Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Hello?

I would like a burger, please.

Pineapple should not go on pizza.

Pineapple should be on pizza, but it can't be.

You can hear me?

We can hear you. Can you hear me? Can you Okay. Hello? Hello?

Hello? Can you hear me? You better? Hello, Dana. Can you hear me?

Recording in progress.

Hey. Good morning. We will call the Tuesday, 03/10/2026 regular meeting of the board of supervisors to order. We'll start with the pledge of allegiance led by supervisor Velasquez. K.

Next, we'll move on to the certificate of posting. Is there a motion to acknowledge the certificate of posting?

So moved. Second. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. We appear to be in quite the echo. Maybe we'll give it a minute and see if we can correct this really quickly.

Okay. Still pretty echoey. Okay. Okay. We're we're gonna take a five minute break for the technical issues and see if we can correct them.

Recording stopped.

Am I echoing? Sound echoing still.

Is there an echo? Echo. Echo. Echo.

Testing.

It's doing this. Apparently, I have the oldest computer in the whole county.

Testing. Sounds better.

Good morning, everybody. Test.

Test. Test.

Test. Test.

Recording in progress.

Henry, can you put the screens back up? There we go.

Okay. We are back. It's like we fixed our echo problem. We where do we leave off? Do we do we get it? Okay. We do. Okay. We got that. Great. Yeah. Okay. So first before board announcements, county council has an announcement. I think we have to add an urgency item.

Thank you, mister chair and members of the board of supervisors. We do have a need to add an urgency item to our closed session agenda as item 4.6, threat to public services or facilities under government code section five four nine five seven. It will be a consultation with the county executive officer, intercapacity as the director of county information technology, and the county council. The issue came to our attention after the posting of the agenda. And given that we do not need for another two weeks, there is an urgent need to add that closed session agenda today.

So I would ask that the board of supervisors vote to add this item to the agenda. This item would require a four fifths vote in order to add it to the agenda. Thank you.

I'll move to

add the item to the agenda as recommended.

I'll second.

First and second, can we have a roll call vote, please, for adding the item?

Supervisor Zanger?

Yes.

Supervisor Velasquez? Yes. Supervisor Kosmiki?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Kurrow?

Yes. Five zero vote. Motion passes.

Great.

Thank you. Now we'll move to board announcements.

Let me

see if have board announcements. Anyone wanna start? Supervisor Kurrow?

Okay. Don't hate me because it was a NACO conference. I'll try and do this real quick and just highlight a couple of things. The CIO was an all day conference on the Friday of the NACO conference, and I wanna thank the entire board for allowing me to go and represent us. It it was probably out of the the years I've gone, one of the most productive conferences that I've seen.

The tech innovation forum, one of the major things that was discussed was data centers, which is a topic that, I brought a lot of information back for the CEO and AI and AI, policies that have started to be, addressed across the country. And I know that the chair supervisor Zenger had previously brought an AI policy that we had discussed, and I don't believe we actually adopted it. So I shared the information with county council and the CEO and IT, and we met yesterday about some of the options. And I believe that they're gonna be, bringing some information forward for the board's consideration. Some of the other major items is cyber attack and security, which is is going to be even more heightened now with the state of the world, I guess, I would say.

So pretty much that's the main highlights there. The lands policy steering committee, there was a major I felt like it was the whole best part of the conference. The there is still a lot of appropriations available at the national level for rural counties when it comes to, oh, nope. Sorry. That's transportation.

This is on public lands and policy. So they did fund, many people may already know the rural schools, SRS, and PILT funding, which had been held previously. They're actually retroacting, paying these small rural schools, and that is beneficial for many of our South County schools and our small schools throughout the entire county. But they also stated that it it will take some time for rolling that funding out. So I did share all of these notes with the CEO, and I apologize for all the information because, it was it was a lot to take in.

When it came to egg and rural affairs steering committee, the farm bill is still even though HR one unlocked a lot of the the funding for, the farm bill, the farm bill still has not been reauthorized. And it was a major topic of mean, I believe, supervisor Zenger, you and I went, and we sat through an entire day of hearing how they just haven't gotten it done. Guess what? They still have not gotten it done. We still do not have a reauthorization of the farm bill, which will impact many of our programs, which h r one is a topic for today, so I'm not gonna go into all the h r one stuff.

When it came to, one of the most controversial items out of all the resolutions that were brought forward to the board of directors directors from each one of the steering committees was the discussion of, firearms. And it was very heated, And there were a lot of opinions out there. They did table this item, but we did pass, several resolutions that the, board of directors will be considering. Many of them do not super affect San Benito County, but, in the rural action, caucus, we did civic engagement and the stories of rural county and rural America was a major topic. And being able to gather the stories and the impacts of things like HR one and other legislation and how it's impacting rural counties, NATO's current president is very much moving everyone to being able to write your stories, tell your stories.

So if there are impacts that are happening to our community, they want us to gather those stories and really use them for, advocacy. Transportation was a major topic. The the the the comment that was most encouraging for the counties of future federal transportation policy, the speaker came up from, the transportation agency and hit I I quoted this. We have a lot of money to give you guys. I actually stood up and said, how do I get it?

And we had a conversation offline. There are several small grants, and I know after, previously at, Mobility Partnership, I know that the executive director of or executive officer of COG is aware of these fundings. We need to really, really be proactive and not only have COG support in funding request, but also all three of our jurisdictions, both cities and the county. And, I have all kinds of handouts for, the CEO to, review and and discuss. But the major issue with data centers is about the PG and E grid.

Almost every steering committee brought up data centers, and we have to really look at what is our, policy gonna be when it comes to data centers. We are a prime location for data centers because of our proximity of Silicon Valley. So it's something that I would like to potentially have a further conversation. Maybe I'll do a future agenda item that we can discuss that in detail. The other thing was disaster response and recovery.

Every year, I attend the certification program for disaster response and recovery. What came out of this was, it was very interesting because we had a lot of CEOs, a lot of CAOs, a lot of staff level people at this conference, but then we had our board members and our elected officials. And what was interesting was the dialogue between who does what. And there was some some rural counties felt that the board of supervisors has to take a more proactive role in disaster preparedness and recovery. But the debate happened when you talk to, really hard hit rural counties.

It is making sure that you are prepared in advance for the disasters. You have as many scenarios accounted for as you possibly can and what those action plans are and predetermining, who has what roles. And I know this is a topic that the CEO is fully aware of, So, it again, more information that I'll hand out. I did meet, one on one with congresswoman Lofgren. She was extremely supportive of coming up with ways of releasing the restrictions on the safety of roads funding.

And I explained to her how much we appreciated all of that funding that came our way, but we need it for actual pavement on the ground instead of striping and roundabouts. And she was extremely supportive of she goes, that's a safety issue. I said, but it doesn't fall within the safety category. She goes, let's let's have a conversation. I have a direct contact for her transportation people that I've given that I'm giving to.

I have not given it to Esperanza yet. And then we did have a US senate joint meeting with all of California representatives board members, and Padilla and Schiff. I will tell you I was not that impressed. I didn't get much out of that. That was the one disappointment. I thought it was gonna be a more engaging the way we had it last time. We were able to ask a lot of questions and have the dialogue. They were predetermined questions with, like, predetermined answers. So I was very disappointed in that area. I will say I think we need to really work closely with senator Padilla.

He seems to be very connected to the rural challenges, and that's all I have for the NACO conference. We did have a mobility partnership meeting. I I voiced a lot of concerns about the realignment of 152 and the high speed rail coming through northern the northern part of the county and how we have to have these conversations about what is this gonna look like and how do we preserve our egg land and where is the benefit to any realignment of 152 for the county of San Benito. We're not just gonna take the Santa Clara County problem and make it our own. We have to have a benefit, and I appreciate supervisor Velasquez being the chair the last year.

It it was really productive last year, I'm hopeful for a productive year this year. So thank you. Thank

you. Mister Velasquez, the housewife? Yes. Thank you.

I wanna thank the residents of Lovers Lane and our CEO for taking the time to meet with me on Sunday to go over a lot of the issues of the flooding in along Lovers Lane area. And as I walked with the residents, they were pointing out the issues, and they're literally swamps back there. Swamps. And anytime it rains, no matter how small the rainfall is, it floods their properties. They showed me many of the the feeder creek's going taken to Poteco Creek are just really backed up, and they just need to be cleared.

Because if they don't get cleared, what happens? Any rainfall then puts more stress on Pacheco Creek. So we have to find a way to start clearing out some of these areas, get better flow through there. So when the rains hit hard, the backup doesn't happen with this. I mean, it can drizzle.

Literally drizzle, and it it starts to flood the area. A lot of it too was caused by some property owners bringing in filled dirt, trying to protect their land, which really just made it worse for everybody in the area. So we're gonna have to find the the professionals to do the surveying, find out how we can get the drainage plant put together, clear some of these smaller creeks so we don't have these issues every time it rains. It's just it really is a mess out there, and I I invite any of you to come see the swamps. We have literally, we have swamps in in San Benito County, it's just it shouldn't be happening.

So thank

you. Thank

you. Just really quickly, I attended the county office of education. They had a ribbon cutting for a wellness center at San Andreas continuation school. It just was really awesome, and it was really awesome to see the level of care and what they're doing to support students' needs. I highly encourage anybody to check it out, see what they're doing, but great work, County Office of Education.

Also want to a couple of gratitude thanks. First of all, I'd like to thank our CEO. Her willingness participate and engage with our community has been incredible, and I'm really appreciative that we have a CEO that is so willing to be a part of our community, so thank you so much. The other thank you this morning goes to our VFW. I volunteered with them last week to package packages for our soldiers and troops across seas that are overseas.

They do this on a quarterly basis, and it's just wonderful. It's wonderful to support our troops and to let them know that we're thinking of them, for home, back home. And, like I said, this is something they do on a continual basis, but I just wanted to highlight and just say thank you to them. So that is it. Thank you.

You. K. We'll move on to public comment. Opportunity to address the board on items of interest not appearing on the agenda. Do we have any public comment for items that are not on the agenda today?

If you'd like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card. On Zoom, please press star nine or the raised hand icon. And in chambers, we'll start with Greg Alvarado.

Good morning. What I want to bring up is supervisor Sotelo brought up something last week of a concern for the last meeting of a roundabout on Enterprise in '25. And it made me think about you guys have talked about a roundabout for Riverview and Main Street. Well, how are the kids from Southside Road coming up the sidewalk you talk about putting in gonna cross a roundabout? I think it's something that that needs to be thought about.

To me, there should be maybe some resolution that you're not gonna have roundabouts where kids are gonna be walking to parks or schools. Just something to think about. Thank you. You.

Next

in chambers, Tammy.

Good morning, mister chair, board. My name is Tammy Aviles, and today I wanted to just briefly speak on behalf of the seniors council of Santa Cruz and San Benito County that project scout, which is a free tax preparation service, is currently being offered. There is a annual income requirement, but then you can have your taxes prepared, for free by certified volunteers. And you can reach them at (831) 724-2606 or at projectscout@seniorscouncil.org. And just wanted to make the community aware of this free service offered, by the seniors council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And that concludes public comment.

Great. Thank you.

Just jumped in on Zoom. Okay. Stacy, you've been unmuted, you have three minutes.

Good morning. Good morning, board, and thank you so much. The first thing I wanna say is I don't know if it's my system or the overall system, but it's nearly impossible to hear any of you. I've got all of my volume turned up everywhere on my laptop. I've tried it on my phone. Nothing's changing. So I just want you to be aware of that. The second thing I'd like you to be aware of is our Readiness San Benito BOAD. And I'm sorry. I can't be there in person, but I've got a bit of a sore throat, and I guess it's probably best not to share.

But Readiness San Benito is gonna be meeting tomorrow afternoon at 02:30 at the EPIC Center to discuss ways that our volunteer nongovernment organizations can help support San Benito County in disaster preparedness and readiness because that leads to a more resilient community overall. So thank you so much.

Thank you. So I guess, are we having issues still technical issues with the Zoom? Do we is there any way to address that before we continue? Do we need to take another five minute break for tech issues?

We can take a quick break to see

if they can fix the outgoing.

Okay. We'll take a short break to try again to fix the tech issues. Thank you.

Recording stopped.

As well? Can we mute Zoom as well, please, for a quick minute?

Test. I don't I don't hear an echo anymore. Testing, Henry. Test.

Maybe unmute Zoom and we can ask the girls in the office if they can hear us better. Lorena, Grace, Funte? Can you text my phone? Can you hear us better?

Does it sound better? Does it sound better on Zoom?

Gracie. Yes. A bit, Gracie says. Okay. There's something from the.

Testing. Testing. I'm on supervisor Velasquez. Henry, unmute Zoom so I can ask the girls if they can hear me from the dice.

Gracie, can you hear it better? Yes.

Okay. Alright.

Recording in progress.

Who's that?

Hey. Welcome back. Hopefully, that solved our technical issues on Zoom. We'll be moving on now to consent agenda. These matters shall be considered as a whole and without discussion unless a particular item is removed from the consent agenda. Do any supervisors have items they wish to pull off of consent? 1.4. Supervisor Kozmicke? 1.8

to 1.1, please.

1.8 to 1.1? Or did you say and one point ten?

Two one point ten. Two one eight, one point o, 1.1.

Supervisor Velasquez. Supervisor Currow. Okay. Then for the rest of the consent agenda items, is there public comment on the items that were not polled?

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

Okay. Is there a motion to approve the remaining items of consent that is consent minus one point point eight, 1.9, and 1.1?

Move to approve.

Is there a second?

Second. First

and second, we have roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Zenger?

Yes.

Supervisor Velasquez? Supervisor Kosmiki?

Yes.

Supervisor Satello? Yes. Supervisor Currow? Yes.

Five zero vote. Motion passes.

Great. Thank you. Thank you. Now to 1.4, the item pulled supervisor Stello, you pulled this item.

Thanks. I don't have a problem with the item. I just was hoping that we might get a little bit of an update as to what the plan is for public works. I know that there was an interim, but I just thought it'd be helpful for the public and for us to know and and get the most recent update we can on the process and what's gonna happen with public works.

Yes. The item is presented to you to separate the duties of the engineer versus the management of the public works department. Based on my observations, I think it's not in the best. It doesn't provide a good service to have an engineer that should be focusing on projects directly, engineering plans, everything else and be managing all the departments underneath. Us.

We need a manager. We need someone to be able to manage the department and what the engineer on a separate item under the direction of the director be reviewing plans and designs. I think it's a disservice to have two positions tied into one. It's it's gonna be it's not gonna be a requirement. We're gonna also modify the actual engineer position as well.

In the future, it's coming back to the board. We're analyzing which items they we have to add with titles we need to add to the engineer that is no longer gonna be part of the public works director. So it's just a management position rather than manager plus engineer. It's gonna be separated.

Okay. Thank you. I think what what I'd also like clarification on who is in charge of public works at the moment and what the plan is there. Yes.

So once the you allow us if you allow us to advertise the position for public works director, in the meantime, mister Deems has what is him? Over there. He has agreed to engineer to act as a public works director for now while we're doing the recruitment, but also we're bringing in a consultant firm for a while to help us when we do the recruitment. This type of recruitment is gonna be very difficult for us to get someone on board in the next two months. So we don't want to host up the the activities of the public works department, but I understand mister Tims is an engineer.

So we want him to focus on the engineering side, and I'm assisting him with a a part of the management and some other departments as well. So we're trying to do a combination for not just to survive for for now.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification.

Do we have public comment on this item?

You'd like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card on Zoom. Please press star nine or the raised hand icon. And I have no public comment on this item.

So I'll go ahead and move to approve, please.

I'll second.

We have roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Zanger?

Yes.

Supervisor Velasquez?

Yes.

Supervisor Kosmiki?

Yes.

Supervisor Satello? Yes. Supervisor Kuro?

Yes. Five zero vote. Motion passes.

Great. Thank you. Moving on to supervisor. Because, Mickey, you pulled three items. Yeah. They're all I

think they're all clearly related. Yeah. I guess, Linda, she can come up. I I just want some clarification. I know we talked about process with with these CFD annexations, and we talked about adding the language to hopefully protect ourselves legally.

Mhmm. We also talked about about, you know, doing these CFD annexations for projects where there was an approved map, an approved approved I just want clarification again on because a couple of these are can we go through these and just what which of these actually has a project, has a map? I know there's one that has the first one I'm looking at has a couple there's, like, a presentation with one of them, but maybe not with the other two. One of them has housing units on it

on

it, and then it also lists, like, 18 acres of agriculture. And the concern that I have again is, why are we annexing agricultural land into a CFD, which then opens the door for the for the property owner if that's developed down the road to be locked into these CFD fees that are currently in place.

So Fulton Mojave, which is, I believe, item number

1.9.

So there's 18, 19, and 110. Those are the three CFT annexation.

Yeah. So the only one that is Fulton Mojave, which is 1.9, is gonna be annexed into an already developed CFD with the Sunnyside. Yes. There is a corner lot, I guess, that wasn't included in the original development, which was then sold, and that's they're developing it now. They're planning to build 10 residential home and residential home or lots.

And then the empty lot, only the easement is actually gonna be dedicated to the county for maintenance. The rest, I believe, is going to I believe it was PG and E or for utilities. It's dedicated for utilities, I believe. But we're annexing them into sunny side of states because they're gonna be receiving the exact same services.

1.9? Mhmm. What about one point eight and one point ten?

They are remain they're just splitting lots. So they are remaining as ag land, and I guess they're just subdividing their their the current law into two or three lots.

And so I just come back to can we get clarification? What is the county's incentive to do this? I don't quite understand what our incentive is to annex an agricultural property into a CFD, which just locks them in the down the road to potential future development. These you know, obviously, there's a CPI, but we're we've we've expressed a desire to update our CFD fees. And while we're doing that update, personally, I would just prefer not to be annexing these properties into the CFD if they're not if they don't have an actual project or map or something that indicates there's an actual already on the table approval.

Mister chair, members of board of supervisors, as we discussed the last meeting, the incentive is simply to comply with the conditions of approval that were imposed by the planning commission in order for them to move forward and to be able to record their map. So the board's action now has modified that such that that all future CFD annexations are going to occur prior to the issuance of the first building. Right. So we've changed the sequencing.

Right. So can we get a clarification here? Because it no project map map. We're we're

So the ones that we're annexing now are the ones that have already started the process and have already been approved by the planning commission. So the conditions of the approvals have already been set set, and we're just trying to Conditions of

approval for what?

Annexation. For them to finalize the project.

Correct.

There's no map. There's no project. Correct. Planning commission is is because these have been coming for the last two years. It's essentially been a rubber stamp for whatever reason. They've issued up the conditions of approval for annexing, not a map, not a project. Right.

This has been the standard process. And we're trying to change that process. And we have changed that process on all projects that will be coming forward to the planning commission. Right.

But but what I'm getting at is these two one point eight, 1.1 are not a project. They're the same exact thing we've been doing mistakenly for the last two or three years because there's been a rush to

Right.

Submit these annexations because these property owners are trying to get locked in on the lower fees before we potentially update the CFD fees. So I don't I my position hasn't changed. I can't support annexing anything into the CFD at this point until and we need to follow our policy. We have a policy in place that says there's a reason for that policy, and the reason for that policy is property owners, if you do have to develop down the road, you're gonna pay your fair share. We're not locking you in on these CFDs anymore. That's That's kinda where I'm at. Because the planning commission Correct. Issued a conditions of approval for an annexation doesn't mean we have to rubber stamp it. Correct. Thank you.

May I ask sorry. So on 01/2010, is there any information as far as to what the intent is? If there is no map, there's no project at this point, is there intention given as to why they would like to be annexed into CFD?

It's not them requesting to be annexed into the c f c CFD. Again, they're just trying to meet the conditions of approval from the resolution from the planning commission. It does not specify the reason why they are subdividing their land. It just indicates the specifics as far as how many lots they're gonna subdivide, and it does indicate that there is no plans to develop.

Okay. So it's a it's a condition for subdividing.

Mister chair, that's exactly right. For the twelfth time, the CFD purpose is for residential taxation for housing housing. K. That's the purpose of the CFD.

Let's just There's two. So there's the negative fiscal impact, and if there is any plans to develop for residential, that's when they decide whether they want the county to maintain, then we would assess them specifically for what they plan on developing. If there is no plan on developing, the county will, at the very least, collect the negative fiscal impact fees.

Yes. Professor Carrell.

To make sure I understand and and counsel, please correct me or staff. Please correct me if I'm wrong. We get to collect the fees for the annexation without any approval of a project right now. And without the annexation, we do not get to collect the fees. Is that correct? Okay. Okay. Thank you.

We get clarity on this again. What fees are we So, again,

the board decided at the last meeting was for all of the CFD annexations that were in the queue that have been approved by the planning commission and which have received a conditional approval, which requires annexation prior to the recordation of the map, we would modify the resolution to include the cautionary disclaimer language, if you will, that the board directed us to include in those CFD annexations that were currently pending and that all of those were then to be brought forward to the board for approval. As to all future CFD annexations, the board directed us to modify the condition of approval such that all future CFD annexations will will only occur prior to the issuance of the first building permit. So developers will be able to move forward. They'll be able to subdivide their land. They'll be able to record their map without a project.

If they they seek seek to develop the land, then they would have to annex to the CFD prior to the issuance of the first building permit. So that was the direction we received from the board, and this is simply fulfilling that direction.

Mister president Velasquez? I

think the the issue we as we talked about before was we're approving something, and then the question becomes, it's only ag land until there's a trailer on on the property. Then it's actually a residence, although it has wheels. Are we are we collecting on that? And this is how these things came up. Because I think in the past, it was, let's approve something today, and we'll worry about what they do ten years down the road.

And this is actually item 1.9. If I'm misreading something, please help help. But but as I understand it, this is an example of we want the same fees as was approved in 2018 to apply to our project. Now I think I think we've seen this year or last year, the problem we have are these aren't keeping up to true cost. And we're have all these projects out there that they're not covering the cost of fire.

They're not covering the cost of sheriff. They're not covering the cost of fixing the roads because we know in government, costs grow much faster than in the private sector. So so I wanna make sure that if we're doing something, it's it's today's fees, and today's fees have to represent exactly what's really going on. This is one of the reasons I keep pointing out to CFD should be for fire and police, public safety safety. Maybe another item here or there.

Builders should be creating a homeowner's association so they so they cover the true cost of what it what it takes to fix a road, maintain landscaping, sound walls, and so on because they're they're incredibly expensive, and our CFDs never keep up. And this is how this county has found themselves in financial deficit because of these problems. So I'm I'm looking at two or 1.9 saying, how how are we going to 2018? These are saying, well, this was planned to happen at some date. Well, we understand at some date, it was planning to happen, but the dates have crossed eight years here.

Are are we talking about updated fees? And I think the point point the supervisor, I think you're trying to say is where are the updated fees first so we make sure we're at that point and we're not disapproving something today. And the developer hopes that that ten years down the line, we're gonna be they'll be building building, but at the rates that were were in 2026. That's that's the the main piece here. Let's not trigger something unless we're collecting true cost cost at the time. So the

board has directed that there be a study and an update to the CFD fees, so that will be proceeding. Some of the complexity with the CFD annexations that are in the queue is that the developers have received their full extensions and their maps have to be recorded or they've they've run out of time. They have to start the process all over again.

So

so you have developers that have proceeded under the rules that existed at the time. You're not approving a project, but they have done everything that they were required to do to get it to this point. And it would be very difficult for them to run out of time, not be able to record their map, and now have to go back through the process again. So

Can we get clarification again? Because you keep saying developers. And so 1.9, I I

get Property owners. I'm sorry.

Point nine is developed. 1.8, 1.1, they're saying, we just voluntarily wanna join the CFD and pay some fees. That that that doesn't add up to me.

Point taken, property owners in order to subdivide their land. There is no approval of a specific development project through the approval of the CFD annexation.

Also, can I so they're not voluntarily asking to be annexed? It's their one of the conditions that they have to meet. And then, also, I just wanted to make a comment that CFD fees are, you know, are collected based on the services that they are receiving. So as a CSA and CFD coordinator, I do feel that we are collecting adequate fees for the services that are being provided, which is also allowing us to, you know, collect to be able to build the reserve funds for any capital projects or any emergencies that do occur. So and then also, you know, we can't collect any extra fees unless we are providing services.

So for the services that that they are receiving, I I do believe the fees are accurate.

Mister chair, I respectfully disagree. We just went through a budget where we had how many millions of dollars in deficit because our police and fire services are not adequate. We don't have the resources. We've been told this again and again. We don't have police and fire resources. That's part of part of the CFDs. I do respectfully disagree. We do need to update our CFDs that we are able to pay for these resources. But I just will come back back to the CFDs that are do not have projects attached to them. Why, in principle, would the county move forward with these annexations just because the planning commission put these conditions of approval on them?

We don't have to approve everything that the planning commission says we have to approve that they want us to approve. And I don't think the planning commission was frankly, I don't think the planning commission was aware of what was going on. This is a trend that's been building. I don't think most of the board knew what was going on until recently, frankly, when I started pointing it out that there's something wrong here, we're getting this flood of CFD annexations in the last two years for a reason. And I stick with what I said. I think that these property owners are trying to get locked in, and they hope to eventually develop those properties and have these low fees. And I'm not gonna I'm not gonna stand by them and support it.

Supervisor Crow, you had something before.

So just to understand, when a request to subdivide is been brought forward in an application, it could be a family subdividing for family. It could be a 50 acre and you subdivided into five because you have five kids and you have 10 acres each, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're gonna subdivide to one acre parcels. I mean, that's the question that comes before us when they actually are looking at a project. This is just I I I just I'm trying to understand. I I wanna hear where the concern is, and I understand the fee issue.

But if if we don't subdivide if we don't annex in, we are not collecting any fees until the annexation occurs. So we're getting zero. If the fees are the issue and we're not collecting enough overall, then I totally agree with the board's actions. I'm sorry. I wasn't at the meeting.

I I that when you guys had this conversation. So I'm trying to get up to speed on this. I I wanna I I think the fee study is imperative that we're including all of the fees necessary. But it it isn't approving a development or a project. It's collecting money to go towards our services right now.

If we have moved this, if the board made the decision to move the annexations to win sub when a project is coming forward, we're not collecting anything until that point. Do I have this under am I getting this right? Because we're I'm gonna respectfully disagree is I wanna collect the fees now regardless because it doesn't mean they're gonna get to do anything.

Yes. So to piggyback off of your example, one, I do believe the minimum is five acre lots that they can subdivide into. But once so if we go the the route that was discussed at the last board meeting as opposed to how it is now. So now the property owner comes and they wanna subdivide their lot and we're annexing all the whole boundary to include the lots that they plan on subdividing. We include that as one CFD.

So once if they annex and then once they start developing, we can start taxing them. It all depends on what they request. So if they don't want the county to help and maintain, we will only annex them with the negative physical impact fees, which go towards fire, police, and ambulance. If they want the county to help maintain whatever they plan on developing, whether it's landscape, roads, irrigation, tree, any of that, then that's when we do the special assessment. And then on top of the NFI rates, then we add the the additional taxes for the maintenance that will be provided.

We go the new route until we won't annex until each new property owner now wants to develop, that means now we're going to annex 10 c f annex into the c f d 10 different times because now it's 10 new property owners as opposed to one. But the annexation will occur essentially at the same time when they pull a building permit. I'm I'm sorry. The the taxing will occur at the same time.

Okay. I wanna make sure I'm understanding correctly. But if they're annexed now, we get a small portion towards fire, police, sheriffs, and ambulance, it's when they they the future is when more is added. But we would if they're annexed now, we're gonna collect something now, aren't we?

If there is an a new impact to the county. So if a new building is built.

And this is the conversation about a mobile home which does not trigger it, and that is a problem. And I think that's a conversation that do we have the legal right? I mean, this is where it goes to that whole topic of HOA, CSA, and CFD. Where are the benefits? Where are at what point do we need to be doing these things to ensure that we're covering our cost?

So I'm very open to that future agenda item to have that conversation. But it sounds like these are ones that were already in the pipeline and that fall within that scenario. And so it's the future ones that have not applied yet that we will based on what the board did at the last meeting, which I'm sorry I missed that, would be able to apply to. Okay. I just thank you. I appreciate the clarification.

Supervisor Kasminke. Yeah.

I think the clarification is that, again, is that you don't tax until there's new development. That's something that we just kind of we've been over this before, and so I know you missed the last meeting, but that's the important factor here. The other part is why are we annexing the agricultural land into the CFD? Why would the county what would be our incentive to do that? I don't quite understand that other than setting up the property owner to potentially develop down the road, and you'd be locked in on these lower fees.

And that's the problem here. My suggestion is I think there's a different conversation with one point nine because of the fact that there's a development. I'm ready to have that once we get through 1.8. But for the projects, particularly the these proposals that do not have projects attached to them, I'm I'm gonna stick with what I said earlier. There's zero incentive for the county to a next. We're in the middle of updating our CFDs. Put a pause on this as I suggested before. Back once we've updated our CFDs. If you wanna join the CFD at that point, could pay the appropriate fees. Thank you.

Let's go to to view new public comment.

I think we're treating

all these basically as one item. If we can do public comment on One point 8. 18, and then we'll we'll move down these as their public comment comment. If

Oh. Oh. Oh. No.

Go go ahead. Go ahead, and then we'll do public comment.

Thank you. I council, do are we because these are the process has already started. They were kind of already in the pipeline. They have already been given these conditions from the planning commission. Are we is there any liability for us now kind of changing the rules midway? We opening ourselves up to litigation?

That's a difficult question to answer, especially from the dais. I certainly don't wanna say anything against my client's interest in open session. However, I think, as I indicated previously, there are some unintended consequences by not approving these today. And the unintended consequences, at least at a minimum, are that the property owners have simply proceeded in good faith. They have complied with all of the conditions that have been imposed upon them, and many of them are running out of time to record their map.

It's we're we're

I'm sorry. We're mixing

these up. Hold on. Hold on. Let's let's just we don't wanna go back. Let's do public comment, then we'll get back to this.

I

there's there's

one with the map.

We get 1.9 has the map. 1.8, 1.1 do not have any map or any development plan at the point. Let's do public comment if

let's Yeah. Just really quick, I guess. My only other question would be, why are we putting things on an agenda that we have absolutely no desire of passing? I mean, I think as a chair, we've gotta make better decisions on what's being put on an agenda. I mean, I guess I I feel like if it's there, yes, everything is always up for discussion. But I feel like based last time on all of the discussion that happened, why are we seeing these again on our agenda? And I get because we I mean, these should be passed today. We're going to we are going to create a bigger issue for ourselves if we don't. And so I just I I'm curious what is our liability, and I'm curious why we're seeing them if there was no intention of the majority of the board to pass this. So

I think I think I think you're making a little bit of some assumptions there maybe that aren't totally clear. I think they're on the agenda because at the last time we discussed this, we said the ones in the pipeline, we're gonna add this language to them and then talk about them. So I think that's why they're

No. And I appreciate that. I just I say it because it's like I feel like it's somewhat the same discussion again. And so Yeah.

Well

You know, so anyways, I I I respectfully I apologize. You know, I don't mean to offend you. I just it's a little frustrating when these are on consent, and consent should be somewhat approved unless there's some major I mean, if these are things that we are going to need to hash out, they should be put on regular agenda.

Okay. Let's go to public comment on 1.8.

You like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card on Zoom. Please press star nine or the raised hand icon. And in chambers, Anne Hall.

Alright. Anhul, San Benito Engineering, specifically one point eight is my client. And I would like to say there seems to be some confusion as what constitutes a project and why these are here before you. These all have maps. These all have approved tentative maps. Okay? K. A map does not necessarily mean a 120 lot development. A map means they're dividing their property into, in the case of one point eight, three pieces, one of which is 18 acres. But they have an approved map.

That is a project. Is approved, and this is a condition that the county set on the approval of that tentative map. So project does not mean lots of houses. It can mean you guys do, I don't know, 10 to 20 minor subdivisions in the county every year. And these are not 120 lot subdivisions.

These are small things, whether it's for family, whether it's just because they wanna divide and sell a piece off, but this is a relatively standard procedure in the county. You keep talking about the 18 acres. Once subdivided, that agricultural piece of 18 acres has the right to develop build one house. At the time it goes to build a house, it will be imposed the CFD fee that you're setting today. So when they pull the building permit, whether it's for a house or a mobile home, which also requires a building permit, they will that CFD for police and fire will be imposed.

So if you approve it today, 18 acres is allowed to build a house house, an ADU, a mobile home. It's not allowed to build 18 houses. It's allowed to build what is allowed under the 18 acre agricultural use. In the future they wanted to break it up into one acre lots and build 18 houses, they would have to do another tentative map. It would have to go through a whole new approval process.

This one was approved for three parcels. Each of those parcels will have a right to build a house. In this case, two of them already have a house. So the only one that could potentially build a house is the 18 acres, But all three would be annexed into the CFD. And if they build a house, you, the county, would collect the taxes for police and fire at the time that building permit from the new house was issued.

This map has been ready to go since August. This is the only thing that's waiting on. It's been waiting nine months, and I have another one in a similar situation. This is an similar to condition the county imposed on the project that my client didn't ask for, doesn't necessarily want. It's benefiting only you, but what we need is to move forward. Understand you wanna have a discussion about the future. That's fine fine. But this was a condition the county set, and it needs to move forward.

Concludes public comment.

Okay. Okay. Let's let's do our best to stick on these one at a time then so we can get through them. So 1.8 in this project.

Yes. How many of these are outstanding? How many CFD annexations are in the quote, unquote queue? Any rough rough number?

I only know of seven, but that's just the ones that have come to my desk to start the annexation process. That doesn't include

seven more of these coming, or is that

included these?

Total to include the ones that are being presented here, but that doesn't include the ones that have not made it to my desk that have already gone through the planning commission with the same conditions of approval listed on.

How long is it gonna take to have the CFD fees updated? We have any idea? I

will have to direct that over to admin the admin department because

my I we've been talking about fee updates for it's not a month sort of thing at this point, and I haven't seen any updates, any fees, and it's frankly

So my fees are restricted to only be used for services provided to the specific CSAs and CFDs to do a new financial report to benefit the county would would not come from my funds. So that would that would be directed to administrative department.

Okay. Okay. And when are we going to at what point so there's seven you're saying. Can we get some firm firm if if the board does decide to move forward with these, like, what is the cutoff? At what point? Because because somebody else in the in the planning commission process right now

I believe the application documents or the conditions already put in place would have to be updated.

Can we get an answer on that, though, roughly how long it's gonna take to update these fees?

Thank you, mister chair, members of the board. So in regards to the upcoming we do have some upcoming minor subdivisions that are coming before the planning commission, including the March 18 meeting. Mhmm. But we will be putting in those new conditions for or that new condition of the CFD. And instead of prior to prior to final map, it would be prior to issuance of the first building permit.

So we'll we will start including that as of as of now. Regarding the study for the CFD, that that really just depends on the the scope of work that that we have. Working with administration, we can we can see, but it it can be anywhere between potentially three months, six months. It really just depends on on the the financial consultant that's gonna be helping us with that.

And just lastly, I'll I'll wrap up. I do think you know, I think there's it's unfortunate that, you know, in the case of perhaps 1.8, they are just going through the process. I've been on this board for five almost five and a half years, and I can tell you that in the last couple years, there has been a flood of these annexations. There was barely any in my first couple years. And so and it just happened to align with when we started talking about increasing fees.

So I do think I it's unfortunate that some people have been caught up in this that are just trying to get their property subdivided while others, I do believe, are just trying to get locked in on those fees. And that's where it puts us in a difficult position and why we really need to get these these updated as soon as possible so that we can just move forward with this and have the good clean process going forward that we put in place. Thank you.

Sir. Sir. You know, I I think a lot of this conversation, again, me being the the newest person on here, it's it's clarity. There's just no clarity in here what what's going on because we have we have good examples of the property owners were told they have to join the CFD. What's the property owner? Well, there's three parcels that's subdividing. Okay. Well, what does that mean in that setting? I said, the home is one item. Is the ADU included as a separate item?

If they put a trailer, is that a separate item? Is a clarity I personally need to know because if not, you start lumping everything into one. And now, again, here we are we are in a situation where we're not covering our costs. So I wanna make sure maybe with the board can help today by saying be clear that a home is one one, an ADU is a second second fee, is another fee because we have, in this case, 18 acres acres, ag. Okay.

Well, they shouldn't be paying for a home or ADU or anything else. But if they were chose to bring a trailer and put a trailer on, there's another fee. We need to make sure it's being collected because now there's another potential of service. So I think that's what we need is more clarity and simplify this with the clarity of what triggers each fee. So if I can have that, I'm gonna feel much better.

The next issue I have is just making sure that fees are up to date and that we're approving will be based on those those updated fees that we find. And if we can agree with that, then I'm okay there too. I I don't wanna be in a situation where we're saying no to everything just because we're not creating our own clarity because it helps us, and it's gonna help the public. And I've said this years ago again when I was in the city where the county was keeping some of the public safety fees artificially low because they didn't feel it was fair to the developers. And from the city level, I kept telling the county, what are you doing?

This is gonna cost you in the future. I'm at the county now. So now it's costing me because I'm here having to deal with the deficit budget budget because nobody paid attention to those details. I see a a full board here that agrees that we need to change the ways with our finances, and I think we all agree on that. I just I think we can clarify this this with the clarity. Again, if it's one structure, here's a fee. If it's an ADU added, here's the fee for that. If a trailer added on that property, here's the fee for that. And And with the clarity and thank you for bringing this up. The 18 acres, for example, that's it.

They choose to build more something else else, that that triggers everything again. And that needs to be very clear because what I don't want to see happening is as rush as as you talked about. Let me get my property into this now so I can save money down the road by claiming it's part of the old fees schedule as we'll talk about in 1.9. So that's that's I wanna say, I think it'll make the clarity for everybody, all the property owners so they know. As they subdivide, they're they are gonna pay a a new fee here. What is that fee and how does it work? Can take care of

that, and I think we're we're there. And I I think as a matter of clarification, I think Linda can correct me if I'm wrong, but these fees are not established as of today and are not prohibited from being increased. The point of the fees are to reflect the fully burdened cost of providing the services. The fully burdened cost of providing police and fire will increase over time. And, hence, our responsibility is to ensure that, for example, if you take the 18 acre parcels, which is vacant, once you put a home on that, obviously, the cost of the services are going to increase from a vacant lot to a home.

And so it's our responsibility to ensure that going forward that all of the fees reflect the fully burdened cost. We're limited to the fully burdened cost, but but we have to ensure that it is always the fully burdened cost.

Mister chair, if I can add to it. That's correct except once we establish a CFD, can only increase it by percentage allowed by law. And and if that's believe it was 2% or two and a half percent. We know the realities of of the world. It's not 2%. It could be 6%. So you see how quickly we start going in the opposite direction. That's why it's so important that we're gonna allow for it. We're doing it for most current as possible, and we minimize as in the past where it was we'll try to do everything for you. We we kind of make sure it's clear for new developments.

They're gonna have to create their own HOAs because I don't wanna be in the CSA business at all. I think supervisor has has seen some of the issues with that. Again, simplicity, it works, what gets charged. Because, again, might be a trailer, but that's the same as a house. It's gonna take services to get there and put out that fire if something ever happens. That's all I want. It's just clarity and when and what fees fees we attach to

it to it

at the date and and so that if something new comes down the line with that property, that's a whole new conversation. Just want that clear upfront.

Okay. K.

K. One last thing.

I'm sorry.

If we theoretically pause these and said we need to complete the CFD study for at least for the ones that don't have a project involved. I understand 1.9 is a different discussion. Hopefully, we don't have to get into litigation questions again, but if we pause this and said thank you planning commission for your recommendation, but we'd like to update our CFDs. And then if you wanna still consider subdividing at that point, that's why I asked the question about when is the CFD fee schedule going to be updated. Because I'm just concerned this is gonna this is just another one of these fee updates that's just it's gonna be 2,027, and we're still asking the same questions.

So so, is that something we can do? Can we pause these annexations? They're not projects. They're just subdivisions and say, you know, we're gonna pause these, put a moratorium on annexations of these nonproject related. We're gonna follow our current policy, basically, until we have the CFCs updated, and then you get charged.

Because otherwise, they're locked in on these fees forever. That's my concern. And if even on the 18 acres, it's like, well, what if down the road some other board of supervisors wants to come along and be development happy and approve everything, and all of a sudden they're building, you know, hundreds of homes out there, and they're locked in on the these fees. That's my concern. If

if and I ask in that situation, would would would they be locked in, or is it if they decide to build more than what is currently allowed, if they wanna build a 100 homes on 18 acres, is that a whole new would they be assessed a whole new CFD, or how would that work? Would they actually be locked in in today's

So the example that Anhul provided for the 18 acre, they will be locked in with the CPI rate increase. But if until we go to do the new fiscal report, then that's when the new rate would be established.

I chairman. Yes. You'll let me I think we need to do a rate case study study to clearly identify the cost of running those CFD CFDs because we are running, and some of the CSAs are in deficits. But we're not collecting the entire amount that we're supposed to maintain the facilities. If I when I when I came to the county, the first thing that I noticed is that some of the c f the SCSAs were upside down.

So the difference between the CSAs is that we the fees collected are specifically for services provided to them. We are not collecting additional fees for fire, police, and ambulance because that is part of the property tax. So that is why the rates are different. The ones that are in deficit were mainly because a capital project occur without having the funds available.

How those projects were approved today by the board at that time? Years ago? Okay. Thanks.

Mister Rizakura. We

can't commingle the CSA conversation with the CFD conversation respectfully. The CSA conversation is a conversation because of a prop two eighteen lack of having elections from those property owners, And we have to start having that conversation with the HOA and the CFD because that is we start saying we can't provide those services. And I've brought up multiple years since I've been on this board about the negative CSAs. So I I I appreciate the dialogue of this, but I I I would respectfully wish that we could continue moving on. I

just couldn't point. Can we just go to our attorney. Can we move forward with a motion that that points out the fees will be based on the upcoming study study that would be how we'll handle the fees for this this project project and clarity again that each structure or trailer is an additional fee. If we can do that, I think we can move forward and get going on this. Abraham that something that we could do?

I think Abraham has some clarification.

Thank you, mister chair, members of the of the board. So going to and and I'll respond to your your question to supervisor Velasquez. But going to chair Zanger's question regarding the 18 acres, if if they come back, like, right now, as as miss Anhul indicated, right now, they can build potentially a a unit of that moves forward. An ADU will not be allowed on only if if the main unit is built first. So so we know it could be either like a single family home or a modular that would trigger building permits.

And so even though even though the modular is more regulated with with with HCD, we still are contacted to make sure that we apply all the local setbacks requirements and so forth. So it would be what they would be allowed to would be that that that single family home or modular and then potentially an an ADU. If they were to want to change that later on, say, example, come do, like like, one acre lots, then that would trigger a whole new discretionary permit. And because it's an ag loaning district that that would not be allowed unless it bring in a a plan unit development application. And so that would have to be a a whole new a whole new discretionary process which would then then trigger again the the CFDs condition at that point, and they would have to be updated to where to to that new application as opposed to that that that existing 18 acres.

It would it would it would have to apply to that to that 18 acre example for that. And in regards to your question, supervisor Velasquez, in regards that that is something that we could ask the consultant if if we could break it down per proposal. But normally, that the way it works on the CVs, as as you're aware, is we we would we would want to make sure that they are analyzed and calculated to the fullest potential of of what what can be developed at that time.

But okay. Thank you. But regarding his suggestion of saying, hey. We're gonna update these in three to six months. The the updated if there's any change, that would be what we're applying. That would be the fees, not what is whatever it is today. Is that is that something that can be done or not?

That's a condition that can be considered for the lee legally if that if that can be done. I think we we would have to research and see. But but, I mean, certainly, that that is a condition that we can consider.

We you raise an important and interesting question, which I I don't have the answer immediately. If the board would like to continue any item at which you're considering that, then I would suggest you continue it to allow us to perform the necessary research to determine whether or not that can in fact occur.

Can I ask on 1.8, is there a time is it time sensitive? Is there a time urgency need on this one? Or is something going to does anyone have information? Abraham, do you know or Linda? Does anyone know if it's gonna be it's needs to be this meeting or next?

There is a condition that there is a expiration date. We don't we don't have specific timeline for for the the 01/2009 is the one that is basically, you know, where Right. Where we you will see an item next month at the next meeting for an extension. But one one point eight, it's it's more of the the property owner who is wanting to do this before just kind of she's already at that at that stage where she just wants to secure this. She's for you know, not to get too too personal, but she's elderly and she wants to just kinda finalize this kind of at her, you know, just make sure that that that everything's settled before the time comes.

I I think the hang up with the this the only question really is that I that I think I'm detecting is, look. Are they gonna be locked into fees now or after we update the fees? And if we can just say, hey. We're gonna apply the updated fees. I don't think there's a big issue unless I'm missing something from the board. Right? Mhmm. So but it's just a matter of whether or not we can do that. Yes. See

CEO. I would like to make some clarifications. I received a report right now about the CFDs. And just for a reference, last June, miss Linda presented a community facilities district balances. A total of revenue, $1,200,000 versus expenses at 949,000. So the CFDs are not upside down. They actually in June 2025, there were about 200 almost $300,000 in in the books available. So they're not upside down, just so you know.

I I mister chair. Here's the issue. It's they're not upside down based on what level of service do we want. If we want failing service, we're there. If we want good service, we have a ways to go. If we want excellent service, we have a long ways to go. That's the point. It's kinda like approving the roads at a d level instead of a b level because that's all the developers can afford. No.

No.

Those days are gone. Have to make sure we're providing the best service. We get something approved today based on accepting the new fees as we go through it? Because, again, I I know those those fire fees are too low. I'm sure the sheriff and the other ones are too low.

That's CFD. I wanted is clarity on if we can update or have the acceptance by the by the owners of the updated fee schedule. I wanna make sure we're very clear that a single family is one fee, an ADU is another fee, trailer, or a modular. That's a very important part. Modular is one thing, but we have a lot of trailers now moving on to properties, bundling trailers.

Those are fees because those are the more likely to actually catch on fire over time if we if we're being honest about it. That's why I just wanna make sure we're we're clear on that, and we're good to keep moving forward. I think we've had this conversation as we mentioned before quite a while ago about this fee study. And being in the condition we are financially, I don't care we have to have a meeting every day as a board to get those fees updated. We need to get this done.

It's just that time already.

I would like to ask the following questions. Would you like us to review the services versus what what the better services versus what they're currently having and identify all the other services that are not included in the CFDs that that will be requiring a new study, a fee study to identify the additional services and then bring it back to the board.

This is what we've asked for for quite a while.

So Okay.

This is we we need to provide quality service for our residents, and we can get there.

Mister chair, and not to be too into the weeds here, but but, know, you're talking about CFD budgets and I how much is being charged from sheriffs and fire? We don't so there's there's gray areas there when you talk about plus and minus negative. Of course, we're gonna be in the the positive, but how much is being charged back to the sheriffs and fire, which are the two biggest expenditures for the CFDs. You might not be doing $1,200,000 in, you know, landscaping and roadwork and whatever, but the biggest cost is sheriffs and fire. We need to make sure that we're recouping those all of those those costs.

Mister chair, members of board, I think the only way to accomplish what what supervisor Krasznicki is suggesting is that these items would be continued off calendar until the fee study is completed and brought back to the board. The fees would be approved, and then you would approve the annexation.

With 1.8, 1.1, and 1.9 is just a different discussion because it's a

So it'd be for those matters for which you're expressing this concern.

Okay. Okay. I'll move that we table 1.8 until we have a further discussion about implications and the study timing.

I'll just second.

I'll second just to so I can continue the conversation. I just don't know that that's fair. Like, particularly on 1.8 where somebody is trying to get something done. This is a condition that we have put in place. I don't know that that's fair to treat this and and kind of as a one size fits all approach. I understand what we're trying to do, but I think we're creating a real hardship for some people in furthering whatever it is, whether it's the state planning, whatever their that is their business. But we've asked them to hold on for nine months now. And this is now we're going to table this indefinitely. It doesn't quite seem fair. And so I I just you know, I I don't think this is fair, and I think we should consider them.

I I just don't think one size fits all. So I'd rather see us go one by one and not have a blanket approach.

Can I clarify real quickly, Anif? I need to clarify the amendment or the, motion even if it's the next meeting. I just want clarity on the question. There's a legal question out there of whether we can impose the we can put this a condition in that would set the fees at the what the fee study level is once the fee study is completed.

That's So we would we'd be talking about not not a a pause until the fee study's completed, but just

a pause till we

can get clarity on

the question

of whether or not we can apply it post.

There's a closed session conversation that probably maybe needs to be had about legality. So Well, I

I believe after further thought, the answer to the question is that you would have to defer the legislative action on approving the annexation until the new fees have been established. To approve them today subject to a future rate study haven't been completed and rates imposed, I I think that is the less attractive choice of the two. If the board is concerned about ensuring that the fees are imposed are based upon the fully burdened cost as represented by the fee study, then I think the best course of action simply to to continue the item off calendar until the fee study has been completed and the fees are brought forward.

Mister president Crow. I

I don't agree with I agree with where you're going with what the goal is. I get the goal. The goal is to make sure we're getting adequate fees. What I don't agree with is that it sounds like at the prior board meeting, you guys agreed that these would go through with the future ones being the topic of conversation. I can't even imagine how much money we just spent talking about this up here with the amount of money that we're paying individuals to be here.

It's it's my understanding that if we have the legal authority to increase the fees on these item on these annexations, that we should make a motion to approve with legal counsel researching and if there we're able to impose the future fees that this body has said we want the future fees. If we can't, then we stick with what we legally can do and we don't hurt the applicants for rules that were set up previously that we are trying to change.

As I I've said through this conversation, simplicity and accuracy is very important here. I understand some might feel that why do they have to wait through this? And, again, this is a conversation we've had quite a while ago. What we need to do as a board is get back together immediately, through this fee schedule, CFDs, hammer this out so we know where we're going in the future. This is this helps us get there because we you're right. We talked about this nine months ago, whatever it was, and here we are. We still don't have the answer to it. Is it fair to this applicant? Probably not. But is it fair to the entire community?

Absolutely not. We cannot just keep saying, we'll we'll deal with it next time it comes around, next time it comes around. I wanna deal with it right now, and I wanna see this brought back if it's a special meeting or whatever it is to get this thing done and know our true numbers. I'm all about numbers. I want true, accurate, factual numbers to get us to where we need to be.

And, unfortunately, if it takes a little pause, it's gonna take a pause. But I don't think it's, as in the past, was it's not fair to certain people. I'm not saying you guys are saying that. I'm just saying that's how we got into this situation, and it needs to be solved. Because I can understand legally, it'd be really unfair to the property owner that we adopt something, and they don't even know what those numbers are. That's where it will not hold up in court, and I under and clearly now when you pointed that out. So they deserve to know. Everyone deserves to know us and the public and those property owners. So we have to take some time to do it right. Let's do it right.

Yeah. Yeah.

Sorry. Just one more question. Can we because I know with these fees that we adopt, they have to be actual based on actuals. Right? Right.

So coming up with a model of, k, you know, here's your a, b, c. Right? And maybe we're at the d level right now, but our goal is to be able to offer stellar, you know, public safety. How do we when we look at impact fees for the future and your goal is to be at the a level, do you have to be at a level before you can charge for that? Or how long of a leeway do you have before you can charge for your goal without actually doing it?

You know what I mean? Because I I imagine there's going to be some time of you're going to be charging people for a service that we're actually not providing. Right? We don't have the ability to provide service levels at that at that level for these CFD impact fees. So how is that going to work? As we're establishing these impact fees and we're looking at, like I said, a higher model. Doesn't have to be a. It could be b. Whatever it is. Right?

But but a better service than what we currently have. And I think there is no arguing by anybody. Even all of our residents, everybody in this community, we need the best public safety that we possibly can. And we don't you know, we we strive to do the best job that we can, but there's a lot of room for improvement. But how do we charge for a future goal and charging it as an impact fee? Sorry. I hope that kinda makes sense.

Yes. It makes sense. Fees that are imposed are based on the fully burdened cost at the time the fee is imposed. So the rate study is the mechanism by which to update your fees based on new and increased costs.

That answer your question? But

there's no way, mister Cho, there's no way to there's no logic in perhaps because this is a condition of approval by the planning commission to annex into the CFD. Is there any way where we can allow the annexation and come back to the CFD matter? There isn't really. Right? We kinda have to do it all at once, and that's the conundrum.

I'm I'm oh, go ahead. It's county council.

Yes. What's before the board is to authorize the annexation to the community facilities district.

Okay. We tried to deal with this last time. We said going forward, we're gonna change it. But the ones in the pipeline, we're gonna add this language. This for me, this look this should be different, honestly, if this was 80 houses we're talking about. We're talking about, I think, one. And, I mean, I wanna update the fees as soon as we can so we can get this going, but I don't know if it makes any sense to pause these one house, you know, subdivision, basically, things so that we can update the fees with this uncertainty that we still have. I'm of the mindset that this was a bad process that was being used. We tried to fix it. Forward, we have it corrected.

We have a change of the process. And these ones, the CFDs that were that are already been here in the pipeline, I'm of the mindset that we go through it. We go through the process with the added language that we had, and we just try to correct the fees as soon as possible so that there isn't this problem in the future. That that's my that's my personal opinion on the matter right now. So I don't know. I think we could probably talk about this all day if we wanted to. We could probably keep going. Is there any any we have a motion, I believe. Is there any further discussion on that motion before we take

Look.

I some kind of vote.

Yeah. Mister chair, I'm I'm I'm willing to have the conversation. I just wanna make it clear that we're not collecting nearly enough from these CFDs. There has been a rush of these to get in. I do think there are outstanding questions with what supervisor Velasquez has been pointing out with some of the clarity as far as mobile homes.

I do think we need to get more clarity on those. I'm willing to come around to not belabor things today, but by the but we have four more of these outstanding or whatever the number might be. We need further clarity going forward on what the implications are with all the question marks that supervisor Velasquez had, and I I do think we maybe needed just need another item, you know, on the as soon as possible on what what you know, because we're asking staff to provide. Well, how many are there? It might be four.

It might it sounds like it's there's a little you don't have a rent in front of you, basically. I'd like to know. I wanna know if it's 4, if it's 14, if it's 20, if it's I don't wanna be continuing to do this for the next several months. And I also wanna make it clear as part of this motion, if there is a motion to approve these, and the only way I will support it is that that the fee study for the CFDs is designated as a very top priority for the county to get done as soon as possible so we're not sitting here having this discussion over and over again.

I would suggest we even have a special meeting soon on the CFD, the update so that we can make sure that it's getting done ASAP and that we can get all the questions answered on how we wanna proceed with that. That would that would be my suggestion as far as either way, as far as the CFD fees, I think we need to have a special meeting on just that so we can get to the and we can talk about CSAs at that time as well. We can go through all that stuff for the special meeting, get updated as soon as possible because it does feel like one of these things that that we brought up. I don't know when it was originally brought up, but a while ago. And we're still not really making a lot of progress on Yeah.

I just would recommend that we also include the HOA. So that HOA, CSA, CFD with the fees, that'd a special meeting where that's all we talk about.

Yeah. Okay. We have we had a motion, I believe, in

a I'm gonna withdraw my motion, mister chair.

Okay. Okay.

And make a motion that we approve 1.8 with direction to staff to come back as soon as possible with further information to clarify implications of ECFD annexations and to clarify timing and logistics for the CFD study update. Is

the first there a second? Second. K. I'll second. First and a second. Is there any further discussion for yes.

I'm just I'm just wondering if we should split out, and I don't know. I'm just wondering if there should be two motions here. One would be the approval of, you know, 1.8 as recommended for the annexation, and then the other motion could be this, the second part of yours with this fee study and coming back. Just to make it very clear because I feel like they're two very different things.

Yeah. Sure thing. Two motions then. So then

Another motion to just include the recommendation and stop.

Okay. Is there a second on the new motion to approve the recommendation from staff on 1.8? I'll second. Okay. First and a second. Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Zenger?

Yes.

Supervisor Velasquez?

No.

Supervisor Kasumaki? Yes. Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Kurrow?

Yes. Four zero four one vote motion passes.

K. So we're asking because Mickey the other now that was

It's the same thing. So 1.9 is the one that's a little bit No. We Oh, the second motion. Yes. Sorry. I forgot. So, yes, you make a motion to bring back this as a further discussion as soon as possible to clarify c f of matters with CFDs and the timing of the CFD prioritization of the CFD fee update.

I'll second with a friendly amendment with the conversation on CSAs and HOAs because it all is connected.

K. First and a second. Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Zenger? Yes. Supervisor Velasquez? Yes. Supervisor Kozmicke?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Currow?

Yes. Five zero vote. Motion passes.

Great. Moving to 1.9, and we have to do public comment on it before I forget.

To make a comment in chambers regarding 1.9, please provide a speaker card on Zoom. Please press star nine or the raise hand icon. 1.9 is coming to the please state your name. Thank you.

Gianno Delcurto. Board, I'm here to speak in regards to 1.9. This is off of Fulton And Mojave Way for from Sunnyside Estates. It's it's essentially just an extension of the existing neighborhood that's there. It's 10 lots, two acres I'm sorry.

Four acres total. Two, we have deeded to Sunny Slope Water. Two, we have subdivide well, we're in the process of subdividing into ten six thousand to 6,600 square foot lots. At this point, I'm I'm out of time. We've been waiting over two years to get annexed into this CFD.

I don't think it's fair to the county to do an HOA. I I I don't think that's the right move because the homeowners that will be driving into that neighborhood are driving on Fulton And Mojave, so they should pay into that CFD to help cover the roads, sidewalks, landscaping. If they did an HOA, they would only be paying a small portion of the landscaping that's in front of their own homes. The my map expires April 8. I have a an extension request that's going to be submitted for next meeting, if that doesn't go through, I'm I'm the project is essentially it'll disappear.

There's asphalt in the ground, sidewalks, curb, gutter, streetlights, hydrants. It's it's been sitting for over two and a half years. So I'm here to ask that we move forward, that we we get our annexation, which I think makes the most sense to not only me as the property owner, but to to you people as the citizens of the county. Whereas the the the calculation that they made was just based off the 10 lots. So the CFD fees were a fraction of what I suggested they should do because I think that they should be annexed into the existing CFD that is Sunnyside Estates and not just a separate CFD, which is just the 10 lots.

So I'm here to ask that we move forward. Thank you. Thank you.

I have one on Zoom, so just a second. No. No. Stacy, you've been unmuted. You have three minutes.

Good morning. Thank you, Shelby. But I just think it's so critically important to remember that these people that are coming forward, these are real people. This is real money. This is out of their pockets.

And when we talk about pausing for as soon as possible or trying to look into something further, they follow all the rules, when they've complied with everything they're supposed to comply with, We are a nation based on rules and based upon laws and not opinions and wants and desires. And we need to follow the rule and respect that they have done everything that they've been required to do. And just for a brief example, some good friends of mine, a multigenerational residents of this county live here in District 1, had a property to subdivide into two family homes, and it took them the house the second home is not completed yet. It's taken five years. Five years of money, fees, penalties.

Okay. This person pay that person. Come back again. We do this and we do that. And these are real people with real money, and that can't be overlooked. Thank you.

Thank you. That concludes public comment on this item.

Thank you.

K. Is there any additional discussion that we haven't had already?

I I just have a few comments. Okay. This is a a perfect example of the problem and the gentleman that spoke spoke. He should not, to be fair, should not be under the pressure of worrying about extension. That should be something we should be be fair with because, obviously, he's trying, and this has been held up for different reasons.

But he brought up a point that we've been talking about. The fees were too low on this. So how and why? And this is, again, why we need to go back, do this correctly so we're collecting the correct amount of fees to provide the services. And if I understood what I've heard in the past was at one point, and I don't if it's true or not anymore, that the county had accepted level d service of roads. I don't know if that's still true, but they gives you an exact if people wanna know why we had or why we have roads that look like they're

from a

whole another world. That's exactly why. Somewhere down the line, somebody decided it wasn't fair to charge people to do it right. It was too expensive for them and their profit margin would be smaller. In turn, taxpayers have to make that up and suffer consequences. That's gotta change. You brought up something. I I'm really curious on what that means for fees because we have to collect right amount of fees. And that's an exact example of why we need to step back and do it right. Obviously, the gentleman deserves an extension because it's not his fault, and we had to make that that part right.

But let's do the research and get it done in a proper way. So here, I'm gonna definitely hit this on on or in this for future meetings, we'll get these items figured out.

K. Any comments from the board? I do have a question. Just reading the draft report here. It says it's intended to meet the same fees as Sunnyside Estate special assessment. So may I be confused by his comment? It it wasn't intended to meet the same fees, but now it is. Is that what I'm understanding now?

No. It's always been intended to be annexed into the same fees because they're getting the same services using the same roads, landscape, same area. I I don't wanna speak for him, but I believe he might have made the comment and, that we should not annex them separately, that they should be annexed into the current CFD.

Got it. Got it. Okay. Got it.

I I would just add to it, and this is going to the point. These were done in 2018, and now we're talking about 2026.

So the CFD that they're annexing into is actually the original CFD which the report was created for.

Right. And that had the increase of probably 2% or two and a half percent, but we know the escalation has been much more than that over the years. So these are, again, the information numbers I wanna know to make a good decision. Mister Crow. Crow.

Just to understand, the CFD has had CPI cost of CPI. Why am I drawing a blank? Cost of living increase is not wrong term, but, you know, the the the increases have happened on the CFD.

Correct? Annually.

Annually. And this CFD that were this property that has these 10 lots that would be annexed in would be at the current rate of that CFD

Correct.

Not the original rate that it started at. It would be the higher rate, which would include the annual increases. Correct. Okay. Thank you.

K. Any other comments from the board right now? Is there a motion if not?

Move to approve.

Is there a second? I'll second. K. You have a first and a second.

Mister chair, I just if I may, just wanna point out this is in no way endorsing the project itself. And I and I I we can't have litigation conversations in public, but what is our legal obligation without or do we need to have a conversation and put a put a a pause on this?

I don't wanna characterize this as a legal obligation. It's a legislative action to approve the annexation to the CFD as has been presented here. So it's not approval of any project. It's the annexation to the CFD to be able to impose those charges. So I don't know what the state of the planning case is. Maybe Abraham can explain where we are as it relates to this particular action and the development of the 10 lots. Yes.

Thank you, mister chair, members of the board. So as mister General Del Corto indicated, he his project is at the point where his subdivision would expire on April 8. That is the last administrative extension that we, as the planning department, are authorized to provide. This point, he does have an extension for the board to be able to consider because it it's not no longer administratively. But for the subdivision map back, it can come before you and for the reasons that he stated.

And, also, as stated up up here, that can be considered for you to be able to provide that extension. If you do approve today, the annexation would come before you as a public hearing on the fourteenth, and so that would automatically be after the date of the expiration. And so, therefore, this is basically the last one of the last items that he needs to be able to move forward.

Mister chair, what follow-up? What what level of approvals have happened with the project itself?

Now, the levels of approval are that they they received the tentative map approval more or less consistent with Sunnyside Estates.

But they have entitlements to build, basically, or do they not have entitlement to build?

They they have entitlements they would have entitlements to build build pending final map approval. That is one of the requirements that needs to be done in order for in order for them to obtain their final map. They need to meet the conditions, and one of the conditions is to see if the annexation.

One more clarification, mister Chen. Yes. If we do not annex into the current exist existing CFD, this would be a separate CFD with a separate rate and would have to be managed not only by staff separately, but it would also have to be collected at a different rate through the through assessment and and the tax collector. Is that correct?

That is

my understanding.

So we're instead of lumping it in and making it efficient, we would have multiple, so we're adding CFDs.

That is my understanding. Yes.

K. Thank you. Abraham.

The the

so the this this parcel where this project is supposed to be taking place place, I'm guessing a little confused because I've seen the I checked all these out. They have the road and the sidewalk. Or whatever. It's all put in, but the houses aren't there. So I I know this is a weird situation. I guess it was it was a some guy was building and then he ran out of money, and so then it went to someone else or something like this. So but but but they still need the the final map, but they have a tentative map. Is that where they're at right now?

That that is correct. There was two separate applications when Sunnyside Estates came in as opposed to and then it was at that that time, I believe it was called Bennett Ranch, if I'm not mistaken. And so there was two two separate applications that basically went in concurrently. And as part of the due diligence from the county was that they they were able to basically have that road connection and and, you know, part of part of the general plan is to make sure that there's interconnectivity between subdivisions and so forth. So so at that time, the the RMA department processed it to make sure that that met those requirements, goals, and policies of the general plan.

But but but the issue or the matter here is that they are two separate subdivisions. And so Sunni's United States went forward, did did all of the got all their approvals and they're basically built out out, whereas now Fulton Mojave needs that that final map to be able to to be able to get those building permits. At this time, we cannot we cannot release building permits until they get their final map.

Thanks. Thanks.

You're welcome. Mister chair?

Yep. Yep.

So if we don't approve this and say send it back till we get their fees updated, what are the implications of that? Or we we just don't approve of this. What are the implications of that? Are we under an obligation to approve this? That's I guess I'm gonna get right down to it. There's 10 homes here. I don't I don't support this project. I never have supported this type of development, and I don't want my name attached to it.

I think the the complexity of this is that he has already been granted the entitlements to build.

And that's what I was trying to ask.

And so in light of that, which he has previously been provided, not approving the annexation will practically and legally impact his ability to develop and to pursue the entitlements to which he's already been granted by the county. Okay.

But but I'm gonna we're gonna try to speed things up a little bit because we could talk all day. We'll give you a chance in a second.

Look. For

me, it looks like a it looks like a weird ghost town where they have all the driveways put in no houses. And if there's already half a map, if it was look. We're starting from scratch, it'd be a different story. I'm of the same mindset I just said. We're trying to create this going forward. I'm personally, I wanna get these done with the best best best language we can add, and I wanna get the fees reassessed as soon as possible. Because you had something.

It's it's again, I just wanna point out. Tenant maps been approved. Whether he's gonna build houses or not, that that's been decided long ago. It's not about him not being able to build the houses he's been approved for. What this is about is going back to CFDs, make sure we're implementing their the correct fee structure, not something, again, from 2018, although it had its 2% or two and a half percent. It's never kept up. That's what I'm concerned about is making sure we're going down that path. Now we need an extension. Obviously, it's it's not his fault. He's gonna need that extension to keep it going through.

But we as a board have to sit down. We need to knock this out as far as what those correct fees are and what level to provide good services. I can guarantee his homebuyers eventually are gonna demand to know why they're driving through potholes. It won't be but six months living in their house or a year that they're gonna insist on what this whole community wants better services. So for me, it's all about getting to the structure of the CFDs, the true cost, as been mentioned, bigger conversation of CSAs and HOAs.

But that's where I feel we have to get to first. It's not about whether we're approving his project. That's been done. This is just about the fee structure we need to work out, and I think we need that time to have another meeting to do that.

I'll entertain a motion now. Mhmm. Board member, if there is one.

We already had a first and second.

Oh, on this one, did we? Yeah. I'm losing track of things. I apologize. Okay. Well, we have a first and a second then. So can we reiterate the motion? For sure.

It was to approve per staff recommendation. The first was from supervisor Currow, the second was supervisor Sotelo.

Okay. Thank you. Is there a roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Zanger?

Yes.

Supervisor Velasquez? No. Supervisor Kosmiki?

Yes.

Supervisor Sippelo? Yes. Supervisor Kurl?

Yes. For one vote, motion passes.

Great. Moving on to 1.1. Let's do public comment right off the bat.

Me finish up these c s CFDs. CFDs.

If you'd like to make a comment regarding 1.1 in chambers, please provide a speaker card on Zoom. Please press star nine or the raised hand icon. And I have no public comment on this item.

Thank you. Now without feeling the need to repeat everything we've discussed two or three times, is there any any comments directly regarding 1.1 from the board here? I Then is there yes.

Yeah. Just clarify too. This one actually on the agenda item, it says that they're going to be they're intended to meet the same fees as sunny side of states. So that is an error, and it's just for negative fiscal impact fees. So they're not gonna be provided any special assessments.

Okay. That was just copied from the last one, it looks like.

Yeah. That was an error.

Okay. We'll get that on the record then. Thank you.

Mister chair, I move to approve.

Okay. First there, second? Second. Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Zanger?

Yes.

Supervisor Velasquez?

No.

Supervisor Kasumicki?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Kurrow?

Yes. Four one vote. Motion passes.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Alright. That wraps up consent agenda.

Mister chair, if we may, I'd like to request a five minute break.

We will take a five minute break. You.

Let me go get okay.

Recording in progress.

Oh, wait. Just

Henry, go ahead. Okay.

Thank you. Welcome back. We're back from our break. We're gonna move into regular agenda. There has been a request to move the library expansion item 2.6 to the front of the agenda. I have no problem with that. Board's okay with that. I moved the library item. Okay. So then we'll hear that one first. 2.6, update discussion of the library expansion project. See, are you do you present it on this one, or what what are we doing?

Yes. Good morning, board members, chairman, the public. Presenting today of a project that it has been on the works for some years. I have been able to get grab the information from a portion from Steve, but also portion from the construction manager that was hired about two years ago. And I was able to identify some potential issues with moving forward for this project.

Basically, the project, as you can see right now in the picture, that is the layout. And this is just an schematic of the project, how it's gonna look, but it's just a concept plan. It's not the final plans. I just wanna make sure that we all understand that. It's just an schematic. So if you go to the second the second portion, what is the layout? So I'm just gonna go over some items in the layout that will start me to explain. It's just pass it. That one. That one.

So in that layout, we have options that we need to take into consideration in order to move forward for the project. I wanna point it out that the project did not include grant that was submitted to the state, did not include the relocation of the library while in construction. That's that's a large amount of that's a large amount of funding that we need to spend on that. The second portion is it was brought to my attention by the construction manager that some of the electrical plants were only completed for a certain portion of the building, but not for the entire building. When you're talking about a nineteen sixty old building, it's 60 years old already, more than that, 60 year old building.

You need to address all the plumbing and the electrical as well. And so now we're running into the numbers that could potentially go for whatever was estimated two years ago with only 5% increase of the cost to even more. So our request today in order to move forward for this project is the following. My request to you is to provide direction as to continue with the project and the current location. That's number one.

Number two, an option for relocation temporary relocation of the library is the expansion that you see on the top left side, that small portion, to use that one that location, build that first, and then relocate temporarily a small portion of the library within construction for the large portion. Some of the books and items that are in the large building right now will have to be moved on a temporary basis to a storage so that we can proceed with the project. There is a pending negotiations with the office of education because a portion of that building has been contemplated for the expansion itself. So just to give you an idea, the expansion is for a total of 18,000 square foot. The building right now, the use of the building is 11,000.

So we in order for us to keep the ground, we had to comply with the 18,000 square foot. One option that I have for you today is the possibility to apply for a CDBG program for the library, for the expansion of the library. There is a total of $3,600,000 available under the community development program. This is federal funding that is coming through the state, and there is a competitive grant. I don't wanna make any promises.

It's a very competitive grant because there's only about 27 to $30,000,000 available at the state level. There is a total of a 176 applicants. They can they are gonna compete for this funding. So one of the key parts for us to be competitive is to use a resilience plan that was re prepared last year or two years ago in which library serves as a warming and cooling center. A warming and cooling center in the building will make this project a little bit more competitive than just a library.

Libraries are competitive, but warming centers and cooling centers are highly competitive. So and you see on the bottom part, there is, like, a conference room over there. They I would like to designate that one. Normal operations operations, and I talked to Austin about this. He's have identified this area, like a board meeting area or conferences or meetings.

But if we can end the if we if you allow me to submit that application, then we'll be able to identify that area as a potential collision center and work with the design team to build what is needed for that area to be isolated in case that we have an emergency. That will put us in a in a good position to be competitive. Again, it's a competitive project. I'm not saying we're gonna get it, but it's an opportunity that we need to explore. So today's request is for the board to potentially approve to move forward for the project, to use the top the the top left side as a temporary location and to submit a grant application for $3,000,000 to the housing community development.

And although it's $3,600,000 available, the state of California has a set of sites which are for programs and projects that HSAs is currently applying for programs under the youth services and homeless. So there's trying to apply for $600,000 in that amount, so that leaves $3,000,000 on the table. And I would really believe that we can go and submit the applications to be able to complete the project.

Thank you. Yes. Good public comment.

You'd like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card on Zoom. Please press star nine or the rise icon. 1 in chambers. We'll start with Tammy Aviles.

Good morning, chair, board. My name is Tammy Aviles with the Friends of the San Benito County Free Library. And, first, I would like to thank each of you and the CEO for meeting with us to discuss the expansion projects and to thank you for making the library a priority for 2026. We had a couple of community members here that that were wanting to speak. So I just wanted they asked me to just to share their support.

So that would be Bill Tiffany and Margie Barrios who have been longtime supporters kind of there with Susan, Logan, and I in the beginning in 2017 when we started this effort. Obviously, we would like to see this project move forward. We've we've met with the CAO. We're thankful for her for identifying the space that can be used that can be built first and then used as the temporary operating library. With regard to the CEO's comment about the electrical not being completed, I know that this architect this architect's contract was for 30% design.

So, I mean, that the complete full design project would be with the design build contract, which is the next phase that we're hoping to kind of get restarted. It was, I believe, back in June 2025 where it was the RFP for the design build contract was under county council's review and that then the project was put on hold. So we would like to see that move forward so that we could get the design build, project manager, everybody on board so that we could really start seeing numbers. And that would greatly help us in being able to do our part with helping this library expansion project come to fruition. Thank you.

In chambers, Daniel Alvarez.

Good morning. My name is Daniel Alvarez. I'm a field rep for the Carpenters Union, local six four six on Marina. I represent members on Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Bernardino County. And

this is

a great project. It's a really good project. But we do need to make sure that it is built with responsible contractors. Contractors that support our partnership to prepare the next generation with blue collars who like to build. Also, we need health care. Right? All our members are covered on health care, so they don't require, like,

from

the government any help help. Retirement. Retirees are still on our health care plan, so they're not a burden for the system. All these are important, and with a project like this, also support all all the members in this area, a lot of the members have to travel all the way to San Francisco, Oakland, and we know how traffic it is. It's really bad. Now they're spending a lot of time on their way back. That time, they can be used, hanging out with their family and getting a better quality of life. Thank you.

Next, I have one on Zoom. Stacy, you've been unmuted, you have three minutes.

Morning, chair. Morning. Thank you so much. Libraries are just such a integral part of a community and an overlooked, but a significant quality of life asset, not only for young people and education, but for our seniors as well. And I really appreciate that grant opportunity to conclude the morning and cooling center. Again, especially for our young people, children, and seniors who may not have adequate warming or cooling in their own homes. Libraries are much more than

just repositories of books.

They are places of higher learning, higher education, community engagement, and resources for our entire community. So I'm very excited and hopeful for this project to move forward. Thank you.

And that concludes my public comment for the library item.

Great. Thank you.

Chairman, if I would like to before we continue with the discussion to clarify some points. If we were to submit the application for the CDBG program, several things are gonna happen. Number one, any bidding process done before cannot be cannot proceed in terms for construction. What I understand is they already have went to the bidding process and everything, but if you we work it to get the funding from CDBG, CDBG has the specific requirements to do bidding process. So we have to identify language and the invitation for bids and everything.

Also, we are required to encourage section three. Section three requires that we the construction company is aware that they're gonna have to comply with hiring local individuals for working and the construct doing construction. It's also a competitive basis. And they have the specific language for CDBG program for the CDBG program. This is a federal grant.

We consulted with the state that is funding the project with another funding sources from state funding, and they're an agreement that we can use to combine both fundings as well. One thing that I wanna clarify is cooling centers and warming centers are not the same as shelter. Shelters have beds. Cooling centers and warming centers are only available during the time in which the building is operating. So I just wanted to have that as a clarification so don't not not getting them confused.

The idea of having that building specifically that location for warming and cooling center, they will have a partition that allows you to isolate isolate that area specifically for those services. So even though that you already have a bidding process completed before, it doesn't mean that we can proceed with that one. Also, this project is the best vacant and state prevailing wages, which is the and has to be selected with the highest one. So I just want point of clarification. Yes.

Thank you. Alright. Supervisors have any questions, comments on this? Wanna start?

Supervisor Carrell. You so much for bringing this forward. I am a really big supporter of this project. I do appreciate that this will bring local jobs for local residents, keeping them off of the roads, is huge. It is the one thing, you know, hospitality, construction, and health care are our top three commuters. And so I really appreciate the comments from the speakers. The bidding process, my questions, when it comes to bidding, you're saying we have to go back out to bid. So that would mean the construction management firm because we have not bid out contractors.

Not con I'm referring to the actual construction project.

Because my understanding, have we already gone to bid for contractors? I don't believe we have.

Yes. Apparently, you already approved a construction manager that is gonna be paid out of impact fees because I will not be eligible to be reimbursed by the CDPG

program.

Talking about the design build Yes. MEPs, which is mechanical, electrical, and plumbing. So it we would have to go back out for MEP.

Yeah. The other concern that I have, and I don't know if it's so it's just was done. I need to consult with the construction manager whether or not an environmental document was done for the new annexation. Rebuilding a project is not an issue. It's excluded.

It's not it's there's no impact because you just rehabbing a building. But annexing a new portion of building, demolishing a portion a portion that is on the back, the ships that are on the back, require an environmental clearance, and that's NEPA. So I'm just making you aware the combining finding is gonna trigger other issues that we need to address. I don't know how the bidding process was done. I was not in in the office when it was done before.

I

don't know if they already preselected a company. Those are the things that I need to talk to the construction manager to clarify. Okay. But my understanding, it was already done.

So as long as we're clear, we're talking about contractors for design build Yes. Not the Centimeters and going through the

Centimeters No. Getting processing. Yeah.

I just wanna make sure that that was clear. And then oh, you brought up the shed, and one of my notes was demolition cost. I'm assuming because you know you're you're gonna have demolition cost that is that currently allowed in the grant or in this new CBG funding that

It is allowing the current grant for the state, for the libraries. We'll have to add that information to the to the CDBG program. Okay. So once they do inject funding from CDBG to the state, whole project triggers. They will do it. And you cannot separate the project in pieces. You have to comply with all the rules for the same project.

Gotcha. Okay. Thank you so much for the clarifications.

Is your microphone on?

Sorry about that. Yeah. No. I again, I appreciate the, friends of the library, CEO's work on, really setting a path forward. And as I was just saying, we just we have to stop kinda taking steps sideways and backwards and just move forward.

Establish a plan with firm timelines, objectives, and move ahead, those timelines, make it a priority. I do, you know, looking forward to this piece where we would build the back end and then move folks in there and use that. It was at 3,000 square feet, somewhere in that range. It's a relatively small space. So I just as we get closer to that, I just where I think we'll clearly we'll need to have a conversation about how that will look staffing wise, program wise, and expectation wise because it's not gonna be a full blown library for a while, and and the other option would just be to not have a library for twelve months or however, eighteen months or however long this takes.

And so the public's gonna have to we're gonna have to do some outreach on that. Thank you. Thanks. Thank

you. I'm fully supportive of moving forward, and I agree. I think we've just gotta start moving forward. If I can remember correctly, when we were selecting that design build, there was some type of controversy around who had been selected basing on the scoring because they were asked to maybe attend a walk through, but it wasn't really clear. And then so some people didn't get that, and so it might be a good thing that we end up having to go out anyways.

So very supportive of that. So so with the whole so I I just wanna be clear in the way that all of this is going to work. So with this CDBG, this is the public hearing that's going to be held on this March 17.

Right? That is correct. But we're not we don't have that information and the notice because I was still pending the discussion Oh, direction from the board. So I didn't wanna take that step forward. However, under the CDBG program, when you have a design hearing, which is the one that we're having on Monday, I don't think this county has done it before because somehow and I'm not criticizing anybody.

I'm just stating what I heard, what I understand. There is a community action board that has been making decisions about how to apply for the CDBG program. In my review in in discussing this with the with Tracy, the HSA, and Enrique in this case, It was an understanding that the CAB will make decisions and direct staff to apply, and I make sure that they understand that they're not making decisions. The board of supervisors makes those decisions. The CAB is an advisory committee, and CDBG is not a requirement to have a approved by CAP, by the CAP.

It is at the discretion of the board of supervisors to decide what to apply for. Just to give you an idea, the CEBG program will not accept a resolution coming from the community action board. It will require a resolution from the board of supervisor and gives you the idea, the statement that I'm making, like that would assure you that it's the board of supervisor that makes those decisions. So the hearing that you're having on Monday, somehow the staff with a misunderstanding advertised that to be led by the board the cap, which is not what we agreed, but that's okay. It's already published that way.

What I would like to request, if it's possible, is for the board of supervisors to listen to that community community hearing. The idea of the community hearing, the public hearing, is to listen to the community about what they want for this funding that is available. It's $3,600,000 available. The department went to the the actionboardcommissioncom committee, and they they decided only to apply for $600,000. I will hate to leave the opportunity on the table for additional $3,000,000 because we don't know how much it's gonna cost this building at the end.

And at this point, on the financial situation that we are currently having, I I don't wanna take that risk because if we receive a bid that is about the amount that we have allocated, we're not gonna be able to proceed with the project, and the project will sit back again. So I would like to take a proactive action by going for the funding, but I would like to request if the board is willing to hold a meeting to lead this this public hearing. Because at the end of the day, on March 24, the board will make a decision what do we apply for. It's the board's decision. It's not the an advisory committee board.

And it's March 17. Right? Yes. The So that

would be Tuesday, not Monday. Tuesday afternoon, 05:30PM on this table.

One, I am incredibly supportive, and I am so appreciative that you brought the idea of us being able to possibly go out after this $3,000,000 grant. And I think it's wonderful for us to have a specified I know we've used the library in the past as a cooling center. So I think this is a wonderful idea. I appreciate kind of the creativity. I would be happy to be here as a supervisor and participate in that meeting. I would love to hear from, you know, our residents about the needs. And so we would need people coming for Yes. To make public comment. And and and advocate for I mean, the library is what we're talking about for the $3,000,000. Right? Yes. Okay.

And and, historically, CDBG, the the same names tells you the story. Community development grant program. Community involvement is a big piece of the CDBG program. The more people that we have that is striving to get this project done, the more feedback that we receive for them, the better case that we made to the state. This is what the community wants rather than just a group of people that are not really opening the doors to the communities to give us their feedback.

Okay.

Okay. Yeah. I'm really supportive of participating, of listening, of moving forward, and applying for this CDBG. So thank you.

You, chair. You to the friends for the cough drop. I appreciate that. Yeah. Keep my throat clear. I I think an excellent idea. This is very important part because as you all know, the cost keep going up, and we need to make sure we have the funding because as the CEO mentioned, if bids come back over the amount we have funded funded, we're in trouble again. I can't believe that this is still going on after all these years. I'm happy that I'm here here. I get to be involved with it now now.

This is a project that we have to be very very aggressive to get this thing done done. I love the idea because it it is part of vital part of the community that we have those heat waves or where people need shelter when it's too cold. That's important, and I think we should have that meeting. I'm happy to be here also. Concern is getting this project done done, as I said, as quickly as possible because time is of the essence now.

All of you have been waiting to be coming here for, I don't know, how many years now. And I'm concerned if we go with the idea of it's not that it's a bad idea, but the idea of building out one section first before we start the others part of it because that section there, it's gonna take more time than any other part. And if we're waiting for that to be complete, we're losing time on the main building. I personally rather see us using the parking lot behind there, bring some trailers, see what we can. So we're all in there and let construction crews go. Because if you separate a job into two pieces, it's gonna it'll take us a year and a half

just to get that first

first piece done done. And then that'll start the next piece another year, year and a half. So I'd rather everybody's in get this thing done done. Yes. It's uncomfortable. It's inconvenient, but we get it done. And that's my goal is how do we get this done as fast as possible. Any input or support from you guys is is important. Just knowing construction, what I know, section will take a long time to get completed, which means the rest of the building has to wait. So so I know it's not a good thought of having some trailers there, but, yeah, we're gonna wanna get this project done fast, as fast as we can.