Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Thank you. you

Okay, it's 9.30. Madam Clerk, roll call.

Supervisor Chavez?

Here.

Supervisor Magsig? Here. Supervisor Mendez? Here. Supervisor Pacheco?

Here.

Chairman Bredefield? Here. All present, thank you.

Thanks. Good morning. Welcome to the Tuesday, July 14, 2026 meeting of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors. We're going to be in with the invocation and a flag salute. The invocation will be led by District 3. After the invocation, please remain standing for the flag salute. Please stand.

My chair forgot to give me the invocation. We could have from Fresno come up and lead us in the invocation, please.

Good morning and thank you for having me here today. I'm very grateful and honored for this opportunity. And I will be reciting an Ardas, a type of prayer we as Sikhs do on a daily basis in order to honor our history and remind ourselves of our faith. There is one universal God, and may the Almighty guide and bless us. With faith in Vaheguru, we begin this prayer. Remembering the Almighty, we seek the strength to live with courage and with wisdom. We remember Guru Nanak Dev Ji and all the Gurus who showed us the path towards truth and to compassion. Think then of Guru Angad Dev Ji, Guru Amar Das and Guru Ram Das. May they be our rescuers. Meditate on the revered Sri Harikrishan as well and in order for our suffering to vanish. Think then of Guru Tegh Bahadur, who in remembering, we find inner strength. Think of the Tenth Lord, revered Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji, who comes to the rescue of us all. The embodiment of all ten sovereign leaders, Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our internal guru, remember his teachings and say, Vaheguru. O Lord, you are the hope of the humble, the strength of the powerless, and the support for all in need. In your presence, we humbly offer this prayer. Thank you for bringing us together today, and please provide all of us with your Kirpa, your humble grace, guidance, and blessings upon this county and all those who call it home. Please bless us and may the decisions made in this council contribute to the welfare of all. Grant us the strength to choose understanding over division and kindness over anger. And as Sikhs and in our broader community, we are taught to live in ,, to remain hopeful and resilient, and to always work for the well-being of others. May that spirit continue to guide us and our community always. Please forgive any mistakes we may have made today, and please accept this prayer with your humble grace. O Nanak, may the Naam be ever in ascendance. In His will, may the good of all prevail. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Okay.

Item number one, approve agenda.

Is there a motion and second to approve the agenda?

Mr. Chair, I'd like to take a poll. So the board now, do we want to deal with item number eight? Do we want to continue it to the next available meeting? I'd like to kind of hear from my colleagues. If not, I can make the motion to continue it as we got a letter from some of the folks, give staff some time to meet with them and hash some stuff out. So what's the will of the board?

Any comments from the board on number eight?

I'll make the motion to continue to the next available meeting.

And you're approving also the agenda? Correct. Okay. You're including it.

I'm fine with that as long as we see what's going on. Yep. Not, you know, the couple of days before the meeting, so. Right.

I think staff got direction.

Yeah.

It was plenty of time.

Any comments?

I'll second that.

Okay, all those in favor? Oh, is there any comment from the, we have to take comment from the public? No, okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Pass these unanimously. Okay, so we'll hear number eight at our next board meeting.

We now move to item number two, approved consent agenda item numbers 17 through 49.

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

I think the public's going to remove 44, so I'll do that for them right now. Okay. I would like to remove 44 for discussion.

Good. Annie, go ahead, ma'am.

Yes, I would like to remove item 19 for discussion as well.

Okay. Any other members of the public wish to remove an item from consent? Okay, seeing none, any members want to remove any items from consent?

Okay, is there a motion and second to approve the rest of the consent?

I'll make the motion.

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

We now move to item number three, under the Board of Supervisors Presentation Retirement Pact to Bradley Gaddy, Sheriff Department, 25 years of service.

Okay, and when will we hear item 44 and 19?

It will follow item six.

Item six, okay.

Hi. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Steve McComas, Under Sheriff, Fresno County Sheriff's Office. Today we're here to honor and celebrate the remarkable 26-year career of Sergeant Brad Gatti, here to my right, a dedicated public servant, a versatile leader, and a fixture in the Fresno County community. Over more than two and a half decades, Sergeant Gaddy has exemplified the highest standards of professionalism, adaptability, and unwavering commitment to public safety. A little side note, I told Brad that everyone here is for him today. Right? Well done. He's that well-liked in our community.

Got a lot of support.

Yeah, a lot of support. Brad began his journey with the Fresno County Sheriff's Department as a deputy sheriff, quickly proving his capabilities across a diverse range of demanding assignments. His early career saw him serving on the front lines of patrol, forging an invaluable bond as a canine handler. and taking on high stakes responsibilities with the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Team, an EOD team member. In 2015, his leadership and expertise were officially recognized with his promotion to sergeant. As a supervisor, Sergeant Gaddy didn't just manage, he mentored. He continued to champion the specialized units he loved, supervising both the K-9 and EOD teams. Beyond Fresno County, Brad is widely recognized as a premier expert in explosive disposal. He has shared his specialized knowledge on a national scale, serving as a contract instructor for the ATF's Ravens Challenge Program, a prestigious initiative that trains military and public safety personnel to become elite bomb technicians. Closer at home, Sergeant Gaddy was instrumental in shaping the future of the department by supervising the field training program. In this role, he directly oversaw the development training of the next generation of patrol deputies. While Brad worked in all corners of Fresno County, he was always most at home serving the residents and businesses in Supervisor Mendez's District 4 in the southern part of Fresno County. Whether as a deputy on patrol or as a supervisor guiding his team, his presence in District 4 became a symbol of safety, accessibility, and trusted commitment to community policing. While Sergeant Gaddy is officially retiring from his full-time duties, his commitment to Fresno County remains unchanged. In his retirement, he will continue to protect and serve by managing the department's public safety video surveillance system, ensuring our technology keeps pace with our community needs. He also serves as a board member for the Fresno Sheriff's Memorial Foundation, where he will help oversee the upkeep and maintenance of the memorial dedicated to our fallen heroes. I personally want to say thank you, Brad, for your 26 years of exemplary service, leadership, and protection. We wish you the very best in your well-deserved retirement. Congratulations, Brad.

I wasn't prepared for this. I just want to say it was an absolute honor and privilege to work at this department and to serve the people of Fresno County. It was a humbling experience, and I appreciate everybody that's done everything for me along the way. And I just want to thank the people of Fresno County for making my job pretty easy. So thank you. Thank you.

Any comments from the board?

No, I want to personally thank you. Having the beat that you had in District 4, especially the middle and western side, there's a lot of driving. And you can't be in two places at once. So it's a pretty tough job. Thank you. And I want to thank you for all the years of service. Thank you.

Yeah, and I want to thank you, too, for all your years of service. Greatly appreciate it. Any comments from the public? Okay, why don't you come on up, Riley.

Congratulations. Good morning. Good morning.

Good morning. Good morning. Welcome to the packed house. You did have a lot of people here brother.

We now move to item number four under the Board of Supervisors, presentation of retirement plaque to Daniel Nunez, Probation Department, 27 years of service.

How you feeling? Nervous.

Good morning, Chairman Bredefield, and to the board members, I'm Kirk Haynes, your Chief Probation Officer for Fresno County, and we're honored to be able to recognize Daniel Nunez for his 27 years of service to the Fresno County Probation Department. He has been a true professional in the work that he has done with Fresno County Probation. He has worked in just about every services division in the department, juvenile and adult, He's done a lot of work around making sure that our youth in our care are taken care of in a way that the work that we do, Daniel epitomizes the professional work that we do as the probation department, making sure that young people and adults can live a crime-free life after having the opportunity to be able to experience the work that we do as a probation department. Daniel, one of the things that I know about Daniel going far back is that we were in the Marine Corps together in the reserve unit here in Fresno in the Hawk Missile Battalion here in Fresno, California. And Daniel, even then, us not knowing each other or even where our paths would cross eventually. But Daniel, we reminisce a lot about the work that we've done as fellow Marines. And he has carried forward that spirit of sempre fidelis, of always being faithful to the mission of not only the Marine Corps, but the mission to the Fresno County Probation Department, in that he has worked very hard in his career to make sure that the reputation that he had as a probation officer, it was always one of fairness, always one of being able to engage with adults and with youth for the work that he has done with our department for over 27 years. And so I'm very proud to be able to celebrate with him today the 27 years of service and wish him well. What I often do with many of our employees is that we have an exit interview And so usually those interviews may last 15, 20 minutes. We sat with Daniel for about 45 minutes just talking about all the work that we had done together over the last years of this 27-year career. And so I just want to say congratulations to Daniel and to your family as well. Congratulations.

Wow. Good morning. I wasn't expecting to speak. I was here to get my plaque. But thank you. Thank you all for your time. Thank you for your kind words. I really appreciate it. And just to say it's throughout the years, it's just it's been an honor. It's been an honor serving this county. A lot of good times, challenging times, and honestly, frustrating times. But it's all been wonderful. And I just want to say thank you. And thank you to you all. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.

Any comments from the board? Thank you for your service, both to the county and to the Marines. Any comments from the public? Okay, why don't you come on up.

Bring your mic.

that's like speaking you gotta take a picture

We now move to item number five. Under Supervisor Chavez, proclaim August 2026 as World Breastfeeding Awareness Month in the County of Fresno. Supervisor Chavez.

Thank you, Chair. We can have our folks come up from the Fresno County Breastfeeding Coalition. This month I have the privilege of presenting the proclamation for August 2026 World Breastfeeding Awareness Month. I also serve as the chair of the first five commission as many of you know there was a big initiative a couple years ago to ensure that women had access points to ensure that they were able to have a safe you know private place for them to do that and the reason for that is that Fresno County has on average some of the lowest exclusive breastfeeding numbers in the country we want to make sure we do the outreach we do the community work that needs to happen to explain the benefits of that especially with all the GMO formulas that are out there. We know that mother nature knows best. So thank you guys for the work that you do. If you want to kick it off and see if it works.

Hi. You guys make me a little nervous. And I like that the guy said that everybody was here. I'm like, they're all here for us, too. Right. So my name is Felicia Escueda Rodriguez. I am the co-chair for the Fresno County Breastfeeding Coalition. I would like to thank the board for allowing us to be here, Chairman Bredefeld and Vice Chair Luis Chavez for sponsoring our proclamation. So we're here as members of the Fresno County Breastfeeding Coalition. In a little history, we were called the Fresno County Breastfeeding Task Force for many years. We were part of the Fresno County, and we morphed into the Fresno County Breastfeeding Coalition. and in 2020 and became this group. So we are dedicated to working together. All of us volunteer in this group. We are part of different insurance partners and hospitals. So some of them are Anthem Blue Cross, the California Health Collaborative, CRMC, Fresno County AOC WIC, Clinica Sierra Vista. Kaiser Permanente, which I work for. And our goal is to ensure that our moms and babies have the healthiest start possible. And breastfeeding is the first step to the healthy life. And the world breastfeeding slogan for this year is breastfeeding sustainable start to life. strengthen what works in our community groups so that we can all work together. And so just some things that we know that children that are breastfed, of course, have less colds and ear infections, things like that. A lot of people know that. If you stop somebody just on the street and just ask them, those are the basic things that they know. In 2024, California Breastfeeding Initiation Rate, it was 69% in Fresno County. It was 87% of any breastfeeding. Their exclusive rates are lower than that for Fresno County. If we look at babies when they're artificially fed versus breastfeeding, These babies who are breastfeeding, they have a higher health cost when they're formula feeding of $2,000 a year, a higher cost when they go to the doctor. So there's a lot of studies that show in the first year there's a higher cost to them. And those studies are starting to come out more and more. as we go on, especially from the National Institutes of Health. So we have our walk coming up on August 1st, and that will be on Saturday. We have currently 246 people signed up for this walk. We had 243 last year. This walk remains free. It's our 18th annual walk. It remains free to the public. We work really hard to get donations so that we can, it's a walk in celebration so that members can come and work and celebrate, and we have like a health fair. We have everybody come out and give information about breastfeeding and what is available to them. That includes from all the insurance carriers so that they can see what's available to them. So we want to thank you for helping us take care of the tiniest members of our community today. So thank you to the board for helping us and helping us get this proclamation for August being proclaimed World Breastfeeding Month. And now I want to introduce Irma Valencia.

Good morning, Chair and honorable members of the board. My name is Irma Valencia, and I have the privilege of serving as the chair of the Fresno County Breastfeeding Coalition. Thank you for recognizing the National Breastfeeding Awareness Month and for your continued support of the health and well-being of families throughout Fresno County. Briefly and short, it won't be too long for me to say that the Fresno County Breastfeeding Coalition is dedicated to improving the health of mothers, babies, and families by promoting, protecting, and supporting breastfeeding throughout education, collaboration, and community partnership. Why this matters, breastfeeding has lifetime health benefits for both babies and mothers. When families receive the education and breastfeeding goals and meet their breastfeeding goals, that results in healthier children, healthier mothers, and healthier communities. So on behalf of Fresno County Breastfeeding Coalition, I want to thank the Board of Supervisors for recognizing us. Together, through collaboration, education, and compassion, we will continue to empower families and ensure every mother has access and resources and support that she deserves. Thank you for your time and commitment. Thank you, Supervisor Chavez.

Thank you, guys. And with that, I'd like to make the motion to approve the proclamation.

Any comments from the board? Second. Any comments from the public? Okay, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you.

Come on up. You want to come on up?

OH. OH, THAT'S NICE.

WELL, THEY'RE NOT RETIRING.

A little bit to the right. No, not even close.

We now move to item number six under Supervisor Mendez, proclaim July 19th through the 25th, 2026 as the 26th annual Pretrial Probation Parole Supervision Week in the County of Fresno.

Supervisor Mendez.

Okay. I'll let these people kind of leave. This is a deal. This is the 26th. We're proclaiming on July 19th through 25th of this year as a 26th annual pretrial probation and parole supervision week.

And good morning. Thank you so much, Supervisor Mendez, for sponsoring today's proclamation. Thank you, Chairman Bredefield, and for all of you, the board members. I got some staff still coming in, so I want to make sure that we get everyone in.

Yeah, and if you introduce anybody, that's up to you.

I'm going to introduce all of them. No, no, I'm not going to do that. But we do run pretty deep in the probation department, so we are going to have quite a few people here. All right. So we have just a small portion of our 600 staff that are here to be recognized by you, the board. And we appreciate so much the support that we receive from the board. But I do have some words that I'd like to be able to say today. And I want to say thank you first for giving us the opportunity to recognize National Pretrial Probation and Parole Supervision Week. It's observed this year from July 19th to July 25th, and this year's theme is Connected for Change, Building Bridges and Supervision. It reflects the very heart of our mission and the work our staff carries out every day. For 116 years, we have served our community, the Fresno County community, as a connector, bridging the courts, local government, local law enforcement, social services, behavioral health, schools, victims groups, and our network of community partners. And we do this so our justice-involved folks can access the resources that are needed to move towards safer, healthier, and more productive lives. We enhance public safety not only through supervision and accountability, but also through connection. We ensure that individuals under our care, both in the community and in the custody at our juvenile justice campus, have pathways to rehabilitation that reduce recidivism and create long-term stability. So our staff that you can see here is the engine of that mission. Probation officers, juvenile correctional officers, victim advocates, and our professional civilian staff, we all work collectively to restore families, support victims, and to guide individuals through accountability and opportunity. Just for some stats, collectively, these staff, they support a population of about 12,800 individuals in Fresno County under our supervision. And on any given day, they complete more than, in a year, 24,000 assessments and reports annually. serving the courts from arrest through case resolution. Our probation officers, to speak of, perform a wide range of duties that are essential, including pre-sentence investigations. They prepare dispositional reports in the juvenile court. We complete pretrial risk assessments so that we can try to keep the population at the jail down. We respond also to warrant requests. Our officers also provide field supervision, often in partnership with law enforcement allies, offering critical intelligence and support during incidents involving high-risk individuals. In our work with our adult compliance team, our officers work in partnership with the sheriff's office, the DA's office, and other local Fresno County police departments to ensure that our clients living in Fresno County receive the support to stay engaged in treatment or to restore compliance by apprehending individuals to ensure victim safety. Beyond enforcement, our officers connect individuals to programming and services that are geared toward their individual needs, which includes job readiness training and access to other community resources that support long-term rehabilitation. So we balance that accountability with passion helping individuals to build the skills necessary to transition out of the justice system completely. Our JCOs, our juvenile correction officers that we have many here today, and they work with our secure youth treatment facility and our broader juvenile justice campus population. They manage trauma-impacted youth, maintain safety, and ensure structure. Yet their work goes far beyond just making sure that kids are safe. They're mentors, educators, role models, and guides. They support youth as they pursue education, vocational training, and counseling. In recent years, we've had tremendous success, including youth who have established employment from our Titan Youth Home, and also youth who have graduated from college and continue toward bachelor's degrees while in our care or under community supervision. These accomplishments reflect the transformative power of JCOs who consistently believe in the potential of the young people that they work with. are victim advocates. They provide a lifeline for survivors, ensuring rights are protected, families are supported, and healing is centered throughout the justice process. They offer guidance, connect victims, and community resources, and participate in complex cold case investigations as well, standing side by side with survivors whose trauma may span many, many years. Their work helps restore families who are impacted by violent crime and ensures that justice is more than just a legal process. It is a path toward wholeness. So we also want to extend our sincere gratitude to the Fresno County Board of Supervisors for your ongoing support of the probation community and corrections, and our partners at the CO's office, Department of Social Services, Department of Public Health, Behavioral Health, and many others for those that are working with us to create pathways for accountability and opportunity for our clients. Together we strengthen public safety and support victims. Speaking of partnership, finally this week after years of planning marks an exciting milestone for our department. The adult AB 109 training and business office teams are going to be moving to our brand new location at 200 West Pontiac Avenue in Clovis. And we are so thankful and extremely pleased for Paul, all the work that you've done, and your staff. And so for many of you who are on the board when we purchased that building, we're going to close down many leased buildings in order for us to get into a building that we own and one that we can occupy and make our own home. This relocation will improve collaboration and training capacity and service delivery to the community that we serve. I want to say thank you to Steve White at Public Works, Ed Hill at General Services, and my old admin DC, Yusel Zalapa, who's over at General Services now. As we celebrate Pretrial Probation and Parole Supervision Week, let us honor the people who are making this mission possible, the people who are behind me today. They are bridge builders linking individuals to community. connecting accountability with opportunity and weaving together partnerships that strengthen Fresno County. And so I just want to say thank you so much for your time today and we're available for any questions that you may have.

Thank you. Any comments from the board? Go ahead. Oh, I'm sorry.

Thank you, Chair. Chief, just want to thank you for the work you and your team do. When we had a chance to go out there and do a tour at the JDC, we got a firsthand look at the work that your team puts in and making sure that we're not just punishing folks, but helping them rehabilitate themselves. I think that oftentimes goes unsaid with our team, and I just wanted to highlight that publicly. And working with the victim, offender, restorative practices that are utilized, And the team that you have out there was really impressed with that. So thank you and your team for the work that you guys do every day.

Thank you so much. We appreciate that.

No, it's just been familiar with what you guys do for the last 12 years. Impossible job that you get it done. This is just the work that's done. There is amazing. You know, and you guys are amazing. And this is a time for us to honor you and,

Thank you. It's a testament, Supervisor Mendez, to the work that these people do behind me. Talking about an impossible job, one that's often just we just don't know a lot about it. We're not ones who toot our own horns. We don't do a great job of doing that. But behind the scenes and also just in front of the people that we care for, they know. what these people do. I know what they do and it's so appreciative and I thank you for allowing us to come at least, you know, one year, you know, once every year to be able to celebrate them. So I want to say thank you.

Any other comments from the board?

I'll make a motion as soon as you.

I just want to also say that I visited when I first got here and was very impressed with all of what you do, all the great work that your team is doing. It makes a difference. We all know that it makes a difference. So we are very grateful to all that you do. Thank you so much. Any comments from the public? Seeing none, is there a motion? Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you.

Good to see you guys.

You better get a wide lens. Extra wide lens.

To break the record of the most people we've had up here.

One more. One, two, and three.

We now move to items pulled from this morning. A member of the public pulled item 19. Under Chairman Bredefield, conduct second hearing on an ordinance submitting section 13.24.010 of chapter 13.24 of title 13. 19. No, 19. This is item 19? Item 19, the individual who, yes.

Good morning, Board of Supervisors. Once again, my name is Brianna Walker, and I am a constituent in Supervisor Magzig's district. And I am here today to ask you to reconsider your prior approval of the changes proposed to prohibited conduct on county property. First, the addition of more personnel carrying guns increases the risk of workplace violence and death in a mass casualty incident. Although the good guy with a gun narrative is popular, incident after incident has shown that more armed people on the scene equals more confusion for our first responders, more bullets to hit bystanders, and in the case of John Hurley in Nevada, Colorado, the chance of police shooting and killing someone who is not a party to the crime. However, these proposed changes raise a larger issue. Why do non-law enforcement personnel feel the need to be armed at work at the county? Are your admin assistants, coordinators, outreach specialists, librarians and more feeling threatened in the workplace? Are they facing unsafe constituents walking to and from their cars? Are they receiving violent threats from constituents who are upset? These are serious questions that paint the county in a concerning light. Before authorizing the county workforce to arm themselves, I strongly urge the board to conduct an inquiry into why county employees are feeling unsafe, then address those reasons with appropriate measures. Workplace de-escalation training, vehicle escorts or buddy programs, and the cooperation with existing safety personnel are all targeted solutions that could be explored. Finally, I urge you to consider the effect of these proposed changes on your staff. Workplace violence is a growing concern in America, with Fresno experiencing at least two workplace shootings in the last two years. It is well documented that quick, easy access to a weapon exponentially increases the likelihood that conflict will escalate. Knowing that the person in the next desk may be armed, whether with a gun, taser, or pepper spray, produces a chilling effect on addressing a workplace conflict early and openly. Please consider the case of Jennifer Ortega. Whether or not you agree with her account, the fact remains that she felt unsafe and threatened by a man with a prior violent conviction. How much worse would that situation have been if she had had easy access to a taser, pepper spray, or a gun in that moment? Please reconsider.

Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Any comments on the phone?

They've decided not to address the board.

Okay, any comments from the board? I'd like to make a motion to approve the item. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Pass is unanimous.

We now move to item 44, pulled by members of the public. Under public health, conduct second hearing and adopt the proposed ordinance amending Fresno County Ordinance Code Title VIII, Health and Safety, to add Chapter 8.51, Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations.

Good morning, Chair and fellow board members. Joe Prado with the Department of Public Health. Also with me today is Erica Armstrong, Division Manager of Environmental Health. Available to take any questions.

Okay. Any comments initially from the board? Supervisor Magsay.

I know there was a... When we heard this last, there were a number of conditions that we asked to be included as long as it didn't conflict with the state. But one of them, the surprise inspections, was one of the things that we couldn't include as part of this. So a question I have, I think with this particular pilot, it would include 66 homes initially. So without having the ability to do really surprise inspections, they have to be scheduled. How can we know for sure? Because I know the issue came up about pets. and making sure cooking surfaces are completely kind of held to the same standard as other restaurants. How can we be sure that there aren't going to be issues allowing for individuals to prepare food at homes and then sell it publicly?

Yeah, definitely. So we're definitely going to provide that information to any of the permit holders and any permits that we actually issue to them. But also, in addition to that, it's going to be important that when we actually do the on-site visit, we're going to do that education and be able to do that. But in addition, we're going to need the public to issue a complaint. So, we're not going to be able to go out to a MECO residence unless there's a complaint or we're aware of an emergency issue. An emergency issue could be if we are seeing foodborne illnesses connected to a particular establishment. So, that is already in place within our surveillance of foodborne illnesses. If we see a significant number of foodborne illnesses attached to a particular establishment, we now do a deeper dive investigation. And so those are going to be the two assets that we're going to have in place. One is surveillance that our department will do, and the second will be through a complaint process, and we will respond to all complaints on MECOs.

Is it possible for us to use the same standards that would apply to MECOs to restaurants? If we only do one inspection a year, instead of us doing multiple inspections at restaurants, we also would only do one a year, and we would only do an inspection after letting them know when we're going to come out.

Can we do that? We do need to notify them of that one inspection. When we look at foodborne illness, we're going to treat them just like we would any other establishment to that same type of investigation and the same type of requirements. We do have the authority to shut that down through our health department authority, not necessarily the ordinance if there is a public health issue.

It's my understanding the restaurants are inspected twice a year, once it's scheduled and then another one that's a surprise inspection. Is that correct?

The goal is four times a year. And then those are pop-up visits for the restaurants.

I'll just add on, and a lot of that depends on if there's been violations before, and if there has been violations, they get inspected a little more, correct?

Correct. And so there is something your board approved was reinspection fees. Your board approved that a couple years ago, and so that will also apply to MECOs as well. So if we have to go out and reinspect a MECO, that same fee would be applied to the MECO establishment.

Okay.

And then the state reporting for sales tax is still in this for warm food, correct?

Correct. So that is something, thank you, board, for bringing that up at the last meeting. The seller's permit through the state of California, we are going to incorporate that into the program administratively. And we say administratively because sometimes it may or may not apply. If it's cold food, we have to look at the menu. If it doesn't apply to the seller's permit requirements of the state of California, then we won't require it. But if we do, we will require it.

Any other comments? Any comments from the public? People coming up?

OK.

Hello, board. My name is . I'm a resident of Fresno County and also a school board member. And I'm here in support of MECO. And what I would like to offer is that I think that there has been some conversation about parity and fairness between MECOs and restaurants. And I really do want to clarify that there is a big difference between them. The scale of food that is going to be sold at MECO is very small in comparison to our rest. MECOs are limited to only 30 meals per day, no more than 90 meals in a week, right? So talking about like the level of inspections needs to be commensurate to the scale of food that's being produced. So I would offer that. And I think if we're speaking about parity, restaurants are not required to submit logs on a monthly basis. MECO will. MECO is restrained to no more than 100K per year in sales. Restaurants are not restrained in the same way. So they're preparing much more meals. So again, I think that we're missing the point about like why MECO is important to our community. MECO is important to our communities because it creates a pathway of opportunity, an opportunity for people who have a talent, who have an ability to prepare delicious meals, and it is regulated. They will have to be inspected. They will have to get a permit in order to operate. So all of these are things that will restrain any type of, and sanitary conditions, they wouldn't be authorized. The other point that I want to make is that food is being prepared at homes as we speak, right? It's unregulated. MECO allows us to have the teeth to begin to regulate that, to make sure that we are being equitable by removing vendors who are not doing things in a safe and sanitary way. So I hope that that is all being considered in your thought process about why MECO should be allowed, and I really am here to support it. MECO operators are only asking for an opportunity. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Aletha Lang and I oppose this at this time. The ordinance as presented directly affects family residential daily quality of life. What's not addressed is increased traffic, parking congestion, deliveries, noise and a steady flow of customers, and these are not small changes. What's not included is a mechanism of complaints. All he's addressed is the health. But what about code enforcement for traffic, parking, noise? What about porta-potties, restaurants? Will the restrooms be inspected? Will it be ADA? These are all issues when you've got people who are coming into the public. They are not addressed at all in the ordinance. And the burden, complaint driven, the burden is on all the residents to have to make a complaint. But if they're only going to be looking into health complaints, I would recommend a centralized reporting mechanism to track all the complaints from the public to the supervisors, city councils, city and county code enforcement, and the health department, not just the health department. It becomes impossible to be able to find out The real effect of this in a neighborhood and the ordinance as it stands just does not, it's not clear enough in my opinion. So just as an example with my last couple of seconds, there's page nine, line 22, the ordinance references inspections of permitted areas and vehicles used for transporting food. OK.

I got to cut you off.

Thank you. Can I do the comparison so you can look it up?

No. Sorry. Got to keep to the limit. Yes, ma'am.

This is going to be tough. I'm going to talk fast. My name is Sue Williams. At the last hearing, your board discussed inspection, sales tax, tax returns, and lack of parity between home and commercial kitchens. But I don't recall any real discussion of how the program will be funded or the greater impact to neighborhoods. Currently, as the state has the authority to amend the ordinance, home restaurants are allowed 90 meals a week and adjusted gross sales of over $110,000 a year, with increases tied to the Consumer Price Index. Operators are allowed to sell and serve food indoors or outdoors from 7 in the morning to 10 at night, and they can obtain liquor licenses. Rather than using the platform to move up to the food trucks and restaurants, because they can make more money from home with less oversight, operating costs or regulations, restaurant workers are quitting their jobs to operate home kitchens. The Restaurant Industry and Food Vendors Alliance raised crucial questions regarding the inadequate number of health inspectors, unresolved, unpermitted home and or vendor food sales, labor protections, lack of funding to support the additional caseload, and most importantly, food safety. Even the Professional Association of Employee Environmental Health weighed in, writing that they are having difficulty meeting the current inspection frequencies for 320 to 400 facilities, not including complaints, mobile food operations, and community events, and that MECOS, even as a pilot program, will create an extra burden. Also discussed at your last boarding, the CAO's quarterly report on code enforcement. Improvements have been made, but the county still has a backlog of over 1,700 cases. Important to note, because health inspectors will only respond to food complaints. Fortunately, the state does not mandate that counties opt in. The county is facing a potential budget shortfall of between $40 to $240 million next year. There is a mandatory 5% cut across departments. How can we justify adding the two-year pilot when we don't have the enforcement tools, recording procedures, or protections in place to prevent home restaurants from becoming the next neighborhood issue? Thank you. This guy does great pastrami sandwiches from Kerman, and we both agree that culinary kitchens are the way to go.

Thank you. Good morning, gentlemen. My name is Paul Samarin. I'm from Kerman, California, born and raised. I am a military veteran. I served in the Marine Corps, the Army, and the California National Guard. I did 12 years of service until my injuries sustained in combat didn't allow me to serve any longer. In the last 10 years since I've been out of the military, it's been very difficult for me to have a regular civilian job. I started a business three years ago. I developed my LLC. I have my business license in Kerman, Fresno, and Clovis. I have my vendor's permit, my food safety handler certifications, my liability insurance, and most importantly, I pay all my taxes with a meticulous ledger every year. In the last three years, I've partnered with the Clovis Culinary Center to develop my business and have been growing slowly but surely. Now, as trying to move into a brick and mortar, I have been unable to make that jump from a small business to a brick and mortar just because of the capacity of the culinary centers that won't allow for my food storage of pastrami, so it's brisket, so it's lots of meat, lots of stuff that's marinated and cured for 30 days. So I am looking forward to this being approved because it would help me to bridge that gap between where I'm at now to the brick and mortar location because the landlords that I've been talking with, I just don't have the income on paper that makes them feel comfortable to allow me to move into a brick and mortar. So it would be very helpful. Thank you for your time.

Hello, my name is Heidi Nakayama. I am a longtime property owner. I have one question for the MECO people. Is there any notification on a street that one of these MECOs will go in?

Yes, please. You can come.

We can build that into our communication with the city. So as right now, we have only 66 permits presented before your board for consideration. These next months will be very key to build the communication strategy with the city to be able to show them where these MECOs are located. Some of the administrative things were by hearing some of the comments from the public is when applicable only allowing one per census tract. So that could address some of those issues there and we could work with our cities to be able to show that on a map to be able to see where those locations are at.

Thank you. Thank you. So I'm your common sense neighbor. What are you thinking? You want another business on a residential street, a county street, where there's residents, children, senior citizen, no sidewalks. What's the safety issue? You want 30 more cars to come. Who's making sure there's not 50? You know, we have to wait till these things go in. I really do not want restaurants on residential streets, and that's my point. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors. My name is Julia Pacheco, and I am a resident of District 5. I appreciate the board's previous unanimous vote to move forward with establishing MECO. The vote recognized the value of expanding economic opportunity while maintaining public health protections. I encourage you to continue honoring that commitment. This issue is deeply personal to me. I grew up watching a family member build a business from her home. She worked long hours preparing food for neighbors and members of our community, hoping to earn enough to support her family. Like so many home cooks, she had the talent, the demand, and the work ethic, but not the resources to afford a commercial kitchen. A MECO ordinance would have changed her life by giving her a legal, affordable path to grow the business she has already built. MECOs are designed to be small-scale operations with strict limits on meals served and annual revenue. They're not restaurants operating without oversight. They are regulated businesses created through the state legislation to expand access to entrepreneurship while maintaining appropriate public health standards. For families like mine, this ordinance represents more than a new permit. It represents dignity, opportunity, and the chance for hardworking people to build something of their own without facing impossible startup costs. It allows talented home cooks to preserve cultural traditions, serve their communities, and create economic mobility through honest work. I respectfully urge Supervisor Magzig and every member of this board to move forward with implementing the MECO ordinance as the legislature intended. Fresno County has already recognized the value of this program through its unanimous vote. Now is the time to follow through and give residents the opportunity they have been waiting for. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Bredefeld, Vice Chair Chavez, and Board. My name is Tom Lang. I live in the county in Supervisor Mazik's district. I respectfully urge you not to approve the ordinance in its present form. I'm really encouraged by things I heard the director talk about, but none of those things are actually codified in the ordinance itself. And so I respectfully ask that you direct staff to strengthen the ordinance by including just 10 items that I came up with, just looking it over briefly. Number one, reasonable operating hours. Number two, parking and traffic management standards. Number three, appointment-only customer pickups with limits on simultaneous arrivals. Four, a prohibition on outdoor dining and customer waiting areas. Five, a prohibition on amplified music and outdoor entertainment. Six, proactive operating standards rather than relying solely on complaint-driven enforcement. Clear graduated enforcement procedures, including permit suspension and revocation for repeat violations. Eight, coordination with environmental health, business licensing, planning and development, and county code enforcement. Nine, as was mentioned before, a centralized complaint reporting and tracking system that integrates environmental health, county code enforcement, the Fresno County Sheriff's Office, the California Highway Patrol, CHP, city police departments, planning and development, business licensing, and other agencies with enforcement authority. And last but not least, number 10, annual public reports to the board summarizing permits issued, complaints received, enforcement actions from all agencies, and recommendations before any extension or permanent adoption of the pilot program. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors. My name is Tyler Maya Lucio. I'm a community outreach worker at Cultiva La Salud and a resident of District 3. I'm here today to voice my support for preserving the MECA ordinance. Through my outreach, I've met many vendors whose circumstances make it difficult to work a traditional nine-to-five job. Some are parents balancing childcare, some are living with disabilities, and others simply cannot afford the high startup cost of opening a traditional food business. They have the talent, the dedication, and desire to succeed. They just need a fair opportunity. When this board unanimously approved MECO, you recognize the importance of creating that opportunity. I respectfully ask that you stand by that decision and continue supporting the hardworking families and aspiring entrepreneurs who are counting on this program. For many people, MECO is more than a permit. It's a pathway to financial stability, economic independence, and the chance to build a better future for themselves and their families and their communities. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. My name is Jackie Grazier, and I am a resident at Supervisor Mag's district. And I'm here to say that I don't necessarily oppose the concept of MECO. I applaud the board for wanting to help entrepreneurs and people who want to make a better life. do the hard work that's involved. I'm concerned about all of the unintended consequences of passing something so quickly. The reason you have so many people here today and you didn't have us here last time is that nobody knew about this and then all of a sudden it's on the consent calendar and actually there's a group of us here that would like to see this maybe happen but we need guardrails. I mean, you're wanting to implement this for two years. Maybe a six-month pilot program would be a better idea. You want to start it in January. Well, it's July. You need to work with all of these different county offices that are going to be impacted by this, not to mention all the residents and everything that's going to be impacted by this. I'm concerned about the unintended consequences. And I did notice that the Restaurant Association opposed it, and other organizations opposed it. I went through the board packet last night, and I do not know who Graciela Bravo is, but I am going to read from her letter. She said, I am writing on behalf of Unit 19, Professional Association of Employees, blah, blah, blah, while EH inspectors assigned to inspect food facilities in Fresno County are supportive of the goals, and we believe we can make it work, we do not believe that we can absorb an additional 132 inspections per year. Okay, this was in your board packet that I read last night, but I applaud her for coming forward. You need to talk to the people that work for you and maybe work out this, put the guardrails in, Pass it when it's ready. Thank you.

Thank you. So he's here again today to talk about this ordinance that's about to be hopefully adopted.

He's here with the Food Truck Association. Many of their members weren't able to be here at this time.

Y honestamente, yo lo que quisiera saber, si algo que ya está trabajando, yo estoy de acuerdo en que es Debemos dar oportunidades, pero por el momento estamos atravesando un problema serio que no se ha podido arreglar por años. Yo creo lo mejor sería primero arreglarlo y después probar lo de la cocina. Pero aquí mi compañero tiene los números para más que se los va a dar.

No, no, go ahead.

So he says that they're trying to surmount a problem that's been in place for quite some time, and he's offering that his friend here has something to say.

Yeah, hi, how are you, everybody? I just let you know, if you know the problems that happen in Riverside or Costa Mesa, they give you 12 permits, and they have 225 related within... with the people that don't have a permit. So we want to know if you can help us to fix first the problem, you know? I just want to tell you the numbers because it's very important that you know what happened with the permits, you know. They give you, for example, 66, but they, I'm sorry, my English is very bad, but there is more than 25, 225 kitchens more. So it needs to be cared with that one because you probably opened the door for one travel, you know. We are okay with the program, but needs to fix first the problem we have. All right, thank you.

I will bring it back now to the desk. Any board members wish to speak? Sure.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you to everybody that came up and spoke. I think a lot of the concerns that were raised were actually answered last time we had this conversation. But I don't want to miss the opportunity to just remind folks that it's 60 plus permits countywide or a population of over a million people. And I heard what my colleagues, I think last time we had a conversation about That's why we have all the restrictions that we do on folks that operate. And I just want to remind the public that a couple of months ago, we actually did a MECO-like program. There's a home that got rezoned in the Sunnyside area that started off as a home kitchen of folks that would invite folks to come in and enjoy dinner. And now they were so successful that they actually needed to turn that into a commercial kitchen. That's what we want. We want the story of the gentleman that came up and spoke that started off small and now has a means to provide for him and his family. And the last part that I want to highlight is we've been going through this conversation for probably about over a year now. Joe, I think you got a grant from the state of California to pay for the cost, and I believe the permits that we're going to issue are going to be refunded from the fees that are paid by the applicants, correct?

That is absolutely correct. The fee structure, if your board approves the agenda item today, we will come back to your board with the permit fee structure that reimburses the program completely. We still have leftover dollars from the grant still, and so we would appropriately apply those dollars to the program as well.

And let me just address the elephant in the room, because I believe in being transparent. The concerns that the Restaurant Association had, the concerns that the gentlemen here have, are 100% legitimate. But let me just be very honest and upfront about what their concern is. Their concern is that this program will have No limits on what type of folks and individuals can issue these permits. And that'll essentially be the Wild Wild West. I agree that we do need to have guardrails. And I can assure you that this county will never go down that road of us just having folks opening up kitchens across the county. So I just want to address that, because I did follow the conversation that happened at the state level. And that was one of their main concerns that they highlighted. I don't think anybody on this dais would want to have that dynamic. And that's why we're limiting it. to 66 and then the last part i'll say is i have been in conversations with the city of fresno and we do plan on taking that to the all 15 cities where some of these permits will be issued i think it'll be two per per area um and so it it does have guard whales it does have a lot of the the you know conditions that folks are asking for um and all we're asking for is for us to foster that entrepreneurial spirit that we know everybody here um wants an opportunity to make a living so i'll say that

A couple questions. So liquor sales. If someone comes in and wants to enjoy a meal, because I think that this allows for dining in, correct? How are we going to regulate to make sure that liquor, beer, and wine are not sold?

Alcohol will have to go through the state process. That doesn't fall under the Department of Public Health's jurisdictional authority. That falls into the state.

So we're not going to be regulating that then?

No, so if we see some on the premises, then we're going to need to see the permit to ensure that they're complying with state law. If they're not going to comply with state law, then we would remove the MECO permit and then start assessing fines.

So again, they would need to get a license from ABC to be able to, so, okay. And then hours of operation. So in the ordinance, if someone wants to be serving food at midnight or 1 in the morning, is it set in the ordinance that you can only operate from like 9 in the morning to 5 at night?

7 a.m. to 10 p.m.

So 7 to 10. Okay. Okay. And then finally, parking. How do we deal with parking, especially in the metropolitan area where single-family residential units can be somewhat constrained? So how do we keep people from blocking other people's driveways, stuff like that?

This is gonna have to be a collaboration with the local city to enforce. That's gonna be the code enforcement side of it. And so currently today when we are, we work with code enforcement of all the jurisdictions. And so even with our own county code enforcement, whenever they receive an issue, they are actually communicating with our Department of Public Health and we are actually responding to that. So there isn't a centralized website, a centralized way to do that throughout the entire county of Fresno with all 15 cities. but there is communication between the cities and the county.

Your employees in the health department, are you aware of any of them having concerns with this program?

We've included them in the conversation and with the letter. The concern was mainly focused on having to do more than the 66 visits per year and kind of doubling that number. So as we actually roll this out and really start to codify it based on your board approval, what the ordinance contains, we'll work with our staff to really build the right amount of resource to be able to administer this effectively.

I have some questions. When we did this a couple weeks ago, I made it clear that for me to support this, there had to be unannounced inspections. It's very easy to start off with an inspection with everything being new and have an inspection when... The business hasn't even begun to operate and you do an inspection to get it started for everybody to look good and not have a problem. That's why I said I needed to have at least one unannounced inspection as part of this. You looked into it. State law says that you can't do that.

Correct. State law does not allow for that.

OK. So that's a problem for me. I think our primary concern certainly should be about helping businesses thrive, especially people who are trying to get started, which is why I was willing to support this. But I also am concerned about public safety and the public issues about this. People can come to residence if somebody opens their home to do this. People can come and buy food till 10 o'clock at night, right? So you can be living next to somebody here, and people can be coming at 9 or 10 o'clock at night, correct?

Right.

OK. And I imagine people who are in those residence or neighbors are not going to be real thrilled about this. I mean, I think if we can all imagine our own homes, if our neighbor did this and started operating a business and there's parking out there, there may be all kinds of issues. Are they allowed to have porta potties outside?

No. No, they're not.

Okay. You know, and I am also concerned about the fairness. I think Viva Islas mentioned some things, and I think she was right. You know, the two aren't the same between a restaurant and this. So you shouldn't necessarily compare the two. However, restaurants are inspected four times a year. Now, yeah, there's certainly more quantity of food there. They're open to the public in large amounts in contrast to this. But they're inspected four times a year to make sure that nothing bad is happening to the public. You have one inspection here with no other inspection at all unless there's a complaint. And to me, that poses a great risk to the public. I don't think there are enough guardrails in place for this. And I'm concerned that we're going to get lots of complaints. And I'm concerned that some people may even get sick, because not everybody does things the right way. And so I was willing to support it with unannounced inspections, because I think that provided some security for the public. Since the state wants to control everything we do locally, And it doesn't make any sense that they're not inspected other than the one time they start. I'm not going to be supportive of this.

Mr. Chair, would you be comfortable if we had a voluntary opt-in for folks that apply this to have this secondary inspection that you request? So, for example, an applicant would come and they would voluntarily opt-in to have their kitchen inspected a second time like we had codified last time?

Yeah, but what about the ones that aren't willing to do that?

And I mean, well, then that would be a condition for that. I think we have this. We can't do it. Are we prohibited from doing our own addition?

Correct. It's only limited to one announced visit there. I will defer to counsel on the voluntary concept. Legal counsel?

Yes. With the state law restriction, I don't think we could add that addition. We could always ask, but we couldn't condition the permit on it. It would be optional for them to get into that.

Right.

Okay. That's the problem.

And I mean, I know we're having the conversation about people getting sick, but we have many restaurants in our county where people do get sick. And I think we post them online, right? Where folks that went in there and had a couple of cases, would we be doing the same for her?

So we post all our restaurant inspections online. When we conduct our foodborne illness investigations, due to HIPAA, we can't post specific things about individuals there.

So would MECO fall under that category too?

People would be able to see, hey, this is how- Yes, there will be inspection reports on our website.

Would that ease your concern, Chairman?

No, I don't think so. Again, we have these inspections in these restaurants to catch these kinds of things that are going on before somebody gets sick. You know, I wish these folks well. I think you have the majority board of support, but I am concerned about where this goes. I hope it works out well. But, you know, I was very clear last time that without additional inspections, I just can't support this, and so I won't. But I appreciate where you come from, Sue.

All right. I was a little bit concerned about the dine-in. I can't make the dine-in part of the...

I don't think they have that. Yeah, we're going to have to look into that a little bit more. So they are allowed to do it on their property, on the residents there. So whether it's the front yard, the backyard, in their homes.

Yeah, to me, that's a killer right there. Because you're actually operating them in any restaurant, not just a takeout.

The setups that I have seen when I visited other cities had all of the areas that they need to wash their hands. They used the restroom there at the facility. But I don't anticipate with the limit that we're putting on with 30 meals that being an issue that just doesn't generate enough traffic for that. We see some of the folks that are doing like barbecues by their house where they start off and it's very small. I don't think we're gonna have an issue with that with the pilot program.

But you're saying you don't know if they have dine-in or not? Let me defer to counsel on that.

If you want to go down that path I'd suggest that you continue the item, give us a chance to look into the issue whether you can approve the permits without the dine-in option. I'm not sure we can figure that out right now.

What do you think, Supervisor Mendez?

Well, I think that's, I always envision this as a take type deal, you know, not a die.

Do you want staff to look at that and come back with some options?

I don't know. I'm already getting tired of hearing this.

If not, I'll make the motion to approve.

I'll second it. Let's just go.

Okay, let's do a roll call on this.

Supervisor Chavez? Yes. Supervisor Pacheco?

Yes.

Supervisor Magsik?

No.

Supervisor Mendez?

No.

Chairman Redefield? No. 2-3 motion fails with Magsik, Mendez, and Chairman voting no.

Yeah.

That concludes all consent engine items that were approved from this morning. We now return to your regular agenda. Under county clerk, register of voters, receive the certified statement of vote for the June 2nd, 2026 Consolidated Statewide Primary Election.

Mr. Cuse. Yeah.

Good morning, Chairman Bredefeld and supervisors. I'm James Koos, your Fresno County Clerk, Registrar of Voters, and I'm here today to report on the successful certification of the June 2nd, 2026 Consolidated Statewide Primary Election. On April 7th of this year, the department came to this board for permission to consolidate the June 2nd election, as we do with all elections where a local jurisdiction wishes to receive consolidation services in conjunction with a statewide election. On June 26th of 2026, we provided official certification of the June 2nd election results to the California Secretary of State. Those certified results are attached to this board item. We respectively request that the board declares the results of this election for those contests and measures under the board's jurisdiction per California Election Code Section 15400. This was a rather remarkable primary election. Over 184,000 voters cast ballots in Fresno County, a turnout of 35%. This percentage may not sound high, but was actually the highest turnout in a gubernatorial primary since 1998, an excellent start for the four-year cycle. We've had over 60 candidates for governor, not the highest ever, but when combined with modern legibility rules, the governor's contest did require the complete front of a ballot card. Combined with seven contested judicial races and multiple other statewide races with double-digit candidates, the over-gorged governor's race led to Fresno County having its first two-card ballot ever. The two-card ballot was a major concern for the department. When I was last before this board, we spoke of those concerns and efforts we were making to offset potential issues. Some of those concerns ended up being overblown. Others were even more impactful. Fewer than 100 voters returned multiple ballots in one envelope, but the effort to make sure this didn't occur doubled the time it took to extract ballot cards from return envelopes. Fewer than 5,000 voters returned only one card, and only a handful asked to return the other card later. Not allowed, by the way. But this meant that we received over 365,000 total ballot cards to tabulate. Fresno County has received that many ballot cards only once before, and we had to scramble to adjust resources to ensure timely tabulation. This also impacted our in-person voting locations, where the lower turnout compared to the last two November elections meant fewer and shorter check-in lines. But the longer ballot and tabulation times meant that lines would form at the tabulator in the vote center itself. We can safely assume that Fresno County will have a two-card ballot in the November general election. And we will need to take forward the lessons learned from this primary election to help ensure a smooth process for all voters. Twenty-nine contests from our June ballot move forward to November. 14 state propositions will be on the November ballot, as well as multiple local measures and 254 local contests. If turnout trends just follow historic patterns, we could easily see over 500,000 cards requiring tabulation this November. a full 33% increase over this June. Even with starting tabulation earlier and expanding processing on Sundays and Election Day, we can anticipate that post-Election Day tabulation will require longer than ever if Fresno County voters continue to wait until Election Day to return their ballots. Election activities have not ended with the certification of the June 2026 primary election. Fresno County is preparing for a manual recount of the governor's contest and has already opened candidate filing for the November 2026 general election. The department has received a voter's request to conduct a manual recount of the governor's race. While it is unlikely that this recount will move forward due to the cost and scale of the request, the department must legally prepare for the possibility should the requester pay the required deposit on time. At the same time, the department opened candidate filing for the November general election yesterday, and we had over 30 candidates already file. Candidates interested in applying for one of the many local contests up for election can find information regarding candidate filing on the department website at VoteFresnoCounty.com. We strongly encourage candidates to make a filing appointment available online at that website to ensure a smooth and convenient process for all. I would like to thank the board for its continuous support of our election processes, and I'm happy to answer any questions at this time.

Okay, any comments from the board? Yes, Supervisor Magid.

How many ballots in the primary, if you recall, needed to be cured?

We challenged more than 3,000 and had over 1,000 cured. We did end up with over 2,000 still challenged at the end of the process, primarily for signature challenges and for signatures not being placed on the envelope.

And what percentage of automatic recount did you do? Because typically we do, I think the state requires 1%. Sometimes we'll do as much as 5%. What percent were you targeting?

For this election, we actually began at basically 2%. We expanded from the very start based on available time that we had in staff. We then doubled that amount and actually ended up over at 3.2% of all ballots included in the manual tally process.

And were there any, what was the error rate that our counting machines made?

Our counting machines, our tabulators, had a 0% error rate in that manual tally review. We did identify one human error that did require us to re-scan a ballot.

Thank you.

Any other comments from the board? Any comments from the public? Okay, seeing none. Anybody on the phone?

No.

Okay, I'll bring it back to the board. I would like to congratulate my colleagues who won their races. Congratulations. Is there a motion and a second?

I'll take the motion.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

All right, the main event.

We now move to item 7.1, receive certificate of sufficiency dated July 8th, 2026 with respect to the initiative petition entitled Fresno County Transportation Improvement Act filed with the Fresno County Clerk Register of Voters on January 26th, 2026 pursuant to Elections Code Section 9115.

Thank you. Good morning again, Chairman and Supervisors. I'm here today to deliver the Certificate of Sufficiency for the Transportation Improvement Act Initiative. The proponents of the initiative filed a notice of intent to circulate the petition on January 26th of this year. Following completion of the statutory requirements, petition circulation was begun in mid-February of this year, and completed petition sections were handed in to my department on April 14, 2026. A total of 2,114 petition sections with 32,852 raw signatures were turned in. Per California election code 9,115 subsection A, a random sample was conducted to determine if sufficient valid signatures were collected in the petition process. On May 18th, the random sample process was completed and the petition could not be certified as sufficient, primarily due to the identification of two duplicate signatures in the random sample. Per election code 9115B, a full count of all collected signatures was begun. On July 8th of 2026, the full count review of the petition found at least 21,909 valid signatures, the minimum required for a countywide initiative, had been collected. Per election code 9118, a certificate of sufficiency is hereby provided to your board for the Transportation Improvement Act initiative. Per election code 9118, your board may either submit the initiative ordinance to the voters of Fresno County at the next statewide election, a resolution for which is attached to the board item, or your board may order a report on the effect of the proposed initiative pursuant to election code section 9111 to be heard within 30 days, at which time you must submit the initiative ordinance to the voters of Fresno County at the next statewide election. I would be happy to answer any questions at this time. Any questions from the board?

Just curious, how many signatures did you have left in the pile that you hadn't gone through?

At the time that we stopped, which by law we're allowed to do once we reach that minimum, we had 2,810 signatures that had not been reviewed.

Out of a total of what, 30?

32,562. Okay. Just under 10% still remaining.

Yeah, so that was a pretty high rejection.

We had a 25% invalid rate, which actually is the lowest invalid rate out of the petitions that we have been reviewing this election for this year. We've actually done 16 state propositions, and the validity rate for this petition was actually higher than any of those.

The one for the secretaries.

Yes.

Yeah. But our rejection rate's way higher than the state average.

When we look at other counties, Fresno County oftentimes does have a higher rejection rate.

No, you do a pretty thorough job. That's all that means.

I appreciate it. We work our best for everyone who turns in a petition in Fresno County.

Yeah. Any other questions? Any other questions? Not yet. No. Okay. Yeah. County Council, you had something you wanted to read? Yes.

I have one change to read into the record. In the resolution where it describes the ballot question, where it says approximately $110 million, that should be changed to approximately $113 million.

Okay.

And that will be subject to the Board approval.

Okay, thank you, County Clerk. The way we're gonna do this, I know there are a lot of people who wanna speak. We have now a new system where we have to go to the phones as well, but what we're gonna do is the pro side will have 10 minutes, two minutes each, five people. The opposition will have same thing, five people, two minutes each, 10 minutes. Then we will, whoever's on the phone, allow them 20 minutes. That's by state law what we have to do now. So if you have your five people, please, the podium is yours, and we'll get started. Please state your name. We're not familiar with you.

Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer. Good morning, Supervisor, Chairman Bredefield, and members of the board. I'm here today as a proud proponent of the Better Road Safe Streets Initiative and as a mayor who represents more than 53% of the population of Fresno County. Today is a very big day for the people who live, work, and play in the County of Fresno. In fact, it is a $7.3 billion day. The five of you will decide today whether or not Fresno County residents will be given an opportunity to vote on the future of their neighborhoods. You will also decide whether you will honor the 2,000 registered voters who signed the Better Roads, Safe Streets initiative. And that is how it should be decided. Not by a body of elected officials, even though elected bodies representing over 80% of the county population have already voted in support of this measure. The Better Roads, Safe Streets initiative represents an investment in every part of Fresno County, urban and rural alike. 30 years of sustained funding that will help us repair neighborhood streets and alleyways, improve major corridors, strengthen public transportation, and make our roads safer. These investments are needed in the City of Fresno, but they are also needed in Clovis, Mendota, Fireball, and communities throughout our county. Private and public transportation is what connects us. It allows our residents to travel between cities every day for work, school, health care, shopping, and to visit family. That is why this cannot be about one city, one neighborhood, or one political perspective. We all have transportation needs, some greater than others. In the city of Fresno, that's $1.2 billion, a deferred street maintenance, and another $300 million in sidewalk repair. That is representative of every city in the county as well as our rural communities. It is time to fix our roads, repair our sidewalks, protect our residents, and invest in Fresno County's future. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good morning. My name is Kaye Burtken. I represent the Fresno League of Women Voters. The Fresno League, especially in the person of Mary Savala, is proud to have helped craft and support each of the county transportation tax measures since the original in 1986. And we are pleased to have supported this one and to be here with the validated signatures that qualify this new version for the ballot. The benefits to Fresno County of these tax measures and this new one specifically are huge. According to a recent impact analysis, this new one will sponsor 68,000 new jobs and bring the county billions of new financial benefits, not to mention its direct effect on our local transportation accessibility and safety. This measure is an object lesson in the sort of democratic participation that the League has stood for for 200 years, first engaging many of our county residents along with elected officials in the development of the measure, and then having more than 20,000 more signing petitions reflecting their desire to vote on the product. It's your turn to acknowledge the voices of your voters and send this back to the elections office to put it on the ballot in November. Thank you for what you do in serving the community. And let's see if the voters will once again decide to tax themselves for what they said they want.

Thank you.

Good morning, chairman and members of the board. My name is Victor Martinez, mayor of the city of Mendota and chairman for Fresno Council of Governments. One of the 11 mayors who signed a letter and submitted to you requesting better roads, safe streets to be placed in the ballot. I want to acknowledge the mayors that are here today present. Mayor Ray Leon from Huron, Mayor Freddy Valdez from Farbo, Mayor Adam Cornejo from San Joaquin, Mayor Maria Pacheco from the city of Kerman. all of them who are supporting this measure. I am here today to respectfully ask you to allow the Better Roads Safe Street measure to be placed in the November ballot and let the democratic process continue. Mendota has some of the worst roads in the county. Their firm maintenance continues growing, similar to other cities, including Fresno, which some of you guys serve. For far too long, roads throughout Fresno County have been neglected, especially in our rural communities, incorporated and unincorporated. Like Cantua, Tranquility, Biola, Mendota, families, business, farmers, emergency responders, and school buses depend on safe, reliable roads every single day. Preventing this measure from appearing on the ballot denies the public the opportunity to make that decision for themselves. When government decides that the public should not have the chance to vote on an issue that directly affects their communities, that is a form of government overreach, and we don't want that. As an elected official, we are here to represent the people, not to replace their voice with our own. Voters have spoken, and more than 22,000 signatures were collected. Today, I respectfully ask you to place the measure on the ballot. This is not about left or right politics. It is about doing the right thing for Fresno County, the entire county. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the board. This process is probably the most democratic process I've participated in. Placing a plan on the ballot, one literally shaped through the input of thousands of residents and qualified for the ballot with well over 21,000 registered voters from across the county. But today's action before you is not about the merits of the measure. That is for county voters to decide for themselves this November. No, today's vote is about whether you support or oppose, isn't about whether you support or oppose the measure. It is about process. As soon as the registered voters confirmed last week the sufficiency of the signature submitted, it meant this measure was guaranteed to be on the ballot. The county's job is to serve the most vulnerable amongst us, those that are facing tough economic times, those in need of most services. Yet you are willing to risk losing $1.08 billion, which is $454 million more than the current measure. Should the current measure expire without today's option, all cities, along with the county, will lose critically important revenues. Clovis will lose 6.3 million annually, 4.1 for road maintenance, and 2.3 million in transit. Clovis approved this on a four-to-one vote. The Clovis Chamber approved this. This morning, you have a simple procedure vote to support the next step in the democratic process by formally placing the measure on the ballot without unnecessary delay. That is why an economic study was provided by Mr. Pembera-Perez. He did this for Measure E, and this board did not require a 30-day extension of the study. Telling Fresno County residents they should not be involved in determining their transportation future would be the opposite of democracy. The public participated. The public should be allowed to vote. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman Bredefeld and members of the board. My name is JP Shamshoyan. I'm the CEO of Realty Concepts, Fresno's largest real estate brokerage and a past president of the Fresno Association of Realtors. I'm here today to make sure that you know how important it is to see the citizens petition move forward on the November 26 ballot. Our 500 plus realtors are in every neighborhood across the county, representing thousands of families each year who are looking for their next place to call home. Realtors are painfully aware of the conditions of our local streets and roads. We are firsthand witnesses to the difference that well-maintained roads, safe intersections, trees, trails, and bike lanes all make in people's decisions about where they want to live. We rely on our local governments to deliver these services, and we know that you need the resources to do so. We cannot delay and risk these critical investments. Thousands of voters played a part in getting us to this moment with plenty of input from local governments. And that input was clear. Local streets should be our priority over the next 30 years, so the measure almost doubles the amount of money available for that, from 34% to 65%. Local governments should have the flexibility to fix what needs to be fixed, so a lot more expenses are eligible in the new proposed measure. In exchange for nearly twice the money and more flexibility, there are performance metrics in this measure. And yes, it's the first time in 40 years, but from my perspective, it's not soon enough for there to be added accountability. I understand that some government managers feel that this is too prescriptive, but that's why the words, where feasible, are listed throughout the measure. And while the COG still has implementation details to develop, one important point is already clearly spelled out in the measure and cannot be changed. Each local agency is responsible for determining what's feasible in their own jurisdiction. The above points are important, but the only policy question before you today is whether you should study this for 30 more days. And we all know that 30 more days is the whole ballgame. You've had this measure since January. That's plenty of time to study it. Let the voters decide. Give democracy a chance. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. And those who are opposed to it or want to study, please come forward.

Morning, Chair. Brandon Purcell, Mayor Pro Temp for the City of Kingsburg and Vice Chair of COG. I'm here today, no notes, no great speech written. It's just a common sense approach to this. So for the city of Kingsburg, it shows on paper that it looks like we're gonna get more money for our streets. But if you really unpack this, my issue is with the regional dollars. There's not regional dollars, and majority of my constituents leave that town. We come up to Fresno, we shop, we travel, and those regional roads are not gonna be taken care of in this bill, they're not funded. So my other part of that is our Kingsburg Fire Department and all of our EMS that we have in this county, all of our police and deputy sheriffs that we have in this county, we use those roads. And we're not here today to figure out whether or not you support it or not support it. It's about whether or not you're gonna do the study to get more of an impact. My question to you is, have you done the impact for that? You have a 6,200-square-mile county, and that's a lot of roads. And that's going to be worse roads for our fire department responding to our fires and our wildfires. That's going to be worse roads for our deputy sheriffs and our police officers going to and from the jail and responding to calls. It's a long enough response time as it is. So my question to you is, have you evaluated those things? If you haven't, please take the time, because one thing that is consistent in this measure is it's done hastily. They have pushed this in the 11th hour at every single aspect. It went from Measure C renewal to this new measure. We need to take time, sit back, evaluate it. If you have those answers, vote on it today. If you don't, I'm asking that you do take the time to do it. For me, it appears that there is a neglect in public safety here and an emphasis on public transportation. Public transportation is important, but from my perspective, this is about public safety and not about public transportation. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chairman Bredefeld and members of the board. I'm Diane Pierce, Mayor Pro Tem for the City of Clovis. This is a critical decision before you today, but I do not see it as a particularly complex or difficult one. The proponents of this measure are coming before you today, essentially asking you to bail them out and forego your responsibility to the people of the county of doing your due diligence with a county study on the impacts of this measure. They are in this position because of a string of decisions they made. There were multiple requests made by the county's representatives and other groups with concerns about aspects of this proposal to sit down and discuss points of disagreement. Each request was met with an unwillingness to collaborate or compromise. Not to mention that previous versions of this proposal were met with a response from Muhammad Alimi, a highly respected 24-year veteran of the county's public works and planning department, describing language in the measure as absurd, makes no sense, not fair, and made it clear we strongly oppose. Now the proponents want this board to just trust them in their economic analysis and put a 30-year tax on the ballot without the county's own study. Apparently, the backers of this measure expect you to pass it to find out what's in it. If the tables were turned, would this group trust the board's word or study and forego their own study to put your measure on the ballot? Not a chance. I'll even give them the benefit of the doubt and say they have the best of intentions. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. But if this measure were to pass, that road wouldn't get paved at all. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and supervisors. I have to write it down or else I'll forget. My name is Matthew Tuttle, mayor of the city of Reedley. I'm here to ask you to be thorough in your review of the 30-year tax. It's critical that we get the next steps right before asking voters to decide on a measure that will impact them for the next 30 years. Good governance and appropriate due diligence is what I'm asking this morning. This is a 34-page technical document. Studies can provide data to the public that understand what impact it will actually have. Section 3 of this document tells voters that thousands of quality jobs with health care and retirement benefits will be created. This is quite a lofty statement that Thousands of lucrative jobs will come with this. At the least, this needs to be evaluated. Buried on page 22, it states that funds can be used for landscaping and irrigation. Proponents of this measure will say that Measure C hasn't done enough for their local roads. Will the voters know that their road monies will be going towards landscaping and irrigation lines? Are we going to be transparent with the voters, or will we be hasty and push this through like the process has done since last year? At a COG meeting on December 18th last year, our hired legal counsel, BB&K, advised against approving this document. They said it needed revision and inconsistency. for inconsistencies and that it needed to be used as a goals and guidelines document. Moreover, they said that this is too prescriptive and opens possibility to litigation. In a section in this document, it states that jurisdictions receiving funds shall maintain a 70 PCI. That is quite descriptive. What happens when Readley or other jurisdictions don't maintain that shall maintain a 70 PCI? Are we going to have to pay back millions in 30 years? Voters, proponents will say no, but this leaves room for litigation. Voters deserve better than unclear and inconsistent language. Thanks.

Thank you.

Morning, Chairman Bredefeld, Supervisors, Alex Tavlian here on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Taxpayers Association. Today I want to talk about terms. The biggest element in these measures is the terms under which they operate. Yesterday, you were all on receipt of a letter from the Fresno Council of Government regarding some of the provisions of this measure that I argue are the most problematic and warrant further study that cannot be contemplated on an economic analysis. They are on a functional and effective government status that the county needs to review itself using its own study. In this letter from Robert Phipps from Fresno COG, it details in rather clear-cut language that jurisdictions, including the county of Fresno, will be unable to expand capacity on critical county roads unless the entire county, which again is the size greater than the state of Rhode Island, It has a pavement condition index north of 65. This county hasn't had a PCI north of 65 since World War II. So we're asking a lot of the county of Fresno in order to make sure that we can deliver critical upgrades in the county. And so I want you to imagine for a moment that we are in a situation similar to the litany of wildfires that have hit eastern Fresno County, where people are facing life and death. And the county of Fresno has no ability to increase capacity on Dinky Creek Road or any of the other roads surrounding Shaver Lake or Huntington Lake. And they're trying to escape and get home, and we're trying to get CAL FIRE in to protect those communities and avoid an absolute catastrophe on the east edge. they're not going to be able to because Measure C will not have the funding available, or whatever we're going to call this, will not have the funding available. The only way you're going to know what the effective outcome of this measure is is to conduct an actual operational research and analysis that you can do and not anyone else can do because only you will be the ones who are capable of administering. And so I implore you, please consider conducting a study and review what this measure can do.

Thank you. Thank you. I think that's it for those folks. Anybody on the phone? Nobody's on the phone. Then I'm going to close the public portion, bring it back to the dais. Anybody wishing to speak? Go ahead.

Let me kick it off, Mr. Chair. This has been probably one of the most contentious issues that we've discussed in the last couple of years. I heard right now from Heard from Republicans, heard from Democrats, heard from business, heard from all walks of life here. And I think I don't want this to get framed as just being a conservative versus a progressive issue because I don't think that's the case. And I don't think that's the case because it's very simple. I think everybody wants their damn roads fixed. the bottom line nobody likes potholes doesn't care what party you are everybody's had the flat tire as a council member I spent over a decade at City Hall trying to nickel and dime pods of funding, whether it was Measure C, state, federal grants, just to pave one neighborhood that the late George Husted or deemed the canyons of southeast Fresno, as many of you recall. And so for me, it's a very simple question here today. We will probably get into the merits of what the details and the minutiae and everything that that entails, how much money the county gets, how much money each city gets. But at the end of the day, to me, this is about people. It's how do we make our roads safer for people? How do we make sure that that kid doesn't get hit at the corner and dies or ends up paralyzed? Or how do we make sure that we have public transportation that's reliable for the seniors that go to their doctor's appointments? We know for a fact that public transportation is used by seniors, by students, by folks that don't have the means to own a car. And we know that this has been one of the funding pots that has kept that going for a lot of folks. So when we talk about this conversation here today, I want to paint that picture. And as we go down this conversation about policies and details... What oftentimes gets missed is what's the consequence of us not having this next year? We know that for the county, it's laying off 90 people. And I want folks to understand that. I'm sure all 15 cities have done their own analysis with regards to what that looks like, not just with laying off folks, but with making sure that you maintain a minimum level of standard for those roads. As a body here, and I know many of my colleagues across the county have settled lawsuits for people that have tripping falls or potholes where a vehicle got damaged. And so I want to paint that picture because we're talking about an initiative here that's going to provide dollars going forward. But if we don't have those dollars, there are going to be real consequences to our community. Older neighborhoods that, as one constituent told me about a week ago, his neighborhood hasn't been repaved since Jimmy Carter was in office. For the kids out there watching, Jimmy Carter was a president in the late 1900s. That was really great. But I say that because that's the constituents that we represent, right? We want to make sure that we have the resources in making their lives better. And the last thing I'll say before we get into this conversation is We've now gone through several versions of this ballot initiative. And to be quite honest, I was on that other side last year, and I was really begging folks to get in the room and negotiate a compromise. And now we're past that. I think we're very well past that conversation now. So right now for me, I'm going to be supportive of this today. And I want to make sure that folks understand what the consequences of not having this ballot initiative will be. out there. Nine of the 15 cities have voted to support this, including Clovis, right? I think four to one got voted. The city of Fresno unanimously supported this. And I think it's because they understand the consequences of not having these funds for our constituents that we represent. And for us to have this conversation now and ask for an analysis or a study, I think we can do that. And I think we can get all those questions answered here today. Part of our role is to make sure that we facilitate democracy. And there's no more pure form of democracy than participatory, which was the thousands and thousands of people that signed their name asking for us to have a conversation. There's no assurance that this is going to pass. And I think the people that are up here that are opposing, I think they've been very clear and loud about their opposition. And they're more than free to do that. But to not allow folks to vote, I think, to me, is the most form of overreach for our government. And I hope we don't go down that road. And let me just wrap up. Our role should be to facilitate and encourage democracy, not put up roadblocks or speed bumps. I've been waiting all week to say that, by the way.

You done? You done?

Go ahead, buddy.

Let me go. Anyway, I want to hear Magsic's questions. You know, one thing, this thing has been contentious before we even started. You know, I can remember meeting with Ashley's group. What the heck's your group's name? Your group.

It's the Central Valley Community Council.

Right. I met with the board. And we talked about the measure that didn't pass in 22. And the only thing they could tell me was, well, it's a 30-year measure. We thought that was too long. So what do they do? Go fund a 30-year measure. So I mean, this thing has been contentious from day one. I originally met with Kerry and a few people. And it was about expanding. the group that actually participated in the, to start laying down, you know, the rules. I think it was that group had like 20, 28, or 26 ended up with 38. And I refer to those people as the 12 apostles made 38. because they just wanted them there. I said, no, I don't think that's right. That's not the process. You can't come in a smoke-filled room and just start saying, hey, we're gonna name these people and we're gonna add people to this. So going from there, one of the things that needs to be studied is the regional. Now, in the last measure, the regional's been pared down to 4% and 1%, 4% for regional and 1% for the airport. And so, We have to look at the money. That's different money that comes in here than the money that we put to fixed roads. Fixed roads is basically SB1 money and the different road funds that the state has out there that you can use, you get. you know they deal them out to every county it's not really applicable but you know it's done and then you use the measure c dollars to actually do projects with that money now regional you get a different pot of money uh some from the state in fact most from the state but you get some from the federal government you know and there's uh Anyway, the last measure brought in $1.1 billion that month. So if you look at the regional and the new one, which if you take a 20-year average, that's only going to actually produce $244 million, which you just say if you've got a one-for-one match, that's $244. So that's about almost $800 million that this county's not getting, and there's no study. You know, when you do a study, you know, this one has, you know, Pam Barra's study. Anytime you do an initiative now is you go out and get an economic study. So obviously who's paying the bill is the people that are putting the initiative so they get what they pay for. They get this really rosy economic study. And that always reminds me of a Mark Twain quote. There's liars, damn liars, and statisticians. So that's the only reason that that deal is almost worthless. And another thing is this thing was put on a 4% gain because we looked back, and I think it was between 3% and 4% that the measure grew. That's the growth in sales tax so that means that's what you you will get more per year But that was an awful rosy deal because the state average is just a is just a little over 1% and if you do not do the regional what's going to happen is you you're going to slow the growth down of your economy and So your growth of the sales tax is going to slow down. So that's why I think we put in the deal, that's where you come up with that $113 million, because that's actual numbers, and we don't know what the growth is. Because even in 2006, that's a good thing about being an old guy. I've been around a lot of this stuff. In fact... Jimmy Carter got elected in 76, and he left office in 81. I voted for Ford, and I voted for Reagan. Which probably isn't going to surprise you. Yeah. So, you know, anyway, the growth during the recession actually went down. It reversed itself. So sales tax revenues went down. And then as we went farther during COVID, they were way up. So that's how we got the average that we got today. So, you know, it just... Anytime you're dealing with statistics, you can easily manipulate them. So I really think we need to study this to see what we're missing with this money. And then the steel was written by activists and not transportation. And we need to look at... okay, we need to look at a series of what-ifs because the actual rules aren't written. You just get a format of how we want the rules to look like. So if we end up with municipalities having to give back money, you know, and even the, it's kind of funny, even the deal with auditing and you've got to come up with the, you know, annual reports, you know, each municipality does. Well, the Transportation Authority has that embedded now, and some of the same people that are favoring this initiative are the ones that are two and three years behind on their financial statements. Where one of them, we actually had to tell them that, you know, which we've never had, and we weren't 100% sure if we had the... latent powers to do it to say hey we're going to hold your money back until you get these uh financial statements in these are some of the same municipalities that are supporting this thing so you know i don't know how they're going to do it so i think we really need to study the language and and do it at least do a study on what ifs so anyway that's what i got to say yes supervisor pacheco

I'll give my colleague, Supervisor Magsig, the last say before the chairman because the way I see it, he'll be the deciding vote. So we'll get his questions answered. There's a lot for the study. study will answer questions but it will still bring the issue back to us so we can delay and do the study it obviously it will increase the threshold so that's one way to slow this down if we don't move it forward today. But for me, it's pretty simple. It's not whether we support or oppose this transportation measure. For me, this is to ratify that the county clerk did his job and that we as a board recognize that and put it on the ballot. For me, I believe in Fresno County, we are very fortunate to have an individual like James Koos that oversees our election department. I think he does it unbiased. I'm very proud of the fact that supervisor Mendez and I when we had that vacancy we vetted a lot of candidates we brought him forward to the board and The board moved him forward to fill that void and the voters have twice since then elected him Because of the job that he has done now, of course, it's not perfect and there's not one of us up here that is perfect or has not made a mistake on our own and we're responsible for every county employee just like he is for his department but he can't be there every minute of the day so I'm not saying there's not issues but as a registered voter of Fresno County I feel our elections are accurate I feel every vote is counted, and I feel we have a great deal of integrity, and I don't worry about what we hear all the rest of the country because of you, Mr. Koos, and I think that should be recognized today. So based on that, I'm not here to debate the merits of the issue. I personally believe there are some serious issues with this. I fully understand that the mayors of most cities want it because they're going to get more money than what they've had in the past. And that's what this initiative does. And the only way to get more money is you're going to take it from somewhere else. So we're going to forego all the regionalness. The last measures built our freeways. So maybe now is the time that we're going to focus on our cities and let them have their turn. but again i would believe like my colleague supervisor chavez again i'm not here to discuss the merits i'm here to follow through on what i was elected for to review it i believe through our county clerk all the conditions have been met and I too will support to put it on the ballot and let the people of Fresno County who elected each one of us up here, again, put my trust and confidence in them, let them decide if it's the right thing or not, and I'll just simply leave it at that.

Okay, thank you. I have some comments too, and I think it's not only that we have the obligation now that this is qualified, we have an obligation to one, either A, put it on the ballot as it is, or B, request further analysis before it goes on the ballot. So it's one of the two. Let me start by reminding people, you know, why we're here today instead of a month ago. A group of citizens funded by very well-rich out-of-town elites paid for signatures to be collected to get this measure on the ballot. Not surprisingly, they were successful in paying people to get the signatures. They submitted the signatures to the clerk, but the clerk found errors with those signatures. If there were no errors, this issue would have been brought before the board perhaps a month ago. I still would have requested the county to do a study because it is imperative that we do our due diligence, and we have a professional analysis of what this measure will do over the next 30 years, three decades. Will it keep its promises? How much will it actually cost the taxpayers of three decades? That analysis would have been done. It would have been brought before the board, and the board would have likely moved it forward without any concern for the timelines being met to get it on the ballot. We're here today because this group had problems with the signatures they collected, which delayed the whole process. Because they delayed the process does not mean we as a board should abdicate our very critical and important duties to ensure that we have professionals analyze this 30-year measure and provide the information to our board and the public as to how this measure will impact development. That analysis is not just for us, it's for our constituents. They will provide fiscal issues, taxes to our citizens, and essentially the future of our roads for 30 years. To not do this analysis and refer to our professional staff is abdicating our duties as elected officials and leaders of Fresno County to protect our constituents, provide them with the most comprehensive and honest information regarding this 30-year tax measure. It would be absolute political malfeasance to just ignore getting additional information that would go out to the public. And frankly, doing the analysis in no way stops it from going on the ballot. It would still go on the ballot. We can't prevent it from going on the ballot. it would still be on the ballot in March of 2028. But our citizens would have important information on what they're actually voting on. Our responsibilities and loyalties belong to our constituents, not to people pushing a tax measure that has serious problems with it and that, in my opinion, will hurt this community for the next 30 years. That is why the independent study is imperative. Measure C existed for 40 years and is now set to expire in 2027. It did the job the voters approved. It built our local freeway system. It leveraged federal and state dollars to build critical infrastructure. It was 20 years and approved twice for 20 years, not 30 years like this measure. Now, the majorities of mayors of this county, through the Council of Governments, abandoned their efforts, in my opinion, to extend Measure C and instead gave to a group of residents led by a former mayor and her foundation, which is funded by out-of-town rich radicals. Her group... If that keeps up, you're going to be out the door. You were treated with respect. I expect the same thing. I'll repeat it since you found it laughable. It was funded by rich, out-of-town radicals. Her group told COG early in the process that if they didn't develop the measure these folks wanted, they'd do a citizen's initiative, which is exactly what they did. And here we are. Now, this tax scam will screw taxpayers for 30 years. There is right now $1.5 billion in deferred street maintenance and repairs needed in the city of Fresno, and $1.5 billion in deferred street maintenance and repairs needed in the county of Fresno. This measure will not seriously address the problem. The measure is full of promises about street and road repair that will not happen. It's really a public transportation tax disguised as a roads tax. It dramatically funds buses and requires 120 miles of bike lanes throughout Fresno County. The way they have destroyed the tower district with bike lanes is the way they will destroy other neighborhoods throughout the county. It's really an effort to get people to stop driving their cars and ride buses, scooters, and bicycles to work. Complete environmental wacko insanity. What this measure also does is dangerously eliminate any real oversight of the $7 billion it would generate. How do they do that? They eliminate the Fresno County Transportation Authority, made up of elected leaders throughout the county who for 40 years have effectively had oversight of Measure C funds. Instead, they replace these elected leaders who are accountable to the citizens with 11 unelected people chosen by the same Cog Board that came to this radical group. None of them are accountable to anyone and will make decisions regarding billions of dollars. Anybody concerned about the fact that Fresno County Transportation Authority elected officials will no longer oversee Measure C funds. It'll be put in the hands of the same radical people that drove this. We saw how that failed with Measure P funds and theft of money from the arts community that was recently discovered. This is fraught with potential corruption and should be voted down for this stupidity alone. Lastly, in our own staff report from the county, it indicates that such a study should discuss and review the following. It says it should study the measure's fiscal impact, the effect on the internal consistency of the county's general plan, the consistency between planning and zoning, and its effect on land use and the availability and location of housing. It should study the impact on infrastructure funding. including whether the initiative measure would be likely to increase infrastructure costs or savings and maintenance to residents and businesses, the impact on retaining attracting county businesses and employment, the impact on uses of vacant parcels of land, agricultural land, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and developed areas designated for revitalization. Why would we not want to have that information and provide that to the public on a 30-year tax measure? We would. And that's our responsibility. And that's part of democracy, too. We have that choice to either just put it on the ballot, hope for the best, accept the radical's point of view, or do a professional analysis and study, and with that information, present it to the public. If we don't do this analysis and study, we will have clearly abdicated our roles to protect our citizens, provide them honest information to make an informed decision on whether or not to support this measure, whether it's on the ballot in November or it's on the ballot in March 2028. It's still going to be on the ballot. Voting to put this on the ballot will mean we have absolutely, right now, without a study, screwed our constituents who gave us their trust to protect their interests and make wise decisions. I choose to protect them and honor my commitment to them to look out for their interests and do our due diligence, have our professional staff give us the study and the analysis and provide it to the public and then we will have a campaign and see whether this really passes or not. To do otherwise is truly abdicating our role as responsible elected leaders and our constituents expect us to do that. With that, Supervisor Maggots, the floor is yours.

I want to thank my colleagues, and as the public knows, all of us serve on, I don't know, there's like 50 different committees. We split those up, actually even more than that. I sit on 19 boards, but I know that Buddy and Gary both are involved with COG and or the Fresno County Transportation Authority. So I appreciate their efforts there. What I would like to do at this point, I've got a number of questions I'm going to go through that's in the report. And I see one of my former professors out there, Dr. Pimbera, who I appreciate. So thank you for being here, doctor. But I would like to ask Mr. Phipps to come forward with COG. I see him in the audience. And anyone else who can speak on behalf of the proponent slash the author of the measure, I'd like an individual to come forward because I do have some questions in regards to the measure itself and how it was structured. And really for me, Since Wednesday of last week, my phone has been blowing up from people who are in support of the measure or against the measure. And I'll tell you, for me, it's not a matter of where I stand in support or against it. It is looking at the measure, what options do we have as a board, and told everybody the same thing, that my decision on how I vote, I'm going to make that decision after I hear all information. And if the questions to my, or the answers to the questions that I ask, if they're not answered in a way that provides relief to me, then I'm going to have to ask for an economic study. And I know that there were about 32,000 signatures gathered, which I very much appreciate. But one of the things I don't know is, you know, we've got Exhibit A in front of us here, which I've gone over numerous times, reading through it with attorneys, reading through it with COG staff. And Mr. Phipps, thank you for spending two hours with me, as well as your staff member, two hours with me on Friday, just going through the document, and then preparing this document yesterday that you sent to our board, trying to answer some of the questions that I had. But all of this is, you know, is very relevant. So I'm just going to, I'll just kick it off and We'll start from here. So looking at Exhibit A, under Findings and Declarations, one of the findings in here, finding H, says we need to keep Fresno County safe, livable, and thriving. We need to invest in projects to reduce traffic, fix crumbling streets, roads, and improve transportation countywide. So that portion about the reason that this measure's important is we need to reduce traffic. As I read through this document, there's buses that it's talked about. There's bike lanes that are talked about. But anything that expands capacity is really—it's shied away from in the document. So, how do you reduce traffic based upon how this measure currently is structured?

The answer to that, Supervisor, and again, my name is Robert Phipps. I'm the Executive Director with Fresno Council of Governments. I also have with me today my Deputy Director, Paul Herman, who worked on many of the financial aspects of this while it was at Fresno COG. So thank you for inviting us up here and for the opportunity to speak. Supervisor Magsic, to address your concerns, The regional program is funded at a considerably smaller rate, but the programs generally mirror those of previous measures, right? That is to say, the broad sub-allocations or allocations in the programs as they're divided do mirror the, more or less, the last two iterations of the measure. And so there is a recognition in the initiative, as we have discussed previously, that regional projects, to some degree, will continue. And we do believe that based on other funding sources that, as has already been mentioned, Are being leveraged today? But you know we we will have an opportunity to leverage those further federal and state sources including programs like the state transportation improvement program the importantly the state's LPP program under SB 1, which is only available to those counties that have a local.

And Mr. Phipps, the reason I ask that question is I go to page 14 on Exhibit A, which says road expansion or capacity increasing project shall not be prohibited by paragraph 3 if they involve significant safety or mobility benefits as supported by traffic studies that demonstrate reductions in fatalities and serious injuries for all road users. But then it says this, so I'm on page 14. Eligible road expansion or capacity increasing projects shall only include the following. Only include the following, ready? Dedicated public transportation lanes and then dedicated and protected class one or class four facilities. So basically bike lanes and pedestrian lanes that have some kind of physical barrier separating them from traffic. The reason I bring this up is looking at findings and declarations. If under the finding and declaration section, we're indicating that, you know, a major concern is, you know, really to reduce traffic. This measure is going to reduce traffic. And looking at capacity building, I'm limited only to bike lanes and also to dedicated bus lanes if I do any capacity building. I'm very concerned. I look at things like, you know, like Shepherd Avenue. I look at Academy. On the west side, you know, I look at different roads and routes that are maintained by the county where we may need to add an additional lane. But the way I read this is that I can't really add capacity for cars, but only for buses.

Well, it also specifies safety-motivated turn lanes or intersection improvements, which is a fairly broad categorization, right? So the intersection improvements are eligible by virtue of widening. That is the potential there. But yes, that is the, and that was the intent at the steering committee, was to limit the capacity-increasing projects.

I hear the term road diets. So basically roads that may have, you know, two lanes, they eliminate one of those lanes. You go down to just one lane for traffic and then like a dedicated lane for bicycles and pedestrians. That does not reduce traffic. That actually increases traffic. Is that correct? Even though you're able to slow speeds down. I mean, you're able to slow speeds down, but I don't know how that relieves traffic.

Over time, the intent is to encourage more alternative transportation options such as bicycling. We're seeing an increase in the number of electric bikes, electric scooters, especially as affordability becomes a bigger issue. And so certainly on a statewide level, you're seeing policy that kind of embraces this concept that, you know, greater efforts at transit ridership, ride sharing, things like carpooling, vanpooling, all of these alternative transportation options over time would help decrease both the speeds leading to greater safety and also encourage, you know, reduce traffic.

So going all the way back to 86, the first Measure C helped to build 41. It helped to build a portion, I think, of 168 or at least acquire right-of-way. The second iteration of Measure C, you know, I look at Veterans Boulevard was helped to be constructed using Measure C funds. So, and I can appreciate assigning more funds to fix local roads, but where I'm hard pressed a little bit is I find the measure where it speaks to, for health and safety reasons, you can, you know, maybe expand capacity on roadways, but when I look at other sections in here, it says I'm limited when I do capacity expanding projects to making sure that one of those lanes is dedicated for buses. This is important because I see this measure potentially being litigated. And in the past, former or previous measure sees allowed more flexibility in there. And of course, the Transportation Authority was there. And in your letter, you indicated that there's going to be kind of a an additional operating statement that comes out about how to really apply and how we can operate to spend these funds. But this document is what's going to be going before the voters. This is what was turned into James Coos. So I want to make sure that I'm crystal clear on a lot of this language before I vote one way or another, because if the language is not clear, then it's going to be tied up in litigation, in my opinion. Another question I have is under Findings and Declarations, under I, it says, funding from this act is guaranteed to go directly to Fresno County transportation priorities, yada, yada, yada. It doesn't say that, but I'm going to move forward. If the funds are misused, violators will be subject to possible criminal prosecution by the Fresno County District Attorney and State Attorney General. I ask this question because right now, as I understand it, COG and this independent 11-body authority, they are going to make sure that the proceeds of this fund are spent in accordance with the priorities that they have laid out in this document. The way I read this is if somebody chooses to vote on a project that later during an audit process it's found that it's outside the bounds of what this document expressly allows, that you may be prosecuted criminally. Am I reading that correctly?

I do not believe that that was the intent. of that provision. I think we're talking about intentional criminal misuse and criminal conduct, criminal intent, that is to say. However, you are correct in that we anticipate the need for a strategic implementation plan you know, that will build, as I mentioned in my memo and in our conversations, that will address a lot of the ambiguities that you may find in the document. So the document clearly has places where it's much more specific, much more detailed in its approach than others, and of course, you know, where there are ambiguities, vague language, that will have to be further vetted, and we anticipate doing that.

in addition and mr phipps so just so i hear you correctly you do admit that there is ambiguity in the document and there are sections that absolutely need additional clarity

There's no perfect document. Yes, there will be clarity required, and I think it's very important to understand the intent behind the formula funding and the steering committee's intent was to focus on road repair and maintenance, clearly, and that comes, in this case, at the expense of expansion. That is, you know, that was clearly the number one priority. It was a priority. It was the priority as we looked, did our own public opinion research and surveying among the public, our outreach, you know, and that was the value. And I'm happy to defer to the mayor.

If I might, just a couple of clarifying points. I think the strategic implementation plan language, that's consistent with the current Measure C as well. After the Measure C went to the vote of the people, afterwards there had to be a strategic implementation implementation plan that was developed to eliminate as much as you could some of the nebulous language. And so this would be very consistent with that. No measure, as you know, can be perfect. And there's always going to be things that are discussed at a later time after it's approved by the voters. But that's the purpose of that strategic implementation plan. And then secondly, in terms of criminal prosecution, It really doesn't matter what is put into a document like this. If it doesn't meet the elements of a crime federally or state, a violation of law, you can't prosecute. So this is really specific to any time the funds are used in a way that would violate the law, similar to what happened with the Arts Council.

And Mr. Mayor, you were one of the authors, correct?

Yes, involved in the process. I didn't actually write it, but yeah, involved in the process for the entire year.

And the reason I think this is important is, so COG, what initially COG had kind of constructed and then voted on, but it never made it out to the Board of Supervisors to look at, Out of that, there was a group that kind of came together to help author, I think, what's in front of us today, which some would argue that a lot of the components in here is what COG looked at, but there were components that were taken out as well, correct? Right. So, there were a number of mayors that were a part of the committee post-COG that helped to construct this, correct? Yes. Who was the representative representing the county who was a part of this committee?

I believe initially, and I wasn't part of it at that time, I believe initially it was Supervisor Mendez, and then he left, stepped away for some reasons. I think he felt that there was a Brown Act violation, perhaps.

Because you were meeting in, you were having a public meeting in private.

Yeah, so.

Yeah, but that was never about what Nathan's talking about. That's about the representation of who was going to be on the committee for COG to review. going through the traditional process.

So initially, I wasn't part of that committee, but recognized there was not a city voice, and I owed it to the people that elected me to be a part of that group to make sure the city of Fresno feelings were heard, and I did. And the same held true with Clovis, and the same held true with some of the other cities, for example, Victor Martinez from Mendota, And so we, you know, I wanted to be at the table to be able to, if something's going to be designed that's going to have a 30-year impact, I want to make sure I had my input known. And so I did.

With the document, and I can appreciate you being at the table, why is it so prescriptive to the county? And what I mean by that, like there's language in here saying that when it comes to our road dollars at 65% pot, we have to focus first on disadvantaged communities. And I think we need to use at least 12% to 15%. of our local pot on disadvantaged communities, which on its face that seems okay until when you look at the number of miles of roadway we maintain there, it's limited. I think it's 55 miles, yet a disproportionate amount of the funds must be spent there until they reach a pavement management index of 70. So, I mean, why did the authors think it was so important to put so much prescription on the county when the county wasn't even there to help craft it?

And the answer to that question, Supervisor, is the belief and recognition among the majority of the steering committee members at the COG at this time that, you know, disadvantaged communities had been overlooked. That they they hadn't been considered and this is this is one of the reasons again I think with regard to the widening question, you know the the laser focus that was intended on maintenance right and so the the intent was I believe that you know a recognition that previously there was maintenance funding by jurisdictions generally, had focused primarily on arterials, on, you know, wider roads, you know, carrying more traffic at the expense of what the category is titled, which is neighborhood streets and roads. The road in front of your school, this was repeated, you know, and also was in line with guiding principles that the steering committee established very early on, one of which top priorities was focus on the worst first. And so it was following those guiding principles that these accountability measures, some call them restrictions, but that they were arrived at was a dedication to focusing on roads, of course, in disadvantaged communities, but elsewhere that people felt had not been addressed in decades at the expense of other priorities that, you know, that they wanted to change, that that was something that, as we've seen through now three, you know, or at least potential iterations of the measure, it has evolved over time. The first measure, 1986, you know, 75%. of the funding went into regional, as was pointed out, to expand the freeway highway system. That was the value at the time. In 2006, that amount was cut down to about 30%, and public transit was introduced as an eligible expense for the first time. Also, a reflection of the times and the values of the times. This is simply the next iteration in that same process, as our staff sees it.

this excuse me for a second you know what you mentioned though that was a compromise because the initiative failed first i'm talking about the second one and that was a compromise from everybody, hey, we've got to change these numbers around, and then it went forward again. That's how the transit went up.

And I was there and you weren't. Absolutely. 100%. I do understand exactly what you're saying. Respectfully, I would argue that this is the same process. The measure failed in 2022. and has returned and is that's what we are debating today that is what you were debating is whether it is it whether this evolution is worthwhile this was a slam through process to get a fifty percent instead of having to have a sixty six and a third threshold i understand some other questions i have uh... now i'm on page twelve and uh...

The measure does talk about the importance of safe routes to school, improving neighborhoods, and completing infrastructure, roads, sidewalks, stuff like that around neighborhoods. The definition of a neighborhood. In the rural parts of the county, you have farmlands, homes, you have kids that go to schools. Is there anything that truly defines what a neighborhood is, or does it apply, does that definition apply to both urban, rural, and suburban areas?

I believe that the intent, again, and you can speak with the project proponents on this perhaps more specifically, but it's my understanding that the intention was to treat them equally. Neighborhoods, you know, in terms of those areas that host these projects, services, schools, sidewalks. Where do you see this? Where do people walk and travel? These are neighborhoods where they live. And so whether it's in the rural area or in the urban, that's how it was defined, where people live.

So Fresno County, it could be anywhere in the 6,000 square miles, and I appreciate that, because really you've got, I think, 32 school districts. Some are in the metro area, some are not. Some are in the mountains, some are on the west side, so I can appreciate that. But a concern I have, on page 12 number 6 it says all streets and roads constructed or improved in whole or in part with revenue from the fund shall include complete street features now even though it says whenever feasible complete street features whenever feasible to create an overall complete street system for neighborhoods the reason I bring this up is as I look at this and read this I want to know who gets to determine, you know, where feasible. Because I look at more specifically on the west side of the county. East side, it's a little bit more challenging. But on the west side, the county may have right-of-way off of a roadway which extends several feet beyond the pavement area. And to build a complete street, you're looking at a Class 1 or Class 4 bike lane, right? So any time... a dime of Measure C funds would be spent where it's feasible. If you have an adequate right-of-way, you need to completely build out in accordance to what's identified in this document to build a complete street. So I see the county being sued over this, because if we do an overlay project using Measure C, based upon how this document is written, and we don't build a complete street, we go to court, and then you have engineers saying whether or not it's feasible to build a complete street, and it just comes down to, well, you know, you should have spent more money instead of just doing an overlay project with Measure C. How is this fixed?

Right. And again, so I can speak only to the intent as I understand it. I addressed this in the memo that I provided to you, that there's at least 15 references over the 34 pages of the initiative that use the expression where feasible or if feasible. And of course, it's not just Complete Streets. It's not just Safer Schools. It touches on multiple aspects of several funding programs. And so under item G on page 22, the ordinance states, jurisdictions or agencies use best efforts to implement projects consistent with the intent of this act. In the event a jurisdiction or agency determines that a proposed project or project requirement is not feasible, The jurisdiction or agency shall, following a duly noticed public hearing, formally declare and document the reasons for such infeasibility. Also, page 10, section C, every street or road constructed or reconstructed in Holman Park, and I think this is what... And Mr. Phipps, I'm going to stop you right there.

You do realize that, like... Public Works will bring a document to us very regularly where we're doing overlay projects throughout the county and where three or four of our districts are being impacted by overlay projects. So what I'm hearing you say is we would have to have a separate hearing where we couldn't do a complete street making findings to satisfy this measure.

I think that the specific process, which again, the how, how do you do this, is what has to be implemented or has to be addressed in the SIPP, in the Strategic Implementation Plan. That's one of those issues that there may be some ambiguity that has to be . A regular board meeting could suffice, potentially.

Okay. Yeah, because this is so prescriptive to the county, it puts tremendous onus on us. And again, Mr. Mayor, I appreciate you being here, and I hate to continue to lean on you a little bit. But again, looking at this, the county we maintain just under 3,500 road miles, second only to Kern County in the whole state, all 58 counties. And so we are using Measure C currently all the time to do overlay projects, not expand anything, but the way this is written, it says that we've got to, you know, we really have to build out these streets and take all these extra efforts that really urban areas do right now, which I appreciate. But I think the city of Fresno is about 170 square miles. Maybe it's approaching 200. About 120 in the city. Okay, so 120 square miles and the county is 6,000 square miles. So do you understand some of the concerns that I have just in regard to how I'm reading this document?

Not only do I understand the concern, but those were discussed in our meetings by Mayor Monotu and I. And that's why we have the exceptions in there in terms of feasibility. Had to be compliant with certain state laws on what a bike lane was as well as the the safety feature and that was discussed during those meetings and that's why language was inserted about public safety and Feasibility we wanted to provide increased flexibility to the jurisdictions to include the county even though the county was not there during those meetings So I do understand it completely, but I also want if I can Much of this is going to be vetted during the strategic implementation plan language, which I'm sure the county would be at the table every step of the way. And so that's where, just like the last measure, that's where most of that language in terms of specificity was included.

page 14 it says funds shall not be used for street or roadway construction in new growth areas or new town developments so all of us cities counties we face regional housing needs assessment we have to add housing yeah so why as an author why would you allow for language like this in here when as a region we have to grow and I mean, how is the county going to balance this when I take a look at, you know, I take a look at projects which currently are underway but not fully built out like Millerton Newtown. I know that Friant Ranch at some point is going to come back to this board. Why preclude these areas which have been master planned and in the works for decades?

Well, from a general feeling, I can speak to Fresno and I believe also to Clovis. Any type of new construction that requires roads generally is accompanied by a developer impact fee where the developer who is building that project is responsible for the construction for increasing the either building lanes or expanding lanes to include signal lights. And so that is a developer responsibility in the city of Fresno.

Then why did Measure C pay for Veterans Boulevard?

Measure C was one of the contributors to Veterans Boulevard. It was also by High Speed Rail, and there were some other funding sources. There was a combination of funds that went into that. But Veterans Boulevard was something that, quite frankly, was needed for the last 25, 30 years, as you know, just from general traffic all over Fresno. So it wasn't necessarily specific to a particular development in terms of a neighborhood, just to the overall expansion.

Well, I look at Millerton Road right now, which runs from Friant all the way out to Aubury Road. It's dangerous. It's about, I think, four miles long. And Table Mountain's expanded it, but only a portion. And, again, I look at the Millerton Newtown development, which, going from memory, I think Ben Ewell developed that, and it was approved by the county in the 1980s. So I can make a very similar argument about— Millerton Road, but as I read this document, because we don't have regional projects listed in there, and then looking at anything that's capacity building, I'm limited, there is a public safety need out there. Yes. Why is the county being punished when, in the past, other cities have been able to, again, utilize Measure C dollars for things like that?

You want to answer that, or do you want me to? I personally don't believe that there was never an intent to punish the county or to hold the county separate because what's in the measure really applies to everyone in terms of road expansion capacity. And there's one part in there that talks about You can't expand beyond a certain percentage unless your PCI is above 65. Well, the COG study of the county of Fresno's PCI averaged 66. So at that time, you were already, as I recall, about that level, 66. So you already meet that standard today. to be able to expand. And again, the public safety expansion or the public safety exception is what would allow you to expand a roadway if, in fact, engineers determined that it was some type of a hazard.

I look at, on page 17, item 11, it says, trails designated strictly for recreational purposes shall be ineligible for expenditures under this act. So why I look at, again, Fresno County, very large. You've got trails that are associated with parks. You've got trails in Shaver, which move people off of the roadway. And 168, which runs through Shaver, the whole goal is to really get people off that roadway and create more opportunities for them. But some of these trails or some of these areas are designated as trails. Why would you specifically eliminate the ability of the county to use Measure C for trails where a lot of areas throughout the county do move pedestrians and cyclists on areas that are designated as trails?

There would be no prohibition for the county or any other jurisdiction under the condition that the trail that we're talking about moves people from point A to point B. That is to say, it was not intended to serve recreational trails because the steering committee's intent was that this would be a transportation measure intended to get residents and taxpayers from a point A to a point B, from home to work, from home to school, from home to shopping or recreational activities or any number of other services offered throughout the community and then back. to home, or from the job to these services, or vice versa. So the intent of the measure was that of getting people to move efficiently from point A to point B, from place to place, as opposed to a system to build recreational activities.

Going back to page 14, item three. I'm just going to read a portion of it. The last sentence. Before a jurisdiction can expend funds pursuant to this paragraph, every local street and road within the jurisdiction shall reach a pavement condition index score of 65 or above. And this is under... uh... bear with me this is under repair maintenance and construction construct local streets and roads program so this is the sixty five percent allocation that the county would get the reason i raise this up is i'm sure you are aware in the county We have county maintained streets, and then we have private streets that are not county maintained. But the way this is written, it says every local street and road within the jurisdiction shall reach a pavement condition index score of 65. The reason I raise this up is since this is not identified as only county maintained roads, And I heard as well that during debate other people wanted it to apply to everything So there is you've created a conundrum for the county because if you include dirt roads and non County maintained roads that the county has approved for over a hundred years throughout Fresno County We would not be able to spend our dollars Really anywhere this this provision alone gets us into court. So can you speak to? why The language was put in here this way to require the county to have to deal with all roads.

Well, I think that it might be also helpful to hear from the proponents on this, but it is our understanding that, and it was in our economic analysis, that we were looking at county, first of all, county-maintained roads. Okay, and so, and that is to say paved, you know, so this analysis was occurring simultaneously with our pavement condition index analysis, pavement management system update, and so it was the same consultant who was providing data for both, and we looked at, in terms of, for funding purposes and formula allocation, what was considered was county paved roads. So this did not envision funding going onto a road that is technically within the county system, but let's say is gravel or dirt. That was not necessary, although that was raised. That potential for adding roads to the system that weren't already there was discussed. And so, again, any ambiguity there, I think, can be worked out in the SIP, and we can address some of these points where, you know, the language may have fallen a little short in the guidelines.

Is there an author of this measure that's here that can speak to this question for me?

Thank you, Supervisor, and I'm happy to, if I'm able to, can I continue? Thank you. My name is Veronica Garibay and I'm one of the proponents of the measure along with Mayor Jerry Dyer.

Are you an author as well? Yes. Okay.

Helped participate as part of the process. Thank you. The point that you're bringing up on page around before jurisdiction can expend funds pursuant to the paragraph every local street or road within the jurisdiction shall reach a pavement condition index core 65 or above, that's because for a couple of reasons, starting with one, the need to repair local streets and roads is still big across the county, including county only, but also the jurisdictions. This requirement applies to all 16 jurisdictions in the county, not just the county alone. It was also, we heard very loud and clear through the process, starting from when the previous, the 2022 measure failed, that local streets were the priority and people want to see their potholes, sidewalks, crosswalks, excuse me, improved in their neighborhoods near homes, schools, streets, parks, et cetera. So that came at the point, was one of the reasons why that was done in order to make it easier to improve street conditions. Third, the county, as Mayor Dyer just noted, according to the study that was commissioned by the COG that does a PCI analysis of every jurisdiction in this county every three or five years or so. Yeah, five years. The county's current PCI is at 66. So your 2025 pavement condition standard is 66 across the county. That includes all 3,000 plus miles in your maintained road system. When we during the steering committee process and the questions arose about what streets are covered in the county, you know, I've worked with many communities and disadvantaged unincorporated areas that some roads are not included in the official county maintained road system. So there was a lot of questions about which roads qualify or not. And where that landed was, in the measure, private roads owned privately are not eligible for funding from this measure. That said, this allows, in the strategic implementation plan, it will allow the county, which the county has a seat at the table through the Council of Governments process and your staff through participation in the Technical Transportation Committee and the Policy Advisory Committee, which meets every month, to be able to weigh in and help shape that implementation plan so that those questions that you're asking for are clarified. If I'm able to, I'd love to be able to answer your questions around regional and capacity increasing, if that's okay?

Yes, please. And then also, too, but what I want to hear you say is I recognize there's a steering committee, but if that steering committee places a requirement on the county to do things which I personally don't believe are possible or could completely exhaust all of the county's allotment to have to deal with roadways that currently aren't maintained, I've got to call for an economic study. You have not given me assurance yet that, no, that is not the intent. It's only going to apply to county-maintained roads.

This, yes. This is only going to apply to county maintained roads because that is what we heard from your county public work staff during the process that was also reported to the policy board of the Fresno Council of Governments, which Supervisor Bredefeld sits on, throughout the process. That was made clear by your staff because at the time, there were also a lot of questions coming from the public about including roads that are not currently included in the maintained road system. and whether or not those roads would be eligible to receive investment from a future measure and the answer was no if they are not included in the county from staff county staff if they're not included in the maintained road system that is not possible.

and you were gonna share a little bit.

Yes, on the regional, on the capacity increasing project, in the same vein around the current, the county's current PCI to the reference, the paragraphs that you were referencing around capacity increasing, the county would almost immediately have access to that paragraph because your current PCI is at 66. should voters approve this measure. Secondly, the regional category, there is a regional category. It is at 4%. That, however, well, it's 4% because 1% is for the airport. There also Also is SB $1 state transportation improvement project dollars that the state pays for and for major highways and freeways, the state of California is responsible for maintaining and operating those and taxpayers already pay funds to make that happen. So we should be expecting state and federal government to also participate and support in the development of major highways, freeways and major roads. Second, in the measure, to your point about additional capacity, the measure also talks about the regional transportation mitigation fee program, which is new. It's not new, I'm sorry. It has existed.

RTMF was implemented under Measure C reauthorization, I think, in 2006.

Yes, correct. That program is maintained in this measure. There will be a NEXA study that looks at region-wide that the COG will conduct, the council, government staff, or a consultant that will be reported to your policy advisory committee, the COG's policy advisory committee, technical transportation committee, and the policy board. That NEXUS study in here is slated to be completed by 2028, I believe, which will identify the fees that are needed from industrial, commercial, and residential new development to be able to pay for new capacity. That program has existed. It will continue to exist. And the revenues from the RTMF that are included in this measure can be used to help pay for, contribute, Construct new capacity where it is needed as long as it meets those Nexus requirements where new capacity is needed What I as I read between the lines what you're saying is the RTMF is going to increase exponentially in terms of revenue generation Yeah, so that means over 30 years on industrial projects fees on housing are going to go up significantly portability the current fees that will be determined by you and The fees will be determined with the support by the elected officials in this county, with the support of a consultant or the COG staff, which will, were you gonna weigh in on that?

Yeah. Real quick, thank you, Supervisor. The RTMF will come to COG in 2028 in a Nexus study. It will then be brought before the COG, and there is a member of the County Board of Supervisors sits on that body that would then vote on if any fees are increased. That is something that will be determined by the COG board through the Nexus study in 2028. But the fees would go up? Potentially. We don't know. That's really at the determination of the board at that time.

All right, and so a couple other questions. You indicated that because the county's pavement management index on county maintained roads is at 66%, we can do capacity expanding, but we still run into the problem on page 14, which says eligible road expansion or capacity increasing projects shall only include the following. Dedicated public transportation lanes, so that's for buses, right? dedicated and protected class one or class four facilities. And there's C, which is safety-motivated turn lanes, but to me, I'm not worried about the turn lanes. I'm worried about thoroughfares. If I have an expressway that right now is two lane, one lane, two lane, and I need to complete that street, that's gonna add capacity to that system, which really needs to be expanded. I can only have a dedicated bus lane, based upon how this is written,

No, the intent of the way that is written, the lead eligible road or capacity increasing shall only include the following. What that should read is either one of those, A, B, or C, not all three. So in the scenario that you're talking about, a safety-motivated turn lane or intersection improvements that protect all road users, that would qualify under that. This section is not intended to read. You have to do all three things. It's one of those.

So, but you would admit the way it's presented to us, the language then is wrong, but the voters are getting the language this way that you would have to do potentially all three. So the language was prepared wrong.

I don't believe that the language is prepared wrong. I think it's an interpretation and intent of the program. And the intent of the program is to allow or eligible road expansion or capacity increasing projects to let the term or shall only include the following. And that's where A, B, or C. And it is an excellent point that you bring up, Supervisor, around further explaining in the strategic implementation plan guidelines to make that clear. And you may also use the additional, right up above the paragraph, you may use 5%, every jurisdiction, all 16 of you can use up to 5% of your allocation for capacity increasing projects after every local street or road within the jurisdiction reaches a 65 PCI or above. As has been shared, the county's current PCI is 66.

Understood. And again, if it only includes one of the three, we still can't add, I still can't add that additional lane based upon A, B, or C. That would be in, that would come in two places.

One, in your, that could come up as part of your traffic studies that demonstrate reduction in fatalities are serious, but it also comes from your 5% in the paragraph right up above. And additionally, the regional category in the measure gives the policy board, in this case, every jurisdiction in the county, the opportunity to weigh which regional projects should be funded and how they should be prioritized. So it gives you another opportunity to, in addition to any additional dollar state or federal funding that you may have access to, to be able to fund. large regional projects.

On page 14, item 7, it says jurisdictions shall prioritize funding for existing neighborhood roads with the lowest pavement condition index score or in project areas in need of improvement in disadvantaged neighborhoods and communities. My question is on this. There's no emphasis given on, I know that we can spend these dollars differently based upon public safety concerns, but sometimes roads that have low pavement condition index are in very low traveled areas. So maybe they have 100 or 200 trips a day where you might have an equal road with the same pavement condition index that has 5,000 trips a day. So how this is written, I've got to do the road that's in a disadvantaged community first before I can address the road that maybe is more heavily traveled.

You know, I may be confused about which section. That says jurisdictions, to clarify, that says jurisdictions shall prioritize funding for existing neighborhoods roads with the lowest pavement condition index, so the worst or in project areas in need of improvement in disadvantaged neighborhoods and communities. That is an or, and that was a change at the request of the mayors at the policy board when this went early on in the process that Initially, I believe that was an and, and was changed to an or to give you flexibility to be able to direct your dollars to where it's needed the most.

Well, it doesn't help the county per se, even with that or in there. The reason I say that is, again, back to... If I have two equal streets, one's in a disadvantaged community and has pavement management index that's the same of another street, one street's more heavily traveled, I would have to spend those dollars in the disadvantaged community first based upon how I'm reading it.

I would not read it that way. I would read it, you could spend it in the area that needs it the most or in a disadvantaged community.

What's that? 12.

Yeah, that's what you're referring to just a 12 to 15 percent.

Yeah, I think you're referring to the general Language 12 to 15 percent specifically says of the 65 12 to 15 that has to be spent into disadvantage communities first so Again to me that's it's confusing and it really causes some challenges at the county level So active transportation page fifteen item c number five uh... second sentence down it says this four-foot shoulder may be provided as a bike lane or cycle track uh... if an existing expressway super arterial or collector road is reconstructed and reconstruction includes pavement widening, that project shall be subject to this requirement, which is specific to a bicycle travel lane, so a type one or type four facility. What I identified here is a challenge. My district alone, I've got over 400 bridges. And sometimes there are projects where you do have to expand a roadway. And as I read this, I would have to continue this dedicated bike lane even through a bridge, which would require me to deconstruct bridges and actually build wider bridges so I could have a class one or class four bike lane. That is a problem. Some of the bridges, I mean, I look at Italian Bar Bridge, which we built over the San Joaquin River. That was $14 million. So how can I spend this allotment if requirements like this are placed on the county where, again, just my district alone, 400-plus bridges?

I think, can you clarify which section you're speaking to? Because we may be looking at different versions, yes.

Yeah, so it's under active transportation. It's number five, page 15.

That language there says where feasible, and that starts where it's feasible, and in, as Robert noted earlier on page 22, you, the county, will make the determination whether that's feasible or not, as in you and your public works.

The audits, though, that come looking at how dollars were spent, what happens if the audits determine that it was feasible and we said it's not?

In your audits, you're just reporting how you're spending your funds. Oh, no, no.

I'm talking about COG and then the 11-member independent board.

Right, and again, this is something that would have to be further vetted through the SIP, through the Strategic Implementation Plan, to clarify and ensure that the language is very clear to all parties. But, you know, a mistake, I think the intent was a mistake would be treated differently than an overt action that was intended to deceive. I think that that is what that, as I understood it, that was what that language was intended to avoid.

And additionally, on the steering committee, the oversight committee, both iteration, previous iteration, the 86 and 2006 version of Measure C, both included an oversight committee that has a membership. It requires members to be appointed by the Fresno Council of Governments. It does require that at least five of those members are from a one of, five of those members come from each of your supervisorial districts.

We're not picking.

Yeah. COG picks them, I think, right? COG picks those members, or is it the Board of Supervisors?

The Council of Governments, where the Board of Supervisors does have a seat. And that has been the same as the 86 and 2006 measure. That is not a departure from past practice. Members of the Oversight Committee have always been selected by the Council of Governments.

So the measure itself, as I looked at different language in here, the measure, these dollars can also be used for building affordable housing, is that correct?

No. It can be used to support infrastructure in areas that have been designated as in, it's only permissible only if each jurisdiction wants to. Similar to the current program in the current Measure C, the transit oriented development program that currently exists, it is in the same manner as that and it is permissible. It is not a required expenditure under the language. It's permissible then? It is allowed, a jurisdiction, you can decide this isn't a COG decision, this is a county or a city of Mendota or a city of Fresno or a city of Clovis decision only. And that was done to maintain consistency between the, to ensure that the current measure which does allow for transit oriented development to be able to maintain those programs.

There's a section in here I need some clarification from you on. So I now am design and implementation elements. So page 26 and page 27. So this measure, funds can also be used for parks, for trees, for irrigation systems, anything that's related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, correct?

not parks, it is for parks, I'm sorry, it is for trees and shade around trails, walking paths, transportation networks, safe routes to school. Where you are looking at, Paige, which subsection? That 46130, design and implementation elements, and you're looking at which specific subsection?

So C says, funds may be used for the maintenance of landscaping, canopy along pedestrian walkways, bicycle facilities, local and major roads, highways, trails, and the public right-of-way. including but not limited to irrigation systems, operation repair, pruning, landscaping, tree canopy preservation, and litter and weed removal.

Yeah, along those trails. So from point A to point B to make it safer and easier for people to walk, bike, or ride or drive to where they are going. Yes.

So item H, so I look design and implementation elements. So this is specific to the overall program. Yeah. Item H says this, funds made available under this act may be used in whole or in part. So as I read that, all the funds or a portion of the funds as matching funds for eligible state and federal programs in order to increase benefits to residents of the county region. Do you agree that's what that says?

Yes.

So my question is this. Could I just not use any of the dollars at all for roads? Use these dollars for state and federal programs that we receive through public health, Department of Social Services to provide benefits to the public.

no you cannot the way the ordinance is structured is each section each major category of the measure has its requirements so existing neighborhood roads you know etc this is what 461 30 where subsection h is is speaking to the design and implementation to offer some guidance what this reads is that you may use your funds that are allocated to each of the 16 jurisdictions to leverage state and federal funding. And the intent here is that there are various state and federal funding programs that do require match in order to compete, be more competitive in your application, or it's a requirement period to provide a matching component for a regional project. With this subsection, gives you is the ability to use the funds for transportation for the allowable project types under this measure only to leverage state and federal funding.

I only ask that question because it doesn't say that. It's very broad and It says any state or federal funds for the benefits to residents of the county region.

It's the way the measure is constructed. So the subsection titled design and implementation elements is attached to all funds referenced only in this measure. So it would only be for programs in the transportation section. And then additionally, right up above it, there is... That's the jurisdictions or agency section shall use best efforts to implement projects consistent with the intent of the act. That's related to the feasibility issue. But the intent here and the way this was written and the way the ordinance is structured, legally structured, is that this only applies to the categories and eligible types of projects in each of the category only.

So again, we keep talking about intent. And really, if we ended up in court, the authors of this measure would be asked, what was your intent? Who were the authors of the measure? I know four of them were mentioned, four of the proponents in here. Who else were authors of the measure?

You're right that there are four proponents. This measure was crafted with strong participation from all 70 of the 72 zip codes in Fresno County. There were 34 meetings countywide. There were just over 4,000 comments and comments public comments that were reported to that were provided it's part of the public process to help shape the plan that this was also discussed through the 38 member steering committee it was also discussed every month at the policy board so every month staff at the Council of Governments was providing updates to to the policy board about what the steering committee was doing, what the steering committee was recommending, what the steering committee was doing. That process was followed, and this is how this measure came to be.

But again, what COG did, this is not what COG, the finished product of COG. This is, there's modifications. Yes, there's modifications.

So this was drafted by interested stakeholders, including members of the public.

Can you name stakeholders where they helped draft this? The reason this is important is if at some point we end up in court over it, I want to know, you know, what the intent was by the people who helped draft it. I think that's important.

It's really hard to categorize because there were thousands of people who provided public input, and the public input that was provided, including the data that we received from the Cog Commission poll, informed the drafting. A lot of this language also comes from the previous iterations of Measure C's. This measure is more prescriptive. You were right about that. And I want to be honest about that. And the reason that is included is because in the process, there are two things that we were trying to balance. One is providing jurisdictions with flexibility. In this case, the majority of the measure, $4.8 billion over 30 years, can be used for an expanded amount of project types that you currently can't do with the current measure state. This gives you the ability to fund sidewalks, crosswalks, bridge repair in your district, wildfire management, which I heard you emphasize when this board considered the TOT tax about the importance of investing in infrastructure to protect against more frequent... Exactly. This measure allows you to do that. That is why $4.8 billion. So while we were trying to manage flexibility for each jurisdiction, including the transit agencies, to determine how to use the funds, there was also a strong desire by taxpayers and voters for accountability. Voters and residents want to know exactly how their hard-earned tax dollars are going to be spent. And this measure balances the need for flexibility while also calling for accountability for taxpayer dollars. That is fiscal responsibility and allows us to remain accountable to voters who are entrusting you to implement if they were to approve this measure, because this comes out. This isn't whether I support it or I can vote for it, but it's not up to me. This is a decision that the voters will make, whether they support this. They do want to see that their tax dollars are spent according to how they voted. And this measure does that and speaks to what residents have said, fix our local streets, but give us the ability to make the improvements, regardless of whether we walk, ride, bike, or ride a bus.

Okay. Another question I have for you. Thank you. On page 27 at the top, item F, it says, it's the intent of the people of Fresno County that each jurisdiction that receives funding under this act adopt and follow Dig Once construction project principles requiring public and private roadway projects to accommodate the installation of conduit to support community needs, including but not limited to broadband fiber optics, stormwater systems, and sidewalks. So I can appreciate this, but a question I have is if, so at the county level, if we adopt something like this, how do we carry that forward? Because again, anytime we do an overlay project, I've got to, you know, Do we put down conduit in the ground somewhere to allow for fiber to be pulled later? Because there's many areas in the county that need fiber, many areas in the county that don't have sidewalk, many areas in the county that don't have stormwater systems. But as I read this, all of us would be required to adopt this and basically install systems. So, I mean, help me.

I'm trying to find the specific subsection. I'm sorry. Yeah, page 27. Huh? Which page was it, supervisor?

Yeah, page 27, item F. Sure.

I think this applies to cities like the city of Mendota. The east side of the city of Mendota was county before, and there's a lot of areas in there that when we're trying to fix the roads, we have to install the drain system because it doesn't have that. So I see it as, you know, that we can utilize that money to fix the infrastructure because we're not going to go there and tape the top and not fix what's underneath it. So that's what this section applies to cities like the city of Mendota.

And thank you, just to add further clarity to that, the way DIG ONCE works is you notify other projects. So for example, if you have a project where you're going to resurface or redo the asphalt in a jurisdiction, that you notify other departments or other potential project proponents that may also be looking at, say, installing a new stormwater drain or a new water system line to improve water, that that is happening. if it's possible, to be able to coordinate that. It does not require that. And that's in an effort to make sure that if you're ripping up the streets to put in infrastructure, that you're allowing others to do it at the same time to minimize costs and save taxpayer dollars.

I appreciate the clapping, but again, the concerns that I have, it says adopt and follow the Dig Once construction project principles. So I use, like, here we've got Southern California Edison and PG&E, two utilities. Sometimes they underground lines, but sometimes they're projects where, yes, they would want to participate in the Dig Once. Could be years in the future. So are...

You are not required to hold off on your project to allow for PG&E or Southern California Gas, for example, to complete their project. This is just a principle for you to notify them that you're moving this project forward in case they're ready to move to and move a project forward at the same time.

Okay. All right. Yeah. So I want to say again, Mr. Phipps, thank you for providing, and thank you for your comments as an author of the measure. I appreciate some of those clarifying comments.

Thank you, Supervisor.

Yes. Members of the board. So Mr. Phipps, I appreciate you spending so much time with me and providing this letter. And I know that our staff back in November or December, there was a Mohammed, I think he since has retired, provided a number of issues and concerns that he laid out. I don't know that specifically some of those concerns that he had were addressed, but I do appreciate, what's that? Yeah, and I'm actually going to have to move forward next. But I appreciate you taking time with me, kind of dropping the hat, both Thursday night and then Friday. So thank you for that.

Thank you, Supervisor.

And here we also have Bernard and other members from Public Works. So whoever's here from Public Works, if you can step forward. I appreciate you guys having an opportunity to be here. I'm sure that you also have looked at Exhibit A. Are there other concerns that you have with how this measure is structured? Do you feel that your department, it's going to be workable? So just share some of your thoughts and observations on it.

Yeah, first, just for clarification, there was quite a bit of discussion over PCI and how the county currently meets that. I just want to make sure the board understands that that's an average PCI. And I think the measure indicates that every road in the county needs to meet that standard. So when you have a brand new road, you have 100% PCI. We don't have that, obviously, throughout the county. And also to your point, supervisor, and the reason for that is one, we just don't have enough money to bring those roads up to that standard. And secondly, we have a lot of rural roads that don't have a lot of traffic. And so we put our money where it could be best used. So I just want to make sure you understand that. That's an average PCI number. But the way the measure is written, every road has to meet that standard. In terms of the overall standard, I will say that I don't disagree that the measure has the opportunity to provide the county more dollars than what the prior measures do. But there are some strings attached. And I think this discussion can illustrates that there's some uncertainty and some things that need to be clarified and so you know if we're if the measure passes we'll do our best to work with the folks involved to clarify those items so that way it is clear as to how we operate so that that's just a general observation we have

Could I ask a question, Super? So when you say it needs to be clarified, would it be clarified if this board initiated the study? Is that what you're talking about in terms of getting the clarification?

So some of the implementation stuff wouldn't be clarified until after the measure is passed. I think that's what has been articulated here. My concern, probably the biggest fiscal concern I have, is the measure's provision about every road having to meet the standard. We have not evaluated what it would cost Fresno County to bring every road

this county up to that to that standard I just want to ask you you know another question like that you know and I'm just gonna talk about you know some of the rural communities like I use, like right now, Riverdale actually is a disadvantaged community, and we're doing the main street right now. But the main street into getting to Lanier is Mount Whitney, and the PCI of that road is? It's 100, right?

Yeah, because it's a brand-new road, right. Okay.

Okay, you go to Cantua Creek. The main road there, I think, is Cam?

Yes.

Okay. Didn't we just do, Cam?

We did.

So the PCI on that road is?

100.

100. OK. Now, the roads, I don't know if that's Brian's district. The roads inside, are those private roads? Or does the county have any roads?

I'm going to clarify. Those are public. Those are publicly maintained roads. Public roads. Right. Right. And then again, you take a look at our unincorporated communities. We have invested. I just want to make sure that, you know, for the public's concern, the county has invested millions of dollars, Measure C and other monies into these communities. And we continue to do that, and we will continue to do that. Right. Not just road, but sidewalks, sewer and water infrastructure. So we'll continue to do that. But taking a look at tranquility, I think, Supervisor, you know, we went through great efforts because of the soils conditions out there and the cost to improve those roads. I mean, those are just segments of roads. We focused on where folks were traveling to and from to get to schools, for example. But there are roads out there that do not meet the 65 PCI standard.

And some of those roads you just can't overlay because

No, you have to reconstruct. They're too far.

Places like Tranquility, Mendota, San Joaquin, they're on black dirt that you have to bring road base in. Yeah.

Those are total reconstructions.

Yeah. And here's another thing about complete streets, and tell me if I'm wrong or not. On... You know, a lot of communities, you can't do complete streets because the houses themselves, their elevation is too low compared to the street. It's not like they're a foot and a half above the street, correct, on the older homes.

Correct. Correct. So when you look at putting in curb gutter sidewalk where there does not exist today, you have to look at the entire community to see where that water is going to drain to. And then you're talking about capturing those waters and developing basically a stormwater system with basins. So it's more than just putting physically in the road. You got to look at how that affects other areas of the community.

So I don't know, some people might think it's practical when you don't have elevation. It makes it impractical.

Yeah, and there's, frankly, parts of this community, you take Fig Garden, for example, where they have fought very hard to not have sidewalks in their community because of that semi-rural nature that they're accustomed to.

Just real quick, since we have Bernard. Bernard, we've talked about the quality index of the road and how it's an average and there's different areas that have a different designation. How much money in general fund do we put in for roads at the county level every year?

No money.

No general fund?

No general fund money.

How much money do we get from the current measure on a yearly basis?

It's approximately $8 million.

$9 million? $9 million. And so next year, we don't have any money on there. What's the contingency for doing that road maintenance that we have been doing with the millions of dollars if we have nothing on there?

I think the measure expires in 27. And obviously, there'll be a wind down period because there's been monies that are still in those accounts. But to your point, we'll improve whatever monies we have available. So obviously, we'll have to scale back dramatically if we don't have that funding. And we'll focus on whatever we can do.

And how many layoffs are we projected to do?

I think that what you heard was about 90. And that's based on the information we have available.

And what positions would those be?

It's wide-ranging. It would be our road crews who are kind of our boots on ground, and then it goes all the way up to our engineers, inspectors who design for these future projects.

Thank you. Okay. Now, what other funds do you have?

We have multiple funds. I don't know them all, but it is the gas tax. It is SB1.

Yeah, we get transportation taxes. Sorry, we get a number of funds, both just in taxes themselves. Transportation Development Act taxes, we get a portion of that that we get to use on our roads. SB1, as he said, HOOTA, some of the toll road taxes and those type of things are shared across the state. So those are all the tax pieces that we get, and then we also leverage that with a lot of grant funding that we put into for every year.

So like this last year, what did we spend on roads, the road division?

I think our ballpark number was about $120 million.

Okay, so we're basically losing 10%.

We're losing 10%, but it's the 10% that hurts us the most because this is all locally funded and that's what our staff is.

And that gives you latitude to get some of the grants that you have.

Correct, correct.

Okay, can I ask a question? Please.

So if the board gave you the direction to do the study, what information would you be doing, what analysis would you be providing to this board and to the community?

I think generally, and I'll be frank, we have never done a study like this before, but my understanding is looking at the fiscal impacts of this measure on Fresno County. So somewhere I heard that there was a category of items that should be considered, including consistency with the general plan. You know, what I mentioned right now, One definite analysis would be, what is it going to cost Fresno County to bring up all of our roads to the 66 PCI standard? That's probably going to be the most critical aspect of it in order to continue to be eligible to use these dollars. And so obviously, your board can help craft what that scope should look at. But based on my understanding, we'll be looking at what is the impact.

Bernard, there's nothing that prevents us from doing a study and putting it on the ballot, right? That information could be available to the public?

I'm sorry, say that again. I want to make sure.

We would do the study, the one you just mentioned, but we could also put this on the ballot and then have other conversations after. That's an option for us. Not asking you to address the ballot part, but the study. How long would it take you to do this study?

From my understanding, we have 30 days. Is that correct? I don't. Yeah. Okay.

Would you need the 30 days?

Standing here today, I would say yes, because again, this is not something that we've done before. And frankly, we've not even talked about the actual scope of it. So standing here today, I would say 30 days, obviously shorter if we can pull that off.

I don't think there's anything that prevents us from doing the study and putting it on the ballot and let the public decide. But just food for thought.

A couple other questions. You brought up consistency with the general plan. What do you do? I mean, we have tax sharing agreements. There are areas in the county, we have county islands, and then we have city general plans that are overlaid over the county general plan. So whose general plan would we use if we're within a, like, SEDA, you know, the city of Fresno SEDA growth area? And we are looking to do a project because the county still has jurisdiction there. You have zoning, which is completely different in each jurisdiction. I mean, how is that handled? Have you thought about that?

Well, the way the way it's handled today is you're right. The county has jurisdictions over all of the areas that are outside of the cities, including those areas that are within each of the spheres of influence. are we do have a general plan that directs growth to the city. So when it comes to urban development, under our general plan policies and under our tax sharing agreements, we are obligated to try to direct that growth to the cities. There are some of the tax sharing agreements that go beyond that. So for example, the city of Fresno, if we were to refer a project, we could only process that project provided it was consistent with their general plan. So there are, and again, the intent is to try to concentrate the growth within each of the cities and allow the county to focus on preservation of natural resources.

I look at Clovis South right now, which is in the sphere of influence of the city of Fresno, but it's completely in the jurisdiction of the county because it hasn't been annexed out there. We have a number of intersections that have been impacted that the school district needs to bring to bear, but until they fully improve that, if the county needs to spend Measure C dollars on those roadways, Does this measure require us to basically build city streets because it's in the city of Fresno's sphere of influence? These are the things which concern me as I look at the measure because sometimes you have city and county general plans that are supposed to instruct us. And as I look at this, and even the complete streets, When you spend these dollars, you need to build complete streets. Are we also taking on the burden of completely building out areas that are future growth areas for the 15 cities that are throughout the county?

Potentially, I mean when you talk about the school district, you know if Fresno Doesn't ever grow out there and we start having issues Years down the line because of the school and the traffic that's being generated as a result of the school I could see a scenario where we're gonna have to step up and Hopefully we can partner with the school to address those things, but but frankly ultimately these are our roads So we have responsibility for them so if there's a hazardous condition We could find ourselves having to make improvements to to in that scenario for example, but in general I would hope that either the cities are partnering in those those types of situations or Developers are being conditioned to participate in those improvements But that's why I say potentially

If I could add one more thing to that is we're already in the process, the Safe Routes to Schools process, we've already done a walk audit of 40 schools and we have candidate lists for different improvements and that's both within the city sphere of influence and outside of it, you know, inside the county islands and especially the half streets. And so those are things that are already ongoing and we're participating in. And then this would potentially fund it. But that's part of our normal process already.

If we build a safe route to school and then that's annexed into the city, who gets credit for that? Is it the city or is it the county?

Yeah, I don't know that there's credit to be gained or lost. I mean, it's an improvement that in that scenario, the city would take over and be responsible for long-term maintenance.

I'll wait for our chairman. I think we're good to go.

Okay.

Thank you. We can keep going. I got more questions. You sure? Nothing else?

I could have called most.

I mean, yeah. Do you have a motion on the table that you'd like to put forward, Mr. Knight?

I'll let the two of you make the motions. But I will say this. I've been studying this since Wednesday, and I have a number of concerns as it relates to this particular measure. I wish that the one issue, if I were to call it a fatal flaw, as I see it, that's in the measure that really caused pause for me, is it was so prescriptive to the county. I don't know exactly how the county is going to be able to fully expend. its portion which is coming to us i will admit that going from a thirty four percent local roads uh... amounts to deal with uh... maintenance of roadways to sixty five percent overall will give the county access to more dollars but it's so prescriptive on how the dollars have to be spent i'm concerned that we open ourselves up to litigation There's potentially the county could have impact not being able to fully follow what's laid out in the document Which is much more detailed than the former measure C's that were put together I wish a county representative would have been a part of writing this and I don't think we would have been here today, but that's neither here nor there and so I'll leave it at that.

I'd like to make a motion to for B refer the act to the county agency or agencies for a report on the effect of the proposed ordinance.

And put it on the ballot? No. Not put it on the ballot?

No.

Well, it'll be on the ballot.

For 26.

And with that report, so to me, what I'd like to see in that report is specifically the prescriptive nature of the measure as it relates to how the county has to expend its portion of dollars. I want to know the full impact of that. So that's where I really want that report to zero in on. So if you're willing to include that.

Absolutely. And I outlined also some of the other important things that I mentioned before. Can we do a roll call, please?

Yes. Chairman Bredefield?

Yes.

Supervisor Mendez? Yes. Supervisor Chavez?

No.

Supervisor Magsik?

Aye.

Supervisor Pacheco?

No.

3-2 motion passes. We now move to item number 7.2 under information technology services. Conduct first hearing to amend the master schedule fees charge and recover costs section 4300 information technology services.

Out. Just get out. Goodbye.

Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the Board. I'm Mike Kerr. I'm the Director of the Information Technology Services Department. Hang on one second. Let them go. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. I'm Mike Kerr. I'm the director of the Information Technology Services Department. The item before you today is to update ITSD's master schedule of fees. I'm available if you have any questions.

Any questions from the board? Seeing none, any comments from the public? Okay, I'll bring it back. Is there a motion and a second? Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you.

As mentioned earlier this morning, item 8 was continued to August 11th, 2026 meeting, and we now move to item number 9, Board of Supervisors Committee Reports and Comments.

Any committee reports? Hold on, hold on.

None?

I will state that... On Thursday, I'm on the Board of Directors for the National Association of Counties. We have created a resolution, which I'll be carrying, which we're hopeful about, which would call on NACO to call on Congress requesting a delay in implementation of H.R. 1 as it relates to impacts to local government, because there's gonna be significant impacts, hundreds of millions of dollars to each jurisdiction potentially, maybe 300 million to us. So it asks for a two-year delay so we can begin to fully appreciate how that measure will impact or implementation of HR1 will impact us. So I'll be carrying that. And also, too, I'm vice chair of the Finance Pensions Intergovernmental Affairs Committee. There's about 200 different resolutions we're going to be voting on. And I've asked Sam to take a look at all of those and provide kind of high-level information back to me since I'm the designee, voting designee for Fresno County. That's all I have.

Thank you. Anyone else? Supervisor Mendez.

Caltrans and Fresno County Transportation Authority announced the other day that the SR 41 Alcorn Excelsior groundbreaking ceremony is confirmed for 9 a.m. Friday, August the 14th. And it'll be at Southwest Transportation.

OK. Nothing else? OK. Next item.

We now move to item number 10, board appointments.

Are there any appointments? I got two. Okay, Supervisor Chavez.

I'd like to appoint Ms. Frances Coronado to serve on the Foster Care Standards and Oversight Committee, and then also Ms. Malia Gotiko to serve on the Fresno Regional Workforce Development Board.

Anybody else? No? Is there a motion and a second to approve? I take the motion.

Second.

All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimously.

We now move to item number 11, public presentations. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the board on any matter not on this agenda and we also taking public comment for closed session items 13 through 16.

Okay, this is for any comments from the public on any matter not on this agenda or any comments from the public on closed session items 13 through 16, please.

Gloria Hernandez, Mothers Helping Mothers. Couple of questions and comments. I want to know what you're doing to ensure affordable housing gets built as quickly as possible in Fresno. I want to know why the county of Fresno has not applied for pro-housing designation from the state of California. Why are they leaving housing dollars on the table when there are thousands of units in the pipeline just waiting for the funding? I also want to know why you're wasting money suing your own recorder because it wants you to collect, you want him to collect less money for affordable housing from developers and other big investors. I want to know why the county has hired two lawyers from McCormick and Barstow to represent it. Plus, you have to pay the recorder's attorney's fees and costs. How does this make sense to me, the taxpayer, and other taxpayers? I know you can't answer, but those are my questions and my concerns. I've been paying taxes forever, and I heard you earlier complain about how there's not enough money to fix all the roads. We can get money for that. We can get money to help the medical. We can get money if you allow the assessor to do his job and stop filing useless lawsuits. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. OK. Let me see. I kind of was inquiring my contacted Paul's office, inquiring whether the Fresno-Madera COC is subject to the Brown Act. And I got a response back in the negative. It was their understanding, they said. And if they found out differently, they'd get back to me. And today, I spoke with Amina in the hallway, and I asked her about three times, are you sure? And she said, no, you're not subject to the Brown Act. And then she made a comment about she's not a lawyer also. So is it so hard to find out? Because I was trying to participate on Zoom and also record. But basically, from what I'm hearing is that it's subject to the Brown Act. Like, I looked up myself, and I also did what a lot of people here do, and even lawyers have done in the city, is used AI. And it told me the same thing. It is subject to the Brown Act. So could I have people stop lying to me already, and just so I could be included the right way in the meetings? Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody on the phone? No.

OK.

Item 12.

Item number 12, County Council.

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

Okay, we're going to go into closed session. Is there a motion and second to adjourn following the closed session?

So moved, Mr. Chairman.

Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Passes unanimously. We are now adjourned.