Humboldt County Citizens Advisory Committee on Measure Z Expenditures, Meeting of 2019-03-28

Humboldt County Citizens Advisory Committee on Measure Z Expenditures, Meeting of 2019-03-28


would any the committee members like to
propose any modifications to the agenda seeing none we approve the agenda as
presented this would be the time for public comments on non-agenda items we
would encourage you to speak to us about a matter not on the agenda today because
of the assumed difficulty in getting through the schedule today we’re going
to limit the time for all comments to two minutes unless they are extended by
a member of the committee we certainly don’t seek to trample on
your right to speak but there are realities that we have to face as well
because we’re facing a deadline for submitting this to the Board of
Supervisors so anyone who would like to speak on a public comment context on a
matter not on the agenda we’d welcome you out Chief 5500 of the Telegraph Ridge
fire protection district where if you don’t know where Telegraph Ridge is it’s
the Ettersburg area we’re between Honeydew and Briceland Whitethorn
we’ve been around since 1988 we serve a large all rural district with about
three or four hundred people I’m here today to thank you I’m not asking for
anything I want to thank you for everything measure Z has done for our
fire department I want to thank the committee the taxpayers and the voters
of Humboldt County we may be the poster child for measure Z and to support that
I brought posters to show you what we’ve done we have received over the years new
wildland gear protective gear new breathing apparatus new structure gear
new fire hose we were able to purchase a modern 2007 four-wheel drive fire engine
with a crew cab our main pump before that was an old 1985 Cal fire engine
with high miles and held together with duct tape I brought pictures for you to
keep this is our new engine this is our crew wearing the new gear and here’s the
new engine in the old one and this is for the committee but the real thing I’m here to thank you
about is we recently received reached an agreement with a southern Humboldt Unified
School District to purchase the closed Ettersburg school property
we’ve been in negotiations with him for eight years and the timing could not
have been better we’re building our new fire house Measure Z has paid for the
engineering the permits all the materials including rebar and concrete
and the metal building itself we are providing all the labor or hiring the
labor tell ridge fire protection district is a fee-based district our
income is about ten thousand dollars a year barely pays insurance and the fuel
and we do a lot of fundraising to stay in business we apply for grants but we
would not be where we are today without measures he funds oh that’s my timer any
now that’s our pager I think this building will be here a hundred years
from now I hope our fire district will be too and our fire department and I
just want to thank you for your support and I brought pictures of our pouring
the concrete of the building which except for the rain would almost be up
now so these pictures are for the committee thank you for all your support
we’re a very poor district and we have more active people and are able to
respond better due to measure Z please come forward I can’t wait to be able to
come up here and say exactly what that gentleman just said I’m from Bridgeville
my name is Lynn Xavier I’m the president of the board there and I’m also a
certified CERT member I’m working right now with getting myself at the end of
the month trained to be a trainer for CERT so we can have county CERT and what
we have put in for is an application for four five thousand gallon order tanks –
for two different locations so that we have ten thousand gallons of water in
one area of our neighborhood that can protect us from wire fires actually
spreading and getting hot enough so that we don’t have to wait for the
water department or the fire department to take an hour to get from the fire to
the water and back because that we’ve we fight fires every season as first
responders in our own neighborhood we are getting so so prepared for any kind
of a disaster out there from the woman’s group that we have to the CERT programs
that we constantly try to get up there fire firefighters our first responders
we’re all working really hard to not be the next Paradise or Carr fire we don’t
want that to happen what we’re asked for was twenty-five thousand dollars to get
four five thousand gallon water tanks to help us and a wildfire only now we face
this every day and I know for a fact that when you’re
in a city every 300 and 300 feet in a commercial zone or 500 feet in a
residential there’s a fire hydrant we don’t have fire hydrants out there
there’s only a few of us that have forethought to have a fire hydrant in
our new homes myself being one of them but they have to come off a half again
half a mile off the 36 to get to me where we put these tanks they can get
right on the right on the off the 36 and save people’s lives thank you so much I
appreciate it thank you anyone else like to make a
comment not on an agenda item last call for anybody public comments yes I have a
public comment I’m the public so I would like for when’s our next meeting was the
day do you know for our next Measure Z meeting I would like to have on the
agenda that we recommend to the Board of Supervisors to look at the upcoming year
resources and income which is getting less each year and to have a minimum
maximum put on applications of what they can apply for so that we don’t have a 14
or 15 million dollar year again next year with even less money to give out
and I think I was a fundraiser for AARP for 30 years I’ve raised hundreds of
thousands of dollars and I know that by January you must have applications into
many many places to get money and when you don’t put them in in time then you
have to wait a full year if you don’t get anything from us if you’re depending
on us for the money so I would like to have it on the agenda to vote on that
they put with your help kind of an estimate of I know that’s hard but an
estimate of what the income may be and what we will have to give and put a
maximum of what people can apply for so that they know you know we can’t have 15
million dollars to try to give out on three staff can do that I my suggestion
would be that you import that into your recommendations that you will be
submitting to the board this go-around as part of those recommendations that
your committee would like the board to consider some level of cap on future
funding applications just by way of agenda planning I support your concept
that I think after we get through this year’s round of allocations and so on
it’s important that we take us fairly significant amount of time and look at
the process see what has actually happened take a look at the wage
inflation and so on that’s eroding the discretionary portion so it was my
intent after we finished you know the deliberation process for
their shares allocations to try to agenda as an item that would just talk
about an overall procedural review of how we do business because I think there
are criteria that are going to need to be adopted
maybe the ones you suggest maybe others I think it’s incumbent upon us now that
there’s no longer a sunset I think the public expects this committee to be to
some degree out I don’t want to use the word check but I’ll a reasonable
limitation on the activities of the and so on and I think we need to talk
about that I think we also need to talk about the fact that there is an
imbalance or there’s a growing imbalance between that carryover positions and the
amount of discretionary funding that we find ourselves in each year and if I’ve
done my calculations correctly in about seven years there essentially will be no
more just discretionary money available for anything other than the ongoing
carryover salary so that’s a circumstance that I don’t think anybody
really addressed in any real way during the formation of the measure but it’s a
reality that we’re going to have to face so my intent is to support what you’re
talking about is I think we need to have a wide-ranging discussion on the
realities that we face today the fiscal realities and some talks about how we
might make the the process more successful for the discretionary
applicants and not just end up with a total funding mechanism for essentially
in-house County positions because while I recognize the value of those I don’t
think the community ever assumed that 100 percent of the money would
ultimately be retained within the counties you know personnel structure
and we’re certainly headed that direction in a relatively short period
of time so I support your call ginger and I think the appropriate time to do
it however would be let us get through this year’s deliberation process and
when we have that timeline off of us and off of the staff yeah then we could have
a process discussion and I would certainly support any and all input if
that process discussion any comments from other committee members I am I
would just like to repeat an add to what both of you are saying I’d like to
repeat what I said last week in numbers that this year the Measure Z II took in
approximately eleven million dollars and we have fixed income fixed expense now
in expenses personnel we have seven million five hundred thousand which
leaves us out of the 11 million dollars that we took in leaves us three and a
half million dollars to divvy up with you people today what the Chairman is
saying is as we continue if we continue to add
personnel the 11 the seven thousand eleven million dollars is going to grow and
there’s no guarantee that we’re going to take in 11 million dollars every year
maybe the economy gets bad in Humboldt County
maybe the economy gets worse in Humboldt County and pretty soon all the Measure Z
money of this be used up there there’ll be no reason to have a meeting so I just
wanted to bring that to attention again that I brought up last week thank you
yeah she’s next my question is kind of related to that on the mail out that we
got on the budget with the green tabbed items does that fall in those items fall
into that category the green tab items signified those applications that
contained personnel for outside agencies those are not assumed to be ongoing
those agencies are required to apply each and every year but we wanted to be
able to easily draw attention to those that did have personnel impacted by
those applications and I have one more question could you please help me to
plug in so I don’t stumble down there I didn’t get your question could you speak
in the mic please Vivienna so we can hear you
and if we can coordinate comments through the chair that is helpful to
allow him to prioritize comments as they received well I’m afraid if we limit the
amount that people are requesting we’re gonna instead of set of a group one
group requesting 25 water tanks a there gonna be 25 requests for a water tank
and we’re gonna I I don’t see how we can reasonably limit the request we can tell
them what they’re gonna get what they’re not gonna get but I don’t think there’s
just no way around having somebody limit the requests it’s not gonna work in my
opinion if my comments were interpreted to mean limiting the requests that in
fact was not what I was suggesting what I was saying is I think there are going
to be fiscal limits and operational limits that will you know put a tighter
and tighter squeeze on us but I am certainly not speaking in favor of nor
did I intend suggest any limitation on the
applications more a limitation on our ability to satisfy the requests the
application so if I must misspoke I apologize I’m often confused any other
comments from committee members on this topic before we move on okay we would
have then approval of the action summary for the meeting on the 21st I noticed
that there were a couple of anomalies in the dates and so on and I presumably
those have been corrected okay any other Corrections or additions to the action
summary any public comment on the action summary seeing none we have a motion for
approval of the action summary with the modifications to make the dates accurate
is there a second there’s a motion second any discussion all those in favor aye
opposed okay administrative updates I to clarify a miss Campbell’s question from
earlier your next committee meeting is on September 12
so please pencil that date in I would like to remind your committee that as
committee who conducts business in a public forum that your personal devices
if being used while conducting this meeting do become at risk of a public
records request so I would ask that your committee bear that in mind if you are
utilizing a personal device while you are on the dais also a reminder for
those who have not submitted your form 700s to please do so not submitting that
does put you at risk of a fine as well as invalidating your votes through this
committee’s process i stalked most of you to get that prior to the meeting but
if I have not been able to reach out to you then you should have a packet for
you available in your documents today and then finally Ms. Orcutt requested a
district map at the last meeting and so that is also contained in your documents
today absolutely okay I’d like to ask staff on the
personal device item is there an opinion on from the Attorney General’s Office to
that effect there has been high scrutiny on personal
devices I can’t say or say at this point in time whether the Attorney General has
made a ruling on that however there there have been devices who that have
been through judicial process made relevant in proceedings and so what what
that process would look like if somebody questioned it what you again like
similar to your email we wouldn’t ask to go through all of your personal things
it would be a request of did you send a text message or do you have any
communications on your personal device pertaining to such subject and then it
would be your responsibility to disclose that if that had occurred okay we can
move on to item d3 the application consideration before we start this
process I just wanted to convey to the to the public and I guess to the
committee as well this is going to be a tough tough time and we understand that
there’s a little over 11 million in a request and only three and a half
million in available money so there’s going to be a number of proposals that
are not successful here today I’ll speak for myself here when I say I will speak
to some of these in in a favor and some as opposition and I hope you’ll
understand that I do not do that about any kind of personal animus or anything
other than just the need to bring an 11 million dollar expenditure in line with
a three and a half million dollar revenue source so we in no way shape or
form are commenting on the merit of the proposals but there is a priority
process that needs to be established to move forward and we’ll try to do that
with respect to you I certainly respect every one of the applicants that took
the time to come forward and hopefully the public will be respectful of our
process as well I think I can speak for the rest of the committee when I say
I’ve spent a significant amount of time going through this again and again again
trying to come to what I think is the best balanced overall
and that will not be reflected in some of your views of what the best balance
is but the committee I think is acting in good faith and and we know that you
made application in a good faith so hopefully that kind of spirit can
overlay the discussion having said that amongst the committee
members before we get to a specific consideration process I’m curious is
there anybody who has a strategy or kind of a philosophy that they like to
suggest we pursue I have some ideas myself but I’m certainly interested in
the community’s input yes I have a suggestion actually I’m going to do it
in a form of a motion okay and I say that I look out in the audience and look
at a lot of optimistical optimistic faces and a lot of dependent faces upon
this money and and unfortunately you know there’s gonna be a lot of
disappointed people in the room today but it doesn’t stop here we are a
committee that recommends the Board of Supervisors okay and then there’s
another process that the Board of Supervisors will then adhere to in the
next month and a half or so which will review the committee’s recommendations
and then also take public input and they can do they can take our recommendations
what they’ve done in the past or they can have you know do something different
and it all depends upon how much money is available at the end and at that time
too they know if there’s going to be a rollover money which is probably not
gonna be a whole lot this year but there will be I think some so with that being
said I would like to to move that we accept seven applications seven seven
applications moving forward one is the K’ima:w Medical Center
ambulance service from Willow Creek 45 we accept number 45
we accept 15C the City of Fortuna Drug Task Force position 15B the city
of Fortuna SRO position number 10 the City of Eureka Police Department its
proposal number seven the City of Arcata Police Department proposal to fund their
SRO and diversion officers number 16 the City of Rio Dell police department
clerical position and number 26 the Fire Chiefs Association recommendation so
you’re doing the math on those seven that’s three point eight seven four
eight one four to five million dollars that’s over by three hundred and ten
thousand so to get to that three point five six four four eighty number I’m
asking that those applications all be reduced by eight percent and that would
bring the number down just below the number three point five six four could
be three point five six four eight two nine and what this motion does it it
funds all the current employed peace officers and support staff fully funds
or funds the fire chief Association and the ambulance service okay we have a
motion is there a second can you go through those numbers again I like that
just the numbers yes the numbers would be forty five you talk about the
application numbers fifteen B fifteen C seven ten sixteen and twenty six and
then reducing those applications about eight percent is there a second to the motion made by
Mr. Honsal I will second for purposes of discussion but sheriff I I wanted to
clarify did they that this does not include continued funding for the
deputies in Trinidad and Blue Lake or does it it does not it does not fund
this that the part-time Trinidad nor Blue Lake positions I’ve called the city
managers told them that I would not be funding those positions as of July and
so I’m asking that this committee doesn’t support that both actually yeah
so due to my current staffing level I would not be able to fill that position
as of July 1st so I don’t think this committee should recommend funding for
the city of Trinidad or Blue Lake now we could have the personnel as of January
2020 and so maybe at mid-year budget we can look at that position but at this
time I can’t fill it so I would recommend this this committee doesn’t
fund that other questions discussion sheriff if you could fill it at this
time would you support what would your recommendation have been different
absolutely yes my recommendation would be different yes other commentary in
regard to motion I have a question in this how do you respond to the
prioritization of the committee for the items that you chose not to include yeah
my priority was to to look at funding the police officers that are tied to
each city law enforcement and then fully funding the as much as we can the fire
chiefs Association when we have 3.5 million you know funding the existing
programs is very very important and this is not all the existing programs
talking STAR ambulance is not on here you know AJ’s was supported last time
there’s a lot of you know the library there’s a lot of things that were
supported last time District Attorney well yeah District Attorney is still getting funding for so but so it’s it’s a it’s a difficult
decision but as far as this committee goes is a tough thing to do but we have
to prioritize it’s my recognition we prioritized
really the basic funding mechanisms basic funding here and and then if there
is a surplus at either beginning of this next fiscal year or at mid-year then
they look at some of the other programs to fund other comments of the members
Mr. Chair question how much funding is in a sense already guaranteed for a
law enforcement and I would like to know that in terms of the sheriff’s office
and in terms of the cities that have received that funding so my
understanding is as at the 11 million dollar pot 7 million is already
appropriated in the sense or will be appropriated for continued law
enforcement other services so can we see those totals and what those communities
are yeah so that has to do with the county so the county services so law
enforcement for Sheriff’s Office so we have 44 positions tied up in that the
district attorney has positions probation public defender and who else am I missing
perhaps the best way to illustrate that in our initial meeting of this year or
the county staff provided us with a summary of the previously funded within
the county employment position so if that’s available on your electronic
format if not I have a copy of that paper document and it outlined all of
the presumed ongoing positions within the county it was the document I have
seen it I’d like to I like for the audience to be able to see that list for
our discussion other commentary on the motion I’d like to speak to it myself a
little bit I’d like to speak in opposition to the motion in trying to
come to terms myself with how to prioritize to this list there there are
a couple of principles that I thought should guide the way took a look at it
the first was that I wanted to provide the most basic services to the greatest
portion of of the county population wise and geographically and I also wanted to
take a look at organizations that were already providing community service
largely and in some cases on a volunteer basis so when I started my
prioritization which I think is being circulated to you and paper format we
have copies for the public I took a look at what can we do for the rural areas of
the community to try to bring at least basic level services to those
communities and I came up with a proposal that’s being circulated now and
you can take a look at it and see the reason I’m speaking in opposition is
this is not because I don’t value the positions that the sheriff is endorsed
but I say to myself there has to be some basic equity and and what I mean by that
is if you’re living in a rural area you’re already suffering a significant
deficit of basic services and so on you don’t probably have much in the way of
ambulance service without Measure Z II money you probably don’t have much in
the way of basic fire service without measures you money so there’s the equity
argument I’ll call it as far as the urban versus the rural areas there’s
another aspect of this that I find troubling quite frankly and and that is
the heavy preponderance of expenditure on law enforcement and law enforcement
related activities I understand that that is certainly one of the designated
purposes for this funding but we are getting to the point where huge
proportions of the fund now are being spent directly on law enforcement positions to
the exclusion of any other program and again that fails my basic test of
fairness and equity so I would like to speak in opposition to this I hold no
animus to any of the law enforcement community there is another political
aspect quite frankly that I think needs to be addressed and that is when this
measure was referred to the public it was sold to public that it would be a
wide-ranging source of money for improvements for the
communities as a whole and unfortunately we’re starting down the track that the
county is taken with proposition 172 where the vast majority of the money’s
in fact are retained within the county’s jurisdiction and the other applicants
essentially have no capability and bring a compromise or a proposal forward
because the money is essentially pre designated for for the law enforcement
community as I said in my earlier comments please don’t take any of them
to suggest any denigration of any individual or organization it’s strictly
a different philosophy as far as how I think this money should be spent so I
would urge you to vote in opposition to the motion and take what I believe to be
a more diverse and balanced view in the distribution of the money any other
comments Mr. Chair I just want to say I just want to comment the sheriff on putting out a
proposal that just kind of getting the conversation started and I personally in
opposition to this as well but I really appreciate the sheriff kind of getting a
start at down this path and being really honest with the committee in the public
in terms of what the sheriff values for our communities yeah this the motion
that’s before the committee is speaking for South County and for the communities
of Redway Garberville out to Shelter Cove it’s not acceptable that there’s no
money there’s no money for roads and that is the feeling that’s impressed
upon me by many neighbors across South County that that is the priority second
to fire protection but the roads and the condition of the roads and the challenge
that it brings to folks daily lives and the danger that it presents is serious
and I know members of the committee understand that and I would ask for a
fair representation excuse me I would ask for more equity in terms of that
this proposal too has lacks equity in a sense to there’s no funds recommended
for mental health services and personally I feel at this time those
services need to be funded at a reduced amount compared to roads
and law enforcement but there must be some representation for I would ask the
committee to vote on a measure that a motion that would have more equitable
more funds given for mental health services thank you any other committee
comments additionally I’d like to say that if the government sucks up all the
money that’s gonna go out over this three point five million dollars people
are gonna end up saying why do we even have this committee if the government’s
going to take all the money I at this time cannot support the support the
motion either even though I totally understand and respect what the sheriff
has said about the Trinidad and Blue Lake deputies if I’m seriously concerned
that if we don’t continue to commit to that then it’s even with as we’ve talked
that the funds seem to be decreasing and I’m seriously concerned that it might be
tough to bring back support for those two half-time deputies in those areas so
at this time I can’t support support the motion Ernie
yeah I unfortunately I can’t support it either I I’ve gone through this
endlessly at night and I can see a lot of the things the sheriff has
recommended it has a lot of room for cuts in it and they could pare it down
quite a bit and we could leave some money left over for some other projects
nothing south of Rio Dell has been spent with measure Z money other than the fire
department and congratulations chief Loski and thank you for your
presentation but nothing other than fire department money has been sent spent
past Rio Dell well you say we have deputies in Garberville and I believe
you I see one during the day we have poor service at night and I understand
why there it’s not that many calls down there compared to South but
we do have needs and southern Humboldt and southern southern Humboldt I should
say and I’m glad to see Fortuna is getting money so southern Humboldt Rio
Dell and Fortuna are getting some money in your proposal and I appreciate that but
I think we could pare some money out of this quite a bit and spread it around to
some very needy projects and again I want to echo what everything everybody
on this panel has said that it’s particularly heart-wrenching to have 50
cents in your pocket and somebody needs to do dollars worth of food it’s like I apologize to everybody here that’s not
going to get any money but I can’t support the sheriff’s plan and I suggest we vote on it unless anybody else has something to say okay any
other committee members like to speak any members the public like to speak to
the sheriff you’re speaking the microphones which I also echo the
comments you know made earlier about um the smaller districts receiving services
and you know the SRO and all that stuff because you know we have a lot of those
stories too and I was kind of you know from rescues and students and people’s
families that we’ve recovered bodies for with that we could have marched out and
told those stories as well but this morning so we had a rockslide down in
the Jack Norton area so we sent our Triple C workers for the Hupa Valley
tribe down there to clear the rocks and I actually posted it on my Measure Z
update and because I have to do district updates for my area so if we are to
accept these proposals how are those rural communities supposed
to secure any services in our area for roads are for you I mean it just when
you look at the map we’re in the biggest district and we have the highest fires
because we have higher temperatures and and non self service and stuff that I
feel that other people really can’t relate to so when we asked for radios
and it’s like well the police chiefs go no
you guys don’t need that no you guys don’t need to clear your fuels and and
so I do probably and I apologize probably fight a little harder because
of the hat that I wear because I have to go answer to those people a little you
know in a different probably you know in a similar way that you do you have to
answer in these other things that you care about and and so when I go do my
district meaning they’re going how come we don’t get this and how come you know
and I’m like you know we don’t have any much money I don’t get paid I’m trying
to drive out here and participate and learn the process and I’m asking
questions and I apologize about that too but how do we make it safe for the bus
and all the kids on the bus so they don’t get flat tires when our roads
aren’t being cleared and we can’t call somebody out there to clear it at six
o’clock at 5:30 in the morning we kind of have to pitch in and do what we can
to service and how it make things safe for our community and our children and
but I just wanted to kind of say where I come from when I’m sitting here too
because I do wear two hats and they say well how come the tribe doesn’t help me
you know what we do a lot more hand-holding and it looks like Hoopa’s
getting help because we do hand hold with all the communities around us but
we’re not getting any service that’s for Willow Creek that’s for
Orleans that’s for you know for that ambulance service and I just feel like
our police officers that to keep us safe and our fire people have to do a
different job to keep us safe and keep the brush down so we pull up from the
stop sign so we could see things that kind of are taken for granted here
that’s all I want to say so if there is other options to work and better those
services that would be great to put us on a calendar so we don’t feel like
we’re being neglected from the umbrella because we spent millions of dollars
going out and advocating for water and this economy and a lot of this area this
crab fishery the marijuana everything is built and highly dependent on a water
supply and a healthy community and we are not supporting that at this table
often to get water and to keep water in
Humboldt County and that’s another hat that I wear for forever you know so
that’s just another thing to think about we we do deserve things in our area too
Sheriff Honsal well I just wanted to say just reiterate one thing I know that
it’s it’s not a really a popular thing just to go down law enforcement but this
really this really is the basics basics of what this measure is all about and
not getting into the weeds but law enforcement roads and fire service is
really what sold this measure to this community and so and even though there’s
a lot of worthy programs out there I mean I know I mean I I know there’s a
lot of worthy programs but the fact is that you know these are tied these are
positions there these are tied and that these if we don’t fund these these
will go away and so it’s this should be the priority of the committee and the
Board of Supervisors to fund these these basic seven applications and so that’s
just my two cents and we’ll move on okay any members of the public like to speak
to the proposal well thank you so much Sunny Anderson Petrolia I could almost
go along with Honsal if you would have put the roads in there and split the
money between the roads and the fire nice I think the fire department having
come in the guy on Telegraph Ridge that’s great they’ve got a station
they’re putting together that’s fantastic but since I’ve moved to this
County in 1973 I keep seeing improvements in the fire
districts which is fantastic we need those but I see the roads continue to
deteriorate since 1973 I just don’t understand it the roads are in dire
straits we need the roads fixed so our children
get to school properly if young drivers can learn to drive on a decent Road
without it being a hazard where we’re not switching lanes to avoid the
potholes is is absurd that we have to do that and if we get a major fire like in
Paradise or Santa Rosa or anything like that I’m not talking about the number of
structures but the communities we live in you’re in Ettersburg where the hell
are you going to go you got a crummy road to begin with and even with a damn
good road you’re going problem we can’t get fire personnel in
from Ferndale out there Garberville out there it’s a major headache and it’s
gonna be even more of a headache if we don’t improve these roads I hate to say
it man but it’s time for maybe the supervisors to maybe cut a code
enforcement officer position possibly and maybe cut some other positions
although I agree with Honsal on some of these outlying areas as far as law
enforcement but it’s might be time that the sheriff has to look at some of these
ongoing positions and the DA and say hey something else needs to go to the
roads and maybe the fire has to get off a little bit of their money too so the
roads can get maintained and maybe in a couple of years if we keep putting some
money into the roads we can back off and the roads can say hey let’s give this to
mental health which I’m all for – I think it’s real critical but there’s
money in the general fund that always already goes to mental health you know
but yeah I mean but Honsal makes a damn good point about the roads the fire
and law enforcement that was the main reason for the Z money to begin with
anyway that’s what people voted on thank you so much could you return to the
microphone for a second I got a question I I wanted to clarify something at the
start of your comment were you recommending going with what the sheriff
recommended but splitting the fire chiefs allocation reducing the
fire chiefs by half and putting that to roads did I misunderstand or was it well
I can’t really you know I’m not in the position to endorse that and sway any of
you folks you know I mean but yeah I think I would have been a bit more comfortable if I would have heard that the fire and the roads were going to go 5050 down the line with the with I would have been more on board with what sheriff the sheriff
proposed and and I didn’t mean to put you on the spot but I would like to know
if people that follow you up to the podium recommend that we fund other
applications not included in the sheriff’s motion then I would strongly
urge em to say well what part of these recommend
recommendations in the sheriff’s motion would you like to see us to eliminate in
favor of the application I’d that’s not applied to you I thank you so much there
are a lot of good applicants that are that on the list for sure but who I mean
really like Honsal states it clearly it was for roads law law enforcement and
fire and anything else after that and mental health was in there too actually
you know but I mean there that’s where the priorities really should be I hate
to say it I mean sad to say it but that’s that’s what we voted for thank
you come forward please when I’m when I hear and when I vote for this last time
around that’s all I heard was police health mental health Fire Department and
I know for the fact that living out where I live in remote I’m not calling
it rural it’s remote for you all to get up to where I live it takes I broke my
back four years ago it took American ambulance to get up there whatever it
comes from the town an hour and forty five minutes and they met us halfway down the
hill okay it takes a STAR which is all volunteer
Southern Trinity Area Rescue that is our ambulance that gets us down the hill and
it’s not coming up the hill it’s people that are first responders that are
volunteers that do that now as I said before everything I voted for has police
mental health fire department our County needs more than that
we definitely need fire hydrants out there on the thirty six and we have have
already put in the application and we did it in on time and we’re not asking
for millions of dollars for a new anything we’re asking for twenty five
thousand dollars to give us a head start on a wildfire that will keep from coming
down here to your side of the hill and save us all up there for being stuck on
a one-way street with only two ways out get it
that’s real we live that I can’t tell you how many times we put fires out just
this last season I helped put out two and I was down to San Diego I did it on
the phone okay I mean I don’t want to lose my house and I don’t want to see on
any of my friends and family and my community wiped out over 20,000 gallons
of water that might help us so again I hope next time I talk to y’all I’m gonna
give you a poster and show you exactly our CERT program our County CERT program is working out there because we have a lot of people in our county in our
community that participate thank you again
okay any other members of the public okay we have a motion by sheriff Honsal
seconded by Laura to limit consideration to seven applications that were
delineated all those in favor of the motion please raise your right hand
opposed abstentions okay the motion fails maybe in an effort to try to
advance just the discussion I asked the staff to circulate you a draft that I
had made again I do not consider this to be a golden proposition I do not
consider it the end-all be-all it’s simply a discussion starter I have it on
thumb disk I don’t know if you think you want to project it based off the so that
the public could see and again I forward this not as a golden solution look for
one that says 2019 draft recommendations well he’s better looking than my stuff
so so just so the public is aware while she’s putting this up I had a more
wide-ranging proposal it comes to a total of three point six million dollars
it funds southern Trinity ambulance Willow Creek ambulance a good portion of
the Humboldt fire chiefs the Eel River cleanup the e-waste team that a portion of
Orleans fires request then Rio Dell police City of Eureka missed the vast
majority of their request and the SRO officers in Arcata and Fortuna as well
as the half time positions in Blue Lake it does have a small amount for the
roads and it also has a little bit for KMUD for communications and so on go
quite a ways down you’ll see 20:19 Measure Z draft I’m struggling here so again I forward
this just to prompt discussion I’m not suggesting in any way so commentary
about this approach as opposed to any others or if you have an alternative
proposal we’d certainly enter entertain that as well
Mr. Chair I wonder your opinion in the the rest of the committee members on
putting a request out here to individuals that represent applications
and to call for another round of voluntary reductions in terms of their
applications in a sense I’m asking for all the ones that were considering today
to do that and I understand that not all might be represented but it’ll be great
to hear from I would very much like to hear from those individuals and groups
that submitted those applications to once again call for their own reductions so
that we may take that into account thank you okay I’m happy to do that I just
have a question basically presumably we’re at 11 million and we need to get
to three point five internal reductions in you know very many of those would be
necessary obviously they could get to that level so just by way of hands if
any of you are here representing a proposal that was ranked let’s say in
the top 50% of the scores of the applications and you would be willing to
offer up any additional reductions besides beyond those that were designated at the last minute could you just please raise your hand to see if there’s any of
those okay I’m just trying I know this gentleman represents the amateur radio
group and KMUD I’m sorry sir who would you represent Palo Verde okay and there
was a hand in the back yes sir okay I’m happy to bring them forward my concern
is that if you took the totality of those applications and to come out of
the mix we’d still be millions and millions of dollars away from where we
need to be so I’m happy to pursue that course if the committee would like us to
go that way but my concern is that the month the numbers just aren’t even
in the same ballpark as what we’re going to be facing so if we had 50 percent
reductions than those we’d be talking less than a couple hundred thousand
dollars and we’re eight million away so I’m happy to pursue it but I would just
point out what I think is the you know lack of capability of that to solve our
problems so what’s the pleasure of the committee would you like to see any
voluntary reductions chairman based on your fifty percent number and going back
to Mr. Kohl question about prioritization by the committee that
we’ve already done all of the agencies you just pointed out fall within the
weighted fifty percent that I’m looking at and that number is by my calculations
4.9 million instead of the eleven that we keep talking about so I’m certainly
interested if different agencies have other ideas going back to the sheriff’s
proposal I appreciated the efficient it I too think there’s room for
adjustments specifically for roads it does have more equity than I think it at
first appears to have it does have more representation it does address the
homelessness issue specifically through the MIST program that Eureka PD has
presented so I am for one interested in people volunteering their options within
that fifty percent which on the list stops at number 41 okay I’m seeing some
support for the suggestion so those of you who have an application pending who
would like to modify the amount in a downward direction would you please come
to the mic and just briefly state the organization you represent and what
modifications you could appear today to see where we might end up as far as
numbers are concerned just identify yourself if you would if you know the
number of your application and then what modification you would make okay good
day my name is Robert Stefano I’m acting as a president of the board of directors
for the Palo Verde volunteer fire department in far south eastern corner
of Humboldt County and we had a request in for $50,000 for a to replace our
much older than 85 1977 dodge power wagon quick attack truck and it’s a
great need that we have in the community but we want to go ahead and withdraw our
request and in totality we’re working with the Humboldt County Fire Chiefs
Association and there was some communication around we did a request
through the through that organization and we’re working together and so we’re
just going to go that route make it easier and we’re just gonna go ahead and
pull back okay so just for clarity you are withdrawing the entire request yes
okay thank you yeah I appreciate your time thank you next sorry Jack Cargrave
Resort Improvement District in Shelter Cove I just want to say in 2008 the 2008
fires there was a strike team from Southern California that’s how I’m sent
to help us with structure protection in the cove they refused to patrol and
protect homes in several areas of the code because the unsafe conditions for
their firefighters and the conditions of the roads in Shelter Cove our roads our
fire breaks most of our fires are fought from the road this project at sixty and
a half miles is already scaled to include the most yeah I’m sorry the most
essential roadways to evacuate our residents and create a firebreak from
which protect our 700 plus homes businesses and millions of dollars of
public infrastructure that being said we like the roads we’ll take anything that
you can give us a mile of road is a mile of road so we we are asking for I
believe 182,000 we are able to take and can use to the best of our advantage
whatever you can give us thank you Thank You Mr. Chair may I interrupt for a second
certainly so on the Resort Improvement Districts applications and I serve as general
manager for the resort Improvement District and I would
ask the committee the resort permit district will remove the request for
emergency sirens in totality and it will reduce the road funding project which is
co-sponsored by so by the department Public Works by half so we would remove
the $50,000 for wildfire emergency sirens and we would reduce the $181,000
for 60 and a half miles of strategic Road requests by half okay so remove the
sirens and totality and take the road clearing down to 90,000 in round numbers
yes sir thank you welcome hello chief Doberstein from Fortuna I would like to
make a reduction in our school resource officer position to just salary and
benefits only and then reduce the overtime overhead training and supplies
out of our budget and then for the drug task force position I would submit that
we reduce that to salary benefits and over time only okay is that clear to
staff salary benefits salary and benefits only for the SRO position and
salary benefits and over time for the DTF position do we have a number or do
we have to look it up no what’s the 15b reduction salary the overtime is 15,000
the overhead is 12,500 the training is 2,500 the supplies for the SRO is 5,000
and the travel is 2,500 and those would be the same numbers for the DTF except
for the supplies so 15 B that’s approximately 35
57,000 out of 186 that’s what you’re talking about that’s our oh yeah we’re asking for
72,000 156 and salary and seventy-six thousand nine 21 148 in round numbers and then it would be the same number for
the drug task force except for they were the 15,000 and over time so we just take
that number not 15 Thank You Chief McDonald I’d like to say that we went through and pared ours down in round numbers we could take a
$650,000 cut we’d essentially eliminate yes oh sorry number 26 fire chiefs
Association we would be cutting out radios hose shelters and we’d also be
taken on the Palo Verde rig and not asking for any more money would be
readjusting internally there so 650 total reduction radios hose shelters Thank You Justin that that is very very
generous because you guys took a cut last year and so again taking another
cut this year and going below that 20% is really the magic number I think that we were looking at I think that’s I recognize that we were asking for a lot but you know
again the greater needs but we do represent 40 some-odd agencies within
the county that aren’t supported by any other tax or not most them are not can I say something what did you say about the Palo Verde rig you’re gonna supply a rig for
Palo Verde we will supply the amount that they’re requesting through our
request so that means internally we will
reallocate monies to fund that yeah we thank you very generous you bet I won’t
be whining anymore no I’m Kelly Johnson I’m representing application 24 DHHS
MIST and I wanted to point out that the only reason MIST is effective as
though in mental health has funds to access housing for people that are
severely mentally ill on our streets that have frequent contacts with law
enforcement without access to that funding we will not be successful or
effective at all and so I I understand that cuts need to be made and I would
support the cuts of 50 percent across the
or for that but I just really want to make it clear that MIST will not be
effective at all without access to housing funding
so you’re saying 130,000 sure yes thank you KMUD radio when we made this
application I was under the impression that we had to get a three-phase
generator for Pratt Mountain because the generator transmitter runs on
three-phase I have since learned that the transmitter could actually be
modified and that it’s relatively trivial so that we could get two of the
same generators and save about five thousand dollars but in the meantime
I’ve had some correspondence from Sheriff Honsal that he might be able to
supply us with some generators we just have to find out what those are whether
they’re suitable I we would like propane because it’s clean and easy and doesn’t
go bad I don’t know what that is but I’m perfectly willing to find out okay just
for clarity could you state what number you believe you are and the amount that you are just so staff has a clear understanding of the modification you’re proposing so
I think we could cut 5,000 out of our request of was it forty four thousand
three hundred forty four you are number 31 KMUD correct that’s right okay
sorry thank you all right thank you yeah and I
haven’t seen it in your proposal yet on the screen just because it’s scrolled by
so fast okay so first of all is staff clear on the modifications that were
offered up clear as mud okay I’m pretty clear we have a 5,000 reduction from KMUD we’ve got a reduction for the City of
Fortuna Police Department DTF officer down to one hundred and
sixty three thousand we’ve got a 50% cut in the DHHS MIST
housing allocation a cut of six hundred and fifty thousand dollars from the
Humboldt County Fire Chiefs Association 50% reduction in the Public Works Resort
Improvement District application standby as I catch up with that a reduction down to one hundred and forty
eight thousand for the Fortuna Police Department SRO and I do believe that that was all of it we’ve got the resort improvement application for
the sirens withdrawn and the Palo Verde application withdrawn and a note that
the Fire Chiefs Association will internally fund that okay and so that
leaves us at what magic number that leaves you just over four million dollars i would just like to remind the committee that can’t be right excuse me we would have had to have
reduced almost seven million in a request to be down that was given the
top 50% of applications that Sean was discussing so it’s not going all of the way down I would like to
remind the committee that at last meeting Humboldt County Public Works who is applying for 3 million said they would take any amount so we just should
consider that too isn’t it that that doesn’t have to be a 50% reduction that
they take any amount okay so we’ve seen some voluntary reductions from the
applicants and so on we had a proposal from the sheriff that
at least in that format did not gain majority support Sean has offered an
opportunity and now Mr. Kohl I guess you have a suggestion
in looking at and respecting the priorities as set forth by the committee
I would like to propose that we fund through the 1.5 average rank we would
accept the reductions by any of the applications within that proposal and
then cut and then fund the rest of those proposals at 75% ok is staff clear on
the proposal could you restate it again just for clarity sure
looking at funding from on our list from 17 through 15 B accepting the
reductions made by the applications that are present at this vote I’d like to
pull out Humboldt County Public Works any additional funds remaining I would
like to earmark for Public Works specifically and it also like to remove
these number 47 that the sheriff has indicated that the position will not be
able to be filled and I’d like to fund the rest of these applications to the
amount of 75 percent of their application and I believe that will put
us in an amount that is very close to that 3.5 million dollars so you’re
saying 15 B down 15 or no don’t know 75 percent under 75 percent I work on
this one that’s right um okay look to try to clean this up a little bit let’s
all reference the first document the same document first of all can I add to the
proposal before you do that yes 8b should be included correct that’s the
Blue Lake halftime Sheriff yeah and based on his comments I would request its removal so before we get to deciding if it should be reduced by 75% can we get
their accurate total I’m trying to get there but I think we’re working I’m
hearing different numbers and stuff so just for
so I understand that proposal clearly if everyone would reference the spreadsheet
that was delivered to us today okay Mr Kohl in reference to that
spreadsheet could you just restate your motion or it wasn’t a motion it was a
suggestion at this point but just so everyone has the same understanding as
using the same base document within this document first page our highest priority
listed by average score was proposition 17 funding the applications from 17
through 15 B including B including B eliminating forty seven and eight B as
based on the sheriff’s statement that he was not going to be funding the position taking funding the proposals within here
for the proposed for the members that were present that made reductions and
accepting their reductions funding the rest at 75%
except for Public Works and then Public Works would receive any any monies in
remainder for roads assuming that total is less than 3.5 million assuming that
total is less okay it is is your spreadsheet in the form of Excel so you
can do a quick formula I’m trying to keep up no I’m not being critical I’m just asking question
because I am almost with you I need to do the 75% reduction and then I think I will be caught up they would be reduced by 25% so that would be funded at 75% no anybody who made anybody who was present and made a
reduction to there would stay with them
yes all other who did not pony up a reduction would be reduced by 25% that is correct okay okay well Ernie
what I’m gonna say is there’s a lot of people out there made voluntary
voluntary reductions but there’s some people that I see on this list that
maybe should be requested to make a reduction everybody if I understand his
suggestion he’s taking those voluntary reductions that existed from last week’s
meeting and this week’s meeting funding those entities at that level then the
balance that did not offer a voluntary reduction he would fund at seventy-five
percent of their last request am I correctly stating
okay so that’s that’s his proposal just for clarity purposes okay so I guess
just to make this a functional discussion are you offering that in the
form of a motion I would offer that in the form of them okay for discussion
purposes or otherwise is there our second I’ll second but I need to see the
total okay I believe you’re still over two hundred sixty two thousand with none
going to roads with that proposal we’re close you were very close okay what’s a
valiant effort and thank you would you like to go through it just to ensure
that I have captured have you have you removed the Blue Lake and Trinidad yeah so if if I may just go can we go line item by line item you all are jumping around a little
bit and I’m trying my best to keep I think that’s certainly comfortable
okay so I’ve got the number one proposal in there is the Eel River cleanup it is
a 25% reduction K’ima:w Medical Center at a 25% reduction Humboldt Adult Protective
Services at a 25% reduction Humboldt County Department of Aviation at a 25%
reduction Orleans at a 25% reduction City of Eureka MIST program 25%
reduction Eureka City School SRO 25% reduction KMUD with a 5,000 dollar
reduction City of Fortuna DTF at 163 thousand dollars
the CERT coalition 25% reduction DHHS MIST housing 50% reduction City of
Arcata SRO a 25% reduction Rio Dell 25% reduction Humboldt Bay Fire Chiefs a
$650,000 reduction Public Works and resort improvement
project at a 50% reduction we’re highlighting roads at this point in time
to determine that 25% reduction to the Trinity area rescue since they gave a voluntary reduction at
the last meeting wouldn’t and according to his motion wouldn’t they go in at the
68000 do you want to take the reductions from the last meeting I thought we said
I think we should and and if we could use this as a platform to move forward
and and getting it down to 200 thousand dollars over is much more manageable
than we were at when we started this day okay also review seeing the STAR by
thirteen thousand seven twenty eight Ferndale police by 25 percent excuse me
I’m sorry Mike public works for illegal dumping a 25 percent reduction and then
the Fortuna Police Department SRO a reduction down to one hundred and
forty-eight thousand and that puts us over by two hundred and seventy six
thousand approximately discussion of the committee I want I have comments um so
that reduction for Willow Creek that would have us you know the Willow Creek
Hawkins Bar Orleans area that will have us losing dispatchers and probably
paramedics so if all one two three the other four districts are fine with
losing paramedics and dispatchers then and taking a reduction then I’m okay
with that but I don’t think that we should be punished because we are not
added in the 7.5 million every year and we have to continually continually apply
for the fifth district every year for ambulance services why can’t we be a
carryover I think it’s a fair question I’m just trying to advance the
discussion of the proposal that’s all to come out here and fight for the other
areas and then it looks like our areas money and then we’re not getting any
other services for roads or fire but people with equal applications to get
upgraded radios are included and they’re saying no to our proposals when we don’t
even have cell service so I have to fight for the fifth District and I have
to say okay because that cuts out that jumps down and gives money to number 30
and we’re at number 20 and number 19 for fire and for radios and bags and a
chipper and and it skips us and dumps money and and I know public works needs
money I went to in Advanced security and got a home alarm batteries this other day
and there’s Chuck potholes there you know by the donut place I know it needs
money we all need money but again if we’re gonna lose paramedics and
dispatchers everybody else should have to too okay I have a question in the
audience could the Chiefs of Arcata Eureka and Fortuna if they’re still in
the audience come to the microphone my question will be the same for each of
you with a 25% reduction in the supposed Z funding the first question is do you
have an alternate funding source or is there any way that the position can be
made functional at a 75% funding or does it become non-functional that 75% is
that before or after the we’ve already made in your case since you had offered
cuts there in this particular discussion at the reduced level that you you
offered so yours technically are not receiving the 25% of cut with measure Z
could be funding the salary and benefits and the city taking on the overtime and
the training and the other costs associated with position but further
than that there’s no money in our budget okay
so I guess my summary question do you believe the positions are still
functional at the level you’ve proposed yes okay thank you Thank You chief sir same questions with
us 25% reduction do you have an alternate funding source and is the
position functional at 75% funding or does it lose its functionality at a 75%
level of funding we’ll find the other 25% we will find it okay we acknowledge
and appreciate the very difficult decisions all of you have to make and we
want to contribute to what’s best for the entire region okay thank you Captain
Stephens good afternoon yes we could still function we’d have to
cut one of the part-time annuitant positions by about 55 percent but we
still could find the monies to function I would like to bring up that our when
we talk about full-time employees or our fully burdened rate for Eureka we’re
only asking for 110,000 dollars compared to some of the other agencies that are
asking for 150 hundred sixty thousand dollars so the city is already taken on
a much larger portion of those other benefits and training equipment we don’t
even consider that into our applications so what I also understand the position
that the board is in and I appreciate your efforts we can fund our positions
it will just require a cut but we will not lose any positions by that 25% cut
thank you other committee comments or questions okay members of the public who
would like to speak to the proposal you want to just summarize it quickly mr.
Schurz you can probably do it better than I can in in an effort to respect
the priorities that this committee is set forth I proposed funding the list of
proposals that we received on our spreadsheet from 17 through 15 B with
the exclusion of 47 8 B and Public Works allowing those proposals that made
voluntary cuts to move forward and funding the rest of the proposals at 75%
hopefully finding room and monies so that we could then
return any funds available to Public Works which was prioritized 30c okay
just so the chair understands my understanding is were negative what at
this point 276 yeah so just for clarity purposes unless we
work to eliminate 276 within that group and also eliminate extra funding there
would in fact be no Public Works funding okay I just wanted to clarify I’m not
speaking for or against Mr. Bronkall can you just speak to one of the staff
microphones in alright there we go with respect to the other public works
items which were proposed for a scaled-down reduction through a
scaled-down reduction we can provide to the best of our ability those programs
and we’ll do the best we can with whatever is offered to us we try to
scale whenever possible but we would like to receive as much as possible to
further improve our roads especially in the outlying areas where the demand and
the needs are at the greatest how does SB 1 play into this and is there more
funding coming in from the state SB 1 essentially reset the gas tax to what it
would have been if we’re counted for for inflation even with that there’s still
10 million dollar deficit in needed funding for road maintenance any other
questions Mr Bronkall how about your road for I think the
number was I can’t find it a hundred and eighty seven dollars on the Harrison you
wanted a hundred and seventy one hundred and eighty seven dollars eight hundred
eighty seven thousand and we’re gonna cut it could you cut any more off of
that one the gentleman in the voluntary cuts
I believe reduced 182 or a one hundred eighty one number to 90 if I recall so in
the voluntary cuts that were made a little earlier Harrison bar me on
Harrison O’Hara Street I’m sorry I misunderstood you I’m talking Harris
Street that’s the City of Eureka’s application that the committee
determined was not a tier one I’m sorry thank you yeah
I don’t believe that’s in the current tier I think it’s project twelve right
Scott it looks like Scott Ellsmore from the city is here to speak on that if
other question I have sorry there was an application from the county for some
Harrison’s County half of Harrison improvements I think that’s what he’s
speaking to all right so I with that project it’s a joint project between the
county and the city and the extent of any project is potentially can be scaled
down but it just results in potentially not having a completed sidewalk network
we would have better sidewalk network but not necessarily a complete sidewalk
Network thank you oh great so I the district attorney
they’re getting money this time around to on their new puzzle I think that
should be eliminated and MIST I was that including the 50% reduction for
missed 25% as housing section of that was a 50% reduction the city of Eureka’s
application is a 25% thank you well since the DA is an ongoing funding
I would feel that they should be able to bypass this round the funding this time
and give their money to the roads which is like still nothing basically I’m just
blown away if the roads come out to 0 minus 240 thousand dollars on this round of
discussion and it’s just it just amazes me that and that’s what the voters voted
for was the roads you know not for the district attorney so much at least not
to the level that they’re being funded in any way thank you so much and one
other thing KMUD come on I mean they can do community fundraisers for their
stuff I can’t understand I love KMUD but I can’t understand them being here asking
for money when the roads in their area are pretty dismal too – thank you come forward
Penny Eckert Orleans Fire thank you for keeping us in the mix we can’t build our
fire station with a 50% reduction but we will build as much of it as we can and
we’ll keep looking a 25% reduction fifty thousand I appreciate that you are
considering continuing to consider our request we’ll think of something we’ve
been doing so little doing so much with so little for so long we are convinced that we can do anything with nothing right we can’t we need your help we’re grateful
for whatever we can get thank you I would like to Art
Wilson AJ’s living I would like to clarify on AJ’s living the vote it says
2 because it’s not accurate where you guys placed us in the tier thing and
Vivienne didn’t get an opportunity to vote we house at all times at least four
Native Americans we always have we work with a Yurok tribe we work with the Hoopa
tribe and we’re involved yeah we we always have Native American clientele
yeah I just it just seems wrong that our data is wrong you know something is that
that needs to be a I I know who voted and where which way they voted no
counted it all down just to clarify the factual records in our records show zero
individuals voting for Tier one two individuals voting for tier two and six
individuals voting for tier three you do not think that’s the correct vote I know
it’s not the correct vote you voted for tier two Laura voted for tier 2 Nicholas voted for tier
2 ginger voted for tier 3 sheriff Sheriff Honsal voted for tier 3
Ernie voted for tier 3 and Richard voted for tier 3 but Vivienne didn’t get an
opportunity to vote you had it and I had to leave because I had a council meeting
and we didn’t have a quorum I apologize just so everyone is clear we tried to
address that administratively in the staff report if you look on the far
right hand column you’ll see a numerical number and what it does is it averages
the scores of the people who actually voted so although the number of voters
may be different the percentage number represents a mathematical equivalent
that it would have been the same had two more people voted and the vote has gone
the same way does that make sense it does now yeah it didn’t when i was just sitting here looking at the paper because I just want to have struggled with that ourselves and we
tried to come with some sort of equity as far as the number of voting number of
members and the fairest way seemed to be to take
the average of those who voted and that was the ranking number that was used in
sequencing this particular spreadsheet as sheriff Hansel pointed out this isn’t
the end of the road it’s just the end of this committee so I appreciate you guys Ms. Fleming. Thank You I too appreciate the job and the task that you have at hand just in response to that when you look at what Measures
Z originally said and what was just recently passed again it does
specifically mention prosecution it specifically mentions the investigation
and handling of environmental crimes and also child abuse issues all of which is
dealt with in the district attorney’s office and just a historical reminder
the office was decimated during the tight budget years which is why we
received more funding and initially from Measure Z versus some of the other
county offices it’s important to remember because we had nine frozen
positions that was one seventh of the district attorney’s office that could
not be allocated deputy DA’s DA investigators the CAST coordinator and
Victim Witness advocates all who make an enormous difference in how we handle
child abuse crimes environmental crimes and all the other crimes that we handle
so I just want to remind that to this group because I just heard that it just
said law enforcement and roads and in fact prosecution child abuse mental
health issues are all very very pertinent and we’re specifically in the
language for the for the measure thank you could you speak to the black mic the
silver ones dead Janine Wilson AJ’s living
I think the point was is that number 27 has our numbers and 2 does is the wrong
numbers see how it says 2-6 right above it it says 3-4
that was our vote three four and the reason I’m saying that is because this
isn’t the end of the road for us and when the supervisors do this I want them
to see the accurate numbers all right staff would need to go back and evaluate
the video but we’re certainly welcome or willing to do that prior to presenting
this to the Board of Supervisors okay thank you thank you I am Mary
Benedict for K’ima:w Medical Center and I also want to thank each of you for your
support and over the past years as well one of the things I would ask since the
highest ranking agencies are taking a 25% reduction is that there be
consideration for agencies that are already funded and if they have a
carryover or savings in the current year if they could if the committee would
recommend to the board to prioritize that carry over to that agency back to
the agency to cover the reductions and the budget that I submitted was much
higher than what we had asked for in the past but um it was our minimum budget
and there was no administrative costs in there there was only really three line
items that increase in our budget which was our paramedic wages and that was for
retention to keep them up in our area working we had a large increase to our
group health insurance rates and Indian Health Service no longer funds or
supports and the ambulances that we leased from the GSA and so those were
our three major increases so we will have to find the funding but if as you
know we’ve have like had savings in the past it would be nice if that would be
prioritized to our organization thank you any other public comment any more
committee discussion of Mr Kohl’s motion I’d like to see the total again
I too am not happy with zero going to roads if not a deficit so I think in the
discussion within the proposal we could look at because his proposal is in
effect ineffective maybe adjusting some other
issues or items so just by way of procedure are you proposing an amendment
to the motion I’m yes I’m proposing an amendment could you delineate that I’m waiting for a number before I can do that
okay can you show us what you believe to be the current total of the yes and
there I did have a calculation error so you’re over by ninety-three thousand so
with that my amendment is to not consider items or applications fourteen
and sixteen which are more or less clerical or administrative requests neither of which requests offered a voluntary reduction and that would get us under budget okay so you’re talking about your
amendment to the motion would be to strike the funding for application 16
which is Rio Dell Police Department in the amount of thirty three thousand 488 and
also strike the amount of eighty two thousand nine fifty eight for the
Ferndale RMS system is that correct yes okay is there a second to the
proposed amendment I accept and second okay so we have an excuse me we have a
proposed amendment and the maker of the original motion accepts the amendment
does the seconder still feel comfortable seconding the amended motion. yes is staff clear now on the amended motion
staff is clear and you are over by five thousand seven hundred fifty seven
dollars which staff could certainly work with okay but we have zero funding at
this point for public works roads which suppose Mr Kohl’s kind of fall back my
my hope is that as these programs move forward in funding is disbursed a
dispersed that any discrepancy or any unused funds or any increase in sales
tax revenue would be directed towards I can speak to that potential uh so we
will know towards the end of this calendar year around November what the
actuals for the 1819 year will end up to be we’ve already done some estimations
of what those will look like and we did not have the revenues to support the
expenditures based on declining revenues that staff are projecting however we would
fully anticipate that there are other additional savings I would just say that
my estimation would be that there’s going to be very little to carry forward
this year into next year and then as far as the next year is concerned we would
not know about any true savings until the following fiscal year so we we there
would likely not be much left over later in the year yeah I would I would
recommend that we don’t eliminate the the Rio Dell and the Ferndale proposals
it is there’s one clerical position that that takes the place of a peace officer
so peace officers have to come off the street and do clerical duties in Rio Dell
So that’s very very important to them as well as Ferndale they do have a
records management system that brings them up to par with the rest of the
public safety as far as law enforcement goes I would I would go and look at
further reductions as in you know instead of seventy-five percent say
seventy percent funded and to the rest of them that haven’t taken a hit and and
see what that number is as opposed to just eliminating two of the
top the top of our proposals I would like to really see that what that number
looks like we have a motion and a second on the floor so if we could take a vote
to kill that motion and then we can proceed we have an amended motion before us Mr. Kohl’s motion and then are you proposing an amendment
to the amendment well his amendment basically wipes the
motion out without getting into depths of Robert’s Rules and stuff I’m just trying
to keep it functional I would like it seems illogical to vote on the amended
motion if there’s a did you say you’re withdrawing
I’m withdrawing the the discussion on removing the two positions that and
exploring Chief Honsal’s idea so so you’re supporting the proposed amendment
okay can you just do the calculation real quick at 70 % first and 75% and see where that gets us financially Mr. chair while we’re waiting may offer a comment
certainly I too want to see the City of Rio Dell Police Department clerical
position funded at the full amount and I would ask that
Ferndale’s request number 14 be reduced by 50% there’s no match or in-kind
contribution from the city for this system and I would like to see some more
equity from the city in terms of their application Thank You Kerri okay just
for everyone’s clarification there is a proposal to modify an amended motion the
proposal comes from a member who is eligible to comment and participate in
the conversation but cannot vote so when you’re watching this process it’s going
to seem a little convoluted but I just want to make you aware that having sat
and that seat myself I can appreciate the frustration of those say well wait a
minute he made a motion but the fact that matter is technically he did not can you repeat the motion it was a
recommendation to support funding for the city of Rio Dell Police Department
the full amount requested excuse me at the 25 percent reduction I have all the
other applications and then that clerical position is
critical to Rio Dell that that was clear made very clear to me
by the chief of police there and I would ask that the city of Ferndale’s
application be reduced by an additional 25% for a total reduction of 50% from
the total amount eighty two thousand nine fifty eight and the basis of that
recommendation is there’s no showing of an in-kind or contribution support from
the city of Ferndale for this proposal okay so does everybody clearly
understand the suggestion I guess is my first question and if so do any of the
voting members have an inclination to put it as an amendment to the main
motion I’d like to first see the results okay so with the change adding back in
Rio Dell and Ferndale but reducing all of the others who have not voluntarily
made reductions let’s see at about the same spot you are you’re over so this is
that the 70% suggestion right okay I think I’m not the only one who’s now
confused what I understood was there’s a 70% reduction calculation and what I
heard was the Ferndale will be reduced to 50% of their initial application but
Rio Dell’s being taken has been fully funded to the 75% understood I guess I
was the only one it was confused at this moment I believe just for clarity at
this moment I believe we’re looking at 70% funding
yeah so we’re reducing Ferndale by half well I don’t think we can like I said we
have a technical problem in suggestion is coming from a member who cannot
advance a motion so if one of the members who can vote would like to take
up that suggestion and it’s suggested as an amendment then I believe we could
consider but right now it stands just as a suggestion unless somebody wants to
appeal the view of the share which I would relish at some point
but I think that’s correct so we have a suggestion but we do not have any formal
motion for amendment okay so just to be clear Mr Kohl’s original motion has
been amended several times and what the spreadsheet now represents is taking the
tier of applicants that he suggested with the inclusion of Rio Dell and
Ferndale reducing those who made a voluntary reduction to the amount that
remains after their reduction and reducing the balance of the tier by 30
percent so they would receive 70% of the funding that are appeared in the
original document is that correct statement of your current status of your
proposal and removing the Public Works application and hopefully having that be
the recipient of any undistributed funds okay also removing Trinidad and Blue
Lake okay so is everyone clear on what’s currently in front of Ms. Canzoneri not to add confusion or more stress to this process I originally a second and the
motion only for purpose as a discussion if it’s appropriate I’d like to withdraw
my second and maybe have someone who may support the motion second okay I second
it okay so Ms. Canzoneri removes her second Ms. Campbell
seconds the modified motion which let’s call it the 70% proposed a lot for
clarification purposes is there any question on part of the committee
members about the proposal before us okay seeing none any member of the
public like to speak to what we’re now calling the 70% proposal Thank You Rex for making this work once
again Sunny Anderson I still can’t understand why the roads aren’t being
given some funding I think it may be time for the fire district to step up
again and maybe take another reduction possibly so the roads can at least get
something this time around I misspoke on the DA I apologize for that however even
though they were included in the vote in the ballot it’s time for them to step up
to the plate too because they get ongoing funds each year that are pretty
much locked in this time around and it would be nice if they could just take a
reduction a major reduction and maybe you know re-propose their application
next year thank you any other public comment okay for the for the chairs
clarification could staff state back what you believe the motion that we’re
about to vote on is we have a motion to fund all of those who receive an average
score of 1.5 or less with the reduction of public works Blue Lake and Trinidad
at a funding rate of 70% except for those who voluntarily made a reduction
we will reduce accordingly with all remaining proceeds or remaining funds at
any future date to go to roads okay okay just for clarification the last commentor talked about district attorney’s office and in my spreadsheet they’re
scored 1.71 so they are not in fact funded in this round am I correct I do
believe that is true I’m looking at application 25 they had multiple
applications I okay so this is the Adult Protective Services for the evast is the
only portion of district attorney that’s funded is that correct
okay just for your clarification the main District Attorney application
is not included in the one they have a specialized program that focuses on
senior abuse and that is the program that is being included in this
consideration just so you and I are both on the same page I have a comment it
kind of seems like you know when I look at this map that portion of the services
are all going to certain areas and districts it seems like it would be more
fair to me to add either Trinidad and Blue Lake and switch out either Ferndale
Rio Dell and pick up you know because those are the further outlying areas
that people respond to and receive services okay I understand your equity
point I’m gonna let the sheriff indicated that he was not going to be
able to in practical terms provide those positions so I’ll let him speak to that
just so we understand we’re not talking about an equity issue we’re talking
about essentially a functional issue maybe you didn’t understand my statement
I was saying that rather than including both Rio Dell and Ferndale back in that we
should possibly switch out one of those to be fair with either funding Trinidad
or Blue Lake instead of striking those okay you’re correct I did not follow your comment I
understand it now it would be seem more fair to me okay
procedurally are you proposing another amendment to the main motion yes so we
have a proposal for an amendment to the motion that would substitute one of the
district 5 applications for the two particular ones that were identified
previously is there a second to the motion one more time is there a second
to the motion to modify to include a district 5 application as opposed to the
Rio Dell and Ferndale applications ok the chair does not see a second any
final questions before the main motion in its most recently amended form is
voted on ok all I have question okay you have to have a zero
balance sir you’re you’re close enough that I can work with that so as a point
of clarification we are still very closely monitoring the revenues that
will come from measure Z and it continues to fall with each additional
disbursement we get so we may very well be less than what I have proposed for
you today in which case my suggestion and how you present the recommendations
to the board would be to follow the order as established on this worksheet
with the lower ones being the first to be eliminated okay any more
clarification before we get to this vote just a comment on I will vote no on this
motion because I still maintain at the importance of still keeping on record
the importance of the halftime deputies for Trinidad and Blue Lake and I wanted
to thank Chair Ziemer for his summary which I would have strongly
supported I would have hoped that there could have been a motion and support of
that thank you any other comments okay okay now that
were at what we think to be our final iteration of this anyone in the public
like to make comment on the proposal which is the chair understands it is
essentially to take the list by Mr. Kohl with the addition of Rio Dell and
Ferndale and modify it to essentially fund at the levels that were voluntary
offered by those individuals who made voluntary reductions for the other
agencies fund them at 70% of the value all those in favor of the motion please
raise your right hand opposed 6:3 in motion passes so not to beat a
dead horse but I do you feel like you’re clear on the intent i yes I am clear on
the intent I would just like a motion from your committee to submit
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors as detailed with the funding
on this worksheet presented today and if you could clarify the priority level in
which you would like for me to present that so that I am sure that I know where
to go first if I can you cut so the staff raises we have essentially a
priority index here that goes from 1 to 3 in some cases it’s assumed to some
degree that the the highest priority of those within one score would be the
priorities the staff would convey to the Board of Supervisors is that in fact the
intent of the committee that the ranking that’s shown here essentially is the
ranking that would be presented as our priority to the Board of Supervisors in
addition to the funding at those specific levels or are there questions
or modifications to that statement that we need to make in order to give staff
clearer direction I think that it’s clear that from the meeting last week is
the way we have it now from one to three okay one is being the highest
recommendation is there consensus on the committee that grants yeah I I don’t I
don’t necessarily agree with that I last week I mean we were talking about all
the proposals in one sum now we have really condensed it and within this
within these funding there are higher priorities that I think that that I
would put you know that I voted for one but even within the ones there’s higher
parties and once so I mean I could we could rank them one through twenty as
far as I’m concerned you know we could let me ponder my thought before I throw
it out to the universe we could go through and do a vote of 1 to 3 and then
staff could take that back and do similar to what we did last week in
prioritizing those otherwise your committee you’re
suggesting we could we could go through the ones that have been essentially
included and do the tiering process again on that subgroup or you could
present it to the Board of Supervisors as is and ask that they make the
decisions on any potential cuts as we come to that position what’s the pleasure of
committee Mr. Honsal would like to go through a ranking process and it would
any other alternatives Mr. Chair I’d like to see each committee members
ranked list compared to vote one through three score okay does that make sense to
the committee members that you wouldn’t sense to do your own priority order and
I know that’s a lot longer process than giving a one through three score but I
think in terms of demonstrating the intent of each committee member that
would be more clear than this one through three score because what value
does that mean for each one it’s somewhat subjective you know numerically
I think you raise an excellent point if we’re going to do what the sheriff was
suggesting we’d have to essentially rank or their 21 or 22 I think that made it
into the end of the cut we’d have to rank 1 through 22 rather than just 1 to
3 because you’d end up with 5 1 2 you know five ones and five twos and five
threes and at that point you haven’t actually numerically ranked anything so is that what the Board of Supervisors
wants though do they want a 1 through 22 or do they just want to top ranked by
consensus we find ourselves in an interesting circumstance because in the
years past your committee has made recommendations and the revenues have
tended to come in higher and so the board has by and large gone with the
committee’s primary recommendations then you offer secondary recommendations that
the board could refer to I believe this year that we could potentially find
ourselves in a situation that isn’t the transverse and so what I’m trying to
accomplish is relaying to the board if we need to
scale back what your primary recommendations is that where you would
like us to look first for that so your committee can give me direction on that
or you can say to leave it to the Board of Supervisors discretion okay
just as an idea for a process if the committee were to take the sheriff
suggestion and each committee member were to take the block that’s been
essentially approved and prior to the next Thursday’s meeting provide you with
a 1 to 22 ranking or whatever you could compile that and we could discuss that
at next week’s meeting correct I know it’s not something you you can take more
work but I mean I think it’s a more efficient process and quite frankly I
haven’t had time in the 10 minutes that exists here today to
accomplish that so is the committee comfortable with taking for me okay are
the committee members comfortable with taking the I’ll call them the approved
block and then communicating to staff prior to say Monday I guess they’d have
to have it for you to notice and everything if we were going to
individually you know provide you at the rank and list that we would then come
back and discuss next week if they were to get it to you by Monday does that
meet your noticing requirement I don’t I don’t yes
I just need if you if the committee is if what you’re suggesting is that you
would hold the tentative meeting next week that I just need the committee to
submit it to me prior to then I don’t necessarily have to notice those we can
compile it and bring it together and discuss it on Thursday I would caution
you from a staff perspective it we need these recommendations as soon as
possible we are in our budget process and we need to turn these
recommendations around to the board and then flip those into our budget so with
reluctance we can have a meeting next week and you guys can send me your
ratings okay so if we were able to come to a final determination next week that
would still meet the timeline that you need to meet for your budget process
reluctantly yes okay well would that meet your desire no it would not meet mine
I think it’s really inefficient for us to once again rank everything once again
wait a week once again come back and discuss everything once more I think
even though it may not be as accurate – just do it – tier one through three on
the top twenty one that we’ve already discussed and voted on and and we can do
that in ten minutes yes okay so you’re suggesting we used
the ranking criteria that have already been established and let the board make
any subsequent ranking that they felt necessary no I’m suggesting that we go
through each item and do a tier one two three on those as terms of priority
which I believe was what was just earlier okay I second that that was a motion yes
we have a motion a second to go through the process with the approved block and
do Tier one tier two tier three process to revote right now is what I’m
understanding yeah III assume we have hold a meeting over just for a short
while to accomplish that since we could probably do that in 15 20 minutes I
would think yeah okay so there was a motion a second any discussion any
public comment okay seeing none all those in favor of the motion I opposed
okay the motion passes so we will take a moment just for the chairs clarification
we’re talking about application 17 on the current days spreadsheet through and
including 15 B correct that’s correct okay so we’ll go through the process
that we did a short while ago and that is for each of the applications that I
call out if you’d indicate whether it’s tier one which would be your highest
priority for communication to the board tier two less so and tier three your
lowest we’ll be able to let the staff compile those and probably be close to
the end of the process so your votes for the Eel River cleanup project
application 17 Tier one tier two tier three okay application 45
the K’ima:w service in Willow Creek Tier one tier two tier three twenty two the e
vast program at the district attorney’s office
tier 1 tier two tier three Humboldt County Aviation Department electrical designs
for ACV Tier one tier two tier three Orleans Community Service District a
contribution towards replacement of a fire station and number 36 Tier one tier
two tier three okay Blue Lake City of Blue Lake has been struck eight B application 10 City of Eureka MIST program and waterfront Ranger and
related funding Tier one tier two tier three forty six SRO for Eureka city
schools tier 1 tier two tier three application 31 KMUD equipment update
tier one tier two tier three okay City of Fortuna 15c this is drug
task force agent tier one tier two tier three application twenty-one Humboldt
CERT tier one tier two tier three application twenty-four DHS MIST
support tier one tier two tier three application seven city of Arcata SRO
and juvenile diversion counselors tier one tier two tier three City of Rio Dell
is in correct okay application sixteen clerical position for City of Rio Dell
tier one tier two tier three city 47 has been struck I understand correct
okay Humboldt County Fire Chiefs Association significantly reduced
proposal for firefighter equipment tier one tier two tier three number 29 the
Public Works Resort Improvement District fifty percent reduction as I understand
it from the numbers shown here application 29 tier one tier two tier
three okay Humboldt County Public Works is included
in the section but there is currently no funding amount so I’m going to leave
that one for now application I’m sorry okay let’s vote on it is that correct
okay Southern Trinity Area Rescue the Volunteer Ambulance Service and Trinity
and Eastern Humboldt County in 42 tier 1 I think we’re okay so
you’re saying voter to vote is priority even though it’s currently not funded
okay that makes sense Humboldt County Public Works the general
road fund cheer 130 see what this is number 30 there’s your C okay tier 1
tier 2 tier 3 okay Southern Trinity Are Rescue tier 1
number 42 chair 2 tier 3 city of Ferndale record management system tier 1
tier 2 that’s all right tier 1 ok tier 2 tier 3 Humboldt County public works
application 30 B hazmat and dump fees tier 1 tier 2 tier 3 ok Palo Verde has
been pulled in as included in the Humboldt County Fire Chiefs city of Fortuna SRO
Officer 15 B chair 1 tier 2 tier 3 and that concludes the block that’s
tentatively approved correct that’s correct
ok so we have a Advisory Committee majority opinion approval of particular
items to be recommended to the Board of Supervisors the staff will tabulate the
rankings that we have developed internal to that block and communicate those as
well any other technical elements you need from us you could make that a motion
not you let somebody else okay to submit a recommendation to the Board
of Supervisors with the funding as detailed on the
worksheet and the priority level just established by your committee as the
primary recommendations I am so moved with all remaining funding should there
be some take these to the roads yes thank you
is there a motion a second I second okay any discussion of the comment all those
in favor aye opposed okay so declared we had talked
earlier about a process discussion as full forward looking or forward thinking
and so on is that the committee’s interest in doing that at a meeting
potentially next week or are your interest in in September I’m seeing what
I would think is a consensus for September okay so for the September
meeting would yo agendize an item that indicates the committee will consider
pretty much all aspects of the application approval process including
submission criteria and other elements related to our consideration or adoption
of a specific format and make that an agenda item at the meeting okay September 12 2 p.m. in board chambers
okay September 12th okay seeing no other business share would entertain a motion
to adjourn motion certainly so because this is moving on
to the next process is the April 4th meeting still there before running will
not occur the next meeting in the committee would be September 12 for your
committee’s information your recommendations will be presented to the
board of supervisors likely on April 16th so if your committee is interested
in participating in that process that is when we will bring the recommendations
to the board what the process is from there is the board gives our office
direction on how to incorporate those recommendations into the budget the
budget process will start with proposed budget going in the first Tuesday in
June highly encouraged for your committee to participate in that process
we’ll then hold public hearings in the month of June and then adopt the budget
at the end of June in which case all of the fundings are finalized at that point
okay can you please email us updates as those events absolutely absolutely I
have a little housekeeping I need to apologize to sheriff Honsal saying that
no funding was spent in southern Humboldt other than fire departments
there has been a significant improvement in the Sheriff’s Department down there
but we’re still looking for more improvement okay I would also like to
note Ernie that STAR has been funded for three years and and we funded the
fire hydrants one of those years so worse yeah but there’s stuff okay I’d
like to thank you all this process is obviously not real pleasant for any
party but I think it’s fair to say the committee takes it seriously and tries
to endeavor to to do the best we can with a small amount of money so we are
as an individual and also as a chair I would encourage you to communicate with
any of us we take this is something that we think is important to the community
and and we’re certainly always interested in your input and and view on
specific applications or our process or our performance I think are fair topics
so if you don’t free to communicate with us at any time thank you so much and
we’ll consider the meeting adjourned at 4:06 it looks like you

Comments

  1. Post
    Author
    Isaac B

    Wait! So more money goes to overhead salaries…? Why don’t they just speak in plain English? They speak lawyer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *