Finance Committee - Regular Meeting

If I can get staff to introduce themselves, please. Hello. Good afternoon. Sean Murphy on behalf of the City Attorney's Office. Sergio Aguilar, Deputy Finance Director.

Elizabeth Martinez, Finance Department.

Good evening. Stephen Kinster, Fire Chief.

Brian Gazzetta, Deputy Fire Chief.

Thank you very much. We will start with the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

Are we able to have the inclusion statement read still, or is that working? OK.

Pursuant to the City Council rules of procedure and order of business resolution, the members of all Boards and Commissions and the public are reminded that they must preserve order and decorum throughout the meeting. In that regard, members of the Boards and Commissions and the public are advised that any delay or disruption in the proceedings or a refusal to obey the orders of the Board or Commission or the Presiding Officer constitutes a violation of these rules. The City of Riverside is committed to fostering a workplace that provides dignity, respect, and civility to our employees, customers, and the public they serve. Can we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Ira. Commissioner Bellow.

Present.

Commissioner Roten.

Present.

Commissioner Hutchins.

Present.

Commissioner Ward.

Present.

Commissioner Bello? Commissioner Benavidez?

Present.

Commissioner Chernyakoff? No. Commissioner Lagner?

Present.

Chair Williams? Vice Chair Vandenberg? Present. We have quorum.

All right, our speaker request is not working tonight. So we're going old school. If you guys want to speak on a topic, just raise your hand for me and I'll make it out and get to y'all. Is that the only thing not working? Was there something else?

Request to speak and the voting.

Voting. Okay. We'll go old school. We will now open the phone lines for public comment.

Public comment is now open for this item. Call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press star 9. When called to speak, press star 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Do we have any callers?

No callers.

I'm looking for a motion to approve the consent calendar. So moved.

Commissioner Ira? Commissioner Bellow?

Present. No. Yes or no? No. We're voting on a. Sorry.

Yes.

Commissioner Roten? Yay. Commissioner Hutchins?

Yay.

Commissioner Ward?

Yay.

Commissioner Benavidez? Yes. Commissioner Chertakov? Commissioner Lagner?

Aye.

Chair Williams? Vice Chair Vandenberg?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you. First up tonight is a service agreement with the State of California Wildland Fire Protection Services presentation by Brian Guzetta, Deputy Fire Chief.

Hello, commissioners. Brian Gazzetta, your deputy fire chief, and I'm here to have a discussion with you about a wildland fire protection agreement, commonly referred to as a WPA, between the city of Riverside and the state of California, specifically CAL FIRE. So to give you some background, and I guess it's fitting on a day where it's 115 out, or at least the last few weeks, is that there's an ever increasing occurrence of wildfire, not only here in Riverside, but throughout Southern California. the state of California and really the western US throughout this year. And we've seen that trend that is here currently and with no end in sight. And whether that's hotter and drier weather, fuels that are changing, the wildfire issue is here. We also notice that wildland fire season is year round, with some of our most destructive fires recently coming in January, specifically our Palisades and Eden fires. with an endless fire season. Here in Southern California, we oftentimes are also combated with an alignment of steep terrain, dry fuels, and sand anticonditions. All those equal that we have an endless fire season with challenging wildland fires that we continue to combat. We're not alone by making this. The state of California has gone through all of the communities in California and determined fire severity zones. And here in Riverside, we have 14, nearly 14,000 homes that fall within what the state of California either calls the very high or high severity zone. Now, Riverside, we are an all-risk fire department, and we routinely go to wildland fires. But many of the wildland fires that we go to are in that initial attack, and our program and our system is built upon initial attack, getting to fires quickly, using our resources to attack those fires, and keep them small. On occasions, though, some of these fires do get large. They exceed the capacity of our fire department and those local fire departments around us. And that's where our discussion moves towards is what the state of California offers on occasions when we are in need of additional resources is where a wildland fire protection agreement, a WPA, comes into effect. So what the opposed agreement is CAL FIRE sets up very clear specifications on acres within the city of Riverside that they deem a threat to their state. Most of these are our large open areas within our city. All of these areas are the ones that pose the highest threat to us. We submitted to the state of California and identified what acres within our city are vulnerable and eligible for a WPA. They came back to us with 5,499 acres within our city that are eligible for this wildfire protection agreement. I do have a map that I'll share with you, and I apologize that that map isn't in part of this presentation. But if you think of a large area within the city of Riverside, that is what is part of this protection area. So our Sycamore Canyons, our River Bottom, our Haywarden Hills, our Box Springs, all of the large open areas are what are included in this. And within this agreement, in those areas, when we have a wildland fire that falls within one of these 5,400 acres, the state of California, with their resources, are going to start a response of their unique, highly skilled, highly qualified, and highly specialized wildland equipment to those incidents. This will strengthen not only our suppression efforts, but the amount of time that these resources are gonna get on scene and the amount of time that our resources will be on scene. So when we talk CAL FIRE resources, it's important that we discuss these, because they are very unique. I think all of us understand what we're talking about, because these are oftentimes the resources that we envision on a wildland fire. CAL FIRE has a whole fleet of firefighting aircraft. These are converted military and specialized air tankers that drop retardant. They have a whole fleet of wildland helicopters that are highly skilled, high capacity Black Hawk helicopters. They have specialized hand crews, 20-person crews. That's all these individuals do is come to fires and to cut hand line around fires. They have bulldozers that could come and that all they do are to put fire line around. And they have Type III engines, much similar to our Type III engines, our wildland engines, but they have obviously a much larger fleet of those that go from up and down the state and are specifically located. All of those resources would be at our disposal. So if we had a fire that would occur in one of these 5,000 acres, we would have a fixed-wing aircraft. We would have rotary helicopters. We would have hand crews. We would have bulldozers. We would have Type III fire engines that would augment our response and be able to provide some of that very highly specialized equipment. And when we talk about these resources, these are the resources that put major wildfires out. Our crews are limited. Spraying water out of a hose, our flame lengths that we can deal with are maybe 10 feet tall. Once the flame lanes exceed that, you need mechanized equipment. You need aerial resources. When these fast-moving resources or these fires are occurring, we can't keep up with them on foot. We need mechanized equipment, helicopters, and aircraft to take care of these. So currently, we have a gap in our abilities to put out some of the worst case of fires in our area. Like I said earlier, our system is built for initial attack. Every single one of our fire engines in our city and all of our trucks are equipped with wildland gear. Every one of our firefighters is trained as a wildland firefighter. But oftentimes, or a small percentage of the times, our resources aren't able to pick up these larger fires. And that's when we are dependent upon mutual aid. With mutual aid, when we request mutual aid, we are requesting the resources that are a part of this WPA, this agreement. But with that mutual aid, it comes at a delay, and it comes at a cost. Every time that you see an airplane flying over our city, dropping retardant, or any time that there's a helicopter that isn't one of our RPD helicopters, we have requested that piece of equipment to come to our city. And with that, it comes at a cost. And especially the aircraft can be the most expensive piece of an incident. If we think about the Bain fire, one of our most recent fires, the largest fire in our city's history, we were at about a million dollars a day to combat that fire. And so you can quickly see how these prices can escalate. And that is one of the benefits of this WPA is many of those very high cost items are included in that agreement. We also realize that when there's high call volume and there's a lot of fires burning in our area, the requests for these fires or these specialized resources become much more difficult. A lot of these resources are already within the system. There has to be negotiations. requests to get these resources. With the WPA, many of these resources are going to be coming on our initial attack. So we're not experiencing that delay. We get on scene. We experience that it's a large fire. We're now starting to make requests that might take a while to get approved. In that meantime, these fires are getting larger, more dangerous, threatening more homes and property and our community. So on the operation side, a WPA has huge benefits. We can be more aggressive in our firefighting. We get resources more immediate. And we can prevent fires from escalating. During our Santa Ana conditions, some of these resources are almost required in order to combat our fast-moving fires. Earlier containment means that our resources on these fires can get released much sooner. And as Chief McKinstry has expressed so many times previously, the call volume in our city is the biggest problem facing our fire department. that we are nearly a 50,000-call-a-year fire department. And when we have even a smaller wildland fire, it takes a vast majority of our resources to put that out. To kind of give you an example, we have 20 pieces of equipment that are readily available every single day in our fire department, and every wildland fire initially sucks up five of those. A second alarm, you've got two or three more of those. So quickly, we've come to the point where we've exhausted, with even a smaller fire, the vast majority of our resources. What a WPA will allow us to do is to augment our staffing, to quickly allow us to keep fires small, and to get our resources released sooner and quicker to get those resources back into our city to be able to deal with that high call volume. Strategically, this really changes our strategic approach to firefighting. When you know you have, in essence, the cavalry coming with aircraft, helicopters, bulldozers, we can be much more aggressive in our firefighting. We know that we have many more resources coming, and we can adjust our tactics to hopefully, and not hopefully, literally be able to put fires out quicker, smaller, with less threat and less damage. But with this, there is a fiscal impact. The numbers that I have in front of you today are an estimate with the last quote that we got from the state of California. The state of California is constantly adjusting their rates and so this was at the time of publishing this was the latest but once again I have to preface it that if this was approved and we would need to move forward that we would have to ask for a new updated cost that would be current with what the state of California is charging at that time. There's two variables. We are charged by the number of acres. And there's a cost per acre. Currently, it's at $47.55. There's a 12% administrative or a 12.10% administrative fee. But the state of California does have the ability to adjust those. They actually do on a yearly basis based upon the amount of fires and the cost of their resources. But the latest that we got, which is current for this year, is for that $293,132.21 annually, we are able to enter into a wildfire protection agreement to protect or have those augmented resources for those nearly 5,000 acres, the worst acres that we have in our city, the most vulnerable acres that we have in the city. And so that's why we come to you today. for a recommendation to move forward, that the city council, with at least five affirmative votes, authorize the chief financial officer or designee to record a supplemental appreciation of that estimated $293,132.21 from Measure Z to fund a service agreement between the city of Riverside and the state of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, commonly known as CAL FIRE, for a wildland fire protection service covering approximately 5,499.3 acres of these designated wildland areas within the city of Riverside. So with that, that's our presentation, and I'm open to any questions you have.

We will now open the phone lines for public comment.

Public comment is now open for this item. Call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press star nine. When called to speak, press star six to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Do we have any callers? No callers. Okay, any discussion before we go on the vote? Well, I'll start with Commissioner Ward.

Thank you, Chief Deputy, there. I really appreciate that presentation. And I just want to state, I just want to preface that I think that this is a really valuable item, and I think that I would be in support of this. I just had some logistical questions from the kind of response that you're doing, and then maybe... financial question for Sergio. Regarding some of these wildfire incidents that you're seeing around the city, you talk about some of these big areas, Sycamore Canyon, River Bottom, elsewhere. Out of those areas that you described, what is the area that has the largest amount of incidents and response needed from your teams?

sure and that's a good question i think one of the first that always comes to mind is our river bottom our river bottom is one of our most vulnerable it's the busiest area that we respond to for wildland fires we're incredibly vulnerable in those areas because of not only the wind and the pattern and the topography of that area we have a lot of homes that are directly adjacent to it we've historically had large fires in that area we have burnt down homes in that area So not only does the fire history support it, but also we have trouble in those areas. It's very remote. There's literally a river that makes it difficult to cross. And that is one of the areas that is included in the WPA. And to give you an example, WPAs are very common amongst our cooperators as well. So the city of Rupa Valley has a WPA. So their portion of the river bottom is covered with a WPA. They get the benefits of it. now our portion of the river bottom. The county is already part of the state, so you can see how now the entire river bottom has this protection. So that is one of the first ones that comes to mind, I think, for all of us, especially we know the significance of the river bottom, the type of fires we get, how difficult it is on the operation side to suppress fires in that area, and the benefit of those resources assisting in that area.

Yeah. And in the river bottom, what are the biggest drivers for fire incidents? Is it mainly vegetation and just the environment, the winds that hit that vegetation, the heat that combines with that? Or is it mainly human activity? What would you say is the main driver for the fires down there?

I think I'm going to answer that in two parts. We have a large percentage of our fires that start in the river bottom due to human cost. There's not a whole lot of ways that fires start in a river bottom other than being human cost. Once they are started, The river bottom has a very unique fuel model where there is dense amounts of vegetation. One fire spreads. It has the ability to spread. We always have wind through that. So I think to answer a part of here, we have human start fires in there that are very difficult for us to suppress and to access. And they have the tendency to get very large and are some of the most complex, difficult fires for us to suppress.

I don't want to back you into a corner here, but would you want to put a percentage on that? Is it 90% even cost? Is it 95%? ballpark you know if I were to guess which isn't probably not a best thing I would say the the majority of the fires that start in the in the river bottom are human cost okay and what is the you mentioned um some of the fire uh response like millions of dollars you know per day year over year do you have an estimate on how much it costs us to respond to river bottom fires

We were on average. Yeah, I would say that we routinely like if we were to look over the last several years, we have had to utilize mutual aid resources annually. I don't know if we've had a year that we haven't had to pay one of our cooperators, whether it was for engines or for aircraft. So we're consistently needing, we've had the Bain fire this year, we've had the Haywarden fire, we've had several other fires, that we consistently are needing these resources that come at a cost, and those same resources that we're going to need those regardless, we would be paying them on the front side with a WPA.

yeah and and i just would love to to know it doesn't have to be right now maybe we can follow up after the meeting but i would love to know exactly like how much we're dedicating towards response uh towards river bottom fires because if we're saying that it's human human impact that is causing this causing you guys to go down there and you know deal with all the havoc that is down there then you know we as a city i feel need to respond to the human activity that's down there right now so that we can prevent that, so that we're not just in this endless cycle of that. So it's a frustrating thing that you guys have to deal with that, and I'm sorry about that. So I think that does it for, I guess, the fire-related questions I had. Just a couple things, one on the finance part. Sergio, so this is a supplemental appropriation. Would this be coming out of the Measure Z fund balance that we have right now?

Yes.

That sounds fine.

There you go. Yes, that is the recommendation to come out of the measures, the balance. And I think we outlined in the report and then also in the slide, as part of the budget, we had a five-year forecast. And throughout that five years, the balance kept dwindling down. So assuming nothing else changed and all the expenses and revenues stayed in line with the forecast, this would drive that fund negative in year four. not counting that $5 million surplus, which is a reserve which is on top of that. But there's going to be a lot of things that change between now and four years from now with estimates and projections, but it'd be coming out of the Measure Z fund balance.

Okay, and I would like your maybe commentary on what your comfort level is for you know, a threshold. Because I would want to know, do you need this right now? Because if you do, you know, I would love it if you guys don't have to come back to the BEC if you go back to the state and they have a higher estimate that it was like maybe $300,000. i would love it if you guys didn't have to come back here and go through that bureaucratic process so sergio um what could be a good like threshold for that like with five hundred thousand dollars like if they have to go back to the state and it's five hundred thousand dollars for this agreement would you be uncomfortable with that or would you hesitate is there a certain threshold where you would maybe have further discussions with fire uh to kind of meet some type of agreement there

Yeah, I don't know if I put a specific threshold on it, but definitely just collaboratively working with the fire department. And ultimately, if it is much higher, well, council will need to, because council is the one that would technically appropriate the money. if the amount is higher then we will need to request a supplemental to the supplemental to city council uh because you know we would they would in theory just approve this amount that we're identifying here so if it's if it's much significantly higher then that would require us to go back if it's not that much higher you know sometimes we're able to just move within account of it a few thousand dollars here and there um but it really just depends and we'll be working with the fire department to see what that final number looks like okay got it that sounds good um

Okay. Yeah, I think that does it. But I would just, again, have it stated on the record that we need to do something about the human activity at the river bottom so that we can prevent some of these fire costs so that we can also improve, you know, the conditions of the Measure Z budget as well so we're not having to make these supplemental appropriations so that maybe we can have a larger fund balance to take from. um to prevent it from going negative in the future so thank you for that presentation and i'll make a motion to approve the recommendation commissioner bello

Good evening, Commissioner Bell, Ward 3. Just have two questions and one for finance to follow up on the last question. How long has CAL FIRE offered this agreement that we're looking to get into?

I don't know the answer for that, but I know that for several years, many of our neighboring cities have been utilizing it.

Okay. I didn't need a number. I just wanted to get a gauge. If we had had this agreement for the Bain fire, would our liability have been just the $300,000 or so for the mutual aid resources that were added that extended our ability to combine it?

You know, when you're talking the hypothetical of scenarios, would it? I would say any time that we would have this arsenal of equipment available on an initial attack, we're going to be better suited to put a fire out. Now, does that mean every single fire we're going to? Some of these conditions far exceed even the capacity of these helicopters and these. But I would have to say that we would be in a better tactical position. We're going to put fires out quicker. Smaller, and all that equates to cheaper fires with less of a cost burden on the city inevitably at the end.

Okay. So the service agreement, per se, isn't necessarily OK. Thank you for that response. That helped to understand the arrangement. The cost burden or liability would still somewhat remain, but our ability to put out the fire would dramatically increase. Therefore, things would benefit us in the long run.

Yeah, we're not going to get a carte blanche free all state resources are available. They're going to send us a first alarm assignment every time that we have a fire in these areas. If we're not able to put the fire out with our resources and that augmented, then we will still have the cost burden associated with requesting resources. But I can only speak operationally. If I were to arrive at a fire and I knew that there was air tankers and helicopters and bulldozers and crews, the likelihood of us putting those fires out dramatically increases.

OK. Fair enough. Thank you. The last question, I think, coming back to could we add a contingency to this request? Is that something that is done in these types of requests to prevent? AMOUNTS COMING BACK AND FORTH AND DOING WHAT YOU JUST CALLED OUT, SERGIO? SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL? TO THE THIRD DEGREE?

YEAH, I THINK THERE'S A CERTAIN WAY WE COULD WRITE THE LANGUAGE. I THINK WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE WITH OTHER PROGRAMS THAT GO TO CITY COUNCIL, WHICH IS UP TO THE APPROVED CONTRACT AMOUNT. THERE'S CERTAIN LANGUAGE THAT WE WOULD WORK INTO THE COUNCIL REPORT. SO IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT

species come through with and i think as we go back to write the council report which would be the next step in the process then we could work on some of the flexible language that would give us a little bit of that wiggle room i think that would be probably the best thing here given that it's something that we is needed for the city um and we don't want to be burdened by the process that the city has to go through of course thank you sergio thank you rich rich commissioner ira

Thank you, Chair. Thank you so much for your presentation. Just echoing my commissioners. I did want to request, I don't know if it just wasn't in the packet, but they said that there was a map identifying the WPA area. Do you guys have that on you by any chance? I do. On the overhead or? Whichever. Yeah, it's more. Thank you. I guess it's not working. OK, no worries. I could. Could we just get a gander at that?

If we're going old school, I guess we can pass it around.

And then maybe make a note.

Definitely.

Thank you. That's helpful. So it looks like, if I'm understanding correctly, Sycamore Canyon is kind of a huge chunk of that coverage area. The areas in yellow, those are handled not by the city of Riverside, is that?

Yeah. So when we see some of those areas in yellow, those are our state responsibility area, the SRA, so that are state-owned pieces of land that are already receiving those resources that we talked about. So those are the state property. We see a lot of that in the Box Springs area, the California Citrus Park, in those areas that are state-owned and under state responsibility that butt up adjacent to our city boundaries.

So to understand just as a resident, when a fire happens there, your firefighters are still responding, but the state covers the cost. Is that sort of the? No, not necessarily.

If any fire that burns within the city boundary of the city of Riverside, whether it starts in the county, the state, we are responsible for the suppression cost of all acres within our city boundaries. Okay. Now, some of those, there are mutual threat zones where we butt up against the city of Rupa Valley, the county of Riverside, the state of California, and we have mutual threat zones where we share resources. But at the end of the day, when we do cost proportionate, we are responsible for suppression costs of every acre burnt in our city. I see. Okay. Thank you.

i was also wondering you know with um obviously this is a you know this makes complete sense and i think we would want our city to be in the best position to to fight these kind of fires in addition to that i'm wondering is the fire department considering additional things to increase kind of defensible defensible space like like firewise communities or Larger scale debris cleanings to give you sort of a reason why I'm asking I live right up against the Sugarloaf Peak Trail So we just had the sugar fire there a couple years ago. I was watching the you know planes drop flame retardant from literally my my driveway and I'm wondering, are we investing any resources in minor resources, but getting residents to create defensible space to clear debris? We have quite a few undeveloped parkland areas around that sort of area, that university neighborhood, which I feel like are just a spark away, unfortunately, from lighting up. So I'm wondering what we're doing on that note. And in addition to that, I don't know if the department's ever had a volunteer firefighting program, but I'm wondering if that's something that could potentially help more so than it gets in the way for you guys.

Sure, and that's a good question. And so I'm going to break that down into a few parts. The WPA is... is a great resource once the fire starts. Sure. But there's a lot that we can do before a fire starts to prevent fires, and that's just as important. So the WPA is a great resource once those fires are burning in all of these areas. But as us as a fire department, we recognize that not only in the wildland areas, but just fire prevention in general, that the more we can do to prevent fires, the less fires that we're going to have, the less major fires. So a big initiative that we have been working strongly on is our Firewise Communities to educate communities that wildfire prevention is not the city's responsibility. It is a collaboration between property owners, homeowners, and the city. And when we all work together, we can reach something that we call fire resiliency. And that's what we're all looking for. If we can become fire resilient and we have communities that understand the fire risk, and that we're giving them the education and the resources they need to protect their homes, then we have a chance. We'll never eliminate fires. I think that's the one variable we know we can't. But when we can make homes defendable, then homes don't burn down. We can protect those properties. We have more resources. So firewise communities. Those 14,000 homes that are in those very high and high severity zones, each one of those properties, based on ordinance, were inspected this year. Every one of those homes that was in violation were educated on what was the violation and a corrective action to improve those. So definitely, we're highly invested in fire prevention, knowing that every ounce of fire prevention is one less fire, one less home at risk.

Thank you. And then last question for you, and I don't even know if this is something that you would be able to maybe answer, but with the WPA, for instance, if we do move forward with that, would that somehow lower or potentially help lower fire insurance costs for residents in that area? Is that something that gets layered onto the determination for whether it's a higher fire risk or a lower fire risk? Is there any impact? And if you don't know, that's totally fine. I'm just wondering.

I don't know the answer to that. I typically, or for what we are, we try to educate ourselves a lot on the insurability. We know it's a huge issue, any of us. You know, I live here in the city and I know that I'm in a high fire severity zone and I'm worried about insurability. So we, I don't know exactly if a WPA will influence that. But we have taken many strides, Firewise community, being a member of the Board of Forestries and being a registered community. So we're taking every avenue we can that we know are acknowledged by the state of California to ensure insurability. And this would be one of them. But once again, I do not know the exact if insurance companies are taking this into account. That's fine.

Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. And I would second Commissioner Ward's motion.

Vice Chair, if I can interrupt for just one second. It seems like we have a map that's gone up, and it's being shared with the dais. I think the video camera equipment is actually giving the commissioners a better kind of zoom in. If whoever has the mat, maybe we could put that on the camera just for transparency.

Is it working again? They tried. That's why it was powerful.

Well, I think when one of you speaks and the camera comes to you. Oh, so you mean like hold it up? It's pretty cool. I can do that. Just for transparency. Yeah, no, I can do that.

Assuming I'm next on the- Keep on talking. Sure. No, you're not next. So I'll hold it up for that purpose. So I would, in response to Commissioner Bello's question, I'd like to propose an amendment to a friendly, hopefully friendly amendment to Commissioner Ward and then, of course, to Commissioner Ira. Based on Commissioner Bello's question, to approve staff recommendations, but then also request that the finance team work with the fire team. There we go. I'm trying to get it that way. I don't want to look at myself. And request that the finance team work with the fire team to maybe figure out what the annual average percentage differences between the projection and the actual cost, and build that in as a buffer that goes to council. So that if it falls within that range, a contract can be executed without having to go through the whole process all over again, which of course would delay the execution of said contract anyway. So if that's amenable to something the finance team could do, I'd like to rely on if that's amenable to. Is that amenable too? Yeah. Cool. So the motion would change to adopt staff recommendation and then build in a percentage buffer that would allow the contract to be executed without having to go back through the whole process all over again would be the recommendation. And that would conclude. I have no questions or comments. Thank you.

I'll pass it over back to the chair. Commissioner Lagner. Thank you.

Thanks for your presentation. I've got some logistics questions and then I've got some finance questions. On the air unit component of what CAL FIRE does, what is the response time there is an alarm in city of Riverside in one of these areas you described is the first question the follow-up question on the air part is where's the nearest airport that the helicopters and fixed-wing are based out of

Good question. So we'll talk about two of those. The fixed-wing aircraft, our closest air base is at Hemet Ryan, so in the city of Hemet. Air travel is incredibly fast, and we have some of the fastest-moving aircraft in the firefighting arsenal, so incredibly quick. We also have augmented resources that are out of the old Norton Air Force Base. That is like our next closest area, so at San Bernardino Tanker Base. San Bernardino, okay. Yeah, so we have that. When it comes to helicopters, there is also a helicopter that is stationed out of Hemet Ryan. And then the San Marino County ship is out of Prado. So both of those are incredibly close. I would think for most of our river bottom fires, we actually get that airship out of the Prado right by the prison it's located. So incredibly quick flight time from that Chino Valley area to our fires here in the city.

So question on that, I thought I heard you say or reference that the helicopters were Black Hawk. Is the Prado-based helicopter a Black Hawk? Because I thought the one out of him, it was a Bell, not a Black Hawk.

No, you're referencing the older generation. Cal Fire has updated its entire fleet. They're all those new air-body Black Hawks, which is a complete... Update and improvement. I think the water capabilities are over 2,000 gallons in these larger aircraft. They move faster. They can fly at night. It's highly augmented. And I believe all of CAL FIRE's fleet, their initial attack fleet are now Blackhawks, with the older Bells being some of the reserve aircrafts that come in when the state gets busy or if they need additional aircraft.

OK, that helps me because I'm by the Hemet Airport at least once a week. And they must be hiding the Blackhawks there. Next question is, what is the response time of the land-based units, the hand crews, the Type 30, and the bulldozers?

Yeah, another good question. So our closest type three is out of the West Riverside Fire Station. We have state resources that are throughout, whether it's in, you know, some are in like the Beaumont area, some in the Reno Valley area, some in the West Riverside area. Our hand crews are also strategically located throughout. I would probably say like Oakland is one of the closer camps. We have a camp out of Prado as well that we would respond to. So the state of California has these camps strategically located throughout and you know some of these are definitely initial attack equipment and some when you hear of like oakland you might think that might take a while but that is a augmented secondary once we suppress the fires they're the manpower that will then spend hours putting those fires out okay um

My next question is also, I think, a logistical question. And forgive me for not being as diplomatic and more direct on this than some of my fellow commissioners. But it would seem that the river bottom is knowingly, whether you're a city official, a commissioner, or certainly just a homeowner, that that is the most problematic area and has been, I'm going to say, for decades. So if we use the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, my question is, because I'm familiar with the Horton Hills area, and among, I'm going to say, residents, there's an active fuel abatement remediation. especially if you have a homeowners association that they do. I know it's probably not your department, but do you know of any intentional fuel abatement remediation program for the river bottom, for the fuel that's there that is started by the human cost?

You know, I know that... When we look at the land ownership of the river bottom, it is incredibly segmented, whether it's county flood control, city-owned, utilities, different. There's a vast majority of owners in there. If you were to look at the river bottom right now, you would see that there is quite a bit of improvement, especially on the county side with county flood control, where they've done significant levee improvement. Then you'll see some areas that doesn't look like there's been much improvement at all. We know that much of the river bottom is protected, that there are resources in there that carry protection along with them that limit what can be done in those areas due to the ecology and the ecosystem in there. So I guess to answer your question, there is work that's done, but it still exists to be, like you mentioned, one of our biggest hazards and problems that we face. and also recognizing that we have a very small portion of the river bottom. I know that oftentimes when we look at it, we think that that is all, but the city boundary is very unique. It's not a straight line, and at times we are juggling multiple jurisdictions of who owns that, who has jurisdiction, what can we do or what can we not do in those areas.

Is it true though, regardless of jurisdiction of ownership, that it's the Riverside Fire Department that is the primary responder?

Oh, no, no, not at all. So almost every incident that occurs in the river bottom, there is a county response and a city response. Once we get on scene, our chiefs are very quick to determine jurisdiction. We typically will continue to engage. We have a fire because oftentimes a county fire will threaten our city or a city fire will threaten the county. But we typically have those two responses coming. We'll actively put it out, and then we will determine jurisdiction afterwards, and that is typically where the costing comes, and then who's going to sit on that fire and completely put it out. We're quick to be a good neighbor and help get the fire knocked down, and then the long-term, the manpower for long periods of time is where jurisdiction really comes into play.

All right. So I'm not trying to be facetious here, but the 14,000 homeowners that you mentioned that are in the high density areas and that they have responsibilities, is you're inspecting them, I presume, because I'm somewhat familiar with that. And there's generally consequences if you don't follow what is sent to you. Does that apply to these same governmental entities that own these areas in the river bottom?

No, it's a very good question. One, we have an ordinance that allows us or dictates that we inspect every home that falls within the high and very high severity zones. None of the river bottom is in the high or very high severity zone. Wow. Yeah. Once again, we didn't create these maps. These are the maps that the state of California created. We were mandated that way, but none of the homes in that area fall within the ordinance.

Okay. Okay. Is it the opinion of the Riverside Fire Department that when these jurisdictional matters come up that we are in fact being equitably reimbursed?

Of course. Of course. And it is, you know, it's Chief McKinstry, myself, any of these fires that have a financial impact on Our city is to make the most fiscal decisions possible. We look at exactly every single acre that was burnt, every single resource that was required to the minute to ensure that we are paying what we're required to and not anything more than that.

OK. A financial question. I noticed on the appropriation for the $293,000 plus, That there's a, it said plus a 12.1% administrative fee. I'm not the best mathematician, but I think that's roughly $35,000. Is that $35,000 on top of the 293?

It is, and maybe if that sentence didn't read the best, it starts at $47.55 per acre, and we multiply that by the 4,000 and change acres. And then with that number, we then have that 12% or 12.1%, and that's where we come up with the $293,000.

Okay, so the 12% is baked into the $293,000. Yes, sir. Forgive me, because I'm still a little skeptical whenever I see anywhere something about an administrative fee. Can you define more what that administrative fee means, is?

From what I understand, that's the administrative fee that the state of California puts on all of the WPAs. Remember, this isn't unique to us. This is the same program that's up and down the state. So it's based upon the acreage fee. That's consistent up and down the state. And then the 12% is what the state of California is charging to be the administrator of this contract. What that means other than that and the consistency of it, all I know is it's consistent. And that is included in that quoted price.

So when it comes to these administrative fees, I know that you said for this specific, it's consistent. But do you have any guidance that you can give us as to how efficient a 12% plus administrative fee is in, I guess, other things? So this is a specific area. And again, so on the WPAs, I guess, or whatever it is, this administrative fee. But as far as like, are there other things that would be 6% or 8% or 14%? if that makes sense.

We're looking uniquely at the WPA. I understand. And that goes with that. The variable, historically, that the state has changed year over year is the cost per acre. So that $47.55 has incrementally shifted up and down. And that's just based upon the cost of firefighting equipment, personnel costs. That's what's baked into that. And that's what we've seen change over years. So that's when we bring to you that there might be some variables. The two variables are typically the cost per acre or the acres covered. And that's where, when we get the final quote, those are the two variables that have the potential to move, and those would be the two variables that would then have an influence in the total price. I have not seen the administrative cost adjust year over year with the various quotes that we've got from the state.

Okay. So then... It captured my attention when you mentioned the Bain fire. And in that series of comments you made, you talked about how very easily in a day the cost can be $1 million. So to piggyback on Commissioners Ward and Bellow and some others, I'm concerned that you have the resources that you actually need. And I've heard figures, even 300,000 I think I heard, and then 500,000. But if the amount you gave that can easily be spent in a day is a million dollars, can you scale that million dollars? in a day, like for this $293,000, does that mean that if these resources are brought to bear pretty immediately that we stay within the original appropriation here? If it goes, I'm going to kind of use a 24-hour because there's not an eight-hour for a, I mean a fire doesn't know an eight-hour workday. So I'm just trying to scale this based on your comment about a million dollars in a day, this $293,000. What is accurate? And I know that there's been a,

supplemental motion to kind of use actual cost but it sounds like actual cost is a million dollars based on at least the statement you made so can you help me with that definitely and let me just let me just put that comment into context uh when i said it's a million dollars i was what i was trying to reference is how expensive firefighting can be when we have these large-scale incidents uh the the costs dramatically escalate And if that's one bane fire, $1 million a day. We were actively suppressing it for about six days. We got into about that $6 million range where there was a large amount of resources. So these fires can quickly escalate. I think if we look nationwide or statewide, some of the largest costing events in our state's history have been wildfires because of the amount of suppression costs. Aircraft is one of the most expensive things on an incident. The cost per hour, the cost per gallon of retardant, they're incredibly expensive. We're going to need these pieces of equipment regardless if we have a WPA or if we don't. So if we can get these, there obviously will be a cost savings. But I feel that we're focusing a lot on the Bain fire and the largest fires. But I don't want to miss that these resources will be available for every fire that will fall in those areas. So the hope is that fires don't get large enough that we start to the point that they're costing a million dollars a day. That we will have the resources to quickly be on scene, bring the best firefighting resources in the nation to our fires to hopefully quickly suppress them, keep them small, protect our most valuable resources, our homes and our property and the people who live in those homes, and that these large fires that last several days could potentially only last several hours. That is the benefit of having resources quick, these resources there,

Last question, because there was a reference to the Bain. I'm more familiar with the Horden fire, and my recollection of that is that there were CAL FIRE resources in the aftermath around at least five, seven, maybe even a day or two more than that. Do you know approximately how much that fire was? You know, I don't off the top of my head.

Yeah. But I would say that it was relatively that same or similar cost point per day. Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

I believe Commissioner Benavidez is going to bring this discussion home for us.

Hopefully. Well, maybe not. I don't know. Well, thank you for the report. Question about the heavy equipment, which is desperately needed in the event we have another fire. The state will only provide such equipment once a fire starts, or can any of this equipment be used for preventive measures?

This is for suppression.

Just suppression. Because maybe you could educate me a little bit. Can a bulldozer be used to help prevent fires?

I think what your question is, and I don't want to put words in your mouth by any means, but fire breaks. Bulldozers oftentimes are used to make fire breaks in certain areas ahead of, in certain areas we can remove brush, clear brush, and then if there's no brush to burn, it obviously can either eliminate the spread or slow the spread of fires. So that's what bulldozers are used commonly to build these fire breaks, we call them.

So that means they cannot be used and they should not be used to prevent. In other words, get rid of brush and just get it out of the way.

It is an option. It is an option.

OK. Thank you. Follow up to some comments made by my colleagues here in regards to the human element in fires. I'd rather refer to that as people who live, work, and play in the river bottom that sometimes initiate these burns. I read somewhere, and I don't recall when, but it's my understanding, Miles, maybe you know, but I believe 16 or 17 people living in the river bottom were arrested recently. Is that accurate, or is that just something? I don't know. This is what I heard, and I've heard also from my colleagues is that That human element is a primary cause of some of these fires that get a lot of calls. If the plan long-term is to completely relieve the river bottom from any human element, what would that mean to the fire department?

If your question is if there were no people in the river bottom, whether they were recreating, living, illegally, legally, I'll stand by the comment that fires only start in a handful of ways. The vast majority are human cost. I guess we could have lightning strikes or stuff. These aren't the things that we experience in our city. The vast majority of the fires that occur in our river bottom and in any of our areas are typically human cost. And so if you were to remove the human cause element, a wet river bottom would not burn.

Fair enough.

Thank you. OK, we have a motion and a second. Can we take a vote, please?

Are we going with the amended motion by Commissioner Hutchins? I believe so, yes. And who was the second?

They both retained it. So I made the amendment. They accepted it.

Ira was the second.

Yeah.

Commissioner Ira?

Yes.

Commissioner Bellow?

Yes.

Commissioner Roden? Yes. Commissioner Hutchins?

Yes.

Commissioner Ward?

Yes.

Commissioner Benavidez?

Yes.

Commissioner Lagner?

Aye.

Vice Chair Vandenberg?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you very much for your presentation. Yes. All right. Next up tonight, Sergio Aguilar to discuss the scope of the Budget Engagement Commission.

All right. Good evening, Honorable Commissioner Sergio Aguilar, Deputy Finance Director. So during the June Budget Engagement Commission meeting, there were several questions that came up regarding the scope of the BEC, and then there was also a request for a future agenda item to discuss the scope of the BEC. So this agenda item is intended to address those requests to have a discussion on the scope and also provide a process for the BEC to propose changes to the scope if desired. It is important to know upfront that staff's intent is to not necessarily weigh in on the scope or weigh in on any requested changes by the BEC, but instead provide clarity on interpretation and outlining a process for potential BEC recommendations. So starting off with some background, in September of 2016, the city manager's office presented a report to the mayor's nominating and screening committee to consider the formation of the BC. And the report presented by city staff identified that the purpose of the BC would be, and I quote, to advise the city council on spending and policy priorities based on the information received through quarterly and financial reports. Initially, the Commission will also help establish a limited number of citywide performance indicators as part of the performance measurement and reporting program that the City Management would soon launch." And also, that report noted that, quote, the BC will meet quarterly to review financial and performance reports before they are presented to City Council. At that point, the city staff went back to that mayor's nominating and screening committee. In October of 2016 was an actual draft ordinance and a recommendation to move forward to the city council. Now, a draft ordinance went to the city council on November 8th, 2016 for discussion. And then a couple months later, On January 10, 2017, the City Council adopted the ordinance that would establish the BC in Chapter 2.9.0 of the Riverside Municipal Code. And since that establishment of the BC in the Municipal Code, the Municipal Code was only changed twice in 2025 and 2026. And that was only to reduce the membership of the BC to address the quorum issues. But since the inception of the BC, there have been no changes to the Municipal Code related to the scope of the BC. So since its inception, the BC has served an important role in representing both citizen and business stakeholders in the city of Riverside. In its advisory capacity, the BC has advocated for budget decisions that align with priorities of the community, especially when allocating general fund and measure the resources. And then the BC has also played an important role in promoting transparency and also helping residents better understand how city resources are allocated. So there are a couple main sections of the municipal code that provide the scope and parameters of the BC as provided by the city council. So section 2.90.020 outlines the purpose and function of the BC, and that is to advise the city council on spending and policy priorities based on the information received through quarterly financial and performance reports, including revenues from transaction and use tax, to work with city staff to maximize public engagement on municipal budgetary issues and to provide input on performance measures and reporting programs. And the commission's advice shall in no way conflict with or supersede the powers of city council or budgetary and advisory powers of the city charter created boards and commissions. Section 2.90.040 outlines the meeting rules and procedures for the BC, and that states that the BC will meet quarterly or as often as needed to review financial and performance reports before they are presented to City Council. And in addition, upon formation, the Commission will review and provide input on citywide performance indicators recommended by city staff based on strategic priorities. And then finally, our city charter identifies that all powers of the city are vested with the city council to delegate unless provided by the charter. As such, any expansion or contraction of the BEC jurisdiction is a matter to be ultimately determined by the city council. So as requested by the BC, we do want to take some time to dive in and clarify the scope based on the language enumerated in the municipal code. And then also looking at historical information presented to the mayor's nominating and screening committee and the city council during the formation of the BC in 2016 and 2017 to ensure that the originally intended scope is appropriately characterized. with examples of what may or may not fall under the scope of the BC as adopted by the City Council. So as enumerated in the Municipal Code, the scope could really be broken down into three main sections. So we're going to cover each section separately. So the first component is to advise the City Council on spending and policy priorities based on the information received through quarterly and financial reports, including revenues from transaction and use tax. So our interpretation of this first part of the purpose is that based on the combination of 2.99020 2.90.040 and then also the reports and discussion during the formation of the BC is that only quarterly reports, annual budgets and performance reports that would otherwise go to city council are first presented to the BC for review and input. The language does not appear to contemplate that the BC would independently request or review reports or issues that are not otherwise being presented to the City Council through a quarterly financial or performance report. City staff have allowed the BC to discuss spending priority recommendations to the City Council outside of the quarterly reports and the budget development process on a few occasions under certain circumstances. The section of the code also alludes to policy priorities. And in this case, policy priorities is limited to spending and not general city policy. So, for example, BC could appropriately recommend a policy focus for a programmatic spending item, such as a new funding program focused on seniors and disabled residents, which the BC has done before. However, B.C. would not be within its intended scope to discuss or recommend changes to broader City Council-adopted policies, such as the Cannabis Retail Program, simply because those policies may have a financial implication. While nearly every city policy may affect spending or revenue at some level, financial impact alone does not make an issue of spending or budget matter within the jurisdiction of the B.C. Another point on this is the scope of the BC is not limited to measure Z. Not limited to measure Z. So the initial proposal to form the BC that was presented to the mayor's nominee and screening committee was in September of 2016 and that was before the adoption of measure z and during those initial presentations to the committee at city officials did identify that if measure z was enacted by voters the bc would also be instrumental in providing recommendations on an expenditure plan for measure z but that was before it would even contemplate it was approved by the voters Revenues, I know there's been a lot of discussion on revenues. Revenues are also not within the scope of the BC as it kind of enumerated within the municipal code. The scope is specific to spending and then it only references to revenue in terms of transaction and use tax revenue. And transaction and use tax revenue is just referring to measure Z. So that was added to ensure that Measure Z would also be part of the scope, given that at the point in time when it was presented, it was not yet enacted. But it's not referenced to BC providing recommendations on revenues. It was just alluding to Measure Z itself, which was at that point still not yet approved. so the second component of the bc scope that we want to break down is to work with city staff to maximize public engagement on municipal budgetary issues so the intent of of this section is to have the bc support the city in engaging the public to receive input on budgetary issues and some of the initial documents that were presented to the mayor's nominating screening committee noted that the bc would and i quote schedule and preside over public meetings to be held throughout the city in the spring preceding the biannual budget cycle or as directed by city council under special circumstances to review budgetary issues and also solicit public input regarding any major changes in spending priorities. So during, as an example, during the development of this last biennial budget, city staff did conduct community forums throughout the city and then also an online survey to receive feedback and help guide priorities through the budget development process. So the intent of this language would be for the BC to provide feedback on both that community engagement process And also support city staff by providing outreach to residents, businesses, and community groups, and encourage participation in the public engagement opportunities, and also actively participate in these meetings. And some BC commissioners were active participants in some of our community engagement meetings that we did hold this last October and November as we were working on developing the biennial budget. And then the last piece of the scope is to provide input on performance measures and reporting programs. So the intent of this section is for BC or was for BC to review and provide feedback on performance measures that were linked to the city's strategic plan. And specifically during the presentation to the mayor's nominating and screening committee in 2016 during the formation of the BC, the city manager's office identified that the city was launching a performance measurement and reporting project to facilitate the establishment of performance measures that were going to be linked to that Riverside 2.0 strategic plan. and as such the intent of that section was for bc to review and provide feedback on those performance measures that were going to be part of the strategic plan early on the bc did provide input and received updates on those measures however that strategic plan has expired and the city is no longer reporting on performance measures related to the expired strategic plan however in order to maintain the intent of this section city staff have been reporting on other existing performance measures and programs including the city's financial health indicators which we brought to the city to the bc the past couple years and then also been providing some periodic updates on performance of various other city programs especially when funded by measure z So recent program reporting that came to the BC included report on the pavement management program. There was a report on housing and human services programs funded by measure Z. And we also had a recent report related to the senior and individuals with disabilities program funded by measures. So now that we clarified the scope, I also want to outline a process the BEC can use to request a change to the scope if ultimately desired. So the process would include number one, identifying a specific process to develop the proposed changes of the scope. And this could include either using this agenda item or a similar agenda item or forming an ad hoc committee to provide more time for discussion and also more time to contemplate changes. The report that we provided does outline parameters for establishing an ad hoc committee, which this BC has done before for other issues as well. Second piece of the process is specifically drafting the requested scope change and justification for those scope changes. So we would need specific redlined edits of the proposal of the BC and the rationale for those edits. number three there would of course need to be a vote by the BC on the requested red line changes and the justification for those changes and then lastly there would need to be a request made of those approved red line edits to the governmental processes committee and then if The governmental process committee would then approve and that would subsequently be forward to City Council for their ultimate consideration So with that, recommendations for BC to discuss the scope of the BC, explore the formation of an ad hoc committee to recommend changes to the scope, and then also consider recommendations to the scope to the governmental process committee. So with that, I'll open it up for any questions.

We will now open the phone lines for public comment.

Public comment is now open for this item. Call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press star 9. When called to speak, press star 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Do we have any callers?

No callers.

Okay, we'll start a discussion. I have Commissioner Ira first, and I've got you next.

Thank you, Chair. Sergio, thank you so much for bringing this to the Commission. I know I was kind of a pain in the ass about getting this here, but I think this was a good discussion for us to have. I think, first of all, Love that you guys went through the report and gave us the history and the context. I think one of the things we kind of talked about last time was that this budget commission is not limited just to Measure Z, which is I feel like a lot of our duties just in practice have been sort of focused on Measure Z or largely tied to Measure Z. So this is good to know that we can provide input on the rest of the budget as well in a more meaningful way. One of the things that I really wanted to hone in on was just the staff's interpretation of Advising City Council on spending and policy priorities based on the information received through quarterly Including revenues from transaction and use tax. I know that staff interpreted that to mean that the BEC does not have Essentially, revenues are not within the BEC scope, but I would like to just dig a little bit deeper into that. You know, we've approved budgets in which we've cut from department, you know, there's been proposed cuts to Parks and Recreation and approvals of using different measure funding to cover something that, for instance, Measure Z would fund. So I'm wondering why revenue wouldn't be a part of that discussion if we're evaluating service reductions, long-term fiscal sustainability, and also competing funding needs with most recently the discussion around fire. wouldn't it make sense for us to be able to compare revenue options and how those may impact residents? Like sort of, I'm guessing the interpretation, could the interpretation go the other way if that's something the commission wanted to move into?

So the commission could request a change in the scope, right? And I think we're laying out a process. If you want to request a change, you know, the process that we laid out. In terms of reading the scope, just given that it specifically calls out spending and not anything related to revenue, and the only thing related to revenue is just calling out Measure Z, because the transaction use tax revenue is just Measure Z. There's nothing else that is transaction use tax revenue other than Measure Z. So there is no reference to revenue in the actual code approved by council. And we also didn't find any reference to revenue when they were first forming. It was all about advising on the spending. That was basically the core purpose of what it was established. So from an actual interpretation, we just don't see how reading this you it could be interpreted to include revenue now if you're saying you know it should include revenue well that's when we're saying there's there's a process if you want to recommend changes here's a process but our read of it and and you know city attorney could also weigh in they also you know review this is revenue is not called out and none of like the legislative intent if you will from the establishment and formation of the bc call that revenue at all

Aaron, if I may respond to you as a discussion matter, since that's what we're doing right now. I think there's been evidence in Measure Z dollars generating revenue. I can give you a specific example with the drones that we use to... for lack of a better word, bus guys and gals that are doing illegal fireworks. We allocated about $78,000, but it generated $98,000 in fees that went to the general fund. So to me, Z has generated some dollars in some occasions, which we then oversee as a body.

Thank you. Yeah. I think, you know, this isn't really surgery to put you on the spot. It's just to explore. And I appreciate Commissioner Benavides for bringing that up to explore opportunities, because I think if we are called the Budget Engagement Commission and our role is to. engage the community on spending priorities. It also mentions policy priorities. I would imagine revenue generation would fall under the more broad category of policy priorities too, right? Like a city sets policy on where it generates revenue from, right? So I guess that's kind of why I'm bringing that up. I would love for us to be able to discuss that a little bit further and potentially propose that as an expansion of the scope, because if we're really here to provide fiscal accountability, I think we should be also concerned not just on spending taxpayer money, but also potentially finding ways to generate that revenue from other sources. And of course, the final sign on the line would come from council, but I think being able to make recommendations that council should consider something would be appropriate, I think, in the scope of this commission. I did also have a quick question about You know Commissioner initiated recommendations. I know in the past we have you know made recommendations to create a separate sort of line items or expenditures on Like a youth serving nonprofits or you know focused on seniors to what extent You know, the city has, I think, accommodated that and set a bit of a precedent in terms of the commissioners being able to initiate on things like that. How much further could the commission expand that? Or what are some other opportunities that we haven't considered that might be worth looking into as well?

So going back through some of the discussion in the initial formation, the main intent was throughout the regular budget process, right, we do a biannual budget, but then in the second year of the budget, we always bring that second year back. That's when we have the big workshop, we have all departments here, and then two months later, we bring all departments back, and we have thorough discussions on the entire budget. That is the venue for those recommendations. Now, there's been a couple instances where, outside of that process, there's been a request, hey, you know, can we discuss funding for seniors and disabled individuals? And I think in that process, we said, okay, well, let's put agenda item, let's form an ad hoc committee, and the ad hoc committee was formed, and then something was sent, I think, to the finance committee chair. But I think the main intent is because we already have an established budget process, that that is the venue for those recommendations to come forward. And I know this last cycle, there was a lot of discussion about the budget, right? And there was a lot of motions, a couple of different motions, some that didn't go through, some that did go through. But that is, I think, the intent is using that established annual budget process to get your recommendation that then would move to city councils.

Okay. Thank you for that. That's helpful to kind of, that's helpful to, as we frame this out, I think a big part of, too, we as commissioners have made recommendations in the past or even, you know, voted. For instance, there was a vote on the budget recently that we sent to council. I'm wondering if there's a mechanism in place already, and if not, if we could look into having written responses to formal BEC recommendations from the council in terms of the council acknowledging that something was sent and You know, sending a determination back, not anything, not a 50 page report, but an explanation of why either a recommendation was taken up, amended or potentially voted down so that commissioners and residents kind of see how input actually affected decisions on the council. Is that something that would be that we could include in that discussion as well?

That would be something up to council to determine if they want to entertain that. What we do as part of our staff report is we have a section in our staff report, like for the budget, where it says committee and board recommendations. And the budget goes through the board of public utilities, it goes to the library trustees, the parks and recreation board, then it comes here. So we identify the recommendations of each of the board and the commissions within that. And I think to this specific point, I think it's important to point out one of the specific components of the city charter is that the power of the BC wouldn't supersede the budgetary advisory powers of the other charter boards like the BPU, like the museum, or not museum, library and parks. Because they also have in their charter scope, they have budgetary review over their specific components. So I think I thought we had to be kind of a little bit mindful there. But I think what our commitment is, is always to include that recommendation that comes out of this body in that report that goes to council. And then ultimately it's council determination, you know, what they want to do with that and if they want to respond. But I definitely wouldn't be able to say yes, they're going to do a formal report or respond back. I could take that feedback, you know, but I can't make any commitments there.

Yeah, no, no. Yeah, again, I'm more so trying to understand and hoping the other commissioners can see that there is a real opportunity for us, I think, to make changes to the scope and make recommendations to expand the role of this commission in a way that has more meaningful engagement. And I think you know, would include more of the residents in things like revenue generation, for instance, or even budgetary decision making. I think there's a lot more investment in ownership when there's some sort of formal response of, hey, you know, we read through your recommendation and we're voting no or yes for these following reasons, you know. I think a lot of the times a recommendation doesn't even come. I think we spoke about this previously, but most of the recommendations don't come with the context for why commissioners sent that along to council as is right with notes or even the vote breakdown for the commission's recommendation. Is that fairly accurate?

Yeah, again, the council report, we don't go into those level of details.

Sure. Okay. Well, thank you. I'm excited to have this conversation and I'm certainly would support any efforts to either have further discussions at this commission or I think an ad hoc committee to make some real proposed changes that we can then send to the group for a vote.

Commissioner Hutchins.

Thank you. So actually, it's just a brief response, and then I have a full thing. To an example of the time that, let's say, councils heard a recommendation, we did it, is actually the current composition of this commission. The scaling down of our commissioners from an odd godly 14, how many people? 18. 18 people? Jesus. To what we currently have now was initiated by this. So there's a process there. I think the rest of my comments I'm going to make is maybe and hopefully sets up continued conversation amongst my colleagues here today, or completely ignore me and move on. Everyone works. I'm strongly supportive of having an ad hoc committee created for this for a number of reasons. I think there have been quite a few times where some of my colleagues have been frustrated because we've run up against our scope, and obviously that means that there is a desire to do more and maybe... an option to do so. So I kind of want to lay out a little bit of my thinking around it and then I'll turn it over to colleagues for it. So I would be in favor again of a ad hoc committee created with the scope of reviewing our current The ad hoc committee scope would be tasked with reviewing the current scope of the BEC like we're doing now and proposing changes with those justifications. I would ask that every change be separated out so that gives not only this commission, again, an opportunity to reject or accept particular recommendations, but also gives counsel that. So maybe if we don't get everything that we want, we get something that we want. The composition, I'm flexible, obviously, but I think we're capped at five. I'm looking to the city attorney to verify that. Well, it has to be less than half of quorum. I don't remember what that is right now, but I think it's five because I think we're – what's our quorum number? Six. So five. And this is where I might get a little bit of pushback, so I'm going to kind of explain this out a little bit. I would request that this ad hoc committee last four months. Here's why. I would ask that that ad hoc committee try to meet at least monthly. But I'm not going to dictate when they meet or how. That's going to be up to that ad hoc committee. But I would like that they report back to us monthly. So that would be an existing agenda item that would continue for, I guess, October, November, December, and then January. And during that report back to us, it could be things that they're proposing, they could be questions. And this is one of the reasons I want four months is so that this could be an iterative process. So they can bring up suggestions and then we can respond to that. And that brings a more thorough process, because especially if we really want to do this, and I think we want to do it once, it's one of those where slow is smooth and smooth is fast. I recognize that that four months is not necessarily quick for some folks, but allows us to get this right, I think, the first time, or do our best to get this right the first time. The reason I would want it in January is for a couple of different reasons, too. So there's another reason for the four months. We all know that the city is going through various transitions at the moment. We have had a significant leadership transition in the city manager's office that is still ongoing. There are two council seats that are currently up for an election in November. I'm not talking about that. as an example to showcase that there is leadership changes that are happening within the city, and certainly come January there'll be new committee compositions. And so I think waiting until January when we have at least a council that's going to be in place for roughly 18 months or 24 months, depending on the elections in 28, that gives an opportunity for that to be set forward and provides that time and opportunity for sort of the leadership change to go through it. And again, I think we can start by having the conversation now by saying what proposed changes we are thinking of. I think multiple people here want revenue explorations added, so I'm just going to say that one, but I think there are others. But I think having the ad hoc committee go through and come up with specifics and then coming back to us at least a couple of times allows us to... get what we want in the sense of making sure what we're saying is what we want, but then also really thinking this through in ways that are deliberative and necessary. And then again, waiting until January to submit it gives us the opportunity to do this at least two or three times, but then also allows the city's transition, whatever that may look like, to be in place so that then when this goes to, I believe, Government Processes Committee, That committee is composed and set and able to review it as it did for us a year ago when we proposed the reduction of our members so that we can solve the problem of never having quorum. So with that, I'll defer to my colleagues for any additional comments, but that's sort of where I'm thinking in that process. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back to you.

Thank you. Commissioner Lagner.

Thank you. So question, Sergio, are we able to actually make a motion tonight for this ad hoc committee?

Yeah, because we had it as one of the specific recommendations, and that would allow you to form one as long as the, I think, seven, six, six different criteria are established today, which I think, yeah, you outlined them already.

Okay. I'll defer to... Commissioner Hutchins, this is not correct because he seems to be very artful, but may I make an attempt at a motion? Okay. Bear with me. This is the first time I've made a motion among my commissioners. I would move that the Budget Engagement Commission establish a temporary ad hoc committee composed of fewer than a quorum of the commission to review the commission's current purpose, responsibilities, and scope of authority. identify opportunities to improve its effectiveness and community engagement, including revenue opportunities, and develop recommended changes for consideration by the full Commission. The Ad Hoc Committee shall report its findings and recommendations to the Commission But within four months, meeting at least monthly, starting in October and concluding with a report to the full committee in January, any recommendations shall be approved by the commission, shall be forwarded to the city council. or other appropriate city authority for consideration and final action. The committee's review shall include consultation with appropriate city staff and consideration of the city charter, municipal code, applicable resolutions, and any other governing policies defining the commission's authority. Second. Second.

I'd have two points with that, though. So the first is we really should identify who's going to be on this commission. Other than that, I think you're good there. And then the one thing I would request is that the ad hoc committee does report back to us with a status report every month that stays existing. on our agenda items so that we can, if they have questions or want to ask for our feedback as a committee, all they can do, that one was a request to you. But this is the first is I, we, we really should also pick exactly who's on that ad hoc committee and I'll defer to city attorney if I've missed anything. But I think other than that, you did great.

And my reply to this motion would be I have already deferred to you. So whatever additional addendum you want to make, to Greg's point also, I would, in asking for those that would serve, I'd like to certainly offer to volunteer for that committee, not necessarily to be the chairman, but certainly to volunteer to be on that. But I'll, for your additional language, I'll defer to you for that additional.

To get maybe like a soft pull, who would want to serve on something like this? Just so I can, please be under five. One, two. I'm going to say Langer's a three.

I'm not sure yet because I still have some comments. Sure.

We're going to have to pass it now. I'm just curious.

No? Bello?

Okay. So we have three at least for now, and then we'll see.

Commissioner Bello. Thank you.

Thank you, Sergio. There was a lot of back story here. I guess I just have one general question. The recent ballot measure, does it fall underneath the three enumerated components that you called out here? Because in my mind, in my opinion, and I'm open to rebuttal, in my opinion, it falls into two of the three. Do you have any feedback? Because I didn't hear you respond to that point. And that was an explicit point.

So if council approving it to go to voters, if that fell within this?

Like the conversation. Say you're getting ready to buy a car type thing. You would talk to somebody who's purchased a car or part of your responsibility to engage in some council. As part of our ethics review, we're a commission that serves on a board for BEC and other taxes and revenues. I'm just asking for an understanding of how that courtesy was sort of bypassed, having a board that sort of oversees that. And in my opinion, two of the three points would have dictated that conversation happened before it being presented on a ballot measure.

Yeah. So I think that's what that one is. It's a revenue generating measure. And the way it came to council is like it was a menu of options of many revenue generating measures. That's how it came to council. It was that it was like an increase in the TOT. It was at least four or five different options that said, hey, council, you know, do you want to consider adding some revenue generating measure within, you know, the next ballot? So, you know, from that context, the theme of that was revenue generating, which is why it's like, But it does say including transaction use tax revenue, which is that. So it's one of those probably gray areas. But because it was within the broader context of other revenue generating issues that came to council, it was not like an individual item. I get it.

So unfortunately for me, though, that point is going to merit for me to want to be on this ad hoc committee because that gray area is sort of an area that I'd like to maybe bring back to the council because they had an opportunity to address it here with us internally without us having to seek a change to the rules to seek better clarity on things that are gray. Thank you, Sergio.

Commissioner Benavidez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my comments and maybe a suggestion will be based on the experience being here for almost two years. And I want to defer to the attorney for some points. But let me preface by saying, in our experience here, we as a commission, we don't write our own minutes. At times we propose an agenda that's approved by someone else other than council. And right now we're discussing to establish an ad hoc committee to discuss our scope, which I support somewhat. Is there anything that prohibits us, say for example, in January, the only item on our agenda will be proposed by us, and that agenda item will be that we as a whole, as a committee as a whole, would discuss publicly THE SCOPE OF WORK AND WHAT WE THINK IT SHOULD BE. ONCE THAT MEETING IS OVER, THAT THE MINUTES WILL REFLECT PERHAPS MAYBE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE HAVE THAT WILL GO DIRECTLY TO COUNCIL Is that prohibited by any rule, whether it be the rules that govern our behavior, the Brown Act, et cetera? Is there anything that prevents us from doing that, hypothetically, in January?

What I would say, going off my memory, I was going to look at the code a little more clearly, but the agenda is set from a meeting with both the department and with the chair and the vice chair. Now, at the end of the day, the direction of departments, like who directs a department, is a question that's kind of separate. You know, city council can direct the department, you know, to do something. But the commission itself doesn't direct the department. And so as far as the work or the presentations or who's staff is coming, and I think that's consistent with, that's my recollection of our rules, is that the rules talk about the chair meeting with the department to set that agenda. But ultimately, since it deals with staff work, that will be a departmental decision.

OK, because I think, and maybe get some support from colleagues or their responses, we're not, our discussion of the scope, it sounds like you're saying it needs to be done in conjunction with some department. My suggestion is that we as a body, an appointed body, As it relates to our scope, what specifically prohibits us for doing it at a public meeting? Because it has nothing to do with expenditures, recommendations. It's simply a discussion that may result in what our goal is, and that is to establish some recommendations to council as to what our scope should be moving forward.

And I think it's expressed in this report that the conversation about what the scope should be is fully within the jurisdiction of this BEC, what to recommend to counsel. I hope that answers the question. The question of what is the scope, I think that the department kind of looked at those provisions, and it is that Charter 406 provision that really does kind of create that limiting factor for that determination. And why ultimately it vests with, so I think we have two issues going there. What is the scope, right? And what is the scope is a question of plain language, right? And plain language to be interpreted through the charter section, right? And I think that has a couple of components. What are the language of the scope? But also, I think that other factor is what other committees do work. How can that be interpreted? So those are two of the things. The 406 really becomes the limiting language. So if it's not expressly provided for, then it's not within this scope. But as far as what can be discussed for how you want to expand the scope, I think that absolutely falls within your jurisdiction. And as it comes to the drafting of that ad hoc, Committee, I think that's an important part I wanted to to really see that language just to make sure we've had all the points but one of the things I would just Since we're talking about language and scope is that what is the scope of this ad hoc committee if it's framed broadly right to just discover the scope then it's a very broad conversation and Any limiting language, if the goal is to limit it, should be expressly limiting. If it's language to include these topics, we're still looking at a very broad scope. And maybe that's your intention. I think the focus is to make sure that scope is defined in a way that you as the committee want it to be defined. I hope that's helpful.

A little. And again, I'm not an attorney. But I'd like to hear from my colleagues if you guys understand what I'm saying.

Yeah, I do. I think I do. And I think the motion on the floor gets to what you're asking for, which is this will come back in January, where it will be a committee of the whole. Whatever the results of that, we poured it out and forwarded. I'm a little confused as to what you're asking that's different than what we're already proposing.

TO BYPASS THE AD HOC AND JUST DO IT WITHIN OUR SHOW? OH, I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.

I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A SIX-HOUR CONVERSATION ON SCOPE. I THINK IT'S BETTER TO DO IT ITERATIVE, AND I THINK IT'S BETTER TO HAVE A SMALLER GROUP. I THINK THERE'S TOO MANY COOKS IN THE KITCHEN OTHERWISE. AND THEN I THINK HAVING THE COMMITTEE AT THE WHOLE AT THE END CAN GIVE EVERYONE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE INPUT, BUT I WOULD DEFER THE REST OF MY CALLS. I DON'T THINK ANYONE WANTS TO HAVE NOW.

OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I HAD A FEELING THAT WAS THE DIRECTION WE WOULD GO. So my second point went, so then our January meeting per se, can it just be this item? That would be my recommendation. Is there anything that would prohibit us from just responding to the recommendations from our ad hoc committee in January?

Sergio, do we have anything planned in January currently?

So the fourth quarter will either be December or January. Okay. I don't want to skip that. Hopefully it will be December. Yeah. But if we are not able to make the date, then it would get pushed to January. Like it happened this last year. It got pushed to January. And those have carryover requests and all that. So it's a pretty meaty Q4 report. So our goal is to try to get into December but can't make any 100% commitments.

Do you have an idea of when you'll know? Like when you can estimate that? By November?

Early November, yeah.

Okay. Maybe I think we can have that discussion then because I don't want to push that. I don't want to push either item until February if we had to. I see your point there, Commissioner Benavidez, but I don't want to hamstring us that that's the only item on our agenda, especially if it's a – that would be Q3, wouldn't it? Or Q2? Yeah.

No, it's the fiscal year-end report. Oh, it's year-end.

Yeah, never mind. Oh, calendar end. Okay. It's calendar. Yeah. Okay. Now, I wouldn't want to hamstring us, but I see your... If we can clear it for January, I would agree with that, but I don't necessarily want to hamstring us and say we must. So we'll just leave that open for now?

Okay.

Okay, Commissioner Ira. I just wanted to echo something Commissioner Bellow said. I really do think that whether intentionally or unintentionally, the council completely bypassed the public engagement on Measure Z. And I know there was a kind of a tight turnaround on that. But it is concerning that, you know, it is enumerated pretty clearly that this is something we're supposed to be providing feedback on. I would like to believe that if we had publicized the meeting, gotten folks out here, we either would have proposed something that might have been more acceptable or we might have saved the taxpayers several hundred thousands of dollars in a sort of a pretty largely failed ballot measure because we would be able to discuss it in much more depth than your average kind of council meeting. And then it would have gone through the second layer with our recommendations to council. So I would like to echo that because that is kind of a concerning I know you mentioned its gray area and this is nothing against the staff I know the staff are usually kind of caught in between the council and the Commission's but that gray area cost taxpayers a significant amount of money and I think Unfortunately turned a lot of people off to something that really is an important issue, which is fire safety and supporting firefighters Because it was rolled out. I believe in a overly expedited way and in a way that did not connect with people at the time with everything else going on at city hall so i would like to emphasize as part of our scope discussion definitely if we can incorporate that um into the discussion and then just generally for future ballot measures whether we as commissioners are on this commission or not to really have a strong feedback process that goes through the commission first and then goes to council and is publicized so we don't have, you know, thank you to all the people who showed up today, but hopefully we have at least, you know, 40 or 50 people here who are ready to provide their feedback on something like Measure Z. I think we could have filled this whole room had that opportunity been presented in that way. So I'm not directing this at you, just I would like to put that into the public record because I know a lot of the times this council has moved kind of quickly. And I think in this particular case, that was not what was best for the city. And I think it could have been alleviated by further discussion and debate at this commission. Thank you.

We have, would you like to say something?

Yeah, can I ask a few follow-up questions? So, you know, when I look at the recommendation that's been made, right, it lays out the scope, right, which is I move that BEC establish a temporary ad hoc committee composed of fewer than a quorum of BEC members. That's really any number up to five. Is there a process that this committee is doing to fill those seats?

So, we were talking about that while you were reviewing it. So it looks like we have volunteered currently. So we would change this to include the actual names. I have Commissioner Ward that has volunteered. Commissioner Bello has retracted his non-volunteer to become a volunteer. I have Commissioner Langer who said, I won't be chair, but I would agree to be a member of it. Is there anybody else? Or am I going to have to... Okay, so then we have Commissioner Ira as well. I guess then me. I would volunteer for five unless there's an objection to having me on the commission. Please someone say object. Thank God. So I would say then those are your five would be myself, Commissioners Ward, Bellow, Langdon, and Commissioner Ira. Yeah, I'll go back to you now for any follow-up.

As far as the chair, whether that's a motion to amend and how you'll handle that. But that is one issue to say is where it goes. The scope is defined to review the commission's current purpose, responsibilities, and scope of authority, identify opportunities to improve its effectiveness, community engagement, including revenue opportunities, and develop recommended changes for consideration by the full commission. The ad hoc committee shall report its findings and recommendations. So that would be the scope, right? The next would be determining the duration of the committee. The ad hoc committee shall report its findings and recommendations to the commission within four months. meeting at least monthly starting in October and concluding with a full report to the full commission in January and shall dissolve upon completion of its assignment. Assignments would be to create the report and to deliver the report. It isn't implied there that it's a four month, but it would be upon the completion of that assignment that the duration of this committee would end. As far as logistical details, it has the monthly meeting. Is there a location that this commission is proposing for that, or is that just at their discretion? Okay. That's just the logistical details.

Yeah, I would leave that to the committee's discretion.

Okay. Determine how the committee will provide updates. I think that's already been determined when I just read. Set a date by which the committee will provide the report. That's great. Now, there's other stuff in this recommendation that goes beyond that, which is any recommendations approved by the BEC shall be forwarded to the city council or other appropriate city authority for consideration and final action. The committee's review shall include consultation with appropriate city staff and consideration of the city charter municipal guide, applicable resolutions, and other governing policies defining the commission's authority. And that additional provision, it's not really a scope determination. It's more like what will happen. But as I understand it, that's the full recommendation. So I just want to make sure that was articulated.

Yeah.

The only thing I would, I guess, propose and amend, so you can write this part down, is to amend it to include our actual names and then amend the reporting section that an agenda item be placed on discussion every BEC meeting moving forward until January, where this ad hoc committee provides some sort of update to the BEC as a whole. We don't have to define that, but I would presume it that way. You can propose that. Can you repeat that into the mic? Because I can barely hear it.

Sorry. Looking to add language in case there's a delay in January wherein this presentation moves to February because of budget considerations such then that this continues through February. That's all.

Can we add a provision that says in the December update, the ad hoc committee should notify if they are requesting an extension to be no more than one month? Is that something that we can, is language that is acceptable, said the attorney, if we?

Are these friendly amendments? Yes.

I'm asking, like, is this possible in language? And then, yeah, I would go to you motioned and you seconded, so yeah.

Yeah, I see no issue there. I mean, I think ultimately what we're talking about is scope and duration, and so how this committee defines that scope and duration. I'm listening for whether it's of limited duration, less than a year, and you're certainly within those kind of bounds.

Okay. Elizabeth, did you get that part down? Okay. Anything else?

When you talked about update to the full commission period or to obtain feedback?

I'm going to leave that up to the ad hoc committee. I want it on the agenda item so we can discuss it without violating a Brown Act. But what that looks like, I would lead up to. I would like to provide flexibility to both the commission and the ad hoc committee.

OK, because if you guys decide to obtain feedback and it's not in the motion, would that be interpreted by legal that it cannot be done?

No, I think what we're doing here in this motion is determining the scope of the ad hoc. So this resolution, as I read it, is to determine, to form an ad hoc, right? So just define it in that way. As far as other portions of this that are maybe outside that formation, whether we're talking about what to agendize on a next meeting or what to do after they come back with a recommendation, I hear that that's within the scope of the BEC and your votes to determine kind of what you do. You're not locked in stone under any of those things. So I think that what I'm listening for is for the formation issue. Yeah.

The idea behind this is that because one of them is like reporting back or I can't remember the specific. I don't have the slide up. But it was basically to come back every month. They'll provide an update that's accessible to feedback so that this is an iterative process. So I'm putting it as part of the formation just so that it's there. Yeah, it's not necessarily tied, but I think that that gets to his point.

But for formation, if you want to have the BEC as one of their reporting obligations, that's part of what this is. It's to be prepared to present. I mean, that's certainly within how you choose for this BEC to report and what their duties are.

The ad hoc to the BEC. Cool. Yeah, so there's that one.

When a report is made to be agendized on this, it will have to comply with our – Yeah, I respect the final report.

Yeah, so actually let me ask you a question. So the final report will come either – let's assume January, but we have the language for February – But as reporting, not necessarily a full report, but as having a discussion item on the agenda so that that ad hoc committee can talk to the BEC in totem. Because otherwise, if we try reaching, let's say one of the five members talks about, like they all talk about it in committee, one of us reaches out to another member, that's violating the Brown Act. So the goal of this is to then have a conversation, a continuous process while staying in Brown Act limitations.

Right.

And my best recommendation for that is if an agenda item is going to be put on this docket, right, you know, on this calendar, that the report contain information that gives a reasonable person understanding of what that conversation will be. Okay. That's kind of the notice issue to make a public hearing meaningful.

Any other? The last thing I have, and I'll just call a spade a spade, we could lose two members from this body. Does that have any impact on future quorums if council doesn't appoint replacements for the positions where we may lose in November?

I see what he's saying. How many members do we have currently? That are sworn in?

Ten.

We have ten. We have ten. We need six. We lose two. We have eight. Okay, we have eight.

Yeah, so our rules have a quorum requirement. It's Article 5 quorum, 50% rounded to the whole number, where a fraction plus one of the duly appointed commission members shall constitute a quorum of the transaction of business.

So if two seats become vacant, we still have a majority to meet regardless. Yes, that's right. So that's fine.

That's a good point. Thank you.

And will the ad hoc committee, which will be five of them in December, and there's only six of us here?

I'm sorry, repeat your question, Commissioner.

The ad hoc committee would violate the Brown Act because you'd have more than quorum at that point. If we go down to four... And then if there's only eight commissioners, then quorum is going to be five at that point.

No. The quorum number, I'm looking to the city attorney to correct me. The quorum number is based on the total number of positions, not total number of sworn. That's why we had so significant problems when we had 18. It doesn't matter if all of us resign tomorrow except for you, you can never meet. because you would still need five other members. Quorum is dictated by the total body of the whole, regardless of whether or not those positions are filled. I'm looking to the city attorney to deny that.

I agree with that, although I may want to take a look at it. I think that because this issue isn't before us today, but I think it is something to be aware of.

I'm also going to speak to historical just to move us along. That's what's happened. When we have had significant vacancies where it literally required 10 of us and there were literally 10 of us at one point sworn in, if one person was sick that was a sworn commissioner, we had to cancel.

I agree with your interpretation. We've reviewed these issues before with Quorum, and so I just want to consult with what other guidance has been given just for the sake of it. But no, I agree with that. Yeah.

So either way, I think we're fine, Commissioner Benavides. Are you sure? Yes. Because I'm not convinced.

Our vice chair indicated that five of us will be on the ad hoc.

The ad hoc is not required to meet quorum, and it's not subject to Brown Act because it's under five.

I'm sorry, it's under... No, it's more than 50% of existing...

MEMBERS? NO, IT'S NOT. EXISTING MEMBERS ARE 12. I'M SORRY. I KEEP ASKING FOR THE NUMBER. SO WE NEED SIX TO GET THERE. THERE ARE ONLY FIVE MEMBERS. YEAH. WE'RE ONE SHY OF QUORUM. I'M SORRY. CAN YOU CLARIFY YOUR QUESTION? NOW I'M CONFUSED HERE.

I COULD HELP, I THINK, IF WE TURN TO OUR RULE. I DON'T MEAN INTERRUPT. Yes, please. Thank you. If we look at Article 16, which is ad hoc committees, the commission, upon a vote of a majority of the commissioners present, may create an ad hoc committee to meet specific issues. The ad hoc committee shall be composed of less than a quorum of the members, so quorum being the key term there, be for a limited or single purpose, and will terminate upon the completion of the specific purpose. In no event shall the ad hoc committee last for no more than a year. And so the idea that we are focused on that quorum number, not on the membership number. That's clear.

Thank you.

Can we please hold a vote?

You're calling the question. I'll second the call.

Can we just confirm who made the original motion and the second?

Scott Lagner made the original motion. Second. Was that Miles or? Miles. Miles.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second. Can we please take a vote?

I think we need to do roll call. Yeah.

Commissioner Ira?

Yes.

Commissioner Bellow?

Yes.

Commissioner Roten? Yes. Commissioner Hutchins?

Yes.

Commissioner Ward?

Yes.

Commissioner Benavidez?

Yes.

Commissioner Chernyakoff?

Yes.

Commissioner Lagner? Aye. Vice Chair Vandenberg? Aye. Motion passes.

Thank you very much. And Mr. Aguilar, finance director update, please.

All right, just a couple quick updates. So every year after the adoption of the biennial budget, we put together a large budget book, 500-page budget book. So we did complete our budget book at the end of August and it's posted on our website. It has all those budget schedules that were part of the approved budget, but it has a significant amount of other narrative related to departments and their programs and accomplishments and things like that. So I would encourage you to... to peruse through the 500-plus page budget book that is online that was posted a couple days ago. And then second thing, initially we were not anticipating having a BC meeting the next two meetings because we didn't have any items, but likely we'll just have them to have the standing item on the BC scope issue to have that. Likely, unless other unanticipated things come up, that is likely to be the only discussion for the next two months.

Okay.

Thank you very much. Future items listed on the master calendar include Measure Z revenue ballot measure items, informal policy, child care, Q4 report, a review of code of ethics, and selection of chair and vice chair. Any additional items? I'm hearing none. The next regular Budget Engagement Commission meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 8, 2026 at 5 PM. We are adjourned.