Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

Good morning, everybody. We're going to get started here with our Tuesday, September 15th regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Can we please start with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Supervisor Citello. Thank you, is there a motion to acknowledge certificate of posting? Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Moving on to presentations and recognitions, we do have a proclamation today. We have an item to approve proclamation declaring September 2026 as Workforce Development Month in San Miguel County. Is there a motion to approve the proclamation?

Do we have to do that? Or is that my bad?

We don't do that on section.

I move to approve.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Is there anyone here for Word for Development that would like to receive the? Would you come on up? I think I signed it. Sorry.

Good morning, everyone. Okay. This is a proclamation declaring September 2026 as National Workforce Development Month in San Benito County. Workforce Development Month marks an important time to raise awareness of the education, training, and employment opportunities available to residents of San Benito County, and hereby, Preparing San Benito County residents for in-demand careers is essential to supporting the county's economic growth, strengthening local businesses, and expanding employment opportunities, aligning education, workforce development, employer partnerships to create career paths that connect residents with meaningful employment opportunities and therefore the america's job center of california more than 2 000 residents receive workforce services each year including career consulting jobs job search assistance employment workshops supportive services and access to work experience vocational training and other skill-building opportunities that prepare individuals for employment and career advancement. San Benito County continues to strengthen workforce development by leveraging federal and state funds, implementing data-driven decision-making, expanding work-based learning opportunities, and increasing access to apprenticeship opportunities occupational skill training and made significant progress by working collaboratively with employers, job seekers, educators and community partners while remaining committed to addressing workforce challenges and expanding opportunities for residents and businesses. Therefore, be it proclaimed that the San Benito County Board of Supervisors hereby declare September as Workforce Development Month in San Benito County and recognizes the vital role workforce development plays in supporting businesses, preparing residents for successful careers, and strengthening the local economy. The board further recognizes the contributions and dedication of the San Benito County Workforce Development Board, America's Job Center of California staff, employers, educators, and community partners in advancing workforce development throughout the county. I have... I have a couple of personal words I'd like to say about what you guys do. One, I've worked with each of you a little bit during my time as a supervisor, and it is amazing to see the lives that you've impacted and empowered. The empowerment of knowledge through workforce development is truly amazing. And as someone that learned and really truly workforce development was a vital part of my youth. I really appreciate all the contributions you bring to our community, especially our youth and seniors, seniors that need a little extra income and need a little extra knowledge base. So I'm very honored to present this to each of you. And would any of you like to make a comment?

Thank you very much, members of the board and the public. I am very grateful that receiving this proclamation here in San Benito County. The Workforce Development Board has been in existence since the late 1970s, has gone through four different federal acts, and we've been providing workforce development services to our community, and in my opinion, being trained and leads to higher wages and having higher wages gets people more sustainable and out of poverty. I think that's very important. A couple of years ago, the Workforce Development Board adopted a policy that leads to higher wages. So living wages is really always the goal. So whenever we train individuals in careers and we're investing in training scholarships, the goal is always the path for higher wages. So that's really, really commendable. Really quick, part of the Workforce Development Board Month, we want to recognize a board member who is here. Kendra, if you could please come over. Kendra has been a board member for 30 years. That is commendable. 30 years, when she told me 30 years, I'm like, what? 30 years, so she's gone through, I think, five or six different presidents during that time span, but I really wanted to give her a little something from the Workforce Development Board, a certificate of appreciation for Kendra for her 30 years of service.

When I moved here in, 1995 it took about a year before i was recruited onto this board and it's a natural fit because i've spent my career working with children and families and supporting them and workforce and you know stability is an important part of that so it's it's been a pretty natural fit and i've appreciated working with such dedicated staff so thank you very much thank you and thank you very much thank you

Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. We're going to keep moving along here to board announcements. Any supervisors have announcements in this? Yes.

Thank you. I attended the ribbon cutting along with Supervisor Kuro for Southside Haven Community. And I think we all should be really proud about what that is doing for our community and the need. And I realize it's not enough, but it's a good start. And so I really want to say thank you to Enrique and Tracy and all of your teams, RMA. It was a huge push and a big effort getting it done, but we finally did it. And so congratulations, you guys. It was a really nice event. I really enjoyed touring some of the tiny homes. So thank you for all the effort there and really doing something positive for our community. The other thing, I met with a group that is very interested in having an inclusive park here in San Benito County. And as we are exploring what Riverview Regional Park can maybe have, I think there's an opportunity for us to make sure that we don't forget about having an inclusive park. So far, they've started a petition on change.org. As of this morning, there's 521 signatures. 75% of the signatures are from San Benito County. So there is a real desire. And so hopefully at some point we can have discussions about that. I also attended... an event on Saturday, the Baylor Hall of Fame Fest. And I just want to give a special recognition to Chief Canez. She was put into that, the class of, I guess, 2026 for the Baylor Hall of Fame. And so congratulations to her. She is an incredible person in our community, does a lot for the youth, for adults, and for recidivism. And I'm really proud to have her as our chief. And so just want to give her kudos and say thank you. So that is it. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, Rosie Crow.

Real quick, and congratulations to Chief Canez. That's a great honor for her. Integrated Waste Regional Agency and the Local Area Task Force has been working on a... quarterly programs report that will give board members and the public a little bit of the achievements and the upcoming and events that they're having. Some of the events that are coming up is just remember that household hazardous waste events are every third Saturday of the month at John Smith Landfill from nine to noon. And then on September 19th, So that's September 19th, October 17th, and November 21st. When it comes to Coastal Cleanup Day, it's Saturday, September 19th, Hollister High School, and it's from nine to one, and it's the Hollister Super number one site. So there's two sites, Hollister High School and Hollister Super number one. This report that they've just drafted is not for prime time yet, but what they're trying to do is use it as an educational tool to help residents and businesses understand what the recycling and the compost requirements are in SBA. It's 1383, but also how we have been achieving great goals of keeping our landfill with less trash. And that is a huge accomplishment. I don't have all of the stats right here in front of me, but a couple of statistical things that on the illegal dumping program that we all support here on the Board of Supervisors, they had illegal dumping reports they had 22 19 of them were in the unincorporated area of the county three were in hollister and none were in san juan batista and currently san juan batista is the winning jurisdiction when it comes to deferring trash from the landfill i have to i have to give credit where credit is due every resident in san juan batista and every event that they have, they're able to defer more trash from the landfill than any of our other jurisdictions. So with this new report, they're going to give us ongoing stats so that we can kind of get a little competitive about how we keep trash out of our landfill so we can keep the life of the landfill as long as possible. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll be moving on now to public comment. It's an opportunity to address the board items not on the agenda. Is there any public comment for items not on the agenda today?

If you'd like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card on zoom, please press star nine or the raise hand icon. And in chambers, we'll start with Rick mozzarella. And you go right up to that one over there. The speaker in the middle. Yeah, the microphone in the middle. Thank you.

Okay. Good morning, Board. Let's see, Rick Mazzarella from the San Benito Fire Safe Council. I'm here to give a couple quick updates. Let's see, when I spoke to you about a year ago or so, I told you that we were pretty much in a rebuilding mode, and we've had some rather substantial accomplishments. We were able to successfully get a substantial grant from the state of California to hire our county coordinator, which I'm announcing that we've filled that position with Lauren Moody, who's here in the audience with me. I've also got two other topics on the rebuilding theme for the board, and that is that we're looking to fill two positions. One is the treasurer position, and the second is a vice chair for the Fire State Council. Both of these positions are voluntary, non-compensated positions. and then lastly we have uh two upcoming uh events one is which is uh we're on the agenda for the november uh board of supervisors uh meeting what we'll be doing is an update on the themes of what we covered uh about a year ago or so and then uh a week after that we're going to be doing a public meeting it'll be the about the second about the second week of november And that will be an opportunity to meet more with the general public and go over the agenda of things that we plan to do for 2027 and years after. Okay. Thank you. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Next in chambers, Tammy Aviles.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Board of Supervisors. My name is Tammy Aviles, and I reside in District 4, and I just wanted to thank you for the meeting last night on the CSA and CFDs. I recall that it's been attempted a few times, and it feels like that this one has traction and that things will happen in terms of resolving some of the issues with the CSAs. And I also, on a personal note, wanted to say thank you for the paving of Union Road. I've been driving it a little more often, and I really appreciate the smoothness of it. So I'm also on the board of Friends of the San Benito County Free Library. And I wanted to thank you very much for publishing the RFSOQ for the design bill contract and look forward to the project moving forward. Also wanted to mention that the library is very busy with its programs for kids and adults and seniors. to please check out the calendar on sbcfl.org. Today at 10.30 is the Tech Help Tuesday, where you can come in and kind of get help with your laptop or phone. And then also I'm on the board of Seniors Council of Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties. And I just wanted to let everybody know that the council and its board and the members of the advisory council are all continuing to advocate for our growing seniors in our San Benito County community.

Thank you. Next in chambers, Christina and Denise.

Good morning, Chair and Board of Supervisors. My name is Christina Cardenas. I am Chapter President by CIU 521, and with me is Denise Quintana, Vice Chapter President. We are coming to you today to highlight that our contract expires in 15 days, and we are very concerned with the fact that the county has yet to meet with us to bargain. We sent our demand to bargain on June 23rd, almost three months ago, and have reached out several times requesting bargaining dates to be scheduled. It's very disheartening to our members that the one meeting that was set up for last Thursday, September 9th, was canceled right before the Labor Day holiday without any explanation as to why. And I've been on the bargaining team for the past several rounds, and this is the latest we've ever started negotiating.

With the intent of bargaining in good faith, our members made sacrifices to agree to a one-year step increase freeze to help the board balance the county's budget. Our members have continued to be dedicated employees throughout the past year of hardships and deserve to be valued for their contributions. It's getting harder for us to answer to our members as to why there has been such a delay. And our hope is that by bringing this to your attention, we can get some dates on the calendar and actively bargain before our contract expires. We are ready to meet and we look forward to working with you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I have one on Zoom. Linda you've been unmuted and you have three minutes.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you. Good morning board. I am Linda Klein. I am an attorney representing Robert Rigetti. Mr. Rigetti applied to LAFCO for an annexation of his property along Chapel Road from the county to the city in December 2024. Under the Revenue and Taxation Code the city and county had 60 days or 90 days with written notice seeking an extension to negotiate a tax sharing agreement. Despite the fact that these deadlines have long passed, you guys eventually did agree to attack sharing provisions. The city approved the agreement in spring 2026 and sent an executed version to county council in July 2026. So since then, we've been asking weekly to agendize this item so you can consider it. that hasn't been done yet. I know you're really busy and under-resourced but this has really gone on too long. I thus ask that you direct staff to agendize the Chapel Road tax sharing agreement for your next regularly scheduled hearing. Thank you.

ELLIE WILSON- Thank you. And that concludes public comment.

Thank you. Move forward to the consent agenda. These matters shall be considered as a whole unless a particular item is removed from consent. Do any supervisors have items they wish to pull? Ms. Frizzicro?

Yes, I just want to make a comment on 1.5. Okay, 1.5. Ms. Frizzicro is making a note.

Okay, so we'll pull 1.5 regarding the rest of the consent agenda. I believe we had a slight adjustment item 1.9 from County Council. Is that right?

Yes, Mr. Chair, members of the Board of Supervisors, there's just a slight change. We had identified that the date of the contract should run October 1 of 2026 through June 30th of 2028, not June 30th of 2029. So that change has been made in the contract as well as the overall of the contract since we have reduced the term by one year. I'd also like to note that this matter appeared before the Public Defender Oversight Committee last night. There was a unanimous recommendation to approve this and that there will be a 90-day review of this contract before the Public Defender Oversight Committee. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any public comment on consent agenda items that were not pulled?

If you'd like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card on Zoom. Please press star nine or the raised hand icon. And I have no public comment.

Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the remainder of consent agenda?

I'll move to approve.

Is there a second? The first and the second, can we have roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Zenger?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Kosmicki?

Yes.

Supervisor Kerr? Sorry.

I got distracted by the audience.

Thank you. All right. Moving on to item 1.5.

And honestly, this is the IT ad hoc has not met in some time. And I have concerns and I haven't had time. I apologize to the CEO. I have not had time to sit with her on this. But my concerns right now with software contracts and renewals. The problem I'm seeing is that we need to have a legacy software policy that allows software programs to be renewed on a longer-term basis for efficiencies for staff. but also that we have to have a legacy kind of conversion process. Because the reason this item is being pulled is it's a CAD program that's been used for years. They're transitioning to GIS. Unfortunately, everything will not be able to be transitioned to GIS. And I feel I'm using this, just this one, as an example of a conversation we need to have about a program on how we are converting to newer technology, especially with AI, but having a program that IT is involved in, departments are involved in, the priorities, but then how do we make it as efficient as possible for these legacy software programs and equipment that we cannot get rid of? What can we do to streamline the process? So I apologize to the CEO. I did not have time to talk to you about this before, so I pulled it so I could just have my conversation. I can do a future agenda item, but what I'm seeing is that we're spending more time with updating or amending a legacy contract that we can't get rid of, and we should try and find a more efficient way.

And good morning for members, just for clarification, we already taking care of that issue with not only with that this situation, but other ones that we know that we had to continue because the structure of the infrastructure is already there. So it doesn't make sense for us to continue changing all the time. So we addressing those issues and the purchasing policy.

And that's great. And I'd love to bring forward maybe to the IT ad hoc a policy about conversions of programs. So when, do we still have the IT ad hoc? Okay, so then that's why I guess that I, because I've kept thinking we still had it and that we could talk about this. So maybe I'll do a future agenda item, a future AIT that we can talk about a policy of how we can help support IT in not being overwhelmed. Every department is in a flux of technology change, and we need to prioritize these technology changes so that we don't overwhelm IT. So I'll do a future agenda item. I appreciate the board's time on this. Thank you.

Thank you. We go to public comment on this.

If you'd like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card on Zoom. Please press star nine or the raised hand icon. And I have no public comment.

Okay, thank you.

Then I would move to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Can we have roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Zenger?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Kosmicki?

Yes.

Supervisor Curro? Yes. 4-0 vote. Motion passes.

Great. Thank you. We'll move on to our public hearing item today, 2.1. This is to adult resolution approving annexation number 23, tag zone 29, as well as Approve annexation number 29, tax zone 30. So we have Linda Young.

Hi, good morning, Chair, Board of Supervisors, and public. My name is Linda Young, CSA coordinator, and I am here today to conduct a public hearing for the approval to annex annexation number 28, which is the Russell property, and annexation number 29, the Kiros property, into CFD 2018. On August 21st, 2024, the Planning Commission approved the subdivision of the Russell property subdividing an existing 38.93-acre parcel into four lots.

One second. I think we have county council to . Yes.

This has been noticed for 9.30. Oh, we're too fast. So you're moving way too fast, Mr. Chair. My apologies. We're going to have to wait four more minutes.

Let's take a four-minute break and resume. Sorry about that, everyone. Thank you. Okay, it is now 9.30. We're back, so we will now start our public hearing item.

Good morning, Chair, Board of Supervisors, and the public. My name is Linda Young, CSA Coordinator. I am here today to conduct a public hearing for the approval to annex annexations number 28, the Russell property, and annexation number 29, the Kuros property.

into CFD 2018.

On August 21st, 2024, the Planning Commission initially approved the subdivision of the Russell property, subdividing it an existing 38.93 acre parcel into four lots. On March 28th, 2026, the Planning Commission approved the subdivision of the Kuros property subdividing three parcels, totaling 74.49 acre parcels into three lots. And on August 11, 2026, the Board of Supervisors approved the intent to approve the annexations number 28 and 29 and set a public hearing for today, September 15, 2026. Annexation number 28, Russell Frank Edwin Trust Property, located at 1175 Comstock Road, currently has an existing 38.93 acre lot. They are requesting to subdivide into four parcels, one parcel being 23.57 acres and other three, five acres each. There's currently no development is proposed at this time. This is the current property location. And these are the site plans provided. Annexation number 29, Quiroz, Gonzalo, and Jose, located at 761 Riverside Road, is currently a total 74.49 acres lot and will be subdividing to three lots of 24.66 acres, 24.88 acres, and 24.71 acres. There is also no development proposed at this time. This is the three acres all together, and these are the site plans of how they're going to be subdividing. Both of these annexations will be subdividing for the negative fiscal impact fees only. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we will open the public hearing. Do we have any members of the public that wish to speak on this item?

If you'd like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card on zoom, please press star nine or the raised hand icon. And I have no public comment.

Okay, thank you. Bring it back to the board board members have questions or comments on this item. Yes.

Thank you. I'm just curious, based on our conversation last night, I just kind of want to understand the process. And so it appears that one of these items came to the Planning Commission two years ago. Why does it take two years to then get before the Board of Supervisors? Like, what is the process for, like, it got approved two years ago from the Planning Commission, and then we're seeing it now two years later?

If you don't mind, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Thank you for the question, Supervisor Sotelo. So, yeah, typically the first process is with the Planning Commission. And when the application comes to staff, it comes to the Planning Department. And the Planning Department serves as a gatekeeper. We send it out to all the different departments for review. The Public Works Department is one of the departments that provides, I would say, most of the conditions within the conditions of approval. Otherwise, as you all know, is the resolution. And so then they have, once it's approved by the Planning Commission, Planning Commission makes sure that all the findings are met, that the project meets zoning, that it meets all the requirements within the code. then they start this process where they have to essentially do a conditions compliance. All of the conditions, the 40, 50, depending on the level or intensity of the project, all the conditions have to be complied with. And so therefore then the applicant or the property owner works with typically their engineer and their engineer then a response to all of the conditions and drafts of report indicates this is how condition number one is met, the condition that indicates all of the easements and so forth and so on. And so then it's essentially on the applicant to provide as a report, submit it to the RMA for us to start that review. And so therefore, it can be that within the first six months they end up doing that, depends on their urgency It can be that it can take them approximately two years or so to provide that information to us.

Okay, great. Thank you. So there's nothing on part of the county that we did something or didn't do something. This really is led by the applicant when they kind of meet all their conditions of approval, then they come back. and then we do this process?

Correct, they come back, and then we do this process, and then we, again, send it out to other departments to ensure that the report that the engineer provides indeed does respond to all of the conditions, and if not, then they provide us, the planning department, with the comments, and then we provide it back to the owner. Okay, great.

Thank you. I appreciate you explaining that. You're welcome. Thank you. That's my only question. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, let's see. Any other comments or questions at this time? So is there any motions for these items?

I'll make a motion. Do I need to read the entire item to be able to?

I hope not. County Council, does that?

Oh.

Close the public hearing.

Okay, so then I'll make a motion to approve per staff recommendations.

Second. We have a first and a second. Can we have a roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Zenger?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Kazimicki?

Yes.

Supervisor Curl?

Yes.

4-0 vote, motion passes.

Great, thank you. We move on to our regular agenda. On 3.1, receive your presentation on the proposed San Miguel County Parks and Recreation Sponsorship Policy and consider the policy.

Good morning, Board Chair, respective board members and staff and members of the public. Before you today, I will be providing a brief verbal presentation on the proposed sponsorship policy for our parks and rec. Under this policy, sponsorships, the policy establishes a clear and consistent process for securing, reviewing, and approving and managing financial and in-kind sponsorships for county parks, recreation facilities, programs, and events. Under this policy, the Parks and Rec Commission or the Veterans Memorial Park Commission, when applicable, will be able to review sponsorship proposals and make recommendations for the Board of Supervisors consideration. The Public Works Director and designated staff may identify sponsorship opportunities. Conduct outreach and negotiate proposed terms along with County Council's review. County Council will review the agreements. All sponsorships must be formalized by an agreement. The county will retain sole discretion to either deny or approve any sponsorships that come before them. The policy also permits temporary renaming of a facility. I must also kind of indicate that any renaming, this would be temporary under this policy. Permanent renaming will fall under a Board of Supervisors resolution that was previously approved back in 2009. Any naming under this policy would be subordinate to the official name of a already existing facility, for example, let's remember park. An example would be if that's memorial park any upgrades, it would have like a sub line that would say sponsored by or made possible by the sponsoring agency. For existing facility or amenities, naming recognition may be considered when the sponsorship contributes 100% of the objectively determined value of that amenity. However, this does not guarantee that the naming recognition would be approved by the Board of Supervisors. It could potentially be denied. The policy also establishes an opportunity guide. An opportunity guide would essentially list all the sponsorship possibilities that a sponsor would have available for sponsoring. This guide is an administrative guide. It does not require that the policy be amended for any features, sponsorship policies. So the public works director and staff may create a list of all the potential sponsorship policies sponsorship opportunities that may become available. For example, I know we have the Riverview Regional Park that is in development. The public arts director along with staff may construct a guide that lists all the amenities that could be available for sponsorship. This would add an opportunity for Parks and Rec to fund some of these amenities, not through the general fund, but through some of these sponsorship revenues. If adopted, the policy would take effect immediately. Each sponsorship agreement will have a defined term. These are all for defined terms. They're not for permanent. And any naming recognition would automatically end when the agreement expires or terminates unless the board expressly approves otherwise. And then sponsorship activity will also be reported annually to the appropriate commission and to the Board of Supervisors. For staff recommendation, we are proposing two options. One is to approve the policy as is presented today, which was included in your staff report. I've also included the board resolution to distinguish between the policy and permanent renaming of a facility or amenity. The other option is to have any revisions that the board may want to consider today. I would like also to note that this policy has gone through the Parks and Rec Commission, it has gone to the Tourism Commission, and it has also been reviewed by our County Council. It did go to the Parks and Rec Commission last week, I believe. I do want to express that they did have some concerns However, I invited them to attend this meeting to express those concerns if they wanted to do so. At this time, I welcome any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We have public comment.

If you'd like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card on Zoom. Please press star nine or the raised hand icon. And I know Ms. Spandry. Yeah, I know. I see her.

You can just do that after if you don't mind.

Good morning, Chair and Board of Supervisors and staff. My name is Maria Spandry. I'm the Chair for Parks and Rec and Chair for Veterans Memorial Park. One of the things that we had stressed concerns is, there's actually a couple. One of them was the percentage of sponsorship. 100% was pretty steep for us because with the economy the way it is today, we were very doubtful that people were going to step up and say, oh, 100%. And so we were afraid to say that they were gonna sponsor us. The other was, right now it's very difficult to get volunteers to be on our missions. It is a volunteer position. We just filled our last position. And to get people to attend these meetings, it's very, very difficult. And I've encouraged each of them to come and talk to each and every one of you before meetings because we just had our first meeting. this whole year. So with that said, we have had very little time to discuss any of this. One of the things that we talked about was, what is our position here? Why are we here? And our input is really not, I guess what we're saying is, Our input's not validated. It's not valid in any way because one of the things that we were surprised about was the tourism having more of a say in what our voice was for the parks. We were kind of put off by that because we're like, well, tourism has a say over us and can counter what we say, and we're the park, so we didn't understand. So we were concerned about that, too, and that was in the verbiage. that was in the in the contract or in the in this so we were i guess more than anything else is so you vets park doesn't have a supervisor nor does the historical park so each of you does have a representative on our commission and each of them are feeling a little deflated as far as what their position is with you and their voice So with this resolution, with this, we just, we're saying you're going to make the decision whether or not we have a voice. So whatever you guys, I mean, we just don't know if we have a voice or not. Those are our concerns. Take it. We don't know what we're going to do because you're going to make the decision anyways. And we're just being blunt. And anybody that knows me, black, white, I'm just going to tell you how to. None of us have had our input even considered. So with our meetings canceled because of lack of participation, nobody knows where we stand with any of the supervisors because of lack of input, because I know everybody's busy, and I understand that staff is so very, very busy and limited. That's where we're standing right now.

Thank you. Thank you, I have no further public comment, thank you supervisors have comments reserve. Oh yeah actually will bring side, we should give it just want to kick it off, because I didn't use that you're right.

It's been four long years I think four or five years since I introduced this it was put on the back burner for one or two years, we finally got it going. I just want some, if we can get some clarification. I think it's good. I would like some clarification. I do want to hear from further, because my understanding from the Parks Commission was that the idea was to have sponsorship name recognition at the parks. And what we received from the Tourism Commission was that the Parks and Recreation Commission, and correct me if I'm wrong, was recommending not to have the actual and maybe Maria if you can if I could ask for Maria to be able to have somewhat of a back and forth here so that we are getting that that input and back and forth can we clarify just what the concern was because at the tourism committee I'm the one that proposed it supervisor Zanger is on the committee as well and we just made it clear like the entire point of this program was to have the names. This is done in other communities. This is meant to create engagement with the community, to have pride with our business community and other entities that might want to sponsor pieces of equipment or park, getting into the details of the parks. But it was expressed to us, my recollection was that, the Parks and Recreation Commission didn't actually want to publicize the names of the sponsors. And that really kind of invalidated the entire point of the proposal that I put forward several years ago.

Supervisor, if I may. I believe what you're referring to was the off-site recognition. So there was an off-site recognition and then there was an on-site. During the tourism committee, the consensus was to eliminate the off-site recognition. I do want to emphasize that in the policy, we're doing temporary renaming because there's already a resolution that establishes procedures and criteria for permanent renaming of a facility or an amenity.

Right, but we sent it to Parks and Recreation Commission as a natural kickstart just to get input and all that, but this wasn't meant to be something that was overly complicated. I think figuring out the details certainly was something we wanted to have engagement, but the idea itself was to sponsor, to allow businesses and other entities to have name recognition at the parks, in the parks. And that was the difference from what I understood. To me, that's the entire point of it. So if we're... I'm not interested in doing offsite recognition. I don't think that really accomplishes anything. We want to try to have names. Again, this is done elsewhere. I didn't invent this idea. This is something that's very common in other communities. And to have some name recognition in the parks, so that we can have that pride and also generate some revenue. I just want to make that clear. It wasn't meant as a, we don't, you know, the Parks and Recreation Commission, we sent it to the Parks and Rec, I actually recommended sending it to the Parks and Recreation Commission so that we did have that feedback, but we're not always going to agree. And when the recommendation that we get back is entirely, it kind of, it sort of negates the whole concept, to be really frank. And so that was, I just wanted to get us back on the, for me personally, and I think there was unanimous consideration on the tourism communities just to get us back on path for what this program was really meant to be.

And may I say, and I think this is where I think the whole disconnect with our sitting commission and and the board is like, we have no communication to see what the intent is. When it came to us, we really didn't have much details about how would it be displayed? Is it going to be displayed in a distasteful way where it's gaudy, like is it a banner or how is it displayed? We've had no real discussion because our meetings keep getting, either they're canceled or there's no discussion between And it's not at fault of anybody. It's like everybody gets busy. And I'm not, because I have, time is very short and communication is an issue. I get it because everybody's on so many different commissions. I am at fault at that for so many ways. But I think the thing is, is that I think we have to work on our communication, what the intent was. I don't remember ever, and I've been on this commission, on these two commissions, these two park commissions, And my memory is very good when it comes to these. I do not remember any kind of communication as far as what it would look like as far as the sponsorships. I'm 100% because after seeing how our parks have gone in such a disarray and I could go to Vets Park and I can tell you every little nook and cranny of what needs to be done because I know my park and I know what all of our I can say our constituents because it's all of these little, all of the teams and everybody tells me what everything's going on. So I could tell you what's going on at that park and what needs to be done. So I know what happened back then and never was the discussion to anybody about what would the intent be. I don't remember with having a discussion about what you're talking about. I don't remember that.

It was presented as a future agenda item and I think the intent was if you would like to provide some recommendations on how the displays and things would look, which pieces of equipment may have sponsorship, you know, which benches, things like that. The intent was to, if you had some ideas and maybe we just need to clear up expectations with these items when they go to the commissions. I think that would be perfect. Because it wasn't meant to be. This wasn't meant to be a complicated thing. And I think we can still potentially move forward and just incorporate, because we still have work to do, it sounds like, within this policy itself. This isn't a finished product. And Gracie, if you could correct me if I'm wrong, there's still this sort of concept of a guide that needs to be worked out. And to me, that's where it would be instrumental as long as we're all on the same page that in general, going down this road of having a sponsorship program, as long as we have consensus on that, that's the next step, I think, where we would certainly invite community involvement, more community involvement and Parks and Recreation Commission really like, well, because you're the experts on when you get to inside of the parks and what might be appropriate for users and things like that. But just from a broad perspective, it was meant As this is an opportunity, it seems like a no brainer. We need revenue. We're a community that takes pride in being a small town and having that pride in businesses and nonprofits and philanthropic folks that might want to put their name somewhere. And so that was really the intent. It's not meant to be. And like I said, I really think we get that connection now going forward. when we figure out the details within. Because that sounds like that's what your main maybe issue is, is just wanting to have more of an input on the devil in the details sort of stuff.

I think it's more details too, but I think it's not understanding who, the relationship between the tourism and the park and recs. I think maybe understanding what...

I can tell you, I asked for the item to come to tourism because the parks are an instrumental... part of the plan going forward. And so...

But working collaboratively. I mean, if you guys have some amazing ideas, we're all for working collaboratively.

But that would be amazing because... It wasn't meant to step on toes, though. No, no, no. It was just you gave recommendations and what was expressed to us was that Basically, the main thing that we got back was that, well, they're okay with it, but we don't want to have the names in the parks. And that to me, like, let's just move on to something else then at that point, because that's the entire point of this.

But as it read in this is that the oversight would be.

from the tourism that's how the that's how our commission but that's how no that's not at all it's just we go to multiple commissions for these recommendations it's not unheard of at all for a recommendation that goes because again i proposed this idea and it went to you guys to get your input and then it would potentially go to other relevant committees and tourism we felt like and i was the chair of i believe the chair of tourism at the time um basically asked for the item to come to tourism because we were discussing already discussing parks the riverview regional park um how we can better uh attract we're doing signage now at the tourism committee so how we can do a way finding plan to better push people toward these attractions and the parks are really at the core of that and that's why it went to tourism it wasn't meant as um anything else so i think it just boils down to lack of communication so we'll work on that and i i can promise but

I think having clear conversations with each of your commissioners so that we understand what our purpose is. And I think that's going to be able to be able to clear up a lot of this. And I think so that we're just not sitting here, not understanding. I know we don't want to go on.

I do want to make it clear. And this needs to be I think this needs to be communicated to commissions is that don't hold back on commissioners. you know, we're sending something to you so you can provide, you know, some input and ideas. And so that's really all it was just, we wanted, what ideas might you have for how this might work?

From the little guy, just remember you guys are our bosses. And so sometimes you guys are an intimidating, you guys are kind of the top guy and you guys are intimidating. So sometimes it's hard to approach you. So you guys are intimidating to kind of, we're so honored to be,

your representative no and we i think we all value everything you guys do and i just that's what i want to make clear is that i want for me one of my recommendations especially hearing what you're saying is that moving forward if we have consensus as we work on that guide and just the details of how this is going to work that we that we um involve parks and rec and vets commission that they be an instrumental um voice in that and we appreciate that truly i mean we truly i know um i just thank

each of you to be on our commission for Veterans Park. You guys have done an amazing job and taking the moments of me ranting and Mindy, you've done, both of you, Angela, you both have done an amazing job and everybody here has been very patient with me because Years on these commissions and not being heard and being put on the back burner because parks are very important to us. Getting people out there and getting people having a fresh breath. All of our special needs community being heard. Thank you for bringing that up. That is huge. So moving forward, thank you for everything you guys do. I do appreciate hearing us.

So, yeah, I'm just a few, just a few more points. I do want to thank the Parks and Rec Commission. I was personally just as the person that proposed this in 21-22, when I was running for office originally, I went to a park on a trip and I noticed this was something that was going on elsewhere and it was done very tastefully and it It sparked it, and I was frustrated because it's now September 2026. I proposed this, officially proposed it over four years ago. So I share your frustration. I don't think there was any. I want Parks and Rec needs to be centrally. I'm actually the one that recommended that Parks and Rec, Veterans Park Commission are the starting point for moving this forward. So just want you to know how much we do appreciate. appreciate you um i do think um well i do have a question as long as you're up here and you're intimately involved with veterans park i noticed there were some business signs when i took my kid to the veterans park um there's already some business signs we're gonna have to clear up whatever's going on there um and i'm because i'm not involved um so much with with that so um if somebody can at some point just put on the list of things to sort of definitely what's that what most definitely

what what are those signs where does the money go who collects that what is it's a county park so i'm curious so mostly what happens is because it's got it's gone unmonitored so anything behind the fences be with like little league babe ruth everything behind those those are sponsorships for there um because it goes on monitored people just hang their banners on the outside fences so technically we just take them off because they have not they've not asked permission And so they're just putting their business signs up.

So they can just be removed. We appreciate our business community, but we cannot allow that going forward. We cannot allow businesses to just put sponsorships on county property. I don't even know if that's legal without a policy. I do have a few more points. Again, propose this program, provide opportunities, dollar amounts, details. Those are things that we still need to work forward on this guide concept once we hopefully agree to something here. I would like to see once we get that, I think first of all, we need outreach on community engagement, Parks and Rec, Vets Park, other community members because the parks, there's nothing more community oriented than what we're doing with our parks. So I think there's two levels of outreach. Outreach on getting people involved to provide potential input on what these details look like within the program. And then once we have a program, doing aggressive outreach and having a plan for outreach on how we get the word out to the businesses, press releases, how we put it on our website. We need a very clear and concise approach. To me, this shouldn't be something that's layered and complicated. We need to start with something that's pretty simple and build off of that. That would be my preference. And then just lastly, I didn't see, maybe I missed it, but I think the no-brainer that once we get into the details, there should be prohibitions on what certain types of businesses that would not be allowed to certainly advertise alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, gambling, anything that's basically not allowed for people who are under 18 years old.

thank you thank you supervisor crowe sotelo any comments questions yes yeah i i'm i i support where this is going but i also have to speak as a vets park commissioner and the frustrations that we are untangling When we say it's common in other communities, we are not a common community. We have a Vets Memorial Park that has been maintained. The fields have been maintained by the people that are using them, and we don't have updated agreements. The signage that's on those fields are the signage that support those individuals, and public members to be able to fund those. And I don't mean to keep all my focus on you. It doesn't mean to be. I want to make sure that I get all of that out there. There is a debacle at the Vets Memorial Park of who's in charge of what and how we got to the point that we have teams maintaining county parks. Teams. Teams are maintaining each of the fields. We don't have agreements with these teams on what their scope are. We don't have a waiver of liability, as far as I know. We do? Okay, we did get, hey, at least we got that. We have a few challenges of untangling that to Memorial Park. And when you bring signage in, it's taking away potentially from the funding of, because is this signage going to remove from the field park? So we have to make sure the Vets Memorial Park is included. And I don't think this was even discussed at the Vets Memorial Park, except for we brought an item about how are we going to move forward with funding it? And could we look at signage for sponsorship? And so it goes right along with what you're trying to do. But we also had some concerns We had concerns about it being tacky or is it going to be a screen that filters a monitor that does a scrolling of sponsorship? Is it going to be and how? So I think we can get there, but I'm going to have to say that we need to bring it back to the parks commissions and the Vets Memorial Park. is not just like any other park. We have to look at it and kind of tread lightly because we're trying to dismantle, not dismantle, that's the wrong term. We're trying to uncover and make agreements so that we all know what our roles are. And that also includes the city of Hollister. So we've got a wastewater problem out there and there's so many problems at that park, it's ridiculous. So I'm ranting. my frustration right now is that it's not a one-size-fits-all and vets memorial park has to be a commission has to be included in what the actual end result is because it could affect how the teams if we're expecting all the teams to take down their signage that's going to be a problem i just want to make that clear it'll be just in front i think we need to leave it

the sponsorship that's how the ones that are on the fence in the back that's how they keep the costs for each of the teams i'm going to say right now i'm sorry i'm not going to do this back and forth because i don't think this is appropriate okay

Thank you. OK, a couple of things. I agree on the percentage. 100% might be too high. And I guess I want a little bit of clarification how that would work. Let's take Vets Park, for instance. And we know that there are some paving issues. The entire parking lot needs to be redone. There's lighting that needs to be redone. Each of those could potentially be over a million dollars, right? So if somebody took and said, I want to sponsor the lighting project, But the lighting is only one piece of that entire park. Does that, because they've chosen that one item, does that count as 100% or does it have to be 100% of the entire park? And so I just, I would like a little bit of clarification of what, 100% of what?

It would be 100% of the amenity or the program or whatever they're trying to sponsor, if they're going to sponsor the lighting. So like a bench. 100%.

Okay, okay, I got you. And I think that there could be some, on like a park bench, 100% makes perfect sense, right? On something like lighting that maybe is a million dollars, I don't know, is 100% correct. Maybe it is, I don't know. I would like it to have a little bit more discussion with Parks and Rec, Vets Park Commission, the Tourism Committee, Just because I guess I see this as like, this is really us working together with the community. And I think right now is a really critical time to have these discussions and to make people feel and not just feel, but like be really heard right now, right? If we're going to be looking to the community. to be doing these sponsorships, we want to be as inclusive as we possibly can. And what I'm hearing from this meeting is we already have commissioners that we've each appointed and they're not feeling heard. And so if they don't feel heard, I can't imagine how the rest of the community would feel heard. I feel like we need to do our due diligence. We need to move this forward, but we need to do it in a way that is going to be more inclusive and get more community feedback and more participation from the community, which I believe is going to start at these park and rec and these different commissions that handle this item. So that's just my opinion. Can you clarify for me a little bit? I have an assumption what I think off-site recognition is, but can you maybe explain the off-site recognition and what exactly...

is included with that or what that looks like so the off-right off-site recognition just as a reminder is not included in this policy it was but it got redlined off-site recognition would be a thank you note would be noting the individuals on our website or it would be presenting them with a recognition during a public meeting so similar to what we do with proclamations here at the board of supervisors it would be something similar to that

Okay, thank you. I appreciate the clarification. I almost feel like we would need the on-site, but I think the off-site is a given too, right? Like following up with a thank you note and maybe some public recognition and our website. I would think that that all falls hand in hand. So it's not an either or, but it really should be kind of and in addition to. I would just a point of clarification. I agree with what Supervisor Currow is saying with that spark commission and who is taking care of that spark. I just want to make it clear that it is not teams that is doing it. It is the leagues, the nonprofits that are running those. And so it's not just rogue teams that are doing it. It is Hollister Little League. It is Hollister Heat, Hollister Tremors, the Babe Ruth, City of Hollister. And so. We really appreciate their partnership in this and running that park. And I think that any sponsorship that we're looking at, this is outside of what they do and would not impact their fields, their programs. Now, when it comes to, like, what I would envision is when we're talking about Vets Park, it would be something, the overall park of Vets Park, right? We don't get into the individual part. leagues and what they're kind of doing um but if we need to dive into that and there needs to be further discussions then that is definitely an item that needs to come to the vets park commission um and and we really need to put that information out to all of the leagues and have a deeper discussion um so you know but i guess when i was looking at this this was not that that wasn't where my mind went with park sponsorship and i think i think there's a lot of opportunities for park sponsorship um And I'm really happy to see this item being brought forward. I think we've made a step in the right direction, but I would like to see it go back to the committees with some of the direction that's being given today and hammer out a little bit of those details and really start to get some community buy-in and community support. Because we can pass a policy, but if the community doesn't support this and the community doesn't feel heard, we're not going to be very successful in it. And so I would like to see a little bit more outreach in front of this, because I think we'll have more success on the back end if we approach it that way. Let's see, is there anything else? Maria, I just want to say thank you for being here, for making sure that Parks and Rec had a representative here today. I do know how hard that is. I really appreciate all of the time and effort that all of our Parks and Rec Commission members, our commissioners make, both Vets Park, the Vets Park Commission, as well as Parks and Rec Committee. And I will definitely be reaching out to mine. Mine actually did reach out to me last week, and we've just been kind of playing phone tag a little bit. But I will make sure that I definitely get in touch with mine and that we start having regular check-ins. And I will say it has been a bit frustrating, I think, for some of these commissions that we haven't been real good, particularly with our commissions that meet quarterly. It's been very, very hard to have some of those meetings. We haven't had the appropriate staffing to do it. There hasn't been, I don't think, clerking levels, et cetera. And so that's something I feel like internally we need to address. But I feel like we're starting to see the frustration of our commissioners on different commissions because it is volunteer. And we're not really doing a very good job on our part in making sure that we stay consistent with our meetings regularly. and that we're bringing the items to them. And so I get the level of frustration. I hear you. I'm sorry that that has been happening. Hopefully we have had a lot of staff transition. We've had a lot of things going on, but hopefully moving forward, we can get back on track, get back to our quarterly meetings. Unless there is something really, really outstanding, we hold those meetings no matter what. So thank you. Those are my comments.

Thank you.

May I ask one favor? Since you have a vacant seat, we do have a commissioner that was just... appointed to the last if someone can reach out to her to make sure she's filled in because she is a new commissioner so it's it's um a commissioner garza so if somebody can reach out to her please because she doesn't have a supervisor right now thank you um yeah thank you for bringing this forward gracie uh i just want to speak really quickly on the idea of the 100 situation in in my head this is

I've simplified it. There's a park. Someone wants to sponsor the, say, play structure at the park. An ex-local business says, okay, we'll donate the money for the play structure. They get a plaque in front of it that says, made possible through whatever business this is. To me, it makes sense. If they're going to get the recognition, they would pay for the entirety of it, not 70% of it or something like that. It seems like a complicated thing. So that's the way I sort of saw the program. Uh, things like that now, of course, you need to go through the details of okay. What does that look like? We don't want a giant. Yeah. Led screen flashing the business and I get it. We want it to look respectable and things like this. Um, and I think we can hash out all those details. Um, and I appreciate you being here and. Voicing all the concerns and the feelings of the commission and everything like that. Um. I believe if I'm hearing correct, there is at least agreement to move forward with the policy in some form or another if we can get the details hashed out and get the right input. Because I think in the past as well, I think we've had kind of agreement on the idea of the policy. This is a good thing. We can get nicer, more parks, more equipment, and we could use, you know, it's a good example of public-private partnership, right? And so I'm glad to hear that. Now it's a matter of how we want to move forward with this.

Because Vicky, you look like... Yeah, I just want to... So that there is more clarity going back. And if there's disagreement, then just please speak up. But really, this was not meant to be complicated again. So you pick certain features in parks. It would be play structures, benches. There are other models out there. So I think what we should do is compile a list of potential features that would have sponsorships on them and present those to the commissions and get their feedback on what that might look like. And then, of course, there's dollar amounts and things like that that are, I'm not sure who would chime in on that, but that would be maybe the next layer of things. So there's play structures, benches. miscellaneous that i'm not thinking of whatever it might be you may have um you may have a centralized sign of some kind that's tasteful that allows space for placards of some kind that can be interchanged just i'm not saying i support that i'm just throwing that out there so that there's some discussion potential and then taking that back what do we want to actually do in a tasteful way um and bring that back to the board. These are the recommendations. But again, when I go to other parks, what I see is play structures. That's very common. Benches or other memorial-type features are common. And some places do have a sign that allows interchangeability, but of course not a LED 200-inch whatever thing. Like maybe you would see it like a golf event or something like that. We're not looking for that. And then the other one just specific to Vets Park, you know, maybe we look at the sponsorships for those like flag banner type things that could go on the outfield wall and around the park. So that would maybe be something specific to Vets Park that's really already being done. And we could just incorporate that into the program. So those are just the very, that's it. This is, again, this isn't meant to be anything new. That racks anyone's brain too much. It's just let's start off with something simple and build off of that. Thank you. But I think we should send it back. Thank you.

Thank you. I really like your idea of each park should have an itemized list of sponsorships. we should be the one saying, these are all the areas you can sponsor in this park because every park will be different and that will help resolve some of the issues that I'm seeing with when I saw 100% park sponsorship, my mind was going, they have to sponsor the entire park. And I'm going, that will never help Vets Memorial Park. And how is this possibly going to help us? So if we could push it back to the commissions and say, we want that from the commissions at each park, get us a list of what are the features and then have, it used to be our public works department that coordinated, I don't know who it is now, whoever the person is now that could help with the costing. Because I think that will set us on a path for success. And I really appreciate that suggestion.

And I want to point out too, this, I saw this as an opportunity for going forward for things like the regional part. There's a lot of different ideas and amenities for that park. It's like, I know there was at one point there was like a pump track for bikes. Like, okay, does someone want to sponsor the pump track? Like, that makes sense. They pay for that. They get the plaque on it. Okay, now we have that there and we can focus, you know, use our funds for other amenities that don't have a sponsorship yet. So there is a lot of opportunity going forward with this.

Yeah, I would just make a recommendation that he's hearing that there is general support just to send it back to the commissions, get feedback a little bit more on what the logistics might look like within the parks. Keeping in mind, please, that there is a will to move forward with on-site sponsorships. I think that maybe was... the point where there was some, but that really is kind of the crux of what we're trying to do. And that's where we can actually gain some, I think, some moderate revenue to help offset some of the maintenance costs and things within the park. To send it back, get your feedback on park by park. I don't know if you want, if the parks want, and I know we don't have other members here, if they want supervisors to go along. I don't personally see the need, but if there is a will or you want supervisors to go involved, please feel free to reach out to the chair or two supervisors could go on a tour, for instance, of, you know, Vets Park. But I think you guys should really drive it. So tell us what features are the most logical what you could envision as far as maybe putting something simple that's not overly costly in a park that allows for placement of signs and bring that back to us at a at a relatively you know soon time frame thank you that would be my recommendation thank you

I support your recommendation. I will just add, though, it just kind of came to me, we probably need to include REACH as well, because REACH is kind of the nonprofit for all of the parks, and their whole thing is raising money for the parks and awareness, etc. And so that might be a great group for us to bring into this conversation as well. They may have some ideas. So again, I think that more is better than less kind of community involvement right now. So if I could just ask that we reach out to REACH as well and get some feedback. So that's it. Thank you.

So that was a recommendation. Do we need to take a motion on that? I think there's consensus on the recommendation, if I'm correct. We're good? Yeah. Okay, great.

Thank you.

Well, thank you, everyone.

Thank you.

Okay, we're gonna keep moving forward. Item 3.2, receive a presentation regarding the fiscal year 26-27 budget and recommendations.

Good morning, board members. Leanne Leake is our consultant that is assisting us with the development of the budget for this fiscal year 2026-2027. During the preparation of the budget, she has several recommendations for the board to consider for the future that is going to help us to streamline the budget preparation. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Zanger, members of the board, Leigh Ann Link, consultant. And I was asked to just give you a little information about my consulting. I have been working in local government for over 30 years. I'm an instructor with the California State Association of Counties Institute as the finance and budget instructor. And I consult with multiple counties across California for strategic planning and financial management. I was originally brought on board to assist with the preparation of the recommended budget, to assist with analysis of the countywide cost plan, to provide training to staff on budget and financial management practices, but I think most importantly to build on the work that was done last year by Baker Tilly to actually help the county to move forward with the recommendations to modernize the budget practices. The role of the board in county finances is fairly well defined. Excuse me. One of your primary roles is to adopt the county budget. That's the spending plan. County dollars cannot be spent unless they're appropriated by the board or if the court orders it. But you're really the authoritative body in allowing county operations to go forward and be funded. The board's role is also to set fiscal policy and priorities and to establish the financial direction that your county is going in. And then finally, to provide fiscal oversight and accountability to make sure that things are being done in the way that you intended. And it's not to, I'm sure you all know your role and I know that you know it well, but it's good, I think, to restate that for the public about what that role is. So public finance is definitely a two-way street. The Board of Supervisors sets the policies, the priorities, and the oversight. The county administrative office or county executive, the auditor controller, the county department heads, and county staff are tasked with taking that and actually operating the county and providing information and recommendations back to the Board of Supervisors. So it really is a very fluid movement between the policymakers and the policy implementers, and that communication is critical to help you to make informed decisions as the board. So I started working with San Benito County back about the end of May, and I had some initial observations. First of all, there are strengths, and I really have to applaud this board for setting aside reserves, for having money for a rainy day, because I think that's something that's really going to be very helpful to you in the coming years as things get more and more difficult to manage financially for all counties in California. You have stable property tax funding with reasonable growth. This county has actually seen some decent growth in your property tax. Just as a little side note, I know that you guys are aware, but I want to make sure that this is something that the public is aware. Out of every property tax dollar, San Benito County only gets about 12 cents. And it's really, that includes the trade that the state gave in property tax when they took away your vehicle license fees back during the triple flip, which happened back in the early 2000s. So the county effectively gets about 10 cents of every property tax dollar to provide a plethora of services to citizens all over the county, not just the people who live in the unincorporated areas, but also to the citizens that live in our cities as well. So while your property tax is stable, it's not enough. San Benito County is in the bottom quarter of the state for what's called the AB8 distribution, the percentage of property tax that you get to keep. So that itself is a challenge. I did notice that your department heads are really good. They're really engaged and they know what they're doing and they are very participatory. They want to help. They want to really make this county financially strong. And the same goes for staff. Every staff person that I've worked with has been very willing to learn and try to embrace different concepts and different ways of doing things and do them right. So I really have to applaud the county for that. But the county does have some challenges that I think are really worth mentioning. One is that size matters. San Benito is one of the smaller counties in California, but you have the same responsibilities as Santa Cruz County, Monterey County, Los Angeles County, and they have a whole lot more resources to fulfill those obligations. So really having staff that are very knowledgeable in budget and financial management, is really crucial because our staff in small counties have to wear multiple hats so that that is a real challenge for you um competition with the larger jurisdictions for competent staff it's very very difficult to recruit staff with physical financial acumen now anywhere you go and so when you're a small county and you have limited resources, you're competing with these other counties that can offer more. So I think as a result of that, you're really gonna have to strive to build within and make sure that people have good training. And then the investment in technology and appropriate tools is so crucial. And sometimes what small counties do and I'm not saying that this is pervasive here but what we do is we try to implement in the least costly way. And we don't really look to the future to say what tools will we need. So sometimes we have to go back and actually review those tools and say, oh, we need to make an extra investment here so that we have all of the resources that we need to do to maintain our financial responsibilities. So I've made 19 recommendations. Actually, it's 20 because there's a B side to one of the recommendations. And I've broken them down into major policy areas, Board of Supervisors policies, things that your board can actively do. to enhance the financial stability of the county. Budget process, this was one of Baker Tilly's recommendations, that you modernize your budget process. There are some ways to do that. And then financial operations, and that's where we see the most recommendations. because those small tweaks sometimes can make a huge amount of difference in how stable your financing is. And really the focus is to make sure that you are transparent. We enhance transparency and at the same time improve the tools that you have to make decisions in the county's finances. So the slide deck is fairly lengthy and I usually don't use so many words in a slide deck because it's just too much to read. So what I'm gonna do is I'm going to go through these and I'll give you a brief overview. There's much more detailed information at the back of the slide deck that has who would be responsible and what a potential timeline for the implementation of those recommendations is. So I'll go through the 19, and then I'll pause. And if you have any questions or anything to say about those, then I can go into more depth as you want. So the first four recommendations are board policies. So I would really strongly recommend that the county adopts a formal budget and financial management policy. A couple of years ago, in tandem with your budget, you did do some framework of a policy, but I think that you need a very formal policy that deals with certain aspects of financial management posted in a place on your website that people can see it so that staff know what you're looking for. These would include things like a transparency philosophy, how you not only establish reserves, how you build reserves, and then what you do to rebuild reserves if you have to use those reserves. These are things that are just good practice and seen throughout the state. I think that you need to adopt a debt management policy. You have a pretty aggressive capital need and This will give you some way to stabilize your finances and to present yourself in the best possible way if you have to take on debt to meet those capital needs. So really it's just being preemptive. It's not to say that the board's going to authorize going out for a bond on something, but what it does is get you ready so that if a rating agency comes in and says, you know, how prepared are you, you can say, here we are. This is what we've done. You have some reserves. You have the operational reserve and the emergency reserve that are respectively 10 and 15% of your budget. I'm sorry, 15 and 5% of your budget. I actually recommend that you reassign those to be consistent with the County Budget Act, which is Government Code Section 29000. There's nothing wrong with the reserves that you have. But the County Budget Act actually mentions a general reserve. The general reserve is a lot less fungible than any other reserve because it can only be appropriated during budget time or during a declared emergency. So it really puts a wall around those funds so that you have those available if something really big happens. Then the government code also mentions stabilization funds. You can have a budget stabilization fund or what we call a rainy day fund. So say for example, all of the sudden we were in a recession, it came on really quickly and your revenues are declining. What a budget stabilization does is let you make thoughtful decisions about how you're going to respond to that, ramping down services much more slowly than dropping them off at the edge of a cliff. And so it just gives you more flexibility. And then there's a third reserve. You currently have a reserve that was established several years ago. It's for capital projects. It was specific to a single capital project. So what my recommendation is with your reserves is after you meet the targets for your reserve, and you can build reserves over a period of time. Maybe you say our target is 20%, but we're going to build it up gradually, and we're going to do it at $500,000 a year or whatever amount you want. then at the end, if there are residual funds available to the board at the close of the year that you don't have committed for the subsequent year's budget, those could go into a capital projects fund. That would give you money to say, we want to do this road project, and here's the money that we have available. So it really gives you a lot more insight into what funds are really available to do the things policy-wise that the board wants to do. And then finally, I believe the county really should establish a five-year rolling capital projects plan. This engages your department heads so that they're asking for those things that they need down the road. And what happens with that is that when they bring in their budget and they have capital needs that need to be met, then for next year's budget, for example, the CAO's or CEO's office would ask, okay, were those on your capital plan? And so it really makes departments be thoughtful and responsible in making those requests, and we can foresee it. The other piece of it is it gives you an opportunity to identify where the funding comes from, because if you don't have a funding source for those capital projects, it's just a wish list. And so this really makes you be thoughtful about that. So those are the board policy positions. The recommendations on budget process is I think that the board needs to be engaged in the annual budget process. And so it starts out in December with an annual budget calendar. That really lays out for you the path that the county's going to take in preparing the budget. So it will give you a chance to say, we'd like to have a budget study session in April. Once department heads have submitted their budget requests, there's almost always a budget gap. The board needs to know what that budget gap is. And so it gives you a chance to say, okay, here's what we're working with, and this is where we're going to apply policy into this. into how do we make cuts to get our budget to balance because your budget must balance by law. The budget kickoff also helps the CEO's office because those are hard deadlines. So the department heads are responsible to turn in budget by deadlines that are set by the board. It's not a loose internal document. It is a board directed document. The in-person budget kickoff. So the way that budget is done now is it's rolled out to the department heads in a budget meeting. One of the clients that I have in California has such a great motto, and it is, the budget is everyone's business. So the department heads get the information about the budget, but it doesn't necessarily get down to the average staff person and especially those people preparing the budget. So a budget kickoff is a lot more robust. It's a lot more formal. Department heads and their fiscal staff understand what things are going to be required in the budget, What kind of challenges are there? And there's a dialogue that goes along with it. So it really makes the department heads a part of the budget process. What we say is we do budget with you, not to you. And so I think that when you engage them early on, it really is very helpful to come up with a really great budget request from the department. And then enhancing the OpenGov system. The OpenGov system I've seen in other counties, and it's a lot more robust. And it's not that San Benito County doesn't have the system to do that. It's just that there's no retention of how things are developed in the OpenGov system. And so the county actually has moved forward on this and engaged OpenGov to come in and do some work with staff so that we can enhance what's in the system. It's not going to be perfect for your budget hearings beginning on September 28th, but by next year, it'll be a much more robust system, and a lot more people will know how to use the system. And then finally, under the budget, Well, in different funds, whenever we move funds between different governmental funds in the county, we have to have an appropriation to move the money out and then we show it as a revenue on the other side. We need to be tying those up. And so because, for example, a department can say, oh, I'm getting money from this department over here, so I'll show it as revenue on my side of the budget. But if they haven't appropriated or included the appropriation to move it out, then you've got a lopsided transfer and you have a budget gap just inherently present there. So we need to make sure that there's a process in place to balance all of those transfers. So on the financial operations, I think that one of the most important things you can do is hire and retain experienced financial staff in those key positions. And once again, I know the challenge there. However, This is where you're going to have a lot of risk. If you don't have the right people in the right chairs with the right training and the right education and experience, then it really puts the whole county at risk. And I think even to go a step further, I think in actually determining the qualifications of people, I think it needs to be a partnership with the auditor controller's office so that we're actually testing people's knowledge. governmental accounting before they get thrown in and with not a whole lot of guidance so I think that we really need to get good people coming in the doors here the budget related roles in the County Executive Office have traditionally been really held by one person I think you have to diversify that a little bit too so that you don't have that single source of knowledge about how to use the OpenGov system or what the budget policies are. And I think that that just makes good, strong staff. So I think that that's something that the county really should look at, being a lot more diverse in the budget assignments within the CEO's office. And then this is kind of a technical thing, but the county doesn't have a balanced budget. So your budget is balanced based on the use of fund balance that rolls over or reserves that roll over from a previous year, but you don't budget for that. And so there is a tool that you can use, and not all counties do this. Some counties do, some counties don't, but there's a tool called the cancellation of obligated fund balance or a cancellation of an assigned fund balance. that's actually a revenue. So then when you're showing that you're using that cancellation of fund balance, it's balancing your budget. So your appropriations equal your revenue because of that use. It just makes things a little bit more clear. There's an answer to the question of where is the money coming from. And your budget is a lot easier to understand and you know what resources you have. And it's helpful for the auditor controller's office because it gives them a map to where is this money actually coming from that we're going to fund these appropriations. So it makes their role a lot easier, I think. And then on the flip side of that, In certain special revenue funds or other funds, sometimes we have revenues that come in that are above what we actually plan to spend. So this is the flip side of the use of the fund balance. This is an increase of fund balance. It's an appropriation, and it will balance your budgets as well. You have to use those two tools together, but they really make things a lot more transparent for you. And then the budget amendment process is rather clunky. The departments fill out their request and it comes to the board and sometimes it's not really clear about how the budget amendment is balanced. And then it goes to the CEO's office to actually input the budget transfer and then the board auditor controller's office approves it. I think if you have the department start by putting that budget transfer into the system, then what you see is a much more completed form as the board, and then it's a lot easier at the back end for the auditor controller to to approve it and make sure that it goes in properly into the general ledger. That may be a little bit more difficult to do because it would require some change to security permissions, but the CEO's office could work with the auditor controller's office on that. And then fees are really important. The concept in public finance is that general revenues or those discretionary revenues that come to you are for the use of the general population. When an individual or an organization, like a developer, for example, uses a county resource, they need to pay for it so that it's not subsidized and being paid for by the rest of the general public. And so that's why we have fee schedules. That's why we adopt fees under an ordinance. So the last fee schedule that was done, the fee update that was done is my understanding was 2018. So I think that there's an opportunity there to update the fees. I will be clear, that is a big lift. And it may be hard to do in the short term, but I think at least having the philosophy that we update the fees on a regular basis, maybe every other year, is really important for good financial management. Providing budget and financial management training to key staff. I think a lot of our financial staff have kind of risen up through the ranks, which means that they don't necessarily have formal education or formal experience. in managing budgets. And so I think that there is a training component that can help strengthen them and maybe make it so that we're not so dependent on bringing people from outside. We grow from inside and grow our own. And then the other key staff that I think we can't leave out of the picture are the department heads. Department heads have a responsibility under the government code to stay within their appropriation levels in their department. The penalty is pretty steep. If you go over in your budget unit the appropriations, if you spend more than you have appropriated, it's your responsibility as that authorizing official the department head to pay the county back. That's a pretty onerous thing. And so I think if we can provide better training for our department heads on the finances of their departments, I think that that will strengthen the county as well. Previously, it looks like the county had been doing quarterly financial updates from the departments that came to the CEO's office and then the CEO reported to the board. I really like this idea because it really helps the departments to stay on top of things like their revenues. So when we build the budget, we project the revenues that are going to come in. If those revenues aren't materializing, but you're spending at the appropriated level, then you've got an inherent gap there. And somebody's going to have to pay for that. And oftentimes it will come out of the general fund or use of fund balance that you didn't intend to use in a special revenue fund. So I think it really gives the department heads more insight. more engagement with their own budgets to have that quarterly update um you have some trust funds that are combined in the general fund they're noted in the general ledger as general funds also and generally speaking um there should only be one general fund in the county but these are i think a holdover from many many many years past And I really believe that these need to be reclassified because what they're doing is they're skewing the picture of how much the board actually has in unassigned fund balance that's available for you to appropriate. And so because some of them have negative fund balances, it's reducing the amount of unassigned fund balance. So it just doesn't make it really clear. So if those are moved out of the general fund set up separately whether they're a fiduciary fund or they're a special revenue fund, those really can stand on their own and then it'll make it a lot more clear what you have available to appropriate. Tangential to that, one of those funds, and it's about $1.5 million or $2 million in negative fund balance is your risk management fund. And the reason it's in negative fund balance is that the board claims those costs through the cost plan. So you front the costs. and then you're reimbursed through the cost plan a couple of years later. Now, there may be some catch-up in there or some prospective payments, but the way that all counties' liability costs are climbing, what you're effectively doing is loaning the state and federal governments money and waiting two years to be paid back. So if that's put into a special, I'm sorry, an internal service fund, then what that allows is to collect that money through rates. And those rates can be padded a little bit to bring that fund balance up to a positive stance. You would do it over a period of like eight or 10 years. Otherwise, everybody in the county, every department's going to have this massive, expensive cost for liability insurance all in one year. I don't think that that's really prudent, nor do I think that's fair to department heads to absorb that, but you can do it over a period of time. It's perfectly acceptable as a governmental accounting practice. So in a similar vein, information technology is also claimed through the cost plan. Most counties use that as an internal service fund because that's a service that we sell to ourselves. Your primary user of that fund must be the government. And so the same thing is happening. IT costs go up and we wait for the reimbursement through the cost plan two years later. So this gives the county a chance to catch up and be more in real time on those costs. And then finally, the resource management agency, RMA, is I think one of your largest financial risks, not because there's anything inherently wrong, but rather because they do really big projects. And so I think it would be very prudent, especially because there's a new department head, to go in and do a thorough audit that not only looks at the finances but the operations Because if things aren't billed timely, if payments aren't paid timely, then what can happen is you may have a whole bunch of costs in year one, but that revenue may not be coming in until year two, and so that you're gonna have to balance probably by using reserves from the general fund. And so you don't want that to be an ongoing practice. So I really strongly recommend that you go ahead and have that audit completed. So with that, that's all of my recommendations. I'd be happy to answer any questions or go into depth on any of these that you have additional questions on.

Thank you. Let's go to public comment.

If you'd like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card on Zoom. Please press star nine or the raised hand icon. And I have no public comment.

Thank you. Any board members have questions as far as the crew?

Thank you so much for the presentation. It's a lot of information, but at the same time, it feels like it's almost fluid in how it needs to kind of be rolled out. And that kind of goes to my question. My question is, are there very specific, like, we're not going to be able to do everything all at once. We're going to have to do this through some of a rollout process. I'm very supportive of the RMA audit. I think that could help multiple ways. It can help staff. It can help, you know, kind of get a better understanding. It can help with transparency for the public. I think that's a very good thing. When it comes to your unassigned, you discussed the departments having quarterly reportings. I completely support quarterly reportings, and I think it should be done at a board level that we have quarterly reportings from departments through the CEO at the board level. but understanding and having departments be able to explain their revenue and expenditure flows. No two departments are going to flow the same. They're going to have, and I'm just, I wrote it on my sheet. I'm just like envisioning some departments are going to be very, you know, up, down, up, down, very in, out, in, out, in, out. Other departments are going to be like red line. And then all of a sudden money's going to come in and having departments departments explain that to us as board members and have us understand that, oh, okay, we see how this is working. Because you can't say, well, in quarter one, you need to be spending a quarter of your budget and you need to have a quarter of your revenue. It's just not going to happen. So I really like that. But I want us to be able to have department heads really have that knowledge base to come to us. So many of the recommendations, I want to say, yes, absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, absolutely. But unfortunately, I don't see how we're going to do all of these things without coming up with a plan and kind of a rollout process. And that's kind of what I'm looking for. I want to say yes to everything. But what's the rollout process? And what are going to be our highest priorities? And I think education about the OpenGov system is very important. The calendar kickoff with department heads, again, very important. Understanding what the board's policy is I do agree completely the policies of the board that were in the beginning of your presentation about what policies we need to bring forward I almost think that kind of needs to be the road map to where we need to get to And I do appreciate, and now it makes more sense, I've not ever understood our operating reserves and then our emergency reserves. And I like the idea of a general reserve within some specific capital improvement reserves that we're putting money in. So appreciate all of it. The biggest question I had is you mentioned the triple flip, and I've heard it a couple of times at CSAC trainings. Could you just... Give us a little explanation about the triple flip. It's very complicated, but can you bring it down to like a board member level to help me understand? Because I think I understand, but I'm not sure.

Sure. So back in the early 2000s, the state was in trouble financially, mostly because of its Prop 98 guarantee to schools. And Governor Gray Davis was recalled and Governor Schwarzenegger came in. and he immediately had to right the ship. And so he issued, he wanted the state to issue deficit recovery bonds. But the state can't just arbitrarily take money and pay off bonds. So they needed certain dollars in order to do that that were fee-based. And so what the state did is they took our vehicle license fees from counties and they took sales tax from counties. And in exchange, they gave us back some property tax dollars. And so counties were a little short at the beginning, but ultimately I think that there's pretty universal acceptance that counties were mostly made whole. But as a part of that, the more important piece was counties insisted on Prop 1A, which said that the state can never come in and just arbitrarily take our property taxes like they did back in 1992 with the education revenue augmentation funding shift where they just took 25% of our property taxes to pay to schools because that reduces the state general fund obligation to schools.

Okay, thank you. I really appreciate that because it's been confusing for me. I'm interested in what my colleagues have to say. I have some more comments and notes, but I'm going to just keep it to myself right now. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Leigh Ann. Great presentation. I agree with Supervisor Crow and I think there kind of has to be a plan. But I'm really excited to dive into this, to set some of these policies, move forward with these recommendations. And so I realize this is the start, right? This isn't where it's going to end. But I think that we are really moving in the right direction. And I appreciate all the time that you put into this and going through all of this quite extensively and with all of these recommendations. So I am supportive of this. So thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, thank you so much. met throughout this process i think you met with all the supervisors so this might be a little repetitive for you um but i you know i think i like where we're going um what really jumped out to me is that we do need somebody in place who um is at a certain level uh with experience and just a budget whiz who can come in um and and really can just hit the ground running, which means you have to pay that person an appropriate amount of money to be able to recruit the type of person that we need here because the budget is the first priority. It has to be the number one. Everything else doesn't really fall into place unless you have the budget in the right place. And if you don't, if one thing goes awry or one thing is miscalculated, it causes a ripple effect of problems. And And it exacerbates deficit issues and all that. So, number one, I think we have to look at the position classification. And, you know, this is one of those positions where we absolutely have to pay somebody the appropriate amount of money to come in and help us right the ship. I've said before in the past, we absolutely have to implement quarterly meetings where we get budget updates. I said this a year ago, over a year ago. I've said it almost every year. And at this point, it just has to happen. And if it doesn't happen, I'm just going to keep bringing it up. We have to set them, get them on the calendar now, and we just have to get moving on it. And whether the context is exactly as detailed as we want in an ideal world. Maybe it isn't at the outset, but we just have to have those quarterly budget updates as just a regular standard on our calendar. Once we get past this, I do appreciate everything the CEO has done. She's done a great job, even bringing in people like yourself to get that outside look to start cleaning up some of these processes and giving these firm recommendations. But looking ahead, I do, going into next year's budget process, We need more information. As a board, we just need more information when we do these budgets. I can't work off of PowerPoint presentations anymore. It's just not going to be acceptable. I can't have two pages of summarized numbers. As we saw when we did the ad hoc last year, when it was Supervisor Velasquez and myself, and we were presented with, well, here's the update, and it was two sheets. And then it got into this whole back and forth about, Well, if we're not going to have a substantial book, basically, which is what traditionally in the city council or board of supervisors before all the electronic revolution, you had a big, thick book to go through. And I just haven't seen that in quite a while. So I'm going to demand that we have that, whether it's an electronic format and paper format. We need that. We got to take a hard look at the cost plan and get serious about it. You know, I asked the question, I think it was in our meeting about potentially looking at using the cost plan for subvention departments only. and having it relative to those to kind of take out a lot of the mess that I see when you're integrating all these general fund departments and trying to decide which general fund department is on the plus side or the negative side of the cost plan. It's just creating a lot of, problems. And ultimately, it adds to the question marks that I still have about exactly where we're at. So I would like to take a real hard look at change and reforming the cost plan approach that we have. And then, of course, you know, we got to continue conversations about revenue. We have the CSA CFD meeting yesterday, but that's just one small piece. I would like to see us have at least another broader or maybe even a series of workshops that talk about where we really get down to the nitty gritty about our revenue strategy and how we can generate more revenue. As a county, we've made some steps forward, frankly. I mean, we're making a big step forward with the cannabis cultivation, frankly. But we got to keep that momentum going. And then the fees, as much as it's a challenge that you're pointing out, as it obviously is, that's up there with having that top-notch budget person in place. We have to have our fees updated so that we're ensuring that we're getting the revenue that we should be getting. Thank you.

If I may speak to your question about the cost plan, because I think it bears some explanation. There are two ways that counties handle cost plan. One is that you charge every department for their proportionate share, regardless of whether a subvented department, meaning that they're funded by grants, state and federal grant funds, or if they are a general fund department. And here in San Benito County, when that revenue comes in, when it's generated by charging those departments, it goes back to the departments that actually generate those costs, which are the auditor, controller, the treasurer, the the CEO's office, IT, and they go back and are applied there. So what you get for doing that is you see what is the true cost of operating your auditor controller's office or your CEO's office. On the flip side of that, what you can do is just charge those subvented programs you don't have to charge the general general fund programs you have to calculate it based on them being charged for their proportionate share so you can't give the state and federal programs a disproportionate disproportionately high share as much as i might like to um but but then what you have what you don't get by doing that is you don't get that true picture of what the cost is of operating the central service departments So it's a give or take.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you for the presentation. Thank you for the work that you've done. echo my colleagues in that I appreciate this and I want to move forward with all these recommendations to get things moving in a smoother direction. I did have a question on one of them, the reorganizing or renaming, reassigning of the reserves. Now, if memory serves, the board, I believe, changed it to the way it is rather recently, maybe two years ago. So what exactly, can you go run through again the general reserve idea there?

So the reserves that you have right now, the operational reserve and the emergency reserve, sometimes things come along that the board wants to do or that the public wants you to do. And so what you'll do is say we're going to do this project and we're going to decrease reserves to do it. What the General Reserve does is it puts more of a wall around those funds. So it really preserves those. It saves them for what they're truly intended, which is a true emergency. It's not to say that you never have the opportunity to appropriate them if you want during the budget process, but those are the only two times you can do that. So it's either during the budget process or during a declared emergency. And the reason this is good is you have to look beyond your own tenure on the board. If you establish this as the county's practice, then that will forever be in place. So down the road, if a completely different board 10, 15, 20 years from now wants to go out and bond, that's going to be something that really is impactful to the credit rating, that you really have a sequestered reserve.

Question on that, just because you said it will forever be in place. Until it's changed.

Right, right.

The future board could just undo that, right?

But I think, you know, it really is considered a best practice. Okay, yeah. And so that's why I think it's so important because what it says is, I want to back up just a second. You know, my role as a consultant is not to criticize. My role is to come in and look critically and say, you know, what could we do differently? The things that are in place here that maybe inhibit the financial stability, there are things that definitely stabilize you. But there are other things. Those have been developed over decades probably. It's not something that this board did. And so sometimes when you make a change like that with the General Reserve, what it really does is establish a pattern. a culture. And that's what I think is really important for San Benito County, for your future stability, for all of your constituents.

Okay. Understood. Thank you. Ms. Rizzo-Crow.

Yeah, I went through my notes and there was one question that I didn't ask. When you talked about cancellation of obligation of fund balance and then assigned fund balance, I kind of I want to understand how does this work? Am I often understanding that's the role? I call it the rollover where you're rolling over into your next budget and you show where your unspent funds from your budget, where those are and why they happened. before you roll them over and say that now they're like revenue in your new budget. You actually are seeing it more transparently. I'm assuming this, am I understanding that right?

Yes, they're not really revenue. They are considered a resource. So the County Budget Act says your resources must balance with your uses. So they're part of your resources. Revenues are a resource as well. But if you look at it this way, all the money comes in, all your revenues come into a bucket, which is the fund. And then you have all of your expenditures that go out, all the money that goes out. At the end, hopefully you have something left over. Under GASB 54, which has been in place for about 20 years, those have to be classified into certain classifications. That's part of the ACFR. Correct. And so you have non-spendable, you have assigned, which means that somebody in the organization, not necessarily the board of supervisors, it can be the board, but somebody in the organization has said, we're going to set this aside for a future use. Then you have committed. That's where the board has said, we are going to set this money aside. So in your general ledger, The reserves are committed fund balance. Then there's restricted. Restricted said that the state or federal government or some other agency that provided you with these funds says you will only use them for this. And so they're restricted to that purpose. And that's what we see mostly in our special revenue funds. It's called restricted to purpose of funds. In the general fund only, you have that unassigned fund balance. That's where your discretion is. That's where the board can appropriate those funds for any legal use. That's where you have the most influence on how those residual funds are spent.

And on those unassigned fund balances, when we are approving larger projects, I'm not talking like contracts for a department. I'm talking about large commitments that we are funding for. There was, we had, well, we didn't, the prior board had a capital improvement project plan for five years. It was adopted, I think, in 2020. It was to run through 2020, 2021. It was to run through 2026 or 2025. And that was a capital improvement project on roads, on specific things where money was going to be committed. And it was committed to these projects. I want to understand how are we taking direction that we give from the board where we're saying we're approving a large project and we are committed to that project. How are we putting into our policy that that project has had funding that has been set aside for it and that that funding is committed and will roll over into the next budget?

So there are a couple of ways that you can do that. One is if you want to set those funds aside in the general fund, you can commit them. So committed fund balance isn't just for your reserves. You could say committed for Fourth Street project or whatever it is. And then that sequesters those funds. So it's not just committed for future capital projects player to be named later. It's committed for these. The other thing you can do is you can roll that into the Rhodes Fund, which is a capital projects fund. You can actually make that transfer out of the general fund and into the Rhodes Fund. And then it must be designated within that fund, and that fund balance is restricted.

Okay, so part of what we're going to be recommending is a policy around that. And this is an area that I really want us to focus on as a board is that we need to make sure that that policy, so when we're giving direction from the board level, that that action takes place and it does not get overstepped by a next year's budget and just erased off the board. That's what I want to make sure we correct.

I agree, and I strongly agree with that, because the purpose of a county really is to provide services. And so if all of a sudden you have a lot of capital projects you haven't provided for, that money has to come from somewhere, and it could be a reduction in services. And conversely, if you have services that you want to provide, but you have capital needs, your buildings are falling apart or everything, that doesn't serve people either. And so having a clear vision of where you want to go for your capital needs and for just your ongoing operations really is very important, and that's a part of that policy. Okay, great. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't believe we need to formally take a...

motion on this item right it was just to receive and yeah i would like to say um just one other comment is no consultant can ever come in and do this alone there are a lot of people who have contributed and been very helpful and i really have to um applaud the auditor controller's office and especially Leanne Godinez in the auditor controller's office, very sharp, really knows what she's talking about. And then Gracie Rodriguez in the CEO's office has become our de facto OpenGov person, and she has been tenacious in getting us the kind of reports that you all want so that you can see detail. So they're not pretty right now, but we've got them, and we have comparative data where we can actually look at what were the actuals for the prior year, what was the budget, what are the projections, and what are people asking for, departments are asking for. It's really been astounding how much she's been able to achieve, and I really have to give her credit for that.

Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, we'll be moving on then to our next item, 3.3. This is from the CEO to discuss the county's role in the Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program round two grant application.

Good morning, board members. At last, perhaps two weeks, three weeks ago, two, three meetings ago, you board approved a support letter for a nonprofit organization to submit a grant. The original grant requires that a lot of responsibilities from the county that I was concerned about the county getting into a grant application that requires allocating staff resources as well as financial resources. So we were informed that it was a non-binding letter of support, and the board did submit that letter. However, later on we received a grant application copy, and the copy actually of that grant application has more work to be done by the county. And responsibilities are a great deal of resources, uses of resources from the county as well as it requires that we process a CEQA document for reconstruction or rehabilitation or construction of the facility. And you understand that CEQA is expensive as well as as operating the center in the future. And so in your report, you have the details and I don't know if you can bring into to the board in the board agenda to the screen just to make you aware of the concerns that I have as the administrator of the county. Our concern is the long term responsibilities that the county can have if we if you were to continue with this application. The department, the nonprofit organization is now requiring that we complete the form aligning all the responsibilities. Those are all the responsibilities that you see on the board agenda. And so I don't know if it's necessary to read it, but the biggest ones that I have concern is the county will support prior meeting and seek coordination for the demonstration project. The county provides this public sector authority, technical coordination, and operational integration needing for the effective implementation of the law and long-term sustainability. And I think that that will lessen the details, to be honest. And I'm concerned that by going with this application, As co-applicants, we're putting the county in a difficult position because you're going to be responsible for providing those services because now the grant is in the second phase, which is the final phase to submit the application. And so I just want to make you aware of the concerns that I have as an administrator. Right now, we do not have, we have a person that is on extended leave what the other two people are gone, and then we have one temporary position. We're doing an analysis to the department. We're very short on resources. I think today we're using all our resources that we can, but projecting responsibilities in the future may be detrimental for this county. And I have been participating in some of the meetings and it's still not very clear whether or not the other agency that is participating to provide the facility is completely in agreement for that facility to be used. Supervisor Sotelo joined me to the meeting, and we were made aware of the process of the application, so I just want to let you know of the level of responsibilities that you have. It includes just if you go through the list that we will have to transport individuals, including the activation of the cooling center, referrals, transportation, and wellness checks during the heat events. That requires personnel that we don't have right now, and I find it very difficult in the near future to have those individuals available to provide that level of services. Thank you.

Thank you. Public comment?

If you'd like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card on zoom please press star nine or the raised hand icon and on zoom I have San Benito County Community Consulting. You've been unmuted and you have three minutes.

Hi, good morning, Board of Supervisors. My name is Richard Perez, Sr., and I'm actually leading this application. And I wanted to clarify a couple of things. First of all, it's a planning grant. There is no commitment to CEQA because we don't even have the site to demonstrate. What this is actually doing is actually creating a collaborative for resiliency. And so when we bring together the CBOs, we need a public agency similar to OES that is going to establish protocols for when it is activated. So when we look at extreme heat, which we've experienced in the last couple of weeks, we need to know what's going to happen with those residents who are adults with functional needs, elderly, people who are susceptible to heat illness like outdoor workers. So what this grant is really doing is planning for that. This does not have any commitments by the county to do any transportation, anything other than to sit down at the table and it will be compensated for the county's participation as a co-applicant to really structure what we need in terms of resiliency. And I was a participant in the last briefing for the El Nino. So we do know that there are going to be instances where the community needs to have a place where the resiliency will take place. So if it's cooling or maybe it's hydration, these are things that really need to be addressed in the future. So when we look at the county's role, I think it's incumbent upon them with emergency services that we have somebody at the table. Now I am in discussions with the city of Hollister and the 300 West Block property can be used as a backup power source, but we need coordinated effort. So if the county wants to participate, I think it's really important that we bring these collaboratives together because strategically we need to have all these people at the table when we sit down and talk about these issues. So extreme heat is one of them. Flooding is another one. Wildfires is another one. And I've been working in emergency preparedness since we first got the Listos grant in 2026 or 2025, excuse me. So I just really encourage the board to sit down and read the grant because I think there's a misconception that they're committing resources when actually we're providing money for resources. So if you're paying a consultant, these are things that can be a benefit to the county as they sit down at the table so their time is compensated. So thank you very much.

Thank you. And that concludes public comment. Thank you.

Questions or comments from board members? Ms. Crow?

I'm just a little confused. So I feel like I'm getting two messages. We originally approved a letter that we were not going to be committing county resources The grant application is saying we are committing county resources, but the public comment is saying this is a planning grant for the future. but it's the future of resources that the county will be committing to provide do i have that correct i'm trying to so it may be a planning grant but it's planning for something that we are committing resources in the future that we may not be able to have now i don't have a problem with supporting a planning grant but i have a problem with the resources being committed is it legally binding that the resources are committed if we move forward with this grant application

Mr. Chair, members of the Board of Supervisors, I believe that's exactly the point here. And that is, you're submitting a planning grant which specifically details that if the money is awarded, that the county will be a participant and the money is being granted based upon a commitment that the county will be that partner and will provide the resources and the assistance as detailed in the grant application itself.

Are we reimbursed through the grant for those resources?

It's not specified in the grant application. Could you please pull the item in the agenda? I'm going to show you what I received. Is the submission Maple Street Heat Resilience? is that's the application that was submitted. Nowhere in the application said we're gonna be reimbursed, but it's actually page number five. And so that's what the information is six. Is it six over there? Go down that one. So if you read that portion and it talks about organization names, it says, please provide the organization's name, type, summary of the role and the project. So that's what the planning grant is that is gonna end into a project And if you read that portion that was submitted, I literally copy and paste that information for the staff report so you can see the level of responsibility that you will have as a county if you participate in this plan. I don't mind participating in the plan, but I'm hesitant to recommend the board to take that role of responsibility. I'm not in disagreement that we need nonprofit organizations. We need to collaborate with nonprofit organizations to provide services to the entire community. I'm 100%. But to make special commitments from the board, even if it's long term, in a year or two years, that's a hesitation on my side as an administrator because how do we explain this to the members? We have been going through a financial difficult situation. We're trying to recover the county's finances, stabilize the process, and committing to additional responsibilities is difficult.

And I completely understand, and I thank you for bringing that concern. Is there a way to move forward with the grant application stipulating that we will only provide these services if the grant funds them?

The concern that I have is the following. Your letter was a letter of support, non-binding letter of support. The application submitted says co-applicant. The county has co-applicant. I don't know if I can go back to this. Let me show you over here. It talks about that the county is a co-applicant.

And please, I apologize. We're a co-applicant. Does that mean that we are committing resources? That's what co-applicant means in a grant application. And so if we're committing resources, but we said we're a non-binding supporter, I don't understand how that's going to work. So can they move forward with the grant application with us not being a co-applicant and that we support and want to collaborate, but we cannot in good conscience right now commit people that we don't have and the resources that we can't afford towards this. We totally support where it's going, but we can't support any commitment long-term from the county. Is there any way we can ask for that?

Let me put it this way. Your commitment is different than what the application says. So if you were to approve today to participate in the planning grant, but the organization decides to continue submitting the application as the county as co-applicant, then it's gonna be a problem.

I just wanna- And I see that. I see that, so that's why I'm asking. Can we be removed as being a co-applicant but a supporter.

And Supervisor Kuro, members of the Board of Supervisors, yes, in fact, the Board can take that action today should it wish to clarify its role. The Board made its role very clear when you adopted that non-binding letter of support. Now, what is being prepared to be submitted is something that is obviously substantively different than what the Board previously approved. so the board may today decide what if any level of support and participation it wishes to have with respect to this grant application and it may specifically indicate that you do not support this being submitted with the county as a co-applicant and that you do not support any commitment of resources from the county that we may not have now and we may not have later nor do we have the funds to support that commitment so exactly what you've just stated and so yes you could form that as a motion and that could be the board's action if you wish okay thank you thank you um i'm curious is there a way because it seems like um

like this grant is needed in our community, right? And so I'm struggling with like, how do we access this funding that is so incredibly needed? And then at the same time, committing to stuff possibly in the future. But I'm kind of, I mean, I guess some of these things, whether we commit to in a grant or not, are going to fall under the responsibility of the county though, right? Like having cooling centers, dealing with some of the, being prepared for some of these extreme heat or flooding, earthquake, whatever the kind of disaster is, we need to be doing some of those. So how do we leverage something like this and working with the community and finding kind of a plan or a scope that is acceptable and that we can, that we're comfortable committing to, I'm having a hard time where it's kind of like, it's either a yes or no. I'd like to find a path for us to be able to support this, but maybe in a very specific, you know, I just, I worry that if we're not do we sacrifice the grant potentially by not being a co-applicant? And I don't know, maybe, maybe not. I don't wanna do anything that's going to damage that potential of moving forward and accessing resources that are so incredibly needed for our community, right? Like we need funding more than a lot of these other places. And some of these communities are receiving a lot of money already. And because of these coordinations and things of the sort. So is there... Any feedback that we could give or things that we could say that maybe there's some things in that scope that we're uncomfortable with or that it's like, ooh, that's a little bit of a sticking point, the CEQA, whatever it is that we could identify as, okay, we can't commit to this, but this area here, we can commit to this and we want to see this grant successful. We want to be part of that planning grant. We definitely want a seat at the table. Is there a way for us to get that clarity about what is a, we can't commit to that, and this, yes, 100% we're in. We could commit to this. This falls under our scope anyways. So that would just be my question is how can we clarify what our role would be in kind of moving forward? I hate to just say no and pass up these opportunities.

Yeah, I didn't know if you were expecting an answer. I don't know if anyone...

I'd just like to amplify what the CEO has already stated. And so, for example, if you look at the application under project types, and I think this is where some of the consternation comes. is it talks about early infrastructure. Grantees must develop a heat-related infrastructure planning document that identifies where infrastructure will be deployed and how it will protect vulnerable populations. But then it goes on to say the planning document must be supported by an infrastructure demonstration project, and both must be completed within 30 months of the grant award start date. Then it goes on to state that applicants must demonstrate that construction will be completed within 48 months of the grant award start date. So, yes, it's a planning grant, but I think it's important to understand where does that planning grant lead you? And can the board say today, can the CEO state say today that they are prepared to, once the planning grant is completed, to now create that infrastructure demonstration project within 30 months of the grant award start date, and then to actually construct the infrastructure? I mean, I think if you just look at that as one component, I think given the board's overall budget concerns, this is something that you may wanna consider.

So just to clarify, the answer is then no, we cannot be a co-applicant and not sign on to the money, right? That's the gist of this, if I understand correctly.

If I can request, I don't know if this is possible. I would like to reach out to the state because the consultant for this grant says that co-application, that doesn't mean that we're gonna be responsible. I would really wanted to reach out to the funding agency to see what co-applicant means in this case and what are the responsibilities that we're gonna have if the county were to commit to these items.

Supervisor Kosmicki hasn't had a chance yet to speak. So you want to go ahead.

Thank you, Chair and Supervisor Kosmicki. The project types, this is the biggest alarming part for me. Applicants, plural. If we're co-applicants, now if I read this, applicants must demonstrate that construction will be completed within 48 months of the grant award start date. Awards range from $3 million to $4.5 million. Does that mean they're giving us $3 million to $4.5 million to construct a facility?

The way that it's structured, they're going to receive up to $1.2 million for the planning, and then once the planning goes through, then they'll receive the additional funding for the construction because it's accepted already. So it's one... One, it's going by processes. It's going by stages. The first one was the preliminary pre-application. We were part of it. And now we're in the second phase, which is the planning. And then the third phase is the construction. There will be additional funding injected to the project as soon as they move forward.

Because my biggest concern, the word applicants, if we're co-applicants, we are an applicant. And so we will be responsible. So I really struggle with any...

guarantees that we can do any of that it's not different than buying a house when you have a second person signing in the agreement and the loan guess what something happens to you the other person takes responsibility that's called application thank you yeah well first of all i really appreciate the ambition and the thought that's being put into this um

know that there's there's something that you know folks out there are trying to solve and bringing us into the fold um however you know this is just is not what we signed up for i mean when we when we approve a non-binding letter of support that's just basically saying we support something that you're moving forward with and then to have it come back we're reading the application form and it says please provide the organization um uh name, type, and summary of their role. And all applications require a co-applicant. The co-applicant requirement varies, yada, yada, yada. Do you have a co-applicant? Yes, we have co-applicants. Who is it? It's listed as County of San Benito through the Office of Emergency Services. that's not what we signed up for. So I just, if we are going to move forward in some sense, this needs to go back and be hashed out and clarified because yes, I think there could be a role for the county. Could there be a financial commitment at this point? Absolutely not. And I don't want to go down the road of implying or insinuating that that this county is ready to commit any funding toward this project because we're not in the position to do that. And I think it would be highly irresponsible of us to move forward with the way that this is going at this point. and i also just want to point out that the facility i mean i'm what i'm reading is this is 190 maple street that's the old gym next to the post office right smack in the middle of the city of hollister so why is the city of hollister not being approached as the co-applicant as opposed to the county because the facility itself is actually right in the middle of the city. So I would suggest the applicants reach out to the city and find out if the city wants to be co-applicants and in the meantime, I'm not comfortable moving forward with this until we firmly clarify that we are not, I don't think we can be co-applicants without, I just don't think it's possible as much as I appreciate the thought. I don't think we can be co-applicants on something that's potentially going to cost six, seven figures. And there are question marks all around as to where those dollars could potentially come from. That would be irresponsible of us to do that, especially considering we just had a conversation about budget and uncertainty and trying to get firm grasp of our numbers. This is kind of going in the opposite direction. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, I'm not comfortable being a co-applicant as long as there's a financial commitment attached to that. So that's where I'm at. Supervisor Crowe, you had, I think, a recommendation.

Where I was going to go. I was going to go with the staff's recommendation from county council as stated by them. Do I need to repeat the entire thing? We would not be co-applicants, but we would support the project, not financially. and that as it moves forward, we could always have information brought back to us. My motion would be to remove us as co-applicant, yet support the project unbinding.

Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second?

Second. Can I just ask, sir? Yes. are there opportunities for us to stay like what our role could be in this? You know, like I get Hunter, I agree with you regarding the city of Hollister and their involvement. I think it was a natural look to the County first because of OES and, and all of that. Right. And I think they've done work with kind of the VOAD. And so I don't think it was a, slight to the city or I think it was just kind of that natural oh yes kind of a thing is there anything that we can do I mean this really does help our community is there anything that we could say where okay we can't be a co-applicant but with our letter of support and we could say that yes oh yes will be you know the county will participate in the meetings we will I don't know, whatever we can, is there anything where we could say like what we could commit to so that we can't agree to anything right now that affects revenue and affects our budget, but that there are some things that we would be happy to lend to. kind of lend towards this grant to help kind of support to maybe position them in a better place. So, and I don't know exactly what we could commit to, but hoping that we could come up with some things that we would be comfortable in kind of that letter of support, including the items of whatever that is. I don't know if that's something that the board, obviously outside of the financial commitment. And I know that even if OES is working on something, there is somewhat of a financial commitment because we're paying for staff, etc., But I do think that this could potentially help our community as a whole. And so if there is some staff resources or whatever that we're comfortable, I think that might be helpful. And rather than just hard, we're not a co-applicant where we support you, but that's it. But beyond just the support, what could we do?

So there is language in the application that talks about provide emergency preparedness data, assist with public warnings and communication protocols. I think those are that there's no issue because OES manages that information. We submit alerts. We can be partnering with them, alerting about the upcoming storms or a fire or a need for a cooling center or shelter. Those things we can contact them. We can participate in the development of the plan. That's absolutely fine. I don't see any issue. I'm a big believer in working with nonprofit organizations I'm a big believer in that. I have done it for many years. And honestly, sometimes the counties lacks resources and non-profit organizations are our resources. I'm in completely agreement with that. My concern is the financial responsibility and having the responsibility to open a cooling center, move the people to, transport the people to the cooling center, have the operation. You know, it's the most difficult thing to operate is the cooling center because you have a variety of people coming into the center with no security. That's a huge responsibility for the county, and that's my concern. Mr.

Chair? Yes. So I totally agree that we should add some wording of what we can do, but it should be exactly what our role is. So I love the word that you use, participate. Everything in this is support. That means staff. That means money. That means resources. So I don't like the word support. We support the government. applicant's application, but we don't want to be a co-applicant, but participate. The word you used was participate. I think that we will participate in such level of the OES role of the Office of Emergency Services, and that means participating in coordinating, that means participating in the alerts All of those things that come naturally to that department is how we will participate. But we cannot support financially or with staff members. We can attend meetings. That's a no-brainer. So that's kind of where I'm at. And I could get totally behind that if you'd like to make that a friendly amendment.

Well, yeah, I just, I think it'd be just helpful as we submit this, just laying it out there a little bit, what we can do. And so, yeah, so.

Mr. Trick, can I add one last point? Yeah. We may want to clarify that we're in no position, we are really in no position to take on another infrastructure project. And that I think needs to be clarified so that there's no false impression from the applicant more than anything that the county in any time in the near future, we've got enough on the to-do list when it comes to infrastructure. We are just absolutely not in a position to take on another infrastructure project or to be a key player in another infrastructure project. We are just simply not. I wish we could, but we are not in that position. And I think that needs to be made clear.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the board, if you'd like, I'd be happy to try and frame the language of emotion, if you wish, based on everything that I've heard. I think the first element of this is that the Board reaffirms its non-binding letter of support for the application itself without any financial commitment or commitment of other resources for the resilience program. The Board also supports that the County Executive Office and the Office of Emergency Services will participate in meetings, discussions, coordination with the nonprofits, with the City of Hollister and other governmental agencies to at least discuss and try to address this issue of extreme heat and community resilience. And lastly, that the Board firmly states that it is not in a financial condition to be able to support any additional infrastructure projects with respect to this particular program, but that it does commit to be able to participate and to provide whatever

resources the office of emergency services would ordinarily provide during any such local emergency thank you um someone to make a new motion as yes so i'll make a new motion per county council's recommendation so staff recommendations from county council's oral statement not not the agenda um i would make a motion to approve is there a second

Second it.

Great. We have a first and a second. We have a roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Zenger?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Kosmicki?

Yes.

Supervisor Curro? Yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes.

Thank you. Now we do have, I believe we have someone in closed session at 12, is that right? So we'll probably have to break now and give people a chance to grab something before we head into closed session. So do we have any public comment on our closed session agenda?

If you'd like to make a comment on closed session, please press star nine or the raised hand icon on Zoom in chambers. Please provide a speaker card. And I have no public comment.

Thank you. We'll break for closed session and be back in county council. What are we estimating, an hour, hour and a half?

If the board needs more than 15 minutes, we could reconvene in a half hour if you want, 12, 15. And then we will be back out by 1 o'clock at the latest.

We'll be back by 1 o'clock. At the latest.

At the latest. Thank you.

All right, we are back from closed session. County Council, do we have any reportable action?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Board of Supervisors. There is no reportable action. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to continue with regular agenda. Item 3.4, receive an update regarding speeding concerns along State Route 25 through Trespinos. This is from our Public Works Department.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Board of Supervisors, Adolfo Gonzalez, Public Works Administrator. Today I'm going to be presenting to you an update on the Tres Pinos speeding concern. So in July of 2023, the Board directed staff to conduct an evaluation of speeding concerns along Airline Highway in Tres Pinos. As you're well aware, Airline Highway is a state highway, which is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. So the matter was referred to SBCOG to coordinate with Caltrans to address the reported speeding concern. Sometime in February of 2024, an update was provided to the Board of Supervisors that there was continuing discussions with Caltrans. In July of that same year, staff came back to the board and reported that Caltrans would allow the county to install speed feedback signs. The signs were installed in September of 24, and Caltrans indicated that no additional traffic calming measures would be installed. The two speed feedback signs were installed in the northbound and southbound directions, on airline highway as you entered the tres pinos zone so the next steps uh would be to contact caltrans and determine uh whether or not a traffic analysis or speed service was conducted within that section there i have no indication of whether a speed analysis was or was not conducted by uh caltrans So we would like the board to direct staff to work with SBCOG and Caltrans to determine whether or not a full traffic calming analysis was conducted. If so, obtain that report, review it, and come back to the board and provide an update on that.

Thank you. Do we have public comment?

If you'd like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card on Zoom. Please press star nine or the raised hand icon. And I have no public comment.

Thank you. Board members, anyone have any questions? This is your district.

Thank you. And thank you for bringing this forward. I feel like this has been a topic we've been talking about for quite some time. We do appreciate your speed signs. The actual speeds that you are allowed to do are not necessarily near the speed signs, either they're before or they're way after. So if we could maybe have the signs, I'm not directing, I'm just asking if it's something we could have staff look at the signs actually have the speed limit on that sign. So when it's flashing the speed, it tells you what your your actual limit is because that's been one of the comments from the public. The other thing is The speed issue there has been highlighted because of the popularity of Tres Pinos. If you haven't been there on a Thursday, Friday, or Saturday night, that is a happening little town. And I love it. It's great for our businesses. The problem I have is we've had many near-miss traffic hits on Tres. pedestrians at night so we have an issue with multiple multiple cars parking all along the roadway and they go all the way up to the corners so i've taken some pictures and i'll share them with staff when you're pulling out of a side street you can't see left and you can't see right and you're pulling out at night and hoping that you're not going to get hit by something So that's one. So one of the recommendations or suggestions from some of the residents were, could the corners be red zoned? So you can't park on the, like have one car length zone. off of the corners so you can see around the first car that was one suggestion um another suggestion was um could we uh identify uh where parking is actually allowed off because it's a highway we have to remember this highway goes through the smallest little town we have in our community and it there's they're parking on the sides of the highway and trucks are driving through. So that was another one. I've also heard that there's a potential coming forward, I'm not sure when, that the mining industry on Cienega will be increasing. Well, there's a truck traffic thing that's going right now through, it's going through Cienega to Tres Pinos to get on Highway 25. It's not going over the Bad Hill. And so if we're looking at truck traffic, this is the biggest complaint I get. The semi-trucks are driving through at such high speeds that people just don't feel safe. And so we need to look at what those routes are for our mining trucks and how do we look at whatever agreements were made because if it's this bad now and we're gonna potentially add more trucks, that's gonna be another issue that I think the residents are gonna have a few things to say about. But besides that, I appreciate this. I would really like Caltrans and I will advocate with COG and for mobility partnership. I will make sure because this is a topic I keep bringing up is the speed, is how do we slow people down and have accessible crossings for pedestrians on a highway? That's my question. I don't expect an answer today, but thank you.

Thank you. Anything else?

Yeah, I would just say, you know, it sounds like Caltrans wasn't open to further traffic, you know, speed coming, but perhaps it's worth just revisiting, especially in light of you obviously get the study and do some level of analysis. I don't know what the rules are with technically it's a state highway, but it's also basically just a small town, a road through a small town, and just logically, just speaking, it seems like speed humps, something along those lines. If there's no other options, because enforcement doesn't seem to be really all that likely that whatever options are on the table, if they're willing to consider, I think maybe we should ask at least.

Yes. Just so it's on the record, none of the residents want speed bumps or calming. They would rather have a stop sign. at the the post office street they they do not want speed bumps they don't want maybe those rumble you know like when you're right before right when you're at that that sign that says flashing the speed maybe the rumbles to just wake you up and remind you gotta slow down that but no way would they want speed bumps i'm 99.9 sure on this one

Mr. Chair, it's your district, you know best. I would just say in my experience, areas where people know there isn't enforcement, especially a quiet little area, there's a high likelihood they're just going to simply ignore a stop sign because I've seen it. It's a problem we're having, for instance, on the old highway now off 156 where you have these areas that are um you know just not a ton of volume and people literally just drive through the stop signs so i i feel like you're still going to have some level of an issue either way if you simply install soft science yeah um thank you is there any actual i i'm not that close to this this area this project but a stop sign there is that something caltrans would actually

Is that something they would consider basically on a highway is what I'm wondering?

Well, at Airline and 25 and Ridgemark or Fairview, there's a four-way stop sign with a flashing light. You know, with the Ridgemark potential project, they're looking at a potential light going there. There's nothing that says we can't ask Caltrans again to possibly do a flashing light study or even a yellow light, a warning light, you know. where it's not that they're stopping, it's just getting them to slow down. I've sat at flapjacks at noon and at breakfast, and when these trucks go flying by and the whole building shakes because of the speed that they're going, that's the part. It's having a conversation also with highway patrol and having maybe a couple more patrols during these high traffic periods. Yeah.

I think that the first step would be to obtain the traffic calming study that was done, if it was completed, and then evaluate that. And we've taken note of your comments, and we'll take all of those into consideration and work with Caltrans to see how we can move forward.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have item 3.5. This is regarding the Lands of Lee Affordable Housing Plan. I think we have Abraham here to present. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, members of the board. Good afternoon, Abraham Prado, Director of Planning and Building Services. The item before you is the affordable housing plan for the Lance of Lee project. It's for the Lance of Lee subdivision. The Lance of Lee subdivision consists of 39.5 acres, and it is subdivided into 141 residential lots consisting of 121 single-family homes and 20 duet units, together with 30 junior accessory-only units associated with the affordable housing component at 291 Old Ranch Road. And the subdivision was approved on November 26, 2024, Condition number 73 of the resolution that was approved, there was plenty of conditions over 73, but the number 73 was the condition that required that the applicant obtain approval of an affordable housing agreement with the Board of Supervisors. And it restricted the affordable housing units to 55 years. And the proposed affordable housing agreement has been prepared to implement these requirements and establish enforceable affordability restrictions on the 30 junior ADUs. And part of that condition number 73 requires a few things, the number of inclusionary units, the level of affordability, location and type of inclusionary units, the timing of construction of the units, the amount of any applicable in LUFEs, the rental property manager, and the restrictions for the junior ADE use. This is just a map of what was approved. As you can see here in the map, the diamonds throughout the map is where the proposed Junior EDUs are to be located. As you can see, they're spread out throughout the development. The shaded lots, which, represent the duet units and then the rest are the standard single family residential lots. And then towards the east and it's approximately a two acre, just under two acres for a park. Going briefly one by one in regards to the requirements, the number of inclusionary units as indicated, Condition number 73, there are 31-bedroom attached junior ADUs being restricted to low-income households for 55 years, and that's located in section B of the attached affordable housing agreement. In regards to the level of affordability, the agreement defines a qualifying low-income household as a household whose annual income does not exceed 80% of the AMI, of the area median income. And regarding the location and type of inclusionary units, the junior ADUs are equitably distributed within the project, as indicated in the map. The agreement that finance a qualifying low-income household, as indicated, not to exceed 80% of the area median income, and that's in section 1.20 and 2.3 of the agreement. Regarding the timing of the construction in the agreement, we indicate that at least half of the ADUs, the junior ADUs, shall be issued. The permit should be issued prior to the 71st, prior to the issuance of the 71st main residential lot for the development, and all 30 junior ADUs shall be issued for the building permits prior to the last main residential building permit for the development and developer shall not defer construction of the affordable units to the final portion of the project. So they should be built throughout the project and not defer towards the end. Regarding any applicable NLU fee, the required affordable unit shall not be constructed, as part of the, shall be constructed and no NLU fee should be required for the development. Regarding the rental property manager, the law owner is responsible for finding qualified tenants. Once the property owner find the qualifications and they do qualify for the affordability, they confer with the county, the county ensures that that's the case, and then the tenant and the rental agreement can move forward. Regarding the deed restriction, the ADUs shall be restricted for 55 years per section 2.2 of the term. And here is another visual of the map, the subdivision map. With this, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the Lands of Lee Affordable Housing Plan, authorize the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to execute the Affordable Housing Agreement on behalf of the county and direct staff to take all necessary administrative and recording actions to implement the Affordable Housing Plan. Thank you. Are there any questions for Steph? Thank you. Let's go to public comment.

If you'd like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card on Zoom. Please press star nine or the raised hand icon. And it looks like I have no public comment.

Thank you. Bring it back to the board. Mr. Kuzmicki, you want to go? Comments? Mr. Kuro? Mr. Teller, you want to start? Go for it. I'll go.

Abraham, just a quick question. I'm so sorry. Just for clarification for the public, who determines AMI? Because it's not mentioned in the presentation. the 80% AMI is by the federal and the state government. It's not us putting those requirements.

Thank you, I was gonna ask you to repeat the question. I didn't hear, that is correct. Yes, we go by the state requirement for the area median income, that's correct. And I believe currently San Miguel County for a family of four is $140,200.

All right. Yeah. So just to recall things, I, you know, I just put it back on the record. Sometimes the media reports these things and leaves out who voted which way and all that sort of thing. So just as a recollection, I've always been opposed to this project as a whole. There was a three to two vote in 2024. I was on the no side of that along with Supervisor Zanger. I'm consistently opposed to, this uh what i would call so-called affordable housing um this is not um and this is not a knock at all on the um the county side the folks that we had a lawsuit from the developer um and i'll get to that in a moment so this is not a knock on on any anybody here um who worked through process to get to this point um but uh this is not really the intent of of what we're supposed to be pursuing with affordable housing. It's not the intent of the county's affordable housing ordinance. In fact, in my mind, this is actually discouraging what true affordable housing and diverse housing stock throughout the city, whether you live on the east of Fairview or the west side of Hollister. It's actually, to me, discouraging real affordable housing. And I think it's actually a pretty dangerous precedent that if we were to essentially allow this sort of what I see as a multitude of loopholes, not only in the overall agreement, but within the affordable housing agreement as proposed. And so real quick before I get into those loopholes, County Council, can you, so the public is aware to whatever extent you can recollect what happened

uh going into court and coming back here the applicant was pushing for x y or z and we ended up um here today with what we have in front of us yes mr chair members the board supervisors yes going back some time ago there was a settlement agreement that was reached between the county and the developer that required certain actions to be taken with respect to the overall development itself. Now, the development was required to proceed through the normal process through the Planning Commission and to the Board of Supervisors. And it has gone through those processes. The Board, as you had indicated, had given very specific direction as to what they were prepared to approve and what the affordable housing agreement should provide for in order to meet the board's requirements. It has taken additional time in order for that to come before you today. We've been in numerous discussions with the lawyers for the developer who had sought several changes to what the board had previously agreed to. And so we made it very clear to them that this could not go forward unless the planning commission and the board agreed to change the elements of their prior approvals. They then brought another lawsuit against the county trying to argue that the court could make those changes and to circumvent the planning commissions and the board's approvals. So the motion for a temporary restraining order was denied by the court, sent the parties back. We advised the court that we are going through the normal process to seek board approval. It was at that time that the developer then backed off of some of the demands that they wanted because we made it very clear to them they were going to have to go back to the board for changes. And they believed, as we did, it was unlikely that the board was going to change the specific elements of their approval. And so now it comes before you. The affordable housing agreement that is before you, the recommendations from staff all represent the prior board approval.

Right. So there were, but there were 30, what was approved in 2024 on the three to two vote, there was 30 junior ADUs that the majority of the board was essentially saying you can designate 30 junior ADUs for affordable housing. What was the developer pushing for after that specifically?

Well, there were two components based upon my recollection. Number one was that the board had authorized detached units and they, I'm sorry, the board approved attached units and the developer wanted them to become detached units. The second thing they wanted to change was that they could essentially rent to family and friends who are not income qualified, which of course defeats the whole purpose of the affordable housing covenant. So we told them that if you rent, which is what the board's original direction was, if you rent, then it must be to an income qualified individual in order to now increase the affordable housing market. And if their family and friends happen to be income qualified, then certainly they could rent that unit. But you could not circumvent the affordable housing covenant by simply putting friends and family into those units. So those were the two main issues that we had with the developer. We've had numerous phone calls, and Supervisor Sotelo and Supervisor Kuro were involved in at least one of them, I recall. And we made it very clear to the developer that those were the original changes, that is what the Planning Commission approved, that is what the Board approved. And so staff did not have the authority to vary from any of those changes, which they had then placed in the affordable housing agreement, which we rejected and said, no, you have two choices. You either sign the agreement as the board has directed, or you come back to the board for changes. They elected to then back off those changes and then to agree to the conditions that the board had originally directed and that we then negotiated through this agreement.

Yeah. And so in concept, what we have is 30 junior ADUs, which is, when I read it, it's under 500 square feet, basically. And it's got, it's like an efficiency, but it's very small, um, on, on someone else's property, basically. And I, I just, this is not at all what anyone had ever imagined as being, um, the right kind of direction that we should be going in when it comes to affordable housing. Putting that aside, I want to focus on this plan itself right now. And when I look at this plan, and I think you hit it on the nail, you weren't meaning to, but from where I'm coming from, you said if, you said if the property owner decides they want to rent it out, That's a gigantic loophole because this is not affordable housing at that point. This is a choice that the property owner has when they buy this property, whether they want to rent it out. So that, to me, is a big – that's in Section 2 and 2.1. basically going over the purpose in general terms and it's listing off just basically as you just said more generally greg but basically if the affordable lot owners elect to offer their respective affordable unit for rent upon selection of prospective tenant entering into a lease the affordable lot owners shall submit to the county to propose so they don't even have to rent it out, basically. It can just be part of the property. That's not at all what we're trying to accomplish here with affordable housing. Secondly, I have a question. If the property owner did decide to rent the junior ADU, let's just say theoretically, to a relative or a friend, because the other big thing here is that they actually are the ones that have the choice. They get to choose basically the tenant. But they have to be, according to the rules at least, they have to be income qualified. But they get to choose the tenant, which actually brings up a series of other questions. I thought we had a whole process for choosing. I thought we just did a local tenant preference ordinance, which would basically be all out the door at that point with regard to this one development that seems to be getting special treatment. And so If they rented it out to a relative or a friend, what means would the county have to follow up and review the renter's income eligibility? What's in place that we would actually do to follow up, barring there is no complaint or some sort of flag that's raised about it?

Thank you, Supervisor Kosmicki. So yeah, you're correct that the Affordable Housing Agreement does indicate that if the affordable owners elect to offer their respective affordable unit for rent. So if they do offer for rent for their family or for their siblings or whatnot, then as part of that requirement, they would have to come check with the county to make sure that they do actually qualify. We will have a questionnaire to make sure that they qualify. But they don't have to if it is for themselves, for their own siblings, they may elect not to do that and then the county would not have a recourse for that.

What I read is that they would have to keep something on file for like three years in the event somebody came to them and questioned whether the person was income eligible. That's what I read in the documentation. Esperanza, you had something?

Yes. My apologies. Usually it requires an annual monitoring to ensure the affordability portion is being addressed. That's number one. Number two, You cannot rely on an honor system when it comes to affordability of housing. You will have to restrict units for affordability. If you don't add that element to the apartments, The honor system doesn't work. And how do you monitor that? So I think it has to be established in the agreement that an annual monitor has to take place at the cost of the developer. Because those monitoring, it implies that you're going to have income eligibility for the families, information that they have to provide you. and then they have been in compliance with the affordability of all the laws that applies. And it has a cost for the staff type to go over there and monitor those. I will really, really emphasize the need or add that language that anytime the staff goes and monitor those units, the affordability portion is being paid by the developer.

Great. Page seven had the planning director, and this has nothing to do with you. This is just the language. The planning director may in his or her reasonable discretion approve continued occupancy by a tenant whose gross annual household income exceeds the qualifying income for a qualifying low-income household, provided the tenant's gross annual income does not exceed 120%. of area median income um so it's normally it's 80 um we're giving discretion to whomever the planning director is to allow up to 120 percent of median income uh in my book that's not affordable housing um again just to re-emphasize i have concerns with the local tenant preference ordinance that we just approved why are we doing this if we're just going to allow loopholes like this And then additionally, I have issues with the section that says allowing the developer to build 70 market rate units of the total stock before having to build any junior ADUs. And we as a board have already talked about this and agreed that that should not be allowed, that you should be building the affordable housing right off the bat. And so this agreement in particular is basically allowing the developer to do exactly what this board said we were no longer going to allow going forward.

And then.

One second. uh in the 2.11 um the county may also grant a waiver relaxation or amendment of the restrictions contained in this agreement upon defining by the board of supervisors in its reasonable discretion um or a diligent effort by the affordable lot owner of efforts to comply with the provisions of this agreement so in other words a future board of supervisors can just basically throw all the rules out the door And then 5.1, enforcement. The county may, we always just, there's always that may and shall. The county may designate, appoint, contract, or assign an authority to regulate, monitor, certify, and enforce the agreement. So there's an option for the county to bring in a professional manager typically the types of folks that oversee these types of affordable housing developments. In my opinion, that needs to be a shall, not a may. And so overall, I have the biggest one is basically allowing the property owner to not rent out these properties. that's an absolutely huge loophole. It's not affordable housing at that point. And then beyond that, lacking teeth to ensure the units are actually rented out to low-income residents by not having a real monitoring system, providing a loophole for those who are not low-income to rent if they've increased their income well above the median income standard. The lack of any requirement for real affordable or an actual affordable housing manager to oversee the units and allowing the developer to wait until most of the market rate units are built before starting the affordable units. And then lastly, you know, opening the door for a future board to nix the entire agreement. I'm against this. Thank you.

Thank you. Professor Crowe, do you have?

So my understanding from your presentation versus what Supervisor Kosmicki stated on the timing of the affordable construction, it's half of the permits have to be issued before the 71st house out of 121 is issued. Is that correct? So half would be 10. of the affordable.

Of the affordable, so because there's 30 affordable. Oh, sorry, 15. 15, yeah, and it's just, my understanding is it was indicated just to prevent that it would not, for whatever reason, the developer would not wait until the very end to build those units, but that is correct.

So it's that because these are houses with attached ADUs, it has to go through a flow, but that means that 15 of them have to be done before the 71st and that all of them have to be done before the last main house permit is issued.

Yeah, building permits should be issued prior to the 71st. 15 building permits for the affordable should be issued prior to the 71st building permit for the main dwelling, and all 30 building permits shall be issued for the affordable prior to the last main dwelling unit.

And I recall that this had to be deed restricted in order to meet the vehicle miles traveled overriding consideration. We did not approve an overriding consideration for VMT. We said VMT was matched, was met because of the affordability level, which requires these to be deed restricted. I want to make sure that everybody, that that's what my intent was, that these are deed restricted and that the only reason was because we didn't have to do an overriding consideration of VMT, which means less cars on the road because they would be most likely local residents. That's the only way the calculation could happen, which I was told was impossible to do. So I think that was a win. Currently, we have deed-restricted homes that we monitor in the county. That's part of what the county does. We have deed-restricted homes, and we have a staff member that annually reviews those deed-restricted homes and ensures that the applicants meet the criteria. Isn't that correct?

That is correct. It's not like a new program. That's one of the requirements of the funding sources. When you inject state funding sources, it is a requirement and an annual basis to submit a full report of the monitoring.

Yeah. Okay. So it's not like a new program that we're asking. We're just adding it to this development. Is there a development agreement? Or will there be a development agreement with this project? Has that conversation been discussed? I don't know. I'm asking. I don't know.

My understanding is that there is no development agreement for this project.

Wouldn't we be looking into, so I would definitely want a development agreement that's negotiated with that hypothetical new negotiation team that we discussed last night. Yeah, yeah, okay. Because without a development agreement, I don't think that there's too many nuances where people could be taken advantage of, or residents could take advantage of these ADUs. And I really want the development agreement to hash that out. The if that was mentioned by my colleague about the if they decide to rent, there are so many people right now that I know personally that can't even afford their own house and are looking for income that even if it's a small amount that could help support the purchase of a new home, it's an area that we have to be mindful of. We have multi, multi families living in one residence. because they can't afford to have their own rental or afford to buy a home. And it's an opportunity for these low-income individuals that are bringing family income together to have an opportunity that if they're mother their grandmother their teenage or no it would be like college student is unable to rent their own it is an opportunity for them to at least have that step of having their own place because it could be a resident it could be a family member but they have to be income qualified correct So it could be a family member, it could be a friend, but they just have to be income qualified. If it's deed restricted and we have a development agreement that has very clear restrictions on that, I don't see how that's hurting our residents. income eligibility i do have concerns with the what supervisor cosmicky read that the planning director has the ability to override the income is that after they've been already income qualified and they're in the property And then they get a raise, they get a new promotion, and now their income is higher because they're not going to be kicked out because they finally are getting somewhere, are they?

Usually this project requires that the developer ensures to have income-eligible families at all times. notify the residents when there's a change in their income to notify their office immediately, but every year they have to ensure that those apartments remain for low-income families. The director of the planning department, or in this case, whoever is monitoring those apartments, has to do an annual review of the apartments to meet the compliance. So it's two things at the same time happening.

So I heard, Supervisor Kosmicki, I think you said 120%. Is that right? I want to make sure I had that right. So they get in and they're eligible because they're low income.

Yes.

And then a couple years go by, and now they're up, and now they're out. Yes. And so, but this gives the discretion that the planning director can override that for a period of time. I'm not in agreement with that.

Because it defeats the purpose of affordability.

but it also defeats the purpose of housing people that couldn't afford housing, and it kicks them out of a location that they were able to afford. So is there a way to have a period of time that you now, your annual inspection, your annual review has occurred, and it's been determined that you exceed the amount, you have six months to vacate the property.

You can add that language. It's a great story.

I'm just throwing a number out there. I just feel the whole point of this project, in my opinion, I'm looking at the college students at Gav College. I'm looking at teachers. I'm looking at people that can't afford to live in our community. And we have enough multifamily opportunities. Multi families living in one home or even one apartment that could potentially qualify for these homes. And I mean, it's not a one shot fits all. And I know it's not what our long term goals are for affordable housing, but we try to work with what we've got.

And that's in section 2.6. There is a section that says, where it says that if it exceeds a qualifying income for a qualifying low-income household, then upon the expiration of such tenant's lease and following 120 days, it indicates notice to both the tenant and the county and if so permitted by applicable law, such tenants shall be required to vacate the unit and affordable law owner may rent the affordable unit to a qualifying low income family. So essentially, the county will look at when they do their annual monitoring, if it is rented, and if the numbers show that they have exceeded their gross annual income of over the qualifying then essentially they are put on notice the the affordable lot owner must put them on notice that they would have to vacate the premises but it's but until it expires so it'll be essentially to the end of the year plus for 120 days four months is what the is what it indicates okay

And that at least gives them an opportunity to find another place to live because I just feel like we're going to be causing homelessness if we're kicking people out of our affordable housing. I just I don't see by them being successful and getting out of that affordable housing level that that. Yeah. Will there be a waiting list for these deed restricted units that could be maintained by the county so that when that happens, there is a list that those property owners have of pre-qualified people that could come in and apply to rent that unit?

Yes, and essentially, just like you mentioned, Supervisor Crowe, there is a big need, and just, I haven't looked at the actual numbers or the actual list currently, but just as a point of reference, the 49 apartments next to the IOOF Cemetery on Buena Vista, there was 1,100 applications for 49 units, and this is just...

I'm sorry, can you say that one more time? How many?

1,100 applications for 49 apartment units.

So there is. So just noticing that there's a big need. So I see this as another thing that if we have, I agree that there needs to be a management of these units and that management needs to be paid by the developer, but the need is there. And if you look at those numbers, we're gonna find people that are gonna benefit from these units. So we did the paid by the developer. I wrote no access, and the reason I wrote this is I don't know how these units are designed. They are attached ADUs. Are they connected by any access doors, like a door? Is it a wall, a full sheer wall between the ADU with a separate entrance and the actual property owner's dwelling?

So right now they are just trying to get the affordable housing agreement. That is one of the questions that Supervisor Sotelo had earlier, one of the condition compliance out of various ones. And so pending this and then pending the others that they have pending to me, they will come forward, the Public Works Department will come forward with the final map. And then at that point, pending final map approval, essentially indicating that they've met all of these requirements, then they can apply for a building permit. And at that point is when we will know the logistics in regards to the units.

In our development agreement, can we make it a requirement that they have to be sheer walls? They cannot be connected with a door. And the reason I'm saying that is that is going to be a way of making sure that these are not being used inappropriately. I'm just trying to find ways to...

So you want the walls to be connected?

No, this is an attached ADU. It's attached, not detached, it's attached. It's attached to the building, but is it connected in any way? Because if it has a door that walks through, that is gonna open the door to not being utilized as an ADU. I see what you're saying. Do you see where I'm going? Yes, yes. And because, I'm sorry, I came from Ridgemark. We got ADUs on every corner in Ridgemark 11. Every single house on the corner has an ADU, but every single one of them has an attachment of a door. And if this is truly affordable, which is my intent, I want to make sure that that's a sheer wall, if that could be discussed in the development agreement. I don't know if my colleagues agree or not. If...

So what you're saying is just an extension of the main house, if you unlock that door, that will prevent that attached, that ADU to be rented because it's basically occupied by the same one?

Yeah, they're not going to use it. We want it to not be a connected ADU. When I looked at this as an ADU development, it was not with a door access or any connection between the ADU and the other one. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. You don't want a door. I don't want any access.

I don't want to just say door because door could mean, you know, I don't want any access between the two. Okay? Because that will help with the management, with the affordable, and the deed restriction. I just, that's my basic comments. I think that was it. Thank you. Thank you.

First, Stella.

Yeah, I'll make it quick. A lot of mine have already, questions have already been kind of answered. On that attached versus detached and this wall, I think in order for them to be in compliance, they have to be attached. Am I? Because I think they actually prefer to be detached. And so I think that that's just, they have to be attached. Attached with no access. Right. Right. But they have to be attached. I'm just curious, Abraham, does this project completely meet all of our affordable housing requirements and everything that they're trying to do?

Thank you for that question, Supervisor Sotelo. So in our inclusionary housing ordinance, there is an alternative to what we would, as a county, what the county adopted in regards to the affordability requirements, the percentage. And one of those alternatives is that the applicant provide an alternative to that 15% or that requirement. And so this is the alternative that they provided to meet the affordable requirements. housing requirement. And as it was approved, it was approved in regards to the requirement of the rental units. But now, as our county council indicated after the litigation and so forth, it's now not necessarily as required to rent. But if that affordable law owner wants to put them up for rent, the affordable law owner does not have to put them up for rent. So that's in in the sense of the actual ordinance it meets it because it is an alternative but in the sense of how we approve it there is that change that is very significant as pointed out and that was approved upon back in 2024 is when we said that they can or cannot rent it out that was part of the agreement In 2024, yes, part of the approval was to have these as 30 units for affordable housing units stock, to be rented out for affordable housing units. And that condition 73 indicated that in preparation for the affordability, the board had to adopt this affordable housing plan, which is why we're here. But the intent was to have them for rental units, those 30 units. And with this, after the litigation and so forth, basically the affordable law owner has the choice whether or not to rent them or not.

So are we being told by one of the courts that this is what, in order to be in compliance, this is what we have to do?

My understanding from Deputy County Council Cameron was that this is what is to be presented to the Board to move forward, but I don't want to speak for County Council.

Mr. Chair, members of the Board of Supervisors, we are not being told by the Court that we have to adopt one provision over another. This is entirely up to the Board's discretion. So if the Board believes that that provision of this affordable housing agreement needs to be modified, then if the board so directs it, then that is what we shall, then we'll make that change and we'll hand it back to the developer. And then they can decide whether or not they wanna sign it or not.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate the clarification. I don't have any further questions, thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Abraham, for bringing this and presenting this and the work on it. the whole if thing is just a complete non-starter for me and it doesn't make any sense that if you go back to the intention what originally after this was passed he came forward the developer and said actually would it be all right if we didn't have the affordable piece of it and they could just rent it to friends and family who aren't income qualified so the intention is clear that he wants this to be he doesn't want the affordable requirements to apply Because we all know we live in the real world. We could say, oh, yeah, that's my friend. Don't worry. He's all good. He's my friend. So he doesn't have to fulfill the income requirements. So it's obvious from the beginning that his intention was not to provide affordable housing, at least not as a requirement. To then put the if clause in there. So we have it's 141 units total, 30 units, 30 JDUs. Correct. So if half of them say the property owner just doesn't feel like renting it, we're just way below the threshold that we have for minimum inclusionary housing. I mean, this is... This is silly to me. It's like, okay, so half of them are going to turn into like yoga studios and offices and art studios. And then we're at like 5% of the development or something. So it doesn't make sense to me. I mean, the technicality is sort of silly where it's, he meets the requirements because we have a clause in the requirements that says you basically don't need to follow the rules. You come up with your own idea. So it doesn't make any sense. I don't see how the local tenant preference works. ordinance would really apply or work. Can you walk me through that one, Abraham, how that would work in this case?

Yeah, so essentially, we do have a clause in here that When we were negotiating, we wanted the applicant to essentially pay for the county to be able to monitor these units and to be able to income qualify them, put in all of the local tenant preference, all the requirements. So that was what we asked for when we were writing this contract. But then they pushed back and they indicated that they wanted that could be expensive and defeat the purpose of keeping these units affordable because then they were gonna be putting an extra expense. There was some pushback in there and so what was agreed, there's a clause here in Section 5.2 that indicates that we can actually, as a county, charge the affordable law owner up to 5% of the rent. So we can't go more than that, because then that would be higher. five percent of the rent to cover the county's cost of monitoring monitoring that yes okay yeah and so that that would be essentially we can we can have that at a at a partial you know collection of income to help us hire a consultant to be able to help monitor i mean we do have somebody in staff that that is helping um with that but um i mean that's amongst other projects that this person has going on and It's a challenge. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Yeah. So, well, yeah, I'll be done really soon. Like I said, this is basically just a non-starter for me because none of these have to be rented out. Technically, none of them do. So there's no affordable housing. if no one wants to do it. If the owner doesn't want to do it, if the owner doesn't want to have a low-income resident living next to them, they don't have to. There's no affordable housing. This is a market rate, basically a market rate development. It doesn't make any sense to me. And that was, like I said, clearly his intention when he first came back and wanted to remove the affordability requirements. So that's all I have on this.

Sorry, I just thought of, I have another question. How do these, you know, with this if kind of language, how do the numbers correspond to our arena numbers? Like let's say there's 30 and hypothetically 10 decide that they're not going to, I don't, we're not going to rent them out. So now we are looking at 20. Are we still getting credit for our arena numbers for the 30 or are we now at the 20?

Thank you for that question, Supervisor Sotelo. My understanding and all this communication that we've had with HCD over this past, especially over these past couple years with the housing element is that the ADUs on a property are classified as rental units. So they are classified as the rental units. And so that's one thing. Regarding the requirement to restrict them or de-restrict them, then that puts them in that category for us to be able to essentially request that from HCD that we are meeting those requirements. I cannot tell you for sure if that's gonna be the case. Until they are built, then we send that. We come before you in our annual general plan update and housing element update. you review it, pending your blessing, we send it to HCD and then that's when they determine whether or not they are qualified. But our hope is that they would qualify because where it did restrict and it's just that it's not being required of them to, the affordable landlords to rent it, but it is creating it as a deed restriction. So our hope is that they do count on it.

Do we have any other communities that have done this that are getting credit or not getting credit? If they've built these ADUs, is it counted? I mean, I understand what you're saying is that, yes, it does essentially count towards it, but with this language of this if may put into question, possibly, but with the deed restriction, it looks like it counts towards our RENA numbers. Are there any jurisdictions that we have you know, look towards and seeing the way that they do it and oh yes, this is how they did that model and HCD has accepted it or is there anything at risk and I don't know.

We can certainly check to see, but we feel that because we are actually de-restricting them, that's a positive look on HCD's eyes, but whether they'll count it or not, We'll have to confirm with them to see. We can check with them even before they build them. But to answer your question, yeah, this is the first time I've encountered that, you know, it was a project that was approved with affordable housing, but they're giving them the option to, you know, whether or not they want to actually rent them out. But I can find out. I can look at other jurisdictions to see. Okay.

Thank you. And then my other question would just be, are the duets considered affordable too? Because I know we're spending a lot of time talking about the ADUs, but are the duets considered affordable?

The duets are not considered affordable. The applicant did not propose to restrict the duets. They are considered more in a standard category. in the market and the standard from what I've heard and from what I've seen in my research is that it's a different product which should allow for it to be not as costly for the purchaser as if it was a regular market rate home, which is a plus. But nowadays, everything's so expensive that the difference is not that much. I remember when... the units that were built off of San Miguel Street right before Union Benchmark, that was the first time I heard of those smaller lots. There was already another development off of Alvarado back in the 90s, but the hope was, at that time, single-family homes were like at 400, 500,000, and so the hope was that these smaller 2,500-square-foot lots would be at, you know, half of that cost 25 250 000 but you know by the time i got built um we're only seeing just you know about a hundred thousand dollar difference or so which is something but it's not that much and kind of very similar to what what the duets i mean there is a difference you know unfortunately not much of a difference but there is a difference all right thank you i appreciate you answering my questions you're welcome

So after hearing and understanding a little more, can we make the duets deed restricted also?

I was just doing a search and they're not considered to be affordable housing.

Okay, so, okay, I was hoping we could add that in there. We do have the ability to say that we would amend 2.3, the affordable units are to be made available, that they... are required to be available and remove the first line of if the affordable lot owner elects to offer their respective affordable unit or ADU to rent. No, it is that they shall. The affordable unit shall be rented only to qualified low income. I think we need to, first of all, make that happen. That would be my first recommendation to the board. We need to make sure this management fee, the 5% onto the property owner, I don't agree with putting 5% onto the property owner, but in letting it sink in a little bit, If we're paying for the management, if it's a property owner and there's a management being done by the county, then there needs to be a fee associated with that. And so we need a fee on that property owner for managing and ensuring that it is, and maintaining that list. And if that means that we're paying a management firm, then we need to work that out in our development agreement, and that management firm needs to be on board. We need to have a fee structure, and that needs to be added on to that property cost fairly just so that it needs to also be contributed by the developer. It can't be a free ride for the developer to have a – No input, but you can't ask them to have a life term input. It's like it has to be a calculated amount of input of pay into that cost. So my first the second is that they would attach would have no access and. I think that would help support it going towards our RHNA numbers, especially if we remove that line, the if, and if that could be something discussed with HDC, HDD. Yeah, if that's something that could be discussed, because if that could happen and we could get a confirmation that they would be, and are these low income or low income and very low income?

So they are below 80%. So it would be moderate as 80 to 120 and then above moderate over 120. So it's just low income.

It's low income, but it would not recuse anyone that is very low income from qualifying. So it would be very low and low.

Anyone below 80% median income.

I just want to make sure it's very low and low.

We can make that assessment, that clarification, but it's basically at the moment that you said below 80%, anyone below that percentage applies. Okay.

Okay. And then I had originally asked about staff, and now I heard you say consultant. That means money. This addition of deed restrictions would require us to bring on a consultant?

Monitoring on a yearly basis. And that's what I mentioned.

That needs to be discussed in the development agreement. And it needs to be negotiated. But I don't want to be part of that negotiation team. The other thing is we have to look at this in the eyes also of property owners. When you own a property, like let's say an apartment complex, and the county can't force you to take on a renter, but we're in basically making them take on a renter. So it's that where I'm at is either you're having a renter come in that meets the affordability requirements, or you have no one in that unit. I don't understand. I'm trying to fill the problem, which is we had 1,010 applicants and we had 43 rental fees. I think the pool is out there. We're going to get these renters. But how do we make sure in this affordability agreement that they're rented? Right. How do we – that they shall rent them? We will make the list. We will have this consultant maintain that list. We will have the developer contribute towards the cost of that. We may have that property owner also contribute towards the cost of that for monitoring. And then if that's possible, then I could –

Usually in other communities, the housing authority will have a list of pre-qualified individuals that are looking for housing. In this county, we can find that nonprofit organization that keeps that log and make it available for the people that are renting those apartments.

And I believe that's in Santa Cruz. I don't believe we have our own. It's Santa Cruz, right?

We share it with San Benito, Santa Cruz, that's correct.

And so it can make it available. The reality is every, it is in their best interest of this development to have all those apartments rented or ADUs because the moment that you don't have them, even with a low income, you lose money. Right.

Right. So where I'm at right now is the demand is there. We have the opportunity if we can try and negotiate some of these with a development agreement and remove that wording in 2.3 that makes it a mandatory that they must be made available.

Well, was your question answered, actually? Because I thought your question was, how is the county going to essentially impose and force that they are doing all they can to have them rented out?

The development agreement would have to be negotiated, that there would have to be an agreement of how these are going to be filled. And we have to come, I can't say what that agreement's going to be. I think there's more conversation that needs to happen with the developer. to be able because i'm going to go back to it this did not have the overriding consideration of vmt if we don't have people in these units that are for affordable then they have to come back for that overriding consideration of vmt and i will not approve that i made that clear from the beginning and i'm not stepping off of that that is a hill i'm dying on thank you for that

Thank you. Mr. Chair? Yes. Oh, did you? No. Well, I think all this conversation about having these 30 property owners, they have discretion whether to rent out or not. The complication of finding the people, going by the list that's out there already, but you have this piecemeal situation where you don't have a manager, but you have 30 different, presumably 30 different property owners really underscores why this entire arrangement is completely wacky and does not fit in line with What we're trying to do, it really complicates things and it just sets up. And then we get back after all this litigation, we get back this proposed draft that includes, I don't know, seven, eight, nine loopholes that allow the door to be wide open for the developer to not rent out at all for the developer to to essentially allow non low income residents living in affordable housing. This doesn't even touch on the fact that in our ordinance, we have requirements for a percentage of very low, low and moderate. And we were just throwing that out the door for this particular developer. We're throwing it out the door that we're going to require building the units up front. And again, I don't want to underemphasize the fact that there's language in this agreement that basically allows the moment anybody on this board this board changes whatsoever and somebody comes along who's friendly with mr lee that they can just basically nix the entire agreement i think of all these loopholes that's probably the biggest one that would for me would just absolutely need to be taken out and i so there's i'll support that Yeah, I appreciate that. So there's the shall versus the if. There's the professional manager and annual monitoring necessity. There wasn't a lot of firm language in there about the annual. I know it's in the process, but again, we're going and doing something, an alternative approach with this particular developer. So I want to make sure that our traditional approach when it comes to monitoring is part of this alternative approach that the developer's proposing. I mentioned the, so professional manager allowing discretion of up to 120% of median income. And for me, you know, I just want to be consistent here, building the affordable units up front, not at the back side of the development. And again, above all, you know, removing the language that just basically allows this entire thing to be sidestepped by the board at its discretion. I would love for us to take that back to the developer and further the conversation. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I do. The problem is we have to come up with a way that it could work. I'm trying to find a way that it could work. If we go through each one of the things that you have, there are some that I'm like, absolutely don't see how if 71%, if we have all, you have to think about construction. If all of the project, if you do affordable first- How is that possible? They're connected to a home. You can't do affordable first. You have to make it where the permits of the affordable units are the first ones that may be in a sequence of events. But you also have to think about what is marketable. So there has to be a combination. Maybe the 70th building permit is too high. Let's bring it down to 50. Sure. You know, let's bring it down to 50 and that we get half of them then. And then the next 50, we get the rest of them and they have to be done before we hit the hundredth unit. I mean, I think I could get behind that. Because I see what you're saying, but my mind is constantly going into the construction mode of it's impossible to put affordable first in this project. It just won't work construction-wise. So if that could be a topic, do you mind, Supervisor Kosmicki, could we just kind of go through your list and just kind of have an open dialogue? Is that okay? I just want to make sure I hit each one of them and I didn't write every single one of them down.

So taking out the F language so that there's a requirement to actually rent out the affordable units.

That's 2.3. I totally agree that that should be removed.

Requiring a property manager.

Can we be open?

Can I ask a quick question on that one for 2.3? So how would that work if you have... I don't know, let's say I buy it and I want to put my elderly parent there or I have a child that is maybe special needs or I just have a child, young adult trying to figure out life and I want to rent to them. Do I have the ability to do that as the homeowner? If they qualify.

That's correct. Under the 80% of income.

So they would still have to, they go through the income qualifications. But they could absolutely qualify. Okay. Just wanted clarification on that. Thank you.

And if we're on that one, I would still need to understand how they wouldn't just not rent them, how that would actually be enforced. If we're going to say, if we're going to change it from if to shall, they have to be rented out. How does that actually get enforced?

We would have a consultant brought on that would be monitoring, if not annually, we could even do it more than annually if that's what the board wants. We could do it every six months where they are and that cost would be borne on the developer in a calculation, but possibly a portion for that resident because it's a benefit for that resident.

That's correct. That was the intent since the very beginning up until these changes occurred.

And Mr. Chair, I must say, I don't think that, and this again, why this whole thing doesn't work, I got to say, but the property owner should not be choosing who's living there. We have a list and I heard a thousand, what?

1,100 for 49 apartment units.

49 units, 1,100. So we know there's demand, as you pointed out. So why are we allowing the property owner to choose who lives there, which would only further complicate delays and vacancies and all that. We know there's demand. So if there's a property manager that vets the folks that want to live in these places, this should be treated like affordable housing because it's supposed to be affordable housing. So we have a process in place that would allow that demand That list, call it a priority list or whatever you want to call it, an eligibility list, we have that list. So as long as we're following that list, there shouldn't be any problems keeping these units occupied. These should be rented out. If somebody leaves, it should be rented out right away because there's a thousand people waiting to get in.

but Mr. Chair, if I may, if your mother-in-law is on that list, I agree, they need to be on the list, but if they're your family member, they should be at the top of the list for your, it's your property. I have to say that that's a property owner's right to be able to rent it out to their parent or to their, you know, whoever it is. I mean, there has to be a give and a take here. Yes, I agree they need to be on the list. They need to be income qualified and it needs to be monitored, but they should be able to pick from that list the people that they want to live in that home from that list.

I would say I think that's a fair point, which is why I'm not going to be supporting this at all, because it's just totally not going to work. It's just not going to accomplish what we're trying to accomplish here. I'm glad I was against this before, because it's proven nothing but a mess since, and I don't think it's going to get any better, frankly. I don't think there's a way to square this where we actually hit our actual requirements that we're trying to hit for low-income housing. I don't think it's going to work.

So can I ask a question, Mr. Chair, to counsel? Counsel, at one point prior to you being here, they had an original project that came before the board that was rejected, and then this project came before the board. There was litigation in that project. There's litigation in this project. There's litigation everywhere. It is my understanding from talking to prior counsel that if we don't come up with something that the developer and we can agree with, there is a potential that they could go back to that prior project that was denied and bring it back in a litigation.

Rather than give you an answer which I may not be correct, I would rather say Let me look into that to verify because you've raised an excellent point. And so we may just want to continue this item to allow us to do that research, to bring that back, to provide the board with more information for which you can then make an educated and reasoned decision.

And that I appreciate because the reason I'm trying to come to a compromise is because I don't want that project coming forward. That project I rejected because it had an overriding consideration of vehicle miles traveled.

Right, and we still would have the, Mr. Chair, we still would have the discretion to reject that project because it does not fit in line with the vehicle's mild travel requirement.

I just wanted to make sure that we do not have, I was told that they would have some power over us because of that.

And I think it would be best for me to review the prior settlement agreement and then to be able to bring that back to you with a definitive answer.

Okay, so then are we going to table this for now, then, to get some more information and bring it back? Okay, thank you. Thank you, Abraham.

Thank you so much. Thank you, everybody.

Okay, next, 3.6. This is to approve the final map for Fairview Corners Phase 2. Busy day for you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the Board of Supervisors. My name is Dean Scatata, Engineer of Public Works Department. I am here today to present the final map for Fairview Corners Phase 2. The Fairview Corners specific plan was approved in 2012 for up to 189 residential units and subsequently the tentative subdivision map was conditionally approved by the Planning Commission in 2018 and the project is being developed in phases. Phase 1, 74 lots with the final map approved by the Board on August 27, 2024. And the phase two, this phase, 17 additional residential lots are now being submitted for final map approval, bringing the total lots to 91. The county engineer and director of planning have confirmed that the phase two final map complies with the approved tentative map and applicable conditions of approval for the project. The developer has also committed to annex phases two and three into the CFD. The CFD will include the Furby Road landscape median and will fund its future maintenance. And the staff recommendations is as written in the staff report. And I'll be happy to answer any questions if there's any.

Thank you. We go to public comment.

If you'd like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card on Zoom. Please press star nine or the raised hand icon. And I have no public comment.

Great. Thank you. Any comments or questions from board members? Mr.

Chair, I'm going to mimic my colleague because I'm going to say just for the record, this was approved in 2012. You go right before. I'm sorry, I'm going to say it. I'm going to do, because this is a project, again, that I have trouble with, but because it happened, it impacted my decision on the other project. This has been going on since 2012. I just got hired as a county employee at that time. So this was some time ago that this happened. And we have very little, I guess, understand, very little ways of changing this project. But some of my comments are going to be um making sure that some of the issues have been addressed so we had uh street lighting pollution that was going into cielo vista's residence that was i understand may have already been addressed but i want to make sure that the residents across fairview are satisfied with that correction um before we approve you know any long-term map because and i want to make sure everybody realizes i know final map this is a final map right this is an as built final okay because a a what's the other one the in tentative map a tentative map is for construction so when we approve tentative maps it's it's too late after that because a final map is really the construction that has occurred but there are some things in the construction do i have that wrong Do I have that? Okay. I want to make sure because when my first time around, when it was a tentative, I took the tentative definition incorrectly. I thought we still had time to fix things. And unfortunately, then it was too late to fix things. So I learned from my mistakes. I'm going to just be public about that. The light pollution became an issue. The medium, which I am so grateful for that negotiation. Thank you so much. I appreciate that so much. The intersection was a debacle. I knew it was going to be a debacle when Gavilan College got built. The right in and the right out. That was what it was. When Gavilan College was there, of course, they had to immediately take it down and put in a stop sign because we told them everybody's going to be turning to go get on Highway 25. They're going to turn left. So do we have the intersection still under evaluation? And is there going to be a streetlight or is there going to be a stop sign? is that part of because i can't tell from this exactly i was trying to read very closely into the that intersection right there it looked like it might be a roundabout if it if it was pointing to something it might be a roundabout but i'm not sure so to address your questions uh supervisor curl

the streetlight pollution has been addressed and the um our public works inspector uh contacted the the yes yeah the resident and informed them uh since then we have had no additional complaints great that's great great in terms of uh a street light or i believe you're referring to a traffic signal at that at the intersection of cielo vista uh That intersection is being evaluated once again at the moment to determine if there's been any change in the traffic signal warrant analysis. And Deems, correct me if I'm wrong, but that intersection, as well as the other intersections within the development within the traffic impact analysis report will be evaluated at the 75th and 150th and I believe the 200th permit. So to determine if there have been any substantive changes and if traffic has increased to a certain level where it meets the criteria for the installation of traffic signals.

Okay, that's great. At minimum, it will be a stop sign, won't it?

At minimum, it will remain as a stop sign.

Thank you. And you can turn left or right. Those were my complaints from the beginning. Drainage. We talked a little bit about this yesterday when we had one of my constituents here. There is a drainage issue at the east side that goes down into towards Best Road. I know you're working on that. Sounds like you have a plan already. I just want it to be on public record that it is being addressed by staff and that as we move forward, it will be monitored and adjustments will be made.

Correct. So we will work with your constituent, your office as well, and evaluate or look at the concerns.

Great. Thank you so much. Those are my questions.

Thank you.

Yeah, I don't. Oh, go ahead. Mickey, sorry.

Yeah, I just want to. clarify what supervisor curl said just we may have a newer member of the media here um just so you know a final map is we are not approving a development this development was approved 14 years ago there are entitlements to this development which means that as long as the developer is following the development agreement that this is a ministerial vote that we are required to approve these maps as they go along and work their way through the phases of these projects. Just want to make that very clear. That said, are there any questions that have arisen with regard to compliance with the development agreement? I see there's requirements for parks there's affordable housing requirements there's some road improvement requirements that's always what when we have a development agreement that's always what I'm gonna kind of fall back on as far as um are they following the development agreement because that's really our role at this point to ensure that they're following what's required in the development agreement yes as far as phase two yes they have complied with the requirement

there are some triggers or numbers that they need to comply, like as what is mentioned at the 75th permit, then they have to comply something. At a certain number of permits pulled, then they have to provide the parks, for example. But as for the phase two that we are having here right now, they have complied with what is the conditions of approval.

to record the face though okay thank you the only other comment i just want to put on record and i appreciate supervisor cosmicky for his comments but making sure that we understand in future developments the biggest feedback i've been getting is how high that project has been built up no one thought when this was approved that those houses were going to be so high off of Fairview. So I just want it to be for the record and staff to know because we're all kind of getting on a new staff thing is that we need to be looking at elevations when we're looking at developments and we need to be more understanding of what the end product will look like because I think that my residents are a little discouraged.

I was also confused by that when I saw it, by the way. I wondered why they were building a mountain to put the houses on, but I don't have anything to add. I think they covered it with all their comments. So do we need to take action to approve the final map? Does anyone want to make a motion?

I'll move to approve per staff recommendations.

I'll second.

We have a first and a second. Can we have roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Zenger?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Kosmicki?

Yes.

Supervisor Curro? Yes. 4-0 vote. Motion passes.

Great. Thank you. That concludes the regular agenda. Now we are going to switch to the Geologic Hazard Abatement District. Item 4.1, Board will adjourn as Board of Supervisors reconvene as the Board of Directors of the San Benito GAD. Is there a motion to acknowledge the certificate of posting?

So moved.

Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Is there any public comment of items not on the agenda for the GAD? if you'd like to make a comment in chambers please provide a speaker card on zoom press nine on press nine or the raised hand icon and i have no public comment great we have the consent agenda is there a motion to approve the action minutes of the june 23rd 2026 meeting so move oh we have to open up oh sorry sorry i just caught myself thank you public comment on consent

If you'd like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card on Zoom. Please press star nine or the raised hand icon. And I have no public comment.

Great, now is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved.

I'll second.

All in favor, say aye. Aye. 4.3, this is to approve amendment one with ENGEO Incorporated certified professional geological hazard abatement district manager services as stated.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the Board of Supervisors. Again, Dean Scatata, Engineer of Public Works Department. I'm here today to present contract amendment number one for the San Benito Geologic Hazard Abatement District, also known as CAD, managerial services. On May 10th, 2016, the San Benito County Board of Supervisors adopted Board Resolution No. 2016-31 approving the formation of the San Benito GAD and appointed the members of the San Benito County Board of Supervisors to serve as the GAD Board of Directors. Following annexation of the promontory at Reedsmark into GAD, the GAD Board contracted with an outside consultant to perform staff services for the GAD. In February 24th, 2026, the chair of the GAD Board authorized to onboard NGO Incorporated for GAD managerial services and signed a contract in a not to exceed amount of 31,285. To be able for NGO incorporated to continue to provide the GAD managerial services, amendment number one is necessary to extend their services to June of next year. So staff recommendation as written in this staff report. And we will be happy to answer your questions if you have. Thank you. We got a public comment.

If you'd like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card on Zoom. Please press star nine or the raised hand icon. And I have no public comment.

Thank you.

Ms. Rizzacaro, do you have any?

Here I am again, District 4. This is like the District 4 meeting. So I have a couple questions. One, and I'm sorry I did not ask this in advance, do we have a current fund balance for the GAD? Are we within the current fund balance? Because that's part of what they're going to be working on, but this is a very large contract addition.

The addition to this contract is $47,860. And I will call on the NGO and the CAD manager.

And thank you for being here.

You can use the one right up here.

Yep, that's great. Then we can kind of do a conversation.

Yes, thank you for the question, Board Member Kuro. So based on the approved budget that we brought to the board in June, We estimated the account balance at the end of that fiscal year, started this fiscal year, sorry for using my phone, to be approximately $309,000. And also included in the approved budget for the GAD for this year is the GAD manager services are already considered in the approved budget.

Okay, great. And I appreciate that. And I do want to set up a separate meeting with the residents, so I keep saying that. I've gotten more calls. There's one footnote, and I kind of am going to lean over to counsel and to CEO about this. I'm on page two of the actual amendment, and it says tasks and amounts. And you'll see that there are... six items in the tasks that have a footnote one. And it states, dependent on maintenance and or repair activity by the GAD during the fiscal year 26-27, the GAD manager NGO payment limit is 20% of the total budget item. Does that mean that there is an administrative fee on every one of those items of 20% on top of the administrative fee of $21,000?

I can provide the answer to that.

Okay.

Yes, we recognize this probably could have been clearer in the budget and we would look to make that update next season. But the intent of the 20% for the other items listed here is a 20% on top of what the contractor's cost is for maintenance and operations. So for example, I guess not shown in here, but in the, in the approved budget, the contractor provided an amount for concrete line drainage dishes, for example, and then we have a maintenance oversight fee for that is what this 20% is. So you take the contractor's costs and then we, we, take 20% of that and consider that our fee to provide the oversight and coordination with the contractor for those scope items for the year.

But you're also doing an administrative fee of $21,000. Correct. So why do I feel like this is double the fee?

Because the administration is related to other items, not related to physical site maintenance, monitoring or oversight of repair projects and things like that. So administrative, more office work and such, and then these are more items for field work.

I just want to make sure because I have concerns of how I'm going to explain this so we can again maybe talk offline. Because I would love this to be presented differently because it looks like you're putting an administrative fee on top of an administrative fee and we just can't have that in a public document. So we need it to be amended to actually show cost that you're looking at and then the administrative fee or maintenance fee for that cost, maybe a better way.

I think what we can do is define administrative fees versus the other fees and put the activities that are allowable in each one of those items to better picture what it is that you're charging in each one of those.

I would appreciate that. Thank you.

Is that it?

Any other questions, comments?

Okay. I have nothing, so is there a motion to approve the amendment? I'll move to approve. Is there a second?

First staff recommendation.

First staff recommendation. Is there a second? Second. We're first and a second. Can we have a roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Zenger?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Kosmicki?

Yes.

Supervisor Curro?

Yes.

4-0 vote. Motion passes.

Great, thank you. That would conclude the Geologic Hazard Abatement District, and we have no future agenda items, so we are adjourned.