Comments from last Tuesday’s discussion of proposed big pay raises for the Sheriff and DA.
Supervisor Tom Woodhouse, explaining why he supported and sponsored a big raise for the Sheriff and District Attorney: “We are the ones elected by the people who make the tough decisions, and everything isn’t fair and everybody doesn’t get paid the same amount and we can’t just go by a percentage thing that — and I’m not trying to be offensive, but when you give everybody the same thing like communism it doesn’t work, in capitalism people are paid different amounts and life isn’t equal for all of us. You hopefully have opportunity to earn more money. Thank you for watching this process and I hope we can come to something.”
(Supervisor Woodhouse must be unaware that all five Supervisors get the same pay regardless of how much time they put in, how sensible or non-sensible they are, or how responsive they are to their constituents.)
Supervisor Carre Brown: “I have no problem with 5%. While I highly respect the Sheriff and the District Attorney I can not ethically do for them [Woodhouse’s large pay increase proposal] what this board has not been able to do financially, and that’s restoring wages for all other County employees and I do understand what Mendocino County pays. I see it across the organization. All employees are earning less than most counties throughout this state and that includes Supervisors, across all the positions. We’re still in financial trouble, we look at our burden that we owe, this county owes, with pensions and I don’t know where I’m going to fall on this. I want to listen to my colleagues. I do feel that I can’t support this and I feel badly.”
Supervisor Dan Gjerde explained that the Board has tried to be consistent among bargaining groups, and that “pension debt does hang over the county,” adding that other bargaining units want salary restoration and parity too. But, “for every dollar in salary, the County is paying another 70 cents in benefits. With some employees the ratio is even higher, but that’s an average of all county employees. If you look at the private market here, the most generous private employers in Mendocino County tell me — the ones who have healthcare, who have 401k plans — they spend about 35¢ for every dollar. Other employers are spending less than that for every dollar in salary. Mendocino County on average is spending 70 cents and it’s growing because the pension obligation costs continue to grow. That’s weighing in on us. That’s the reason those wages have not gone up more. If we could swap some of the benefit costs in exchange for higher salaries we would do it. … There are people who can work for Mendocino County for 30 or 40 years and retire and receive more take home pay in retirement than in their last year of payment. Why? Because once you hit 30 years of public employment in Mendocino County you stop contributing towards the pension plan and keep in mind the employee is paying about $1 for every $4 the county pays for the pension plan. But they stop paying after 30 years of public service here in Mendocino County. You work for the state of California and you pay every year until you retire. Not here in Mendocino County. In addition, when you retire you get social security. So when you retire in Mendocino County you get both the pension and Social Security. Your take home pay after 30 or 35 years of service is higher than your last day of service. Tell me any other person in the regular world who that’s the case for? So that is why salaries are suppressed. It’s no secret.” Gjerde added that if they do approve the raise it should only be 5% cost-of-living raise each for the Sheriff and DA and any additional increase should only be through the current term which would make it consistent with a few other specialized employees in other bargaining units.
Supervisor John McCowen: “We heard very clearly today from the Sheriff that he intends to run again. I believe that if we adjust the compensation, that the District Attorney would stay and would run for another term… He’s not nodding his head, however. He’s sitting there poker-faced. So I guess we’ll do whatever we’ll do and so will he. I wish he hadn’t been quite so coy earlier. When I was talking with him it seemed clear that if we did not approve a significant raise, to approximately $153,750, that did seem to be the bottom line… Frankly many of our employees have special training, degrees, qualifications, decades of experience, so that’s true for probably hundreds of our employees to one degree or another. The District Attorney is a key position in law enforcement, a key position in County government, and I don’t want to be in the market for a new district attorney.” … “I do think if we increase the compensation he will run for another term.”
Supervisor Dan Hamburg: “I’m not really comfortable with establishing a salary for an individual. I think what we do is we establish salaries for positions. I think it’s unprecedented that we establish salaries for a particular individual, and as long as this individual is in this job we’ll pay this much, but as soon as he leaves we’re going to put it at something else.”
McCowen: “We lose however we go on this. We take the heat for granting an extraordinary increase or we take the heat for having to be in the market for a new DA. That’s what I really don’t want to do. The repercussions if Mr. Eyster were to pursue other opportunities that were available to him and there is a number of them: He could run for judge, he could go into private practice, he could actually take a job as an assistant in another county and make considerably more money for a 40 hour week. … I won’t be the Supervisor who watches this District Attorney walk out the door for $15,000 or $20,000. … I’m just very concerned that we lose an exceptional district attorney for a few thousand dollars. I would support 5% permanent increases for the Sheriff and DA and an additional 11% for the DA and that would give us a somewhat improved chance that we would retain the DA.”
* * *
Brown: “Just as we were taking a break to get the sound back there was a procedural question so I’d like to go to County Counsel.
County Counsel Kit Elliott: “At this point we’ve had an amended motion and there’s been a second and so the question is, does that have to go out for public comment. Since we had a specific resolution on the agenda summary which we are now voting on something that’s different than that original resolution, it probably would be safer to put that back out there for public comment. But I think that’s up to the Board. Again, the item has been noticed in terms of it being a salary discussion.”
McCowen: “I disagree emphatically that there’s any need to take additional public comment because the action that is before the Board now is within the scope of what was noticed to the public and it actually provides for a lesser increase than what was noticed to the public so there’s absolutely no requirement that we open it back up again for public comment.”
Elliott: “For clarification, I was saying… It’s not… I don’t… I… You… I am in agreement with that. I don’t think it’s required. I’m just giving you have the option. So…”
* * *
The Board voted unanimously to approve 5% raises for the Sheriff and the DA plus an 11% supplemental increase for DA Eyster which will sunset at the end of the DA’s current term of office.
PS. The Board could save a lot of time discussing procedural questions if they left County Counsel out of the discussion and simply followed historical precedent: 1. Ask John McCowen. 2. If there’s a question about what the Board can do, the answer is: They can do it. 3. If there’s a question about what anybody else can do: They can not do it.
* * *
The Supes to Ross Liberty, Ukiah businessman:
Dear Mr. Liberty,
As you are aware the Board of Supervisors is proud of the Factory Pipe project you completed which demonstrated our ability to work with local entrepreneurs and business owners, such as yourself, to grow the local economy. This example of local officials and business owners working together was successful in ensuring the retention of approximately 65 quality jobs your company currently provides here in Mendocino County.
While local manufacturing employment has eroded nearly 50% over the past two decades, there has been some recent growth in the industrial sector. Factory Pipe has been a key part of that growth. Not only is Factory Pipe a great example of a successful local business, but you have been a cornerstone of the local business community in providing leadership and mentoring to other business owners and prospective business owners.
Based on our understanding of your team’s proposed project of commercial and industrial development at the former Masonite property we welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively to encourage the development of underutilized properties and foster local job creation. We understand that if you are successful in acquiring the subject property you intend to request a rezone of up to 20 acres along the North State Street frontage. The Board supports this concept and agrees that well designed commercial development at this gateway location will enhance the North State Street corridor and encourage additional investment by nearby property owners. Accordingly, the Board will encourage staff to ensure that a rezoning request, pursuant to County policies and all applicable laws and regulations, is processed for consideration at the earliest opportunity.
Additionally, we believe that the potential development of an industrial park on the balance of the property, that would employ as many as 600 or more people, many of which will be skilled positions, should be considered for other incentives as appropriate. In recognition of the significant long term local benefits of a successful project, the Board is open to consideration of incentives such as 10-year property tax abatement on all improvements from the date of initial occupancy, ten-year property tax abatement on capital equipment, alternative funding for infrastructure investment, or other appropriate measures.
We look forward to a partnership that will benefit all of Mendocino County by creating quality local jobs, growing the local economy, and increasing local government revenue. Please do not hesitate to contact County Executive Officer Carmel J. Angelo with any questions or updates on the progress of this exciting and vitally needed local project.
Sincerely, Carre Brown,
Chair Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
(Approved unanimously, Dec 8, 2015)
* * *
On Line Comment: “I agree this county needs good jobs but a ten-year waiver of taxes for Carmel’s buddy on the Employers Council, Ros Liberty? Tell me again how “I don’t advocate,” Ms. Angelo. I think you’ve been caught in another “misstatement,” i.e. an untruth. And Supervisor Brown is your mouthpiece, drank the Kool-aid a long time ago. And then tell me why he gets this waiver when county revenue is “still almost flat.” Perhaps a discount would be more appropriate than a total waiver for 10 years. But again he is your gosod friend and your friends get more privileges than ordinary citizens of this county.”
— Helen Michael, County Employee Union Rep
According to the letter from the Supervisors to Mr. Liberty, “In recognition of the significant long term local benefits of a successful project, the Board is open to consideration of incentives such as 10-year property tax abatement on all improvements from the date of initial occupancy, 10-year property tax abatement on capital equipment, alternative funding for infrastructure investment, or other appropriate measures.”
So no official decision has been made to give a big tax break to Mr. Liberty — yet. In the interest of the “transparency” that the Board and CEO brag about all the time, any decision to give tax breaks to a private citizen should include full disclosure of the names of Mr. Liberty’s “team” (investors) who stand to benefit, and the exact amount of taxes being lost in the process over the full period proposed.
A Reader Writes re the Ross Liberty deal for the Masonite property north of Ukiah: “On the other hand, we can look at the Masonite slab for the next 30 years, just like the Palace Hotel. Based on what Liberty paid for his current 10 acres at Masonite and the improvements he made, he probably pays $40-50,000 in property tax annually. He also gets taxed on the value of his equipment. The 10 year tax break will only be on new buildings and new equipment if and when they are built and go on line. His goal is to develop the bulk of the property with manufacturing businesses that pay a living wage (like Factory Pipe) which would result in the creation of 600 well paid jobs. Another consideration is that the County is getting nothing now from buildings that do not currently exist and may never exist without an incentive of the type you guys complained about.”
Put your reading glasses on. We didn't "complain" about Liberty's possible tax break. We said it should be done through a formal, open process with all the investors named (either now or when they invest) and clear delineation of the size of the tax break(s) involved.
* * *
County Counsel Katharine 'Kit' Elliott was in court Thursday attempting to head off a possible ballot measure which would force the County to allocate a fair portion of the Proposition 172 “public safety” money to fire districts in the County. The legal basis for her appearance is not clear at this point. Apparently she filed as a private citizen to have the court rule on the legality of the proposal before it is even presented to the Board of Supervisors (i.e., her, as the Board’s lawyer), much less to the public for a vote.
In plain talk, the cops and the DA get all the public safety money while our local fire departments get none. What we have in County Counsel Elliott's blocking of the democratic process is a tax paid lawyer acting on behalf of the tax paid DA and the tax paid cops but against the struggling volunteer citizen fire departments and volunteer emergency services of the County.
According to a summary prepared by the volunteer fire fighters and emergency services groups trying to get their fair share of the Prop 172 Public Safety money, Ms. Elliott filed the suit because she “believes the proposed measure to be illegal because of its requirements for funding. She further indicated that she was taking this action on behalf of the County’s citizens, not the County. (!) She also stated her action would save money associated with the election process. She thinks a different route for funding should be "pursued.”
In other words, Elliott claims to be acting as an independent citizen when she's obviously not. She's acting on behalf of one segment of the safety community and against another segment of the safety community, the segment (volunteer emergency and fire people) that has much less entrenched clout than law enforcement.
At Thursday's hearing, Elliot bumped Judge Henderson from hearing the case because of his alleged political antipathy for Supervisor Dan Hamburg. The case was transferred to Judge Jeanine Nadel who has functioned as County Counsel herself.
Judge Nadel told the small group on hand that she was not familiar with the arguments and would need time to study them so the case was put over to an unspecified future date.
All of this seems premature, since the measure is still only in draft form, has not been submitted to County Counsel, and has not yet been ruled on by the Board or gone out for signatures. The advocates of the proposal, the recently formed Mendocino County Fire Districts Association, are convinced that the County won’t turn any of the approximately $7 million to fire districts without being forced to by a ballot initiative.
A reader in Ukiah, familiar with the Prop 172 issue clarifies: “The initiative has been submitted to County Counsel for a ballot title and summary, which is what triggered the lawsuit. Instead of preparing a ballot title and summary (which is 100% within the purview of County Counsel) for an initiative that she believes to constitutionally invalid, she decided to seek declaratory relief. Why let everyone waste time and money supporting or opposing something that the voters lack the power to enact?”
Apparently, the reader and Ms. Elliott believe that the Supervisors have sole authority to allocate revenues and the taxpayers cannot use the initiative process to dictate how to spend revenues. Our information came from someone associated with the Fire District Association and/or their attorneys who didn’t quite understand whether Ms. Elliott was acting on her own behalf or the County’s or even what argument she was making nor that the initiative has gone past the draft stage and been submitted. Apparently Judge Nadel has to read up on it too.
The reader continues: “If Ms. Elliott is not correct the courts will say so and the process will proceed as it normally would. Also, as I understand it, she is not suing as an individual private citizen but as County Counsel, an individual, as distinct from County Counsel on behalf of the County or the BOS.”
Thus the confusion. “…as County Counsel, an individual, as distinct from County Counsel on behalf of the County or the BOS.” Which sounds like a very fine splitting of hairs.
The reader continues: “One further note, as far as I know, the Mendocino County Association of Fire Districts has not been ‘formed’ — so far it is a small group of individuals spearheaded by Dave Roderick, Chief of the Hopland Fire Department.”
We don’t know the formation status of the MCAFD either. But they don’t have to be legally “formed” to circulate a petition, do they?
As we understand it, there are two questions involved: 1. Can the County keep all the Prop 172 monies for the County or must they allocate some to Fire Protection? And, 2. If not, how much?”
According to a Prop 172 summary by www.CaliforniaCityFinance.com, “What Public Safety Services Can Proposition 172 Be Spent On? A city or county that receives Proposition 172 funds must place the revenues in a special revenue fund to be expended only on public safety services as defined in Government Code Section 30052. Eligible services include sheriffs, police, fire, county district attorneys, corrections and ocean lifeguards. Government Code Section 30056 contains “maintenance of effort” provisions concerning Proposition 172 funds requiring cities and counties to maintain funding levels to public safety functions which receive Proposition 172 funds. These provisions ensure that Proposition 172 funds are spent on public safety services as defined.”
So it appears that the County is saying that just because fire protection is “eligible” to receive funds, the County just doesn’t want to give any to them. Maybe the County doesn’t have to, but does the Board or County Counsel really want to deprive volunteer fire departments of even a share of that $7 million? How else should the public interpret this?
* * *
Shorts—
Supervisor Woodhouse’s December 8 Supervisor’s Report (in its entirety): “I would like to… about the CSAC… that week we were there… I was very glad that you [Supervisor Carre Brown] went and I omitted when we talked about it briefly about the classes, how helpful you had been and welcoming me to CSAC and taking me around and that’s why I took all those classes to be a good little boy, so thanks for the energy you put into me. [Brown giggles.] Thank you very much, Madam Chair.”
Another Odd Remark from Supervisor Tom Woodhouse at the December 15 Board meeting regarding the timeline for development of new pot regulations under the state’s new Prop 215 regulations: “We are not going to ram it through by January 1 because there’s absolutely no reason to. I understand people are afraid. I’m not going to respond just to their fear. We’re looking for what’s good for everyone in the County, not just these isolated pockets, so I ask John (Supervisor McCowen) to please watch for rumors of vile things I’ve said about him because anything I have to say to him I’ll tell him directly.”
Be First to Comment