Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everybody. We're going to get started here with our special meeting. The Board of Supervisors, Tuesday, June 30th, 2026. We have the Pledge of Allegiance led by Supervisor Kaziminski. Thank you, is there a motion to acknowledge certificate of posting? Is there a second? All in favor, aye. All right, moving on to consent agenda. These matters shall be considered as a whole without discussion unless an item is removed. Do any supervisors have consent items they wish to pull? Is there a curl?

I am not finding it, I apologize.

1F, thank you. 1F? Yes. Okay, 1F to pull any others, no? Okay, is there, do we have any public comment on consent items that were not pulled?

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.

Thank you, is there a motion to approve the remaining consent items? Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you. Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Zander?

Yes.

Supervisor Koznicki?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Curro? Yes. Four zero vote motion passes.

Thank you. One F was pulled by Supervisor Curro.

Yes, I pulled this item to understand, to better understand, because I, not just for me, but also for the public, why the Board of Supervisors, does each of the jurisdictions, I ask this question to council, does each of the jurisdictions approve COG, when COG is a separate independent entity, I'm trying to understand the why behind us approving. And if we didn't approve it, what would that do? Just to kind of understand the process. Yes, good morning.

I wasn't here. before when this occurred, but apparently the COG is part of the employee system in the county. They receive CalPERS and they're also part of the insurance with the county. And therefore, any changes in someone's salaries has to come to the board for approval. And in regards to the benefits, because Clark is paying their salary, it's not impacting the county. They pay their first year to the county for the benefits that they receive. But in order for the county to provide those benefits, it has to come to the board.

So just to fully understand, I kind of knew this, but I wanted to make sure we were all aware because we administer the benefit packages and we pay through the auditor's office, the employees of COG. And I'm just not sure if that's something in the future that we want to look at as a topic of conversation.

Actually, one of the first items that I find out that it was kind of odd, and I think I mentioned it to either Sotelo or you, Supervisor Cuero, is that it is unusual to see other agencies with the same benefits with the county being tied to the benefits with the county. Not that they're not paying their benefits, it's just that they are part of our system. So at one point, we need to separate them from the county because I think it makes it clearer for each entity to have their own county council, their own benefits, their own payroll and everything else.

Yeah, I totally agree. I understand the why we were doing this. I don't understand why COG wasn't completely separated from the county. That was the reason I wanted to pull it just so that we can maybe in the future have that conversation. So with that, unless there's, I know you have to open it up to public comment, unless there's other comments from the board.

So we have public comment on this?

If you'd like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card on zoom, please press star nine or the raise 10 icon. And I have no public comment.

Before I make the motion, can I just do one thing? Can I clarify? Do we get administrative costs for administering their benefits and their payroll?

Honestly, I will not be able to answer that question, but I believe there might be a portion of the customer, but I can get back to you later.

Just something to potentially talk about. Okay, with that, I'll make a motion to approve.

Thank you, is there a second? Second. Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Zenger?

Yes.

Supervisor Kosmicki?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Curl?

Yes.

4-0 vote, motion passes.

Thank you. We'll bring us to our public hearing 2A. Hold an appeal hearing before the Board of Supervisors regarding the purchasing agent's decision to the formal protest filed by the Appellant Bright Future Recovery for Samuel County Behavioral Health's request for proposal. So we will now open the public hearing and I believe we have a presentation from Behavioral Health first.

Good morning, everybody. My name is Rachel White. I'm the interim director of the department and I'm going to have Noelle Magner-Figueroa represent us who's been taking lead on our RP processing contracts.

Good morning, supervisors. We're here today to discuss a concern of timeliness and an RFP submittal deadline. I'm going to go ahead and give you guys a bit of a back history of the process. On February 27th, the Behavioral Health Department issued a legal notice stating that we were going to go out for requests for proposals for our substance use disorder residential treatment. It was published on our county website, our department website, and in the San Benito link for 10 days. We then emailed a letter to all of our current providers, as well as those vendors who have expressed interest in doing business with the county, letting them know that this RFP was going to be issued. On March 10th, we released the RFP through the OpenGov portal that the county uses. We then had a request for any questions and a deadline of submission for the RFP on March 31st by 5 p.m. On April 2nd, we received an email from Bright Future Recovery stating they had difficulties with uploading their documents and that they had emailed us the night of the 31st with their complete proposal. I immediately notified county council. Per their advisement, I went through with the RFP process and convened an evaluation panel for all of those proposals that were deemed responsive. On March 19th, after initiating a contract negotiation with the winning highest score bidder, we posted a notice of intent to award at 2.06 p.m. through OpenGov. The clerk of the board notified the department that a protest letter was received on May 22nd. Staff alerted County Council the same day it was confirmed that this was a valid protest. On June 2nd, I had reached out to OpenGov through their help desk system, asking them to please provide us with all of the timestamps related to the Appellant Bright Future Recovery. They, as a third party, did an individual assessment of their systems to confirm there was no glitches on their side and to provide us all of the timestamps of when Bright Future Recovery was in the OpenGov portal. I submitted this documentation to the county purchasing agent as well as county council for their review. County council insisted in coordinating a informal protest meeting with the appellant. We met on June 12th at 10.45 a.m. via a virtual teams meeting. That same day, the purchasing agent released her decision to deny the protest. We were then notified by the clerk of the board on June 16th that a formal appeal to protest the purchasing agent's decision was received, and we coordinated the meeting for today to have this public hearing. I want to note that the legal advertisement clearly states it has to be submitted through OpenGov. The RFP as well clearly states it has to be through OpenGov. There is a section in the RFP 6.1 that outlines that it is on the vendors to provide ample enough time to get into the system. log in, upload all of their documents, and if there's any technical issues, because it is a third-party portal, they have to go through the tech services of OpenGov, and all of that information is provided to them in the RFP document. At this time, OpenGov has stated that the finished proposal was not completed until 6.25 p.m. And that is verified by them with their timestamps and their vendor logs. Purchasing policy also states that we must... follow the RFP and how it says something needs to be submitted. So if it's electronically only or through OpenGov, we cannot accept it in any other format.

Thank you.

I just want to clarify for the purposes of the presentation and that I am the purchasing policy agent. I function as the purchasing policy agency. So I made that decision to reject the proposal based on the timing of the proposal submitted.

Thank you. Okay, do we have a presentation by the appellant for future recovery?

Good morning, my name is Sheree Ashley. I'm the founder of Bright Future Recovery. I really don't have much to say other than we're kind of newer to contracting with Medi-Cal. We've been around for 11 years. I believe our contract has been only within two years, like this is going into our second year. The first time that we contracted with San Benito County, which San Benito County is also our only contract for Medi-Cal. We are contracted mostly with private insurance carriers. So when we initially worked with San Benito County, it was not through this process, through this .gov. It's very, very new to us. My team, my executive director was working really hard. It's a lot of extensive paperwork, if I'm being completely honest, not just the application process, but just the paperwork in general that has to be submitted. So I give my team a lot of credit because they've worked really, really hard We didn't bring anybody in addition to handle specifically the Medi-Cal. This is the team that's been with us for five-plus years who have been handling all documentation and have been responsible for turning in all the documentation that is needed to Medi-Cal, plus having additional site reviews, having additional chart pools. Like, there's just a lot of extra. So, I mean... Again, we're new to the process. Unfortunately, it was submitted whether there was glitches or there weren't glitches. I think at the end of the day, the bigger picture is here, we're just simply trying to help people in our county. It is extensive paperwork. So I keep repeating myself with the fact that I'm saying that because the only reason we're contracted in the county is we're the only detox providers here for males. I know there is Sun Street that provides detox medication-assisted detox level of care for females, but we're the only ones for males. So we have been enjoying working with the county. We really love to be able to help people, local members who need that support and that help that can't go out of the county. So, I mean, the decision really just, I guess, is gonna be up to you guys. I don't know. We have the physical application here. I don't know if it's through the .gov that we try to reapply. I'm not too sure. There was a lot of documentation and our whole team and our COO, which is a third party company, was also working on documentation that needed to be provided that we were waiting for before they were able to submit it. So that's really all I have.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Anything else from Behavioral Health before we move on?

Just to respectfully refer back to the CEO's purchasing agent's decision and what was cited there was that within the county purchasing policy, it is clarified that the county is not responsible for the timely receipt of these proposals. And I'd just like to remind the board of our existing policy. Thank you.

Thank you. County Council, do we go to general public comment at this point in the public hearing? Is there any other public comment at this point?

If you'd like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card. On Zoom, please press star and enter the raised hand icon. And I have no public comment.

Great, thank you. Now, I need a motion to close the public hearing for deliberation. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? I move to close. Second. Okay, first and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Great. Any comments from the board then? Mr. Rezacuro?

Unfortunately, I've been in this very same. I thank you for the services that you have provided to San Benito County. Unfortunately, government is quite difficult. More paperwork than you've ever imagined. I worked on affordable housing projects where I lost the bid by 30 seconds. And there was no exception. So I understand the frustration of it. And I understand the overwhelming amount of documentation that government requires. But unfortunately, that's the business of government. And because of these things, I will not be overriding the decision of the purchasing agent. Thank you.

Any comments? Thank you. Okay, I've got a couple of questions. With this, so I understand this is a local company. Where are we? Who are we contract? I didn't see it. I could be wrong. Maybe it's there. But I'm just curious, where are we? Who are we contracting with? And where are they out of? Like, are we now having to send people outside of our community?

We've always had to send people out, but we do have it under regular agenda, the contractor that will be going forward.

Yeah. So how will that work? So in regards to their local? Well, I'm just like, I get that we have to follow the rules and all of that and that the timeliness, I get all of that. I guess I'm concerned because it sounds like here we have a local company. Yes. And based on a timely, which I get, but I do wanna make note that this is a local company. Our people, our community would be staying local to receive services. So I'm just curious, on this other one, where are we sending people for help now? If we can't contract with this company because of timeliness, where are we sending people to get help?

If in regular agenda, if it's approved, then we'll be sending them here locally at Sun Street Centers. We will also, we do currently have a contract with Janus, and we'll be sending a provider, some people out there, and Janus is in Santa Cruz County. And Bright Futures still has an ongoing contract with us for additional fiscal year. So they still are available for services here for fiscal year 26-27. which essentially ends June 30th, 2027. In the meantime, we are looking to find other providers because the contractors we did have did not apply. We had 747 RFP send outs and probably only three agencies applied.

Is there something kind of more to like OpenGov being really, really difficult for contractors, particularly small like local ones, is that a more cumbersome, harder process? Are we shooting ourselves in the foot to make sure that we,

I couldn't say that's just a process that we've been given as a county to follow. And so we've been following just basically the directive as written.

Okay, so essentially Sun Street centers, I believe they have services here for women, but not men. So the men would be going to Salinas. Salinas or King City. Or Santa Cruz.

Or King City.

Salinas, King City, or Santa Cruz.

Or Santa Cruz is Janice, sorry.

Right, right, but okay. So we're not keeping them here at all?

No, they'll most likely be.

Is there any issue with, like have you noticed, are there any studies done that there's success sending them outside of a community or keeping them in a community? Do you know if there's been any studies about that? I mean, I want to give our community the best opportunities and the best chances for success in something like this. And so for me, this is really about the individuals that we're serving. And so while I understand this is a contract timely issue, I do still really care and want to make sure that we're providing the absolute best service that we can in our community.

Absolutely. And I do not know about any studies, but... But it's a hit or miss if your situation is substance use. Here within this committee, sometimes leaving to get sober and to get well and then coming back is helpful. But at times, your support system is here and sometimes staying here. So it's all individualized and it's based off the need of that individual. And sometimes the best course is to leave and then help them to build a support system that's different than what they have.

Okay, thank you. And so you mentioned that this, we currently have a contract with Bright Future Recovery through the end of 26, 27 fiscal year, but that there will be other opportunities for RFP submittals, et cetera, for other services that you're going to be needing? Was that what I was understanding?

Yes, because right now we have to meet network adequacy and the one contractor, or the three contractors we currently have are sufficient for our network because we have to report to the state. But in 26-27, when that new fiscal year starts, we're not going to be adequate enough, which is Sun Street being the provider. So we will have to figure out a way to either sole source or

figure out some other ways to get contractors to provide that outpatient or residential care okay thank you rachel for the questions yeah thank you um so just so i have my head around this fully there's uh sun street centers if let's just say theoretically we upheld the appeal, would this organization have all substance use treatment, or would we go back to the panel and have a new RFP process, or would we be awarding it automatically? How would that work?

This would automatically go to, because they are the ones who are the finalists, and actually were awarded by an RFP panel to be our substance use disorder providers for certain level care. Not all of our substance use services, just some of the residential care, which is a 3.1, 3.2.

You're talking about Bright Future.

Bright Future has that contract, but right now, Sun Street. Sun Street will be our residential provider.

Right, but if... No, you're fine. It's not your fault. But if we went with Bright Future, and I have some points to make about the process as well, but they would just get all the substance use treatment disorder services?

They would get some of it. They may potentially get some of it. And that's something we have to determine also by the amount of funding we have available.

But if we deny, then they get, after 2027, then it's... Then it's done and... Okay, so first of all, CEO did the right thing. We have to follow the policy. Absolutely, administration, county council. On the other hand, we have an appeal process for a reason. And ultimately, for me, I just wanna know what the best situation is for our community. Putting all the process stuff aside, there's an appeal process in place so that we can make this decision if it's the best for the community. I'm hearing a lot of different opinions, but I did hear that Bright Future is local and men would be able to go to Bright Future. They'd have to travel out of county. I have a concern about that. If we have the ability here to provide services in county for men for substance abuse treatment, I would prefer that. And putting aside the fact that again, we have to follow processes, but we also have an appeal process in place to make exceptions when reasonably judged upon. So that's kind of where I'm at. I wish I could have somebody just tell me what the best option is putting aside process because they didn't get to go through the, as far as I understand, they didn't get to go through this panel process where the panel, because they were basically taken off the list.

Yeah, so they did not get to have the RFP presented to the evaluation panel for the RFP.

So that's a problem. Can we go back to that and have them reevaluate? If we upheld the appeal and said, well, we'd like the panel to come back and make another recommendation, because again, I'm more concerned about what's best for the community versus being rigid on process.

Mr. Chair and members of the Board of Supervisors, Since the process was not followed, that required under our purchasing policy and purchasing ordinance that we not consider the vendor who submitted the late proposal. It then required us to continue with our evaluation process of all the vendors that successfully submitted their proposal. It further required that we go through the evaluation process of all of those responses to the request for proposals and to identify the best value for the county. And that process did occur and the panel did identify A company that can provide the services can meet all the requirements of the request for proposals. And therefore, we are then committed to bring this forward to you and to recommend first the denial of the appeal, and then once assuming the board takes that action, we are then requesting that you award the contract to Sun Street under item 3A on your agenda. Now, if the board were to grant the appeal and to start the process over, there is a significant risk of litigation from the proposer who has now been deemed the successful vendor and for whom we are now recommending that contract.

I understand that I would expect Sun Street Centers as a partner in the community that they wouldn't take a hasty approach to us as a partner going forward. We want to remain partners and having a hasty relationship is probably not a good idea on either side. But I will say, is there a way to, is there a way around to work around this a little bit and find a way to get substance abuse treatment for men in the county because this is the only provider for that. So that's my concern. Is there a way to still wedge that in somehow and find a way to get substance abuse treatment for men? I got a big concern here. Look, I don't want people to have to travel to Santa Cruz when they're having these issues. If there's a way we can find a path forward to meet both of these obligations, and I do think this is an obligation to provide these services locally, then I'd like to at least see what creative options we might, if there are any, that we might have.

If I may, I think we're running into huge risks making that decision after the completion of the procurement process, number one. Number two, if the board desires to have a local preference, You must remember this is funding that is coming from the state. We are required to comply with the procurement process. And if there was no notes made to specifically for local preference or having the individuals over here serve, that's a different issue that we need to address in the future. But for now, you are becoming subject to putting yourself in a risk. Number two, also, if you allow me, pardon. I would like to know cost. The cost is also another element. Being local is not necessarily being the lower cost. And that's something that we need to, we are required to also look into it.

i i'm just cannot emphasize more to you the risk that you're running into i'm going to tell you the risk of these families whose lives are being destroyed because we're making these decisions that's a risk as well that i have to consider now mr chair members of the board i do believe that if the board so directs we can certainly work with behavioral health work with the local vendor and see if we can identify any means to also provide a contract to the local vendor and bring that back to the board. As long as we can issue the contract to the preferred vendor, Sun Street, there may be an opportunity to now contract with a second entity that would allow additional beds. So if that is your direction, we're happy to look into it. to work with behavioral health to determine whether or not we can do that in addition to the award under 3A.

Okay. If that's the consensus, because we have four members here, then that's the only creative option we have. Then we have to find a path forward. Obviously, we've got to find a solution here. We can't just be two to two. And I have no idea where Supervisor Zanger is at on this. I have not spoken to him about it. But yes, I appreciate that as one creative option. I would consider that. Thank you.

Ms. Acura, you had more comments?

Yes, I completely understand where you guys are coming from and being someone that has gone through this with family members, I have my own personal opinions about what is successful and what is not successful. I do understand that this is, it does impact families. all of it impacts families. But also if we're going to make exceptions, we need to have wording in our purchasing policy that protects us. And I would highly recommend that we revisit the purchasing policy so that that has a mechanism in it that allows us to override situations like this so that there's a little buffer. I went through and was reading through the process and it was very black and white. And unfortunately, I couldn't find a gray area out of it. So for me, I completely understand the need and I can do the compromise if we wanna work with that. But understanding that you have to also think of the other vendor that is also currently providing services and has been working with the county and followed all of the procurement policy rules. So I'm very concerned about any future litigation that could happen. So whatever compromise happens, it has to ensure that there will not be litigation that comes forward from the other vendor.

Thank you. County Council, can you just briefly reiterate the proposed solution that you presented a second ago, the compromise?

Yes, Mr. Chair, mayors, the board of supervisors. Our recommendation is that the board deny the appeal and to direct County Council and Behavioral Health and the County Executive to... identify any additional contracting opportunities with the unsuccessful vendor to try and provide additional bed space locally for men who need the substance abuse treatment. We're also then recommending that once you deny the appeal and you move forward to item 3A, our recommendation is to grant that contract, thank you. Thank you.

Okay. I'm going to go with that one personally. I think that's a solution that works for me. I hate to sound like a jerk about this tonight in the appeal and whatnot, but I feel like... It just gets messy when we start ignoring the rules that we have in place and the policy and it becomes just a lot messier and we have the rules for a reason and it wouldn't be fair to those that did get things in on time and whatnot. And so that's where I'm at with things to deny the appeal and direct county to identify additional contracting opportunities as stated. That's what I would suggest. So that's where I'm at, but there's any more comments or want to take a motion? I'll move to approve as stated. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Zenger?

Yes.

Supervisor Kozmicki?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Curro? Yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes.

Great, thank you. Moving on to regular agenda 3A. This is what we were just talking about, Baylor Health Sun Street Center contract.

I will introduce Noel Figueroa again to speak on behalf of Behavioral Health.

This is, again, for residential substance use disorder. It's for the RFP that we were just discussing. After an evaluation panel was convened, they reviewed all responsive proposals and awarded a score as the highest bidder. This is per the purchasing policy. You guys could not make a motion or act on this contract until the protest or appeal hearing was had. So it's just basically awarding the RFP for this contract.

Thank you. Is there public comment on this?

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

Thank you. Any questions or not willing to see a motion? Move to approve as recommended. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Zenger?

Yes.

Supervisor Kosmicki?

Yes.

Supervisor Sankello? Yes. Supervisor Curl? Yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes.

Great, thank you. 3B, this is to review potential projects for the SB1 road funding.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Board, Adolfo Gonzalez, Consulting Engineer Manager, Public Works. And today I'm presenting to you the Road Repair and Accountability Act, or better known as the SB1 program. Just a little bit of background. In April of 2017, the governor signed SB1, and it went into effect November of 2017, which enacted a vehicle fee and gas tax to provide increased transportation funding statewide. SB 1 invests more than $5 billion annually in long-term transportation funding. And locally, it provides approximately 4.4 million annually to the region. For fiscal year 26-27, the county is estimated to receive approximately $3.1 million in funding. To do that, to receive that funding, the county must adopt a list of projects by today and submit that list no later than July 1st, midnight. So before you here is a list that we previously provided for you, where we're recommending that the board select a combination of projects not to exceed the $3.15 million so that we can prepare that list and begin submitting the information to the CTC. I'd like to point out that you can select from exhibit A and you can also select, have the option to select from exhibit B, which is one project. If you choose not to select from exhibit B, that project which was submitted the last fiscal year, that project will then be dropped from the funding program and would have to be re-listed the following fiscal year.

And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Let's go out to public comment first.

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 on Zoom. Elia, you've been unmuted and you have three minutes.

Thank you, good morning, Board of Supervisors. So this money, I cannot see on the screen what is on the B list, and I can barely see, make out a couple of the roads on your Exhibit A. Taking the $3 million, using this $3 million, I would hope that that would release the monies that has been set aside for roads and put back into the general fund for much needed other projects salaries of employees that we've lost and we need to replace. There's a lot of shortage of staff in different departments. So I'm hoping that that is something that will be done and that part of what should be done is to use this money that you knew may be coming, but you've been using money from the general fund for road. So I would hope that for the benefit of San Benito County, you place that money back into the general fund and use this money as separate for these roads and not try to say, well, we still need these other roads. We are really short-staffed in San Benito County, as you're aware of, and I hope that you make the right decision. Thank you.

Thank you. That concludes public comment.

Thank you. Supervisors have comments, questions? Yeah, Mr.

Chair, can we get clarity on general fund allocation in 2627 to the roads?

There are no funds for road improvements. I just want to clarify that the only project that shows into the projection is actually completed. We just forecasted the payment in this fiscal year. It is actually already done and complete.

Okay, thank you very much. Just want to make sure that's clear. Well, you know, and then can I ask another question? The status of the safety grant we're still pursuing, there's a couple different grant, buckets, there's the CDBG. Are we still waiting for that?

That's the... We're still waiting because back in 2020, there was some pending items on another grants and the way the CDBG works, if you don't clarify the previous concerns, you cannot be awarded the new contract.

When are we gonna find out? Do we know?

I'm getting into work this week with the HSA department to be able to clear those.

Okay, I think it goes without saying that's a big, big deal for us. Yes. We gotta get that money.

Correct.

Obviously, the plays into, you know, you have to expect it, I guess, because I have some ideas about how to best use the safety dollars. But as far as this is a very limited, you know, pot of money. And I think what I took out of the last time we discussed this was that the Fallon Fairview intersection. would be a priority and I'm hoping that's still the case. So I would definitely push for that. Just hearing a lot, it's not my district, but hearing everybody drives that area at some point, it's very dangerous. There's a lot of liability involved, something that we have to take care of. Go ahead.

I tried to hire you.

Everybody does, CEO, so you're good. So a million dollars there, that would leave roughly the 2.2 million plus. I think we've heard from Supervisor Kerro about how bad of a situation New Hydra is. I would support that now with this bucket of money. We have the remainder of Fairview. I think we're basically already committed to that. So if just the way I'm seeing it, that would add up to roughly 1.915. And I'm curious about leaving some room for change orders and things like that too. I'm gonna get to that. And then really the only way the math, what I'm seeing, the way the math would work out to get to somewhere close to that three point, was it, I have it in front of me, but 3.1, 3.2 is basically Comstock with the 900,000. I don't, if you take, if we agree that, I think we all agreed already, the remainder of Fairview I think, I believe there was consensus on the million dollars. If we did New Idria, again, that would leave a little over a million. But if you did Comstock for the $900,000, which is much needed, I would say as well, then we would have some flexibility. I don't know the rules as far as do you have to go to the exact penny or not, but I'm thinking that Fallon and Fairview intersection might actually cost more than a million. We may want to, we may wanna project more just to get to the, to be on the safe side. I'd rather be a little bit under than going right to the number and having to deal with change orders and all these other things. So go ahead.

May I have a suggestion? I think the best way to manage this because these numbers were projected months ago. So I believe that if you give us direction today, I'm sorry, you can potentially prioritize the projects, meaning complete number one, complete number two, and if there's no change orders, complete number three, because otherwise we might be short in one of the projects, and I wanna make sure that we can provide you the best for the projects without shorting the projects, trying to meet those amounts.

I understand, but all I'm saying is if we assume that those three projects are, We want to do that. If there's agreement, and obviously we'll hear from the rest of the board, that would leave roughly a million dollars. The only other project that fits and it is a need is Comstock. And that's all I'm saying. All the other ones would take us way over the budget, and then we would have to start relooking at what we've already talked about doing. So that would be my suggestion with the... additional um context that as we go into this consideration of the safety grant money uh assuming we get that money that i we're hearing loud and clear from uh supervisor curl about district four um that is an evacuation route obviously for the community that that we would prioritize the district four roads and the safety issues with the CDBG money along with others. I don't think we would do all that in district four, but just if that would keep Supervisor Kerr at ease a little bit until we get to that. I would support new idea though for now as part of this, but that's as far as the math, that's really the, when I worked the math out, that's really the only, otherwise we'd have to scrap what we've already talked about. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. One, I would love to hear from you, Supervisor Zanger, about what is priority for you, because most of these kind of just happen to fall in your district. And so I would love to hear for you priorities so that that might help me make my decision. But I was wondering, are there any that are pinned here that are the biggest safety issues that we have in our community right now? I know that's probably not part of the criteria, I would love to know if you by chance know, yes, this is a huge safety issue. We've had multiple accidents at this location, whatever it is, because I think we've got to prioritize safety as well.

From an engineering perspective, I don't have that information. This list was previously created. Living within San Bernardino County, I can certainly tell you that most of these locations, there is concern, whether it's on Fairview, Fallon, McCloskey. They're all uncontrolled intersections. Some do have some sightings. that need to be addressed. So I think that any of these projects here will be a huge, huge benefit to the community.

Okay, thank you. And then do you know... A few years ago, we contracted with a company for software that was going to be put in public works vehicles, and it was going to assess kind of the index, the pavement, I guess, what is that? The P, I don't remember what it's called, but it was assessing the pavement and giving us kind of that index. Do you know, are we utilizing that? Are we getting any data from that?

I am aware, I just became aware yesterday of the fact that we do have a contract for that specific software. I'm not familiar with that specific software and whether or not we are using it or has been installed, I don't have that information. I can certainly look into it and determine if we have that software installed. If not, then I'm sure that we can, you know.

So we don't even know if it ever was even installed

Do we pay for it? We're just trying to pick up pieces from former staff that was doing the project. So we're just trying to understand maybe they use it, but we don't know because there's no documentation regarding that. And so...

It sounded so promising when it was presented to us and when we decided to move forward with that contract. And so I think these are perfect opportunities, right? The whole point of that was so that we could have this data So I would love to get a report back on that, if that's something that we are utilizing, or if not, and we need to cancel it, whatever. I just don't wanna be paying for things that we're not using.

And like I said, it might have been used, but we don't know because right now we don't have two people and staff that are away and one that left. So it's kind of hard for us to pick up the pieces and putting everything together. That's what is taking so long for us to come back with these numbers that you have today.

Well, I really appreciate the work that you guys have done, but I would like an update on that software. I don't expect you, you know, I'm not saying it's your fault. I don't expect you to have all the answers, but I would love that to come back to us at some point because it really was, it sounded like an amazing opportunity opportunity and tool for us to assess our roadways here locally. And it's only as great as if we're using it and evaluating the data, right? Like it could be in our cars, but if we're not ever looking at the data, it doesn't do a whole lot. So I would love to have that information come back to us. And yes, I have heard a ton about the Fallon Fairview intersection and complaints there. But for the rest of the roadways, I mean, I know, you know, when we talk about you know, roads that are utilized for kind of coming and going. And McCloskey and Fallon are used as like thoroughfares now. I mean, they really are. They're heavily impacted. They are both in absolute terrible condition. But I understand that if we go that route, then all of a sudden we're upside down somewhere else. So I really would love to hear from Supervisor Zenger. Like I said, I think most of these are in his district and Supervisor Kerro as well. I know one is in your district, so thank you.

Yeah, thank you. I'll jump in since you were asking about it. I think that the number one priority is the intersection signal at Fallon and Fairview. And I would say to the question earlier, Trezor, Stella, about what's the most... That would be the most dangerous, I think. That would be the biggest issue for safety by far. I know... a good number of people who actually live on the east side of fairview on fallon and they they tell me they will not let their kids drive they may send them around on spring grove because they don't want them using that intersection because it's so dangerous so i think that is absolutely the most pressing concern of of everything on this list is that that signal right there Beyond that, I mean, the way the math shakes out, I think Supervisor Kosmicki, I was pretty much thinking the same thing as he had suggested. Because I think we need to finish Fairview, that little segment between San Felipe and basically 156, Exhibit B. The rest of Fairview's... Basically done that's what's remaining I think it's important to finish that up it's a small segment that could be done, so I think that would be the obvious next thing, because it is very music extremely trafficked and then yeah I mean the. spread it and that's that would be district five i believe because 156 is now the line so there's a couple districts there new idria i think makes sense as well just because of the funding just to get to the number correctly um and then yeah the comms stocked 900 000 uh and then that would leave us if we went with those four that would leave us with 300 000 more or less about 300 000 for I guess, as we need when things change, because as we know, they always do. I don't I don't remember. There's not a lot of projects that are end up being however much they they are in the beginning. So I think it's important to have a little bit of a contingency as well. I don't know. I don't know what the appropriate number is. I think that'd be roughly 10% then of what we're over the whole cost. I think that's appropriate. I'm not sure exactly what the standard number is, but 10% seems like it would be good to me.

10% is the typical contingency.

Typical, so that works out really well for the math then. That's pretty convenient. That's what I would say. And yeah, I mean, Fallon, McCloskey, those are busy roads. It's challenging because, yeah, that eats away a huge portion of it, right? I mean, they're busy, they're fast. They aren't in, like, the worst condition, I would say. I mean, not a lot are in great condition. They're not in the worst condition. And I know we did some striping recently to just help with like some of the safety as far as seeing the road. We might have to explore, I know, I think it was because Mickey brought that up at the last budget meeting, but we might have to explore striping in some areas again in the county on some of these highly trafficked roads for safety reasons. But I think we can hit these four that were laid out. I think that just makes sense for the money that we have right now. So that's what I would probably lean towards. Mr. Rizzo-Curro.

Okay, so this document that was handed to us this morning that is not attached to the agenda, this document is showing where all the funding is coming from and where we're funding for each of the road projects. I really wanted this to be able to review. Unfortunately, I did not have it until this morning when I sat down. My challenge, and I think each of you for your comments and understanding the challenges with District 4 and the situations we have. But I want to talk a little bit about the fact that I went back to 2022. In October of 2022, this document that's showing where all of the funding is coming from for each of the roads, and it was presented as the public works road projects, construction projects currently being constructed and programmed construction, which was part of a five-year roads project plan that was adopted by the board of supervisors prior to us being on the board. I believe only Supervisor Kosmicki was on the board at the time when that five-year plan was adopted. What we haven't seen is the transparency of that plan. We have not seen where manipulation, and I'm saying that very carefully, where projects have fallen off and all of a sudden are no longer funded. We had Trace Pinos, almost every single road in Trace Pinos in 2022, 2023, 2024 were intended to be replaced. It did not happen. It was promised by a former supervisor. I was told it was going to be in construction. It never happened. It got taken off the list because apparently, you know, it's not a priority. It's not a safety issue. Okay. We had SB1 funding that was funding certain parts of Cienega Road and other roads, but we had enterprise funding. We had traffic impact fees that were funding the realignment of Cienega. We had... The Regional Surface Transportation Program, which you have acronyms here and I don't even know what some of these acronyms are for. In 2022, we also had CSA funding for redoing roads. We had grant funding and listing the roads. We had all of this was so very transparent and the public was told this is what we were going to do. And District 4 has taken the brunt of not having that done. I'm not blaming this board. I'm just stating we've made promises and the promises are not being fulfilled. So I really hope that the road evaluation from that software program has been utilized because if it hasn't been utilized, why not? And why are we not actually administering the items that we are approving up here as board members? I also highly appreciate that in 2025-26, it shows what was budgeted previously to what we are doing now. We need to have that kind of transparency over every single fiscal year until the project is done. Because what you will notice is for some reason, it states here that McCloskey and Wright Road, which we agreed discussed last year and didn't fund as a priority, were moved to SB1 projects. And then when you go to this list, they're on the SB1 project list. Who makes that decision? It wasn't a decision that was discussed at this board. And if the road ad hoc was making that decision, that decision should have been brought to the board's for presentation and discussion and approval. So yes, I agree, New Idria is a major safety problem and it's an impact to our cattle industry. It needs to be addressed, but we have major safety problems on Pinoch Road with striping. Supervisor Kosmicki, you talked about having maybe a striping conversation. I just drove on our rural road at San Benito Street at Union where it jogs across. It is an unincorporated area of the road. You can't see the striping where it jogs. We're going to have a head-on collision there. We need to be looking at where all the safety hazards are in our roads, prioritizing them, and not playing politics with our residents' lives. We have people driving on Pinoch Road that are driving blind because there's no striping, there's no reflectors, there's not even the side reflector stands that could be identifying, there's no railing, there's nothing. So I do appreciate this, but at the same time, I'm extremely frustrated because we look at San Juan Canyon. Back in 2022, that was also promised. We look at Bitterwater, King City, which we put on last year's list as that contingency of the CBG funding. And we know what's gonna happen. When you're at the bottom of the list, you're the one that's unfunded because all the other road projects eat into your contingency. And so... I'm struggling to agree with the priorities when my constituents have made it perfectly clear to me in many emails over the last two weeks that are telling me that they are fearful for driving. Their transportation, some of them are fighting cancer. They have to go to the Bay Area four days a week. and they're coming from either New Idria, Pinoch, they're coming from Coalinga, Old Coalinga Road, and they have to be on these rural roads. I know I don't have the population in South County that everyone else has, but we have to also remember humanity and the fact that we have neglected the roads and roads were a major priority, and we argued that it can't just be roads, roads, roads. and i agree it can't be just roads we have to think about our sheriff's deputies we have to think about all the other life safety our oes department we have to think about what needs to be funded but i want us to if we are committing funds we follow through on the projects because if I hear one more joke from my constituents that said, because I was looking at this, it said, oh, construction 2023, Cienega Road, construction 2024, construction 2025, and none of it happened. So for me, I just want my residents to know I feel their pain. I've expressed what they've expressed to me to each of you. And if we can have New Idria be at the top so that it can get at least a repair before we get into the winter season, because the second the rains happen, that road is gonna pretty much be gone. That's to the level it's at. So I am open to hearing the comments from my colleagues.

Thank you, Supervisor Crow. Go ahead, Supervisor Kosmicki.

Yeah, first of all, I'm fine putting, I would support putting New Idria at the top of the priority list. I think we can get to most, if not all of these, but certainly I hear what Supervisor Crowe is saying. As far as the ad hoc goes, the ad hoc gave none of these recommendations to move things off of this list. What we're seeing here is basically from public works I don't even know the last time we had an ad hoc meeting. I think we dissolved it a long time ago and we were not manipulating this list whatsoever. And if there was recommendations, they were always brought to the board within a month or two months or whatever it was when we had those prior presentations. I think there is understandable that there's concerns about that, but I'm just telling you that we weren't playing puppet master with this stuff at all. Yeah, sure.

How did all of Trace Pino's come off of the budget when it wasn't discussed? It was just defunded.

Let me get to that. Yeah. So important to note that Trace, All these roads that we see here were on, because I was on the board when that initial unfortunate, unfortunately now it was a fantasy list that we were sold on. All of these roads were on there. So it's not just, I feel your pain because Comstock and Fairview and all of these roads, I promise you, I go back and look at that map all the time and it's depressing around that list. In my district, Yes, we had San Justo fixed to go along with the sewer plant pipeline. Appreciate that. It made a lot of sense. And then San Juan Highway, We talked about safety and I think that's where I think that the board talked about, and you expressed your concerns at the time about Tres Pinos and I hear that and I think we should do Tres Pinos roads. I'm hoping we can, I don't remember the exact amount. It was a little over a million dollars, I believe. I think we should do those, but I do think there was a commitment from this board to, to really hone in on the safety issues with the initial buckets of money that we have here. The roads that fell off the list, again, I had Salinas Road. I hear all the time Supervisor Croswell, I think probably with the exception of maybe Supervisor Sotelo, she doesn't have many of these roads in her district is, I've gone certain weeks where Esperanza is hearing from me just on a non like, hey, I get another, I don't tell her what to do or anything. I just say, hey, just so you know, I've got another complaint. San Juan Canyon, and you probably hear some of this as well, because we split that a little bit. Most of San Juan Canyon is in District 2 and then the top portion in District 4. But San Juan Canyon, we promised, that was a $7 million project. Again, Salinas Road was three plus, $3.5 million. And I hear about those all the time. And I have to explain to them that unfortunately, you know, we got some bad information a few years ago. Bad information a few years ago and then we hit a budget crisis and we're recovering from that. As far as the last point I wanna make, I think let's do New Hydra first. I think Fallon and Fairview should be right behind it, basically, or right with it, essentially. I think if we prioritize those two, and then from there we go to the, obviously we're already doing Fairview, and then Comstock would fall after that, if we fall in line with this current way of looking at it.

Can you clarify, so you have, if you can put back the list on the screen, And can you clarify the item numbers so I can keep track of the funding?

And...

Okay, so which number are you talking about?

So Fairview, so first of all, Exhibit B1 is the rest of Fairview that we just basically have to do. Okay. Exhibit A... Exhibit A5 is the intersection, so the signal. Exhibit A6 is the New Adria Road. And that's what I was saying I would agree with Supervisor Curran prioritizing. And then exhibit A7 is Comstock. The question I have is with striping, and I don't mean to throw another wrench, I know we have to put this list in tomorrow. Striping does not, does striping qualify?

Based on the information that I do have here, yes. So it is a maintenance item. So yes, it does qualify.

How much striping needs do we have roughly? Is it over a million or throughout the county? Supervisor.

Tough question. Again, from an engineering perspective and from a resident having lived here for 20 years, the amount of striping needs is well over, I'm just gonna throw a figure out there, 20, 30 million.

Okay, so if we can do striping, with all due respect, Supervisor Zanger, I would say maybe put Comstock on the list for the next, the next grouping with the safety dollars that we're hopefully gonna get. And Trace Pinos, I'm sure we can find a way, all these roads are safety issues basically. But I think that would be one way to potentially, and I don't mean to throw a wrench into your situation, but I think the whole county would benefit from a striping program that does extents that we look at what are the highest priority needs for striping and let's hit those. and then basically fill out the budget with that. And then you would have some flexibility there. Well, if we have some changeover orders, we could reduce that a little bit.

Yes, one of the items I did not see as part of previous budgets has been a striping budget, striping maintenance.

Right, and I've advocated for that every year since I've been on the board.

So even if it's a small amount, you know,

I'm suggesting using the remainder of the money. So taking Comstock off and doing an actual bold striping program this next year of a million dollars.

And this is just my advice to develop a striping plan between now and tomorrow. is gonna be very difficult.

SB1 needs. Can we come back later? Can we change these up? Do we have to? I mean, this is an initial plan, right? So we have to submit this to the state. Can we go back to the state and say, look, we reconsidered?

We can certainly go back to the state.

Because that would be something that I understand that the issue, we have a day to say, oh, okay, what are the priorities? You could probably throw together a lot. I could probably. just somebody could work on that for a day and probably could come up with a million dollars just because it's the whole county basically. Just pick 10 thoroughfares basically. But I understand the issue and you want it to be precise. You don't want it to just be thrown together.

Correct. In striping, as you know, there's a lot of components. So in order to come up with a $1 million cost proposal, I need to look at every single street or roadway, major roadway. And so there's a lot of components in there.

My suggestion would be to what I initially, because the math is the math. There really isn't any way around this. Unless we pick one of these $2 million roads and then take Fallon and Fairview off, don't do the rest of Fairview, whatever it may be. To me that's that's the most logical route is that we do new idea we do felon and fairview we do the rest of fairview and then comstock is a placeholder basically essentially we approve it for now we come back and say you know state can we we needed more time can we reconsider using this million dollars for striping.

and that will be my recommendation, to approve today the projects that you feel that is gonna be, that are in the list, and then come back later on with a plan, because it will be unfair to each one of the districts for us to select roles to be striping. I would rather have staff coming back, give you more or less a cost estimate for each one of them, and then you make the selection, so that way we stay away from, you know, bringing something, submitting something to the state that you have not approved.

I will feel more comfortable that way. We would logically have a discussion at the board level about striping priorities because I'm not gonna ask a lot, but I do have one road in particular in my district that I hear from constantly, which is the same road, the rest of the road that we just rebuilt. But yeah, I think bringing that back to the board to have a conversation about striping, there's a consensus on the board that would be the highest priority. That's as high of a priority as almost any of these roads, frankly, these intersections. We have the opportunity to address it, we should.

If you would please clarify, so far I had number five, six, and seven. Five, six, seven and B1. And B1.

Just under $3 million. It would give you room for change orders and flexibility. And then my recommendation would be to come back as a board and discuss whether we can get some reconsideration for the striping issue.

Okay. So I have a couple questions then. As far as, we talked about safety dollars maybe coming back. If we're gonna remove one of these, if we're gonna remove Comstock, as was suggested, and we come back and put it under the safety funding maybe. My only question is, I know we've run into some, I guess, mixed opinions on whether or not we can use funding like that for road reconstruction, like rebuilding the actual, repaving the road. versus using, I mean, I know the striping would fit under the safety funding umbrella. I just, so my only concern would be, and I don't remember where we left off. I know, I think Congressman Lofgren was sort of supportive of our idea. She said, well, no, if it's, the road's in bad shape, then it is a safety issue. Repaving does fall under that. But I would say we just need to get clarity on that moving forward because that is, that could blindside us if we don't have clarity on that. And then additionally with striping, I'll just say the last striping program we did, there was a number of roads, few roads in my district. There was, I think, Fallon, Santa Ana Valley, Comstock. All of the striping is gone. It was all gone in about three months or less, completely gone. So... We've got to figure it out one way or the other. We've got to figure it out. And I still don't know. I've asked prior staff, and it's not your fault at all, but I still don't know if we got our money back for that, if they're going to fix it. I don't know what happened. We just kind of got robbed on that one. So unless we get the money back, and I didn't hear about it, but we need to make sure that stuff like that doesn't happen. I don't know how we have to do that, but have some sort of... you know, warranty basically in the contract.

It's the specification. So more than likely what happened was it was water-based paint that was utilized as opposed to thermoplastic. So thermoplastic has a longer life. It can last up to 10 years depending on the roadway. Water-based paint, typically when you have heavy traffic and a large amount of traffic, it will wear out a lot sooner.

Yeah, I wouldn't recommend spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on something that's gonna go away in a couple months personally.

I would recommend spending a dime on it. We've got to invest in this stuff, Mr. Chair, with all due respect. I think this has come up in the past that you have to go with the striping that's gonna last. If it costs a little bit more money, the investment is well worth it. It makes no sense to paint over lines and it's gone in a few months. That's a waste of money. Mr.

Chair, I'm gonna have to disagree because if you're putting thermoplastic striping on a bad road and it can last 10 years, but that road isn't worth two cents because of the amount of potholes on it, it is just a waste of money. So what, we're gonna stripe them and they'll be striped for 10 years, but then we're not gonna repair them? Because if we repair them, we have to remove all of that. It's not like it stays there. You don't cut around and fill in around thermal striping. So if striping is funded, we need to fund it as a temporary and understand that we may have to apply it more than once, which is way cheaper than thermal plastic. Am I wrong?

You're not. However, when we come back to the board with recommendations of roadways that should be re-striped, we're going to look at the condition of the roadway and will not recommend any roadway that needs major roadway improvement simply because it's not sensible to stripe a roadway that really is in really bad condition and will not except the striping there may be some temporary measures sure water-based paint can't maybe you may be able to utilize it in certain roadways that are not in great condition and that's something that we would come back when we have that project list and make that recommendation

And would that include alternatives like maybe on curves having reflectors in the center of the curve? I mean, the areas, striping on bad roads is not good, because it won't last. But even if we could do a temporary,

something we call road visibility efforts right and then visibility efforts i like that yes road visibility efforts so as we're reviewing and putting together this project list we won't only focus just on the striping itself but we'll also focus on the safety so uh whether we need to add some reflectorized delineators on the edge of the roadway or markers reflective markers. So we'll look at all of that signage and come back with a package.

So my only thing is is making sure that we're looking at all of the areas where the funding is potentially available. It appears right now from this list that we got today that there is still some projects under Measure G. And so that's funding that we previously already received to be able to do these projects. But then where are the reimbursement status of maybe some of the emergency projects that we did that we put in FEMA requests for? And I know FEMA takes a long time, but making sure that we don't drop the ball on those reimbursement requests so that we can bring them back into the budget.

And I was made aware that some of the items they have been not being reimbursed by the county. I do not want to put numbers on it until I actually review the information because As I said before, we picking up pieces from everywhere to try to put it together. And so my understanding is for some of the projects, the general fund was used to pay for engineering services which shouldn't be used or should have been reimbursed by the funding agency or by SB1 or by set aside funding that it was specifically for that purpose and it hasn't been done. So before I come back to the board, with those numbers I would like to review. The staff has been working hard to identify those issues. And so once we have a very clear picture of the situation, we'll come back to the board.

I APPRECIATE THAT AND IF WE CAN KEEP THIS DOCUMENT ALIVE AND MOVING FORWARD AND TRACKING THE HISTORY OF WHAT OUR DECISIONS ARE AND WHY, I THINK THAT WILL BE A LOT MORE TRANSPARENT FOR THE PUBLIC SO I WOULD REALLY LIKE IT TO BE UPLOADED ONCE WE HAVE FINALIZED IT.

for the late submittal, but I also have to acknowledge the fact that I have new staff working in those spreadsheets. Last night, Adolfo were very late to be able to complete this list, and so that's why you have it last minute, but we try to ensure that all the numbers that you see over here are there actually now.

And I appreciate that and thank you for all the work you've done. I just want to make sure that we stay consistent with how it's presented in the future. This is fantastic, but it's very sad at the same time. So that's all I want to say.

Thank you. Is there a motion then? Yeah, Mr. Chair, I'll try to get one here.

Make a motion to- One second, before your motion, sorry. So on this list, when you're talking about new Idria, I was comparing to the old new Idria repairs that we did, which I still wanna move forward with a claim if you haven't already with the feds on that. But it says $500,000 and it's $10,560. Is that really only about two miles? Am I not understanding? What's the difference between the length and feet? That road is much longer than two miles. I'm just concerned. I'm not sure where this 10,560 came from, where the estimate came from, and it says August of 2006, September of 2007. That kind of, I just, I want to make sure whatever the interim fix on New Idria is, it's for the length of the New Idria Road.

So one thing that we can come back to you later on, once you approve this, we'll come back to you with different locations. The roads, we'll have to do an inspection, physical inspection, identify the worst areas, bring it back to the board, and then you can maybe have an input on which areas exactly those improvements have to be done.

Okay, and then I'm working to have photos uploaded for staff into a drive so that it's accessible because I've got lots of photos from residents.

I took photos as well. Remember that we drove that road.

It's much worse now than it was then. So they just sent me new ones. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. I would just make the motion to approve the list of roads for SB1 that would include the remainder of Fairview as listed, New Hydra, Fallon-Fairview intersection, and Comstock Road, with additional direction for the staff to highly prioritize getting clarity on the status of the safety grant funding that was submitted announced by Congresswoman Lofgren, along with the CDBG status and to consider additional priorities of striping of, you know, a million dollars plus and to, you know, come back at a later date to figure out whether we should be using or whether whether it makes more sense to which pots of money to use for which of these projects but i think it's been said basically that comstock and striping and new hydria and trace pinos those are all going to be high priority roads but the motion is essentially the list with the additional direction thank you is there a second

I'll second. Good, thank you. You're first and a second. Can we have a roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Zenger?

Yes.

Supervisor Kosmicki?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Curro? Yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes.

Thank you. Let's take a five-minute break really quick. Okay, we're gonna get back to our special meeting right now Moving on to item 3C. This is to approve amendment number one with American Medical Response, West DBA American Medical Response to extend the term as negotiated. CEO, do you have any counsel? Yes, Mr.

Chair, members of the Board of Supervisors, you will recall that at the last meeting, the Board expressed some concern about the ability to terminate the contract early should a special district be created that would otherwise be responsible for EMS services going forward. As a result, we conducted a meeting last week with EMS staff and AMR representatives, and we tentatively agreed upon a proposal which would provide for that early termination should that district formation proceed, be accomplished, and that the district would be ready to move forward with EMS services. AMR has requested that their legal department provide a first draft of the language and send that to me. I have not yet received it. I have exchanged emails with the AMR representative and they expect to be getting that to me soon. The AMR representative further indicated that they will continue to provide services even though the contract will expire today. So we can proceed. really with two options. Number one, the board could approve the extension today and approve that extension subject to the approval of the early termination language by county council and the CEO, or you can continue this item until your next meeting on August 11th in which we will, in the interim, be able to negotiate that language or bring it back to the board. So I'll leave it to the board to decide which option they are most comfortable with. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any public comment on this item?

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.

Thank you. Comments, questions from the board? Professor Crow?

I would prefer the first option as it makes sure that we have no legal issue of a gap in service. I appreciate this because I just want to make sure even if it had to come back as an amendment, it will allow us to continue the service, but at the same time, keeping our eye on the big picture. So that's where I would be.

Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, no other comments? Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve staff's recommendation of the first option, which I don't have to repeat it, do I? Okay, you wanna repeat it for me?

Yes, certainly. Mr. Chair, members of the board of supervisors, staff is recommending that the board approve the amendment, which is before you today, subject to the approval of the, language negotiated to provide for an early termination of the contract should a special district be formed and be ready to proceed to provide EMS services prior to the expiration date of this extension, that language would be subject to the approval of the County Executive Officer and County Council. Thank you. Thank you.

So motion to approve per staff recommendation. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Great.

Can we roll call vote please?

Supervisor Zenger?

Yes.

Supervisor Kosmicki?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Curro? Yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes.

Thank you. Moving on to 3D. Receive information regarding the McCrae Street Toro Petroleum annex to the City of Hollister, presented to the San Bernardino LAFCO. So we, I'll just, if staff has nothing, we can, great, we can bring this forward. Then we brought this forward. I'll just say, I sit on LAFCO as well as Supervisor Kosmicki. This came to LAFCO and we had requested that LAFCO give us time to bring it to the county, the Board of Supervisors, to at least provide some feedback and see this item before it moves forward anymore at LAFCO. So that's what we have today, just opportunities for feedback to LAFCO regarding this annexation. I'm sure Supervisor Kosmicki,

Yeah, I think, so process-wise, LAFCO gets feedback from all the impacted agencies, which includes the county, but the way it was explained is they went to the planning department, and Abraham can correct me if I'm wrong, but they didn't come to the board, and I just wanted out of courtesy to the board and the governing body of the county, considering this is one of, we understand, obviously, with... islands like this that LAFCO makes the ultimate decision. But as an affected agency, I just wanted to make sure that the governing body, the board, has the opportunity to hear the issues so the public can understand it and the board can understand it and to give give input as a board, as opposed to just planning, obviously, full respect to Abraham and his department. But just I felt like it was that important to bring it to the board, considering the situation. I did request, I believe this is one of two gas stations in the unincorporated area. So I did request from the CEO, if possible, in this limited time, if it's possible to get some sort of as far as what impact this would have on the budget. We do have a commercial tax sharing agreement in place. So my understanding is that, according to the stipulations in the tax share agreement, the city would get 70%, the county would get 30% of all revenue, including sales tax revenue. But I just was wondering if you did by chance have numbers as far as how much sales tax on an annual basis how much revenue as a whole, perhaps on an annual basis, this particular property brings into the county?

So I discussed the funding, the revenue that we receive from this specific facility, from the property taxes, as well as the sales taxes. I cannot provide you a specific number, but I send you $100,000 and the $100,000 in the next 10 years. And it's a real concern to me as the CEO, especially when we're putting together budgets and minimizing the cost to every department, disabling departments with cuts and losing this funding from the county point of view, it's not gonna be positive for our county. We'll have to look into continue cutting budgets in the future, it just would have happened. So I cannot provide you exact numbers. I have the auditor next to me. We came out with an overall number, but we cannot really disclose the amount, but it's in the $100,000.

Oh, because of legal issues.

Exactly. It's in the $100,000.

$100,000 annually or over 10 years?

Over 10 years. Over 10 years, it's a significant amount of money.

Right. And again, there's two issues here. We have process, which LAFCO oversees annexing these properties. And that's process, and I understand that. The logical side of me is I've been told I have to wear two different hats here. One is LAFCO and one is the supervisor. A little bit absurd, but I get it. The supervisor side of me says, well, why now? What is the practical reason for this annexation? And the only, and I would love to hear from the city. I haven't seen the city's sort of their motivation behind it. But I can only assume the motivation here is money because they're in a difficult financial situation as we are. And they have a new city manager. She comes in, she says, well, what are the opportunities we have to increase revenue? Here's an easy one right here. That's an island. It makes... six figures for the county um there will be no real practical transfer of services um everybody's gonna the city's gonna go there the sheriff's gonna go there if there's an issue i don't think that we're having an abundance of issues at the toro gas station as far as i know so there's probably very very limited actual service response to this gas station so really in essence all that's happening here is we are giving we are handing over money to the city of Hollister. That's the supervisor side of me. The LAFCO side of me says, well, what are the processes? What do we have to follow? Let's take all our partner agency comments into consideration and make a decision. But there are concern. I do have the obvious concern is that we are just basically handing over money to the city of Hollister for a property that has been in the county for as long as it's been there. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

yes supervisor crowe i couldn't agree with you more boy those words coming out of my mouth are amazing i couldn't agree with you more really truly this is all about money and but the city at the same time will not do the application to lafco on a island for affordable housing or a housing project because they don't want that housing project So they're picking and choosing which projects they wanna annex in that benefit them and don't benefit the county. So to me, if we could, I'm not sure what our authority actually is to stop except for we can do a protest, the property owner can do a protest of an annexation. And if that protest, because there's only one property owner, I mean, we could work with them and say, we need you to go through the protest process and not allow it to get annexed in. It could be an option because there are steps that you can stop annexations. And I think we need to actively stop this annexation until we have other revenue sources that can support, especially our roads. And I don't think anybody in the unincorporated area is gonna argue with any of us.

Yeah. Can I add on, Mr. Chair? The other thing, so they went to the property owner, and I don't have the city approach the property owner. Of course. The property owner went along with it, but... I don't know whether the city informed the property owner that we have a lower tax rate in the county and that people that go to that gas station are immediately going to be paying higher gas for their gas as well. And I don't know if the property owner is aware of that. And if the property owner was aware of that, perhaps they may have not gone along with this annexation. So I think at the very least, we should request more information and dialogue with the property owner themselves as suggested by Supervisor Curl. In the meantime, I'd be willing to provide comments basically that we have concerns about why this is being done and what the practical reason is behind it other than simply transferring over an infusion of cash from the county to the city. Mr.

Chair, I completely agree. At the same time, we need to have a conversation about our master tax sharing agreement, whether it's the residential or the commercial, this is a major issue. And when the annexations are not wanted by the city, they're throwing the, well, we didn't ask for the annexation. So therefore the master tax sharing agreement does not apply. And we have to negotiate a tax sharing agreement on that one parcel. So if we want to fix this, we need to take the opportunity to actually review the master tax sharing agreement, both commercial and residential. We need to be looking at where the development is going to be occurring, because you know the next one they're coming after? Santana Ranch. because we have all the work put into it and they are gonna want all that revenue in property tax. So to me, this is a conversation that we have to have. And I would almost recommend that we have an ad hoc created to discuss the master tax sharing agreement and future annexation priorities. Because annexations in these islands do need to happen. It will streamline costs. It will make sure that the city and the county don't have conflicts on services. But we need to do it where we're not actually hurting the county.

Thank you. Do you have comments?

I do. Thank you. So this is actually in my district. And this poor property owner has been trying to get this done for a long time. They want to... do some things to benefit their business. And unfortunately, because they are surrounded by city, it's prohibited them from being able to do things. This is the only way for them to be able to continue being profitable in their business. And so while it might not be great for the county, they are surrounded by, at one time it was all Orchard there, it is not anymore, and it has affected their business. And so I don't wanna do anything that is going to, impact them in a negative way. I think they're asking for this. I don't know Abraham, if you have anything specific that you could kind of explain, but I know I have met with a property owner multiple times actually prior to even, I wanna say like I won my election in 2022 and immediately they wanted to talk to me. And so this isn't something that maybe the city approached them a really long time ago. I don't know, but I have not seen that side of it. What I have seen is that this, owner of this business really, really wants to get this done. And there are some really old records that they've been trying to identify. They can't. So there's some issues with it. And they saw this being kind of the only way to continue moving forward with their business. Can you speak to that at all a little bit more probably with detail than I am?

Sure, thank you, Supervisor Sotelo, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Yes, back when I was in the city of Hollister, I started in 2006. They actually, not Toro Petroleum, but Mr. Gibson, the next door property owner where there was an orchard there, came to the city for annexation of their property. And when we were going through that process, because if that property were to be annexed, which it now is annexed, because the Torah Petroleum would be essentially a county island, the recommendation from LAFCO was to bring it in as well. I think today it would be more of a requirement to bring it in. Back then in 2000, it was around 2009, I believe it actually got on in 2011. But back then it was an option. They provided basically an option to the property owner at that time where my understanding it was the Hageman's. Now I believe it's a different property owner, but I believe the Hageman's are still involved in some capacity. And the Gibson property got annexed, and as we know, now there's, first the Walgreens got developed, the homes along Black Forest Drive, and then the commercial center, Toro Petroleum remained outside. And my understanding is that now they are looking into incorporating or annexing, and so therefore, Essentially the process would be, as you commented, Supervisor Kozmicki, with all the affected agencies, but the process would be essentially what the City of Hollister first step would be, the initiation of pre-zone, and then the actual pre-zoning of the property, and then LAFCO. But absolutely the county has a say because it is an affected agency.

Thank you, Abraham. I would be all for, so I will be supporting this, even though I know it's not a great thing for the county. So I would be in favor of us looking at our master plan talk sharing agreement and coming up with something that is beneficial. Because I think that moving into the future, there will be additional things, as you mentioned. So, but I don't, like I said, this is a business that's been here for a really long time. It's just the circumstances. Everything has gotten developed around them. They're the only thing kind of left standing. They want to do some things for their business. There's some, because of the pocket, they're not able to do it. And so... I will be supporting this, but I am very much in favor of the master tax sharing agreement, opening that up and having that discussion.

Thank you. I'm going to go to public comment first before we continue.

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 Joel Buckingham.

I have to say I saw this on the agenda and my first thought was exactly along with Supervisor Kosmicke's and Supervisor Kuro's that there's a very real financial risk, huge risk. There's a ton of sales tax dollars that go through a petroleum station and while most people don't know this, most petroleum industry stations are very, very low margin. I have no doubt that they're a low margin business on what they do. They don't have a service station back I wanna say in 2023, when there was a lot of questions in terms of pricing in Hollister, that particular station and other stations were set down, was one of the lower priced service fuel stations in the entire county as a geographic district, not just in the unincorporated area. So I know they were doing a ton of sales and those sales represent a substantial portion of the revenue that comes to the county. very grave concerns in terms of how it will affect the financial position of the county to annex this island. I mean, that's just part of the reality. And I think Supervisor Kosmicki and Supervisor Crowe are identifying that clearly. So that's just my concern. Certainly 2025, 2026 now rolling around, everyone can see that the city of Hollister is in a beggar thy neighbor situation. I'm gonna be blunt. It happened with the fire contract. It's happening with a lot more other things. And the simple fact of the matter is this county just has to be very careful because the city is, borrowing $17 million from its sewer fund that I think everyone knows is gonna end up being a total disaster. I just don't know where they're gonna have the money to pay that back. And I'm gonna, I haven't been calling things out. I'm gonna call it out because I can't afford to lose people. And the simple fact of the matter is, In the congressional world, it sounds terrible for me to say this, they say the other party, that's the opposition, but the Senate, if you're in the House, or the House, if you're in the Senate, is the enemy. And the simple fact of the matter is we have to watch out because what the city of Hollister is going to start to do is to put us into a real bind. And there are services that the county provides that the city legally cannot. And we just have to be careful that we don't end up with no general fund dollars left.

Thank you. I have a few on Zoom. and you have three minutes.

Hi, I'm hearing an echo. Is there an echo from my comments?

No.

Okay. So I want to remind Supervisor Kosnicki that he is one of the individuals responsible for the tax sharing agreement. I disagreed with him years ago when he was on the committee, which is now why we now sit with this committee. tax sharing agreement, and his excuse is, well, the city provides more services. They have police. They have fire. I'm like, we have the Sheriff's Department. We have a contract with the fire department. We use the same thing. But that was the excuse. And who was the mayor at the time and who benefited? That was Ignacio Velasquez was the mayor, and the city benefited. We used to have a great contract sharing agreement before all this, and this is where we are now. We have had the opportunities. to allow businesses on 101, off of 101 in the nodes that would bring tax revenue into San Benito County. And some of the board members have been against it and mostly has been Supervisor Kosmicki has been against it. We need to bring in tax revenue. I came to the board months ago to tell you that this was happening that toro petroleum was going to be annexed and it was going to be one of two gas stations one of only two in san diego county and we were going to be losing that tax revenue and at that time i suggested that you start talking and considering doing a contract with the other gas station that happens to be in Tres Pinos regarding a contract so that we continue to use the gas station in the county and not because now it's gonna be in the city. So you don't really have a protest because this is what the property owner has been wanting for a long time. This is something where you have to look in the mirror and you have to face the fact that we need to bring revenue to san benito county measure a is a disaster for san benito county and maybe you all should start considering to doing some type of a rescinding of measure a so that we can be more welcoming to do businesses in san benito county to bring in that much needed tax revenue i know you're concentrating right now on this uh tourism We're very small in tourism. We have five wineries that bring in business and then we have Hollister Hills and we have Pinnacles. There's somebody wants to do a gas station close to the road off of Union Road and we need to consider approving that as well to bring in some revenue. Thank you.

One second. And Mary, you've been unmuted and you have three minutes.

Hi, can you hear me okay? Hello?

Yes, we hear you.

Okay, thank you. This is Mia Casey. I just wanted to give you some historical perspective because there's some pieces missing to this whole puzzle. Actually, when I first became mayor, I met with the Toro Petroleum owners as well, alongside Supervisor Sotelo. And there's a whole piece to this that Toro wanted to purchase some land from the city. It wasn't just the city coming in and saying, we want to annex you. There was the shopping center that was being put in, caused a realignment of the roadway. And there was a strip of land that Toro Petroleum wanted to purchase. And so the city has been in, they've been working on this since 2023. It wasn't something created by some financial issue now. It was something that was desirable for Toro Petroleum. They wanted to do some remodeling. The city agreed that they would sell the land, but there was a hiccup because there were several parcels involved with that realignment of the roadway. And so the city had to go through an enormous amount of work to identify the parcels. They had to offer it up for... surplus land and go through that whole process. It was a huge long process, which is why it has taken this long to get to the annexation point. But it was a part of the agreement with the city and between the city and Toro that they would purchase the land. But as a part of this whole deal, that the city would annex the property in. There's right-of-way issues, there's all kinds of stuff. And like we were saying, it's completely surrounded. This is not something happening at the borders where the county is. This is in the middle of town and there are service issues. If there were a fire or if there were other issues where it required service, are you gonna have your sheriffs trying to get into town and get there? are you gonna have the police covered? There's always those issues. But I just wanna say this was not some attempt to suddenly, this is not something that's happening right now. It's been going on for years. It finally got to this stage, but there's a lot of time and staff energy that's gone into getting to this point so torah could have their you know purchase the land so that they can go move forward they wanted to expand they wanted to add pumps it's not just a simple we want to annex this so i just wanted to give you that historical background thank you thank you uh it's for the girl you were nice

I appreciate all the comments and historical information from some of our speakers, but at the same time, I have been advocating for a master tax sharing agreement conversation, and I feel like this is the opportunity. I do not know if we have a clause in our master tax sharing agreement that we can... remove ourselves or formally cancel it with a vote. It's my understanding it would have to be a negotiation between the city and the county to cancel it, which I think we need to start that conversation because the alternative is negotiating this, it is going to fiscally hurt us so badly. And there are so many things about the 50-50 on the residential side that are also going to hurt this county. So I would really recommend that we start looking at the legal wording of how we get out of this and how we start the negotiation process for a new master tax sharing agreement.

Thank you. Yeah, I agree with that Supervisor Curro. Well, just for context, with the ad hoc, when I came on the board, there was this underlying sort of, project issue, which was the development around the airport. The Christopher family was, it was very serious consideration. We haven't had a status update on that in quite a while, so it might be good for planning to send a memo or something. I just haven't heard anything. It kind of just fell off the cliff. And there was... you know, this concept of a very significant commercial industrial development that it seemed like everybody was behind. However, we did not have a commercial tax sharing, master tax sharing agreement in place. So just to correct that information from what was said during public comment, there was no master tax sharing agreement for commercial industrial in place. That was the purpose of having this ad hoc was to really having the master tax share agreement in place. I sat on that ad hoc with Supervisor Bob Tiffany at the time. And yes, it wasn't perfect, but there was a sense of urgency to get it done. And the board ultimately approved it. That was the motivation behind it. I totally understand what speakers are saying regarding the practicality of annexing these sorts of islands. I just have an obvious concern about the finances as a county supervisor. at the very least would like to have that conversation about these types of developments, as opposed to annexing projects that are outside of the boundary or the sphere of influence of the city of Hollister. Because again, that was really the primary motive at the time of getting that master tax sharing agreement done. was to, and I know Joe Paul was here as well, was to really get something in place so that we could move that major, major, major project forward. And unfortunately it didn't happen, but I'm open from the board. Again, we just wanted to bring this to the board out of courtesy, considering the significant financial, impact it could have on the county. And I would hope that we could, at the very least, have a conversation with the city about this particular project and how we could perhaps have, if it's at all possible, to have a separate agreement in place, considering the financial magnitude of what we're dealing with here, but also to open the conversation about the master tax agreement and to fix whatever flaws there are in there. Because again, it wasn't perfect. There was just urgency to get it done at the time.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So I think there's consensus that we wanna discuss this tax chain agreement, talk to the city about this and future situations like this, as far as providing comments to LAFCO. I don't know what comments we'd like to provide other than there's financial concerns to the county with this annexation going forward. Is there anything else that we need to add?

Yeah, I mean, I would say, yes, that the county doesn't have concerns about the impacts, considering that there's very little

Sorry about that.

Yeah, sorry about that. Hopefully yours or yours is picking that up. But basically, yes, we have concerns about the financial impact to the county considering the very limited service impact that this particular parcel has. and that we would request some time to at least have a conversation with the city about how we can make this work for both sides and also open the door for the larger conversation about the master tax share agreement to maybe perhaps address some of the flaws in the agreement, including islands of this sort. That's basically generically what I would suggest.

Mr. Chair, I would just make sure that when we say master tax sharing agreement, we are saying agreements, both commercial and residential, because we are going to have an issue when they start coming after developments that we've done in the unincorporated area to get those property tax dollars. So I... My recommendation would be to, of course, say our concerns, but also open negotiations and discussion with the city and say to LAFCO that we are initiating a formal negotiation on our master tax sharing agreements.

Yeah. Okay. Okay, do we? I don't think there's a vote on this. Yeah, I don't think we need to take a motion or anything.

I think there's... Is that... And Supervisor Sotelo, obviously, how did...

Unless you want to provide some direction for future agendas so we can come back, is that okay? Okay.

Mr. Chair, members of the Board of Supervisors, I believe that there have been a number of comments with respect to the current master tax sharing agreement with the City of Hollister. And it appears that the Board would like to direct staff to review the current agreement The board has indicated that they may want an ad hoc committee established that could work directly with staff and give staff direction. And then to bring this back to the full board based on the ad hoc committees, So if that is the will of the board, then we would recommend that the board entertain a motion, which would create an ad hoc committee specifically for renegotiation of the master tax sharing agreement with the city of Hollister, and that you direct staff to work with the ad hoc committee and to bring back recommendations on that renegotiation to the board at a future meeting.

Can I make an amendment? With the understanding that the property owner has been dealing with this for so many years that we work as closely as we can to facilitate whatever we can to help the property owner with their needs of expansion or whatever they're trying to do if it's something that can be done within the unincorporated area to support them through building and planning i think those options should also be brought back so that we can at least start a process even if it turns over to the city but we're working with them to be able to move forward with what their needs are

Yes, I would support that. I would suggest if Supervisor Sotelo is so willing because she has the relationship already. It's in her district. And I'd be fine if you wanted to or whoever else. I just think Supervisor Sotelo, if she's willing, it would make sense for her to be on such an ad hoc because you're dealing with the property owner. And if there's anyone else that would like to do it, I'd be supportive of that. I'd be willing to do it if nobody else wants to do it. Supervisor Currow, Zenger. I was gonna suggest you too, just if you were part of this.

Yeah, me too.

That's where I was going.

Okay. Okay, great. So is there a motion then as stated from County Council? I think he said we need a motion on this, right? Move to approve as stated. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second with the friendly amendment. Great. We have roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Zenger?

Yes.

Supervisor Kosmicki?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Curro? Yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes.

Okay, thank you. Moving on to 3E. This is from County Clerk Recorder. Francisco is gonna come up to, we have a couple items here. Need to accept the filing of the certified statement of the election results. A few other things here, I'll explain.

Good morning, Board of Supervisors, Mr. Chair, Francisco Diaz, County Clerk, Recorder, Register of Voters. And I'm here today to present agenda item 3E regarding the formal certification of the June 2nd, 2026 primary election. And before you today are two necessary non-discretionary actions. First, we ask that you accept the filing of certified statement of election results and the canvas. and we ask that you adopt resolution number 202686, which officially declares the winning candidates elected or nominated, declares the results of the local measures, and enters these final results into the county's record. To reach this point, the county election staff conducted a rigorous, thorough official canvas which successfully concluded and publicly posted on June 26th. Strict compliance with California elections code, our team completed all these verification processes, including reconciling all signatures, rosters against cast ballots, auditing all provisional and vote by mail ballots, and conducting a mandatory public 1% manual tally to verify the votes in absolute precision and automated tabulation systems. The certified results are now published and downloadable in our website. And under California law, the register of voter certification is final and legally binding. The structure step is the cornerstone of a local democracy and reassures the voters that the process was fair and transparent and enables the system of transfer of power and enables and empowers elected officials constitutionally to assume their duties. Therefore, staff respectfully recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the filing and adopt resolution number 202686.

Thank you very much. Can we go to public comment?

If you'd like, sorry, if you'd like to make a comment in chambers, please provide a speaker card. On Zoom, please press star 9 or the raised hand icon. And in chambers, we'll start with Celeste Bocanegra.

Good morning, San Benito County voters recall Supervisor Ignacio Velazquez. So today I'm speaking for the group. Public Safety First, Committee to Recall Supervisor Velazquez issued the following statement after San Benito County voters successfully recalled District 5 Supervisor Ignacio Velazquez. The election department certified the vote with a final tally of 1,312 yes votes. to 1,279 no votes. This victory belongs to the voters of District Five. comment by co-chair Stacey McGrady said, residents stood up for the public's safety, transparency and accountability, accountable leadership. They rejected the politics of fear, division and personal attacks. Most importantly, they made clear that elected officials work for the people, not the other way. The recall began after months of frustration over the county's handling of fire service negotiations, public safety funding, and what many residents viewed as a broader pattern of dismissing public input. Throughout the campaign, voters repeatedly raised concerns about fire protection, emergency response, fiscal priorities, growth policy, and trust in local government. Quote, this recall was never about politics as usual, end quote, co-chair Kelly Lomanto-Dominguez said. Quote, it was about the fundamentals keeping families safe, respecting and listening to the public, funding critical services, and restoring civility and trust in county government, end quote. Despite a campaign of attacks against recall supporters, petition circulators, and community members, District 5 voters made their voices heard. Committee members knocked on doors, gathered signatures, answered questions, and stood firm through months of pressure and misinformation. Quote, we are grateful to every voter who signed the petition, opened a door, made a phone call, donated, volunteered, or simply refused to be intimidated. Campaign treasurer said, this was a grassroots effort powered by residents who love this community and believe San Benito County deserves better. The committee said, The results should serve as a wake up call for the county leaders. The message from voters is clear. Public safety must come first. Government must be transparent. Leaders must listen and no elected officials should ever use their position to attack the very people they were elected to serve. This is not the end of the story. It is the beginning of a new chapter for District 5 and the Sabanito County. Now we must come together and heal division created by years of... face politics, and choose leadership that is honest, collaborative, and focused on...

Excuse me, just to be fair to everyone, thank you.

Next in chambers, Esther Perez.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am the co-chair of New California State, San Benito County. The sheriff was served, Francisco was served, and all of you were served to not certify this election. The dirty voter rolls are not clean. There's phantom voters in District 4, which Francisco and I discussed, and he agreed that there was a problem and that he was working on it, okay? I have a roommate that went to the DMV, to renew his license. And what they did is they, he was a registered Democrat. They registered him. They changed his paperwork and made him into a registered Democrat. And he's a Republican. He was a Republican. He refuses to vote. The voter rolls are not clean. There are non-citizens on the voter rolls. There's no voter ID. Anybody could go to DMV and get a license and then they're automatically registered through DMV. that our elections need an overhaul. And I recommend you do not approve this election because if it does, you're approving fraud. There's evidence of the fraud, whether you people want to realize it or accept it or not, that is your decision. But I'm letting you know that this election is not It's not fair. As far as the recall goes, this is the second recall for Ignacio. The first recall failed because there was missing information in the intent of recall. Same situation five years later. There's missing information in that intent of recall with the city and the zip. So that should not have been approved by the elections department. And I ask you to not approve this election. Thank you.

That concludes public comment.

Thank you, bring it back to the board. Are there any comments, questions? If not, we will retain the motion as staff recommended, unless there's questions, comments.

If we're moving forward with the motion of staff recommended, I don't need to make any comments, but if there is any reason we're not, I have comments.

Okay, I, okay, is there? Okay, do you wanna move forward then?

Okay, then I'll make a motion to approve per staff's recommendations.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Thank you. Can we have roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Zenger? Yes. Supervisor Kosmicki?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Curro? Yes. 4-0 vote. Motion passes.

Great. Thank you. All right. Moving on to our next agenda, item 3F.

Mr. Chair, Board of Supervisors, for my second item, I'm here to present agenda item 3F regarding the calling and consolidation of a special election to fill a vacancy on this board. Following the formal certification on June 26, the recall supervisor Velasquez was successful creating an immediate vacancy for District 5. Pursuing to government code section 25061, the supervisory vacancy must be filled by the voters at the next general election. Therefore, staff is recommending that the board adopt resolution number 202687, This resolution formally calls for a special election to be held on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2026, to fill the unexpired remaining term of the vacancy and orders its consolidation in the statewide general election occurring on the same day. Consolidating this race is critically important. Under Elections Code Section 10-400 and 10-401, it allows us to leverage our existing, fully-funded general election infrastructure that includes both centers, equipment, and poll workers. As a result, the county will only incur a minimal cost for the district-specific ballot printing and translation services, which will be easily observed with our approved fiscal year, or to be approved fiscal budget of 2026-2027. For prospective candidates, the statutory timelines are already moving. Signatures in lieu petitions have become available as of yesterday, June 29. And the formal window to file a declaration of candidacy and nomination papers will open on July 13 and will close on August 7. Our office will publish a comprehensive candidate handbook in our website by the end of this week. And staff recommends that the board adopt resolution number 202687 to ensure that we remain straight compliance with state law by calling and consolidating the vacancy with the November 3rd, 2026 election, and also to safeguard and protect taxpayers' dollars.

Thank you. Public comment on this?

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.

Thank you. Any comments, questions from the board? Mr. Ruggiero?

Is there any requirement to notify the governor of the vacancy?

There is a requirement to notify the government that ultimately is something that can be discussed by county council.

It doesn't have to be done by the board?

It has to be done by the board.

Right, so is that part of this?

Mr. Chair, members of the board, supervisors, there are a number of actions that the board must consider and take in response to this vacancy. And so I will be preparing a report which will come to this board on August 11th, detailing all of those actions, not the least of which is electing a new vice chair. And within the series of actions that the board must take. It also includes ordering or directing the chair to notify the governor's appointment secretary of the vacancy. Thank you.

Is there a time requirement on notification? August 11th seems, I was assuming it was going to be part of today's agenda.

There is no time requirement as far as notification to the governor. There's also no time requirement as to the governor making an appointment should he decide to do so.

Okay, thank you.

I have no further questions. Thank you. Any other questions, comments from the board? Okay. Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to adopt the resolution calling for special election November 3rd to fill the unexpired remaining term order and consolidation of said special election and otherwise as stated.

Is there a second? I'll second. Can we have roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Zenger? Yes.

Yes.

Supervisor Kozmicki?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Curro? Yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have 3G, the budget, but I was told we need a break before we get into that, like a long 10-minute break, 5-minute break, something like that, a short break before we get into the next item. Thank you. Okay, we are back from our break. Going to get into item 3G, the budget. CEO.

Good morning. We are back for the presentation to the board regarding the budget. The interim budget, as mentioned before, until the books are closed for the fiscal year 2025-2026, we will not have exact numbers of how we ended the last fiscal year. And that's what is called a proposed interim budget for the next year. And the importance of having this budget is to continue operations. A failure to have a proposed budget approved by the board it really shuts down the whole system. So that's the premises of today's presentation. I do want to begin the presentation. I have several items and I just want to do some corrections to the items. Number one, the District Attorney's The disclosure of the budget has been added to the board agenda, to the list. It was missing. Each one of you have a copy, and there's additional copies on the back, but it's basically just a printout of whatever they submitted into the budget, and all the numbers are the same in the budget as well. I also want to, I added two items at the request of the board, and that's for the sheriff's departments and also for parks, a concern that we have regarding the parks. But I would like more than anything to begin the presentation with measure D as requested by the board. If I can have Abraham to come and present to you, thanks. Let's see my measure D.

Thank you so much, CEO Esperanza. Mr. Chair, members of the board, Abraham Prado, Director of Planning and Building Services. Good morning. As Esperanza indicated, today I will provide you with a brief overview of Measure D. And the measure allows for the board to essentially set a tax rate per acre. ranging from $1,000 to $10,000 on cultivation for cannabis. Revenue generated by the tax will support essential services such as law enforcement, fire protection, and other general governmental needs. The ballot title for Measure D which was approved by the voters states as follows. With cannabis cultivation allowed in San Miguel County but not generating tax revenue, shall an ordinance be adopted to amend Article 5 of Chapter 5.03 of the code to adjust the county's cannabis business tax rate in the unincorporated area by adjusting the current rate to $8,000 to $10,000 per acre rate with revenue for general fund services like law enforcement, fire protection, road improvements, and other essential community needs without raising taxes on residents. It is important to note that Measure D does not impose additional taxes on county residents. Instead, it applies to commercial cannabis cultivation operations within the unincorporated areas of the County of San Benito. Section 7.02050F, Cannabis Business Permit of the San Bernardino County Code. Total canopy limits for all commercial cultivation activities in the entirety of San Bernardino County shall be a maximum of 500 acres as of January 1st, 2020. For the following three years, the total canopy limits shall increase an additional 500 acres per year, not to exceed 2000 acres of total canopy after January 1st, 2028. Therefore, the countywide canopy cap through 2026 this year is 1,000 acres. The county approved acres through today, June 30th, 2026, is 875.49 acres, as indicated in the slide above. The county plus the Department of Cannabis Control license approved acres in San Pedro County is currently 778.31 acres. It's important to note that only applicants with both county and state approval may cultivate. As a result, 778.31 of the 875.49 approved acres are currently eligible for cultivation. The state requires that the county first approves before they can consider approval. But the applicant can be submitted concurrently with the county and the state. And the remaining county approved acres awaiting state license consists of 97.18 acres currently in process with the state. Remaining county acres eligible for processing in 2026 is 124.43. And the county acres with pending applications of those 124.43 is 54.43 acres at the moment. So with Measure D, the revenue forecast scenarios in this presentation consist of one, the revenue potential based on currently licensed acres, two, revenue potential at the 2026 countywide canopy cap of 1,000 acres, Three, revenue potential at the 2027 countywide canopy cap at 1500 acres. And then the fourth scenario would be on revenue potential at the 2028 countywide canopy cap of 2000 acres. It's important to note that the forecast assumes full utilization of licensed acreage and canopy caps were applicable. And also it's important to note that measure D requires the board to adopt the resolution establishing the cultivation tax rate within the voter range, which in my conversations with county council, that'll be coming at your next regular meeting in August. With that, forecast number one. In this first forecast, we are looking at Measure D revenue potential based on currently licensed acres, which consists of 778.31 acres, as indicated. And as we can see, at the $1,000 per acre rate, revenue would be approximately $778,000. At $2,000 per acre, revenue would be approximately $1.5 million. At $3,000 per acre, revenue would reach approximately $2.3 million and so forth. In the second forecast, we are looking at revenue potential at the 2026 countywide canopy cap, which consists of 1,000 acres, and at $1,000 per acre, revenue would be approximately $1 million. At $2,000 per acre, revenue would be approximately $2 million, and at $3,000 per acre, revenue would be approximately $3 million, and so forth. With the 1,500 acres that would be allowed in 2027 for cultivation at $1,000 per acre, revenue would be approximately $1.5 million. At $2,000 per acre, $3 million. And at $3,000 per acre, $4.5 million and so forth. And in this fourth forecast scenario, we're looking at revenue potential. At the 2028 countywide canopy, which consists of 2000 acres and at $1,000 tax rate per acre, the revenue projected would be at $2 million. At $2,000 tax rate per acre, the revenue projected would be $4 million. And at $3,000 per acre, the revenue projected forecast is at 6 million approximately. I would like to reiterate that the previous forecast scenarios presented assume cultivation at the full approved canopy acreage. It's very important to note that these projections represent maximum potential tax revenue based on full utilization of a canopy acreage. due to various factors such as cost of a state license, market conditions, demand, operational readiness, and the weather. Cultivators may face an approved canopy over multiple growing seasons and years. Accordingly, actual tax revenues may be realized gradually as cultivation acreage increases towards full approved capacity. And to summarize, Measure D provides for the Board of Supervisors to set the cultivation tax rate within the voter range by resolution, which again, should be coming before you at your regular meeting of August. Measure D presents an opportunity for San Bernardino County to generate revenue from an existing industry operating within the county. The measure provides the opportunity to establish tax rates to balance industry viability with the county's need to fund essential services and potential revenues will support public safety, fire protection, infrastructure improvements, and other governmental services without increasing taxes on county residents. This concludes my presentation and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Abraham. You're welcome. Questions from the board at this time? Mr. Rosicrow?

Abraham, thank you so much for the presentation. I just wanna make sure I understand how it's collected. You made the note about, please note it's based on licensing, product demand, operational readiness, weather. So if you're approving cultivation in 100 acres, at what point is that tax revenue recognized? The reason I'm asking is if you approve an applicant and they don't grow, is there no tax revenue coming in? And what is to stop people from getting those licenses? And how are we making sure that the people that are going to bring in the tax dollars actually are?

Very good question. Thank you so much, Supervisor Karo. Technically, the applicants have indicated that around April, May, June is when they start planting the seeds for cultivation. And then for cultivation purposes, we're looking at approximately September or so, August, September, October pretty much for cultivation. And so therefore, my understanding is that at that point when cultivation occurs, is when the operator will then be required to pay their taxes on the cultivated cannabis.

And so do we have any stipulation or protections of people getting licenses and not cultivating?

The second part of your question, thank you for that. That's very important. At this time, we do not have regulations or requirements in our county code that indicates whether or not we as a county are required to have them cultivate all of the acreage or the canopy that they were approved for with the county and the state. The concern is that if any of these listed concerns for the operator occur, that they may not be able to utilize their full approval of the canopy. So we do not at this time have any type of regulations that prohibits the operator to cultivate anything less than they were approved for.

So if that's something that maybe we need to look at in the future and making sure that if they are receiving an approved application from the county, that if they fail to cultivate, there is some sort of a, you lose it if you're not using it and we then can move it over because of our limits, move it over to someone that would be using it, which would bring in those tax dollars. I just wanna make sure that we're putting in wording that is ensuring that we get cultivation, which means money.

Mr. Chair and members of the Board of Supervisors, I'd like to indicate to you that we are in the process of preparing the ordinance to implement Measure D. We are also preparing a resolution which would set the tax rate. So that will be coming to you on August 11th for introduction, the first reading of the ordinance, the resolution to set the tax rate. And we will also review and consider Supervisor Kuro's comments as to whether or not, to what extent we can include that language in the ordinance, which we're bringing forward to you on August 11th for your consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Those were my questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, I share a lot of the same concerns that Supervisor Curro just brought up. I'm curious, how does it work with the state? So when they get their county approval and then they go to the state and they get approved for that, when are they paying the state or how does it work with the state? If you submit for 100 acres with the county, get that approved, so then you take it to the state hoping to get your license for 100 acres, when are they paying that?

Thank you for that question, Supervisor Sotelo. The applicant or the operator is able to submit an application concurrently with the county and the state. The State Department of Cannabis Control requires that first the cultivation application for the county is approved. but they are reviewing it concurrently. It's my understanding. And at that point, they continue to review after they're notified that the county has approved. And we keep them in the loop along with all the other agencies or responsible agencies. We keep them in the loop in regards to the processing of our application. And then once the approval from the county occurs, then the Department of Cannabis Control essentially finalizes a review and are able to consider whether or not they will issue the license. But my understanding is that at the submittal of the application to the state is when the operator would have to pay their application with the state.

Okay. So they have to pay it to the state, but the county were saying, no, you don't have to pay us until the end of the season. And what happens if, they're approved for 100 acres and their crop, I don't know, rain comes at a bad time or something like that, something destroys their crop. Is ours kind of like, do we have, is there something in ours that we're only collecting the revenue if they have a good crop? Is that how our ordinance is written? Do we know? Do we know?

That's a good question. My understanding, kind of similar to the response to Supervisor Crowe's question, similar, is that it would depend on the actual cultivation, what they cultivate. So in essence, if they are having a bad year, the weather or any other factors occurs with you know, with their operation. It may be that even though a operator has a license for 100 acres and they're planting 100 acres, but eventually they only cultivate 50 because of weather or whatnot. So we're only collecting on the 50.

But the state is gonna collect on the full 100.

My understanding is that the state collects on their application, at the application for when the operator applies. And I would have to get back to you in regards to any collection that the state obtains from the actual cultivation.

And I mean, I believe their application is, is it 17,000 an acre? Am I understanding that correctly from the state?

My understanding is that it is a very hefty fee. I would have to confirm with that, but my understanding is that it is very high, yeah.

Okay, thank you. So is there a time limit for someone? Let's say I go in and I get approved for 100 acres. Realistically, I'm just kind of building my business. It's gonna take me five years to get to 100, but I wanna lock up that acreage right now so that nobody else can have it. Do we have a time limit on how long? Like, okay, you've got one year. If you don't get up to that full acreage that you wanted, then... Sorry, am I getting too in the weeds?

No, you're absolutely not getting too in the weeds. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the Board of Supervisors. I'm Rebecca Mojica with the County Council's Office. And as Greg indicated earlier, part of... what the county has been looking at now that this program has been running for over a year is there are rooms for improvement, such as places where if they have not been cultivating or are not able to obtain their licensing, different ways the county can ensure that it is being produced for us to have revenue on these grounds. And as Greg indicated, something for us to come back with would be potential discussion for the board for considerations. And that's something that the planning department has already been discussing with me and will be coming back before the board.

Okay, great, thank you. Just a couple more questions. And I know we're gonna probably dive deep into this in August, right? Is there a maximum acreage for one cultivator?

We do not have that right now stated in the ordinance. It's essentially at a first come first serve basis that we review.

Do other counties have like a max per or is it kind of a free for all? It just seems like, I don't know, I could see both ways, but I'm just curious, is there lessons for us to learn from other counties that have already been doing this? And should we be thinking about that? And I only ask it, you don't have to have an answer today, but I only ask it so that when you come back in August, hopefully some of those things are kind of considered. Rebecca, do you wanna, I see you standing back there.

Yes, that is something that we are looking at in other jurisdictions and we'll be bringing for board discussion and consideration.

Thank you. My last question to you, Abraham, and then I'll save the rest of it for August. Is there a fee when somebody applies to the county? Do we charge them a fee or are we only charging the fee upon that at the end of their growing season on that cultivation fee that we will be establishing in August? Or is there a pre-application fee for the permitting?

yes there is also a fee for the permitting because there is a lot of work that goes into the processing we get the application we do a review to make sure that it conforms to what's being requested and if it's not fully applied to or if it's not If the application is incomplete, then we will send a notice of incomplete, let them know what else we need in order for us to be able to consider it complete. We send it to all the different responsible agencies, including Caltrans, all of our state agencies, all of our local agencies, fire department, sheriff's department for review and comment. And so because of that process, we have established a fee at the submittal of the application as well.

Okay, thank you, I really appreciate that. Those are my questions for now, thank you. Thank you.

Any questions? I don't have anything else, so.

Oh, go ahead. I just wanna make sure that we're covering all of our bases. We have an application fee. The state has an application fee, an annual fee, and a cultivation fee. Do we have those three things and is that being addressed in the ordinance that's gonna be coming forward? I just wanna make sure that those are on the radar because you have an application, at the state level, based on their cultivation levels, they have an annual fee plus a cultivation fee. So just keep that in mind when we're reviewing what comes in August, thank you.

Thank you so much, yes. Thanks everyone, thank you.

Yes.

Thank you Abraham for the presentation. So now we're gonna move forward with the roads and bridge CIP budget projects. We wanna present those because when you approve this budget today, the proposed interim budget, we also have to continue with CIP projects that are non-general fund. And I want to reiterate the board, there are no general fund projects other than the library. No general fund projects. So all of them are being funded by different funding sources. Thank you.

Good morning or afternoon. Adolfo Gonzalez, consulting engineer and manager with Public Works. And today I will be presenting to you the fiscal year 25-26 proposed roads and bridges budget projects. In the first section, we have the Federal Highway Administration bridge investment program projects that were previously funded and that we are requesting, that we're proposing funding for this particular year. As you can see, we have, for example, Lime Kiln Road, which is... That project there is in the closeout stages, and we are requesting $50,000 to continue with the closeout stages so that we can retain a contractor and continue that process. Hospital Bridge. that we are requesting $15,000 for the plant mitigation monitoring process to ensure that the plants have established and again, continue with the final reporting and closing out of that project. ends our bridge.

Excuse me, just really quickly. Yes. Do we want to go through each of these like this or do we, if we have questions you want to ask? Because I don't know if we want to make them go through every single item on the slide here. It might be better if we just, we can see it. If we have questions, we can address those issues or do whatever the board wants to do.

I have questions. My question is what was attached to the agenda does not match what we were handed this morning. And I'm seeing that there are changes in certain areas and i'm just trying to understand um where the transparency is for the public and making sure that everyone understands what's changed that's what i'd like to hear is the what's changed thank you uh so what's attached to the agenda is slightly different because uh i accidentally omitted two columns which are highlighted in yellow can you see

The two columns highlighted in yellow were accidentally omitted in what was attached to the agenda. And I wanted to make sure that for full transparency, you could see those two yellow columns. The first one, it was a previously 25-26 adopted budget. The second column is what was spent on those projects. And of course, the columns in blue are the proposed budget requests and the funding sources.

I think there's more changes than just that. If you look at under Measure G, under Measure G online, it only has 1.5 million for two projects, which are listed as Cienega Road and Carr Avenue. On the one handed to us, it has an additional $400,000 for San Juan Highway improvements. And then, I mean, I've only been able to catch a couple of the, So the next one would be the traffic impact fees. There was a change there. It appears on Cienega Road between Mudstone Ranch and Bird Creek. It went up, which I'm not gonna complain because it's my district. So I'm just making sure it's publicly known that we need to upload this so the public has what is actually being presented to the board.

And my understanding is that this will be uploaded so that it's the most current version.

I just want to make sure that that gets done. And because I was reviewing last night and the day before based on what was online. So the bottom line difference is it was online, it says $50,492,555 and change. The one we are handed is $45,475,015. And that's... a $5 million shift, just making sure that we're all aware there's $5 million that we have missing that was shown to the public as funding.

And it's not that it's missing, it was just an error in the mathematical calculations and where some of the funding sources were coming from what was shown as available, which actually wasn't available. So part of the process that I went through with this spreadsheet here is confirming the funding sources, for example, ensuring that the highway bridge projects, we had the funding that was being shown here. So I had to do some digging and correct some of these figures.

In the future, I would just like it to be like a list that shows the difference so that it's transparent to the public that changes have occurred. This is where I messed up basically two years ago because I didn't get down into every single line and things were not in the budget that were previously in the budget. So I want the transparency for the public to be as open as possible so that we know the money's there, we know the funding's there, and we know the project's gonna move forward. I appreciate all the work you've done. This is, you've stepped in in a very rough time, nothing against you. I just want our future to be set. And when we say we're funding something, it's not just we're funding it this year so we can put it on a list. We're funding it. We have plans for construction and we're constructing it. That's where I want to be. So thank you so much. I appreciate it.

So just for clarification, right now we are going off of our paper copy, not the one that's online.

That is correct.

Okay. Is there a way that we can get the paper copy up on the screen so that the public? Oh, that is the corrected one. Okay, so what I'm looking on my, okay, sorry, because what I'm looking, I have it up on my computer too. So my computer's incorrect. So I need to just pay attention to the screen and the printout in front of me.

Okay. And just for clarification, they cannot upload this information on the website right now because we're in the meeting. So once we complete the meeting, the updated one is gonna be posted on the website.

Okay, thank you. It's just, I can't see the printout, nor can I see it up on the screen. So it's a little bit difficult. That's why I've got the other one expanded really big on my computer to kind of look at the numbers. So, okay, just want to be clear on that. Thank you.

Thank you. All good. Okay, well, so then is there any other questions on anything else on the list at this point? I guess we can't see it. So I guess would you guys like to have him go through the list then?

Honestly, Mr. Chair, if I may. Yes. I just want to point out that if you go into general fund and benefit fees, we had stated that there was no general fund. I'm not sure if that's nothing being funded from the general fund. I guess this is the remaining for the past project or the... because it was 500,000 for San Juan Canyon on our handout, and that 500,000 was not originally on the budget, the electronic version, I'll say that. And then it was 1 million for Salinas Road on our current one, and the one online is 500,000. I just, I'm just concerned that it would just be really nice if we could see where all of these changes are. So I know there's half a million there. If you go to the one just above that, which is, what's the description of this one? It is showing total grant projects, so it's per fiscal year. It's showing 21,490,000 and previously it was at 27 million. I think that's where the majority of the money has been removed. And so if we could just review where those changes occurred It looks like it occurred between the SS, the Safer Streets Act grant of 2024, because that's where the majority of the changes are.

We could just highlight that area. I'm seeing it, that it looks to me like it's the King City Road reconstruction for $5.6 million. That was what was posted online. And then I'm not seeing allocation for it on our handout.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, if I may.

On my handout, I'm showing if we look at, yeah, at King City, it looks like it's 11, if I'm not reading. Oh, that's a subtotal, sorry. Yeah, the King City is blank and it has no line.

Okay, for clarification purposes, on the line item, general fund benefits fees, which is the last item, I think I mentioned it beginning the meeting that one project, which is the $1 million for San Juan Highway actually has been completed. We put it over there because we haven't finished the payments. Yes, the $500,000 is for the Fairview, for the Union Road pending change orders that we are challenging those with the construction companies. So we have that funding allocated over there for that purpose. It's not a new project, those two projects are being completed. We just put the money, so we transfer them from the last year fiscal year to this year so that we can have it ready for it. But there's no general fund projects. Perfect. Mr. Chair, if I may, I'm sorry.

I appreciate that and that makes sense to me. The King City Road, which is actually Bitterwater King City, which had 5,600,000 in the one that was online is now none.

Okay, I see what you're saying. So remember that when we had the discussion for the CDBG program,

There was the extra money.

We mentioned $11.4 million being the allocation for the County of San Benito based on the disaster. However, on conversations with the state, we were, We requested if there was additional funding because we have so many more roads. And the state and us agreed that we would ask the board a resolution for $70 million to include $5 million if $5 million are available at the end of all the distribution of funds. And for whatever reason, someone didn't perform the work or something that we can get those additional $5 million. So I know that it's supposed to be there, but it's not a for sure amount that we're gonna receive as a potential,

Can we note that? Since we have notes on all these other projects, can we please note that that is the first priority if that additional funding comes in? I feel like it's just eliminating it. I understand that it's not guaranteed, but I wanna make sure that it's first in line if there's additional funding.

So we're gonna add a note at the end of the spreadsheet where the comments are that depending on whatever is available in the state, maybe they will only have a million and $2 million available. We're gonna go for that funding no matter what.

Right. I just want on the bidder and it should be Bitterwater King City Road because it is Bitterwater King City and just have it in the notes to the right also with whatever footnote you wanna make.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Supervisor Sotelo, Cosmickey, do you have any other questions about the list we have here or not? Okay, well, we have those notes. Continue on.

Okay, so now we have, next one is the parks funding. So you have the previous presentation of parks funding available. So let me go through. I have them both. Yes, yes. And I have Salman available to go over the list because we need an explanation. No, that, yeah, it's Prishi. Yeah, it's Prishi, thank you. Salman is gonna provide you with an update.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the board. My name is Aman Kazmi, Capital Program Manager with Public Works Department, and I'm here to provide a presentation on the Capital Improvement Projects, Facilities, and Parks for fiscal year 26-27. So here are several sections. I can go over each section and I'm willing to provide additional details on any project that you may need. But first section includes the general fund projects. As CEO mentioned, are allocating 2.9 million for the library project. And the remaining general fund projects, the budget is unidentified as mentioned in the notes. So with the exception of library project, we are not funding any. with the general funds. The second section is the projects in progress from non-general fund sources. There are several projects that are being progressed, and also there's a column where it stated what we spent on fiscal year 26, 27, sorry, 25, 26, some of those projects. Section number three, new non-general fund projects for fiscal year 26, 27, and the cost is about $561,000. For park projects, there are several projects as well on the parks. However, the funding would need to be confirmed by the board based on the board priorities for the park impact funds. As the total of the park impact fund is 7.9 million, as we know, we do not have that money available in the account. So we may have to work on the numbers that what is the board priority for the park projects. I have Linda Young, CSA coordinator available on Zoom if any additional details on any of the CFD projects is needed.

Thank you. Is there any further information? No, please go ahead.

I apologize, but I'm looking at on your slide that's attached to the agenda. park budget and grants available park impact fees. That's only park impact fees. And I'm looking at Sunnyside Park Development and it's $2.2 million. Making sure I'm on this right. It's $2.2 million. Funding source is 1.8 million on my hard copy sheet. And on that list, it shows state grant funding, 400,000, and then park impact fees, 300,000. And that's where you get the 1.5 million. But where's the 1.8 that's on this sheet? I'm not seeing where the numbers are matching. So I'm looking at, it says park funding, PowerPoint presentation. It's the attachment right under. Yep, that one.

Correct, so the presentation provided last week, which includes 1.5 million for the Sunnyside Park. However, this list that is currently on the screen stated $1.8 million from the grant. park impact funds and $400,000 from the state grant. The reason behind the difference is initially in 2021, the board approved $300,000 from park impact funds to support the Sunnyside project. So with $300,000 from park impact funds and $400,000 from state grant, we do have available $700,000 for park impact funds as $300,000 was committed in 2021 when we applied for the grant. However, this $300,000 would not be sufficient as to support the projects, so we do need additional $1.5 million based on the current plans to complete the project, if that answers your question.

Well, it's just the same thing with the roads. What was in the PowerPoint presentation and what I'm being handed are different. I want in the future, we need to be able to see what the differences are so that I can make an informed decision because if it had flipped the other way, I mean, this is what you've handed me benefits my district. I just don't feel it's completely transparent about where the differences have occurred from the PowerPoint presentation that we were provided for agenda review. And that's pretty much my questions right now. I believe other supervisors may have other questions.

For transparency, what we can do, we can include in the comments or in the notes section that $300 million was committed in 2021 from Park Impact Funds and additional 1.5 million would be needed. Again, from parking by funds.

But what we're approving, if we're approving is what's in our hand, not what's online.

We'll come back to that discussion. I'll come back to that discussion a little bit later during my budget presentation. I'll come back to that discussion.

Okay. Yes.

Just kind of a clarifying question. We've had a lot of public comment in regards to the Sunnyside Park and promises that were made to them, et cetera, living in this development. And I'm just curious, do you have the amount that, what I want the community to understand is that when they, are in a development like this, how much actually came from that development for this park? Because what happens is it's not enough to build the park. So we have to wait years to build up that park impact fund to be able to build this park, right? So it's not a lack of us wanting to do it, et cetera. It's that we just don't have the revenue. And so I think people come in thinking we just haven't done our part, but we've been waiting and building up this accumulated, accumulated funds essentially. And so I'm just curious if you know, what is the amount of money that came from that development?

I do not know exactly what was came from the development, but I do recall there was a board action on the same 2021 board meeting where the $300,000 was allocated to the Sunnyside Park, that $300,000 will be coming from Bennet Ranch to begin to the parking background. But I need to do a search on that, how much was allocated to the project.

Okay, so it was about $300,000 from that development. But the total park is going to cost about $2.2 million. That is right. Okay, thank you. Just wanted to clarify. Thank you.

Thank you. Anything else from the board on this slide?

Okay. So for clarification purposes again, what Salmon was looking into it is that in order to complete the Sunnyside Park, an additional $1.5 million has to be committed, which if you see the number over there, $1.8 million is nothing but the difference of the $300,000 already committed. This spreadsheet, I will make this amendment that doesn't imply that automatically $1.5 million has to be committed to that project. That's a discussion that I would like to have with you in a few minutes during my board presentation because we have other issues that are a huge liability for the county and that I need to address to you in a few minutes. So with the exception of that item, Everything else is fair. And that's gonna be the request for your approval today to continue with those projects that are non-general fund besides the library, which is general fund.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you.

So let me go back to, so now we're gonna start, I think, the presentation for, okay. So here we are again. Good afternoon. Again, it's Esperanza Colio, the CEO for the county. And since we don't have finance director, so I'm gonna make the presentation myself. So as you heard before, we have all those presentations regarding the impact fees, the projects in the parks and everything. The same snapshot from the last presentation is the same. We have a balanced budget and part of the explanation, but we have an upside down, a shortage on the other area, which I'm gonna go through it right now. This slide, I want you to continue keeping an eye on the reserves. On the reserve, we are upside down. So I just want to clarify that one before any decision is made today because it's gonna impact our general fund reserves. And so I wanna go back to, let me see, the other way around. How do I go back? Okay, so in a nutshell, this is the entire budget by departments. As you can see, some of the numbers change. The differences are lowered now, and we have some departments work with us to lower the amount of expenditures, and I do appreciate very much everybody's willingness to make it work through the budget. This budget was very conservative. And there are some additional positions which I'm gonna go through it. And the reason of those general fund positions is number one, as you may recall, one of the intentions of changing the budgets in the future and ensuring that we're meeting deadlines, as mentioned over and over, that we have been able to complete the projects that were proposed for years and years over and over. And so in order to do that, I think everything starts with the financing department. One of the challenges that the RMA department has is that at one point in time, they merged planning and building department. But what they did, they merged also the financing department. So now you have one person in charge of both department trying to figure out which one is the priority for that department. And so in order to fix those issues, we have come with the idea of separating the departments completely and there will be no longer RMA. We're eliminating the RMA director and we have now a director of planning department and a director for public works department. At the same time, if you see in those positions, you have individuals that are going to be doing their finances for those specific departments. There will not be a mix of both of them because that's what has created so much controversy in the departments in regards to the finances. It's so confusing. So we want to prevent that in the future. We want to have our numbers correct. And so this budget includes this A positions that you see in this slide show. And it's only A for full-time positions. Non-general fund, we included the assessors as a non-general fund, but we also included a type of position just to ensure that this is a limited term position where the other ones are permanent positions. So we made that correction and it's already there. So now we have 10 positions. So we have a total of 18 positions. And that kind of tells you the story about yes, We, you were put in a difficult position last year to do what you needed to do to kind of like put together the budget again. And you start working towards the future. This is not the end of that work. This is just the beginning. But it's the first breathe that we have after going through a hard process before. And you can see that the finances are coming together, little by little. It's not the end, but we're getting there. In regards to the sheriff's proposals, we run the numbers and I have available HR department now that is gonna come on in a few minutes. But we have all those, we work over the weekend to have all those numbers to get this for you. If the sheriff's department's proposals, it's approved today, he will be able to save a million dollars and $5,000. So part of the request from Supervisor Kosmicki was longevity. You addressed that issue about longevity and then also what is longevity for the vacant position to be filled as well and versus the ones that are occupied right now. So on the top on the right side, you will see the ones that are currently occupied by staff and then next ones are for the future employees. This is the hardest one to understand because we had to compare two different situations. Number one, it's just medical. If you go through the entire medical services, it'll be a 654 for $548,000. And this is, for 24 pay periods, medical, dental, and vision. But that's the way that it's calculated at the Sheriff's Department because they work 84 hours a week. So just keep that in mind. It's not just a regular, it's just slightly different. With that, the vision and the dental, you're looking at $606,694. So that's the slight difference, about $50,000 to provide the medical and the vision. And so in the next slide, you're gonna have, the incentives for the new hires. And I understand the County Council has some concerns regarding my previous comment, regarding giving the incentives on an annual basis. And I just want clarification about that, because what I seen is the following. If you were to hire two additional individuals at the Sheriff's Department, deputies, and one as a correctional officer, then you have $10,000 for the two sheriffs, $5,000 for each one, and $5,000 for the corrections. You can split the $25,000 into the five years and I wanna make sure that I'm in the right track because I believe that's the best way to do it rather than giving the money upfront and then maybe losing the person in the next two years. So I wanna prevent and use our funding the best that we can by giving the incentives on an annual basis, $5,000 for the next five years. but that's up to the board to decide. The other item that I have for you is the night shift differential for individuals that work at night. We presented this to you with all the individuals that are working together right now at the department, and that'll be about a, $5,500 on a weekly basis, and $40,000 throughout the year for 26 weeks. Now, I know the numbers might sound confusing, but this is the best way that I can put it together for you. So we have $1 million in savings. If we were to freeze, and I wanna be very careful about the uses of language here, we are freezing the positions. We're not deleting the positions. The positions will remain, but they will not be funded. If funding becomes available throughout the year, those positions can be filled. But I want you to be aware that it's just freezing the positions. For medical services and dental, it'll be $654, as you can see. And for medical only, it's $606,000. So that's the largest spreadsheet that I show you, the difference between one and the other one. So medical doesn't include vision and dental. The night shift differential is the same, so is the longevity for current employees, longevity for new employees, and the bonus for new hires, which are only three positions. So now you have a potential savings of 158 with option number one and $206,000 with option number two. Now, I wanna be cautious about how I explain this. By freezing five positions, My concern is gonna be the following. You're gonna have to incur an overtime. So I would recommend that whatever decision you make today, that those amounts remains available for the Sheriff's Department, those 158 or $206,000, because you will have more overtime because you have less staff. And if a troll needs to be covered, then the Sheriff's Department will continue having that cushion to be able to pay for that overtime. I also wanna mention that the budget that was presented to you as a balanced budget includes the salaries and everything, all this shared proposal, I'm sorry, the shared proposal is already included in the budget. meaning we're not adding additional funds for the sheriff's proposal. He's doing it between his own department with his own funding that he has available already as the proposed budget. So we're not adding any additional funds. If you decide to go today for this item, there will be no additional use of fund reserves or anything else. It is contained into the department's budget. So these are the, the sheriff and I have several discussions about before we started the process. And so we wanna make sure that you understand, and this is for everybody in the public, that the intention of this proposal is to address an emergency, a crisis on the sheriff's department. A crisis must be treated differently because you're running into the risk of not providing patrolling. And that's something that we cannot afford as a community. The jail expansion, as you may know, has been a challenge to hire correctional officers in that facility. We actually have one facility that is not operatable and we are out of compliance with the state because of the lack of correctional officers to comply. So I wanna make sure that we all understand that this is an emergency situation. This is gonna be based on a crisis situation. This is not a negotiation. This is something that we need to do as a community. So that's for the budget, the sheriff's proposals. In regards to the parks, you have this parks in a nutshell from the other spreadsheet. Did you wanna go back before we move? Okay, you wanna do it a space by space. Okay, perfect. So let me go back to this so you can make a decision which option you would like to hear or if you have any other additional questions. Thank you.

Okay, questions, comments from the supervisors on this?

I was just going to take it later as a whole because we already went through so many items. hear the public comments on this before we get too far into it. But if you wanna wait, then I'll wait to hold my comments and can do it at the end then. I like it in bite-sized pieces a little bit more, but if you wanna wait until the end, I respectfully will wait until the end. I'd really like to hear the public comments and ask some questions.

Yeah, my plan was to go through the presentation and then go through the public comment at the end and then go through it. If that's acceptable, we can do that.

So what I can do is I can go through the whole, it's almost done, through the whole presentation and then go back to the individual approvals that I need from you today. Right. Okay, that's good. Thank you. So in regards to the parks, as I mentioned before, a total of the impact, park impact funds are available at $6.2 million. However, out of those funds, $3.6 million has been already committed. And that's what the difference was coming from the other spreadsheet. It says $1.8 million in impact fees, but actually is to fund the additional gap funding that is $1.5 million. Before you have this presentation before, but I just want to mention the following. And I put it in red letters to get your attention in regards to additional funding is needed for the existing parts that we have. So as I mentioned before, we made a change in the layout of the park, who is maintaining the park, before it was under the roads group, and now we separated that to be part of the maintenance and grounds services, because we have more individuals allocated over there, but also because it'll be, we have a cross-training among the staff. and they actually have gone to the park. Their supervisor have gone to the park, reviewed the parks and came up with this list. And this list is basically to address serious concerns that we have in the existing parks, which is the Veterans Memorial Park, as well as the baseball fields and the historical park. We did a tour. We had a chart and we identified potential liabilities. And so that's the reason why in my request to date, I wanna ask that the board, before you commit additional funding from impact fees, that you commit this amount, $382,000. to these parks because it will prevent us for any issues with the families getting hurt or anything because the parks have not been maintained properly. And it's not because the staff doesn't wanna do it, it's just because they don't have the funding available. And so before you make a decision regarding the parks, please consider these items that we need to comply. One, as easy as $6,000 for a required backflow, that's a requirement that we have to comply and that we don't have available. We have areas that are supposed to be ADA compliance, yet there are spaces in between that are not ADA compliant, so we need to address those issues as well. There are bricks that are falling apart in the barbecue pits and they haven't been addressed. It can cause an accident. Fencing around the Babe Ruth Park field as well, another $15,000. And I can go so on in the list, but I just wanna emphasize that it will help us to bring back this park. That if you live in the area, you'll find that when there are games, it's so much, so many people in the park and that's a risk that we cannot continue taking. So today is the interim recommended proposed budget in August, somewhere in August, and I just put it to be determined. Every department has to work with us and the auditor's office to be able to close the books so that we can have a final number for the fiscal year. And somewhere in August also, we'll start working, having the final recommended budget workshops. If we were able to finish the budget by noon, by mid-August, we will be scheduling workshops similar to the last year's workshops, and we will go line item by line item with each one of the departments based on the final year. And we will also bring, which I didn't add it into the checklist, is the cost plan. We have a peer review group that we have met, and our goal is to meet again during July, now that we have the interim recommended budget, to start working on the numbers and bring it back to the board for review and approval. We can also make it that as part of the workshops during August and September. And hopefully by the end of September, we will have a potential adoption of the final budget. I hope that this year we can make it before October the 1st, because I was very close to the deadline. So we're really looking for having it somewhere in September. So with that, I will welcome any questions that you might have, but I really need your direction to continue moving with the project, with the budget.

Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Let's go to public comment.

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 David.

Good afternoon. My name is David Kagebein and I live over on San Juan Road. I say near the store treatment plant relatively close and I love public infrastructure projects, but public safety is really important. And I've spent my entire career turning around broken businesses and broken government agencies, mostly in the Pajaro Valley. But I've lived in Aromas for 15 years, and then I moved over here about 17 years ago. And I'm, at my age, kind of concerned about what the next 17 years is going to look like, because that's probably beyond my overall life expectancy. But watching... I really never thought I was gonna get involved in government again, but watching the last couple of years here in this county and the deterioration of infrastructure and public safety has been absolutely incredible to me. last week at your budget hearing, literally kind of listening to the sheriff grovel to just move a little bit of money around within his budget to pay for medical care for employees that should have always had medical care. How did we ever get in this kind of a situation? Now, I don't really know. I don't know my neighbors very well, even though I've been there 17 years. I'm just trying to live a nice, quiet life. I don't know people involved in politics. I don't know people involved in the various public agencies. I've met the sheriff twice, had two very brief conversations with him. And not about this kind of subject, but I'm just sitting here thinking I'm sitting over there on San Juan road. I hear the fire trucks going by all the time because your arrangement with the city fire department, there's always issues, accidents. And sometimes I'm sitting out on my deck and those sirens take 10 minutes to get to wherever it is they're going. And I'm thinking if you're the victim of a crime, If you're the victim of an accident, you expect immediate service. You expect somebody to answer the phone to get to you. The sheriff announced and you called it a crisis that three more deputies are leaving. I'll guarantee among the coworkers there, They're all looking around going, wait a minute, am I going to be the only guy left working in San Benito County? So I'll guarantee they're all considering their options and thinking about what's going on. It was said last week that you needed to make big, bold moves. That's not medical care. That's pay raises. That's competitive wages. That's real life, big, bold moves. Thank you.

Thank you. And I have no other public comment.

Thank you. Okay. We have a few things we can discuss now. We start with the, anyone have any specific questions at this point? I know we had the sheriff proposal. We need some to give direction on that as well as a few other things, right? CEO, what other?

So I have the two proposals for you. Like I mentioned before, all the items that you see on the left side are the items that were contemplated as public as benefits to encourage our current staff to remain in positions, but also to encourage other ones to come and work for the county. So those are, in a nutshell, the two options that we have available. One, the only difference between one and the other one is the number one proposal includes visual and dental, what the other one doesn't. That's the only difference.

Okay. So option two includes?

Just medical only.

Just medical.

Oh, okay. I thought option one is saying, oh, okay. Oh, because the, okay, I hear it, I see it now, okay, yeah. Mr. Oh, go ahead. I was just gonna say, I support the option that includes the medical and the vision. I think we do have to take, I fully understand the speaker's comments about being bold. I, you know, I will say that You know, we have more work to do. You know, obviously we have challenges with revenue and balancing our budget, but we do have more work to do when it comes to being competitive in public safety. This is a good, to me, this is bold. It's a good, bold start. And... I appreciate again, the sheriff getting creative and us working together with the sheriff, with the DSA. And again, this is a start. And so I did do support option one, I believe is the one that would include all of it. I do also wanna just reiterate that we talked about having an auto trigger, an auto trigger, so that automatically if those positions are filled, that they would come back to the board for immediate consideration of unfreezing positions and to do additional analysis of the overall sort of picture and what we have available. And then I would also support the CEO's recommendation to reallocate any savings from the frozen positions to go toward overtime for the sheriff's office. Otherwise, I just wanna point out with the parks, I want to reiterate, I think what Supervisor Sotelo also said previously, which is we need to move forward on this park sponsorship program as soon as possible. So we do have some wiggle room with maintenance of parks. As far as the, I do support using the 30,000. We just have to take care of these issues for the ADA issue at the historic park. and the 382,000 for Vets Park. But I just wanna, again, reiterate what we previously pointed out, which is that we have this 500 and I think it was $545,000 bucket of money from this Verizon lease for the cell tower lease at Veterans Memorial Park. And that when at all possible, that that can be incorporated into the budget so that that's documented, that those dollars are available once they become available You wanna say something?

And I would like to separate that the Verizon funds because in this presentation, that Verizon part is not contemplated.

I understand. This is just impact fees. I get that. I'm just saying, before things go get reported out willy nilly about using $382,000, that we have an understanding publicly that we are using, we are planning to use the $545,000 correct me if I'm wrong, the dollar amount, from that Verizon lease, which we've agreed to, we've gone back. It seems like there's full agreement. We just need to formalize it. So we have that money available from the Verizon lease, and I just want to make that point. But otherwise, I appreciate it. I'm ready to adopt what's recommended with option one. Thank you.

Supervisor Crowe, I think you were next.

I don't mind letting Supervisor Sotelo go next. Sotelo, go for it.

Thank you, okay, two questions on the Sheriff's proposal. One, Sheriff, do you have a recommendation if you'd like to see option one or option two? And the second part of that question is going to be with option one, it left about 158,000, option two, a little over 200,000. Is that an adequate balance to cover the potential overtime that you're going to need with a, reduce staffing levels until they can be built back up.

Thank you for those questions, Supervisor, and thank you all for the consideration. I would, originally my mindset was option two, but I think in seeing in the grand scheme of things what the total is, option one makes a lot more sense. I think it it's even bolder statement to showing that we're supporting the staff. So I would be in favor of option one. I don't think that's not gonna be a deal breaker for our office on whether or not we're able to meet our obligations in the budget. It's hard to project, but I mean, we have over the years when Kelly Kennedy was here, she pushed really hard to make sure that our overtime budget was a reasonable budget. It wasn't for a long time. So we used to exceed our overtime costs every year just because I guess it was thought to undercut it and then hope that we didn't achieve it and we'd always double it. So I think that we got to a point where it's a very reasonable overtime budget. It is something that we can also manage and watch so we won't exceed that. But the staff knows at this point that if one thing costs too much, then we're gonna have to forego something else. And so it's hard for say, I don't think, The short answer is I don't think the $50,000 difference is going to make or break whether or not we're able to cover overtime costs. And if we did get to that point, we'd have to look at cutting something else.

Okay, thank you. One more question for you while you're up here. Originally, I think all of this was for deputy sheriffs. And I just want to make sure that all of the incentive bonuses, everything include, I mean, is this to include, because I'm seeing on some of the paperwork, it includes your deputy sheriffs as well as correctional officers for the entire package.

Yes, it does, and I think that that's something that I was very much appreciative of our board chair, Supervisor Zenger, brought up. When we were originally talking about this, the original... or lack of better term, freak out, was over the deputy sheriffs that were on the patrol cars. And through our discussions, we did come back to the challenges that we've had in the jail. And so what we're doing is really shifting some of our operational funding to the correctional side to help with that on both sides of the street. So... Yes, the sheriff is one bucket of money, but it's five separate budgets that I oversee. So in order to help the correctional staff and the challenges that we have there, we'll be taking money from our operations budget, putting it over to the correction side. And so my original intent, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful of anybody else in the county, is that anybody that put on a uniform with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's patch, which is all of our deputy sheriffs, that are sworn in all of our correctional officers in the jail would be beneficiaries of this proposal.

Okay, thank you. Just wanted the clarification on that. Thank you very much. Okay, now moving on to parks.

Okay. Before you move forward, do I have a consensus for option one?

I am good with option one. I mean, the sheriff really has come here with a solution and has presented it. If he is favorable to option one and all that it includes, then yes, I am favorable to option one. Okay, for the parks, budgets and grants. First of all, thank you so much. I feel like parks are finally starting to get some recognition. Thank you to David and his crew and all of the work and the conversations that are happening. It is a lot that is going on with them. And so I thank you for all of the time that staff is putting towards these. We've got some real big liability and safety issues that I'm happy to see coming forward. On the park needs, one of the things that was left out was the lighting for the, and I'm just gonna identify, I know it's all Vets Park, but I'm gonna say like the fields side versus the picnic side, right? And I believe that there was about $50,000 left off for lighting that should have gone into the picnic side on our urgent park needs. Is that correct?

That is correct. His lady sent me a text in the morning saying that he forgot the $50,000 for lighting.

Okay, so it now is going to be closer to $430,000. That is correct, yes. Okay. So... I would suggest that I'd like to cover all of the urgent park needs for the $430,000 approximately, being that we have $3.671 million available from park impact fees, because some of it, a lot of it has already been committed to Riverview Regional and to Sunnyside, a small portion has been allocated to Sunnyside. of the previous allocations, previous commitments of park impact fees. Total we have available 6.29 million. We've already committed 3.671. So we have 3.55 essentially moving forward. So we have 6.290, 269, 3.6 is already committed. And then there's 3.671.

So now you have $2.6 million. Sorry, I was looking at your state grants, sorry. $2.6 million, 619-269-41. Now, I wanna be cautious about using all the impact fees at once because we always wanted to have some sort of like a cushion because you will not have more impact fees of this amount in the future. So I wanna be careful not to use in all the funds that leave room for funding to be available in case of an emergency.

Is there any opportunity for like, we've got 3.371 million committed for park impact fees going to Riverview Regional Park. when would we be using that 3.371? I feel like it's frozen right now and we have real needs in our parks, yet we can't access or use that money because it's been committed. How can we, UNCOMMIT SOME OF THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SPENT ANY TIME SOON ANYWAYS.

MY BEST CHOICE IN THIS SITUATION IS TO REACH OUT TO THE FUNDING SOURCES BECAUSE THEY SET ASIDE FUNDING ALREADY, $2.4 MILLION FOR THAT GRANT AND THE COUNTY COMMITTED $3.3 MILLION. I WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE STATE ABOUT HOW THEY FEEL. about the commitment that we made and if we can break up the project in phases to be more realistic. What is attainable and not attainable? Because if they were sold in a big project that requires about $20 million, it's not feasible. we don't have that amount of money to be able to do all the phases. So rather than give you an answer right now or whether the state is gonna agree or not agree, I would like to revisit that what staff, now that we identified the grants, actually we got copies of the grants yesterday, to establish that conversation with the state and to renegotiate the possibility to renegotiate our impact fees committed to that project and to face the project.

Okay. Now, what about the parking lot? Because it looks like we still have a $450,000 funding gap even in the parking lot.

That is correct. And there was no impact fees committed to that project.

And essentially this, the parking lot has to go first, right? That's phase one is the parking lot. I don't know. We can't start phase two until phase one is done, but we have a funding gap there as well.

I would like to revisit this entire review because I'm not even aware of how it was planned and nor is the staff, some of the staff, because they were not at that time. But I would rather come back to you for that specific project and address the project with the state, see what they can do for us, what we agree and not agree, and then come back to the board with the options.

Okay, thank you. I think it's hard, because we're supposed to make a decision about spending today, and I would really, really like to see us get the Vets Park picnic area restroom remodel for While we're saying we need an additional 36,500, I would like that included. I'm assuming that is on the picnic side area. The toilets are about ready to fall off of the wall in those restrooms. I was out there a couple weeks ago. They're in terrible, terrible condition. Great, we have a new roof on them, but... Literally, that is a huge liability waiting to happen. And multiple people have called me on that. So I would like to see that included as well as the 430,000. I also think that the potable water system out at the historical park is something that we really need to get moving on. There's a potential for them to have more festivals, different things like that. And it's something that I think was promised with ARPA funding way back in the day. And so I feel like we have an obligation to get that done as well. The 2.2 million that's needed for Vets Park lighting, resurfacing, signage and striping, huge liability issues. I know we don't have the funding right now, but that $545,000 will hopefully go to that. And then hopefully we'll have some impact fees that we can put towards it. but I just don't want to, I understand it's a large ticket item, but it is utilized by thousands of families every single week, year round, and I just don't want something to happen out there and it be something like, oh my gosh, we knew that there was an issue, we should have done this. So I'd really like to prioritize how we can get that done and coming up with a way. I would like to work on the sponsorship because I've got some ideas for that as well, but I want that to stay a priority. I understand we can't fund it today with this budget, but I wanna make sure that it's a priority and that we're continuing to work on it. So in a perfect world, sorry, I had it that we had 3.5 million because I looked at the number right next to it. Originally, I wanted to see the vets restrooms at 36.5 get done, the additional items on the urgent park needs on the back page with the addition of the $50,000 for lighting. And I don't even know if that's too much or not, because there is electrical upgrade replacing tube lighting with LEDs for 2,000. So I'm not sure, is this 50,000 in addition to the 2,000? I don't know that the numbers are really that accurate, but I'm going with what's written here. I'd like to see the $100,000 for the potable water. And I would really like to see Sunnyside Park. be completed. I know that doesn't leave us very much money, but I feel like we've got to get moving on some of these parks and some of the liabilities that we're exposing ourselves to right now. So I think that's pretty much it. So thank you.

Thank you.

Well, Supervisor Sotelo hit a couple of the areas that I was concerned with. Since we're on parks, I'll stay on parks right now. I have the similar question about how can we unfreeze or uncommit some of that Riverview Park funding? Now, can you explain to me, when you said we do not have ongoing park impact fees, so these were one-time developer impact fees that made this account?

I'm not sure, that's what I would, I don't wanna speak about it, something that I don't know exactly how those impact fee came on board, but what I was told by the former administrator is that we will not have impact fees in the future, much impact fees. The amounts will be very slow coming to the county. So I wanna be careful with that because I don't know exactly how it works. So I need to go back and find out what the agreements were then, read the agreements, find out how much it's gonna give us on a yearly basis before making additional commitments. I don't wanna give you false hope.

I totally agree and I appreciate that. I wanna make sure that what is brought back to us is a list of the priorities of safe parks and committed parks that we've already committed and have designed and ready for construction. Those are my two priorities. I understand today we're not gonna be able to solve all those things. I agree completely with Supervisor Sotelo on many of our comments. Safety is first and we need to make sure that the existing parks we have are safe. So that was one comment. So finding out about the impact fees, that will be coming back to us. Let's shift for a moment to roads. And when you look at the budget that was, when we look at the new positions, and we're dividing out building and planning from public works and all the other stuff. Where are we standing right now with the road crew? And what is going to be happening with the road crew? Are we funding? Do we have funding in there for employees in the road crew? And how many employees in the road crew? And how much is... How much are we investing in the maintenance of existing roads that have such severe potholes? I just didn't really, I didn't see that in all of this. Where are we with that?

So I think we already have almost all the positions filled. We might be missing one at the most, but I think it was in recruitment already. So my understanding the way crews work is separated in three crews. for maintenance. So they go in different routes to provide the maintenance to the roads. We didn't receive any additional requests for additional workers because they're in teams, like two or three persons in teams that goes to different locations. Unless there's something that is bring back to us, I haven't seen anything, any requests from them.

Okay, I'd really like to have that be something that's evaluated with, since we don't have a public works director currently, I'd like that to be evaluated. It used to be, I'm gonna go way back in the day before I even lived in this county, because of course everyone has to tell me the way it used to be. There used to be two very well-staffed road crews and there were a full North County road crew and a full South County road crew and all of the equipment needed to maintain those roads were being done within the county and not contracted out. I'm not saying that's the way the best bang for the buck, but I know we have equipment out there that we don't have certifications for. I know we have staff that need certification so the equipment can be used. I wanna make sure that we build our road crew where we're maintaining our roads and we have a steady, you know, maintenance schedule. We just can't, we have to start looking at what are we gonna need long-term and how are we gonna get there? We're not getting there this year, I get it, but it's something I want on the future discussion. When it comes to the sheriffs, And my question previously from the prior budget hearing was about, is this including vision and dental? And the answer was no. And now we have the two options with the vision and dental. I don't have a problem including that, but I do wanna make sure when you're looking at this, it says this is, based on current enrolled 2026, is that 2026 premiums or 2027 premiums for healthcare? Because we're gonna have a healthcare increase in December that takes effect January 1. Am I wrong? Okay, so I'm not wrong about that. Do we have that cost included? I think so. We don't have the rates yet. We don't have the rates yet. So we don't even have a little cushion, except for the overtime cushion.

So... Well, the funding that is left on the bottom is not necessarily overtime. It's to address any potential issues, but it will serve as... So the charity department, they already have an account for overtime. Besides this. This is just an additional cushion for any slight changes and overtime.

Where I'm trying to get is we are gonna have an increase in 2027 on healthcare.

Yes, but those didn't come until last week, late last week. But it was more for the employees. So you wanna go ahead?

So just want to, you're correct. So that would make a difference from a six months because it would be from July to the end of the year. And we did have, and we included preliminary rates for most of the medical benefits, but not for PORAC. And we don't have the rates for dental and vision for the increase. Typically, it's not a lot. I don't have the percentage, but... Dental and vision, would it make a huge impact? It just depends on what the PORAC preliminary rates would be and we don't have those yet.

I just wanna make sure that we're thinking about it and understand that we may not be covering it. If we don't know the rates, how do we know if we have enough to cover the rates? So the other topic on this is those rates are going up, which means employee contributions are going up. So employee contributions means that employees will be taking a pay cut. I just wanna make sure everybody's aware, while we are trying to solve one problem with the sheriff's deputies, which I completely support, the other employees in our county are taking pay cuts, okay? I just wanted to make sure that that was very clear to everyone. When it comes to the bonuses, thank you so much for that clarification. When it comes to the bonuses or the incentive bonus over the five-year period, do we have a clause in this if they stay two years, do they pay it back?

But I believe there was a new law that came on board as County Council Priyamos made us aware of a new change in the law regarding the bonuses. Do you wanna go over the bonuses new law? I just wanna understand it better so that it's publicly understood. Mr.

Chair, members of the Board of Supervisors. There was a recent law which came into effect January 1 of 2026, which places certain restrictions on an employer's ability to require repayment of a hiring bonus within a specific period of time and under certain circumstances. So I've shared that information with the CEO and with the sheriff and so, We will discuss that. And if any such contract is to be considered, then it will be drafted consistent with the new law.

So is there a chance that we can't do a payment per year or that we can't hold it to, if you stay for the five years, you get these per year payments, but if you don't stay the five years,

what happens yes there there are ways in which to require repayment they must though follow the requirements of the law and i believe that there is a two-year limit that the money can be paid over two years with the repayment requirement if they do not stay within the two years.

But not a five year? Correct. So I wanna just make sure that we're not misleading, because if there is changes that need to happen because of this new law, also that we're going to incentivize people if we have to pay, if our bonus incentive is $25,000, I would hop here and get $25,000 and hop back somewhere else. I don't want to encourage hopping. I want to encourage longevity. I want to make sure that our sheriff's deputies are compensated properly and that they are incentivized to stay in San Benito County.

So our proposals, if you see, if you go back to the spreadsheet, it only includes $15,000 for this year, meaning this year bonuses $5,000 per individual. There's only three positions. What you can do, in this scenario, and this is just an idea that occurred to me, I don't know if County Council would agree with me, you can approve the bonus for this year, come back next year and approve the bonus for next year, and come back the following year to approve another bonus for five years, or for one year. on a yearly basis, and I think you will prevent from people taking in advance the funding and then leaving in less than two years, or two years. This proposal only includes this year's bonus. What we can do, as I said before, we can come back to you next year with the proposal that that year we'll also have $15,000 bonuses, or maybe more if we have the funding for additional deputies.

Mr. Chair, members of the Board of Supervisors, the CEO raises an important possibility. And so what I will commit to you is that I will work with the CEO and with the Sheriff. We will evaluate the requirements of the new law and then we'll come back with a plan for the board to adopt.

Thank you, that's really what I was looking for. And I appreciate all the work on this. I do still have real concerns about understanding in the interim budget exactly what we're funding, because I mean, if we just talk about going back to parks, what's in this handout and then what we have here. I know we have to reevaluate parks. I'm not gonna harp on it, but I want that Sunny Slope Park to at least have something that makes it safe.

Yes, so the issue with that spreadsheet, and I didn't realize this until later, what he did, he put together both the $300,000 already committed and the $1.5 million needed, which if you see in this spreadsheet, That's what the $1.8 million comes together. He didn't separate that one in the long spreadsheet. In reality, you already committed $300,000. We're missing $1.5 million from that.

I know that this is the first step to really documenting what we're saying and what we're doing and what the needs are. I really am hopeful that this tracking that we are doing about what's happening each year is more transparent like this and we aren't, let's just say none of us are here and it's a whole new board. They need to see the history of the commitments and we've lost that history and we've basically let our residents down by falsely saying we're committing to this but if we're not here we can't fulfill that obligation because it was what we decided and now a new board is on. We need to be able to show new board members and and maintain, it goes right along with contracting, rolling contracts over to the next fiscal year and ensuring we encumber those funds. All of this transparency has got to be more consistent for the public.

Totally agree. And I have to acknowledge the staff because I have gone with them back and forth so many times. And they're new staff. They're struggling to understand what happened in the past. And the reality is, last year when Berkutelli was here, he basically told you, you were approving and reapproving and reapproving the same projects with no additional funding. And so they are digging into the files to find out the reality. And that's what, it's a real struggle for people that have no, no knowledge about what the projects were, which projects were approved, which funding, they're just digging in to find out the truth. And I want to come back again in the future when an update of where we are in all the funding for each one of the projects that you envision to have years and years that never happened.

And I wanna thank all of the employees. You guys have been, it's always next year. I mean, I said it last time, it's always next year. But we are really trying to dig into where our fiscal struggles have occurred. We're identifying where these challenges are. I'm hopeful that Measure D will help cushion and understand that we have to start looking at the big picture long term. This option for the sheriff's deputies, it's going to be something that will come in negotiations from bargaining units in future negotiations. We have to start looking at things differently and really collaborating and talking about real salary rates that make people want to stay here long-term because unfortunately we've lost way too many people. So I appreciate all the hard work and thank you for the presentation.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you. I'm not going to ask any questions that have all been asked already. I'm also comfortable with option one, the sheriff's proposal. We have quite a lot of items here to, I think, make motions on. We're ready, does anyone wanna try to encapsulate what's been said?

I'll give it a try. Make a motion to tentatively approve the FY26-27 CEO recommended budget, including option one as presented regarding sheriff's office incentives and medical insurance and other insurance incentives in accordance with the most recent legislation and giving direction for the county council to work with the CEO sheriff and share up and evaluating requirements in the new law with a formalized plan to adopt. And secondly, authorized continuation of existing capital projects previously appropriated by the board and commenced on or before June 30th, 2026, so long as appropriations are included in the tentatively approved 2627 budget. Third, authorizes the auditor controller in coordination with the CEO to make transfers out as included in the tentatively approved budget as authorized under the government code. And fourth, direct the County Executive Officer to return to the Board of Supervisors to commence budget hearings in advance of 26-27 final budget adoption.

May I add one item? I really need direction on the parks, emergency items. Mr. Chair, we need a second before we can comment. That's right, sorry, thank you. Yes, sorry. I'll second for comment. Yes, thank you. I really need direction and to address the issues on the current parks that we have. I'm caution you all about the issues that we're running into in that facility, the Veterans Park facilities. I really wanna address that. And so rather than, we have to come back to you to readdress the commitments that we made before you move forward for the price, but I need clear direction. Would you like me to move forward with the requested items that we have for emergency?

Yes, I would add that as an amendment as recommended. Is the second agreed?

Yeah, I'll agree with a more comprehensive park plan coming forward when we adopt the final budget.

Okay, we have a first and a second in motion with the amendment. May I have a vote, please?

Supervisor Zenger?

Yes.

Supervisor Kosmicki?

Yes.

Supervisor Sotelo? Yes. Supervisor Curl? Yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes.

Great. Thank you, everybody. A lot of work. Thank you so much. Before we adjourn, I think County Council had a quick announcement and then we'll adjourn.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, mayors of the Board of Supervisors. We did receive a request to clarify an announcement which was made at last week's meeting, and that is that the Board of Supervisors buy a vote of three affirmative votes, one abstention by Supervisor Hsu, zanger and one absence which was supervisor velasquez authorized the county to participate in monterey county's amicus efforts with respect to the santa clara county lawsuit against the federal government thank you thank you that's everything we are adjourned thank you everyone