Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

Good morning, everybody. We will call the regular meeting of the board of supervisors on Tuesday, 04/28/2026 to order. We start with the pledge of allegiance led by supervisor Kazeminki, please. Is there a motion to acknowledge the certificate of posting?

So moved.

Second. Alright. All in favor, please say aye. Aye.

Aye.

Five o. Board announcements. Do you see if you have any announcements, updates you wanna start with? Yes.

I just wanna give a special thank you to everybody that was involved, which was for a vision a kind of a vision project that we started out of First Five, and it was amazing to see so many groups come together. So it was the County Office of Education, Public Health, first five, and speaker Rivas' office. And I know I'm forgetting some right now, but it was just amazing. Some of our local optometrists in town, and it was really incredible to see. We we worked with Aroma's San Juan School District and provided free free eye screening, and then went back and did vision exams for any children that needed it, and then outfitted them with the the proper prescription, and glasses were made and given to them that day, ensuring that every child starts with a very successful path in their learning.

And so it was an incredible experience, and I really wanna give special thanks to everybody that was involved with that. I know doctor Scott and Priyanka with public health were incredible, doctor Redman. And so just thank you to everybody that made that happen. It was really neat to see, and the kids were so excited and an incredible, incredible opportunity for them. There was no financial ask, no no medical information, nothing needed at all, no insurance. It was for every child that needed it. And so it was a very rewarding and awesome experience. So thank you.

Thank you. What else?

Yeah. Mister chair, just one the council of governments, just wanna let everyone know we have made another step forward on really honing in on potentially doing the two lane add on expansion to the existing Highway 25 as a conventional highway, but we eliminated an expressway option and formally have kind of put our stamp on the idea of using the expansion of two lanes on top of the existing two lanes, and we're continuing to move forward on the process. Thank you.

Thank you. Treasurer. Carol Velasquez, anything? K. Great. Well, thank you. We'll move to public comment. Opportunity to address the board items of interest not appearing on the agenda. Do we have 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 Mia Casey.

Good morning, chair and members of the board. I'm here because an important line has been crossed. Elections are where public decides. That's the foundation of this system. But in recent months, we've witnessed supervisors who have stepped beyond their role and authority and used the dais, their titles, and official communication channels to try to influence the recall election. That's not a questionable judgment. It raises serious questions about misuse of public resources and ethical boundaries meant to protect election process integrity. You might not like the recall. You may disagree with it. You might even question motives.

But supervisor Zanger, Kosmiki, and Velasquez, it's not your role to use the power of your office to shape or to undermine an election. The dais is not a campaign platform. These microphones are not campaign tools. When you speak in your official capacity, it carries weight. That's why these rules exist, to ensure the public trust is not used for political advantage.

So I would ask you to please stop. Now I wanna address something more personal to me. Supervisor Kosmicki, you publicly challenged me over this issue, and debate can be healthy. But what followed crossed a line that should never be crossed. A photo of me with my young granddaughter was pulled from my page and posted onto your official communication page as part of a political attack. A child who has nothing to do with any of this was used as a prop. I asked you multiple times to take this photo down, but you did not. So I I wanna say to you that this is not debate. That's exploitation. You used a photo to try to deflect from your own actions by pointing at a campaign sign in it and accusing me of misusing my title.

For the record, I was actually mayor at the time, so the sign was accurate and true, violated no rules. But even if it weren't, it doesn't justify what you did. We can disagree strongly, but involving a child is unacceptable. So I'm asking you again, mister Kosmicki, take the photo of me and my granddaughter off your official Facebook page. And I'd like to ask all of you to please respect the boundaries of your office.

Don't use your government platform to campaign. And while you may disagree with them, you need to stop labeling and attacking your own constituents who brought this recall. It's their absolute right to participate in government and an election process even when you disagree. Above all, please leave families, especially children, out of political crossfire. That shouldn't be a high bar, but right now, it needed to be said. Thank you.

And that concludes regular public comment.

K. Thank you. Moving on to consent agenda. These matters shall be considered as a whole and without discussion unless an item is removed from consent. Any supervisor have any items they wish to pull off the consent agenda? There's Stella.

I'd like to pull item 1.8, please.

Eight.

1.7, please.

Is any items? No? Okay. So one point eight and one point seven will be moved to the we will hear those items separately. Is there any public comment for items on consent 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.

K. Great. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the remaining consent items, except for one point seven and one point eight?

So move. I'll second. No.

K. With first and second, can we have roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Zenger? Yes. Supervisor Velasquez?

Yes.

Supervisor Kosmiki?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Kurl? Yes. Five zero vote. Motion passes.

Great. Thank you. So we move to one point seven first. Supervisor, cousin Mickey, you hold this item.

Yeah. Thank you very much. Quick question. Excuse me. I swear I'm not Kiera Court. So, I don't know if there's somebody that can possibly answer the kind of where we're at. Obviously, we haven't expended the money. I know in the past, you know, care court was kind of a new thing. We were the state was introducing it. Some jurisdictions are doing it.

Smaller ones like ours are tending to let others kinda jump into the waters first. So just wondering the status of CareCore in our community, whether it's something that's at the state level, still something that's being pursued and kinda where we're headed for this just considering we're giving back the $3,500,000. Mister

chair and members of the board. Yes.

CareCourt still continues as a possible

Yeah. I think your microphone's working.

Excuse me. Samuel Kelly.

I took care of it.

Thank you.

Mister chair, members of the board of supervisors. Yes. The Community Assistance Recovery Empowerment Act of 2022 established a civil court framework known as the CARE Court, which is designed to connect individuals with severe untreated mental illness to court ordered treatment. And so the State Bar of California provided funding for counties across the state, and there is a certain criteria under the law in order for persons to qualify for care court. As it has turned out over the past several years, there has not been an one instance, one case in which we've had an individual that would qualify for care court.

And so there are counties who have successfully implemented it. There are some who simply have not had the cases based on their demographics and their population. So we were offered additional money to continue the care court, but having discussed this with the superior court, discussed this with the contract indigent public defenders, and having discussed this at the public defender oversight committee, it was determined that at the current time, we have no need, and it is not anticipated that we will have any need. However, we do have the ability at some point if we determine that there is a need to then go back and seek the grant funding. So this grant has expired.

And so as a result, we are obligated under the grant agreement having not expended the grant funds to return them.

Yeah. I under I fully understand the returning and the public defender oversight committee's recommendation makes sense. I just from the broader perspective, I I just would like to get an idea of, are we just not interested maybe in, pursuing CareCourt, or is it just simply a matter of numbers and we're not having? Because, you know, the the governor and the state was very, was it was, presented it as as a very bold change, in how to address mental illness, how to address homelessness. And, you know, I don't know exactly what the criteria are, but, I find it hard to believe that we don't have anybody in our entire county that would qualify for having the level of severe mental illness when we see some of these folks on a regular basis who

are severely mentally ill. And so it's been determined that we don't have the current need. And under care court, family members, first responders, and others can petition the court to have an individual evaluated and connected to a treatment plan that may include medication, housing support, and other community based services. But it is a voluntary process. There are involuntary processes to deal with this type of issue, but we have yet to find any cases that have been sought by family members, first responders, or others to identify an individual that would benefit from this type of voluntary court program.

So it sounds like maybe the program just doesn't have the weight that it was presented as having

Well, in as I understand it, in some counties, it's been a very successful program. But it's really county specific. And in discussing this with the superior court, as I said, and our public safety departments as well as with our public defender oversight committee, we relied initially upon our indigent public defenders to hopefully try and identify those that may be of assistance to us as well as behavioral health and health and human services. So we have yet to be able to identify a specific need in San Benito County.

Alright. Thank you. That was it. Just wanted to get a broader perspective. Appreciate it. I'm good.

Okay. Great. Anyone else have any questions with Adam? Okay. First, because Mickey was the I'll

move to approve as recommended. Public.

We need public comment on that.

Sorry about that.

Thank you. The public comment on one point seven.

If you'd like to make a comment on one point seven, please provide a speaker card in chambers. On Zoom, please press 9 or the raise hand icon. And I have no public comment.

Great.

Thank you.

Move to approve.

Okay. So there's a first. Is there a second? Second. We have roll call vote, please.

Supervisor cuss supervisor Zanger?

Yes.

Supervisor Velasquez? Yes. Supervisor Kosmiki?

Yes.

Supervisor Satello? Yes. Supervisor Currow? Yes. Five zero vote. Motion passes.

K. Great. Moving to 1.8. First, Stella, you pulled this item.

Thank you. Yeah.

I had a lot of questions on this item. I I fully understood the concept of, you know, we made the change to from CAO to CEO, and I was just hoping some of the language seemed rather harsh to me in some of the explanations, and so I was hoping perhaps, counsel, you could talk a little bit about that. And then there was also in in looking at all of the different positions, they were somewhat different. And so hoping you can speak to that as well.

Yes. Mister chair, members of the board

of supervisors, you will recall that the board directed me to draft a CEO ordinance. It was a complete amendment to chapter three point o one to transition from a CAO, county administrative officer management model, to a county executive management model. And so in doing so, I reviewed the county code, and we wanted to ensure that the county code as it identifies senior management and department heads who sit at the pleasure of either the board or the CAO is consistent with the CEO ordinance. I would just note that all department heads and senior managers in all 58 counties are at will employees. They do sit at the pleasure of the appointing authority under the California government code, California health and safety code, and other California codes.

There are certain positions that may only be appointed by the board of supervisors, the balance of whom are left to the CEO to appoint. So this item is really a cleanup item to accurately reflect what is currently this the state, which is that these department heads and senior managers have at will status. It clarifies the language that identifies what at will status means. I would just note that when I began my review of all of the department head and senior management classifications, I realized that there was not a comprehensive approach to treating all of these individuals in the exact same manner with the exact same language. So for example, you'd have department heads that had certain at will language, and you had other department heads who had different at will language.

They both meant the same, but they weren't consistent. Then we had department heads who were at will that had no such language within their job description. And so we also had individuals that were reporting to the incorrect appointing authority. So this was a cleanup item to accurately reflect the county code, to accurately reflect California state law, and to be consistent with the at will status for department heads and senior managers across the state. I would also note that these are individuals by virtue of their status are unrepresented.

They are not part of the management group bargaining unit. And we had to ensure internal consistency between each of these particular job descriptions. I would also note that the language that I included is the standard legal description of what an at will employee designation really means. It means that you are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority, and you may be dismissed with or without cause at any time. And so this was merely an attempt to clean up and provide some consistency throughout our job descriptions and to ensure that the county executive officer's authority is properly aligned with all of those individuals to whom they will report.

Thank you for the explanation. Do you know was staff made aware of any of the changes, like any of these department heads? Was it discussed at a department head meeting or anything like that?

Yes. It was discussed. I raised it at a prior department head meeting. Typically, when the CEO and I have department head meetings, we both take the opportunity to identify all of the matters that we are working on that will be coming before the board of supervisors for approval.

Okay. Thank you. And then the item was public health. Can you speak to that a little bit? It was a little bit confusing to me. So is the public health director now reporting to the board, or they or they still they still have the same structure? It's just, you know, there was there was some changes in that in that position.

Yes. You were speaking to the public health officer.

Yes.

Within that job description, there was there is a reference to a public health director, but we have no such job description for a public health director at this time. The current job description for public health officer has been modified to accurately reflect that under the health and safety code, the public health officer must be appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the board of supervisors. So I made that clarification. That is not a position which reports to and sits at the pleasure of the county executive officer or any other department head. Now what I did not change was the administrative oversight and direction direction that comes from the health and human services director.

That remains unchanged. So the public public health is within the health and health and human services agency. That was a decision that had obviously been made by a prior CIO and by a prior board of supervisors. I left that unchanged. Okay. Obviously, that structure can be changed. But under the California Health and Safety Code, the public health officer sits at your pleasure. And, again, as I reviewed all of these job descriptions, my intent was to ensure that those that by law report to this board are accurately reflected in the job description. And those that report to the CEO, it's also reflected in that job description as well.

Okay. Thank you. And, I mean, I know when I when I pulled up library or the, yeah, the county librarian, I saw the language as, you know, the county librarian is an at will department head position, serves at the pleasure of county administrative officer, and may be removed at any time with or without cause and without right of appeal. So this is language that we already had in some of the department heads, but not all. And so these changes now are just, if it wasn't some had it, some didn't.

Now we have a consistency among all department heads. But with this change, it from what I'm understanding, there really is no change. The added language is there to provide for consistency, but this is no there there is nothing new to these job specs. Am I understanding that correctly?

Yes. That is exactly correct. No department head or senior manager's status has been changed.

Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. I appreciate all the explanations.

I will also like to clarify a question that was raised regarding the fire chief. The fire chief position exists, but it's not allocated. They don't have any funding. Before I came on board, I think you have that position opened, but it was closed. And then it never went anywhere. So we just have to address the issue because it exists, but it's doesn't have an allocation. And it's not been approved for an allocation. I just wanna clarify that because I was asked for it. Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. I also received questions regarding that. So thank you. I appreciate you bringing that up.

I wanna thank supervisor Sotelo for pulling this. I had similar questions. The fire chief one, I appreciate. That was one of my areas. I wanna make sure I knew that. I wanted to make sure that that was clarified for the public. Also, some of these job descriptions have referenced in their MEG, and you've stated that they're unrepresented. Is it very clear in all of these that they are are were any of these part of MEG prior to this change?

Yes. The the planning director and the public works administrator were both included in MEG. However, you will recall that the board directed that we pursue a bargaining unit modification. We then submitted that to MEG. MEG agreed that those two individuals, those two classifications should not be part of MEG because they are department head level positions.

They then sent us a writing concurring with our recommendation, and we have now submitted that formally for modification. So those two have been pulled out, but we can only do that obviously with the agreement of MEG. We did that. We obtained that approval, and now that modification will be made.

And I appreciate that clarification. The other area that we've talked about previously, and I apologize if I missed it, is how all of these positions that are high level department heads, the confidentiality issue. Can you address that just so the public's aware?

So, yes, they are considered confidential employees. What that means is that, first of all, they are not directly involved in the negotiations. Labor negotiations are between the CEO, the board of supervisors, and the established and recognized bargaining units. But more importantly, these are positions that mean, by definition, that they have access to confidential county information that must be maintained as confidential. It's official information under the law.

And so they're considered confidential employees along with their status as at will department heads or senior managers.

Thank you so much.

I just want I just wanna clarify one point regarding that matter. I found out when I came on to the to the county, then the administration office, there were individuals that didn't sign a format, a formal agreement, a disclosure for confidentiality. So we're gonna ensure that everybody signs that document because they have to sign that document being a confidential employee. But even at this level, at the office, when we have HR individuals working with Social Security numbers and information, private information, they didn't have that one. So we clarify. We clean up this in the office, at the administration office, and we're gonna proceed with all the department heads for them to sign the same form.

Okay. Great. Thank you so much. I appreciate the clarification, and thank you.

Thank you. Anything else? Public comment on this item, please.

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 in chambers, I have Carolyn James.

Thank

you. Mister chair, board members, good morning. I'm here today to express my strong opposition to the proposed shift of multiple department head positions to at will status. Now while in the workforce, which I was in for a long time as

you can

tell, I held leadership roles for many years, and I believe strongly in collaborative management. At its core, the at will status fundamentally alters the balance of power. And in doing so, it risks undermining the very principles that public service depends on, collaboration, accountability, and trust. This sentence in the proposed at will language says, this is an at will position. The incumbent is appointed by and serves at the pleasure, excuse me, of the county executive officer and may be removed at any time with or without cause and without any right of appeal.

This upsets me. It's wrong. As I understand it, government leadership is not meant to operate with fear based leadership. It should be grounded in consensus building, shared expertise, and thoughtful decision making that reflects all the needs of our community. These leaders are subject matter experts and critical voices in shaping policy and operations.

They are also our neighbors, our family, and friends who care deeply for this county and have dedicated years of their lives to public service. Manipulating these jobs in this way creates an environment where disagreement may be seen as disloyalty, where professional judgment may be suppressed, and where leaders may feel pressured to align rather than advise. This is not good governance. That is compliance driven leadership. Leadership is shaped by those at the top.

This community has voiced concerns with the current CEO around lack of collaboration, communication that makes people feel small, and leadership practices that feel belittling.

Thank you.

At will status in the wrong environment.

Excuse me. The three minutes we have to we have to be fair to everyone. We have to just cut you at the three minutes if that's alright. We have to be fair to everyone.

I'm sorry.

Time is finished? Yes. Sorry. The three minutes

is up. Well, thank you for listening. I hope that I will say please let me say one last thing. If you decide to move forward with this item despite the concerns I have presented, at a minimum, provide these leaders with severance packages similar to the CEO's contract for termination without cause. Thank you.

I have no other public comment.

Great. Thank you.

It's fair. Can we get a further explanation as to just the basic reasoning behind I knew your device here. A further explanation on, just again to clarify the reasoning, you know, understanding there's the concern that was expressed and sort of the reasoning and also just the context of, there are a lot of management positions in government that are at will and just kinda why that classification exists.

Certainly, mister chair, members of

board of supervisors. I I'd like to make it abundantly clear that we are not changing anyone's status from a civil service protected position to an at will position. We are making explicit what has either been partially explicit or has been implicit. I think what's important to understand is there is not a county in the state of California nor a city, all 480 some cities in the state of California where their department heads and senior management do not have at will status. So if I mean, this board could certainly grant civil service protection to its department heads, but you would be the only county in the state of California to do so.

And there is a reason why your department heads are at will. These are the most important positions that we have in government. And it's also reflected in the state law and our various codes which place some of these positions as at will they're appointed by the board and said it's your pleasure. This is merely a consistency item above all else, and it's ensuring that there is accountability to the board and accountability to your county executive.

Peggy?

Yes. I appreciate the clarification and and understanding I was gonna make the same comment. I have never worked in a county where department heads were not exempt, and exempt specifically means that they are unclassified and at will. It it it's amazing that we haven't had this before and that we are that there was a lack of clarification and consistency in these positions. But I wanna also make sure this is not opening any door to making MEG employees at will.

The reason I'm saying that is because there was previously in prior administrations that they wanted to force assistant department heads to be at will. And I wanna make it clear, I do not support that. And if, a management employee group or any sort of management association chooses to, become a a real unionized group, that's up to them. And it these positions cannot be part of that, and that the exemption of these positions is consistent with counties across the state of California. I I just really wanted to make sure that we understand there's a a a very big difference between management employees and department heads that are exempt from these the civil service because it is it is unclassified exempt.

If you have exempt in your job description, you're exempt as a civil servant employee. And so I just wanna make sure that that's understood, and I appreciate the clarification because I did do the research. It it is true across the state of California. And we are the only one that there was even a gray area of of not understanding. So I think this definitely clarifies that for not only the people in the positions, but for the public understanding that these are confidential exempt employees that are at will.

But at the same time, understanding they're not at will to the board of supervisors. They're at will to the CAO or the CEO. My apologies. Just because you have to build a team to be able to be productive in government. And I I hear the public comment about team building.

Team building also comes both ways. And we need our employees to understand, especially our exempt employees, that we need a team that is fulfilling the wishes and and objectives that the board has put on the CEO. That I just wanna make sure that that's clear and and that this does not affect management employee group. They have their own rights and their and their own public service authority. I just wanna make sure that that's clear.

Yes. Mister chair, members of

board of supervisors, this action does not in any way impact Meg.

Thank you.

I completely sympathize with the public comments, and I know that it doesn't seem inclusive and collaborative in spirit. And I I I really do hope that we can get there where we're really we are all part of one team. Right? But I will say I did I really struggled with the word pleasure. I was like, really don't like this at all.

But I did look up the legal definition of at will employment for government department heads, employees, And it says the employee can be terminated anytime for any legal reason or no reason without cause, notice, or right to appeal, usually serving at the pleasure of an elected official or appointed authority. So while I don't like that word, it is there. It is the legal definition. And so, you know, I I I completely understand. I I don't like it either, but I think we've gotta be consistent. And so I will go ahead and move to approve this item.

I'll

second. We we do public comment. Yes. We have roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Zinger? Yes. Supervisor Velasquez?

Yes.

Supervisor Kosmiki?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Currow? Yes. Five zero vote. Motion passes.

Alright. Thank you. Move on to the public hearing. Item 2.1. This is public public hearing to receive presentation on the climate road map, county's first climate action planning document, which outlines key measures and actions aligned with county climate priorities and community engagement efforts. Abraham, this is you. Right?

Yes. Thank you, mister chair. Members of the board of supervisors, good morning. This item was continued from your regular meeting of February 24 to today, April 28. Before you is the San Diego County climate road map, as you mentioned, mister chair.

This is a collaborative effort amongst the San Benito County Public Works Department, the planning department, integrated waste management, along with community engagement. The goal is to advance greenhouse gas reduction efforts in the unincorporated areas of the county of San Benito and the and to position the county for additional grant funding opportunities. This work was made possible through a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency in collaboration with the county of Santa Clara. Our consultant, Rincon, will be providing a brief presentation on the road map. But before inviting them to present, I'd like to introduce our integrated waste management manager, Selena Staller.

Good morning, chair Zanger, members of the board. Today's discussion is especially timely. We as we just celebrated Earth Day in San Juan Bautista with the community this past Saturday. If adopted, the climate road map would be the county's first climate planning document. It outlines actions aligned with local, state, federal, and regional climate priorities, including the comprehensive climate action plan, and it is informed by community engagement conducted over the past two years.

It's important to note that the road map is intended to serve as a nonbinding framework to guide future climate planning efforts, grant applications, and regional coordination, all subject to future board approval and available resources. We're pleased to continue this effort that builds on direction from the board back in 2021 to develop a climate planning document supported by a $200,000 allocation. While that original effort did not move forward at the time and the allocation was ultimately unspent, a larger partnership a later partnership opportunity with the county of Santa Clara enabled San Bernardino County to develop a grant funded climate road map. I would also like to acknowledge County of Santa Clara staff. We've got management analyst, Jenani Chandrasekar.

Staff work has worked closely with agency partners, community members, agricultural stakeholders, and technical consultants to develop the road map before you today. And at this time, I'd like to turn it over to our consultant, Ryan Gardner with Rincon.

Thanks. Good morning, chair, members of the board. I'm Ryan Gardner. I'm a principal with Rincon Consultants, and I've been the primary technical lead on the road map as well as the broader regional climate action or comprehensive climate action plan. So as was mentioned, this work was funded by a, EPA inflation reduction act grant that was provided to the MSA or the Metropolitan Statistical Area of Santa Clara County and San Benito Counties.

That plan was developed in coordination with both jurisdictions as well as the cities of those counties and multiple agencies, transit authorities, climate or community choice aggregators, and others. And that plan was submitted to EPA and adopted earlier this year. And then as an additional subgrants to the county of San Benito, we developed a road map that really took all of those goals and targets from this regional plan and then filtered it down to be more specific for the county. And we did that through feedback from local agencies and the community. So why develop a road map?

One of the major benefits, as it has been mentioned, is the opportunity to apply for additional funding. So, this work was grant funded, and there are more grants coming through state and other channels that having a plan like this makes you more competitive for. And it also opens up opportunities to collaborate with partners who are already working on a lot of these actions. Additionally, it can help improve the health and safety of the community and help build resilience to climate change, some of the effects we're already starting to feel. And it also helps align county actions with state regulations.

So as part of this work, we integrated state laws like s b thirteen eighty three, which is organics diversion, s b 100, which is a 100% carbon free electricity by 2045, as well as California's landmark climate bills, s p 32 and a b twelve seventy nine, which call for, 40% reduction below nineteen ninety levels in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045. Just some of the grant opportunities that we're seeing currently in California. Proposition four is a big one. This is the climate bond. 3 and a half billion dollars going to things like safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, clean energy, and nature based solutions, which is a huge opportunity in San Benito County.

And this money is gonna be going down through multiple different channels, and having a plan like this helps position you for that and has established some relationships with partners that are gonna be key to winning some of this money. Some other programs are the transformative climate communities, which can go to energy and housing and transportation projects. Climate adaptation resiliency program, which is, again, for natural and working lands. There's a big focus on this, and we know that's a a kind of a key attribute of the county. And then sustainable planning grants and implementation grants through agencies like Caltrans.

So the process that we went to to develop this really started out by collecting data and creating a greenhouse gas inventory so we could understand where emissions came from and then developing a forecast that integrated kind of how the county is expected to grow over time based on your general plans and housing elements. And then we developed targets, and we aligned again with that broader regional target and the state targets. We developed strategies and actions that'll help bridge the gap between those forecasts and the targets, and then we develop the draft and final road map. And all of those kind of targets, strategies, and actions, and the final plan was developed alongside the community and feedback from the community and stakeholders. And we had a fairly robust community engagement strategy.

So we conducted multiple in person and online events. We reached just about 300 people or so. Through these different events, they included surveys and tabling as well as focus groups where we were able to really get into more nuts and bolts and details, including the ag focus group and one with the general community. And then we had multiple one on one conversations with various agencies, ag commissioner, charter districts, AMBAG, and Santa Clara County to really go through specific actions and make sure concerns were addressed. And we've also taken feedback that we received from our first presentation to the board and made some of those adjustments as well.

And overall, feedback was really positive. When we started out in the community during our tabling and our surveys, most of the community, over 70% of respondents, had pretty high level of concern about climate change impacts, things like extreme heat and extreme weather and precipitation, and didn't feel like they were very well prepared to deal with some of those changes. And overall, felt that a lot of the strategies and actions that we were considering for the plan, whether it's more walking and biking infrastructure, electric vehicles, reducing organic waste out of the waste stream, could all help improve quality of life, and improve the community. The agriculture focus group was another really great opportunity to meet with, folks from the county, specifically in the ag sector, and talk about some of the challenges of implementing some of these strategies. We conducted what we call a sailboat exercise.

So on this map here or on the figure, you can see there's, like, the anchors, things that hold us back, really challenges to doing some of this work. But the stickies above or the wind in our sails, the things that can help push us forward, and that community really identified that they're able to and excited to do some things like compost application and cover crops and vehicle sharing, but really need some grant money and some funding associated with that to make it feasible. And that they really needed to be geared towards medium sized businesses that felt they had been left out of kind of things meant for smaller businesses or, really large sophisticated operations. So we took a lot of that feedback and incorporated it into the plan. Another key part of this road map is that we integrated a lot of the work that the county's already doing.

You're already needing to comply with s p thirteen eighty three. You already are working with your CCA to get a 100% carbon free electricity. We take all of these things that are going on and integrate them into the calculations we're doing so that you can show the progress that you're already kind of working on and build on those foundations that you already have. And then, again, working with regional partners to integrate things that they're doing as well so we can really show the progress that the county is already working towards. And through all that, we came up with a full set of measures and actions.

And, again, these are not binding activities that you're committing to, but rather providing a road map that when resources are available and you're able to align with partners and grant funding, you can move some of these things forward. But they include working with the c c a CCA three c e to achieve a 100% carbon free electricity, reducing vehicle miles traveled or vehicle use through walking and biking, enhancing carbon sequestration through ag and through tree planting, and really helping to make some improvements. So the next steps are hopefully the adoption of this road map and then getting to work with some of our regional partners, some of those who are here today to look for grant funding and opportunities to collaborate on going after some of this grant funding to help ease some of the the resource burden on the county, and then beginning to implement the plan as resources are available. And, you know, some of the strategies and actions in here are really easy. Some of them are already ongoing, and some of them are a little bit bigger and more challenging, and we're gonna need to go out and find resources to do those.

And and we can do them as the opportunities arise. So, yeah, thank you for your time this morning, and happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you. Alright. Let's go to public comment on the on the public hearing here from the public 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 in chambers, I have Sofia.

Good morning, chair and members of the board. My name is Sofia Schwarzky, and I am here on behalf of 3CE, the public agency that procures energy for 1,200,000 Central Coast residents. 3CE is proud to be a a key partner throughout this road map. We want to thank the board and county staff for the thoughtful planning and community engagement that went into developing it. San Benito County has been a member of three CE since 2018.

Supervisor Currow represents the county on our policy board. CEO, Collio Warren, serves on our operations board, and Selena Stottler sits on our community advisory council. San Benito County doesn't just benefit from three CE's programs, it directs them. To date, your constituents have received $850,000 from three CE, and I want to talk about how this funding aligns with the road map. We continue to invest directly in San Benito County through our member agency programs, which provide up to $300,000 per year for funding electrification efforts, including fleet planning, reach codevelopment, and charging infrastructure.

We also offer rebates for residential, commercial, commercial, and agricultural customers. This road map mentions several of our programs by name because they directly support the county's climate goals across multiple sectors. Our ag electrification program to help decarbonize farm equipment, our plan your fleet program to transition medium and heavy duty vehicles to EVs, and our new construction electrification program to encourage new housing to be built all electric. Three CE has a goal of delivering 100% renewable energy, and we are glad to see that commitment reflected in the road map. In 2025, three CE delivered enough clean energy to power more than 350,000 homes.

We are on track for 70% of three CE's energy to be clean and renewable by the 2028. Three CE supports the staff's recommendation to adopt the climate road map to advance greenhouse gas reduction goals and to use the road map as a planning framework to guide future climate related planning. Thank you for your time this morning.

And I have one other on Zoom. Leslie, you've been unmuted, and you have three minutes.

Yes. Thank you so much. Good morning, supervisors. Just one moment to say thank you to the board and to Ariel Goodspeed and Selena Stotler and Abraham Prado, and also to Ryan and the Rincon team for the time and the care and really just the the sheer work that went into preparing the climate action road map. This I think this kind of planning takes a lot of coordination, a lot of listening, and technical work, And I really appreciate the effort to bring something forward that gives the county a framework without committing the board to immediate implementation.

I think people really took to heart the concerns that we that that they heard from the board of supervisors in September, and I see all of that reflected in the road map. And so, you know, I'm I'm confident that approving the road map today really preserves all of that work and leaves future decisions, including timing and funding and staffing and and priorities with the board. So thank you all for for your hard work and for giving the public the opportunity to not only weigh in but to participate and offer comment today.

Thank you. That concludes public comment. Sorry.

Great. Thank

you. That concludes public public comment.

Thank you. Bringing back to the board, do you have any comments, questions on this? Mister Crow?

I wanna thank all the work that's been done on on this. I I do have a couple of questions, and I'm thinking maybe staff might be able to to answer some of them, if not the CEO. This program actually started how many years ago?

Staff presented on the climate action plan sustainability master plan back in June 2021.

So 2021, this started from a prior board because, of course, I wasn't on the board at the time. And did the county invest money in this?

The county allocated 200,000 at that board meeting, and none of that funding was spent.

None of it was spent. Okay. So everything was paid through grant funding. So if we were not to approve this today, we'd have to start all over. Right?

Correct. Okay. I just wanna make sure we understand how much was invested in this without it coming out of the general fund. And if we could just clarify, this is a road map that we will be continually looking at future and how could we fund it. It is not a funded program right now. Correct?

That that is correct. The county did commit by resolution to a three year participation in the regional climate project working group that will be coming back to you hopefully before the end of the fiscal year for discussion. That is a $15,000 contribution, and that supports our membership with Monterey County, Santa Cruz County, various cities within the three jurisdictions. And we all apply for regional grants that would help us implement these projects. And our return from grants already received have far exceeded the the funding that we've put in.

And how much have we received in grant funding already?

I wish I had the exact numbers.

Can certainly follow Just rough.

Yes. I think it I wanna say 3,000,000. K. And then we're receiving about five electric vehicles at no cost to the county. We will have to front that money, but we would be receiving reimbursement for those vehicles.

Which far exceeds the $1,500 to being a member. The reason I'm bringing these questions up is because I I didn't know enough previously. And with all of the work that's been done in the past and where this could open opportunities for future grant funding. It doesn't mean we're committing anything at this time. It means that we have the opportunity to commit in the future and and obtain grant funding that could help benefit, our programs in the future. So I thank you all so much for all of the time that you've given me to be able to ask a lot of detailed questions, and I appreciate, all the work and the collaboration that that Santa Clara did with us. So that's really great. And I have no further questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Appreciate to you all the work you guys have done. I do have concerns, and I wanna make sure we're trying to address my I've I worry about as we work with the state, it seems to work with themselves and really leave us out in the end. I'm concerned about mandates, future mandates. If we approve something like this, what does that mean for us? Does that mean we have to do certain things to meet state requirements once we approve it, or do we have our own freedom to do what we wanna do?

And, you know, there's a conversation about the goal of a 100% renewables. That's great. I think we all want a better environment. I'm concerned, though, that what does that mean that we have to, in the future, approve certain projects, renewable energy projects on some of our farmland that can come back and all of sudden we go from farming community to a a solar panel community, grant funding. What does that exactly mean? Do we have a list of what we're talking about? How it affects us or improves the quality of our life? And I I don't doubt there is grant funding for us out there if we approve something like this. But what does that mean? What how are we tied into it?

Again, I guess my biggest fear is, historically, the state says one thing, then they come back with a hammer, hit us over the head and say, now you have to do this because you agreed to that. That's where my fear is. And if if we're free of that, let's pop open the champagne bottle and celebrate. Right? But I just I have a hard time trusting the straight the state any any longer. I wanna make sure that whatever we do here does not tie our hands in the future.

Yeah. I would I would say that the adoption of this road map does not commit you to anything further. The mandates that you're gonna see from the state are gonna be mandates from the state. If anything, this plan is giving you a little more local freedom because it allowed you to show how you're gonna hit some of these long term state targets in a way that makes sense here with community feedback. But adopting this plan is not gonna require you to do anything additional.

And the 100% renewable electricity, that's a requirement from the state on electricity providers, not on the county or the community. So that is a law on the books, s p 100, the renewable portfolio standard, and three c and others are working towards that already. So, yeah, nothing in adopting this plan is gonna increase the amount of requirements from the state. It's really just showing how you're working towards the goals that the state has already adopted for emissions reductions and things like that. And then as far as the grants, it's it's hard to say in general because there's lots of different grants with lots of different grant requirements and whether it's matching funds and things like that.

That will just be kind of based on the grants that you go after, and you'll have the opportunity to look at a grant opportunity and determine if it's something you want to pursue or not. K.

And, again, this is my fear of the state is always this is so great and beautiful, and then it's but you didn't do this. Therefore, penalty down the road. And I know it's not there now, but the history of what we've seen is exactly that. So that that's why I have fear. Maybe from our counsel, as you go through the legal part of this, I wanna make sure that we're not bound to anything, that we have the freedom of of choosing what we wanna do in the future, and that we're not told that this has to happen now because you approved this plan.

Yes. Mister chair, members of

board of supervisors, I I believe the assessment that's been presented to you is in fact correct. That is that the board's approval of this plan does not in any way obligate the board to take any specific future action and that your discretion remains with you.

K. Well, again, thank you for I know you all you did such a a lot of hard work to bring us forward. Just wanna make sure those are my concerns, and they have been from the very beginning. So thank you. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you for that. I mean, I I share the same concerns, but I, you know, I look at it from a pros and cons perspective, and there's a lot of tools in this toolbox to to use down the road that are, I think, gonna be very valuable to us. So I just wanna thank everybody who was involved. And the only clarification in my at least from my perspective, I've I sat on the three CE board for five years and appreciate all the staff, the comments that were made.

But when it comes to programs and hundreds of thousands of dollars in program funding that come to our county, just from my perspective, the rate payers of our utility bills, the people that are paying $400 a month and $300 a month and three fifty and two fifty and 4 50, they're the ones who are funding the programs, not three CE. Thank you.

Thank you. First of all, I I really appreciate how much time and effort you guys have spent in really listening to the community. And it is very evident with this presentation today, and so I really, really appreciate that. I I think this is a real opportunity for us to look at bringing in some some funding for our community to particularly address some of the issues that, you know, when you survey the public. And I think this op provides an opportunity for us to bring in some funding to be able to do these things.

And without adopting a road map like this, we won't be eligible for this type of funding. And so I I appreciate that you tied it back to to the quality of life for our residents, and I think that's a goal of mine. I I definitely wanna make sure that every decision that we're making up here really is increasing the quality of life. So thank you for that. And just to kind of reiterate again, this is voluntary.

I mean, this is not there is nothing that we're going to mandate any of our businesses to do, any of our residents to do. This is a road map that will be essentially an opportunity for us to go out and get funding, but there is nothing mandated to any businesses in our community nor individuals. I'm understanding that correctly. Right?

That is correct. Any again, grant application or program ordinance that we would that that may be mentioned in this road map would be brought back to the board for your consideration.

So if there was anything we were going to adopt, that would be a separate discussion and a separate vote by the board of supervisors. That is their just because it's mentioned in this plan does not mean this is an automatic. Every part of this plan would then be brought brought back to the board of supervisors for formal adoption if we so chose to do that. Correct.

And our hope is to return to the board at least once a year to discuss the road map, hear your priorities. I also would like to invite Jennany up because I I think there might be potential funding opportunity still available in this grant. The county of Santa Clara County was lead, and so I'd love her to just speak to that a bit. And we're looking at potentially what we can fund some of these measures.

Okay.

Thank you. Thanks, Selena. Good morning, chairperson and board of supervisors. My name is Janani Chandr asekar. I'm a senior sustainability analyst with the county of Santa Clara's office of sustainability and resilience. Like Ryan mentioned, the county received this $1,000,000 planning grant. So this is a planning grant that we received from EPA as part of the IRA funds. And for the past three years, our county has been working closely with San Benito County to to develop a comprehensive climate action plan. I believe it's the first of its kind for that covers the both the counties. So we developed this document in association with our technical consultant, Rincon, and our coordination consultant, Faralon.

Through this process, we have engaged with stakeholders in both the counties. We've engaged with local agencies, community choice aggregators, transportation authorities of the both both the counties. And like Selena mentioned, this was a subaward that we received the grant and we developed a sub I mean, we granted we gave a subaward to San Benito County to work with them to develop this road map. We are also exploring possibilities of additional funding that we might have as part of this grant. We are still discussions are underway, initial stages to see if there is any part of this road map that can be furthered, with some available funding as part of the grant.

So we've just initiated conversations with, Selena and her team. It depends on how the discussions go, and we may be able to come back and give you an update at a later date.

Thank you. I I appreciate that, and I really appreciate the collaborative approach and kinda working regionally. So thank you. And and, again, I just wanna emphasize, I really appreciate you working with the ag community. I know a lot of people in ag had a lot of concerns, and I appreciate the inclusion of kind of that small, medium, large business and opportunities, and listening to the challenges around some of the some of the requirements, etcetera, that, you know, that they feel are coming down that are mandated from the state. And I think this might provide some funding that they may be able to that will help them be in compliance with mandates that have already come down from the state. So I'm very supportive of this. I appreciate all the work that went into it, and I appreciate you listening to everybody in the community. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. I had similar concerns that were expressed a little bit by Suarez Velasquez, but it sounds like it's been addressed. I appreciate that. As far as any kind of future requirements, it looks like that's not a situation that we have to worry about, so I appreciate that. It does make sense to me that we have something that we can show the state to express, hey. We're don't worry. We're on it. You know, you don't need to bring the hammer down on us or anything like that. So I appreciate that aspect of it as well. I don't have any other questions because does, though.

I just like to reiterate. I agree completely with supervisor Kozmickey on the three CE. The the these programs that come out of three CE are funded by us as residents here. And one of the things that I've been doing since I've been put on three CE and I that I've learned and that I've been trying to advocate for is the affordability element for our residents that are being pushed out of their homes because of lack of affordability. Three c e is a it is massive undertaking to understand all the programs and the elements that are there, but it is imperative that we keep reiterating from our board affordability and that these programs can be big and and bring projects in, but they don't necessarily benefit the little guy.

No offense. It's it's we have to always be looking at our residents and their rates. So I appreciate that comment. Also, I do wanna make sure that any programs that are brought forward or grant funding that are brought forward are clearly collaborated with the CEO and are meeting the board's initiatives and direction. Options always can come to us, but we just need to make sure that we have that collab collaboration between where the board is going on things versus where the state is going.

I I feel that we the local control is something that we have to keep hanging on to is the local control. So thank you, and I do appreciate all the hard work. I know this has been years in the making of getting to this, and I thank Santa Clara for collaborating with us.

Thank you. Is there a motion?

So I move to approve as recommended. I'll second.

Great. May, can we have roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Zanger? Yes. Supervisor Velasquez? Yes. Supervisor Kosmiki?

Yes.

Supervisor Sicelo? Yes. Supervisor Currow? Yes. Five zero vote. Motion passes.

Great. Thank you. Next public hearing item 2.2, also from Abraham. This is, to conduct a public hearing under the tax and equity fiscal responsibility act, the TEPRA. Abraham.

Yes. Thank you so much, mister chair, members of the board. Good morning again. The we are here this morning to conduct a public hearing pursuant to the federal tax equity and fiscal responsibility act, otherwise known as TEFRA. The applicant by the name of CRP, Affordable Housing and Community Development, is requesting that the California Municipal Finance Authority adopt a plan of financing.

The plan of financing is to help finance the acquisition, construction, and improvement of the proposed multifamily housing development at 340 Bridgeville Road located in the unincorporated area of the county of San Benito just west of Bridgeville Road. Therefore requires a public hearing to be held by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which a project is to be financed with tactics and financing is located and that the governing body approve the proposed financing. It is important to note that as stated in section four of the attached resolution, the county should have no responsibility or liability whatsoever with respect to the bonds, and the adoption of the attached resolution by the local jurisdiction does not mean the approval of the project. That is a separate process. The project must follow the proper county review process prior to consideration and approval.

So the applicant is CRP affordable housing and community development. The project name is called Baylor Place. The type of project is a multifamily affordable housing rental, and the location is at 340 Bridgeville Road in Hollister, California. And the project description consists of one three story building with 53 multifamily affordable units for rental use, including one management unit on approximately 1.73 acres. The property is located at 340 Bridgeville Road.

As indicated, it's approximately one and a half miles west of Downtown Hollister, northeast of the intersection of San Juan Hollister Road and Highway 156, and the property is locate the property is currently vacant. What you see on the screen right now is a rendering of the east elevation of the proposed building, and this is from the view of Bridgeville Road looking west. What you see in front of you is the latest proposed site plan of the proposed project that is still currently under review. As indicated, the issuer would be the California Municipal Finance Authority, the CMFA. The amount is a not to exceed amount of $21,000,000, and the use of the funds can be for the finance of the acquisition, construction, and improvement of the proposed Baylor Place development.

Regarding the California Municipal Finance Authority, it is a joint powers authority formed to assist local governments, nonprofit organizations, and businesses with the issuance of both taxable and tax exempt debt. Regarding the financial responsibility, the debt to be issued to be issued by the California Municipal Finance Authority will be the sole responsibility of the borrower, and the county will have no financial or legal obligation or responsibilities regarding the repayment of the debt. All financing financing documents will carry disclaimers that the loan is not an obligation of the county. The county will also bear no cost in the issuance of the proposed debt. This is a private loan between the borrower and the lender.

Regarding the role of the county, it is the role of the county to conduct a public hearing to comply with temper requirements, the internal revenue code, and California government code section six five zero zero. And just to reiterate, approval of this agreement does not mean any financial responsibility or legal liability on behalf of the county or approval of this project. That recommends that the board of supervisors conduct a public hearing under TEPRA in connection with the proposed issuance of revenue bonds by the California municipal fin finance authority and adopt a resolution approving the issuance of bonds by the California municipal authority for the borrower for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of TEFRA, the Internal Revenue Code, and the Joint Powers Act. I would also in like to indicate that Jared Suzuki is here, and he is a financial adviser with the California Municipal Finance Authority. And he is present in case you have any questions regarding the CMFA.

Thank you. Are there any questions for Stan?

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.

Okay. Thank you.

Board members. Yeah. Thank you for the presentation. And as I'm I think all of us are or having affordable housing, I don't think it's a good idea for us to be involved in helping decide who gets bond money, who doesn't. I can say this project, looking at it, the renderings, is exactly the opposite of what we're trying to do as we came with our housing plan.

Meaning, yes, we wanted affordable housing, but part of what we're trying to do is making sure the housing matching the community that are surrounding homes. So what we're gonna see here is a three story building in front of a single story house, and I can almost guarantee you the public in that area is gonna be outraged by this. And it's not it's a mistake we didn't wanna make as we're planning what we're doing. We talked about the perimeter housing in a new development match existing housing so that residents didn't feel they were living under a tower. Now if it's as a whole new development and it's mixed into the whole thing, that's a different story.

But this would be three stories facing right down at a single story building or a a home. And, again, I can I can guarantee you that those residents are gonna be outraged when they start seeing these renderings, and they should be? So what we should be doing is working with so I I'm sorry. Are you with the company, sir? Was it Jared? Oh, I I heard somebody.

Yes.

The issuer. The bond issuer? Okay. I didn't know if you're with the developer, so I was just gonna ask you some questions. Okay. Okay. Well, let let me if you wanna come out, I can kinda tell you some what I'm gonna warn you about here is, you know, we we're trying to do some things in our community that makes sense. Affordable housing is part of that. No disagreement there with me on that. But design concepts on how you put it together is extremely important so we're not getting our residents in those neighborhoods upset at what we're trying to do.

We wanna find a way to do this where the perimeter of a project matches existing homes in the area. In this case, you're you're separated by one city street, neighborhood street. So those residents right across the street, and I know that area very, very well, are just not gonna be happy about looking up at this type of a thing. The other concern that I have, I wanna make sure we don't fall into this issue, is the issue we're seeing a lot of is nonprofit groups building developments but not having to pay property tax. Is yours are you a nonprofit group?

So, yes, we do partner with nonprofit partner Pacific Southwest Community Development. So, yes, it is a nonprofit partnership.

We're we're gonna have this issue as more developers are going towards this path. They do not have to pay property tax. And as we see more and more of these developments happening, we're gonna find ourselves deeper and deeper in debt in our community. We can't afford to be waiving fees. We can't afford not to have that property tax.

So any developments that are coming forward through us, we need to make sure that property tax is gonna be included from when they build that property. If they sell it to another prop nonprofit, doesn't matter. Property tax has to be paid. I'm just don't wanna be in the situation where we're giving you guys this false sense of hope that we're putting a stamp on this today and that your project is gonna move forward. I would highly recommend that you sit down and have meetings, more meetings in the neighborhood about what you're trying to propose because something like this, I can't support that.

I wanna make sure we're we're clear up front. Doesn't mean there's not a hope to build a a project, but we have to look at that and take those issues into consideration.

Thank you.

Here we go. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you for for being here. I just wanna clarify process wise.

So we're approving the issuance of, $21,000,000 in bonds because that's kinda just the the legal procedure. Does that are we tied at all to because we still haven't sort of vetted the pro project itself, gone through the you know, having public comments and hearing I mean, I've heard from some residents very vaguely when this was still in its initial phases of just, you know, just the rumor mill and all that because I represent this area. And so can we just get some clarification on process, how we move forward, and whether this binds us to working with the developer on trying to find the the best possible project

if there's Sure. Yeah. Sure. First of all, thank you for having me. My name is Jared with the California Municipal Finance Authority. We act as the conduit bond issuer for this project. To your first point, so this $21,000,000 number is what's called a not to exceed amount. The actual number that we will be issuing is much lower. The reason we have a higher not to exceed amount is if the developer applies for additional tax exempt financing and is awarded that, if that total tax exempt number exceeds the not to exceed amount, then we would have to come back and do an additional TEFRA hearing. So we have a not to exceed amount that creates a little bit of a cushion in such cases to avoid having to come back to do an additional hearing to get this reagendized.

So as part of the process, in order for a project to get to this point, a new construction project, it goes through the county's planning, zoning process, and it has passed all of those standards. So in order for it to get here, it has gone through the county's zoning and planning and gotten approved through all of those departments. And these projects so these are affordable units, which is why they would be be eligible to get a welfare tax exemption on the property taxes. For normal market rate units, all those properties would be subject to property taxes. But for affordable housing, Yes.

They're able to apply for the welfare exemption to receive a property tax abatement. And these projects are vetted. They apply to a state agency called SIDLAC, California Debt Limit Allocation Committee. And this committee consists of representatives from the governor, the state treasurer, and controller's offices. So this is a highly competitive process for so for a project to get to this point, it has beaten out other projects and received bond allocation. So I feel like I was kinda bouncing back.

No. Yeah. I appreciate that. So from a legal perspective, does are we just it's not gonna come to the board of supervisors then?

This is specifically tied to the financing.

As far as the project itself, the design, the approval?

Yes. This is I mean, this has already been approved It's

been approved by the planning commission. Correct. That's what it sounds like. Correct. And Abraham's behind you, and maybe he can elaborate because he's yeah. Go ahead.

Thank you, supervisor Kismeti. So it it is in the process right now of being being reviewed. It is it is a multifamily affordable housing project, which which it's not a requirement to go through an entitlement process like the planning commission or board for for the multifamily component aspect of it. It is it is a ministerial process, but we heard your comments. And if it is the will of the of the board to have the applicant work on adjusting its its proposal.

It it's been it's been reviewed. It it's provided staff has provided comments in regards to the the project itself as as presented. It meets it meets the general plan. It meets the density, but the comments that were provided today regarding the the adjacent properties, the stepping of of that, if it is a will of the board for the applicant to to work with staff on creating that, that is something that you can provide as the direction, and we can certainly work with them. Yeah.

I appreciate that. And, you know, especially since I represent this area, I did have some concerns. I am a huge supporter of affordable housing in general if we can get it right. I've been on the record very consistently. I I proposed a a growth cap five years ago that everyone I was on my own and had exemptions in there for affordable and multifamily.

So I am a supporter of affordable. We do do need more affordable. We've put rules in place that when we do build affordable through such organizations that we'll see how it works as we get into the one of these projects, but that local residents will have preference when it comes to applying for these units. But at the same time, I think we do have to pull back. I know that's not what the developer wants to hear because I have not had a chance to to vet this with my constituents.

And there were very vague understandings of what was going on here when I did go around and talk to residents, but it's I can't I can't take that final step without really being able to understand the community, its response, work with the developer, what the community and the neighborhood set sees the the larger community as a whole and make this the best project possible. That I understand the state is is kind of pushing through and allowing streamlined processes for affordable, which I you know, which makes sense, but I also I gotta have some kind of perspective from the constituents point of view on this. So, yeah, I would support pulling back. Would that mean that we would have to push off the $21,000,000 issuance? If we did perhaps go back to the drawing table a bit and had a workshop, invited West Side residents in particular.

Would that mean we would have to do that, or how would the process work if that

was the So this item for you is strictly about the financing. So we could proceed with the approval of the financing, but then go Are we binding

ourselves to anything by and then it's probably more of a legal question, but are we binding ourselves to anything by approving the financing when it comes to the the project itself? If if we have a desire as a board to say, let's take a step back, make sure this is a good the best possible project possible for the community, are we binding ourselves at all by issuing the bonds?

I mean, regarding the design of the projects

Or whether the project happens.

Approving the financing would allow the product to continue toward its eventual closing. Would we

have a say on how it looks?

I I think the developer I mean, we all wanna be great partners with with the county.

No offense to the developer, but from a legal perspective, would we have a say if the developer you know, everyone partners and says they wanna collaborate, but in the end, if they don't agree, could they just go build what's been approved? Sure.

I mean, I'll let the city Exactly.

Yeah. So it's more of a legal For a county attorney. Yes, mister chair, mayors board supervisors. Potentially, have some leverage. And I'm I don't mean to interrupt interrupting, but I wanna be very clear that we do have leverage here with $21,000,000 issuance of bonds. And I wanna make sure this is a good project for our community, but go ahead. Thank you.

Yes. Mister chair, mayors, board of supervisors, since the project is still proceeding through the processing phase with the planning department, I do believe that the county still has discretion with respect to the nature and scope of the project itself. However, that being said, I think your points are well taken, supervisor, and that the board could consider continuing the hearing to at least to now allow the initial discussions with the developer planning to proceed, to provide the board with some level of assurance that its concerns are being addressed with the developer.

I appreciate that. One last thing I wanna say, I I know I always say this when we talk about affordable housing, but at some point and I know we're putting in policies. I I believe we're I believe in the policies we're putting in place, but at some point that we need more diversity in where these projects are happening. We can't just keep putting all of our affordable housing projects on the West Side Of Hollister. And, you know, I'm a big believer that going forward, when when I'm gone and maybe when I'm dead, I wanna believe that this community is gonna build projects, mixed use projects throughout the community, and there's not necessarily just gonna be, well, we're gonna plop it down on the West Side because that's the poor side of town, that's where affordable housing goes. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm curious. Have you guys had done any public outreach at all to where you're looking at building this? Has there been any public outreach done to date?

Yes. And I'm not sure if I introduced myself. Brian Andrews representing the developer today. I'm more on the finance and transaction side. That's why I'm, joining the tougher hearing.

But, yes, during the permit approval process, our project manager does connects very frequently with the planning department, community outreach, the local residents within that around that neighborhood, around that site, and made sure that there was a community and development design that fits with that brand of that neighborhood. There was actually before we purchased the site, there was an originally entitled development, and we were able to follow in that footsteps and following the design and following that proposed development that was never able to finance and come to life. So we do take pride in the fact that we were able to come in, provide a project that fits that surrounding neighborhood. And as Jared mentioned, you know, come very close to being fully financed and start construction on the project. So

Okay. Thank you. So do you know once you had the concept of the project and, you know, three story apartment, etcetera, has there been any outreach to the public, to the community, particularly the community that you're going to kind of put this housing project in? Has there been any discussion of the design, or was the discussion more centered around affordable housing? Just curious if they've had an opportunity to speak with you about the three story part of the kind of concept.

Sure. And to answer your question, I believe there's been a few different hearings, and, Abraham, maybe you can speak on this, in terms of the design approvals. And that is sort of the opportunity of residents to come to the table, discuss the community, discuss the developments. Since we are here, hopefully, issues have been resolved very similar to if any residents had any issues with the project today. But I don't

know if you had any.

Ebrahim, has there been public hearings specifically regarding this project?

Thank you so much, supervisor Stellar, for that. There has not been any public hearings regarding this project. If it is the will of the board to direct the applicant to be able to have these community meetings, it is it is not. You did that for other projects recently, Granite Rock. It is it is not a thing that is out of the ordinary. You can you can certainly request that from the applicant.

I would really like to see a public meeting and and a lot of outreach done to get people there and really hear their concerns. You know, there's no doubt there is a huge need, you know, for this type of housing. I just wanna make sure that we're never just, you know, steamrolling anyone or putting it in a place that is absolutely not. And so I think it's really important. You know, I I think I definitely want to make sure that we are really, really listening to the community.

And so I would be very, very happy if we could get a public meeting, a public hearing, and and going above and beyond to get residents there, right, I I think would be because I know a lot of times we'll have these public hearings and, yeah, here's a perfect opportunity and nobody's here. But people are busy, and they've got their lives, and we need to do a little bit more. I feel like in a project like this that would really impact the community, this is going to have a huge impact on that neighborhood. Right? And so let's let's try to go above and beyond and really meet the needs of our community and and kinda meet them where they're at, right, to expect them to come and participate.

Yes. They can, but we see too often it doesn't. And then a project like this moves forward, and then everybody says, wait. You didn't list you you I never even knew about this. And so I I wanna try to prevent that as much as possible. So I think that would be a great a great step in the right direction. I'm curious, timeliness. Is there a timeliness part of is is the reason you're coming for financing? Like, you have this window, and if we don't do it in thirty days, you lose this opportunity. Is there any timeliness to this to this ask, I guess?

Yes. To speak on that, it was very intentional of why we scheduled the hearing today. SIDLAC, the issuer of the or who issues the bonds through CMFA, have they a readiness deadline of June 8. So that is the the readiness deadline that we need to meet that includes closing construction financing, receive permits, submit that to SIDLAC, and close out the projects on the application predevelopment process.

And so if we don't meet the deadline of June 8, then what happens? Do you have to kinda start all over again, or is it just a can you get an extension? What does that look like?

There is possibilities of extension, but it's not guaranteed. So it is the best interest of the project and for those involved that we perhaps approve the tap for today and then, you know, open to hope to more community involvement. I think we wanna emphasize that this approval today does not determine and guarantee that design and approvals on the planning side is approved. Those are two separate issues. So I think this hurdle today is to approve bonds, the financing, but then there's more comments to be said more on the planning side. We're kinda two separate separating the two issues.

Okay. So, Abraham, with a ministerial review, if we approved this today but like I said, to me, very important that we do this public outreach. We really hear. And let's just hypothetically say, that neighborhood says, yes. We really need this. We want two stories max. Right? So now your 53 units goes down to, I don't know, let's say 39. Being that it's not coming back to the board, not going to the planning commission for that type of scrutiny, how do we ensure that it aligns with what we collectively want up here as a community? Being that it's a ministerial review, and then we've approved this financing arm of it.

Yes. Thank you for that question, supervisor Sotelo. It is a really sensitive topic. It is it's as mentioned, really much needed in our community, but we gotta make sure that it it fits fits the community. And these concerns that you bring up are very valid and and are very valid to the neighborhood, to the neighbors, to the residents in in the area.

And so in the past, not necessarily here with the county, but my previous jurisdiction, we've had community meetings like a Caliber School and and specifically for the West Side Of town and, you know, had people come out and, you know, be able available in English and Spanish and and listen to the particular topics in in those particular cases with zoning updates. But, for example, that could be something that that you can certainly direct staff to do for the applicant to be able to provide that community meeting, for the applicant to be able to present their their project, get feedback from the from the residents, and certainly staff can can be listening in to to those feedbacks. In regards to whether you approve the the TEFRA hearings today for the bonding issue and and, you know, I think that we could just confirm with county council to make it clear that that legally, because it's a it's a ministerial project, that because the direction from the board, if it is gonna be the direction from the board, that we work with the neighborhood, with the applicant to adjust the rendering to make it more fitting and potentially have a two story instead of of a three story or maybe maybe a step from the adjacent single family homes, and then maybe in the back, we step up or whatever that end result may be if if we can certainly be able to to do that legally.

Because when it comes to ministerial, one of the challenges is that we have our zoning regulations. We have our general plan. And so as long as we meet the applicant as meeting those requirements, it's it's challenging for for in a ministerial process to re to reject it. But if it comes as a direction from the board, then I just wanna confirm that legally, we can certainly do that without without necessarily continuing this this item, you know. So I would just defer if that's okay.

So if we approve the finance, like, okay. Go ahead and go do that. But we gave you you know, we really want you to do this public outreach meeting, do a public hearing, really listen to what the residents are saying and what their concerns are from this neighborhood. Right? Really make them you know, give them a voice in this process based on what the community and the residents say, then you have the then then we're essentially you would make the determination of, okay. This can't be two story or, okay. This they they're good with it being three story. Is that you would make that decision under the ministerial?

Under the ministerial, it it would be processed through the zoning and general plan. And so if we if we

Currently, this is compliant with the zoning and the general plan. Correct. That's my concern is that how how are we going to ensure that we're not just doing we're not just creating

a checkbox.

Right? Like, I really want people to be heard. I don't wanna just create a checkbox that, okay. You have this public hearing. Okay. Stamp. Done. Okay. I want it to be that, k. Based on what you hear out of this public hearing, we're able to make some changes.

Right? We're able to make this the best project that we possibly can for our community. And so I'm trying to figure out how, as the board like, I I am so supportive of having affordable housing here, but I I'm struggling with the fact that, you know, it almost seems like at this point, if we approve this, then there's not a whole lot that, yes, you can go ahead and do you hear us and go have the public hearing, but you don't really have to make any changes. And so, counsel, can you maybe help me understand, like, what our role is in this and and what the what we can and can't do?

Yes. Certainly. Mister chair, members of board of supervisors, mister Abraham, I believe, has accurately laid out the the circumstances of this project and the nature of its review. However, I do believe that the board has expressed some very important, serious, and legitimate concerns regarding the project, And the board may wish to consider just continuing this TEFRA hearing until May 26 in order to at least ensure that there will be community outreach, that there will be a discussion, and there will be collaboration and presumably cooperation between the developer planning staff of the community, and that then a report can then be made back to the board on May 26. Based on everything that the board members have expressed here today, that may be the board's most optimum choice at this point.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I does the May 26 meeting give you all enough time with the June 8 deadline?

It is cutting it tight, but if you think that is required to approve and get the board of supervisors, comfortable with this project, that's something we're open to.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Those are my questions. Thank you very much. Okay.

I was gonna make a motion.

What's that?

Well, that's why I said go ahead. Okay.

This is this hits at the heart of my concerns with San Benito County and the fact that our general plan and our zoning are are not the fail safe that we need them to be. But also, this hits at the heart of where my concerns are continuously about this isn't one of our housing element locations. How does this affect Rina numbers? I'm not asking for answers right now. I'm I'm making a statement.

Will this require annexation into the city of Hollister for water and wastewater? There right now would be no, property tax, and we if we did ask for property tax and did require that, we don't have a tax sharing agreement that I feel fulfills what the needs are for San Benito County and our fair share. We talk about fire and heights of buildings. If you look at some of the housing elements that we have adopted, some of these housing elements in these locations that we still amazingly adopted are going to require the density to where we'd have to have eight to 10 stories, and we know we can't do that. So there there are things that we've done in the past, and there are things that we've done currently that all are not coordinated with our general plan and our zoning, and we need to be looking at those things.

This is in the unincorporated area. It's currently not in the sphere of influence of the city because the sphere has not been defined. The sphere of the influence of the city is the city currently. Correct?

Yes. That is correct, supervisor Crow.

And there's no water or wastewater in that location. I mean, there are so many things that need to be addressed. Correct. And the the administerial portion of this is that there's no public hearing. There's no this is straight from our general plan and zoning to a developer with no oversight.

And this is the only courts we have for oversight. I highly recommend that we table this, but at the same time, I feel that this needs to be brought to the affordable housing ad hoc. This is a prime example of the conversations we need to start having, and we need to start talking about how does this fit with our utility issues, which is our water our infrastructure issues, which is our water and our wastewater. And is this requiring an overriding consideration of any kind for vehicle miles traveled? And I agree completely.

We can't have affordable housing all in one spot. We need to be looking at affordable housing about how does it integrate into our community, but that's a general plan amendment that needs to happen. That's zoning changes that need to happen, and that's relooking at our housing element and how is our housing element actually going to be created to meet our arena numbers and where are arena numbers. So I have a lot more questions than I have answers. And so I recommend that this is tabled, and I apologize that this isn't probably the outcome that you guys wanted.

But we need to make sure that this meets what our community needs. But this is a bigger conversation than this project. This is general plan and zoning and making sure the vision of what our county and community looks like is defined by us and that we have the proper infrastructure to support it.

Yes.

One of the very good comments from our board, but the reality is this is not something to table. This is something to deny because we have a lot of work here to move forward on what we're trying to accomplish because you have to get entire neighborhood together, get them informed what's going on. And I'm gonna tell you, I'm quite certain about this. There's gonna be an uproar about this. Supervisor made other points.

You don't have services there. You were water, tax sharing agreement. There's a lot of pieces here. A lot of pieces. And if we keep moving down this pathway of what the state set up, we're gonna find ourselves with this exact project approved in an angry very angry community.

And I'm gonna go back to one of the first things I said is property tax, which is we cannot afford in this community to have multiple projects where no property tax is coming from. I mean, these you know, they're intense. There's a lot of services that have to go here. And for us not to have the future property tax, we're talking about millions of dollars, millions over the time period of this this project here. So I think the the better course is to deny it today. Yeah. Step back. Let's do it right. As we've talked about the general plan updates that we're trying to get done right is the best course of action today.

Mister chair, what happens if we deny? Is it just County council. Project just done?

What's I mean, fine. We hear a lot of your concerns. We hear all of your concerns, and we want to do our best to work with you and be great partners. That's ultimately ultimately our goal here. So if we can continue this item to a later meeting and work together to address these concerns, I think that's the best course of action. Yeah. I I it is our based off of our current conversation, it's our desire to continue this later, not take any action now, and then just work together in the coming weeks or months to

Thank you. But from just tech technically, what does happen if not a technical aspect if it was denied today? Can someone

I know that answer. If the board

of supervisors does not adopt the resolution, then the financing does not proceed.

Mister chair, what what happens is it goes through another cycle where they all apply for for bonds. These are this happens every year with amongst a lot of different builders. They apply. If they have a project that's ready to go, they're gonna be moving up in front of the line for a property approval if we have something correct. That's all I'm asking for. Let's make sure we do this the right way. I know you're not gonna make this timeline, but it's better that we have something that works for not only the community, but actually what ends up working for you guys.

So I

think it's better to deny and get it done right at this point.

Mister chair, I'm prepared to make a motion. I'm gonna make a motion to to deny the issuance of bonds by CMFA for benefit of CPR Baylor Place and to also schedule community workshops in that area looking to potentially looking to the next cycle. I do not believe there is time realistically to get adequate community input in May, come back in June. And and if the input and we expect there to be input that's bold and likely would be pushing this project to be changed in some fashion. There just is no realistic way that this would happen by June, and we just need to take a step back.

I think the developer understands that the board wants to be involved in this process. And if we're gonna sit up here and issue these bonds for something of this magnitude, this is our one opportunity to work with the developer. So I'm gonna make that motion to deny, but also to direct staff to schedule community meetings in that area to get more per feedback on this concept, but also making it clear that the board has denied it and that, you know, we wanna take our time in getting feedback on whether this type of project is desirable for that neighborhood.

Might might I interject one more time?

One second. Just because we had a motion, is there a second? Second. Okay. Now go ahead, please.

We can get to the same outcome that you were desiring with a continuation. A denial is poses a lot of more legal hoops to creates a lot of more legal hoops. So we are very open to working together to solve these resolve your concerns. And continuing the item results in a similar scenario that you're looking for, creates more time. There are extensions that we can apply for. So it it would be, I think, advantageous for everyone to continue this item to a later meeting as opposed to denying it outright.

Thank you. So we have a first and a second, and there's comments from a super zipper and then I think CEO had something right now.

I have real challenges flat out denying when we need to have something spark the conversation. This we have an ad hoc for affordable housing, and this ad hoc has not actually met. And we need this to be something that is brought to the ad hoc, and it's not just about outreach to residents in that area. It needs to be outreach to our community and the needs for affordable housing. The affordable housing conversation needs to be expanded to beyond just one neighborhood, and this could spearhead that conversation.

I'm not saying it won't be denied it denied if it's continued, but I support the continuing of it in order to be able to start the conversation and move the conversation more quickly and having the ad hoc come back with recommendations and then bringing the public in public hearings to be able to hear the real demands and needs. Because affordable housing is one of the number one items on a questionnaire that I sent out to my constituents. District 4 is struggling with being able to afford to live in this community, and they're being driven out. How do we make that, not happen and use this project as an example of how we can bring affordable housing to San Benendo County?

Thank you. CEO, you had did you have some okay.

I'm just gonna wait for the final direction so I can schedule the public hearings with the community, whether it's special meeting or maybe changing the location to be closer to the community so they can have accessibility. So but we'll we'll address those things later on. Great.

Thank you. So I'd like to make

a friendly amendment, mister chair. The friendly amendment would be to reconsider with it being a tabled, not an approval, and not saying that it will be approved at a later date, but table it so that we can start these discussions and make this bigger than just a neighborhood town hall. This needs to be community involvement across the county.

Tabling it, continuing the item, that's

that's great. And Mister chair, members of Board of Directors, if if I may, just to add additional clarification. Even though the project may be exempt, the planning director does possess the discretion under our zoning code that'd be processed as a minor or major development plan. And so that he can require major or minor development plan review at this point in time. So there there is additional discretion that is available for the county with respect to this project to look at it much more thoroughly, which I believe is what the board is suggesting rather than just proceeding on the exemption.

Thank you. To to make her the motion, there was a Yeah. I mean, you need to

No. That's think oh, no. I think we vote we would vote on

the friendly amendment first and then come back if there's a denial of that, but we can still have conversation.

Oh, vote on the friendly amendment?

Yeah.

Yeah. No. I I'm not in favor of changing it.

What would the extension what kind of extensions are we talking about here just for full transparency?

There are it's it's thirty day increments, so we would probably approach a thirty day extension, maximum being ninety days.

Yeah. Yeah. See, I see this as a months long process, and that's where the problem is. And I just don't realistically see any possibility that we come back after having a meeting in May or however many meetings we can possibly schedule in May, June, July. I just don't see it. I think it's better to just look at the following cycle and and to deny. But, obviously, we have to vote on the amended amended motion.

You don't have to

I think you can

You know,

don't do a vote on amend the motion unless you or I agree to amend the motion.

You have to accept the friendly amendment or not, I believe. Is that right, county council? Well,

if there it depends on how you want to characterize this. Yes. If if the maker of the motion is not willing to make the amendment, that's correct. However, a substitute motion could be then presented in its place, and then you would vote. You determine whether there's a second for your substitute motion. If there is, you would then vote on the substitute motion. If there is no second, then it fails, and you then return back to your original motion.

Okay. So so then I guess presented as a friendly amendment, but I guess she would be presenting that as a substitute motion instead if it's not accepted by the maker of the motion. Do I have that correct?

My understanding is you have to continue with if they're not if the maker of the motion is not willing to take a friendly amendment, you need to move forward with the motion.

Right. Yep. Sure. Call for the vote. That's accurate.

Yeah. Alright. We have the first and the second then on the original motion. Can we have the roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Zanger?

No. I mean sorry. Yes.

Supervisor Velasquez? Yes. Supervisor Kosmiki?

Yes.

Supervisor Sichelo? No. Supervisor Currow? No. Three two vote. Motion passes.

Great. Thank you. Thank you. A break? Yeah. Let's take a ten minute break. Thank you.

Recording stopped.

Recording in progress.

Okay. We are back from our break. Moving to the regular agenda now, item 3.1. This is to this is for public works for the presentation.

Yes. Good morning, chair and members of the board of supervisors. My name is Dean Scatada, interim public works administrator. So as part of this b one program requirement, every year we adapt a board resolution, adapting the SB one, projects. So on 06/10/2025, your board approved 3,015,000 in SB one funding for fiscal year 2025, 2026.

That is for for this current fiscal year. And so we spend, about 2,700,000 of that on, one of the projects listed on that projects, which is Coal Road. We spent 2,700,000 on that. And then another project for View Road rehabilitation from Acquista Pass to Fallon Road is now estimated to cost to cost about 1,360,000. So bringing the total needed funding to roughly 4,070,000.

And so because this exceeds the original budget, staff is requesting an additional of 1,050,000 to fully fund the projects and allow construction on Ferry Road to begin this fiscal year. A successor resolution is also required to reflect the the actual project cost for S B 1 for fiscal year 2025 and 2026. And, also, on October 2025, the final when we adopted the final budget, the budget for ISB one was approximately about 3.75, which we found out that we only need 315,485 to, that's the amount that we only need to increase the total SB one Highway Fund to to kind of to fund the full amount of 4,065,485. So, staff recommendation is, number one, adapt successor resolution for SB one twenty twenty five twenty twenty six to repeal resolution number twenty twenty five dash 36 to reflect the actual cost of the s b one fiscal year twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six projects to add $1,050,454.74 to the original 3,015,000. Approve budget to make the new total budget of 4,065,484 and 74¢.

And number two, adapt budget amendment resolution, increasing appropriations in the amount of 315,485 in fixed assets in the SB one fund to increase the total expenditure in the budgetary unit to $4,000,000.65 485. And number three, authorized chair to sign the resolutions. And that concludes the presentation for this item.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Let's go to public comment.

Alright, Sherman. If you allow me, please.

Sure.

Just one quick comment. This is only to adopt a new resolution that supersedes the previous resolution for the SP one allocations. It's not to approve any project, just the allocation of what you approved before. So when you approve the previous resolution, it was only $3,100,000. This resolution will supersede the previous one, and it'll be now for $4,000,000, but you are not approving any project any additional project. The projects remain the same. Just for clarification. 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 9 or the raised hand icon. And I have no public comment. Great.

Comments, questions from the board? Yes.

I just want to thank you, Deans, for catching that the project would not make it all the way to Comstock, and we would have been short $3.04, 500 feet, I think,

of that Well, 800 feet.

Eight I stand corrected. 800 feet would still not have been done, so thank you so much for doing that. I do wanna make sure, though, this goes a little bit past that intersection, correct, to get it to the point where the other the road has been completed.

That is correct. Okay.

Good. Yeah. And, thank you so much for catching that review and that before that went out to out for construction. So thank you again.

I'm just curious. What is the timeline on the construction potentially?

So if we can issue them the notice to proceed, I haven't talked to the contractor yet on their avail it depends on their avail availability, but we could actually tell them to start as soon as possible. Like, in the next couple months, basically? Ideally, maybe June or July.

Okay. Thank you. Yes.

So out of the projects that you've reviewed so far, is this is this one of the first road projects that you've reviewed since you've taken on this interim role when it comes to roads?

No. Not not. I mean, they you know, Union Road Rehabilitation is now ongoing. San Juan Highway is also now ongoing. So I and now I'm I am managing those projects. And I also say no because partly, I am especially for s b one projects, I am involved in creating those projects with the previous administrator. And so I'm kind of aware on on what's going on.

So this overage that we're having to fund more is because of a gap or because of construction cost?

Or who I just wanna remind you that the budget we're approving the budget. It's not budget amendment. The next item is the discussion of the project and the gaps and the additional funding. Yeah. Just for

clarification. The reason I'm bringing it up on this one is because this is before we actually get to the projects. That that's a concern for me is that we're we're not talking about projects before we we're we're starting off talking about funding before we talk about projects. And the reason I'm bringing this up is how many other projects do we foresee that we are going to have to come back, and how are we prioritizing? I I appreciate all the work that staff and the road ad hoc has done on prioritizing roads. I just wanna make sure that each area is getting their fair share and that the majority of our residents are being supported in these projects. So where my concern is is that we're funding something in advance before we know all the other things that may be coming.

Not necessarily. What you're doing today is incrementing the amount of the s p one fund. That's all you're doing in this budget amendment. For these two projects. You're not approving a project. That's what I mentioned before. You're not approving a project. You're only incrementing the amount of the risk allocated per the previous resolution. But in the end, I'm just gonna give an example. If the next item that you have, you decide not to approve the project, none of those funds are gonna be used.

I'm just giving you a purse so the way it works is you can come I cannot come to you as as the CEO requesting your approval for a project which I don't have the funding, and I don't have the approval previously allocation for that project. That's So do you see what

I'm This came across in my opinion as overall funding for specifics is how I read it. Mhmm. And then we're talking about projects in the next one. Yes. So you're saying that this is just taking funding and we're not allocating it to anything?

No. So you have three projects approved in the previous resolution, Coal Road divided in two pieces and Fairview. However, the funding was only $3.1500000 dollars.

So you need more money?

So we need more money in order to proceed, but I would not lie to request your approval for a project which I don't have the funding to approve.

Right. Yes. So so we're approving additional funding. Without approving the the project. Without approving the project, but we're approving additional funding.

Yes. That is correct. And then

when we talk about projects, the conversation can be broadened to what projects? Exactly. Okay. I just wanna make sure that that was clear. Thank you.

Anything else? Questions, comments? If not, is there a motion to proceed with the budget amendment?

So moved. Second. Okay. We have a

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

Supervisor Zenger? Yes. Supervisor Velasquez? Yes. Supervisor Kosmiki?

Yes.

Supervisor Satello? Yes. Supervisor Currow?

Yes. Five

zero vote. Motion passes.

Great. Thank you. Moving straight to 3.2. This is to authorize the Kirby Road rehabilitation project from Quizpace Road, etcetera. So this is regarding specific road projects. You've a presentation here for us?

Yes. So this is now the project that we're talking. So, again, this is all s b one projects that we'll be talking today. And, again, as you know, when you adopted the s v one projects last year for the fiscal year, it's only for 3.015, million. Now since Coal Road had spent already 2,700,000 of that, and then we have a a new project that we plan on doing the road.

So we need an, you know, an additional amount. So sometime in July 2025, the count the county was trying to implement this, the Furview Road project under a jack contract in the amount of $929,000.56 dollars and 26¢, which includes the 5%, jack consultant services. However, the project was placed on hold for further jack contract process evaluation and for s b one funds to accumulate to fully cover the the project cost. Then due to, you know, rising oil and material costs, it is in the public interest for the county to implement this project as soon as possible. So staff contacted company.

However, when we contacted them, they indicated that they cannot do the project anymore of that original cost because it's almost a year old and the construction material prices have increased exponentially since then. So they also confirmed that the project limits given to them back then were from only about from 100 feet north of Fallon Road to only up to L Road. And so that's what we mentioned earlier that there will be a gap of 850 feet more or less along Fairview Road. So at the county's request, granite truck provided a split supplemental scope of work under Jack, an updated cost proposal incorporating the price escalation and an ad alternate for the remaining stretch to complete the unfinished 850 fifth section of Murphy Road. The total project cost, the price escalation and ad alternate, will be one approximately $1,186,000.

So as these negotiations are happening, the jack contract between the county and the granite granite rock was also set to expire on April 18. So to secure a job order authorization before the JACS contract expiry date. On 04/16/2026, the CEO signed a job order authorization for a scope of work totaling 39,437 and 84¢. That was just to secure that was done just to secure the the JAC contract before it expires. So to but to complete the entire project scope, a supplemental scope of work is needed.

Hence, a supplemental JAC job order authorization for a scope of work in the amount of 1,147,000 is now being brought before the board for approval. If approved, this will make the total project cost to 1,186,000. Since the SB one funding estimate is uncertain also at this time, staff request board approval to use general fund services as temporary project funding until SB one funds are sufficient. But take note also that, we are receiving SB one funds in a monthly basis. And each year for this fiscal year, I think the estimate was about 2,900,000 from from July to June from July 2025 to June 30 this year, so we should be receiving about 2,900,000.

So, we still don't know the final numbers that we have and the our you know, the the auditor's office is still checking on those final numbers. So staff recommendation. Number one, authorize the Fervi Road rehabilitation project from Acquista Place Road to 100 feet north of Fallon Road, county project p w b twenty five seventeen to use SB one funds. You know, that

that's okay. I don't I don't wanna make you read the whole paragraph there. I see it. That's alright. Thank you, though.

Chairman, can we upload the tables to explain exactly the changes on this project so it can be visualized by the public and by yourself too? It's in the board. It's the instant staff report. We put together the numbers, the original contract, the updated contract cost, as well as the there is a cost for participating in the job program. Or depending on the size of the contract, you get a 5% that you have to pay the consultant, which I think I believe I was told that the board was not aware of that.

So I just wanted to make you aware that when you use this program, you pay 5% of whatever the cost of project is to a consultant company. And so half that has to be added to the project. In addition to that, we also ensure to add a 10% contingency in case change orders or something happens during the project. And so I wanna picture for you the total cost of the project. So the original contract secured back in in August, it was for $884,000 815.

We added to that price escalation because we were approached by granny rock that the cost was unrealistic due to the the prices and gas, which is the asphalt, the oil that they use in the asphalt. That comes to a hand $974,000. In addition to that, Dean's was able to identify that there was a gap in the original scope of work. And for some odd reason that I don't understand, there was a gap in the construction and that that connects to the re repair that was done before in that road. So in order to avoid that gap, Dean's was able to request it to that gap to be a cost and which is $212,000.

That comes to a total project cost of $1,000,001.86. The $59,000 that you see there is the 5% that you had to pay to the job coordinator to participate in the program, And that comes to a $1,200,000 and then 10% construction cost, which is calculated only on the project cost. And that's a total of $1,300,000. So I just wanna be very upfront with you how we came out with those numbers and what is the reason of those numbers escalated as well as the 5% that I wasn't expecting. I was in shock when I heard about that. But okay.

Thank you. Let's go public comment.

If you'd like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card. On Zoom, please press 9 or the raised hand icon. And I have no public comment.

Thank you. Questions, comments from board members? Yep. Chairs, guys, make it.

Yeah. Real quick, mister chair. Thank you, Deems. I'm just proud of this county that we are, knocking out some of these major thoroughfares. It's just a really it says a lot about priorities and just wanna reemphasize as I I have in the past that with Jock in particular, I we really need to develop a firm policy.

I know we've talked about it as far as dollar thresholds, when Joc is used, when Joc isn't used, bringing down the having a number that's not necessarily too robust as far as that threshold goes so that these are maybe the lower level projects where we use jock as opposed to the major projects. We really need to formally need to get on get away from it with these big projects and start going out to bid for larger projects. And then the county just and as a whole has been very consistent. This project has been on the on the plans for several years now. At least two years, we've been telling the public we're doing the rest of Fairview Road.

And I and I do think it's a definitely the right use of our dollars right now considering that we've also been consistent about let's focus on higher volume roads with safety concerns in Fairview, Union, San Juan Highway. Those are all under that umbrella.

Thank you. Thank you. Either board members have any questions, comments to make? Mister Rizakura.

I completely agree with higher volume, roads. I I am frustrated from our last budget process where we defunded specific roads, and it was not a conversation at the board level. It was just a budget approval, and that is my error. And I take that seriously, and I'm admitting that to my constituents that roads that were committed for funding for years prior to me ever being on the board were defunded during a budget process. I wanna make sure that road projects reviewing the road projects are transparent, that the public is fully aware and the voices of the public can be heard on these, and that there is nothing happening that is is circumventing the process of the board's direction on projects through whether it be a funding mechanism or through an ad hoc or a committee that everything comes back to the board and is completely transparent.

So I appreciate all the work in finding these errors, but also tightening in on our procurement process and ensuring that we're getting the best bang for the buck. This 5%, I was never aware of a 5% markup on using the jock program. And if we need a policy as our as supervisor Kosmiki suggested, I think that's a policy that needs to be brought forward to ensure that if a bidding is going to cost us maybe $20,000, but a jock 5% is almost $60,000, it makes a lot more sense to go out to bid. So a policy on that being brought forward, would totally support.

Thank you. Yes. I wanna say thank you for bringing this forward, and thank you for catching that gap, that 800 foot gap that would have been really bad situation to have just a small gap there, and the rest of therapy is all set. And I would just say broadly, and I think I think the board has kind of spoken on this before and and been in agreement that we gotta get out of this habit of breaking roads up into so many segments. I think I know there's the way we'd you know, it's done for different reasons with funding pots and this and that.

But as much as we can, we need to make sure we get out of that habit because it just causes confusion. It causes issues to the public. It's it's not clear. And so I think it's best if we can try to avoid as much as possible, but I'm glad that we're finally getting the rest of Fairview fixed up so that we'll have Fairview completed. It's it's obviously a a very important road in my district and and the county at large. A lot of people go down Fairview every day, huge high volume roads, so it's great to have that proceeding forward. Other than that, there's a motion. We can take that and move on.

I'll move to approve.

Is there a second? Second. K. Can we have roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Zanger? Yes. Supervisor Velasquez?

Yes.

Supervisor Kotzmiki?

Yes.

Supervisor Kurrow? Yes. Supervisor Sotelo?

Yes.

Five zero vote motion passes.

Thank you. Item 3.3 is to discuss consider and discuss commissioning a payroll system audit to determine the scope and cause of the vacation benefit coding error as well to determine if there are any other payroll errors. CEO and county council, this is your item.

County council will be presenting this item.

Excellent. Mister

chair, members of the board of supervisors, you may recall that recently I alerted you to a payroll coding error. The auditor's office recently advised us that a coding error had not been corrected in the ERP system and that it appears that a 134 employees may have been impacted for a combined total over accrual of three hundred and fifty five hours of vacation leave over a five year period of time. We made a request of the otter's office to explore this a bit further to determine whether or not we may have other employees that may have been impacted by this coding error and over an additional period of time so that we could understand the full scope of the impact of this particular coding error. And so at this time, that is all the information that we have. In discussing this with the CEO, it is felt that an audit of payroll of the payroll system may be appropriate in order to understand the full scope of this current error, but also to understand if there are any other payroll coding errors so that we can fully understand the nature and scope of those errors and the implications to the county's budget.

And so, as you know, payroll is the county's largest expenditure category, and errors can result in significant financial liability. A payroll audit will allow the county to detect overpayments, duplicate payments, and improper adjustments. It will ensure that payroll aligns with budget allocations. It will strengthen the county stewardship over taxpayer dollars. It will verify compliance with laws and regulations, including the various memorandum of understanding that the county has with the various bargaining units.

It will ensure internal control effectiveness and strengthen security and oversight. Also, we believe that the payroll audit would reinforce transparency by documenting how payroll funds are used, whether compensation is fair and accurate, where the risks or inefficiencies exist, and how management responds to the findings. And, therefore, given the significant plus public trust implications and potential final financial impacts on the county, especially at the current time given its budget position. We are recommending that the county take all necessary and proactive steps to understand the scope of these issues and to thereafter take any corrective action that may be identified and recommended in the audit. We believe this will ensure that the compensation received by all county employees and officials is accurate, lawful, and consistent with the board's prior actions.

Thank you.

Thank you. Your public comment, please.

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. Moving back to the board, Joe Paul, did you have something to add before?

Well, this, subject matter is totally related to my office, of which, I just wanna inform the board. Well, first of all, good morning, chair and board of supervise. I just wanna inform the board that, this item that, is before you, is a complete misunderstanding by this county council. Does not understand the process that that we have in the payroll office with HR. They're separate functions.

We don't have access to HR benefits. This was an HR benefit error when the, item was installed by, by the HR director. What if you if you wanna do an audit, the audit should be a compliance audit or, basically, benefit administration because that's really the question here. What happened with this, you know, with this benefit? And when I we'll mention this that this has to do with this is a touchy item because it has to do with the unions.

It has to do with the use of leave without pay. When, years ago, employees rarely used leave without pay because it was frowned upon. Department heads didn't wanna allow it, and certainly the CEO would not you know, did not wanna allow it. It was rarely used. But when the board adopted the new first personnel rules in 2020, It included a section that, that cited the labor code.

It's section six point one one point one one point two school activities. An employee who is a parent, guardian, stepparent, foster parent, or grandparent of a person who stands in local parentis to a child and the child is in kindergarten to twelfth grade or a licensed childcare provider may take up to forty unpaid hours off per year, but no more than eight hours per calendar month. So that section that was added in 2020, we saw a noticeable increase in the use of leave without pay. And, this this increase, it, basically was noticed, but the benefit administration, the you know, how accrual hours are given out, which is, as I mentioned, payroll office cannot touch it. There's a segregation of duties.

That's an internal control issue. Only HR can do that. And I notified the the CEO's office in January that this error occurred and that they needed to fix it, and I gave them the information associated with Tyler Technologies to be able to contact, our representative to initiate that process to fix that error. This is not what we would call a material error that would require big money to go and fix it. This is a very small error.

Although over years, it's accumulated, You know, it's it's, you know, it's, you know, it's added up three hundred fifty five hours. So, you know, I propose that, instead of instead of focusing on doing a payroll audit, which is completely, well, it's related, but it's not the principal department. It's HR that needs that needs to be audited for benefit administration because we can't touch that. It's a segregation of duties. If we were to touch it, then there would be a real problem because we you know, basically, we could change benefits, and and our job is not to change benefits.

Our job is to make sure that benefits are being paid correctly. So that's that's why I think this is one other matter I wanted to bring up too, you know, this item, it concerns solely my office and the county council and the CEO. But, you know, I never got a call, to come and, hey. Let's talk about this, before it came to the board. You know, I never get the benefit of, you know, having some mutual respect associated with discussions about my department.

And I'd appreciate in the future, if any sort of items like this are brought forward, I I need to have notice so that I can Joe

Paul, I appreciate that. I think maybe talk to them offline about that. That'd be best. Sure. Thank you. Yes.

Good morning. I would just wanna clarify two or three points in regards to the auditors comment. The the department the HR department, we only submit time sheets. We don't develop the payroll. This develop at the auditor's office. That's number one. The ERP is owned by the auditor's office. We do not have power to changes. I don't even know if I have complete access to the ERP pros to the ERP program.

With HR, would you wanna Yes.

Yes. So I just want you to make you aware. We were made aware of this situation because the auditor identified the issue and wanted to correct it. And so we asked the questions that we couldn't get an answer, so that's what we believe is only fair to do a payroll investigation. And I don't mind having a pay the HR department's benefits to be part of the the audit. I'll be welcoming that because we're as we go, we're finding issues. But I'm not saying it's only issues at the auditor's office. It could be an issue at the HR department benefits too. I'm in complete agreement. I'm never in disagreement.

And to say that we didn't have communication, I have lot of emails back and forth with the issue addressing trying to resolve the issue. So just for your clarification. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning, mine good morning, board of supervisors, members of the public. My name is Elvia Barroso. I'm an interim HR manager. I just wanted to clarify some things.

I do agree with Joe Paugh as far as HR being responsible for benefits in the ERP system when negotiated, but they're solely tied to the health benefits. We do make those changes. This is specifically on vacation accruals in regards to language that has been in the personnel policies and the MOUs back from 1991 and then again in the revised one in 2020. That language is vacation accruals shall not accrue for the time unpaid status in excess of the following working hours of the pay period. Employees assigned to part time positions rated 50% of the FTE equivalent or greater earned vacation accruals on a proportionate basis.

So this is not new language. However, because that's solely tied to the hours the employee works, HR does as far as since I've been here, HR hasn't made any changes to that or has made any corrections or changes to things when it gets tied to an employee's hours. That's solely on payroll.

Thank you. That's it. Thank you. K. Thank you. Did did we go to public comment on this? To public comment. Oh, we did? Great. Okay. Great. The board then, is there any questions or comments from board members?

A very quick comment. Sure. I think this is one of those issues that we all were aware that there's issues with our finances. Not not and that's not blaming you, Joe Paul. It's overall throughout the county, and it's important for us to identify everything we can find because in the end, it's the only way we're gonna get our budget worked out throughout this county.

So it's it's a process. It's our duty to make sure we're doing this right and not allowing some might call little things, some might call them big things to flip through the the system. And it's it's only fair to our own employees, really, to make sure they're getting exactly what they they they believe they're getting and not losing something somewhere down the line, and for the taxpayers to make sure getting everything they're paying for. So an audit like this is it's not a bad thing. This is a good thing.

And if we can whatever needs to be done with the HR part of this, absolutely, we should include that too. But we need definitive answers to everything we're doing financially here. And as I said, year and a half, it's gonna take at least a few years to get through all of these financial issues in this county so we can have accurate budget in the future and start planning, and our public will know and our employees will know exactly what's going on financially. So this is part of that process.

Thank you. Supervisor or county council and supervisor Carrillo.

Yes. Just as a matter of clarification. Okay? The board has been very clear, especially when we went through the budget process, that we need to be very mindful of any errors or deficiencies that are identified in our budget process. And when an error is identified, that I believe the board has made it very clear that we shouldn't look just at that error, but look at the broader implications. Could there be additional errors which are impacting the county budget in a negative way? And so this item

is that your legal opinion? No.

Yeah. Joe Polesch, county council, please continue.

Thank you. What I believe, as I said, the board's direction to us has been clear. And so in light of the board's direction, when errors are identified, and in this case, the auditor identified an error and brought it to our attention, the board has said, let's look at the broader implications and to determine would an audit or a peer review, depending on the situation, be appropriate in order to identify whether or not there are additional errors and what those implications could be. What are the cost implications to the county? And so it's on that basis that we bring these errors to your attention, and we make recommendations to explore the issue further and identify if, in fact, there are financial savings that could be realized by the county based upon correcting any errors that are identified.

I mean, when we look at the state controller's audit, that's another perfect example of errors that were identified. But rather than look solely at those particular errors, the board chose to look broader and to request an audit to identify any additional errors that may be identified through the audit so that the board is in a position to make changes and improvements in order to save the taxpayers money. And so I believe that's the direction that this board has given us quite clearly, and so we're simply fulfilling the board's direction. Thank you.

Thank you. Supervisor Currell.

I just wanna make one last comment. Okay. The auditor mentioned that this is an effect to the unions, and I guess that's the reason why your office contacted the unions immediately.

We did not contact the unions.

Well, the unions, I c ACIU send us an email.

But we did

not contact an email letting us know that the auditors was making changes to the payroll, and that we need to meet a confer confer. And I was not aware of that, so I was in I was in shock when I received the email. So the staff has to reply to the email. So I understand that it's a union issue. I totally get it. But I think talking about being fair with everybody, I think it's important to communicate those issues before even call the union. We received yesterday a letter from the union again, a cease and desist of order for this. We're not approving anything. We're not taking any accruals from anyone. I just wanna clarify that.

This is just to review what we have, whether it's at the auditor's office or it's at the HR department. I'm welcoming any audit to my office. I'm welcoming because it's the only way that we learn how to fix issues that were perhaps for years there that we're not aware. So I'm welcoming to any audit together.

Supervisor Caro. I

wanna thank administration and the auditor's office for bringing this to our attention. I I think what we have here, and I hope that we can all, get behind, is that we have some past practices from prior administrations leadership that was not fulfilling the obligations of the rule. And we're in a transitional period right now of identifying issues, and it's not a he said, she said. It's not a pointing fingers. I feel we have to get to the heart of the issue, which is past practices have to be reviewed, and we need to make new policies and procedures that prevent these things from happening.

And I don't care where this started. I don't want the finger pointing. I don't want the argument. I want us working together and responding. And if we're not responding respectfully, then that needs to be brought to the board's attention so that we can help facilitate.

With that said, I feel that this is an area that has a huge dominoes effect of budgeting and cost. And the reason there's a dominoes effect is any type of error that occurs when it comes to benefits, when it comes to accruals of leave, when it come comes to usage, when it comes to signing off on time sheets, all of it has an impact on the long term budget. Because if we have people over accruing, that means when they retire, we're going to pay out more. And where I'm at is I don't care where this came from. I want clear auditing and roles and responsibilities defined amongst the departments and administration and the auditor's office.

So what I'm looking for is what are the roles of who's entering in ERP. The whole reason ERP, if I remember correctly, was so much funded by the board previously was to stop any errors of occurring because we had massive I mean, you wanna go back and talk about bad errors prior to ERP, That was a logistical nightmare, and I really don't know how anybody managed any of that. The ERP system was brought on to fix these problems. Well, of course, we can always do better. Errors occur.

It's not about the error. It's about the policy and who's responsible for what and holding and making sure that there's a check and a balance. That check and balance is the most important part to me. It's not a one size. It's not one side over here does one thing.

If one does it over here, it's verified by another over here. We have to have that documented. And I don't feel, and maybe I'm wrong, that there's enough documentations of roles, responsibilities, and the actual policies to say that anybody is at fault. What's at fault is prior leadership did not instill policies and procedures that held people accountable. I think that if we do a compliance audit, it needs to be HR. It needs to be benefits. It needs to be accrual of leave. It needs to be with all the MOUs of the bargaining units. It needs to be how much how far back, and we have to make a limit. How far back are we gonna go?

Because we could go back a long ways, and this could turn into something bad. We need to set a limit on how far we're going back, and we need to be looking at what the legal ramifications are for anything that may have happened before we make decisions moving forward.

If I can just comment to that, I notified the executive office and county council that when we found this error, we immediately implemented a manual process to fix it going forward. What I haven't got an answer yet is what are we gonna do for for prior years? And that's a meet and confer item that needs to be addressed, and it hasn't been addressed. So I don't know I don't have direction as what what needs to be done there.

Because we don't have the numbers. That's why.

You do have the numbers. No.

We don't have the numbers because supervisor's courage just address the issue. How far do we wanna go? Do we wanna go five years or ten years?

Well, the statute of limitations does does prohibit you from going

That's what we wanna know. But it's our word, your word. I don't think it's fair for us to make you and I to make the decisions. I would like rather a third party to come and review so they can give us a fair number, not yours, not mine, but a third party.

Mister chair, can I make a motion to approve as recommended?

Is there a second?

Second.

I'm really sorry. I don't even think that I finished my comments, but thank you for making the motion. With that said, feel free.

Okay. We have a first and a second. Is there any further discussion? Any other questions, comments?

Question. Is it going to go beyond just what's in this recommendation of payroll audit? Is it bringing in benefits? Is it bringing in other areas? How about the time sheet system? How about the approval process through departments? Department heads responsibilities.

I'd be glad to hear a friendly amendment, we can move on.

I think it needs to be a comprehensive, so I'll make an amendment to the motion, a friendly amendment. And the amendment should be that we need to look at all aspects of payroll, benefits, time sheets, policies, procedures, and all of it needs to be reviewed with recommendations from a third party that brings it forward to the board. And that includes how far back where would we would go and what our legal requirements are per law.

Accepted. Thank you.

K. We have a first and second with the friendly amendment. May we have roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Zenger?

Yes.