Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

. .

Thank you.

Clerk, roll call, please.

Sir Eiser Chavez. Here. Sir Eiser Maxick.

Here.

Sir Eiser Mendez. Here. Sir Eiser Pacheco.

Here.

Chairman Bredefield.

Here.

All present, thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Welcome to the Tuesday, June 30th, 2026 board meeting. We will begin with the invocation and flag salute. The invocation will be led by District 4. After the invocation, please remain standing for the flag salute. District 4.

Okay, I'd like to welcome Pastor Paul Canaday. who has served 10 years as the lead pastor of Grace Community Church in Sanger. Pastor lives in Sanger with his wife, Stacy, and their two children.

OK.

Let's pray together. Heavenly Father, we come before you with grateful hearts this morning, acknowledging you as the sovereign Lord and creator of all things. You're the God who brings the rain, who brings the harvest, who sustains every living thing by your mighty hand. We thank you for the rich agricultural heritage of Fresno County, for the soil, for the abundant orchards, for the fields, and the hardworking men and women who labor daily to feed our communities and our nation. Thank you for the blessings of the harvest, for the vines and the trees, the crops and the livestock, and for the prosperity that flows from the land that you have entrusted to us. As the Board of Supervisors gathers today, we humbly seek your guidance and wisdom. Grant each supervisor clarity of mind, integrity of heart, and a spirit of unity and collaboration. Help them to steward the resources of this county with the same care a farmer tends is filled with patience, foresight, and dedication to the long-term good. Lord, bless the deliberations of this meeting. May every decision reflect your principles of justice, compassion, and righteousness. Guide them as they address the needs of our residents, protect our families, and build a future of opportunity and hope for all who call Fresno County home. We place this meeting and everything in your capable hands, trusting that you will direct our steps. May all that is done here be for your glory and for the benefit of the people we serve. In the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, we pray together.

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.

Thank you. Agendas are on the back table. Thank you. For anyone wanting to follow along, Madam Clerk, the first item.

Item number one, approve agenda.

Is there a motion and second to approve the agenda? All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously.

We now move to item number two, approved consent agenda item numbers 28 through 63.

Okay, these matters are routine in nature, usually approved by a single vote. Would any board members like an item removed for consent for discussion?

I have a few items I need to have removed. Item 37, 39, 46, and 60, and I need to recuse myself in accordance with the Levine Act.

Okay. Mr. Chairman, I have a similar request. For me, mine will be open session item number 12, consent items number 46 and number 60 for the same reason as Supervisor Mack's.

Mr. Chairman, only item 12 requires a fourth or fifth vote, so we'll need to draw.

Okay. And so you were pulling, Supervisor Mack, you were pulling some items for discussion and recusing yourself on a couple?

I have to pull them for recusal. 37, 39, 46. They're all for recusal. And then when we get to 12, I, too, will have to abstain and draw straws on that.

Okay. Thank you very much. Would any members of the public like an item removed from consent for discussion? Seeing none, is there a motion and a second to approve the rest of the consent agenda?

I'll make a motion.

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

Mr. Chairman, we'll take up all consent items following item four.

Following item four.

And we now move to item number three under the Board of Supervisors, presentation of retirement plan to Muhammad Alami, Department of Public Works and Planning, 23 years of service.

Okay, Public Works and Planning is here to present, I think. There we go. Oh, no problem, take your time. Take your time.

It's my pleasure to introduce Muhammad Alimi. I had the pleasure of working with him for 10 years in the County of Fresno. I think he knows each and every one of you. And he started in 2002 as an engineer one, worked up through the process, senior, supervising, and he left after 24 plus years as a division manager in the design section. He survived the four downsizing with Caltrans hiring our engineers one time he was 34. Survived, rebuilt the team, and what I want to do today is introduce this board to the new division manager who's replacing him, but have him share some thoughts of how Mohammed mentored him to grow him into a succession for him to take over the division itself. And with that, I'll introduce Jill Harrell.

morning board my name is joe harrell i'm the design division manager now i have the privilege of being that i just want to spend a moment thanking muhammad for his guidance and leadership his investment and belief in myself uh sebastian arthold uh alexis rutherford and aaron hagensen uh was instrumental in growing the design division into the strong team it is today um he gave us both structure and room to grow and his encouragement is the reason i'm here to not only the reason i'm here today uh but the reason our division is so successful um it's obviously how proud he is of us and we are proud to have had him as our manager for so long so congratulations to mo and uh good job for 24 years in the county so i'll give it to muhammad yes muhammad

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Thank you for this opportunity for this recognition. It's truly been an honor to serve Fresno County and all the residents in the county over the past 24 years. I've had the fortunate opportunity of working with great engineers like Joe and Steve. I've had great staff, supportive staff, and many, many mentors when I came to the county that showed me how the things are done in the county. and the opportunity to deliver some great projects to really help our community. So it's been a wonderful experience and something that I will cherish for the rest of my life. I've made many friendships along the way met many great people in other agencies and and those are really an experience of a lifetime for so thank you for this recognition again and Having me as a staff.

Thank you any comments from the board Yeah You know Muhammad.

Thank you for your service. I've always I've worked with Muhammad on different projects probably 12 years, the whole 12 years I've been here. And he is extremely intelligent, always is at the top of his game, and I really appreciate it. And you were always a good resource to even ask different things that were coming up or the county had done in the past. And you always had a great compass to follow. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would just add, too, he oversaw a lot of projects in District 1 as well, and they're always delivered with the highest quality. And as he said, it helped the quality of life for the residents of District 1, and I appreciate that. Thank you for your work.

And I would like to add that Mohammed came to the COG board meeting many times and gave a dose of reality to those who didn't want to hear the reality of how what is being proposed to get on the ballot will hurt the county. And it will hurt the county. And Mohammed explained it quite clearly. Unfortunately, a lot of people didn't listen who supported this monstrosity that may go on the ballot, but I appreciate it. You spoke with tremendous clarity, and you've obviously been somebody who's done great work for the county for a long time, so I appreciate it very much, Muhammad.

Thank you, sir.

Any comments from the public? Seeing none, why don't you step forward, take a picture, and we have something for you.

For you that don't know, Muhammad's got a storied history of coming to this country as a child. One of these days he'll share it with you. But what he's also done, he's joined the ranks of a local engineering consulting firm to take our knowledge in this county of doing the right thing every project, every project time. So with that, his legacy will continue for the benefit of this county.

Thank you. Thank you, Mom. Okay.

We now move to item number four, under Board of Supervisors, retirement of the plaque to Milton Vann, Sheriff Department, 28 years of service.

And Sheriff's Office is here.

Good morning, I'm Captain Matt Alexander with the Fresno Sheriff's Office and I'm here on behalf of Sheriff Zanoni who unfortunately unable to physically be here and sends his regrets. But as a result, I have the privilege today of publicly acknowledging recently retired community service officer Milton Vann who just completed a remarkable 28 year career with us. Milton was hired on February 9th of 1998 and retired recently in April of this year. And in between those dates, Milton contributed 28 years of service to the people of Fresno County in a variety of assignments, some of which included the Crime Prevention Unit, Agricultural Crimes Task Force, the Sheriff's Foundation for Public Safety, and then most notably a nearly 22-year stint with Valley Crime Stoppers. In each of those roles, Milton worked to strengthen partnerships between the Sheriff's Office and the community, making Fresno County a safer place to both live and work. His impact through Valley Crime Stoppers was especially significant, as is evidenced by the presence of several of his former board members who are in attendance today to support him. Milton served as the program coordinator, making sure tips on wanted suspects were disseminated and followed up on so that arrests could be made whenever possible. And so as you can imagine, over nearly 22 years, that resulted in thousands of arrests. These efforts help the Crime Stoppers organization fulfill its mission of helping law enforcement solve crimes and provide closure to both families of victims and the victims themselves. In a recent letter of appreciation written to the Sheriff's Office by longtime Crime Stoppers President Dale Mendoza, Milton was described as someone who worked tirelessly to support our mission to bring closure to the victims of crime. Those words speak not only to Milton's work ethic, but also to the compassion he brought to every aspect of his service. And as I reviewed Milton's personnel file in preparation for today, I noticed that that file told very much the same story. I found numerous letters of commendation submitted over the years on Milton's behalf that recognized his dedicated service to the citizens of Fresno County and also to his fellow Sheriff's Office employees. These commendations reflected a career built on reliability, teamwork, and an unwavering willingness to serve whenever and wherever he was. And while most of Milt's accomplishments did not make the headlines, they did make a lasting difference in our community and in the lives of everyday people. His quiet professionalism, his commitment to excellence, and selfless service have left a legacy that will continue to benefit the Sheriff's Office and its citizens for many years to come. So, on behalf of the Sheriff's Office and the citizens of Fresno County, we extend our sincere gratitude Community Service Officer Milton Vann for his 28 years of exceptional service. So, Milt, we congratulate you for a well-deserved retirement and we wish you and your family many years of health and happiness. Thank you for everything. Thank you. Can I speak?

to the Board of Supervisors and also to the Fresno County Sheriff's Office. And also, I also want to thank the Fresno Police Department who looked out for me for the 22 years. They made me feel welcome and I appreciate that. Also to Valley Crime Stoppers for taking care of me also. But it's been my honor and my pleasure to serve the County of Fresno for 28 years and I thank you for everything.

Thank you. Any comments from the board? No, I just want to thank you for the service. I mean, decades of service to the community is greatly appreciated. So thank you for all the great work. Any comments from the public? Okay, seeing none, why don't you come on up and take a picture with the board.

At this time, we'll take up the consent items that were pulled this morning. Item 37, under the CAO's office, pulled by Sue Iser-Magsig due to the Levine Act, under administrative policy number 34 for competitive bids or requests for proposal, determine that an exception to the competitive bidding requirement under AP 34 is satisfied and a suspension of competition is warranted due to unusual and extraordinary circumstances, and that the best interest of the county would be served by entering into an agreement with RH community builders.

Okay, which item was that? 37. 37, okay, thank you.

Good morning, Board. Amina Flores-Becker, Deputy CAO with the County of Fresno. I am available to answer any questions the Board may have.

Any questions from the Board? Any comments from the public? Okay, I'll bring it back. Is there a motion? Approved. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Passes unanimously.

Thank you. With Supervisor Magsig recusing himself from the item.

Okay.

We now move to item number... 39, which was pulled also by Sue Reiser-Mack, Secretary to the Levine Act under Behavioral Health, approved and authorized. Chairman, this is Amendment Number 1 to Agreement Number 23-627 with RH Community Builders.

Good morning. Susan Holt, your Behavioral Health Director and Public Guardian. Happy to answer any questions.

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

Motion to approve. Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Passes unanimously. Thank you.

We now move to item number 46 under general services pulled by Sue Riser, Magsig, and Pacheco due to the Levine Act. Approve and authorize chairman to execute two release of declaration and easement agreements with Pacific Bell Telephone Company.

Hi, good morning board. Yusel Salepo with general services. I'm here for any questions.

Any questions or comments from the board? Seeing none, any questions or comments from the public? Seeing none, is there a motion?

Second.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Passes unanimously, thank you. Thank you.

We have item 60, pulled by Sue Reiser-Magsic and Pacheco, approve and authorize Chairman to execute revenue agreement with the City of Sanger for dispatch services for the City of Sanger Fire Department through the Fresno County Emergency Medical Services Communications.

Good morning, Board. Joe Prado with the Public Health Department here to answer any questions.

Any questions, comments from the Board? Seeing none, any questions or comments from the public? Seeing none, is there a motion?

Second.

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

That concludes all our consent items that were pulled. We'll wait for the two supervisors to come back in.

Okay.

And now we return to our regular agenda. which is item number five under Chairman Bredefield, conduct first hearing on an ordinance amending section 13.24.010 of chapter 13.24 of title 13, roads, parks, other public places related to conduct regulations on county property, way of reading of the ordinance in its entirety and set the second hearing for July 14th, 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 government code section 25124B1.

Thank you. I brought this forward because we need to ensure the safety and security of all of county employees that work for the county. We have a county council and a CAO that I would like to offer the opportunity to Should they have CCW pass the test that they need, be able to utilize that CCW in the Hall of Records. Unfortunately, we live in a time where people in public life have to protect themselves and provide security for themselves and their family. We've seen incidents that have taken place, unfortunately, that involve violent acts, and I want to make sure that everybody has the opportunity to protect themselves. Similarly, we have animal control officers who have been threatened, are in dangerous situations, and I want to afford them the opportunity to protect themselves as well with pepper spray and tasers. They have been in dangerous situations and it's intolerable to allow county employees to be in those situations. So with the proper training, I would like this board to authorize them the ability to protect themselves as they go out and serve the public. With that, are there any comments from the board? Any comments from the public? Okay, seeing none, is there a motion and a second?

I'll second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Passes unanimously.

We now move to the next item, which is item number six, under Public Works and Planning, conduct a majority protest hearing and receive ballots from owners and property within Fresno County Service Area 50 prior to the close of such majority protest hearing as required under California Constitution Article 8D, Section 4, on a proposal to increase the annual fire protection emergency medical services benefit assessment 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. If the board finds that this is not a majority protest against such proposal to increase the annual assessment, the board may adopt the resolution authorizing the proposed increased assessment for Fresno County Service Area 50 effective July 1, 2026. Or B, if the board finds that there's a majority protest against such proposal to increase the assessment, make the determination that there is such a majority protest and abandon proceedings regarding such proposal to increase the assessment and direct the Department of Public Works and Planning to hold a public meeting with Fresno County Service Area 50 community to discuss immediate cost saving steps.

Good morning, board members. Chris Bump with the Department of Public Works and Planning. The item before you today is a protest hearing for a proposed assessment increase for County Service Area 50, which contains approximately 1,229 parcels and provides funding for fire protection, emergency medical service, and the Aubury area. The proposed assessment would provide funding for the continued operation of the Aubury Volunteer Fire Department, including emergency response, equipment, training, administration, and capital replacement needs. At the conclusion of the staff presentation and after addressing any questions the board may have, the public portion of the hearing should be opened by your board and testimony received from those here today wishing to address your board. At the conclusion of the public protest hearing, staff will tabulate the assessment ballots and report back to your board results. That concludes my presentation and I am available to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions from the board? Yes.

For the record, when was the last time this assessment was increased?

This assessment would have been from 2003. It did have some increases in there, but that's when the last Prop 218 would have been.

The $21 and change increase represents what percentage of an increase?

I think it's right around 25%.

I think it's about 23%. But the reason I ask those questions is, and this is for fire protection services, correct? And costs definitely have gone up. And in the mountain community, I just want to give a shout out and also share my personal appreciation for those that are part of the volunteer fire department systems. We've got a number of different systems. fire departments, but really appreciate the individuals who step forward and volunteer their time and provide public safety to the residents of the Foothill and Mountain area.

Thank you. Any other comments from the board? 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 now from the public? Hi, welcome.

Good morning. I'm a property owner in the area. My name is Amy Duncan. And I would just like to point out that the opening in this proposal gives a 3% per year increase as well. I have lived in the area my whole life. I know lots of folks who work for the volunteer fire department, friends, family members that have been involved. On behalf of myself and my neighbors, we have a certain amount of mistrust in open-ended possible increases from government, seeing that we have bared the burden of funds to protect our own properties. We all spend thousands of dollars every year with livestock, with weed eating, with paying people to trim trees, with all kinds of stuff. And so we've been carrying the majority of the load as the homeowners for fire protection in our area. Um, in fact, it's mostly because of government controls and stipulations that will not let public lands be cleared up because I also used to work for the state of California that many of these catastrophic wildfires have taken place, not because the property owners homes are not. showing the protections. So what I would propose is a change for what you guys are proposing is instead of this 3% per year possible increase, that something can be written in for a tax break for the homeowners if we show funds given towards our own fire protection. I would love to see more events for the volunteer fire department again like I was a kid and they had a lot of volunteers. I have no problem giving this amount of money directly to the Albury Fire Department. But to open the door for an open-ended maybe 3% per year is a little, it's a bridge too far.

Thank you, ma'am.

That is it.

Thank you. Is there any other, are there any other comments from the public? Yes, sir.

Yeah, hi, my name is Dustin Sewell. I own a property in Albury. It's 32978 Albury Road. It's in the town of Albury. It's a commercial building. And we rent out spaces for like a barbershop and general, things like that. So we bought the property in 2019. And two months later, COVID hit. and we lost about half of our revenue. So after exhausting most of our life savings, we lost pretty much half of our rent and we had to subsidize our rent with our paving company. So after that, we made it through and we were able to forge ahead. But we, after 2020 and the Creek Fire, Our insurance went up from $3,453 a year to $6,729 a year. And we've always kept our property clean. Got a few pictures here of our trees trimmed, all of our weeds raked and weeded. And here's a picture of Aubury Elementary that was acquired by the CCC. Almost all the windows are broken out. There's weeds growing up right up next to the buildings. And it's an eyesore, it's a fire hazard, and it's an embarrassment to our little town up there. I don't mind paying to the fire department itself, I understand, but to get any more money out of us whatsoever, I don't agree with at all. The town of Albury has three fire hydrants total, and we own... We need you to finish up.

You only got a few seconds.

We own two of them, and... Every time there's a fire, we get our tank drained of 10,000 gallons. We have to pay to have it repumped, and we don't have any reimbursements for that. We get reimbursed for nothing, no matter how well we upkeep our property and supply water to help everybody out. All we ever get is increases in regulation and taxes, so I'm opposed to it.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Anyone else from the public wish to speak? Okay, is there a motion and a second to close the public portion of the protest hearings? Is there a second? All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Passes unanimously. All right, the public portion of the 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. Okay, next slide.

So as they're doing that, under the administrative office, item number seven, approve resolution calling a statewide special election to be consolidated with the statewide general election to be held on November 3rd, 2026 for the purpose of submitting the electors of Fresno County a ballot measure relating to ordinance number 26-004 regarding the establishment of the Fresno County transit occupancy tax in the unincorporated areas of Fresno County.

Good morning board, Paige Benavides, your county budget director. Our clerk of the board is bringing up our presentation and she's going to distribute those shortly to you. As the clerk read into the record, the item before you is to adopt a resolution calling for a special election to submit a ballot measure regarding a transient occupancy tax or TOT. So as a reminder for the board and for the benefit of those joining us today from the public, a TOT is a tax imposed on a short-term lodging typically paid by visitors staying in hotels, motels, tourist homes, short-term vacation rentals, RVs at campgrounds, et cetera, for a period of 30 days or fewer. It's important to note that this tax does not apply to county residents in their primary or long-term residence. Transient occupancy tax revenues typically support a wide range of county services that include public safety, infrastructure maintenance, health and human services, and general government operations. TOT would be a general tax and would be discretionary for countywide use. On April 21st of this year, your board adopted an ordinance to add Chapter 4.14, Transient Occupancy Tax, to the county's ordinance code, setting the TOT rate at 12%. The ordinance outlines the collection requirements of lodging operators, it describes the penalties that would be imposed for nonpayment, and it provides remedies for collection by the tax collector. Approval of the recommended action today adopts a resolution calling a countywide special election to be consolidated with a statewide general election to be held on November 3rd, 2026. to submit a ballot measure regarding the establishment of the Fresno County TOT in the unincorporated area of Fresno County. The resolution requests the county clerk registrar of voters, or CCROV, to designate the ballot measure as Measure A. It also authorizes the board or any member of the board to act as an author of any ballot argument prepared in connection with the measure. It directs County Council to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure. It directs the auditor, controller, treasurer, tax collector to prepare a fiscal impact statement. And it authorizes the CAO to work with CCROV to take all necessary steps to place the ballot on, the measure on the ballot that is, and any associated materials. The ballot question is before you on that slide and I read all the words, but the resolution provides that the question on the ballot would be shown here and it notes that the estimated revenues generated by a TOT is about $4.5 million in general revenues. And with that, we are available for any questions.

Okay. Any questions or comments from the boards? Supervisor Magzi.

Just some general comments. Paige, thank you for the presentation. And obviously, with any proposed tax, it has to be approved by the voters, which I appreciate how that is structured. But just some general comments, because I think a lot of our short-term rentals are located in District 5. I would imagine probably somewhere around 60% to 70%. We had a previous item dealing with raising assessments on properties to help pay for fire protection. And I know in the mountain areas of Fresno County, we are seeing increased tourism, increased activities from residents, and also calls for service. And a lot of those calls from the volunteer fire departments are to respond to medical aids. So one thing I would like this board to take into consideration, because I know that I can't direct how these future funds potentially could be used, but I think it would be prudent that a portion of those funds be used to help with public safety services in the mountain area, as well as parking, which is very much needed, as well as bathroom facilities, additional bathroom facilities for members of the public who are going up to mountain areas. So I just wanted to basically put that on the record. Again, I don't think we can program how these dollars are spent because a future board is going to have to make those decisions. But I do believe that where these dollars are being generated, a portion of that should stay in those areas where the dollars are being generated because tourism is having an impact on our services as well.

Supervisor Chavez?

Thank you, Chair. And just for the benefit of the public, for our folks, what was the rate that we had previously?

Zero.

Zero, right? So we have folks that are coming in to visit our community, which is great. Supervisor Magsig, they come and visit Shaver Lake. They come and visit all of our attractions. And I know whenever somebody hears the word tax, there's automatically a connotation. But I just want to remind folks, whenever we go out of town and we visit Disneyland or Magic Mountain or Pismo, we're paying for those services. And so what, to me, is really a fairness question. is folks coming in here using our infrastructure our roads our emergency uh you know facilities and and all things of that sort i think it's fair to ask folks that uh come into our community to pay that we're not at taxing our own uh residents uh so to speak so i'm gonna be in in support of this and and i hope our community supports it so we can get some very much needed revenue to pay for all of the infrastructure needs that we have here, road maintenance, behavioral public health, and I think it's a reminder for folks that the county is responsible for a lot of the basic needs, but we also provide a lot of services that a lot of folks don't really understand or know until they need them. For example, out of our medical services, a lot of our public health, mental health, we do have parks as well, too, that we need to pay for. And I make this point as an avid hiker. I do see what Supervisor Magazine mentioned earlier. There is a lot more folks getting out there, and I think that's great. We're just asking them to pitch in and pay their fair share. So thank you.

Any other comments from the board? Oh, no, go ahead. Go ahead.

Just a quick comment. I just want to thank Paige for her hard work on this. Also Matt Constantine assisted with this effort. Also our communication team put a lot of work into the community meetings that took place and a lot of publicity went along with that. The one additional request I have of you that I would suggest we add to the recommended action is when we look at the language that's going to be in the ballot guide and any rebuttals that may need to be essentially arguing in favor of it, I understand that we should designate, if we could, at least two board members as a committee from your board to serve in that capacity. So I would just add that request to the recommended.

Yes, go ahead.

Do you know what this has been talked about? I know it was. voted on before me and Brian were in office. So that was like ancient history. But what's the reason this hasn't come up in the last at least 10 years?

My understanding is there was some strong voices in the community against it at the time who are no longer in that capacity. But I will say this. We had several people coming to us asking, why are we not doing this, including visit Fresno County to say you're We're not, it's not a level playing field. We're the only county in the state that has rentals that's not doing it. So it just stands out that we're, and the fact that our local residents, primarily visitors, would be paying for this. It's something that we strongly suggest we should do.

And I'm fully supportive of it. I mean, that's kind of a deal where you don't have, you have all your neighboring counties doing it. I mean, the city of Fresno, isn't theirs 12%?

I believe it's 12.

So I mean, we're basically putting ourselves at a disadvantage.

One thing I want to point out, so this would only apply in the rural areas. We're right now at zero. There were people asking questions, is this on top of what the cities have? The answer is no. This is just in the unincorporated areas that the county has full jurisdiction over.

I'm glad you raised that. That came up in our community meeting, so absolutely.

Again, I want to reiterate, we're the only county in the state that doesn't have a TOT tax, right?

Correct. We're one of three that doesn't have the rate, but we are the only one with lodging inventory, if you will, that would benefit or generate these types of things.

The other two don't have that.

Correct. Yeah.

So, I mean, we're providing services... without being reimbursed by the people who are utilizing those services. And it is very clear that our residents aren't going to be paying this tax. This is about people who come and visit, and we want them to come and visit, just like we all visit areas and we pay additional TOT taxes wherever we go. because we're using services and we're visiting and we're paying for that service. And that's what this is. I mean, historically, and I will continue to be opposed generally to taxes because I think we're taxed enough, overtaxed, but this is a very different tax. This is a tax for people who come and visit the area who are utilizing the services that we provide or coming to Supervisor Magzig's district in beautiful Shaver and Huntington Lake and all the beautiful Sierra Nevada mountains that we have, and we're having to pay that bill without having any resources to do it other than general fund money and things of that sort. So this is rectifying something that should have been addressed a long time ago as Supervisor Mendez suggests. um and it will raise about four and a half million dollars which will go to public safety facilities in the in the areas that people are using so it really is something that i encourage our county residents to support and i will be supporting as well with that any comments from the public Seeing none, I'll bring it back. Is there a motion and a second?

Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to make a motion, but I just want to ask yourself as well as Luis Chavez, since we can have two people write arguments in favor of this, the reason I recommend the two of you, if you're open to it, is there is a very strong possibility that Brian, a buddy, and myself will not be here next year. So if you guys are open to that, I would... Sure. If you're open to that, I would.

There's a very strong possibility you guys won't be here. It's almost guaranteed.

I would move for staff's recommendation on this to move forward with the TOT to be placed on the ballot. And I also, in that motion, would designate both the chairman, Gary Bredefeld, as well as Luis Chavez to write the argument for this measure.

I'll second that motion, I'm gonna throw something else. The largest hotel not in a city is Harris Ranch, which is in District 4.

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

We now move to item number eight under the administrative office, conduct hearing to consider and adopt resolution decreasing the number of members on the Parlier Cemetery District Board of Trustees from five to three.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. The item before you is a request from the Parlier Cemetery District Board of Trustees, reducing the number of trustees from five to three. The board adopted a resolution with such change request on May 18th. The reason for it is the current composition is burdensome to the operations of the district. The board is wishing to streamline its oversight and management of the district and sees it as a cost savings measure. Once two vacancies or terms expire, those seats would not be filled. A side note that in 2003, the then board expanded from three to five. So the request before you is to reduce from five to three. Thank you to County Council, Madam Clerk, your team for the research on this. The chair of the district is in the audience. Miss Marcy Villalpando, should you have any questions?

Thank you. Any comments from the board? Any comments from the public? Okay, I'll bring it back. Is there a motion and a second? Oh, I'm sorry, did you have a comments?

Yeah, you know, I don't, we basically advised them because there was some people that wanted to do it because it was actually a 3-1 vote, you know, with one person being absent. And we just basically told them to get with county council. and figure out what the procedure is to do it. I don't particularly support this. I think the only time you reduce a board, and me and Brian have many of these, when you reduce a five to a three is because you can't get two people to serve those positions. So to me, this is kind of a little irregular.

Okay, and so you're not in favor of this?

Not in favor, no.

And this is in your district?

Just for that one reason, yeah.

Okay. Is there a motion to approve this?

No. This is district.

Well, if this is in Buddy's district and he's not recommending it, I mean, for me, typically I'm not in favor of doing something that the supervisor where, you know, an issue is directly going to impact negatively. If he's opposed to it, then I have hesitation as well.

Yep. Yep. Seeing no motion to approve, I assume.

Board, I'd recommend a motion to reject the item then.

Okay, is there a motion to reject this?

So moved. There's a second. I'll second that.

There's a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Passes unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you, board. We will work with the district to let them know the outcome of today's meeting. Thank you.

We now move to item number nine under the administrative office. Receive progress report on the county's American Rescue Plan Act State Local Fiscal Recovery Fund program. Discuss and provide direction regarding American Rescue Plan Act State Local Fiscal Recovery Fund for the portion of the unclaimed funds by June 30, 2026 expenditure deadline.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the board. I'm George Uk, principal analyst with the CAO's office. This item is going to present a progress report on the ARPA program. It's going to present recommendations for obligated funds that were not claimed by the end of today and also request direction from your board so that staff could return by October 2026 with final recommendations for any funding availability identified in the expenditure plan. To begin, I'm going to provide a brief background on the ARPA program. On March 2021, the ARPA legislation was signed into law. This created the State Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, which is a $350 billion emergency stimulus package in response to the 2020 public health emergency. Fresno County received $194 million in state local fiscal recovery funds. For simplicity, I'm going to reference the state local fiscal recovery funds as ARPA. In the final rule, Treasury codified two key deadlines for the ARPA program. All funds must be obligated by December 31 of 2024. And the second deadline is all obligated funds must be liquidated by December 31 of 2026. On February 2022, your board approved the ad hoc committee's recommended expenditure plan. which has been periodically reviewed and updated by your board over through the timeline. There's been eight revisions to the expenditure plan. Your current expenditure plan provides funding for 83 different programs. This slide shows community input, which helped your board make funding decisions across the different eligible categories provided in ARPA. As you can see, the largest investment is in category A, public health emergency and economic negative impacts in our community. That's 54% of the entire award. The second greatest investment is 23% of the county's award was allocated to subrecipient programs, which is going to be the highlight of today's presentation. Your board also allocated $10 million as in category B, which is premium pay for essential workers early on in 2022. And then the county elected to choose the standard allowance of $10 million as revenue loss. The next couple of slides provide a lot of information. I'm not going to go through the detail, but it is included in attachment A of the agenda item today. This table shows the 38 different programs that are invested and being implemented by county departments. This slide shows the 45 different subrecipient programs receiving ARPA funding. And these programs are distributed across category A and category D. Let's begin by highlighting some of the successes of the subrecipient programs. The subrecipient program provides $24.9 million in different programs in our community that are a response to the public health emergency or the negative economic impacts in our community. Some of these programs provide affordable housing in our communities, food distribution, and programs that benefit impacted communities throughout the pandemic. 20.4 million in subrecipient programs is awarded to infrastructure improvements in our rural communities to address water or sewer improvements. In 2024, your board was recognized with a NACO Achievement Award for the Provarello Kitchen Improvements, which created the Mike's Cafe. That's a $2.5 million investment in homelessness initiatives. In 2025, Department of Public Health received California CSAC's Challenge Award for Department of Public Health's Rural Mobile Health Programs, which provides medical services and wraparound services To rural communities, that's a $6.6 million investment. In preparation to meet the ARPA expenditure deadline in 2024, the CAO's office and the auditor controller, treasurer, tax collector agreed to require all ARPA programs to file their last ARPA claims by end of today, which is June 30, 2026. CAO's office started the implementation of this by providing written notices to all of the ARPA programs March of 2025, informing them of the Treasury's deadline and reminding them that there's going to be an internal deadline that would allow us to receive all claims and process payments before the Treasury's deadline. Through this timeline, there was also additional three written notices and quarterly reminders provided to all the programs, as well as in early June, CAO's office started implementing key performance indicators and timelines so that subrecipients could report to the county CAO's office whether they were going to be able to complete their program. To date, 38 programs have been completed or have fully expended their award. There are 45 programs that have not expended their award, which has an estimated value of 21.3 million. A few of the challenges that we're facing in expending the remaining portion of the award is just the amount of time that it takes to process payments. On average, it takes 64 days to issue payments under the subrecipient program. And this timeline is an average. It depends on when the subrecipient submits the claim, the amount of information that's being submitted, our review, to review for compliance in the spirit of the agreement and looking at whether it meets the guidelines of Treasury's ARPA program. Those claims are then submitted to the auditor's office for their review, and they review it for accounting and uniform guidance compliance. The challenge primarily that we're experiencing right now is under the subrecipients that have payroll and financial tracking challenges. It continues to present delays in processing payments due to the amount of supporting information that our auditor, controller, treasurer, tax collector's office is requesting from our subrecipients to produce an ARPA payment. And the last challenge is some of our capital improvement projects and infrastructure projects are reporting implementation delays that would take them beyond the June 30, 2026 deadline. As of June 12, 2026, active subrecipient programs under the department's programs are 21 programs. That's 14 million in committed obligations. There are 24 subrecipient programs with the value of 7.3 million in obligations that still need to be spent. As of June 12, 2026, department programs have approximately $7.8 million in unclaimed obligations, which means we still need to receive a claim for it for the programs to expend it against the award. Subrecipient programs have an approximately $4.2 million in obligations that have not been claimed. To conclude, staff recommends your board to direct the CAO's office to begin the implementation of the closing of the ARPA program, direct our office to begin issuing notices to our subrecipients so that we could start amending their agreements, reflecting on what could be expended. Second recommended action would be to direct the auditor controller's office to request guidance and or meet with the subrecipients to complete its review in processing their payments. And then the last request would be, last direction would be to direct our office to return to your board by October 2026 to present a final recommendation to expend the grant. This concludes staff presentation.

Thank you very much. Any comments from the board? Yes. Chavez.

Just a quick question, Chair, for George. So once we initiate this conversation, all these organizations or entities will receive a letter in the mail saying this is it. We'll have a conversation in October about where those funds for our students. Have we identified what possible investments we would make with the money that's clawed back, or is that still being processed?

We have, and most of those things are offsetting costs for the county that are eligible ARPA expenses. So that includes costs for our general medical, that includes funding for our congregate care supplemental pay for correctional officers. So we believe that we have enough costs that are eligible for ARPA within the county to fully expend those funds.

And this is obviously, CEO, with the gap that we have for our budget that's coming up. I think you referenced upwards of $10 million or so?

Yes. It would be very helpful for us to use it for that purpose. It will help offset that. So we've already assumed some of that with that shortfall. Thank you.

Yes, Supervisor Mendes. I want to be clear about a few things. I'm not criticizing what you said, but you used the word organizations. Most of the county money went to special districts. who did not have any ARPA money. The ARPA money went to cities and counties. They got completely cut out of it. So the majority of our money went over there. Another thing early on, and George, you correct me if I'm wrong, there was people that applied and were very disappointed in us because they said our standards were way too rigorous. And they made comments like, oh, well, all we have to do is ask the city, and they gave us money. But we're used to taking federal money and using all the procedures on that money. And that's what we did. We used the same procedures that we've always used on the federal money that came to us through different programs, through social service, behavioral health, and whatever. So, I mean, there was a pretty big misunderstanding at the beginning. Wouldn't you say that was true, George?

Yes, I agree, and that includes just the amount of information that we're requesting. Even entities that were interested to request funding, the amount of information that was being requested of them was extensive.

And then there's a lot of programs right now, if you look at the deal, that still show they're not done, but technically they're done, but we're trying to get all the paperwork in. And, I mean, it's like everything. If you want to just describe what the auditor controller's office asked for in these deals, it's like a long list of stuff.

Yes, and very high level. We could cover payroll information. Payroll information consists of subrecipients turning in time cards, pay stubs, and certain points. There's even a request to provide just the amount of benefits that the organization pays and evidencing that the organization paid. So it goes back and forth, and that contributes to just the delays of how much time it takes to issue an ARPA payment to the organization.

Sure. But it brings it up to that federal reporting. So I know for a fact if we're ever audited, you know, from the federal government on what we did with the ARPA model, ours is well documented. Now, you guys are lucky you left the cities. It probably isn't very documented.

I think there's truth to that, Supervisor.

Well, on that note, you're right, because I was the chair of the subcommittee that was doling out some funds, and you're right, it was a very difficult time, but I think you guys made some great investments, and I think my comments to George were just, I just want to make sure that we're able to make those investments, that you guys, especially the rural health mobile units, I can't tell you how important that was to our community, so... So I don't want there to be the perception, but now my colleague and I have the benefit and the curse of having been at the city and now we're at the county. So we do things a lot better now.

Oh, totally. Well, you left the dark side. Supervisor Magzi?

Yeah. So with the county, with 23% of our revenues going to really try to help the community, special districts and the like, I think the county, we positioned ourself in a way which was very different from any other cities and counties that did get an ARPA allotment. So early on, we put together a methodology. and put together and made funds available to the community, recognizing that we wanted to provide maximum impact. I appreciate the attachment that you provided, which shows what the award was to category D recipients and then how much is left. And for the most part, most of those subrecipients have expended their funds, which is great. Some have gotten, you know, some are at 97%, some are lower, but Over a year ago, we began shoot 18 months ago. We were telling our sub recipients. It's important for you guys to get your invoices in because we have to have all the dollars spent by December. And so I appreciate the work that that to the CAO's office that you specifically have been doing in all of this. So there was a question that came up about, you know, how are we going to make sure that we expend these funds? I think the board. uh... approved we have kind of in our back pocket an opportunity to spend these dollars if sub recipients are unable i know on this chart you know there's an award uh... you know there's an award where for one point six million to one entity they've only spent about two hundred fourteen thousand so you know that's over a million dollars of additional revenue but we have uh... other projects we can take that money and make sure it gets fully spent so we don't have to send that money back to the federal government But by and large, our subrecipients have done a very good job, and I really appreciate the CAO's office working with them to get those dollars out the door. And I think because of how we positioned ourself, our ARPA allotment has impacted Fresno County in a very positive way. So I really appreciate that.

Any other comments from the board? Yes, go ahead.

I just want to thank you, George. I mean, you took on a huge project. At one time, you were doing it by yourself, but then we got you some help, and thank you for doing everything you did. Thank you.

Any comments from the public? Yes, come on up.

Good morning, Board of Supervisors. My name is Imogene Walker. I'm the Executive Director with Fresno Metro Ministry, where we also have, we're part of the ARPA contract. And we've had our ARPA contract since 2023. We got an advancement of $128,000, which we have expended. We have provided invoicing to the county for our contract to expend it out. We were also informed about the deadline of December 2026, or the June 30th. With that, we made sure our contract was completely complete by December 31st. We have submitted every invoice from 2023, and we got an advancement in 2023. That is the only payment Fresno Metro Ministry have received to date. We have worked with the county to provide all the necessary paperwork back and forth. We said, okay, we've submitted this, that don't work. We submitted the other paperwork. So we have been very diligent into the point where we have created a Google Drive sheet that we can upload so all the documents would be there in a nice package, great forms. The documents are in their place with all the necessary backup from health care, from payroll, from gas receipts, literally anything that you can think of. And I'm willing to share our Google Drive with anybody on the board who wants to take a look at it. But we're asking that our funds for Metro is not put in the unclaimed portion because we have expended those funds and we have not been reimbursed at all for the dollars. We are a small nonprofit. Well, I don't call us small. We may be small in size, but we're very big in the community. Fresno Metro Ministry, part of this funding was for the food to share program where we where we have recovered and distributed 14 million pounds in the past year to families, to all our pantries in Fresno County, making sure that they're full. So I'm asking the board, please do not take these funds. We are in dire need of our funds as an organization.

Thank you.

Good morning, Board of Supervisors. Good morning, Chairman Bredefelt. Tate Hill, CEO of Access Plus Capital. We are also one of the contractors, vendors that has worked with the county. This is our second county ARPA contract The first one we received in 2020, right at the beginning of the program where we assisted the county to deploy $5 million to small businesses throughout the county. This last contract was for $200,000 to provide a rural technical assistance program. This is one of six contracts that we have implemented throughout the Central Valley with the City of Bakersfield, State of California, and we are also a direct federal contractor through the SBA, USDA, and the CDFI Fund. We also are audited. We receive a single purpose audit every year with no findings, no findings as an organization. And so, we have a remaining balance pertaining to the staff allocation. The County of Fresno made one initial payment, but there's still an allocation of over $47,000 in staffing related, reimbursement we have provided as I believe was mentioned that the concept of payroll all the backup documentation are required we've gotten a lot of support and assistance from George and the team from ARPA and from our understanding our documentation is alignment with the ARPA requirements for reimbursement. That's why the county has reimbursed us over $150,000 of the $200,000 in contract. And so we were to meet with the auditors to get some clarity, and that meeting was canceled. So we just need support from the Board of Supervisors so that we can continue to support small businesses in this county. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Dr. Jean Marie Karras-McManus, and I'm the CEO of Westside Family Preservation Services Network out of Huron. And I've been in my role for 18 years. And we have 17 years of successful contracts with the Department of Social Services, the Department of Behavioral Health, And we are, we have the distinction of being the last on the list with 3% of our allocation. But we have expended these funds and we've done the work. And we're proud of the work that we've done. And we've worked really hard since the first meeting with George and his team in December of 24 to go over the requirements. And we, like the previous speakers, as a small organization, have really struggled with some, especially of the payroll requirements because we don't have functional timesheets that ask our staff in increments to do these things. We do have federal audits every year. We're just about a $2 million a year organization, so we don't have professional staff. But we have done the work, and we really need the money. So that's why I'm here to ask for it.

Thank you.

Thank you Hello supervisors My name is Danielle Rodriguez and I'm with Fresno Metro and wanted to add like some of the other organizations here that our organization is Does a single audit every year without any? any recommendations and passes it every year. In conjunction with the other organizations, we've worked with George since December to finalize all of the billing and submit everything. We have asked to speak with and meet with George and his team, which they did meet with us before December of last year. After that, we've asked multiple times to meet with special accounting to go over why it is that they haven't approved all of the items that they've requested and that we've submitted. We haven't received any feedback, nor have we received a date that we could meet with them. And so we're asking that you take a look at this and please help us and the other organizations get paid for the work that we've done for the county. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other comments from the public? Okay, seeing none, I'll bring it back. Is there a motion to second to approve, to provide direction? Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.

I think we need to make it clear. To me, this item was brought forward to make it clear to everyone that we have a deadline coming and you need to get your paperwork in order. What I have heard is George has met, you know, and as a board, although you weren't here at the time, but we, We awarded the contracts, but let's be clear, the auditor controller determines compliance and rewards the checks. So they can come here and tell us, and now we're informed, but we are not the ones issuing the checks. It's the auditor controller. And then when this came to me, I asked our CO yesterday, we need to see Oscar. Is our auditor controller here today?

He is not, he is at a conference, but there are two staff members here who can speak.

Then we need the staff members here because that's where the issue is now. So these people have come forward, they want their money, but now they need to welcome to our world, and I understand they have audits and all that with theirs, but you're at the county and we have different rules than what your normal audit is. and our auditor controller is a stickler for the details because if we don't comply, then the county's on the hook that we don't have the money for. So you will not be given a check unless you meet all the requirements of our auditor controller, but your issue is really with the auditor controller's office. But I want the auditor controller's office to come here because I've had several people come forward and say you have not met with them and that needs to be addressed. So it's unfortunate the big boss isn't here, but welcome to the vice chair and you need to answer for that.

It looks like we're gonna get an answer.

Yeah. Good morning, Mario Cabrera, Deputy Auditor-Controller. We have communicated issues with the supporting documentation that's been provided to us with George. It's been relayed over to the sub-recipients. We are willing and open to meet with them. Since they are here today, we can step aside after this item and we'll schedule meetings with them.

So for those of you in the audience, there's your ticket right there. Meet with that man. He just said he'll meet with you and get your documents in order. But that is the man that will or will not write your check. We as a board, we don't have the authority of that. It comes from the auditor controller. So you brought it public. This is a solution to your problem right there. That way we're all clear because the clock is ticking and if you do not comply by the deadline, you will not get the checks because the county will not be responsible for whatever the auditor controller deems is appropriate or not appropriate. Just so we're all clear.

Okay, thank you for that clarification. Any other comment? Okay, is there a motion and a second to provide the direction? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Passes unanimously.

We now move to item number 10. And the administrative offices receive quarterly update on the code enforcement program.

Good morning, Board Chairman and members of the Board. Paul Nerland, your CAO, and I'll just begin while Elisanya Harrison is coming to the podium. Over the last several years, your Board has made clear to my office how much of a priority the Code Enforcement Program is. And I just want to say a few thank yous before Elisanya begins her presentation. Ed Hill, our Chief Operating Officer, is not here today, but I can't tell you the countless number of hours that he has dedicated to support Elisanya and the team to get us where we're at today. So he deserves a lot of credit for the progress that we have. I also want to thank Elisanya for her leadership and the work that's been done. There's a lot more work to be done, but what she has done and the team that she has assembled to date really is credit to relationships that she has and many, many late hours of responding to your board's priorities, and I credit her for that. One of the items before she begins her presentation I want to mention at the beginning, and we can return at the end, When our office took over code enforcement, one of the things that we were tasked with was following up on old complaints that had not been responded to, and we've made good progress. That being said, we have some complaints that are three, five years or older that it is not very effective at this stage to respond to. Most of the complainants are either not there or the complaint itself is not one that is effective using resources. So part of the direction I would request today that we are able to sunset the the older complaints focus on the newer complaints and there are plenty that still come in as we go forward as we work to just make this a more effective code enforcement program with that I will turn over to Ellis on you to give us an update on code enforcement

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Today, I am providing an update on the progress of the Code Enforcement Division since our last update in January. The division continues to make measurable progress in reducing backlog, improving responsiveness, increasing cost recovery, and expanding enforcement services to address community concerns. From December 1, 2025 to May 31, 2026, the division opened 402 new cases and closed 479. Although new case volume increased by 18% over the same reporting period last year, staff continued to reduce the overall backlog. We continue to close more cases than we open, allowing us to steadily reduce historical backlog while managing increasing complaint volume. The division continues using a tiered response model to prioritize cases based on urgent health and safety concerns. Tier one health category include dangerous buildings, fire damaged structures, and open and vacant properties, with a targeted response of 24 to 48 hours. We are currently meeting that metric 72% of the time. Tier 2 cases, such as illegal occupancy, illegal dumping, unpermitted construction, targeted response of three days. We are currently meeting that metric 59% of the time. In Tier 3 cases, which include rubbish and junk, abandoned vehicles, RVs parked in the front of the yards or parked on the lawn, with a target response of three to five days, we are currently meeting that metric 63% of the time. The ordinance amendments of Chapter 1144 and Chapter 1145 for abandoned vehicles and Chapter 1504 and 1532 for substandard housing approved by your board in October 2025, have significantly strengthened our enforcement capabilities. Since assuming responsibility for abandoned and inoperable vehicles, we have improved response times and streamlined vehicle abatement processes. We also have partnered with Department of Public Health to develop a relocation benefits program to assist tenants displaced by hazardous substandard housing conditions. Cost recovery continues to improve. Since the implementation of the cost recovery program in September of 2025, the county has issued $353,000 in special assessments and has recovered $208,000. I'd also like to thank the board for approving the Acela contract last month. The platform will improve case management, field operations, performance monitoring, and reduce administrative inefficiencies associated with manual processes. The project is currently in the initial planning phase. As the division continues to grow and improve, we will be better positioned to evaluate long-term staffing needs, workload distribution, and service demands. The proposed organizational changes before your board today include two code enforcement supervisors and one additional code enforcement officer. It will strengthen oversight, improve training, and support continued program and growth. The progress we are reporting today reflects the direct impact of your board's continued investment in staffing, technology, and expanded enforcement authority. Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions.

Any comments, questions? Yes, Supervisor Magnuson.

And this, I think, is to our CAO. I believe that this board provided direction, maybe it was five years ago, to we allocated some additional dollars to code enforcement. And at that time, I think it was under the direction, under the control of Public Works. So what I'm hearing, what's being requested is to kind of drop off complaints that have come in in the last three to five years so we can focus on more current complaints that are coming in, which generally I don't have an issue with. But just a question, do we have a reason why some of those older complaints as we were ramping up code enforcement, why those weren't addressed appropriately at the time?

Yeah, so just to clarify, not complaints within the last three to five years, complaints that are older than three. So these really, these are complaints that are before we took over code enforcement, what it comes down to. And the effectiveness, and Ellis and I can speak to this, when we send our code enforcement officers out to a complaint that is that old, It's just not very effective, where the complaint either is no longer there or sometimes the person who put it in is no longer there. So on a go-for basis, as Ellie shared, we're now closing more cases than we're getting, which is a plus, and we've made our effort, but we're finding it's just not a very effective use of resources.

Think a previous board none of us Up here because the board that's up here is the one that put into place Funding code enforcement, but there were previous boards. It's my understanding who said we're not going to use the county to And use code enforcement as a tool to try to bring people into compliance so that has created some challenges for our current code enforcement division I would like you to continue and for the county to operate on a complaint basis. I know there's been some questions, you know, should we be more proactive? Right now, there are so many complaints that we receive. I want our division, our code enforcement, to be a complaints-based division because I receive calls from constituents throughout Fresno County. In my district office, you know, on a weekly basis, we receive multiple. So at this point, that's how I'd like us to remain.

I have to disagree with you a little bit there because there's areas in the county that the neighbors don't want to complain. That's just kind of natural. They think, well, my neighbor's going to get mad or whatever, and they don't realize that they can do it anonymously. So I think they need to do some actual work looking and if they see stuff that are obviously safety hazard you know that ends up you know where there's been several fires that they ended up burning into people's mobile homes but you know we need to take a little closer look at some of that stuff because some of the there was actually living spaces that weren't that were not permitted. you know, which actually causes more. There's garbage, meaning old cars and abandoned just metal junk that sometimes they need to be a little bit more proactive. It needs to be kind of a middle ground where they're not acting like, you know, the city, you know, but they don't have the manpower that the city did to actually go out and, you know, enforce code without complaints.

Yeah, thank you, Supervisor, if I may. So I think what we do, this is a board-driven program, so in response to the concerns you shared, when we do that, and we're talking about the community of Lanier or others where it's going to take a significant amount of time, that's based on the priorities in your district, and so we've worked with you on that. Because of our resources, that means a lot will go to that area, and because, as you pointed out, some of those are health and safety type violations would be the top tier complaints anyway. But we're going to do that. You help us set those priorities. And so I think we can do both, essentially, of what Supervisor Magsig stated, but also pivot when your board suggests with realization that those resources are limited and may be tied up for a while in that area.

OK. Any other Supervisor Chick? I would just add, Supervisor Mendez-Sinai in the rural areas, I think we have a lot of complaints that come to us. I will compliment our officer. She's done a fantastic job in addressing those. I can appreciate the backlog, which was created because our previous boards, they had our inspectors in a dual role as an inspector and a code enforcement. So of course, the inspection was always a priority, so it just got backed up and backed up. So I can appreciate that they're asking to grandfather those in. I need my issues addressed now, not happened five and eight years ago or even four years ago. So I will make it clear. I believe they should address all the issues from January 1, 2024 to present. and the rest are simply whitewashed unless somebody were to bring them forward to reactivate that because we don't need them wasting time that they could be addressing today's issues for something that happened five years ago that may or may not be there. So I personally, I don't have any issue with that. I think the hard date would be January 1, 2024, and put a priority on those moving forward and simply let the others go away unless somebody were to bring that to our attention. I have no issue with that.

Any other comments? What would that, if Supervisor Pacheco's recommendation, what would that be for you, do for you in terms of being able to catch up with all of those items and complaints? Would that make your life easier in terms of addressing all those things?

It would. It would really benefit the division. The staff would be more responsive and will be addressing all the current complex cases that we have currently.

Just curious, any thoughts on that? I don't have a problem with that.

I think we have to do it. I know at one point the backlog was like 1,200. Yes, we did. And so.

You're no fault of the current people.

Correct. Correct. We, over time, our board has built what we have today, but we don't have, I mean, 6,000 square miles, we don't have $100 million to put on code enforcement. So we have to live within our means. And so I appreciate the job that you've done. So I have no issues. with what Brian suggested or even what Buddy suggested and to be clear if we see health and safety issues we have to address that we can't ignore that but when it comes to other issues we don't want to be out looking for exactly I understand we need a balance like Buddy said we're just looking for a balance but we're not here to be generating money against our people sure yeah I think you're doing an excellent job and excellent suggestion supervisor Pacheco any comments from the public

Oh, okay. This item was just to receive a presentation, so no motions necessary.

Maybe one.

Oh, I'm sorry. Please, please, I'm sorry.

Good morning, Ms. Shelly Lichty. I just wanted to comment. I wasn't prepared to speak on this topic, but I have had the unfortunate and the fortunate experience with code enforcement this last year. I had a neighbor feud, and they were using code enforcement as a weapon against me, and so it was quite a game. The officers that I interacted with were just awesome. I mean, they were just spectacular people. And the communication and their willingness to work with me and cooperate, you know, I had a couple little minor issues and corrected them right away. They were amazing. So this new code enforcement is just wonderful. and I can't compliment them enough. There's minor bureaucracy within the process. One complaint about me I fixed, but that same complaint that the neighbor made was on their property, but code enforcement didn't address their property only on my property, I had to then make a complaint against them. I didn't make the complaint. That's not how I participate. But it was a weird bureaucracy. They only went one direction. But anyways, the point I want to make is that code enforcement was just spectacular. And I really appreciated that.

Thank you. Appreciate the feedback. Anyone else from the public? Okay. Thank you, Ellie. Appreciate it. Next item.

We now move to item number 11, approve amendment to salary resolution adding one code enforcement officer, one two position deleting one code enforcement manager position from code enforcement CA org 4620 and retitling two senior code enforcement officers to supervising code enforcement officers in code enforcement CA org 4620 and adjusting the salary range effective July 6th, 2026.

So I think Elisanya kind of set this item up in her presentation by what's being requested, but we can answer any questions that you may have, and we appreciate your support.

Any comments from the board? I think she knows how best to run her department. After the public comment, I'll make the motion to approve the request.

Any, let me just go to the public. Any comments from the public? Seeing none, I'll bring it back.

I'll make the motion, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you. We now move to item number 12 under General Services. Adopt and authorize the chairman to execute resolution finding and declaring the following under government code section 25365B and 25, I'm sorry, and 5421F1C for an exchange of the real properties. A, the county-owned real property located in the vicinity of the southeast corner of South Delray and East American Avenues in the unincorporated community of Delray, California, 93616. and which is approximately 2.204 acres of land is not necessary for use by the county. B, the county properties exempt surplus land under government code section 54221F1C. C, your board intends for the county property to be exchanged and exempt surplus land under government code section 54221F1C of the Surplus Land Act with 2.373 acres of open land also located in the vicinity of the southeast corner of South Delray and East American Avenues in the unincorporated community of Delray, California, 93716. and owned by palm wonderful property which is land required for county use d the county property of the palm wonderful property described above and depicted in exhibits a and b in the resolution respectively are of approximately equal value and the exchange shall be on as is and where is and with all false basis which will involve no exchange of money or other consideration. Approve the form of real property exchange agreement and the forms for both grant deeds which are on file with the clerk of the board authorized and direct county councilors and or county councilors does need to provide a county a copy of the adopted resolution and the board approved unexecuted form of the exchange agreement to the California Department of Housing Community Development and any such other information that county council or county council's designee deems necessary or appropriate and in the best interest of the county or that HCD may request from the county and authorize the director of the Department of General Services or the designee on behalf of the county to approve and execute the final exchange agreement and the final grant deed conveying the county property to Palm Wonderful, including any changes to the board-approved form of such documents as the director or designee deems necessary and appropriate and in the best interest of the county, all subject to approval as to legal form and county council approval as to accounting formed by the auditor, controller, treasurer, tax collector, and such executions of such documents by the director or the designee to be accomplished only after the proposed exchange is approved by HCD. This item does require a four-fifth vote. Supervisor Magsik and Pacheco did recuse themselves earlier due to the Levine. We will now draw.

Could you repeat that again?

It was one breath, too.

Okay, we will see you shortly.

Chairman, board, I'm here to represent this item. It's heads out of the area right now. So my department has a role in this and we prepped it many, many years ago in 2012 and now it's finally come to culmination. We're ready to exchange properties with Palm Wonderful we're working with Natalie through the process itself but I want to put on the record this action will put us in front of this one very similar to the Dunlap project we had recently we're paying for all those costs associated with it this one is requires upon wonderful they actually submit a lot line adjustment before any action can occur and they're also holding themselves up with a supplement review process that's queued up over there we can't move forward as part of the property they want to to work on has not been created for them. So I'm here to answer any questions. No, I'm not gonna repeat the overall page of the issues. I'm here to answer your questions.

I'm kind of wondering since it took so much to write it up, is that why it took so long from 2012 to get it?

Yes, yes, we had to make up the words. So we dropped the ball in our department, but Many years later, we picked it back up, and we're taking it across the finish line with this board approval today. It just fell through the cracks with all the staff changes we've had, and the same thing with the General Service Department. With all the staff changes they've had, they have people now that will take it through the process. Natalie is going to be approaching. I'll let her speak if she needs to. Get this in front of HCD, get it approved, and when our friends in Palm Wonderful submit, we will take it through the process in a timely manner, and then they will also process their SPR going through the process.

Okay, any other comments? Any comments from the public? Okay, seeing none, I'll bring it back. Is there a motion and a second?

Motion to approve.

Second by Supervisor Chavez. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Okay, and we can bring Supervisor Pacheco back.

We now move to item number 13 under human resources. Conduct the first hearing to amend the Fresno County master schedule fees charge to recover cost ordinance by amending section 1600 human resources way reading the ordinance in its entirety in second hearing by 14-2026. Designate county council to bear fair and adequate summary of the proposed ordinance and direct the clerk of the board to post and publish required summary accordance with government code section 25124B1. Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman, members of the board, Hollis McGill, Director of Human Resources. Before you today is a request to conduct the first hearing to amend section 1600 of the master schedule of fees for the Department of Human Resources. This amendment updates the hourly labor rates used to recover the cost of human resources provided to department. The rates have been reviewed and approved by the auditor's office, and I'm here to answer any questions.

Okay, any questions from the board? Any comments from the public? Okay, is there a motion?

Second.

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

We now move to item number 14 on public health. Conduct first hearing to amend Fresno County Ordinance Code Title VIII, Health and Safety, to add Chapter 8.51. Wave reading of the ordinance in its entirety and set second hearing for July 14th. Designate county council for fair and adequate summary of the proposed ordinance and direct clerk of the board to post and publish the required summary in accordance with the government code section 25124B1.

Good morning, Chair and fellow board members. I'm Joe Prado with the Department of Public Health. And with me today is Erica Armstrong, Division Manager of the Environmental Health Division here. So I'm here to present to your board consideration for the Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations Program. This is an option a county may take on adopting a local program per state law. The program would allow for individuals to store, prepare, handle, and serve food from their private dwelling. State law for this option has been available since 2019 and currently only 18 of 62 local health jurisdictions in California have adopted such a program. The department has received multiple inquiries from the community whether this can be an option for Fresno County. The department received a grant to research feasibility and also to learn from other counties that have implemented this program. The department has concluded its research and is before your board for consideration. Some key items are included in the ordinance that are additional requirements above state law. We did this to improve public health safety, but also enforcement. So you will not see a parallel track to state law. You will see some higher level requirements than is in state law when allowed. The department is recommending a pilot and not a permanent change to ordinance to assess impact to public health and communities. The department, we see this as an opportunity for an additional business opportunity for members of our community. We also see this as an opportunity to really build into our programming, adding to cottage food district and mobile food as well. All this really leading up to a bricks and mortar restaurant. So we see a benefit of starting here and then being able to grow that. You'll see within the ordinance board members only 66 permits allowed in the entire Fresno County area. That is by design. This is only a pilot project. We feel 66 will be sufficient for us to evaluate resources. and put a minimal amount at FTE to be able to really assess the workflows and those issues there. That 66 was driven from population within the community, but also wanting to make sure at least the rural cities had two options within their jurisdictions. and then the unincorporated area as well. So that is some guard rails that we put into this. We put hours of operation into this. There's water quality testing in the unincorporated private residence as well. So that concludes my presentation and available for any questions.

Supervisor Chavez.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you, chair. And I want to thank our public health department director, proud of you for working with with Supervisor Pacheco as we started this conversation a little while ago. I think you did a great job of kind of giving overview. I just want to kind of paint the picture of the context of how we got here and also thank the organizations, a lot of the nonprofits that work in this space. I think when I was at the city, we went from 40 plus small food vendors. And by the way, this was their request to create the very first ever mobile food vendor association within the city of Fresno. Now they have upwards of 750 folks that are now licensed, permitted, and are registered and pay taxes. That really was one of the goals for us to really have this process for them to codify and essentially come out of the shadows and for our folks to be able to go and inspect and make sure that, like you mentioned, everything was up to specs, what they need to be doing and making sure we keep our community healthy. But I think looking at the bigger pictures, I think the best way to describe this is essentially an entrepreneur pipeline, right? We have folks that, you know, at the end of the day, they're very lucky. They work hard and they become property owners of a brick and mortar restaurant. I think a lot of the folks here want to have that. And I hope they do. I hope they're successful. This essentially kind of gives them their first break, so to speak, have them start off selling their food products and things of that sort. And we know that not everybody has the resources to buy a mobile food cart or a trailer or a truck right off the bat. But I think if you work hard and you have that knack for preparing food and doing that, I think you will be successful. To me, this was really the intent of working with our folks and making sure that we provide a avenue for folks to be able to do that. I think you've done a good job. And I also want to thank the Restaurant Association for meeting with me. I reached out to them to meet with them because I wanted to hear their concerns, their issues. We had a very good conversation right here next door. And then you also subsequently met with them. And I'm sure they'll probably speak and share some of their thoughts and concerns from the Restaurant Association to the Clovis Culinary Kitchen folks that do a lot of great work, to Cultiva La Salud that has been doing the work in this space for many years, to the Fresno Area Foundation. I think all of these folks really are wanting to come together and come up with a process. This test pilot program, and I raised some of the concerns that I've seen in other jurisdictions, working with the cities I think will be key. particularly with regards to traffic flow, with regards to potential loitering or any things of that sort. I think we have that address. I also had a meeting with our partners over at the city and gave them a heads up what we're working on. They will be prepared. And I think you'll see for the first time more collaboration where they will essentially set up a checklist of what they would need from the county health inspections, permits, things of that sort in order for our folks to really have the complete and complete package, so to speak. And then at the end of the day, really creating that one stop shop for people that are interested in going into the restaurant business. I think that will be the ultimate goal of having this. But I think you struck a good balance in having the 60 plus opportunities for folks. And we'll kind of revisit what that looks like as this is progressing. But I think this will be a great opportunity for small entrepreneurs that really want to start their business. And we're going to see a lot of that, I think, in the near future when the economy gets a little tougher, people start to figure out, you know, how to make a little bit of extra money. And this is one of the avenues that I believe that they will have. Not everybody starts off. I think most of the research that your folks saw was a lot of the folks that do this have a full-time job that they go to. They do it on the weekends. They start off Monday through Sunday. And I'm hoping that this will really create that entrepreneur spirit and really show the county being a partner in that effort for them. So thank you to our public health folks and to all of our nonprofits. And I want to see what kind of questions we get from our board.

Yeah. Is there a mechanism for sales tax?

That is not going to be over our jurisdictional authority for sales tax.

That's a problem because if you have a restaurant or you have a taco truck or you're a licensed vendor, eventually you're going to have to pay sales tax. I just wanted to ask that question.

Right. There will be reporting of sales. That is going to be a requirement under the program to the department. And the lack of reporting to our department, we can pull the permit. And then if they continue to do business, we will start to assess fines and go through that process.

Okay. I know the state does a really poor job. of doing some of their sales tax stuff. You know, if you've got an existing brick-and-mortar deal, they're all over you. But, you know, you can have a way of sliding around it, and it takes them a long time to catch up. And when they catch up, sometimes the people disappear. I'm just saying, you know, I want this to be fair for everybody.

that that issue actually came up during the city supervisor mendez and and so that was the collaboration that i was referencing um earlier where where they will essentially have a checklist of things that our folks need once they meet the requirement here then then the city would essentially allow them to codify that process and then they would kick in their process where they would essentially be paying taxes and going through that process Now we have 15 cities, right? So what would Clovis do in the hypothetical? Dota or Kerman or Parlier? Those are the conversations that I think we're going to have. But I think we can have that same model that we're adopting with the city of Fresno and apply it to our 15 cities, to your point, so that we know who they are, what they're selling, make sure that it's safe, and making sure that everybody is paying taxes and the fees that they need to pay. And I understand the program itself will be paid with the fees that will generate, correct?

So if your board approves this ordinance, we will come back to modify the master schedule fees. And what we'll be asking for is for full compensation within the fee structure to offset the department's costs. So that will be, if your board approves it, we will be coming back to your board. Implementation for this program, if your board approves, will be January of 2027. The reason why we're putting this time in between is to what Supervisor Chavez described right now, is really educating, if your board approves, here is the ordinance, is there any, what does the workflow look with your cities? We're going to work with all the local cities to see, we're going to notify them of this, of somebody applying and us issuing them a permit, and what workflows or communication we need to have with each individual city.

Go ahead, Supervisor Magic.

Some questions I have. I know, again, the city of Fresno implemented the mobile food vendor program. There were grants that were given out. And did I hear correctly that there were about 750 vendors that took advantage of that?

No, the number I referenced was when we started, there were about 40 folks that had actually registered their business. And keep in mind, a lot of the folks were already operating, but essentially in the shadows. As we provided a pathway for them to do this, that brought about the 700 plus vendors that we now have and are registered, licensed, and permitted.

Perfect. And so with that, I assume there's a partnership between Department of Public Health. We go out and take a look at their equipment, make sure that there's no healthy food standards that are being violated. So I think that's good, having a collaboration like that. Some questions I have. I know we received a grant back in 2024 for $155,000, and that grant is being extended out through August 31st. My question is, how much of that grant remains to help offset some of the costs.

Yeah, we have approximately $30,000 remaining in that.

Okay, and with that, if this pilot is implemented, do you foresee needing to come back to the board asking for any general fund support for this, or is this something that's going to be fully funded through the remainder of the grant, as well as fees that will be charged to some of these small food vendors?

The department will not come back to ask for general fund. We'll utilize all the remaining grant funds, and the fees will offset the costs.

Okay, and creating a level playing field is very important. And I recognize we wanna be very much entrepreneurial here and support small businesses, but we never wanna put one business at a competitive advantage over others. So looking at this program, and when you studied the other, I think you said there were 18 other cities and counties that have implemented similar programs. Have you taken best practices from what you've seen to implement into what you're proposing today?

Yes, we did. And we actually implemented into the ordinance. So what we've done is there are certain state laws. We've actually made inspections a requirement. The actual one inspection a year is not required by state law. We've made that a requirement. We've actually, as Joe mentioned, the reporting requirements. That's monthly reporting. That's in addition to what state law says. State law says that we just can review it once a year. We actually make them report meal limits and the amount they're making monthly. We're also making sure that potable water is looked at for our rural facilities. And these are all things that we, as a part of the Technical Advisory Committee for Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations, have seen that they have struggled with in their county. There were four other counties who have gone through pilot programs. Three of those four has adopted the ordinance. completely into full programs, one is still going through the pilot program. So we continue to listen to the things they've experienced and made sure that they were put in our ordinance so we can kind of get those guardrails now.

Something else, too, looking at, this is an extreme example, but I think about 18 months ago, there was botulism that came up, and it wasn't necessarily from a small kitchen, but botulism is rare. I don't think there was a case prior to the one here in Fresno County for 20 years, but with that, it was meat that had been processed and packaged kind of improperly, and So, again, looking at foodborne illness, something like botulism can literally kill people. So I assume that the inspections that are taking place were making sure that whether it be meat, you know, whether it be cheeses, cookies, cakes, anything that's being prepared, it's being done in a way to protect the public. If you can talk about that a little bit. Yeah.

Definitely. That's going to be part of the initial inspection with the vendor, and there's going to be a lot of education with the MECO property owners as well about food safety handling as well. But in addition to that, what we have in the public health department, we are going to be monitoring foodborne illnesses. So we're able to do that. It is a mandatory requirement by laboratories and local doctors as well. So we can start to see is there any increase in food borne illnesses. In addition to that surveillance on disease, we also have in the emergency room if people are presenting at a higher rate than normal food borne illnesses as well. So there's two surveillance mechanisms for us to evaluate public health as we implement MECO program and we'll be monitoring as we go through that.

Thank you, and I'll wait until I hear from the public and see if I have any more questions.

Okay, any other questions? Okay. I see a lot of people here from both sides. What we'll do is 15 minutes per side can speak. I'll just limit it to normal three minutes per individual, and we'll keep records. So those members from the public who want to speak, please come forward. But again, recognize you only have 15 minutes per side and three minutes per speaker. Yeah, five on that side.

Good morning. Go ahead. So I want to thank you all for this opportunity, Chairman Bredefield and Board of Supervisors. My name is Genoveva Islas, and I'm a resident of Fresno County, a nonprofit executive director and a school board member, and I'm here to speak about MECO. I believe that in Fresno County, we pride ourselves in rewarding hard work, encouraging entrepreneurship, and supporting the people who take risks to build something of their own. Those values are exactly why the county should adopt California's MECO program. Many Fresno County residents are looking for practical ways to supplement their income and build greater financial stability. By allowing people to sell meals prepared in their home kitchens legally, The program creates a safe, practical pathway into small business ownership. It lets aspiring entrepreneurs start with the resources they already have, establish themselves as legitimate businesses, and grow at a pace that makes sense for their families and their finances. This is not about creating a new industry. Home cooks are already serving customers throughout Fresno County. The difference is that many are doing so without a realistic pathway to operate as legitimate businesses. The residents asking for MECO are not seeking a subsidy, a grant, or government program. They simply want the ability to participate in the economy openly, obtain permits, comply with food safety requirements, and build businesses that they can be proud of. To be clear, MECOs are not a substitute for restaurants, food trucks, or commercial kitchens. They are often the first step toward them. MECOs do not compete with the broader food economy. They help to grow it. Counties across California have recognized that creating a pathway for entrepreneurship is better than leaving aspiring business owners with no viable legal option at all. At a time when families are looking for ways to make ends meet, Fresno County should support entrepreneurship whenever it can. The MICO program does exactly what it states. It rewards initiative, creates opportunity, and gives residents a chance to build something for themselves through hard work and determination. Those are values that we in Fresno County have always embraced, and I hope that the county would also embrace this new ordinance. And I have some information for you. These are letters that have been cited by other nonprofits supporting MICO, as well as a summary report from Cook's Alliance, who has been doing research on MECOs across California. Thank you.

Thank you. Next. And we're going to allow a total of 15 minutes, so whatever the time is. Go ahead.

Okay. Hi, my name is Angelica Ortega. I'll be interpreting for... Hi, my name is Paula Salcido.

Okay. Okay, be one of the street. Oh, those are key to express our map. Oh, you're poor. La propuesta manco que busca apoyar tanto la economía local como la regularization sanitaria de los vendedores de comida permiti can pueda cocinara de su casa even their directamente de su domicilio bajo un esquema regular de supervisado.

I'm here to speak in support of MECO. I'm a District 2 resident that MECO seeks to support both the local economy and the health regulation of food vendors, allowing them to cook and sell meals directly from their homes under a regulated and supervised scheme.

Currently, many vendors, including myself, face a significant problem, the high cost and difficulties of operating from a commissary kitchen or central kitchen. This limits their growth, reduces their income, and in some cases, forces them to remain in the informal sector. First, allowing cooking from home significantly reduces operating costs. There's no kitchen rental, no daily transport of supplies, and no downtime. This allows more families to start or maintain a food business without going into debt. En segundo lugar, este modelo ayuda a reducir la informalidad. Cuando las reglas son accesibles y realistas, más personas están dispuestas a registrarse, capacitarse y cumplir con medidas sanitarias. En cambio, cuando el sistema es costoso, complicado, muchas personas optan por trabajar fuera de la regularización.

Secondly, this model helps reduce informality. When the rules are accessible and realistic, more people are willing to register, get training, and comply with health measures. Conversely, when the system is expensive or complicated, many people choose to work outside the formal economy.

También es importante destacar el impacto social. Muchos de estos negocios son sostenidos por madres solteras, adultos o mayores o cuidadores. Permite que trabajen desde casa. Les da la posibilidad de generar ingresos sin descuidar a sus familias.

It's also important to highlight the social impact. Many of these businesses are run by single mothers, senior citizens, or caregivers. Allowing them to work from home gives them the opportunity to generate income without neglecting their families.

En cuanto a la seguridad alimentaria, este modelo no significa menos control. Al contrario, se puede regular de forma estricta mediante permisos, inspecciones sanitarias, capacitaciones obligatorias, seguimiento continuo. La clave no es el lugar de donde se cocina, sino el cumplimiento de las normas.

Regarding food safety, this model doesn't mean less control. On the contrary, it can be strictly regulated through permits, health inspections, mandatory training, and continuous monitoring. The key isn't where the cooking takes place, but rather compliance with the regulation.

OK, let me just interrupt you for a second. Is the three minute timer working?

It is. And when they have an interpreter, the law says I have to double the time.

OK, gotcha. Go ahead.

Furthermore, this scheme boosts the local economy. By selling from their neighborhoods, money circulates directly within the communities, strengthening small businesses and bringing food closer to consumers. Por último, este modelo también evita la saturación de las comisarías o cocinas centrales, que muchas veces generan largas esperas y limitan la capacidad de los emprendedores. En conclusión, permitir la cocina desde casa bajo regulaciones no es flexibilizar las reglas, sino modernizarlas. Es adaptar la política pública a la realidad de las familias, impulsando una economía más accesible, ordenada y segura. Thank you.

Finally, this model can actually uplift central kitchens, which right now often generate long waits and can limit the capacity of entrepreneurs. In conclusion, allowing cooking at home under regulation is not about relaxing the rules, but about modernizing them. It's about adapting public policy to the realities of families, fostering a more accessible, organized, and safe economy. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, good morning. My name is Tyler Maya, and I'm speaking on behalf of Blanca Lopez. Good morning, members of the Board of Supervisors. My name is Blanca Lopez. I'm a resident of District 2, and I'm here to speak in support of MECO and share my experience as a home cook. In 2013, I was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, and in 2020, my husband became seriously ill and was left disabled. As parents to our daughter, the responsibility of providing for our family fell heavy on me. At the time, I was working at a restaurant, but because of the demands of caring for my family and the physical limitations caused by my arthritis, I was no longer able to continue working there. Finding another job felt nearly impossible because of my health condition and my responsibilities at home. To help make ends meet, I began preparing meals for friends and family, accepting whatever they were willing to pay. Cooking became more than just a way to earn income. It became a way for me to care for my family. MECO would give me and many others in situations like mine the opportunity to build a sustainable livelihood from our own house. Not everyone can afford the cost of a food cart or a commissary kitchen, but many of us have the skills, passion, and determination to run a safe home-based food business. For me, MECO means I can continue caring for my family while also having a career. It means financial stability, independence, and the opportunity to provide for my loved ones with dignity. This is not just my story. It is a story of many hardworking men and women who simply need the opportunity to succeed. Thank you for your time and for listening today.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Julia Pacheco, and I will be providing testimony on behalf of Magdalena Lopez. My name is Magdalena and I am a resident of District 4. And I am here today to ask for your vote in favor of allowing microenterprise home kitchen operations in our community. Food is something that requires care and attention. Preparing meals in my own home kitchen would allow me to maintain freshness and quality because I know exactly how every ingredient is handled and every dish is prepared. It is practical, transparent, and personal. Customers can trust that every meal is made with care. For me, this is much more than opening a business. It is an opportunity to fulfill a lifelong dream. As a child, my father was given the opportunity to sell burritos and tortas and other homemade foods as a street food vendor. Eventually, he had the chance to operate in a food truck. I grew up helping my family prepare and sell food, and these experiences taught me that success in the food business comes from preparing meals with safety, with quality, and with pride. That business was eventually passed down to other family members, but my father also inspired me to build something of my own. He taught me the value of hard work, entrepreneurship, and serving our community through food. Today I want to carry on that legacy by opening my own home kitchen. Amico would give me that opportunity. It would allow me to become financially independent instead of relying on unstable employment. It would give me the chance to support myself and my family through honest work while contributing to our local economy. For quite some time, I have been working through the process of obtaining the permits needed to operate a catering business. It has been a long, complicated, and expensive process that has delayed my opportunity to grow as an entrepreneur. Instead of focusing on building my business, expanding my menu, and serving more customers, I've had to navigate some barriers that have made it difficult to get started. Amico would provide a more accessible path to operate legally and safely under the health department oversight, allowing me to grow my business gradually while continuing to meet all the food safety requirements. Approving MECO is about creating opportunities for people like me, people with experience, passion, and a dream, but without the financial resources to open a traditional restaurant. It empowers entrepreneurs, encourages self-sufficiency, and allows families to build a better future. I respectfully ask for you to vote yes on MECOs and give residents like me the opportunity to turn our skills, our traditions, and our dreams into small businesses that serve our community. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members of the Board.

My name is Nico Montano. I serve as an intern as part of Fresno Building Company Communities, and I am here today to urge you to adopt a microenterprise home kitchen operation, or MICO, ordinance in Fresno County. California has allowed counties to authorize MICOs since the passage of the Assembly Bill 626 and 377 in 2018. The law gives each county the choice to permit qualified home cooks to legally prepare and sell meals from their homes under the oversight of their local environment health department. Since then, the legislator has been updated to the law to strengthen and expand the program, including increasing annual sales limits and clarifying operating rules showing that the state continues to support this model. For many residents, especially immigrants, single parents, retirees, people with disabilities, and aspiring entrepreneurs, opening a traditional restaurant is simply out of reach. The cost of commercial kitchens, rent, equipment, and permits can easily can easily cost up to tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. MECOs provide a legal pathway for these residents to start small, build a customer base, and eventually grow into a larger business. This is especially important in Fresno County, where agriculture and food are central to our economy. We should be encouraging local entrepreneurs not creating unnecessary barriers for people trying to earn an honest living. By adopting a MECA ordinance, Fresno County has the opportunity to support small businesses, preserve our diverse culinary traditions, create new pathways to economic mobility, and bring more home-based food businesses into a legal and regulated framework. I respectfully ask you to move forward with adopting a MECO ordinance to give hardworking residents the opportunity to build businesses, support their families, and contribute to our local economy. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. And I've been informed there's only about 30 seconds left. Come on up. You will be the last speaker on this side.

Thank you much. Good morning, members of the board and chair. My name is Ruel. I also serve as the Inter-Infrared Community. And with limited time, I want to just highlight a couple of things. For example, the counties that have already adopted this ordinance for San Diego County, when they made their program permanent, They reported zero community complaints regarding traffic or noise. And in Contra Costa County, a pilot of over 100 home kitchens yielded zero food illness concerns. And I know that these brings up valid concerns for you guys, and that's why I wanted to share and shed light on them. And additionally, this is a great opportunity to provide entrepreneurship, help families out, and offer ways to support family and a thriving community for Fresno. Thank you.

thank you very much thank you to all the speakers uh those in uh opposed to this please good

Good morning, members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and Chair. My name is Chris Marshall. I serve as the operations manager for the Clovis Culinary Center, a nonprofit commercial kitchen and incubator right here in Fresno County. First, I want to thank you for your commitment to supporting small businesses and creating pathways to entrepreneurship through initiatives like the MECO ordinance. I believe we all share the same goal of providing opportunities for residents to turn their culinary talents into successful businesses. I would simply like to offer another perspective on the importance of investing in resources that are in place to help these businesses grow and thrive long term. Excuse me. Every day at Clovis Culinary Center, I work with food entrepreneurs who have incredible talent and passion, but often lack access to information, training, and guidance. Many don't know where to start. They need support navigating food safety regulations, obtaining permits, developing business plans, and preparing for events, understanding costs, and building sustainable businesses. Commercial kitchens and incubators provide much more than just a licensed place to cook. They provide mentorship, education, accountability, and community. They create an environment where entrepreneurs can learn from one another and build businesses that contribute to our local economy. The demand for these resources is significant. Over the last three and a half years, Clovis Culinary has grown from serving about 34 businesses to more than 150 businesses today. That growth demonstrates that there are many aspiring food entrepreneurs in Fresno County who are looking for guidance, support, and pathways to success. Excuse me. As the county considers the pilot program, I encourage you to consider the opportunity to expand awareness and investment in commercial kitchen incubators and shared use facilities. These resources can complement home kitchen opportunities by providing education, mentorship, and the infrastructure that helps businesses scale and succeed. Economic development is not just about opening the door to entrepreneurship. It's about creating support systems that help entrepreneurs build lasting, sustainable businesses. Organizations like Clovis Culinary Center are already doing this work every day. With additional partnerships and investments, we can continue to help local food entrepreneurs grow, create jobs, and strengthen Fresno County's vibrant food economy. Thank you for your time and leadership and continue to support small businesses.

Thank you.

Thank you, Board, for the consideration of the MECO and having us here today to speak on that, Chairman and Board. My name is Lorraine Salazar-Shy. I'm a local restaurateur. I represent the Fresno Restaurant Association today to speak on the MECO. It's not that the Restaurant Association is against micro enterprise. We have some concerns about the parity and about the inspection and food safety. And that's what I really want to address. We are inspected several times a year unannounced. What the MECA ordinance provides for is only an inspection at the beginning. and then an annual inspection over the two-year pilot. So that's only two inspections in two years. Foodborne illness is really important for us. Food safety is very important for us because that can ruin a business. It can close a business if it's not handled properly. So we're asking that there be a consideration for more than one inspection. within this two-year period. There should be several. There should be parity with what the restaurants are getting inspected. That's one of our concerns. Because we can all pass an inspection when we know that it's going to happen, but will we pass that inspection when it is unannounced? That is how we help keep people accountable for that. We are in support of wanting to help these businesses, and we do believe that the way to help them is to get them educated and into the culinary kitchens, as Chris has addressed. So that is something that we are concerned about as well. The traffic has been addressed. Infrastructure, environmental stewardship, we're required to have grease traps. In our restaurants, of course, we're producing volume. With these home kitchens, I know they're limited to 30 meals per day, 90 meals per week. But the issue is accountability and reporting. Because if somebody is wanting to work their business, there may be opportunity for them to do more. And if somebody is going to do that, I can see them taking that opportunity. So how are they going to be accountable just by self reporting? Also, they're allowed to have one employee as their business grows. And one of the things that businesses have to adhere to are labor protections. So I know that they will be educated on this, but where is the accountability to make sure that they're following? So in conclusion, we just want to say that we just want the MECOs to be held to the comparable standards that restaurants and other food service facilities are held to. We are proponents of entrepreneurship. Food business is how people get their start. My family is an example of that, and I do believe that through the food, you can build entrepreneurship and generational wealth.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Board and Chairman Bredefeld. Anthony Zuniga here, the Vice President of the California Restaurant Association. Entrepreneurship, I... I love it. I love the spirit of it. I love the fact that people are wanting to get out there and go do things and continue to grow economically and everything. But one of the things that worries me is 90 meals a week, is that really going to be an economic opportunity? Are those 90 meals just the ones being recorded? And then again, what constitutes a meal? Is it a meal for 40 people or is it a meal for five people or is it an individual meal? So those are some of the things that I was kind of taking a look at when I'm thinking of the challenges of where is the economic balance on this? Because obviously, there's gonna be a lot of food costs. And with that food cost, there's also gonna be recalls. So as Supervisor Manseg said, there was a recall or there was a botulism outbreak. Well, those are taken care of through industries from the California Restaurant Association for recalls, and we know how to dispose of the item. We know how to make sure that we're contacting the correct restaurants and everything like that. So those are one of my main concerns. The NSF products in your kitchen. All restaurants have to have NSF products. That is one of those things that I don't believe... Homes can handle the refrigeration units, everything of that nature. That's another concern. The furry pets. What is NSF? The NSF, it's a way, refrigerators, shelving has to be NSF approved. It's an approval piece of equipment that is meant for restaurateurs or things of that nature. The address of furry pets. We know that everybody has pets, animals, and everything else. How do you stop them from coming into that kitchen when they're making food? So what I believe is there's another opportunity, and that is similar to the Clovis Culinary. There's other places, other commissary kitchens, that I think these things can be handled and addressed. That's my main concern as a safety, but I love the fact that everybody wants to be an entrepreneur. I love the fact that they want to go out and build something. I think there's just a different avenue, and I'm asking the board to please take a look at this, and maybe we hold off on this until we get a little more structure into the main code. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?

I'm seeing no one else. I'll bring it back to the board. Supervisor Magzik.

Got a couple of quick questions. So the issue of pets in the home, that is, when you do your inspections, do homes have to be pet-free or specifically the kitchens where food's being prepared, or is that an issue?

So state law says that during preparation, there is no foods or food, I'm sorry, animals or children allowed in the preparation area. So it speaks to that in the code.

So children, so anyone under the age of 18 or is it like, you know, what is this?

Young children, babies.

Babies. How is that monitored by, with the other 18 jurisdictions, how do they monitor to make sure that there's no contamination from animals or, you know, children present? Because, I mean, homes are being used to raise kids and many people have pets.

So it would be during our routine inspections, as well as any complaint inspections that we receive from the public. So MECOs are subject to three types of inspections, a routine inspection, a complaint inspection, and an emergency inspection. That is in addition to the initial inspection that we would do to even see if this home could be permitted.

With some of the 18 other jurisdictions that allow the MECOs, I know that cities and other counties have different requirements. Some require, if you're gonna conduct business, you have to have a business license. Some jurisdictions require home-based business permits to be issued if you're gonna be conducting any kind of business out of your home. If we move forward with this pilot program, people still need to adhere to whatever requirements are in place in the 15 jurisdictions, other cities, and throughout the county, correct?

That is correct. That will be in place. And I also wanted to add, in addition to the questions about if there was any contamination, also if there's any individual that has a foodborne illness and then it is reported to us, we then follow up with an investigation. So if we start to see these MECOs per se are actually causing foodborne illnesses, that is something we will investigate and look into even farther. So that's another extension of the Public Health Department. That would be with our communicable disease investigation unit in collaboration with our environmental health division.

Some of the 18 jurisdictions allow for dining in, so people come in, sit down. So this is a crazy question, but businesses have to comply with ADA, Americans with Disability Act. So if that's part of what a home-based business is going to do, are we going to go in and measure the bathrooms to make sure a wheelchair, you know, the grade of where people are parking up into the home, the home's wheelchair accessible?

Yeah, that doesn't fall under the MECO provision.

They are exempt from those.

They're exempt?

Yes, they are treated as a resident, so they do not follow any of the business, normal business requirements.

All right. And then looking at like hoods. So I know that restaurants have to have specialty type hoods because, you know, when you cook, grease is created and everything else. It was already mentioned like grease traps. So, you know, for fires, do people need to upgrade hoods? Are there any requirements to that? Have there been issues where fires maybe have happened, you know, in homes where some of the cooking has taken place?

So they also are exempt from that requirement as well. We have put into ordinance that they require a certain type of fire extinguisher in every home.

Last question, because I know my colleagues may have some others. So sales tax collection. In the 18 other jurisdictions where this is in place, have any other jurisdictions put together a program where sales taxes could be collected because, again, looking at other businesses out there, restaurants have to collect it. What was done in regards to sales tax?

So not that I am aware of through environmental health, but that can always be a referral to sales tax. We do involve them in many of our other programs. They request information from us all the time, and we would do the same for this program.

Yeah, we can look into the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration and see if there's any opportunity there to definitely notify that to the MECO participant.

Okay, I want to expand what he was saying. I think we should make it part of the checklist. and require them to obtain a seller's permit from CDTFA if it's required. Collect sales tax on taxable transactions and file a tax return with the state for sales tax. I think that I'm proposing we make it part of the ordinance.

So we can definitely add it to the checklist and we can confer with council on the applicability during the MECO program.

The other, yeah, go ahead. And then I have some questions.

Just real briefly, and I appreciate the questions that my colleagues are asking. I think part of the reason that I reached out to our restaurant association folks is when MECA was first being discussed at the state level, they were very much engaged. And the conversation that I heard was along the lines of what they said today, which was they just want to make sure that the the level field, the playing field is leveled as much as possible. And I haven't had much experience with our food vendor community. I can tell you that a lot of the folks that are here that want this process aspire to be restaurant owners. And I think in the future, we will have some opportunities on really having that collaboration where folks will really be part of that pipeline. But to your point, Supervisor Magic, with regards to the health inspections, I think a lot of the folks, and we're being honest and realistic, there are a lot of folks that are doing it already that are not necessarily licensed. And I know they're in the rural communities, they're in the urban areas. I think this is the way to bring those folks out and essentially empower them so that they do know what the rules are and they do know what the health inspections require and what that would entail for for their equipment for their safekeeping i don't think anybody that is advocating for that wants a fire you know god forbid a fire happen in their home and then their family is out you know in the street and so i think if we can find a way of codifying everything that was described here and and i agree with supervisor mendez i think folks should be paying taxes just like everybody else. And I know the city of Fresno will be working on a mechanism for that. I'm sure our other 15 cities, but to the point about the rural communities, like how do we codify that? I think that would be direction that we would give to our folks and making sure that we have that as part of the process.

Okay, I have some questions as well. So two year pilot project, what made you decide two years versus just doing it for a year?

Two years. It's going to take some time initially to start up and taking applications, creating a first-come, first-served basis, and then issuing those permits and doing the education. We also wanted to be able to initially, the cities have so many permits allocated, but what if one city doesn't have applications? We wanted to be able to first give people a good amount, six to eight months, to fill in their applications, but if we still have permits on the table that aren't issued, then we can reallocate those to another jurisdiction that maybe has a waiting list for MECO. In addition to that, we want to come back to your board 90 days before it sunsets for your board to give us direction to either sunset the program or give us a structure to either continue the program and think about the whole permit count and report back to your board.

Okay. And so this would come back to the board. The board could rescind and the whole project.

Absolutely.

The 18 of the 16 jurisdictions, have any of these been awarded MECO programs and then they've been rescinded because there were problems?

No, none of them who went to a pilot program have rescinded.

Okay. And so they've advanced and moved forward.

Yes, they made permanent programs. There is currently Santa Cruz who is still in the pilot program process. They did a two-year pilot as well.

What kinds of problems have arisen from MECO programs?

So there have been the complaints regarding traffic, noise, advertising. Those tend to fall on city and county code enforcement. There, as we've heard before, there has not been as many complaints as we thought they would have in regards to food safety.

SUPERVISOR BREADFIELD, I ACTUALLY VISITED ONE OF THE LOCATIONS DOWN IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, AND EXACTLY WHAT OUR FOLKS DESCRIBED, I PERSONALLY SAW TRAFFIC JAMS, YOU KNOW, PLACES THAT GOT SUPER POPULAR, LOITERING FOLKS THAT WERE LEAVING TRASH OUT, AND I THINK THAT It's something that also needs to be addressed, and that was my motivation with meeting with the city, because I think in the big urban areas, you'll have that challenge, and they will be prepared to address those with their folks over there. Okay.

Do we have enough staff to monitor how the program will work and be safe?

Yes, your board supported us in adding a new position this past fiscal year and we're going through the process of filling those positions and this is why we did only 66 permits because that's within our capability today.

Okay. The issue of inspections, how often are restaurants inspected?

Depending on the type of facility, up to four times a year. So we have inspections, confectionaries one time a year, bars two times a year, restaurants four times a year.

Okay, and Migos would be inspected only once a year?

One time a year, yes. The same as Cottage Food, it's our other home-based operation.

The same as what?

Cottage food. It's our other home-based operation, which is very limited food prep for non-potentially hazardous food. So like cookies, cakes, things like that. We currently have that in our county.

Okay. But this is obviously different and higher risk. Would it not make sense to have more than just one inspection a year?

So state law limits us to the type of inspections and says that they are not to be inspected more than one time in 12 months for a routine inspection. It does indicate, though, it is not even a requirement of the Environmental Health Department to do that inspection. But we feel it is a requirement for us. And that's why, as an ordinance, we will do a minimum of one.

Mm-hmm. The question of one meal, is it for four people, is it for six people, how does that get addressed? I mean, I think that's a fair question.

Yes, the state has actually have a definition for what a meal is. It's what could be considered eaten in one serving by one individual. So they've tried to clean up that language, which was missing when it initially came in.

Okay. You know, I also am very supportive of people who want to be in business. I mean, I think that's what a capitalist society is all about, and I fully support that. I do have concerns about the lack of ongoing inspections especially with a pilot program with knowing what's going to happen i don't want to see people get get sick um and so you know i have concerns about that i'm not sure does that lead me not to support this or not but i do have concerns about about the public safety with one inspection and you're saying that the state mandates only one inspection

Yes. In current state law, it says it shall only be inspected one time per year, one time in a 12-month period for routine inspection. Again, the complaint inspection, we go out on every complaint we receive for any facility. We would do the same here. For an emergency inspection, if it is a foodborne illness outbreak that requires no appointment, we go in immediately.

Okay. is that the same process that we use for restaurants say for example a restaurant has a number of you know food poisoning do we still keep the same inspections or do we increase the number of inspections to bring them up to par because i think i heard our director say that for miko if there's a report of foodborne illness we will respond we're not limited to one inspection is that correct

Correct. That is the same for our normal restaurants. Any type of facility that we have a food permit, we go out and address any complaint and do re-inspections as required. MECOs are still required to have re-inspections if necessary. That does not mean we can't do re-inspections. It's a routine initial inspection that we are limited to one per year.

to be the same process a restaurant has, and we've had them publicized, right? We actually put them up on our website, right? Any restaurant that doesn't meet requirements and has a number of issues, they go on the website.

So we will have to comply with state law on the one inspection for 12 months. But if there is a complaint, that's going to exceed the one, obviously. And as Erica described, if there's any foodborne illness that will exceed and additional visits if needed.

Is there any required training of these folks, educational training, regarding running a business or foodborne illnesses, anything that's required?

Yes, so there is at least one person needs to take the food safety manager's class, and then every other employee needs to take a food safety handler class, which is the same requirements for any of our other food facilities.

OK. All right, thank you. Yes, supervisor.

Oh, Supervisor Mendez. Got a question. OK, when you inspect a restaurant, it's not a you make an appointment and you show up, right? Correct. You just show up. OK, so if they fail the inspection, Then they're put on some kind of probe so many days to fix all the problems, depending on how bad they are, correct? Correct. Yeah. And then if they don't get it done by a certain day, you shut the door.

Depending on the violations. So, yes, we would do another re-inspection.

Yeah, I just want people to understand.

Yes, and each re-inspection comes with penalties. So there are no free re-inspections. If we are required to come back, you will be charged for that inspection. Yeah.

Supervisor Magid.

With employees at a standard restaurant, do you verify that workers' compensation is being paid, or you don't do that normally at a restaurant?

We do not, no. We verify the food handler cards and the food safety notifications for each.

And you would use the same standards as you would be inspecting the homes where these individuals would be operating, correct?

Yes.

All right.

I have a question. What would be the limitation if we did the pilot project for a year to see what problems there were and this could then come back to the board?

Um, that would limit us on being able to evaluate a full year with a full 66 permits and what that draws down from our staff and resources that would be limited. Uh, so, um, as we think about the cost study and all those other pieces, a good full year with full 66 permits would be ideal.

Okay. And could this board, even though there's the state requirement, um, as part of this approval say there would be an additional inspection that would be unannounced so i would go with that by the county council on that um for us we would need to stay within the one per uh the one inspection but if there was a complaint we could exceed our our i understand that but i'm just wondering um county council is there some way that that could be included

I will need to check for sure, but typically state law allows you to be more restrictive than what state law requires. The one inspection is a minimum, but you could give direction that there be more than one inspection if we determine that that's compliant with state law.

Okay.

But we need to check on that.

I mean, Board, I would be interested, and because the inspection is at the beginning, correct? Right, so everybody knows, they're all starting on, you know, with everybody's, their best behavior, got it all set up, which is fine. I mean, that inspection needs to happen. But again, I'm just thinking about public safety and, you know, talk about level playing fields. I mean, I understand a restaurant that's established versus this business, very different. But there's four inspections for a restaurant for a reason, and that's to make sure the public is safe. I would be interested in including in this just one inspection that is unannounced, initiated by public health, and that would make me feel more comfortable in terms of protecting the public as we see how this all works, and hopefully it all works well.

I'm okay with that, supervisor. The only thing I'm trying to think just on the fly right now is for people that have like a food trailer, how many inspections do they go through? Or a food truck?

One, typically two.

One also?

So they come during our mobile roundup inspection that are scheduled. They make appointments. We verify. And then when we see them in the field, we will inspect them as well.

So they have one.

She said typically two, though.

I mean, I think we could treat them as a food truck. I mean, eventually all these folks, they're just trying to start off, right? I don't anticipate this being like a permanent situation. Hopefully they move on to a food truck, a trailer, and then a restaurant would be the ideal situation. I'm agreeable to that. Okay.

So if everybody's agreeable to that, and somebody can make a motion.

I'll make the motion with the provision that you included.

Okay. If it's allowed. If it's allowed by state law. I'll second that.

Okay. And then with that, too, with the motion maker in second, that's also directing staff that a process needs to be put into place for sales tax to be collected as well? Yes. Yes.

Okay. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you.

We now move to item number 15 under public works and planning conduct public hearing receive written protest submitted prior to close of such public hearing from property owners receiving water service area from service areas 49 five points. Let me confirm that we have not received any ballots.

Correct. Good morning Board, Chris Bump, Department of Public Works and Planning. The item before you today is a protest hearing for restructuring fees for County Service Area 49, Five Points water users. CSA 49 contains 16 lots and provides water service to 45 active connections. The proposed restructure water fees are comprised of a base fee to cover the cost of operation, maintenance, and administration of the water system, and a usage fee to be charged based on actual water usage. The proposed rate is intended to fund the operation and maintenance of the system, raise an appropriate reserve, and pay back unpaid charges. At the conclusion of the staff presentation and after addressing any questions the board may have, the public portion of the hearing should be opened by your board and testimony received from those here today wishing to address your board. And at the conclusion of the public protest hearing, staff will tabulate the protest letters and report back to the board the results, which there is currently zero. And that concludes my presentation. I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions from the board?

I'll ask the question again. I asked Steve this question. Now, how far have you gotten along the way on actually drilling a well?

So right now there had been planning phase for the switch from surface water to groundwater That was basically put on hold because we have to get a adequate rate in place to show that we can fund it The state is very well aware of this project. This was through technical assistance for the rate study the next steps is kind of determining what Program for the state will fall under Ideally one to expedites the process would be better, but that's we're waiting on next but you're not going to charge the customer unless you actually have

You were able to get a grant, drill two wells, because you can't drill one. Correct. Have a backup.

Yeah, so for...

In the mean, as you're, you're going to drill a test hole, or are you going to straight drill it and just be e-logging the deal on down?

So we would be going through a process, doing the test well, looking at what the contaminants are to see if any treatment is needed, and then going through the actual final construction process. Yeah. but it would be following the surface water rate that's included in this until such time as the state actually switches us over to groundwater.

And the problem with the surface water is you end up getting, I call it detergent in the water.

Yeah, disinfection byproducts, it's pretty common for surface water.

Yeah. A lot of people don't realize aqueduct water is actually pretty dirty.

Yeah, it's a much more thorough treatment process.

Okay, that's my question.

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 written protest or to change or withdraw their earlier submitted written protest may make that request to the Office of the Clerk at the window outside of the chambers. After the protest hearing has been closed, no written protest will be accepted, no withdrawals will be allowed. No staff except for the clerk's deputies may accept a written protest. The public portion of this protest hearing is now open. Are there any comments from the public? Yes, welcome.

Hi, good afternoon, Chairman, members of the board. My name is Angela Islas. I'm a Water Projects Coordinator with Central California Environmental Justice Network. CCJN operates in five counties in the San Joaquin Valley region. We serve in Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern, working at the intersections of environmental policy and community engagement to help uplift low-income communities of color in accessing clean air, water, land, and food sovereignty. CCJN has worked in and closely supported the community of Five Points falling within District 4 boundaries in addressing their water systems notice a violation of water quality through our identifying violations affecting neighborhoods program where community members can report issues in their communities and receive assistance with addressing those impacts in a timely matter. So I've been supporting this community since December of 2024 in just understanding the circumstances surrounding the notice of violation which was byproduct disinfectant as well as informing the health effects on that contamination as well as what Chris was informing about was just how the groundwater project would be able to move forward with just the the vote on the Prop 218 with the proposed water rate for the residents as well as the other businesses and schools within CSA 49. So I definitely appreciate Christopher Bump as well as Lorena Rangel for just supporting as well as pursuing funds through the Safe and Affordable Fund for Equity and Resilience to be able to help put the subsidy in lowering the base rate for the residential cost which was first proposed at $210, but now it's going to be reduced down to $97.66, which is great. There was absolutely no protest from residents on that proposed base rate, but I did want to just highlight, if I have just a few more seconds. That Westside Elementary School does have the big impact with the rate increase, which their base rate will be now at 5,399 with 41. So in light of what's going on at the California legislature with the budget proposals that are underway right now in approval, I'm just asking respectfully for the board to consider and adopting a resolution to support the Safe and Affordable Fund for Equity and Resilience. as well as have further engagement with the California legislative delegates, Caballero as well as Soria, to be able to help support the program to continue with funding in the future.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

I just want to be clear. I'm going to educate you now. That's actually not five points. That used to be called O'Neal's. And the O'Neal family, they had most of the farming operation around there. They had a feedlot. There's still a feedlot there. But that was to the locals. And I'm considering myself a local. That's O'Neal's. I know we call it Five Points even in our CSA, but it's O'Neal's.

Okay. Anyone else from the public wishing to speak? Okay. Is there a motion and a second to close the public portion of the protest hearing? So moved. Second. Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. Passes unanimously. The public portion of this protest hearing is now closed. Tabulation of written protests will now take place. Members of the public wanting to observe the tabulation are welcome to accompany staff.

And the clerk's office has received no protest ballots.

Okay.

Yes, so no protests out of a possible 16, no protests have been received. So there's not a majority protest and staff recommend your board approve recommended action A.

Okay, this is for 15?

For 15.

Okay. Is there a motion to second approve recommended action A?

Second.

Okay, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Passes unanimously.

Mr. Chairman, staff is prepared to report out on the results for item 6.

OK.

So staff has completed tabulating the assessment ballots for CSA 50 from item 6. Out of a possible 1,229 weighted ballots, we received 274. The ballots marked yes represented 44% of the total weighted received, and the ballots marked no represented 56% of the total ballots received. Based on those results, staff recommends that the board find there is a majority protest and approve recommended action B to reject the proposed assessment for CSA 50 and direct the Department of Public Works in planning to hold a public meeting with CSA 50 property owners to discuss immediate cost savings measures as well as discussions with the Aubury Volunteer Fire Department.

Okay.

So moved.

Okay. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you.

We now move to item number 16 under public works and planning conduct first hearing to amend master schedule fees charge recover cost ordinance by admitting sections 1000 commuter services subsection 1001 section 1500 parks and recreation subsections 1501, 1502 and 1509 sections 2200 public works subsections 2205, 2207, 2208 and 2209. Waiver eating the ordinance in its entirety and set the second hearing. for July 14, 2026, designate county council to prepare a fair and adequate summary of the proposed ordinance and direct clerk of the board to post and publish the required summary in accordance with state government code section 25124B1.

Good afternoon, Chair Bredefield, Board of Supervisors. I'm Lemuel Asprek with the Department of Public Works and Planning. The item before you this afternoon updates the master schedule fees for the department and I'm available to answer any questions.

Any comments from the board? Any comments from the public? Okay, I'll bring it back. Is there a motion and a second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Passes unanimously.

We now move to item number 17. Under Public Works and Planning, conduct public hearing and adopt resolution approving the vacation of public road right-of-way on East Morton Avenue near section South Cedar Avenue and making the required findings that one, road right-of-way is unnecessary for present or prospective public use pursuant to streets and highway code section 8324 except for easements retained for the benefit of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, California High-Speed Rail Authority, Fresno Irrigation District, and American Telephone and Telegraph Company. Two, the road right away is not useful as a non-motorized transportation facility pursuant to SHC Section 892, and three, vacation is consistent with the County General Plan.

Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the board. My name is Rahel Tierney. I'm with the Department of Public Works and Planning. Today, the department requests that your board conducts a public hearing and adopts the required finding to approve the vacation of approximately 1.4 acres of excess public road right-of-way along East Morton Avenue. Following the thorough review, the department has determined that this vacation meets the criteria of a general vacation under the California Streets and Highways Code and is consistent with the county's general plan. Furthermore, this segment of right of way is not required for current or future public use, including a non-motorized transportation facility. All procedural steps required under the California Streets and Highways Code have been completed to facilitate this action. That concludes staff's presentation. I am available to answer any questions you may have.

Supervisor Pacheco.

Mr. Chairman, this is in my district. I have no issue with this. After the public hearing, I will make a motion to move this item forward.

Okay. Any other comments from the board? Any comments from the public? Okay, I'll bring it back, and you've made a motion. Go ahead. Okay, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We now move to item number 18, Board of Supervisors Committee Reports and Comments.

Are there any committee reports? Yes, Supervisor Magazine.

A couple of comments. So this Saturday is July 4th, 250th anniversary of America. Pretty special day. A couple of events that are going on in my district. So July 1st, Shaver Lake will be having its annual fireworks show. It will begin at 9 p.m. So if you are watching this right now or you're here in the audience, it's a pretty spectacular show. You're going to want to get there early because it gets pretty packed up there at Shaver for that. On July 4th, we have the Clovis Freedom Fest at Clovis High School, which begins at 5 p.m. Again, another fantastic firework show. And July 4th, the Sanger July Spectacular at Sanger High School, which is technically in Buddies District, but he and I both share Sanger Unified School District boundaries. So there's some options for the public if they want to enjoy fireworks for the nation's 250th celebration. Also something I want to say, here in about 40 minutes, the stock market's going to close. Today is the last day that we track annually the rate of return for Fresno County Employee Retirement Association. And based upon my calculations, this year we've become fully funded from a market valuation standpoint. And when I first got on the FSERA board almost 10 years ago, we had a $1.1 billion unfunded liability. And in that period of time, we've lowered the discount rate, changed our investment strategies a little bit. And gotten to the point where it's reduced the burden on Fresno County. Fresno County represents 90% of that fund. There's a few other small agencies that make up the other 10% from the judges to mosquito abatement to the Clovis Veterans Memorial District. So this is a big deal. Over 20 years ago, the county, actually 25 years ago, the county issued pension obligation bonds and then refinanced those somewhat improperly and it ended up costing the county over $30 million that this board had to make payments back to the federal government. but really bridging that 1.1 billion dollar gap and lowering a discount rate and stabilizing payments from the county I believe will pay dividends in the future to not only the retirees but also to the benefit of all our departments so very excited about that and looking forward to the next 40 minutes and hopefully the stock market won't crash knock on wood so there you go any other reports nope

Okay. Okay.

We'll now move to item number 19, board's commission committees.

Okay. Supervisor Chavez.

This is board appointments, correct? Yes. I guess I have one. In Avila, the first regional workforce development board.

Okay. Any others? Okay. Any comments from the public? Seeing none, is there a motion and second to approve the item?

So moved. Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Passes unanimously.

We now move to item number 20, public presentations. Portions that serve for persons desiring to address the board on any matter not on this agenda as well as any public comments for closed session items 22 through 27.

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 22 through 27. Yes.

I just wanted to comment on kind of piggybacking off Nathan's comment of July 4. July 4th being the 250th anniversary of our nation. July 4th is also the 57th anniversary of my mother's murder here in Fresno County. And today is her birthday. Had she lived today, she'd be 86 years old. She was killed in a drive-by shooting as we were leaving Kearney Bowl Raceway. And that case today is still is cold and unsolved with no thanks to the Sheriff's Department. They have been horrible in this investigation. Nonetheless, it's her birthday and happy birthday mom. In 1969 on August 10th, the Board of Supervisors sponsored by John Ventura proclaimed, made a proclamation that August 10th was Judy Lichty Day.

I thought that was pretty awesome.

And so for me, today is Judy Lichty Day. I just want her to be remembered. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

My name is Jolene Siebert from Reedley, California. And I'm here to speak on the last day of Pride Month in support of the library. The Fresno County library system does not belong to you, the Board of Supervisors. It belongs to us, your constituents. A library is full of voices in the form of books. Books teach us ideas that we might not in any other way be able to learn. Books also speak for us in ways more profound and nuanced than we can ever express. So your silencing of our libraries around the voices of your LGBTQ plus constituents by stopping displays of our books is a silencing of our voices. That is a violation of our right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. By silencing my library, you are silencing my voice, and you may not silence any voice in your constituents. Whether you like my voice or my message, I am entitled to the full rights under your leadership. Change your policy around Pride Month and support your LGBTQ constituents. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members of the board. My name is Vanessa Padilla, and I am a program supervisor for Shine Together, a nonprofit organization serving the youngest families of Fresno. This work is especially meaningful to me because I was once a Shine participant and a teen parent myself. And today, I have the privilege of helping other young parents achieve their educational and personal goals. Fresno County continues to have one of the highest teen birth rates in California, with the rate nearly 70% higher than the state average. Today, Shine works alongside more than 60 teen and young parents who are striving to complete their education, pursue careers, and build stable futures for their families. Through individualized case management, educational advocacy, parenting support, and connections to community resources, we empower young families to achieve long-term success. Unfortunately, recent funding cuts have placed many of these services at risk, and that's why I'm here today, to introduce Shine Together, share the impact we're making in Fresno County, and begin a conversation about how we can partner with the county to ensure young families continue receiving the support they deserve. We believe that when a young parent succeeds, their child succeeds, their family grows stronger, and our entire community benefits. We look forward to partnering with Fresno County to ensure our youngest families have the opportunity to thrive. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good morning, board. I was a little late to harass you about the earlier measure about guns, pepper spray, and tasers. As you may know by now, my name is Brianna Walker. I'm a constituent in Nathan's district. And so I just want to Not talk about that measure. I assume it passed. But ask that in addition to arming your employees, the county consider stepping up its de-escalation training and workplace violence training. I have worked in two separate workplaces that did not have workplace violence programs that were strong. And the experience of working with the public, I was a public facing employee, and having my life threatened, having people spit at me, having people call me all kinds of names because I couldn't help them in the way they needed, was very stressful. And rather than arm myself with a taser or pepper spray or things like that, I found that working through de-escalation trainings and twice a year workplace violence prevention trainings was really helpful. So I can't speak to what you have at the county already. I just ask that you look into the situation, and if you don't already provide that kind of support for your employees, I urge you to. It is so important for an employee to feel physically and mentally safe at work, and those programs go a long way toward making that happen. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Aaron Bass. I'm here to clarify that what I said at the last meeting was not a compliment. Like many people, when I think nuclear, I think the destruction left behind. I think of meltdowns. I think of you and the fiasco that you bring to the table. You are chaos, Chairman. As I mentioned before, I am a veteran. I am a veteran that believes I signed up to fight for the freedom of all people in this country. I also believe that the five of you have a duty to this county and its people. Some of you mentioned that. At the last meeting, the rest of you should be ashamed. You need to understand this is not a place to let the chairman flaunt their personal beliefs. Put your foot down when your colleague is out of line. It's called checks and balances. You're supposed to keep each other's integrity in line, not play children's games like follow the leader, be a leader. The purpose of this board is to make decisions that affect Fresno County's residents, finances, and services. The people of this county are not a stone for you to step on in your travels. These are real people, some with far more contributions to society than you've ever dreamed of. It is my hope that more people will speak up against you. More people will get up, out, and put their signature down to have you removed from office, Chairman. There are people out there who may not realize the mess you are making, but I hope they will hear me and hear they can also have a voice. They don't have to agree with everything I say, just the same as they don't have to disagree with everything you say to see that you are bad for this county. Thank you.

Thank you. Next item.

Item number 21, county council report from the previous closed session.

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

Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. It passes unanimously. We are now adjourned.

And that was Chavez and Mendez.

That was motion by you? Motion by Magsig? Second by Chavez.