Fire Preparedness Questionaire

The Fire Safe Council of Mendocino County asked all candidates running for the Board of Supervisors about their positions on wildfire preparedness. See my answers compared with incumbent Ted Williams 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.

Kevin Evans

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.

Ted Williams

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?

Kevin Evans

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.

Ted Williams

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.

Kevin Evans

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.

Ted Williams

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?

Kevin Evans

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.

Ted Williams

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?

Kevin Evans

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.

Ted Williams

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?

Kevin Evans

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.

Ted Williams

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?

Kevin Evans

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.

Ted Williams

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?

Kevin Evans

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.

Ted Williams

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?

Kevin Evans

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.

Ted Williams

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?

Kevin Evans

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.

Ted Williams

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?

Kevin Evans

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.

Ted Williams

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.?

Kevin Evans

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.

Ted Williams

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.