City Council - Regular Meeting

All right. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Tuesday, June 9th, 2026 Board of Supervisors meeting. I'm very thankful to be here today. Let's go ahead and start our meeting with the flag salute. And it's going to be led today by Sarah Bourne, our risk manager. We will now move to our consent agenda. Is there anything that anyone would like pulled from the consent? And is there anyone here in the chambers who would like to pull anything from the consent agenda? Anyone online?

No, Chair.

All right. I'll bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval of the consent agenda. I'll second.

Moved by Gore, seconded by Gustafson. Roll call vote.

Supervisor Gort? Aye. Supervisor DeMattei? Yes. Supervisor Jones? Aye. Supervisor Gustafson? Aye. Supervisor Landon?

Yes. We will now move to public comment. This is your opportunity to comment on items that are not on the agenda today. Is there anyone here in the chambers who would like to make a public comment? OK. And is there anyone online?

Yes, Chair. Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments.

Greetings Supervisors, Diane Louise Alessi and Christian Valley Park District 5. I'm speaking to place the board on immediate notice. The error of backroom deals and silent approvals for data centers in the state and potentially Placer County will not be tolerated. Tech giants are not coming to us with the truth and facts. They are using covert names like innovation centers and advanced manufacturing parks as their mass to hide massive AI data centers. Look at the Phillip Road project in West Roseville. Developers call it an innovation center, yet the zoning explicitly allows for data center infrastructure. They know that if they call it a 30 megawatt data center, the public would object. So they hide it in a mixed use proposal banking on the lack of transparency to sneak it in before the infrastructure is locked in. This is the Minnesota model of secrecy we know from recent reports the developers like Meta are using shell companies and non-profit or non-disclosure agreements to avoid public outrage and hide the true scale of their water and power consumption let me be clear no facility size serves the public good when it violates our community's priorities Water in a drought prone state with reservoirs at historic lows will not or cannot allow facilities that guzzle millions of gallons of potable water for cooling while farmers and residents face restrictions. Infrastructure, our grids are not designed for hyperscale loads. A 300 megawatt demand equals the power of an entire city. We cannot sacrifice grid stability for profiteers. communities these facilities destroy our rural character generate almost no local jobs and threaten our local agricultural heritage we are not asking to be ignored we are demanding protection via a moratorium if you allow these facilities under the guise of quote innovation unquote you are not fostering growth you are selling out our future therefore it is our it is your fiduciary duty to take immediate action, impose an immediate moratorium on all new data center permits, ban the use of NDAs that prevent the public from knowing the true water and power demands, require full disclosure for any project using terms like tech or innovation. Do not let Placer County become the next Project Bigfoot. We require you to agendize this immediately to place a moratorium today. Protect our water, protect our grid, protect our rights to know before land is already acquired.

Thank you, thank you. Anyone else? OK, well, we'll close public comment and move to board member and County executive reports. Is there? Are there any board members who have anything they'd like to report? Supervisor Gustafson?

Thank you. Just two quick reports. And I think some of you have been included already in invites to tour the Yankee Gyms project. We did that last Friday. A little dusty, I will say, but really an unbelievable effort to get that bridge in. $55 million project primarily funded with federal dollars. And our incredible staff and the design work and the engineering feat to build a bridge at that location. So if you get a chance, please get out and see that site. It's gonna be a great emergency evacuation area as well as emergency vehicle service in that area. And then yesterday we had the Tahoe area managers meeting. 15, 18 managers in attendance at the meeting, and we just talked about all of the summer projects and impacts. There's a fair amount of concern about July 4th, and Michelle Captain Baxter was at the meeting as well, about July 4th being on a Saturday, 250th, and the crowds that we might encounter and some of the issues. So I'll be following up on that, but Good meeting overall, and it's just a good refresher of one area of the county that gets very impacted during tourism season.

Thanks. Thank you. Supervisor DiMattei.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to congratulate all those who were reelected that all of my colleagues get to continue to work with, and so congratulations to all of you. I see one here and two to my left, so congratulations.

Thank you, and I know Supervisor Gore has kind of a special board comment, board presentation, unless there's anyone else that has anything, okay.

Great, thank you, Chair Landon. I'm really excited to be here today. I've got some guests here in the chambers with me. I serve, and I have shared this before, I serve as a board member of the Roseville Veterans Memorial Hall Board, and we've had conversations about bringing a mural to life on the wall outside the Veterans Memorial Hall facing Royer Park. And I'll tee this up because I want the community to know that what happened is we had a veteran come to us and share his concern about PTSD for veterans and suicide rates for veterans and wanting to have a helpline displayed so that people would know where to go to in case they needed assistance. fast forward what we thought would be even better is to include that but also have a mural honoring our veterans in in the area and it's a beautiful big white wall and we have worked for many months the veterans memorial hall board along with blue line arts in the county to bring together a memorandum of understanding so that we can actually raise the dollars and create a beautiful mural to honor our veterans and so joining me this morning just to share about the project from Blue Line Arts are Mary Tess Mayall she's the executive director and Nico Rodriguez he is the public art coordinator so I'm going to kick it off to them and there is a clicker there as you want to move the slides forward

Thank you so much, Bonnie, and thank you, Board of Supervisors, for having us today. As Bonnie mentioned, my name is Mary Tess Male. I'm the executive director of Blue Line Arts. We are a nonprofit arts organization located in downtown Roseville, and I'm happy to share we are actually celebrating our 60th anniversary as an organization this year. And we are all about fostering impactful arts experiences. We do this through gallery education programming and public art projects. Since 2019, we have completed over 30 public art projects in the region. And some of our largest partners have been the Downtown Roseville Partnership, the City of Roseville, Sacramento State University, and now Placer One. So I'm going to turn it over to Nico Rodriguez, our public art coordinator, to give you more details about the project.

Great thank you for having us we're very pleased to be here and to speak a little bit more on this opportunity it's been a great honor to be invited to work with the Veterans Memorial Hall we're excited to see this move forward so what we'll be looking at today very quickly is the sponsorship deck the Veterans Memorial Hall had asked us to help with the fundraising efforts so we are starting from zero we've actually had a hundred dollar donation so far So we put together this deck which can be used to share with the public and we hope that it will help garner some support financially and just throughout the community. So this is the wall that Bonnie was referring to. This is facing Royer Park, so not only is this going to be a great monument to the veterans and everything that that stands for, but it's also going to be a great addition to the park and everyone that visits. It'll be able to be viewed from far and wide, as well as across the bridge that goes on Oak Street. This is another image of that, just a little more information of how we will be helping to guide the sponsorship and that the mural will, excuse me, will serve as a reminder of the valuable life-saving resources available to veterans as they experience their mental health crises or otherwise. we have a very robust sponsorship menu allowing opportunities for people to join us at a more comfortable level up to a visionary level which we're putting at ten thousand dollars with a project goal of twenty five thousand dollars we believe this is quite attainable we are going to move in a way that will allow us to secure at least fifty percent of the funds and then we will take the experience to a new level where we'll be able to then engage an artist. So what that will look like is we'll put out an RFQ for artists. We'll look at applications. We're obviously going to encourage those that are veterans, that have direct ties to the veteran community, and with an emphasis on local artists as well. And that is the project. We're so excited again to have this come forward. And please, if you have any questions in the future, feel free to reach out.

Thank you. Great presentation and it's really exciting. That's just such a great use of that white wall. I think it's awesome. So I can't wait to see what the artist comes up with. Supervisor Gore.

and if I may just follow up so I want to thank you for being here and thank you for partnering with us I'm really excited two things please apply to the county's revenue share program I'll make sure you have that information and then I personally want to kick it off with a thousand dollar donation so my husband and I my husband and his family are all veterans and so we certainly want to support the effort so I will kick that off with a thousand dollar donation from my husband and myself and I just want to encourage everyone else out there if you're able to do a little bit or more and then we'll we'll work to find other large sponsors but we're just so excited about the project and what a benefit it will be to our community so thank you thank you thank you so much awesome thank you yes I will and I'll share the slide deck with you which is great and we are trying to raise $25,000

All right, it's Jerry Rogers' lucky day. Sorry, I saw Landon back there making motions. I thought it was to me. Sorry. Jerry, we're going to move to item 9A, Nevada County Booking and Jail Services Agreement.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Mr. Chetney, Mr. Cook. My name is Jerry Rogers with the Placer County Sheriff's Office. And I come to the board seeking your approval for an amendment or an agreement with Nevada County for booking and jail services in the amount of $565,734 for the term of July 1. 2026 to June 30th, 2027. And number two, authorize the Placer County Sheriff's coroner marshal or designee to sign the agreement and all required documents subject to risk management and county council concurrence. And three, authorize the Placer County Sheriff coroner marshal or designee to sign subsequent amendments not to exceed $56,573.40. all required documents consistent with the subject matter and scope of work subject to risk management and County Council concurrence and since December 2001 the Nevada County Sheriff's Office has provided booking and jail services for Placer County as sustained jail operations at the Sheriff's North Tahoe substation were suspended with the exception of serving as a court holding facility on a Monday through Thursday basis Under the contract, all arrests made by the Placer County Sheriff's Office in and around the North Tahoe area after normal business hours or on holidays and weekends are attempted to be booked into the Nevada County Sheriff's Truckee Jail. Arrestees who cannot be released or make bail are subsequently transported to the Placer County Jail System for normal housing. Transportation to the Placer County Jail System is provided by the Placer County Sheriff's Office. For the period of July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027, the total agreement amount is $565,734 with a quarterly payments of $141,433.50. The Nevada County Sheriff's Office has agreed to maintain the maximum annual increase of 3% over the prior year's agreement, resulting in an overall increase of $16,477. The total cost of the agreement is $565,734, and funding is available in the fiscal year 2026-2027 budget for the Sheriff's Tahoe Patrol. There is no impact to the general fund. And with that, we'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. And I forgot to mention, here with me is Tahoe Station Commander Michelle Baxter.

Great. Thank you. Any questions or comments from board members? And is there anyone here in the chambers who has a question on this item or a comment? Anyone online? No, Chair. All right, I'll bring it back to the board. Approval?

And I'll second.

Moved by Gustafson, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. And none opposed and no abstentions. Thank you very much. We'll move to item 10A, resolution authorizing execution of specified agreements for health and human services.

Good morning, Chair Landon, esteemed members of the board, Mr. Chatney, Mr. Cook. I am Alexis Madera, staff services manager with Health and Human Services Administrative Services Division. I'm here today to request the board to approve a resolution authorizing the execution of specified agreements for Health and Human Services. The action requested is to adopt a resolution authorizing the Director of Health and Human Services or designee to execute 54 identified agreements for various Health and Human Services divisions and types of services pursuant to the terms contained in the resolution, the HHS Annual Contract Resolution, in an amount not to exceed $16,883,025. HHS administers hundreds of contractual agreements with most requiring board approval. These services include vital and often mandated services to the community, including family resource services and patient psychiatric services, and prevention and early intervention services. To significantly improve efficiency, in 2001, the Board of Supervisors adopted a single resolution process for expenditure agreements. The current criterion for this cycle includes agreements that were originally approved as standalone consent, department, or timed items by the Board of Supervisors, recurring agreements with an annual contract amount of less than $500,000 each, agreements to be executed with effective beginning dates during fiscal year 26-27, and agreements that do not concurrently or currently require competitive bid or proposal process. Additionally, all agreements executed under this resolution are subject to the AB 339 notice and review process involving human resources and the applicable bargaining unit, along with concurrence from risk management and county council. The attachment identifies all 54 agreements listed in the current contracted amount. The requested action amount includes up to a 10% increase to allow for possible changes within existing scope of services plus a 10% maximum for amendment authority as long as the agreements won't result in a total contract amount over $500,000 per year. All contracts listed in the annual contract resolution are included in the department's requested fiscal year 26-27 budget and those that span two years will be included in the department's fiscal year 27-28 budget. I would like to take a moment to thank my four-person HHS contracts team including my senior staff service analyst Joey Watowitz for their hard work and the valuable services provided to HHS over the last year and to thank Vicki Grenier and Nancy Baggett for their continued support and guidance I'd also like to thank the HHS directors, assistant directors, and contract administrators, including our department head, Dr. Oldham, who is also a contract administrator and a pivotal support to our success, as well as CEO, county council, human resources, procurement, and risk management for their continued partnership and efforts working collaboratively with HHS to execute hundreds of agreements along with the vital contributions of our community partners and with your board's approval. I appreciate your consideration today in adopting the resolution requested for the critical services. I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

Great. Thank you. Any questions or comments from board members? I do want to say way more efficient. And so I can really appreciate everything is still here in the staff report. We still can see everything, but don't have to take each one individually, which is, yes, much more efficient. Any other comments, questions? Anyone in the public who would like to make a public comment on this item? Anyone online?

No, Chair.

All right. I'll bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval. Second.

Moved by Jones, seconded by DiMattei. All those in favor? Aye. And none opposed and no abstentions. Thank you. We will move to item 11a, updates to the uncodified schedule of classifications and compensation ordinance.

Good morning, members of the board, Chair Landon, Suzanne Couture from Department of Human Resources. The item before you today is to introduce an uncodified ordinance waiving the oral reading to amend the schedule of classifications and compensation ordinance to create two new classifications, the classifications of fleet services superintendent and supervising environmental health resources specialist. you might recall back in august of 2025 the board approved a request submitted by the county executive officer to move forward with the creation of a brand new department of general services the general services department would basically take all of the internal service departments and divisions and put them into one consolidated department That reorganization included moving what was the Department of Facilities Management and the Division of Fleet Services, which was formerly under the Department of Public Works, and several divisions under the CEO's office, including Procurement Services, Document Solutions, and Records Management. So this item before you today is kind of the finishing out of that reorganization. Fleet services was managed by a public works manager, which doesn't really go with the new department. So we are requesting that a new classification of fleet services superintendent be created. The salary that would be placed in would be management grade 452, which is the same grade that the public works manager is in. The second request before you is at the request of the Department of Public Works, HR conducted a classification study of the environmental resources specialist classification to ensure the class specifications are current and accurate as we normally do. As part of that study, it was determined that a new level was needed at the supervisory level to perform the most complex duties and provide direct supervision to subordinate specialist staff. It is recommended that the salary grade of professional 240 be aligned with this classification, and that was based on review of comparable positions in labor market and internal alignment within the county. There's no immediate fiscal impact associated with these requests, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from board members? And is there anyone in the chambers who would like to comment on this item? Anyone online? All right, I'll bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval.

I'll second. Moved by Jones, seconded by Gore. All those in favor? Aye. And none opposed and no abstentions. Thank you. We will move to item 12A, approval of transient occupancy tax funding.

Good morning chair Landon and board Daniel Clayton I'm Audrey Vaughn with the Tahoe CEO office I'm bringing forward a couple TOT interdepartmental memos for your consideration today earlier this year your board approved a 10-year MOU with the North Tahoe Community Alliance NTCA and we'll continue the collaboration on the TOT T-BID dollars at work program. A major component of that MOU was the development of the economic health and catalyst initiatives roadmap and that'll guide future TOT and T-BID dollars investments over the next 10 years. While that long-term roadmap is still under development and we'll be back to your board to share more as that's being developed, staff identified several existing housing and transportation programs that require continued funding to avoid service disruptions before the next funding cycle. These programs have been previously approved by your board and are delivering important benefits to North Lake Tahoe community. Lease to Locals, which supports conversion of properties into long-term rental housing, Workforce Housing Preservation Program, which provides initiatives for local workers to purchase homes in exchange for deed restrictions that preserve workforce housing, TAR Connect Microtransit, as well as the Winter and Events Park and Ride Program. These programs were reviewed by the TOT committee and recommended for approval by the NTCA Board of Directors on May 6th. The T&T TMA Winter and Events Park and Ride Program is completing the contracting process and will return to your board on June 30th for consideration. The three before you today are a total of $1,369,992, and I'll read the actions now into the record. Approve 500,000 in transit occupancy tax, TOT funding, and interdepartmental memo for one Placer-led project H5B, lease to locals upon county council and risk management approval. Approve 869,992 in TOT funding and interdepartmental memo for one placer-led project. T5B, TART connect expanded services hours upon county council and risk management approval, and approve an extension to the interdepartmental memo for one placer county-led project, workforce housing preservation program upon County Council and risk management approval and determine the requested actions are each not projects under California Environmental Quality Act guideline section 15378 thank you thank you any questions or comments from board members is there anyone here in the chambers who would like to comment on this item and anyone online

All right, I'll bring it back to the board.

This was your first time presenting, right?

Yes. I did like a co-presentation with Lindsay and Obed. Yeah, great job. Great job.

I would be happy to move approval. I'll second.

Moved by Gustafson, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. None opposed and no abstentions. And in a miraculous turn of events, we have four minutes until our 9.30 timed item. So just enjoy yourself. Stand up and stretch for a second if you'd like. Yeah. All right, sorry to mess up the vibe in here, but we're going to get started again and we're going to go to our 9.30 timed item, public hearing and consideration of the fiscal year 26-27 recommended budget.

OK. Good morning, Board of Supervisors. I'm Daniel Vick, your county budget and fiscal officer. Here today again with Barbara McAllister, your assistant county budget and fiscal officer for the public hearing of the fiscal year 26-27 recommended budget with related actions. I wanted to take a quick moment to thank our departments, the CEO budget team and your board for your input on this nearly year long effort it takes to review the recommended budget with you today. So thank you for that. And before we get started for the day, we'll take a quick look at the objectives for today's presentation. Okay, so here are the objectives for the day. Our team will introduce the recommended budget for fiscal year 26-27 with related fiscal information, and we'll conduct the public hearing on the recommended budget. After review of the information with your board and the public, we plan to take actions to move towards budget adoption with formal adoption of the budget taking place at a board meeting scheduled for June 30th. And taking a quick look once again at the budget development process timeline, we are now at the end of our development process calendar with the public hearing of the recommended budget being held today, June 9th. During the year our team has been in front of your board several times beginning with the budget workshop on December 11th. At the workshop we highlighted the overall financial condition of the county as it pertains to the budget, set general objectives for the development of the fiscal year 26-27 budget, and received preliminary feedback from your board. In March, our team returned to your board with the mid-year fiscal update. That presentation introduced updated financial projections for significant revenues, expenditures, and major funds within the county, and updated your board on the fiscal year 26-27 budget development status. During the budget presentations held at the end of April, our departments presented their requested budgets and updated the board on some of their accomplishments, emerging issues, and departmental priorities, all of which may impact the current and future budget submissions. Following those previous board meetings, our team has worked to incorporate feedback received while considering the resources available to the county in order to deliver a balanced budget to your board today at this public hearing. And finally, once again, following the public hearing today, we'll plan on formally adopting the budget in a public meeting held on June 30th, as all goes to plan. And these are the budget priorities that we presented to your board beginning with the budget workshop. I'll cover the budget information in more detail. But in the meantime, I am happy to report that the fiscal year 26-27 budget is balanced with service levels maintained throughout the county. The budget includes 40 new funded position allocations that were reviewed and approved by your board periodically throughout the fiscal year against available resources, 15 positions of which directly support public safety fund departments. The budget also includes $16.8 million in capital equipment replacements with $2 million in equipment reserves held in the general fund for future equipment replacements. Additionally, I'll note that many of the other funds in the county have established equipment replacement reserves to replace aging equipment as it reaches its end of its useful life. $8.4 million of funding is included in the budget for major facility maintenance projects. And an estimated $43.8 million in capital reserves are included in this budget for future capital facility projects consistent with the capital facility financing plans previously discussed with your board. Additionally, the budget includes $146.5 million of road fund expenditures for new road and bridge projects and overlays and maintenance on existing county roadways. So in short, we believe the budget achieves the priorities shown here on this slide. Overall, this slide's been shown many times before, but the budget being presented to your board today considers the need to balance ongoing operation expenses of the county while utilizing long-term forecasting to plan for and reserving funding for long-term obligations, such as pension and OPEB benefits and capital facility projects. And with that, I'll get into some of the details for the fiscal year 26-27 recommended budget. This slide shows the fiscal year 26-27 recommended budget compared to the fiscal year 25-26 adopted budget by fund for county operating funds. For fiscal year 26-27, the governmental fund budgets are recommended at $1,524,773,161. This is an increase of about $158 million from the prior year adopted budget. This increase is attributable to roughly $152 million increase in county operating funds and a $6 million net increase in planned capital project fund expenditures, capital funds expenditures mostly in the road fund. And now to go through some of the changes in the budget for some of the more significant funds, beginning first at the top with the general fund. For the general fund, total general fund expenditures and uses budget is recommended at about $530 million. This is an increase of about $52 million from the prior year adopted budget. The increase in the general fund is primarily attributable to a $10.5 million increase in salaries and benefits and a $41 million increase in transfers to other funds. $14.6 million of which are increased contributions to the Public Safety Fund to sustain public safety operations in the Sheriff's Office, District Attorney's Office, and Probation Departments, and a net increase of $25.6 million in contribution to capital facilities and infrastructure projects, primarily for the general fund contribution to the Placer Parkway Project and the Garden Bar Road Repair Project. Additionally, the $1 million minimum contribution to the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District is now included in the general fund budget. For the Public Safety Fund, Public Safety Fund expenditures and uses are recommended at about $333.2 million, an increase of about $47 million from the prior year adopted budget. The increase there is primarily due to a $10.6 million increase to salaries and benefits, a $6.5 million increase in services and supplies, which includes the $2.2 million increase for the Axon body-worn camera contract. and a $27 million increase in Intrafund transfers. And that increase will be mostly due to the Correctional Services Internal Service Fund closing and moving its operations into the Public Safety Fund. So that $27 million will not be new costs, just a change in how things are accounted for. For the HHS fund, HHS fund expenditures and uses are recommended at about $367 million. That's an increase of $42 million from the prior year adopted budget. The increase in HHS is primarily due to a $9.2 million increase to salaries and benefits. and a $28.3 million increase to services and supplies, which includes $7 million for the Homekey Plus project and $3.5 million for the homeless shelter contracts that transferred into HHS's fund in the prior year. The library fund expenditures and uses are budgeted at $11.4 million. The budgeted decrease shown here is due to a reduction in the estimated contributions to reserves at year end, which is partially offset by an overall budgeted increase to salaries and benefits. For the fire fund, expenditures and uses are budgeted at about $11.2 million. The year over year increase here is primarily due to a $378,000 increase in services and supplies due to the renewal of the Cal Fire contract and the increases there. And a $485,000 increase in estimated reserve contributions. And then the other funds line shown here captures the 14 other smaller operating funds of the county and are collectively budgeted at $83.7 million for fiscal year 26-27, which is a $10.5 million increase year over year. The details for all of those funds have been posted online and on file for the public to view. But for now, I'll discuss some of the notable increases in other funds, which include nearly $5.4 million increase in expenditures and uses in the community revitalization fund. That's primarily due to a $4 million of included expenditures for the Eastern Placer County Launchpad Program. That program offers grants to eligible properties to support the creation of workforce housing in Eastern Placer and is primarily funded by transient occupancy tax dollars. Also in the other funds category, in the Placer County Housing Authority Fund, there's a $1.7 million increase in expenditures and uses, primarily due to an increase in disbursements for housing vouchers, previously known as Section 8. And that program is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Recommended expenditures and uses budgeted for county proprietary funds are recommended at $207 million, which is a net decrease of about $20.5 million year over year. Proprietary funds include internal service funds that provide business-like services to other county departments, like building maintenance, fleet, and IT, and includes enterprise funds that provide business-like services to the public, like Blosser County Transit. The net decrease in proprietary funds shown here is, again, primarily due to the correctional services internal service fund operations being transferred into the public safety fund. Special district and county service area budgets are recommended at $56.5 million, which is an increase of about $1.1 million year over year. Okay, so taking a look at budgeted revenues and sources for county operating budgets for fiscal year 26-27, total revenues and sources are about $1.5 billion. The largest revenue category is now other financing sources. In the fiscal year 26-27 budget, there was an accounting change for some of HHS's revenues. Realignment revenues and other behavioral health sources were classified as intergovernmental revenues in the prior year. Those sources collectively are about $114 million in the fiscal year 26-27 budget and are now reported in other financing sources. The majority of the remaining balance in that category will be transfers in from other funds, primarily general fund transfers to other operating funds in the county. So for example, when the public safety fund receives a general fund contribution, it's recognized as another financing source. Otherwise, taxes and intergovernmental revenues are the two other largest revenue sources of the county. Together, they now make up about 49% of our budgeted sources. For fiscal year 26-27, intergovernmental revenues are estimated at $378.4 million, and local taxes are estimated at $372.6 million. For intergovernmental revenues, just as a note, 94% of the intergovernmental revenues received at the county are in the Health and Human Services Department, Public Safety Departments, and in the Public Works Departments for road and bridge projects. Charges for services are budgeted at $93.2 million and include things like fees for services provided by departments, like planning and engineering services, audit fees, and tax collection fees. License permits and franchises are budgeted at $21.4 million and include things like construction permits, business licenses, environmental health licenses like food and body art, et cetera. And then lastly, other revenues shown here are budgeted at $58.3 million, and that consists mostly of cost allocation revenues earned by central service departments and interest income received in county funds. The budget assumes $120.7 million in fund balance and use of reserves as a source for fiscal year 26-27. A majority of the fund balance and reserves used in the budget is for capital projects spanning multiple fiscal years in the Capital Fund, Road Fund, and Tahoe Economic and Community Enhancement Funds. And this is a quick look at the year-over-year differences in some of the larger revenue categories for county operating funds. As discussed, intergovernmental revenues are down about $85 million year-over-year. Again, that's mainly due to about $114 million in HHS revenues being reclassified from intergovernmental revenues to other financing sources in fiscal year 26-27. This accounting change is offset by a net increase of $27 million in other HHS intergovernmental revenue sources for programs like Medi-Cal mental health and substance abuse services. And public safety sales tax receipts are up about $2.4 million year over year in the fiscal year 26-27 budget. Local taxes in total are up about $16.3 million year over year. This includes a budgeted increase of about $10.4 million in estimated secured and unsecured property taxes. The fiscal year 26-27 budget again assumes 5% growth in secured and unsecured property taxes for a total of $206.9 million of secured and unsecured property taxes included in the budget. There is a $1.3 million increase in estimated sales tax collected with total sales taxes budgeted for fiscal year 26-27 at $37.2 million. And with transient occupancy taxes being flat held year over year at $27.9 million. For other financing sources, this category is up $150 million year over year. Again, a majority of that increase in other financing sources is due to the reclassification of HHS intergovernmental revenues. Additionally, in fiscal year 26-27, general fund transfers to the public safety fund increased by $14.6 million. which would be recognized as a source in the Public Safety Fund, and general fund transfers to facilities and infrastructure projects had, again, a net increase of $25.6 million, which will be, again, for the Placer Parkway project and the Garden Bar Road repair project. Lastly, for charges for services, that has increased by about $28 million in the fiscal year 27 budget. There are many slight adjustments to fees across the county, but a majority of this variance is in the road fund for fiscal year 26-27. In the road fund, $24 million is recognized as a charge for services for expected contributions from the Placer County Water Agency and the United Auburn Indian Community towards the Placer Parkway project. now moving on to expenditures and uses for county operating funds for fiscal year 26-27 total expenditures and use and uses in the county operating funds total 1.5 billion dollars for a balanced budget salaries and benefits and services and supplies are the two largest cost categories of the county combined they make up of about 65 percent of operating budgeted uses for fiscal year 26-27 recommended expenditures for salaries and benefits and services and supplies are 504.7 million dollars and 491.7 million dollars respectively As a note, services and supplies does include professional service contracts and also includes expenditures for capital and road fund projects. Thus, that category can swing up and down pretty significantly year over year depending on the timing of projects in any given year. Transfers and other financing uses are budgeted at $344.5 million and primarily includes contributions to other funds, which will mostly be the general fund transfers out to other operating funds. Other charges are estimated at $116.2 million and include primarily cost allocations from central services departments to other departments, also known as A87 costs, which are budgeted at $40.6 million, and support and care of person expenditures in HHS at $72 million. Capital asset expenditures included in the operating budget are about $5 million with the remaining balance shown here as contingencies being $55.7 million in transfers to reserve balances and the $7 million appropriation for contingency expenditure included in the budget. And this is a quick look at the year-over-year differences in some of the larger expense categories for county operating funds. For salaries and benefits, overall salaries and benefits in the county operating funds are up $31.4 million year-over-year. That's a 6.6% increase in county operating funds. And we'll get into more about the changes in salaries and benefits later in this presentation. For services and supplies, those are up about $42.3 million, or about 9.4% year-over-year. $17.9 million is for the net increase in road, bridge, and overlay project expenditures in the Road Fund. And there is a $22 million increase in expenses in the Adult Systems of Care Cost Center and HHS. Again, the largest changes there include the $7 million in Homekey plus rehab and construction costs for that project, and the $3.5 million for the homeless shelter contracts that were transferred from the general fund to HHS in the prior year. There's also a $2.5 million increase in 24-hour care contracts in HHS.

Madam Chair, I'd like to ask a question, if that's OK. Daniel, looking at salaries and benefits, we're up 6.6%. If you go back two slides, our local taxes are only up just under 5%. I know we're assuming a 5%, but we're at 4.7%, I think, if I calculate that correctly. And that's an ongoing concern that I think the board has to keep our eye very closely on, because we approve and negotiate with all the various labor groups those are important salaries to give but as we look at the cumulative impact if we don't keep right now we're at a deficit between local new local revenues and new salaries and benefits so I just I caution us that that is a concern I have as we move forward not that not that we need to do anything right now like our fellow counties around us are having to do, but that if we don't keep a close eye on that and think about that as we negotiate with our employee groups and consider our salaries, that could end up upside down for us very quickly. So I just want to make that point when you're on these slides. Thank you.

Absolutely. Thanks for the comments. Okay, I think I'm on other, no, it's okay. I think I'm on other financing uses. So transfers and other financing uses are roughly $67 million higher in fiscal year 26-27. A significant majority of those expenditures, again, in this category are transfers of funds from one fund to another, primarily general fund contributions to other funds. Again, there's that $14.6 million increase to the Public Safety Fund, the $25.6 million increase to major facility and infrastructure projects in the county for the Placer Parkway Project and Garden Bar Road Repair Project. With the remaining balance of this increase being due to the Correctional Service, Internal Service Fund again moving in to the Public Safety Fund for fiscal year 26-27. Oh, I'm sorry. Let's get to the right transfers and other financing uses slide. Lastly, the other charges category has increased by about $7 million in the fiscal year 26-27 budget. $4.6 million of the increase in this category is related to cost allocation charges from central service departments, again, also known as A87 charges. Of the $1.5 billion expenditures in use budget, $987 million, or about 65% of the budget, is for actual operating expenditures, which is virtually identical to the prior year adopted budget. 192.8 million, or 12.6%, is for capital expenses like facility projects, road overlay and bridge projects, and equipment purchases, with the remaining 22.6% at $344.5 million of the budget being transfers and other uses, which is, again, mostly transfers between funds. We'd like to point this out because these transfers get recognized as an expenditure by the fund that transfers the money out, and then subsequently as an operating expenditure in the fund that uses that money in their operations, so it creates a doubling effect in the budget. Of the $192.8 million in expenditures for capital, 146.5 million, or about 76%, are for road, bridge, and overlay projects. About 41.3 million, or 21%, are for capital facilities and maintenance projects, with the remaining $5 million, again, going towards equipment purchases and replacements. And then of the roughly $41.3 million of budgeted capital fund expenditures, this is a short list of some of the larger, more notable projects included in the capital fund. A few of the projects I'd like to highlight here include about $1.9 million budgeted for the Dry Creek Community Park Phase III improvements project. That project constructs additional parking with equestrian access, covered playgrounds, exercise equipment, a baseball field, and a soccer field at the Dry Creek Community Park on Willega Road in West Placer. And that project is expected to be completed by fiscal year 28-29 and is funded by park dedication fees. New for fiscal year 2627 is the roughly $2.6 million for the solar system project at the Placer County Government Center. That includes the replacement of the solar field for the juvenile detention facility, which was decommissioned due to a solar panel recall. And that system will be up-sized to also include the Animal Services Building's electrical load and is fully funded by General Fund Capital Reserves. The remaining costs for the Auburn Library project are included in the budget. The renovation for that space is complete and the building is expected to be open in August. $8.4 million is budgeted for countywide maintenance projects on county facilities. And lastly, $6.6 million is budgeted for the Bill Santucci Justice Center Building B tenant improvement project. That project is for the expansion of the district attorney's existing district attorney into existing space, vacant space at Building B. and includes modifying their high density file storage space into a conference room space, adding a ballistic wall and transaction window in the lobby, and creates new offices in the old multidisciplinary interview center space. Now on to the road fund. This is a short list of some of the notable projects included in the $146.5 million of expenditures and uses budgeted in the road fund. Some of the projects I'd like to highlight here include about $5 million in expenditures budgeted for the garden bar road repair project. The existing culvert on Garden Bar Road was damaged and removed during the fiscal year 23-24 winter storm season. This project restores the road and constructs a new bridge at the project. As a reminder, at the budget workshop, your board prioritized $4.5 million towards the completion of this project, and the project is expected to be completed in fiscal year 27-28. Just over $46 million of expenditures are estimated for the Placer Parkway project in fiscal year 26-27. That project, again, constructs a regional expressway between State Route 65 and Foothills Boulevard North and is expected to be completed by fiscal year 28-29. Also included is $28.5 million in budgeted expenditures for the Yankee Jim's Bridge Replacement Project. That project, which was highlighted earlier today, constructs a new bridge that replaces the existing Yankee Jim's Road Bridge and provides necessary access over the North Fork American River for emergency services and fire personnel to federal, state, and private lands. The Watt Avenue and Dry Creek Bridge Project replaces an existing bridge constructed in 1940 that is now obsolete. $12.5 million of expenditures are budgeted for that project in fiscal year 26-27. And lastly, I'll highlight a few projects in East Placer. The Tahoe City Mobility Improvements Project includes road safety audit improvements, including pedestrian and traffic controls at Grove Street, sidewalk bull bouts, and other associated mobility improvements in Tahoe City. It also creates a signal at the intersection of Highway 28 and Grove Street in Tahoe City. And the North Tahoe Shared Use Trail Project is budgeted at about $2.2 million for fiscal year 26-27. Segment 1 of this project constructs 2.5 miles of paved trail connecting the North Tahoe Regional Park and Tahoe Vista to the community of Carnelian Bay. That project enhances the safety of bicyclists, improves traffic flow on State Route 28, and connects residential neighborhoods to commercial, tourism, and recreational facilities. And now on to positions in the county. For fiscal year 26-27, funded allocations are recommended at 2,978 positions countywide. This is a net increase of 40 funded allocations year over year. These net position ads have been discussed in detail with the quarterly approval of the allocation ordinance updates and at the department budget presentations, all with the exception of six funded positions that have been added to the fiscal year 26-27 budget following your approval of the quarter two allocation ordinance. Those positions include two positions in the auditor controller's office, including an accounting assistant that will process warrants and maintain reports for tax and financial organizations like CalPERS, and a payroll technician that will support payroll processing, including the processing of special district payroll. There are two management analyst positions added to the CEO's office. Those positions will support community and county engagement activities on county-led projects and initiatives in the East Placer region. And lastly, HHS is adding two client service counselor positions to support caseloads and in-home support services. I will also know that the position changes here for fiscal year 2627 include the creation of the newly formed General Services Department. That department consists of 115 funded allocations, most of which have been transferred from the CEO's office, previously the Facilities Department and the Department of Public Works. And this chart is a look at funded allocations for fiscal year 26-27 in the past four budget cycles. Over the past five budget cycles, the count of funded positions in the county have increased from 2,795 positions in fiscal year 22-23 to 2,978 positions recommended for the fiscal year 26-27 budget. And just as a note, the growth in the funded count of positions for fiscal year 26-27 is about 1.36%.

Daniel, could I ask really quick on the per capita? I know that before you've had a slide showing the per capita. Is it still... What's the percentage compared to last year? It's still about the same, right?

Yeah. So we did update that in advance of this presentation, but made the choice that it's probably a better fit for the budget workshop, which we previously showed it there. But roughly there's a little over six county employees per 1,000 residents in the county. If you looked at the minute details of that ratio, it's actually been going down slightly in the past few budget cycles, but staying relatively consistent with population growth for the past several years.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

OK. This chart shows salary and benefit expenditures comparing the fiscal year adopted budget to the fiscal year 26-27 recommended budget by fund for county operating funds. In total, salaries and benefits are recommended at $504.7 million again for fiscal year 26-27, which is an increase of $31.4 million or 6.6% year over year. And then going from left to right in this graph, the Public Safety Fund represents the largest share of salaries and benefits for the county operating funds. Public Safety Fund salaries and benefits are recommended at $210.3 million for fiscal year 26-27, which is a $10.6 million increase or 5.3% increase over the prior year. HHS salaries and benefits are recommended at $134.5 million. which is an increase of about $9.2 million, or 7.3%. And for the general fund, salaries and benefits are recommended at $127.8 million for fiscal year 26-27, which is about $10.5 million, or 9% growth year over year. The road fund is up about $700,000 year over year, and the library fund is up about $500,000 year over year, with the remaining operating funds within the county staying relatively flat. Overall, wages alone in county operating funds have increased by $12.8 million, which is about 4.6% year over year. Pension expenses have increased by $8.6 million. And contributions to the county's OPEB plan have increased by $4.5 million in the fiscal year 26-27 budget. And just as a note, total pension contributions required for CalPERS in the fiscal year 26-27 budget per the actuary reports is $114.2 million. And then our actuarially determined contribution towards the OPEB plan is $7.5 million in required contributions for fiscal year 26-27. And this is kind of switching gears a little bit. This is a look at some of the county's post-employment obligations. Per the county's last published annual comprehensive financial report as of June 30, 2025, the OPEB plan was 110.84% funded. Total assets in the plan were about $509 million and total liabilities were about $459 million for a net OPEB asset of $49.7 million. For pensions, the safety plan was 66% funded and the miscellaneous plan was 67.9% funded. Total assets accumulated for both pension plans total about $1.58 billion with total liabilities totaling about $2.35 billion. Again, the funded status for all of these plans is highly sensitive to investment returns. In years that actual returns beat expected returns, the funded status of these plans could fluctuate greatly. And as stated at the budget workshop, for the past two fiscal years, CalPERS has exceeded its expected return on pension assets. Thus, it's likely that with the upcoming actuarial valuations for the period ending June 30th, 2026, the funded status of both pension plans will be near or above 70%. The county, moving on to this slide here, the county has been accumulating assets in separate trust funds held with public agency retirement services, also known as PARs, to pay for post-employment retirement obligations. For pensions, the county maintains a Section 115 trust fund. That fund is in addition to the contributions made directly to CalPERS. As of March 31st, 2026, the balance in that fund was $102.1 million, and those funds are available for use to pay for pension obligations in periods of peak volatility where our pension contributions would go up drastically in a budget cycle. For our OPEB plans, OPEB assets held in trust were $586.9 million as of March 31st, 2026. And those funds, again, are used to pay for retiree health and dental premiums. Total debt service budgeted in the county's debt fund is $6.9 million for fiscal year 26-27. For debt service, the county's 2014 revenue bonds financed the Finance and Administration Center located on the Placer County Government Center campus and the Bill Santucci Justice Center. The 2022 revenue bonds were issued to finance the construction of the new Health and Human Services Center. And for the 2022 revenue bonds, the general fund makes the full contribution of $4.4 million. And I'll also note that if you notice on the slide, we are in the final two years of payment on the 2014 revenue bonds, and those will be paid off in fiscal year 27-28. And now diving a little deeper into the general fund's finances and budget, a forecast of the general fund was shown at the mid-year update and department budget presentations. This forecast has been updated with the quarter three projections. And as stated in general at those public meetings, the general fund is projected to be fiscally stable and to continue to carry sufficient fund balances to meet all of the board's budget policies. once again in these projections you'll note that expenditures are projected to exceed revenues in fiscal year 26-27 and fiscal year 27-28 this is due to large planned contributions to major capital projects expected contributions to capital projects for those two years is around 63 million dollars in this model the largest project being the placer parkway project Those contributions are expected to draw down significantly on our capital reserve balances maintained in the general fund over the next few years. This chart shows a year-over-year comparison of budgeted general fund expenditures by category. For fiscal year 26-27, general fund expenditures are recommended at $505.5 million. In the blue section of this chart, the largest expense in the general fund remains the transfer of general funds to other operating funds at $290.1 million, which again is a year-over-year increase of $42 million. General fund transfers again to the public safety fund increased by the $14.6 million. And then again, general fund transfers to the facilities and infrastructure projects previously discussed increased by $25.6 million. As previously stated, total salaries and benefits shown here in orange are recommended at $127.8 million for fiscal year 26-27, which is, again, an increase of $10.5 million over the prior year. And services and supplies shown here in green have decreased slightly year over year. There are many adjustments in services and supplies across general fund cost centers, but the largest variances include a $2.7 million reduction in the Placer County Conservation Program expenses for the one-time purchase of Markham wetland mitigation credits in fiscal year 25-26. And that reduction is partially offset by a $1.9 million increase in expected expenses for indigent defense contracts. And then here is a year-over-year comparison of some of the notable general fund transfers to other funds within the county. Overall, the fiscal year budget largely assumes flat general fund transfers to other funds, with the only exceptions being the contribution to the public safety fund and general fund contributions to facilities and infrastructure projects, as previously discussed. The contributions, again, to those facility and infrastructure projects are primarily funded by general fund capital reserve balances. The fiscal year 27 budget includes an estimated $254 million in fund balance designated to general reserves. This chart shows a breakout of expected general fund reserve balances, beginning first with the blue slice on the right of the pie chart. The $99.9 million in the general reserve is the contingency reserve for general fund and public safety fund expenditures combined. As a reminder, the budget policy was updated on May 27th of 2025, increasing the target for this reserve from 10% to 16.6% of budgeted expenditures. And for fiscal year 26-27, the target for this reserve was calculated at $100.5 million. So this reserve is virtually fully funded in the budget. In the orange slice of this pie chart, $43.8 million is reserved for future capital and infrastructure projects. And in the green slice of the pie chart, an estimated $102.1 million is held in reserve for the PARS pension trust fund previously discussed. This this balance again was as of March 31st and that balance will be adjusted at year-end following the closing balance as of June 30th 2026 And then finally, looking at the top of the pie chart, $2,000 is reserved for equipment purchases. That's primarily designated for elections equipment replacements planned in future periods. And $5.8 million has been designated to reserves for fire mitigation efforts. That balance was funded with the PG&E mosquito fire settlement dollars. The recommended budget for capital asset purchases is $16.8 million. This figure on this slide includes operating funds, proprietary funds, and county service area funds. So it's the total budgeted figure. Previously, we discussed $5 million exclusively for county operating funds. The detail of these capital asset purchases recommended in this budget are provided as attachment E of the staff report. There are 12 internal service funds and six enterprise funds included in the fiscal year 26-27 budget. For fiscal year 26-27, proprietary fund budgets are recommended at about $207 million. Again, this is a decrease of $20.5 million from the prior year and primarily due to that correctional services internal service fund operations moving into the public safety fund. Special district and county service area budgets are recommended at $56.5 million. This is an increase of $1.1 million over the prior year. There are 184 special district and county service area budgets with lots of changes. But a few of the notable changes include a $4 million reduction in expenditures in the Sunset Whitney Sewer County service area. that was for the placer one sunset sewer infrastructure project to design and construct backbone sewer systems to the two points of connection at the existing south placer wastewater authority and was funded with arpa dollars That reduction is primarily offset by the public services community facility districts for the Placer Ranch Pacific plan area. Those CFD dollars help support public services like sheriff and law enforcement services, fire protection and suppression services, emergency services and maintenance, repair and replacement of parks, trails and open space. And with that, here are the requested actions for today. We request to conduct a public hearing to consider the fiscal year 2026-27 recommended budget, to pass a motion of intent to adopt the fiscal year 2026-27 recommended budget, including recommended budgets for county operating funds for a total of $1,524,773,161, as included in attachment B, and recommended budgets for county proprietary funds for a total of $206,988,515, is also included in attachment B. and pass a motion of intent to adopt the fiscal year 2026-27 recommended budget for lighting districts, lighting and landscape districts, benefit assessment districts, county service area zones, permanent road divisions, and sewer maintenance districts governed by the Board of Supervisors in the amount of $56,535,462, as included in attachment C. And introduce an ordinance approving the fiscal year 2026-27 uncodified allocation of positions to departments, as included in attachment D, and waive oral reading. And approve the purchase of capital assets, as included in attachment E, and delegate authority to the purchasing agent to execute related purchase orders, including those in excess of $100,000. And with that, that concludes our presentation. And we'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. I don't think you even stumbled over your words one time during that 45 minutes.

I think I stumbled over my words quite a bit.

All right. I will go ahead and open the public hearing and first start with the board. Are there questions or comments at this time from board members? Supervisor DiMattei?

I'll wait till after.

OK. Supervisor Gustafson?

I just wanted to double check on the legacy contribution, the Placer legacy contribution. Where is that in the budget? Because it isn't called out. It was on that slide. Oh, was it? I didn't see it. Sorry. Don't worry if it's in there. That's all I'm double checking on.

The budget does include $1.5 million in contribution to the open space fund.

OK. Sorry I missed it. Thank you. 24. Thank you.

All right. I will open it up to the public at this time. Does anyone here in the chambers have questions or comments on this item?

Good morning, Chair Landon, members of the board. My name is Loren Clark. I reside here in Auburn. I'm here today to express my support for a general fund contribution into the Open Space Fund. I'm here as a resident of the county, but also as a board member of Placer Land Trust. A general fund supplement which provides $2 million in the open space fund will provide a reasonable fund balance for conservation actions that may occur throughout the year. This contribution represents slightly more than 0.0001% of the county budget, yet this modest amount has a multi-year track record of being successfully leveraged and matched with other funding programs throughout the state. There are several reasons why this ongoing commitment is important. The first is your leadership. Placer County has taken a leadership role and been a reliable political and funding partner for 26 years now. Public-private partnerships in particular have contributed a lot to the success of conservation in our region and those partnerships rely upon your ongoing leadership. To step back from those partnerships not only has the potential to impact your NGO partners, but also the 25-year-old relationship you have established with state and federal agencies. If the county doesn't take the lead, also other local governments and NGO will pursue those funds for their own programs. They're very competitive. The second is general plan implementation. Placer Legacy was specifically prepared to comply with state general plan requirements for open space, conservation, safety, and environmental justice. Several general plan implementation programs require funding support from the general fund and Placer Legacy is one of those programs. The third, funding reliability. Reliable and consistent funding is the key to successful implementation. You simply don't know what is possible when you don't have routine funding to fall back upon. You react versus plan. While the funding that is in place does not provide the same benefits to say a dedicated sales tax, the open space fund and the PCCP fees together have made Placer County a reliable and predictable partner. The fourth is the connection between Placer Legacy and the PCCP. Placer Legacy was specifically prepared as a non-regulatory program that would protect open space and agricultural resources. Placer Legacy also fight the need for a regulatory program to address impacts to sensitive species in their habitat. That program became the PCCP. It was never intended to replace Placer Legacy. On the contrary, it is one of many conservation initiatives listed in the Placer Legacy implementation report. They work in concert together. Also, the PCCP's geographic extent is limited to portions of western Placer County. In contrast, Placer Legacy was specifically developed to be countywide in scope. The PCCP was not prepared also to address legacy objectives including scenic, cultural, safety, urban separators, buffers, and recreation. In conclusion, Placer County developed an award-winning program, supported it, and built a reputation as a partner that could deliver projects.

That's not me, by the way.

I can see the machine. I'm close. Placer County has demonstrated again and again what is possible with a modest general fund commitment. As a result, all of those who make Placer County their home or their place of work or just come to our community to visit have benefited from the Open Space Fund and will continue to benefit from the conservation efforts supported by that fund for decades to come. Thank you for your ongoing support, and happy 26th anniversary to Plaster Legacy, which was adopted here in June of 2000.

Thank you.

And when I timed myself at home, I was three minutes late. Thank you.

Thank you.

We need a minute. Oh, one second, Beth. I think we're just, we don't want to beep you, so. I mean, you're welcome to come forward. I just don't want you to start until we maybe figure out what's going on.

It says zero.

Good morning. Go ahead.

I am Beth Gonzalez from Placer People of Faith Together. I have heard the information about the monetary contributions made to housing needs of the residents of Placer County. We acknowledge, appreciate that, and need that. What is missing is a dedicated revenue stream to build housing to create living spaces for the 1,300 homes that need to be built. PPOFT and our partners suggests that the Placer Board of Supervisors make a plan, have a plan, that includes financing of the building of the needed homes. There's still not a plan, or I haven't seen the plan. The leading cause of homelessness is a lack of housing. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Board of Supervisors. My name is Elisa Herrera, and I am the founding executive director of the Latino Leadership Council, which is a nonprofit here in Placer County. Over the past 19 years, we've helped thousands of families who work in a variety of industries providing essential services for our families. yet they cannot afford to live in Placer County. I am also the parent of three adult children who attended Sierra College, worked in Placer County businesses, and lived here for several years until housing costs pushed them out to other counties. Increased rent combined with one $700 utility bill in the peak of summer, skyrocketing food and gas costs all contributed to one child and her roommate being evicted from an Auburn apartment last year. Our young people struggle daily with these costs. An hourly rate of $19.50 per hour is not enough, and when their employers do not offer health care or any benefits, they're just one illness or injury away from homelessness. We need housing for employees in health care, retail, restaurant services, education, and child care. We need them living here and contributing to our communities. We are happy to announce that the Latino Leadership Council has just completed a feasibility study to form a Community Development Corporation, or CDC, whose focus will be on affordable housing, workforce, and business development. This is our way to make a positive economic and housing inventory contribution toward the challenges the entire community faces today. The work of our CDC will take time. And we need the county to do its part to meet its target of 1,300 units by allocating $10 to $15 million per year from the general fund set aside for affordable housing gaps. Ignore this need, and more workers leave our county. We cannot afford to lose our future workforce, which is such an important asset to our communities. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. You're welcome to kind of come up a little further if you want so you're not crammed against the back wall.

Good morning. Gary McDonald, Executive Director of Standa Placer. I want to first say congratulations to the Board of Supervisors that were reelected. And then secondly, I'd like to compliment staff. I attended the two-day budgeting process, and I thought it was quite organized. It was very transparent, and it was consistent amongst the different departments. And I was very impressed by the budgeting department and the people that presented to the supervisors and the people that were attending. Due to insufficient funding, coupled with a substantial increase in demand for our domestic violence services, up to 70% of Stand Up Placer staff are paying more than 30% of their income for rent to live in Placer County. Known as rent burden, it often causes families to cut back on essential needs which can lead to additional stress and additional violence. Due to a lack of affordable housing in Placer County, approximately 60% of the people who stay at our safe house to escape violence eventually return to the abuser because they can afford to pay rent in Placer County. In doing so, they're jeopardizing their own safety and they're jeopardizing the safety of their children. One in seven women that are homeless state that domestic violence is the reason that they're homeless in California. Approximately 100,000 people in 2024 were homeless, 25,000 of them were children, 75,000 of them were women that were homeless because of domestic violence. I believe that there's no one mechanism currently under consideration that can address the affordable housing need. If we are to be successful, you must make a multi-pronged approach to maximize revenues for urban housing. And I won't go over how to do that because you already know how to do that. Thank you so very much.

Thank you, Gary.

Good morning Madam Chair and Board. My name is Christina Alvarez, and I am a labor organizer with Sembrando Semillas Day Labor Worker Center. here in the Sacramento Yellow and Placer Valley. For the last ten years, I have been working with service workers of both union, non-union, and some a combination of both, part-time, full-time jobs. We represent day laborers and service workers in this greater valley, and we are allies with SAC EJC, Sacramento Environmental Justice Coalition. In a time when workers and families are forced to resort and move in with others or move into their own car, we are here to remind you of your commitment to get ahead of this and ask that you not just secure the necessary funding, but secure your commitment for future funding in the entire budget process to build this minimum 1,300 units excuse me, in the affordable housing plan. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your support and partnership.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Germán Barahona. I am the executive director of the Sacramento Environmental Justice Coalition. We're part of an umbrella organization called Common Ground, which ranges from Solano County, Placer Yolo, Sacramento. We are looking at all kinds of interesting environmental facts that we're hopefully will be circling back to you at some point. But we're here today to support your budget process and also request that you don't forget those 1300 units that you committed to build. We're also very happy and good partners of the Latino Leadership Council and their Community Development Corporation project because I think they're going to make a significant contribution to building the kinds of units that will help your RHNA requirements, not just build but even acquire. We're going to focus a lot on single-family homes and scatter sites. Our hope is, of course, that we coordinate with your office and the county manager. to be able to figure out some solutions that make sense for our most vulnerable families that provide incredible services in the workforce community. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Joanne Hilton from Lincoln, a 20-year resident. And I'm here to talk about affordable housing as well. A $1.5 billion budget, very interesting. I'd love to see a portion of that devoted to affordable housing. A start would be 1.5 million for a cleanup of the government center area, which is already approved and under contract with the EAH. Couldn't we find 1.5 million to do that and start some of the affordable housing? As a result of our research, we've noticed that there's a number of ways to help affordable housing that won't cost money. Things like parking requirements that can be reduced, housing overlay zone program which allows you to rezone without all of the procedural bureaucracy. So we're happy to work with you, with Placer Community Foundation. We have a group meeting with both of you and promoting some of these programs that won't cost money. We'd love to see those things happen. Finally, I'll just close by saying that our younger generation is really dependent on your devotion to these goals. Our children and their children truly need your help to secure a place to live. Many are hanging by a thread, cannot pay their mortgage, and they'll be evicted. And that will increase the homelessness problem. Single parents are particularly exposed, as I know from personal experience. I ask you to please help them by approving a comprehensive solution. Thank you.

Thank you.

good morning chair and members of the board veronica blake ceo at placer community foundation thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed budget first i want to acknowledge and thank the board and the county staff for the work that you've done over the past years to address our housing challenges we appreciate the goal that you established to help facilitate the development of 1300 affordable units in the next five years it's ambitious and it's one that recognizes the growing housing needs facing our workforce our families, our seniors, our veterans, our young adults, and frankly, many of the people who keep our local economy running. We know that affordable housing is competing with many other priorities in this budget. Public safety, infrastructure, health and human services, and other essential county functions all deserve your attention. At the same time, housing affordability touches every one of those priorities and should remain a central focus of the county's long-term strategy. As you consider this year's budget, we ask you to consider the following investments. As Joanne mentioned, $1.5 million to clean up the surplus government land so EAH can move forward with their project. Second, an investment in the infrastructure and staffing necessary to establish and administer a revolving loan fund for affordable housing. That local financing tool would help close funding gaps and leverage significant outside investment from state, federal, and other private funding sources. Third, commit a portion of the sunset area EIFD revenues to affordable housing. As new growth generates value, a portion of that value should help our teachers, our healthcare workers, our public employees, our service workers, and our young families continue to live in the communities they serve. Fourth, and when it's legally permissible, when funds are not otherwise committed to multi-year obligations, it would be great to see the department or year-end departmental savings captured into an affordable housing fund. And then finally, as others have mentioned, you know, we'd love to see a long-term commitment of $15 million annually from the general fund. That's actually less than 1% of your budget. And the comments that Lauren made around Placer Legacy It's kind of the same thing. We need to start planning and setting aside money year after year after year to make sure that we're meeting our county goals, both in land conservation and in housing. So we appreciate your leadership and your willingness to develop the challenges that you're facing and look forward to working alongside with you, the development community, and all of our housing partners to make sure that we have residents in homes that they can afford. Thanks so much.

Thank you.

any other comments here in the chambers and anyone online yes chair caller go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments greetings again supervisor Cheyenne Louise Alessi from Christian Valley Park Community Services District and also founder of Christian Valley Residents Coalition I'm going to speak to the elephant in the room you're looking at in this budget to have a formula to just raise all your incomes across the board I would suggest that the highest earners in the county 200,000 on up let's say or even 150,000 on up be restricted it's it's just not fair when you have a county a bedroom community county such as Gloucester County which has a lion's share of retirees fixed incomes and then the workforce on 18 dollars an hour it doesn't pencil out when it comes to the averaging when it comes to medium household income it's a huge skewing especially in District 5 where the county seat is and the highest earners are in the government where the local and private sector are frozen. And what is not just frozen, it is being eaten away by inflation and all of the extraneous things that are happening throughout this nation. So I'm begging you in this budget to consider and based on somewhat what Supervisor Gustafson said, you know you can't just pick a percentage and stick to it year on year you have to look at it and you have to parse out your lowest income county employees give them the boost they need to be able to stay in their jobs and in their houses whereas the highest earners and especially in your legal counsel division can they can wait you know they can wave off a lot of that so then I'm going to also pivot now in terms of the low income housing I don't use the word affordable as much as I can because that's completely been bastardized it's it's ridiculous to even go there so when you're looking at these overall budget items I agree with many of the speakers there needs to be a bucket for pilot programs and cooperatives and to get a community branch trust to actually implement some of these rather than putting it on the backs of developers to try to you know use all of their leverages with low income housing credits and selling those through syndications and yada yada yada I'm sick and tired of it we can fix this through the county we can develop our own way to do cooperatives and use long-term leases on public land so with that I'm going to yield and I appreciate your time thank you thank you any other comments online yes

Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments.

Mr. Whitaker, you're still on mute on our side.

OK, we'll come back. Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments.

Good morning members of the board. My name is Elenia Stevens. I'm the medical director and a family physician at Chapaday Indian Health, where we provide care to many of Placer County's most vulnerable residents. I want to speak with you today about what I see from inside our clinic, because the housing crisis isn't just an abstraction to us. It walks through our doors every day. And over the last five years since COVID, my colleagues and I have watched something deeply troubling unfold. Our elderly patients are becoming homeless. These are people in their 70s and 80s, people with chronic conditions on fixed incomes who held stable housing their whole lives and are now losing it because rents have climbed beyond what they can possibly absorb. When a patient loses their housing, their health unravels with it. Medications go unrefrigerated or unfilled, chronic conditions spiral, and we see them next in the emergency room, not the exam room. And this isn't only our patients, it's the people who care for them as well. Our front desk staff, the first faces patients see are earning $25 an hour. A lot of our staff are commuting in from an hour away. Many who make minimum wage still struggle. And when people delivering healthcare can't afford to live in the community they serve, that's a huge risk to the whole safety net. And this is why I'm asking you to act. The county has set a goal of building 1,300 affordable units over five years, and that is the right goal. But the dedicated housing fee fund brought in roughly 400,000 last year against an estimated funding gap of more than 370 million for the subsidized units alone. That math doesn't add up. I'm asking the board to set aside 10 to 15 million per year from the general fund to help fill these affordable housing gaps. Your staff acknowledged at prior meetings that projects need 10 to 45 million a year let's make sure that the need is actually in the budget housing is health care and I see proof of that every day thank you for your time thank you we have no further commenters okay with that I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board for oh okay okay I'll reopen the public hearing

Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic.

All right. Can you hear me now?

Yes.

All right. Thank you. This is Herb Whitaker. And I'll just take just a couple of brief moments here to comment on a couple of things. I also would like to endorse the idea of having a dedicated fund of approximately $15 million from the general fund to support affordable housing. I think that this is absolutely critical. And I would like to speak in terms of my own personal experience. i was the managing attorney of the local office of legal services of northern california which is the civil legal aid program for placer county providing free legal assistance to low-income residents in the county the entire time that i was there and it's my understanding that it's true today the number one case priority for legal services was housing both in terms of the number of cases and the priority of poor cases. And the reason for this is because housing is absolutely critical because housing is a foundation for every aspect of our society, as we've already heard from some of the other speakers. Everything from family stability to being able to go to work, to be able to have a healthy environment for your family, to be able to provide education for your family. And that's the reason at Legal Services we made this the number one priority. While working there, the vast majority of our cases involved evictions. Many people ended up facing eviction because they couldn't afford the high cost of housing, but also because there was no alternative housing for them to move to. As a result, they stayed in their housing until they were forced out of their housing, sometimes into the streets. Then they had a black mark on their rental records and couldn't find alternative housing. So it was a double edged sword, but they had no alternatives. In addition, we faced situations where people were living in substandard housing, but they had no place else to live. We lived, we experienced situations where people had overcrowded housing or whether they were overpaying for their rent because they couldn't afford anything else. And then ultimately this resulted in homelessness, which of course is ultimately a lot more expensive to try to address than to provide affordable housing. so in sum i would once again urge the board to adopt a dedicated funding of 10 to 15 million dollars per year to address the the goal that the county has set for its 1300 units all right thank you very much thank you i will reclose the public hearing and bring it back to the board for questions and comments

I know there are some questions and comments. Supervisor Gustafson.

I'll start with a couple that came up from the public comment on the cleanup of DeWitt, the $1.5 million. Is that in the facilities budget? Is it something the board needs to consider?

Supervisor Gustafson, I don't believe that's been budgeted in the 26-27 recommended budget.

OK. Based on today's comments and earlier meetings I've had, I'd like to learn more about that and consider that at a future meeting on that issue. Completely agree with those who want to establish some sort of housing funds, but I'm not sure how we get there. I know we have a dedicated ad hoc committee working on it. to study the various options of developing housing funding. If we look at 1,300 units in the next few years, even the 10 to 15 million isn't enough local match for those projects. So it's a significant increase that we're going to need to identify outside of just trying to keep our current budget going. And as I talked about earlier, my concern is that our Local revenues are not going up adequately within the trend lines that we see in the next couple of years to keep up with our costs of just providing the services we do today. So it really is going to take some work on the board and the budget subcommittee for us to identify those long-term trends and continue. looking for new revenues and new opportunities, other ways we can address those issues to get that housing fund set up. I certainly agree with it. I agree with many who spoke to it. And is there additional opportunities that we can research. Being at CSAC a couple weeks ago, I know that many counties are struggling with how are we going to work on that housing, and I know that our committee's been talking about it. And then, I think that's it for now. Oh, on the... Some of the other things, when you look at the $16.9 million in contracts we previously approved earlier today for HHS, looking at all of those services that we are providing for those in danger of losing housing or needing support services, and I don't think we do enough to educate the public on the variety of those services as well. because we're doing a tremendous job, and I know our HHS department works diligently on their housing vouchers and housing assistance programs that I don't think is as transparent to the whole community. So just for future, I'd like to, when the housing committee comes back, maybe we could look at all of the dollars we're expending in housing as we go. make those judgments about how to establish a revolving fund or other funds to help get this housing done. And taking it piece by piece I think is similar to some of our capital facilities that we've kind of piecemealed it without a very long-term look at our facilities. a la this building that we so dearly love but would like to change and get out of. But we haven't set aside those reserves and that's been a repeated comment I've made that it's not just our housing needs out in the community but also our own facility needs to serve the public. and we keep putting band-aids on things when maybe making that long-term commitment of new facilities or relocation of facilities is going to be our better approach but overall i want to thank the budget team you've done a tremendous job this is a huge undertaking i love the consistency that when we look department to department we can see that i just i really want to thank you for the hard work that goes into this whole budget development process. And I loved hearing the comments that it is transparent, it is consistent, and the public can understand it. So thank you for that.

Supervisor Jones.

Yes, I think that my question would be, can we discuss at some point in time, not here today, but about this dedicated $10 to $15 million per year? I don't think it's going to be an easy ask, but just thought maybe we could talk about it sometime in the future. Is that housing committee not working on funding solutions? I thought that was. Well, yes, we are multiple ways of funding solutions, but also, too, don't forget we're trying to. tie it into the future in Luffy's and we're talking about multiple, many, many, many things.

I thought you were going to solve it all for us, Suzanne and Bonnie.

I'm still looking for my magic wand. I'm sure if I find that, we'll solve everything.

But I think it's all tied into those.

Exactly, yes.

Any other questions? Supervisor Gore?

thank you appreciate everyone's input first I want to start with how fortunate we are that we have a growth budget not a budget where we're cutting and that is not the case anywhere else so I have to remind us like we're in a place of growth because we have development projects happening in our community that's good that's healthy and it's appropriate that we increase the well all sorts of things right roads and capital projects and our employees so I think that's important it's about a 1.36 percent of staffing increase over the past five years so it's not been a lot 40 positions looks like a lot but at the same time we have all this growth so that's a good thing and I appreciate that and I know there's probably a lot of other desires and asks for that but we can't do it all So I appreciate that and then I am reminded though that this growth trajectory will not continue forever and so to Supervisor Gustafson's point we have to always keep our eyes on the increases in salary as we move forward because We're in a nice bubble, but that bubble is not gonna stay where it's at right now. So I think that's just important to note, and we're fortunate that we can put money into reserves, and we can put money into the capital projects and our roads, really important, and even open space. So I wanna start with that because I think it's really important, and we've really made historic contributions in open space. And that is a good thing. We've set aside dollars and we've preserved open space. But we haven't done that in the affordable housing area. Now, the goal is to increase units. The county can't fund them all. That's not even, there's no way we can do that, right? But I think the question is, and the ad hoc is working on, what do we do? And how do we fund that? And there's lots of multiple ways. But one of the questions is, do you take some funds from general fund? That's a fair question. No, we're not going to do $10 to $15 million this year. I appreciate the ask. I really appreciate people coming and saying, hey, this is a value and a priority. I do think, though, if we're taking $1.5 million for open space, and we've been doing this for years, and I've said this the last couple of years, Why are we at least taking that right now and putting that into affordable housing fund? And let's just start. And yes, our affordable housing task force is going to look at ways to do it, but why can't we just start so there's some dollars there and we start building up? And then we'll look at other ways and other mechanisms to do that. But we're putting in $99.9 million into the general fund reserve, which is great to get us to the 16%. That's excellent. But I'm going to ask that we do $1.5 million for an affordable housing fund and just start this year. And then when we get mid-year or next year, we can continue to have those conversations because we're going to look at other things. But I'm going to ask my board to consider that in addition to the current budget.

Supervisor DiMattei?

Thank you, Chair. And thank you to the budget team. Couple questions. First of all, to all of our staff and our employees, we are very, very fortunate to be in Placer County and have the budget that we do. We're not in our neighboring counties where we have to possibly cut jobs and maybe have a hiring freeze. So we are very fortunate that we are able to stay stable. with our budget and our team up here. A couple of questions on the budget itself. I might be here a minute. And as our priorities change through Placer County, I know that Placer Legacy, we've saved a lot of properties in Placer County, which we're very fortunate to do. I think as we grow as a county our priorities have to change and I think they are changing. We have infrastructure that needs to be continued to be built and to be maintained as our population continues to grow and we use that infrastructure. Our housing has to obviously increase as people that I talk to all the time can't afford to live here. In fact, some of our staff can't afford to live here, which is unfortunate. So I would agree with Supervisor Gore and some of my other supervisors that we probably do need to start putting money aside in our budget for housing. And I know we've saved a lot of properties, but maybe that has to stop for a minute because our priorities have changed, along with our public safety, and be able to retain the employees that we have. Because without them, we can't continue to grow. So some of my questions into the budget on page six, you talked about equipment replacement, $330 million, I believe, set aside. Does that include public safety equipment, or is that just non-public safety? And does a public safety fund... calculate for public safety equipment. We had equipment replacement costs for equipment. But does that include? Which slide were you referring to? I think it was six. I don't have my stuff, so I'm just going back and forth.

You're talking about $13 million, roughly, or $5 million in county operating funds of equipment replacements. So the general fund maintains equipment replacement reserves. The public safety fund for sheriff's operations, district attorney's operations, probation departments maintain their own capital replacement reserves as well to replace their equipment as the equipment reaches

the end of its useful life i'm not sure did that answer it it does okay i sorry that question was all over the map how much of public safety reserves do we have um for replacement cost and the reason i ask is because our sheriffs had to go bring somebody back from Arizona who was a murderer here in Placer County and we were fortunate enough to find him but they had to go borrow somebody else's airplane they had to do it in restricted times because the police department that was in Arizona was very limited to staff they had to bring a lot of equipment back that they just couldn't put on a commercial airline and they have an airplane that's from the 70s and I believe that may have worn out its usage and so I'm looking at public safety assets as far as equipment for that so if there's you know money there because I don't need that plane to fall out of the air I know that it did not once it landed in Truckee six, seven months ago, and they had to tow it off the runway, and I hate to see it have to be picked up somewhere with employees in it. So I'm very, very passionate about making sure that those guys have all the safety stuff that they need. I'm gonna jump to, we have $686 million on page 20 for our PARs and OPED. You talk about all the money that we have, but how much of that do we get interest on? If there's money sitting there, do we calculate that into our budget? I mean, if we're making 4% of our money on 600 million, we should be collecting $31 million in interest. Is that included in some of these budgets? Because I don't see interest numbers in these budgets.

So the interest earned on OPEB trust funds and the PARS pension trust funds, those are held with an outside third party fiduciary. The interest earned on those funds would be used exclusively for those obligations, but they are recorded in those funds. So they would go towards our OPEB obligations as net gains in that plan. They'd go towards our pensions for net gains in that plan, assuming that we're earning net gains in good years.

Okay. The service and supply, $491 million. With those pictures up there, people may have perceptions that we're using it for buses and what have you. We do get money for electric buses, as I said on the transportation committee. Obviously, what we get from the state doesn't. fund 100% of that. Is some of that funding going towards some of these buses that we have to go fund in the future? Is there a breakdown of where that service and supply goes to for transportation?

Like specifically Placer County Transit and Tahoe Transit services? We can pull that for you right now to let you know exactly what the services and supplies are and those two funds, if you'd like.

Okay just because as I drive 500 miles a month throughout this county doing this I see a lot of our buses are empty and it seems that if we can move some of that money for easier transportation for people to go from door to door instead of from door to a bus stop and wait and then to another door it seems like maybe we and I've talked to Matt about that and they are working on some stuff for that as well so I was just wondering how much of that money Goes to that and is it just a waste because the state says we have to have electric buses where we could take some of that funding and go put it towards our housing where the people don't have to commute to come here but do live here. So I guess I'm trying to gather all the money that we don't need to spend to put it somewhere where we need to spend it. So I guess the bottom line, that's my question.

Absolutely. We can explore that opportunity moving forward.

One other question. Why are the TIs so expensive at the DA's office? It seems like we already have a building. It doesn't seem like we have to rebuild the building. But I saw somewhere there was $9 million set aside to go do TIs for that.

Yeah. I'm not sure if we have representatives from general services available to discuss that project, but bring them up to.

Yeah, good morning. Supervisor DiMattei, Paul Breckenridge, deputy director for DGS. We're tracking that project pretty closely. Costs across the board have just skyrocketed for things like tenant improvements. So we're managing that project as best we can, keep those costs managed, and is kind of aligned with the scope as best we can. So it's a pretty extensive remodel for the district attorney for both floors of that building. So while it seems like a lot, the cost per square foot, is in a typical alignment with tenant improvements for projects these days. So, yeah, it's just kind of a reality of cost that we're seeing across the board.

Okay, thanks, Paul. Excuse me, Paul, if you could, could you kind of just give a scope of work? Sure. You mentioned both floors of Building B, so.

Yeah, so we're doing quite a bit of work on both floors. There are very specific programmatic needs that the da has for the remodel and so yeah There are hard construction moving of walls getting prepped for meeting spaces We've got various the There's there's one component one module that has to do with interviewing of various children and other things that is a complete we're going to be moving that downstairs the revenue services space that's downstairs of building b is going to get a full remodel as well so it's not just a few basic improvements it's a full kind of scrape the area and start over in certain respects so yeah quite a bit of construction involved

OK, thank you. I guess I just question it. And then I'm very, very grateful for our new leadership with General Services, just because going back to when the Ag Department had to move and we had to build out for our calendar, it was $90,000. And it was done in-house for, I don't know, less than $5,000. I question where our money is going and how it's being spent with our own interior designs and TIs that we have to do. So I will always continue to push and look at what our numbers are. considering that we have other priorities that are coming up for our employees who can't live can't afford to live here so i appreciate that so thank you sure um and i think that's all i have for right now supervisor augustus i'm sorry i wanted to clarify two things one is um i agree with supervisor dean mattei on on digging down in some of these projects and making sure that

that we're looking at that. Is the best approach for us to raise these questions today and get answers before our final adoption on the 30th? I'm looking at the CEO for that direction.

Or Daniel. Yeah, I think hopefully our answer is the same. But making significant changes to the budget structure or the recommended budget between now and the 30th would not be our recommendation. is requested by the board to be considered in the budget. We can always bring back a first quarter budget amendment to make those adjustments.

OK.

So I just wanted to make sure we could get answers to some of those questions. One of the things that I think as we bring that back, because you started out with your comments, supervisor, with the airplane. But I wanted to remind us, we just funded the post academy, the regional public safety training center, the crime lab. Westoaks purchase so we've been doing a lot more than you know That could have easily paid for the the plane if we chose that that was the route to go So I think it's important that we remind the public how much of an investment we have been making on public safety I agree with them trying to identify more funding for affordable housing right away and would love to do that at the first quarter amendment and And I would also agree with looking, like I've said before earlier today, we need to look at all these expenditures with that lens of that there are limitations to how long this growth will continue. Yes, I think our PERS will look really good this year, but we don't know how long that will continue, that trend of them exceeding their earnings on our post-retirement. So we need to make sure we're thinking as conservatively as some of our predecessors did that put us in the position that I think we're in today to best serve this county and to make sure we're taking care of all those needs. But I do agree, Supervisor Gore, on your suggestion on that.

Supervisor DiMattei.

Thank you. Yeah, and I do agree. We have put a lot of money into public safety. I'm not saying we have not You did mention the budget that we have the axon cameras that are on there and that was a very expensive but worthy buy for the safety of our guys But also what wasn't mentioned is that over the lifetime of that contract we are saving a lot of money by not having to go replace old equipment and This equipment is on lease. We get new stuff all the time. We don't have to go buy it. So I believe with this contract, there was probably a couple million dollars of the savings too that probably the public needs to know as well that we're not just spending money to spend it, but we're spending it to save it as well. So there is a good ROI on what we are doing. So thank you to you guys as well. That's it.

Supervisor Jones?

Yeah, something else too that we don't really talk about, which I think is good for our residents and constituents to understand, is that with the passage of the proposition that allows people in California who sell their home to move to another area, example Placer County, which is where everyone was moving here during COVID, allows people when they sell their home to transfer their tax base from that house that they've been living in for 30 or 40 years up here when they buy their new house. So now they're not paying our current property tax base. It's shrunk. And in the last budget workshop that we had, showed since COVID how much we have lost in property taxes. And it was $962 million. That's almost a billion dollars that we've lost because of that new law that allows people to transfer. So our growth has gone straight like this. Property taxes should have gone straight as well. But with that change, it's gone up. It's chilled a little bit. It's not flatlined, but it's chilled significantly to the tune of a billion dollars. And so even though we look like we're doing well and everything, It's hard to run a county. We have to accommodate all of that growth. With all of the growth, we have to have more sheriff. We have to have more people that work in the jails. We have to have more probation. We have to have more health and human services because of all the services we provide. I mean, overall, we just have to grow everywhere. And so it's a great thing to say we need to restrict our higher income earners' salaries. Number one, I don't think that's constitutional. But we won't go into that right now. So, you know, it's the fact that our county, we have to grow with our employees. And that's one thing we really have to consider, too. And the other thing that I want to know is how many counties have hiring freezes on and how many have had to cut their budgets and Because I know a lot of, do you have any idea about how many counties are hurting right now?

I don't have any idea, exact counts of the pluses and minuses across the state. I would say that the prevailing message that you would be hearing from other counties in California is not, one of the financial condition that this county's in. There are more counties that are moving towards measures such as hiring freezes, budgetary adjustments. I'm in a budget subgroup with a lot of the budget officers in the state of California where they're they're looking at ways of implementing like straight across the board cuts or do they do piecemeal program adjustments, et cetera. So I do think, you know, to echo your comments, we're fortunate in the position that we're in, but we're still using tools like the budget subcommittee, the transparency portal, et cetera, to make sure that we're putting resources in the right spaces responsibly.

Right. And so the bottom line, what I'm just saying is that we have to be very thoughtful, continue to be very thoughtful about how we spend our money. And that's not to say that we, you know, I mean, the affordable housing thing is our biggest hurdle right now, and our committee, we really are working on other ways that we can help solve this problem besides just the county paying for all of that affordable housing. I mean, figure... how much it would cost us to build 1,300 affordable housing units. You could probably put that pen to paper and figure that out if we paid in total for it, which we can't. So it's not that we don't want to do this stuff. We do, and we are all working individually, different committees, whether it's the budget subcommittee, the housing subcommittee. But we are actually out there. We're working hard for all of you and for all of our constituents trying to solve these problems as well as you guys are working hard because we're always asking you crazy questions like, Can we not spend money here and put it there? Thank you. Thank you guys very much.

Supervisor DiMattei?

Sorry, I looked back at my notes and I missed a couple things. One would probably be for Mr. Hunsinger. For Hidden Falls, there's $736,000 to connection costs for some bridges. Will that be the last ask for Hidden Falls? There's been a lot of money dumped into Hidden Falls. Just wondering where that will continue to or when it will stop.

Yeah, so there's multiple phases to the Hidden Falls expansion. So we have the Hidden Falls Park proper, which is the 1,200 acres that's open to the public today. And then it is anticipated that later this late summer, early fall, we'll be opening up kind of the phase one of expansion, which is our big hill preserve, new parking lot, bathroom, and then trail system, on about 700 acres of uh plaster land trust property that we are operating with them the the property that you're referencing is 147 acre property in between hidden falls proper and the big hill expansion which will link the two together and yeah that's That's a property. And while I'm at it, I'll mention that last week, the Sierra Nevada Conservancy also awarded us a $500,000 grant to make sure we have enough funds to build those bridges and get that. So long-winded way of saying that for the immediate future, that is the total expansion of Hidden Falls. However, there is a phase three, which has been planned Kind of the initial plan has been approved to expand what we're calling the Bear River backcountry phase, which would be a phase three, which includes all the properties up to the Harvico Bear River Preserve and actually public access trails all the way up from Hidden Falls to the Bear River along the county, the northern county border there. But at this time, there's no workload plan. There's no immediate dates or plan on when we would work on that phase three.

OK. Recalling when I was on the planning commission for this, and it's a great project. And I know there was a concern about the bridges. And I don't know if this budget does that, but the bridges were for probably just for people to walk across, but there was a concern if there was a fire in there that they couldn't get out or they got locked in there. So will any of these bridges or can these bridges be built to the specs to have a fire truck go across them so they don't get stuck on one side of the creek or river than the other?

Yeah, the short answer is no. These bridges would be for, you know, a horse would probably be the heaviest thing that would be able to cross these bridges based on their design. So any emergency access would be from one, from the Big Hill end or the Hidden Falls end or, you know, we've got, you know, provisions for helicopter access and things like that as well.

Okay, thank you for that Josh, appreciate it.

You're welcome.

One last question. I asked Daniel about this and he may have sent it and I don't know because I didn't see my email. Is there a list of supplemental positions requested by the departments for this budget for 26, 27?

For 26-27 and the previous budget cycle, if I recall, it's just the previous budget cycle, we haven't been doing supplemental position requests at one time through the budget cycle. Instead, what we have done is elected to evaluate position requests all throughout the fiscal year, match them to identified resources, and then bring them in front of your board at the quarterly allocation ordinance updates to approve those positions. That's why in today's presentation, we discussed six of the 40 positions that weren't previously discussed. Perfect, thank you.

No more questions.

Supervisor Gore. Thank you, appreciate it. I wanted to just circle back and see if there's interest from our board to allocate $1.5 million to an affordable housing fund, and whether that's having staff bring it back to us. I know we want to approve the budget, right? But having staff either bringing that back to us at the beginning of the fiscal year or at Q1, I think it's just important for us to identify, like, start identifying dollars. I mean, just start, even with a small amount from the general fund, since we've done that with Open Space previously. And I think it's a good way to start. And then we'll continue the ad hoc. We'll continue that work. So I want to see if there's at least agreement. And then we can figure out how staff can figure that out for us.

question on that would you be recommending that we move money from somewhere else like open space for now for a year and then put it in there or try to find another one point well I think there's a couple of ways and I can let it either can come from the general from reserves or Daniel had mentioned if we get to q1

There's usually contingency dollars or funds available. You say it, Daniel, better than me.

Yeah, I think if the board wants to direct us to do that, we would come back at a future board meeting, either the first meeting in July, potentially, or the first quarter with the budget amendment with some options on where the funding can come from. We do have, you know, once the budget's adopted and goes into effect July 1st, you know, it's a budget, and so it flexes up and down as is needed, and we can make those accommodations if the board wishes to do so.

So I see heads nodding. I already voiced my support.

And I would add to it, the $1.5 million, I'd also like to look at the cleanup of DeWitt. But that can come at the next quarter and see if that is possible.

Isn't that a part of any future project anyway?

Yeah.

Right. So that's going to have to be done with any future project that comes out.

Where is that in the priority list? And is that holding up a project, I think, is the question. So we can talk about that more.

We can also give you a quick answer on that, a newer update. That project and the cleanup turned out to be, I think, a little bit bigger scope than we initially intended. General Services is working on an RFQ or an RFP to solicit someone to do that site cleanup. And we'll know expected actual costs of that.

OK, great. Great. And I also do want to remind the public and the board that we are expending a lot of general fund in the Eastern County from the TOT for housing programs. We just approved another $500,000 for lease to locals. And I know those funds are dedicated to Eastern County, but the county is funding housing. It's just not in the same state right now because we haven't identified the source here as much as we have there.

Yeah, I'm amicable to that. I think that if we're putting money towards open space, it seems only reasonable that we also put some money towards affordable housing.

Great. So we'll let you all, sounds like there's agreement, and we'll let you all figure out the best way to move forward with that, and you can bring back some options.

So we will absolutely follow the board's direction and bring it forward at a future board meeting.

Supervisor DiMattei? Did you have something else?

Nope, that's it for me.

Okay, I have a couple comments. I've been waiting very patiently. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I wanted to say thank you to, I know some of the folks left, but it's really nice to see a coalition of multiple groups and organizations wanting to come together to really kind of tackle this issue that clearly we're facing on affordable housing and to try and look at creative ways that we can meet that need and to partner with us at the county because we can't do everything. And I think as a government entity, it's not our position or really appropriate for us to do everything. I think that's where those public-private partnerships really um shine i think i i wanted to speak to the government center cleanup i also am kind of interested in just learning more about that and understanding the priority there i wanted to say thank you to staff for the budget it was great very thorough and i think has really created a really robust conversation around what the future is going to look like. I agreed with Supervisor Gustafson on her comment on salaries. I think we need to be very cognizant moving forward and just have that in the back of our minds as we're going through negotiations, because even though maybe increases might not be what we've seen in the past, knowing that we are thinking long term fiscally about the future of our county and wanting to make sure we remain solvent and are responsible and good stewards of taxpayer dollars. I do support the idea of allocating 1.5 million for this future year. And I think in rebuttal to Supervisor Dimitri's comment on open space, I would say I have a couple of thoughts on that. So I agree. I think that we obviously have made this a priority for it's been 26 years now that we've allocated funding for legacy and to me as we we're one of the fastest maybe the fastest growing now in california and open space has consistently polled as the most important issue i think when we did the general plan outreach that was the number one issue that residents said was of concern to them and then in my last newsletter which i think goes out to maybe 30 000 residents or something That was one of the questions I asked. I think the question was, which issue is most important to you as Placer County plans for future growth and preserving rural character in open space came in at 64% of the responses. And so I really truly believe that if we were to remove that funding, we would regret it later. And I believe it's one way that we can help ensure that we are protecting that we're doing both that we're growing and we're healthy and we're thriving but that we're also being cognizant about future generations and making sure that we're maintaining that balance i think that's a big part of the reason why so many people love placer county is we do have that balance we've got the amenities of the suburbs and the urban areas but we've also got these beautiful areas where school kids can go take a bus and go out and explore nature and understand what that means. And so I would very much, I know it's not really on the table to be cut necessarily right now, but one other thing I did want to highlight is a couple weeks ago we did the Placer County Ag Tour, and we went to Natural Trading Company in Newcastle, which is a 40-acre farm, and Brian, who is the owner of that farm, said he would never have been able to do it had it not been for the Legacy Program. He was able to create a small business here in Placer County that is feeding residents throughout the county all the way up to Tahoe, and that would not be possible if it weren't for legacy funding. And so as we have those continued conversations around where do we find this $1.5 million for affordable housing, I would very much advocate that we don't take it from there, that we find somewhere to take it from. And hopefully that will be the case. And I think that... those were all my thoughts finally okay any other comments from board members

And I guess I just have one more call.

Oh, no, a rebuttal to the rebuttal.

Well, not that I'm against open space. You know, somebody who's grown up in ag and I appreciate open space as much as possible. There is a point where, OK, are we putting money towards land that obviously will never be developed? I mean, there's some stuff that up here just down the street that if we're going to go save forest land and what have you, we're not going to be able to build on it anyways. Unless you're a goat or a bird, you're not going to be able to live there. where that's the money I'm talking about taking and saying, okay, we have done this already. The farming deal, that's a whole other situation, and that's a different program. But to take this money and go, okay, we've saved enough of this for now. Now we need to focus, like I said in the beginning, some of our... our priorities have changed right as we grow so not to discount open space but if and we're going to go save a hillside at 45 degree slope instead of taking money to go put towards affordable housing i'm in favor of doing that so the farming deal is a whole nother story and i know how expensive it is too which is also included under legacy funding just you know okay but it's not on the talking block right now so yes i i just wanted to support your comments on

restoring and keeping the open space fund because we don't know what opportunities will come up and maybe they won't be 45 degrees. Maybe they will. And then that's our decision. Like, is that really?

worth it but I do want to continue to support open space funding as well as the housing thank you yeah and I think to your point we will hear each of those things as they come forward so if a project comes forward and we're like you know what we just we can for whatever reason I think that makes sense but um I think it's important to have that funding there so that staff can be flexible when if something really great does come in and they can move on it quickly so

So Madam Chair, may I move approval of the 2026-27 recommended budget? I have one more question.

And I will second that. Wonderful. We have a motion by Gore, a second by Gustafson, and this is a roll call vote.

Supervisor DeMattei? Yes. Supervisor Jones? Aye. Supervisor Gustafson? Aye. Supervisor Gore? Aye. Supervisor Landon?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you for everyone participating. We're running a little teensy bit behind. We are going to hear our 1015 timed item, which is item 2A, usage of public facilities impact fees for purchase and tenant improvements.

Hello, board. I'm Barbara McAllister, Assistant County Budget and Fiscal Officer. And I'm here today to present an item for the use of public facilities impact fees, specifically the actions requested in the item I present today.

Maybe we'll wait just one second. Everyone's just so excited about the budget.

So I'm here today to present an item on the use of public facilities impact fees, and specifically the actions requested today are to one, make a determination that findings support the use of public facility impact fees to fund the purchase of the buildings at 5700 and 5750 West Oaks Boulevard in Rockland, California, and the cost of building related tenant improvements required to make the buildings ready for county use. And two, approve the use of $13 million of public facilities impact fees to reimburse the general fund for the purchase price of 5,750 West Oaks Boulevard in Rockland, California. So to provide some backgrounds, the public facilities impact fees, also known as PFIF, was established by ordinance established by ordinance 4769B on October 15th, 1996. The fee is intended to offset the impacts of new development demands on county services and county facilities and is imposed as part of the approval process for new residential and non-residential building. The fee applies to the unincorporated areas of Placer County and was also adopted in the cities of Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, Auburn, Colfax, and the town of Loomis. Placer County has experienced tremendous growth in the last couple of decades. Per the US Census, Placer County's population has grown 62.9% from the year 2020, from the year 2000, excuse me, to the year 2020. And most of this growth has occurred in the West Placer area. Per the December 2024 Placer County General Plan Demographic Trends Report, Placer County as a whole may reasonably expect to add between 47,000 and 84,000 new residents between the years 2025 and 2050. This increase in population has resulted in an increased need for services countywide and in new growth areas in particular, and ultimately a need for additional space from which to provide these services. So in fiscal year 24-25, the county purchased two buildings in Rockland at 5700 West Oaks Boulevard and 5750 West Oaks Boulevard. And I would like to point out that the staff report says that these buildings were purchased in 2025, and while one of the buildings closed escrow in 2025, the other actually closed in December 2024. So I'd like to correct that, and I apologize for that error. So these two buildings are approximately 55,000 square feet each and were purchased for a total of 13 million dollars using general fund reserves Part of the building located at 5750 West Oaks Boulevard will be used by the Sheriff's Office as a West Placer substation and the rest of the building will be complemented by other public safety operations that will serve the growing population The building at 5700 West Oaks is intended to house multiple county departments. The planned usage of the building is not finalized yet, but it is expected that part of the building will be occupied by revenue services, part by the Placer County assessor, a small part will be used for a district supervisor office, and some space will be designated for the building maintenance division. The use of the rest of the building is still being evaluated, but would be used by other county departments in county employee hoteling activities. The need for additional space is directly related to new development in Placer County. Because of this, your board is requested to make a determination that findings support the use of public facility impact fees to fund the purchase of the buildings and the cost of building-related tenant improvements required to make the buildings ready for county use. Your board has also requested to approve the use of $13 million of public facility impact fees to reimburse the general fund for the purchase price of the two buildings. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Questions or comments from board members?

I have one quick question. And I appreciate that there's the effort to put together the supervisor office down in that area. And I know we briefly talked about District 2 having space there. Is that still a conversation? And based on what happens with the space in Lincoln, Are you looking at increasing that space so that more than one supervisor can be there with staff? Or is there interest in that? I just want to bring it up because you're talking about one, but we in the past have talked about two supervisors utilizing that space.

Yeah, that's my plan. I just feel like it'd be a better, more efficient use of funds to not have an office in Lincoln when it's 10 minutes from Rockland. So that would be the hope is that And I don't need much. I just need a little .

But I just want to make sure that you all are aware of that. And if that's the case, you're planning for it.

There's actually already offices set aside for her. Yeah.

OK. Just checking. All right. Thank you.

Thanks for checking. I didn't want to be left out in the cold.

I know. You even have a desk, then, too.

Nobody stole it. I could ask about D5's Tahoe office, but I won't.

One on the lake.

Yeah, the plans for the building are still being considered. And so there's changes. So there might be newer information that I had that's not included in this report. Yes. Everything is still pretty much open for discussion as far as I know.

Thank you. Anyone here in the public who would like to comment on this item? Anyone online? All right. I'll bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval. Second.

It's been moved by Gustafson, seconded by DeMattei. All those in favor? Aye. And none opposed? No abstentions. Thank you. We will now move to Item 3A, Fiscal Year 26-27, Senate Bill 1, Project List Approval. Thank you for hanging in there with us.

Yeah, no. Good morning, Chair Landon, board members, Mr. Chattany, Mr. Cook. Happy to be here. Matt Randall, deputy director with the Department of Public Works. So this item requests approval of our fiscal year 26-27 Senate Bill 1 project list, which is required annually to maintain eligibility for approximately $13.2 million in road maintenance and rehabilitation account funding. And in the back of your packet with the resolution, there's a project list, includes pavement preservation, bridge maintenance, roadside vegetation, drainage and culvert repairs, traffic signal maintenance, all the different road maintenance projects and repairs that we do. And these projects address both immediate needs and long-term preservation goals and investments. I want to just remind you, too, going back to our budget workshop, and I've mentioned this, too. This year, the county, we updated our payment condition index inspections throughout the county. It basically gives the condition of our network payment, which we're at a 70, which is good. That's higher than the statewide average and good in terms of comparison to our neighboring counties. But again, just want to go back. We shared some investment scenarios with our pavement management program, which all showed that we need to invest more in our roads and our pavement. So this project and the SB1 funding, obviously, is critical in addressing those needs, also with the next item. And we're looking for road money everywhere. So just want to make sure you understand that as well. So with that, I wanted to share the actions requested, which is adopt a resolution adopting a list of projects for fiscal year 26-27 funded by Senate Bill 1 in accordance with Section 2034A1. of the California Streets and Highways Code to be eligible to receive anticipated funding in the amount of $13,241,824 from the road maintenance and rehabilitation account and also determine that the proposed action is not a project pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15378. And with that, happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Questions or comments from board members? And is there anyone here in the public who'd like to comment on this item? Anyone online? No, Chair. All right. I'll bring it back to the board.

Move approval.

Second. Moved by DiMattei, seconded by Gustafson. All those in favor? Aye. None opposed. No abstentions. Gore is absent. We will now move to another one of your items, item 4A.

This is like the department items earlier. Going fast. So this next item is the annual assessment and fee report for county service areas, zones of benefit, assessment districts, and permanent road divisions. State law requires that we conduct a public hearing and confirm these assessments and fees before they are placed on the tax roll for next year. And this is an item we bring back every year. So just a couple of quick summary points. The report, which is also included as an attachment to your staff report, includes approximately 42,000 parcel charges across more than 140 kind of service area zones of benefit, or I should say special districts, all the different flavors of assessment districts there are. And these districts provide funding for services including road maintenance, snow removal, drainage facilities, street lighting, parks and landscape maintenance, fire protection and library services. So all sorts of different services there. I want to tie this one to the last one, too, is that many of these CSA zones of benefit are tied to road maintenance, which helps support our road maintenance program and preserve our pavements. So super important there, obviously, in addition to all the other ones. also included our authorized annual adjustments assessment increases which are based on cpi related methodologies that were approved when whenever these districts were formed which some of them are recent and some of them are actually were formed a long time ago so So with that I will read the actions and we could move into the public hearing which is to consider the fiscal year 26-27 assessment and fee report for county service area zones of benefit assessment districts and permanent road divisions adopt a resolution to confirm the fiscal year 26-27 assessment and fee report for county service area zones of benefit assessment districts and permanent road divisions and approve the charges to be on the fiscal year 2627 tax roll and finally determine that the proposed actions are exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines 15273 and alternatively are not projects pursuant to CEQA guidelines 15378.

All right, thank you. I will open the public hearing. And Supervisor DiMattei?

Nope, sorry.

Oh, any other questions or comments from board members? Anyone in the public who would like to comment on this item? Anyone online? Oh, sorry. Didn't see you coming up here. Good morning.

Cheryl Berkema, Granite Bay. I just have a quick question on, I looked at the sewer numbers and there's just a number there. My concern is that we've had several projects with variances and we've had five arena sites identified. So we seem to be adding things to the sewer. When the latest Department of Public Works, when they changed hands, there was a report that stated our sewer's like 40, 50 years old. We had an engineer produce a report for HCD that said there's concerns about the easements and the lines. I want to know how that report relates to potential needs are we going to wait till the sewer just explodes or you know how are we going to come up with what does that number mean and how are we going to come up with the money we might potentially need if the sewer fails thank you any other questions in here anyone online

okay I'll close the public hearing and then sure unfortunately that so the sewer districts are not part of this this item they're a different type of zone of benefit so but we can I could see you afterwards and we can connect you with the right person to answer this question these are other types of zones of benefits so I don't have a specific answer to that question thank you all right I will bring it back for a motion I'll move approval I'll second

move by jones seconded by augustus all those in favor aye any opposed and no abstentions okay thank you very much we will now move to item 5a community facilities district 2021-1 before you start i have a script There are two items being heard for this matter. The first item is the public hearing and proceedings for annexation of certain parcels in the Placer Commerce Center project to County of Plaster Community Facilities District number 2021-1 Sunset Area Plan Phase 1 Transit Services. The second is the public hearing and proceedings for annexation of certain parcels into a future annexation area. Both hearings are to inquire into the annexation of territory and the levy of special taxes in the annexation territory for the purpose of financing the operation and maintenance of transit facilities.

Thank you. Now your turn. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. Sue Compton, Senior Management Analyst with the County Executive Office. I'm here with Michelle Kingsbury, Deputy CEO. The Community Facilities District 2021-1 for the Sunset Area Plan Phase 1 Transit Services is a Melrose Special Tax District created to fund public transit operations and maintenance within the Sunset Area Plan in West Placer County. Placer Commerce Center is a commercial and industrial project within the Sunset Area Plan. There are four parcels totaling about 220 acres proposed to be annexed into the CFD. and one parcel of about 100 acres proposed to be added to the future annexation area. Before we dive into the public hearing, we'll go through the actions requested today. One, to conduct a public hearing on the annexation to the County of Placer Community Facilities District number 2021-1, Sunset Area Plan phase one transit services of the territory described in the resolution of intention and the levy of special taxes therein, and the addition of territory to the future annexation area. Two, adopt a resolution adding Assessor Parcel Number 017-063-084 to the future annexation area for the County of Placer Community Facilities District Number 2021-1, Sunset Area Plan Phase 1 Transit Services. An annexation election, adopt a resolution submitting to the qualified electors the propositions of annexing territory to the County of Placer Community Facilities District Number 2021-1, Sunset Area Plan Phase 1 Transit Services levying special taxes and establishing an annual appropriations limit, open ballots and announce the results of the election, and adopt a resolution declaring the results of the special election, determining the validity of prior proceedings and directing the recording of an amendment to notice of special tax lien. And introduce and waive oral reading of an ordinance levying special taxes for fiscal year 2026-2027 and following fiscal years with county of Placer community facilities district number 2021-1, sunset area plan phase one transit services, including the annexation territory. And determine that the annexation of property into the existing county of Placer community facilities district 2021-1, sunset area plan phase one transit services, and the addition of the property to the future annexation area are administrative actions for funding and therefore are not a project pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act guidelines sections 15061B3 and 15378, and that the board had previously reviewed and relied upon the Sunset Area Plan, Placer Ranch specific plan and final environmental impact report certified on December 10th, 2019, and the subsequent addenda for the Placer Commerce Center project adopted on December 13th, 2022 and May 28th, 2024. Does the board have any questions before we proceed with the public hearings?

All right, any questions or comments from board members? All right, I'll ask for the written protest. So the first item for the annexation into CFD 2021-1, and have the clerk announce if any are received.

We have not received any protest to this item.

I'll now open the public hearing on the annexation into CFD 2021-1 and levy of special taxes. Is there anyone here in the chambers who would like to comment on this item? Anyone online?

No, Chair.

Then I will close the public hearing and ask again. There's no questions or comments from the board. I will now entertain a motion and a second to adopt the following resolution calling for a property owner vote on the issues of the proposed annexation and the levy of special taxes in the annexation territory. So moved. Second. Moved by Gore, seconded by DiMattei. All those in favor? Aye. And none opposed and no abstentions. In anticipation of the election, the ballots have been completed by the sole landowner in the annexation territory and submitted to the clerk. At this time, I ask the clerk to open the ballots and announce the results of the election. We're on pins and needles.

We received one ballot in favor.

All right. OK. Oh, I am the chair of the board. The results of the election being unanimously in favor of the proposed annexation and the levy of the special taxes, we will now proceed with the final actions for the annexation. Do I have a motion on the following? One, adopt a resolution declaring results of a special annexation election determining validity of prior proceedings and directing recording of an amended notice of special tax lean to introduce and waive oral reading of an ordinance levying a special tax within county of placer community facilities district number 2021-1 sunset area plan phase one transit services including certain annexation territory moved by gore seconded by d mattei all those in favor aye any opposed and no abstentions This is the second public hearing to add a parcel in the Placer Commerce Center project to the future annexation area for County of Placer Community Facilities District number 2021-1. Sunset area plan phase one transit services. This second item does not involve adding property to CFD 2021-1. Property in the future annexation area may be annexed to CFD 2021-1 in the future, but only with the unanimous written approval of the owner of the annexing property and without further public hearings on or formal elections like the one we just held. Does anyone wish to file written protests? If so, they must be filed with the clerk now. okay are there any protests that you've received no protests received for this item i will open the public hearing is there anyone here in the chambers who would like to comment on this item anyone online i'll close the public hearing and are there any comments or questions from the board at this time i will now entertain a motion and a second to adopt the following resolution approving the addition of territory to the future annexation area for cfd 2021-1

For reference, that's resolution adding assessor's parcel number 017-063-084 to the future annexation area for county of Placer Community Facilities District number 2021-1, Sunset Area Plan Phase 1 Transit Services, and authorizing and directing actions related thereto.

Moved by Gore, seconded by DeMattei. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. We did it. Okay.

Thank you very much.

Okay, we will now move to Item 6A, Potential Dollar Creek Crossing Affordable Housing Development Update.

Good morning. Morning. Chair Landon, members of the board. My name is Marie Maniscalco. I'm the Housing Development Project Planner in the CEO's Economic Development and Housing Division. The action requested for this item is to receive an update on the potential Dollar Creek Crossing affordable housing development. The proposed development would be located in Tahoe City at 3205 North Lake Boulevard and is an 11.4 acre undeveloped site. Since receiving board direction to pursue an affordable only project in April of last year, we have been working with the developer on a developer agreement, which would be the next step in progressing the project from the current exclusive right to negotiate a developer agreement, known as the ERNA. The ERNA is currently set to expire on June 30th of this month. The developer, since that time, has provided a revised site plan, milestone schedule, and financial pro forma, and has conducted public outreach. The developers for FORMA included an anticipated county contribution of approximately $18.5 million towards the project. While the county had identified approximately $1 million in state funds and $2.5 million of TOT previously recommended through the NTCA's TBID TOT dollars at work program, no additional sources covering the entirety of the requested local contribution have been identified or secured at this time. And so for this reason, staff is not bringing forward a developer agreement. It is important to note that the county housing team is working closely with the board appointed ad hoc committee for housing funding and fee implementation. This committee is focused on identifying funding sources for housing that align with investment priorities. The ad hoc committee anticipates completing their scope of work early next year. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Questions or comments from board members? Is there anyone here in the chambers who'd like to comment on this item?

Well, it is still morning. Morning, Chair Landon, board members, Daniel and Clayton, Wayne Nader. I know this is a bit premature because it's not official yet, but I think the outcome is obvious. So I want to congratulate Supervisor Landon on a very decisive win. and her reelection, and also Supervisor Gore as well. Again, I know it's not official, but I think we know the outcome. What's before you is a pretty harsh reality. And I know you've had that discussion earlier about where are we going to get the dollars for this. I think one of the toughest things is that we're looking at a passage of time. I mean, from 2019 when you really started to try to kick this off to now that's seven years later. And we're nowhere nearer than we were practically back then. So I think a lot of it is about the discussion you had earlier, is where's the money going to come from? If we just looked at the 80 that you're trying to accomplish right now, and let's use Mercy Housing as sort of a yardstick. We know that that cost over $500,000 a door. So we know that in Tahoe, and I'm sure Supervisor Gustafson can attest to this, is that costs are dramatically higher. And you heard earlier from Paul that the cost of just rehabbing the DA's office is absurd. That's just cost or now, out of control. So that $500,000, if you equate it to 80, that's $40 million. And obviously, if you look at the 1300s you want to do, that's like $650 million. And again, I would say that's the floor. So where are we going to get those dollars? There is not county funds. There is not state funds. There's not federal funds to make that happen. We're going to have to get creative. We're not making progress on the affordable housing, especially in the Tahoe area. Now, obviously, the lease to locals, that's a great program. It's gone off to a good start. You had a report recently of 147 properties that have now taken advantage of that and given locals an opportunity to have some place to live. But I think you need to step it up. I've talked to you the last couple of times I've been up about the need to really address this short-term rentals. You've got thousands of them up there. We know that it had an impact on making availability. I told you that other counties are taking a really hard look at how they're dealing with this and I think you have to look at your existing resources which are these homes and I think by doing some things like Monterey County is currently doing as I've shared with you okay I'll wrap it up 30 You know, they're saying a minimum of 30 days on their housing. I know that's harsh. I know you're going to get a lot of pushback. They got sued, but so far they are prevailing. So you're going to have to do some really hard things if you want to get it done, because ground up isn't going to happen. And so far, we've only done a kind of a drop in a very large bucket of need. So it's going to have to get hard to get something done. And, you know, finding the dollars just isn't going to happen.

Thank you. Anyone else here in the chambers who'd like to comment on this item?

Good morning all. Nick Wilder with Related California. We're the developer working with county staff on this project. I just wanted to reiterate how excited we are about the potential for housing of many different income levels on this site. We're deeply committed to housing at this site and continuing to work with the county to move forward. a plan that can work uh for for all folks whether it's the current site plan alternate site plans that scale things back lower the cost we're we're here and ready to explore uh what the county would desire there so thank you thank you any other comments here in the chambers anyone online caller go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments

Thank you for the update my name is Patricia Ora Kings Beach resident and listening to today's discussion on budgets I think Dollar Creek raises an interesting governance question seven years after the start of the program one of the most valuable parts of today's presentation was the discussion around financial feasibility subsidy levels and how involving market conditions influence the project over time in a region where we just stated that projects often take many years to move forward from concept to construction those factors can have a significant impact on outcomes for major housing and redevelopment projects involving substantial public investments whether public land subsidy incentives staff time or community effort should the county consider regular project updates similar to the budget we just reviewed today rather than only presenting this type of information when major decisions come to the board and patterns of extending ERNAs again and again and again This purpose would not be to add process to make projects harder to build. It would only provide visibility and insight earlier when it comes to key factors that most influence project success in this region, including that financial feasibility, subject requirements, construction costs, financing conditions, infrastructure needs, regulatory constraints, and delivery risk. allowing you as the board to make more informed decisions and better stewardship public resources direction to your staff over the lifetime of the project and not just when they're trying to present something of a decision that needs to be made I highly suggest as we as the county reviews the upcoming housing element implementation and the meetings that are coming up in the coming months my question is what governance framework should exist to help the board continuously evaluate whether projects remain viable aligned with evolving housing needs and capable of delivering the community outcomes the housing element and other project goals are all counting on thank you thank you any other yes chair

Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments.

Yes. Good morning. Chris Egger of Tahoe City. This project in Dollar Hill at the Nahas property dates back, it's been seven years now, maybe eight years since the county became involved and purchased the property. In that time, there really hasn't been any substantial progress. You know, clearly ground hasn't broken. You don't even have a developer agreement. And I think at the end of the day, it's really important to acknowledge it. Maybe the best thing to do is to just pull the plug on this project with this developer. Go ahead and let this exclusive right to negotiate expire because it's not going anywhere. When a few minutes ago you were talking about coming up with $1.5 million basically out of thin air in the budget to put towards affordable housing. You know, that's a pittance compared to the $18 million that they're saying they need here. And I think this points to some of the failures of central planning, which is essentially what this has been. The county has not leveraged the marketplace in a way that would be capable of delivering what you guys are after. And I want to point to the Launchpad program. And I know the Launchpad program is not specifically about affordable housing, at least not right now, but I believe it could be tweaked. But about a month ago, Tim Cussin, who's administering the Launchpad program, he presented to you that in the last round of funding, there was an overwhelming demand for Launchpad funds. to build housing in the Tahoe area. And what that program does is it leverages individuals, developers, whoever, and makes it where anyone can And then build more housing. So you guys are accomplishing what you're after, but you're not running into the problems associated with trying to take a top down approach as you've done. Um, and I just, I think it's time to pull the plug on this project with this developer, pursue something else. And then build more housing. you know, whether you work with someone else to use that particular piece of land, whether you sell that land and use the funds to further fund Launchpad or similar program. I think it's time to move on from this project. Thank you.

Thank you.

Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments.

Good morning. Adam Wilson with the North Tahoe Community Alliance. Thank you, supervisors and staff for the for the presentation. I think a couple of things. First of all, this has, as you've heard previously, this project has been around for a little while, but I think there's an incredible opportunity of this particular process and this particular project and land. And I think we've been looking at a total project versus maybe looking at elements of the project that we could get across the finish line. We would encourage the staff and the board to continue to look at collaboration around the basin that you're doing, but also look at the idea of first and foremost, looking at an apartment style rental product where we could put a number of units on the property in such a way that we could actually have some impact and provide some workforce housing on a rental basis in an apartment style project. I know that that may not be the most I don't know if this is a publicly supported idea from the homeowners that are nearby that property, but it is the biggest impact I think that we can have in a short period of time. So I've just encouraged the staff to continue to collaborate. We need to continue to move some project forward on this property to affect workforce housing. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Um,

Sorry, I beat you to the... Yes, I have a question. Staff, if we continue and allow the ERNA to expire, what are our next steps forward?

Housing Element Program HE55 dictates that the county go back out for a request for proposals no later than July of 2027 in order to secure a developer agreement on the project.

Okay. And then... for the affordable or for the whole project?

There are certain goals in the housing element program, which I believe are 80 lower income units. That would be the baseline of what we've committed to via the housing element. So we would have to go back and take a look at what we've committed to in the housing element and what other programming that your board would like to see on the site.

Great. Thank you. I appreciate the response to those questions. So I recently attended staff, held a workshop. I'm forgetting, was that April? April. Yeah. The months go by so fast. April 2nd, I believe. And so there was quite a bit of turnout at North Tahoe High School. And I think the developer and staff were there, as well as a lot of advocates for the project. I have encouraging news in that I felt that the community members I talked to were much more in favor of a project there with some different design parameters than I've ever heard in the past. And so I was very encouraged. But it does require, I think, the county to be thoughtful of how we're submitting an RFP, what products we're looking for. And I want to remind the board that we've done a lot in those seven years on developing new and other funding streams and programs like Launchpad, Lease to Locals. And if we start looking at those funds in total, the 18 million if that's required for the 80, and the mixed of some achievable housing on the site might be very doable. I did host a meeting with several of the advisors to TOT funds from the North Tahoe Community Alliance Board, and there was strong support for potentially, I'm saying very potentially, with the right project bonding against those funds to make a longer-term commitment, again, out of TOT and potentially TBIT funds. So I was very encouraged with both of those conversations, both at the meeting and then at a subsequent meeting I held, because we do need to raise significant money, and it's probably going to mean some money. sort of bonding or borrowing in order to do that. And, uh, what I heard, you know, at least preliminarily, I guess I'll hold them all to it, uh, was that a longterm commitment is something that they, they could support with the right project. And I think we've come a long way in studying that side and understanding the community's concerns. And as I mentioned, developing new programs that are subsidizing housing routinely up there in other ways. So how can we bring those together? So I think I am fine with where we're headed today and look forward to potentially that developer partnering with others or coming back with a collaboration that'll allow us to do a project that the community can truly be proud of. and support. Thanks.

Supervisor Gore. Thank you, Supervisor Gustafson, for the questions and the follow-up. And it is disappointing to be at a place where it's been seven years of a lot of work. And it's just disappointing, right? And I know it's disappointing for you, for the community, for the developer, when we really wanted to see affordable housing built on that site. And it's still a potential. It's just, right, it's about the bottom line and the cost, ultimately. So I'm pleased to hear that residents would like some changes but that they're still open to it because really we have to have locations. and make something work. And so I share my disappointment, I think, because I think that's what we're hearing from the community. It's disappointing that we're not there. At the same time, how do we be creative and work with the community and our partners and find a way forward? So I'm happy to move forward with the way staff has recommended. And let's just keep trying to find creative solutions.

Supervisor Gustafson.

Oh, I just wanted to remind us all, too, during those seven years, we had a little thing called a global pandemic that did stall out. I mean, the project really, there was no activity on the project or very limited direction from staff or board. And we started working on these other programs, as one caller mentioned, that I do think have taught us some things about what kind of product and what we could do there. So thank you.

OK, I don't see any other questions or comments from board members. So is there anyone who'd like to make a motion? Just making sure you're still awake. OK, thank you. Thank you for that presentation. Thank you. OK, we will now move to our 11.30 timed item, item 7A, ordinance to increase transient occupancy tax an additional 2% for a total of 10%.

Good afternoon, Chair Landon, members of your board, Daniel Clayton, Joel Joyce with the County Executive Office. I'm here today, and I'll read the action requested to get it out of the way here, to conduct a public hearing on increasing the transient occupancy tax by an additional 2% for a total of 10% in the Western Slope transient occupancy tax area. and introduce and waive oral reading of an ordinance to amend placer county code chapter 4 section 4.16.030a which will be operative upon a majority vote held by the held on the november 3rd 2026 statewide general election So really quick, before I jump into the slide here, I do want to talk about the history of transit occupancy tax in the county of Placer. It was originally established as a uniform 8% tax across the entire county. In the mid-1990s, the board at the time and the voters approved a split of the TOT area between Western Slope and what we call, or what the board calls and the county calls the North Lake Tahoe TOT area. After the split in the 1990s, the voters in Eastern Placid in the North Tahoe TOT area approved an incremental 2% increase on top of the 8% increase for a total of 10% in the North Lake Tahoe area. Also in the mid-1990s, a ballot measure was proposed to the voters in the Western Slope TOT area, which was for the same incremental 2%, which was rejected by the voters in that election in November 1996. So what I'm bringing forward today is an ordinance to amend the Western Slope TOT area for an increase from the current 8% transit occupancy tax to a total of 10%. This would apply to hotels, motels, bed and breakfast, anything with overnight lodging, including short-term rentals, vacation rentals, et cetera, as well as other taxable lodging that I may not even think of that could occur in the next 30 years. Who knows? I do want to make it clear because there are some areas in the state that You can go through these hosting platforms, rent out swimming pools for day use, things like that. That would not apply to any of that. This is just overnight lodging. And it does not apply to any local homeowners or property owners within the West End Slope TOT area, and then would not apply to residents as well, unless they choose to have a staycation in an overnight lodging, vacation rental, or hotel. Based on revenues spanning the past five fiscal years just coming out of COVID up until actually end of February 2026, I do anticipate should the voters approve this measure to increase the TOT tax by 2% an additional 350 to 400,000. And there's a range on that because most of the TOT generated in the western slope occurs from private operators, private owners, your STRs, your Airbnbs, your VBROs. There will be a slide later that delineates the numbers between our big hotels and motels. This is being brought forward to your board today as a general services tax to be utilized should the voters approve it for any county-wide use. Supervisor Gustafson had mentioned earlier today that within the North Tahoe TOT taxing area, the board has chosen to adopt what we're calling a geographic reinvestment policy for the North Lake Tahoe TOT area. there was not a geographic reinvestment policy for the western slope tot area um so uh any funds that come in currently or that are uh revenues come in um from a voter approved tax uh could be utilized however the board sees the board sees fit joel quick question on that i know this is not an exhaustive list of potential uses but affordable housing could potentially be included in there is that right or the board made sure there wasn't a restriction on that The past few election cycles, towns and cities within Placer County have taken their own ballot measures, increasing transit occupancy tax, a majority from 8% to 10%, which you see on the chart here, Roseville being the outlier from 6% to 10%. In doing some research on other areas around us, City of Sac, County of Sacramento has a 12% TOT tax. The only 8% I could find, and this is just quick research, was the City of Folsom, still has an 8% TOT tax. Here's a map of the western transit occupancy tax areas, delineated in gray. Obviously, the incorporated cities and towns are not included, and then the white you see up on the eastern part of the county is what we call the North Lake Tahoe Transit Occupancy Tax Area. So this would only apply to the areas in gray. As I mentioned earlier, over the past five years, there's 374 unique private owners that pay and do our TOT system, as well as 27 hotel, motel, and bed and breakfast facilities. The 374 unique individuals, I do want to say the revenues that come in from those are very volatile. Not every house rents for the same seasons, the same days. Majority have taken years off. Some come back here and there. So the revenue is fairly volatile on the private owner side. While the hotel and motels and bed and breakfast, you typically see the same revenue amount come in year after year with a slight increase depending on room rates.

May I ask a point of clarification, Joel? Because those 374 private owners, those are primarily on the eastern side of the- No, this is only in Western. This is only- Actually in Western. So we have that many Airbnbs and short term rentals. And probably more. I was gonna follow up on that. Probably. That is interesting. Thank you. I would be very curious.

Can I follow up on that? I know when we instituted the short-term rental ordinance in 2019 in North Lake Tahoe and then started enforcing it, I think in 2021, you'll see a huge jump in the revenues because once people, once we were checking that they had a permit and they had to have a permit in order to advertise and we enforced it, the revenues jumped significantly. And so I would just, in support of that, continue to look at that. I know when I brought it forward in 2019, we asked people on the West Slope in Fifth District Would you be interested in a short-term rental ordinance? And they were not interested in that and didn't feel there were issues. But it does help you with collection of revenue and put people on a fair, even keel.

And to follow up on that, so I have pulled geographic areas within the western TOT area in terms of the private operators. There's no real outlier in terms of the groups, Forest Hill area, Granite Bay, Horseshoe Bar, Penryn, Meadow Vista, Ophir, things like that. They're all pretty equal, actually. So there's no outlier in terms of a certain area. The only outlier is probably the lack of private operators in the Dry Creek area. Yeah, so it's not concentrated in one area of Western Placer.

And there's a few up in the, just outside of Colfax boundary that I know we had some issues with, so I knew they were there.

Um, so with that, should you approve, should your board, uh, approved, um, the item today, uh, I would be bring back a second reading, uh, at the next board meeting on June 30th, uh, to officially place the ballot, uh, the measure on the ballot, um, obviously November 3rd being the election day. Um, and should the voters approve it and the election certified approximately 30 days after, um, the increase in TOT tax would take effect immediately upon certification. With that, I'm happy to answer any other questions.

I'll open the public hearing. And are there any questions or comments from board members? Supervisor Jones?

Yes, I was going to say, in fact, I just wrote a note to Clayton asking if we did raise that TOT by that 2%, could we spend it on affordable housing? one way to dedicate money to affordable housing that actually not so much the taxpayers bear the burden, but our traveling visitors do.

Yep.

An option.

Supervisor Gork.

Thank you, Joel. Really appreciate it. And my question is always like, what are the other jurisdictions doing? And you answered that. And 10% is what it is across the county, which makes a lot of sense. And I think there is opportunity to do this one in a way that doesn't actually burden our taxpayers. And people pay the TOT. And there are other jurisdictions where it's much higher. So I appreciate the effort, and I think it's something that we do, that we should move forward on and add to the ballot in the fall.

Supervisor Gustafson?

I appreciate, you know, gosh, new money. If it were to pass, if the voters supported us, I want to be very clear, too, that there's a great need in our fire fund and for the technical rescue folks. And we've attributed a lot of those issues to people coming here to recreate in the canyons and the rivers and trying to continue to support our Placer County Fire Department with their equipment is also an important need. If we can free up some of the general fund that's going there, that could also go toward housing. So depending on how the voters feel about it, that certainly is another. They do cost, there are costs associated with visitors coming to an area and making sure that we're covering those costs and relieving the local taxpayers of that burden is important too.

Mr. Cook.

I just wanted to reiterate what Joel mentioned, that this is a proposal for a general tax and therefore could be used for any purposes. I also wanted to note, Joel, I don't believe the actions were read into the record. Maybe I missed that. He did. First slide. Did he? Okay. Take that back then.

Thanks. Sorry. Supervised. No. Thank you. Sorry.

Please. Trying to get it done. Just to make clarity, this is a majority vote, not a two-thirds vote from the people? Correct, because it is a general services tax. Just to clarify that. Thank you.

Supervisor Jones? Yeah, I was going to point out that I noticed on the comment slide, with all of these cities, they are pointing public safety roads, parks, trails, wilderness preparedness, police fire, street maintenance. But nowhere on this is anything about affordable housing. Which, after the crowd that we had earlier, everything was about affordable housing. Now, this particular one is not. So it's something for us to have to decide on. Thank you.

Ms. Jewell. This has to be voted on even by incorporated residents, too? Or is it just the unincorporated? I don't believe so.

OK. Sorry, Ryan, if you're listening.

Okay, any other questions or comments from board members? And is there anyone here in the public who would like to comment on this item?

I had two questions. One is for things like wineries where you have tax plus you have potential stays by the wineries. How is that handled? And is there a possibility, I still feel that District 4 does not get their share of funding. I've asked for multiple times for audits. I feel like every time the developers come in, you start with approximately 60,000 in each district, and then you bring a bunch of folks in, and we get starved out. The existing residents, I don't believe, get their fair share. of the money that they pay in taxes. So is there a way that we could appropriate things just like we do with PCCP? The ask is always can we keep it in our area because we think we're getting starved out. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments here in the chambers?

Good afternoon, esteemed Board, Madam Chair, Rob Haswell, Executive Director of the Placer County Visitors Bureau. I'm here to speak in support of this ordinance change, bringing the TOT from 8% to 10%. As we've all heard already, that brings the unincorporated part of the West Slope in to the same as all the other jurisdictions in our area. It's also worth noting that is still below state average. The state average is like 12%, I think, per jurisdiction. So it's overdue, I would say, given some of the things that we've been talking about, I've been hearing today in terms of use of resources. Most of you probably know that we had a record year of visitor spending in 2025. Visitors to Placer County spent $1.57 billion So it's a very important revenue stream that ended up generating about $135 million state and local taxes. So it's an important sector, but I think as we've pointed out, visitors use resources. And when they come into town, that's the one place where they can pay their fair share. And so it's really, I think, just really a matter of equity when it comes to some of these things. And Supervisor Jones, the thing about some of these lists that you see, as Council Cook pointed out, this revenue can, it's a general fund revenue. Typically, as you put these questions together, you sort of highlight the things that resonate with a lot of Folks that's just kind of how that sort of gets put together but obviously open for anything And I I want to reiterate what supervisor Guston said earlier about thinking in terms of an STR ORDINANCE BECAUSE COLLECTION IS THE KEY TO A SCENARIO WHERE YOU'VE GOT THIS MANY FOLKS THAT ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE AIRBNB AND WHATNOT, VACATION RENTALS. Again, these are folks that if they're not registered, they're not part of it, their folks are not paying their part. And it is definitely worth, I think, looking at what happened in Tahoe post the ordinance, because this trend is actually on the rise. Visitors want experiences, they come into a place, now they wanna have a home out in the country. It's a really growing market, so I would urge the board to be very proactive.

that front but in general just here to support this ordinance I think it's overdue and I think it's a great move for the county thank you thank you supervisor Jones yes I'm Joel could you go back to slide six so is this saying that this TOT tax will not apply to incorporated cities and towns

Correct. It will not apply.

But will their residents be able to vote on this?

No.

Oh. We'd be helpful. So it's only unincorporated areas. Correct. OK. Well, if you guys have, how many do you have? Almost 4,000 STR?

I think 3,300. 3,300. On the east slope.

So we have to have a lot more than 374 on this side of the hill. I bet you do, because our numbers jumped when we did an ordinance.

And just to clarify, that 374 number is unique over a five-year period. Just taking a guess, any given year, there's probably only 300 that you're seeing?

If there's that many in Granite Bay. Thanks, Joel.

Any other questions or comments from board members? Did we answer the question? Yeah, sorry. I was just going to make sure that Joel answered Ms. Bergama's question.

Ms. Bergama's question on the wineries? Yeah.

To the extent that wineries have overnight lodging, they should be paying TOT. If I can remember on the data, I don't recall seeing a winery on that list. They could be registered under a name I'm just not familiar with. But to the extent that they do have overnight lodging, they're individuals and they should be remitting TOT to the county.

I don't think they have the answers yet, but yeah.

Did you have one more?

Whether it's an ordinance or just a requirement, however we would approach it, I do think that having everybody play on an even field, so whether it's a winery or a private home, if you're bringing guests in and creating revenue, that you're reporting it and we're tracking it. similar to what we've done with the special event areas and the other programs, so thanks.

All right, I will close the public hearing and bring it back for a motion.

I'll move approval of the item. Second.

Moved by Gore, seconded by DiMattei. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thank you. We will now move to our last timed item, item 8A, 2025 Placer County Charter Review Committee, final report.

Good afternoon, Chair Landon and Supervisors, Ben Mills with the County Executive Office, presenting on item number eight, which is the 2025 Placer County Charter Review Committee Final Report and Recommended Actions. I'm also joined here today with committee member Dan Woodward, representing the Charter Committee, along with other members of the committee that will likely speak during public comment. So I'll read the action requested into the record. Review, discuss, and take action on the 2025 Placer County Charter Review Committee's final report and identify potential charter amendments for further consideration. So by way of background, there are two distinct governance models for California counties, and those are general law and charter counties. Of the 58 counties, 15 are charter counties. Charters provide flexibility in local governance and establish provisions governing the county's organizational structure, as well as duties and responsibilities of elected and appointed officials. General law counties must follow state statute without exception. The people of Placer County approved the charter in 1980, and the charter includes a requirement that every five years a charter review committee be formed to review the charter and provide recommendations to the board. The committee was appointed in February of last year and is composed of an appointee from each supervisorial district along with two at-large members. The charter requires a minimum of two public meetings. And the 2025 Charter Review Committee held a total of five public meetings. All the meetings were held in the afternoon and open to both in-person and virtual participation. And public outreach included articles in the local journal, county newsletter, social media posts, and digital flyers, resulting in strong public participation. The committee identified 13 areas of review, summarized in attachment A to the board memo. That's the committee's final report. And each area included staff research and analysis, including review of county practices, comparison with other California counties, and applicable statutes and case law. Of the 13 areas reviewed, three resulted in recommended charter amendments. For the remaining 10, the committee determined either that the current county practices were appropriate as is or that they were outside of the scope of the charter. The final report includes draft language starting on page two and strike out underlined format so you could follow along and look at the final recommendations on how they would be implemented within the charter if approved. So with that, I will begin with recommendation number one. This pertains to section 206 of the charter, which governs vacancies of the board of supervisors. Currently, vacancies must be filled by a unanimous vote of the board within 30 days or else the governor appoints. In either case, the appointee serves the remainder of that term. The committee recommends extending the board's appointment window to 60 days while retaining the unanimous vote requirement and the governor's backstop if no appointment is made. The recommendation also adds an election component. If an appointment is made 130 days or more before the next statewide primary, the appointee serves until such time that the seat goes onto the ballot, and then the elected individual serves the remainder of the unexpired term. If the appointment is made less than 130 days before the primary, the appointee would serve the remainder of the term. This approach preserves the board's staggered 3-2 election cycle. With recommendation two, this pertains to section 502 of the charter, which governs the appointment and removal of the county executive officer. Currently, the charter provides the executive officer may be removed by an affirmative vote of three of the board members. The committee recommends retaining this existing language while adding the ability for the board to negotiate alternative removal options through an employment agreement. This change would provide the board with greater flexibility when recruiting and retaining qualified candidates by allowing removal terms that may be more attractive to potential executives, such as requiring a supermajority vote for the removal if the board chooses. If an employment agreement does not specify those alternative removal provisions, the charter's existing requirement of a simple majority would continue to apply by default. Recommendation three pertains to section 207 of the charter, which establishes compensation for members of the Board of Supervisors. Currently, the charter stipulates that the board members receive an annual salary that may not exceed the average salary paid to supervisors of El Dorado, Nevada, and Sacramento counties. The committee recommends replacing this methodology with a fixed benchmark tied to the salary of the California Superior Court judge's base salary. Specifically, the recommendation would establish board compensation at 55% of the base salary of the California Superior Court judge while limiting any annual salary increase to no more than 10% a year. The current board salary is $117,042. Based on current fiscal year, 55% of a California Superior Court judge's salary would equate to approximately $134,600. Because that amount exceeds the 10% cap that the committee proposes, implementation would occur incrementally. Using current figures as an example, board compensation would increase by 10% in the first year, resulting in a salary of approximately $128,746, with an additional adjustment occurring in subsequent years until the benchmark is met. So in a moment, I'm going to hand over the presentation to committee representative Dan Woodward, who will be able to provide a little bit more additional context as to the rationale from the committee's recommendations. Following that presentation, staff requests that the board discuss the recommendations and provide direction to staff on any items to advance, any modifications, or any additional changes to the charter as the board sees fit. It may be most efficient for the board to discuss each of these recommendations individually so staff can track. And if directed to proceed, staff would then prepare ordinances for board consideration presented over to future meetings. Approved ordinances would then become measures on a future ballot for voter consideration. And with that, finally, I would just like to express my appreciation to the many departments that assisted throughout this process, and most importantly, to the members of the Charter Review Committee and the members of the public who generously volunteered their time and participation in the many afternoon meetings on this important county function. And with that, I'd like to invite committee member Dan Woodward up to provide some comment.

Thanks, Ben. Very nice to see you all, supervisors. Apologies a little bit for two things, I guess, on this particular thing. First, it's scripted. The reason it's scripted is because I felt that it was important that I make sure that I did not infuse my own viewpoints into this. I represent seven people here. I represent their views. And so that's what I tried to do. So it's scripted. And the second thing is there is going to be a little bit of duplication here, because Ben did a great job of covering things. You'll hear a little bit of that, but it's in the context, perhaps, of the larger group and the way we arrived at our discussion. So the CRC asked me to provide some supporting comments, and so I'm glad to do that. Before I do that, though, I do need to make a few comments about thanks and that sort of thing. So the committee expresses its deep appreciation to Ben, who worked tirelessly to support us throughout our deliberations. Since this review is only accomplished every five years, there really is no established guidance checklist or anything like that for this particular thing. And so Ben had to do much of this from scratch. As a result, he needed to create things largely from scratch, like I said, and he did a tremendous job of keeping us and our efforts on track while providing well-researched and clearly defined analysis, ensuring that we could assess both the efficiency and the effectiveness of the particular things you're going to hear today. Likewise, Clayton, congratulations, by the way, on your promotion, and thanks for letting me know that every time we have butted heads in the Planning Commission, I was right and you were wrong. I appreciate that very much.

I'm free to disagree.

He's a general, sir. Clayton was ever present at our meetings and always available before and after to help us make sure that we were providing you logical feedback and also that the things we were going to give you were consistent with county code and with the state law. The committee also thanks Megan Wood, Marcy Brumbaugh, Sasha Pelletier, Tiffany Nell, Jeremy Kelly, Erin Flessing, and Vasily Bosginski from the County Clerk's Office in the Placer County Audiovisual, all of whom helped us ensure our meetings were orderly, properly documented, and available online, providing opportunities for everybody in Placer County to participate if they chose to. We also recognize the great commitment displayed by the County Chief Executive Officer who attended at least two of our meetings and the representatives from his office who also attended other meetings as well. We thank the CEO and his office staff for taking time to help the CRC accomplish its responsibilities. As the CRC refined our recommendations, we also called on various staff agencies, as Ben mentioned, to help us produce realistic and beneficial options for you to consider. Most notably, human resources in the county elections office were tremendously helpful. providing direct support throughout our often lengthy meetings, and offering advice on specific issues important to the success of our committee. Each member thanks them for their support as well. Most importantly, however, we thank the people of Placer County who took the time to participate, took time from their schedules to participate, attending our meetings either in person or virtually, providing input into our efforts. We sincerely appreciate their dedication and their energy. Over the next few minutes, I'll offer you brief comments that support the already presented staff report from Ben, focusing on the problem we identified with each of the existing charter items and the logic that we followed to reach our final recommendations and supplemental comment. Recommendation one, filling of board seats. we identified two problems first the current charter requires that the board unanimously appoint a person to fill a vacant supervisor seat within 30 days of the vacancy or turn that responsibility over to the governor as ben mentioned this approach is used by several other counties across the state however we considered the 30-day requirement to be too restrictive and felt that more flexibility would help ensure selection for Placer County supervisors were handled by people in Placer County who had been elected. Thus, we unanimously recommend that the Board offer the voters of Placer, through a ballot measure, the opportunity to expand the window to fill a vacant supervisor seat to 60 days. Furthermore, the current charter provides no guidance on how to quickly and reasonably return the position filled by an appointed supervisor back to the voters of Placer County, where it clearly belongs. The previous CRC considered requiring a special election but discarded the idea due to expense. As a result, we examined other alternatives with the help of Ben's research and with the assistance of the Placer County Office of Elections and settled on linking our recommendations to the mandatory cutoff of 130 days for the placement of a candidate on a particular ballot. The logic here is reasonably simple. If an appointment is made 130 days or more before the next statewide direct primary election, the appointment you make is temporary. The office will be placed on the ballot at the next primary election, and the person elected will serve the remainder of the unexpired term. This provides a clear and predictable path to returning the seat to the voters while avoiding the cost of a standalone special election. If the appointment is made less than 130 days before the next statewide direct primary election, the appointee serves the remainder of the unexpired term. At that point, the statutory deadline for ballot placement has passed and potential candidates will already have qualified for the election cycle. Thus, we unanimously recommend the Board offer the voters of Placer, through a ballot measure, new charter language that clarifies the process to be used to elect a replacement or codify through an election the position filled by a Board-appointed supervisor. Recommendation 2, improving competitiveness in the hiring of a chief or county executive officer. We identified the following problem. Selection of a county executive officer is obviously an extremely important decision. The CRC concluded that current charter language, which states that the CEO may be removed from his or her position by a three-fifths majority vote of the board, might hinder the ability of the board to attract exceptionally talented individuals to the CEO position. Discussions here centered on the idea that the board should have more flexibility when negotiating with candidates to allow candidates and the board to establish mutually agreeable processes for dismissal. It is possible that the three-fifths vote dismissal language will be used in the future, but if a highly qualified candidate wishes to offer an alternative, we felt the board should not be bound by the existing charter language. Thus, we unanimously recommend that the Board offer the voters of Placer, through a ballot measure, new charter language that allows the Board flexibility to negotiate with CEO candidates on this particular issue. Recommendation three, board compensation methodology. As with our other recommendations, this comes to you following extensive research, analysis, and data review by the CRC with the great assistance of Ben and, in this case, the Placer HR department. We identified the following problem. Current charter language links placer supervisor pay to the average salaries of board members in El Dorado, Nevada, and Sacramento County. The CRC acknowledges the challenges faced by supervisors associated with establishing their own pay, their own annual pay, and understands how the three surrounding counties approach, which is not uncommon across the state, became part of the existing charter. However, the CRC concluded that the Placer County voters should be responsible for establishing supervisor compensation for Placer County supervisors, and that outsourcing this responsibility to other counties was inconsistent with the protection of the rights of the voters of Placer County. Furthermore, the 2024 Sacramento County Grand Jury found that the Sacramento Board of Supervisors, and this is a quote, improperly approved a 36% pay increase rather than a 20% advertised pay increase due to sloppy, uncorrected math errors and a lack of transparency. The investigation revealed that the true cost was $333,000, which was nearly double the $173,000 that was presented, and that the ordinance violated state law regarding the protest period. It is important to note that HR, Placer County HR, was fully aware of this issue and that along with research provided by Clayton, assured the CRC that supervisor compensation in Placer County was ultimately determined to be properly established for the year and that no issues with the Sacramento grand jury finding improperly affected Placer County supervisor pay. However, this issue helps solidify support among CRC members that an approach to supervisor compensation that returns the responsibility to the County of Placer would be prudent. Following extensive benchmarking with other counties, consideration of a variety of alternatives, and lengthy discussions with staff, the CRC ultimately concluded that linking supervisor pay to a percentage of the salary of a Placer County Superior Court judge was the simplest and most logical method to return the responsibility of establishing Placer supervisor pay to the people of Placer County. We examined percentages from as low as 50% to as high as 68% and ultimately settled on 55% based on current supervisor salaries. current Placer Superior Court judge salaries, typical annual pay increases for judges and supervisors, and the recognition that elected supervisors need to justify their compensation to voters. Further, we found that compensation equivalent to 55% of a Placer County Superior Court judge would result in a pay raise for Placer supervisors in excess of 10% for this next year. So we modified our recommendation to include a mandatory annual pay raise cap of 10% in any given year. We believe this approach returns a critical decision to the voters of Placer, provides justifiable compensation rates for our supervisors, and helps assure voters that annual compensation rate compensation increases will be reasonable. Thus, we unanimously recommend the board offer the voters of Placer, through a ballot measure, new charter language that sets Placer supervisor annual compensation at a rate of 55% of the annual compensation of a Placer Superior Court judge. And that includes an annual pay raise cap of 10%. Finally, the CRC suggests the Placer County better create, plan, and execute initiatives and programs to ensure we meet our affordable housing renit obligation. This is categorized as a suggestion rather than a recommendation because it is not appropriate for inclusion in the Placer County Charter and therefore is outside of the CRC's mission. However, despite our efforts to focus exclusively on charter related issues, community members brought forward concerns in each of our meetings regarding county progress toward our RHNA numbers and a perceived lack of urgency and thoughtful planning in this area. As a result, we could not in good conscience exclude this topic from this discussion today. Over five meetings, we had extensive discussions with community members covering the entire spectrum of concerns associated with affordable housing progress in Placer County. On one end of the spectrum, community members and an advocate on the CRC spoke with great passion about the need for Placer County to assert itself and fight centralized housing directives levied by the state of California based on the concept of county home rule. While the committee did not widely support this perspective, every member learned a great deal from the debate, which informed subsequent discussions and our suggestion. As broadly focused as the home rule debate was, other community members more narrowly asserted that the county staff and the Board of Supervisors either lack the authority, the will, or the urgency necessary to make our county compliant with state requirements using locations across the county that minimize community disruption and that have the infrastructure and resources necessary to support higher density housing. In addition, one resident focused on the use of metrics to assess progress toward objectives in this and other areas throughout the county staff and offered compelling examples from our 2024 county report that showed that we had completed zero very low-income housing units in Placer since the current housing element was approved and just 12 low-income housing units during that same period. Further, in your March of 2025 update from the housing staff, you were told that at the 50% point in the current housing element period, we had completed just 5% of our arena requirement for these two housing categories. These and other community comments were undoubtedly more emphatic because a decision regarding the Hope Way Penrhyn apartment project had yet to be reached and because an extended housing planning study unanimously directed by the planning commission for out brief in February of 2025 had yet to be out briefed. The CRC acknowledges the complexities of this issue and the variety of actions already being taken by the board, the CEO, and the housing staff to increase housing at all levels in Placer. However, our recognition that considerable effort was already being expended in this area only heightened concern with the progress reflected in the housing metrics. This divergence generated vigorous debate about how to address this issue with the board. Ultimately, we settled on a suggestion that the board approve the following language for inclusion in the Placer County General Plan, which is currently under development. It is accurate to say that a slim majority of the committee initially supported much stronger language than our suggestion, but by unanimous approval, we removed the most controversial elements associated with this particular suggestion because we believe that a more aggressive approach would not have been approved by the board. The suggested language reads, protect rural and low density zoned regions of the county from the encroachment of high density development, which is inconsistent with the character of the local community or the zoning of neighborhood lands. and enact policies and encourage developers to build housing sufficient to meet state requirements again with unanimous support we ask that the board direct this language be included in the next placer county general plan that concludes my report thank you ladies and gentlemen thank you mr woodward very much appreciate your diligence and thoughtfulness and of course the whole committee as well thank you any closing comments from you

That concludes staff's presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

All right. I will bring it back to the board. And I think we will go ahead and take recommendation each one at a time. And yes, Mr. Cook.

Should questions or comments now? We'd also have public comment.

Yes. So I guess first questions or comments from the board yet.

One quick question. First of all, thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that report and all the work that the committee did. A question about the firing of a CEO and the three of five votes needed. What do other counties do that are, I guess you probably only looked at charter counties, non-charter counties. I mean, is there a difference? I'm just curious what other counties do.

So general law does not specify the requirements to remove or to hire a CEO. So a lot of times what would occur would, that would be included within an employment contract. So I did look at charter counties to see if there's any charters that actually stipulate a four-fifths vote, and I did find one, and that is the County of Sacramento, who actually specifies within their charter that the CEO is removed through a majority vote. This recommendation would actually provide a little bit more flexibility because you're not picking one or the other. It gives board the discretion at the time they find the candidate to either move forward with the simple majority or the super majority if they so choose.

Super. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Okay. We'll open up public comment. Are there public comments on this item?

Good afternoon, board members. Brian Myers, chairman of Placer Citizens for Neighborhood Rights. And I actually miss you all. Haven't seen you for a while. You don't have to say the same about me. I want to thank the Charter Review Commission or committee, because they really did an outstanding job. I appeared before them a number of times, and so did a whole bunch of our community people. And it was always an intelligent, logical, engaged discussion with them. They really took their job seriously. They worked hard at it. And we were very, very pleased to be able to go there and have the exchange of ideas that we did with the commission. So you should be very proud of the people. And you should be, on behalf of me, the public, pass that on. The public really appreciated how the committee handled itself. With that said, the last of their pseudo recommendations is what we think is the most important, the one that was just read to you about protecting rural and low density zone regions of the county. We think that should be very clearly stated everywhere you can state it. We've just come off the settlement of the Hopeway litigation where we were able to reduce the density to 145% to 132 units with stringent benchmarks that had to be met before any more units can be built on top of that. And so we were pleased as a community that we were able to have that impact. It took, you don't know how many hours and days and weeks and months, $150,000 of money in legal fees to get to that point. It should have been done a lot earlier without us having to do all that, but look where it ended up. Protecting the rural communities is important and Hope Way is only the first of the major ones that you're gonna see as the county grows. And I think it's important that you document now your priority to help protect rural lands in the face of the state. And who knows what's going to happen with state government and how that's all going to pencil out with affordable housing. We all agree we need affordable housing. No one disputes that. But it needs to be the right building in the right place with the right infrastructure. And now is the time in the general plan, in the charter, everywhere you can to reiterate your commitment to the rural areas of this county. It's important that you do that. And I hope that you will look at that portion of the report, even though it's outside the charter, so to speak, and figure out a way to incorporate and demand that it be incorporated in the general plan wherever it's appropriate, in the vision, in the plan. And I think it's important that you state the priority of protecting rural communities like Penryn. One point I want to make about the recommendation item number three, and there'll be more chances to talk about that, is that a 10% COLA, it will be very difficult for the voters to swallow. And you will have a very hard time convincing voters to buy on that. When you give your bargaining units 1%, 2%, 3%, 4% at the most, I haven't seen anybody get more than 4%, and you get 10%, you're not going to sell that to the voters. So you need to really start thinking now, what would be approved by the voters? Salary increase, OK, I get it. You're underpaid. But think about that cola part of it. That's going to be an important part of the battle. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Other questions or comments?

Thank you. I am Chris Jansen. I'm a member of the committee that Dan just spoke about. And I wanted to come up and support what Dan just said. I'm not going to repeat any of the things he went through other than I do want to express, as a committee member, my thanks for the other committee members, the public that participated. In particular, Ben Mills did a fantastic job. Ben, very appreciative. Clayton, your legal counsel was excellent. but your patience was exemplary. There were more than a few times where I thought I needed to stand up and defend your honor, but you did a fantastic job. I wanted to speak very quickly about, oh, I also wanted to thank Nathan Herzog, our chair, also did an exceptional job making sure that it was a fair process. We got a lot of public input. It was a very enjoyable experience, and I appreciate being appointed to the committee. There is one topic I want to talk about just briefly and that's the compensation for board members. Fully support what Dan said. I want to add a little bit to that. Clearly this is one of the more challenging recommendations we're making for you to decide for obvious reasons. I think Dan articulated that the current methodology is poor and we're trying to align that better with Placer County voter values of what we should be offering. for compensation for this role. That's compelling in itself, but I think one of the things that can get lost here is we're not the sleepy little county we were 30, 40 years ago. We're a far more complex county. Compensation for this role should reflect that because of responsibilities for the role you're in certainly reflects that complexity as well. This is beyond a full-time job being a county supervisor in a county like Placer. I don't need to tell you that, but I think it's important for the record that people appreciate that. It's an all-consuming job, right? I wanted to throw in one other thing that I think is very important about the compensation. When we started the discussion, I was actually against any compensation changes. And it was that discussion that brought me around to be a very strong advocate for making a better compensation methodology. But one of them for me is candidate participation. When we have compensation that's too low, that means we get candidates on the extremes. People who view that as really good compensation for where they are or people who have considerable wealth and the compensation doesn't matter. And what does that mean? The people in the middle are not as interested in the job because compensation becomes a detriment. So from my standpoint, my support comes from improving not only the quality of what we're offering for compensation for the job, but also the opportunity for quality of candidates in the future. So with that, again, thank you to everybody who participated. Again, the CEO's office and department heads, really appreciate them showing up and participating as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sheryl Merkma, Granite Bay. Here you go. And can I get these? Thank you. I primarily wanted to give you this feedback because on the second page is the metrics that are produced for HCD every year. And so I'll be referring to that. But the big point that was brought up was how can you sit here year after year and see zero, zero, 13 out of thousands of, tens of thousands of developments and see that progress and not ask questions. Why are we failing? So miserably, I mean so bad. So how can you sit here every year and submit the same data to HCD And HCD is actually, I think, complicit in not making you change course. Why are they accepting this data? That is really bad. And I'm not saying that people aren't working hard, but you're not course correcting. So I think that some of the things that were brought up were equivalency does not work. If it worked, these numbers wouldn't be there. So I think that there's serious course correction that's needed. We're actually closer to two-thirds the way through to 2029. How are you going to make these numbers? And the state is going to come back, and they are going to say, now you're more thousands behind. And what are you going to do? You're going to confiscate our community plans again? Because that's really what happened. You went through an orderly process, but we had no choice. It wasn't actually a choice given to residents to vote on to say, we want to give up our zoning. So I hope you'll really consider that. Back to more positive, I do want to thank Ben. And you did an excellent job. We really were thorough in a lot of the questions that we asked. And the whole committee was very respectful, very inclusive. Always made sure we had time to ask and answer questions. I think that I considered all, I went to every meeting except for one I couldn't attend. And the thing that I pushed on the most was performance. The fact that we don't really have performance metrics. If we had metrics, you wouldn't produce this every year. Because there'd be a big red flags all over the place. These are titanic events. These should not be happening every single year. You should have red, yellow, greens, not all red, right? I mean, the only green you have is above moderate income in West Placer and Tahoe. So you can't really have just constant extremes. And the lack of performance metrics means lack of accountability. which results in lack of transparency. If you don't measure it, you can't be held accountable, so you can create false narratives for your performance. That's exhibited in the fact that you have affordable housing months, all these events, Have you ever produced this and sent it out as a PR? So I would encourage you to stop creating the narrative that we're working busy, busy, busy and very, very hard but we're not actually producing meaningful results. So I think that I want to again applaud the- And Cheryl, can you wrap up your- Yes. I want to applaud the Charter Review Committee on all their recommendations. I think they did a fabulous job. Good luck on getting the voters to vote for, like you said, the salary, but thank you for your time.

Thank you. Any other comments here in the chambers? And is there anyone online?

Yes, Chair. Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments.

Greetings again, Supervisor Stein, Louisa Lessig, Mission Valley Park. I'm just gonna make this super brief and I just wanna really express how much I appreciated Dan's presentation as well as Ben's. And Dan, gonna miss you tremendously. Thank you so much for including some of our key points from the public. I think the Charter Review Committee did a tremendous job as well. did we get to include the things that we really all the things and especially the things I wanted to push on protecting our home rule no but I would also consider that even though it wasn't in the review that we the board considered making a review committee more frequently not just every five years because the state is jamming so many things down our throats that perhaps we may need to bolster and or review more and more frequency so with that I just want to thank the entire committee and the presentation today and I do also concur with everything that Cheryl just presented and Brian yeah when you're going forward you have to look at when you're doing compensation it has to be relevant to the rest of what the community is experiencing not just a fixed number and as your number goes up as a static even if the voters were to approve it I doubt it but anyways with that I yield thank you very much thank you caller go ahead and mute your mic and give your comments

Good afternoon Board of Supervisors this is Troy Alessi I was an at-large appointee I just wanted to be able to give my personal thanks to everyone there Ben Mills you in particular I thought you were outstandingly professional astute concise you very much kept us in line I thought that we had a fantastic collection of appointees to the Charter Review Committee Dan did a beautiful presentation to concisely put a synopsis on our work there. I thought that these fairly eclectic views that came together to represent the county was rather outstanding. I thought the participation by the public was also very good. The way that we were able to work together and ultimately come up with the recommendations that we have for you today. along with the suggestion on what I know you guys get battered down with regarding RHNA all the time. But nonetheless, I just feel that I can possibly echo some of the other sentiments there about how you guys are maybe going to need to go through the compensation idea with maybe a little bit more of a fine-tooth comb. Nonetheless, what has been presented to you, ultimately, I fully back. Ultimately, any thoughts on being able to reconvene a Charter Review Committee a little bit more often, given obviously the increasing size of Placer County and the needs of it, would also be something that I would be in favor of. In the future, I'd obviously love to be able to continue participating. with that you know i'll yield uh thank you again ben thank you again dan chris your comments uh you know einer um larry everyone that was part of the the charter review committee i thank you all very much i thank you for your time thank you caller go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments

Hello, this is Muriel Davis from Penryn. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay. First, I want to thank Dan for his excellent presentation. His report on the CRC is outstanding. And I want to thank Brian for his comments. I agree with both of those comments. I also want to thank the CRC for all of the hard work that they did and for their transparency. I feel like I need an exclamation point because they did such an outstanding job of letting us comment and appreciating us being there and for us to see how hard they work. I also agree with their recommendations and their suggestions. And I truly hope that the Board of Supervisors will adopt a recommendation and their suggestions. They're very critical and I think there'll be a benefit for the county. And I think that anyway, I want to thank the CRC tremendously. And I want to thank all the people who helped contribute from the public.

Thanks, Mariel. Oh, sorry.

Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments.

Thank you John Falk. I'm the legislative advocate for the Tahoe Sierra Board of Realtors. Thank you for the opportunity. The county's charter is really its constitution if you will and much like California's and the federal constitution I think by its very nature it needs to be broad and have points of aspiration and goals that are more general. The level of specificity that has gone into a number of the recommendations, in my opinion, seem to be more appropriate in that they're fine grained in the form of ordinances or in policies or even the general plan, but not the charter. So when we talk like the RENA numbers, I think a lot of people misunderstand. RENA numbers just say you have to have proof that you have zoning appropriate to meet your housing need not that you have to build it you're not builders you just have to provide adequate zoning so if the numbers don't match the need it's not and a problem with your group with the supervisors. It's an issue with people actually putting hammers and nails together. So as long as you do your zoning job, then you're meeting arena requirements. Then it's up to either incentives or other market forces to create the housing. And so putting that into the charter seems ill-advised and for the same general reason having competing issues like keeping rural areas rural while attempting to meet your arena numbers seems to be contrary to one another. Either you want to increase the housing or you don't. And you can't have it both ways. And it's difficult, I understand. So I think you can express in general terms intentions within the charter, your governing document, but I would caution you from being overly fine-grained. in the wording of your charter because it's a long-term document upon which you can build very specific policies and even more general broad-based general plan zoning and such that will meet the objectives that are currently being attempted to be articulated in your overarching document which by its very nature should be aspirational thank you thank you thank you no further comments

OK. I will go ahead and close public comment and bring it back to the board for discussion. And I think we'll go through each recommendation and get questions and comments and see where we all are. So we'll start with recommendation number one, which is section 206 on vacancies.

I have a quick question on overall. If these do go to their past year today, do they go on one ballot measure, or are they all going to be separate ballot measures?

Supervisor DiMattei, the recommendation from staff would be that each ballot measure be included on the same election cycle. So if the three measures were to be approved today, it would be recommended that they either move forward during the primary or the general election. They all get their own separate. Correct. All separate measures. Just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you.

Supervisor Gore? So starting with number one, I like the idea of changing it from 30 to 60 days. Excellent. So that the board isn't trying to do that. So I think that's an excellent idea. And I think the idea of the 130 days is a good idea. So I'm supportive of the recommendation. I would be happy to forward that one.

Supervisor Gustafson?

I totally support having been the only one up here who went through that process because both on the applicant's side as well as the board's side. So from the applicant's side, I had to inform my board what I was doing in a very public process and leave previous employment in a manner that I would have preferred to give more notice. And I think so. For future people and appointments, I think 60 days is a good timeline. And I had to run the next primary, so that's just what it calls for, to run for office. So I support number one completely and appreciate the hard work the committee put into that.

Supervisor Jones?

Yes, I support that also because I think that the 30 days, it squishes too much to do and too short of a time. And with the threat of having the governor appoint if we fail, this kind of gives us a fallback just to ensure that we're the ones who appoint.

Supervisor DiMattei?

Thank you. I would also agree with the recommendation on number one.

I agree as well. Did either one of you still have comments? Your mic was still on. Just want to make sure. Okay.

All right. So I guess we're good on that item.

If we could, should we take a formal motion on that? Oh, sure. Yeah. I believe the request would be to recommend that the change to Section 206 be brought back at a future meeting for consideration as an ordinance.

I move approval. I'll second.

Moved by Gore, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. We'll go ahead and move to the next recommendation, Section 502, County Executive Officer. Supervisor DiMattei.

Oh, sorry.

Well, I'll start. Supervisor Gore. I'm supportive. Sorry, Supervisor Gustafson.

I'm supportive as well. I just wanted to make sure I understand that in the contract, we can specify more. We can have more specific criteria as well, correct?

That is correct.

In employment contracts. So as long as we have that flexibility, I know going back in my career, there were times you wanted to make sure that no changes could be made following immediately following an election. I think that we wrote that into your contract just so you have a period of time for board members not to make a dramatic decision in the first few days of office. So I think those kinds of things in the contract help preserve our ability to look at the future. So thank you. I support this. Supervisor DiMattei?

Yeah I agree with this one as well there was a comment from the public that um you know it would dissolve or dilute the the people who are really good to apply for this job where I would disagree with that I think that when you have something that we have in place right now it it makes somebody work harder to stay here where they don't have to try and get a super majority to stay in their job I think that this the way we have it currently and we can obviously put it into our future contracts to have the option. I think coming from the public sector that it really gives people accountability to perform and not have to go after a super majority to be let go. So I would agree if we can have that language in our contracts that we have the options, then I'm good with that.

OK, I'm supportive as well. Supportive.

The motion would be to move that the proposed change to section 502 be brought back at a future meeting for consideration as an ordinance.

I move approval.

Second. Moved by Jones, seconded by Gustafson. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. We'll move to the easiest item, recommendation number three, section 207, board compensation.

OK, I'll jump in.

Supervisor Gustafson.

I'll jump in first. I really appreciate the committee's consideration on this and the hard work, and especially, Chris, your comments. Because I do think, certainly I know I wouldn't have been able to take this job before the compensation had been changed previously with the charter. And I've appreciated serving here. I guess you could say, is that a benefit or not, depending on what you think of my votes up here. I do think it's important to have a salary that is somewhat responsive to the responsibilities we face and make sure that we are considering future, not our current pay. And so one of the questions I have is if we were to approve this, if we were, Well, I have a couple questions. But if we were to approve this, could it be delayed to take effect for two years or some period of time? So in other words, we bring forward the whole charter recommendations, but we delay that implementation. Or can we change it to a maximum 5% a year? Are those changes we could make?

Yes, both those changes can be made.

Okay, then secondly, I'd like I mean, I did some research over the last week, just looking at how other supervisors salaries are. When we look at our competitive market, I need to do more work with HR because we've done different marketplace for our employees understanding our county has changed dramatically and how we used to look at our employees salaries. was not reflective of the county that we serve today. And so we made adjustments to employees' salaries based on a different competitive market. Looking at, I was surprised how many were tied to the judges' salaries. So obviously the charter committee knows a lot more than I do about how salaries are derived in this state. But they range, obviously, from 100% of the judge's salary down lower. And I want to look at that more closely and understand those salaries. Because just looking at the counties I remember, and I don't remember all our competitive counties, many of them are higher than ours. And that's what we're using as a benchmark for our employees. I wouldn't want to be ahead of our employees, but I certainly don't want to fall below our employees either. So those are my thoughts that we'd have some options on this, because I know it's hard for anyone to vote for salary adjustments for ourselves. But maybe we can think of ways to do that, because I think the county deserves that in the future. And we need to be in a competitive place where quality people, educated and thoughtful people can agree to take the job despite the low pay given the number of hours that we serve.

Supervisor Jones? Yeah. Do you have a slide after this one?

Yeah.

Oh, there you go.

Yeah. See, that is the thing that I think everybody needed to see.

If I may, to clarify, these are the charter county salaries, not necessarily the comparative labor markets that HR uses. So the average that you're seeing at the bottom is based on the 15 charter counties. And I would also mention, that this research was done prior to the previous or the most recent salary adjustment for most of these supervisors. This is actually included in one of the memos from the charter committee. So I just want to be clear that you're not necessarily looking at the most relevant information, but it gives you a good understanding as to how each supervisor's salary is derived and the methodology used.

Yeah, thank you for that. Even the average, we don't even reach the average. And when you talk about employees making salaries, our chiefs of staff make more than we do.

So we could add in Monterey and San Luis Obispo, and I'm trying to think of the other counties that were about our population.

Monterey, Santa Barbara, Solano, which I looked up. Okay. And they are much higher. Yeah. So I just looked them up while we were sitting here. Probably... average but um counties about the same size santa barbara 171k monterey supervisors 221k and sonoma county um 258k and those are non-charter counties so what i appreciate is the committee being conservative because these are much more conservative numbers um based on the The Superior Court judges, right? And know that our county has always been very conservative with the salaries. It was $30,000. For a long time. For a very long time. And it took a lot for folks to realize that this really is more than a full-time job with multiple responsibilities for board members to understand issues and topics. So I appreciate that. I think it's probably a reasonable comparison because the idea of our board going from 117 to $200,000 is a bit much. So I appreciate that comparison. I think it's reasonable. And then I wanna talk about when this may or may not go on the ballot, but we can talk about the amounts first.

The other thing I think we have to remember is that we are the number one fastest growing county in the state. So that's another thing, too, is our duties are only getting bigger, larger, more time spent. And I appreciate all the work.

Supervisor DiMattei?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ben and staff. Appreciate it. I have a tough time with this one because I look at some of those counties that are much higher than ours and I see probably four of them that are now having financial problems. So I hate to compare ourselves to many of those counties that are up there. I have a hard time pushing this forward when we still have not done a complete salary study and compensation for our employees. I can't see myself voting myself a raise to go do that. With that still hanging in the wind that has been taking so long to get done. On top of that, I think to put this on a ballot is gonna take more time than putting it in November's ballot. I think there's a lot of language that should be cleared up here. I kind of agree that maybe the 10% is a little too high considering what we still need to do for the rest of our employees. And to Supervisor Gore's point, bringing it up, when to put this on the ballot, in Placer County we have six other measures going on the ballot in November that are going to be asking of the public for tax increases. I think this will just dilute it. If it's put wherever it is put on the ballot, down the ballot or up the ballot, it's just one of those things that I think pushes everybody to say no. And I think some of these other six measures that are going to go, like the TOT, South Pass or Fire, Roseville, Rockland, Lincoln, asking for their voters to go give more money. It just, for us, I don't think it's a good look. I would love to have better language in it, push it off to 2028. Some people's like, well, you're running in 2020. I don't care about that. I'm obviously not here for the salary. I'm here to do this job. But I think that on this particular one, I know you guys have asked to put them all on at the same time. But it could be pushed off, especially this one, the other three I'm good with. But that's just my take on this particular measure. So thank you, Ben, for all your hard work. And thank you to Dan and all your staff.

I just want to add that the thing is we can do salary surveys and we should because I know some of us have asked for some that we can do those every year with ours they can only look at ours every five years you know and so that's in the fast then the fact that we're growing so fast and everything I mean, I don't think it's unreasonable. I think even the 10% cap is what makes it reasonable. I mean, some of these people, 100%, 80%, 90%, that's unreasonable. Well, that's not to say we have to do it. And I think that's what makes us smarter is that what they are doing, everybody does, it's calculated and you know it's calculated so i think that uh... i think it's reasonable i think it's worth looking at and so we may have six measures on the ballot this year but in two years there may be eight or ten is there ever really a good time to ask your voters for something i'm not sure i would tend to agree on that

I mean you're right there never is really a good time to bring something like this forward and I would I would say first I really appreciate the comments that were made and just the acknowledgement of you know it is a it is a very challenging job and I will say I when I ran the first time I had five kids at home and there is no way that I could have done this job had they're not had that compensation increase not happened before I came on the board and so I was really very thankful that they did that. I do think we make a pretty competitive wage in the sense of if you're just looking at the wage itself and that it's a livable wage and today when we talked about the budget we heard multiple times and I think we feel it that People are hurting right now, and there are many challenges, including inflation and people wanting to put food on their tables. And we'll be up for negotiating with our largest union here in the next year, year and a half. And it just it feels wrong to say we will, even though I get the long term perspective and it does make sense to tie us to the judge's salary, I really struggle with saying, okay, let's give ourselves a max of a 10% raise, but we're going to give 2% or 3% to our employees. It's just a real hard one for me to swallow. And we just got done talking about how we need to pay attention to employee costs. And we are employees in that sense. And so that is a challenge for me. And then also to the point of the timing, knowing that Lincoln, Rockland and Roseville all will have sales tax measures on their ballots and the challenge that the challenges that cities are facing in and of themselves for us as a county to bring on even more, knowing that we're going to have the TOT item on there. And that piece is also difficult for me to swallow because I think we're putting our cities in just a more difficult position to be able to pass the measures that they so desperately need. And this one feels more like a want as opposed to a need. So those are kind of my thoughts of where I am on things. So, Supervisor Kaur.

I appreciate that perspective. Very helpful clarification. Roseville is not going to have a sales tax measure. Oh, right. Yes. They're going to actually have a measure to increase the city's council members' compensation, which is $600 a month and has been for two decades, $600 a month. So I want my city council members to have a opportunity to actually get a salary increase and the likelihood of people increasing county supervisors and the city council, and that's 154,000 people represented there. That to me is really important that that measure passes versus ours. But my question really then is on timing, because I appreciate the fact that the committee looked at that and saw that it would be appropriate to make a change to the salaries. And so I don't want to see this at this general election in 2026. I think these can only be brought during a general election. Is that correct?

That's actually incorrect. We could actually bring this forward in the

primary of 28.

Correct.

Now, I understand that there's concern because there are three seats up in the primary of 2028, which I wouldn't think would be appropriate. That makes it really difficult for whoever's running for the Board of Supervisors again to say, hey, I'm going to run and give me an increase. So that doesn't go over well. It could be something that we postpone until the fall of 2028, the general election of 2028. I am certainly up for doing that because I think that that's a better timing, likelihood of three members getting reelected in the primary versus having to go to the general. That doesn't always happen. We experienced that last time. Sorry, y'all. Yeah, thank you. Yeah. But I think that would be a more reasonable timing for something like this. And I would move forward with the committee's recommendation because I think It was well thought out, and they didn't go high. They kept that, what, at 55% versus recommendations at... What was the 10% cap? Right, higher recommendations of percentages. So I think it's reasonable, and it's definitely not as high as I did the quick Google of salaries for Sonoma and Monterey and Santa Barbara, which are higher than our state legislators. So I might suggest that we consider moving it in 2028.

general election but i i don't want to do it sooner than that okay um hearing yes a question on that um if we move it to 2028 obviously we don't have a charter review for five years so this will be before the charter review um so i guess it's for clayton yeah can i clarify that though yeah before we make that assumption that the charter mandates every five years but it doesn't restrict us from having the charter review committee work on this i think there's merit to having the community focus given given the input we heard there was a lot of your time spent on other issues that may or may not be as relevant but having a charter review committee revamped in a year and and looking at that this issue and then if there's other issues that come up we're not precluded from that

Yeah, I guess if that's the case, then I don't have a problem bringing a charter review committee back.

But they already made the recommendation. So why would we have them hash this out all over again?

That was my question. If we postpone it to 2028, do we have to rehash it? No. No, then I would be in favor of pushing it to November or January. Either one, to me, it doesn't matter. um because i will be up for reelection but i don't think that this is an issue for me um but if we can keep the same language and we still agree upon it in four year two years from now to put it on the 2028 as written then i would propose that we move this to the 2028 election um yes

I just want to touch on timing here and then the election as well. The timing for the charter review committee, the language of the charter defines a review time and it says within five years of the last meeting. That means that you could certainly reconvene a charter review committee in a shorter period if you chose. So five years is the outer limit, but there is a shorter limit if you so decided to do that. With respect to the timing for the election, the charter is silent as to what election the measure needs to be brought back for. And in fact, the board could consider a special election as well to consider it. Obviously there's costs that go with a special election, tying it to an already existing state or federal election has some cost savings. So there are reasons that you would want to consider November 2026 or November 2028 for those cost saving reasons. But you certainly could decide to move forward with an ordinance or at least bring back an ordinance that would have it go for an election in 2028 or 2026. Both of those are possible options.

One other question for Clayton. With all the language that has to be written up for these other ordinances if they do go on this 26th ballot, do you believe we have enough time to have it written up clearly for a message to be brought to the public in 2026? Or is it something that all of this language should be better marketed and better presented to the public to go forward?

Certainly for ones where the board is not changing anything, we certainly are on track to bring that back for the November election. We would bring back an ordinance. We have to go through the process for adoption of that ordinance, and then we have to go through the election cycle. We certainly have that time for the language that's clear. I do have some concern when we start talking about modifying language. That, to me, means that there may be a meeting or two that we need to get the language right, which would likely take us off of that November 2026 timeframe for the elections. Because I believe, Ben, you may know better, but I think we have to have everything finalized on the board approval side by mid-July.

Correct. July 14th is the last date that we can actually submit approved resolutions to the clerk recorder elections office.

Yeah.

And there's only two meetings in between now and July 14th. So we would have to, so to approve the two ordinances.

So we already approved the other two. So I guess it's just this one, right? Or does the language still need to be cleaned up in the other two that we just approved?

The other two were your board recommended to take the language as is. So there's no edits needed to those and we can bring forward ordinances. For Section 207, no action's been taken by the board, but there has been some consideration about modifying the language. If we do that, that likely pushes us off the November 2026 timeframe as it is. Okay.

Well, I think my first question to the board is, do we want to move forward in 2026 on this, or do we want to move forward on it at all? I mean, I guess it's

Well, I came in prepared to support a 2026 initiative. But hearing my colleagues and the consideration of other measures, especially our own TOT measure, I'm fine with postponing it. I just think the momentum of the charter committee, I again would say, we need to go through some process. Two years, no one will remember what the, sorry guys, but I'll tell you. I can hardly remember what I did yesterday. The public won't remember that. One of my thoughts had been, you go ahead with it, but it doesn't take effect until a certain amount of time. I can see that that's confusing to the voters too. I'd rather they had some other issues that they may want to talk about, they even said there were other things and maybe we should consider a more frequent charter review. So we might want to engage them for a meeting or two to make sure we have a public process in 2028 when we consider this again. Because we will have lost that momentum. Whatever that process is, I think it has more validity when people outside of us make those determinations and recommendations to the voters. So I personally would like community members somehow engaged if you're going to bring it back in 28.

So if we bring it back in 28, which I would recommend, obviously, because of the other stuff, do we set up a charter review committee early 2027? Because we'd have to have the language ready for either a primary or a general election.

Well, we have a couple of options because we could just adopt this language and move it to November 2028. To your point, though, a very good point, I think we would probably have to revisit at the beginning of 2028 to determine if we still want to move forward as a board, depending on the political landscape, depending on our budget, et cetera.

The economy.

what the judges salaries go to I mean if it all of a sudden the judges get a big raise so I think we could revisit at the beginning of 2028 I have to remember how much staff time and effort it takes for that's it's every five years and I think that we have to be careful in saying hey let's give you more work when Daniel has plenty of other work for Ben to do so I think that we're fortunate we do a charter review every five years city of roswell it's every 10. um so every five years is pretty robust and they've done an excellent job and you get to 2028 we revisit just putting it on the ballot but quite I don't think I wanna really have to rehash it. And at the same time, Cindy, there's not a lot of public engagement. The public engagement is a handful of people who showed up and got involved, and most people have no idea that these conversations took place. I mean, the max number of people in one of these committee meetings was I don't know, probably had 50, 100 people max involved in this process, maybe more, y'all could, less, okay, I see less. That's fairly normal. So there isn't a lot of momentum. Nobody knows that this has happened, because they're not paying attention, except for the handful of folks, which I appreciate. So I just don't want to revisit a whole lot of extra work on their behalf, but I think we can bring it back to us.

I agree. I would agree with that, not reopening it, so we can think of other public engagement tools could be employed but I I do appreciate I wanted to say I really do appreciate the hard work the committee did thank you and Ben for staffing it because it's a lot of work and a lot of issues you you heard we also hear all the time here at the dais and it's it's a lot to get through and get a work product so thank you for the efforts Supervisor Jones?

Yeah, I think we should stay with the language and everything they've got. The other thing, too, though, is I believe that when you're going to put a ballot initiative on the ballot, this is not exactly how it'll be written. It'll be constructed in a way. It'll say the same thing, but it'll be constructed in a way so that the voters understand it and hopefully will vote for it.

Supervisor Jones, you're absolutely correct. There's going to be an impartial analysis and additional language to actually explain what these measures are.

So this is not the language. It's just the concept that I agree that I think we should go forward with it. Voting on it 26-28, I'm not sure it makes a difference. I was going to ask Bonnie if you know how much Roseville is asking their citizens to increase their

It's like from 600 to a little over 2,000.

I heard it was to 2,500. I just thought if their measure doesn't pass, I don't think it'll be based on us. I think it'll be based on whether their constituents are willing to increase theirs by more than four times.

I just think that when you have two salary increases of elected officials on a ballot, people are not gonna vote for both. And because the residents of Roseville make up a majority of our voting population in Placer County, that's gonna make it tough for either of them.

Although they were the only ones to vote the half cent sales tax after it failed with the whole county, Roseville did that.

I have a question in the language it says the raise of the board shall not exceed ten percent in any given year who is to determine whether it's two percent five percent eight percent or ten percent is it will it be

Based on the judge's salary.

No, it would be tied to the judge's salary. In the event that there was a larger discrepancy than 10% from your current salary, then it would be maxed at 10% for that year. Until you get to the next year.

Say 2029 comes around and we're up for this raise, who is to say, well, we really can't afford a 10%, but do we get 5%? The way it's written, it looks like it could be annually 10%.

It would be just 55% of that salary. Correct. So if it was 2%, it would be 2%. If their salaries went up 2%, we would go up 2%.

Right. The judge's salary itself has an inflationary adjustment with each year. So the language in here about 10% is basically how do you get from your current salary to catch up to that 55% of the judge's salary. Right. And in the event that that is a more than 10% increase, then it would be capped at 10% for one year. And then the next year would be whatever the difference is, as long as it was less than 10% until you got to the point that you meet the 55% of the judge's salary.

Right. That's very misleading.

Very misleading. Sorry, public comments closed. But I think we see that.

That's why.

So are there any other questions or comments? I think to the point of maybe not being clear or making it having it sound like we're it would be a 10 increase each year up to a 10 increase each year i'm sure that that would be vetted out during the process of the ballot language of explaining so i would anticipate that that would be dealt with during that process correct yeah the language would be updated to show to the voters that in fact that's a cap of 10 percent

not an increase on an annual basis of 10%. And the rationale for the committee is they actually were trying to limit the first year increase that the supervisors would receive for that public perception. So this would be an incremental increase until you get to that 55% benchmark. And then maybe going back to Supervisor DeMattei's question, I think perhaps you had a question about this regarding the Superior Court judge's salary. On an annual basis, the increase of the judge's salary is tied to the labor negotiations throughout the entire county. And whatever that average increase is throughout all the labor negotiations in the different groups, the average increase of those would then be increased through the judges' salary.

So if it went up 2% annually, then the supervisors would go 2% to stay within that 55% of their salary. Correct. Which makes sense. OK. I just still have a difficult time telling myself to give myself a raise. I know that we have a lot of county staff that are still looking for their own compensation studies and to see where they're going to make their money. So it's hard for me to just be this easy for us and be so hard on them. So for me, pushing this off the 2028, I don't have a problem with that. And if not, even further down the road to kick it, because that's just my personal opinion. So that's all I got. you know and i think we have not think about it as giving ourselves a raise because this is for everybody who in the future is going to be sitting here it's not us if i don't run if i don't run against next season now i'm speaking for whoever's going to i understand that i'm not saying that what i'm saying is it's hard for me to say yes to us when we can't even say yes to everybody else who i get emails and calls from that they're still waiting for their own compensation and I'm like, ours is so easy. Oh, yeah, let's just give it to the voters. Yes, we still have to give it to the voters. Yes, we could put it on this ballot, which I don't think is a good idea. It's just my own personal belief, right? I'm not going to give myself a raise before I give my employees a raise who are actually doing all the work. Not that we're not doing work, but different.

We're not out saving the road either. I think for me, we'll never be done because we start one group of employees and one compensation, and it is always ongoing. So there'll be somebody who will be mid-cycle when we go forward. It's like the Golden Gate Bridge. Yeah. We paint from one end to the other, and so there's no doubt. There's people that wait longer because we can't do it all at one time.

I guess I'm okay with this language, but I don't want it on this year's ballot.

That we can decide, yeah.

I would agree with that I feel the same way and I think we should I mean we can tentatively plan for as you said either March of 28 or general of 28 but I think we should at that point see what is the landscape look like and consider it then right and I and I would recommend the general 28 because it really makes it very difficult for three supervisors coming up for an election to then have to opine on a salary increase that just makes it really uncomfortable And then it allows it to happen. But I do think at the beginning of 2028, let's bring it back so that we can decide if we want to put it on the ballot in the fall of 2028. And that way, we can have another conversation about it and decide if it's the appropriate move or not at that point.

And we can replay this tape and remind ourselves of what we did and what we said. I do think regardless of when you do it in that year, Whether it's candidates or existing supervisors, they're going to be asked what they think about a salary increase. So that could be seen as a 3-2 vote against changing anything immediately then, too. So there's never going to be a good time. That's why the Charter Review Committee did a lot of work on this. And I can see the challenges. But I'm willing to go with the majority from what I understand we have.

Okay, so I guess then. What I would like to do is I'd like to make a motion, because I'm gonna make it a whole lot easier for a board in a year and a half. So I'm gonna move that we approve the recommendation by the committee on this item, but postpone an election until November of 2028.

And I will second that.

The first step would be drafting the ordinance and having the ordinance returned back to the board for consideration. So perhaps this language might work. Move the proposed change to section 207 be brought back in early 2028 for consideration as an ordinance.

Yes. I move that.

What you were trying to say is get the ordinance drafted now so that the vote isn't happening.

So that the vote isn't happening for that board in a year and a half. And the board could bring it back and say, hey, we're not going to put it on the ballot. But I think that if it's drafted now, it just makes it a lot easier. The board's making that decision now.

Can that be done if we don't know what the salary is yet?

Well, it's 55%.

Oh, that's right.

Yeah. I like that approach. It's what I had kind of mentioned. Is there a way to just delay it? Because that way, You know, that year, I think the primary is back in March. It is. So if you're saying early. Because it's presidential.

Yeah. Then we still can do that after March.

Yeah.

So in light of that change, would this be, this is my proposed language, move the proposed change to section 207B, brought back for consideration as an ordinance to be put on the election in November of 2028.

Yes, I'll move that.

And I'll second that.

All right, moved by Gore, seconded by Gustafson. All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. OK. With that, we are going to move to closed session. A big round of applause for our charter review. Oh, yeah. Thank you so much for all of your work.

The board will now adjourn to closed session to discuss two items of labor negotiations. Another hour. Thank you.

All right, we are back from closed session and county council will read us out.

Thank you. For the two items heard, for the first item, which was a conference with labor negotiators, the board heard a report and took action through a 5-0 vote. For the second item, which was also a conference with labor negotiators, the board heard a report and took action through a 5-0 vote. That concludes the report out of closed session. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we will adjourn our meeting to our next regular meeting on June 30th.