Mendocino County
  • Sign In

Meeting: Board of Supervisors on 2020-06-09 9:00 AM - Budget Hearing

Meeting Time: June 09, 2020 at 9:00am PDT

Agenda Item

5a) Noticed Public Hearing - Discussion and Possible Action to Approve the Mendocino County Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-21, Including All Recommended Actions and Adjustments (Sponsors: Executive Office and Auditor-Controller)

Legislation Text Proposed FY 20-21 Budget Report Attachment C - Revised 6.4.2020 Proof of Publication FY 20-21 Executive Office Budget Presentation FY 20-21 Aumentum Presentation FY 20-21 Cannabis Program Presentation FY 20-21 HHSA Budget Presentation 6-5-20 Rosen Correspondence 6-6-20 Rogers Correspondence 6-6-20 Tresinger Correspondence 6-6-20 Dye Correspondence 6-6-20 Frank Correspondence 6-6-20 Tipp Correspondence 6-6-20 Santa Anna Correspondence 6-6-20 Tischler Correspondence 6-6-20 Musgrave Correspondence 6-6-20 Quayle Correspondence 6-6-20 Stephens Correspondence 6-6-20 Sizemore Correspondence 6-6-20 Glentzer Correspondence 6-6-20 Hester Correspondence 6-7-20 Baird Correspondence 6-7-20 Van Patten Correspondence 6-7-20 Anonymous Correspondence 6-7-20 Gibson Correspondence 6-7-20 Rippey Correspondence 6-7-20 Anonymous Correspondence 6-7-20 Johnson Correspondence 6-7-20 Walter Correspondence 6-7-20 Backup Correspondence 6-7-20 Mitro Correspondence 6-7-20 Rodriques Correspondence 6-7-20 Lumpkin Correspondence 6-7-20 Meredyth Correspondence 6-7-20 Blumenfeld Correspondence 6-7-20 Menasian Correspondence 6-7-20 Rose Correspondence 6-7-20 McCoy Correspondence 6-7-20 Olave Correspondence 6-7-20 Taylor Correspondence 6-7-20 Doering Correspondence 6-7-20 Mills Correspondence 6-7-20 Reiber Correspondence 6-7-20 Pasternak Correspondence 6-8-20 Fogg Correspondence 6-8-20 Sherwood Firewise Communities Sterring Group Correspondence 6-8-20 Costa Correspondence 6-8-20 Johnson Correspondence 6-8-20 Valentic Correspondence 6-8-20 Tarbell Correspondence 6-8-20 Morris Correspondence 6-8-20 Christopherson Correspondence 06-08-20 Costa Correspondence 06-08-20 Cotler Correspondence 06-08-20 Jungwirth Correspondence 06-08-20 Zarlin Correspondence 06-08-20 Cratty Correspondence 06-08-20 Bergeron Correspondence 06-08-20 Black Correspondence 06-08-20 Chalfin Correspondence 06-08-20 Chinn, Rogers, Rand Correspondence 06-08-20 Dalton Correspondence 06-08-20 Davis Correspondence 06-08-20 Due Correspondence 06-08-20 Dutro Correspondence 06-08-20 Dyer Correspondence 06-08-20 Ferri-Taylor Correspondence 06-08-20 Haines Correspondence 06-08-20 Horsley Correspondence 06-08-20 Lewis Correspondence 06-08-20 McCleary Correspondence 06-08-20 Monroe Correspondence 06-08-20 Ray Correspondence 06-08-20 Robbins Correspondence 06-08-20 St. Martin Correspondence 06-08-20 Vest Correspondence 06-08-20 Vilotti Correspondence 06-08-20 West Correspondence 06-08-20 Mendocino County Lodging Operators Correspondence 06-09-20 Little Correspondence 06-09-20 Thieriot Correspondence 06-09-20 Harris Correspondence 06-09-20 Albert Correspondence 06-09-20 Armstrong-Frost Correspondence 06-09-20 Baird Kanaan Correspondence 06-09-20 Boosinger Correspondence 06-09-20 Boyd-Schoeneman Correspondence 06-09-20 Carson Correspondence 06-09-20 DeVries-Jones Correspondence 06-09-20 Dewitt Correspondence 06-09-20 Douthwaite Correspondence 06-09-20 Easterbrook Correspondence 06-09-20 Frey Correspondence 06-09-20 Garcia Correspondence 06-09-20 Garvin Correspondence 06-09-20 Gester Correspondence 06-09-20 Hart Correspondence 06-09-20 Hartley Correspondence 06-09-20 Havemann Correspondence 06-09-20 Howlett Correspondence 06-09-20 J McCleary Correspondence 06-09-20 Karlin Correspondence 06-09-20 Keehn Correspondence 06-09-20 Kelley Correspondence 06-09-20 Koeninger Correspondence 06-09-20 Lee Correspondence 06-09-20 Legrand Correspondence 06-09-20 Marshall Correspondence 06-09-20 McCleary Correspondence 06-09-20 Middlebrook Correspondence 06-09-20 Morrow Correspondence 06-09-20 Nicholson Correspondence 06-09-20 Reiber Correspondence 06-09-20 Rushton Correspondence 06-09-20 Shribbs Correspondence 06-09-20 Strong Correspondence 06-09-20 Taylor Correspondence 06-09-20 Wieland Correspondence 06-09-20 Wolf Correspondence 06-09-20 Yoxall Correspondence 06-09-20 UCANR Correspondence 06-09-20 Little Correspondence 06-09-20 Pierson-Pugh Correspondence 06-09-20 Jablonski Correspondence 06-09-20 Slocum Correspondence
   Oppose     Neutral     Support    
50000 of 50000 characters remaining
11 Public Comments
  • Default_avatar
    Kathy Borst over 4 years ago

    I oppose the cut for the Fire Safe Council from $100,000 to $25,000. The FSC is doing crucial work to make our rural communities safer from being devastated by fire. Cutting this funding could, in the end, cost the county more in revenue than it is saving. Preventative resources are often cut but they are the FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE. I realize current circumstances warrant some kind of cuts but this is unwise & short-sighted. Keep this resource available with at least $75,000 of funding.

  • Default_avatar
    Paula Gaska over 4 years ago

    Please increase funding for the Mendocino County Fire Safe Council to $50,000 so that they can operate at a baseline level and continue with the important work they are doing. It frightens me to hear my husband, a volunteer firefighter for Redwood Valley/Calpella, describe how unprepared neighborhoods are for wildfire season when he goes on emergency fire calls. Communities need the educational and logistical support of MCFSC to be prepared and stay safe.

  • Default_avatar
    Andrea Lum over 4 years ago

    As a member of the Anderson Valley FSC, we have benefited greatly from our partnership with the MCFSC. Reducing their funding means reducing the ability for us to keep ourselves and our neighbors safe. The MCFSC provides important information and resources to our rural community and reducing the funding in the midst of the worst climate crisis experienced in the modern age is the wrong way to go.

  • Default_avatar
    Sharon Stewart over 4 years ago

    An ounce of prevention... keeping at least a bottom of the barrel funding of $50K to MCFSC is an integral component to keeping our County fire safe. MCFSC has assisted our Council tremendously in this past fire season, with invaluable resources (reflective house signs, road clearing, chipper days, etc.). Granted, this pandemic has forced a critical look at the budget, but please keep this item minimally funded for the health of our County.
    Sharon Stewart
    Lower Deerwood Fire Safe Council

  • Default_avatar
    Andrea Vachon over 4 years ago

    Please don’t reduce the funding for the Fire Safe Council.

  • Default_avatar
    Lisa Hillegas over 4 years ago

    The Mendocino Fire Safe Council is one of the most organized and productive organizations I've had the honor and pleasure to be involved with. They have a small army of dedicated people who work tirelessly to educate the public about how to be more fire-safe, and providing assistance, financial and sweat labor, to ensure residents are "fire hardening" their properties. In the era of massive fires, they are a priceless resource that needs to remain fully funded. Safety first. Please.

  • 10158264818033798
    Jane Ingalls over 4 years ago

    Please allocate at least $50,000 to MCFSC. Reduction to $25,000 from current $100,000 seems unwise, since fire seasons are not likely to become less dangerous; and the fire safety council provides vital assistance in mitigating risks. ~Jane Ingalls, living on McNab Ranch

  • Default_avatar
    Jim Mastin over 4 years ago

    In this time of heightened fire danger and increased wildfire preparedness is not the time to reduce funding to the Mendocino County Fire Safe Council. As a former board chair of the MCFSC I know only too well how much they do with the minimal funding they receive. Their successful programs save lives, protect property and enhance our communities. A reduction in County support for the MCFSC is not forward looking and could hamper efforts to survive and thrive in a wildfire-prone environment.

  • Default_avatar
    Marc Levine over 4 years ago

    We're in a serious ongoing drought, with a hot summer ahead, and at risk from PG&E's lack of maintenance and our super-dry brush-filled forests. This is a time to fully fund the Fire Safe Council. It's about saving lives and our economy. I can't imagine a more urgent priority.

  • Default_avatar
    James Green over 4 years ago

    I'm writing to encourage more financial support for the county Fire Safe Council. Please consider funding of $50,000. My understanding is this amount is required for just the baseline level. The MC FSC has made wonderful progress this past year with the $100K funding provided by last year's budget. Thank you for your consideration.

  • Default_avatar
    Mary Buckley over 4 years ago

    Please don't make such severe cuts in your support for the Mendocino County Fire Safe Council! This base funding can't be replaced by project-specific grant revenue, and with fire season already upon us and drought conditions continuing, it seems hugely unwise to slash support by 75% (currently $100,000, but next year's draft budget has only $25,000). Surely $25,000 can be trimmed from somewhere else to provide at least $50,000 to continue the Fire Safe Council's vital work. Thank you.