A nod is good as a wink to a blind horse

Last week, we discussed the Board of Supervisors December 5th meeting where a hearing was held on proposed fee increases brought forward by 18 different departments.

According to CEO Darcie Antle, “The proposed fee changes reflect the ongoing efforts of all departments and offices to meet full cost recovery, per Board direction. The proposed changes are projected to bring an additional $3.2 million ($1.7 million in General Fund Revenue and $1.5 million in Non-General Fund) in revenues to the County.”

Antle stated that the proposed increases are needed to close a deficit which, of course, at this time is an unknown but very fluid number that changes from meeting to meeting because the County has not completed the mandated audits of its books for the past two years. At different times the deficit has been estimated to range anywhere from $7 million to $15 million.

As everyone is aware, and the Supes themselves admit, county finances are a total mess. At different times the deficit has been estimated to range anywhere from $7 million to $15 million.

So while none of these proposed fee increases should have been approved, the Supes OK'd increases for 17 of the 18 departments.

Supes John Haschak and Dan Gjerde took the lead fashioning a partial compromise motion approving 75 percent of the proposed increases for the Department of Planning and Building.

Scott Ward, a long-time planning and building professional, who worked many years for the County's P&B Department, and the past nine years as a planning consultant, commented that, “Based on my professional experience and my current experience as a consultant, it is my professional opinion that the current fees and the proposed Planning and Building Department fee increases exceed the reasonable cost of providing service.”

But that expert advice was predictably ignored by the Board.

Supervisor Ted Williams, to his credit, opposed any fee increases, categorizing them as anti-business, actions that would retard if not eliminate desperately needed affordable housing, and that most people would just ignore the licensing and permitting processes due to the skyrocketing fee increases.

I wasn't aware until Williams brought it up that permits are required for replacing faulty electrical switches and outlets. Yikes, I've been a permit outlaw for decades. What a load of crap. So proposed electrical permit fees were increased from $188 to $246, plus an additional $132 for the first 22 switches/outlets installed, plus $104 for additional switches, etc.

On the plumbing side, the proposed fee increase for a permit also went from $188 to $246, and again unbeknownst to me a permit is mandated for repairing/ replacing water heaters. That's two strikes.

Williams also said permits are required “if you replace a rotten board on a deck.” That's definitely the third strike, I'm prison bound.

Interpretation please

Speaking of County finances, the person selected by the Supes to replace on an “acting” basis suspended Auditor-Controller / Treasurer-Tax Collector Chemise Cubbison, is Sara Pierce, formerly an analyst in the CEO's department.

Here's an excerpt from Pierce's finance report presented at the December 5th BOS meeting. If any of this makes any sense to you, please contact me and fill me in.

“I would just like to remind everyone that the data in the ACFR [Annual Comprehensive Financial Report] is now a year and a half old, so please take this into consideration when reviewing. Please remember that the economic factors in 21-22 are vastly different than what we are seeing today. So just be cautious when relying on the data. Um, in regards to the 22-23 ACFR, we're still a few months out. The auditor staff, along with RGS, is diligently working on trying to get the 21-22 adjusting entries into Munis so that we can begin utilizing Munis as a financial system instead of just a budgetary system. Um, we're going to have to end up basically drawing a line in the sand, saying anything from 21-22 prior in Munis is not, cannot be fully reported out on, as we know that there's information in different files. But going forward, the intent is that we would be able to use Munis to report, run reports, financial statements. This is, like I said, a few months out, because it's going to take a little bit to get the adjusting entries in the system. Um, and so we are still trying to work through; so once those entries for 21-22 are entered, we can then fully begin closing out 22-23 and reviewing the data and seeing if there's a likelihood of a carry forward. Right now, we're not able to confirm that or review it. And then, so, and then I just also like to remind everyone that the data that is in Munis for 22-23 right now is likely to change because we are still entering activity.”

Geiger's Market closes its doors in Laytonville

Geiger's Long Valley Market officially shuttered it doors Thursday, Nov. 30, coming as a surprise to no one. Geiger's ownership “team” staying true to form, closed its operations without even the common courtesy

of a public announcement or notice taped to the entry doors. This lame brain trust came up with the novel idea of operating a grocery store without groceries.

Last Spring, the owners put out a letter-statement to the Laytonville community, essentially laying the blame of the store's decline on the collapsed weed industry. While I have certainly spoken and written thousands of words about the failed County Cannabis Ordinance's adverse impact in our rural areas, most of us business owners are surviving, albeit with reduced revenues.

Local people were and are doing their best to support local businesses. Laytonville area folks would have continued supporting Geiger's if they had not been driven away by an empty store and owners who seemingly don't care or give a damn.

People here in Laytonville supported Geiger's Store for 80 years. They made it an institution in this community. A place where everybody shopped, stopped and talked to neighbors, renewed old acquaintances, and met new folks. It was definitely a happening place.

None of that is happening anymore.

I want everyone to know that for some time I've been working with other community members, and more recently with Supervisor John Haschak, to come up with a plan(s) to solve this problem. We'll be discussing all of these things at our Town Council meetings, and I'll keep you updated.

Jim Shields is the Mendocino County Observer's editor and publisher, observer@ pacific.net, the longtime district manager of the Laytonville County Water District, and is also chairman of the Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council. Listen to his radio program “This and That” every Saturday at noon on KPFN 105.1 FM, also streamed live: http://www. kpfn.org