City Council - Regular Meeting

have you all here and this morning we are going to start with our flag salute led by our public works director Mr. Derek Gady.

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.

We will now move to our consent agenda. Is there anything board members would like to pull aside from 14A is going to be continued to a future meeting, and then 27B and 27C have been asked to be pulled. Anything else? And is there anyone here in the public who would like to pull an item off of consent? All right, I'll bring it back to the board for the remaining items.

I'll move approval of the consent agenda.

I'll second. Moved by Gore, seconded by Gustafson. This is a roll call vote.

Just for the record, the board will convene as the Placer County Housing Authority for item 22 and as the Placer County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority for item 25. Supervisor Gore. Aye. Supervisor DeMattei. Yes. Supervisor Jones. Aye. Supervisor Gustafson. Aye. Supervisor Landon.

Yes. We will move to item 27B.

Morning board, chair Landon, board members, Jared Deck, deputy director for Placer County Public Works. Just like to read a short statement in the record for 27, and then we'll have to read it again for 27B and C separately. Okay, so we'll go through both those then. So just a clarifying statement for both these. We had a couple questions come in, so just wanted to read this in the record as we're working through this project. So we've asked that both these items be pulled, 27B and 27C, off the consent in order to clarify some fiscal aspects and to address a few questions DPW has received. As noted in the fiscal impact section for each of these two acquisition items, we'll start with 27B, there's adequate funding identified in the fiscal year 27, or sorry, 26-27 DPW budget to purchase the requested easement interest. The larger Grove Street parking lot project itself is still subject to Caltrans funding, which the department expects the county to receive soon, but which will not yet officially receive from Caltrans. To process the county's project funding request, Caltrans had additional funding available, which had a very short turnaround at the end of this month to make grant deadlines. We're bringing these two items and acquisitions to you today given that the next board meeting is scheduled in August. If Caltrans project funding does not come through as expected, staff will return to your board for consideration of alternative funding for larger growth street parking lot once the full funding needs are identified. And specifically for 27B, which is the first item we're talking about, we had one update that we wanted clarification on. as stated on the actual agenda itself, needs to be corrected. And so on the agenda, it stated as $482,300, it needs to be updated to $483,052. And then, so the staff reports are correct, but it was just the agenda that needed to be corrected on that one item. And so that's for 27B. And so then maybe we'll ask for questions at that point and then step to 27C.

Sure. Are there any questions on item 27B?

So can I just clarify what I heard you say, which was if we don't get the Caltrans funding and the project isn't completely funded, you will come back to the board to figure out alternative ways to fund the project or parts of the project.

Correct. And so our goal is to define the project once it gets fully to the point of final construction, or sorry, final plans. And then at the point, once we go out to bid, then we know the full funding amount, and then we'd be able to come back and identify if there's a funding gap there at that point. So we just want to make sure we fully understand the total cost of the project and then move forward from there. So we'd come back to the board at that point if we have a shortfall.

Thank you. Mr. Cook?

Yes, Mr. Deck, could you please just take a moment to read the actions requested into the record with the modified amount that you indicated? Thank you. Sorry, one more time. Can you please read the actions requested into the records to the board?

So I actually don't have those with me if we want to. I'll go ahead. Thank you very much, Derek. So would you like just the first action, the one that was being updated?

I'd like you to read all three, actually, just to make sure the board knows what they're voting on. Thank you.

So action number one, adopt a resolution improving the right-of-way contract for acquisition of an access and parking easement interest for a portion of the property owned by Conn Investment Company et al. for our Tahoe City Downtown Access Improvement Project totaling $483,052 and accepting the access and parking easement deed. Action request number two, authorize the chair to execute the right-of-way contract and accept the access and parking easement deed subject to county council and risk management concerns. The third request action is determine the proposed actions are each consistent with the mitigated negative declaration for the Tahoe City Downtown Access Improvement Project adopted by the Board of Supervisors for April 27th, 2021.

Thank you. And is there anyone here in the chambers who would like to comment on this item? Anyone online? All right, I will bring it back to the board.

I'd like to move approval.

And I'll second. Move by Gustafson, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. We'll move to 27C.

All right, for 27C, similar situation. Our goal here is, I'll read this back, this additional statement here so we have that on the record. But we ask that 27C be pulled just in order to clarify the funding needs. As in the fiscal impact section for 27C, there's adequate funding identified in the fiscal year 26-27 DPW budget to purchase the required easement interest. The larger Grove Street parking lot project itself is still subject to Caltrans funding, which the department expects the county to receive soon, but will not officially be received by Caltrans before this point. To process the county's project funding request, Caltrans had additional grant funding made available with a very short turnaround at the end of this month to make the grant deadlines. So that's why we're bringing this acquisition today given the board's next meeting is in August. If the Caltrans project funding does not come through as expected, staff will turn to your board for a consideration of alternative funding for the larger Grove Street parking lot project once full funding needs are identified. And then would you like me to read the actions? Yes. Okay. So the requested actions for 27C are adopt a resolution approving right-of-way contract for the acquisition of an access and parking easement interest from a portion of property owned by Grand Central Tahoe LLC for the Tahoe City Downtown Access Improvement Project totaling $188,400 and accepting the access and parking easement deed. Action two, authorize the chair to execute the right-of-way contract and accept the access and parking easement deed subject to county council and risk management concurrence. And then request number three, determine the proposed actions are consistent with a mitigated negative declaration for the Tahoe City Downtown Access Improvement Project adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 27th, 2021. Thank you.

Any questions or comments from board members? And is there anyone here in the chambers who'd like to comment on this item? Anyone online? All right, I'll bring it back.

I'd like to move approval. I'll second.

Moved by Gustafson, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thank you very much. We will now move to public comment. And before we get started on public comment, I just want to make you all aware of a little tweak in our policy. So I'll just read here the new policy. Please limit comments to three minutes per person. At the conclusion of your three minutes, a timer will sound and the chair will ask you to conclude your remarks. In order to ensure that everyone has an equal amount of time, if you have not finished within the 15 seconds after the timer sounding, your microphone will be turned off. So with that, I will now open public comment. Is there anyone here who would like to comment on an item that is not on the agenda? Sure.

Hello, my name is Susan Gibbs Bennett. I live in Olympic Valley. I know Cindy. But only, I was just going to say that I see that, and the reason I'm here that at 11 o'clock it's supposed to go to the Sierra Family Meadows subdivision portion. And I'm just saying that with that, I'm wondering what kind of precedence is set in the future.

I'm so sorry to cut you off. So we are only allowed to take during public comment at the beginning of the meeting anything that's not on the agenda. So for the 11 o'clock time item, when that item comes for a presentation, then we'll open up public comment for that particular item.

Right. But my point is that it might not be on the agenda. Is the question of what kind of precedence is set in the future for other decisions based on... changing zoning laws. That's what, not this, but what kind of precedents.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in the chambers who would like to make a public comment? Anyone online?

Yes, Chair. Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments.

Yeah, good morning, Chair Landon, members of the board. My name is Asif Ali, resident of District 3, I think, speaking on the sheriff's flock license plate camera program. In 2023, the board approved a two-year, $236,600 sole subscription for 42 flock cameras. I asked the sheriff's question, a simple question, how many crimes were solved with this particular subscription. And later this morning, Under the item itself, we'll ask you to approve $11 million. It's been agendized. It's been discussed. All I'm asking is any further renewals or flock subscription follow the same standard. The risks are not hypothetical. Under California Civil Code 17989055, California agencies may not share plate data with federal or out-of-state agencies. And the Attorney General is already suing the city of El Cajon right now for doing exactly the same thing. Nationally, Texas deputy used Flock's national lookup to search 83,000 cameras hunting a woman over adoption. And multiple police chiefs have been arrested, indicted, or forced out for using Flock to stalk former partners. California Civil Code 1798-9054 gives every harmed resident a private right of action, minimum $2,500 per violation plus autonomous fees. Now that is the current county's exposure if this LOC system is being misused. I have public records requests pending with Sheriff's Office and procurement. Procurement has said they don't have any at this moment of time, so I'm waiting on Sheriff's Office. And determinations are due in this week under Government Code 7922535. I understand you can't act on this right now due to Brown Act, but I ask that the Board agendize this meeting And and be able to discuss this before any renewal comes up. So that's that's my request. And please also have the sheriff's office to respond to the efficacy data that was requested so that we can understand why this particular, you know, Contract is being renewed There is a serious concerns amongst the community in Placer County on both the use and the efficacy of these flock cameras That's my comment, thank you Caller go ahead and meet your mic and give your comments.

I

Greetings, Supervisors and members of the public. Diane Louise Alessi speaking as the Board Director for Christian Valley Park Community Services District in District 5 in a domiciliary for six decades in Placer County. Speaking today not as an opponent of housing, but as a fiduciary responsible for potable water and road maintenance for our unincorporated community. I represent a special district that operates on an extremely tight budget funded entirely by our rate payers. Pursuant to the presumptions the HCD regarding ADUs and its subtypes and your proposed ZTA changes to ordinances, it appears we are being forced to comply with state mandates that allow a single family parcel to potentially triple or to quadruple its water demand. While the state presumes we have the capacity to accommodate this, that presumption is a dangerous fiction. Our current infrastructure was designed in 1962 for single family densities, not four unit complexes. If every parcel in our district exercised this new right simultaneously or even over the next decade, we would face system failure. dry taps, sewage backups, and roads crumbling under heavy construction and increased traffic that our narrow rural lanes cannot support. The law places the burden of proof on us to deny a connection. To prove we lack capacity, my district must now hire a hydro engineer to conduct a costly comprehensive capacity study. Who pays for this? It appears we do. The state provides no funding. The county provides no grant. So our rate payers will be forced to foot the bill for an engineering report just to prove that physics and math dictate we cannot serve the expanding demand. Furthermore, it appears that if we do find we lack capacity, the law may force us to upgrade the infrastructure or consolidate with PCWA to accommodate that new demand. We are being forced to bear the expense of the expansion for a state agenda we did not vote for. HCD enforcement prioritizes ideological density over physical reality and local sovereignty. We are being asked to sacrifice the reliability of our existing water supply and the safety of our roads to meet a state quota. I urge the Board to recognize that while we may not be able stop the state from allowing the permits. We must demand that the state fund it. Either way, the taxpayers are stuck with the bill for the necessary infrastructure upgrades and engineering studies. Without a massive grant funding, we are setting our community up for a crisis that we cannot afford to fix. With that, I yield. Thank you.

Thank you.

No further commenters.

All right, thank you. With that, we'll close public comment, and we'll move on to board member and county executive reports. Anyone have anything? Supervisor Gustafson?

I always have something, don't I, it seems. I just want to report on a couple items. One is we had a great turnout at the Fire Expo on Saturday, and I want to thank all the partners between CAL FIRE, Placer County fire, local fire. Our sheriff's office was in a full display with the tactical unit, and all the kids loved that, as well as the helicopter dropping some water on folks. Our fire wise, our fire wise community advocates, fire safe councils, PG&E, PCWA, Animal Control, OES, I'm probably forgetting a few, but it was a tremendous turnout of community folks and really demonstrating our commitment to addressing the most critical danger in much of my district, the fire danger that we're all well aware of. I want to thank everybody for doing that. Also want to thank everyone for the extraordinary efforts over the 4th of July where we had a TikTok takeover in North Lake Tahoe, and Captain Baxter in the Sheriff's Office, I believe, had 20 units responding to hundreds of underage drinkers on one of our local beaches. Captain Baxter was in constant communication with me, responding throughout the evening of the 3rd and the 4th, when a decision was made to close some of our beaches, one of our beaches as well as a state beach at 4.30 that afternoon of the 4th because of this situation. So we have a meeting that we're convening with land managers throughout the basin to address this. It's nothing new in the sense that I think it was over 20 years ago, the county adopted an ordinance to eliminate alcohol on the Truckee River because of incidents that occurred. The difference now is that we have social media and these takeovers occurring. And so I wanna thank the Sheriff's Office. Also, Jared's here, they issued 127 parking citations in those two days. and we had 47 short-term rental complaints for the three-day of the weekend. So out of probably 3,000 rentals, 47 had actual complaints issued, and they are pursuing citations on some of those, primarily for noise and trash. So a lot of effort goes into managing the types of groups we get, especially on a weekend when the fourth falls on a weekend evening and people have that three-day weekend to come up and relax or not relax, I guess, for all of us that are trying to deal with them, but they are enjoying themselves maybe too much. So how we... track that social media and how we try to address these issues is going to be a need to be a comprehensive approach just not the county but i really want to thank our sheriff's office in particular parking and short-term rental code enforcement for managing the best they could with all of those crowds so thank you thank you supervisor jones

Yes, I just wanted to let everybody know some of the things that have been going on in Placer County since our last meeting. Bonnie and I toured the newly renovated Auburn Library. It's not open yet, but it's going to be a really great location for students and adults and everyone who like libraries. And we also, I toured the... I toured the PCSO, the Placer County Sheriff's Office, their new training facility, and it is very well done, very well done, and it's gonna be a great facility for training new police officers. So then also I was invited and attended the Stars and Stripes barbecue at the Eschaton Village in my district, and it was always great to see and enjoy all those folks that are there. A lot of family members were there too to enjoy the barbecue with them. I attended the NACO High Performance Leadership Academy graduation. A lot of graduates from the academy and everyone, you learn a lot in that academy. It's a really high pressure, a couple weeks, it's like six or more weeks. But anyway, it's really a very good. And also too, I attended the seating of this year's new grand jury. So it's been a busy thing, busy going on around Placer County and But everything is really good.

Great. Thank you. Thank you. Any other board members? And Mr. Chattany.

Thank you, Chair. Although we already know Sean Rabay and his work for the city of Auburn, town of Loomis in Placer County, I just wanted to formally introduce and welcome Sean to Team Placer in his new role as the Assistant County Executive Officer. So very excited to have Sean on board.

He's on day number two. So we are very excited to have him part of our team.

You want to come up and just say a word or two?

As I'm planning on that, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Daniel's keeping me busy. First two days drinking from a firehouse. But it's good to be here. I'm really excited. So looking forward to continuing on.

Great. We're so happy to have you here. All right. It's not quite 930, so we are going to move to our first department item, item 8A, City of Colfax Law Enforcement Services Agreement.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Mr. Chetney, Mr. Cook. My name is Jerry Rogers with the Placer County Sheriff's Office. And here with me is Watch Commander Lieutenant Stacy Reniger. And we are here to ask the board to approve and authorize the Placer County Sheriff, Coroner Marshall, or designee to execute an agreement between the Placer County Sheriff's Office and the City of Colfax to provide law enforcement services for the three-year term of July 1, 2026 to June 30th, 2029 in the amount of $3,427,962. The Placer County Sheriff's Office provides law enforcement services to the City of Colfax under a contractual agreement. To ensure budget predictability and stable rates, the City and the Sheriff's Office have agreed to a fixed annual contract increase of 5.5% for each fiscal year from July 1, 2026 through June 30th, 2029. However, if the Placer County negotiates a new memorandum of understanding or side letter agreement with the Placer County Deputy Sheriff's Association approved by the Board of Supervisors and ratified by the association, that results in salary increases. The contract amount may be adjusted to reflect changes to salaries and benefits and related expenses. So any such adjustment will be presented to the City of Colfax for approval, and if approved, will take effect on the following July 1st. The agreement amount for fiscal year 26-27 is $1,082,050, representing a 5.5% increase over the prior year's contract amount. The City of Colfax Council approved the contract at a regular held meeting on June 24, 2026. And the current total amount of this revenue agreement is $3,427,962. Revenue in the amount of $1,082,050 from this agreement is included in the fiscal year 26-27's protection and preventions budget. There is no impact to the general fund. And with that, we'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from board members? Is there anyone here in the chambers who'd like to comment on this item? And anyone online? All right, I'll bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval, and I'll second.

Moved by Gustafson, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. We'll move to item 8B.

Thank you, and welcome again, board. My name is Jerry Rogers with the Placer County Sheriff's Office, and here with me is Substation Commander... Jason Doolittle, and we are here to ask the board to approve and authorize the Placer County Sheriff's Corner Marshal or designate to execute an agreement between the Placer County Sheriff's Office and the Town of Loomis to provide law enforcement services for the three-year term of July 1, 2026 to June 30th, 2029 in the amount of $7,882,575. And here, the Placer County Sheriff's Office provides law enforcement services to the town of Loomis under a contractual agreement. And to ensure budgetary predictability and stable rates, the town and the Sheriff's Office have agreed to a fixed annual contract increase of 5.5% for each fiscal year from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2029. And however, if the Placer County negotiates a new memorandum of understanding, or side letter agreement with the Placer County Deputy Sheriff's Association approved by the Board of Supervisors and ratified by the association. That results in a salary increases. The contract amount may be adjusted to reflect changes to salaries, benefits, and related expenses. Any such adjustment will be presented to the Town of Loomis for approval and if approved, will take effect on the following July 1st. And the agreement amount for fiscal year 2026-2027 is $2,488,187, representing a 5.5% increase over the prior year's contract. And also here, I would like to make a note for the correction to the staff report. Here, the town of Loomis will be voting on this later today, and there was a clerk error on the staff report, so I just want to note that. And then the current total amount of this revenue agreement is $7,882,000. $575 and revenue in the amount of $2,488,167 from this agreement is included in the fiscal year 26-27 budget. And there is no impact to the general fund. And with that, we'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from board members? Anyone here in the chambers who'd like to comment on this item? And anyone online? All right, I'll bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval. I'll second.

Moved by Jones, seconded by Gore. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thank you.

Have a great day.

You too. We'll go ahead and move to item 9A, amend Placer County Code regarding temporary certificates of occupancy.

Good morning, Chair Landon, members of the board, Daniel and Clayton. Randall Beffer here, Building Services Manager for the Building Services Division of CEDRA. And I also have with me today Gabe Armstrong, Deputy Director of CEDRA Tahoe and also the Acting Chief Building Official. The action item requested is introduce and waive oral reading of an ordinance to amend Placer County Code Chapter 15, Section 15.04.070 regarding temporary certificates of occupancy. We're bringing forward this amendment to clarify the issuance of temporary certificates of occupancies for model homes within new subdivision improvements, developments. In current practice, developers often build model homes early in the project and use them for sales and marketing before all subdivision improvements, excuse me, improvements such as roads, utilities, drainage, and fire access are fully completed and accepted by the board. This has raised recurring questions about when temporary occupancy is appropriate and under what conditions it can occur without creating confusion about full residential occupancy rights. The amendment establishes specific criteria that must be met before a temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued and it limits the use of model homes strictly to sales and marketing activities. Just as importantly, it reinforces that no full certificate of occupancy will be issued and no residential occupancy is permitted until all subdivision improvements have been fully completed and formally approved. These requirements ensure the essential health, accessibility, safety, fire protection, and structural standards are maintained even during limited temporary use. Overall, this amendment supports orderly development, provides clarity for both staff and builders, and safeguards the wellbeing of future residents. For these reasons, staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Questions or comments from board members? Supervisor Gore?

Thank you. Appreciate that, Randall. Just a quick question. Is this fairly common in other jurisdictions like the city of Roseville when they do their temporary occupancy for model homes? Yes, it is. All right. Thank you very much.

Any other questions? Anyone here in the chambers who'd like to comment on this item? And anyone online? All right. I'll bring it back to the board. I'll move approval. Move by Jones, seconded by Gore. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thank you. Thank you. We are now going to move to our 9.30 timed item, Court Employees CalPERS Contract Separation.

Good morning, Chairwoman Landon, members of the board, Daniel and Clayton. Andy Sesk, Placer County Auditor-Controller. I'm here today to ask the Board of Supervisors to approve a resolution of intent to separate a contract between the county and the courts. And this would be the employees that currently were county employees that became court employees upon the adoption of the Trial Court Act back in 2001. To provide a little history, when I was assigned to do an audit in Placer County in 1995, my first audit was Placer County Superior and Municipal Courts. So 30 years later, it's just apropos, I guess that I'm coming back to the board to ask for this separation and this resolution of intent. The Trial Court Act of 2001 did three things. First, it put court collections still the responsibility of the county, because all deposits are still put in the county treasury. Number two was the maintenance and transfer of court facilities, basically the court buildings. and any new construction and new buildings thereafter. And number three, county employees basically remain court employees. The court employees really that were impacted the most were CalPERS employees. In the state of California, we have 38 CalPERS counties. The other counties are 37 act counties. So this only applies to CalPERS counties. In 2006, our association was concerned because two of the counties, Solano and Butte, had issued pension obligation bonds. So when you issue pension obligation bonds, you're basically reducing that pension liability because you're exchanging debt for another form of debt. So obviously the courts benefited from that. As a result, Butte and Solano sponsored legislation in 2006. To make a long story short, the bill got killed by SEIU, the largest union, because why? The rates were going to skyrocket. The association, our auditor's association, attempted this two years later to no success. It was then GASB, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, I guess that was our savior, that passed the GASB 68, which required us to put the net pension liability on the county's financial statements. That then put a spotlight on, well, this liability is not all the county's liability. A piece of this belongs to the courts. uh... in negotiations with the state controller uh... we were able to get the state auditor to put that liability in the states audited financial statements but our association was still not satisfied so then we took another bite at the apple and it uh... was i think advantageous that we had senator nilo who was willing to sponsor this bill uh... someone who's a cpa and someone that actually had sat on the sacramento county employees retirement system board and he thought that this was troubling because it was very easy for 37 counties to separate county and court employees. CalPERS kept saying we have no mechanism to separate it and we're not going to perform a separate actuarial. It took a lot of will and fight to get through the Senate Bill 548 that was eventually signed by Governor Newsom. This was the only bill that Senator Neal carried that year. I thought it was going to get squashed at appropriations. We were able to successfully get it through appropriation to keep it below that threshold, I think of $150,000, because we told them we only thought there would be three or four counties that were going to pursue this avenue to get this separate actuarial. So here today, Placer County is the first county to move in this direction. CalPERS has said once they receive the necessary documents and data from the county and the court, then they will validate it and come up with separate actuarials for us to use and analyze the cost. And this is where the courts are still concerned. They're willing to move forward. But in meetings with Jake Tatters, they're still concerned, and they're hopeful that the actuary review will return something that supports them moving to their own contract. So the work is not done yet, but this is the first step in the process. If the board approves this resolution, then the court will also provide a companion resolution that jointly we will send then to CalPERS and then we'll wait for the actuarials. I want to conclude and thank the board for their continued support. I want to thank Joel Joyce, who's been actively monitoring this and advocating for this legislation for years. Thanks to my financial reporting team that has to do the calculations to remove that piece of the liability. And of course, special thanks to Senator Nilo. I remember my first meeting with him in the office. I asked him if he knew anything about GASB. He pointed to his certificate on the wall and said, yes, I'm very well aware of GASB. And then we started talking technical talk. And I think I lost my legislative advocate at that time. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right. Thank you. Any questions or comments from board members?

Maybe just a quick comment. I want to say thank you, because at the end of the day, you're making sure that the county pays for what the county's liabilities are and other entities are paying for what their liabilities are. And that's important. Somebody made a comment earlier, public comment, about unfunded mandates, right? And we experience this all the time. And I'm listening to her talk about unfunded mandates. I'm like, welcome to our world where the state of California says you must do this, but we're not going to provide any additional funding for it. So I just appreciate the hard work, Andy. Thank you. And thank you to Joel as well.

Agree. I think this is, I mean, I'll go as far as saying it's pretty exciting. You know, if I was a financial person, I think this would be very exciting. And I do think this is great news for Placer County and just the long term fiscal sustainability of where we're going to be 20 years from now. This is just keeping us on that good, strong path. And we really appreciate your hard work to make sure it happens. and appreciate Senator Nelow for jumping in and being willing to bring something forward. So with that, I will open up public comment. Is there anyone here in the chambers who would like to comment on this item? And is there anyone online? No, Chair. All right, I'll bring it back to the board.

I will move approval of the item, and I'll second.

Moved by Gore, seconded by Jones. This is a roll call vote.

Supervisor DiMattei? Yes. Supervisor Jones? Aye. Supervisor Gustafson? Aye. Supervisor Gore? Aye. Supervisor Landon?

Yes.

Thank you.

We'll go ahead and start. Amy, I know you have multiple items, but we'll just get through what we can get through right now. We'll move to item 10A, agreement with advocates for mentally ill housing.

Hi, good morning Chair Landon and members of the board. Amy Ellis, the Director with the Adult System of Care. And I'm here to request your board's approval on two action items. So the first is to approve an agreement with Advocates for Mentally Ill Housing Incorporated to provide housing coordination services in the amount not to exceed $1,040,349 for the period of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027. and to authorize the Director of Health and Human Services or designee to sign the agreement and to sign any subsequent amendments that cumulatively do not exceed $100,000 consistent with the subject matter and scope of work with human resources, risk management, and county council concurrence. So this service agreement seeks to continue housing navigation services to address housing instability. So the goal is to help folks who are at risk of experiencing homelessness or to help them find stable housing solutions. Through the agreement, AMI will continue to provide these services for several specific groups. So any Placer County resident that's referred through calling 211 and those receiving services by the adult system of care who we identified as needing these services and also specifically there's a little portion of funding for people who we outreach to through adult protective services through their home safe solutions grant. So those are the three populations served in this way. In addition to serving those individuals, it also helps to identify landlords and work with landlords to identify additional locations for people to be able to be matched with, to be able to increase our options for housing for individuals. They use individualized assistance to help them overcome their barriers, including direct support with rental applications and deposits. short-term rental subsidies, and ongoing case management to promote housing retention. Let's see. So there is a total possible fiscal impact of $1,140,349, which is budgeted with the adult system of care, and there's no additional impact to the general fund, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from board members? Anyone here in the chambers who would like to comment on this item? And is there anyone online? No, Chair. All right, I'll bring it back to the board.

Move approval, and I'll second.

Move by Gustafson, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Let's go ahead and do 10B, and then we'll move back to our timed items.

Okay, no problem. So again, Amy Ellis for the record, and I'm here to ask for two action items for approval today. First, to approve an agreement with Advocates for Mentally Ill Housing Incorporated for the Emergency Peer Respite Housing and Transitional Housing Program. in an amount not to exceed $1,241,780 for the period of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027. And second, to authorize the Director of Health and Human Services or designee to sign the agreement and to sign subsequent amendments that cumulatively do not exceed $100,000, consistent with the subject matter and scope of work with risk management and county council concurrence. So under this contract, AMI will continue to provide two critical housing interventions for individuals with behavioral health needs. So this is for our emergency peer respite housing program, also known as the Monarch. and there are transitional housing programs which are located in multiple areas and have a high level of supports in them in a shared housing approach. So these programs are designed to support treatment engagement, promote housing stability, and reduce reliance on crisis services among individuals experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness who also have behavioral health needs, severe behavioral health needs. So Monarch House was, this contract does represent an expansion of of both services and cost related to those expansion of services. So Monarch House was relocated and doubled in size at the Sunrose location. And we also used a variety of state funding sources in order to achieve that expansion. So we had some BB funding, Behavioral Health Bridge Housing funding, and some BHSA, Behavioral Health Services Act funding to help do that. So individuals who are outreach to through our mobile crisis team or through our case management services, they're identified in crisis, they need a short-term place to stay, they can use Monarch House for that purpose. And then while finding stable housing isn't necessarily the primary goal of that program, it really is to get them out of a crisis situation, they do offer case management, like talking to them, finding their needs, and 25% of the participants actually do transition to more stable housing after their stay at Monarch House. So that's a good secondary outcome from that program. Our transitional housing program has eight homes located throughout mid and western Placer County and the program expanded by one additional home. So that's also increased from 38 beds to 44 beds. And it provides temporary housing for up to 24 months for individuals and does provide a lot of services on supports on site to really help them move to more stable and permanent housing. So they continue to be critical component of both our behavioral health continuum and our housing services. and the cost of the contract has a total possible fiscal impact of about $1,341,780 and has been budgeted in both years that are counted in these contracts, and there are no additional impacts to the general fund, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from board members? Anyone here in the chambers who'd like to comment on this item? And anyone online? All right, I'll bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval.

I'll second. Moved by Jones, seconded by Gustafson. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thank you. All right, we'll move to item two, our 940-timed item, Report on Child Abuse Prevention Council Local Activities.

Good morning, Chair Landon, Supervisors, Mr. Clayton, and Mr. Chatney, clerk of the board. As you can see today, I am joined by a few other folks. We do not have our entire Child Abuse Prevention Council steering committee here, but we do have a few members. So for the record, this is Twyla Abrahamson, and yes, I'm with the Children's System of Care, but I am a member of the CAPC here presenting to you today. And I am joined by some lovely ladies. We have Shanita Jones, who is our CAPC coordinator, Debbie Gabelich, who is from Kids First. We also have Indira Infante from the Latino Leadership Council, and Elias from Lighthouse, Amy Tsujimoto from Child Advocates, and I think That's who we have here today. We have a variety of other folks here, normally as well, when you celebrate in April. So we'll try to be as quick as we can. You can see we do have a little slide presentation, but just as a reminder, Child Abuse Prevention Councils, or CAPCs, are in each county and they're comprised of local community members representing a state-defined specified list of areas such as higher education, community providers, parent caregivers, law enforcement, county child welfare, et cetera. The members bring diverse perspectives in order to advocate for policy and educational efforts with the goal to prevent child maltreatment in the community. There are two CAPC groups in Placer due to the geographic spread of the county, with the Tahoe area CAPC, a combined effort with Nevada County, and refers to itself as the Tahoe Truckee Communities for Kids, and the Mid-South County Group is the Child Abuse Prevention Council of Gloucester County. Kids First has managed the latter CAPSEA group with a dedicated coordinator, I introduced you to Shanita, and is in charge of gathering county-wide data and tying the two groups together. But each group also has their own strategic plan to dedicate resources and tailor educational activities to each local community due to differing needs. But they both share raising awareness about child abuse, educating the community about signs and symptoms of possible abuse, as well as resources available to assist families. In April 2026, your board recognized Child Abuse Awareness Month, and the item today is informational only to give your board a report on fiscal year 2025-26 data and community educational activities for Placer County throughout this year. So we have a few slides to go over quickly. And let me see if I can go forward. All right, so those are the two, just to go with the two. But here's our data slide. This is calendar year 2025 by the numbers. And so you can see we had an increase in referrals. So you can see it was an 8.8% increase from last year. We also had a decrease, however, in youth that were involved in substantiated reports, which probably means that we're getting to folks a little bit earlier, which is wonderful. You can see that we did have some removals of folks that had to enter foster care. That was an increase from 2024. However, some interesting things we'll talk about down here a little bit is that of our youth, we have an increase in youth being placed in relatives' homes. That's one of the things that we want to do, and that is one of the state priorities, and it's certainly a priority for Placer County as well. We also did have a number in our foster family agencies or resource family homes, 19 youth, only 19. I remember, oh, I don't know, 15, 16, 18 years ago, I would have been before you and saying we had... 49 youth in STRTPs, but we had 19, and that was throughout the whole course of the year. And then 12 were in a supervised independent living placement. And this is, remember, our non-minor dependents. So these are the folks that age out, if you will. They're over 18, but they stay involved in our system. And we have a number of those youth, a lot more, actually, than we expected to have. throughout the years that do stay with us for those services and supports. We had 70 children who were reunited with their families, which is wonderful, and then you all, many of you were at our adoption day last year, but throughout the year we had 20 adoptions. So we will go faster through some of these slides, but I just want to give you a sense of all the community partners who work across our county, again, all the way from Tahoe down all the way to South County, There's all of these partners. There's all of these partners. We could probably have about 10 more slides, but there's many more. But we just did want to talk to you a bit about the accomplishments, and they're in these kind of areas, resource fair, advocacy, engagement, and community education. So first, there's some pictures here. We had our annual child abuse prevention resource fair this year was held at the Galleria Mall. That's new, a new location for us. We were trying to get a different slice of our community to see how we would do and we had 50 vendors come out and over 900 families received resources, education and community support. Here's some other activities that happened. We have an infant toddler CPR, keeping children with developmental differences safe, safe sleep in English and in Spanish. The Lisa Project, which was a compelling experience that reduced many, many people to tears. And then some of you also were involved in some of our pinwheel plantings throughout the county to promote safe and healthy childhoods. We also had some Tahoe Truckee Child Abuse Prevention Month activities. They had resource sharing meetings with 56 attendees. They had a Paint the Town Blue. It was a whole event with pinwheel displays and I see Supervisor Gustafson is nodding. Family engagement activities for families, collaboration with local schools for social emotional learning to build resilience activities. Just wanna pass on, here's a lot of the pictures from the pinwheel plantings, some of these down the hill and some up. There was some notable community activities. This was a gear up and go. That was a fairly new one to us, back to school shopping, but it was organized by the Child Abuse Prevention Council and sponsored by Cal Voices and our Roseville Police Activities League, which was wonderful. And it was attended by quite a few people, and they did more in-depth shopping for specific things to the needs of the children, not necessarily just backpacks and books and things. Trainings were held, lots and lots and lots of trainings. You can see the list and read it for yourself, but I did want to highlight that we did do some trainings on commercial exploitation of children, that's the CSEC. co-parenting, and also interesting dating violence for some of our teens. And I am sad to say that we have to do some of these trainings, but we are doing these trainings. So it's an important aspect of our community. We also focused on finances and job readiness for our older youth. There was also some mandatory reporter trainings here. There was one, that particular one, it reached over 100 staff members. And then Tahoe Truckee also had some interesting trainings they did with the CHP, which was also for mandated reporter trainings. And then collaborated with CR Community House for bullying and prevention trainings as well. Here's some more on the Tahoe Truckee Community for Kids events. You can see that there are quite a few listed there. And Tahoe also supported the 22nd annual TTUSD, so the Tahoe Truckee Unified School District Child Development Conference. They've had that for 22 years and they also offered other trainings in Spanish through their community providers. And always every year that we try to bring some recommendations to the board. We actually looked through last year's, and they didn't change a whole lot. But in the era of also MHSA to BHSA, you can see some of the recommendations in prevention. So recommendations just include, and I do want to read these out, Ensuring that prevention and early intervention mindset remains at the forefront for all services. Obviously that fits with the mission of the Child Abuse Prevention Council. Maximize and prioritize prevention and early intervention dollars from all funding sources, be those local, state, federal. Support community-based organizations as they have a direct impact on our families to prevent abuse and neglect. And planning for the economic and services uncertainty facing all residents to avoid leaving our communities vulnerable. So with that, if you have any questions for myself or any member of our CAPC that's here, we'd be happy to take those. And thank you very much for your time.

Questions or comments from board members? I would like to say thank you so much for the work that you do with the CAPC. It's so important, as I know you all know, and you're super passionate about it, but really appreciate your commitment to this. And it's really great to see, Twyla, the increase in placements with family members. I think that's something I've just learned a lot about over the years and just how important it is to keep them connected with someone in their family. So that's really a great statistic to see. Other questions or comments? Supervisor Gustafson.

I just very much appreciate all of you and the hard work this is, challenging work, and I wish we didn't need to do this work, but because of you we're making a difference, and to see those results and more reports but less incidents, that means you're getting the word out. So thank you, and I appreciate the detailed report and all the work. Thank you.

Is there anyone here in the public who would like to comment on this item? Is there anyone from the CAPC who wants to say anything?

They said they're good.

I want to express my appreciation to all of you. I know I work for Lighthouse Counseling and Family Resource Center. I'm the executive director, Anne Elias. But I just want to say thank you to all of you for your incredible support for all of us. Without your advocacy and support, we could not do the work we do, and you're just really like wind beneath our wings. So thank you. When you're there at the fairs, when you're there out in the public, you're representing, but you're also advocating for what we do, and that is real strength that we need to keep our missions going forward. So thank you very much.

Thanks, Amy. Yes, it really does take a village. Supervisor Gore.

And I just wanted to follow up, whereas I appreciate the work you all do in partnership with the county. Because if we didn't have our nonprofits stepping up and doing this hard work, then we would have a lot more county workers trying to do this work. And I know very clearly that y'all are able to be a lot more nimble and flexible and meet needs in a different way and usually before it gets to a place where the county has to intervene. And so I just thank you for that. Because it is hard work, but it really matters that you help these families before they get to a place where they need additional help. Like you're getting them the services they need to get stable. And that's a huge benefit. And a lot of counties do not have the partnerships that we have with our nonprofits, and so I want to say thank you for really stepping up and partnering with us.

I'd like to just comment about that. Honestly, I couldn't have said that any better, Supervisor Gore. In addition to that, many people want to go to a community provider, right? Not everybody really wants to come to a county office. I mean, as lovely as we all are, right, and as generous, they really don't necessarily, and not only doing it in the prevention mindset before they have to come for any of those services, but the comfort and support about being able to go out into their local community and receive services and advice and whatnot is exactly what we have, and we have that through our network of community providers, so thank you for pointing that out.

all right i don't see any other questions or comments so just want to say thank you again thanks for being here and for hanging out while we waited to get to this item and really appreciate the work you do thank you so much we will now move to our nine fifty time to item delinquent solid waste collection bills a little change in topic not quite as fun or inspiring

Do you want me to wait for you to pass those out? Yes, please. Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Cori Heisler, Environmental Resources Specialist with Public Works. I'm here to present the annual action to recover unpaid fees from the mandatory garbage service area in Franchise Area 3, which is generally Donner Summit to the Nevada State Line, as well as the North Lake Tahoe area. Our agreement with Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal, or TTSD, obligates the county to reimburse TTSD for any unpaid accounts that are more than 60 days delinquent as of May 1st of the previous year. The initial list of delinquent accounts was received from TTSD on March 27th, 2026 and on April 15th, TTSD sent a letter notifying these customers of their delinquent status. They have been receiving past due notices this whole time. This was just their formal delinquent notice. An updated list was received from TTSD on May 7th and on May 15th, the county sent a letter to these customers notifying them again of their delinquent status and providing information on how to contact TTSD and the county with any questions they may have. This letter also provided the dates and locations for the two appeals hearings, as well as an application to attend these hearings, and we did receive two applications. The letter also satisfied the requirement to notify customers at least 45 days in advance of this public hearing. Additionally, a legal ad was placed in the Sierra Sun on July 3rd and July 10th as notice of this public hearing. Both appeals hearings were presided over by DPW staff who were not associated with the solid waste fund to prevent a conflict of interest. The first appeals hearing was held on Tuesday, June 16th in Auburn, and no TTSD customers attended. The second appeals hearing was held in Tahoe on Thursday, June 18th, and one TTSD customer did attend to appeal their delinquency. Unfortunately, the information they provided did not meet the qualifications outlined in our May 15th letter and Placer County Code Section 8.16.220. Customers had until July 30th to pay their outstanding balances, and a final list of remaining delinquent accounts was received from TTSD on July 6th. Since publication of the resolution for today's public hearing, additional review has been conducted as several accounts have been paid in the interim. The total number of delinquent accounts has reduced from 300 accounts to 133 and therefore the current amount to be placed on the tax roll has been reduced to an amount up to $37,569.01. Today's agenda has the most recent and correct information and requested actions. but you've been provided with an updated resolution with an exhibit reflecting these reductions. The parcels that will not be placed on the tax roll have been struck out on this updated exhibit. Therefore, the actions requested today are, one, conduct a public hearing to consider all protests, if any, to the report of delinquent solid waste collection bills in Franchise Area 3, which includes unincorporated Placer County from Donner Lake to the Nevada state line. Two, adopt a resolution confirming the reported delinquent solid waste franchise area three collection bills and directing the county auditor to place delinquent solid waste franchise area three collection bills on the fiscal year 2026-27 county tax roll in an amount up to $37,569.01. And three, determine the proposed actions are each not a project pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15378. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Questions or comments from board members? I see Mr. Cook has a comment.

I just wanted to note that a updated resolution was provided to the board. And so the action requested is for the updated resolution, which has the updated figures included.

Thank you. Anyone here in the chambers who'd like to comment on this item? And anyone online? All right. With that, I'll just open the public hearing. And I am now closing the public hearing. With that, I'll bring it back to the board for a vote. Move by Jones, seconded by Gore. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thank you very much. We'll go ahead and move to Item 4A, Delinquent Solid Waste Service Bills for Franchise Area 4.

Good morning, Supervisor Landon, members of the board. I'm Janine Martin. I'm with the Environmental Engineering Division of Public Works. Today I bring a very similar item, the annual action to recover unpaid mandatory solid waste fees in the Forest Hill Divide. This is a portion of Franchise Area 4, and it's serviced by Recology Auburn Placer. Garbage service is mandatory for each property owner of developed property on the Forest Hill Divide pursuant to county code. Owners are allowed to choose between curbside collection, which includes use of the transfer station without additional tipping fees for most items, or owners can choose to use the transfer station alone without having a curbside component to their service. Per the contract with Recology, Placer County assists with collection of mandatory area accounts once they've been deemed delinquent. Prior to this, owners are given several opportunities to bring their accounts current and or to contest the delinquency. The county will pay Recology the amounts that are owed, which brings the accounts back to zero. To that end of getting those paid, owners are given several notices. First, they're sent notices from Recology. The county follows up with a letter as well. We also held two hearings in June allowing owners to bring evidence that disproved their delinquency status. No one did so. We did have one gentleman come and he just wanted to let us know that he brought his account current during that time. Customers had until June 30th to pay the amounts that are owed, and many people took advantage of that and did so. The final list that's provided in your packet has properties that are struck out. Those amounts were paid in full, and amounts will not be placed on the tax roll for those. uh... that brings us to the actions requested today uh... we request that you conduct a public hearing to consider all protests if any to the report of delinquent solid waste service bills in the forest hill divide also known as the forest hill mandatory basic service fee area which is a portion of franchise area four The second action is to adopt a resolution confirming the report of the delinquent Forest Hill Divide solid waste service bills and directing the county auditor to place the delinquent Forest Hill Divide solid waste service bills on the fiscal year 2026-27 county tax roll in the amount up to $36,143.52. And the third is simply to determine these actions are each not a project pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15378. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. I will open the public hearing. Are there any questions or comments from board members? Anyone here in the chambers who has a comment on this item? And is there anyone online? All right, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval.

Move by Gustafson, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thank you. We'll move to item 5A, South Placer Wastewater Authority Sewer Connection Fee Annual Adjustment.

Good morning, Chair Landon, members of the board, CEO and council, Rob Mahoney, Environmental Engineering Program Manager for DPW. Today I'm here to talk about sewer fees. Most of the wastewater generated within sewer areas of unincorporated Placer County is collected and conveyed to two wastewater treatment plants that are owned and operated by the City of Roseville on behalf of the South Placer Wastewater Authority, or SPWA. SPWA partner agencies include City of Roseville, Placer County, and the South Placer Municipal Utility District. The county areas that flow to these treatment plants are sewer maintenance districts two, Granite Bay, and three, Horseshoe Bar, zones of benefit 283, Sunset, 173, Dry Creek, 232, Placer Vineyards, and 239, Placer Ranch. Each new equivalent dwelling unit or EDU that connects to one of these districts or zones is required to pay a connection fee to the county that includes a regional component. The regional component of the fee is passed through to the city funds increases in treatment capacity and is subject to annual adjustments based upon engineering news record construction cost index as specified by Roseville Municipal Code incorporated by reference in Placer County Code and is consistent with SPWA agreements. The most recent annual increase of the regional component of the SPWA connection fee is $129 per EDU. The local component of the county connection fees in districts and CSAs with a local component remains unchanged. Staff recommends the board increase the county connection fees to account for the pass-through increase in the regional component of the connection fee by taking the following actions. Number one, conduct a public hearing to receive public testimony regarding a proposal to increase the sewer connection fees for sewer maintenance districts two and three. and zones of benefit 283 and 173 from $11,326 to $11,455 per equivalent dwelling unit and zones of benefit 232 and 239 from $9,858 to $9,987 per equivalent dwelling unit to reflect increases in the regional component approved by the South Placer Wastewater Authority. Number two, adopt an ordinance amending chapter 13, section 13-12-350 of the Placer County Code to increase the sewer connection fees. And number three, determine the proposed actions are each not projects pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15-378 and alternatively are each exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15-273. With that, I will answer any questions you might have.

Thank you. I'll open the public hearing. Are there any board members who have questions or comments on this item? Anyone here in the chambers who'd like to comment on this? And anyone online? All right, I'll bring it back to the board. Moved by Jones, seconded by Gore. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

We'll now move to item 6A, reorganization zone of benefit to A3, Sunset Sewer.

Good morning, Chair Landon, members of your board. I'm Kevin Bell, the Assistant Director of Public Works. And this is the last of the exciting sewer or solid waste items that you have for this morning. So this item before you today is a minor administrative correction to the boundaries of two sewer service zones of benefit in the Sunset area. In 2024, the board created the Placer Ranch sewer zone of benefit to serve development within the Placer Ranch specific plan. And at that time, the properties were correctly included in the new Placer Ranch sewer zone of benefit, and all required noticing was completed. However, there is one administrative step that is still needed. A portion of the Placer Ranch properties need to be removed from the older Sunset sewer zone. Today's action simply removes those properties from the older Sunset sewer zone of benefit, making the district boundaries match what was intended when the Placer Ranch sewer zone of benefit was created. The action does not change who receives sewer service or change any rates or fees and does not authorize any new development. It's simply correcting the official boundary of the zones of benefit so they do not overlap and reflect the board's previous action. There is no impact to the general fund and no fiscal impact to the Sunset Sewer Zone of Benefit. Staff supports this request. In order to move forward, we request that your board take the following actions. One, conduct a public hearing to consider excising a portion of Zone of Benefit 2A3 Sunset Sewer consisting of 244 parcels or portions thereof generally located in the western undeveloped portion of the sunset area. Two, adopt a resolution excising a portion of zone of benefit 2A3 sunset sewer consisting of 244 parcels or portions thereof generally located in the western undeveloped portion of the sunset area. And three, determine the proposed actions are each not projects pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15378. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. I'll open the public hearing. Are there any questions or comments from board members? And anyone here in the chambers who'd like to make a public comment on this item? Anyone online? OK, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Move by Gore, seconded by DiMattei. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we're going to buckle in for Amy Ellis. She's got a number of items. We're going to move to item 10C, agreement with Bridgewood Post Acute LLC. Yes.

Okay. Yes, I have several items, but we'll start with 10C. Okay. Amy Ellis with the Director of the Adult System of Care here to ask for two action items on this one to be considered. One, to approve an agreement with Bridgewood Post Acute LLC to provide skilled nursing and rehabilitative services in an amount not to exceed $1.1 million for the period of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2028. And then second, to authorize the Director of Health and Human Services or designee to sign the agreement and to sign subsequent amendments that cumulatively do not exceed $100,000, consistent with the subject matter and scope of work, with human resources, risk management, and county council concurrence. Bridgewood became a new partner with our county during the previous two years, and they provide long-term care for our Lanterman Petra Short or LPS Act conserved clients needing ongoing stabilization. So these facilities often prevent a more intrusive and expensive admission to a psychiatric health facility, plus they're just required for the safety of individuals who meet this level of need for conservatorship. Bridgewood has served our clients well. They also offer substance use programming into their design, which is helpful for many of our individuals needing this type of care. And it's locally, it's in Sacramento, so it's not too far away for individuals to be served there. So Placer County currently lacks facilities who have an emphasis on medical, mental health, and substance use needs, as this facility does provide. With our growing population of clients and and the need in this area We're really happy to continue to contract with this newish to us facility and the total fiscal impact is 1.2 million dollars and has been budgeted and there is no additional impact to the general fund and I'm happy to take any questions All right, thank you, I will bring it back to the board for questions or comments Any questions or comments from the public?

Anyone online? All right, I will bring it back.

Move approval.

I'll second. Move by Gustafson, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. We'll move to item D. OK.

This next one has two action items for your consideration. And the first is to approve an agreement with Nevada County Behavioral Health to provide 24-7 telephone triage services in the amount not to exceed $1,868,150 for the period of July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2028. And second, to authorize the Director of Health and Human Services or designee to sign the agreement and to sign subsequent amendments that cumulatively do not exceed $100,000, consistent with the subject matter and scope of work with human resources, risk management, and county council concurrence. So since August 1st, 2009, We've contracted with Nevada County Behavioral Health, who then contracts with Auburn Counseling Services, who does business as CommuniCare, not to confuse things, but it's really Auburn Counseling Services who is offering this service to do 24-7 telephone access and crisis triage for the residents of Placer County. So this is the line that individuals call. when they need help, when they just wanna access outpatient care, or when they're in a crisis, and both for mental health, substance use, but also for APS, for IHSS, like pretty much all of, and child welfare, like all of the services that we provide that are like in Twyla and my shop, they can call this phone number, And what's great about it is it does directly connect to mobile crisis response. It gives, you know, it gives direct like some mini like kind of assessment of what their need is and then a link to that particular service. If somebody calls 2-1-1, they'll connect over to this line if it's more related to a mental health or a specific county service level need. 2-1-1 handles the things that more go towards our providers and our community providers, and this line is really more specific to those ones that really require county response, just to clarify. And then 2-1-1 is also the best line for people who are housing and homeless to get onto the by name list and get housing services. So this line for our services has been, it triaged 27,681 calls last year and two years ago and 34,812 calls the following year. So those call numbers are going up and we're projected to field over 36,000 calls in fiscal year 25-26. So you can see the rise in need for these types of services. If somebody calls, another thing I want to say, if they call 988, That actually goes to another organization in Sacramento that we do not contract with for this service. So they are to link over to this one that we contract with. But we don't have a lot of visibility in how well that works. So people can call 988 and hopefully it works and they get connected over to this. Or we still advertise our direct line to this particular service so they know that they're gonna get to Placer County and they're not gonna know they're gonna get to us. So that's how it works. The total possible fiscal impact is $1,968,150, and the funding in the amount of $934,075 for year one, and then the rest will be budgeted in future budgets, and there's no additional impact to the general fund. Happy to answer any questions on this.

All right, thank you. I will bring it back to the board for questions. Supervisor Gustafson?

Thanks, Amy. I was just amazed at the number of calls that you're triaging. And do you have background? Do you receive reports? Are these the same callers repeating at times? Are these all different callers?

Yeah. It's definitely a mixture of repeated callers and new. But I would say it's mostly new callers needing to engage in services. But there is a mixture of both.

Right, when we look at 35,000 projected or 36,000 projected calls, I mean, that's an amazing number of people seeking resources and information.

Yeah, it is. It really is also related to both mental health. It's mostly mental health calls. We have it broke down by program, but then I would say the second highest is for APS, and then IHSS calls, and then child welfare. So it is a variety of different types of people calling in for lots of different needs.

Thank you.

Supervisor Gore? Just a quick question, Amy. So we contract with Nevada County to do this, right? Well, and then they contract out. I'm curious as to how much of our business is made up of that contract. Because we're a larger county. Do they contract with other counties as well?

They do. So it's a regional model. This Auburn Counseling Center, I think it has...

think six counties total we are their largest county but these numbers represent our utilization of the contract okay thank you yeah all right any public comment on this item and anyone online all right i'll bring it back to the board move approval i'll second move by gustafson seconded by gore all those in favor aye any opposed and no abstentions we'll move to item e

Okay, this one has three action items for your board's consideration. First, to approve an amendment with Yolo Community Care Continuum to operate a 14-bed short-term crisis residential treatment program located at the Kirby Hills Campus in Rosewood, California to increase the agreement by $550,000 for a revised total amount not to exceed $4,150,000 for the original period of July 1st, 2024 through June 30th, 2026. And then second, to approve an amendment with Yolo Community Care Continuum to operate a 14-bed short-term crisis residential treatment program located in the Kirby Hills Campus in Rosa, California in the amount not to exceed $4.3 million for the period of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2028. And so for both actions one and two, please authorize the Director of Health and Human Services or designee to sign the agreement and to sign subsequent amendments that cumulatively Do not exceed $100,000 consistent with the subject matter and scope of work with human resources, risk management, and county council concurrence. And finally, authorize the director of general services or designee to execute a lease agreement with Yolo Community Care Continuum, a private nonprofit corporation at 101 Kirby Hills Drive, Roseville, California, subject to monthly rent of $10,090 for the period of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2028. and authorize the director of general services or designee to sign the lease agreement and to sign subsequent amendments with risk management and county council concurrence. So we call them YCCC, so I'm just gonna call them that from now on, has been providing crisis residential services to county residents at the Cornerstone Short-Term Crisis Residential Facility. It's located at Kirby Hills, and they've been operating it there for several years for us, Many of you who've toured our campus know that this is one of those facilities that's right next to the Puff, our psychiatric health facility, and it's a step down and a prevention of going to that level of care. So it really does offer a short-term voluntary, so they can finish their involuntary stay and decide they need more time and be able to step down into this particular program. or they can have a really high significant need and voluntarily choose to go there versus being placed on a 5150 and voluntarily going to our psychiatric health facility. It's really nice to have that continuum on our campus to be able to serve people in this way. The average length of stay for guests is 8.4 days, and the average daily census was about 10.6 clients per day. This was higher utilization of services than anticipated, resulting in the need to amend the current year's agreement. But it's been working really well to incentivize utilization because The operator has a part to play in making sure those beds stay full by keeping their admissions clear, accepting more people, those types of things. So we did build into that contract some incentives for them, which then worked, and then there was higher cost, which is why there was an amendment. But we would love to be able to continue this wonderful benefit to our clients. The total possible fiscal impact is $5,050,000. Funding has been and will be budgeted and there's no additional impact to the general fund and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, questions or comments, Supervisor Gork?

Since you're here, I have a curiosity. So these are for patients who do not have regular medical insurance, who might have like Medicare or lower type of insurance, right? So if somebody had Blue Cross or Kaiser Permanente, they would go to a different facility?

Actually, because this facility wasn't always staying full and there's such a bed need, we did allow this partner to contract with some private entities. So there are a few beds here that privately insured can utilize, but our contract is really related to the Medi-Cal population or the uninsured that we're responsible to treat as the county. Great. That's just helpful. Thank you, Amy.

Any questions or comments from anyone in the public on this item? Anyone online? All right, I'll bring it back to the board. I'll second. Moved by Jones, seconded by Gustafson. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. We'll move to item F.

All right, this next item has two actions for your board's consideration. First, to approve an agreement with Turning Point Community Programs Incorporated for mental health services, medical services, and individual placement and supports supported employment in the amount not to exceed $23,100,000 for the period of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2029. And then second, to authorize the Director of Health and Human Services or designee to sign the agreement and to sign subsequent amendments that cumulatively do not exceed Okay, sorry, one second. Oh, here it is. That cumulatively do not exceed $100,000 consistent with the subject matter and scope of work with human resources, risk management, and county council concurrence. Okay, so Placer County has contracted with Turning Point for what's called full service partnership services for many years. Full service partnership is our highest level of outpatient service and it is really what makes us unique as the county to going and receiving services through your primary care because this really only exists in the county. It's about a one to maximum of 15 clients per caseload. It's whatever it takes. It's wrap around. They engage their individuals in any type of barrier or need to both their mental health, substance use, housing, work related needs, whatever it is that they need to help improve their functioning, full service partnership helps those individuals with. We have a county operated FSP and then this one that is operated by Turning Point to really maximize the options for our clients. We found that it's really good that if one's not working they can go to a different one and vice versa. Plus there's things that our county operated one can do. that a contractor has a harder time with and vice versa. There's things that our contractor can do better than we can do sometimes. So it's been a nice partnership between the two of us for many, many years. These services are majority Medi-Cal reimbursable. So yes, it's a large contract amount, but a majority of those are billed to the state and drawn down and paid for by the state because they are a mandated service that county has to offer the Medi-Cal recipients who meet the eligibility criteria because they have severe mental illness. And then BHSA is the secondary source for anything that's not covered by the Medi-Cal drawdown. This contract is also going up this year because with BHS-A there was some increased requirements related to doing evidence-based practices, having an act model, having a fact model. These are specific approaches to address specific concerns with unique populations. And so that increased training needs and lowered some caseload requirements and some other factors that did impact cost. But again, Medi-Cal and BHSA covers this. The total fiscal impact is $23,200,000, and there's no impact to the general fund, and it's been appropriately budgeted, and I'm happy to answer any additional questions. Oh, sorry, before I finish, I forgot. This contract also covers the fact that we hire some nurse practitioners through Turning Point to offer medication services onsite at Kirby Hills, so that's another impact into the cost.

Questions or comments from board members? Anyone here in the chambers who'd like to comment on this item? Anyone online? All right, I'll bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval. I'll second.

Moved by Jones, seconded by Gore. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. And we'll move to your last item, item G.

Okay, so this one has four action items for your board's consideration. First, to approve an agreement with GHC of Auburn LLC doing business as Siena Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center for Long-Term Residential Psychiatric $4,000,000.

Sorry, that accidentally turned you off.

I was like, well, luckily I'm loud, so hopefully you heard that.

Time's up.

Yeah, it's okay. For the period of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2031, and second to approve an agreement with GHC of SAC- SNF LLC doing business as Gramercy Court for long-term residential psychiatric care in the amount not to exceed $2.3 million for the period of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2031. Third, to approve an agreement with GHC of Blue Oaks LLC doing business as Siena Terraces for medically necessary mental health services for adult residential care in a total amount not to exceed $1.5 million. for the period of July 14th, 2026 through June 30th, 2028. And for all three of those first actions, please authorize the Director of Health and Human Services or designee to sign the agreement and to sign subsequent amendments that cumulatively do not exceed $100,000 consistent with the subject matter and scope of work with human resources, risk management, and county council concurrence. And finally, to approve the agreement with GHC of Lakeside LLC doing business as Lakeside Special Care Center for long-term residential psychiatric care in an amount not to exceed $660,000 for the period of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2031. and authorize the Director of Health and Human Services or designee to sign the agreement and to sign subsequent amendments that cumulatively do not exceed $66,000, consistent with the subject matter and scope of work with human resources, risk management, and county council concurrence. Okay, so, These are all for similar services, right? These are where we place individuals typically who are conserved or who have very high-level mental health needs in long-term treatment. Three of these are locked settings. One of them is more of a board and care type of environment, which is not locked. But they do help prevent higher costs in like frequent psychiatric health facilities or other types of inpatient units or hospitals. GHC has been serving Placer County clients the past five years at its Siena and Gramercy facilities. And then Lakeside, which is further, that one is down south, we only use that as a backup and we don't use that one very often. The contract represents these four separate facilities. So anyway, the total possible fiscal impact on all of these facilities is $9,816,000 and has been budgeted with no additional impact to the general fund. I'm happy to answer any questions on these locations.

Thank you. Questions or comments on any of these? Anyone in the chambers who'd like to comment on this item? Anyone online?

We do have, Chair. Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments.

Greetings again, Supervisors Stein, Lisa, Wesley, and Amy. I just, this is kind of more overarching to a certain degree because We all are familiar with a lot of fraud that is pervasive in both the homeless industrial complex and also this mental health industrial complex. I'm curious, especially on such an enormous contract and or contracts, I should say, plural. What are the county's steps as to finding out really how much of these dollars gets applied directly to or can be averaged to the patients versus the overhead to kind of unveil or lift up the skirt, let's say, of any potential fraud because it's been my experience that although the county and state can do this monitoring, they choose not to. They let the private side of things or the nonprofits do all of the Backroom deals and so I'm concerned with that and if you can kind of break out like approximately what? How much is being applied to patients versus overhead? So I appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you Yeah, so there are caps within the contracts related to administration and they typically are around a 10% to 15% of the total costs would be for administration. Those are reviewed through our contract monitoring process, through the invoicing process. So as they submit invoices, they have to tell us how many. I mean, it has to be related to how many clients are being served, their bed rate per day, and how much is going to administration. And those are reviewed both by the contract manager and our fiscal teams before those invoices are paid. Plus these facilities are audited by DHCS or DSS, whatever state, whatever they are licensed by, they get audited, including their financial records. And Placer County does do some auditing on top of that as well. both within HHS and I think Placer County as a whole does as well. So I think there are several opportunities to identify any areas of this inappropriately going to non-client related costs. That is absolutely our focus and when we report out on how many people are served per this cost, we're very, very well aware and we do try to keep our costs low by, as I mentioned in all of my presentations, our goal is to keep people in outpatient treatment at home in Placer County locally, because that is the most cost effective, plus it has the highest, it's just the best for people. I mean, if it was your loved one, you'd want them at home receiving outpatient care, being treated locally where you can visit and have relationship with them, versus in a locked facility somewhere, right? We do everything we can to prevent those high costs, not only because it's cost effective, but it's also the best thing for the person.

Got it, thank you. Okay, I will bring it back to the board. I'll move approval.

I'll second.

Moved by Jones, seconded by Gustafson. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thanks, Amy. Thank you. We will now move to item 10H, agreement with Victor Community Support Services.

Good morning again, Twyla Abrahamson, Director of the Children's System of Care for the record. And yes, we are doing the agreement with Victor. So, you've heard me talk about continuum of care reform before AB 403. And this made sweeping changes to California's child welfare system over the last now, gosh, about ten years. The intent of the CCR was to have children and youth, when they must live apart from their parents or caregivers, live in a permanent home based in the community. or small family homes rather than congregate care. One of CCR's most fundamental principles is that the child welfare and the juvenile probation services are most effective when delivered in the context of a child or youth and family-centered child and family team, which we call CFTs. This team shares responsibility to assess, plan, intervene, monitor, and refine services over time. Welfare and Institutions Code requires that county placing agencies convene a CFT meeting which is a CFTM, if you want some more acronyms today, to identify supports and services that are needed to achieve permanency, enable a child to live in the least restrictive family setting, and promote healthy childhood experiences. So CFTMs also must be held in compliance with regulatory guidelines, which includes being convened by a trained facilitator who should be a neutral party and not a social worker assigned to the case. The Children's System of Care is contracted with Victor Community Support Services for facilitation of these CFTMs for a number of years now, which has proven to be cost efficient and effective. Increases in CFTMs have occurred over the same timeframe due to rising referrals, as you heard about a little bit earlier, as well as new mandates for CFTMs to be held earlier in the process, which of course is good for kids and families. So approval of this item would allow for us to allow for that increase and the renewal of this contract with Victor since they have been doing those for us. So we are requesting that your board take the following actions. Approve an agreement with Victor Community Support Services for facilitation of child and family team meetings in an amount not to exceed $970,790 for the period of July 1, 26 through June 30, 2028. Authorize the Director of Health and Human Services or designee to sign the agreement with Risk Management and County Council Concurrence and to sign subsequent amendments that cumulatively do not exceed $97,079, consistent with the agreement's subject matter and scope of work with Human Resources, Risk Management, and County Council Concurrence. So the total cost of this agreement is 970.79, as I said, with the additional amendment authority of $97,079, so the total possible Fiscal impact is $1,067,869, and funding is available in both of the budget years, and there's no additional impact to the general fund. So thank you for your consideration, and I'd be happy to answer any questions about this item.

All right, thank you. Any questions or comments from board members? Anyone here in the chambers who'd like to comment on this item? Anyone online?

No, Chair.

Okay, I'll bring it back.

I'll second.

Move by Jones, seconded by Gustafson. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. We'll apply to move to item I.

Okay, this is an agreement with Telecare Corporation to provide coordinated specialty care for early psychosis, and I'm going to introduce you to yet another acronym here soon. So, the Placer County Children and Adult Systems of Care, and I am speaking for our systems of care today for both of these, we have recently been mandated by the State Department of Healthcare Services to provide more evidence-based services to those with severe and chronic mental illnesses one of which is coordinated specialty care for first episode psychosis, known as CSC-FEP. CSC-FEP uses a comprehensive outpatient service in which multidisciplinary teams provide a wide range of specialized and individualized support to youth and young adults exhibiting initial signs of psychosis. This specialized service includes early screening, identification and intervention services for individuals experiencing or at risk of developing psychotic disorders. By providing timely and integrated support during the critical initial stages, CSC-FEP reduces the likelihood of psychiatric hospitalization, emergency room visits, residential treatment placements, involvement with the criminal justice system, substance use, a whole plethora of things, and homelessness, obviously all from untreated psychosis. So services will be provided in person and also via telehealth to meet the diverse needs of individuals and families including our rural and underserved communities. Due to the highly specialized nature of this evidence-based practice, procurement reviewed and granted approval for CSOC and ASOC to contract with Telecare Corporation, Inc., who currently provides this CSCFEP for several local counties, and they are already meeting the state fidelity standards for this evidence-based service, which is also being newly required by DHCS. So we're requesting that your board take the following actions. Approve an agreement with Telecare Corporation to provide coordinated specialty care for early psychosis in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 for July 1, 26 through June 30, 2029. Authorize the Director of Health and Human Services or designee to sign agreements and to sign subsequent amendments that cumulatively do not exceed $100,000. consistent with the subject matter and scope of work, with human resources, risk management, and county council concurrence. As I said, the total cost is $1,500,000 with additional amendment authority. That brings that to a total possible fiscal impact of $1,600,000. Funding of this agreement is available in the 26-27 budgets for adult and children's system of care and also for future requested budgets. So thank you for consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions about this item as well.

Thank you. Questions from board members? Supervisor Gore.

Thank you, Twyla. Quick question. Is this a new state requirement or is it a new agency that we're contracting with?

It's both.

It's both, but it is a new state requirement.

It's a new state requirement to include more of these evidence-based practices. These are also Medi-Cal funding available for them, so they are, you know, we can get our reimbursement for those as well. In addition to that, we have contracted with Telecare in the past. Not for this service, though. But the beauty of this one, and again, why we went to procurement with this, is that they are operating in the other counties, and they have already taken a step up to operationalize and then provide this to Fidelity. A couple of those counties were a little quicker in meeting the mandate than we are at the moment. All right.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Any comments from the public on this item? Anyone online? All right. I'll bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval of the item.

Move by Gore, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thank you. And we'll move to item J.

All right, also Twyla Abrahamson for the rector speaking for the children's and the adult system of care on this item. These are agreements for specialty mental health services, behavioral health services act, early intervention, and transitional age youth housing navigation. There's a whole lot rolled up into this one, so I'll break this one down a little bit more Because it's pretty comprehensive. So, you've heard some of this before, but as a reminder, in 2005, California counties began receiving funding through the California Mental Health Services Act, MHSA, which established a dedicated funding source to expand community-based mental health services for individuals with serious mental illness and those at risk. As of July 1, just a couple weeks ago, 2026, MHSA is formally replaced by the Behavioral Health Services Act, and this marks the first year of implementation for counties. The BHSA represents a significant modernization of the state's behavioral health system by expanding eligible services to include substance use disorder treatment, increasing investments in housing and workforce, prioritizing early intervention, and strengthening accountability, transparency, and equity in access to care. The significant transition shifts counties to a comprehensive three-year strategy that aligns multiple behavioral health funding sources, including BHSA, Medi-Cal, realignment, and other revenues to address community needs, reduce disparities, and improve outcomes across the behavioral health continuum. As you were reminded, and just a reminder now, is the BHSA establishes three primary funding components, housing interventions at 30%, full service partnerships at 35%, and behavioral health services and supports at 35%. Amy Ellis covered much of this for your board when we brought the new Behavioral Health Services Act plan for approval just a little while ago, and I'm reminding you of those areas. So when the, the BHSA integrated plan was developed, it was developed through a comprehensive community planning process, including stakeholder engagement. This approach ensured representation from individuals with lived experiences, family members, service providers, community organizations, and community input informed of the funding priorities and program design to assure alignment with both state requirements and local needs. The IP was approved by your board on June 2nd of this year. The IP, the integrated plan, describes the community priorities, while internal programs and contracts with community providers are the mechanism by which the services to the Plaster community are implemented. Numerous contracts support the IP as they provide specialty mental health services for those identified as most vulnerable, conduct outreach and engagement, provide early intervention services, assist transition age youth in housing navigation, and offer peer services. These proposed agreements, and we rolled them all up into this particular board item and an amendment, they align that service with all of these other agreements before your board today in this combined board item, so it contains many of these services that the community has defined as priorities to continue as our county makes that major shift from MHSA to BHSA. So, Sit back, we are requesting that your boy take the following actions, there's many, but we decided not to repeat them over and over and over again for every single contract in here. So, adopt a resolution authorizing the Director of Health and Human Services or designee to sign agreements with Cow Voices, CASA of Placer, Yuba and Sutter, Kids First Child Abuse Prevention Council of Placer County, Lighthouse Counseling and Family Resources Center, Native Alliance of the Sierra Nevada Foothills, Placer County Office of Education, the Unity Care Group, and Whole Person Learning for Specialty Mental Health Services, Behavioral Health Service Act Intervention, and Transitional Youth Housing for a total amount not to exceed $22,024,950 for the amounts and terms included in exhibit one that was included with your board item with human resources, risk management, and county council concurrence. Second item is authorize the Director of Health and Human Services or designee to sign the amendment with Wayfinder Family Services for specialty mental health services to increase that agreement by $5,550,000 for a total revised amount not to exceed $8,400,000 and to extend the term of that contract for an additional two years for a revised term of July 1, 25 through June 30, 2029. also included in Exempt One with human resources, risk management, and county council concurrence, which will make all of those timelines tie together. So authorize the Director of Health and Human Services, another action, or designee to sign subsequent amendments not to exceed 10% of the individual agreement amount, or 100,000, whichever is less, consistent with the subject matter and scope of work with human resources, risk management, and county council concurrence. The total cost of all of these agreements is $30,424,950 with additional amendment authority up to $814,995 for a total possible fiscal impact of $31,239,945. And funding for these agreements is available in the 26-27 budgets for both the adult and children's system of care and will be included in future years requested budgets. And there's no additional impact to the general fund. And one last thing then is thank you for consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions. However, I also brought our resident expert, Jennifer Cook, who was instrumental in working with all these contractors and revising scopes of work to meet the new BHSA requirements, which has been a huge amount of work, which have, again, are reflecting our community identification of needs. So if there's any questions I can't answer, she is here as well, and I wanted to thank her for her work.

All right, thank you. Questions or comments from board members? Anyone here in the chambers who'd like to comment on this item? Anyone online? All right, I'll bring it back to the board. Move by Gore, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thanks, Twyla.

Thank you for your patience on that rather lengthy item.

All right, we will move to item 11A, updates to the uncodified schedule of classifications and compensation ordinance.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Daniel and Clayton, Nicole Lopez, the Assistant Director of Human Resources. The actions before you are one, to introduce an uncodified ordinance, waive oral reading, to amend the schedule of classifications and compensation ordinance, to create the classification of Assistant Chief District Attorney Investigator, and to adjust the salary of the Chief District Attorney Investigator classification. The second action is to approve a side letter agreement between the County of Placer and the Placer County Law Enforcement Management Association, PCLIMA, to update provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding, MOU, to recognize the new classification of Assistant Chief District Attorney Investigator. By way of background, Human Resources has worked closely with the District Attorney's Office to research options to address the growing workload demands and evolving service needs. As part of this process, HR reviewed the District Attorney's Office current classification organizational structure and comparable classifications positions in the labor market. The proposed ordinance reflects the creation of a new classification based on the specialized and unique nature of work performed that has been reviewed and approved by the Director of Human Resources. Management positions within the District Attorney's Office require a significant workload and advanced programmatic knowledge that spans multiple disciplines including both general investigations and the oversight of specialized programs. Currently, the Chief District Attorney Investigator is responsible for managing and administering several ongoing programs in addition to the core responsibilities of investigative functions. Oversight of these programs requires strategic coordination, leadership development, and cross-functional expertise. Under the current structure, responsibility for executive management and program oversight largely rests with the single executive management position, limiting opportunities for effective delegation and leadership development. The creation of an assistant chief district attorney investigator level position addresses these structural limitations by supporting executive leadership in the management of these specialized programs while enhancing their operational efficiency and strengthening division-wide delegation of the work. Based on the scope and level of work to be assigned, as well as the experience and education required, it is recommended that the position be designated as classified safety management. The recommended salary range of Lima 825, which is a salary range of $157,685, to $196,955 annually is based on the relevant labor market as well as internal alignment with countywide classifications with similar scope and responsibility. The side letter agreement includes recognition of this new classification within the current LEMA MOU. The ordinance proposed for consideration serves to amend the uncodified schedule of classifications and compensation ordinance to incorporate the newly created position and to adjust the salary of the chief district attorney investigator, which is MGTSS09, to ensure the appropriate pay between the new assistant chief level and the chief. The estimated annual cost associated with these requests is approximately $357,240, including salary and benefits. Funding is available in the district attorney's office budget and will be included in future year's budget for board's consideration. I'm happy to address any questions that you may have.

Thanks, Nicole. Any comments or questions from board members? Supervisor Gustafson?

Oh, I apologize.

Anyone here in the public who would like to comment on this item? Anyone online? Nope. Sorry. Just got into a mode here. Sorry about that.

Good morning. My name is Rick Miller. I'm an assistant district attorney at the Placer DA's office. The DA is in court this morning and could not be here, so he sent me in his place. He's in court for the sentencing of James Lawhead, who will receive a life without parole sentence for the 1991 kidnapping, rape, and murder of a 36-year-old Granite Bay woman. His sister, Lawhead's sister, will also be sentenced for assisting her brother evade arrest and conviction for over 30 years. I'm here today to express our appreciation for human resources work, efforts, and support for this item, as well as the efforts and support of Lima. Our investigations unit is among the most active across the state. One example is that we have a DA investigator embedded with our sheriff's office assisting on things like cold cases, including the Lawhead case. They perform, our investigators, core investigative functions and trial support. They engage in officer-involved critical response incidents, county-wide threat assessment, PLACER MDIC and SART, Trident and Evidence Response Team call-outs, to name just a few. We also appreciate the board's recognition for this need, which is consistent with how DA's offices are structured throughout the state. Establishing the position of an assistant chief DA investigator will provide us with the means to divide the increasing workload and do our part to maintain Placer County's position as a statewide leader in public safety and quality of life. Thank you all.

Thank you, and thank you for being here. We appreciate all the work that the DA's office does, and we're very thankful that he's there today doing important work.

Yes, congratulations on that. Yes. That's amazing. Thank you.

All right, is there anyone online who wants to comment on this time? Okay, I'll bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval. I'll second.

Moved by Gustafson, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thanks, Nicole. Thank you. Appreciate it. We will now move to our last department item, item 12A, Placer County Visitors Bureau 26 to 28 contract.

Good morning, board. Gloria Stearns with Placer County Economic Development and Housing. And I had planned on being your last speaker of the day, but HHS really rocked through the items and you guys have been moving them along, so thank you for doing that. I will read the action requested into the record and then make a few brief remarks. Today we request the authorization, you to authorize the county executive officer or designee to execute a contract with the Placer County Visitors Bureau to promote and encourage tourism within Placer County in an amount not to exceed $1,080,000, which is $540,000 per year for the period of July 1, 2026 through June 20th, 2028, subject to county council and risk management concurrence. So with that said, I had a line ready for you all because I thought I was going to be the last, and I was going to tell you, you did indeed save the best for last today. Because the Placer Valley Visitors Bureau, as many of you know, and the news has been really reporting a lot as well as throughout the state, Placer County Visitors Bureau has really been rocking it lately. and their numbers have just been outstanding. They had a record-setting year in 2025 with an economic impact of $1.57 billion, with a B, billion dollars. And I did some math over in the annex a little earlier because I give myself math problems when I want to think and clear my head. So I came up with a number for you. For every $1 that your board spends on the Visitors Bureau, they are generating $2.9 million in economic impact. That is one great deal. So without any further comments, please renew their contract for the next two years. Thank you.

All right. Thanks, Gloria. That's all great news. Any questions or comments from board members? Supervisor Gustafson?

I just wanted to thank you, Rob, and team for the incredible work you do on behalf of our county. I know. It is difficult and challenging, especially with some of the public input on tourism and the impacts of tourism and you've been by our side working with us to deliver the right messaging to our visitors and to support that and I really appreciate your efforts, thanks.

Any other questions or comments from board members? Is there anyone here in the chambers who would like to comment on this item?

Good morning, Chair Landon and Supervisors. Thanks for having us. Rob Haswell, Executive Director of the Placer County Visitors Bureau. I want to take a moment and just, you know, these great numbers don't happen in a vacuum. You know, they happen because there's a larger conversation going on their stewards that work together and it starts right here at this board uh... you guys are doing an amazing job of of shepherding this incredible place that we live it's just really one of the great honors of my life to be able to even do this kind of promotional work both for our visitors and our residents. There's no place like it in California and really one of the most unique places in the world, I think, to live in terms of everything that we have.

We really did have a great year.

People are discovering us. The work we do is really about trying to get the conversation on top of mind for a lot of people. So I think we're starting to really make that happen. We're getting taken seriously at the state level. I was asked after our summit to speak at the state agritourism summit later this year. So I'll be on a panel and doing a presentation there, which is really exciting because, as you know, we also... We also have the Placer Grown marketing contract as well. And we think the two work really well in tandem as we sell this quality of life. We call it the Placer lifestyle. And we think that's what makes us super unique. And again, Tiffany McKenzie, the marketing director for our team, is here. She's the president of the Gold Country Visitors Association. She's on Visit California. their rural committee. I mean, these things happen. I always tell people these aren't accidents. You work to get your voice into these conversations. GSEC has recently reached out to us about asking me to be on the Competitiveness Council that is currently co-chaired by Willie Duncan, which I think is a really great opportunity as we continue to think of ourselves beyond placer borders. Really, I think we're an engine in this region, and this region is really in the best position it's ever been. Again, here mainly to thank you for having faith in us and our team and the work we do with our partners up in Tahoe and down at Placer Valley Tourism, who are doing such an incredible job with the sports tourism side of it. It's really something to have us all working in this great collaboration, and I think that's how we win. So again, thank you so much for your consideration and faith in our work. Thank you.

Thanks, Rob. Thank you to both you and Tiffany for all the work you do. We love the partnership, and we're really thankful, especially if we're leveraging a dollar for 2 point whatever million. Maybe we can do that at the state. For every dollar we spend for the state, they can give us $2.9 million. right and I don't see any other comments was there anyone online okay I'll bring it back to the board I'll move approval I'll second that move by Jones seconded by Gustafson all those in favor aye any opposed and no abstentions thank you very much thanks Gloria all right Wow it's 1102 look at us we are gonna move to our 11 o'clock timed item Sierra Family Meadows subdivision Go for it.

Okay, thank you. Good morning, Madam Landon and fellow board members. I'm Stacy Wydra, Principal Planner up in our Tahoe City office, and I'm here today to present to you the Sierra Family Meadows subdivision, and I'll just dive right into it. So to quickly get you oriented as to where the project site is located, it is in Olympic Valley, specifically at 325 Olympic Valley Road towards the entrance and closer to Highway 89 as opposed to closer to the village of Palisades, Tahoe. So the entitlements before you today, the applicants are requesting a general plan amendment and a rezone to Olympic Valley general plan land use ordinance. Also a vesting tentative subdivision map and a conditional use permit for a planned residential development. Specifically, the existing site contains three different zone districts, high density residential, density factor 20 bedrooms per acre, forest recreation and conservation preserve. The only portion before you today for the rezone is of the high density residential and also the general plan amendment. So specifically, the applicants are here today requesting a consideration of a planned residential development to allow for the parcels of the tentative subdivision map to be less than three acres in size and through that mechanism of a conditional use permit. So specifically, the tentative subdivision map consists of eight single family lots, which would include the existing single family residence that is located on the site today. And they propose to subdivide the 9.4 acres into those eight lots, ranging in size from half an acre to 2.73 acres. And this is proposed in two phases, with phase one being lots one through three, and then the lettered lots, which I'll go into in the next slide, and then phase two would be the remainder lots of four through eight. So specifically, the site, a rather large site, has a lot of unique characteristics to it in that the open space lot, so lot A, and I think I have a pointer. So lot A is rather large, but it also contains many different sensitive habitats and resources such as Washishu Creek. meadow habitat and sensitive cultural areas. And so this will all be preserved through a conservation easement in perpetuity. And then there are two right-of-way lots, lots B and C, which consist of the existing Olympic Valley Road and Resort Road, which actually extend or is part of the applicant's property. So these right-of-way lots will remain as is, but will be mapped through this proposed tentative map. And then two homeowners association lots, D and E. D will be the private access road, which The access road comes right off of Resort Road now, as opposed to today. There is a through driveway that comes off of Olympic Valley Road, goes through the project site out to Resort Road, so you can come in and out either way, but they are proposing to eliminate the encroachment off of Olympic Valley Road and just come in off of Resort Road. So the 1983 Olympic Valley General Plan is unique in that it adopts or it defines both the designation and the zoning district as one in the same. So the high density residential zone district which is before you today for an amendment and a rezone is again one in the same. We don't have a different designation than the zoning. So the applicants are requesting to amend and rezone the Olympic Valley General Plan to allow for the PD designation to be applied to just the HDRs, the high density residential portion of the project site. A plan development allows flexibility in the site design while achieving community objectives, including environmental protection, preservation, and provisions of diverse housing types. So the planned residential development request before you today, again, is to allow for a half an acre minimum parcel size versus three acres. And this is for the development of single family residential lots, even though the high density does allow for townhomes or other types of residential development. And specifically, the project is consistent with the surrounding residential development in that it's really, kind of a bridge between two different types of residential development that exist in Olympic Valley today. So this portion over here, which is off of Resort Road, is existing townhomes, so more dense development, a residential type development. And then on the other side of them, off of Olympic Valley Road, is low density residential. which has lots of like half, or excuse me, a third of an acre in size. So you can kind of see the transition with where the site is positioned and its request is compatible with the existing surroundings. The project has been designed to comply with all of the required development standards, even with the reduced minimum lot size. And future development, so this is again just a map, I'm sorry, a tentative map, so future development can occur in years to come. And so the lots have been designed where that they can comply with all of the development standards. The density is unique in the Olympic Valley General Plan and land use ordinance in that they don't, the plan does not view density by units per acre. Instead, it does bedrooms per acre. So when you calculate the size of this parcel in the net buildable area, 377 bedrooms could be considered for this project site. The applicants in their proposal with the eight lots is proposing 80 bedrooms with a maximum of 10 bedrooms per lot or per unit.

you

So with that, part of also the Olympic Valley General Plan and Land Use Ordinance, the project site is subjected to the Olympic Valley Design Review Committee, and so the project has been conditioned and designed that once these lots begin to be developed, they will go before the Olympic Valley Design Review Committee to further ensure that they are continuing in compliance with all the development standards and scenic standards and such of the Olympic Valley General Plan. And then also as a condition of approval to further ensure a development notebook will be required so that it can put the future buyers on notice of what the requirements are. So that 80 bedroom will be incorporated into that development notebook. And so in summary, the proposed rezoning and general plan amendment to allow for that planned residential development is consistent with both the general plans and the zoning ordinance and that this project actually provides a reduced development intensity and then while maintaining the applicable design and development standards with the exception of that minimum lot size. So of course we have to look at also the Placer County General Plan and the project has been reviewed and evaluated and does comply. I won't read all of these but it is compliant with the compatibility of the existing residential neighborhoods as I described. Also the relationship to the surrounding uses, density and lot patterns, visual and scenic compatibility and infrastructure and services are also provided. Also, the project is also consistent with the Olympic Valley General Plan Land Use Ordinance. And while the project has been designed to provide a less dense development, this again continues to provide that continuity of the residential pattern that exists today. And then also is protecting the environmental resources and sensitive resources that are on the site outside of that HDR, high density residential zone district. And so, again, it can be found that the Olympic Valley General Plan land use ordinance, the project is consistent with the Olympic Valley General Plan land use ordinance. And so a mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the project and to consider its environmental impacts. And there was mitigation measures applied and identified for primarily biological resources and cultural, which I'll go to in a minute. But we did identify appropriate mitigation measures that will reduce all potential impacts to less than significant. So with the environmental review, it was found that there are cultural and tribal resources on site. And staff did reach out in accordance with AB 52 and SB 18 to the tribes. However, none of the tribes reached out for any early consultation. However, they have been provided all the information in the environmental document. But the project has been designed to avoid all known cultural resources by the way of buffers, the conservation easement which will be in permanent perpetuity, and then tribal monitoring will be required on site during all ground disturbing activities within those known areas of cultural. But of course we also have that standing mitigation measure where if inadvertent finds are found that all work will stop and tribal monitor will come on out. and others. On to the cultural. As I mentioned before, the project site currently has a driveway that comes off of Olympic Valley Road that provides access to the existing single-family residence. It is known in this general area of some sensitive resources. To ensure that those resources are not disturbed, the road will just remain as is except for the area out in front, whoops, off of Olympic Valley Road. So that will be decommissioned with boulders and such. And then a small portion here right off of the single family residence to really prohibit any through access. because all access is to be off of resort road. But to ensure that those known cultural resources are not impacted, the road will remain as is, and then the decommissioning will have really strict low-impact construction methods to remove those two portions, if you will, on the bookends of that existing driveway. So it has been determined that the mitigated negative declaration and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the project is not expected to have any significant adverse effect and with the implementation of all the identified mitigation measures, all potential impacts will be reduced to less than significant and your board must find that the mitigated negative declaration prepared is adequate. And on November 6th in 2025, the project was presented to the Olympic Valley MAC for community input. And while overall, both from the MAC members and the two members of the public that were present, they expressed great positive sentiment for the project. They really recognized that the project is tackling some drainage issues that come off of both sides, as well as the sensitive considerations of all the natural resources features that are on the project site and to be in lot A, preserved through that conservation easement. And then, of course, they did raise concerns about these residents becoming short-term rentals. And it is noted that if these residents, when built, would like to be a short-term rental, they will have to comply with those standards of short-term rentals at that time. And at the May 14th, 2026 Planning Commission, while no written or verbal comments were received prior to or during the hearing, the Planning Commission did want to confirm that the conservation easement would be recorded and also further... I guess, ask questions about the right-of-way easements, and just to ensure that they will still be maintained as they exist today, and that is the case. So the Planning Commission took six separate actions and unanimously recommended approval to your board. And so with that, staff is recommending that your board conducts a public hearing to consider the Planning Commission's May 14th, 2026 recommendation on the Sierra Family Subdivision and take the following actions. Adopt a resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, State Clearinghouse number 2026040350, prepared pursuant section 15070, of the CEQA guidelines and section 18.16.010 of the Placer County Environmental Review Ordinance. And also ask that your board adopt a resolution approving an amendment to the Olympic Valley General Plan and Land Use Ordinance to change the land use designation for the portion of the project site designated high density residential density factor of 20 bedrooms per acre to high density residential density factor of 20 bedrooms per acre combining a planned residential development. Also adopt an ordinance rezoning the portion of the project site zoned high density residential density factor of 20 bedrooms per acre to high density residential density factor of 20 bedrooms per acre combining a planned residential development approve a vesting tentative subdivision map to subdivide the 32.02 acre project site subject to the recommended conditions of approval, approve a conditional use permit to allow for a planned residential development for the Sierra Family Meadows subdivision subject to the recommended conditions of approval, and approve a planned residential development for the Sierra Family Meadows subdivision consistent with the Placer County Code Section 17.54.090B.

and that concludes my presentation so happy to answer any questions you may have great thank you questions or comments from board members supervisor gustafson i don't have any questions i know earlier this morning we had a public comment that we should probably have her come up and address those and then i'll have some remarks after thank you

And is there, are there any other questions yet? Okay, then I will open it up, the public hearing. Are there any questions or comments from members of the public? Yes, please come forward.

Hello, my name is Susan Gibbs-Bennett, and I have a piece of property up Victor, which is across from what we're talking about, but on that end of the valley. about this subject in particular that although it said there were two people at the meeting and they made comments is that it seems to me that since I live there and the only reason I found this is that there was a little yellow pieces of paper in the corner of the post office. I don't know that our whole community has been aware of this going forward. I have no idea what that percentage is of that, but I'm saying that there are things that are going forward like this, whether people want them or not, is that we also, I, we want to know of what this means in rezoning for other areas of our valley. I know that the Altera Company wanted to put housing in the bottom of Shirley Canyon, a very, very, very sensitive environmental area. I know that I believe that your board squashed that part of their developing the parking lot which I personally was for because it was a black parking lot and that I could see the benefits of the area. And I appreciate the board for all that you consider when you consider these things. But I also know that I've gotten a notice in the mail, a three by five card that there is a group, not the Sierra Family Meadows group, but another group, I believe the Mancuso daughters want to rezone an area that is very close in proximity to my home. And I'm just saying, I don't know if there's anybody on the board that could address this, is what these changing of zoning in our area, the precedence that it sets. I can see that these people are talking about changing in high density area, not a conservation preserve area. if I understand correctly, and the area I'm talking about is conservation preserve. So I think those are very concerning personally to me and others in the direct area that I'm talking about is what these precedents mean to our community that will be set here now and in the future. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Other questions or comments from anyone here in the chambers? All right, anyone online? Oh, I went too quick again. Sorry about that.

Thanks, Mrs. Landon and the board of supervisors, and thanks, Mr. Pooley and Ms. Wadra for their leadership as we went through this process. My name is Brad Altman, and I'm the principal engineer of Evolved Design Works in Tahoe City, California. We've been working with the family on this project for several years. Just wanted to say I concur with the staff report, and we are here to answer any questions you might have that Ms. Wydra was not able to answer or needs more background on.

Wonderful, thank you. All right, is there anyone online?

May I also say that Brad represents us on the TRPA's Advisory Planning Commission as a volunteer. So thank you for that.

Anyone online? No, Chair. Okay. I will close the public hearing and then have Stacey answer the questions.

There we go. I think what I'm hearing in this, so I'll go with just this particular project that's before you guys today. With regards to precedents, we review each and every project on its own merits. So with the intent to not set precedents, And so I can say that with this project, the rezone and the general plan amendment was fully vetted both environmentally and consistently with all of our codes. But then any future projects that come in, we will make sure we do that exact same review and process. And I just wanted to make sure that there is no rezone to the conservation preserve or forest recreation zoned portions of this project. So I just wanted to make that clear in case I was unclear.

Thank you. And then maybe to just speak to her, I guess this wasn't a question, but the comment about not knowing until she saw the notice in the post office. If she would like to be aware of future projects that are coming, how could she get notified of that? And then what was the notification perimeter, I guess? Yeah.

Absolutely. Thanks, Chair Landon, board members, Chris Pahuli, Placer County Planning Director. Appreciate you bringing that up. The notification for this particular project, as well as any project that is subject to a planning commission or board of supervisors review, requires that a mailed notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site get provided notice for the hearing. So that was done for this project as well as any other projects within the valley that are subject to those requirements. I did also want to make note that on the planning division's webpage we also have a interactive GIS projects viewer where any resident within the county can look and see all of the active projects within the county that are subject to planning's review and can get information about the project including the lead project planners contact information so that they can stay informed and track projects that are being processed.

Perfect. Thank you. Supervisor Gustafson?

Well, I'll just add to that. In addition, we have the Municipal Advisory Council in Olympic Valley that heard this. We have forums, Susan, that you can attend and sign up for that as well through our office. And we'll make sure to connect you with that for future projects. I did want to make a couple of comments on this. So I was privileged to have met both Wayne and Sandy Polson. And their vision for this property was always a family compound. And that was what they had hoped to create, and they never did. And so we're so thrilled to see this project move forward, Susan, because they are downsizing the intensity that was going to be potentially developed at this site. They're reducing that intensity and the number of units and preserving that great conservation area. The views from this property are spectacular, Sandy. I was often included in various fundraisers and things she hosted at her home, and as you have done, it's just a spectacular sight. So I really thank you all for what you're doing on this project, because I think it lives with that historical integrity that the family envisioned, as well as reducing the size and impacts for the community. With that, I would be honored to make the motion when we're ready.

OK. Supervisor Gord. Thank you. And I appreciate that. And I just wanted to clarify something. I think I asked you about this yesterday, Stacy. And that is the area that's being conserved, that area then will be managed by the Homeowners Association. So that area will be maintained. It won't be neglected. It'll look nice. for those nice views, but also for people who happen to be driving by, right? So that's terrific. It's going to be maintained, and that helps as well. Yes, correct. All right, thank you. And then I'm happy to... Second the motion. It looks like Mr. Cook has a comment.

Yes, Mr. Cook. Two things. One, the commenter did raise a question about rezoning and the possible implications of that rezoning on other properties. Under our county code, any rezone requests need a formal application to be submitted. It goes through the advisory council, the planning commission, and the board. And those are all evaluated on a parcel by parcel basis. So if there was another rezone request that came in, it would have to go through all of that process. and the public hearing components of that as well. So there would be time for comment and deliberation about that. With respect to the action here today, each of these items need to be taken individually. They were read into the record. So you can refer to them as 1A through 1F. But I would ask that they be taken individually. Thank you.

OK. And I can't remember if I closed the public hearing, so I'm closing the public. OK. Thank you. All right. So we have a motion and a second for 1A, moved by Gustafson, seconded by Gore. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions? Moving on to 1B.

I'll make a motion on 1B.

And I'll second. Moved by Gustafson, seconded by Gore. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions? Oh, and I just realized Supervisor Jones is absent. Item 7C?

7, I'm looking at this, I'm going, do we have to say 7A1C? I move that approval.

Okay.

I think 1C and the next one would be 1D.

Okay, thank you.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No abstentions.

I'll move approval of item 1D.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions?

And I'll make a motion on item 1E.

I'll second. All those in favor? Aye. And none opposed? No abstentions? And item F?

I'll move approval of item 1F. I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions? Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate you all being here. Thank you. With that, we are going to move to closed session, and I will let county council read us out.

Thank you. The board will now adjourn to closed session to discuss two items of existing litigation and two potential cases of anticipated litigation.

Okay, we are back from closed session and County Council will read us out.

Thank you. The board met in closed session to discuss four items, two items of existing litigation and two of anticipated litigation. For the first existing litigation item, Andrea versus Daniel Chatney, the board heard a report and provided direction through a 4-0 vote. Supervisor Jones was absent. For the next item, Redlich versus County of Placer, the board heard a report and provided direction through a 4-0 vote. Supervisor Jones absent. For the two anticipated litigation items, there were two cases. For the first case, the board heard a report and provided direction through a 4-0 vote. Supervisor Jones absent. For the second potential case, the board heard a report and provided direction through a 4-0 vote. Supervisor Jones absent. That concludes the report out of closed session.

All righty. Thank you. We will now adjourn our meeting to our next regularly scheduled meeting on August 11th.