“…there are some who promise many more things than they deliver, and some who threaten much and perform least.”
— Romulus (Fifth Century AD)
Scaramella’s corollary: “…there are some who want to be paid for many more things than they deliver, and some who are paid much and perform least.”
After their seven-week “August Recess” (right after giving themselves a big raise) the Board of Supervisors posted their long awaited agenda for their Tuesday, September 10 meeting.
After all that time, what did they deliver?
First: A proposal to rubberstamp an agreement forming a joint powers agency to negotiate with PG&E for the “Surrender and Transfer the Potter Valley Project” with the goal of continuing the diversion of water from the Eel River into Mendo and, mostly, points south.
Do the Supervisors get any credit for this? Maybe a little, if credit is the right word for taking years to do the obvious for their wine industry constituency. But to our knowledge most of the credit goes to Adam Gaska who chairs the Redwood Valley Water District board, one of the key parties to the agreement. (We will probably see specifically how much credit goes where in time.) Again, this is not an agreement with PG&E or anything big, just an agreement between the County, the Inland Power & Water Commission, the Redwood Valley Water District, the Potter Valley Irrigation District, and the Russian River Flood Control District.
Whoopee!
Following that there’s a grant application for $200k worth of disaster repairs that the Board will approve.
There’s the leftover and unchanged pre-“recess” proposal to formalize the loan of $7 million of Measure B money to cover part of the jail expansion overrun and pay it back over eight years at 2.5% starting in September of 2025. We don’t even remember why they didn’t approve it two months ago. There’s still some question as to whether it will be needed because the final cost of the jail expansion has not been finalized and there’s a chance that the County will get a $ 9 million state grant for the PHF which might muddy the loan picture if the County meets its construction timeline and the grant is awarded. If…, if…
There’s a proposed pot cultivation “density” rule modification.
There are a few proposed inland zoning code modifications.
And there’s another closed session discussion involving “complaints against two county officials.” (Apparently in the dubious opinion of the County Counsel these “complaints” might morph into a lawsuit, hence a secretive “closed session.”)
In other words, seven weeks and back to no-serious-business as usual.
A warmed over JPA along with some routine rubberstampings plus an extensive accumulation of routine consent calendar items.
Nothing about County finances, funds, disbursements, departmental status updates, revenue deficits, and tax collection and tax lien sales.
To top off the routine nature of this long-awaited but nearly empty agenda we find Consent Calendar Item 3ab which conveniently comes on the heels of a going-nowhere draft proposal a few months ago to competitively bid the County’s various mental health services contracts:
Item 3ab: “Approve retroactive [sic] second amendment to Agreement No. BOS-23-137 with Redwood Quality Management Company DBA Anchor Health Management, Inc., [aka the Schraeders] in the amount of $20,000, for a new total of $2,220,142, to provide care coordination, data management, and transition for the delivery of Specialty Mental Health Services in Mendocino County, effective July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024.”
After all of Supervisor Ted Williams’ complaints about no-bid contract add-ons and retroactive dispensings of contracts, and the first agenda following the “recess” proposes yet another one retractive no-bid award. In your face, Supervisor Williams.
For pure blatancy, the consent calendar also includes the final rubberstamping of their self-awarded pay raise buried way down on the long list of consent calendar items:
Consent Item 3al (the 38th item on the consent calendar): “Adopt Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Mendocino amending section 3.04.071 of the Mendocino County Code increasing the base salary for members of the Board of Supervisors” … “to increase the base salary for each member of the Board of Supervisors from $95,302 to $110,715, over two fiscal years. The Board of Supervisors has not seen an annual salary increase since 2018 except for COLA’s received in years 2019 through 2021.”
How will this big raise be paid for?
“Source Of Funding: Departmental Budget.
“Current F/Y Cost: FY 24/25 $476,510 (with benefits $810,067)
(Yes, that’s over $800k in pay and benefits for five nearly comatose elected officials. Throw in the CEO’s pay and benefits of over $400k and those six people alone cost Mendo taxpayers over $1.2 million a year.)
“Budget Clarification: Executive Office budget team will continue to explore all funding options available to cover additional expense, including reducing expenditures in other departmental budget line items.
“Annual Recurring Cost: FY 24/25 increase $38,532 approximate and FY 25/26 increase $38,532 approximate.
“Budgeted In Current F/Y (if no, please describe): No.” (There was no further “description” besides the note above saying that the CEO’s “budget team” is “exploring” where to get the money for the board member raises.)
Translation: The Supervisors’ raise is not only unjustified it was not even budgeted by the Board that claims to be presiding over a broke county and the raise will have to be paid for by raiding the budgets of other unspecified departments.
ADAM GASKA: I can’t take much credit for IWPC. For better or worse, that distinction goes to Janet Pauli. I can say I have helped improve RVCWD’s financial situation by developing a better relationship with RRFC to procure surplus water and work toward the annexation into flood controls district with the hopes of securing a water contract. RVCWD is in a better position to financially contribute to IWPC’s efforts to continue some level of water diversion because of our improved financial outlook.
Supes Being Rushed To Support Expanded Unregulated Camping
Next Tuesday’s Supervisors Agenda includes a sneaky consent calendar item proposing that the Board “ratify” a letter in support of Senate Bill 620 (McGuire): “Low-impact camping areas.”
The draft letter reads:
“Dear Assemblymember (Buffy) Wicks (Chair of the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee),
I am writing on behalf of the Mendocino Board of Supervisors to express our support for SB 620. This bill defines and establishes "low-impact camping areas" standards to increase affordable outdoor access and create economic opportunities for rural communities, particularly those on the North Coast.
SB 620 aims to create additional camping opportunities on rural, private property across the state by eliminating prohibitively costly and time-intensive state permits unsuitable for small-scale camping areas. This change would enable Californians to engage in and benefit from our state's thriving outdoor recreation industry and create opportunities for rural economic development in communities like Mendocino County. In Mendocino County, campsites on rural and agricultural lands are already a crucial source of income, given the increased demand for outdoor recreation in recent years. The County recognizes the critical role of tourism, including rural recreation, in our local economy. Therefore, the Mendocino Board of Supervisors is currently working on permitting and additional support for small-scale, low-impact camping areas. SB 620 provides a foundation that Mendocino County – and other rural communities – can build upon.
Moreover, investments in small-scale, low-impact camping areas and resources are vital to the success of ambitious outdoor recreation projects like the Great Redwood Trail (GRT). The GRT aims to increase recreational access to remote areas in Northern California and create economic opportunities for the individual landowners and rural communities surrounding it. Since over 80% of land adjacent to the GRT is privately owned, SB 620 could be crucial in establishing sufficient camping areas to support recreation along the trail. Enabling local landowners to host campers could ensure that residents benefit from the economic impact of the GRT. In summary, SB 620 has the potential to significantly boost rural economic development, support California landowners, and improve outdoor access.
The Board of Supervisors of Mendocino County supports SB 620 for these reasons.
(Proposed signature: Maureen Mulheren, Chair, Mendocino County Board of Supervisors.)
The proposed letter claims that, “the Mendocino Board of Supervisors is currently working on permitting and additional support for small-scale, low-impact camping areas.”
In fact, the Board has done no “work” whatsoever on this alleged “low impact” camping issue. If they had, they’d know that the idea is widely unpopular in Mendocino County.
The Planning Commission has been attempting to develop “HIP Camp” rules for such “low impact” camping for several months, but it has been hung up by a barrage of difficult to resolve downsides. In fact, just last August the Planning Commission voted against legalizing “small commercial campgrounds,” although it left the door open for further consideration. Public comment to the Planning Commission on this subject has been strongly in opposition.
It is extremely premature for the County to officially endorse this state level legislation when there are so many unknowns and unaddressed problems and so much local opposition.
HIP camps are the equivalent of AirBnB for camping and lots of locals are opposed to the idea for obvious reasons like who’s in charge when the “campers” present problems? What is the law enforcement and emergency response capacity? Will the “campers” present a fire hazard? What about trash? Sewage? Noise? Traffic associated with large RVs on already bad rural roads? Drug and alcohol use? Insurance rates for neighbors? Who’s going to enforce whatever rules the Planning Commission or County or State come up with in outback areas where campers show up without notice? Privacy? Trespassing? Who will make sure campers leave after their month-long allowance and that they don’t exceed the nine “camp“ maximum? What’s to prevent the camps from becoming homeless camps? What about camping on public lands? River and creek setbacks? Will permits be required? In what zoning? What is the budgetary and capacity impact on law enforcement and emergency services? Etc.
The proposed premature support letter has more to do with an unthinking attempt to support more tourism and increase transient occupancy camping revenues than good public policy. (The attached agenda materials say that supporting the Senate Bill would magically lead to “a thriving economy.”) Tracking and collecting transient occupancy taxes will also present significant tax collection challenges — Mendo already has trouble collecting the full amount of existing transient occupancy taxes on (supposedly) registered renters.
This is a complex and unpopular issue that the Planning Commission, which is made up of more competent, thoughtful people than the Board of Supervisors, should be allowed to deal with. They should not be undercut by a premature letter of support from the Board doing an end run around their own Commission and planning process. Supporting this tourism-sponsored idea before the Planning Commission has finished their review is typical of the mindless approach this Board of Supervisors so often takes. There is no supervisor listed on the agenda as “sponsor.” The letter appears to be the brainchild of CEO Darcie Antle and her administrative analyst and grant specialist Kelly Hansen without the slightest acknowledgement of the Planning Commission’s activities or the numerous problems that such camps present. These two have taken it upon themselves to put the “ratification” of the letter on the consent calendar where it clearly does not belong, and should not be approved.
ADAM GASKA re “low impact commercial campground”:
I think [State Senator] McGuire just wants to make it easy for people to turn the properties along the GRT into campgrounds. County PBS has been having meetings about this issue and there has been a lot of community concern over the impacts that could rise to the level of a nuisance or worse. Most people support restrictions to mitigate possible nuisances and dangers.
The bill McGuire is pushing has very little in the way of restrictions. If his bill gets passed quickly, it becomes law. If our county does not pass restrictions, then people can start operating “low impact campgrounds”. Once people are operating, they have an established use that they are now entitled to which makes it harder to add restrictions or requirements after the fact.
Here is the bill: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB620/id/2834063
Be First to Comment