[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.