It’s been an action-packed week and a half since Thanksgiving for me with a site visit to Signature Healthcare’s behavioral health hospital Santa Rosa, the California State Association of Counties annual weeklong meeting in San Jose, the True North Behavioral Health Campus Town Hall on Monday, and yesterday’s Board meeting.
Here are 3 key updates from yesterday’s meeting:
Board Unanimously Votes to Consider Letter of Support for True North: In quite the reversal from 1.5 months ago, Tuesday, the Board voted 5-0 to direct staff to draft a letter of support for the project for future consideration. Supervisor Crye asked that a number of considerations be included in the letter, most, if not all of which, have already been accounted for by Signature Healthcare.
The Board’s decision Tuesday followed a Town Hall I hosted Monday night, which included a 10-member panel of experts in a wide range of related areas, including law enforcement, emergency room management, ambulance services, and mental health crisis services. The panel affirmed in often vivid, personal details the need for a facility like True North.
For those who couldn’t attend, I attempted to record the evening and will be posting the video when I get it in a shareable format – though I will warn you that I think the recording misses some portion of the evening.
We’re also working on compiling questions about the project. If you have one, submit it here.
Board Majority, Not Me, Selects Supervisor Kelstrom as Chair for 2026: The Board Chair plays an important role in setting the agenda, facilitating the meetings, setting the tone for the public, and in some cases, speaking for the Board. I believe this role should rotate between supervisors in a set order – election year and then percent of votes earned. Every supervisor was elected by their districts, so every district should have the opportunity to have their representative lead the Board. I made a similar point 2 years ago when that Board and the Redding City Council broke with precedent.
Supervisor Kelstrom had the opportunity to be chair last year – something I supported – but he rejected the nomination by 3 supervisors, saying that, though he felt ready, he did not want to be Chair. By taking the Chair role this year, he denies at least 1 of the 3 supervisors elected in 2024 (myself, Harmon, and Long) the opportunity to be Chair.
Before we voted to select the Chair, I made a motion to bring back a change to County ordinance that allows the Chair to block another Supervisor’s request to put an action item on the agenda – something that has happened to me multiple times this year. This is part of my attempt to distribute power between supervisors more evenly.
Board Majority, Not Me, Votes to Require Taxpayers to Subsidize County Services Rather than Charge Sustainable Fees: The County provides a wide range of services we charge the public to receive (e.g., requesting an appeal, getting a marriage license, issuing a building permit). Every year Department Heads must re-calculate the costs to provide those services and then set the fees equal to the cost to provide the service – or request an exemption from the Board.
Two Department Heads – Agricultural Weights and Measures Director and the County Clerk – requested exemptions to charge less than their costs for certifying farmer markets and taking passport photos respectively. The proposed fee for certifying producers at certified farmers markets is $20 when the cost to the County is $285.79 – which hasn’t changed in at least 17 years – and the proposed fee for the market organizer is $50 when the cost is $709.75. The proposed fee for passport photos is $22 though the cost to the County is $35.
When we charge those receiving these services less than they cost the County to deliver, we use General Fund money to cover the gap – meaning that we are asking all taxpayers to pay for people to receive these services. I believe this should be avoided – except in certain circumstances where the services will help people who can’t pay get back on their feet.
In the case of the farmers market fees, I proposed that we increase both fees by 5%, acknowledging that raising fees to match costs would be too jarring, but believing we needed to begin the process of getting producers used to incremental price increases.
In the case of the passport photos, the County Clerk (who is also Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis) explained that he wanted to keep the fees lower because the price for passport photos at businesses in the community is much less than the $35 it costs the County.
This explanation makes me less likely to keep County fees artificially low. If people can get their passport photo at private businesses for less, that is much better than the County doing it at a greater cost and forcing all taxpayers to pay for a portion of the cost.
In both cases, I was overruled.
You may think that the fiscally conservative position on this issue is to keep fees low – but it is actually a progressive position to make fees lower than the cost because that requires the government to take tax dollars from some residents and give them to others.