3o) Approval of Agreement with 4LEAF, Inc., for up to $1,600,000.00 in Contract Planning Services, from the Effective Date of the Agreement through December 31, 2023
We fully support the engagement of contract planners to begin the essential work of application processing given rapidly approaching state deadlines.
However, we request clarification why this contract planner item on the BoS consent calendar for the February 28 Board meeting was not first brought to GGC for detailed review, as has been the required protocol for all other cannabis items. Especially considering the significant staffing concerns and the very important tasks with which these contract planners will be engaged, as well as the general failure to this point of MCD to effectively process applications, we have significant concerns that the agreement, and the services which are being requested may not be sufficient or appropriate to manage the required workload. We request an update on which departments besides MCD were involved in the scoping, vetting and executing of this contract to determine if it will actually provide the level of service needed in a way that creates more efficiency and better outcomes than we have seen with MCD. We are gravely concerned that if the contract planners are trained using the same inefficient and unpublished review techniques leading to 150-200 hours per permit review that we will be no better off than we are today.
The Board chose to have the MCD Director report directly to them, and the Board directed the GGC to evaluate all items before they are implemented. By all indications this process should include evaluating all agreements, including this one with 4LEAF, being made related to addressing our local licensing crisis to ensure that they will result in the desired outcomes of efficient and cost effective ministerial permit application review and issuance.
Regarding the work being requested in the agreement, we would like an explanation why the first service listed is ‘Completeness Check’ when MCD has theoretically already completed those checks for applicants who now need Substantive review. We can not afford to waste any time or money in reviewing already reviewed applications again.
Thank you for taking the time to look into these items of concern. We appreciate your consideration of our recommendations.
Thus item should not be on the consent calendar. I respectfully request that this item be brought before the General Government Committee for public hearing and discussion
The outside consultant that MCD wants to hire for application is called 4Leaf. I am surprised that this item was not vetted through the GGC prior to being placed on the BOS agenda on the consent calendar.
4Leaf is primarily a building department centric firm which has inspectors, plans examiners, and building officials for hire to jurisdictions. Mendocino County had an interim building official from 4Leaf for a while in 2016-2017. (He was OK, I had no substantive issues). 4Leaf has broadened its scope to include planning. Most contract planners work from home.
My concern is who from MCD will be training the 4Leaf planners and who will be reviewing their work product? When will this training take place and where? Will an applicant be able to contact their 4Leaf planner directly?
The Mendocino County ministerial cannabis cultivation application is not complicated and based on my nearly 30 years' experience working for government administering ministerial permits, a substantive review of an Mendocino County Canbabis Department (MCD) Portal Deemed Complete cannabis cultivation permit application should take no more than 4-6 hours. A concern is that the MCD director has put in her public reports that application review will take 150-200 hours per application which is what the $1.6 million 4Leaf contract amount is based on. Therefore, it is possible that 4Leaf could lengthen their billing hours to meet MCD director Nevedals' unrealistic, and unnecessarily lengthy timeframe estimate of application reviews. This will result in a waste of taxpayer dollars and a continuation of the current MCD practice of being overly subjective and overly critical review in the review of ministerial cannabis cultivation permit applications.
Prior to approving this contract, Director Nevedal must be held accountable by the Board of Supervisors and explain (IN WRITING) to the Board, the public and stakeholders why it will take 150 - 200 hours to review a 20-25 page MINISTERIAL each cannabis cultivation permit application and supporting documents.
Honorable Supervisors,
We fully support the engagement of contract planners to begin the essential work of application processing given rapidly approaching state deadlines.
However, we request clarification why this contract planner item on the BoS consent calendar for the February 28 Board meeting was not first brought to GGC for detailed review, as has been the required protocol for all other cannabis items. Especially considering the significant staffing concerns and the very important tasks with which these contract planners will be engaged, as well as the general failure to this point of MCD to effectively process applications, we have significant concerns that the agreement, and the services which are being requested may not be sufficient or appropriate to manage the required workload. We request an update on which departments besides MCD were involved in the scoping, vetting and executing of this contract to determine if it will actually provide the level of service needed in a way that creates more efficiency and better outcomes than we have seen with MCD. We are gravely concerned that if the contract planners are trained using the same inefficient and unpublished review techniques leading to 150-200 hours per permit review that we will be no better off than we are today.
The Board chose to have the MCD Director report directly to them, and the Board directed the GGC to evaluate all items before they are implemented. By all indications this process should include evaluating all agreements, including this one with 4LEAF, being made related to addressing our local licensing crisis to ensure that they will result in the desired outcomes of efficient and cost effective ministerial permit application review and issuance.
Regarding the work being requested in the agreement, we would like an explanation why the first service listed is ‘Completeness Check’ when MCD has theoretically already completed those checks for applicants who now need Substantive review. We can not afford to waste any time or money in reviewing already reviewed applications again.
Thank you for taking the time to look into these items of concern. We appreciate your consideration of our recommendations.
Sincerely,
Mendocino Cannabis Alliance
e: info@mendocannabis.com
Dear Honorable Board of Supervisors,
Thus item should not be on the consent calendar. I respectfully request that this item be brought before the General Government Committee for public hearing and discussion
The outside consultant that MCD wants to hire for application is called 4Leaf. I am surprised that this item was not vetted through the GGC prior to being placed on the BOS agenda on the consent calendar.
4Leaf is primarily a building department centric firm which has inspectors, plans examiners, and building officials for hire to jurisdictions. Mendocino County had an interim building official from 4Leaf for a while in 2016-2017. (He was OK, I had no substantive issues). 4Leaf has broadened its scope to include planning. Most contract planners work from home.
My concern is who from MCD will be training the 4Leaf planners and who will be reviewing their work product? When will this training take place and where? Will an applicant be able to contact their 4Leaf planner directly?
The Mendocino County ministerial cannabis cultivation application is not complicated and based on my nearly 30 years' experience working for government administering ministerial permits, a substantive review of an Mendocino County Canbabis Department (MCD) Portal Deemed Complete cannabis cultivation permit application should take no more than 4-6 hours. A concern is that the MCD director has put in her public reports that application review will take 150-200 hours per application which is what the $1.6 million 4Leaf contract amount is based on. Therefore, it is possible that 4Leaf could lengthen their billing hours to meet MCD director Nevedals' unrealistic, and unnecessarily lengthy timeframe estimate of application reviews. This will result in a waste of taxpayer dollars and a continuation of the current MCD practice of being overly subjective and overly critical review in the review of ministerial cannabis cultivation permit applications.
Prior to approving this contract, Director Nevedal must be held accountable by the Board of Supervisors and explain (IN WRITING) to the Board, the public and stakeholders why it will take 150 - 200 hours to review a 20-25 page MINISTERIAL each cannabis cultivation permit application and supporting documents.
Sincerely,
Scott Ward
Scott Ward Company