisor Vice Chair.

[6:55:10] >> Yeah, I'm good with what

[6:55:13] Supervisor Hopkins said. With

[6:55:15] what you said. I do have. I

[6:55:17] would prefer that we have a

[6:55:18] wider scope

[6:55:20] of what we're looking at than

[6:55:24] just the four projects that we

[6:55:25] saw today. I would love

[6:55:28] to see a heat map. I would love

[6:55:29] to see a list of maybe options

[6:55:32] of how to provide maintenance

[6:55:34] and operations of parks going

[6:55:36] into perpetuity. Because you

[6:55:38] break it, you own it,

[6:55:40] and just. There's a new park

[6:55:45] coming into the Roseland area,

[6:55:49] which is in Santa Rosa now,

[6:55:50] but it's uncounted property

[6:55:52] at Roselyn Village. And we're

[6:55:56] trying to give it to the city

[6:55:58] of Santa Rosa because we don't.

[6:56:01] We haven't identified

[6:56:02] maintenance and operation

[6:56:04] of that park into the future.

[6:56:05] So this is a problem

[6:56:07] everywhere. We should be

[6:56:10] looking at it on a.

[6:56:11] On a wide basis,

[6:56:12] wide focus.

[6:56:13] >> Okay.

[6:56:16] >> Think I got it.

[6:56:18] >> We got it.

[6:56:19] >> Great.

[6:56:20] >> Thank you.

[6:56:21] >> It's going to be like one of

[6:56:23] those pictures that we painted

[6:56:24] something,

[6:56:25] and then we're going

[6:56:26] to color something. I'm going

[6:56:27] to bring it back and see what

[6:56:28] colors we missed.

[6:56:29] >> We have white out and

[6:56:30] Sharpie.

[6:56:31] >> There you go.

[6:56:32] >> Well, continue the

[6:56:34] conversation. Thank you.

[6:56:35] >> Thank you so much. And now

[6:56:37] with that, we are going

[6:56:41] to move to item number 50,

[6:56:44] permit Sonomas Acts and

[6:56:46] Determinations. Waving the

[6:56:50] presentation.

[6:56:52] >> Second, you need some.

[6:56:54] >> We need public comment.

[6:56:56] >> It's so fun to keep.

[6:57:31] >> So now we're moving on to

[6:57:33] I. Item 50 Acts and

[6:57:36] Determinations. And if I don't

[6:57:42] see anyone in the audience

[6:57:43] to give comments

[6:57:45] on agenda item 50. With that,

[6:57:46] I'll bring it to the board

[6:57:48] with any questions or comments.

[6:57:49] If not, there is a. Is there a

[6:57:51] motion and a second

[6:57:52] to approve?

[6:57:54] >> Yes, there is a motion.

[6:57:55] >> Second.

[6:57:57] >> Roll call.

[6:58:01] >> [CALLING ROLL]

[6:58:20] >> Thank you.

[6:58:21] >> And now we are going

[6:58:22] to report out, please. County

[6:58:24] council, swiftly.

[6:58:25] >> Thank you, Chair.

[6:58:27] Everybody's favorite part

[6:58:28] of the meeting report out for

[6:58:30] March 10, 2026. Closed session

[6:58:31] the board met

[6:58:32] in closed session

[6:58:33] to discuss items one

[6:58:34] through eight on the agenda.

[6:58:36] As previously noted on March

[6:58:37] 10, item seven and eight were

[6:58:38] continued and not discussed

[6:58:39] by the Board. On item one,

[6:58:40] the Board of Supervisors met

[6:58:41] in closed session to consider

[6:58:43] the public employee performance

[6:58:44] evaluation of the General

[6:58:46] Manager of the Sonoma County

[6:58:47] Water Agency. No reportable

[6:58:49] action was taken. The Board

[6:58:50] gave direction to staff

[6:58:52] on item number two. It was

[6:58:56] conference

[6:58:57] with real property negotiator

[6:58:58] for the Sonoma County Water

[6:59:00] Agency regarding property on

[6:59:01] River Road in Forestville APNS

[6:59:14] 083020097 and 00830 20098. The

[6:59:16] negotiating parties were the

[6:59:17] Sonoma County Water Agency and

[6:59:19] Dermot Burke and Darius

[6:59:20] Burke. No reportable action was

[6:59:23] taken. The Board gave direction

[6:59:24] to its real property

[6:59:25] negotiators. And then

[6:59:28] for items number three

[6:59:34] through six,

[6:59:37] these were also conference

[6:59:38] with real property negotiators

[6:59:40] Misty Arias for the

[6:59:42] Agricultural Preservation and

[6:59:43] Open Space District regarding

[6:59:44] proposed acquisitions

[6:59:46] of four conservation easements

[6:59:47] on South Sonoma Mountain

[6:59:49] described as Grove, Rogers

[6:59:51] Creek North, Rogers Creek south

[6:59:53] and Skyline

[6:59:54] in the unincorporated Sonoma

[6:59:55] County, California. No

[6:59:57] reportable action. The Board

[6:59:59] gave direction to its real

[7:00:00] party negotiator real property

[7:00:01] negotiators and then today the

[7:00:06] Board met in closed session

[7:00:07] to consider items 1, 2 and 2A.

[7:00:10] On item 1, the Board of

[7:00:14] Supervisors met

[7:00:16] in closed session to consider

[7:00:17] the public employee performance

[7:00:18] evaluation Sonoma County

[7:00:20] Executive Officer no reportable

[7:00:23] action was taken. The Board

[7:00:24] gave direction to staff.

[7:00:29] On item two, the Board met

[7:00:30] in conference with legal

[7:00:32] counsel regarding existing

[7:00:33] litigation, the Vasilios

[7:00:35] Triant vs County of Sonoma et

[7:00:36] al matter and the Sonoma

[7:00:38] County Superior court case

[7:00:39] number SCV 269067. The board

[7:00:41] received additional information

[7:00:47] regarding

[7:00:48] from staff and then the Board

[7:00:50] provided further direction to

[7:00:51] staff and did not take any

[7:00:53] reportable action. And finally

[7:00:56] on Item 2A, the Board of

[7:01:00] Supervisors met if I can get

[7:01:05] to my report with real

[7:01:09] Property negotiators regarding

[7:01:11] 400 Aviation Boulevard, Santa

[7:01:13] Rosa, California. The agency

[7:01:15] negotiator is Johannes

[7:01:17] Hoverts, Director of Sonoma

[7:01:19] County Public Infrastructure

[7:01:21] and Warren Sattler, the Real

[7:01:22] Estate manager for the county

[7:01:24] of Sonoma and the negotiating

[7:01:26] parties were the county of

[7:01:27] Sonoma and the American Ag

[7:01:29] Credit FLCA under negotiation

[7:01:31] were priced terms and

[7:01:32] conditions of a proposed actual

[7:01:34] acquisition. The Board received

[7:01:36] additional information in

[7:01:37] closed session regarding the

[7:01:38] real estate negotiations for

[7:01:40] 400 Aviation Boulevard. The

[7:01:41] board provided further

[7:01:43] direction to staff and did not

[7:01:44] take any reportable action.

[7:01:46] That concludes the Report outs

[7:01:47] from the closed sessions for

[7:01:49] March 10th and March 24th of

[7:01:51] 2026. Thank you, Chair.

[7:01:52] >> Thank you so much. And with

[7:01:54] that is there board member

[7:01:58] report outs, Supervisor

[7:01:59] Hopkins?

[7:02:02] >> All right. On Wednesday

[7:02:03] 11th, we had an immigrant

[7:02:05] support ad hoc. On Thursday the

[7:02:07] 12th, I attended an Ag Council

[7:02:09] meeting in Napa on behalf

[7:02:10] of the California Air

[7:02:12] Resources Board, and

[7:02:14] in the afternoon attended the

[7:02:15] Santa Rosa plain GSA where we

[7:02:16] adopted our annual budget.

[7:02:18] Also on the 12th,

[7:02:19] attended a lower Russian

[7:02:20] River Municipal Advisory

[7:02:21] Council meeting. Moving on

[7:02:23] to the week of the 16th.

[7:02:24] On the 18th, I had a Bay Area

[7:02:26] Air District Finance and

[7:02:27] Administration Committee

[7:02:29] meeting, as well as an

[7:02:30] unincorporated governance ad

[7:02:31] hoc meeting. And I believe that

[7:02:33] concludes my reportable

[7:02:38] meetings. Oh, Russian River

[7:02:40] Management ad hoc meeting

[7:02:41] yesterday the 23rd.

[7:02:45] >> Supervisor Rabbitt.

[7:02:47] >> All right.

[7:02:48] >> Since last we met on

[7:02:50] Tuesday, March 10th. On that

[7:02:51] Wednesday, March 11th,

[7:02:53] I did attend Sonoma Waters

[7:02:56] Advocacy Day up in

[7:02:57] Sacramento, where we met

[7:03:00] with all of our state senators

[7:03:02] and assembly members and DWR

[7:03:03] and natural resources folks

[7:03:06] touting the work that we're

[7:03:08] doing here in Sonoma

[7:03:09] on water issues. I had

[7:03:12] to go back to Sacramento the

[7:03:13] next day on Thursday the 12th,

[7:03:15] to chair the Seismic Safety

[7:03:16] Commission meeting

[7:03:18] in the morning. Friday, March

[7:03:20] 13, had ABAG administration and

[7:03:21] joint ledge with MTC.

[7:03:22] Wednesday, March 18, smart

[7:03:25] meeting. Thursday, March 19,

[7:03:29] back to Sacramento

[7:03:34] for the association of

[7:03:35] California Water Agencies

[7:03:37] Leadership workshop. And then I

[7:03:38] did spend the night because the

[7:03:39] next morning we had our board

[7:03:42] meeting for aqua. And then

[7:03:45] Monday, because you can't get

[7:03:47] enough aqua, had another board

[7:03:49] meeting,

[7:03:50] a closed session that was

[7:03:52] for helping to select a new

[7:03:57] executive director.

[7:03:59] >> That's it.

[7:04:00] >> Thank you so much,

[7:04:01] Supervisor.

[7:04:04] >> Let's see, going back to

[7:04:06] March 12, the Santa Rosa

[7:04:07] Plain Groundwater

[7:04:09] Sustainability Agency board

[7:04:12] meeting, measure O ad hoc

[7:04:15] on the 16th, South Santa Rosa

[7:04:17] annexation ad hoc

[7:04:20] on the 17th, Smart board

[7:04:23] on the 18th, Sonoma County

[7:04:25] Employee Retirement association

[7:04:29] board on the 19th, and an ad

[7:04:31] hoc, a transit ad hoc meeting

[7:04:32] of the Sonoma County

[7:04:33] Transportation and climate

[7:04:36] authorities on the 19th.

[7:04:39] >> Thank you so much. And I

[7:04:41] again attended with

[7:04:44] Supervisor Hopkins the

[7:04:46] immigration ad hoc on March 11

[7:04:48] and March 17, the South Santa

[7:04:50] Rosa annexation ad hoc meeting.

[7:04:53] And with that, we are going

[7:04:55] to adjourn our meeting

[7:05:00] in honor of Marcus Zeimer and

[7:05:02] Coric Brown.

[7:05:18] >> Thank you.

[7:05:20] >> And with that, our meeting

[7:05:21] will be adjourned and our next

[7:05:23] meeting will be on Tuesday,

[7:05:24] April 7th.

[7:05:25] >> Thank you.

Board of Supervisors on 2026-03-24 9:00 AM

Agenda

Transcript