Budget Committee - Regular Meeting

Yes, we're ready to go. We know when you're on.

Yes.

Okay. Well, right here in front of me. Good afternoon, everyone. I want to call the budget committee meeting to order here. And we'll have any additions or corrections to this.

Okay.

And is there any public comments on items that are not on today's agenda, either in the room or online?

No hands raised on Zoom.

Thank you. We'll close public comment then and go for next item on the agenda, which is approval of the minutes from last meeting. I'm good with those. I'm good with those in public comment. See none. So we'll approve those by consensus then and move on to the consent agenda, which are two items.

Um, I don't have any questions or anything here, but you know, just on the, obviously the notes on the may revise specifically for how it impacts counties. It's a good read. There's a kind of update on quite a few different areas as well. Um, so we're just hoping that we, uh, our needs, especially around HR. 1 could be addressed by before the main budget bill is voted on June 15. But that's all I wanted to comment on. Thank you.

Okay. Any public comment on the consent agenda? No public comment. I'm going to go with this by consensus. You as well. So we will approve the consent agenda by consensus and move to item number five on the regular agenda, which is the Consider accepting $10,486,742 in funds from advanced technology demonstration pilot project solicitation grant program from the California Air Resources Sources Board, the California Energy Commission. Cora, okay?

Thank you, Chair and Committee. Can you hear me okay? Yes, we can. Great. I am going to share my screen with a very brief presentation and then go from there. Okay, you should be able to see my screen.

Yes.

Okay, fantastic. So thank you, Chair. As you said, we're here today to consider accepting over $10 million in county funds through the Advanced Technology Demonstration and Pilot Project Program, which we are calling the Green Zones Program for short. And then the other two items on our title are to accept and enter into the specific grant awards through the California Air Resources Board for $10 million and for the California Energy Commission for $5.6 million. So for our agenda today, we are going to have a little bit of time on our backgrounds for this project. We'll discuss the grant scope from the County of Monterey's perspective. spend some time on the matching funds and funding amounts and move on to next steps. So as a bit of background, the county is a participant of the Regional Climate Project Working Group. So the Regional Climate Project Working Group, or RCPWG for short, is a group of staff from multiple jurisdictions and at the time of this application that included the counties of Monterey, obviously, along with San Benito and Santa Cruz counties, and the cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville. Salinas has now joined RCPWG as an official member and there's also interest from other jurisdictions within the county of Monterey. So the board approved the sustainability program to apply for this grant on October 17, 2023, as the lead applicants for this multi-jurisdictional grants for RCPWG. Again, we're calling this Green Zones for shorts, but the technical title is the Monterey Bay Municipal Fleet Electrification and Work Accelerator Project. So this was successful in a $15 million award from the California Air Resources Board to handle the EV portion of the scope or electric vehicles and the California Energy Commission for the infrastructure of electric vehicle charging stations portion of the grant. So our grant scope is to accelerate the introduction and deployments of zero emissions technologies to meet California's longer-term air quality, carbon neutrality, petroleum reduction, and climate change targets by focusing on the project barriers and solutions and transfer of these lessons to municipal fleet stakeholders in the region and the state. So this means that we have really four grant scopes that we are looking at, or four components of the scope. The first is project management barrier planning, identification, and solution development. So as we know from our other meetings and conversations, that's adopting electric vehicle technology and the charging infrastructure to behind them requires crossing a lot of barriers and problem solving. So this would pull together staff through our various jurisdictions participating in this grant through a community of practice. So we will be having a forum to go over how that process is going, what are the barriers that are coming up through the EV adoption process, and how can we overcome them together, along with planning for fleet electrification over the long term for the county and other jurisdictions. And this will be a useful time for staff to really put the rubber to the road to handle this EV transition. There's also scope for workforce development. This is primarily centered around how people interact with the electric vehicles as a new technology, how mechanics can be trained to work on those as county staff, and how our maintenance staff can expect to handle electric vehicle charging stations moving forward. The third portion of this grant is to actually purchase and install electric vehicles and EV charging stations. So throughout the scope of the grant, that's 91 EVs and 95 charging stations, and then also grant administration through the County Sustainability Program, and that's also considering staff time. So our Task 3 scope, which is the largest for the County of Monterey, is to purchase 55 electric vehicles and to install 46 electric vehicle charging stations throughout the county. So these are participating departments, And we will also be doing data collections and installing telematics inside all of these electric vehicles so that we can have learnings from how they're being used, where they're going, and if charging needs are being met at different facilities across the county. So this scope, there is room for this to change as we continue to work with the states after we get into agreements. And if the board chooses to accept the grant award, we recognize and our state partners recognize that Vehicles have come and gone since we originally submitted this application in 2023. Some sites might be changing just because of infrastructure needs that have shifted over time, so there is still room for that to shift. For the matching funds and fund amount, so again, the total award size across all five jurisdictions is $15.7 million. There is a one-for-one match for this award. The county portion of the awarded funds that we are considering accepting today is $10.4 million. And the county match that we are contributing of just over $12 million, we are submitting as the existing solar projects that are at the government center, the information technology building and the Natividad Medical Center. So the county does not have to furnish new funds for this project. And then the regional client project working group across various jurisdictions is covering the remainder $3.4 million in matching funds. So just to highlight that a little bit further. So these three solar projects, they were a capital investment for the county of around $22 million. We recently did another financial analysis of this. We are expected to benefit over $46 million from that project over the next 30 years. So this is the expense that we are using to leverage an additional $10.4 million in investment in county EVs and infrastructure from the states. And these fleet vehicles will replace vehicles that are already up for replacement with less costly electric options for increased savings to the county. So I know that's budgets. savings and really being responsible with capital investments and county funds are always important to this committee but especially during budget season i wanted to highlight that for us So for next steps, we are still confirming all of our individual department scopes as part of this grant. Again, there is room for that to change once we meet with the state after accepting the award. We are working with staff from public works facilities and parks to revise an existing project in the capital improvement program. to encompass this scope for EV charging. And we are hoping to have that final for our next Capital Improvement Committee in a couple of weeks, and to head to the Board of Supervisors for approval, and then to re-enter that final phase of negotiation with the state's Air Resources Board and Energy Commission. So again, that is our title today. Thank you for your time, and I will pass it back to our chair and the public.

Thank you, Corey. I just have a couple questions on that. The 55 EV vehicles that we're purchasing, I think you said 3.1 million. What kind of vehicles are those? I know there are some that are a little more cheaper than $60,000 a vehicle. I'm wondering why we're picking these. What's the criteria? And, you know, Yeah, I guess that's that would be my real question on that particular part. And then sort of along the same line on the charging systems, it seemed like those are running like 70 or 80,000 a piece. And that seems a little on a high end.

Thank you, Chair. So on the right, you see the vehicles that we picked at the time. So what we did is we looked at the different outgoing vehicles that different departments had. And we tried to have a one-for-one based on 2023 vehicles that were available. And this is the list that we came up with. And we'll work with fleets to make sure that these are the right one-for-one replacements looking in 2026. And if there's another type of vehicle that meets these needs, then we're happy to swap those out based on what would be either more appropriate or a better deal. So there's room for change there. The state only really cares about the number of vehicles and not the kinds that they are. For the EV chargers, so for some of the projects like the Castroville Library and San Lucas projects, We had real numbers based off of project managers working through ongoing projects with the department. For others, like the top line for the Health Department HQ, this was more of a general number that we had to use based off our best estimates at the time for across the grant for a level two charging station. And then I increased those by around 30% so that we could bake in room for our public works management of these projects. So those are based off of high-level estimates that will be refined as we work through the grants.

Okay. All right.

Thank you very much. Any questions? Oh, yeah. Cora, first of all, thank you. If you were the one who spotted this and and brought this to our attention for us and Santa Cruz County and then the three or the three cities or so to to apply for this funding. I mean, it's a total win in it, you know, not having to spend. $10.5 million on EV infrastructure or future vehicle needs is a total win. So who was leading? Did you apply and who else in our team make this possible? Because I know we're like the lead applicant and we have to do the follow through on this. If you could just elaborate more on how this effort came about.

Yeah, so the sustainability program was the lead applicant through this. So my role in the regional climate project working group is as a participating member. And also I'm currently the vice chair of that group. So as staff, we saw this opportunity as a region. So we brought that back to our respective boards and also to different staff within those agencies. So the many different departments who helped collaborate on this that I had shown earlier, Definitely, we're in major parts in getting this over the finish line so that we could develop our initial scope. And we've also been collaborating heavily with public works facilities and park staff, as well as we move into the capital improvements process. So there's been a lot of hands that have touched this project so far. But thank you.

Intervention, I just wanted to applaud them, thank them for working as a team to to successfully bring these dollars to our region to our county. And in your slide talking about the word size, it sees our county match because the county match where we are leveraging our investment in the solar projects in those three facilities. So we're using. $12,256,171. So we're helping also leverage, our project is leveraging some dollars for the other governments that are part of this coalition, correct?

That is correct, yes.

It reduces their responsibility to only the $3,451,257 amount. So here's an example where our investment is helping draw down significant dollars and even helping our neighboring counties and cities. distributed among the other partners?

So I can pull up our budget to take a look at that. But the county of Monterey is by far the biggest recipients of these funds. But I can definitely take a look at that for you.

Yeah, because there's actually San Benito County. So San Benito, Santa Cruz counties, and three cities, Santa Cruz, Salinas, and Watsonville. So that is what we divvied up among the other five partners, right? Correct. Yes. Okay. All right. And I think that's all I had on this. Thank you very much. Very successful. And we already we couldn't leverage the solar we put on at the shilling place any longer, right?

That is correct. And also because the financial structure of that was a power purchase agreement. The county didn't put much capital investment down, really zero percent of that down. So that is all being paid through for energy savings, so it makes it a bit more difficult to tie in.

Great. But that number is significant. At least just these three projects alone, the $22 million investment, being able to save 46 over the 30 years, that's something worth noting. So thank you for including that in the slide.

You're welcome. Okay. Do we have any public comment on this item? And no hands and nobody in chambers looking back here.

Would you recommend this to the board?

We'll do that again with the consensus and move on to item number six for a report on the draft, the county moderate capital improvement program.

Let me share. There we go. Thanks.

Good afternoon, Chair Church, Supervisor Vallejo, with Public Works, Facilities, and Parks, alongside my colleague, Denise Chia.

I'm going to fire on my own.

Ricketts. Lisa Chia, Capital Improvements Manager. So for the notice, I'll continue here. Giving a first draft of the annual CIP report. This year's a little bit different than what you've seen in past years. So I'll talk through that and kind of show you where we are and where we are headed over the course of the next calendar year. All right, so the agenda today, we'll take a look at the CIP just as a reminder for the public, for everyone of what the CIP is, what we're trying to do with it, a preview of some of the active projects in the list and what that means. Again, the status of our new process for Fund 478 allocation, and then where we go from here. So why are we here today? Well, according to Monterey County Code, PWFP is charged with multiple facets and aspects of the capital infrastructure process from planning, services to implementation, oversight of open space, county facilities, roadways, etc., as well as tasked with the responsibility of developing and recommending a capital improvement program. And so per Monterey County Code, that's why PWFP is here today. And what is in the CIP? Well, it's a range of things. It's a collection, if you will, of multiple capital plans. So, for example, Information Technology Department, ITD, they developed their own work plan, if you will, of capital projects along with Natividad. Again, their own work plan, but it's incorporated into the CIP to give a more holistic view of what capital infrastructure projects are occurring over the next five years across the county. The focus of our presentation and much of what we talk about in these presentations is those projects under facilities and under county assets, as well as the CWFP through the bridges work plan. In green, I've highlighted two aspects of that that we're going to focus on today. You can call this the active work plan for both facilities, other departments, along with the road fund work plan. These are projects that have previously been approved, previously have funding. They're good to go. They're either continuing from the current fiscal year or they're starting next fiscal year. And so that's what we have presenting to you today. Now, in past years, we have, in addition to those active work plans, we've also discussed at these meetings the Fund 478 allocation. And typically that's centered around facility infrastructure. However, this year we are working closely with the CIO's office to revamp and revitalize that selection process. And so we're holding on to those funds right now. CIO is holding on to those funds. We've collected all the data on the unfunded projects, and we're planning on working with the CIO to bring those back in the next couple of months. So if you see unfunded needs and requests missing from today, just know they're not missing. They're in the works. We're focusing on those that already have funding today. So that's what this diagram is showing, the pieces of the CIP that we're looking at. You can think of the CIP as one of many planning documents that gets a point in time snapshot of the priorities the board sets for capital projects. And it's informed and influenced by board decisions, by strategic plans, general plans, facility master plans. All those things help staff make recommendations and determine what the board's priorities are as we take projects back to you for final review and approval. And hopefully it's also a help to the board in making decisions. strategic decisions when it comes to allocating limited funding and going after financial resources in order to implement a well thought out capital plan. It also ties in with the annual budget process in that the budget helps inform how much money we have available from funds such as Fund 478. So we can make those or the board can make those unfunded project decisions. And then the projects that do have funding inform the budget for the annual budget process to identify what money is being set aside for work in the coming fiscal year. So today, here we are in the process, step two at the Budget Committee. We've already gone to the Capital Improvement Committee on May 11th, presented the same working document that you have before you today. On June 10th, we are planning to go to the Planning Commission. They provide a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors as to the conformity of the draft CIP with the general plan and local coastal plans. And then finally, we go to the Board of Supervisors for that adoption. And as I noted earlier, the Fund 478 allocation, we are looking to carry that over into next fiscal year for a future item to come back to the Board. So, with that overview of the CAP document, and why we're here, we'll jump into some slides covering a preview of what's in the what we'll call the active 5 year work plans. Again, these are projects that have existing funding approvals and dollar amounts set aside. We always like to start with this slide as a reminder that there's a significant deferred maintenance backlog across much of our county infrastructure. check these numbers regularly. For example, this morning, I went back and looked at our facilities' unfunded needs, and there are over close to $100 million worth of projects in deferred maintenance just for facilities alone. And that's just what's in the CIP. That doesn't even include needs that either haven't been captured yet or cost estimates that could be refined and escalated once actual needs are known. But there's a significant amount of work to do, and we try to chip away at it each year, but this is just a reminder for all that there's still quite a bit of work to do and grant funding and other resources that we can bring in as we just saw can often help to address those needs. So what's in the CIP that you have before you? We have a short executive summary. We have what we call year one projects. These are projects that are expected to complete some phase of work in next fiscal year, 26, 27. Right now, as drafted, there's 86 projects in the CIP across all these departments and divisions, Natividad, road plan, facilities, et cetera. About $191 million of work scheduled for next year. which is quite a bit. If you were to take the totality of all those projects across five fiscal years, because again, some of these projects are spaced out over multiple years, that's about $773 million of work total. just for those projects active in next fiscal year that are going to carry forward. There's a few projects that aren't going to start next year, but they're in the works. They're in the plan. That's part of that five-year plan. So there's 35 of those projects that won't start until year two or beyond. There are about $233 million of additional work for those projects in our draft CIP. With that, I'll pause here and turn the presentation over to our director, Randy Ishii, to talk a little bit about some of the key public works projects that are in our draft CIP.

Thank you very much, Administrative Operations Manager Snively, and good afternoon, Chair, members of the board. This slide is one that we've shown historically to the Capital Improvement Committee, as well as the Budget Committee and the full board, which represents just a small excerpt of the annual Public Works Maintenance Work Plan as part of the Annual Work Program for Road Fund. These are just some that we're highlighting here again. So starting up from the top, we have our Annual Striping Program, where approximately 200 miles of county-owned roads will be restriped. We have our annual seal coat program, which is historically trended at $2 million for chip seal or bituminous seal coat work. We also have the street sweeping program, which is a requirement under the permit that the county has called the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit for the municipal separate storm sewer system permits. And that's at around $180,000. We have an amount for guardrail repairs as part of a guardrail repair program, and that's to repair or replace damaged guardrails or to install new ones if a study demonstrates they're warranted. We also have our drainage maintenance and cleaning allowance of approximately $500,000 or half a million dollars for culvert repairs. And then rounding things out, we have our vegetation mowing. And this is supplemental to what our road crews perform every year. So while our road crews do perform annual mowing and they continue to do annual mowing, this amount is for any service that a contractor is needed that is above and beyond the capability of our maintenance crews. And that is at approximately $150,000. And so we move on to the other parts of our annual program for road fund and the CIP. And these are a small excerpt of our highlighted road and bridge projects. And starting from the top, we have our Davis Road Bridge and Road Widening Project, which has been progressing throughout the years. Right now, we're completing the right-of-way acquisition phase, and then we hope to complete the utility relocations and initiate the construction phase. Moving on, we have the Carmel Valley Road Rehabilitation Project, which is, roughly speaking, the four-lane portion of Carmel Valley Road that is to be resurfaced this coming year. And that's from Carmel Rancho Boulevard to approximately Via Petra, with construction to be completed this upcoming fiscal year, fiscal year 27. Moving on, we have another Measure X priority project, which is the Old Stage Road Rehabilitation Project. and various segments that are being performed. But this segment funded primarily through Measure X is a portion from Iverson Road to Chular Canyon Road, where we're continuing the design currently, but we plan to be in construction and completing that project this coming fiscal year. We also have our G12 corridor study project, which in this case is the segment one portion known as the San Miguel Canyon-Castro Boulevard Roundabout or Prunedale Roundabout safety project. And that is anticipated being construction phase this upcoming fiscal year. Moving on, we have another very beneficial program called the Local Road Rehabilitation Program version 2.0. That's the project that programmatically resurfaces the streets in our local communities, such as Aromas, such as Bradley and other communities. And we have another set of work that's planned for this upcoming fiscal year. In this case, a portion of Carmel Valley Village and another portion of Spreckles. And then moving on, we have another longstanding bridge replacement project that we've been working on called the Gonzales River Road Bridge Project that is currently in design permitting, which that work is ongoing. And running things out for our highlighted projects is our various active transportation program, i.e. grant-funded projects for installing new sidewalks in the communities of San Ardo, Chular, and Castorville. For St. Arta, we plan to complete the construction of Fiscal Year 27. And for Chula and Castorville, it's anticipated that we'll be completing the design and going to bid shortly thereafter. And that rounds out our Anywhere Proof of Road Fund, or in other words, Road Fund funded CIP projects that we're just highlighting the small excerpt from. And I'll pass the floor back to Mr. Snively.

Thank you, Director. For a brief summary of some of the facilities projects that are in the coming fiscal year CIP, I'll turn it back over to Louisa Choher, our Capital Improvements Manager.

Thank you, John. Good afternoon, supervisors. Thank you for having me here. So what you see in this slide here is, I just want to point out that these are just some of the high-level projects that we have in the making as of right now. This is not inclusive of everything that is going on, but this is just kind of like the high-level projects. New Bradley Library and Resilience Center is Garrison Library. New Bradley Library just was out to bid. Bids came in. It's garrison. Bids are coming in in the next couple days. We have the County Jail ADA Improvements Project that is moving forward. The Carmel River Floodplain and Environmental Enhancement Project that continues to move forward. We have a couple of EV projects that are happening at our library locations. Roofing library EV charging stations and then the San Lucas library landscape improvement, which also includes EV chargers. Next to that, we have the Puerto Vallejo Mansion and Tower Restoration Project, which I believe both of you have seen, and that work continues to move forward. And last but not least, the DSSS Community Benefits Building Replacement Project that is continuing to move forward. And with this, I'll pass it back to my colleague, John, to continue the presentation in the next couple slides.

I have a quick question on this one. Just on the, this is Seaside, right? The last photo there. This is going to come back to the full board on price options, right? Design and price options still. That is correct. Okay, good. Because there was a much more expensive and the board direction where they give some options at the next level down, considering all the cost pressures the county is facing.

And actually, the graphic that you're seeing there is the floor plan for option four, which was the option preferred as a selected option by the board of supervisors. Of course, we're still going to continue to move through the whole process and understand the full cost of the project in more detail in the specific to that option selected by the board of supervisors. Right.

But there was, I think it was $120 million option versus a 60-something million dollar option. And then, because we don't look just at the construction costs, but obviously the debt service over the 30 years under both scenarios and what yearly commitment That brings of added cost pressure considering, you know, we're facing some pretty daunting and challenging fiscal times ahead. And whether we can afford it, that's – but that's all going to come back as a separate conversation. Do you have a rough time when you think that's going to be coming back?

I mean, right now we're going to be engaging with the architects and then we'll have a better idea when those will come back. At this point, I don't want to put dates because there's still a lot of work to be done and redesign to follow that selected option, which was option four. So I will imagine that in the next couple of months, we'll come back and present to the whole board with an estimate on that option with, of course, refinements.

Yeah, but I think even the church had asked when it comes back for the lower option, the 60 million or so option, what would that be? So next time we're not just looking at one, but we had the direction included there, bringing information back on that lower cost option as well.

We will do both. Great. And as a point in time document, I'll work closely with Luis to be sure that whatever draft CIP we have is matching whatever information and status development we have at that point in time. So it's reflecting the changes as they develop and as board decisions are made. All right. To wrap up, we just have a few more slides. I won't go over every line, but what I have in the next three slides is just a condensed list of everything that's in the draft CIP right now. This is actually part of the CIP document. All these projects are listed along with our funding sources and the budget over the next five years, but this just gives you an idea of the volume of projects that are contemplated as well as the departments that are originating many of these projects. and the projected budget for next fiscal year, as well as the total project budget. So I'll just skim through these. You can see Natividad is in there, along with PWFP, many other departments throughout the county. And again, these are point in time as of last month. We're going to run another version of this as we get ready to take this back to the Board of Supervisors for adoption in June. Okay, so next steps, where do we go from here? Well, we have, again, this active work plan. So the next step for that active work plan is to take it to the planning commission and then to the board of supervisors for adoption in June. We're going to continue to work with the CIO's office to refine our unfunded project development, work plan development process. So we're anticipating that will be through June and July, developing that list through those months. And then in August, September, going back through the CIC, the BC and the board, typically as we would have at this time of year, we'll just be doing it a few months later. Ultimately, the board would be, or potentially adopting a supplemental work list using Fund 478 for some unfunded requests, either to add new projects, expand projects, et cetera. But that will be a follow-up item. So for today, the recommendation is simply to receive the report. Of course, staff will take any comments from the committee, but we'll be taking a version of this active work plan for pre-approved, pre-funded projects to the board in June. And that will conclude staff's presentation. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I have a few questions here, actually. You gave us a deferred maintenance list up here. Could you pop that up for my list on stuff? Graphic, I should say. Yeah, there we go. Okay, so I know the $700 million is roads, that's just to bring the roads up to fare.

Is that correct? I believe these are high-level estimates of deferred maintenance, but perhaps Randy or Enrique could give a little more detail of what they're looking at in those numbers.

Is that my understanding on the roads, Randy? These are approximate supervisor church slash church. The valuation of $700 million is what's forecasted as necessary to bring the roads to a countywide average of fare. But that's always something that we're always reevaluating. For instance, in this next pavement management program update, which is anticipated to occur this fall, when all the roads are reassessed, we'll have a better picture of what that might look like. But that has been a historic trend.

So that's what I thought. So on the other ones, I see numbers 300, 500, 127. And yet, I don't know if I've seen anything that really talks about the conditions. The roads, it's rather easy. We have an average of zero to 100. Like on the bridges, I mean, are these... I guess my question is, you know, $300 million need to do some deferred maintenance on bridges. Bridges are important. We don't like driving over bridges that are ready to not hold a vehicle. So my question is, how... How bad are some of these bridges? How do we tell which ones are really pressing the need? And then maybe a little more explanation. I want $500 million for signals and signs. That's a lot of signs, a lot of signals. And then facilities, again, and then parks also. I'm just kind of wondering if we have anything out there that maybe goes into a little greater detail like we do on the roads where we have this – zero to 100 scale to read.

Excellent question, Chair Church. I will start us off with the data that we have for bridges and the traffic appurtenances, the signals and signage, and then a little bit about parks. And then I'll look to facilities to assist with the response on facilities. And so starting off with bridges, the county does have a bridge inventory of our latest conditions, particularly those that meet the certain geometric criteria that Caltrans puts out there. And one of those criteria is that the bridge needs to be greater than 20 feet in length. Where that goes is that Caltrans does their own independent inspection of those bridges. And in many cases, we have good information about the condition of those bridges that are greater than 20 feet in length. And then there's those that are considered local bridges where Caltrans does not inspect them. And so we have our own county measurement for the condition of those bridges. That all said, with the 175 bridges that the county has, the 300 million that county staff have historically shown is just the deferred maintenance component. It's the more critical ones that we apply for grants through the state and to the federal government with those highway bridge program grants and also those HPP. And that's the financial mechanism that has done the most in terms of being able to replace bridges, since bridges, as the committee has seen, are very expensive undertakings to do very short spans of roadway. And so $300 million represents the deferred maintenance component, but the actual amount of asset value and the repairs that are necessary are greater than that $300 million figure.

And I probably don't have time to go through everything out of this. I guess what I'm really trying to get at is, And maybe I've never been on the CIP, so, you know, on that committee. So maybe this gets covered into there, but I'm just wondering which one of these are you know, not just bridges, but parks or facilities or wherever it may be, are really in kind of more of a critical condition that really needs some immediate attention. Do we have anything in that kind of a situation? Is there very much? Are we staying ahead of that kind of work so we can avoid that? That's really where my question is really more going. So more general than Gavin gets too specific.

Understood, and it's an excellent question. So we do have inventories for these different assets, and some of these are more critical than others, and we can certainly bring back the data for the committee. In terms of the signals and signage, that's one that is an approximate number that we're continually trying to gather more data on through the computerized maintenance management system and the inspections that are instantly done by our own staff. So that figure is one that is continuing to be in development. That's our approximate floor number at this juncture. And in terms of our parks, we know... this number from the past, from a past master plan study that was done. And that's also a reason why we have the parks master plan in the queue so that when that becomes implemented, funded, and studied, we have a better idea of what that true deferred maintenance number is. Right now, the 27 million, as we understand it, are the more critical things that our consultant saw and is now a dated study. So we're looking forward to the parks master plan to give us that better figure. And the similar logic applies to the facilities in that the true amount of repair and upgrade and rehab necessary county facilities is better delineated through the facilities master plan, albeit that's just for the buildings that were studied in that master plan phase one. We would need to continue to study to get a better handle on what that true asset value and true repair value are going to be.

Okay. All right. Thank you. And my other question is on the, um, the new, uh, um, I guess it's called was a thermoplastic, um, um, uh, for the roads, the, the, um, the line striping program. I know we started that a couple of years ago and we've got 200 miles we're doing here. Of our 1,256, 1,259 miles, I'm keeping my mind. I know you know it. We have the county. Not all of them are paved, of course, but how many roads have we paved with this new striping material?

We do not have an exact number at this point, and we'll have to get back to you on that.

Just approximation, just curious.

Perhaps a couple hundred miles, maybe greater than that. And that's because we've done some before at your church. But in some cases... the thermoplastic becomes accelerated and wear due to heavy equipment driving across that roadway. It lasts longer than the paint does, but this still experiences that same level of wear, especially if someone were to drive a front end loader and keep the bucket down and drive across the thermoplastic surface.

So it's a concept we need to do. Yeah, bring it up because it is surprisingly a common complaint I get about not having that stripe and I know this other is better. So thank you for the information.

Yeah, Mr. Ishii, I just wanted you to call me going to San Lucas drinking water as that's been something we've had on our radar for a long time. And I'm reading this capital improvement plan, five-year plan, And it says that, just a factual, it says, factual concern. It said the San Lucas community has been under a do not drink order since 2016. But I think the earliest do not drink order started in 2011, five years before that. I had Supervisor Lopez and I wrote an op-ed about back in, I think, 2022, and back then it was 11 years. But I just wanted to actually get it right, because when we're applying for grants and we're dealing with federal and state lawmakers, the struggle to get clean drinking water precedes that. I left the state legislature in 2016 at that moment, and that's when we had we had got approval from the state water board to construct a $8 million. Then it was $8 million projection for the eight mile pipeline. So obviously, drink water concerns started before that, right? So it should be 2011. But I just, it's hard to believe back then for an eight mile pipeline, it was $8 million. And now the current estimates for the alternative plan, which is simply a, filtration system, it's now the cost is $23 million. It's just, and in all our efforts, Zoloftran got us almost a million dollars for the solution. John Laird, Speaker Rivas got us the 4 million from the state drinking water, I think revolving fund. But that leaves another $18 million still to go. And for me, it's just like one of those examples that despite all the human right to water laws and the different funds that the state approved for disadvantaged communities to get clean drinking water, here we are in 2026 and we still haven't got a solution and we're far away from getting the money needed to help this community farm worker community finally have a solution to have safe and clean and clear drinking water. Could you explain what's the plan on that one? How are we going to close that gap? It just seems so big and work has started, but without any significant more funds, it seems hard to get this project across the finish line.

Those are very good and very salient points, Supervisor Alejo. And we do want to start off by apologizing for the error in the CFP project sheet. We will make sure to get that corrected. We apologize for that. It is unfathomable how a community can go without safe drinking water for this long, dating back to 2011. And so... What staff have experienced in these different group meetings that they've had with either the State Water Board staff or with the US EPA, i.e. federal representatives, is that the different parties involved have all expressed a willingness and understanding to try to get safe drinking water to the community. But as you pointed out, the hurdles of these different orders of magnitude of costs that have arisen and the way that funding is coming in to address those gaps is coming in small pieces at a time. but everyone is genuinely moving in the same direction according to my staff who have been in these meetings. And these first tranches of funds are being used for that additional study work as necessary with the goal of implementing new test wells that ideally could be converted into the drinking source well that's necessary for that redundancy. And then at that point in time, since these do take time, The efforts by not only your county staff, but anticipated with our leg staff is to continue lobbying the state legislators, our state partners, and our federal partners and federal legislators in order to keep these tranches of funds coming in to finalize that last bit of construction funding that is needed as we get closer to the implementation of the filtration system and other purposes that might be necessary for it. So while it's not clear right at this point in time, we're striving collectively towards implementing more of the project. So with the eye towards trying to acquire more funds from the state and federal level when that time does come about.

Randy, I want to say this. I want to thank all your staff that have been very involved and very concerned. I'm just raising this because I think the local communities and local governments have been very proactive. But this for me is one of the examples where the state bureaucracy was really, really set us back because we had approval. The work had started until it put a work stop order in 2016. that delayed this whole thing, and now the project is many times more expensive. But I expressed this to Supervisor Lopez. I was very concerned on the alternative plan, because we're going to spend all $23 million, and it might take out the nitrates out of the water. With the technology and previous systems with the wells have failed because nitrate levels go up and down. But the concern that we were trying to achieve by a centralized water to king city was that they would actually not have foul smelling water. They wouldn't have all the minerals in their water that clogged their coffee machines and their washers other. I don't know if this alternative plan is going to address all those other concerns about heavy minerals, discoloration, foul smell in the water. Those were all things that we were trying to achieve through a centralized water system. We even had Cal Water as a partner willing to be the operator of such a connection to this community. And now here we are going back in circles and we might deal with the nitrates, but we're not dealing with all those other water quality issues that the community has been asking for for so long. Anyways, I think you know all this already, but I just wanted to restate that because it's been a while and I just hadn't seen the updated cost and it just threw me back that it's so much more expensive when it could have been dealt with more effectively and cheaper back in 2016. Thank you.

You're absolutely right. Thank you very much.

Do we have any public comment on this item? Anybody so. I'm back here. I don't think this is a night with any action on it, just to report. So we'll close the item and adjourn the meeting until June 24th, I think, is the next one. All right. Thank you, everybody.

All right. I like these nice short meetings.