Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Amen. Thank you. Amen.

Roll call, please.

Here. Does this work?

There you go. Here you go. Here. Here. Here. Here.

All present. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, good morning and welcome to the Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026 meeting of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors. We're going to begin with the invocation and the flag salute. The invocation will be led by District 4. After the invocation, please remain standing for the flag salute.

Okay, it's my pleasure to welcome back Pastor Stuart Jones, who is the lead pastor at Crothers Nazarene Church. Pastor Stewart has lived in Fresno County since 1987. He has been in full ministry for 20 years. Pastor Stewart is married to his wife, Gigi, and they have three sons and three grandchildren. Welcome back, Pastor Stewart.

Thank you, Pastor.

Let's pray. Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day that you have given to us and the words that are upon the wall behind these supervisors in God we trust are not just words today. May they be our motto as this meeting goes on today. And Lord, we just ask that you would be with each thing that goes on today. We ask that for each person who comes up to this podium and who sits at their chairs, Lord, just may we do the will of the Father and for the best of our county. For Lord, this is a great county to live in and a great place to live. And so, Lord, we just thank you and we praise you for all that you do for us. And thank you for all your blessings. In Jesus' name, amen.

Please salute.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Agendas are on the back table for anyone wanting to follow along. And before I have the clerk read the first item, I just want to wish a happy birthday to my good friend and colleague, Supervisor Buddy Mendez. Happy birthday, sir. Thank you. He's 29 again. Couple of times. Madam Clerk.

Item number one, approve agenda. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, item number nine is deleted.

For approval of the remainder.

Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay passes unanimously.

Item number two approve consent agenda item numbers 20 through 45.

Okay, these matters are routine in nature, usually approved by a single vote. Would any board member like an item removed from consent for discussion? Okay, I'd like to pull item 43 for discussion. Any other members? I don't believe so. Okay, is there a motion and a second to approve?

Second.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Passes unanimously.

Mr. Chairman, item 43 will follow item four.

Yes, okay.

We now move to item number three under Board of Supervisors, Presentation of Retirement Plaque to Anthony Beltran, Department of Social Services, 26 years of service.

And Social Services is here to present.

Good morning, Chairman, members of the Board. Sonya Bugay, Department of Social Services. I'm here to present, actually, I'm going to hand it over to Enoch Perez, who is one of our managers over eligibility services, to present information about Anthony Beltran, who has been an eligibility worker and is ending his career as a supervisor in our department in our eligibility division. So, Enoch, I'll hand it over to you.

Thank you, director. Good morning, esteemed board. Today, just wanted to go over, Anthony has given his service to the county and community for more than 27 years. His career began on April 19th, 1999, and culminated in his well-deserved retirement on January 30th, 2026. Over two decades plus, Anthony served our community in a variety of impactful roles, including eligibility work, child specialist, appraisal, and social services program supervisor. From determining eligibility for vital programs such as CalFresh and Medi-Cal to guiding clients along the path towards self-sufficiency, Anthony worked touch thousands of lives from clients to staff he oversaw. No matter the assignment, he approached it with professionalism, compassion, and unwavering commitment to service. On a personal note, I had the opportunity to work with Anthony during his last tour with our department. In that time span, Anthony adapted quickly to his new role and assignment, providing leadership and stability to a team who was in flux. He was quick to volunteer to stay late to assist clients in the lobby to accepting new assignments as they came. Anthony, on behalf of the entire department, thank you for your dedication, your leadership, and unwavering commitment to serving our community. We are better and stronger because of the time, talent, and your heart that you gave to this organization.

Thank you.

So all I want to say is I usually don't approve of retirements. I understand it, but I don't approve. And staff that have been with us for a long time that have a significant amount of experience in our eligibility programs that are changing this year a whole lot and the complex rules. Anthony, thank you for your years of service and appreciate both the leadership in delivering the services and the training that you provided to our staff.

Thank you. Yeah, please. I just want to say thank you to all of you here. Thank you to my director, Sanjay Begay, and to my former boss, Enoch Perez. And I want to thank you for what you guys do. I had a great career. And I have a son, a family, and that's why really I retired. But I had a great career. DSS has been wonderful. And we do an awesome job. And so I just want to thank all of you.

Thank you. Any comments from the board? Thank you. Any comments from the public? Okay. Anthony, why don't you come up and take a photo with the board.

Congratulations.

Good morning. Good morning.

Thank you.

We now move Title No. 4 into Board of Supervisors, Presentation of Retired Plaque to Muali, Department of Social Services, 19 Years of Service.

And Social Services is here to present again.

And I'm here for the second one as well. And I will introduce Devinder Patel, who is our IT Division Manager for the retirement of Muali, who is one of our IT staff. And really good IT staff are hard to find, and we're losing a good one. So, Devinder, I'm going to give you a chance to present.

Thank you, Sanya. Respected Chair, members of the Board, distinguished guests, and honored colleagues, good morning. It is a profound honor to formally recognize Mr. Mua Lee for 19 years of distinguished and dedicated services to the Fresno County Department of Social Services. Since joining the department, Mr. Lee has served with exceptional professionalism as a business system analyst, providing steadfast leadership and technical expertise in support of the department's mission. Throughout his tenure, he has been an indispensable conduit between the Information Technology Division and the many program areas that serve our community. Mr. Lee has made significant and lasting contributions to the development, maintenance, and advancement of our critical information systems. His leadership of the appointment systems ensured efficient scheduling and timely access to services for Fresno County residents, and he played a vital role in supporting the department's imaging systems and essential application relied upon by our personal division. Mr. Lee's analytical acumen was essential during our major technological transitions, including the implementation of the new welfare system CALSOS, which included imaging systems and appointment modules, as well as the development of the advanced analytic systems. His mentorship of new business system analysts and his support of key applications, such as our CalSource imaging appointment system and Rushmore, further reflect his commitment to excellence. Beyond his technical expertise, Mr. Lee excelled at building strong professional relationships and partnering closely with staff across the department. He truly enjoyed working directly with the teams he supported, taking pride in understanding their needs and providing reliable, responsive and thoughtful assistance, his collaborative approach fostered trust and strengthened our operation throughout the organization. Mr. Lee's career reflects the highest standards of public service, enhancing the department's technological foundation, improving operational efficiency, and supporting thousands of staff in their efforts to serve Fresno County residents. We extend our deepest appreciation to Mr. Muali for his exemplary service, his professional integrity, and his enduring commitment to the Department of Social Services. We congratulate him on a distinguished career and offer our best wishes for continued success in all future endeavors. Thank you.

Thank you. Sir?

I just want to say a couple words. It's been a blessing and an honor to serve DSS for the last 19 years. So I want to say thank you to everyone and I'm happy to see some of my management today. So thank you.

Thank you. Any comments from the board?

Thank you.

Any comments from the public? Okay. Would you come on up and take a picture please?

Yep, family too, they're here.

Yeah.

Mr. Lee. Congratulations.

That's a cute little girl.

Thank you.

We now move to items that were pulled from this morning. Item 43, pulled by Chairman Bredefield, under social services, approve and authorize the Department of Social Service to contribute funds to participate in the Fresno Rainbow Pride Festival for fiscal year 2526 per administrative policy number 80.

I assume.

I'm available for questions.

Yeah, just a question. I reviewed the materials. The materials are fine to be handing out. I just want, on a couple of the events that you also attend, I see you have two that I wondered about, Transgender Day of Remembrance and Harvey Milk Day.

So we actually did not have that as a, we sent to Ron, so this is a department error, we sent to Ron incorrect list of community outreach events. They were not community outreach events. We have our staff are required, especially in our child welfare, to have trainings on serving our LGBTQ youth. So on a couple of those days, they were actually internal training events rather than a community outreach event.

Okay. So this is an error? Is that what you're saying? It is.

Okay. We have in the past, so with full transparency, in the past years, we have attended different events in this past year on both of those days. or actually one of those events was really a training event for our staff that qualifies for us for this meeting their obligation for statewide training.

Okay. And then just a question on your approval form. You said choosing not to participate in the Gay Pride Parade could impact established relationships that you have. I was just wondering how would that impact? If you didn't attend.

We actually have, as a department, we participate in the, so I apologize for completion of the form the way it was completed. Our staff have participated, not as DSS staff, but on their own. We participate in the resource fair portion of the event, and that part of the event is really about us distributing materials, ourselves learning about what's available, and educating the community and our community providers about the services. Staff do participate and sometimes support their youth that are, especially our LGBTQ youth that are in foster care, but I don't believe it actually impacts our commitment to the community or services that we provide. Okay. Any other questions?

Well, yeah, so I was looking at some materials as well about different internal events that the department celebrated, but you just actually answered a lot of my questions because one of the things I was going to ask was I mean there's a lot of different holidays that and campaigns that bring awareness to things like there's hate crime awareness week which I believe takes place in October we had crime victims week which takes place in April I didn't see those specifically on you know on the the chart that I had access to but what I'm hearing is some of that might be errors and there's maybe more things that we participate in that aren't on that sheet.

As a department, we haven't been always keeping track of every event, and we have been combining both the community outreach events, internal training events, and then resource fairs. And after the Policy 80 and 81, it is really for the community outreach events, we're actually taking the items in. Some of the events that are trainings, we're still tracking and doing the participation. A, there were lists that were combined as part one. The other piece of it is depending on the event, so while we do celebrations when it comes to staff piece of it, the things that we track that count for our training and education is the piece that's more important because it actually, it covers the obligation that we have to the state when it comes to training of our staff.

When it comes to licensing and requirements of the state, I get it. I just wanna make sure that where there is discretion on what we participate in, that we are as inclusive as possible and we just don't focus in on segments of the population. I wanna make sure that the resources we have, which are limited, everyone here in the community knows it's available to all. So that's my goal.

That is our intent. Our participation in events has varied, and I actually really want to take this opportunity to really say, in the years when we have significant program changes and we're in the year for both Medi-Cal and CalFresh, there's a significant program change that our participation is usually up, simply because we want both the community to be aware but also the partner agencies that we work with to be aware so that information going to the community is equivalent across the board. I do really want to take this opportunity to take and say our CalFresh employment and training, work requirements changes went into effect yesterday, June 1st. So there's a lot of media, a lot of questions, a lot of confusion that we've taken an opportunity to work with both our PIO office but do some interviews but also really participate in the events to educate both the community and our community-based organizations so the information, so we're not flooded with both the questions and people walking in when they're not necessary. So thank you for giving me that chance to say that.

Any other questions from the board?

Just a quick comment. Thank you, Sonia, for attending the event. My staff will be there as well with resources, and you're right. I think that's probably been one of the most questions we've gotten, like what are the changes on June 1st. So it will be a great opportunity to reach close to 20,000 folks that will come through the event there. But thank you and your team for doing that outreach.

Okay, anyone else? Any comments from the public? Yes, come on up please.

Most important thing is I want to take this opportunity to thank DSS for their tremendous work and I know that with CalFresh there's even more on their shoulders that should not have to be but I appreciate the work that they are doing and also their willingness to go to these events to take Saturdays to be able to serve our community. I want to note that, you know, even though you mentioned that it's a segment, that this serves a lot of people. There are a lot of allies, a lot of community members that go to these events. And while I believe that it's important to support our LGBT community because of the shows of lack of support that make this support so much more significant, that this actually supports so much our community. The educational materials are absolutely invaluable that is that they mentioned that is being placed here like domestic violence assistance with homelessness employment. We should be supporting the Department of Social Security in tabling and I want to note that this shouldn't necessarily have to be approved and it's a disgrace that AB 80 that they the board is not trusting the decision making for such things with our capable and qualified department leadership who work closely with the community and their staff that works hard to identify how to meet their goals and represent their department. And even when there's elements where there's disagreements with what the supervisors think should be on those tables, they know better what is professional, what is needed, what will help them meet their goals. And I appreciate them and the work that they've done. I'm also concerned that with these approvals that there may be ways that they may be reaching out but may not do so because it may not be approved but it would benefit our community. But I assume that we are approving this and I thank you for that and I thank the DSS for participating in this as well as all the departments. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Got a motion to approve.

I'll second that.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously.

That concludes all our consent items that were pulled. We return to the regular agenda under administrative office number five conduct first hearing to amend the master schedule fees charge and recover costs ordinance by amending section 4400 county administrative office subsection 4401 and waive the reading of the ordinance in its entirety and set the second hearing for June 16, 2026. Designate county council to prepare a fair and adequate summary of the proposed ordinance and direct the clerk of the board to post and publish the required summary in accordance with the government code section 25124B1.

Good morning Board of Supervisors. The item before you today, or Jocelyn Cruz, program manager for budget with the CEO's office. The item before you today proposes to amend the master schedule of fees for the county administrative office. As the rates were last approved in fiscal year 2020, the proposed amendment includes the addition and removal of job classifications to align with CAO operations, as well as adjustments to hourly rates to reflect current salaries and benefit costs and departmental overhead. For existing positions, the largest increase is 8.8%. The proposed rates are intended to ensure adequate cost recovery for services provided to third-party funded departments and non-county public agencies. There is no increase to NCC associated with this item. If approved, the second hearing will be scheduled for June 16, 2026. I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Any comments from the board? Any comments from the public? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. Is there a motion?

Motion.

Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously.

We now move to item number six. Under the Administrative Office, consider and take action on requests for determination of public convenience or necessity in regard to application for alcoholic beverage license type 20 filed by Mr. Saleem to be used at 10788 Morrow Avenue, Delray, California.

Welcome. Good morning, supervisors. Ron Alexander with the administrative office. Happy birthday, buddy. 29, look good. Is that right? As the clerk mentioned, this is an application for a Type 20 ABC license, which authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption off of the premises we're sold. Management directive states that in order to make a determination of public communication necessity, these three criteria must be met. It will provide a needed service to the community. It won't tend to create a law enforcement problem and have a positive impact on the local economy. The applicant has provided a written response to those criteria. It's in your packet. Public Works was contacted. There are no zoning issues with this application, and the Sheriff's Office has been contacted and reviewed this application as well. The applicant is in census tract 69. Two off-cell licenses are allowed within the census tract. Currently there are three existing licenses. So ABC may approve this license if your board approves public convenience or necessity. This is a map of the census tract depicted there in tan. And this depicts the location of all the existing licensees. As you can see, there's one note that says existing location. The current licenses at that location is doing a premise-to-premise change to the location next to a building next to them. So the owner of this building is now going to reopen the grocery store and is applying for this license now. This is an aerial view of the applicant's location. And we have the storefront, the northeast view, southeast view, northwest view, and the southwest view. And again, here are the criteria to meet public convenience or necessity. That concludes my presentation, and I'm available for questions.

Any comments from the board? So what you're saying is there are only going to be two?

Well, this will make four, actually. So the existing license, he's moving that to the building next door so that the owner of the building...

Right, so there technically won't be any more if he's moving the license.

Well, the one license is moving, and it's still going to be an existing license. So this will increase the licenses to four.

Okay. Any other comments from the board? Any comments from the public? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. Is there a motion?

Yeah, I'll make a motion.

To approve?

Is there a second? I'll second.

All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously.

We now move to item number seven of the administrative office, accept the Fresno County Foster Care Standards and Oversight Committee and report for activities from July 1st, 2024 through June 30th, 2020-25. Okay.

Good morning, Chairman and members of the Board.

My name is Rosemary Alaniz, Chair of the Fresno County Foster Care Standards

and Oversight Committee. Today we are representing the Committee's annual report covering activities from July 2024 through June 2025. The Foster Care Standards and Oversight Committee was established by the Board of Supervisors in 2001 to provide oversight and promote communication between the Board, the Department of Social Services, and community agencies, and the public regarding child welfare system. Our mission is to support a more effective and efficient child welfare system through collaboration, community input, and recommendations focused on continuous system improvement. Throughout this reporting period, the committee continued to focus on improving outcomes for children and youth involved in foster care through collaboration with education partners, behavioral health providers, community organizations, and the Department of Social Services. The committee also continued its work through the Education and Children's Behavioral Health Subcommittee. The education subcommittee focused on issues related to school stability, chronic absenteeism, preschool enrollment, foster youth notifications, and educational advocacy. The committee reviewed data showing continued challenges in school stability and absenteeism for foster youth while also recognizing positive programs, positive progress, excuse me, and graduation rates and collaboration between collaborative programs supporting foster youth educational success. The Children's Behavioral Health Committee focused on mental health and behavioral health services impacting foster youth and children throughout Fresno County. Topics discussed through the year included crisis stabilization, stabilization services, therapeutic behavioral services, inpatient behavioral health service resources, adverse childhood experiences, human trafficking services, and behavioral health workforce development. The committee also identified goals for the upcoming year including reviewing child welfare data trends to support oversight efforts partnering with the Child Welfare Ombudsman to support proactive case review and continuing to strengthen educational coordination and communication for foster youth. In addition, the committee respectfully submits three recommendations to the board focused on continued support for CWS CARES implementation, strengthening kin-first family-centered care practices, and advancing trauma-informed care through the Child Well-Being Continuum and I can't pronounce the word, I'm sorry. Model of therapeutics. So before we continue, I believe you guys have a copy of our annual report. So I would like to revisit our 2425 goals for FCSOC. One of them is to be a resource to the Board of Supervisors initiatives to improve child welfare system. This includes the creation of countywide campaign to address the current shortages of social workers and resource family homes. Goal update, progress is ongoing. The Department of Social Services has improved. To proactively collaborate with the Board of Supervisors in the shared responsibility to find passionate and qualified candidates to fill the vacancies, which the goal is progress is ongoing and we want to thank you for referring chairman Bretta Feld for Krista Sharp who's now on our committee and continue to focus on the well-being of children in the child welfare system. So under all the bullet points providing educational advocacy and support more specifically advocating for better school stability and the reduction of school transfer when placement transitions occur. Goal update, this goal is not met. 24-25 stability rate decreased by .20%. Foster stability rate was 30% lower than the Fresno County overall student population. So that is the end of my report. At this time, I would like to invite the Department of Social Service to briefly discuss these recommendations. And we thank you and we respectfully request your board accept the Foster Care Standards and Oversight Committee Annual Report. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman and members of the Board, Dalvin Baker, Deputy Director, Department of Social Services, Child Welfare Branch. The department appreciates the continued partnership and support of the Foster Care Standards and Oversight Committee. One of the committee's recommendations is continued support for Fresno County's participation in the statewide implementation of CWS CARES. This transition represents a significant modernization effort for California's child welfare system and is focused on improving statewide coordination, data sharing, and service delivery for children and families. Our priority throughout implementation continues to be maintaining continuity of care and ensuring children and families continue receiving stable services during this transition. The committee's additional recommendations focus on strengthening kin-first family center practices and continuing to advance trauma-informed care through the Fresno County's child welfare system. Fresno County continues to prioritize placement with relatives and trusted adults whenever safe and appropriate to help preserve family connections, improve placement stability, and support better outcomes for children and youth. In addition, the department continues expanded trauma-informed practices through the Child Well-Being Continuum and the Neurosequential Model of Therapeutics, or NMT, to better align services with the developmental and emotional needs of children and youth in care. Together, these efforts support safety, stability, permanency, and long-term well-being for the children and families we serve. We are available for questions. Thank you.

Any questions from or comments from the board? I have just a question for the chair of the committee. Come on, yep, come on up. Yeah, I just wanna make sure there was concerns about your committee's role is to be oversight.

Right.

Do you feel that that's happening now, because you expressed concerns that that was difficult to provide the oversight. Where are you at with that at this juncture?

I think after the incident that happened previously several months ago, I think we're in a better position to ask what we need and we are getting the information what we need, the data that we need. So it's a stronger collaboration together, working together to get the information and make sure that Everything's functioning the way it's supposed to.

Okay. And so you're more settled and resolved about some of the concerns that you had before?

Mm-hmm. Okay. Open communication.

Yes. Good to hear. I mean, because you do have a very important role as oversight. Right. And we encourage you to have that role.

Right. Okay. Right. And we're very honored to sit on this committee.

Great.

Okay. It's first.

Yes, Supervisor Chavez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Alanis, for the work that you've been doing on our committee. And thank you to our staff and our team. For point number two on the kin first family center, Karen, I don't know, maybe this is a question for Dalvin or Sonia. When we're providing services for obviously our priority being for them to be with a family member, is it services for the whole family or is it just for the child that we're focusing on?

Good question. So yes, we're actually looking at services for the whole family. So that would include the relative placement provider or even a resource family mentor. So we're assessing the whole situation and providing services where needed.

Good. I just want to make sure that we had that for the benefit of the public. And then last question to our CAO. I know that in the previous meetings, we gave direction to go forward with the audit. Any progress on that conversation, CAO?

Yeah, good morning, Paul Nerland, your CAO. We have, through good work with the California Department of Social Services, they have agreed to conduct that audit. They have sent the engagement letter, and they are going to be coming on site to do that. So that is in progress as we speak.

Right, thank you. And thank you for you and the committee members for the work that you guys do.

Before I leave, Neil Sequential.

neo-sequential oh is that's the word you were trying to say okay that's very important thank you i appreciate it yeah we appreciate all the work that you do all the committee members appreciate our staff and all the work you do you have a tough job with so many folks to help and oversee so we appreciate that any comments from the public Seeing none, is there a motion and a second to accept this report? Oh, I'm sorry? Somebody has a question. Yeah, come on up.

Hector Sandoval for the people. I just want to thank them for what they do and always want to say that you're interested in our day-to-day, our future, and our betterment for tomorrow. And we ask that when you don't find the answer, that you look deep down inside and why you took the role you did.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone else from the public?

Make a motion.

Okay.

Motion to approve.

Is there a second? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

We now move to item number eight under the administrative office. Adopt and authorize chairman to execute a resolution approving the recommended budget of the county of Fresno for the period between July 1st, 2026 and the Board of Supervisors adoption of the fiscal year 2627 final recommended budget of the county.

Good morning, Board. Paige Benavidez, County Administrative Office. This item comes before your board each year in June of the fiscal year. The recommended action is to approve the recommended budget for the period of July 1st, 2026 through the adoption of the final budget in September. The recommended appropriations and revenues are based on the adjusted fiscal year 25-26 budget to provide appropriations for county operations to continue until the final adopted budget is approved. Budget hearings will be held the week of September 14th and holding budget hearings in September allows for the closing of the previous fiscal year books and the calculation of actual available fund balance for the following fiscal year. It also allows departments to account for the impacts of the state budget which, as you know, is adopted by the legislature mid-June. Actual assessed property value also becomes available by the end of June, and as you know, assessed value impacts approximately 80% of total countywide ongoing revenue. With respect to the state budget, the governor's May revision provided only 87 million from the state general fund to partially address the impacts of HR1, the one big beautiful bill. This falls short of the 1.9 billion requested by counties through CSAC. And one of the administration's proposed revenue solutions is to expand sales and use tax base to include digital pre-written software sales. And at one point the administration suggested that counties use this increase in local sales tax revenues to address the impacts of HR1. However, CSAC estimates that only approximately 13 million would be generated for counties statewide in fiscal year 26-27. And that tax would likely increase costs for the counties as counties are large users of pre-written software. While we are still a couple weeks away from the expected vote on the legislative budget bill, the Senate's budget proposal notably addresses some of the HR1 impacts by increasing funding for county eligibility of Medi-Cal and CalFresh. The Senate's budget plan does not include any funding for county indigent care or behavioral health programs. However, the Assembly's budget proposal includes $250.4 million in general fund over two years to establish an emergency services only county indigent care program. With respect to our county revenue outlook, sales tax revenues have improved slightly over the prior year. They continue to generally remain flat. But increases in our costs continue to outpace our revenue growth. And at this time, I'll turn it over to Paul to discuss that further.

Yeah, I think, although I appreciate the, we talk about the state budget, some of the progress that is happening with the Assembly and the Senate, the $250 million that is put aside to help establish an emergency-only fund to help with the indigent care program that counties must establish. To put that in perspective, the county's obligations for the indigent care program are estimated to range between $40 and $240 million just in Fresno County. So the state putting aside $250 million for the whole state over two years is a start, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs that we will face. As our whole community is facing, we continue to have rising costs with slowing revenues from fuel to every other contract that we are experiencing. I want to talk directly to our departments who are right now looking at 5% proposed cuts compared to last year for net county cost as we prepare for that budget. For my department heads who are listening, I want to thank you for the hard work that you're doing. But also for doing more with less. I know that it's not easy, but during times like this, we need to be creative and find ways to do more with what we have. More difficult choices remain, though, to close our budget shortfall. And for that reason, I asked departments to look at how to be more efficient at what we do. The recommended budget that we will bring your board in September will focus on your board's top priorities, but difficult choices remain. To our employees who are listening, you are the backbone of our organization. I want to thank you for your hard work. We've made progress the last few years on salaries and benefits and my hope is that after this fiscal year the economic environment that we're in improves. I do want to address a common question that comes up and it's about our county reserves as we look forward. The county really based on your board's LEADERSHIP AND GOOD FISCAL LEADERSHIP AND GOOD FISCAL STEWARDSHIP HAS BUILT UP A LEADERSHIP AND GOOD FISCAL STEWARDSHIP HAS BUILT UP A RESERVE OF ABOUT $90 MILLION STEWARDSHIP HAS BUILT UP A RESERVE OF ABOUT $90 MILLION AND THAT SOUNDS LIKE A RESERVE OF ABOUT $90 MILLION AND THAT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT, BUT IT'S ABOUT LESS AND THAT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT, BUT IT'S ABOUT LESS THAN HALF OF THE TARGET THAT LOT, BUT IT'S ABOUT LESS THAN HALF OF THE TARGET THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE. THAN HALF OF THE TARGET THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE. RESERVES ARE TYPICALLY USED WE WOULD LIKE TO BE. RESERVES ARE TYPICALLY USED IN EMERGENC If we do choose to look at an option like that, it also could affect our credit rating. The county enjoys a very good credit rating. We have a double A minus through Fitch, which they would describe as a very high credit quality, which in the future, if we were to need to borrow funds for facilities or future needs, could be good for us to be able to borrow at a low cost. Despite all these things, we will work and we will be presenting a balanced budget to your board in September. and we look forward to doing that and we will come to your board with solutions based on your board's priorities. But based on that, we're here to answer any questions that you may have.

Any comments from the board or questions? Supervisor Chavez.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you to our CAO for that sobering report. I know that there's a lot of conversations left, and yesterday we spoke with our team about what's going on up in the state legislature with the Senate and the Assembly and the Governor, and that conversation I think is yet to be determined, but also our federal cuts that are also coming down the pipeline. I do have some questions, but I'll reserve those when we get a better idea of what the budget will be. But my recommendation would be for us, and I'm really glad our CEO addressed our employees, is to be as transparent and upfront about what our finances are and what they are projected to be for the next couple of years. I think that will set realistic expectations for our folks. And I think we're just in that time period where I think I think everybody's going to have to get a haircut, so to speak. And that's just part of the process right now. But I think we can get there working with our employees and making sure we establish that relationship from the beginning with trust, transparency, and having productive conversations with them. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments from the board? Any comments from the public? Is there a motion and a second? Second by Supervisor Chavez. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously.

As mentioned earlier, item nine was deleted. We move on to item number 10 under Public Works and Planning. Adopt resolution to fill a supervising survey or position with Extra Help retiree Mark Meyer, part-time, effective June 2nd, 2026, finding pursuant to government code section 7522.56 , that a 180-day separation period for retired employee returning to employment as Extra Help is not applicable based on your board certification that the nature of employment and appointment is necessary to fill critically needed position before the 180-day separation period.

Good morning, Chairman. Steve White, Public Works and Planning Director. The request today is bring back an extra help employee, Mark Myers, a longstanding employee surveyor. We're having a real challenge filling that position right now. And bringing him back will help us get through the gap until we can work with personnel, maybe restructuring the way in which the job spec has described itself. So I'm here to answer any questions. Fully funded. We just need another surveyor.

Any comments, questions from the board? Real quick.

Go ahead. It's something that it's always needed because you end up with projects being way delayed because we never got a survey and we're still waiting to try to get a survey to get a project moving along. So I'm glad he's going to come back.

We're not going to let him go this time.

Okay.

Any comments from the public? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. Is there a motion to second?

Second.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Carries unanimously. Thank you.

We now move to item number 11. Under Public Works and Planning, conduct majority protest hearing and receive ballots from owners of property currently receiving sewer service in Fresno County Service Area 44A. Prior to close of such majority protest hearing is required under California Constitution Article 8D, Section 6, on a proposal to increase power standby charge assessments for such district. And upon completion of such majority protest hearing, approve item A or B as applicable as determined by the Board of Supervisors. A, if the Board... If Board finds that there is not a majority protest against such proposal to increase water stand-by charge assessments, Board may adopt a resolution authorizing proposed increases in sewer stand-by charge assessments for Fresno County Service Area 44A, effective July 1, 2026. Or B, if Board finds that there is a majority protest against such proposal to increase sewer stand-by charge assessments, make determination that there is such a majority protest in abandoned proceedings regarding such proposal to increase sewer stand-by charge assessments and direct Department of Public Works implying to hold a public meeting with Fresno County Service Area 44A community to discuss immediate cost saving steps.

Thank you.

Go ahead. Good morning, Board Members. Chris Bump, Special Districts Manager for the Department of Public Works and Planning. The item before you today is a majority protest hearing on a proposed stand-by charge assessment for sewer services in County Service Area Number 44A, Millerton Mobile Home Village. CSA 44A was formed in 1992 to provide sewer services to Millerton Mobile Home Village, and it currently serves 99 parcels. The proposed assessments were determined through an engineer's report, which was accepted by your board on March 17, 2026, and the assessment is intended to fund operation and maintenance of the system, raise an appropriate reserve, and pay back unpaid charges. Throughout the Proposition 218 process for CSA 44A, staff have conducted four community outreach and education meetings with affected property owners. At the conclusion of staff's presentation and after addressing any questions the board may have, staff recommends that the board open the proceeding for public comment to receive testimony from those here today wishing to address the board in this proceeding.

and after the board receives public testimony staff will tabulate all the ballots that the clerk has received and then report the results back to the board that concludes my presentation i'm available for any questions okay any questions supervisor magazine i recognize that rates have not been adjusted for 19 years a question i have i know that there was a policy that was put into place to make sure that we maintain reserves and csa's Was that policy adhered to as soon as we started chewing into the reserves? Because we're at a point today where we've got to build back reserves, and like you say, there's other charges that need to be repaid. So what type of trigger mechanism is there so we don't hit residents all at once with huge increases? Because this is a 200-plus percent increase, again, recognizing it hasn't been adjusted since 2007.

Yeah, so the reserve policy of 50% of the last three years, O&M, of an average year, that is in place. It's typically looked at more as we're setting the rates for reserves to be met after the end of the five-year period for fees or, in this case, after five years as well. going below that level or even starting to have more expenses than revenues, those are triggers to start needing the Proposition 218 process. Unfortunately, in some instances, The revenues are drastically lower than expenses, and it can happen very quickly, as well as the process to get to the community and then to the board to do a Proposition 218 process.

My understanding, the reason that we're having to raise rates so much is, again, having to rebuild reserves, pay back some unpaid... charges that are out there. And that's got to be done first. And so after these reserves are built back, there might be an opportunity possibly to adjust the fee downward depending on what expenses are at that time in the future. Is that correct?

Correct. So with assessments like this one, we're able to go and look longer than a five-year period. In this case, the first five years is getting those unpaid charges dealt with and building up the reserve. And then in the year six of this, it would be dropping back down several hundred dollars. And as you move forward from there, if expenses are lower than anticipated, we can always go back and look at what the rate should be at that time.

My office reached out to the legislature to see if there are any programs to offer up relief for, in this case, a sewer system, and we were unsuccessful in finding relief. I know that there's been huge increases to water systems, and there's much more availability to assist people who are hooked up to water systems that have dramatic increases. So that was frustrating for me because there's a lot of people in this park that are on fixed incomes. But I just wanted to make it clear that our office has been looking into it and trying to see if there's a way that we can provide relief. We also took a look to see if somehow loans could be forgiven, but it's our understanding that we can't do that because of the nature. This is a CSA, and it needs to stand alone. And so we are precluded from stepping in and assisting with county dollars. I think it would be referred to as a gift of public funds. We would have to have some type of a full county benefit. We just can't benefit one certain group with our county dollars. So that was something we took a look at as well. But I appreciate your help on this, Chris. Thank you.

Okay, appreciate it. Any other comments? Okay, before we begin the public portion, any time prior to the close of the protest hearing, property owners wanting to submit a ballot or to change or withdraw their earlier submitted ballot may make that request to the office of the clerk at the window outside of the board chambers. After the protest hearing has been closed, no ballots will be accepted and no withdrawals will be allowed. No staff except for the clerk's deputies may accept a ballot. The public portion of this protest hearing is now open. Are there any comments from the public? Yes. Please come up. Please come forward.

Thank you, gentlemen. Once again, Hector Sandoval. Nathan, I really want to say I appreciate your sincere purpose. I heard everything you said. That is very awesome. A lot of the stuff you said is what was running through my mind. I'm not part of the community directly or anything. I am here on behalf of the people within Fresno County as I live in the county. And I did want to say I'm not sure if some of the stuff, it's still being figured out from what I heard. I interpret that it has a little bit too prelim to make any strong decision. The direction that I would give is the one that Nathan's already been exercising. There is language under the adoption of international language by the United Nations that was adopted and used as Orange Cove as an example for the rights to water rights. All humanity. All Homo sapiens should have the right to potable water. Now, you got to think, what's the aftermath of the water? It should be in conjunction in line with. So I encourage the language that has been used, adopted by the United Nations language to the state of California, the only state in the whole United States of America that has adopted international language for the betterment of the people. is they have language that seems to be working well and to put that pressure unfortunately what i'm seeing here the relationship and the existence of the entity of that park might be coming to a close in 19 years without a decision being made let's not try to push it in the next 19 hours or 19 days this might have been longer on before i'm here but if i can offer my gray hair wisdom that I thank everybody else that has more gray hair than me and I envy you. Please consider the language of the international water rights as a parent to look at.

Thank you. Anyone else from the public wish to speak? Seeing none, is there a motion and second to close the public portion of this hearing? All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Passes unanimously. The public portion of this protest hearing is now closed. Tabulation of the ballots will now take place. Members of the public wanting to observe the tabulation are welcome to accompany staff.

Anybody wishing to observe the tabulation may do so in the CAO's conference room. We will now move to item number 12 under Public Works and Planning. Consider appeal of Director of Department of Public Works and Planning's Determination of Expiration of Unclassified Conditional Use Permit number 3390 for Riverbend Sand and Gravel aggregate mining project, and if your board chooses to grant appeal and overturn director's rejection of submitted grading permit and determination, that land use permit has expired. Adopt resolution determining that unclassified conditional use permit number 3390 has achieved substantial development and has not expired. Subject to additional conditions relating to indemnifying county in event of litigation related to this action and need to commence phase one mining operations within two years of your board's determinations as listed in the proposed resolution.

Okay, hang on one second. Mr. Chairman, thank you. While I've not received any contributions to disqualify me due to the Levine Act, it has come to my attention that when, again, as last meeting, when I have moved money from one account to the other, that may be a qualifying event. So in the abundance of caution, I will recuse myself from this item, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Thank you.

We will come get you when this is over. Do any board members need to report any ex parte communications they've had on this matter? Seeing none, Public Works and Planning is here to present.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Chris Motta with the Department of Public Works and Planning. As noted by the clerk, this item is before your board on appeal of the department's determination of expiration of unclassified conditional use permit number 3390. The project is originally approved by the Fresno County Planning Commission in February of 2015. Consists of an aggregate mining operation of approximately 619 out of a total of 833 acres. The subject site is located east of the city of Sanger near the intersection of Goodfellow and Riverbend Avenues and was authorized to have a 75-year lifespan of phased mining. The anticipated annual processing of materials would be approximately 1.6 million tons per year, with an estimated sale of approximately 1.25 million tons per year. If your board is inclined to uphold the appeal and permit the mining operations to proceed, staff has included two recommended conditions of approval. The first requiring that the operator intern into an indemnification agreement with the county for legal costs associated with the determination in the event of litigation. And second, requiring phase one mining operations commence within two years of today's action. Staff notes that there are a number of project mitigation measures and conditions of approval that require compliance prior to commencement of operations. Notices of this appeal hearing were mailed to property owners within one mile of the outer boundaries of the proposed operation. Staff did receive three calls regarding the appeal, with two calls expressing concerns allowing the operation to proceed. And staff also received one letter expressing concerns regarding permitting mining operations to proceed, which has been distributed to your board. And this concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Does the board have any questions? Yes. Supervisor Magsack.

So again, what we're doing here today is we're not here to grant like a conditional use permit. We're here to make a determination whether substantial development has taken place since 2015. Is that correct? That's correct. So I just wanted to put that out there because I think as I read through this item and was taking a look at what happened at the Planning Commission, there was some confusion, I think, by some members thinking that the Planning Commission and now us, that somehow we are granting a CUP. It comes down to the substantial development, if that's taken place or not. And if it has, if the body finds that substantial development is taking place, then the CUP, which was granted in 2015, is upheld and then additional work needs to be done in the next two years, correct? Correct.

All right. Okay. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do we have the applicant folks that are here today? I just have three questions for our folks.

They will. Do you want them to speak first? If they have five minutes, if you want, or do you want to ask questions? I have three questions, if you want me to. Whatever you want to do.

Good morning, Pat Mitchell on behalf of River Bend, Santa Grava and Running Luck Ranch, and I have a presentation as well, Supervisor.

Sure, I just want to get these questions teed up, and if we have to wait for the presentation, that's fine. Quite a bit of history, actually, with the process here, as my colleague mentioned, dating back to 2015, and then the subsequent appeal of the Planning Commission, the withdrawal, et cetera. Do you plan to operate this facility yourself, or do you plan to sell it at a later time?

The current plan is to lease it to a mining company.

Okay. And then... I'm interested in what changed recently from 2015 to now to have an interest in completing this project now. Is it market demand that you're seeing for this product or what?

really they found a willing participant in a major mining company that negotiated with a total of five different ones and they're finally able to strike a deal almost but for the this issue in february of 2024. okay and then as we're going through these permits um there seems to be a trend the the request is for a 75-year

uh... permit why why so long uh... what's what is their financial reason for that or is it just subjective uh...

The reason for that, and that was the original approval right in 2015 you're referring to, was 75 years. There's mines approved throughout the state for 100 years, just to give you an idea. I've worked on several of those in the last decade. I think we've had four of those. There's sort of a minimum, probably 20 to 40 years, that companies won't be interested if they don't get that, because the capital costs of mining are extremely high, like aggregate plants. Those types of facilities cost tens of millions of dollars, so they have to have a pretty long lifespan to make it work from a penciling out standpoint.

So right now, as it stands, industry standards are, you said, anywhere from 20 to 40 years for?

I would say when we come in for new permits, we're usually asking for between 50 and 100 years. All right. That's I haven't asked and all the permits I worked on and that's what I do in the state. That's my specialty supervisor. The average one we're asking for is probably 80 years, 70 years in that range. But we've had five approved for 100 years in the last 10 years throughout the state, not necessarily in your county.

Thank you. Thank you for that. Those are the questions I wanted to get.

You have five minutes for a presentation. Chair, could I request ten minutes? I have a 24-slide presentation. It would take me 17 minutes to do the whole thing, so I'm only presenting 14 slides, unless the board wants more details. I have that. But the 14 slides will take me about ten minutes.

Is the board okay with that?

That's fine.

Okay. Go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you. So, again, I'm Patrick Mitchell from Mitchell Chadwick Law Firm in Roseville, California. I've been before your board many times over the years, including on this project with Supervisors Mendez and Pacheco, when I originally went to the board and they ended up not having to hear it because the appeal got withdrawn the night before the hearing. This is a team, so the landowners running Luck Ranch, the mining permittee was Riverbend Sand and Gravel, their affiliated entities, and I'm Pat Mitchell of Mitchell Chadwick LOP. We know there's a concern of the Supervisorial Board that, you know, why haven't we done this when it was approved in 2015? So that's a legitimate question. We're committed to moving forward to respond to Supervisor Chavez's question to move forward, and that'll come out in the presentation, I think you'll see. This is a site on a regional map. It's out there by Sanger. It's in Supervisor Mendez's district, which I think is District 4. And the site there is outlined in red. That's a riverbend site. That's a 619 acres that was approved for mining in 2015. And thank you, Supervisor Matzik, for your clarification of what we're here for today, which is whether we substantially developed within two years of the 2015 approval. You'll see Martin Murata's mine sites right there in the lower right-hand corner. That's the company we've been talking to about a lease, or the ultimate company we ended up talking about a lease. This is project overview specifics, size. By the way, the site's another 150 acres larger than the 619, but those were setbacks from the river. What we're asking the board to do today is reverse the public work and planning director's determination that the CUP 3390 was invalid. So that we had come up through a grading permit in discussions with county council to get to this board. And that's why we're here today is to ask the board to find the CUP 3390 still effective. If we can get that, then what we're going to do to answer Supervisor Chavez's question is we're immediately going to re-enter lease negotiations, which we're a week away from signing the lease in February of 2024, a week away. And then the finding of that use permit by staff to be invalid is what disrupted that deal, essentially. So we're going to go right back to that if you rule in our favor today. These are the dollars spent. When we went to the permit, when we got the permit in February of 2015 approved by the Planning Commission, the company had spent $3.2 million in 2015 dollars and before that. If you adjust that for inflation, It would be another $1.1 million on top of that. Since the permit was approved, the company spent another $1.1 million to implement the Planning Commission's approval. So we're total, not adjusted for inflation, $4.3 million sitting there today. Adjusted for inflation, it would be $5.6 million. These are the dollars spent after we got the permit approved by the Planning Commission. And it totals over a million dollars. You'll see sort of a downturn for several years. It seems like everyone sort of forgets about the COVID years. I think we're all trying to forget the pain that all was. But it caused a big disruption in the aggregate industry and in a bunch of other industries, as we all know. And... That's part of the gap. Supervisor Chavez was COVID. We got out, we got the approval, and then COVID hit and burned up several years where people were cautious about investing tens of millions of dollars in sites. This is work that was done for the original 2015 approval by Dr. Avalos, who's chair of the economics department of Cal State Fresno. He did an economic analysis for the project. I did not have it refreshed, but those numbers at the top are all 2015 dollar numbers, and if you adjust them for inflation, the CPI has gone up 41% since 2015. So, you know, 29 permanent jobs, 18 million in revenue for job, for employee wages. And importantly, given your prior CAO agenda item, estimated $1.6 million in direct tax revenue to the County of Fresno. And that's not adjusted for inflation. Adjusted, it's probably 2.3 million. Here's why we're here today, as Supervisor Mastic pointed out. It's whether we substantially develop the site in two years. That's what the appeal is all about. So the applicable test is what did we do? Did we substantially develop in two years? We believe absolutely we did. We've put tons of information into the record to prove that. And essentially, one of the debates is whether you have to build the whole mine or if soft costs counts. And the answer is soft costs count. There's multiple California appellate cases. from 1992 1976 1994 that say soft cost count the point is you can spend a lot of money before you ever go out there and start running with bulldozers and stuff like that and that does count as substantial development and in fact the current county code amended i think in 24 explicitly says soft costs are included in substantial development analyses That statute wasn't, that ordinance wasn't in effect when we did this work, but those cases already were, and those cases control, in addition to the county ordinance, because CUPs are considered a property right by courts, and therefore they're subject to due process protections. And if you look at that last line there, that's really a quote from a case that's 50 years old. The law hasn't changed in the state, but they're basically saying just because you haven't done construction on the ground doesn't mean you haven't substantially developed in a nutshell. The environmental review for this project was done. There's a full EIR done. One of the interesting parts of this project was no neighbor ever appealed this project when it was approved in 2015. We got an approval from the Planning Commission in February. A competitor's sort of... competitors behind the scenes guy filed an appeal out of Sacramento, and they withdrew the appeal at 4.50 p.m., Will Kettler may recall this, at the supervisor hearing that Supervisor Mendez and Pacheco were at. It was withdrawn 10 minutes before the day ended the day before, and I found out when I got there that morning, and it was taken off calendar because there was no appeal pending. This is sort of the history of what we went through here. CUP was approved. Then we substantially developed. And what does that look like? We installed on the site. We did do work. We brought in PG&E power. If anyone's dealt with PG&E, you know how difficult that can be. Spent a lot of money doing that. Installed the PG&E line. Installed elderberry beetle fencing. Went to the county post-approval. Got a site plan approved by PG&E. county planning, hired engineers in electrical companies, and coordinated getting natural gas supply in. So there was actually a lot done on the ground. The other really interesting thing, I personally, when working on this project since probably 2012 or whenever we first started to apply for it, 2011 maybe, so all this stuff I've been personally involved in, I talked to the Deputy County Council of Land Use, Art Willey, Before that two years was up, just to confirm that our position that there was substantial development didn't require a determination by the county staff, and he agreed with that. And we ended that conversation that go ahead and build a mine. The company then, and this was the biggest delay to answer Supervisor Chavez's question, negotiated with five different national, multinational, and regionally large aggregate companies trying to find the right party. And my guys, you know, have a farming company, right? They're not miners, so there were some delays associated with that, likely. But then they finally found the partner, which was Martin Murata, in February 2024, and we were ready to sign the lease, then this all happened. During the whole time from 2015 approval until 2024, that whole nine years, we operated directly with staff in good faith. And staff was operating with us as a project was valid. And we believed it was. We still believe it is, of course. That's why I'm standing here today. But the point is, it went nine years that we were doing things with staff and getting stuff done until we found out that they thought the permit had expired. which was March 13th, 2024 is the first time we were made aware of that. We then filed an appeal to, alternatively to the planning director or to the board, but staff determined that was not an appropriate appeal. And then through a roundabout way, we ended up here today, two years later. So in sum, this is a good project. It'll bring tax benefits to the county. It'll bring employment to the county in a time that's desperately needed. And it'll be consistent with staff's position for nine years after the permit was approved. So we respectfully request the board to approve our appeal, hold CUP 3390 valid, and I'd be glad to answer any questions if you have any.

Any questions from the board? Okay, thank you for the presentation. You're welcome. Any other comments from the public in favor of the appeal? Yeah, come on up. You can turn the lights back on.

Good morning, Board. My name is Nathan Schweihat. I'm a lifelong Fresno County resident, and I'm a licensed civil engineer in California. I'm a Fresno State alum where I received my bachelor's and master's of science and civil engineering in 2007 and 2010. By profession, I'm a licensed civil engineer and have now worked nearly two and a half decades in the building materials industry. The last 15 years, I've worked as a quality control manager overseeing quality at numerous aggregate quarries, asphalt production, and concrete production facilities. I'm currently employed by Martin Marietta, an aggregate supplier that happens to be the neighbor to Riverbend Sand and Gravel property we're discussing today. Needless to say, I have strong ties to the mining and construction industries, as well as to Fresno County. I'm here today to voice my support and ask for the board to allow this project to continue. Today I'm speaking not only as a proponent of the mining industry, but also as a concerned local resident. My view and experience has shown me that availability of local construction aggregates is essential to a strong local economy. In recent years, we've seen several mine sites reach their end of life and the existing supply of quality materials is diminishing. Without local aggregate sources, the cost of construction and maintenance of our roadways, buildings, airports, housing will certainly increase as construction materials will need to be imported from further away. As local sources are depleted, many good paying jobs are lost, not to mention the added environmental impacts associated with importing aggregates from further away as sources are depleted. Today I'm here to ask that you please consider this appeal and allow this development to continue.

Thank you. Anyone else wanted to speak in favor of the appeal? Anyone here want to speak in opposition to the appeal? Okay.

No one wants to go first. Okay.

Good morning, board. My name is Rebecca Carlson, and I am here to oppose the reversal of the invalid determination. I wasn't clear on that when I came. I thought it was approval to continue, and I guess in a sense it is. But the river bottom land east of Sanger is filled with many families, many family homes, ranches and farms, and much agriculture. We're dependent on our wells and or irrigation for water. We already have the large Vulcan Mine along the Kings River, south of the 180 Highway and north of Annandale. Continuing with the Riverbend Sand and Gravel LLC Mine will create further negative impacts to our families, environment, and community health and local economy. Environmental impacts could include lowering the water table, necessitating deeper wells, water contamination, including potential chemical spills, heavy metal leaching, and fuel leaks, affecting safe drinking water and safe irrigation for our crops. increase in air pollution from the heavy machinery and blasting, the release of large amounts of crystalline silica dust leading to reduced regional air quality, landscape scarring, destruction of habitat will destroy local ecosystems and displaces our wildlife. Community and health concerns, respiratory risk created from the silica dust, noise pollution from the blasting and crushing and drilling, the increase in traffic by the industrial trucks, which can lead to increased traffic accidents and cause rapid asphalt damage. Economic impacts, we're going to have decreased property values, loss of farmland, increased expense for taxpayers for the road repair. Also, potentially it could decrease revenue for the city of Sanger. I appreciate your time and ask that you please consider the impacts to our environment, the local families, including mine and residents. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Yes, sir. Good morning, Board. My name is Joe Niskins. Mary, my wife, and I live at 15824 East Goodfellow Avenue in Sanger, right across from their plant, from the Martin Marietta plant in Sanger. We get a lot of inconvenience from the plant, and I have to thank her for already mentioning a lot of the things, what will be in big interruption with us. we will get more dust, noise, and traffic. There have been lots of times that I was in contact with them about the dust by phone or in person. They can look at the records of the phone calls, how many times and everything. A couple times, the dust was drifting clear over our house, Mary was in the backyard with her grandkids. She had to go inside because the dust was so bad. The old sheds next door on the wolf place, right close to their entrance, you could not even see them. This happened twice. If the highway patrol would see this, they would shut down Martin Marietta and sighted them. There was a traffic hazard and there has been people been killed because dust clouds in there. Another thing is there's been several times that somebody ran off the road because the speed there. On Saturday, 12-20-25, it was getting bad again. All trucks were moving dirt on the other side of the olive trees and probably going 25-30. Yes, thank you.

Can you finish, sir? Excuse me? Yeah, your time's about done. Can you finish up?

Well, you know, I have to finish this. No, you know, excuse me.

I talked to one driver. Your time is done. Finish it. You are rejecting this.

No. I'm giving you the three minutes that I give everybody. Can I please have a few more minutes to finish this, please?

No, you don't. You can sum up your comments. You don't have a few more minutes.

So you're disagreeing with this because I'm against that.

No, not at all. I just, you have three minutes. So sum up your comments. You don't have more minutes. Just sum up your comments and we have to stop. Next person is to talk.

I talked to one of the drivers about smoking them out with dust. His first response was... Next person. His first response was... Sir, sir.

My name is Kent Kenney. I represent Kings River Land Trust and I encourage you to deny this appeal that would extend the CUP and really the reason is it's been long enough. Conditions have changed. The original EIR should be reconsidered. As a matter of fact, there should be a new EIR for this project. Some of the things that have changed include items like the water table in that area has dropped dramatically and we are seeing that one of the neighboring mines using the same type of mining equipment, the drag line, now is going to be requesting from the county the permission instead of wet mine to dewater that mine and pump continuously into the Kings River. Obviously there's going to be a depression plume and neighboring wells are going to continue to go dry. That eastern Sanger area has experienced the last few years many dry wells for agriculture and also for residents. So The setbacks from the river in the CUP were very narrow. That needs to be something that Fresno County considers in the Kings River specific plan, which has never been completed, even though the general plan was approved last year. You folks did indicate that the Kings River specific plan would still be something coming. We should not be approving these mines or continuing these mines without that. So it's not really realistic to assure mitigation without some legal force behind it. And in this proposal, there really is nothing that specifies the mining company or the owner would have to mitigate. I'm going to very quickly ask if I could submit to you a plan that was submitted in 2015.

You can submit it to the clerk.

Regarding this project, and this is a proposal for farmland mitigation program for Fresno County, Sanger River Bottom.

Thank you. Next, gentlemen.

Thank you, gentlemen. This is the reason why I'm here today. I live in the area. I went and I decided I wanted to raise my four daughters, Fresno State students, Sanger Unified School District, Quail Lakes Environmental Charter students. Award-winning. My daughter was out in L.A. on the track, racing on the same track with our Olympians just recently. Beautiful community. Our backyard is the Sequoias. We got Yosemite down the street. We got a beautiful front yard here in this valley, the beach. Now, I heard them speak of California, 80 years. Oh, this is normal. In your backyard, that's fine. I'm not sure how many of those people that are pushing for that project to continue want to live on their premises that they're fighting for. It's not their land. Now, exploitation, 80 years. Maybe 50 years ago, it was normal to have 80 year plans. Technology and the world is moving at a faster pace. We cannot give them 80 years. If they're really, there's a class of doing business, they'll tell you, yeah. And they're talking about it like that. What about the gentleman that just spoke? What about the lady that just spoke? What about me when I moved over there and I realized this is 100 year land? in the best area of California to live. I got Hollywood down the street. My neighbor, my front yard is the beach. My backyard is the woods. And we wanna exploit our beautiful land to give them 80 years. What's 80 years gonna look like for your grandchildren? My grandchildren, our grandchildren. My time's running out. How come theirs doesn't? The people that are fighting for it, are fighting for their grandchildren's old money that they want to create.

Good morning, Sue Buckley of the president of the Kings River Conservancy and many of me as Mrs. Readley College, so one of the best ag schools in the entire United States. So I'm speaking not only behalf of Kings River Conservancy, but for ag concerns all over our magnificent valley and protecting the Kings River watershed. Kings River Conservancy enjoyed $250,000 worth of bringing 300 children out to the river this last year. with our education concerns. We work with the county to bring public, safe public access and information for the river. And we, of course, work to remove graffiti and other invasive species on the river. Our fast recommendation would be to deny this extension. But I think you're seeing now, thank you respectfully, that the public does have major concerns. Things have changed since this issue was brought before you before. So if you were to move forward in any way, please consider a brand new environmental impact. I think the eagle's nest that's sitting right on top of that property on the river right now, those eagles might appreciate that. And make sure, please, that the Kings River Regional Plan is indeed investigated because so much has changed for the river. And remember the role of ag and our homeowners. I won't repeat all of the ramifications, but I think that you would find that while they perhaps did not have dramatic public comment before, there would be tremendous concern now. So I think the fast answer is to deny it, but certainly do not simply allow this project to go forward. Yes, I respect the investment of the owners, but I think that much more investigation needs to be done. Any questions for me on behalf of the Kings River Conservancy?

Sue, thank you for being here, and I appreciate the work of the organization. I've enjoyed spending time with you and others from the organization. But what I heard you say in your last comment, so you do recognize that there has been investment from the group, even since 2015, based upon their presentation.

Certainly have to respect the work that they've done.

And the reason I ask that question is we are here not to extend a CUP. We just have to make a determination that substantial development has taken place. And what I heard you say is you agree that there has been definitely investment. And it's up to us to figure out has substantial development happened in accordance to what was approved in 2015.

I object strenuously to their definition of investment.

Okay. That's what I wanted to hear. And because, again, I heard from several speakers where there's some confusion about how we need to look at an EIR or modification of the CUP or taking other things into consideration. The one thing we're here doing today is have they made substantial, has substantial development taken place? And if it has, their CUP is still active. So I was hoping to hear more from some of the presenters around that. I didn't. But I know the presenter who gave us that slide presentation showed over $4 million of investment. So I've got to take that into consideration for sure.

And I deny that it was substantial.

Okay.

Thank you. Anyone? Go ahead, sir. Come on up. Thank you.

Yes, Chairman and Board members, my name is Steve Skenstra, and thank you for the opportunity to hear my comments. I did submit some written comments, and I hope you'll take the time to read those. It's just a page and a half. I don't have time to read them right now. If you look at the map of the project, there's a square kind of right out of the middle. Seventy-five percent of that is me. And so I think I could argue that I'm probably going to be more impacted negatively than anybody else on this project. And I don't think the EIR of what I read of it does justice to what it's going to specifically do to me. it's going to devastate my property value, that's for sure, and my ability to farm. But I want to pivot a little bit away from reading my comments and direct a little bit more to answer questions. I agree with some of the other presenters that the EIR is more than 10 years old, it's outdated, the information it relied on is probably not accurate anymore, and there's no mention at all of SGMA laws that we have on the books now. There is no obvious development on the ground. The argument is that there's substantial development. I'm not sure what. I don't see any evidence of what those costs were. They've spent a million dollars in 10 years I think we can set aside their initial money they spent because that was part of their cost of doing the permit. But since then, for a large corporation to just trickle out as low as a few thousand dollars in some years and expect that permit is going to go on, the result of that is you, any permit that you approve if someone just trickles out a little bit of money over multiple numbers of years, you're effectively giving them an infinite runway on that. So I would argue that there's not substantial, there's no development, there's nothing verified, and I don't think that was the intent of the original conditional use permit to let it drag on forever.

I have a question. I really appreciate you being here since you are kind of surrounded by the project. And you currently are farming, is that correct? Correct. And I am not a farmer. But just generally, it's my understanding that People who do farm, there's contracts that you've got to go out and receive. Do you farm citrus? What type of crops do you farm?

Almond trees.

Almonds. So I assume that you have to negotiate contracts with a processor, unless if you own your own processing facility.

No, I do have contracts with them. And plus, it's just the long-term nature of an investment into an orchard.

And the reason I ask that question is, so with farming, sometimes there are activities that you perform that others can't see that are beyond just the physical trees and the production of the nut in this case, correct?

Yes.

That are part of farming. So where I'm hard pressed is I'm a private property rights person. I believe firmly in making sure that individuals who own properties, that their property rights are protected. And for us, as we are trying to make a determination on whether or not substantial development is taking place with this mining project, I recognize that there are people who live nearby, who farm nearby, and as I'm trying to quantify what substantial development is, I'm trying to take into consideration how other people also would define that. But I believe you would define The farming that you do on your property, it's more than just the growing of the trees and what people see. It's insurance, it's having to negotiate contracts with others, correct? Correct. All right. Thank you very much for your time. I really appreciate it.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Welcome. Good morning. My name is Joanne Grunewald and I live across the street from the proposed project. I went around and talked to some of my neighbors, and they didn't receive this notification to be here today, which makes me wonder if anyone received the 2013 notice that they were going to apply for this permit in the first place. So when someone said that no one wrote a letter, no one spoke out about, or maybe one person spoke out about being against this, nobody knew. So we're coming from a place of no information. Anyway, to speak to the EIR, it is very old. We have a family of bobcats out there. We have the eagle's nest, which you can't do any kind of construction within a mile of an eagle's nest. I'm wondering when the last time the Annandale Bridge was inspected, since 22, 23, big water year we had? Put a lot of stress on it. And I live right there. I hear these big trucks hitting that bridge. And that one thing. Anyway, everything I was going to say, everybody's already said. But we can hear Vulcan a mile away when they fire up at 3 in the morning. So it's just a lack of quality of life, actually. Not to mention the trucks and potholes and gravel on the road. And sand is dangerous if they lose sand. But I thank you for your time.

Thank you. Anyone else want to speak? Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the Board. Supervisor Magzik?

Just some general comments and observations, and I appreciate the comments about EIRs and people who live next door but I just want to make it crystal clear we are not rehashing the CUP that was approved in twenty fifteen we have to focus specifically on has substantial development taken place and so as we sit up here as this body that was I have to operate from that position because that's how this item is agendized. So the project was approved 11 years ago. Um, and what should have taken place back then, we can't rehash that now, or I can't take that into consideration. The bottom line is has substantial development taken place. So as we deliberate up here for a few moments, I can tell you as one member up here, that's where I'm wholly focused because, um, How this item's been agendized, what we've been asked to do today, that's the focus. But I do appreciate everybody's comments. Thank you.

Well, he pretty much said what I was going to say. I mean, we're here to do one thing, not to rehash the CUP. And there's avenues for that, even if this project goes forward, because it's not over. It's kind of still a moving target. So I was a little taken aback by the water comment about water going down. Actually, the Sanga River bottom sits in the East Kings GSA. I don't know if everybody forgot I'm the chairman of the East Kings GSA and I have not heard that nor has any Jack Paxton or anything like anybody like that is is mention it to me. That there's a significant problem there because I think that that area always fills up. With too much water during flood years. So. I'll just leave it. I'm a little disappointed with the Conservancy. I mean, if you guys were against it, you should have written us a letter saying you're against it, because as far as I'm concerned, you're one person from the Conservancy that says they're against it. No, we're done talking.

Question. I know as Supervisor Magsig outlined what we're doing today, are there, first of all, the EIR, it's still valid, correct?

Yes.

Okay. And the concerns that were expressed, the environmental concerns, what's the approach for folks to deal with those concerns?

Well, the environmental issues are not really before the board today. No, they're not. The sole issue is whether there was substantial development based upon the definition at the time, which has since changed. If there are violations of the existing EIR, then somebody could raise that issue. either in trying to get the CUP revoked if there are violations and that kind of thing. Okay. But that's not the issue today.

Right. Got it. That's why I said it's a moving target. Got it. But I think we have to have a finding and I think diligently continue and approve the construction grading activity with the proper indemnities and would be sufficient for me.

Okay.

Is there a motion and a second?

That's my motion. Oh, did you have some comments? Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry.

I think this conversation is bold and I was asking our legal counsel folks to hone in on that. So just so we're clear and for the benefit of the public, what is the legal definition for substantial development that we are adhering to?

At the time it was approved, there was no clear definition. It has since been changed to include a requirement for physical changes.

So in that situation, would the applicant be required to abide by what?

It's really up to the board at this point. The law says the board is entitled to interpret its own ordinances, which it can here today. And that will be upheld unless it's clearly erroneous. We believe in this case, given the facts, you have discretion to decide it either way.

So the rules were different back then when they came through. Subsequently, we now have a specific criteria for substantial development. What is that criteria now? Do you have the actual? Go ahead and read the actual definition.

A finding of substantial development could be supported if Riverbend did at least one of the following. Obtained a building permit and continuous onsite construction activity including pouring of foundations, installation of utilities or other similar substantial improvements has commenced. B, obtained a grading permit and has completed a significant amount of onsite grading as determined by the director. C, diligently continued the approved construction grading activities. or D, actually implemented the allowed land use in its entirety on the subject property in compliance with the conditions of approval.

So based... That's not the definition at the time.

At the time, but now it is. So based on this new interpretation, is that legally compliant now with what has occurred on the site since 2015? Based upon the current definition?

Current definition. Based upon the current definition, they probably would not meet that requirement. But based upon at the time, without these additional requirements for the physical changes and so forth, it's really up to you to decide whether or not there was substantial development, given there are soft costs and development work and that kind of thing.

And to my colleagues, that's what I'm wrestling with in reading the documentation, that there was no clear criteria previously, but now we have a specific criteria that these folks, and a lot's changed since 2015, right? I think one of the speakers referenced technology's changed. Probably the industry has changed. So if we do go forward and we do make the determination that they've made substantial compliance, There's probably going to be potential litigation on their end. If we approve this, how would the county be protected so that we don't get roped into something that would happen out there?

As Supervisor Mendez suggested, that if the board finds that there was substantial development and approves the permit today, it be with the condition that the applicant defend and identify the county for any potential litigation. And is the applicant agreeable to that? They don't get it. It's really their permit to defend.

Pat Mitchell on behalf of the applicant. Yes, we're agreeable to the indemnity condition. And I think it would be helpful in my presentation, the part I didn't give you, the second half, I have a slide that has a current county definition of substantial development. Okay, if you did.

All right, but yes, we're agreeable to the indemnity. So yes is your answer? Yes. Yes, we're indemnified. Well, Supervisor Mendez, it's your area.

He has no choice. Let's either do that if we do grant the appeal, That's part of granting the appeal.

Absolutely. What I'm trying to hone in, Supervisor, is the legal definition, and legal just explains to us that it's subjective to our opinion, right? So I'm trying to utilize some kind of rationale behind that where these folks that are out there that are going to be very upset would probably go back and look at the specific CUP and see if they're meeting their obligations, which we're now subjecting them to. That's what I'm trying to reconcile here.

Supervisor Magnuson?

And I'll try to help out a little bit with this. So the challenge is the only two people who were here in 2015 when this was originally approved was Buddy and Brian. And Brian needed to recuse himself, so all we have is Buddy. And a further challenge we have is substantial development wasn't defined at the time the CUP was put into place. And I will tell you for me what substantial development is, it's both hard costs and soft costs that are involved after 2015. And whether you choose to give full recognition to the four and a half, 4.6 million dollars spent, or only the 1.1 million dollars that was spent after the fact, To me, that is substantial. So I would imagine courts maybe would use like a reasonable person standard if this goes to some kind of a jury trial. And as a reasonable person, I mean, over a million dollars being spent after approval, to me, that is substantial development to try to move the project forward. The benefit that we have today is substantial development is now defined. And so if we choose to agree that substantial development has taken place, they still have things that they need to meet in the next two years. Or if they don't, we now have clear definition of what substantial development moving forward is now. So from a litigation standpoint, I think it's important for the county to always do what's most defensible based upon all of the facts and the motion I heard last from Buddy Mendez, which I believe he can make the findings that substantial development has been made just based upon the money that's been spent. I'm willing to second that motion.

If I may, Board. We believe the standard a court would apply in reviewing this is whether the Board's interpretation is clearly erroneous. In other words, there is judicial deference to the Board's interpretation.

A lot of us weren't here. Are you done? Yeah, I'm done. You have a motion?

Yeah. And then I seconded it. Yeah. To grant the appeal.

Okay. You seconded. All those in favor, say aye. Mr. Chairman. Any opposed? None.

Yeah.

With that, would you say that you're also adopting the resolution determining the unclassified conditional permit number 3990 as achieved substantial development has not expired, subject to additional conditions relating to identifying the county in the event of litigation related to this action and the need to commence phase one mining operations for two years of your board's determinations as listed in the proposed resolution. Correct. Thank you.

And you second that? Yep. And all those in favor are aye. Aye. There's no opposed. It passes unanimously. Okay.

just one recusal, Supervisor Pacheco. Mr. Chairman, folks from Public Works and Planning are here to finish off number 11, if that's okay with you.

Am I good to go?

Yes, you can go ahead.

Oh, oh, we got to get...

Okay, Brian's back. Now you can go.

Chris Bump with the Department of Public Works and Planning. Staff has counted all the ballots and out of a possible 99 ballots, we had received 30. The ballots marked yes represented 66% of the total of the weighted ballots received. Based on those results, staff recommends that the board find there is no majority protests and approve recommended action A to adopt the resolution levying the standby charge assessment for sewer services for CSA 44A.

Okay, is there a motion and a second to approve recommended action A?

I'll make that motion.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously.

We now move to item number 13, Board of Supervisor Committee Reports and Comments.

Supervisor Meggitt.

About two weeks ago I attended the CSAC annual convention in Sacramento and what was kind of front and center with our discussions is how to handle the May revise and the fact that we're going to be substantially short in providing services moving forward this next fiscal year. So enjoyed the opportunity. I appreciate that CSAC advocates on behalf of counties. I was a little disappointed that they weren't able to come up with a strategy that the governor approved in his budget. But I'm hopeful as the Assembly and Senate are in negotiations now to finally approve a budget that they do recognize that counties are short several billion dollars moving forward and that they come up with some relief to us because there's no way that we can come up with making up that shortfall on our own. Also, I want to remind folks, today is Election Day. If you live under a rock, I'm here telling you it's Election Day. So make sure that you get out and vote. As a nation that's celebrating its 250th anniversary this year as well, I'm mindful of the fact that most nations that have existed prior to us and currently exist We have freedoms to pick our leaders, and it is something that we take for granted. And so if you're hearing this message now and you haven't cast your ballot, go to the polls, vote your heart. I think it's patriotic to do that. And to my staff, to my colleagues, I appreciate all of you. Brian, good luck today. I really appreciate your wisdom that you have on this board. I think you're a fantastic dairyman, one of the best brown Swiss dairymen in the world, and very thoughtful in your comments. So it's an honor serving with you. That's all I have.

No, I just, you know, Nathan was talking about the CSAC, you know, convention. I think they found out they had no pull with the governor. I don't know if anybody does, but I think hopefully their pull is with the legislate, you know, the Assembly and Senate, because this is going to be very devastating for counties, but the counties and the fact that the state law is different than the federal law, is basically the root of the problem. So I was disappointed in their water and natural resources deals that they had. I thought it was, again, very poor and that's something that they need to do a little better job. Any comments?

I would just say appreciate the comment, Supervisor Magsig. My feeling is mutual to all my colleagues on the board as well. And I am hopeful that if we can elect more county supervisors to the state legislature, we'll turn out a lot better product than what's currently being had. So I'll just leave it at that.

Some of us like it at the county, future assembly member. But I also just want to wish both of my colleagues good luck tonight and encourage folks to get out there and vote. 582 votes. is the number of mailers that I have received at my house. I have the bad luck of being in the hot spot of multiple elections going on and campaigns, but 582, probably more by the time I get home. Stop. That's enough. I might say something different when I'm running again, but for now, stop. Thank you for that, Mr. Chair.

I just want to also wish Nathan and Brian the very best, and I know you're going to do very well, so I'm looking forward to that. I know you're going to represent us well up in Sacramento. In light of all the costs that apparently we're going to incur as the cuts come from federal and state, we need to look at ways that we can save money. And one of the things that I would like the CAO to consider is, I know there was an analysis or a study some time ago of privatizing the library, and they proposed that there would be an $8 million, I think, was the cost savings. I would just like you to review that again, do either analysis, study, whatever. would be the easiest way to go to provide that information to the board and what kind of cost savings there would be if the board was willing to do that. I know there's, I think it's a Riverside County that has enacted that and I believe they've saved a lot of money and provide excellent service. So I'm not saying that we will move in that direction. I think we need to have that analysis. But I think it's something we as a board ought to certainly take a look at in light of all of the cuts that we're potentially facing and certainly the loss of revenue that we appear to be facing from the feds and the state. So I'd like you to do that and bring it back to the board for us to review and take a look at. Yes, Supervisor Meaghan.

Yeah, I would. So along those lines, I think as a county, it's important for us to always look at how we function and always ask ourselves cost benefit. And so I think that, you know, that would be a good idea. I would support that as well.

OK, happy to do that. We'll come back, do a deeper study, come back with recommendations to your board and open session.

Yeah, kind of a kind of an update. Brian said January, but if you can do it sooner, that'd be great. Thank you very much. Anybody else? I think we're good. Okay.

We now move to item number 14, board appointments.

Any appointments? I have two. Two? Supervisor Pacheco, we'll start there.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to reappoint Stephen Shahadi to the Lower San Joaquin Levee District to the Outlarge Board Member A position for a term ending June 1, 2030. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm going to reappoint Pablo to the Planning Commission and then appoint Priscilla Ross to the Fresno Arts Council.

Thank you. Anybody else? No. I have just one, appoint Philip Brown to the Behavioral Health Board at Large, consumer position previously held by Helen Vuong. Is there a motion and a second to approve this item?

So moved.

Is there a second? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Passes unanimously.

We now move to item number 15 under public presentations. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the board on any matter not on this agenda. And we're also taking up closed session comments for items 17 through 19.

Okay, this is any comments from the public on any matter not on this agenda or any comments from the public on closed session items 17 through 19. Anybody wishing to speak on that? Seeing none, we will move forward with the next item.

Item number 16, county council. Any reports from previous closed sessions?

There are no reports from prior closed sessions. I would not expect a report out today, so the board may adjourn from closed session.

Okay, is there a motion and second to adjourn following closed session? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Passes unanimously. We are adjourned. And we'll go to closing.

Thank you.