How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
News
CLEARLAKE, Calif. – Clearlake’s city manager reported to the city council about planning and preparing for the possibility of public safety power shutoffs that could still happen in the area if fire weather conditions occur this fall.
Clearlake City Manager Alan Flora updated the council at its meeting last Thursday regarding public safety power shutoff preparation as well as issues the city encountered earlier that week when it looked like Pacific Gas and Electric might cut power to thousands of Lake County residents.
Flora said the city was notified on Sunday, Sept. 22, of a possible public safety power shutoff that was to have happened on the evening of the following day. However, PG&E later announced that the shutoff wouldn’t impact Lake County, as Lake County News has reported.
“There were a number of serious communication issues between PG&E and local agencies,” which Flora said was very frustrating.
He said there were conflicts between information the company released publicly and the details available to the city through a secure online portal the company offered to local agencies.
Flora said that the communication did improve. However, “It was very difficult to plan some kind of response.”
PG&E media representative Deanna Contreras told Lake County News that with each public safety power shutoff the company identifies areas where they can improve in the future.
“We recognize the communications challenges that we encountered during the most recent PSPS event for informing customers and communities, and we are committed to getting better. In addition to live and automated notifications, PG&E held calls with city, county and state agencies two or three times every day to share the latest information and answer questions. Local representatives also kept in communication with their city and county contacts, and agency representatives came to PG&E’s Emergency Operations Center for further coordination,” she said.
Contreras said the company has heard feedback about communications issues, “and we take these concerns very seriously. We will continue to refine our efforts as we take this important action to keep customers and communities safe.”
She said PG&E will be having a series of meetings with emergency management representatives from affected counties in the coming days to gain additional feedback on how to improve.
Flora also told the council last week that PG&E appears to be working hard to minimize the scope and disruption of these shutoff events, but added that the feedback from local agencies is that, in some cases, PG&E was holding out so long in making decisions that it was difficult for agencies to plan.
“So we did luck out,” he said, as it had looked like Clearlake – and other parts of the south county – might have a shutoff event.
Flora said the city has signed an agreement with PG&E to operate the Clearlake senior center as a “community resource center.”
City Attorney Ryan Jones has said it would be preferable to have the council ratify that agreement at the next meeting, Flora said.
So far, the Clearlake senior center is the only designated community resource center for PG&E shutoffs in Lake County, Flora said.
Flora said that during a public safety power shutoff, the community resource center would provide water, information, electronic device charging and wifi capability from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily. PG&E would staff the center exclusively and provide security.
As for city preparations in the event of a shutoff, Flora said the city has received all of the needed equipment and upgrades for facilities to operate, including more fuel tanks. All of the city’s traffic lights now have batteries and generator backups.
The city’s Web site has a public safety power shutoff section that includes resources such as businesses that will remain open in the event power is cut, Flora said.
There still are concerns that shutoffs could occur this fall and winter.
Flora said he was told that PG&E anticipates the likelihood of 12 of these power shutoffs happening in its service area before the end of the year.
Email Elizabeth Larson atThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
Clearlake City Manager Alan Flora updated the council at its meeting last Thursday regarding public safety power shutoff preparation as well as issues the city encountered earlier that week when it looked like Pacific Gas and Electric might cut power to thousands of Lake County residents.
Flora said the city was notified on Sunday, Sept. 22, of a possible public safety power shutoff that was to have happened on the evening of the following day. However, PG&E later announced that the shutoff wouldn’t impact Lake County, as Lake County News has reported.
“There were a number of serious communication issues between PG&E and local agencies,” which Flora said was very frustrating.
He said there were conflicts between information the company released publicly and the details available to the city through a secure online portal the company offered to local agencies.
Flora said that the communication did improve. However, “It was very difficult to plan some kind of response.”
PG&E media representative Deanna Contreras told Lake County News that with each public safety power shutoff the company identifies areas where they can improve in the future.
“We recognize the communications challenges that we encountered during the most recent PSPS event for informing customers and communities, and we are committed to getting better. In addition to live and automated notifications, PG&E held calls with city, county and state agencies two or three times every day to share the latest information and answer questions. Local representatives also kept in communication with their city and county contacts, and agency representatives came to PG&E’s Emergency Operations Center for further coordination,” she said.
Contreras said the company has heard feedback about communications issues, “and we take these concerns very seriously. We will continue to refine our efforts as we take this important action to keep customers and communities safe.”
She said PG&E will be having a series of meetings with emergency management representatives from affected counties in the coming days to gain additional feedback on how to improve.
Flora also told the council last week that PG&E appears to be working hard to minimize the scope and disruption of these shutoff events, but added that the feedback from local agencies is that, in some cases, PG&E was holding out so long in making decisions that it was difficult for agencies to plan.
“So we did luck out,” he said, as it had looked like Clearlake – and other parts of the south county – might have a shutoff event.
Flora said the city has signed an agreement with PG&E to operate the Clearlake senior center as a “community resource center.”
City Attorney Ryan Jones has said it would be preferable to have the council ratify that agreement at the next meeting, Flora said.
So far, the Clearlake senior center is the only designated community resource center for PG&E shutoffs in Lake County, Flora said.
Flora said that during a public safety power shutoff, the community resource center would provide water, information, electronic device charging and wifi capability from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily. PG&E would staff the center exclusively and provide security.
As for city preparations in the event of a shutoff, Flora said the city has received all of the needed equipment and upgrades for facilities to operate, including more fuel tanks. All of the city’s traffic lights now have batteries and generator backups.
The city’s Web site has a public safety power shutoff section that includes resources such as businesses that will remain open in the event power is cut, Flora said.
There still are concerns that shutoffs could occur this fall and winter.
Flora said he was told that PG&E anticipates the likelihood of 12 of these power shutoffs happening in its service area before the end of the year.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Lakeport City Council helped kick off Domestic Violence Awareness Month on Tuesday evening by presenting a proclamation to representatives of a local organization working to stop the cycle of violence.
Mayor Tim Barnes read the proclamation designating October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month before presenting it to members of the Lake Family Resource Center, including Executive Director Lisa Morrow, Domestic Violence Services Program Coordinator Amber Westphal and Victim Services Program Director Sheri Salituri-Young.
The city’s proclamation explained that in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019, Lake County law enforcement responded to more than 362 incidents of domestic violence.
“In the past 12 months the Victim Witness Division of the District Attorney’s office has served over 311 victims of Domestic Violence, and the District Attorney’s Office has prosecuted 352 felony and misdemeanor acts of domestic violence,” the proclamation explained.
At the same time, Lake Family Resource Center responded to 793 crisis line calls, served victims and additionally sheltered 149 domestic violence victims and their children at its domestic violence shelter for a total of 5,458 bed nights.
The proclamation also noted, “It is crucially important to hold perpetrators responsible for assault and to prevent domestic violence at every opportunity,” and continued by explaining, “family violence is a community problem, stopping the cycle requires not only the strength and courage of survivors, but also the support and involvement of all members of the community.”
Among the many agencies and organizations providing crisis intervention and prevention services to community members and dedicated to ending domestic violence are the District Attorney’s Office, Lake County Sheriff’s Office, Lakeport Police Department, Clearlake Police Department and Lake Family Resource Center, the proclamation said.
The proclamation urged the community “to support the efforts of the agencies assisting victims of domestic violence and to increase their involvement in efforts to prevent domestic violence, thereby strengthening our community and creating an environment which honors, nurtures and protects all members of every family.”
Westphal said there are a number of events planned for this month, and added that the city of Lakeport was kicking it off with its proclamation.
The main event planned is the sixth annual “Power of the Purple Walk” beginning at 9 a.m. Saturday, Oct. 19, at the Lake Family Resource Center headquarters, 5350 Main St., Kelseyville.
Westphal said reducing the stigma associated with domestic violence allows survivors to come forward.
For more information at the Lake Family Resource Center and its services visit https://www.lakefrc.org/.
Email Elizabeth Larson atThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
Mayor Tim Barnes read the proclamation designating October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month before presenting it to members of the Lake Family Resource Center, including Executive Director Lisa Morrow, Domestic Violence Services Program Coordinator Amber Westphal and Victim Services Program Director Sheri Salituri-Young.
The city’s proclamation explained that in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019, Lake County law enforcement responded to more than 362 incidents of domestic violence.
“In the past 12 months the Victim Witness Division of the District Attorney’s office has served over 311 victims of Domestic Violence, and the District Attorney’s Office has prosecuted 352 felony and misdemeanor acts of domestic violence,” the proclamation explained.
At the same time, Lake Family Resource Center responded to 793 crisis line calls, served victims and additionally sheltered 149 domestic violence victims and their children at its domestic violence shelter for a total of 5,458 bed nights.
The proclamation also noted, “It is crucially important to hold perpetrators responsible for assault and to prevent domestic violence at every opportunity,” and continued by explaining, “family violence is a community problem, stopping the cycle requires not only the strength and courage of survivors, but also the support and involvement of all members of the community.”
Among the many agencies and organizations providing crisis intervention and prevention services to community members and dedicated to ending domestic violence are the District Attorney’s Office, Lake County Sheriff’s Office, Lakeport Police Department, Clearlake Police Department and Lake Family Resource Center, the proclamation said.
The proclamation urged the community “to support the efforts of the agencies assisting victims of domestic violence and to increase their involvement in efforts to prevent domestic violence, thereby strengthening our community and creating an environment which honors, nurtures and protects all members of every family.”
Westphal said there are a number of events planned for this month, and added that the city of Lakeport was kicking it off with its proclamation.
The main event planned is the sixth annual “Power of the Purple Walk” beginning at 9 a.m. Saturday, Oct. 19, at the Lake Family Resource Center headquarters, 5350 Main St., Kelseyville.
Westphal said reducing the stigma associated with domestic violence allows survivors to come forward.
For more information at the Lake Family Resource Center and its services visit https://www.lakefrc.org/.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Ladies of the Lake Quilt Guild presents the 18th annual Falling Leaves Quilt Show at Lake County Fairgrounds in Lakeport on Saturday, Oct. 5, and Sunday, Oct. 6.
The show will be held in two buildings, Fritch Hall and Little Theater. The hours on Saturday are 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on Sunday 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
As one wanders through the exhibits, you will find a colorful array of quilts and a bustle of activity. The quilting techniques used in making these beautiful treasures vary wildly. A few quilters use very traditional methods of piecing and quilting by hand.
Most quilters use a combination of techniques including machine piecing, applique and quilting. While many of the quilts are traditional bed quilts, you will also find many innovative pieces in all sizes from bed quilts to art quilts to miniatures.
This year’s featured artist at Falling Leaves Quilt Show is Lisa McKissick, an award winning quilter. Look for her booth in Fritch Hall where she will be displaying her amazing quilts. She will be doing demonstrations throughout the show using the Quick Curved Ruler. Stop by to chat with her and learn about her favorite tools and perhaps some new techniques.
Community leaders choosing their favorite quilts give VIP Awards. The VIP community leaders this year are Shelly Aldrich, founder of Ladies of the Lake Quilt Guild; Ariel Carmona, editor, Record-Bee; Elizabeth Larson, editor and publisher, Lake County News; Ashley Sagehorn, relationship banker, Umpqua Bank; Kathleen Steinberg, retired, Michigan Bell.
Watch for the fall colored ribbons and stories telling why the quilts were chosen.
Don’t forget to check out the outside edges of the rooms where you will find ten vendors from Florida and northern California. They will be showing the latest in fabrics, patterns, sewing workstations, quilt hangers and sewing machines.
Visit the Country Store in the Little Theater where you can find some handmade items from our members as well as recycled quilting, sewing and craft items. Stop by frequently as the items change often.
The silent auction in Little Theater includes a variety of items to tempt you. The inventory this year includes Sun Bonnet Sue precuts, rulers and templates, prize winning wall quilts, small appliances, Waterford crystal, a sewing basket full of supplies, a handcrafted corner cabinet and much more to see and admire. Go check them out.
Stop by the theme baskets in front of the stage at the Little Theater and take a chance winning one of 9 baskets this year. Themes include beginner quilter, babies, school days, celebrations, coffee and tea, spa, birds, dogs and kitchen.
The 2019 Opportunity Quilt, “Pie in the Sky,” finds a home on Sunday afternoon when the winning ticket will be drawn. The quilt is displayed in Fritch Hall throughout the show with volunteers selling tickets until midafternoon on Sunday.
The making of the quilt was a group effort by guild members Gail Coyle, Carolyn Dexter, Barbara Doré, Betty Fessler, Gretchen Moore, Mary Ann Riley and Leslie Roberts and quilted by Cindy Jo of Fort Bragg.
The show door prize, a sewing machine, donated by John Furtado of Village Sewing, will be awarded and posted on Sunday. This door prize will be announced at 3 p.m. on Sunday. Winners need not be present to win. Vendor and other donated door prizes will be awarded during both days. You must be present to win these prizes.
Demonstrations are scheduled throughout the show.
Saturday, Oct. 5:
11 a.m.: “Conquering the ‘A’ Word” with Colleen Granger
Noon: “Fresh Water Quilt Hangers” by Verne Frost
1 p.m.: “AccuQuilt” with Carol Martin
2 p.m.: “Needle-turn Applique” by Jill Rixman
Sunday, Oct. 6:
11 a.m.: “Magic Triangle Ruler” with Carol Martin
Noon: “Partial Seams” by Colleen Granger
1 p.m.: “Diva Wallets” with Carol Martin
Also, Lisa McKissick will be demonstrating the Quick Curved Ruler at her booth on both days throughout the show.
For more information call show chair Barbara Haddon at 415-209-3044.
More information can also be found at http://www.LLQG.org/quilt-show.html.
Editor’s note: Suzanne Lee is a member of the Ladies of the Lake Quilt Guild and publicity chair for the quilt show.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA – Just days before the second anniversary of the 2017 North Bay Firestorm, Gov. Newsom has signed a package of wildfire mitigation, preparedness and response bills to build resilience, recover from wildfires, and protect Californians from catastrophic wildfires and natural disasters.
Two critical bills authored by Sen. Mike McGuire were part of the legislative package.
SB 560 and SB 670 will provide first-of-its-kind communication rules and regulations during 911 outages and public power shutoffs.
McGuire said these two new laws will save lives and streamline communication and notification to millions of Californians during disasters.
“The night of Oct. 8, 2017, changed the lives of tens of thousands of Californians forever. Whether you were one of the nearly 100,000 evacuated, one of the 6,000 who lost their home, one of the thousands who fled through the flames or one of the dozens who lost a loved one due to the fire – your loss should not go in vain,” McGuire said. “We have a new normal in California and our state is stepping up to make critical financial investments and changes to the law that will help keep Californians safe and provide first responders the information they need to protect our communities. There’s more work to do, but today, we want to thank Governor Newsom and the dozens of first responders who rallied to ensure these bills became law.”
SB 670 – signed Wednesday by the governor – is a desperately needed step to mitigate the risks during times of phone outages by requiring telecommunications providers to report 911 service outages or outages affecting emergency alert and warning technologies to the California Office of Emergency Services in real time. This seems like it should already be happening – but it’s not.
While the California Public Utilities Commission and FCC have a shared responsibility to oversee all components of 911 services, outage reporting to the CPUC is provided hours, and sometimes days, after the outage occurs and not in real time.
For example, during the Camp fire, which began around 6:33 am on Nov. 8, 2018, the CPUC received their notification of the outage from the FCC over five hours later at 12:01 p.m. after thousands of homes had been destroyed.
The Tubbs fire in Santa Rosa began at approximately 9:43 p.m. on Oct. 8, 2017, and the CPUC received their notification from the FCC over 6 hours later at 4:12 am the next morning – thousands of homes were destroyed in that timeframe. By that time, the Tubbs Fire had burned into central Santa Rosa. The California Office of Emergency Services never received formal notification.
SB 670 will provide emergency officials with the data and crucial information they need to keep our communities safe. This common-sense approach will ensure real time coordination between state and local emergency officials and telecommunication companies.
SB 560 – also signed Wednesday as part of the wildfire legislative package – requires that police, fire, sheriff departments, health care facilities and telecommunication providers receive prior notification of de-energizing events when their facilities will be impacted by a planned power shutdown to help ensure the health and well-being of all Californians.
Power shutoffs are intended as a utility’s last resort to mitigate the risk of fire. However, the growing threats of catastrophic wildfires and recent experience of the devastation and liability posed by wildfires means the voluntary use of power shutoffs is likely to increase.
Currently, despite requirements to create notification procedures, there’s not a requirement that the actual notifications occur to first responders, health care facilities, and telecommunication services.
Communities have unfortunately experienced the lack of communication and notification from PG&E, and making it a requirement is the next step in ensuring proper notification is received.
Two critical bills authored by Sen. Mike McGuire were part of the legislative package.
SB 560 and SB 670 will provide first-of-its-kind communication rules and regulations during 911 outages and public power shutoffs.
McGuire said these two new laws will save lives and streamline communication and notification to millions of Californians during disasters.
“The night of Oct. 8, 2017, changed the lives of tens of thousands of Californians forever. Whether you were one of the nearly 100,000 evacuated, one of the 6,000 who lost their home, one of the thousands who fled through the flames or one of the dozens who lost a loved one due to the fire – your loss should not go in vain,” McGuire said. “We have a new normal in California and our state is stepping up to make critical financial investments and changes to the law that will help keep Californians safe and provide first responders the information they need to protect our communities. There’s more work to do, but today, we want to thank Governor Newsom and the dozens of first responders who rallied to ensure these bills became law.”
SB 670 – signed Wednesday by the governor – is a desperately needed step to mitigate the risks during times of phone outages by requiring telecommunications providers to report 911 service outages or outages affecting emergency alert and warning technologies to the California Office of Emergency Services in real time. This seems like it should already be happening – but it’s not.
While the California Public Utilities Commission and FCC have a shared responsibility to oversee all components of 911 services, outage reporting to the CPUC is provided hours, and sometimes days, after the outage occurs and not in real time.
For example, during the Camp fire, which began around 6:33 am on Nov. 8, 2018, the CPUC received their notification of the outage from the FCC over five hours later at 12:01 p.m. after thousands of homes had been destroyed.
The Tubbs fire in Santa Rosa began at approximately 9:43 p.m. on Oct. 8, 2017, and the CPUC received their notification from the FCC over 6 hours later at 4:12 am the next morning – thousands of homes were destroyed in that timeframe. By that time, the Tubbs Fire had burned into central Santa Rosa. The California Office of Emergency Services never received formal notification.
SB 670 will provide emergency officials with the data and crucial information they need to keep our communities safe. This common-sense approach will ensure real time coordination between state and local emergency officials and telecommunication companies.
SB 560 – also signed Wednesday as part of the wildfire legislative package – requires that police, fire, sheriff departments, health care facilities and telecommunication providers receive prior notification of de-energizing events when their facilities will be impacted by a planned power shutdown to help ensure the health and well-being of all Californians.
Power shutoffs are intended as a utility’s last resort to mitigate the risk of fire. However, the growing threats of catastrophic wildfires and recent experience of the devastation and liability posed by wildfires means the voluntary use of power shutoffs is likely to increase.
Currently, despite requirements to create notification procedures, there’s not a requirement that the actual notifications occur to first responders, health care facilities, and telecommunication services.
Communities have unfortunately experienced the lack of communication and notification from PG&E, and making it a requirement is the next step in ensuring proper notification is received.
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – A committee tasked with prioritizing courthouse construction projects across California voted Tuesday to approve a report that places Lake County’s new courthouse at the top of the list, but officials have cautioned that funding still needs to be found for all of the highest ranked projects.
The Judicial Council’s Court Facilities Advisory Committee met Tuesday morning in San Francisco, where it voted on an updated report that lists 80 projects categorized – in descending order – as immediate need, critical need, high need, medium need and low need.
The proposed Lake County courthouse slated to be built in Lakeport is ranked at No. 1 and classified as immediate need. The four-courtroom facility is estimated to cost $51.2 million to build.
At No. 6 on the list is a second Lake County project, a new one-courtroom courthouse facility slated for Clearlake, at an estimated cost of $15 million. It’s also categorized as immediate need.
“We are pleased to see the Court Facilities Advisory Committee continue to recognize the need in Lake County,” Court Executive Officer Krista LeVier told Lake County News.
In June 2018, the governor and the Legislature enacted Government Code section 70371.9, which requires that before any more funding will be provided to build new courthouses in the state, the Judicial Council must reassess all courthouse projects identified in its Update to Trial Court Capital-Outlay Plan and Prioritization Methodology adopted on October 24, 2008.
The law now require projects to be reassessed and ranked against the criteria established in 2008, level of seismic risk and other health and environmental hazards, impact on court users including accessibility, cost avoidance or savings through operational or organizational efficiencies the project would create, ways to minimize increased ongoing costs, a comparison of the cost to repair or renovate the existing facility versus the cost of replacement, the projected cost of each proposed project per court user and the total costs spent on the project as of the date of the assessment.
Mike Courtney, director of Judicial Council Facilities Services, explained Tuesday that in August 2018 the Court Facilities Advisory Committee met to discuss how to approach that task.
Since February a working group whose members come from the Court Facilities Advisory Committee and Judicial Council has evaluated more than 213 buildings across the state, Courtney said.
The Judicial Council said the process included a lengthy self-assessment by each superior court of their operations and the potential implications of new courthouse construction.
The Court Facilities Advisory Committee is chaired by Brad Hill, administrative presiding justice for the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal based in Fresno.
Hill said the committee has been working on the ranking process for the better part of a year.
While there were representatives of a number of courts and communities who were critical of the reprioritized list, Hill noted in response, “It’s been difficult, challenging, but we think we’ve hit on the right balance,” with facilities up and down the state that have been long neglected and need to be replaced.
Hill said the approved list is going to the Judicial Council in November.
LeVier told Lake County News that the next step will be for the Judicial Council to approve the list and send the final report to the Legislature, which the Judicial Council reported that it expects to do by the end of December.
“Once that is complete, the next challenge will be to secure funding for the Lakeport project. Despite being ranked as the highest need in the state, there is a possibility other lower ranked projects will be funded first,” LeVier said.
She said the methodology adopted related to funding decisions allows the Judicial Council broad discretion in determining which projects will be funded. “The Court has argued that there should not be such broad discretion and more weight should be given to the need based scores in funding decisions.”
The need for a new Lakeport courthouse has been recognized for more than a decade.
In July 2008, the state Administrative Office of the Courts submitted 18 trial court funding projects to the state's Department of Finance, among them the Lake County project, listed then – as now – as an immediate need project. Originally, Lake County’s new courthouse was slated to be funded at an anticipated cost of $70.8 million.
A state report found Lakeport’s existing court facility – consisting of four courtrooms and offices in 15,332 square feet on the fourth floor of the courthouse building at 255 N. Forbes St. – to be “severely overcrowded, poorly serves the growing needs of the superior court and lack of basic security features causes unnecessary risk to the staff and public who use this building.”
Little has changed since then, with jurors, witnesses, attorneys and other members of the public frequently crowded in the facility's hallways, and bailiffs needing to move people to bring in lines of inmates from the Lake County Jail.
The Judicial Council purchased land for the project in 2011 on Lakeport Boulevard, but the project – like many others across the state – was put on hold due to the state’s budget crisis during the Great Recession.
Now, with a renewed process under way that’s using a new methodology to prioritize projects, LeVier said, “The Court has been working with the Judicial Council for many months to ensure that our facility needs are accurately reflected and scored correctly in this new methodology. Judicial Council staff, consultants, architects and others have visited the building during this process.”
She called the new scoring methodology “a valid, objective, needs based system to determine the courthouse facility needs across the state.”
Updated list changes some rankings
Lake, Kern and Los Angeles counties each have two projects among the 18 “immediate need” projects included in the newly approved courthouse facilities list.
Mendocino County’s new Ukiah courthouse, expected to cost $89.6 million, came in at No. 2 on the latest list, now in the immediate need category, whereas previously it was No. 5 and in the critical need category.
Lake County’s Clearlake courthouse also originally had been in the critical need group before moving into the immediate need ranking in the latest list.
Among Lake’s other neighboring counties, Sonoma County’s new civil courthouse, with a $102.8 million project cost, in included in the critical need category, while the $17.4 million Colusa Courthouse annex renovation was ranked in medium need and the Yolo County Superior Court renovation, at $900,000, was listed as low need.
Lake County’s Lakeport courthouse project also had topped an earlier priority list released Aug. 29, at which time it was one of only four immediate need projects. It remained in the top spot despite some shuffling that led to another 14 projects being added to the immediate need ranking and some other projects dropping lower in the list.
During Tuesday’s Court Facilities Advisory Committee meeting, members explained that since the list was released in August, the public had submitted comments totaling hundreds of pages of information.
The result was more than 120 corrections to the scorecard of courthouse projects, a process that’s continuing in October.
Among the courts proposing projects, 12 have submitted corrections to their narratives and other information in their court facility plans and three courts changed proposed project scopes or court priorities. The final drafts of all of the court facility plans will be submitted to the state in November.
Questions posed regarding process
On Tuesday, the committee heard from several community leaders, residents, judges and court staff from counties including Alameda, Inyo, Los Angeles, Monterey, Nevada and Plumas, raising issues that ranged from locations to rankings, seismic concerns and the need for their community members to have access to courthouses.
Monterey County Supervisor Chris Lopez told the committee it was disconcerting to see the new south Monterey County project, at $27.9 million, falling farther down the list into the “high need” category, with rural residents needing access.
Lopez said the Monterey County Superior Court has told community members that the information about the proposed project for their south county facility isn’t available, and he asked that the committee take another look at the methodology.
Monterey County’s Ford Ord courthouse, at $130.1 million, came in at No. 5 and is among the immediate need projects.
However, another Monterey County Board of Supervisors member, Luis Alejo, told the committee in a letter that he was “surprised and disappointed” to see the Ford Ord project ranked in priority over the south county project.
“South Monterey County has been standing in line for many years for a courthouse to replace the King City Courthouse that was closed by the Monterey County Superior Court in 2013 during the height of the Great Recession,” Alejo wrote. “If the draft prioritization is left in place, it is likely that South County residents will continue to be denied equal access to justice.”
Judge Kevin Brazile of Los Angeles County also raised issues with the methodology, which he wanted fine-tuned to better serve large courts.
The Los Angeles Superior Court is the largest superior court in the state and the nation, with a portfolio of 39 courthouses, serving 10 million citizens in Los Angeles County, according to Brazile’s testimony.
Los Angeles has 17 courthouse projects on the list, including two ranked as immediate need, nine in critical need, one in high need and five in medium need.
While Brazile voiced concerns about the methodology, he nevertheless told the committee – which he said had heeded previous input he has given – “These most recent changes have made a significant improvement in reflecting the needs and priorities of our courts.”
Inyo County Superior Court Executive Officer Pamela Foster told the committee that their $43.8 million project, now listed in the critical need category, has been in the process for a very long time, with the land purchase under way when the process previously was halted due to lack of funding.
In the August list, the Inyo County courthouse project was listed at No. 13 in priority, and was reranked to No. 28 in the latest list, although both times it was in the critical need category.
Foster said every project on the list is needed, but called the latest priority list a “drastic reshuffling,” and she wanted a better understanding of how the projects were reranked.
In reply, HIll said that even though they had to rank the projects, “All of these projects need to be built and we’re going to the Legislature with that in mind.”
Next steps and more questions
Courtney gave the committee an update, explaining that the evaluation process is continuing both because of the amount of public input and the need to submit a report to the Judicial Council in November. His report also summarized the methodology changes and the scoring system.
The committee voted to recommend that the drafts of the revised methodology and statewide list be submitted to the Judicial Council in November for approval, and to delegate to the chair and vice chair the review of the final report to the council.
There are still considerable questions that the process ahead, including just which projects will ultimately be funded.
In a letter dated Sept. 30 and signed by both LeVier and Lake County Superior Court Presiding Judge Michael Lunas, they urged the committee to follow the methodology and said it should be the basis of funding decisions.
“What is the point of a need based methodology and ranking, if there is no requirement that the need based score be used in funding decisions? If you have the highest need, but are never funded, is that just or fair?” Lunas and LeVier asked in the letter.
They also maintained that it isn’t appropriate for a project in the critical need or lower categories to be funded over an immediate need project “simply because the court is in an affluent county where land donation or other financial incentives are available to the project. A small, poor county certainly is less likely to have an economic opportunity available, aside from perhaps the consolidation of court facilities. The fact does not diminish the need for a project.”
There is one other key concern for the Lake County Superior Court – draft language in the committee’s latest report that would allow the Judicial Council to unilaterally exclude single-courtroom facilities, which would impact the Clearlake project directly. Lunas and LeVier said they oppose the language.
The letter explained, “if a new four courtroom facility is built in Lakeport and subsequently the Judicial Council determines not to build a single-courtroom facility in Clearlake, the court will be in the unenviable situation where the new building is not large enough to consolidate and there is no long term solution for the single-courtroom building’s facility needs.”
More information about the state’s courthouse construction process can be found here.
Email Elizabeth Larson atThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
The Judicial Council’s Court Facilities Advisory Committee met Tuesday morning in San Francisco, where it voted on an updated report that lists 80 projects categorized – in descending order – as immediate need, critical need, high need, medium need and low need.
The proposed Lake County courthouse slated to be built in Lakeport is ranked at No. 1 and classified as immediate need. The four-courtroom facility is estimated to cost $51.2 million to build.
At No. 6 on the list is a second Lake County project, a new one-courtroom courthouse facility slated for Clearlake, at an estimated cost of $15 million. It’s also categorized as immediate need.
“We are pleased to see the Court Facilities Advisory Committee continue to recognize the need in Lake County,” Court Executive Officer Krista LeVier told Lake County News.
In June 2018, the governor and the Legislature enacted Government Code section 70371.9, which requires that before any more funding will be provided to build new courthouses in the state, the Judicial Council must reassess all courthouse projects identified in its Update to Trial Court Capital-Outlay Plan and Prioritization Methodology adopted on October 24, 2008.
The law now require projects to be reassessed and ranked against the criteria established in 2008, level of seismic risk and other health and environmental hazards, impact on court users including accessibility, cost avoidance or savings through operational or organizational efficiencies the project would create, ways to minimize increased ongoing costs, a comparison of the cost to repair or renovate the existing facility versus the cost of replacement, the projected cost of each proposed project per court user and the total costs spent on the project as of the date of the assessment.
Mike Courtney, director of Judicial Council Facilities Services, explained Tuesday that in August 2018 the Court Facilities Advisory Committee met to discuss how to approach that task.
Since February a working group whose members come from the Court Facilities Advisory Committee and Judicial Council has evaluated more than 213 buildings across the state, Courtney said.
The Judicial Council said the process included a lengthy self-assessment by each superior court of their operations and the potential implications of new courthouse construction.
The Court Facilities Advisory Committee is chaired by Brad Hill, administrative presiding justice for the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal based in Fresno.
Hill said the committee has been working on the ranking process for the better part of a year.
While there were representatives of a number of courts and communities who were critical of the reprioritized list, Hill noted in response, “It’s been difficult, challenging, but we think we’ve hit on the right balance,” with facilities up and down the state that have been long neglected and need to be replaced.
Hill said the approved list is going to the Judicial Council in November.
LeVier told Lake County News that the next step will be for the Judicial Council to approve the list and send the final report to the Legislature, which the Judicial Council reported that it expects to do by the end of December.
“Once that is complete, the next challenge will be to secure funding for the Lakeport project. Despite being ranked as the highest need in the state, there is a possibility other lower ranked projects will be funded first,” LeVier said.
She said the methodology adopted related to funding decisions allows the Judicial Council broad discretion in determining which projects will be funded. “The Court has argued that there should not be such broad discretion and more weight should be given to the need based scores in funding decisions.”
The need for a new Lakeport courthouse has been recognized for more than a decade.
In July 2008, the state Administrative Office of the Courts submitted 18 trial court funding projects to the state's Department of Finance, among them the Lake County project, listed then – as now – as an immediate need project. Originally, Lake County’s new courthouse was slated to be funded at an anticipated cost of $70.8 million.
A state report found Lakeport’s existing court facility – consisting of four courtrooms and offices in 15,332 square feet on the fourth floor of the courthouse building at 255 N. Forbes St. – to be “severely overcrowded, poorly serves the growing needs of the superior court and lack of basic security features causes unnecessary risk to the staff and public who use this building.”
Little has changed since then, with jurors, witnesses, attorneys and other members of the public frequently crowded in the facility's hallways, and bailiffs needing to move people to bring in lines of inmates from the Lake County Jail.
The Judicial Council purchased land for the project in 2011 on Lakeport Boulevard, but the project – like many others across the state – was put on hold due to the state’s budget crisis during the Great Recession.
Now, with a renewed process under way that’s using a new methodology to prioritize projects, LeVier said, “The Court has been working with the Judicial Council for many months to ensure that our facility needs are accurately reflected and scored correctly in this new methodology. Judicial Council staff, consultants, architects and others have visited the building during this process.”
She called the new scoring methodology “a valid, objective, needs based system to determine the courthouse facility needs across the state.”
Updated list changes some rankings
Lake, Kern and Los Angeles counties each have two projects among the 18 “immediate need” projects included in the newly approved courthouse facilities list.
Mendocino County’s new Ukiah courthouse, expected to cost $89.6 million, came in at No. 2 on the latest list, now in the immediate need category, whereas previously it was No. 5 and in the critical need category.
Lake County’s Clearlake courthouse also originally had been in the critical need group before moving into the immediate need ranking in the latest list.
Among Lake’s other neighboring counties, Sonoma County’s new civil courthouse, with a $102.8 million project cost, in included in the critical need category, while the $17.4 million Colusa Courthouse annex renovation was ranked in medium need and the Yolo County Superior Court renovation, at $900,000, was listed as low need.
Lake County’s Lakeport courthouse project also had topped an earlier priority list released Aug. 29, at which time it was one of only four immediate need projects. It remained in the top spot despite some shuffling that led to another 14 projects being added to the immediate need ranking and some other projects dropping lower in the list.
During Tuesday’s Court Facilities Advisory Committee meeting, members explained that since the list was released in August, the public had submitted comments totaling hundreds of pages of information.
The result was more than 120 corrections to the scorecard of courthouse projects, a process that’s continuing in October.
Among the courts proposing projects, 12 have submitted corrections to their narratives and other information in their court facility plans and three courts changed proposed project scopes or court priorities. The final drafts of all of the court facility plans will be submitted to the state in November.
Questions posed regarding process
On Tuesday, the committee heard from several community leaders, residents, judges and court staff from counties including Alameda, Inyo, Los Angeles, Monterey, Nevada and Plumas, raising issues that ranged from locations to rankings, seismic concerns and the need for their community members to have access to courthouses.
Monterey County Supervisor Chris Lopez told the committee it was disconcerting to see the new south Monterey County project, at $27.9 million, falling farther down the list into the “high need” category, with rural residents needing access.
Lopez said the Monterey County Superior Court has told community members that the information about the proposed project for their south county facility isn’t available, and he asked that the committee take another look at the methodology.
Monterey County’s Ford Ord courthouse, at $130.1 million, came in at No. 5 and is among the immediate need projects.
However, another Monterey County Board of Supervisors member, Luis Alejo, told the committee in a letter that he was “surprised and disappointed” to see the Ford Ord project ranked in priority over the south county project.
“South Monterey County has been standing in line for many years for a courthouse to replace the King City Courthouse that was closed by the Monterey County Superior Court in 2013 during the height of the Great Recession,” Alejo wrote. “If the draft prioritization is left in place, it is likely that South County residents will continue to be denied equal access to justice.”
Judge Kevin Brazile of Los Angeles County also raised issues with the methodology, which he wanted fine-tuned to better serve large courts.
The Los Angeles Superior Court is the largest superior court in the state and the nation, with a portfolio of 39 courthouses, serving 10 million citizens in Los Angeles County, according to Brazile’s testimony.
Los Angeles has 17 courthouse projects on the list, including two ranked as immediate need, nine in critical need, one in high need and five in medium need.
While Brazile voiced concerns about the methodology, he nevertheless told the committee – which he said had heeded previous input he has given – “These most recent changes have made a significant improvement in reflecting the needs and priorities of our courts.”
Inyo County Superior Court Executive Officer Pamela Foster told the committee that their $43.8 million project, now listed in the critical need category, has been in the process for a very long time, with the land purchase under way when the process previously was halted due to lack of funding.
In the August list, the Inyo County courthouse project was listed at No. 13 in priority, and was reranked to No. 28 in the latest list, although both times it was in the critical need category.
Foster said every project on the list is needed, but called the latest priority list a “drastic reshuffling,” and she wanted a better understanding of how the projects were reranked.
In reply, HIll said that even though they had to rank the projects, “All of these projects need to be built and we’re going to the Legislature with that in mind.”
Next steps and more questions
Courtney gave the committee an update, explaining that the evaluation process is continuing both because of the amount of public input and the need to submit a report to the Judicial Council in November. His report also summarized the methodology changes and the scoring system.
The committee voted to recommend that the drafts of the revised methodology and statewide list be submitted to the Judicial Council in November for approval, and to delegate to the chair and vice chair the review of the final report to the council.
There are still considerable questions that the process ahead, including just which projects will ultimately be funded.
In a letter dated Sept. 30 and signed by both LeVier and Lake County Superior Court Presiding Judge Michael Lunas, they urged the committee to follow the methodology and said it should be the basis of funding decisions.
“What is the point of a need based methodology and ranking, if there is no requirement that the need based score be used in funding decisions? If you have the highest need, but are never funded, is that just or fair?” Lunas and LeVier asked in the letter.
They also maintained that it isn’t appropriate for a project in the critical need or lower categories to be funded over an immediate need project “simply because the court is in an affluent county where land donation or other financial incentives are available to the project. A small, poor county certainly is less likely to have an economic opportunity available, aside from perhaps the consolidation of court facilities. The fact does not diminish the need for a project.”
There is one other key concern for the Lake County Superior Court – draft language in the committee’s latest report that would allow the Judicial Council to unilaterally exclude single-courtroom facilities, which would impact the Clearlake project directly. Lunas and LeVier said they oppose the language.
The letter explained, “if a new four courtroom facility is built in Lakeport and subsequently the Judicial Council determines not to build a single-courtroom facility in Clearlake, the court will be in the unenviable situation where the new building is not large enough to consolidate and there is no long term solution for the single-courtroom building’s facility needs.”
More information about the state’s courthouse construction process can be found here.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – The Good Farm Fund is pleased to announce its 2019 farm grant cycle is now open.
This year Good Farm Fund will provide the largest round of farm grant funding in its history, $50,000, to support local farms and ranches.
The goal of the Good Farm Fund grants is to provide economic development assistance for small food producers in Mendocino and Lake counties and increase access to fresh local food in our community’s food system.
Interested applicants can download a copy of the application and guidelines from the Good Farm Fund’s website. All applications are due by Oct. 15, 2019.
In addition to demonstrating financial need, strong candidates will demonstrate how their proposed project will maximize food production for local consumption, provide affordable food for all people in the community and apply environmentally beneficial farming and/or ranching practices.
This year the Good Farm Fund will be funding two different grant tiers for single farm applications, a multiple farm application level, as well as a special grant category for Lake County farms.
Grant tiers
Grant applications can be made in one of two tiers for single farm applications, $500 to $4,000 projects and larger projects ranging from $4,000 to $7,000.
Large project grants are funded by foundation sponsors Frey Vineyards and Sonoma Clean Power. Should multiple farms opt to file for a large project that would serve the wider agricultural community we will also consider multi-farm applications in the $4,000-$14,000 range.
Lake County grant
This year they also have targeted grant funds from Redwood Credit Union for Lake County farmers (up to $10,000).
For questions about the grant process, contact Kelly Hansen at 707-467-3200, Extension 283, or at
The Good Farm Fund was created in 2015 as a collective way for our community to directly support local farmers and increase local food security for all.
According to past grant awardee and rancher Ruthie King, “Getting our business up and running has been a work of passion and perseverance. Every dollar in our first years is critical, and we were limited in scaling up our livestock operation by a lack of infrastructure. The Good Farm Fund grant allowed us to purchase a trailer for hauling animals and feed, and our business is thriving thanks to that major support.”
The 2019 grants will be awarded at Good Farm Fund’s winter feast, which will be held on Tuesday, Dec. 10, at the Barra Wine Event Center in Redwood Valley. This annual event sells out early, so grab your tickets early. Online tickets are available now on Brown Paper Tickets.
