The Board of Supervisor election for District 3 and 5 will be held June 2 during California’s statewide primary. If no candidate receives a majority of votes, the top two vote-getters will advance to the general election in November. Get more informed on each candidate and their viewpoints by reading their answers to the questions below.

Question 1: In 2022, Mendocino County voters approved the Measure P sales tax. Prior to putting that measure on the ballot, the Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted Resolution BOS 22-159, stating their intent “to use any new revenues from the proposed sales tax to fund fire protection and prevention, with 90% of the new revenue to be spent on direct aid to those agencies providing direct fire protection services and 10% to assist in fire prevention, resiliency and readiness efforts.” BOS 22-159 also adopted a specific formula for allocating those funds, developed by the Mendocino County Association of Fire Districts. Are you committed to allocating 100% of Measure P sales tax revenues in the specific manner described in Resolution BOS 22-159? If not, please explain why not, and explain what alternate allocations you would support for the use of those funds.

Yes. I support allocating Measure P funds in the manner outlined in BOS Resolution 22-159. The intent of Measure P was clearly communicated to voters to strengthen fire protection and prevention across Mendocino County. When the public approves a measure with a specific purpose, it is important that the County follow through on that commitment.
Direct funding to fire agencies is essential to maintaining staffing, equipment, training, and emergency readiness. I also support the portion dedicated to prevention and resiliency efforts, because investing in prevention ultimately protects lives, property, and public resources. As Supervisor, I would support maintaining transparency and accountability in how those funds are distributed and ensure that local fire agencies continue to have a strong voice in how those resources are used.
The voters approved Measure P with a specific understanding of where that money would go, and the Board needs to honor that commitment. I'm not someone who takes taxation lightly — every dollar taken from a working person or business is a dollar they earned and should have a say in how it's spent. Measure P exists because the Board failed to direct existing revenues toward fire protection, so voters had to do it for them. Since that money is already being collected, the absolute least we can do is make sure every dollar goes exactly where it was promised.
Yes, unless the involved parties (Fire Chiefs Assn, MCAFD, MCFSC) request a different distribution agreed upon amongst themselves.
Yes. The people voted for it and the Mendocino County Association of Fire Districts have determined the method of allocation. This is acceptable.
I strongly support the allocation of 100% of Measure P sales tax revenues to fire protection and prevention, as originally intended by the voters and outlined in Resolution BOS 22-159. This commitment is essential to ensuring our county’s residents and resources are adequately protected from the increasing threat of wildfires and other emergencies. However, while the principle of full allocation is sound, I urge a reconsideration of the formula developed by the Mendocino County Association of Fire Districts, which currently relies heavily on population numbers to determine the percentage of funds distributed to local fire districts.

This population-based approach fails to fully recognize the unique challenges faced by our rural fire agencies, many of which serve vast areas far beyond the core population centers. These agencies often respond to emergencies well outside the boundaries reflected by the current population statistics, stretching their resources thin and leaving critical gaps in coverage. To truly honor the Measure P promise, the distribution formula must take into account each agency’s entire response area within their sphere of influence, adjusting the population figures to accurately reflect the true scope of their service obligations.

Moreover, it is important to recognize that the majority of Measure P sales tax revenue is generated in Supervisory Districts #4 and #5. Equity demands that we ensure fair allocation of these critical funds across all five supervisory districts, so every community benefits from enhanced fire protection and prevention efforts, regardless of where the tax is collected. A more balanced and needs-based distribution model will not only strengthen our emergency response system but also foster greater trust and cooperation among all of our county’s fire agencies.
By refining the allocation formula to be more reflective of actual service areas and striving for equitable fund distribution, we can make certain that Measure P fulfills its promise to every resident of Mendocino County. This approach will help guarantee that no community is left vulnerable and that our collective investment in public safety delivers results for all.
Yes, unless jointly advised by FSC + Local Fire Agencies.

Question 2: Measure P sunsets in 2033. Do you support efforts to renew the 1⁄4 cent sales tax for fire protection and prevention?

Yes, I would support efforts to renew the sales tax for fire protection and prevention. Wildfire risk is an ongoing reality in Mendocino County, and our communities rely on strong fire protection and prevention systems. Stable and predictable funding is essential for fire agencies to plan, recruit personnel, maintain equipment, and invest in mitigation.
At the same time, I believe it is important to clearly communicate to voters how the funds are being used and the impact they are having in our communities. Maintaining public trust will be critical to the long-term sustainability of any funding measure.
I'll be straightforward — I don't support new taxes or renewing special taxes. Every tax is money taken from people who earned it, and I think we should be very careful about how casually we ask for more. The question itself reveals the real problem: why does fire protection — one of the most basic functions of local government — require a special tax at all? The county already collects substantial revenue through property taxes, sales taxes, and other sources. Fire protection should be funded from that existing revenue as a top priority, not treated as an afterthought that requires its own dedicated tax.

Between now and 2033, my goal as Supervisor would be to fix the county's spending priorities so that fire services are funded reliably without needing a special measure. If the Board can't figure out how to fund fire protection from the tens of millions it already collects, the answer isn't more taxes — it's better leadership.
Yes, as long as there is a threat to public safety from fire we should support funding the needed work to mitigate the threat.
No. This is too far in the future to plan for a continuance of a temporary tax. I anticipate that their will be an economic resurgence in Mendocino County that will make any additional taxing measures unnecessary.
I firmly support Measure P, but it is crucial that we strengthen its impact by converting it into a specific tax. This change would guarantee that all revenue generated is dedicated exclusively to fire protection, prevention, and emergency medical services, closing any loopholes that currently allow the Board of Supervisors to redirect funds for other purposes. Our community deserves the assurance that every dollar collected is invested in the safety and well-being of our residents. Furthermore, I am open to increasing the sales tax percentage if an amended Measure P includes explicit support for EMS services. By doing so, we ensure that our fire and EMS agencies have reliable, sustainable funding needed to meet growing demands and protect every corner of Mendocino County. This approach honors the original intent of the voters, enhances accountability, and equips our emergency responders with the resources they need to save lives.
Yes, absolutely. Look at the average per year pre-Williams vs post-Williams. The state constitution tells us to prioritize public safety. Fire is public safety.

Question 3: In addition to Measure P, local fire agencies are granted County support from a mix of discretionary sources including:
-Measure D/E (TOT) - 10% transient occupancy tax on private campgrounds and RV sites
-Proposition 172 - 6.62% of Prop 172 revenues
-Ambulance support funding - $198,000 a year for Anderson Valley, Laytonville and Covelo ambulance services.

Are you committed to maintaining these funding sources in their present format as listed above? If not, please describe what modifications to these current funding sources you would support.

Yes, I support maintaining these funding sources in their current form. Emergency response services are foundational public safety functions, and rural areas like Anderson Valley, Laytonville, and Covelo rely heavily on these funding streams to maintain ambulance coverage and fire protection. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that current funding levels are not fully meeting the needs of our communities. Many of our fire and ambulance services continue to operate with limited resources, staffing challenges, and increasing demand.
Because of that, I believe we should not only maintain these funding sources but also look at ways to strengthen and increase funding over time to ensure sustainable, reliable emergency services. If modifications are considered in the future, they should be done through a collaborative process with fire districts, local governments, and community stakeholders, with a focus on improving service levels, not reducing them. Maintaining and strengthening support for emergency services must remain a priority.
Since these taxes are already being collected, yes — I'm committed to making sure the money actually reaches the fire and EMS services it was designated for. I'm not interested in the Board raiding dedicated funds to cover other budget holes, which is how we ended up needing Measure P in the first place. My broader view is that we should always be looking at whether the tax burden on residents is justified by the services they're actually receiving. Right now, people are paying plenty in taxes and not getting adequate fire protection in return. That's a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Yes, plus ensuring the TOT is collected on other forms of temporary stays such as AirBnB and Hip Camp.
Yes. Being that these funds are already supported by the vote of the people, they should continue as vote upon and expected.
I fully support the county’s current discretionary funding allocation for fire agencies as outlined above, but I also believe that it’s time we take decisive steps to address gaps in how we fund emergency medical services (EMS). To truly safeguard every resident and visitor, we must hold further discussions focused on creating new funding opportunities that strengthen EMS operations, ensuring our first responders have the resources needed to answer every call. Our coastal communities, like those served by Coast Life Support District in Gualala, deserve equal consideration alongside other rural fire protection districts that provide EMS. By expanding our funding framework to include these critical operations, we not only honor the commitment to public safety but also invest in a healthier, safer future for Mendocino County. Let’s act now to provide reliable, comprehensive support for all fire and EMS agencies, so no community is left behind.
Yes, although I could see the ambulance funding model shifting, for example, direct to a JPA to supports the same. In the big picture, I support continued funding at or above current levels.

Question 4: Funding for many of Mendocino County’s fire agencies still relies on a patchwork of sources, including the departments’ own barbecues, pancake breakfasts, etc. and hundreds of volunteer hours. This is not only inadequate for current demands but is also becoming unsustainable as volunteers are less available, prices continue to rise, and demand for services increases. How do you view your role as a Supervisor in securing sufficient, sustainable and reliable funding for local emergency-response services? What are your ideas about the process we should use to get there, and where would you start?

Our fire agencies should not have to rely on pancake breakfasts and volunteer fundraising to maintain critical emergency services. Volunteerism is a proud tradition in rural communities, but it cannot replace stable public funding for life-saving services. As Supervisor, my role would be to:
- Advocate for stable county funding streams
- Support state and federal grant opportunities
- Work collaboratively with fire districts to identify long-term funding solutions
- Prioritize infrastructure improvements that support emergency response
We need a coordinated approach that strengthens the entire emergency response system, from fire districts to dispatch to ambulance services.
Before we talk about securing more funding, we need to account for what the county is already taking in and where it's going. Taxpayers in this county are already carrying a significant burden. My first priority would be a transparent, public audit of how every general fund dollar is spent — because I believe the revenue is there to fund fire services properly if the Board has the discipline to cut waste and prioritize. I'd want to sit down with fire chiefs and district leadership at the beginning of the fiscal planning process, not during budget season when it's too late. You know what your departments need. I come from a business background where you fund your core operations first, not last. Fire protection is core — it shouldn't be competing with discretionary spending. My approach is simple: before anyone talks about raising taxes or creating new revenue streams, show the public where every dollar is going today. Let people see for themselves whether their money is being spent wisely. I suspect they'll find a lot of room for improvement before we need to ask them for another dime.
First, I want to acknowledge the reality behind this question. Relying on pancake breakfasts and volunteer labor to fund essential emergency services is not a sustainable model. It speaks to how much our communities care, but it also highlights a structural funding problem that needs to be addressed at the county level.
As a Supervisor, my role is not to run fire agencies, but it is absolutely to help create a system where they are reliably funded, coordinated, and supported. That starts with treating emergency response as critical infrastructure, not something we backfill with fundraising when budgets fall short.
There are three areas I would focus on.
First, transparency and a clear baseline. Right now, funding comes from a patchwork of districts, grants, fees, and local efforts. We need a countywide picture of what it actually costs to provide adequate fire and EMS coverage, what we’re currently spending, and where the gaps are. Without that, we’re making decisions in the dark.
Second, coordination and efficiency. We have a mix of volunteer departments, districts, and agencies that are often operating independently. I would work to strengthen coordination, including shared services where it makes sense, joint purchasing, and better alignment on training and equipment. This is not about consolidation, all would still operate independently, it’s about making sure every dollar we do have goes further. The Chiefs Association does this to some degree already, we could support that effort with their input on where it’s needed and where the county can help.
Third, sustainable funding. We need to have an honest conversation with the public about what it takes to fund emergency services at the level people expect. That may include looking at dedicated funding mechanisms such as parcel taxes, service zones, or other voter-approved measures. It may also include better leveraging state and federal funding, and ensuring the county is actively supporting departments in securing grants.
In terms of process, I would start by bringing together fire chiefs, districts, volunteers, county staff, and the public to build a shared understanding of needs and options. From there, we develop a phased plan with clear costs, clear outcomes, and clear accountability before asking voters to support any new funding.
Where I think I bring value is in execution. This is a complex, multi-agency problem that requires coordination, financial clarity, and follow-through. My background is in building systems that work across organizations, and that’s exactly what we need here.
At the end of the day, this is about public safety. People should be able to trust that when they call for help, someone will be there, without that system depending on whether a fundraiser was successful that year.
People expect to have fire safety funded by their County tax payments and associated fees, because this is something they could not do themselves easily. The Supervisors should also be searching for better technical equipment for the furtherance of fire safety. We already have the technical skills for building better and less expensive equipment.
Funding starts with people who are successful in the County, typically running businesses, that result in a more stable economy, thereby increasing the tax base, to enable funding for things like fire suppression. Before the County can benefit, the people must be successful first. The County should have policies that increase the tax base. In this way, there would be more money available to fund Fire and emergency services.
First and foremost, it is imperative that we prioritize operations directly under the Board of Supervisors’ authority to secure sustainable funding for our critical emergency-response services. Since sales tax revenue forms the core of Measure P funding, the Board must take decisive action to strengthen and expand this revenue stream. We must consciously support the agencies and operations that attract visitors to Mendocino County, and resist any measures that would undermine the vibrant tourism sector that is so vital to our economy. By actively promoting and empowering local vendors and distributors, we not only help our small businesses thrive but also increase the county’s sales tax base, ultimately benefiting all residents.
Establishing an open and ongoing dialogue with local businesses is essential. Through collaborative partnerships, we can identify barriers to growth and work together to forge a clear path to prosperity—one where increased economic activity translates directly into stronger, more reliable funding for fire protection, prevention, and EMS services. Regularly reviewing local regulations, streamlining permitting processes, optimizing advertising efforts for our key economic generators, and meticulously tracking sales tax revenue will ensure that not a single dollar owed to the county slips through the cracks. Every step we take to maximize this revenue is a step toward a safer, more resilient community.
Beyond local efforts, we must seize every opportunity available at the state and federal levels. By proactively engaging with representatives and agencies, we can identify and pursue grant opportunities that could infuse additional resources into our emergency-response system. Most recently five Mendocino County Fire Districts received new fire engines from the State of California. We cannot afford to leave potential funding on the table; instead, we must diligently explore all grant possibilities and submit applications to secure these vital resources for Mendocino County’s future.
With a focused, collaborative approach, we can ensure that our fire and EMS agencies have the funding and support necessary to protect every corner of our county—today and for generations to come.
I ran Measure-M in Albion while chief, nearly doubling the per unit from $40 to $75, with > 82% in favor at the ballot. I believe the county has a role in collaboration to build credible plans and instill public support through education. A common-law county is not chartered with fire services and because Mendocino County has less revenue than mandates, it’s likely not viable to have the county directly contribute general fund. There are other important roles, just like there are important roles on a fire scene for people who are uncomfortable ventilating burning roofs. I would like to see a coordinated county + district effort to adjust local rates. The public places the greatest trust on their local districts, because they know precisely where the money is being spent (and most of it is not on wages, but rather equipment and training). We should lobby together for greater State support, but also not wait for it.

Question 5: Do you support maintaining the Teeter Plan in its current form? If not, what modifications would you support?

I support maintaining the Teeter Plan because it provides critical stability for our local agencies, especially fire districts, schools, and special districts that rely on predictable property tax revenue to operate. At the same time, I don’t think it should remain static. The audits and current financial challenges make it clear that we need to take a closer look at how it’s functioning and whether adjustments are needed to ensure it remains sustainable for the County.
I would support evaluating a few key areas. First, strengthening delinquent tax collection practices to reduce the County’s exposure and improve recovery timelines. Second, ensuring we have clear and transparent tracking and reporting, so the Board and the public understand the level of risk and outstanding liabilities. And third, reviewing whether the reserve levels and risk thresholds tied to the Teeter Plan are adequate given current conditions.
I would also want to make sure that any changes do not unintentionally destabilize the very agencies that rely on the program, particularly our rural fire districts. Overall, I support maintaining the Teeter Plan, but with a focus on strong oversight, improved collection, and long-term sustainability.
Yes. The Teeter Plan gives local districts predictable cash flow from property tax revenue regardless of delinquencies, and that kind of reliability matters enormously for fire districts operating on thin margins. Volunteer departments can't plan around uncertainty — they need to know what's coming in. The county assumes the collection risk, which is appropriate. I see no reason to change a system that's working for the districts that depend on it.
I support the purpose of the Teeter Plan, which is to provide stable, predictable revenue to our local agencies, including fire districts. That reliability matters.
That said, I don’t think we should assume the current structure and management is beyond review. The state audit makes clear that Teeter works only if the county can assess, bill, collect, and, when necessary, auction defaulted properties in a timely way. Mendocino has been struggling with all of that. The key question is whether it’s still working as intended under today’s conditions, including higher delinquencies, rising costs, and pressure on the county’s cash flow.
I would support maintaining the Teeter Plan in principle, but taking a hard look at a few areas. First, the size and management of the reserve fund, to make sure it’s adequate without unnecessarily tying up resources. Second, the penalty and interest structure, and timeliness of assessments, to ensure it’s fair to taxpayers while still protecting the system. Third, ongoing transparency, so the Board and the public clearly understand the risks and long-term sustainability. Fourth, the collection of the unpaid taxes (~ 30 million currently) and at a process of handling defaults on property taxes including finding a fair and compassionate approach to sales of properties long defaulted (the last “annual” auction was in 2019).
Before making any changes, I would want a data-driven analysis and input from the Auditor-Controller, affected districts, and the public. The goal is simple: preserve the stability the Teeter Plan provides, while making sure it remains financially sound for the county over the long term.
No. The Teeter Plan costs money to implement and results in a greater drag on the overall economy of the County. This has a negative effect on the economy because it requires those with back taxes to pay even higher penalties to support it. Borrowing money is expensive and should be avoided. If money must be paid for interest, this is less money available to fund fire suppression and emergency services.
The current structure of the Teeter Plan is falling short when it comes to supporting Mendocino County’s essential services and operations. By diverting funds away from the county’s General Fund, it threatens the resources we rely on to deliver critical programs that affect every resident. While I strongly advocate for preserving guaranteed revenue for our School Districts—as outlined in the Teeter Plan—so that educational stability is never compromised, agencies operating under enterprise funds deserve a more equitable approach.
It’s time to return to a fairer formula, where distributions for enterprise fund agencies are based on actual revenue collected rather than 100% of the total assessed amount. This adjustment will create transparency and efficiency, ensuring that money is allocated where it’s truly earned and needed. Agencies can also proactively build their financial capacity through modest fee increases and targeted tax measures for property owners who directly benefit from their services. A public information campaign can help educate residents about the importance of timely property tax payments, further strengthening the county’s fiscal position.
By reforming the Teeter Plan in these ways, we safeguard guaranteed revenue for our schools, empower enterprise fund agencies to be self-sustaining, and restore vital General Fund dollars for county operations. It’s a balanced approach that honors our community’s priorities and builds a stronger, more resilient Mendocino County for years to come.
The teeter plan allows entities to rely on funding streams. We haven’t had a property tax auction since 2019, which is under the authority of the elected Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax-Collector. However, it’s planned. When it happens, the funds received will replenish the teeter plan. I’m not seeing a benefit in modification today.

Question 6: Emergency dispatch for local fire agency response in 2024 was roughly 9.5% fire-related (veg, structure, vehicle and other fires), 16.9% hazard or public service related (haz-mat and public assistance) and 73.6% medical related (medical and traffic collision). Because of recent large-scale wildfires, the public has more awareness surrounding the need to support fire prevention and suppression. EMS has a far lower profile (until you are the one who needs it) and consequently it gets less public attention and support, even though it makes up most of the call volume and is a primary service that fire agencies provide. Do you agree that public agency provision of EMS is critical in our County, and must receive sufficient funding to ensure both quality and availability? If not, please explain. How do you view your role as Supervisor in improving our prehospital care system?

Yes, I agree that public agency provision of EMS is critical and must be sufficiently funded. In many rural communities, EMS services are the backbone of emergency medical care, particularly where hospitals are far away. Fire agencies are often the first and fastest responders.
As Supervisor, I would focus on:
- Ensuring sustainable funding for ambulance services
- Supporting collaboration between fire districts, ambulance providers, and the County
- Improving coordination of emergency response systems
- Advocating for rural EMS funding at the state level
Improving prehospital care ultimately saves lives, and it should remain a core priority for county government.
Absolutely. In a rural county like ours, EMS isn't a luxury — for a lot of residents, it's the difference between life and death. Response times out here aren't measured in minutes the way they are in cities. When someone's having a cardiac event on a back road twenty miles from the nearest hospital, the prehospital care system is everything.

As Supervisor, I'd advocate for EMS funding as part of the same budget priority conversation as fire protection — funded from existing revenue, not new taxes. These services are intertwined — many of our volunteer fire departments are also first responders on medical calls. I'd want to work with the people actually running these systems to identify where the gaps are and address them by directing money that's already being collected toward the services people actually need.
Yes, I absolutely agree. Nearly three quarters of calls are medical, so EMS isn’t a side function, it’s the core of what the system delivers. If we don’t fund it accordingly, we’re not meeting the basic expectation people have when they call 911.
As a Supervisor, my role is to make sure our policies and funding reflect that reality. That means treating EMS as essential public safety infrastructure, not something that gets less attention because it’s less visible than wildfire response.
Where I would focus is pretty straightforward.
·      Funding needs to line up with call volume and actual service demand. When you have agencies like Little Lake that have been operating at the same funding level for 25 years even though costs have gone up, and services and expectations have increased, you are going to hit a wall.
·      We need better coordination between fire agencies, ambulance providers, hospitals, and the County so patients move through the system without unnecessary delays.
·      We have to address staffing, because recruitment and retention are limiting service levels across the board.
·      We can also act as a convener across the medical system to ensure all areas of the county get sufficient support, particularly in the more remote areas like Covelo. We can’t run the service, but we can help coordinate, support, and fund new approaches to provide the needed care locally, preventing an hour and a half ambulance ride to the hospital when it’s not needed. These long calls pull have a ripple effect across the system as agencies have to cross-cover.

I also think we need to be more direct with the public about what emergency response really looks like day to day. When people understand that most calls are medical, it changes how they think about priorities and funding.
At the end of the day, the goal is simple. When someone calls 911, whether it’s a fire or a medical emergency, they get a fast, capable response. That’s the standard we should be planning and funding for.
Yes. EMS services are a critical roll of civilized living. Being that such services constitute the bulk of the work performed, it makes sense to fund them with the bulk of the funds generated.
As a Supervisor, I would like to introduce a better system of healthcare funding that would greatly enhance those critical services. This system is something I designed about a decade ago for funding the country, but is well suited for a small county as well.
I firmly believe that ensuring EMS services across Mendocino County is not just a priority—it is an essential commitment to the health and safety of all our residents. With emergency medical response making up the vast majority of dispatch calls, it is clear that EMS is a cornerstone of our community’s well-being. To meet this critical need, I advocate for a flexible, hybrid model that leverages both public and contractual service agreements, maximizing efficiency and coverage without compromising quality. On the south coast, the Coast Life Support District (CLSD) exemplifies excellence in EMS provision, funded directly by annual assessments on property owners within its sphere, medical reimbursements, and donations campaigns. This guarantees consistent, local support and demonstrates how targeted funding can deliver exceptional results.
Importantly, I would never support any county funding measure that might jeopardize CLSD’s proven operation. Instead, I endorse the idea of a countywide ballot measure to expand EMS funding, encompassing CLSD as well as other service providers. This inclusive strategy would ensure that all communities receive the reliable emergency care they deserve. Moreover, I am open to exploring adjustments to Measure P—specifically, raising its percentages—to allocate more resources directly to EMS. By taking these decisive steps, we can elevate the visibility and capacity of EMS agencies, ensuring that every call for help is met with timely, professional response. The time to act is now, so that Mendocino County can guarantee top-quality EMS for every resident, every day.
I agree that EMS is critical and needs more funding. I’m less confident that EMS has a lower profile. I’m still an active firefighter. I’m at traffic collisions and in people’s homes. In the 40 square miles of Albion-Little River, people are well aware that the fire department is primarily about medical aid and caring for people. Perhaps this varies? One takeaway is there are local best practices all across the county which should be better shared.

I’ve been involved in enough county iterations of fixing the problem to have a sense of progress versus fluff. Another Fitch style report to tell us what we don’t have isn’t money well spent. Encouraging the fire community to build a plan in collaboration with the county has a greater chance of yielding results. Twenty-one fire districts plus some too poor to establish districts lack the economy of scale. Merging districts is one approach, but there are other ways to share resources. For example, EMT and EMT renewal courses could be planned regionally, allowing for greater uptake. When I took the EMT, some twenty years ago, I had to drive to Ukiah for the cost of multiple evenings per week for a semester. I was able to do it, but it was too much of a hardship for others who were interested. As long as we have a volunteer model, we need to bring resources to the volunteers. I believe the county could collaborate in some of this organization. Fire + Hospitals + County + MCOE/Mendocino College (Why isn’t there a calendar of all training events and why haven’t we coordinated a flow of volunteers to train with other departments?)

Question 7: Successfully adapting to our wildfire-adapted environment will take a huge effort, including retrofitting homes to make them more fire-resistant, redesigning landscaping to remove hazards, implementing consistent fuel-management programs around population centers, improving key ingress and egress routes, implementing more prescribed burning, developing additional emergency fire suppression water resources, enforcing abatement where landowners are putting their neighbors at risk, developing community safety plans and networks, ensuring that new development is designed to be fire safe, and developing multiple ingress and egress options throughout the county. What do you see as the County’s role in making these necessary changes happen, and what steps would you advocate taking to accelerate the process?

Wildfire is part of our reality in Mendocino County, and addressing it requires a coordinated, long-term approach. I see the County’s role as a convener and partner, aligning efforts, removing barriers, and helping bring resources into our communities. Key priorities include strengthening fuel management and defensible space programs, including supporting prescribed and cultural burning in partnership with Tribal communities. We must also improve infrastructure by addressing road conditions and identifying safe, reliable ingress and egress routes, particularly in our rural areas.
The County should expand support for home hardening and community preparedness by helping residents access funding and technical assistance. At the same time, we need fair and consistent enforcement where properties create hazards, paired with education and support. Finally, we must continue to pursue state and federal funding and strengthen partnerships to scale these efforts. Addressing wildfire risk requires coordination, accountability, and sustained investment, and I am committed to ensuring the County plays an active and effective role in protecting our communities.
The County's primary role should be to get out of the way and let people protect their own property. We've gotten so far from how things used to work in this county — loggers used to put out fires, ranchers maintained their own roads and firebreaks, and the full force of the community came together when a fire started. That wasn't government — that was neighbors, landowners, and people with skin in the game. We've centralized fire response into a government bureaucracy and in many ways made it worse.

I've heard stories of ranchers putting water on their own roads during an active fire and being told by CAL FIRE they couldn't — that the water had to go to the state. That's the kind of government overreach I absolutely oppose. When your property is on fire, you should have every right to defend it.

I'm a strong supporter of more active timber management and logging as fuel reduction. It's one of the few strategies that actually pays for itself — you reduce fire risk AND create jobs and economic activity in rural communities that desperately need both. The County should be streamlining permits for fuel management and prescribed burns, not creating new mandates. On the built environment side, the County can connect homeowners with existing programs for home hardening, but ultimately property owners should bear the responsibility — and the freedom — of managing their own fire risk. Individual responsibility, not government control, is how rural communities have always worked.
The County’s role is to set clear standards, align resources, and remove barriers so this work can happen at scale, and to help secure funding.
First, we need to make it easier for people to do the right thing. That means streamlining permits for defensible space work, home hardening, water storage, and fuel reduction projects. If someone is trying to improve safety, the County shouldn’t be the obstacle.
Second, we should actively support and expand the work already being done by Fire Safe Councils and local groups. These organizations are trusted, effective, and know their communities. The County can help with coordination, grant writing, and making sure funding actually reaches the ground.
Third, we need consistent, countywide approaches to fuel management and prescribed burning. That includes working with state and federal partners to scale up treatment areas, not just small, disconnected projects. This improves both cost efficiency and efficacy. When you have small treatment areas with gaps may help make an area somewhat easier to defend by focusing resources on those gaps, the gaps may also make the treatment done ineffective. If we don’t have the resources to cover those gaps, or aren’t there at the right time, then fire gets through.
Fourth, infrastructure matters. Improving ingress and egress, identifying choke points, and planning secondary access routes should be part of both our capital planning and our development standards going forward. The work done to create a funding process by Haschak and Sherwood Firewise in Brooktrails is a great start in that direction, but there is still a lot of work to be done.
Fifth, enforcement has to be part of the conversation, but it should be fair and paired with support. When properties put neighbors at risk, the County needs to act, but we should also be helping people get into compliance through education and assistance.
Finally, this has to be built into how we plan for the future. New development should be designed with fire safety in mind from the start, not retrofitted later.
If I had to pick where to start, it would be coordination and execution. We already have many of the right ideas and programs. The gap is that they’re not always aligned or moving at the pace this risk demands. My focus would be bringing those efforts together, setting clear priorities, and making sure we follow through.
As a Supervisor, I would like to adjust policies and fees that would enable people to build better houses that are more fire safe and durable. I anticipate more metal buildings with metal roofs, and features like closable vents to prevent burning embers from accessing the house interior.
I fully expect a serious fire event with high winds, blocked escape routes, limited water availability, and additional circumstances that make controlling a forest fire impossible. Therefore, houses need to be built to protect people who have no other choice than to remain at home. I expect the costs of materials to be more, but the lower labor costs to assemble, the lower insurance costs, and the survivability of the occupants will be much better. Superior architectural engineering can make a world of difference.
I already do have ideas for retrofitting existing houses on a case by case basis, for surviving a forest fire, though I concede that some houses may only achieve a modest increase in fire resistance. I think the people are already aware of fire clearance, but having solutions for retrofitting existing houses with tanks, pumps, sprinklers, closable vents, etc. would be something I would support to minimize loss of property and life.
A big part of fire suppression starts with a regular program of clearing out brush in the forest areas to prevent the fire from getting into the crown of the trees. The chipping program is a good thing, but the leaves and needles need to be physically removed from the area. Currently, there is no county program for removing the leaves and needles. I’m in favor of a program for removing this forest debris, especially from unmanaged Brooktrails greenbelt areas. Such a program would be equally applicable to many areas of the county.
I strongly urge the County to continue and expand its partnership with the Fire Safe Council, whose work is vital in safeguarding our communities against the increasing threat of wildfires. By prioritizing public education through informational presentations, educational materials, and hands-on workshops, we can empower residents to take proactive steps in fire prevention and preparedness. Collaborating with local fire districts and organizations like Municipal Advisory Councils, Community Service Districts, Town Councils, and service clubs will amplify outreach and ensure that fire safety information reaches every corner of our county.
It is imperative that we update our building codes, General Plan, Land Use Plans, and zoning codes to reflect modern safety standards, addressing emerging risks and protecting lives and property. Allocating county resources for code enforcement and targeting areas with significant fire hazards will help mitigate preventable disasters. Tackling the challenges posed by absentee ownership and neglected properties is not only a matter of public safety—it is a responsibility we owe to our neighbors and future generations.
Moreover, we should advocate for state-level legislation, similar to the Quimby Act, that would empower counties to collect fees dedicated to fire safety and prevention.
Establishing a developer fee structure based on the impact of proposed developments will ensure that emergency service providers are equipped to meet expanded demands, maintaining the highest standards of public safety. These measures collectively will help create a resilient, fire-safe Mendocino County, where our commitment to community protection is both unwavering and proactive. We must act decisively—because the cost of inaction is simply too high.
Wood shingle-sided houses with wood-burning stoves nestled in dry forests ... we’ve collectively inherited an escalating concern. Hard truth, the county has declining annual buying power, the nature of Prop-13 no growth counties. I don’t think we can squeeze financial support out of the county (I’ve tried). Grant opportunities come and go but have not been at the scale necessary to substantially address the risk. We need to prioritize. Anderson Valley CSD has worked for over a decade on a Prop-1 funded water system, which includes fire water. The county could share the process and roadmap with communities who have local commitment to replicate similar.

I never enjoyed buying high volume nozzles for trucks lacking hydrants just to get the ISO points ... but it’s also critical to keep communities insurable. I do feel water tanks connected to meet the 30k gallon requirement are a practical and insurance rating benefit to communities. Easing the permitting of tanks, outreach/collaboration on how neighbors might combine individual efforts for greater gain? The county certainly has a role in the planning, because it overlaps with GIS, Planning/Building, general plan and “land use”.

Question 8: The risks of wildfire to people and property continue to escalate in part due to zoning regulations that allow building in high and very high fire severity zones areas without requiring additional fire safe building and landscaping techniques. Do you believe that the County should implement changes to its zoning and building codes to help reduce that risk? Also, would you support or oppose new development in areas lacking multiple options for ingress and egress?

Yes, I believe the County should continue to evaluate and strengthen zoning and building standards to reduce wildfire risk, especially in high and very high fire severity zones. As wildfire conditions continue to intensify, we have a responsibility to ensure that new development is designed with fire safety in mind, including home hardening, defensible space, and fire-resistant landscaping.
At the same time, I believe we need to take a practical and balanced approach that reflects the realities of rural Mendocino County. Many of our communities are already located in high fire risk areas, so solutions need to focus not only on new development, but also on supporting existing residents with resources and tools to improve safety.
Regarding ingress and egress, I believe safe and reliable access is critical. I would have serious concerns about supporting new development in areas that lack adequate evacuation routes. Where development is considered, it should include clear, realistic plans for safe access and evacuation.
Ultimately, the County’s role is to reduce risk while working collaboratively with residents, fire districts, and Tribal partners to implement solutions that are both effective and achievable.
I lean strongly toward individual freedom on this one. If someone owns property and wants to build on it, that's their right — and their risk. We shouldn't be telling rural landowners they can't develop their own land because the government has decided it's too dangerous. People have been building and living in fire-prone areas in this county for over a century. They understand the risk better than a planning department in Ukiah.

That said, I think making fire-resistant building information and best practices widely available is smart — give people the knowledge and let them make their own choices. Where I draw the line is blanket zoning restrictions that amount to the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own property based on a fire severity map.

On ingress/egress — I'd rather invest in improving roads and creating better access than banning development. If a road is inadequate, fix the road. Don't punish the landowner. For new subdivisions, requiring developers to build adequate access is reasonable since they're creating the density. But for individual parcels on existing roads, the answer is better infrastructure, not more restrictions.
Yes, I do think the County should update its zoning and building standards to better reflect today’s wildfire risk. We’re asking firefighters and residents to carry more of that burden than they should, when a lot of risk can be reduced upfront through how and where we build.
This isn’t about stopping development; it’s about building smarter. In higher fire severity areas, I would support stronger requirements for defensible space, ignition-resistant construction, water supply, and site design. These approaches have been proven by fire-scientists, and it’s far more effective to build them in from the start than try to retrofit later.
I also think consistency matters. Right now, expectations can vary, and that creates confusion and uneven risk. Clear, countywide standards, aligned with state guidelines but tailored to local conditions, would help both builders and residents know what’s expected.
On ingress and egress, I do not think we should be approving new development in areas that lack safe access. If people can’t get out and emergency services can’t get in, that’s a life safety issue. At a minimum, new projects should demonstrate adequate evacuation routes or include a plan to create them.
That said, we also need to be realistic and fair. We have many existing neighborhoods that were built under older standards. For those areas, the focus should be on improvements where feasible, not penalties for decisions made decades ago.
The goal is straightforward: reduce risk before the next fire, not after. Thoughtful updates to zoning and building codes are one of the most effective tools we have to do that.
Yes, The county should change it’s zoning and building codes to allow for building in higher fire risk areas. Such houses and structures would not be typical, but would survive any forest fire. I suspect the cost would be more, but the structure will not fail. Proper engineering is key.
Any new development (multiple houses) I would support having at least two ways of escaping a forest fire. I have personally lived in Brooktrails for 46 years and know the hazards well. A single access is not enough.
It is imperative that Mendocino County update its zoning and building codes to directly confront the urgent need for wildfire prevention and the protection of lives and property. Continuing to rely on outdated codes not only puts our communities at unnecessary risk but also exposes property owners and the county to significant liability concerns. We must be proactive—rather than reactive—by instituting modern, fire-safe standards that reflect the realities of our environment.
I am firmly opposed to approving new development in areas that lack sufficient ingress and egress, as safe evacuation routes are a non-negotiable aspect of public safety. Lessons from recent wildfires have shown that the inability to evacuate quickly can have tragic consequences; we must not repeat those mistakes. As highlighted in my response to Question #6, I would work closely with new developers to ensure that any projects proposed in high and very high fire severity zones are subject to requirements—whether through monetary contributions or tangible mitigation measures—that directly address the heightened risks. Public safety cannot be compromised for the sake of expediency or short-term gains.
While it is true that encouraging new development is crucial for addressing workforce housing shortages and for generating additional property tax revenue, these objectives must never come at the expense of our residents’ safety. I am committed to advocating for a thorough, mandatory permit review by local fire agencies for any development in high fire risk areas. This process will help ensure that our emergency responders can provide the essential services required to protect people and property in these vulnerable zones.
Now is the time for Mendocino County to prioritize long-term resilience and safety, setting a standard for responsible growth that other regions can follow. By updating our codes and insisting on rigorous oversight for new development, we will not only preserve lives and property but also build a safer, more sustainable future for everyone who calls this county home.
We have competing problems. The “housing crisis” is largely because people who work in our county cannot afford the actual cost of compliant buildings. Developers have ceased, except luxury / custom retiree homes. Making the zoning more stringent could cause a backlash. Is there a path of encouraging or requiring non-combustable approaches? I’ve toured fire prone areas in other countries where concrete homes mitigate much of the risk we face.

Ingress and egress.... I’ve looked at it. If we say no development on parcels without multiple ways in and out, it could potentially be a regulatory taking, because we’re not giving the property owner an ability to develop. The individual owner can’t create subdivision-like access roads, certainly not miles long across other private property. These types of restrictions are reasonable for subdivision-scale projects, but are likely not viable for otherwise properly zoned acreage with single family home proposals. For decades the county through zoning and general plan treated the unincorporated area as one big city. Unraveling that is daunting, but it’s precisely why services are so difficult to provide, including fire protection.

I do support a general plan update. Staff will say we cannot afford it, but I say we can’t afford to not do it.

Question 9: Relative to the overall priorities in the County that you will address, how do you rank improved wildfire prevention and mitigation efforts, i.e., is it critical, high, medium or low priority? Is it in your top five concerns?

Wildfire prevention and mitigation is a high priority and absolutely within my top concerns for Mendocino County. Our communities have experienced firsthand the devastating impacts of wildfire, and the risks continue to grow. Because of that, prevention, preparedness, and long-term resilience must remain central to how we plan, invest, and make decisions at the County level. This includes strengthening fuel reduction efforts, supporting home hardening and defensible space, improving emergency access and evacuation routes, and expanding partnership. Investing in mitigation today is not optional, it is essential to protecting lives, property, and the long-term sustainability of our communities.
Critical, and yes, it's in my top five. You can't have a functioning county if it burns down. This isn't theoretical for Mendocino County — we've seen what wildfire does to communities, economies, and lives across Northern California. Every other priority I have — economic development, fiscal responsibility, supporting working families — depends on people having homes and businesses that aren't reduced to ash. Wildfire prevention isn't separate from economic policy here; it IS economic policy.
I would rank wildfire prevention and mitigation as critical, and yes, it is absolutely in my top five priorities.
In Mendocino County, wildfire risk touches everything, public safety, housing, infrastructure, insurance availability, and even our long-term economic stability. If we don’t address it seriously, it will continue to drive up costs, limit where and how we can live, and put lives at risk. People are already leaving the county due to wildfire concerns, and the insurance impacts.
I also see it as an area where we can make real progress. There are proven strategies, defensible space, home hardening, fuel management, better planning and infrastructure, but they need to be coordinated and implemented at scale.
As a Supervisor, my focus would be on making sure this work is prioritized, aligned across agencies, and actually gets done, not just discussed.
I would rate (High) wildfire prevention as an important issue but am resigned to the fact that many existing houses will be consumed no matter how much money or effort is put into suppression efforts. The natural forces of wind and temperature are not controllable and play the biggest part in whether a house lives or dies. I think people need to know their best options for making their houses having less risk, but I know that most people do not have the financial strength to remodel their houses to survive such a forest fire. The people need to know the hazards and problems of escaping down a single road with many of their neighbors trying to evacuate at the same time. Narrow roads blocked by downed trees are likely. A preplanned and coordinated evacuation will likely save as many lives as possible.
The best option is for new house builders to engineer the house to survive a fire while remaining in place. Of course this would go along with defensible spaces, and the clearing of forest floor debris.
The protection of life and property must remain the county’s absolute top priority—there is simply no objective more vital. Wildfire prevention and mitigation are not just important components of this mission; they are its very foundation. Without proactive and sustained efforts to address wildfire risk, everything we value—our homes, our businesses, and the safety of our families—remains in jeopardy. It is essential to recognize that adequate funding is what makes all county services possible: the ability to generate revenue and manage expenditures effectively underscores every initiative we undertake.
That’s why my highest priorities for the county are both interdependent and indispensable:
1.        Strategic revenue generation and prudent fiscal management—to ensure we have the resources to invest in critical services and respond to emergencies.
2.        County employee recruitment and retention—because a dedicated, well-supported workforce is essential for delivering vital public services, including emergency response.
3.        The unwavering protection of life and property—by making wildfire prevention and community safety non-negotiable pillars of our policies.
4.        Fair and equitable distribution of funding—so that every district, regardless of geography or demographics, receives the support it needs to manage risks and safeguard residents.
5.        Expansion of workforce housing—ensuring that those who serve and protect our communities have a place to call home, strengthening the county’s resilience and long-term sustainability.
By aligning our priorities and resources with these core objectives, we set Mendocino County on a course toward greater safety, fiscal stability, and community well-being. Now, more than ever, decisive action and a clear commitment to protecting lives and property are not just necessary—they are non-negotiable.
It’s in the top five. I first ran for Supervisor after ~8 years as fire chief for this very reason. Nothing has changed, except I see greater demands from an aging population and fewer volunteers from the same.

Question 10: Are you familiar with the programs provided by the Mendocino County Fire Safe Council (e.g., maintaining and coordinating a countywide map of wildfire mitigation projects, funding local mitigation projects, obtaining and managing fuel-reduction grant projects, organizing neighborhood fire-safe groups, educating the public about home-hardening, defensible space and retrofitting, conducting home assessments, providing free community chipper days, providing defensible space assistance for seniors and persons with physical restrictions, and providing reflective address signs)? What do you think the County’s role should be in partnering on or otherwise supporting those efforts?

Yes, I am familiar with the work of the Mendocino County Fire Safe Council and the critical role they play in wildfire prevention and community preparedness across our county. Programs like defensible space assistance, home assessments, fuel reduction projects, neighborhood fire-safe groups, and support for seniors and vulnerable residents are essential to reducing risk and strengthening community resilience. I believe the County’s role is to be a strong partner in this work by:
- Supporting and expanding these programs
- Helping secure and align state and federal funding
- Improving coordination across agencies, fire districts, and Tribal partners
- Promoting public education and increasing community participation
The County should also work to remove barriers that slow down implementation and ensure these resources are reaching rural and high-risk communities. These efforts are not optional, they are critical to building a culture of preparedness and protecting lives, homes, and our communities.
I am, and I have a lot of respect for the work Fire Safe Councils do — particularly the defensible space and fuel reduction programs that directly protect homes and communities. These are volunteer-driven, locally-focused efforts that actually get work done on the ground, which is exactly the kind of approach I believe in.

The County's role should be supportive without being controlling. That means helping with grant applications and matching funds where possible, cutting through permitting red tape for fuel reduction projects, and making sure Council programs have access to county data and planning resources. What the County should NOT do is try to absorb these programs into county bureaucracy or attach so many strings that the volunteers spend more time on paperwork than on clearing brush.
Yes, as the founder and chair of the Ridgewood Fire Safe Council, and board member of the Mendocino County Fire Safe Council, I’m very familiar with their work, and they’re one of the most effective organizations we have when it comes to actually reducing wildfire risk on the ground.
They’re doing exactly the kind of work that moves the needle, helping residents create defensible space, offering free home assessments, organizing chipper days, supporting neighborhood groups, and getting grant funding out into communities. Those programs are practical, accessible, and already scaled across the county.
The number of local Fire Safe Councils and Firewise areas has exploded in the last few years under their program, bringing real change to WUI neighborhoods. For example, their community chipper program helps residents clear vegetation and maintain defensible space and evacuation routes, and they coordinate crews to do the work at no cost. They also run the DSAFIE program for seniors and people with physical limitations who can’t meet defensible space requirements on their own. Their micro-grant program has already funded dozens of local projects, from water storage to signage and fuel reduction.
So the question, to me, isn’t whether these programs work, it’s how the County can help them do more, faster.
I see the County’s role in three main areas:
First, support and scale. These programs are already proven. The County should be helping expand them by aligning funding, assisting with grant applications, and making sure local groups can access resources without unnecessary bureaucracy.
Second, coordination. Fire Safe Councils, fire districts, CAL FIRE, and community groups are all working on pieces of the same problem. The County can play a key role in connecting those efforts, sharing data like project maps, and making sure we’re prioritizing the highest-risk areas.
Third, removing barriers. Whether it’s permitting, environmental review, or contracting, the County should be making it easier to get mitigation work done, not slowing it down.
If I had to sum it up, I don’t think the County needs to reinvent these programs. We need to partner with them, support them, and help them scale. They’re already doing the work that makes our communities safer.
Yes, I am familiar with most of the activities of the Mendocino County Fire Safe Councils. The County can support and partner with them, but within the amount of funding available to the county.
It is clear that the county faces significant limitations in terms of financial and personnel resources, making it impractical to take on additional wildfire mitigation responsibilities beyond information distribution. Rather than overextending county staff, the most effective path forward is to leverage the expertise and support of outside groups. Our Municipal Advisory Councils, Community Service Districts, and Town Councils already provide invaluable input and serve as the eyes and ears of our communities. By empowering these volunteer-driven organizations, we not only reduce county costs but also strengthen our chances of securing grant funding, passing funding measures, and addressing workforce shortages.
Local non-profit organizations form a support network, and their contributions to public education and awareness are vital. When resources are stretched, collaboration becomes the formula for success. While direct involvement in wildfire mitigation is crucial, prioritizing information sharing and public education can have a powerful impact. The Fire Safe Council’s educational materials are a valuable resource, and expanding their distribution is essential. If the County’s Emergency Operations and the Fire Safe Council haven’t already joined forces, now is the time to do so, ensuring that every community receives timely and relevant information.
As chair of the Gualala Municipal Advisory Council, I see firsthand how effective information sharing with MACs, Community Service Districts, and Town Councils can be. Agencies that maintain websites should prominently display updates and educational opportunities from the Fire Safe Council. Furthermore, biannual presentations by local authorities or Fire Safe Council representatives—especially at the start of fire season or during burn pile permitting—would significantly increase fire safety awareness. By prioritizing these strategies, we maximize our limited resources, galvanize community support, and take decisive steps toward protecting our county from wildfires. This approach is not only practical—it is essential for the safety and resilience of Mendocino County.
It’s not my vision to make our partners beg for the money we’ve promised, sort through contract edits over months and years. I’m familiar with the FSC programs. I worry the chipper days will reach an equilibrium with plant regrowth and see continued gains being linear with funding increases. How do we encourage private follow through post chipping?

The county’s role should be to assist in grants, make it easy for our partners to work with us and focus their efforts on the public good, not the relationship.

Question 11: In general, do you support the “Mendocino County Strategic Plan 2022-2027” adopted in 2022? If not, what aspects of it would you change?

In general, I support the Mendocino County Strategic Plan 2022–2027 as a framework for setting priorities and guiding long-term planning. It reflects many of the core issues our communities are facing, including infrastructure, workforce challenges, and public safety. At the same time, a strategic plan is only as effective as its implementation. I believe there is an opportunity to strengthen accountability, timelines, and measurable outcomes to ensure the plan translates into real progress on the ground.
Regarding item IV.B, ensuring access to rural fire protection and emergency medical services is critical. In a county as large and rural as Mendocino, access to reliable fire and EMS services can be the difference between life and loss. I support prioritizing:
- Sustainable and increased funding for rural fire and EMS services
- Recruitment and retention of firefighters, EMTs, and volunteers
- Improved coordination between fire districts, the County, and regional partners
- Investments in infrastructure, including roads and emergency access
- Support for training, equipment, and local capacity
We also need to recognize that many rural areas, including communities like Covelo and Laytonville, face unique challenges that require targeted solutions. Ensuring access to fire protection and EMS is not just a goal, it is a fundamental responsibility, and I am committed to advancing that work.
I support the goals of the Strategic Plan as they relate to public safety and emergency services, though I'll be candid — I think strategic plans are only as good as the budget commitments behind them. A plan that says fire protection is a priority but doesn't back it up with general fund dollars is just a document.
There is a lot of complexity and subjects covered in the plan, and so of course there are some items that could be improved and some items missed, however in general yes I support it. I believe they did an excellent job with a large and complex project. For the most part, it outlines the right priorities. Where I think we need to improve is not the goals themselves, but execution, making sure these items translate into real, measurable outcomes.
I think item IV (4) is among the more worthwhile passages in the Strategic Plan.
The Mendocino County Strategic Plan 2022 – 2027 would be a more effective document if the Board of Supervisors revisited the key areas each budget cycle to address key items in a timely manner and provide regular updates and celebrate accomplishments.
It was a good start. I’d like to see closer alignment with the LafCO MSRs (in both directions).

Question 12: In particular, relative to item IV.B in the plan, “Ensure access to rural fire protection and emergency medical services,” do you….

a.) Support recruitment efforts of firefighters for paid and volunteer fire departments. Do you support this and how do you see your role as a Supervisor in supporting recruitment and retention efforts?

b.) Work with the Mendocino County Fire Safe Council to develop Neighborhood Fire Safe Councils in communities throughout the County. Do you support this and how do you see your role as a Supervisor in helping develop and activate NFSCs and their projects?

c.) Seek funding to increase the number of available ambulances with advanced life support features. Do you support this and how do you see your role in helping increase advanced life support services?

d.) If elected, your tenure will likely coincide with an update to the Mendocino County Strategic Plan. How do you see your role as it relates to development of the Plan, in particular updates to section IV.B.?

a.) Yes, I strongly support recruitment and retention efforts for both paid and volunteer fire departments. Our fire services are stretched thin, especially in rural areas, and sustaining this workforce is critical to public safety. As a Supervisor, I would support efforts to improve recruitment by addressing barriers such as workforce housing, training access, and funding stability. Retention also requires supporting fair compensation where possible, investing in equipment and resources, and ensuring volunteers feel valued and supported.

b.) Yes, I support working with the Mendocino County Fire Safe Council to expand and strengthen Neighborhood Fire Safe Councils. These local groups are essential for building community-level preparedness and reducing wildfire risk. As a Supervisor, I would help promote these efforts, support coordination across agencies, and work to connect NFSCs with funding opportunities, technical assistance, and County resources to help implement projects effectively.

c.) Yes, I support seeking funding to expand access to advanced life support services. In many parts of Mendocino County, especially rural communities, timely access to emergency medical care is limited. As a Supervisor, I would advocate for increased funding, support partnerships with local providers, and work to ensure that resources are distributed in a way that improves response times and outcomes across the county.

d.) As a Supervisor, I would see my role as helping ensure the Strategic Plan reflects the real needs of our communities and leads to measurable results. In updating Section IV.B, I would prioritize strengthening rural fire protection and EMS through clear goals, accountability, and sustainable funding strategies. I would also emphasize coordination with fire districts, Tribal partners, and community organizations to ensure solutions are practical, inclusive, and effective.
a.) This is a real crisis, especially for volunteer departments. The County should be looking at what barriers exist — whether that's training costs, workers' comp issues, or the simple fact that volunteers can't afford to live here anymore. Housing costs and economic opportunity affect recruitment more than any County program will.
b) I support expanding these. They're grassroots, they work, and they cost the County very little relative to the benefit. The County should help seed new ones and provide logistical support to existing ones without trying to run them.
c.) Reliable ambulance service is non-negotiable for a rural county. I'd want to understand the current service gaps and work with providers to address them, funded through existing revenue streams.
d.) The plan sunsets in 2027, which will be early in the next Supervisor term. I'd support updating it with real input from fire chiefs, EMS providers, and the communities they serve — not just consultants and county staff. And I'd push to tie the updated plan to actual budget commitments, not just aspirational language.
a.) Yes, I support this. As mentioned above, recruitment and retention are some of the biggest challenges facing our fire agencies right now. As a Supervisor, my role is to help address the underlying issues, stable funding, training pathways, and support for volunteers who are carrying a large part of the system. That includes working with departments on incentives, housing considerations where possible, and making sure county policies don’t create barriers to bringing people in or keeping them.
b.) Yes, I strongly support this. We’ve already seen how effective community-based groups can be. My role would be to help remove barriers, support coordination, and make sure these groups have access to funding and technical support. That includes working closely with the Mendocino County Fire Safe Council and helping connect local groups to grants and county resources so they can actually implement projects. I’ve already done this with several local groups, such as connecting the Laytonville MAC to the Mendocino County Fire Safe Council so they can get updates and understand what support is available for their area. I’ve also been talking to local community leaders about which areas have strong neighborhood groups that can be used to jump start Neighborhood Fire Safe Councils, and will be connecting those with the MCFSC for follow up. I’ve spoken to some already, and have meetings scheduled with more.

c.) Yes, I support this as well. Given that most calls are medical, access to timely ALS care is critical. As a Supervisor, I would focus on aligning funding with actual call demand, improving coordination between providers, and supporting efforts to expand ALS capacity where there are gaps such as Covelo. This also ties back to staffing, we need to make sure we have trained personnel available to deliver that level of care.

d.) If elected, I would see my role as making sure the Strategic Plan is grounded in reality, clearly prioritized, and actually executable, not just a list of good ideas.
For section IV.B. in particular, I’d focus on three things:
First, making it data-driven. We should be aligning goals with actual service demand, response times, staffing levels, and coverage gaps. If most calls are medical, that needs to be reflected in how we plan for EMS, staffing, and equipment.
Second, tying the plan to funding and accountability. Each goal should have a clear path to funding, defined timelines, and measurable outcomes. If we say we’re improving recruitment, expanding Fire Safe Councils, or increasing ALS coverage, we should be able to track progress and adjust if it’s not working.
Third, making it collaborative. The people closest to these issues, fire chiefs, volunteers, EMS providers, hospitals, and community groups, need to be directly involved in shaping the plan. The County’s role is to bring those perspectives together into a coordinated strategy.
I’d also look into making the plan reflect the full scope of the challenge. That means integrating fire protection, EMS, prevention, and community resilience into one system, rather than treating them as separate efforts.
At the end of the day, my goal would be to make sure the updated plan is something we can actually implement and measure, and that it leads to real improvements in service on the ground.
a.) The Board Of Supervisors does not have a direct roll in recruiting efforts, but I do want to make sure that the supporting funding through voted tax assessments and Measure P funds actually get to the fire departments for which they were intended.
b.) I plan on being supportive of the Mendocino Fire Safe Councils and expect a smooth interface between them and the county. I see there are currently 81 FSCs in the county, which I view as comprehensive.
c.) Yes. I expect to review the funding of these ambulances and will do my best to get funding to support ambulance services. I’m also familiar with the technical equipment that ambulances carry. As a manufacturer and engineer of all kinds of equipment, I can help reduce ambulance costs while increasing the quality of the equipment carried.
d.) I plan on updating this section to include agreements for emergency situations, which require evacuation of residents while simultaneously bringing in fire suppression equipment. This was successfully done in the Brooktrails area and was a model for other county areas to emulate.
a.) The future of our rural fire departments hinges on recruitment efforts for both paid and volunteer firefighters—and decisive action is urgently needed. As the current generation of volunteers reaches retirement, finding and inspiring younger individuals to step into these essential roles has become increasingly difficult. Rural communities remain the backbone of volunteer support, but economic realities—such as the need for dual incomes and a shortage of local employment opportunities—significantly shrink the pool of available candidates.
This challenge is not theoretical; it has real consequences for emergency response. Agencies that rely heavily on volunteers can face dangerous delays in response time, especially during late-night emergencies, weekends, or holidays. These gaps put lives, property, and entire communities at risk, forcing a dependence on outside backup from departments with full-time personnel. We cannot afford to leave our communities vulnerable.
That’s why I strongly believe the Board of Supervisors must take an active role in strengthening our fire service workforce, supporting the recruitment and retention of both full-time and volunteer firefighters. The tools to address these challenges already exist: Measure P funds, when directed strategically and overseen transparently by the Fire Safe Council, can provide the financial support needed to build a resilient and responsive fire service. Investing in this effort is not just a budget item—it’s a lifeline for our friends, families, and neighbors.
By prioritizing recruitment and retention, we protect the safety, security, and future of every resident in our county. It’s time for leadership that matches the dedication of our firefighters—and for a commitment to ensuring that help will always be there when we need it most.
b.) Establishing Neighborhood Fire Safe Councils in communities across the county is a critical and practical step toward enhancing public safety. These councils serve as powerful vehicles for outreach, delivering vital information to residents, encouraging volunteer engagement in fire district activities, and even fostering informal code compliance through peer leadership. By drawing upon the expertise and passion of local volunteers—many of whom are already invested in the well-being of their neighborhoods—we maximize our collective strengths without adding financial strain.
Integrating a dedicated Fire Safe Council component within our existing Municipal Advisory Councils, Community Service Districts, and Town Councils is a smart way to launch this initiative efficiently. These bodies already include community-minded individuals who deeply understand local needs and challenges. By aligning their shared goal of community safety, we create a unified front against wildfire threats and reinforce a culture of preparedness throughout the county. Most importantly, this approach leverages resources and funding already in place, ensuring that the program is both sustainable and cost-effective.
Uniting our efforts in this manner not only keeps our communities safer, it also strengthens the connections between neighbors, boosts morale, and empowers residents to take proactive measures. The choice is clear: by investing in Neighborhood Fire Safe Councils, we invest in the resilience, security, and future of Mendocino County.
c & d.) I strongly support updating the Mendocino County Strategic Plan, with particular emphasis on Section IV, Subsection B, and its first three critical action items. Addressing these

points is not just a policy obligation—it’s a commitment to the safety, resilience, and well-being of our residents. To ensure our efforts have real impact, I would advocate for the Board to require county staff to provide regular, transparent status updates on every objective outlined in the Strategic Plan. Without consistent oversight and accountability, even the best-designed plans fall short. By prioritizing these updates, we can celebrate achievements, identify challenges early, and continually adapt our strategies for lasting success. In short, reviewing our progress is essential—because a plan left unexamined inevitably fails to deliver on its promise.
a.) It’s one of the common discussions I have with constituents, often when they ask about unrelated topics. Joining a fire department will thrash your car, interfere with important days of your life, not reimburse you, and yet it’ll be one of the most meaningful adventures. There is nothing quite like being in the home of a neighbor, in their time of need, and then seeing them months later in a grocery store. It’s an experience urban people don’t get to enjoy, the reality that people care enough, all politicsand background differences set aside. One place the county could help? Encourage employers to allow their employees to leave for emergencies. Everyone needs to give where they can and this includes business.

b.) Fully support. Harsh reality, communities trust FSC more than they trust county government. If FSC is willing, the county better supporting FSC offers greater potential of results.

c.) It’s a question for the tax payer. The county’s role is in part to clearly communicate what we have today and what we could have at different levels of taxation. Providing ALS everywhere could happen, but providing ALS everywhere with city response times is not financially feasible. We have poor communities. They want ALS, but they literally cannot pay for it. Some cannot even pay for rapid BLS. Could switching LEMSAs to one not-against AEMT bolster the current model? I see potential. Allowing community paramedics to provide skill when available rather than requiring 7x24 commitment? It would help.

d.) As the public, we are going to get the level of service we pay for. Before prop-13 passed, the tax rate was 4% in our county. Upon passage, it dropped to 1%. People tend to move in and stay, because they love it here. The bulk of the county general fund is sourced from property tax, which by state constitution is locked in at no more of an increase than 2% per year after the 1% calculation at time of transfer. Inflation is often greater. How do we give 3 or 4% COLAs to hard working public employees without a similar revenue increase? The county has been running an offbooks ever-accumulating negative account balance of deferred maintenance, things like roads, emergency communication sites and facilities. All of those tricks are built in, nothing more to defer, and the revenue still doesn’t keep up with the cost of doing business. I’ve had one-on-ones with Supervisors from around the state, comparing my findings to their circumstances. Marin has a 3 year reserve. We have a couple of weeks. I thought rural counties would be like us. Not necessarily so. Other rural counties tax gas along interstate-5, standing fruit trees, solar panels, multi-million dollar ag tractors and a host of other diversified approaches. We’re somewhat unique in living off property tax. Even if we could attract business and subdivisions, most people in our county don’t welcome it. There’s an argument that the state finance model for counties is inequitable, but the legislative votes necessary to do anything about it are in southern California metros (and they like the current system). Long way to say, I believe the county’s role is to collaborate with partners to document options, educate the public and find the sweet spot of support. Some communities might decide they’d rather risk the bed of Scott’s pickup while others say they’re willing to pay now for when they call 911. We need to be sure these choices are made well in advance with all of the pertinent details conveyed.
I also believe we can get more out of the current system. When I became chief, our department’s roster jumped by about 2-3x. If the volunteer model was tapped out, where did those people come from? I tried to tap different segments. Giving a talk at The Woods retirement community, I drove home the truth that there are roles for people of all different abilities. Four retired women approached me after, joined, and focused on medical response. One is still an active EMT. There is truth in our aging demographic and volunteerism being more difficult to procure, but there’s also a potential that we can bolster what we have with the right outreach. The people who live in Mendocino County generally want to give. The system needs to ask for their help, treat them with respect, and match interest/ability with pathways.
A plan that builds career fire departments in all of our towns will look great on paper, but won’t reach fruition. Fire is about rapid response. We have a large geography, one more than twice the size of a small state, with a sparse population. To save one firefighter, per research, it takes about sixteen firefighters on scene. Without hydrants, 2 - 4 will be shuttling water. One will be water ops, coordinating deliveries. Two engineering respective engines. 2 in , 2 out with SCBAs. Another two for IC, Operations. 3 on nozzles while 2 are ventilating the roof? A couple manning the SCBA compressor. Some to swap out. Even paying CalFire to staff a local station with 3 firefighters around the clock at $1.4M (2014 dollars, my last quote) wouldn’t provide sufficient structural firefighting. Having these resources pool from remote locations, the house would be in mop-up stage before firefighting could begin. We’d be looking at a cost greater than the Sheriff’s department. I don’t believe the public can bear that cost. On the other end of the spectrum is leaving good enough alone, accepting what we have today. Our plan should be somewhere in the middle, looking at the people and dollars the public can contribute, strategic use unbound by legacy decisions.

Board of Supervisor Candidate Questionnaire

Home & Property

Neighborhood

More Programs & Services

News & Alerts

Local Info

Who We Are

Join Us