4d) Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Current County Boards and Commissions Including Providing Staff Guidance to Dissolve Select Boards and Commissions Not Required Under California Law
(Sponsors: Executive Office/Clerk of the Board and County Counsel)
I have served as a Director for the Westport MAC since its creation by the Mendocino County BOS in December 2007. These comments are solely my own and do not represent the view of the WMAC. In fact, the WMAC was only notified of this matter yesterday through the vigilance of our Supervisor.
MACS provide a valuable and cost-effective way to involve citizens in unincorporated rural areas with government decision making processes not just at the County level, but also in the state and federal spheres. As entities empowered by the County, the MACs give rural unincorporated communities the standing to ask questions and convey perspectives to government officials before actions are taken. That benefits residents of rural areas because they have a way to collectively voice their perspectives; and it benefits those who work in government by making them aware of issues that broadly impact the lives of those of us living in rural portions of the county.
MACs are a very effective tool for outreach to rural communities that should not be hastily dismissed. While individual citizens will always have their own avenues for engagement, MACs play a valuable role bringing together wider perspectives. That has been happening in Westport for the past 14 years and the process has been valuable. That role should not be lightly cast off. The Directors of the MACs all serve as volunteers because we care about our communities and want to convey local perspectives to those responsible for approval or oversight. The fiscal cost to the County is miniscule while the benefits are immeasurable. The WMAC budget is a mere $2500/annum and most years only a small portion of that is actually spent. If the MACs are dissolved, this efficient mechanism for engaging local citizens would be lost. I urge you to remove MACs from the list of Committees/Councils you are considering dissolving.
California created the framework for Municipal Advisory Councils in order to increase participation in government, especially in rural areas where local government is lacking. In Mendocino County, MACs provide a truly valuable opportunity for citizens to engage with their supervisor, sheriff and other officials and agencies for the purpose of solving problems and voicing concerns. Many MACs do work that would otherwise fall to the supervisors or other County offices. The fiscal cost to the County is miniscule given their value.
At a time when democracy is under attack nationally and worldwide, dissolving the MACs in Mendocino County would be a deeply cynical and destructive action, and an indication that this Board of Supervisors is out of step with its constituents.
If the issue is coming up with money to address the impending strike of the County’s unionized workers, I suggest that you take a look at the salaries of the 71 County employees in the 600-series bargaining units who collectively earn $8.5-$10 million per year. A 10% reduction in those compensation packages would free up around a million dollars for other uses.
LAYTONVILLE AREA MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
44400 Willis Avenue, Laytonville, CA 95454 • 707-984-6444
August 28, 2023
To Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
Subject: 4d) Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Current County Boards and Commissions Including Providing Staff Guidance to Dissolve Select Boards and Commissions Not Required Under California Law (Sponsors: Executive Office/Clerk of the Board and County Counsel)
Dear Supervisors,
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 31010, the authority to create a MAC is invested with a county board of supervisors. It reads as follows:
The board of supervisors of any county may by resolution establish and provide funds for the operation of a municipal advisory council for any unincorporated area in the county to advise the board on such matters which relate to that area as may be designated by the board concerning services which are or may be provided to the area by the county or other local governmental agencies, including but not limited to advice on matters of public health, safety, welfare, public works, and planning. Unless the board of supervisors specifically provides to the contrary, a municipal advisory council may represent the community to any state, county, city, special district or school district, agency or commission, or any other organization on any matter concerning the community. The board may pay from available funds such actual and necessary expenses of travel, lodging, and meals for the members of the council while on such official business as may be approved by the board.
The resolution establishing any such municipal advisory council shall provide for the following:
(a) The name of the municipal advisory council.
(b) The qualifications, number, and method of selection of its members, whether by election or appointment.
(c) Its designated powers and duties.
(d) The unincorporated area or areas for which the municipal advisory council is established.
(e) Whether the establishment of the council should be submitted to the voters and the method for such submission; provided that if an election is required pursuant to subdivision (b), such election shall be held at the same time as an election held pursuant to this subdivision.
(f) Such other rules, regulations and procedures as may be necessary in connection with the establishment and operation of the municipal advisory council.
Originally enacted in 1971, the MAC statute is unique in several respects.
In its brevity, a mere 287 words, it is believed to be one of the shortest laws ever enacted in California history.
Addressing the legislative intent of the MAC statute, Jack Fuller in his seminal report “Municipal Advisory Councils, An Experiment in Community Participation,” (June 1977, State Office of Planning and Research), states, “The flexibility apparent in the enabling legislation has allowed MACs to vary widely in structure, function, and performance. Although different MACs emphasize different concerns, they all share the power to review and advise on all matters of public health, safety, welfare, public works, and planning affecting the areas they serve. Given the physical and economic diversity of the communities represented by MACs and the flexibility of the enabling legislation, each MAC has developed its own form of organization and funding to suit the specific needs of the community it serves.”
Clearly, the MAC statute creates a special relationship between the Board of Supervisors and the MAC. It creates an even closer relationship between the MAC and the supervisor in whose district the MAC is located. The relationship between a MAC and its district supervisor and the BOS is fundamental to its effectiveness.
In an organizational construct and jurisdictional sense, the MAC is aligned under the BOS because it is a legal entity and creature of the Board of Supervisors established by the enabling resolution.
There are many advantages resulting from MAC process inuring to the BOS, the individual supervisor, and the community represented by the MAC. For example,
• A MAC gives a community an officially recognized voice with public officials and agencies.
• A MAC can address controversial issues in the community and arrive at an accepted position, which it reports to its district supervisor, who in turn reports it to BOS colleagues. Without an intermediary, the supervisor must effect compromises or decide between opposing positions when an unincorporated community is divided about county policy.
• A MAC can do the local public relations work that earns support for county proposals; or, in the alternative, demonstrate to the BOS that the proposals have no or little support in the community.
• A MAC can save paid county staff time by stimulating volunteer service and by providing information to the supervisor, county departments and administrators.
• A MAC gives a community an opportunity to address public policy concerns and to develop coordinated planning.
• A MAC can train community leaders in local governance and build familiarity with how county government operates.
For the past 18 months we’ve heard from county officials that the County is broke but they don’t quite know how that happened.
But what they are certain of is that by “dissolving” upwards of 29 citizen committees, including all six of the existing Municipal Advisory Councils (“MACs”) located in Gualala, Hopland, Laytonville, Redwood Valley, Round Valley, and Westport, is absolutely necessary to address a “structural deficit that is projected to grow to more than ten million dollars ($10,000,000) in fiscal year 24/25, at which would deplete most of the remaining reserves. As such, the Board has undertaken a larger effort to reduce expenses related to nonessential operations. As part of that process, the Executive Office and County Counsel have worked with departments to identify existing boards, committees, commissions, and advisory bodies (collectively “Committees”) that are not required by statute, citizen’s initiative, or other law … Per the included fiscal analysis, the Executive Office has calculated the annual costs of operating the identified committees at $921,020.66. True costs are likely much higher, but significantly more difficult to calculate.”
It should be noted the annual budget for all six MACs is a combined total of $17,500. For some unknown reason, the Gualala MAC is allocated $5,000, while the remaining five MACs are budgeted at $2,500, each. I can tell you that the Laytonville MAC, on which I serve as chairman, has not spent a dime of our annual $2,500 allocation in the past four years. And going all the way back to 1997, when I founded the Laytonville MAC, and it was legally created by statutory resolution of the BOS, we’ve only submitted expense reimbursement for several hundreds of dollars.
It is important to note that for many of the 26 years of our existence, we weren’t even funded by the County, we operated on our own, just like we always have. The same was true for the Gualala MAC, as for many years we were the only two MACs in the county.
Back in the mid-1990s, the first two Municipal Advisory Councils (MAC), Laytonville and Gualala, were approved in Mendocino County by the Board of Supervisors. I organized the greater Laytonville area and founded the Laytonville MAC. I also worked with and was supported by the folks in Gualala who founded their MAC while Laytonville was processing our application before the BOS.
Here’s the history on MAC funding. According to a February 28, 1997 report in the Mendocino County Observer regarding the BOS approving the resolution creating the Laytonville MAC, “Regarding council elections, the Board cited fiscal constraints as the MAC has no authority to raise revenues through taxation, so it would have to rely on the County’s general fund to pay for elections. County officials estimated that anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 would be expended on council elections. Supervisor Charles Peterson, whose 5th District is home to the Gualala MAC, pointed out that the Gualala Council would almost certainly request council elections (members are currently appointed by the Supes) if it were granted to Laytonville. Likewise, the Board was not willing to commit the County to funding the operations of the MAC given the precariousness of the County’s budget. First District Supe Mike Delbar fretted that a County-funded Laytonville area MAC could prompt the formation of as many as five councils in his district, all clamoring for County money.”
So the bottom line is the County is planning to terminate all six MACs to save $17,500, which is probably not being expended by the MACs in the first place.
Since county officials appear convinced that the elimination of the annual $17,500 MAC allocation is necessary for the fiscal survival of this county, go ahead and defund the MACs but leave them in place as is. From a historical perspective, MAC’s have successfully operated without financial support from the county in previous years, we shall be able to do so again.
For the record, many citizens believe this proposal concerning dissolving the MACs has little to do with fiscal matters but everything to do with politics and governing matters. The public fears that this proposal is an attempt to dissolve a legally established process to voice their concerns, recommendations, and general input on local governing and political affairs. In other words, things that all foster participatory democracy. Which is the whole purpose of the MAC statute, California Government Code Section 31010.
This proposal is a bad idea whose time should never come.
Please reject this proposal and support good government in Mendocino County by allowing MACs to continue to serve all citizens.
Sincerely,
Jim Shields
Chair
Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council
As a member of the Hopland MAC I see these community forums as an important place for our geographically widespread and diverse communities to share their concerns on their own doorstep. MACs and other commissions such as the Climate Action Committee serve such an important role in guiding Mendocino County in the direction that it's communities wish to see. Surely these volunteer committees create a huge cost saving for the County, rather than a waste. Please do not dissolve this important forum for community participation in local politics.
On Tuesday, 8/29, the Board will be reviewing staff recommendations to eliminate various boards, committees, councils, and commissions as a way save nearly $1 million. While I recognize your urgent need to economize, I believe this is a deeply flawed and misguided idea, particularly with regards to eliminating the Municipal Advisory Councils (MACs) that serve as a busy channel to convey vital community feedback on proposals regarding roads, crime, healthcare, fire safety, economic development, housing, parks, and many, many other matters of interest in your home communities. Without MACs, thousands of residents in the far-flung corners of Mendocino County will go unheard on these issues, notably those who already feel they’ve been ignored and/or disenfranchised by elected officials. Please don’t make this easily avoidable mistake.
I was shocked to see the staff recommendations on this matter, and I realize the idea extends far beyond MACs to dozens of other panels such as: Commission on the Status of Women, Climate Action Advisory Committee, Fish and Game Commission, County Disaster Council, Historical Records Commission, and County Forest Council. There are many more, mostly staffed by volunteers. In all, the county staff estimates savings of nearly $1 million by scrapping these panels.
Of that savings, the seven MACs account for $17,500, most of which in my experience goes to renting meeting spaces, creating mandated reports, secretarial tasks of maintaining minutes, and other minor day-to-day expenses. To be sure, some other no-MAC panels may be idle or under-utilized, but by and large the MACs perform a very important function in rural government. The $17,500 you’d eliminate equals less than one-half of a full-time position, but I don’t believe even a dozen full-time staffers couldn’t replace the work already done by the MACs, particularly on planning matters. Cutting the MACs would also stymie public discussion of matters of local and countywide topics, leaving voters less able to make informed decisions.
In Mendocino County Policy #51 (Sept. 16, 2016), your board created MACs "comprised of citizens, appointed by the Board of Supervisors (BOS or Board), who volunteer their time to review proposed projects located within the county and related topics of interest in their community. MACs are created to provide a consistent and inviting community forum, for the public to hear about and give comments on a number of local and countywide topics. County officials, staff, and other non- county agency staff continually use MAC meetings as an opportunity to provide the public with information or updates."
That is all still true. Without MACs, it will fall on PAID county staff to try to take on those responsibilities, and staff will be unable to come close to the job already being done by MACs in Gualala, Westport, Hopland, Round Valley, Little River, Laytonville, and Anderson Valley. MACs are staffed by dedicated volunteers, who you appoint, who care about these issues, who know their communities well. Will silencing them save money or provide better service to your constituents? No. I personally believe you should be looking for ways to better leverage the MACs instead of tearing them down. THAT would save a great deal of money by providing important information to county staff, yourselves, and relevant state and federal agencies that you now pay staff and outside agencies to obtain.
It was my pleasure until mid-2022 to serve my community for three years at the Gualala MAC, and I thank you for your courteous assistance as individuals during that time. As some of you know, I still serve through a community group called Save Gualala, but I can assure you that citizens groups and/or individuals cannot fill the gap you would create by eliminating MACs.
Respectfully,
Tom
Tom Murphy
Former Vice Chair, Gualala MAC
Leader, Save Gualala
The dissolution of County budget funded municipal advisory committees does not mean that residents can no longer meet to study local issues of importance and make advisory recommendations to the BOS. Although Mendocino county's BOS citizen advisory committees and boards are obviously desirable and clearly staffed by some of this county's most concerned and community-minded residents, the financial reality here is that we are living month to month with the county budget revenues being able to barely meet our county government expenses.
Whether the number in estimated savings is $1 million or something less or possibly more, how can we look county employees in the eye and say we are trying to get you raises, when we aren’t willing to make some tough budget decisions to get there?
More tough decisions are coming…
My name is Kay Richards. I am the Secretary of the Round Valley Area Municipal Advisory Council. My comments are personal to me. I am not writing today on behalf of our MAC.
To reduce the county budget by a sliver of $17,500, you are considering putting an end to a vital democratic process. When compared with the benefit to our unincorporated rural communities, MACs are a pretty cheap opportunity for representative government. I do not see any real disclosure or analysis by County Counsel as to what each MAC is actually costing the county, including how much of that $17,500 sliver is actually spent, but it is not $17,500. Further, unspent funds are not retained by MACs for the next year but returned to the county's credit column.
The MACs were formed to make the connection between the county residents living in unincorporated communities and public bodies such as you, the Board of Supervisors. 6 out of the 7 individual MACs are given an annual budget of $2,500 each. Round Valley's biggest expense is our Zoom account which kept our MAC going during Covid and now continues to allow state and county agents to appear and communicate with us, as none live in Round Valley which is an hour and a half drive from Ukiah and an hour from Willits.
County Counsel also mentions untracked costs of advising committees on issues such as conflict of interest but does not provide a number for MACs versus other boards and commissions. County Counsel estimates anywhere between $20,000 and $200,000 for all board and commissions, not just MACs. Our MAC is not causing any extra expense to the county. We are not creating any Brown Act violations. I asked County Counsel directly months ago about a very discrete conflict issue and never heard back from him, so I presume no time was spent on my question. If the Board of Supervisors intends to move on County Counsel's suggestion that MACs be abolished, I would hope that decision will be delayed until there is an actual analysis of the cost and benefit of MACs, rather than lumping them in with other boards and commissions.
County Counsel's memo even recognizes how active MACs are. For unincorporated areas, it is the main connection between you and your constituency. I ask that you pay attention to the written submissions from community members here in Round valley, including Pat Sobrero and Dee Mullins, who have provided specifics on what we have been doing here.
County Counsel also argues that MAC council members are restricted from engaging with other public bodies due to Brown Act prohibitions, but provides no evidence that MAC council members are doing so or attempting to do so.
County Counsel's memo also implies we are not engaging in one of our most important activities, which is making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors as to needs in our community. In response, I ask, for example, how are we supposed to respond to notices for comment from Planning & Building Services which are almost always received after the deadline to comment, despite requests directly to Planning & Building Services to get the notices to us in a timely manner?
I would also like to know when the our MAC can expect a response from the Board of Supervisors and Department of Transportation to our letter sent in April? The most basic county service, road maintenance, has been stripped to the bone here resulting in failed culverts and torn up roads. I can't see how we can be expected to work toward economic recovery when we can't even offer decent roads to drive on. In April we requested increasing our budget before we have no roads to drive on and mentioned a possible funding source. When can we expect a response from you?
Thank you for the opportunity to address you today.
Hello,
As a citizen in Hopland, I have mixed views on the function of my local MAC committee. On one hand, they do provide some.informative information for the community and provides a platform for local citizens to discuss local policy.
Unfortunately, what I have seen and experienced is local overreach. One example being, the attempt to pass a measure that would have unfairly increased my property taxes for having certain agriculture structures at an extreme rate that was targeting cannabis cultivators directly.
I would feel more comfortable with an elected body making these decisions and engaging with the county, not a small group of individuals volunteering. I have attended multiple meetings in the past and literally nothing was accomplished and people scheduled to provide updates and speak were not even in attendance. To be fair, I have not attended all of their meetings and perhaps some are more functional, but I have attended enough that I deemed it unproductive for me to continue to block out the time in my schedule.
If these committees are not created through an election, such as the BOS, what authority do they have and what authority should they have? Reading through the memos provided on the Agenda topic, it appears they have less authority than they themselves seem to think.
In a perfect world, I would love to see these committees functioning as intended, but mostly what I have seen is a small (less than 10 people group) that is not elected suggesting and attempting to influence a NIMBY viewed position. Without the ability to hold the committee responsible, (such as an election) I fear the dangerous influence they may have if they are the leading and seemingly only voice of my community.
One last example of influence the local MAC supported is the local Hopland Elementary Public Charter School project. Where it took great courage and effort to pursue such an endeavor, it was unfortunately rushed and put in place and is now failing our local youth tremendously (not just my opinion, look at the testing results in comparison to the rest of the county and abroad). I understood the need for parents to have a more a more convenient location for their children to attend school but that should not be prioritized over the quality of education. I did not want to get off topic, but demonstrate how a small unelected group was able to use the MAC platform to influence policy without going through the proper channels and safeguards that may have helped create a better school that will be a longstanding benefit to the community rather than rush to open the doors while MAC members children are still of age to attend.
Thank you for reading my ideas and I hope they help in your decision making process.
I was born and raised in Mendocino County have lived in the Redwood Valley area for the last six years.
The Redwood Valley MAC advisory committee has been a great source of information for me and my family. They are often my primary news source as to what is going on in around the county.
To disband the committee would be a mistake. They provide a valuable service to our citizens. Please vote to keep our community MACs.
The dissolution of the Mendocino Historical Review Board is a good idea for two reasons:
1. The real work on the project applications is done by the Planning Department. Their work is to do an in-depth analysis of the historical significance of a site and the impact of a project on its surroundings.
2. The review board is subject to the whims of its members, who sometimes are ignorant of their own mandate and the rules by which they are bound.
It would be preferable to trust the expertise of the planners who do meticulous historical research on a project before submitting their staff findings to the board, who too often rely on their opinions and emotional reactions when making a decision.
In response to the Memo from County Council Christian Curtis, this comment is to request that the Board of Supervisors not dissolve the Municipal Advisory Councils. For the last 18 months I have reported on the monthly Redwood Valley MAC meetings as a reporter for MendoFever.com, and prior to that I attended as a citizen of Redwood Valley.
The Municipal Advisory Councils provide a valuable community service. This is not something that can be replaced by an NGO. One of the functions of the MAC Boards is to collect and collate information and inquiries from citizens of unincorporated areas and communicate those concerns to the county government. Mendocino County has several small communities that are not incorporated as towns, and lack a mayor and city council. The MACs are a way for these small communities to participate in government. The MAC boards are comprised of unpaid volunteers. The county provides each MAC with $2500 per year for expenses, except for Gualala, which receives $5,000 per year.
Curtis’ memo says that working with committees and boards adds to his and other departments’ time and expense, and that some issues can be very time consuming. He offers the solution of dissolving the committees and boards. If you dissolve the committee that deals with certain issues (he uses the Assessment Appeals Board as an example), the issues and their complexities are not going to disappear once the committee is dissolved. They will need to be dealt with outside of the committee. This could actually take longer, because we are then losing the experience and knowledge of the committee members. You could end up reinventing the wheel every time an issue comes up, without the public oversight that comes along with the Brown Act.
The Board of Supervisor meetings last all day, on a weekday, during working hours. Most citizens cannot attend these meetings. If you make a public comment at a BOS meeting, you get no response, you are simply commenting for the record. In contrast, the Redwood Valley MAC meetings are less than 2 hours, and take place in the evening when working people can attend. The MAC meetings provide an opportunity for citizens to communicate directly with their County Supervisor and the Sheriff’s office. Often Sheriff Kendall attends in person, as does Supervisor Glenn McGourty. Monthly reports from the Redwood Valley County Water District and the Redwood Valley-Calpella Fire Department are also included. Citizens may ask direct questions that often get answers on the spot. The MAC meetings are a way for the BOS to communicate with citizens of unincorporated areas.
The RV MAC created a Community Action Plan that was years in the works, where the citizens came together and created their vision of the future of Redwood Valley. The CAP included design standards, such as discouraging billboards, keeping RV rural, and encouraging trail development. The plan also addresses public safety and economic development. Yes, this created work and effort for County Counsel and the Building and Planning Department. But in the long run, it may save their time because the idea is that having a Community Action Plan that is incorporated into the County’s General Plan will lead to fewer disputes or inquiries that County Counsel and Building and Planning will need to address.
The MAC meetings also provide neighborhood-specific information about fire safety, emergency response, crime, the cannabis ordinance, ballot initiatives and taxes, housing, schools, road conditions, animal control, etc. Guest speakers have included reps from PG&E, CalTrans, local tribes, various businesses and community service organizations, and others who want to address Redwood Valley residents directly.
Dear Board of Supervisors, I am concerned that you are contemplating shutting down the Municipal Advisory Councils. I'm writing to say that th RVMAC has definitely been an asset to our community, it has been successful in keeping people informed, protected and in bringing people together. I think its very important to keep these Councils open and functioning. Voting to shut down the MAC is another way of shutting out the very people you should be listening to and representing.
Thank you.
Dear Supervisors:
Please refrain from dissolving the RVAMAC (Round Valley Area Municipal Advisory Council). As our county comprises vast and hard-to-reach areas, the MAC groups are ultra-important. (Think Frontier!!)
Our RVAMAC has provided services for our community, including Tribal members, which would not otherwise be possible.
Our Supervisor, John Haschak, is a regular participant at our meetings. (Thank you John!) There are also off-shoots of our MAC who are working on projects like Disaster Preparedness, wild land management, public safety for our community, and much more. I can see we need to keep the Board informed of our progress on a more regular basis.
I appreciate the BOS and that we can access the meetings via Zoom as well as other videos put out by board members.
Thank you for your consideration,
Susan O’Brien
707-354-4202
The MACs provide an opportunity for County government to hear the voices of residents in the unincorporated regions of the County. The Redwood Valley MAC has been a vehicle for increasing citizen participation as the community addresses the challenges of wildfires and drought and works to build resilience for living in a safer place. The idea to dissolve MACs is not a welcome idea. Sheilah Rogers, former RVMAC member
This is an undemocratic and bad idea. The County's small staff are already very unresponsive to the needs of parts of the County that are isolated from Ukiah—especially the South Coast. Our Gualala Municipal Advisory Council is helpful in solving local problems and it runs itself — it does not cost the County very much to "assist" the GMAC.
Given the outrageous inconsistencies with the County Budget, misconduct settlements by the Sheriff's office, and active request for an audit from the State Controller Malia Cohen, MORE TRANSPARENCY AND COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT is needed, not less.
Dear BOS As a resident of Covelo I can speak directly to the help and increased involvement by the County through the Round Valley Municipal Advisory Committee. The results of the RVMAC work has already been listed in these comments. I am adding my voice to others who oppose elimination of the MACs. MACs are part of the Safety Net. It is shortsighted to think that by dissolving the Municipal Advisory Committees as a whole the County will save money. If you look at the locations of the 5 committees you will note that they are in the most rural and distantly located areas of our County. Residents of these areas do not have easy access to services that more urban or centrally located residents do. These committees are the eyes, ears and mouths of residents in these areas. By eliminating these committees you will loose the input and help of the residents. This help is FREE. The benefits of these committees are far outweighed by the costs. Please do not eliminate the Municipal Advisory Committees and especially the Round Valley MAC. Thank you, Marilyn Magoffin
It appears as though these suggested cuts are being proposed for cost saving measures. The five Municipal Advisory Committees cost the County virtually nothing, but contribute a huge amount to the greater welfare of people in these areas. Quite frankly, they take a load off of the County. How can the County even consider disolving them? Please eliminate these five Committees from the dissolution list.
Please do not disband the regional MACs operating in unincorporated areas of the County. They provide a valuable link to county government, and greatly improve quality of life in rural areas. Other comments layout the various valid reasons to continue to support the MACs.
I am a long time community member and business owner in Round Valley. When the opportunity for a Municipal Advisory Council came to my attention three years ago I was encouraged to get involved. For the first time in my 40 years in Covelo, there was finally opportunity to have a direct line to our governing body, the board of supervisors, and John Haschak is present at every meeting and interested in our community which often is forgotten. We are also able to interact with other organizations from the county and state on a monthly basis and have been able to accomplish important tasks through this channel, as you can see from the previous comments. I cannot imagine any good reason for dissolving this vital group. We need our council!. Marylou Mileck, Round Valley Area Municipal Advisory Council
I have served as a Director for the Westport MAC since its creation by the Mendocino County BOS in December 2007. These comments are solely my own and do not represent the view of the WMAC. In fact, the WMAC was only notified of this matter yesterday through the vigilance of our Supervisor.
MACS provide a valuable and cost-effective way to involve citizens in unincorporated rural areas with government decision making processes not just at the County level, but also in the state and federal spheres. As entities empowered by the County, the MACs give rural unincorporated communities the standing to ask questions and convey perspectives to government officials before actions are taken. That benefits residents of rural areas because they have a way to collectively voice their perspectives; and it benefits those who work in government by making them aware of issues that broadly impact the lives of those of us living in rural portions of the county.
MACs are a very effective tool for outreach to rural communities that should not be hastily dismissed. While individual citizens will always have their own avenues for engagement, MACs play a valuable role bringing together wider perspectives. That has been happening in Westport for the past 14 years and the process has been valuable. That role should not be lightly cast off. The Directors of the MACs all serve as volunteers because we care about our communities and want to convey local perspectives to those responsible for approval or oversight. The fiscal cost to the County is miniscule while the benefits are immeasurable. The WMAC budget is a mere $2500/annum and most years only a small portion of that is actually spent. If the MACs are dissolved, this efficient mechanism for engaging local citizens would be lost. I urge you to remove MACs from the list of Committees/Councils you are considering dissolving.
California created the framework for Municipal Advisory Councils in order to increase participation in government, especially in rural areas where local government is lacking. In Mendocino County, MACs provide a truly valuable opportunity for citizens to engage with their supervisor, sheriff and other officials and agencies for the purpose of solving problems and voicing concerns. Many MACs do work that would otherwise fall to the supervisors or other County offices. The fiscal cost to the County is miniscule given their value.
At a time when democracy is under attack nationally and worldwide, dissolving the MACs in Mendocino County would be a deeply cynical and destructive action, and an indication that this Board of Supervisors is out of step with its constituents.
If the issue is coming up with money to address the impending strike of the County’s unionized workers, I suggest that you take a look at the salaries of the 71 County employees in the 600-series bargaining units who collectively earn $8.5-$10 million per year. A 10% reduction in those compensation packages would free up around a million dollars for other uses.
LAYTONVILLE AREA MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
44400 Willis Avenue, Laytonville, CA 95454 • 707-984-6444
August 28, 2023
To Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
Subject: 4d) Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Current County Boards and Commissions Including Providing Staff Guidance to Dissolve Select Boards and Commissions Not Required Under California Law (Sponsors: Executive Office/Clerk of the Board and County Counsel)
Dear Supervisors,
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 31010, the authority to create a MAC is invested with a county board of supervisors. It reads as follows:
The board of supervisors of any county may by resolution establish and provide funds for the operation of a municipal advisory council for any unincorporated area in the county to advise the board on such matters which relate to that area as may be designated by the board concerning services which are or may be provided to the area by the county or other local governmental agencies, including but not limited to advice on matters of public health, safety, welfare, public works, and planning. Unless the board of supervisors specifically provides to the contrary, a municipal advisory council may represent the community to any state, county, city, special district or school district, agency or commission, or any other organization on any matter concerning the community. The board may pay from available funds such actual and necessary expenses of travel, lodging, and meals for the members of the council while on such official business as may be approved by the board.
The resolution establishing any such municipal advisory council shall provide for the following:
(a) The name of the municipal advisory council.
(b) The qualifications, number, and method of selection of its members, whether by election or appointment.
(c) Its designated powers and duties.
(d) The unincorporated area or areas for which the municipal advisory council is established.
(e) Whether the establishment of the council should be submitted to the voters and the method for such submission; provided that if an election is required pursuant to subdivision (b), such election shall be held at the same time as an election held pursuant to this subdivision.
(f) Such other rules, regulations and procedures as may be necessary in connection with the establishment and operation of the municipal advisory council.
Originally enacted in 1971, the MAC statute is unique in several respects.
In its brevity, a mere 287 words, it is believed to be one of the shortest laws ever enacted in California history.
Addressing the legislative intent of the MAC statute, Jack Fuller in his seminal report “Municipal Advisory Councils, An Experiment in Community Participation,” (June 1977, State Office of Planning and Research), states, “The flexibility apparent in the enabling legislation has allowed MACs to vary widely in structure, function, and performance. Although different MACs emphasize different concerns, they all share the power to review and advise on all matters of public health, safety, welfare, public works, and planning affecting the areas they serve. Given the physical and economic diversity of the communities represented by MACs and the flexibility of the enabling legislation, each MAC has developed its own form of organization and funding to suit the specific needs of the community it serves.”
Clearly, the MAC statute creates a special relationship between the Board of Supervisors and the MAC. It creates an even closer relationship between the MAC and the supervisor in whose district the MAC is located. The relationship between a MAC and its district supervisor and the BOS is fundamental to its effectiveness.
In an organizational construct and jurisdictional sense, the MAC is aligned under the BOS because it is a legal entity and creature of the Board of Supervisors established by the enabling resolution.
There are many advantages resulting from MAC process inuring to the BOS, the individual supervisor, and the community represented by the MAC. For example,
• A MAC gives a community an officially recognized voice with public officials and agencies.
• A MAC can address controversial issues in the community and arrive at an accepted position, which it reports to its district supervisor, who in turn reports it to BOS colleagues. Without an intermediary, the supervisor must effect compromises or decide between opposing positions when an unincorporated community is divided about county policy.
• A MAC can do the local public relations work that earns support for county proposals; or, in the alternative, demonstrate to the BOS that the proposals have no or little support in the community.
• A MAC can save paid county staff time by stimulating volunteer service and by providing information to the supervisor, county departments and administrators.
• A MAC gives a community an opportunity to address public policy concerns and to develop coordinated planning.
• A MAC can train community leaders in local governance and build familiarity with how county government operates.
For the past 18 months we’ve heard from county officials that the County is broke but they don’t quite know how that happened.
But what they are certain of is that by “dissolving” upwards of 29 citizen committees, including all six of the existing Municipal Advisory Councils (“MACs”) located in Gualala, Hopland, Laytonville, Redwood Valley, Round Valley, and Westport, is absolutely necessary to address a “structural deficit that is projected to grow to more than ten million dollars ($10,000,000) in fiscal year 24/25, at which would deplete most of the remaining reserves. As such, the Board has undertaken a larger effort to reduce expenses related to nonessential operations. As part of that process, the Executive Office and County Counsel have worked with departments to identify existing boards, committees, commissions, and advisory bodies (collectively “Committees”) that are not required by statute, citizen’s initiative, or other law … Per the included fiscal analysis, the Executive Office has calculated the annual costs of operating the identified committees at $921,020.66. True costs are likely much higher, but significantly more difficult to calculate.”
It should be noted the annual budget for all six MACs is a combined total of $17,500. For some unknown reason, the Gualala MAC is allocated $5,000, while the remaining five MACs are budgeted at $2,500, each. I can tell you that the Laytonville MAC, on which I serve as chairman, has not spent a dime of our annual $2,500 allocation in the past four years. And going all the way back to 1997, when I founded the Laytonville MAC, and it was legally created by statutory resolution of the BOS, we’ve only submitted expense reimbursement for several hundreds of dollars.
It is important to note that for many of the 26 years of our existence, we weren’t even funded by the County, we operated on our own, just like we always have. The same was true for the Gualala MAC, as for many years we were the only two MACs in the county.
Back in the mid-1990s, the first two Municipal Advisory Councils (MAC), Laytonville and Gualala, were approved in Mendocino County by the Board of Supervisors. I organized the greater Laytonville area and founded the Laytonville MAC. I also worked with and was supported by the folks in Gualala who founded their MAC while Laytonville was processing our application before the BOS.
Here’s the history on MAC funding. According to a February 28, 1997 report in the Mendocino County Observer regarding the BOS approving the resolution creating the Laytonville MAC, “Regarding council elections, the Board cited fiscal constraints as the MAC has no authority to raise revenues through taxation, so it would have to rely on the County’s general fund to pay for elections. County officials estimated that anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 would be expended on council elections. Supervisor Charles Peterson, whose 5th District is home to the Gualala MAC, pointed out that the Gualala Council would almost certainly request council elections (members are currently appointed by the Supes) if it were granted to Laytonville. Likewise, the Board was not willing to commit the County to funding the operations of the MAC given the precariousness of the County’s budget. First District Supe Mike Delbar fretted that a County-funded Laytonville area MAC could prompt the formation of as many as five councils in his district, all clamoring for County money.”
So the bottom line is the County is planning to terminate all six MACs to save $17,500, which is probably not being expended by the MACs in the first place.
Since county officials appear convinced that the elimination of the annual $17,500 MAC allocation is necessary for the fiscal survival of this county, go ahead and defund the MACs but leave them in place as is. From a historical perspective, MAC’s have successfully operated without financial support from the county in previous years, we shall be able to do so again.
For the record, many citizens believe this proposal concerning dissolving the MACs has little to do with fiscal matters but everything to do with politics and governing matters. The public fears that this proposal is an attempt to dissolve a legally established process to voice their concerns, recommendations, and general input on local governing and political affairs. In other words, things that all foster participatory democracy. Which is the whole purpose of the MAC statute, California Government Code Section 31010.
This proposal is a bad idea whose time should never come.
Please reject this proposal and support good government in Mendocino County by allowing MACs to continue to serve all citizens.
Sincerely,
Jim Shields
Chair
Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council
As a member of the Hopland MAC I see these community forums as an important place for our geographically widespread and diverse communities to share their concerns on their own doorstep. MACs and other commissions such as the Climate Action Committee serve such an important role in guiding Mendocino County in the direction that it's communities wish to see. Surely these volunteer committees create a huge cost saving for the County, rather than a waste. Please do not dissolve this important forum for community participation in local politics.
Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors,
On Tuesday, 8/29, the Board will be reviewing staff recommendations to eliminate various boards, committees, councils, and commissions as a way save nearly $1 million. While I recognize your urgent need to economize, I believe this is a deeply flawed and misguided idea, particularly with regards to eliminating the Municipal Advisory Councils (MACs) that serve as a busy channel to convey vital community feedback on proposals regarding roads, crime, healthcare, fire safety, economic development, housing, parks, and many, many other matters of interest in your home communities. Without MACs, thousands of residents in the far-flung corners of Mendocino County will go unheard on these issues, notably those who already feel they’ve been ignored and/or disenfranchised by elected officials. Please don’t make this easily avoidable mistake.
I was shocked to see the staff recommendations on this matter, and I realize the idea extends far beyond MACs to dozens of other panels such as: Commission on the Status of Women, Climate Action Advisory Committee, Fish and Game Commission, County Disaster Council, Historical Records Commission, and County Forest Council. There are many more, mostly staffed by volunteers. In all, the county staff estimates savings of nearly $1 million by scrapping these panels.
Of that savings, the seven MACs account for $17,500, most of which in my experience goes to renting meeting spaces, creating mandated reports, secretarial tasks of maintaining minutes, and other minor day-to-day expenses. To be sure, some other no-MAC panels may be idle or under-utilized, but by and large the MACs perform a very important function in rural government. The $17,500 you’d eliminate equals less than one-half of a full-time position, but I don’t believe even a dozen full-time staffers couldn’t replace the work already done by the MACs, particularly on planning matters. Cutting the MACs would also stymie public discussion of matters of local and countywide topics, leaving voters less able to make informed decisions.
In Mendocino County Policy #51 (Sept. 16, 2016), your board created MACs "comprised of citizens, appointed by the Board of Supervisors (BOS or Board), who volunteer their time to review proposed projects located within the county and related topics of interest in their community. MACs are created to provide a consistent and inviting community forum, for the public to hear about and give comments on a number of local and countywide topics. County officials, staff, and other non- county agency staff continually use MAC meetings as an opportunity to provide the public with information or updates."
That is all still true. Without MACs, it will fall on PAID county staff to try to take on those responsibilities, and staff will be unable to come close to the job already being done by MACs in Gualala, Westport, Hopland, Round Valley, Little River, Laytonville, and Anderson Valley. MACs are staffed by dedicated volunteers, who you appoint, who care about these issues, who know their communities well. Will silencing them save money or provide better service to your constituents? No. I personally believe you should be looking for ways to better leverage the MACs instead of tearing them down. THAT would save a great deal of money by providing important information to county staff, yourselves, and relevant state and federal agencies that you now pay staff and outside agencies to obtain.
It was my pleasure until mid-2022 to serve my community for three years at the Gualala MAC, and I thank you for your courteous assistance as individuals during that time. As some of you know, I still serve through a community group called Save Gualala, but I can assure you that citizens groups and/or individuals cannot fill the gap you would create by eliminating MACs.
Respectfully,
Tom
Tom Murphy
Former Vice Chair, Gualala MAC
Leader, Save Gualala
The dissolution of County budget funded municipal advisory committees does not mean that residents can no longer meet to study local issues of importance and make advisory recommendations to the BOS. Although Mendocino county's BOS citizen advisory committees and boards are obviously desirable and clearly staffed by some of this county's most concerned and community-minded residents, the financial reality here is that we are living month to month with the county budget revenues being able to barely meet our county government expenses.
Whether the number in estimated savings is $1 million or something less or possibly more, how can we look county employees in the eye and say we are trying to get you raises, when we aren’t willing to make some tough budget decisions to get there?
More tough decisions are coming…
My name is Kay Richards. I am the Secretary of the Round Valley Area Municipal Advisory Council. My comments are personal to me. I am not writing today on behalf of our MAC.
To reduce the county budget by a sliver of $17,500, you are considering putting an end to a vital democratic process. When compared with the benefit to our unincorporated rural communities, MACs are a pretty cheap opportunity for representative government. I do not see any real disclosure or analysis by County Counsel as to what each MAC is actually costing the county, including how much of that $17,500 sliver is actually spent, but it is not $17,500. Further, unspent funds are not retained by MACs for the next year but returned to the county's credit column.
The MACs were formed to make the connection between the county residents living in unincorporated communities and public bodies such as you, the Board of Supervisors. 6 out of the 7 individual MACs are given an annual budget of $2,500 each. Round Valley's biggest expense is our Zoom account which kept our MAC going during Covid and now continues to allow state and county agents to appear and communicate with us, as none live in Round Valley which is an hour and a half drive from Ukiah and an hour from Willits.
County Counsel also mentions untracked costs of advising committees on issues such as conflict of interest but does not provide a number for MACs versus other boards and commissions. County Counsel estimates anywhere between $20,000 and $200,000 for all board and commissions, not just MACs. Our MAC is not causing any extra expense to the county. We are not creating any Brown Act violations. I asked County Counsel directly months ago about a very discrete conflict issue and never heard back from him, so I presume no time was spent on my question. If the Board of Supervisors intends to move on County Counsel's suggestion that MACs be abolished, I would hope that decision will be delayed until there is an actual analysis of the cost and benefit of MACs, rather than lumping them in with other boards and commissions.
County Counsel's memo even recognizes how active MACs are. For unincorporated areas, it is the main connection between you and your constituency. I ask that you pay attention to the written submissions from community members here in Round valley, including Pat Sobrero and Dee Mullins, who have provided specifics on what we have been doing here.
County Counsel also argues that MAC council members are restricted from engaging with other public bodies due to Brown Act prohibitions, but provides no evidence that MAC council members are doing so or attempting to do so.
County Counsel's memo also implies we are not engaging in one of our most important activities, which is making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors as to needs in our community. In response, I ask, for example, how are we supposed to respond to notices for comment from Planning & Building Services which are almost always received after the deadline to comment, despite requests directly to Planning & Building Services to get the notices to us in a timely manner?
I would also like to know when the our MAC can expect a response from the Board of Supervisors and Department of Transportation to our letter sent in April? The most basic county service, road maintenance, has been stripped to the bone here resulting in failed culverts and torn up roads. I can't see how we can be expected to work toward economic recovery when we can't even offer decent roads to drive on. In April we requested increasing our budget before we have no roads to drive on and mentioned a possible funding source. When can we expect a response from you?
Thank you for the opportunity to address you today.
Kay M. Richards
Hello,
As a citizen in Hopland, I have mixed views on the function of my local MAC committee. On one hand, they do provide some.informative information for the community and provides a platform for local citizens to discuss local policy.
Unfortunately, what I have seen and experienced is local overreach. One example being, the attempt to pass a measure that would have unfairly increased my property taxes for having certain agriculture structures at an extreme rate that was targeting cannabis cultivators directly.
I would feel more comfortable with an elected body making these decisions and engaging with the county, not a small group of individuals volunteering. I have attended multiple meetings in the past and literally nothing was accomplished and people scheduled to provide updates and speak were not even in attendance. To be fair, I have not attended all of their meetings and perhaps some are more functional, but I have attended enough that I deemed it unproductive for me to continue to block out the time in my schedule.
If these committees are not created through an election, such as the BOS, what authority do they have and what authority should they have? Reading through the memos provided on the Agenda topic, it appears they have less authority than they themselves seem to think.
In a perfect world, I would love to see these committees functioning as intended, but mostly what I have seen is a small (less than 10 people group) that is not elected suggesting and attempting to influence a NIMBY viewed position. Without the ability to hold the committee responsible, (such as an election) I fear the dangerous influence they may have if they are the leading and seemingly only voice of my community.
One last example of influence the local MAC supported is the local Hopland Elementary Public Charter School project. Where it took great courage and effort to pursue such an endeavor, it was unfortunately rushed and put in place and is now failing our local youth tremendously (not just my opinion, look at the testing results in comparison to the rest of the county and abroad). I understood the need for parents to have a more a more convenient location for their children to attend school but that should not be prioritized over the quality of education. I did not want to get off topic, but demonstrate how a small unelected group was able to use the MAC platform to influence policy without going through the proper channels and safeguards that may have helped create a better school that will be a longstanding benefit to the community rather than rush to open the doors while MAC members children are still of age to attend.
Thank you for reading my ideas and I hope they help in your decision making process.
Dear board of supervisors,
I was born and raised in Mendocino County have lived in the Redwood Valley area for the last six years.
The Redwood Valley MAC advisory committee has been a great source of information for me and my family. They are often my primary news source as to what is going on in around the county.
To disband the committee would be a mistake. They provide a valuable service to our citizens. Please vote to keep our community MACs.
The dissolution of the Mendocino Historical Review Board is a good idea for two reasons:
1. The real work on the project applications is done by the Planning Department. Their work is to do an in-depth analysis of the historical significance of a site and the impact of a project on its surroundings.
2. The review board is subject to the whims of its members, who sometimes are ignorant of their own mandate and the rules by which they are bound.
It would be preferable to trust the expertise of the planners who do meticulous historical research on a project before submitting their staff findings to the board, who too often rely on their opinions and emotional reactions when making a decision.
In response to the Memo from County Council Christian Curtis, this comment is to request that the Board of Supervisors not dissolve the Municipal Advisory Councils. For the last 18 months I have reported on the monthly Redwood Valley MAC meetings as a reporter for MendoFever.com, and prior to that I attended as a citizen of Redwood Valley.
The Municipal Advisory Councils provide a valuable community service. This is not something that can be replaced by an NGO. One of the functions of the MAC Boards is to collect and collate information and inquiries from citizens of unincorporated areas and communicate those concerns to the county government. Mendocino County has several small communities that are not incorporated as towns, and lack a mayor and city council. The MACs are a way for these small communities to participate in government. The MAC boards are comprised of unpaid volunteers. The county provides each MAC with $2500 per year for expenses, except for Gualala, which receives $5,000 per year.
Curtis’ memo says that working with committees and boards adds to his and other departments’ time and expense, and that some issues can be very time consuming. He offers the solution of dissolving the committees and boards. If you dissolve the committee that deals with certain issues (he uses the Assessment Appeals Board as an example), the issues and their complexities are not going to disappear once the committee is dissolved. They will need to be dealt with outside of the committee. This could actually take longer, because we are then losing the experience and knowledge of the committee members. You could end up reinventing the wheel every time an issue comes up, without the public oversight that comes along with the Brown Act.
The Board of Supervisor meetings last all day, on a weekday, during working hours. Most citizens cannot attend these meetings. If you make a public comment at a BOS meeting, you get no response, you are simply commenting for the record. In contrast, the Redwood Valley MAC meetings are less than 2 hours, and take place in the evening when working people can attend. The MAC meetings provide an opportunity for citizens to communicate directly with their County Supervisor and the Sheriff’s office. Often Sheriff Kendall attends in person, as does Supervisor Glenn McGourty. Monthly reports from the Redwood Valley County Water District and the Redwood Valley-Calpella Fire Department are also included. Citizens may ask direct questions that often get answers on the spot. The MAC meetings are a way for the BOS to communicate with citizens of unincorporated areas.
The RV MAC created a Community Action Plan that was years in the works, where the citizens came together and created their vision of the future of Redwood Valley. The CAP included design standards, such as discouraging billboards, keeping RV rural, and encouraging trail development. The plan also addresses public safety and economic development. Yes, this created work and effort for County Counsel and the Building and Planning Department. But in the long run, it may save their time because the idea is that having a Community Action Plan that is incorporated into the County’s General Plan will lead to fewer disputes or inquiries that County Counsel and Building and Planning will need to address.
The MAC meetings also provide neighborhood-specific information about fire safety, emergency response, crime, the cannabis ordinance, ballot initiatives and taxes, housing, schools, road conditions, animal control, etc. Guest speakers have included reps from PG&E, CalTrans, local tribes, various businesses and community service organizations, and others who want to address Redwood Valley residents directly.
Please do not disband the MACs.
Dear Board of Supervisors, I am concerned that you are contemplating shutting down the Municipal Advisory Councils. I'm writing to say that th RVMAC has definitely been an asset to our community, it has been successful in keeping people informed, protected and in bringing people together. I think its very important to keep these Councils open and functioning. Voting to shut down the MAC is another way of shutting out the very people you should be listening to and representing.
Thank you.
Dear Supervisors:
Please refrain from dissolving the RVAMAC (Round Valley Area Municipal Advisory Council). As our county comprises vast and hard-to-reach areas, the MAC groups are ultra-important. (Think Frontier!!)
Our RVAMAC has provided services for our community, including Tribal members, which would not otherwise be possible.
Our Supervisor, John Haschak, is a regular participant at our meetings. (Thank you John!) There are also off-shoots of our MAC who are working on projects like Disaster Preparedness, wild land management, public safety for our community, and much more. I can see we need to keep the Board informed of our progress on a more regular basis.
I appreciate the BOS and that we can access the meetings via Zoom as well as other videos put out by board members.
Thank you for your consideration,
Susan O’Brien
707-354-4202
The MACs provide an opportunity for County government to hear the voices of residents in the unincorporated regions of the County. The Redwood Valley MAC has been a vehicle for increasing citizen participation as the community addresses the challenges of wildfires and drought and works to build resilience for living in a safer place. The idea to dissolve MACs is not a welcome idea. Sheilah Rogers, former RVMAC member
This is an undemocratic and bad idea. The County's small staff are already very unresponsive to the needs of parts of the County that are isolated from Ukiah—especially the South Coast. Our Gualala Municipal Advisory Council is helpful in solving local problems and it runs itself — it does not cost the County very much to "assist" the GMAC.
Given the outrageous inconsistencies with the County Budget, misconduct settlements by the Sheriff's office, and active request for an audit from the State Controller Malia Cohen, MORE TRANSPARENCY AND COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT is needed, not less.
Dear BOS As a resident of Covelo I can speak directly to the help and increased involvement by the County through the Round Valley Municipal Advisory Committee. The results of the RVMAC work has already been listed in these comments. I am adding my voice to others who oppose elimination of the MACs. MACs are part of the Safety Net. It is shortsighted to think that by dissolving the Municipal Advisory Committees as a whole the County will save money. If you look at the locations of the 5 committees you will note that they are in the most rural and distantly located areas of our County. Residents of these areas do not have easy access to services that more urban or centrally located residents do. These committees are the eyes, ears and mouths of residents in these areas. By eliminating these committees you will loose the input and help of the residents. This help is FREE. The benefits of these committees are far outweighed by the costs. Please do not eliminate the Municipal Advisory Committees and especially the Round Valley MAC. Thank you, Marilyn Magoffin
It appears as though these suggested cuts are being proposed for cost saving measures. The five Municipal Advisory Committees cost the County virtually nothing, but contribute a huge amount to the greater welfare of people in these areas. Quite frankly, they take a load off of the County. How can the County even consider disolving them? Please eliminate these five Committees from the dissolution list.
Do not do this, extremely ill advised.
Please do not disband the regional MACs operating in unincorporated areas of the County. They provide a valuable link to county government, and greatly improve quality of life in rural areas. Other comments layout the various valid reasons to continue to support the MACs.
I am a long time community member and business owner in Round Valley. When the opportunity for a Municipal Advisory Council came to my attention three years ago I was encouraged to get involved. For the first time in my 40 years in Covelo, there was finally opportunity to have a direct line to our governing body, the board of supervisors, and John Haschak is present at every meeting and interested in our community which often is forgotten. We are also able to interact with other organizations from the county and state on a monthly basis and have been able to accomplish important tasks through this channel, as you can see from the previous comments. I cannot imagine any good reason for dissolving this vital group. We need our council!. Marylou Mileck, Round Valley Area Municipal Advisory Council