Fred A. Zak was born in Eureka on June 12, 1949. He passed away in Eureka on May 11.

He grew up in Eureka, in the neighborhood around 16th and S streets with lifelong friends Jeff Nissen and Dave Ball, enjoying all kinds of sports, especially home run derby whiffle ball, duck hunting along with a few more mischievous activities. He attended Franklin Elementary, Eureka Junior and Senior High Schools, graduating in 1968.

Fred excelled in football and track in high school, where he is remembered for his speed and sure hands as a wide receiver and running the hurdles in track. He went on to play football at CR. He then attended Humboldt, studying environmental health.

During this period of his life, he took time off from studies to work in Lake Tahoe and to move to Green Bay, Wisconsin to experience the cold winters, which he loved, and his favorite team, the Packers. After a couple of years, he returned to the west coast, settling in Portland where he completed an environmental health and safety degree. This led to a job as a health and safety inspector at the Hanford Nuclear Site in Richland, Wash. This was the site of the first full scale plutonium production reactor in the world, and the source of the plutonium used in the first atomic bomb. Fred was involved in the largest environmental cleanup ever undertaken, which is still in progress.

After 10 years of exposure to the hazards at Hanford, Fred moved on to Monroe, Wash. for a job as a safety inspector at the Monroe Correctional Complex, one of the largest prisons in Washington. Fred worked there until he retired in 2017, at which time he returned to Eureka, purchasing his childhood home, where he lived the rest of his life.

Fred never married. He leaves behind a niece, April Hicks and her husband Steve in Boise, Idaho and several lifelong friends, including Jeff Nissen, Larry Matson and Dane Hart, who cared for him in his struggles with cancer over the last couple of years. Fred was preceded in death by his parents, Geri and Tony Zak, his sister Debbie and his stepbrothers, Joe and Jim.

Fred will be remembered as a loyal friend who would do anything for you and a stubborn, determined nature that allowed him to stick to his guns in all situations. You can almost imagine the stories this will lead to when friends gather to celebrate his life over a couple of beers.

Click play above, and stand by …

… for news!

ADDITIONAL READING:

• Hey, Where Did Our Bird E-Scooters Go? Struggling Company Has Flown From Eureka, Fortuna
• Murray Road 76 Station Held Up at Gunpoint Just After Midnight, Sheriff’s Office Says; Deputies Seeking Heavyset Male Captured on Security Cam
• BREAKING: Mad River Hospital Announces That It’s Looking to Sell to SoCal-Based Hospital Company
• Swain Slough Bridge Closure
• Del Norte Supes to Consider Agreement With Klamath River Renewal Corporation; Sediment Following Dam Removal Still A Concern
• BEAR CUBS: The Zoo Now Has Two New, ‘Non-Releasable’ Bear Cubs Gracing the New Bear Habitat

###

It must have been the springtime chirping of so many real birds that made us finally notice the absence of their two-wheeled namesake — the fleet of Bird electric scooters that migrated into Fortuna in late 2021 and into Eureka a few months later. 

For a while there, Outpost employees and other residents could be seen zipping around Old Town on the app-activated devices, twisting the handlebar accelerator to reach the scooters’ max speed of 15 miles per hour on our daily commutes — or maybe just a joyride. 

The scooters were scattered all over the sidewalks … until they weren’t. We emailed the company to ask what happened, and in response we got a prepared statement confirming that they’ve flown the coop.

“Unfortunately, we do not see an immediate path to supporting our near-term requirements for building an enduring business in Eureka,” Bird Government Partnerships Manager Garrett Gronowski says in the statement. “As a result, we will be removing our operations in the community.”

Same applies in Fortuna, he said.

The Santa Monica-based “shared micromobility company” experienced a meteoric rise, reaching a billion-dollar “unicorn” valuation within a year of launching, and eventually partnering with more than 300 cities worldwide. When Bird scooters arrived in Fortuna mid-pandemic, the company billed its devices as “a naturally socially distanced way to get around.”

In a presentation to the Eureka City Council last April a Bird rep said, “Our mission is to improve the quality of life in cities by reducing traffic congestion, improving air quality and providing affordable and reliable alternative transportation options.”

Alas, like many Silicon Valley phenomenons before it, the company’s fortunes reversed nearly as quickly. In 2022, after admitting that it had overstated revenue for more than two years, Bird laid off nearly a quarter of its employees as it faced the prospect of bankruptcy, or even going out of business altogether. 

In recent months Bird has pulled its scooters out of numerous cities, including San Francisco. 

Eureka City Manager Miles Slattery said he saw the writing on the wall months ago, but he’s nonetheless disappointed about the loss of an eco-friendly transportation option for city residents. A bike-sharing company that briefly partnered with the city has also gone away.

“We need to find a vendor that’s going to be good for everybody,” Slattery said, referring to neighboring communities and their residents … . “We need to find a solution for the whole region so you can utilize the [Bay Trail] and have that consistency.

Slattery said city staff will continue to work with the City of Arcata and the County of Humboldt in an effort to develop more clean transportation options.

Press release from the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office:

On May 23, 2023, at about 12:28 a.m., Humboldt County Sheriff’s deputies were dispatched to a business on the 1000 block of Murray Road in McKinleyville for the report of an armed robbery.

According to an employee of the business, an unknown male suspect reportedly entered the business and brandished a firearm at the employee, demanding cash. The suspect then fled the store on foot.

The suspect is described as a heavyset male, approximately 5’8” to 5’10” tall, last seen wearing a blue hooded Carhart jacket, dark pants and a red bandana over his face.

This case is still under investigation. Anyone with information about this case or the identity and whereabouts of the suspect is encouraged to call the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office at (707) 445-7251 or the Sheriff’s Office Crime Tip line at (707) 268-2539, reference case number 202302378.

Press release from the Sequoia Park Zoo:

In partnership with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and Lake Tahoe Wildlife Care (LTWC), the Sequoia Park Zoo is excited to announce that two non-releasable bear cubs, currently known as “Oak” and “Tule”, have officially moved into the Zoo’s new Bear and Coyote habitat. The cubs will not be visible to guests - but might be heard playing behind-the-scenes in the care quarters - while they become acclimated to their new home. Animal care staff will monitor the health and comfort of the cubs over the next month, a standard practice among zoos, before introducing them to visitors. Guests can expect to start seeing the cubs in late June.

Oak and Tule were rescued by Lake Tahoe Wildlife Care in Spring 2022 and have grown up and bonded together during their year-long rehabilitation. Oak weighed 6.5 lbs when she was found orphaned in Oak Run, California, in early May 2022. Unfortunately, Oak never displayed the appropriate fear response to humans, despite the best efforts of her care team to prepare her for life in the wild. 

Tule (pronounced Too-Lee) was only weeks old when he was found in April 2022 on the Tule River Nation Reservation. The local community spent several days searching for his mother but were unable to locate her, and the Tule River Tribal Police Department transported him to LTWC for rehabilitation. Tule’s initial exam revealed that he weighed only 3.7 lbs and had a variety of health issues. Veterinary staff consulted with specialists from around the world about his unique case. Although most of his health issues are resolved, tests and medical exams determined that Tule’s coat will not regrow, which is essential for him to survive in the wild. Due to their conditions, CDFW determined that both cubs were non-releasable.

Oak and Tule were the first orphaned bear cubs admitted to LTWC in the Spring 2022 season. On the LTWC webcam, they have often been seen wrestling, chasing, and socializing with each other. We thank Lake Tahoe Wildlife Care for their hard work and dedication to Oak and Tule, and we are deeply grateful to Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria for their generous support of the new habitat. The Sequoia Park Zoo looks forward to fostering Oak and Tule’s continued friendship and growth and sharing their stories with our guests.

Every year, the state of California must find homes for a small population of animals that are deemed non-releasable. Facilities like the Sequoia Park Zoo play an important role in providing permanent homes for non-releasable animals and creating educational opportunities to learn about conserving and living with wildlife.

Oak and Tule goofing around in their former home at Lake Tahoe Wildlife Care.

Starting in 2021, California took more of an interest in constructing affordable student housing. Since then it’s been a roller coaster ride.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers last year agreed to distribute $4 billion to the state’s three higher education systems with a mix of loans and grants through 2024-25 — which would add at least 20,000 beds at affordable rents. Fast forward to January 2023 and California’s facing a then-$22.5 billion deficit, and his administration wanted to delay some of the money by at least a year.

Now, with his revised May budget, Newsom wants to restore some of the money he wanted delayed. But other housing funds would still be delayed. In that time, the state budget hole has grown to $31.5 billion.

Here’s the latest on what you need to know about a pot of $4 billion.

What is this pot of $4 billion?

Well technically it’s two pots, or two pots nested within one larger pot.

Pot one is roughly $2.2 billion in grants for University of California, California State University and California Community Colleges.

Pot two is $1.8 billion in loans for the same systems.

So what’s new?

Newsom this month found a new way to fund pot one, overruling his January plan to delay $250 million in state grants to build dorms with low rents.

The move would mean the University of California and California State University get all the grant money they were promised without delay in 2023-24, while community colleges would receive all but $95 million and the rest the following year.

But Newsom still wants to delay by a year $1.8 billion in affordable student housing loans for campuses — that’s pot two.

What were the original plans for the $4 billion?

The money is the total of two programs — pots one and two — that were birthed in the last two years of state budgets.

The state’s interest in student housing is new, a response to the hundreds of thousands of college students in desperate pursuit of affordable homes. The supersized down payment on more affordable beds underscores the changing attitudes about college affordability and what the government’s role should be in helping students cover not just tuition, but the total cost of attending school — including housing.

While the UC and CSU have historically self-financed their own student housing, this money is designed to help the campuses provide students less expensive housing.

So far, about $1.4 billion in grants has been doled out to the systems — all part of the 2022 state budget. Last year’s budget promised another $750 million in housing grants to the UC, CSU and community colleges in the spending plan due in June.

Annual rent for dorm beds built with these grant dollars will be 15% of a county’s “area median income” — so about $800 a month in Los Angeles.

Also in last year’s budget deal was a plan to distribute zero-interest loans to the UC, CSU and community colleges in 2023-24 and 2024-25 totaling $1.8 billion.

The idea is that the campuses take the money, build affordable dorms — though what affordable means isn’t yet defined — and then repay the debt over time with student rent. Eventually, the pot is refilled, allowing the state to underwrite future campus construction for student, staff and faculty housing.

What happened between January and May?

With a then-projected state deficit of $22.5 billion, Newsom started off the budget negotiating season in January by proposing to delay the timeline of the 2022-23 budget deal with lawmakers. Rather than issuing $750 million in grants for 2023-24, the governor wanted to instead send $500 million this fiscal year and the remaining $250 million next fiscal year.

He also proposed stalling the zero-interest loan program by sending the campuses no money in 2023-24 and instead distributing the loan dollars in the subsequent two years.

But in his May revision to the budget, Newsom pursued a different tack that simultaneously frees the state from $1.1 billion in immediate financial obligation and sends all the housing grant money to the UC and CSU that last year’s budget deal promised, without delay.

Under the new plan, the UC and CSU would issue bonds to cover their entire share of the housing grant — both the amount they got for 2022-23 and the sum they were promised for 2023-24 — for a total of $1.1 billion.

The final price tag will be 1.4 times the cost of the projects than had the state supplied the money upfront.

California would cover the debt the UC and CSU would absorb, which the governor’s administration estimates to be about $30 million annually for the UC and $45 million for the CSU. The UC told members of the Assembly May 16 that if interest rates on borrowing rise, the UC would need to come back to lawmakers to get more than $30 million a year.While the bond route gives the state fiscal breathing room now, an analyst with the Legislative Analyst’s Office told senators last week that the final price tag will be 1.4 times the cost of the projects than had the state supplied the money upfront. The added costs are due to ongoing interest payments, adjusted for inflation. More UC and Cal State debt also eats into their ability to borrow for other projects. Still, the analyst called the debt-finance approach “reasonable.”

Will the loan program be funded this coming year?

The governor still wants the revolving loan program delayed by a year, something repeatedly rejected by lawmakers, including Assemblymember Kevin McCarty, a Democrat from Sacramento and chairperson of the budget subcommittee on education.

“We know if we’re going to get to the number one issue we talked about earlier, enrollment growth, we need the student housing to get there,” he said May 16. “We’ll be working of course with the administration and hope to come to a conclusion that allows us to not delay the student housing revolving loan fund.”

Nothing about the grant program’s required ultra-low rents would change. Nor would this shift in financing delay construction projects for student housing, UC and Newsom administration officials have said.

Seija Virtanen, a UC government relations senior official, said at a May 16 Assembly hearing that the UC is on track to enroll 8,000 new California undergraduates this fall, nearly double the 4,200 the system projected in March. While that responds to lawmaker pressure to have the UC educate more Californians after it kept its in-state student population flat this year, the enrollment growth underscores the system’s need to generate more housing as it pursues an aggressive expansion plan.

Lack of consensus over community college housing grants

The governor’s May plan for the housing grants ensures the community colleges get 50% of total money disbursed between 2022 and 2024, while Cal State gets 30% and UC receives 20%.

That breakdown has privately frustrated UC officials, who’ve implied the system, not the community colleges, have the experience to build student housing, a point previously echoed by legislative analysts.

A UC official told lawmakers in May that because the system received $389 million out of the total $437 million promised, the UC can only afford to develop one of the six new construction projects it submitted to lawmakers for review. Lawmakers would likely pick the projects the UC and Cal State could fund with the remaining dollars in upcoming budget bill language, a Newsom finance official wrote to CalMatters.

Diminishing what community colleges receive in housing dollars has been a theme in this year’s budget talks.

Most recently, a legislative analyst recently told senators that she recommends no new money goes to the community colleges for student housing. “For the community college projects, we recommend not doing any projects at this time, revisiting down the road,” Jennifer Pacella, deputy legislative analyst at the Legislative Analyst’s Office, said at a Senate hearing May 17. She said the state could distribute housing vouchers or other aid to students in need instead.

The senators present weren’t persuaded.

“It’s a strain when we have students competing with families to try to get access to the very small percentage of affordable housing we have across the state and particularly in places like L.A.,” said Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, a Democrat from Los Angeles.

Pacella also cautioned that her team predicts less overall state revenue than the governor’s office, meaning steeper cuts may be on the horizon anyway.

The community college system, for its part, has defended the allocation as important for their students, who are generally poorer than UC and CSU students, and also in dire need of housing. The state enrolls more community college students than those at the UC and CSU combined.

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

One of the joys of Dr. Sumana Reddy’s job as a family medicine doctor is seeing patients of all ages and walks of life.

Reddy runs a private practice with a couple of locations in Monterey County, and her patients include Salinas’ farmworkers, newborns, government workers, school teachers, and even some patients she delivered many years ago.

About 20% of her patients are covered by Medi-Cal, the state’s insurance program for low-income people. Ideally, she’d like to serve even more Medi-Cal patients, but the program’s low reimbursement rates have for many years limited how many of those patients she can see to break even. She enjoys treating patients, but she also has a business to run.

Now, recent investments in the state’s Medi-Cal program, including a newly proposed pay boost for primary care providers and others, is renewing Reddy’s excitement about the program. “It’s always been a juggle to accept the amount of Medi-Cal that will keep us solvent, basically,” Reddy said. “As the state makes commitments to support Medi-Cal, we can continue to expand the patients that we take.”

How much of an impact this particular reimbursement increase will actually have on patients’ access to care remains to be seen. But policy experts and providers say it’s a promising signal for a crucial program that provides health coverage for more than 15 million Californians.

Dr. Sumana Reddy demonstrates a Telehealth exam using Updox, a HIPPA-compliant video chat software, one of several programs her clinic relies on to meet with patients. During exams, Reddy will point to parts of her body to ensure she understands where her patients are experiencing discomfort. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters

Specifically, the state is looking to increase Medi-Cal reimbursement for providers in primary care, maternity care and non-specialty mental health care. This includes care provided by doctors, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and doulas. The proposal would increase what Medi-Cal pays for services rendered by these providers to 87.5% of what Medicare — the federal health insurance program for seniors and people with disabilities — pays for the same service.

Currently, Medi-Cal’s reimbursement for primary care and non-specialty mental health services is anywhere from 70% to 100% of what Medicare pays, according to the state’s Department of Health Care Services.

For instance, in San Francisco, Medicare pays about $108 for a basic doctor’s office visit. Medi-Cal pays $68 for that same visit.

Maternity care services are reimbursed on average 60% to 70% of Medicare rates.

Among most providers, Medicare is often considered the standard when it comes to pay, although some say that program still reimburses under cost for some services. And Medi-Cal typically pays even less.

Physicians have long argued that low Medi-Cal reimbursement is a key reason for the difficulty in attracting more doctors to underserved communities, where a large percentage of the population is on government-paid care. Meanwhile, hospitals blame, at least in part, low Medi-Cal pay for the current financial distress of some rural and independent hospitals.

“It does seem important that the state and the Medi-Cal program are recognizing that the program has just grown since the ACA (Affordable Care Act),” said Shannon McConville, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. “Medi-Cal is providing coverage to about 35% of the state’s population and as we continue to expand it and have it be the cornerstone of this idea that everyone has health coverage, it needs to be meaningful.”

How the department settled on the proposed rate increase was based on what the state found it could afford at this time, but rates may be further adjusted in future budgets, said Lindy Harrington, the assistant state Medicaid director at the Department of Health Care Services.

Harrington said these three areas of services — primary care, maternity and non-specialty mental health — were prioritized because of the state’s focus on prevention. If you can improve care on the front end, you have fewer people in need of acute, more expensive care.

Research shows that increasing funding in primary care results in better health and lower overall costs, yet the U.S. spends only about 5% to 7% of total health spending on primary care, with other countries spending twice as much.

“There is a specific focus on strengthening and supporting the (Medi-Cal) system,” Dr. Mark Ghaly, the state’s health secretary, said in a press call. And that support cannot be just about expanding eligibility, “but to also secure its foundation and financial bedrock.”

More money from health plan tax

Despite California’s projected deficit for 2023-24, the state’s health budget has remained mostly unscathed, with no major cuts or setbacks. The increased provider rates will be funded by revenue from a bigger tax on health insurance plans.

This tax on managed care plans, also known as the Managed Care Organization tax, allows the state to impose a per-member tax on Medi-Cal insurance plans and on commercial plans. Because Medi-Cal is jointly funded with state and federal money, California can then use that tax money to request matching federal dollars. The tax expired at the end of last year, and the state is looking to bring it back retroactively to April of this year.

That tax is expected to bring $19.4 billion to the state between April 2023 through the end of 2026. About $11 billion of those dollars will be used in part to pay for provider reimbursement increases.

Revenue from the managed care tax, and consequently the increased pay for providers, depends on the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approving the state’s proposal. The state must submit a formal request for the enhanced funding by the end of June.

“It’s always been a juggle to accept the amount of Medi-Cal that will keep us solvent, basically.”
— Dr. Sumana Reddy, family medicine doctor

But pouring more money into the Medi-Cal program comes with some caution. The independent Legislative Analyst’s Office warns that permanently increasing rates will add pressure to future budgets, especially if the proposed managed care tax arrangement doesn’t last beyond 2026.

“By committing a portion of the MCO tax for augmentations, the Legislature would have less flexibility to adjust spending priorities were the state’s budget situation to further deteriorate,” the Legislative Analyst’s Office wrote in its analysis of the proposal.

Rather than adopting permanent rate increases, the analyst’s office proposes temporary supplemental payments to Medi-Cal providers as a way to support the program but also provide a safety cushion in future budgets. Still, providers say a permanent rate increase has been long overdue, and they’d like to see more of it. This first step, securing more funding for the Medi-Cal program and its providers, at least allows these conversations to take place, said Erica Murray, president and CEO of the California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems. Health systems, which run hospitals and outpatient services through their clinics, are still analyzing what this increased reimbursement proposal would look like for them.

“There is no way, given the scope of how underfunded Medi-Cal is, that it’s going to be sufficient,” Murray said, “And it’s still necessary.”

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.