Humboldt County Citizens Advisory Committee on Measure Z Expenditures, Meeting of 2019-09-12

Humboldt County Citizens Advisory Committee on Measure Z Expenditures, Meeting of 2019-09-12


the measure Z /O committee if you’re
joining me in a salute to the flag [Flag Salute] everyone received an agenda via their
email both personal and the Gmail accounts, any modification requests to
the agenda? Seeing none we’ll move on this would be the public comment period
this would be for members of the public who wish to comment on an item that is
not on the agenda, does anyone want to take an opportunity to speak to us on an
item not on the agenda? Okay so I’ve thought a lot about this and I
made this recommendation last year and it kind of died on the vine but I think
I can explain it a little bit better I think with the amount of money that is
squishing down and we talked about this at the very end we don’t have a lot of
money to give and each year it’s going to be less because of salaries that the
public in general kind of has a right to I think be able to access some of that
money even if they’re not one of the agencies that applies through the
regular procedure and I would like to see us possibly write a letter to the
board and introduce the thought that maybe they would keep out the first say
hundred thousand, two hundred thousand dollars before we were ever given the
total amount that we have to give and use that as grant money to expand the
money by using that as seed money and the agencies that would apply for that
would all would have to meet the criteria for you know for Measure Z or
O but they were like I wrote grants for 33 years for AARP nationally and one of
our biggest problems was always getting the the matching money to get something
started so I’m just thinking say we give $200,000 to that grant fund it has to be
spent during the year and it would be up to the board to decide who got the money
but we could make, I’m thinking we could probably make $750,000 out of $200,000
because if you get the the seed money to apply for grants then that brings a whole lot more money into the county and you were
saying you wish we could raise more money you know to get more money for Measure Z I think this would be the ideal way to do that because there’s a lot of
really smart people out there in the various agencies that are asking for
money but they you know they don’t get it but they know where the money is
where they can apply for expansion they can apply for seed money they can apply
for you know a portion of their grant and I think that you know it’s the only
way I can think of that we can build more money out of Measure Z and include
more people that maybe just need a smaller amount to get their their agency
expanded to meet the criteria again of Measure Z so it’s not something that we
would make the decision on but maybe write a letter to them and see how they
feel about you know setting that money aside before we’re given the money to
say how much we we get to you know ask for. Ginger are you asking…, just by way of
protocol since that was a public comment I don’t think we are normally entering
into discussion of the suggestion of the Commenter and so on. I would just note
however that item 5 on our agenda today is very similar to the concept you’re
proposing and since it was agendized, I’m sure we can address your concept at that
point in time if you don’t mind? Okay the next item would be an approval of the
minutes of March 28, 2019 is there a motion to approve the minutes as
submitted? I have a motion is there a second? Second, okay any discussion any
requests for alterations or additions okay seeing none we would please vote on
the motion to accept the minutes of 3-28 2019, all those in favor?, Aye, Opposed? and motion carries item 2 is an update… Chair, I believe we need to take public comment on that.. Oh I’m sorry, I should, you’re correct, does anyone want to comment on the minutes of the 3-28-19 meeting?
Seeing none the motion carries next item would be a staff update on the
actual expenditures and projected adopted budgets for 2019-2020, great so I
you have a copy of this in your packets and also by the door for those who have
come in and we have it up on the board as well so the 2018-2019 we’d like you to
please note that the auditor is still working to close the year and due to
changes in accounting practices staff had made the best estimates possible and
these numbers are still subject to change fiscal year 2018-19 revenues came
in at ten point eight million dollars which was seven hundred and thirty four
thousand dollars less than when what was budgeted expenditures total eleven point
seven million dollars which is two million less than what was budgeted
however one point one six million of that will be requested as carry forward
leaving only one hundred and eighty seven thousand eight hundred and
sixty-seven to allocate, looking forward to the 2019 20 adopted budget due to
changes in year-end estimates develop through the budget process the Board of
Supervisors was asked to reduce your committees recommendations by 300 or
yeah three hundred ninety five thousand six hundred and thirty one dollars and
to give some context into what those are we have included the final allocations
in your packet as well or the final selections by the board so that will be
what I’ll go through next, the Board of Sup…, so that’s in the PDFs if you wanted to put that out there the Board of Supervisors adopted the
Measure Z allocations as recommended by your committee with the following
modifications the funding for CERT of twenty thousand five hundred and twenty
four dollars was not adopted as the sheriff absorbed that cost into their
operations budget the SRO for the year for Eureka City Schools totaling fifty
five thousand three hundred was not funded as the sheriff does not have a
deputy available for those services, it was recommended that this position be
evaluated at mid-year. The Humboldt County Fire Chiefs Association
volunteered a reduction of a hundred thousand dollars.
Public Works volunteered a reduction of ten thousand dollars to the allocation
for illegal dumping, these changes left an additional two hundred nine thousand
eight hundred and seven dollars in in addition, an additional reduction still
needed in order to accommodate this the following applications have been funded
by the General Fund, twenty six thousand eight hundred and sixteen dollars for
Adult Protective Services, fifty-seven thousand two hundred and eight for
aviation airfield electrical system, one hundred and twenty eight thousand seven
hundred and fifty dollars for DHHS MIST expansion, so as I said that’s in
your packet, all contracts have been sent out to the awarded agencies for review
and we’re just waiting for those to be returned with signatures once we get
those we’ll be presenting to the Board of Supervisors at the same time staff
will bring a proposed carry forward policy that allows the CAO to approve
any carry forward requests and will evaluate the carry forward request
received thus far for the audit and the Fire Chiefs Associations projects, Do you have any questions for me? Any questions, or clarification across the board, any public comment on the report by staff? thank you for the information, it’s
probably a little bit premature but you’ve probably gotten your second
quarter revenue for the current year and have some sort of sense of if there’s
any kind of trending, do you have any information in that regard? Yes, I have
been monitoring it very closely those revenues are incredibly important to the
county, I would say that they they are coming they appear to be on track but
the the BOE has recently made some significant changes to how they allocate
their funds so it is difficult to make those projections with any real
certainty because the true ups and the future payments will be different than
what we’re used to seeing in the past so so I’m not I’m not concerned I’m not
optimistic I I think we’re on track for for the projections that staff have made.
Okay, thank you, any other public questions in regard to the presentation
regarding the allocations and and projections in the future? Okay last
chance, committee, any comments, questions? Seeing none, okay, next we go on to the
2021 application process and discuss the application itself and any process
changes that the members of the committee feel would be appropriate… Before we go on, we did have the salary calculations… Did you want to discuss that? Okay I’d be happy to. For the public and the
committee’s information I requested staff do a rather overview, you know, of the fixed personnel cost that we have sustained in the fund for
the last couple of years, that request was, you know, came from concern on my
part, and actually a couple other committees part and some community
members, that due too inflationary personnel costs, the personnel share of
the allocation was constantly growing and eroding, what, let’s just call it the
discretionary share of the of the committee’s capability based on the fact
that we had adopted at least an informal policy that we would continue to fund
those personnel positions once they were approved
you didn’t have a yo-yo effect and the agencies of you know hiring personnel
and then not having a funding in the next year. As you can see the the
personnel costs are up to 78 percent of the overall funding at this point in
time and the concern that I had in what I wanted to bring to your attention for
a discussion was the fact that if you assume that there’s a four to five
percent increase on a yearly basis in your personnel costs through salary and
retirement and other roll-ups and so on in about five and a half years the
salaries would likely be 95 to 100 percent of the funds capability and they
would essentially be no longer any discretionary funding available. That
concerns me quite frankly from a practical point of view, and a
public-relations point of view, so I was hoping to just engender today kind of a
general discussion, and see if there’s any interest in pursuing either policies
or modifications to the way we try to fund these positions, we do have some
limitations in the sense that if you were to propose say that the committee
and I’m just using this as an example were to propose 80% funding of other
positions and so on then you’d find yourself in a situation where the
general fund or some other revenue source would have to fund the other 20%
and that would run contrary to the vast majority of the promises that were made
when Measure Z was originally initiated so the obvious solution would
be to put some sort of a cap and force the agencies and/or the county to
complement the funding with some you know other funding source like I said I
think that’s kind of ethically challenging based on the promises that
were made to the public initially so I’m just trying to open a discussion
basically at this point I don’t expect that we would reach any kind of
conclusions but I’m trying to measure the sense of the committee in in the
measure that do you share that concern, and if so, do you have any ideas, or
approaches, do you think the committee could you know address that sort of
problem and is it something we should you know consider discussing in a more
detailed and explicit way in future meetings or am I being a chicken little
I guess? I absolutely would like to follow
through on this discussion one of the things that I’m concerned about is I
would really like to see a schedule of what positions are funded through this,
the guarantee positions, what we have is a breakdown, you know, for example Sheriff’s
Department had four million one hundred ninety five thousand for salaries and
employee benefits, but we don’t know how many positions that really translates to,
and I’m also curious about with with how many positions they’re funding, I’m also
curious about what unfilled positions are within each department that’s receiving funding from us and is
that something that we can evaluate is that something that we can consider as a
committee? or in our in our our process? I’m sorry can you repeat that? I was… we
do have that, I can pull up the staffing allocations for our agencies if you give
me a few moments, and you can see those right now on the spot but I was
concentrating on doing that and I missed what your question was. Um I’m hoping to
see a like a schedule of positions within each department that’s receiving
guaranteed funding and I’d like that information included in the packet when
we receive applications. I’d also like to know which agencies that are receiving
guaranteed funding have unfilled positions and what the history of those
unfilled positions look like and I’m wondering if that’s something that’s
appropriate for this committee. Yeah I’m trying to let go of my controlling ways, and pass the
buck over here, but I told her, I warned her beforehand, I’m gonna be like trying
to… you might have to rein me back a little. We can provide you with the
schedules I can actually pull it up here if you want to you follow through with
your discussion and I can let you know when I have that
we, it’s easily attainable of all of the Measure Z budget units within the
county that have positions allocated to them we would have to communicate with
the departments on what the vacancies look like in each of those budget units.
I don’t know that right off of my head, but my only caveat to that would be it
would be in a moment in time evaluation and so it might just be that somebody
has recently left a position I don’t know if it would necessarily reflect…
Right and that’s what I’m kind of wondering, if there’s a way that we can
like take say four snapshots a year of that, and to see if there’s a trend with
unfilled positions rather than just one snapshot at the application process. Sure,
Sure, and and one way to also evaluate that is to to compare budgeted salaries
versus actuals because that’s going to give us an indicator of how much of the
salaries that were allocated weren’t used and and that would be indicative of
vacancies and staffing turnovers as well but we can certainly get some of that
data for you for and we could bring it back, we can send it out to your
committee by email, or we can bring it back in the next meeting. I would love to
also I would love to have that schedule included with the application packets
when we received the application packets, as far as they’re the rest of
the applications so we can easily refer you know what’s being funded with what’s
being asked for. In terms of what the new applicants look like? Yeah.
And how does that… what does the new.. what’s the relationship of the new
applications compared to history of funding? I’m sorry, what I’m asking for is so when we
come to our next cycle there will be a guaranteed funding portion that is that
a set-aside, I would like a schedule of those positions included with the
application packets. Okay, so as an example, the sheriff has 40 positions. You
want to see how many positions, you want this as a data set just to
accompany it, the sheriff might not have an application. Right. presented but just as…
But I just I want there to be clarity about what positions are being funded, so
that when we’re looking at applications we can know really where the money
that’s being allocated through the guaranteed positions is going. Sure. Are
there comments? Thank You. As the committee may remember, this was one of my concerns
last year, that I’m aware that as the tax money goes down pretty soon agreeing
with what the chairman said we could be fully funded without any money to
implement anything new other than personnel. I have a question, what if, what
if we get into a recessionary time and our our tech, our Measure Z money really
goes down and we don’t have enough money to pay the personnel, how is that cut
made? That that would be an executive level decision on how that cut would be made but we would like.. Whose executive? the County Administrative Office would make
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, ultimately it’s the Board of
Supervisors discretion as to how cuts are made but we certainly provide advice
to them on on what might be the best mechanism to addressing shortages
cutting staffing would be a last case scenario we we don’t ever want to find
ourselves in a position where we’re laying staff off and in the last
recession we did not need to lay any staff off we did offer incentive
packages for early retirements and things of that sort
but eliminating staff would be our last our last option we would first look
expenditures and overhead and see where we could cut some fat there before we addressed any staffing and particularly for Measure Z
it’s difficult to say if if we did have such a shortage that we had to dip into
staff if that would be something that would be absorbed by the general fund or
if we would address cuts, you know there’s there’s we there are other
revenues for the county that could supplant shortages if it came down to
reducing staffing levels but that was as Mr. Ziemer said not the intention of
Measure Z, it’s always been that the general fund should not should not have
to come in and replace revenues. Thank You Alicia. I understand what you’re
saying but my question really focuses on the the the exhibit with with what
Nicholas is saying we have funded specific positions, and if we don’t have
the money what we’re not talking about early retirement for the entire
sheriff’s apartment or fire department I’m talking about that one specific
position that we we are funding. How do we cut that out? If I might, I think in
the past the board, in my understanding of the process is the applicants come
forward with a very specific request to us that they’re looking to fund that
specific position and so on if they were to get to the point where, say the
sheriff’s office as an example could only fund 35 or the 40 currently funded
positions, there is, I think, a fair ethical question in the sense that is
that an executive decision of the sheriff’s office or the Board of
Supervisors to say okay even though you allocated this money for correctional
officers we’re going to you know allocated in such a way that the patrol
deputies you know are reduced and so on there there’s kind of some ethical
issues and political issues there that are probably above our pay grade, quite frankly, but there are ethical issues nonetheless so I would think in that circumstance in
the case of the sheriff’s office the sheriff would come forward with a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and he would try to allocate
the funding in the mechanism that he or she thought best for you know their
particular agency and then it would be determination of the Board of Supervisors whether they would allow that redirection correct? Yeah, Yeah absolutely. The the
department heads are definitely the subject matter experts as to their
programs, and the needs of those programs and so our office and the board would be
working closely with department heads on evaluating how we could make cuts while
maintaining the integrity of programs in the most effective manner possible. Thank
you. I just think that’s a interesting question because reading through the
Measure Z requests that’s exactly what we did, there was insufficient fund
for the applications, some of them were funded previously, and then when the
projected revenue was seen to be lower than expected the BOS reduced it even
further and then funded it through the general fund so I think that precedent
has been set. I have similar concerns regarding future allocations. I think
about the intent because having been in this position for a short time the
intent of Measure Z is constantly deliberated on, we see a summary of it
put before us and so for me the intent is not to protect the general fund it’s
to augment the services in the community that the general fund has been
insufficient to provide, and looking forward we we need to somehow address
that continual imbalance for me, I resort to some simple options
one is that we limit the.. where we cap the amount of allocations per, per
Department per se if we can do that within the fund and the other thing is
we we return to what I read in the resolution of the essential services
that are supposed to be provided through Measure Z, so specifically additional
funds to expand patrols maintain 9-1-1 response times, and make sure calls about
violent or property crimes responded to promptly, to ensure there are sheriff’s
deputies on duty 24 hours a day, to fight drug-related crimes, eliminate meth labs,
provide drug prevention and rehab services, do more to fight large-scale
industrial marijuana farms, to the volunteer fire departments and
firefighters to our additional resources to better and more safely protect County
residents, to restore services for child abuse, and protect children that have
been victims of these crimes, and then to deal with the 150 million dollar backlog
of road maintenance projects, so we can talk about… Excuse me Shawn, I didn’t hear
after the hundred and fifty thousand dollars backlog… of road
maintenance projects, so I think… 150 million… if we see the continued trend
that revenues are decreasing, costs are increasing we can look to look to how to
improve that so leverage it through a grant process is one option but then a
lot of these services have no grant opportunities so shouldn’t we be
providing as much of the Measure Z to them as as possible? A lot of our
applicants last year had several other funding options and when they were
denied they went and found those which speaks to that fact, so I would ask the
committee to look to making a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors to saying we either cap it or you were restricted to these
essential things, so that the burden on those decisions isn’t put on the committee in a very compacted time and then we have to make
the ethical decisions that you’re referring to where it needs to be made
at an executive level this is the intent this is how the funding works these are
the limitations so that the public and the administrators know the best way to
use it because how it’s working now is it’s not gonna be feasible in the future.
Other committee members thoughts? Only to say I agree very much with what you just
said. You know, yeah I think it seems to me that there is consensus about a
coming problem and so on and the question of course is what you
do to address it. I have a question for staff, in the sense that this was gonna
be a touchy ethical one for me and probably for everybody but the promises
if you want to call them that that were made about not supplanting general fund
money to the county do you think the public had the sense that that same
promise was made to the outside agencies? and let me let me tell you where I’m
going before I even consider answering a question, just taking the the outside
city police forces as an example there was a pretty significant discrepancy in
the cost to employ an FTE between say Eureka’s application and Fortuna’s.
That’s always puzzled me especially just in this particular example because right
now the Fortuna officers are in a public relations campaign talking about how
they’re underpaid compared to their comparable agencies but the fact that
matter is their application last year was the most expensive on a per capita
basis of any of the agencies so one of the things that comes to my mind is
would it be possible to establish say on a local agency average and say that the
committee would only fund a position up to that average amount and the agency
would be responsible for any costs above that average or would it be ethically
possible to say we’re going to cap take the average and say we’re going to well
we will contribute at 90% of that average what I’m trying to do quite
frankly is cut some money because if we were just a cap where we are
in six years the other essentially will be no discretionary money so we have a
relatively short timeline to try to deal with this and like I said I am fully
sensitive to the ethical issues of treating in-house, ie county, agencies
different than outside agencies that there’s a whole bunch of political and
practical pitfalls to that it may be a matter of the committee you know
bringing this issue to the Board of Supervisors and pointing out to them
that we’re five to six years away from essentially not having any real function
for the committee anymore because you’ll be out of discretionary money and say
how do you feel about approaching the public and saying when this measure was
initially conceived our understanding and hope was that we would never in fact
you know supplant general fund monies but the reality that we’re facing is
that unless we were to do that the entire fund will become you know
personnel related with no discretionary capability for any of their entities so
I I don’t have answers to those questions but they’re questions that
kind of help me you know look at and evaluate what our options might be.
Ginger. So are you seeing that you would like to see us ask the board to put the
cap on it? We can’t put the cap on anything, we are the advisors, right, we’re not the deciders were the divisors so anything like that would have to be put
toward the board and then before the applications came in they they can make
that decision. Well. Right? but I mean I think it’s a good idea, maybe to have you
go before the board and talk about this because I think that you know I’m sure
they all know it but it would be good to get it out to the public but we cannot
can’t we cannot make those policy decisions on on this money all we can do
is recommend and before we do it we’d have to get their permission and have
them decide what the cap would be. Does the county ever have a structure where
the board appoints like a subcommittee of the board to meet in a
workshop setting with any of us committed standing committees to talk
about issues like that does that structure exist as far as you know? I, yes, the the board on occasion creates
subcommittees and ad-hoc committees depending on you know what the task is
at hand, but you’re, as Ginger pointed out, your committee is an advisory
committee and so it is well within your purview if you wanted to establish an
median salary contribution that would be appropriate for say the SROs that are
allocated across the county which i think is what you might be saying so
that each agency who is staffing an SRO get an equal contribution and that could
be a methodology that your committee uses in determining what your
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for each of those
applications would look like. I would like to say that I, I see the inequities, Eureka’s not getting nearly as much as Fortuna but there is an economy of scale, the
smaller police departments have more difficulty funding their departments
than say a larger Police Department of more resources and I think the economy
of scale is reflected in the the requests that they’re asking for over
and above what average police officers get, like if Garberville had a police
department, I doubt we could even fund one policeman so it’s it’s I think the
economy of scale has to be considered here the smaller departments have
greater needs. Just let me let me clarify, I was using the Eureka/Fortuna example
only as an example. I’m not trying to put you know value considerations on their
applications or anything. It is interesting to me, like I said given
context and background information, that seems to be inconsistent with the
applications that we received but I use it only by way of example. I think if
we’re gonna talk about this in detail we should just go ahead and you know say
we’re gonna meet again or that you know because we could talk about this all day
into specifics and so I think that if we’re gonna break this down we should
just kinda table it and decide to meet again with the board or you know
approach the board and talk to them about capping things, percentages maybe,
like will give you 80% of what your SRO normally gets paid or whatever it is
rather than saying you get this much money because everybody’s different
everybody pays differently and so if we get into the minutiae of it today into
the specifics and it’s going to take up our whole time. My intent was not to try
to come to a resolution of this, I just I wanted to raise the issue start the
discussion get people thinking about it are one of our problems is of course
that at least traditionally our next meeting would be in the next cycle,
so the problem from a timing point of view, is that if we’re gonna try to
engender any kind of change in the next cycle we’d have to do it, so I guess the
question at the committee is are you interested in meeting before the next
cycle to try to give you give yourself and the committee some time to think
about this and come back with some potential responses? Or would you rather
let the next cycle go and maybe try to meet with a subcommittee of the board
and see what their sense of this issue is and how they would like to approach
it or what is the interest of the group, I guess? This is an important change
that’s needed so we should meet again, waiting for the next cycle is just gonna
compound the issue. I like the idea of getting a subcommittee of the board
though too, to get them included in this because there’s you know who knows what
they’re thinking until we until we see it at the end of the year we don’t know
we’ve made recommendations and then they do what they need to do and I’d like to
get some input before we make a recommendation and that’s all we can do
is make a recommendation. So if just as a potential resolution of this, if the
chair was to forward a letter to the chair of the of the board saying we’ve
identified this issue and so on we are interested in meeting with a
sub-committee of the board prior to the next application cycle
process – to you know brainstorm it basically, and also see what plactic
practical and political considerations are going to play out and that way we
would have the opportunity perhaps before the next next cycle to you know
come to some determination about what action if any we would take. Is that
comfort, are everybody comfortable with that? It would it probably would be a good
idea if there was direction to the chair at a forward letter. So the chair would
entertain a motion to direct the chair to forward a letter to the Board
Supervisors requesting a workshop session with a subcommittee of the board,
regarding this funding issue I so move. I second. Sorry, point of order, Scott, you’re an alternate so you can’t move. We only call on the
alternates when we need a quorum so until until we need a quorum
you guys can participate in conversations just not motion or votes. I fill his motion and move that we request the Board of Supervisors form an
ad hoc committee or whatever’s appropriate. Okay, I second. Any discussion? My suggestion just from a staffing standpoint, is that if your chair were
going to draft that letter, to get it to us maybe in the next week if you could
and we could submit that letter to the board when we come to them for approval
on the contracts and to discuss carry forwards and things of that sort so
that we can address all of these at one time and then our staff will let your
committee know when that item will be coming to the board so that your
committee can attend that meeting if you so chose and and provide feedback to the
board at that time as well… Okay… and it would be it would be in in the form of
asking the board to accept the letter and to decide if creating such a
subcommittee or ad hoc committee or what was most appropriate for them was in
order. Any public comment on the discussion? I
have another kind of question regarding… Excuse me, the captain had a public comment. Good afternoon chair and council members. I just want to clarify a few things for
you guys going to a conversation an ad hoc type committee where we may not have
the ability to be there or share insight why EPD was less than Fortuna, ours are
not requesting fully funded positions we’re paying for training, we’re paying
for equipment, we’re paying for all that stuff out of our general budget versus
others who are possibly taking all that including retirement and everything into
account so I agree in essence with some type of cap so that that money can be
shared across the board a little better for all agencies at a more equitable
stance. Why Eureka you know Eureka is funding versus Fortuna and the size of
the cities that’s really irrelevant I believe because we have a higher
population we need more officers so, but we still have a tax based budget that we
have to rely on and we are facing just as the county is, tax based issues that
could affect our budgets and potential cuts in the near future. So the issues
that each agencies face within their jurisdiction is the same the size of the
agency in the ability to fund those still comes from the taxes that are paid
and done within those city jurisdictions the city does pay a large portion of the
tax base or the large portion of the tax base does come from the city of Eureka for
Measure Z funding so I would ask if you’re going to look at positions for
the law enforcement agencies outside of the secured funds or guaranteed funds
for the county that’s already been adjusted for them I would ask you look
at their funding too and how they are funding their positions and what rate
that is, so if you’re gonna look at a cap for police officer positions, SRO’s. I
would ask you to try to at least evaluate that cap for correctional
officers, probation officers, sheriff’s deputies, or whatever those positions
would be too. From just an outside point looking in,
just to keep it fair and equitable across the board and trying to stay in
the alignment with what Measure Z was meant for. Thank you for your time. Thank
you. I’m not sure who to direct my comments to, to staff, to his point of
transparency and so on are these workshop sessions, were they to occur
open to the public? It depends on the format of it, but most likely no. Okay. I had one other question regarding process for next year
how set in stone is the application date? Is there any way to get more time to
evaluate applications if we’re going to be diving into them deeper regarding position funding and capping and and and
getting more specific about how each individual application is is funded
rather than than working through the just based on a priority scale. So if I
might jump in, we actually, the next item on the agenda is the application process
and timeline and so we can discuss that, typically, if you don’t mind me jumping in… No, that’s okay that typically they have gone out on the
20th but but if you want it to go out sooner we just couldn’t start the
process later but if you didn’t want to provide more time for discussion we
would just need to bump up when that happens so we could get that application
out sooner. Would there be any more interest on the committee to have more
time to review applications? Yeah, it strikes me that there’s two options, one
is the general application process could be noticed and circulated through your
PIO and the other normal channels and so on with a I’ll call it a caveat that
applicants should be aware that the committee is you know and the board are
going to be addressing possible changes to the formatting prior to the January
application period we encourage you to you know develop your resource
information and so on for preparing your application but be aware that there may
be you know tinkering or tuning that goes on
before that January received date and so on that way that applicants can do all
their homework, you know develop whatever information or background resource
material they feel is appropriate for their application but they would be
notified that you know you you it would it would be public warning essentially
that you might want to consider whether this application should be submitted if
in fact it was only funded 80 percent could you find the other 20. I mean it
just it’s just real world you know yeah items and so on. Rich. I think, I think a
couple years ago to address the the captain’s discussion, I think a couple
years ago this committee had a discussion and decided that just because
the city of Eureka collects so much more tax than the city of Garberville we
didn’t proportionally allocate money more money to Eureka than Garberville
and I think that was discussed a couple years ago and so I think as a county
the money goes into the pot for the county and what the what if I understood
what the captain was discussing because the city gets more revenue
they shouldn’t have more, they shouldn’t receive more. Yeah, you know that is
largely a political decision to be made by the Board of Supervisors you know I
think as much as I like making decisions and having them be final I recognize the
fact that we are advisory and we do I’ll say a more technical analysis. Clearly I
think everybody in the room knows that the city of Eureka was unhappy with the
allocation generally a couple years ago and because of the personalities and
appointments to the committee and so on there are some drumbeats to try to go to
a system where it was allocated based on the supposed generation you know of the
money and so on not at our level but at the Board of Supervisors level that
didn’t really gain any traction which is not to say it had merit or didn’t have
merit I’m just pointing out that that’s kind of a political level discussion
probably not within our are you in my mind. Okay, we have a motion
to have the chair direct a letter to the board requesting a workshop, a
workshop session to discuss this matter hopefully there’s no timeline
established but we would probably request sooner rather than later just
trying trying to meet the application cycle, is that correct? Okay all those in
favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Motion carries. All those in favor? Opposed?
Abstentions?. Okay, all right so I will direct such letter. I’ll try to get generated, in fact, I will get it generated tomorrow so you can have it along the
timeline that you suggested. That would be great and and after the meeting today
staff will send out to you the position allocations for all of the Measure Z
budgets. And one thing I did want to add about that is the the salary schedules
that we emailed did not have totals for each year but we did go back and add
those into your packet that you have before you today and so that is a much
more clear breakdown of every year how those positions have grown or shifted
for both internal county positions and the outside agencies as well so so that
I think answers part of your question that you had so I just wanted to let you
know. Yeah. No problem. Okay moving on. item number five is review option to set
aside funds for a micro grant program let me talk… Number four, Chair, reviewing
the fiscal year 2021. I apologize for my lack of vision without my glasses. That’s
okay. review the fiscal year 2021
application and recommendation process and considering a process changes needed
included in your packet is a draft application, anybody have any commentary
thoughts on that particular. Mr. chair a question to the group here, what
questions did the committee members feel were not answered very well in
general, what question, but basically 8 questions we have in
front of us are what were asked last year. So I’m curious to know what
question or questions were not answered very well by applicants last year? So for
if I might answer for myself to me that would be, I felt question number 4, very few applicants really took this question and explored what’s going on, and maybe they
couldn’t, you know there’s always a possibility there but what I’m getting
at here is this these these questions aren’t aren’t weighted all equally in fact
there probably weighted depending on our own experiences and and biases and I’m
just trying to figure out if if there are certain questions that have more
value than others to the board, or excuse me, to the committee and you know what
questions are really important here to get good solid answers to help you
evaluate each application on its own merits. Okay, any responses from committee members? So I totally agree with you that number four, Glenn and I were on the
original application process and I think we kind of knew in our hearts that at
some point there wasn’t going to be money for everybody
and so we put that question in there and like with any grant they asked you how
are you gonna sustain yourself if this money ends, because you don’t want to get
something going and like you don’t want to fire people you know that’s that
personnel issue again but I think that people just shine over it you know they
just kind of make some lame comment generally some agencies are really good
and they say well we’re in the process of building this new you know piece of
our program and we hope to not even need your money and you know or whatever and
to me that means a lot because it means they’ve thought about that this is not
supposed to be forever you know we would like it to be forever but it may not be
forever so to me number four has always been poorly answered not by everybody
but by a lot of people and I and I I think for me when we put that on there
we were hoping to have them generate that
process with their group you know okay well wait a minute if we get this and it
mean it doesn’t last then what are we gonna do. So I would like it to be more
of if even if they don’t answer it the way I would like to see it I would like
it to be something that they’re gonna think about and talk about but I’m not
even sure that happens a lot of people say well if you don’t find us and we
have to go out of business or people you don’t get this money then we’re done you
know and that’s that’s hard to hear but it’s also like I would like to see a
little bit more effort put into that’s why I like the micro-grant part of it
but I’m just saying that I to me I agree with you number fours pretty bleak,
weakly answered. Other comments? Um I think it also, number four is really
important, but also for me it’s number six
how will you leverage this to additional contributions? and if we’re and the the
reason I went to that one was I don’t see the reality of a hundred percent
funding for any application in our near future so being aware of how to leverage
an application or any allocated funds to fulfilling your applications goal is
pivotal so that it’s not just us funding this it’s it’s an opportunity for them
to get funding from multiple sources and to develop other outlets so that in the
future if it’s a successful program they’re not asking us for funding and
that’s that that’s why I went for number six. Any other comments? Okay, so
regarding number six when we give people money if you use some of that money to
leverage toward a grant or to expand you know what you’re doing that has pretty
much be stated in the application that we’re going to give you I’m just got
through out in 50 thousand dollars but but twenty thousand is going to be used
to leverage for a grant then that has to be in the application which then kind of
compromises their application so I think that that question if I had a choice
would be changed a little bit because we can’t you can’t ask them to use that
money to leverage for more money if it’s not in their original grant, do you
understand what I’m saying? I understand that but I think all them anything we
give people they use I don’t think there’s anybody that doesn’t use all
their money for sure but they don’t you know to be like the fire department
saying well okay you gave us a million dollars but we’re gonna we’re going to
take twenty thousand of it and we’re going to apply for a grant for a new
truck well that would have to be in your application that that’s what you were
gonna put the money for right? Because they’re very specific when they give us
their budget and I don’t in unless we have the micro grant stuff or something
we’d have to re-think the way people are asking for the money if we ask them
how are you gonna do that and then they go on oh no I don’t that’s not part of
our deal. So well, I think that’s important though if we’re moving forward
with an understanding that we can’t 100% fund these applications, there’s gonna
have to be make up somewhere and so maybe rewording that or re-working that
it might be to the best interest. I think if we’re gonna change the process or at
least recommend that that we would have to revisit these application questions
again because at least what I would like to see would change dramatically a lot
of these questions. One thing that I don’t see is how does your application
meet the intent of Measure Z. Any other grant that you apply for you have to
provide the reasons why you’re eligible or why it’s relevant for the community
or if the application in this case that’s not provided we have to treat
that out and then make a value judgment based on our interpretation. Well, it does
say under proposal narrative, please give a brief description of your request and
please explain how it’s an essential service for Public Safety which is the
Measure Z, you know, I mean that’s what Measure Z is about
and, Oh you’re right, my mistake that’s in the attachments. I will say that… maybe it
should be a question too…having helped write some of these proposals before
that’s almost redundant to question three, but yeah, all right it’s not worth
changing I just think that if we want to make this work better that we’re gonna
have to change the technical part of this in the future. Well maybe we
could just add that part about Measure Z under number three, and how does your
agency you know fit under essential services? Can we change the application? Oh Absolutely. Do we need to recommend? We would need a motion and a second, and agreement by the committee. Why don’t you make that motion? I make a motion that we table our
recommended changes to the application until we hopefully meet with
the supervisors subcommittee. I second that. Okay we have a motion and a second to table the discussion until the presumed joint session. Before doing that I just
wanted to point out that there will not be another meeting before January, beyond
that discussion so will there be an opportunity, the first opportunity to
adjust the application process would be for a year from now, is that something…
Well. We could we could schedule an additional meeting the problem is we
would need to establish that today unless we called it an emergency a
meeting down the line but and and I don’t know when we’ll be going to the
board at this point in time with this letter although I would anticipate it
will hopefully be in October and what the outcome of the Board’s decision
would be if they if they want to engage in ad hoc committee or how they would
propose to respond to your letter. Historically, when his staff circulated
the application to the potential applicants? We tend to release it in January so the
the intention was to release it approximately January 20th and that is
part of today’s discussion to gain your board’s approval to or your committee’s
approval to do that. Last year what your committee did was made the changes at
this meeting and directed staff to release it prior to your next meeting
and then the next meeting takes place in late January and that’s primarily to
evaluate the mid-year projections how that’s looking what the new year’s gonna
look like and then you begin meeting in March to evaluate contracts so all of
this timing is definitely very sensitive staff plays a role in that and we have
to be cognizant of how our staff can support you, so the meeting in January,
for instance, is at a point in time when we have a solid bearing on how the first
half of the year has gone and allows for us to provide your board with or your
committee with a lot of direction of how the new year is going to look so today’s
meeting is going to work all of that out with the next item where we discuss the
meeting schedule, but I’m hearing a lot of kind of balls up in the air. Assuming the motion passes, which I suspect that it will. I could see
a situation where the letter would go to you tomorrow, you would bring it with the
rest of your packet relative of this material to the board sometime in
October, if the joint meeting could occur in November, if in fact that discussion
produced decisions that would result in a necessary change in the application we
could have a short meeting in early later November early December to
actually enact those changes and still make your January timeline, correct?
Potentially, yes. But now your your committee will likely need to call an
emergency meeting – or a special meeting to determine which of your committee are
going to participate in that interaction with the board if if the board were to
agree with moving forward with that proposal. In your mind the whole
committee would not meet with the board? The whole committee could meet with the
board. My preference, I would think, I’d like to
see as widen level of input as possible I think it would be in everybody’s
interests. Okay. Is there any public comment on this general thread of
discussion? Hi. Justin McDonald, The Fire Chiefs Association president, just one
question when you were talking about the questions on the applications I think
our group is kind of unique where we’re representing upwards of 40 different
agencies and you’re asking about grant matching and what are you doing to
secure funding for the future if it’s weighted or if that’s scored differently
then it would possibly force our application to break up into many
different groups which is probably not recommended ideally we try to keep
together and be one united voice so just as a as food for thought when you’re
discussing these questions our application may not actually be
applicable to some of those questions because we’re trying to represent small
agencies that aren’t even they’re just doing fundraisers to to get their budget
so just food for thought on that. Thank you, any other comment? I I don’t think in
being on the committee since it started that if there’s any one question that
ever gets weighted. I know you use that word weighted we don’t we don’t have like
a you’ve been to the meetings we don’t have like you get a 10 or you get an 8. I
I just think that yours is unique there’s a couple others that are unique
and I think that we would certainly take you know that would make sense to us
it’s the smaller areas that are you know that we didn’t want to know what’s going
to happen to them before we you know offer them money so or advise the board
so I take what you said seriously but I don’t think there’s any one question
that’s ever weighted more than another we’ve never done that. Okay
any other discussion? Okay we have a motion to request a joint meeting with
the Board of Supervisors all those in favor? For All of us? that would be my intention. Yeah, you’ve already approved that motion and voted
on it. Already voted on that. I guess I can’t blame my glasses then. Yeah
now your tabeling, you’re motioning the table the review of the application.
Thank you for the clarification. The motion is to table further discussion of
amending the application until after the potential meeting with the Board
Supervisors. All in favor? It’ll it’ll depend on the board schedule, I would
assume, and who they appoint. And what they decide. They could say no, yeah. They
might say committee please take care of this. Handle it and then come back with
the recommendation. Well, yes okay that would be a message in and of itself. Okay
all those in favor? opposed? Okay motion carries. Okay now my glasses and my limited
memory makes me believe we’re gonna talk about number five, just by way of
background information in May, after we have completed our process Supervisor
Wilson approached me and asked for a short meeting he had our concept
that he wanted to discuss and he was interested in having me introduce a
topic to the committee for consideration. I’ve termed it micro grants and and I’m
kind of paraphrasing but essentially his concept was along the lines of what Miss
Campbell was indicating earlier there are probably a segment of the community
and so on that doesn’t go through our normal application process because there
needs either want number one aren’t timely or number two they don’t feel
that they’re competitive in the sense of you know the overall process and his
concept was that the committee would set aside a specific dollar amount and just
as an example he said initially a hundred thousand dollars just to kind of
try to characterize it and the concept was that that hundred thousand dollars
would be reserved for what we’re calling micro grants something say less than 75
hundred dollars that a community organization could come forward and say
we meet the intent of the measure and we would like to ask the the committee to
support a low level allocation like that to enable us to do
any one of a number of things in the community. His concept was again that
that would diversify the applicant pool to some degree he was very favorably
impressed with the belief at least that it would take on the leveraging and so
on that the Nicholas was talking about so I told him I would agendize it
and and here it is so I guess the question before you today is do you want
to engage in this kind of conversation or are you interested in establishing
such a program there’s a couple of procedural issues it’s likely that these
would not meet the normal timing cycle of the, I’ll call them, the major grant
program so you would have to develop some sort of administrative process
whereby they would be considered and awarded that could be potentially a
subcommittee of this committee would be assigned to you know review them the
micro grants with with staff representation and then to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors as one mechanism, there are
others as well so there isn’t a specific proposal on the table today, the the
general question is do you support the concept and would you like us to try to
come to some decision about allocating money to a very specific limited program
for small small applicants. Mr. Chairman Supervisor Wilson approached me also on
that same subject, I don’t understand why he wants to set aside a hundred thousand
dollars or some money when if a person or a group wants to come before us and
request five thousand dollars seven hundred and fifty seven thousand five
hundred dollars we would we would accept them just like that we would weigh the
merits of them we don’t have to have separate money set aside just for small
amounts of money. Okay III understand your point, again, I feel uncomfortable
representing him and I asked him and notified him in the meeting
unfortunately he’s in out of the area at a Coastal Commission meeting so he
able to come and speak one of the elements that they talked about in our
conversation was the timing issue and it was his feeling that there are these
these types of entities and these types of situations that develop throughout
the calendar year that don’t set themselves well with our annual process
and so on so one component of his suggestion to me was that these
applications could be continuously accepted throughout the year if an
entity became aware of say a specific grant opportunity where they needed
matching money or something and not be stuck in the annual single cycle process
so I’m not championing that idea but I know that that was one of his
considerations. Right we had that discussion on email also, but you have to
have a cut-off time you can’t we can’t go all have this hundred thousand I just
keep referring to a hundred thousand dollars going around 12 months a year we
have to have a decision by the end of our meetings I think otherwise who’s
going to decide that you get the money well again like I said I’m uncomfortable
paraphrasing but the suggestion he made was that he thought that the operational
mechanism if you will would be that the committee would appoint some
subcommittee okay that sub committee and a representative of the staff would meet
upon the occasion of submission of such a you know proposal evaluate it and so on
and then that subgroup of this committee would make a recommendation to the board
because the board’s the ultimate decider they thought that that he thought that
that was a more nimble process and his concern was that it would get away from
the timing limitations that we have with her current process. For this discussion
I would just like to on the records as saying I don’t agree with that. Okay.
other discussion? I don’t agree with what mr. Supervisor Wilson is suggesting. Okay.
Um this kind of parallels something that I’ve been trying to to tackle is
addressing the diversity and size of our County and the
priorities of the different communities we have a we have a huge County with a
lot of different challenges in different areas and I’m I’m trying to think of a
way that we can set aside a small amount of money for that can be either
delegated by districts or delegated by individual committee members for grants
or for applications that fit the the measure to to promote buy-in from the
community so that there’s access so that that small groups within each district
have access or voice that that they can take advantage of and I don’t know if
this is the type of thing that would allow that. I cannot support micro
grants with perils we have with just meeting the intent that I see for
essential services it’s almost ironic that it parallels our previous
discussion of apportioning the Measure Z before we even get any of the funding if
that’s where we want to go then it seems relatively simple to say you know eight
million for law enforcement three for fire and one for roads and and the
remainder can be discretionary so to speak but I think in the situation here
and that that’s difficult to support I certainly think that having that option
is great and it definitely supports diversifying their return but if I look
at the intent and the struggle that we’re talking about in the struggle we
had this past spring and the struggles you may have next spring taking more
money away from it is going to compound the issue that we
we are have no idea right now even how to solve so I can’t support that. Other
committee members, options, comments? Just a comment maybe the committee would want to add a question to the application or as a applicant can
indicate that the funding is for seed funds the funding they’re seeking is for
seed funds and what I mean by that is is you know they’re in a sense using I hope
I’m getting my interpretation of what you meant by sea funds right gender
please correct me if I’m wrong here but basically a small organization that
needs a little bit of money to get kick-started into basically a more
productive organization so something where it’s just a few friends or community
members meeting and the seed funds would have actually helped them to organize
into a 501c3 or into a more formal organization or seed funding to in a
sense help them to obtain a obtain a grant for additional funding to provide
services by which the group was established. Is that what you meant by it? Okay. Other comments from committee members? I just think it’s interesting that the Supervisor
spoke to two of you individually about something we are deliberating on how to
present before their supervisors be nice to have a more flexible mechanism
to communicate I’d like to agree. Okay. Okay, well I do
not see any motion to move forward with the concept at this point in time so I
would say that at this point in time the committee is not interested in
entertaining the proposal. We have a 2021 meeting schedule Caught yourself didn’t you? So as we
mentioned before the staff would like to propose a meeting schedule similar to
what we’ve done in the past where we review mid year totals on January 30th,
and application review meetings go on in March, so following the same schedule as
last year that would be Thursdays from 2:00 to 4:00 pm March 5th, 12th 19th and 26th and then a year-end meeting about this time on September 10th that is up to you to
discuss and decide on but that’s close. Pleasure of the the committee.. If I could interject as staff really quickly um I hear a lot of potential changes taking place
and so I have I have two concerns with time. A) the time of your committee. We we
value the time that you contribute to this process and it is very cumbersome
on your service to the community to sit on this committee and our staff is
sensitive to that and I just want your committee to be cognizant of the
decisions that you make in this schedule of what commitment levels that’s going
to have on your committee and we do have also three participants who aren’t even
here to weigh in on the level of commitment that they want to offer past
committees have wanted to try to really streamline this process and and we’ve
gone through a number of years of developing this process in order to be
cognizant of that in addition I would ask that you be cognizant of our staffs
time that would be required to support your committee we are a small staff and
we are here to serve you and we will happily do so but you know I hear a lot
of subcommittees coming about and maybe more meetings taking place so I would
just encourage your committee to really try to evaluate the process and
determine what’s necessary and what your committee
is willing to devote your service to as well. Well then just procedurally trying
to understand the communication options my assumption is our committee chair
could have a conversation with a board representative or make a presentation to
the committee but I do understand that cumbersome nature of enacting any
changes especially to this measure the process from my perspective isn’t
necessary what we want to change its except for the allocation eligibility
but awarding which would be at the end of the process would be what we’re
really wanting to change and that’s the limitation that is the supervisors
discretion not ours but I think due diligence and the experience at least in
the last year is to say this is the problem
here’s potential solutions that you’re right reacting and putting that into
place in two months as is unfeasible I think so I I would look to you then to
through the chair to make a better option of how to communicate our
concerns and the needed changes beyond forming a subcommittee etc. Your
committee is always welcome to come to public comment at any board meeting
during non agenda items and make public comment to the board concerning this
subject in addition staff will always keep you aware of any Measure Z related
items that are coming to the board for instance in October when we will present
the contracts and address some other measures Z related things with the board
that is also an excellent opportunity for your committee to come and
communicate with the board each district representative should be in close
communication with their district supervisor and talking with them about
what’s transpiring in your time on the committee and that’s why there is a
district representative so that you can have those communications with them
and be letting them know the conversations that you’re having and you
can bring those conversations back to the committee as a whole so that’s my
immediate thoughts on that and there is flexibility in that again
if you if we you know need to address specific things we can we can add it to
this agenda item that we’re coming that we’re going to bring in October such as
the letter that your committee plans to submit to the board what a bit of
unclarity around that is that we don’t know what the board’s action is going to
be at that time so then what does your committees follow up I need to be
following that board meeting and whatever the board decides to do with
your letter. I agree at this point it’s an unknown.
Okay. I’d like to make a comment we’ve all
agreed that we need to change the wording in the application I’m thinking
there might be a simpler way agreed that we need to have them consider how this
meets measure Z but if we had a cover letter that said make sure your
application and leave it all the same we wouldn’t have to change the same thing
we wouldn’t have to have AB ad hoc committee meetings we could put it in
the cover letter make sure that it agrees with the measure Z standards and
it’s our job to make sure that it agrees with Measure Z standards that’s what
we’re doing here and I don’t think we need to in second thought I know I voted
for but I think in second thought we could bypass the ad hoc committees and
the complications and just do it in a businesslike manner put it in the cover
of the letter that says make sure it meets Measure Z and we make sure that in
this committee and we would leave the application as is. Okay. Would you like me
make a motion? or do we have to start over? No you’re always welcome to make a motion,
just to make sure that the chair doesn’t get stuck in the middle of this, the
motion that was previously passed was to table the discussion pending the
potentiality of this meeting with some subcommittee of the board yeah
but as I heard your comments your comments were directed more toward the
application wordsmithing and so on did I misunderstand your intent I’m thinking
this application if we have to meet with the board ad hoc committee to change the
wording in the application can we just put it in a cover letter and be I the
chair sense and this is just my view is that the meeting with the board was not
focused in fact on the application changes the meeting with the board was
focused on the financial difficulties and limitations that might or might not
be opposed now those changes might result in modifications to the
applications if some consensus was reached so to me there’s kind of a
subtle difference between the two in the sense that I I agree with you that that
a clear cover letter can reinforce the concept that they need to consider how
applicable their application is to the intent of the process to me that’s a
different discussion than the financial aspects which were the subject of
previous motion. If I may, I move that we now reconsider… if you wanted to reconsider the tabling
of the application then we would need a motion to revive. To reconsider, yeah.
Is there such a motion? I don’t think we’re questioning or reconsidering the
tabling I think we’re reconsidering the ad hoc committee letter is what I’m
hearing yes okay but that said I have still have significant concerns that if
we just continue and we go before the the board and through through the chair
or any of us say these are concerns that need to be addressed no there’s no
mechanism for actual change well I guess saying that out loud recognize the irony
that there still isn’t because we’re just recommending something all right Okay so I the chair understands the
intent and so on if the intent is to overturn the previous motion then there
needs to be a motion to reconsider and is there such a motion I guess is my
question. I’d make the motion okay could you be motion to reconsider our decision
to seek a..yes… a meeting with the Board of Supervisor subcommittee. Is that a fair
characterization of? Yes. Okay, so we have a motion, is there a second? What is your motion? I made a motion that we table the discussion with the Board of Supervisors. Or reconsider the
need. Yes, we had moved to seek a meeting with the Board of Supervisors to discuss
the financial concern. Ernie’s motion would potentially if it passed negate
that action and say we will not meet with not seek a meeting with the Board
of Supervisors to discuss the financial aspect. Part of the reason if we ended
discussion no part of the reason we’re not all here for one thing we don’t know
what the other people can do and can’t do the other members. Comments? I think
it’s workable the way it is it’s worked in the past. So we have a motion?
did you second or did you not? okay so we have a motion to reconsider the request
of the Board of Supervisors for a subcommittee meeting is there a second
to that motion. I’ll second. okay we have a motion and a second to reconsider our
previous action to seek a meeting with a subcommittee of the board to discuss
certain financial aspects of our process. Discussion. Again speaking out loud where I’m gonna
discover what I really want to say I think we should draft a letter
communicating our concerns understanding the procedure of the benefit of an ad hoc
committee is the cumbersome part and if we form that and that’s based on the
board of supervisors discretion the timeline doesn’t seem like it will get
us to a position where we can affect the change we’re looking for which is why
I’m personally now struggling with whether that’s a good idea or not. Okay I
I would like to move forward with the letter just talking with addressing the
board of supervisors because even if it doesn’t come to any action this calendar
year it lays the found work for, lays the groundwork for changes in the future
and and for me it’s that that ability to have transparency and that ability to
for us allocate the funding the best we can with the best information we can and
in I really feel that we need to bring this issue up with the Board of
Supervisors and get direction from them about how to proceed. Other comments from the committee? Anybody in the public like to speak to
this issue? Okay we have a motion and a second to reconsider our previous action
to request a meeting with a sub community of the Board of Supervisors to
discuss for certain financial aspects of the process all those in favor of the
motion to reconsider please raise your hand
opposed okay the motion fails motion for reconsideration fails so the original
motion will stand and I will offer a letter that was previously discussed. Next item is, I talked the staff a little
bit and one of the things I noted having been an alternate myself on the
committee is that we had never established any procedure to determine
shove the alternate numbers would be the voting member in that case where we did
not have a quorum so I thought it would be best just to formalize that process.
Chair – we haven’t finalized the schedule yet you all diverted a little to redress
that item, but we’re still on the determine of the determination of the
schedule for next year, perhaps I need a caretaker but I just don’t recognize it.
This is why we’re here to support you. Thank you, what were the dates that you
said. The proposed schedule would be to meet on January 30th to cover the
mid-year budget totals and then having application review in March for the
typical schedule that would be March 5th March 12th, the 19th and the
26th, that would be every Thursday in March from 2:00 to 4:00 here so it just
mirrors the schedule that we followed in previous years and then a final meeting
in September, I would like to go over March again 5,12,19,26? Yes. Thank you
Discussion from committee members? Mr. Chair I like Thursday’s starting at two
o’clock. Okay, is there a motion to accept the staff proposed schedules for 2020-21?
I move we accept the staffs proposal okay is there a second? I second. okay we
have a motion, a second, any further discussion, public comment? Okay all those
in favor of accepting the proposed schedule for the 2021 process please
raise your hand opposed? abstentions? motion carries.
Although we just passed it I would like to talk about the starting time because
of our alternates live in Shelter Cove is could we start at one o’clock because
you could get home earlier. To staff, is there any availability issue? No
there’s no availability issue for this room.
The only sometimes cumbersome aspect we hit is during the March review if your
committee needs to go over then we may but right up to the Planning Commission
meetings and so that does propose stern end time, I think that’s like the third
Thursday. If I recollect. There was such a circumstance last year. Right exactly.
Yeah so so starting at one would help to alleviate that and and that works fine
for our staff if your committee.. I think you know Garberville and Shelter Cove if
we started one it would make it easier to get home in the dark. Okay. Appreciate
that Rich. Any other conversation? So would you like to put that in the form
of a motion? is that a motion? It would need to be if we’d like to take it. Imove that all meetings, or just March meetings? I’m not sure what your intent is. I move that January
thirtieth and all meetings in March start at one o’clock. Okay is there a
second? I second. Okay a motion and a second. Any discussion? Public comment
about altering our meeting time? Okay, all those in favor please raise your hand.
Opposed? Abstentions? Motion carries. I’m getting a pointy finger which means
something’s coming well you your committee tabled the applications. I’m
trying to work this out in my head how if it’s best for your committee to maybe
schedule something right now for December at which point in time we will
have known what’s the board’s decision is on meeting with your committee and
potentially already had an opportunity to conduct that meeting but we do need
for your committee to finalize the applications prior to your January 30th
meeting so there is that loose end that will need to be tied up one way or
another so what’s the pleasure of the committee in reference to a potential
December meeting let’s just find a date so the Thursday’s are the best day of
the week I believe. Is is there potential that we could do it before Thanksgiving
could it be provincially November 21st? I will not be here, but I am trying to
release so the immediate heartburn that takes place I will have to let go of
I think but but I will not be here and even when I do release control I will be
like right here my preference would be that I can be available for my staff as
they are still in the learning process was there something about the
twenty-first particularly or I just I asked about that because as we move into
the holiday season things gets much more much more complicated to get everybody
together and so I was hoping to address this before Thanksgiving. Staff is suggesting the 14th my only concern with that would be is if the board would like to meet with
your committee can we get that in from the time they determine that in October
to that it’s difficult scheduling with this proposed meeting with the board
will the 12th of December work for staff? Yes. Will the 12th of December work for
committee members. Yes. Okay so I would think that the Chair can set the meeting date
without any motions is that correct? oh we would need a motion. okay you would
need a motion. Is there a motion to set a December 12th meeting to discuss any
potential final modifications to the application process for 2020-2021?
At what time? one o’clock but I didn’t include December in my motion. so I
just added it. It’s a separate motion. Yeah. I so move. Is there a second? Second.
Discussion? Members the public like to comment? Chief Robertson, Rich oh wait a second
I serve then I guess Ernie
I mean Rich. Rich made the motion. Okay all those in favor of setting a meeting
date of December 12th at 1:00 o’clock for application potential review please
raise your hands opposed? abstentions? okay and our staff
will be in contact with the outcome of your letter being submitted to the board
and we will let you know when that meeting takes place and I would
encourage your committee to participate in that either. okay with permission of
staff I’m gonna move to number seven I think we need public comment on that I
thought I did now I’m gonna I’m gonna pretty strongly claim I asked for we’re
good okay yeah because I can’t stand three corrections in one meeting okay
moving number seven establishing a protocol for alternate member voting
procedures this is just a housekeeping matter we have never to my knowledge and
to staff’s knowledge establish a mechanism by which we would decide which
of the alternatives would take a voting position if in fact a quorum were not in
place with the regular members so my suggestion is that we establish a
procedure whereby just a random process probably let the chair pick a number
between one and ten on a silent mechanism and then ask the two
alternates to choose a number and that individual would be the voting member of
that meeting and then if there were subsequent opportunities then the the
other member would be the automatic voting member in that circumstance so
their voting opportunities would alternate back and forth the choice of
the first one would be simply a randomization process. I would I would
discourage you from the alternating just because we’ve never had to use it and if
it happens every third year we gonna remember which member it was the prior
year might be totally different members just a mechanism for each meeting where
we might need an alternate to you know flip a coin or. I I appreciate the staffs
concern having sat there for four years not you know being able to participate
in that but not it would be unfortunate if the
opportunity wasn’t extended to all members and I think we could develop a
mechanism for remember who it was I don’t think that’s a serious impediment
so I appreciate the staff concern I guess I would just have a different view
what so it’s the intent of having all tonight’s well the alternates were if
the appointed members couldn’t make a quorum then the alternates to fill that
position to bring the committee to a quorum and you’re just looking for a
process of which yes so I’m just suggesting a random draw process
initially and then alternating thereafter. It sounds complicated. You’re
a chief officer of a 50-person fire department you can’t count to two. This
isn’t about flipping. I mean we have we have we have two alternates I mean coin
flip I think flipping a coin to keep to be the first one this is okay okay okay
so there seems to be support for the monetary option do we need a formal
motion to adopt this is a procedure just a discussion I don’t I don’t know if we
necessarily need to develop an official coin tossing procedure for your
committee so I think I think that’s fine and okay at least from my term the chair
will adopt just a randomization process one gold coin in the air and we’ll let it go
with that. I’m sorry to complicate the complicated question further it seems
strange to me that this is a representative committee correct?
Well there’s representative from each supervisorial district and a
couple of generally appointed members and then the alternates. And our our our
responsibilities to make value-based decisions that are then voted on. One
would hope. so then it’s I just struggle with how an alternate would
represent your specific interests for example
if we had to vote on something that was more beneficial to a district as opposed
to an agency which is the mix we have and that specific person wasn’t here
there’s no ability to have that representation with an alternate. I guess
I’m having another moment because in my mind the alternates the representation
aspect of the alternates is the same as the representation of the generally
appointed members they aren’t representing a specific geographic
district but they are representing a consensus of the Board of Supervisors in
the same way that you know a generally appointed member would I guess I just
don’t make it I don’t get your point so I understand what you’re saying because
you’re representing the fire association so at the end when we’re voting if
you’re not here and one of them have to vote on something in Shelter Cove or
McKinleyville then I think they’re very fair people because I know them but the
potential would be there not to give as much weight to the vote because you
weren’t able to make it and then we tally a weighted voted matrix and if that
isn’t possible it’s just, it’s a process but I do understand the intent
and l understand that they elect the appointed representation
and with five meetings we should be able to attend every every one they did but
just the situation I was in lost year with jury duty and the third meeting of
selections that was it was challenging. Okay I do want to return to something
that was said at my the first meeting I attended and I came very focused on
trying to come at this from the fourth district and represent my community
because my community needs help but something was said that was very
poignant to me and it was it’s not a perfect process we’re not gonna get this
perfect but we are gonna do good and and oddly enough that really helped me
able to move forward because within this committee and within the system we’ve
all worked together now and have an understanding of what we’re trying to
achieve with this and I think that if a one of our alternates was included in a
vote I don’t think it would hugely secure the result and I’d like to
applaud their diligence and coming every day and being here and participating to
the level that they do. Well plus Sean if no nevermind. Okay I have we exhausted
the coin flip process and related matters okay I think we would have a
motion for adjournment. If I may before you adjourn um just make a brief
announcement or discussion point of my own. Okay. In my zell to get started in
the 18 19 19 20 budgets I neglected to introduce myself and everyone else up
here so I just wanted to just mention again that my name is again or for the first
time maybe today that my name is Neftali Rubio Mel’s and I am sort of taking the
the lead are attempting to as we transition roles but you will continue
to have the three of us to rely on for support here with the committee and I
have another piece of news is just in terms of timing of the next meeting I
will be here in December however in January I will likely be on maternity
leave and so you will still have Alicia and Fiona here to support the committee
as you need but as we’ve been doing as using today we will be doing it as a
team until we’re able to fully transfer over to me leading so thank you for
bearing with us in this learning process and kind of timing thing we have going
so it’s been a pleasure and thank you it’s been fun to watch the twins work
okay we’ll adjourn the meeting and staff will be communicating to us as
presumably upon the decision of our supervisors about whether the December
you know 12 meeting will ultimately be necessary as a result of the meeting of
the committee well the December 12th meeting
is definitely gonna need to take place because we need an application to be
able to showcase to the public okay and I think Ernie might have a question
I have a good of the order comment the we did a great deal of discussing on how
to choose the alternative and it was a coin flip I was going to
suggest drawing straws but our quintessential politician over here
pointed out that straws are illegal in California
thank you that’s all I have to say

Leave a Reply

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