Board of Supervisor Candidate Questionnaire

Get informed on our Board of Supervisor Candidates positions on wildfire preparedness

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, unless jointly advised by FSC + Local Fire Agencies.

  • Description text goes here

  • Description text goes here

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, 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.

  • Description text goes here

  • Description text goes here

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, 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.

  • Description text goes here

  • Description text goes here

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?

  • 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.

  • Description text goes here

  • Description text goes here

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

  • 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.

  • Description text goes here

  • Description text goes here

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?

  • 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?)

  • Description text goes here

  • Description text goes here

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?

  • 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”.

  • Description text goes here

  • Description text goes here

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?

  • 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.

  • Description text goes here

  • Description text goes here

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?

  • 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.

  • Description text goes here

  • Description text goes here

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?

  • 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.

  • Description text goes here

  • Description text goes here

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? a) In particular, relative to item IV.B in the plan, “Ensure access to rural fire protection and emergency medical services” 

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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?
b) 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.?

  • Description text goes here

  • Description text goes here