Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Meeting this Thursday, September 10th, 2026. Can we please have the Pledge of Allegiance led by Supervisor Kuro?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Is there a motion to acknowledge certificate of posting? Is there a second?

All in favor, aye. Aye. Thank you, passes. Next, we're going to move on to our presentations and recognitions section of the agenda. We do have a presentation today to recognize the 25th anniversary of the tragic events of September 11th, 2001 and observe a moment of silence and remembrance. So we're coming on, this will be the 25th anniversary tomorrow. So we just want to take a moment out of respect for those affected to have a moment of remembrance and observe a moment of silence. So we'll do that now. Thank you. Thank you for that. Any comments on that at this moment? If not, we'll move fo

and i have no further public comment thank you all right back to board members anyone want to start with questions or comments go for it supervisor cosmicky um the how do we envision the unused acreage uh aspect playing out as far as um

you know, a little more specifics just to make sure that there's an understanding there?

Yeah, I appreciate it. I understand that. But a little more specific, how much time would they have? Are we going to survey the landscape?

less than the full amount is grown then they come for a reduction to the county on that total amount thank you based on but essentially they wouldn't get taxed on the correct but how would we um implement implement that in a way that's both reasonable for the grower but also firm and from the county side so that we can kind of have a reasonable approach to that

More of a general thing. So I think generally speaking, it makes sense. But I just want to make sure that there's, I just want to have a better understanding. I guess there's more work to do, it sounds like.

to refine that and supervisor crow seems like she's got something so i i i just i see so many of these items that we're going to go through that we need to kind of talk on the item yeah so if the chair doesn't mind can can we all kind of chime in on just this one part sure because i think if we go through this methodically we're gonna get through it better and because i i'm already like hopping all over on where my comments are going to come out so i'm gonna give it back to you

Okay. So that's one. Minimum parcel size. I understand the reasoning behind it. For the most part, you want the larger growers. It's more efficient. I think Teresa Crowe was suggesting we kind of like take that at one time. Go ahead.

I want to open this just this one topic. So right now we're just talking about unused acreage. And where I got very confused is, counsel, you're saying they're initially taxed on the application acreage that they apply for. Correct. And then if they have a crop failure, a failure or a problem, then it is reassessed and subtracted from that tax.

Okay, so that's current based on what voters have approved. Yes. So is there definitions about what that is?

So maybe I'm asking it wrong. Do you want to take a jab at this, somebody? I think I do.

Are you asking, like, how we can verify that the acreage was legitimately not used versus just being sat on?

Who's saying what the definition of a damaged crop is? Yeah, because, yeah. And why are we taking the hit as a county on a damaged crop? No offense, everybody. It's okay. Hang on. I feel you. But what a definition of a damaged crop is when we're taxing on the acreage, but now I'm understanding minus what goes bad. How are we defining what goes bad and how are we enforcing and verifying what's gone bad? I see this as a huge problem. oversight issue. We're going to have massive, we're going to have massive oversight and micromanaging a business that I don't think we want to micromanage. That's m

I just wanted, I've got a lot of the same questions that Supervisor Carro has and Supervisor Kosmicki, but just for purposes of this special meeting, are we able to possibly, and Chair, this is going to be a question to you and maybe to Council, are we able to kind of do things maybe a little bit differently today? I mean, we're going to take one item kind of at a time. I understand public comment was already given. But I do look to people in this room as somewhat experts. And I'm wondering, can we have somewhat of a back and forth dialogue today with people that are in the audience for purpos

I'm fine with that. I think I'm personally fine with that. I think we do need to make sure that we're not, that we are moving forward in some direction. We don't want to just keep talking back and forth and being stuck on this specific thing for an hour. So we do want to make sure that we're moving, but I'm okay with that personally. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. I just wanted to, as we're, I think there's going to be helpful input from the audience. So thank you.

Absolutely. And if I can just respond to Supervisor Currell's concern there, I think I have a similar concern. I get it. I mean, if I was... I don't think it's really – we need to be in the business of verifying whether or not the crop was legitimately didn't work out versus they just decided not to do it. So I think it's almost like we have to basically just put in the rule that was suggested as far as, look, if it's not being cultivated, if X percent of it isn't being cultivated over – x amount of time then you know that that goes away or it gets taxed one or the other because we can't just

So I guess I didn't understand this part of it, and I don't know how much we want to get into people's businesses. So I was hoping we were going to be able to just set a rate per acre. We're not going to worry about how many crop cycles they're doing. We're not worrying about how many they're growing, not growing. They got permitted. They pulled a permit for 100 acres. We're charging on 100 acres. So, Rebecca, is there any way that we potentially could go in that direction or absolutely not? There's no workaround that we would be able to charge for the eight. Here's the problem. People are pul

Thank you for that clarification. So does that solve it for everybody?

Well, I don't know. I would like to hear from, I think there are people in the industry, I think, have some comments. I would love to hear what they have to say with kind of what we're discussing.

And as, if anyone wants to come up, welcome to, as they're coming up, just to clarify, is the suggestion then just basically tax on whatever you poll? Yeah, that's fine with me.

Okay. Any other comments from that hasn't been good. Well, it sounds like there's. Yeah.

Okay, Syriza Crow? So out of this, in understanding what is being said, is that you get your state fee is paid for so many acres. They do it on canopy. And then we are talking about doing it on acreage. I really believe that, number one, we should never be issuing a permit. I mean, you get your state permit first. No, you get your county permit first. So if you get your county permit first and then you go to the state, if you're not going to the state for the full amount, that you did the county permit, are we balancing that? Are we verifying that?

some request way less and and that to me is a problem i i feel like if if we're giving you know 20 acres you better be going to the state for the 20 acres and if you're not then we're taking whatever you didn't do back do we have the authority to do that not currently which is why we're discussing the revocation of unused acres right so that's what we can decide i want to know we have the authority to do that we don't have to go back to the voters

Just making sure that I understand that. Because where I'm at right now is if they apply for 40 acres here, when they get their state license, they should be getting their 40 acres at the state. They should be balancing so that we know we're working off of the same crop. We're not having to play this, well, we have five over here and we have 10 over here and We don't want to get into that micromanaging and that you pay your fee, but on a case-by-case basis, if you're not cultivating, you still pay that tax in San Benito County, is my opinion. If you have a crop loss and you need to come to the

I think there's agreement on this, right?

I think we're all on the same page. You basically get charged a tax for what you're permitted. You're taking the risk as a business, and that's the way it needs to be, and that's the way that we get out of the business altogether, and that's just part of the model. You're going to have to bake it into your costs and revenues, and that's that. It sounds like that's... Sounds like we're all in agreement. Next issue. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, minimum parcel size. Like I was saying, I get the reasoning behind it. I'm just curious what the minimum parcel size may look like. I'm not familiar with what these folks need. I heard some numbers thrown around. I know there's larger. I know there's relatively smaller. I get that we probably want to get away from having people growing

Okay, and I don't know if, again, folks in the audience might be able to elaborate, but 40 acres, I'm not an agriculturalist, but that's a decent size for cannabis, is it not? I mean, I know when we were talking in our ad hoc discussions, the numbers were, I think, a little lower than that somewhat. These aren't large parcels where cannabis is being grown. I do know that. This isn't rangeland we're talking about here. So I don't know if anybody in the audience wants to elaborate again, if we could just do it as briefly as possible.

That sounds about right to me. And then just so there's clarity on, like if you're somebody who's just in the backyard sort of thing, do you need a medical license for that, or how does that work?

Great. So that wouldn't apply to all this. Would there be a proportional tax to those folks?

Got it. And then I just want to, you know, I just want to point out, you know, we're looking at a runway on both sides. We're looking at a runway of, you know, this $1,000 to $10,000. I think we all agree it's not the low end. It's not the high end, somewhere in between. But we do have, we do, you know, there's a runway for the fee, the tax, but there's also a runway that we're dealing with for the acreage. And I think from a smart business perspective from the county side as well, I think we have to try to find a number that's reasonable so that not only are we welcoming these growers to an e

Really quickly, before we continue, can we just make sure that the 10-acre minimum, I thought I heard some consensus on that. Does that sound reasonable? 10-acre minimum? Parcel?

So originally my thoughts were, yeah, we should definitely set this minimum acreage size, et cetera. But I'm wondering if that sets us up for more. I feel like I've got a lot of echoing. If it's setting us up for potentially more issues and not initially maximizing the acreage, if somebody wants to come in and do potentially five acres and they're wanting to build their business are we limiting then and so now i'm a little bit conflicted while originally i thought yeah i want you know minimum and i'm going to want much higher than even probably 10 now i'm starting to think about it and i i don

Can I, when you're done, we're talking about five because I'm thinking about this, all these five acre parcels that we have and it concerns me quite a bit.

I just want a point of clarification. Did you say 10 or 20 acres?

20 acres okay thank you for the clarification go ahead thank you yeah i was just going to say i appreciate the thought on just going back and forth on the welcoming but i i really struck me yeah it really struck me it did really strike me that you know we got to solve this five acre problem first i think before we get into because there's so many of these and we don't want this to become a little weed farm on every little five-acre parcel in the county. And I think that that would be a big mistake. So 10 acres, I think, for me would have to be the absolute minimum. I'm willing to consider 20.

Yeah, I'll just say as the king of five-acre parcels in my district, I think I'm going to get strung up. So I would say 10 is probably more reasonable.

And then again, we're not going to get it perfect, but I want to make sure we're at least looking at this from a long term vision outlook from the business side. I think there are some things to consider as far as the points about We are an agricultural county. There has been quite a bit of an evolution in the acceptance of growing marijuana. Obviously, there are people that don't like the smell. So I think there's good considerations with setbacks that we're looking at. I appreciate that. Um, I, you know, we've talked about security. I think fencing is a good thing. Just also keep in mind tha

I just want to go back to the acres because I'm trying to do this one at a time so we can check them off. And I'm trying to help poor Stephanie's like, okay, so what did we decide on the acres, right? I know what you're asking right now. I would like to conservatively start at 20 acres and revisit this next year. And if we need to reduce it down to 10, I have serious concerns, especially in District 1, with the massive amount of five-acre parcels. Because that allows setbacks that we'll be talking about and all that. So if we could make that kind of and move on to the next item.

stephanie i know you mentioned that um i think most of the requested acreage from you for permit is between 40 to 100. based on the way that it's structured right now and you can just reserve those permits i how realistic are those numbers that because i think you said we have almost 800 acres that have been reserved so far with permits however you're expecting really only three to 400 acres to be grown. And so I'm wondering, you know, we're seeing, oh, your average parcel size are between 40 and 100, but that's in these kind of not even real things. Once people know you're going to be paying

We're going to tax it all at this point. Yeah, no, tax on all of it. That's where I'm at.

Okay, thank you. But it sounds like 20 acres could be a very appropriate number. I don't hear anybody that's really advocating for 10. So I'm good with 20 then. Thank you.

I'll wrap up because I think it's a good conservative number. And we have, again, wiggle room. Again, my main thing is like, you know, let's find a rate that's reasonable and we get to the rate. I think similarly to how we're looking at this other part of it. And I just, yeah, I'm really all about just having a sustainable model. Thank you.

Well, I'm just, I'm looking at the presentation, proposed code revisions, and I think, so we've, essentially we've hit now unused acreage and parcel size. Let's go back to the top. Let's start at disclosure and accountability, and then let's just go down through the list and figure, like, let's just take one at a time, if that's okay with you two. Let's do it. So, I mean, the first one is... Sorry, I went too high. Disclosure and accountability.

individuals who are associated and that is the main reasoning behind this request mr chair i am totally supportive of that i think we should know everyone that's involved doesn't matter how many leases of leases of leases if you're involved in that parcel and you're involved in any cannabis activity we should be able to have a background check that's where i stand

Agreed, yeah, we know there's legal players here. We know there's cartels at times here, so absolutely.

Okay, we got next. So the next would be administrative setback reduction.

So we already did unused acreage and parcel size. Ag exempt existing structures.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we're... We're talking about structures that are existing, and I see your scenario, and I think that that's how it'll get abused, because they'll build something that's an egg, and then they'll go and get an application. But when we're talking about what you're using them for, do we have a lot of processing in this county?

confused about the whole cannabis ordinance. I'm just going to be honest. We're taxing on the growing. And then now we have processing. And if you're having to go, you can process here if you have an existing structure. only if you have an existing structure. You can't build a structure to process. And I feel like we're not treating apples to apples here. So it's an ag product. We are taxing it at a, we haven't set a rate yet, but we're taxing it at a certain rate. If you're doing certain things on site, should we be considering that in the rate?

So we have all those sets. So if we're talking about promoting the business to be able to be more profitable so we can get more taxes, wouldn't we want it to be acceptable to have a structure built for the cultivation and manufacturing and processing? I mean, that's where I'm at. I want to hear where the board's coming from. I'm just trying to walk through. First, you plant the seed. Then you watch it grow. Then you cut it down. And then what do you do? I mean, I'm trying to walk through this in a methodical way to be able to make sure that we're covering. And if we're going to be able to get

Mr. Chair, I mean, I don't see why we wouldn't allow somebody to make an investment if it's an ag structure, it's an ag product. I think it's just one of those cleanup items that seems logical that we would allow somebody to build something to allow their business to function.

Yeah, I'm just curious on with what supervisor crow was just mentioning and I think I saw in the presentation I'm going back to it right now. So we have the cultivation rate and that's what we're setting the range and we're working on right now, but they also can do the distribution manufacturing micro business retailing and a testing lab. all fits within the scope of things that they can do as well yeah we have existing rates for those if you give us a second we could no no i have them in front of me okay so but here's the thing and this is per gross receipts which we've heard that there's lo

Okay, because in our presentation it just has the range.

Would it be reasonable to think that that is in our horizon?

So the processing, does that fall under the manufacturing? It falls under cultivation. Oh, so there would be no additional fees for that. That would fall under their acreage. And that would essentially, that would be the ag-exempt buildings, et cetera.

Thank you. I don't know how reasonable these numbers are or, you know, how reasonable they are. I haven't done any research into any of this, but I think that would be a completely different conversation. I think right now we just need to stay focused on the cultivation.

Yeah. Thank you. Maybe we look at this for.

Yeah. In the future. I think this is something. Yeah. Thank you though, Stephanie. I appreciate it.

Okay. Okay. So the next one is, let's see, visual impacts.

I have no problem with the green screen maintenance of it, making sure that it is always intact. What you do see in agriculture is these screens go up and they're not maintained, and then you have a bunch of debris just flapping around in the wind because we have so much wind. But where my concern is, is you have... different landscapes. You have landscapes where certain cultivation is right now where it's very hidden. You wouldn't even know. I like that. That's why, and I don't see that we have the map on the agenda. I think we had asked for the map of locations to be on the agenda, so maybe

I really hope that we can have that come back with some real good recommendations, because I think it's a great example of how the extremes, and I don't want one to be hurt just because their land is geographically shaped differently without having hills and stuff. So how can we make it a positive both ways? Does that make sense? Absolutely. Do we cover, because it says not viewable from the street, what if it's viewable from homes? Do we have anything in the ordinance on that, and do we have any concerns about that? I just think about the terrain in South County, and you have some homes up on

I'm just wondering, and I don't know what the feeling would be about this, but if you almost could incentivize you know, we want the fencing at minimum, you have to have the fencing, et cetera. But if you want to go into this, you know, with landscape, there's a lot more of an investment, right? But if there's an incentive for them to do that at maybe a reduced rate or whatever it is, we could potentially look at something like that where that's incentivized. At minimum, you have to meet these. We'd like to see this standard and we will incentivize you getting here to this standard. Possibly.

I can completely get behind that, not only with fencing and landscaping, but with security cameras. I think all of that should be, let's say, I'm going to hypothetically, nobody panic, throw a number out there. It's $5,000 an acre. But if you have this, this, and this, and you meet all of these things, and it keeps it safer, secure, and less visible, that we will come down to... $3,000. There should be a way that we can incentivize, say, yeah, if you're going to have it out in the open like that, that's a problem for me. So we need to charge you higher, but I still don't want it. So even charg

All right. So have we given enough direction on that one, Stephanie? Absolutely. Okay, the next one is review setbacks.

Okay. Yeah, I'm going to jump in on this, a couple questions. First of all, I think that sounds good to me, I think, generally. I do think, though... We also need to – maybe I'm wrong on this, but we're going this direction. We're trying to get this here. We're going to tax it to try to make money. I think there's going to be some inevitability in some cases that you're going to smell it sometimes. I just think that's just inevitable to a degree. I don't think we can completely eradicate that. We want to be reasonable about it like you go to – Greenfield and for some reason the entire town sme

Because the idea with that is we're saying we don't want to harm the wine tastings business by being that close. But if they feel comfortable with opening anyway, because maybe the geography is different, it's within a half mile, I would think we would want a wine tasting to be able to open if they find that it's not going to be an issue for them. So I think we should, I'd like to look into that and make sure that we're not excluding or preventing development of our wine industry.

If there's consensus on that, I don't know. Yes, Rosa Corral.

I would like to, I totally agree with the logic there. It makes sense to me. But the map and how close they are to the wineries, I really think we need to really be looking at that. I feel that the distance needs to be more than a half a mile. Especially when we're trying to promote a hospitality industry on the wine trail. And how can we do that if we're going to now all of a sudden be pushing cannabis? So I think we need to find a happy medium. But I really think that that map needs to be readdressed and where we're allowing cannabis.

When you say map, are you talking about the exclusion zone map? Mm-hmm.

Okay. Mr. Chair, I mean, I think having the map would be helpful for context as well, but I'm not necessarily, I'd like to see that before, because a half miles is pretty decent.

I'm not asking to change it now. I want that conversation to be a future agenda item with the map. I had thought it was going to be on this agenda. I thought we had said that we wanted to review that. But since it was an agenda, I'm assuming we have to do it for a future agenda item.

Stephanie, what is the setback for schools? Is that the 600 currently right now? And then it would go to a thousand? 600 linear feet. Yeah. Okay. Which and a thousand feet is okay. Is a thousand feet enough for our schools or should the schools be considered like a winery? I mean, these are our kids.

It's just, it's kind of protecting our community. It's going to smell no matter what, right? Like that's just, that's the bottom line. But I just wonder, you know, 600 feet, a thousand feet, but we're being super protective around our wineries, but we're not having this discussion around our kids. And I find that a little bit odd. And so I guess I would just propose that if we're going to do a half mile around wineries, I would like to see a half mile around schools.

Just schools alone? No, I would recommend parks, any, whether it's anywhere a child would go. That's where I'm at.

I don't know how that, without seeing the map, I don't know how that affects current cannabis permitted areas or if it's kind of like, no, let's do this now. Let's set this. But I just, I worry about that a little bit.

I think we probably need to come back with the exclusion zone specific issue, I think, is what we're going to have to do.

And I think getting and serving somewhat other places, what are normal standards elsewhere? Right now, we're just sort of throwing numbers out there. None of us are experts on how far cannabis smog goes and all that. And I don't want to make a reactionary decision or direction here. I think having this as a future discussion probably makes the most sense, just so we can wrap our head around it.

So did we give you kind of enough, Stephanie, on setbacks? Obviously, it's going to need to be brought back. Yeah. I think there was consensus that seemed like everybody was good with the 1,000, but is there a need for even an increase in some of the other sensitive areas?

No, I need to look at it much more carefully. We'll just come back with this one, I think. Thank you, though. I appreciate you getting it so quickly. Okay, so we're moving on now to the permit revocation.

Chair, zero tolerance. Yeah, I figured that was going to be the consensus here.

Do we want to go never or two years, five years? I mean, I don't know. I mean, never seems a little extreme for your first offense.

The next one's retail and agricultural districts.

Yeah. I'll just say I don't... Certainly... I don't think you need permission to correct the mistake, right? I mean, just like correct the code that we have there. And yeah, I would say no, certainly no storefront retail and ag. That doesn't really make any sense to me that we would have that. Right? What does that mean? What is non-storefront retail?

I don't want it. Sorry, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I don't think so. I don't want any of it.

Well, I would love to hear from the growers and see if you have any feedback on this before I say I'm not supportive or supportive. I'd love to hear, like, in a realistic world, what does that look like, and are you supportive or not supportive of it?

Great. Okay, fee slash cost recovery is next.

I'm curious on... we're being asked to set the rate within this range. And I appreciate you saying that you're recovering the costs for kind of the permit review, et cetera. But I guess where I want to dive into is I want a cost analysis for what it's going to take to run this program entirely because i feel like that that really lends itself into i don't know what the proper rate is right like i'm hearing all these numbers but i don't know what we need to what we need to be collecting to at least cover all of our costs right we know there's going to be an increased cost we know law enforcemen

And I don't know, I see our treasurer tax collector here, how much is it going to cost your department to the Ag Commissioner, the Sheriff's Department, all the departments, planning, everybody, we need to hear what your costs are going to be and have that analysis.

Mr. Chair, I don't know if I necessarily see the need for I'll give you the general analysis. We're gonna make a lot of money on this. And yes, there are costs, but it's not gonna be anywhere near. And I would, you know, I think there's, I think there's a little bit of a misnomer that we're constantly going to be sending out. You know, the sheriff's going to have to go out at times. They're going to do inspections. But we're not talking about a seven-figure cost to this sort of thing. I mean, this is significantly boosting our revenue structure. And I don't know what that's necessarily going t

And I absolutely respect your point of view on that. I guess I just kind of feel like we cannot go into this blind. And by just picking a number out of the sky and saying, we're going to bring in a ton of revenue, i i just i want proof in that i guess and i will tell you i've talked to supervisors from other counties and every single supervisor that i have talked to do you allow it oh yeah we do be careful you're going to end up spending you won't get it sounds great it sounds like we're going to get all this revenue but the reality is and talking to other supervisors they're not bringing in t

I just think this is going to, like I said before, and we've said this all along, we went to the voters, we picked a range. It's got to fall within that range. I think the intent was always, because I was involved with this process when we were going through this, the intent was always to be not at the lowest, not at the highest, but somewhere higher. between the middle and the lowest so that you have room to grow over a very long period of time. And that was really the intent of going to the voters with 1,000 to 10,000. So I don't personally want to necessarily dwell on the back and forth. An

I know we don't want to be hung up in these meetings, you know, and talking about this over and over and over again. But for some reason, the concerns that Supervisor Sotelo has, I have, is that we need to ensure that we have a program and a program manager and enforcement team. who is our program manager are you going to be managing all of this including dealing with the the the enforcement issues and all i mean you're going to deal with all of it as one person

With the workload that you have, with all the impacts of the department, what I'm fearful of, something's going to have to give. You can't do it all. You can't do all the things that we need you to do when we don't have the staffing levels that we need. We don't have the sheriff's deputies that we need. We don't have a South County deputy down there. We don't have any support services in South County. So I'm struggling right now with we're going to bring in enough money and it's just going to cover it. I don't know, talk about throwing a number in the air. I'll throw a number in the air, $5,00

Okay, if I may. Is there a way that we could just, without having to pay a consultant tens of thousands of dollars and spend months, is there a way we can get a quick, rough estimate of how much this is going to cost staff?

Yeah, I mean, I don't think I was asking for a survey and hiring a consultant, but I think every single department needs to come back with realistic numbers for what they believe will be the cost. Of course, after a year, you can reevaluate, but at least it's a starting place for us. But right now, we don't even have a starting place.

and i know that um jake it looks like wants to speak and i want to treat this like we did the the cleanup of the riverbed it was a collaborative effort from all the departments and so we need that kind of collaborative working together in order to make this a successful program otherwise i feel like we're setting ourselves up for failure

So can I just ask a clarifying question to you? So if what I'm hearing is we would collect our business tax, that's just going to be whatever our flat rate is, Anytime we have to send sheriffs out to you for an inspection or whatever, anytime treasurer's department's working on anything, ag department, we're going to bill you for those costs. That would be separate from your fee that you're paying for your business tax. Am I understanding that correctly? Okay, I hadn't looked at it that way. So thank you.

we need to fix roads we need to fix roundabouts no i love possibly this structure and direction i didn't know that that was a possibility i didn't i thought okay you guys are paying your business tax and you're kind of like hey that's going to all be included but if you're saying this is separate from that i could get behind that my question would be though for staff is that doable for all of you to be able to put something like that together see you

Can I ask a question on that? Yes. Because now I'm getting confused. Was the intention to hire a consultant or separate positions to go check on cannabis every now and then?

Rebecca, you just gave us $1,000, $2,000, $5,000, $10,000, something like that. I'm just, what would be like the one, where in it do you decide, or we just get to choose between?

And I think we've seen that like that model doesn't work, right? Like you have, hypothetically, you have an illegal grow. We're just going to charge you $1,000 a day? No.

But we can't go in there and just destroy it?

But if it's an illegal grow, what kind of appropriate authority do you need?

So one of the items that we were talking about previously was zero tolerance. Where would it be zero tolerance versus a fine? Can you give me an example of where I'm going to find you versus we have this zero tolerance policy and you just you've lost your permit? Yeah.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate that.

I think we had a comment from our expert.

i wanted you to know what our department does yeah yeah melinda if someone wanted to come in and the only way that they'll be able to pay is through hdl or could they potentially come into the treasurer's office and pay there

I just know that sometimes it's a little bit different with this business.

Okay. Any further discussion then on that, how we want to proceed?

I mean, I just would like to set a rate and just, you know, again, this is the first year. It's set at a reasonable rate. If it's a little on the low side, we look at that going forward. But I just, I don't see it being productive to keep, you know, coming back over and over. But I do understand, you know, there's questions, there's concerns. But I think we're at the point now where like what would we be continuing this really truly for? As the treasurer said, she has to have time to go and deal with the folks that are going to be overseeing this. I would just like to try to come to a reasonab

And I think, you know, chair Zenger had thrown out the number of $2,500 an acre. I, you know, and I think I'd be willing to talk about something around there, but I don't want to get to a point where we're throwing out numbers that are, again, the intention of this was a long-term outlook. And, um, and that gives us a lot of flexibility over time, 10, 15, 20 years, as opposed to coming back every four, eight, 12 years. Um, And I don't want this to be a situation where we choose a rate that is going against everything we've talked about, which is being more welcoming to the good players in this

Okay, just so we get an understanding, is there any interest in setting a rate today among any of the supervisors that want to speak to that right now or no? Are we going to push this off? Just so we know how to continue.

I'd really like to see some costs because you just heard Melinda. She doesn't know how much it's going to cost. I really love this model of us being able to bill. But I think what our CEO is pointing out is that, yes, we can bill some of those, but we're going to have to have full time employees. So some of that isn't going to be billed out. Some of that is going to be built in. So let's just ensure. And here's the thing, too. Like, I want to be really careful in this. One of the most challenging things about sitting up here has been this. perception from the community that like around all of

Mr. Chair, but is it possible to get all of our requests out now so that we can come back? It sounds like there's going to be an interest in continuing this and that's fine, but can we just get all of our requests out for information now so that we don't come back in another month and say, well, now there's another reason why we want to put this off for another month. So let's have another meeting a month from now and do more analysis and more costs and more staff time. And these things that are really just prolonging the inevitable, which is setting a reasonable rate. So If we have requests,

Supervisor Curro had something, and then I think the sheriff wants to jump in.

So is this our second or our third meeting on this? We did the special meeting because at the last meeting, I think I was pretty clear. I think Supervisor Sotelo was pretty clear. We wanted to see the impact, cost, and a program from staff. We also wanted to see the map of where the locations are. Your presentation today is beautiful, but we still have no cost. We still have no, I still don't feel totally comfortable. You're saying that you're the person that when these complaints and these issues come through, you're gonna go out alone and inspect. I have safety concerns. No offense, I'm talk

Does code enforcement carry a gun? No. No. So you're, again, just two people out there in South County, no cell reception. There's I'm sorry, I'm looking at the sheriff smile at me because he knows I know there's a lot of bad characters in South County that can take advantage of all of the fact that we don't have enough. We don't have enough staff. We don't have enough people monitoring. How do I find out about these things? I have people call me and go, do you know there's an illegal grow? Do you know it's over here, it's over here, it's over here? Well, that's fine. We're talking about legal

Well, hold on. If I can just, Sheriff, did you have, do you want to come up and speak? Why don't you come? Because you've been standing there. Why don't we have you here?

Well, based on Stephanie's recommendation, and it sounds like we could set a rate that then could be adjusted, I would be okay starting high. If you want to just set a rate for setting a rate sake, it's not going to be the realistic rate, but I'm open to that if you all are okay with setting it high. But I'm not going under. I'm not even going to tell you where I'm not going under. We can do that today, but I'm going to aim on the high side.

I agree we need to set a rate so we can keep the process moving forward. If we push the rate too high, I'm gonna probably bring the sheriff back up here. If we push the rate up too high, doesn't that push bad characters into play? Because I know there's a happy medium. There's a happy sweet spot where you don't have to go down into the gray area of the business. And I want to make sure that we keep you out of that gray area because that gray area is the no tolerance area. If there is even one little backdoor, because here's the thing. You grow here, you pay your tax here, and then they cut a d

It's okay. You kind of sort of not really didn't really at all, but that's okay. I liked your comments. So could we, because we know we have some really good groups here, could we do a tier system where if you're coming in and you're new, you're starting at $5,000 an acre. And if you are showing year after year no infractions, no bad dings, and everything's going along, that the first year you're $5,000, the second year you're $4,000, the third year you're $3,000, and then you don't go any lower. And so you start off high. But if we have existing customers or customers, Cannabis people. I don'

Supervisor Crowe? I appreciate the creative thinking with that. I think it's an interesting idea. But I also kind of feel like it might get overcomplicated a little bit. I feel like We need to remember, too, that we can move it, right? We can move it up and down. I think whenever we want, as far as I understand, we can move it a month from when we set it. We can move it two months. We can move it around as we need. I almost wonder if that's the better way to go, just setting some kind of rate and just moving it as needed as opposed to a tiered system because I – I don't know. I feel like it ju

It is more work, and we want to keep it simple for our tax collector. And so I can see that. I'm just trying to come up with a compromise of how do we make sure that we're not pushing this envelope too far.

And Mr. Chair, I think it would actually open the door for liability issues. There'd be a lot of discretion on the staff as to who's a good player, what violations constitute. You get to have your rate lower. I don't even know if we legally can do what's being... I appreciate the creative thought process, but I don't even know if we legally could do that based on the way that the...

Well, if they're being fined, it could change their rate, but there has to be documentations of that.

But I'm in favor of basically, you know, if you're showing that you're not following the rules, you're out. Like that to me, that's the way that we root out the bad players as opposed to trying to complicate them.

having a tiered tax structure which sort of has a favorites mid-level and you guys are on the verge it's just an idea yeah can i ask what at this point i know we talked about maybe setting it now i'm moving on would it would it be better for everyone if we just came back relatively soon with a rough cost estimate and we could set the rate then do we want to do that or do we want to try to set something now and then come back or do you guys just want to like throw out what your your number is you know and then we can

basically just start the process because again, we don't have a fifth supervisor.

We're going to have to compromise on some level anyway.

Well, I guess I thought I heard Stephanie say that if we just select a rate today, we can change that so as long as we set we could set it at whatever number it doesn't have to be the real number but at least it gets the process started and moving forward and that's why i said i'm willing to do that i don't know what that ultimate number is going to be without some more and if we don't want to bring it as a full board i'm okay with that i'll go get the information myself just so i know the the number that's going to work for me um but i'm willing to set the rate just so that we can continue mo

Now, with that, it's not going to affect, I'm saying, are we in danger at all, setting too high, and then our farmers, are we calling them growers or farmers? Farmers, yeah, that sounds good. Okay, our farmers are like, it's not going to ruin their current business, I guess, if we set something today that's too high. That's my concern. Because I don't know how quickly we would be turning that over and getting something more accurate.

Thank you. Okay. So then we want to set something today and then refine it is what we're talking about, right? Is there consensus on trying to do that right now? Okay. So... I heard 5,000 from our sheriff. I think Supervisor Kuros said 5,000 at one point. I know a month ago or so, I threw out 2,500. Where do you guys want to go with this? Somewhere between those numbers? I don't know. What do you guys want to do as far as the current set? Does anyone have any opinion on that?

The last comment really moved me because of the incentive part of it, but we have to have a commitment that we're going up.

So I'm not comfortable with 2,500. I'm just not. I'm sorry. I'm just not comfortable with 2,500 until we know. So if we set it, you know, it's a beginning step. And if we set it too high, I think we're going to not draw the people that we need to draw to actually – get the whole 1,000 acres this first time and then the 2,000 acres in the future. So my concern is finding that happy medium. I am not a psychic. This is not my business. I don't know your profit margins. If I could have your books, I could do some analysis for you. I could come up with some numbers. I could make it really easy that

Okay, thank you for that. What do you got then?

I don't want to negotiate. I'd like to just hear a number.

I'm not married to my number. Here's the thing.

You have to also think about this politically. And I'm sorry to bring politics into this. We are a board of four. In December, we will be a board of five. Whatever happens in this election will dictate where this goes. So whatever number we hit today, most likely it could be a totally different number by January. So I'm just bringing the politics into it.

Or we all agree and we're just – I think ideally we're all on the same page. I don't – I think we're all acknowledging that this isn't a perfect science. But for me, it's all about trying to, again, maximize – I agree with the sheriff. We don't want to give away the – these puns. There's too many puns. Sorry.

You know, we don't want to do that. We want we have to look at this as if we are a business and that we want to have a long, sustainable model for success. And so I'm not stuck to any number. That's why I'm saying I'd like to hear a number. Let's just get it out there. And then we can bring back the costs and some general cost analysis that the staff can provide. And we'd have a decent baseline. And we're going to learn from the first year is my big mantra that. We have the ability to adjust one way or the other. But I do appreciate the sheriff's comments. We don't want to lowball it. We don't

Can I ask the question just directly to the growers? If we set a number that's too high and you leave, that's what I don't want to have happen. I don't want that. And I get it. But I also totally understand where the sheriff's coming from with his comments. We have the public gave us a range. And if we go too low, they're going to look at us like you gave away the farm. No pun intended. So I need to find something that's not going to hurt you to the point that we can't adjust it as we get more numbers. So I feel like this is like on me right now as a District 4 supervisor. I feel like the numb

I gave you permission to speak again, I guess.

I don't want to pick a random number, but if you went between 5,000 and 2,500, obviously you're at 3,750. 3,500, that's somewhere around, we need to find consensus.

And I appreciate you guys doing this. I mean, this is hard. I have to think about this long term. I mean, South County, this is a big vote for me. And I may not have the power to change it in the future. That scares me to death. And I don't want to put my residents in jeopardy. But if I could start it at 3500 with the understanding that law enforcement in South County is a priority. that the revenues that come in, we have to think about South County. If we could start it at 3,500 and you guys don't like faint right now, then we have the option of up or down in the future.

Okay. Mr. Chair, it seems reasonable. Again, we're not going to get this perfect. I'm not married to the number, but I think it's a good... I think it would be a good, reasonable starting point. The growers were asking for 2,000 and they were asking for 2,500. So we're going well above that. We also have this middle point, which is obviously logical. If we knew that we were going to have the demand to get to 2,000 acres, within a couple years, I would be 100% on board with 5,000. And I think if we do show that we have demand to get there, that we do need to gradually increase this clearly. We'

You know, I'll just say, you know, in initial discussions, farmers were suggesting, you know, they were okay with 2,000 and then I threw 25. And that was actually, there was pushback on that number. Obviously, there's going to be pushback as we go up higher with any number from the industry itself. But so I would concur that 35, I think, is we're certainly not, I don't think we're giving anything away. And I think there's room both directions there, preferably up only, though. So I'm good with $3,500 for now.

If we're setting up $3,500, but we're not, I mean, I think based on the comment you just made, going up, not down.

I worry about our current growers. You know, I think Supervisor Currow, you started with, I don't want to push you guys away. And I just, I don't know, is 35 the right number or is that too high? That's why this is so hard without having any numbers to really go off of. I don't want to tax them too much, but I also don't want to sell ourselves too short. And I want to make sure we cover all of our costs. And so that's why I just I wish we had something more to base this off of rather than just going with a feeling.

I think we have the voters, 1,000 to 10,000. So I don't think we're necessarily, I get where you're coming from, but it is our role at this point to pick a number based on, all the information we have. And what we have right now is what we have. And if we pick a number and then we direct staff, as you had recommended, to come back with some more analysis with an understanding that we're going to get more information and that there may be adjustments before January, but we need to start the process now or else we're going to be out an entire cycle. So that's kind of the thinking. And I don't ge

Okay, so if we set today for 35 as that rate, we still will continue to work through this. It may go up. It may go down. We still have the ability prior to January to set this. Am I understanding that correctly? I would have gone much higher, but I keep going back to Jake's comments, and that's what scares me a little bit is that Are we starting too high? Would we be better? So I'm all over the place and that's why I really wanted time and I really wanted some of these numbers because there's so much to think about with this. And I think, you know, I really appreciate all of the comments that

Well, I just want to really quickly before you get in there, just to comment on that, just to follow along with this Apple TV subscription analogy situation. There's also, you know, if you cancel subscription, there's a wait a second, we'll give you a month half off. So we can we can always go down if we see that it's driving everyone out. We cannot we know we can always adjust. So we don't. We don't have to worry too much.

Also, a quick tip for the growers. Don't use roundabouts as your example of what we need more of in this community, as much as I agree with you. It might not ring too well with many of our residents who can't stand roundabouts. Or Sheriff Bianco as well. Sheriff Taylor, that was a nice name drop. I appreciate it.

I, you know, I, I, I appreciate that. I think, but again, just setting the rate, I don't want to go too low, you know, and setting the right now, getting the analysis and coming back with the, we're leaving ourselves flexibility. So I don't want to, we can come down. We, we, we can, if there's, you know, compelling reasons to do so. And you know, as much as these are nice guys and I've had meetings with them, they are in business and I, and I, If I was in your seat, I would openly acknowledge I am biased, as I appreciate you did. So I think the voters expect us to set a rate that's reasonable,

I think there were a couple other items besides this number that we stopped at the fee and cost recovery. We had the administrative references, which I think we're all in agreement need to be updated, right?

Yeah, I think there were any items for, yeah, some cleanup stuff.

The cleanup stuff. So just making sure that there's no other discussions besides the fee rate before Supervisor Sotelo comes back.

I don't believe so. I believe that the rest of it's just administrative kind of... And everybody's good with that?

I think we gave consensus on the, if that's okay, county council on some of those...

I just want to make sure that we were documenting that for the...

Yeah. Well, when Supervisor Stello returns... Can I take a five-minute break?

I could use a restroom break myself. That's fine. Would you take five? Whatever you prefer. Sure, yeah, let's do it, and then let's wrap this up.

Okay, thank you. We're back from our break. We're going to continue our discussion here. Okay, so before the break, I think we were going in the direction of $3,500 for now. At least that's where I was going. I'm personally prepared to move forward with that right now as we continue hashing out the numbers going forward. Is there any objection to that? Okay, is there a motion then for...

Chair, is it okay if I second the motion? Second and make an amendment. To bring back some level of an analysis for further consideration at a future meeting and to further clarify.

Go ahead. With the understanding that this number can come down or up, it's not a straight up number. The analysis is needed for us to be able to reduce the rate so that we know that we are not burdening the taxpayers. That's why I'm at the $3,500.

You guys are all looking at me. I'd like it before November 30th.

Yes. So, Mr. Chair, we have to get this approved by January. I want it before November 30th. The growing season is obviously in the spring, it sounds like, if they're doing a growing season then. But the goal needs to be to get this for the new year, to get things approved. And I also will say that, you know, it sounds like it has to go to the Planning Commission. I just want to make sure that... There's mechanisms for things to not necessarily get hung up in the Planning Commission stage because we have a goal of, they have to understand that we have a goal of getting this approved, if that c

Well, the rate doesn't need to go, right? Just the code update.

Okay. Okay. Okay. I'm okay. We're good with that? There's a first and a second. Okay, we have our first and second. We may have roll call vote, please.

Thank you very much. That would conclude... Just confirming that includes... No, it wouldn't conclude. Which...

oh you stepped out i believe you stepped out okay sorry um i do have something else yeah absolutely go ahead um so sorry i missed that um i'm supportive of all of it um i would like to see us and i don't know where it's appropriate and how to do that i would like to propose that we exclude hemp that hemp is no longer allowed to be grown in our county

I just think that we haven't seen it be very successful here, and not only that, with some of the cannabis growers that I have spoken to, it is almost in conflict because one grows female plants and the other one grows male, and there's this potential of cross pollination and so if we are serious about cannabis and that is then i think we should do away with the hemp sorry to just throw a wrench in things but i thought i don't know when to bring that up but permission to speak yes yeah all right good morning board of supervisors uh i would second that motion uh i think mainly would be on costs

I wasn't expecting this kind of new for me. So would you be okay when we bring these items back to conclude this and talk about it when we bring it back? Yeah, absolutely.

I just wanted to bring it up because I feel like it's part of the larger discussion. And so I would like to see us moving in that direction. But yes, I'm good with it coming back.

That'd be great. Thank you. Is there any other questions or comments about any of this before we close up here?

Yes, I will make sure that that, per staff's recommendation, that the signing authorization from the chair is included in that motion, and I would assume that the second would also.

Yeah, thank you. I know now I'm getting out of my software because I'm going to delay us a little because I forgot something I wanted to bring up really quickly. You mentioned when you're giving the presentation, the Planning Commission had authority to basically waive the rules at some points. Is that correct?

Okay. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't too much ambiguity and could be accusations of not being fair or something like that, but that sounds fine.

I'm just curious, when will this item be brought back to us? I don't need a date specific, but just when are you anticipating that this cost analysis comes back to us? Is that what we're pushing it to, is all the way to November 30th? Or are we going to try to get that done before November 30th? I would like to see it before. I mean, I'd like to see it as soon as possible. I don't want to push you. I know that you have a lot of work, but I would love to get this decided as soon as possible.

know this model of we have our rate that they will the business tax rate that we just set at 3500 and then any inspections anything like that would be billed separately does that need to be specified today does that do you need that clarity or anything like that because i know we talked about that today or are we if we're charging at 3500 that's all now inclusive

we have that clarification from the board and when we review the various titles that this is all across we'll ensure that it's reflected throughout okay all right thank you thank you okay any other questions comments on this item okay well i believe that's it thank you everyone for uh helping us out with this today and we are adjourned thank you