Apr 20, 2023 LAFCO Meeting

[I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER ]

[00:00:04]

ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.

I WANT TO WELCOME YOU TO THE APRIL 20TH, 2023 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION MEETING.

WE WILL CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 10:10, AND WE WILL HAVE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COMMISSIONER BERTAO.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

JUST IN TIME FOR ROLL CALL.

I'M HERE. I'M HERE. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE THE ROLL CALL.

OKAY. OKAY.

OKAY, SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM FOR TODAY'S BUSINESS.

AND AGAIN, ONLY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL IS A NON-VOTING MEMBER.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM FOUR.

[IV. CONSENT CALENDAR ]

LAFCO FILE NUMBER 0695.

I'LL MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BERTAO, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA.

WE'LL OPEN IT TO THE PUBLIC.

THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? AMY YOU MIGHT AS WELL. YOU CAME ALL THIS WAY.

I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE OPENED IT UP FIRST TO THANK THE COMMISSIONERS FOR ALL YOUR PATIENCE WITH SANTANELLA AND ALL OF OUR PROJECTS.

AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD AND PROVIDE RELIABLE, SAFE AND RELIABLE DRINKING WATER TO VOLTA AND CORRECT WATER QUALITY FOR SANTANELLA WITH THIS PROJECT.

AND JUST ON A QUICK SIDE NOTE, I KNOW IT'S NOT THIS ITEM, BUT WE HAVE ACQUIRED A PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT.

WE NOW ARE CVP CONTRACTOR.

AND SO AGAIN, I WANTED TO THANK THE COMMISSION FOR ALL OF YOUR PATIENCE AND FOR JUST GIVING US, YOU KNOW, 13 YEARS OF CONTINUANCES WHILE WE GOT IT DONE.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS A GREAT THING FOR SANTANELLA AND ULTIMATELY THE COUNTY, YOUR YOUR CONSTITUENTS, THE COUNTY RESIDENTS.

AND I PROMISE TO PRESS ON AND AT LEAST GET SANTANELLA ON ITS WAY BEFORE I RETIRE BECAUSE I'M VERY CLOSE TO RETIREMENT AGE, I SHOULD SAY.

UH, YEAH, I'M THAT YOUNG.

ANYWAYS, THANK YOU.

AND I CAME JUST TO SHOW MY SUPPORT.

AND MAYBE I'LL SEE YOU AGAIN.

WHO KNOWS IF THERE'S MORE ANNEXATIONS INTO SANTANELLA, I WILL DO MY BEST TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

PERFECT. OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY COMMISSIONER BERTAO AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU, AMY. ALL RIGHT, CITIZENS, COMMUNICATION.

THIS IS THE PUBLIC'S OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION ON ITEMS OF INTEREST OVER WHICH LAFCO HAS JURISDICTION.

I THINK AMY USED HER TIME IN THE LAST COMMENT SECTION, SO NOT SEEING ANYONE.

[VI.A. Adoption of the Proposed LAFCO Budget for the 2023-24 Fiscal Year. ]

ITEM SIX.

THIS IS TO ADOPT OR THE ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED LAFCO BUDGET FOR THE 23-24 FISCAL YEAR AND WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. NICHOLSON.

POWERPOINT. THE 500 PAGE BUDGETS THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH, THAT WAS PRETTY EASY.

YEAH. TWO ON BOTH SIDES.

ALL RIGHT. SO, YEAH, IT'S THAT TIME OF YEAR AGAIN TO WORK ON OUR LAFCO BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 23-24, AND THE FIRST STEP IS TO DO THE PROPOSED BUDGET.

SO I WILL GET GOING HERE.

YEAH. THE OK HERTZBERG ACT IS OUR GUIDE FOR EVERYTHING WE DO.

AND SO THEY HAVE THE DEADLINES FOR DOING THE BUDGET, THE PROPOSED BUDGET BY MAY 1ST AND THE FINAL BUDGET BY JUNE 15TH.

SO WE ALWAYS TRY TO START A MONTH EARLIER.

SO IF WE HAVE ANY MODIFICATION OR CHANGES, WE HAVE A LITTLE BREATHING ROOM.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE PROPOSED BUDGET DONE TODAY AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK FOR THE FINAL BUDGET IN NEXT MONTH, IN MAY.

[00:05:02]

SO JUST SOME SUMMARIES ABOUT LAFCO.

BUT MOST COMMISSIONERS KNOW IT'S LAFCO IS FUNDED BY THE COUNTY AND THE SIX CITIES IN THE COUNTY.

AND IF WE HAD SPECIAL DISTRICTS SITTING ON THE COMMISSION, THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS WOULD HELP PAY TOO.

AND SINCE THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE NOT HERE.

IF IT WAS FREE, THEY PROBABLY WOULD JOIN IN.

AND THEN THE THE REST OF THE MONEY FOR LAFCO COMES FROM APPLICATION FEES, PROCESSING, ANNEXATIONS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENTS.

AND THEN ONE OF THE BIG TOPICS WOULD BE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS.

WE ARE MANDATED TO UPDATE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS AND SPHERES OF INFLUENCE FOR ALL PUBLIC AGENCIES, SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND CITIES EVERY FIVE YEARS OR AS NEEDED.

AND SO WE WE FUND INTERNALLY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS TO KEEP UP WITH THOSE DEADLINES.

BUT WE ALSO PROCESS MSRS, AS WE CALL THEM, DRIVEN BY A CITY THAT DOES A NEW GENERAL PLAN OR THE COUNTY DOES A NEW COMMUNITY PLAN THAT AFFECTS THE SPECIAL DISTRICT.

WE MAY GET MONEY FROM THE DISTRICT TO PREPARE ONE IF IT'S NEEDED.

SO WE GET REVENUE FROM APPLICANTS, BASICALLY PROPERTY OWNERS, DEVELOPERS OR OR DISTRICTS OR CITIES.

AND AGAIN, WHAT'S REMAINING IS PAID FOR BY THE COUNTY AND THE CITIES.

SO IN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, OUR BUDGET TOTALED 192,478 AND AFTER THREE QUARTERS OF IT WE SPENT ABOUT 66,343. AND WE'VE ALSO HAD THE AUDITORS ENCUMBERED 48,537. SO WE NEVER LAFCO GOES.

WE NEVER SPEND OUR FULL BUDGET.

IT'S DRIVEN MORE THAN ANYTHING BY THE APPLICATION ACTIVITY AND WE HAVE TO BUDGET FOR THAT, THAT WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO PROCESS A LOT OF APPLICATIONS.

BUT IT'S BEEN A WHILE NOW WITH THE ECONOMY THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN A LOT OF CITY ANNEXATIONS THAT'S BEEN OUR PRIMARY ACTIVITY.

AND EITHER THERE'S A LOT OF LAND IN SOME OF THE CITIES.

AND SO THEY CAN THEY CAN DEVELOP WITHOUT ANNEXING OR WITH THE WAY THE ECONOMY HAS BEEN AND AND OTHER ISSUES.

THERE HASN'T BEEN A LOT OF ANNEXATIONS TO ANY CITIES, NOT NOT ONLY JUST DOS PALOS OR LIVINGSTON, BUT THE MERCEDS AND THE LOS BANOS. SO THERE'S A LOT ON THE HORIZON OUT THERE TALKED ABOUT BUT NOT HITTING YET.

SO WE'RE PROPOSING IN THE BUDGET TO KEEP IT KIND OF FLAT.

THE ESTIMATED ACTIVITY AND WE WE WE MAY GET MORE, MAY GET LESS, BUT THAT'S KIND OF HOW IT'S BEEN.

SO IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET IS GOING UP TO 249,913 IS WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING.

AND THAT'S BASICALLY IT'S A BIG INCREASE, EXCEPT THAT 50,000 OF IT IS A PLACEHOLDER FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW UPDATE FOR THE CITY OF LOS BANOS BASED ON THEIR NEW GENERAL PLAN.

AND WE WOULD EXPECT THE CITY TO PAY FOR THAT.

AND I'VE TALKED TO STACY SOUZA ELMS ABOUT IT BEFORE, SO SHE'S ANTICIPATING THAT.

AND ONCE WE GET THE FIRM PROPOSAL FROM EPS, OUR FIRM THAT'S BEEN DOING ALL OUR MSRS WILL FORWARD THAT TO THE CITY SO THEY CAN PUT IT IN THEIR BUDGET.

THE ACTUAL RANGE IS PROBABLY 40 TO 45,000 AND THEY WANTED A 5000 CONTINGENCY.

SO THAT'S THAT'S WHY THAT NUMBER IS SO BIG.

OTHERWISE THE BUDGET WOULD ONLY BE GOING UP ABOUT 7435.

PART OF THAT IS ASSUMING I'M ONE OF THE BIG COSTS FOR THE COMMISSION, MY SALARY.

SO I IN OUR AGREEMENT WE HAVE A COST OF LIVING INCREASE EVERY YEAR BASED ON THE CPI AND THE CAP ON IT IS 5%. SO I JUST PUT THE 5% IN THERE.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE, BUT I PUT THAT IN THERE.

SO THAT'S THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN AREAS.

OTHERWISE THE BUDGET OVERALL IS PRETTY, PRETTY FLAT FOR THE CURRENT YEAR.

SO THIS IS JUST A BREAKDOWN OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET BY SOME OF THE ACCOUNTS.

I'M SORRY, THIS IS. THIS IS THE EXPENDITURES FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, BECAUSE IN THE BUDGET PACKAGE I GAVE YOU THE PROPOSED NUMBERS, BUT I DIDN'T GIVE YOU LIKE A STATUS QUO OF WHERE WE'RE AT. SO THIS JUST HIGHLIGHTS MEMBERSHIP IS OUR MEMBERSHIP WITH CAL LAFCO AND WE BUDGET, THEY TELL US IN ADVANCE WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE.

AND I ACTUALLY LOOK BACK TO 2016 JUST FOR COMPARISON AND IT WAS HALF THIS, SO IT'S REALLY GONE UP A LOT.

AND COMMISSION MIGHT REMEMBER THAT IT WAS A FEW YEARS AGO.

THERE WAS A LOT OF WRANGLING AT THE CAL LAFCO CONFERENCES WHERE THE BIG THE LA'S, THE SANTA CLARA'S, THE SAN FRANCISCO'S AND SAN DIEGO'S WERE PAYING A BIGGER CHUNK AND THEY WERE TRYING TO GET THE OUT OF THE 58 COUNTIES AND 58 LAFCO TO GET THE SMALLER ONES TO PAY MORE.

[00:10:02]

SO THEY BASE IT PARTLY ON POPULATION.

SO WE WE'VE GONE UP, BUT NOW WE DON'T GO UP EACH YEAR.

WE DON'T GO UP AS THAT THAT MUCH.

BUT ANYWAY, SO WE SPENT ALL THAT ON OFFICE EXPENSE.

WE'RE THREE QUARTERS OF THE WAY THROUGH THE FISCAL YEAR.

WE'RE KIND OF ON PACE FOR SUPPLIES AND SUPPORT LIKE THAT.

WE HAVE THE NEXT CATEGORY IS IT'S MIXTURE OF MY CONTRACT AND THEN WE HAVE $20,000 IN THERE FOR DOING AN MSR THAT COMES UP JUST SO WE HAVE A PLACEHOLDER FOR IT.

SO WE HAVEN'T DONE ANY MSR THIS YEAR YET.

WELL, WE WON'T START ONE THIS YEAR EITHER AT THIS POINT IN TIME, BUT WE'VE SPENT 49,690, SO WE'RE YEAH, ABOUT HALF AFTER THREE QUARTERS OF THE YEAR.

SO WE DEFINITELY WON'T BE MEETING WHAT WAS BUDGETED.

THE SPECIAL SERVICES FROM DATA PROCESSING.

PART OF IT IS, IS THESE MEETINGS THAT THEY TELEVISE FOR US AND THEN THE COMPUTER SUPPORT AND THERE'S A FRIENDLY ANY PATTERN OF HISTORY HERE WHERE THE COUNTY NEVER BILLS LAFCO FOR THAT.

WE PUT IT IN THE BUDGET, BUT WE NEVER GET A BILL FOR IT YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR.

SO YEAH, SO IT'S A NICE IT'S A NICE IT'S REALLY A BENEFIT TO LAFCO COMMUNITY FROM THE COUNTY BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE COUNTY WOULD GET THAT REVENUE. IT'S NOT, THIS IS CHICKEN FEED COMPARED TO THE BIGGER BUDGET, BUT WE KEEP BUDGETING FOR IT.

SO AND I DON'T IT'S NOT A SECRET.

I LET THEM KNOW BUT WHATEVER IT'S APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT AND THEY THEY DO SUPPORT FOR THIS MEETING RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE STAFF BACK THERE TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S WORKING WELL.

SO IT'S A GREAT SERVICE THEN LEGAL SERVICES WE HAVE WE ALWAYS HAVE A BIG NUMBER THAT WE STARTED WITH WHEN WE WHEN WE DID AN UPDATED CONTRACT WITH B AND K AND MARLA SUBRMANIAN.

SO WE STUCK. WE KEEP THAT NUMBER EVERY YEAR AS A PLACEHOLDER IN CASE WE GET ANY LITIGATION WE NEED.

WE NEED TO HAVE IT IN THERE.

BUT THEY REALLY DON'T SPEND A LOT OF TIME UNLESS WE GET INTO SOME BIG, BIG HASSLES.

SO THIS YEAR WE'VE ONLY SPENT 3837 SO FAR.

SO WE HAVE A BIG, BIG BALANCE.

SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING.

WE WANTED THE BUDGET TO LOOK SMALLER.

WE COULD CUT THAT BACK AND PICK A DIFFERENT NUMBER.

BUT AGAIN, WITH THE LAFCO BUDGET, WE DON'T IF WE DON'T SPEND IT, YOU KNOW, WE IT JUST IS ON PAPER.

SO IT DOESN'T HURT ANYTHING NECESSARILY, AND IT ACTUALLY HELPS.

WE HAVE ANOTHER CATEGORY THE NEXT PAGE.

REALLY QUICKLY, I GOT A QUESTION ON ON THE LEGAL SERVICES.

OKAY. THEY JUST BILL BY THE HOUR ON ON THE WORK THEY DO.

YEAH YEAH. AND IT'S IT'S PROBABLY 90% MARLA THEY HAVE SOME ADMIN SUPPORT FOR BUDGETING AND STUFF BUT AND EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE SHE'S GONE WE MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT.

THEY SAID THE BILL EVERY MONTH THOUGH.

OR IS IT. YEAH THEY SEND A BILL EVERY MONTH.

THEY JUST LET IT RIDE UNTIL THEY HAVE A BIGGER THING TO SEND OR WHAT.

WELL, NO, THEY SUBMIT A BILL EVERY MONTH, BUT WE WENT THROUGH A TRANSITION PERIOD OF THEIR STAFF CHANGING AND OUR STAFF CHANGING WITH KIM AND AND LEWELLEN WITH SUPPORT. AND WHEN SHE LEFT, BANK STAFF LEFT AND WE WENT MONTHS WITHOUT HAVING ANY INVOICES.

AND I DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THEM.

I'LL SIGN OFF ON THEM WHEN WE GET THEM.

BUT IF I DON'T GET THEM, MY MIND IS NOT LOOKING.

I'M NOT LOOKING FOR THEM.

SO WE GOT HONESTLY NINE MONTHS BEHIND.

IT WAS OVER TWO FISCAL YEARS.

SO THERE'S A BIG CATCH UP WITH ALL THAT.

IT WAS REALLY FOR B AND K CATCHING IT UP.

SO THEN WE WE HAD A A SLEW OF OF INVOICES COMING IN ALL AT ONCE.

AND THEY AND WE ACTUALLY BROUGHT THAT TO YOU BECAUSE WE HAD TO PAY PRIOR YEAR INVOICES.

SO BACK IN JANUARY WE WE RIGHTED THAT SHIP BUT THEY FOR FOR YEARS, FOR THE WHOLE TIME THEY'VE BEEN COMING IN EVERY MONTH AND THEY'RE ITEMIZED FOR PHONE CALLS OR REVIEWING EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT OR LEGAL QUESTIONS.

SO. SO IT'S PRETTY YEAH.

UNLESS WE GET INTO BIG ISSUES, WHICH PERIODICALLY WE DO, AND THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO GET COUNSEL.

BUT OTHERWISE IT'S NOT THAT BIG A BURDEN BY A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ON THAT TO BILL IS IS I THINK THAT WHERE WE WHEN WE STOPPED HAVING MOLLY COME TO EVERY MEETING, YOU KNOW, WHEN WHEN THINGS WERE REALLY SLOW LIKE WHEN I FIRST GOT ON LAFCO SHE WAS HERE AT EVERY MEETING.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE PAYING MILEAGE AND HER HOURLY RATE.

AND WHEN WE TOOK THE APPROACH, THIS COMMISSION TOOK THE APPROACH OF REALLY KIND OF ON A MEETING LIKE TODAY, THERE'S REALLY NO LEGAL ISSUES.

DO WE REALLY NEED HER SITTING HERE FOR IT AND JUST UTILIZING HER WHEN SOMETHING BIG COMES UP AND ACTUALLY HAVING HER THAT SAVED THAT SAVED ALL OF US QUITE A BIT OF MONEY.

BILL, QUICK QUESTION ON ON THE OFFICE EXPENSES, I GUESS THAT'S NOT REALLY MAKING SENSE TO ME.

YOU THE AMOUNT REQUESTED WAS 832 AND NOW WE'RE AT 1020, BUT IT STILL SHOWS A BALANCE OF 832 YEAH,

[00:15:07]

SO I TYPE.

I PUT THEM IN THE WRONG LINE.

SO THEN THAT WOULD STILL MAKE THE BALANCE.

YEAH, THE BALANCE WOULD BE FOUR.

OKAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? I DID THE.

WE SPENT LESS BECAUSE THE NUMBER IS BIG.

WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT IT, WHEN I WAS JUST TALKING RIGHT NOW, IT WAS BIG.

SO IT WOULD BE REALLY WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

WE'VE SPENT 400 OR 200 SOMETHING.

OKAY. SO. SO IT SHOULD BE 1180.

AND THE 180, WE SPENT 180, I GUESS.

YEAH. OKAY. AND THEN. AND THEN WE HAVE A BALANCE OF 832 YEAH.

THE BALANCE IS RIGHT.

AND WHAT WE EXPENDED WAS, YEAH, IT WAS LESS JUST LESS THAN $200 SO.

VERY GOOD. YEAH. THAT WAS.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

SO I THINK IF NOTHING ELSE ON THAT PAGE.

SO THEN WE HAVE THE COUNTY SUPPORT WITH ADMIN SERVICES FOR FOR LIKE DANIELLE BETTENCOURT HERE AND AND OTHER SUPPORT STAFF AND THEN TIFFANY HO, WHO IS SPENDING A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME FOR A WHILE AND NOW SHE GOT PROMOTED.

SO SHE'S NOT GOING TO BE AS AVAILABLE, I THINK IN CRUNCH TIME PROBABLY.

BUT OTHERWISE, MAYBE SOME NEW STAFF THAT THEY'VE THE COUNTY HAS HIRED MIGHT BE ABLE TO START LEARNING LAFCO.

BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF NEWER THEY'RE LEARNING THE PLANNING PLANNING TASK FOR.

SO ANYWAY THAT'S A SMALL AMOUNT AS WELL.

AND THEN ENGINEERING SERVICES IS PRIMARILY FROM THE COUNTY SURVEYOR SIDE REVIEWING MAPS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND NOTHING'S BEEN BEEN BILLED YET AND THEN LEGAL NOTICES AND WE I KNOW WE HAVE PAID SOME LEGAL NOTICES, BUT NOT A WHOLE LOT LIKE THIS BUDGET FOR THE BUDGET, BUT IT'S LIKE $30 OR SOMETHING.

SO THAT THAT IS JUST A PLACEHOLDER AGAIN FOR WHEN WE GET APPLICATIONS PRIMARILY.

AND YEAH, SO WE HAD THE SANTANELLA PROPOSAL AND WE ADVERTISED THAT.

SO I'M NOT SURE WHY THE, THE DOLLAR AMOUNT ISN'T SHOWN YET, BUT ANYWAY, IT'S STILL A SMALL AMOUNT.

AND THEN THE COST ALLOCATION PLAN IS THE OVERHEAD FOR THE COUNTY WITH USING OFFICE SPACE AND THEN THE SUPPORT DEPARTMENTS FROM AUDITOR TO TO COMPUTER TO, YOU KNOW, OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO THEY YOU CAN SEE THEY HAVEN'T BILLED US, THEY BUDGETED A CERTAIN AMOUNT AND THEY THEY HAVE BILLED US THE FULL AMOUNT.

AFTER THREE, THREE QUARTERS, WE'RE WELL BEHIND.

SO THEY'RE NOT I GUESS THEY'RE NOT CHARGING THE FULL AMOUNT.

AND I GUESS ALSO OUR ACTIVITY ISN'T AS HEAVY.

SO IT WOULD WOULD GO UP THE COMPUTER USE AND ALL THAT WOULD WOULD GO UP.

AND THEN THE TRANSPORTATION AND TRAVEL THAT WE BUDGETED, THE MAIN EXPENDITURES HAVE BEEN FOR THE THE CONFERENCE, THE FALL CONFERENCE DOWN IN NEWPORT BEACH. AND THERE'S ACTUALLY DANIELLE AND I ARE BOTH GOING NEXT WEEK, THURSDAY, TO THE STAFF WORKSHOP.

IT'S GOING TO BE UP LOCALLY IN MURPHYS.

SO WE'RE JUST GOING UP FOR THE FOR ONE DAY.

IT'S IT'S THE TYPICAL WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, FRIDAY, TWO HALF DAYS AND FULL DAY THURSDAY.

SO WE'RE, WE'RE GOING UP JUST ON THURSDAY, GET SOME TRAINING AND UPDATES SO THAT REGISTRATION IS INCLUDED IN THAT.

SO AGAIN, THE TOTAL EXPENDITURES SO FAR HAVE BEEN 66,343.

AND SO WE HAVE A BUNCH LEFT.

SO AGAIN, IT'S PRETTY TYPICAL FOR EACH YEAR.

OKAY. AND SO YEAH, THIS IS SOME OF THE SUMMARIES THAT I GAVE APPLICATIONS ESTIMATED TO BE ABOUT THE SAME, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT MEETING THOSE.

BUT FOR BUDGET PURPOSES.

AND I MENTIONED THAT THE BIGGEST INCREASE IS THE 50,000 FOR THE LOS BANOS AND WE'LL EXPECT TO TO OFFSET IT WITH REVENUE.

SO OTHERWISE THE INCREASE ISN'T ISN'T SIGNIFICANT.

YEAH. THE SAME LAFCO SUPPORT EXCEPT FOR THE ON THE THE PLANNER SUPPORT SIDE MAY BE MORE LIMITED.

SO IT WON'T BE AN ISSUE UNTIL WE START GETTING SOME A BUNCH OF APPLICATIONS.

THEN IT MIGHT BECOME A PROBLEM.

AND THEN THE COST ALLOCATION PLAN IS YEAH, IS THE OTHER PART OF THAT COUNTY OVERHEAD FOR USE OF SPACE AND ALL THAT.

SO THEY, THEY GIVE US A NUMBER AND THEN THEY PRETTY MUCH SPEND, SPEND THAT, SPEND THAT AMOUNT.

BUT AGAIN THIS YEAR AS WE SAW THAT ACCOUNT WAS, WAS BILLED BEHIND ACTUAL EXPENSE OR THE FULL AMOUNT.

SO MAYBE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CHARGE US A WHOLE AMOUNT.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S A SMALL NUMBER ALTOGETHER.

AND THEN, YEAH, SO WHEN WE GET TO THE END OF THE YEAR, FISCAL YEAR, THEN WE BUILD THE CITIES AND THE COUNTY

[00:20:03]

AND SO WE HAD TO ANTICIPATE IN THE BUDGET, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR THE CITIES AND THE COUNTY, THE CITIES COLLECTIVELY AND THE COUNTY BY ITSELF TO PAY 60 1005 17 AND LAST YEAR THE ACTUAL BILLING WAS BASICALLY ABOUT 46,000, SO IT WAS ABOUT $15,000 LESS THAN WE HAD ANTICIPATED OR SAY, 70, 75% OF WHAT WE ANTICIPATED.

SO THAT'S AGAIN, PRETTY, PRETTY TYPICAL.

AND EVERYBODY THAT'S BECAUSE THE CARRYOVER, CORRECT? YEAH, EXACTLY.

WE GOT THE CARRYOVER.

EXACTLY. SO YEAH, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE YEAR, WHATEVER OUR BALANCE IS, WE'RE TRYING TO WE ALWAYS HAVE THIS GOAL OF TRYING TO ACHIEVE THAT $100,000 KIND OF A BUDGET BALANCE. SO IF WE MAINTAIN THAT AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT ABOUT 61,000.

IN THAT. SO THAT WOULD MEAN WE'D NEED TO CATCH UP BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, 40,000 MORE.

SO OUR BUILDING WOULD REFLECT.

REFLECT THAT.

YEAH. VERY GOOD. SO THE REQUESTED ACTIONS TODAY ARE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND AND HAVE, AFTER YOU CLOSE THE HEARING, HAVE ANY DELIBERATIONS OR ANY QUESTIONS OR CHANGES.

AND THEN FOLLOWING THAT TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED BUDGET AND DIRECT EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO FORWARD THE BUDGET TO THE SIX CITIES AND ALL THE INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND THE COUNTY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE KNOX HERTZBERG ACT.

SO PERFECT.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISTER NICHOLSON RIGHT NOW? IF NOT, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:32.

I'LL INVITE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO COME UP AND SPEAK.

IT'S INVISIBLE. YEP.

NOT SEEING ANYBODY.

WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:32.

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR ACTION.

AND I MOVE TO APPROVE.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOGUE.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

I THINK I GOT ESPINOZA IN FIRST, SO I'LL TAKE THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ESPINOZA.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY 4 TO 0.

ALL RIGHT. PROPOSED BUDGET.

AND THAT ALSO DIRECTED THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO FORWARD THE BUDGET TO THE COUNTY AND THE SIX CITIES AND ALL INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CORTESE KNOX HERTZBERG ACT. THANK YOU.

OKAY. WE ARE NOW GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM SEVEN GENERAL BUSINESS.

[VII.A. Consider letter of support for AB 1753 (Commission on Local Government) involving the annual omnibus bill sponsored by the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commission (CALAFCO) involving technical and non-substantive changes to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. ]

MR. NICHOLSON. OKAY.

YEAH, THERE'S IT'S FAIRLY SIMPLE, ALTHOUGH ONE OF THEM IS VERY SIGNIFICANT.

BUT THE CHANGE IS, IS RATHER SIMPLE.

SO FOR ALL BOUNDARY CHANGES, ACTUALLY THERE'S REVENUE SHARING ARRANGEMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE REACHED.

THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS IS REALLY AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY AND THEN WITH CITY ANNEXATIONS IT'S ALSO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY.

SO THOSE IN OUR HISTORY IN MERCED COUNTY, THOSE CAN DRAG ON.

THEY BECOME CONTROVERSIAL AND CONTENTIOUS.

SO THERE'S THE WAY THE LAW IS WRITTEN NOW FOR CORTESE KNOX HERTZBERG ACT IS THAT YOU COULD SUBMIT AN APPLICATION, BUT IT'S NOT COMPLETE UNTIL THOSE NEGOTIATIONS ARE FINISHED.

AND IF THOSE AND NORMALLY YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PROCESS YOUR APPLICATIONS TIMELY.

SO IF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS TAKE YEARS, WHICH SOMETIMES IT HAPPENS, YOU HAVE AN APPLICATION SITTING THERE FOR AN ANNEXATION AND IT'S GETTING DUSTY.

THE FACTS, THE APPLICATION MATERIAL MIGHT BE OUT OF DATE.

YOU MIGHT CHANGE YOUR FORMS EVEN BY THE TIME YOU GET THERE.

SO IT'S REALLY IN OUR CASE, WE'VE NEVER HAD ANYBODY SUBMIT.

YOU JUST TELL THEM, DON'T SUBMIT. WE DON'T HAVE A REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT.

YOU GOT TO WAIT. SO WE DON'T EVEN REALLY TAKE THE APPLICATIONS.

BUT LEGALLY, SOMEBODY COULD INSIST ON FILING.

MAYBE THEY WOULD DO IT TO MAKE A POINT.

SO THIS PROPOSAL IS TO CHANGE IT, THAT IF THERE'S NO REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT IN PLACE, YOU CAN'T SUBMIT AN APPLICATION.

AND SO THAT WOULD AGAIN, IT WOULD APPLY TO CITIES PRIMARILY BECAUSE THAT'S USUALLY WHERE THE BIG BATTLES ARE.

BUT IT COULD ALSO BE INVOLVED WITH SPECIAL DISTRICTS.

SO IN IN OUR CASE, WE DON'T TALK ABOUT REVENUE SHARING TOO MUCH AND EXCEPT FOR THE CITIES, BUT IN MANY LAFCO, INCLUDING LIKE NEIGHBORING MADERA, THEY DO A REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT FOR EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION THAT COMES TO LAFCO.

SO IF YOU'RE DEALING WITH AN IRRIGATION DISTRICT LIKE WE HAD WITH THE CLAYTON WATER DISTRICT, THEY'RE THEY'RE HAVING TO GO TO THEIR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO AGREE ON WHAT

[00:25:07]

AND IF THEY'RE TAKING IT FROM SOMEBODY ELSE, HOW THAT'S NEGOTIATED.

AND EVEN IF THEY DID ONE LAST YEAR, THE NEXT YEAR, THEY THEY HAVE TO TO NEGOTIATE AGAIN AND LA DOES THAT LOS ANGELES HUGE KIND OF LIKE THAT THEY NEGOTIATE EVERY ITEM INDIVIDUALLY AND THEY HAVE THEY HAVE WHAT 40 CITIES OR SOMETHING.

SO IN MERCED COUNTY THIS TIME WE HARDLY EVER DEAL WITH WE DEAL WITH IT ON CITIES PERIODICALLY, BUT THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS HAVE A THERE'S AN AGREEMENT THAT WAS REACHED DECADES AGO AND NOBODY EVER COMPLAINS ABOUT IT.

SO THEY'RE NEVER RENEGOTIATED.

AND IT'S BASICALLY THAT THE HISTORIC RATE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT GETS ON PROPERTY TAX AND SOME DISTRICTS DON'T GET ANY, BUT OTHER DISTRICTS THAT DO, THEY GET A SHARE, WHATEVER THEIR PERCENTAGE IS, THEY GET THAT SHARE ON THE INCREMENT.

SO IF THE BASE TAX FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR PROPERTY WAS $100,000, THEN THE INCREMENT WOULD BE IF THEY HAVE LIKE 0.005%, THEY WOULD GET THAT ON THE NEW TAX ROLL THAT SAID, OH, THAT $100,000 PROPERTY IS NOW $105,000.

THEY WOULD BE GETTING THEIR LITTLE PERCENTAGE OFF THAT 5000, NOT THE ORIGINAL 100,000.

SO IT'S PEANUTS, REALLY.

AND IT TAKES MANY YEARS THEN FOR FOR THAT TO TO GROW.

SO BUT THAT'S THE AGREEMENT THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE AND IT APPLIES TO EVERY DISTRICT.

IT'S NOT DIFFERENT FOR MID OR A WINTON SANITARY DISTRICT OR SANTANELLA FOR THAT MATTER.

IT'S JUST SET THAT THAT'S THE WAY.

SO IT MAKES IT REAL EASY FOR LAFCO WE DON'T HAVE TO DELAY THINGS FOR THAT NEGOTIATION.

WHAT ARE THEY PROPOSING? SO IN THIS, THIS WOULD BE IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT AGREEMENT IN PLACE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT BEFORE YOU SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION TO LAFCO.

SO LIKE ON THE CLAYTON WATER DISTRICT PROPOSAL, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD.

TO NEGOTIATE THAT BEFORE THAT APPLICATION CAME IN.

IN OUR CASE, THEY WERE ANNEXING LATIMER SAID COUNTY.

AND IT'S THAT SAME RULE IS IN PLACE ON THE LAND THAT THE ANNEXED MERCED COUNTY.

SO THERE WAS NOTHING NEEDED.

WELL, MADERA COULDN'T ACCEPT THAT, THAT THERE'S NO NEGOTIATION NEEDED, SO THEY BROUGHT A RESOLUTION TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON A FORMAT THAT MATCHED WHAT THEY DO DOWN THERE. AND THE BOARD.

THE BOARD ADOPTED IT.

BUT IN THAT CASE THEY'RE NOT ON THE PROPERTY TAX ROLL.

SO THERE IS NO NEGOTIATION BECAUSE THEY DON'T COLLECT ANY.

BUT, BUT IN THOSE CASES, YOU STILL HAVE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION SAYING THERE'S NO NO TAX TO SHARE.

AND SO I REMEMBER AT THE TIME JIM BROWN WAS HERE AND COUNCIL LIKE, WELL, WE DON'T DO THIS, WHAT ARE WE DOING AND WHY ARE WE DOING IT? IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THERE'S NOTHING HERE.

AND BUT IT MAKES YOU SUSPICIOUS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO YOU'RE MISSING SOMETHING OR THERE'S SOMETHING GOING TO SHOW UP.

AND SO THEY GOT THEY GOT ALL THE BACKGROUND FROM MADERA COUNTY BOARD TO SEE HOW THEY DO IT.

SO, AGAIN, IT'S SO THE LAW DOESN'T REALLY IT DOES AFFECT US LEGALLY.

IF SOMEBODY INSISTED ON APPLYING FOR AN ANNEXATION AND I COULD SAY IT WOULD APPLY TO CITIES IF THERE WAS NO CURRENT REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF ABOUT THE REVENUE SHARING, THE RULES MAY REQUIRE IT, BUT THERE'S LAFCO PART IN THE REVENUE SHARING.

WE HAVE REALLY NOTHING TO DO OTHER THAN SAYING YOU HAVE TO HAVE THIS DONE BECAUSE WE CAN'T SUGGEST THE PARTY A OR PARTY B, HOW THEY SHOULD SHARE THEIR REVENUE. THAT CORRECT.

AND WHAT THE CHANGE IS.

THE WAY I UNDERSTAND HERE IS BEFORE YOU COULD STILL SUBMIT THE APPLICATION AND THEN IT WAS UP TO THE CITY AND THE COUNTY TO NEGOTIATE THAT, AND THEN IT COULD JUST BE STALLED OUT THERE FOREVER. NOW, YOU CAN'T DO IT UNTIL IT'S DONE.

IF THIS IF THIS GOES THROUGH, IF AB 1753 GOES THROUGH, IT'S SAYING YOU CANNOT EVEN SUBMIT IT UNTIL YOU HAVE THAT DONE.

I THINK THAT PROBABLY PUTS A LITTLE BIT MORE PRESSURE FOR FOLKS TO GET IN THE ROOM AND GET A DEAL DONE.

WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN? WHAT HAPPENS IN A SCENARIO LIKE MADERA MADERA DOWN THERE ON HIGHWAY 41 AND AVENUE 12, THAT'S THAT'S IN THE COUNTY.

THAT'S YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED PART OF THEIR RANCHOS.

BUT THAT'S NOT EVEN THAT'S NOT AN UNINCORPORATED DEAL EITHER.

SO ALL THAT REVENUE GOES TO MADERA COUNTY THEN, CORRECT? YEAH. SO WHY WOULD THEY EVER WANT TO FIGHT? WHY WHY WOULD THEY EVER, IF THAT COMMUNITY EVER WANTED TO INCORPORATE, WHY WOULD MADERA WANT TO AGREE TO IT? WOULDN'T THEY LOSE HALF OF WHATEVER THEY'RE GETTING? THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T SEE TOO MANY PEOPLE INCORPORATING ANYMORE.

YEAH, LIKE NONE. THAT'S RIGHT.

LIKE, WELL, WE'VE GOT 2 OR 3 EXAMPLES HERE.

MERCED SAID THAT THAT COULD BE LIKE THAT TOO.

BUT IT'S BUT I THINK TO BOB, WHEN YOU AND I KNOW WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE OFF TOPIC BUT YEAH BUT LIKE YOU KNOW YOU TAKE A COMMUNITY LIKE HILMAR THAT I THINK YOU KNOW VERY WELL COULD THEY GOT THE BONES THERE TO BE ABLE TO INCORPORATE BUT WHEN YOU ACTUALLY DIG INTO WHAT IS REQUIRED OF YOU INCORPORATING AND HAVING NOW TO RUN A CITY HALL AND TO HAVE YOUR OWN POLICE FORCE AND YOUR OWN FIRE DEPARTMENT AND ALL THOSE THINGS.

[00:30:04]

WE WOULD RATHER UNINCORPORATE.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT HAPPENS, THE PROCESS FOR IT.

BUT BUT BUT IT'S VERY RARE.

BUT IT JUST BECAUSE THE COST OF BUSINESS IS GOING UP AND UP AND AND THOSE COMMUNITIES HAVEN'T GROWN AT A PACE TO BE ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH IT, YOU KNOW.

SO BUT ANYWAYS I DIGRESS.

THE BURDEN BE PLACED ON A COUNTY OBVIOUSLY YES I MEAN ANOTHER REASON AREN'T JUST CORPORATIONS.

YEAH THOSE ARE DISCUSSIONS FOR ANOTHER DAY BUT THERE'S PROBABLY MANY CITIES WHO COULD DISINCORPORATE THAT ARE HAVING A REAL STRUGGLE AND THE SERVICES ARE POOR.

BUT YEAH. WHAT DO YOU DO? YEAH. AND THEN THERE'S A SECOND PROVISION ON THIS AS WELL.

YEAH. THE SECOND PROVISION IS, IS JUST CLEANING UP.

WE'RE SO ELECTRONIC NOW THAT A LOT OF THE VERBIAGE IN THE ACT AND THIS ONE IS IS TRANSMIT WAS OR USE THE WORD MALE AND MALE EVERYBODY THINKS MALE YOU GOT TO PUT POSTAGE ON ALL THAT.

SO EMAIL ISN'T MAIL NECESSARILY.

SO THEY WANT TO CHANGE IT TO SAY TRANSMIT INSTEAD OF MAIL AND THEN YOU COULD MAIL IT IF YOU WANT, YOU CAN EMAIL AND EVERY LAFCO DOES A LOT OF A LOT OF REFERRALS AND THINGS BY EMAIL NOW, NOT MAILING IT OUT.

AND SO THEY DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO GET IN TROUBLE LATER THAT, OH, YOU SHOULD HAVE MAILED THAT LIKE SOMEBODY DOESN'T LIKE A PROJECT AND YOU LOOK FOR ANY, ANY WEAKNESS AT ALL IN THE RECORD. SO. OH YOU DIDN'T YOU EMAILED THAT OUT, YOU DIDN'T MAIL IT, SO IT'S INVALID OR SOMETHING.

SO THEY JUST WANT TO CLEAR THAT UP.

SO I THINK IT'S NORMAL BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT NOW IS, IS EMAIL IS VERY COMMON.

SO YES, WE JUST DO WANT TO LET OUR SUPPORT CAL LAFCO ALWAYS ASK US TO TO ALL THE LAFCO TO READ A LETTER OF SUPPORT.

SO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MR NICHOLSON.

WE'LL NOW OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC, SEE IF THERE'S ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.

NOT SEEING ANYONE. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS.

WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION? YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HO.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BERTAO TO SIGN A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR AB 1753.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY 4 TO 0.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE MOVING RIGHT ALONG TO EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ITEM A RECRUITMENT OPEN FOR ALTERNATE PUBLIC MEMBER POSITION ON THE

[VIII. EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND COMMISSIONERS’ COMMENTS ]

YES. SO. SO THE PERIOD IS NOW OPEN FOR ALTERNATE PUBLIC MEMBERS BY THE COMMISSION AND THE ONLY QUALIFICATION IS BASICALLY BEING AN ADULT, YOU KNOW, AND WHICH, WHICH IS YOU HAVE TO DEFINE THAT, I GUESS NOT JUST BY AGE, I GUESS, BUT IN OUR, IN OUR PURPOSE.

IT'S AGE 18, BUT ALSO YOU CAN'T BE AN EMPLOYEE OR AN ELECTED OFFICER OF A SPECIAL DISTRICT OR OF A CITY OR THE COUNTY TO BE A PUBLIC MEMBER. SO THAT'S THE ONLY QUALIFICATION.

SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE SCOTT HUNTER AND WE'VE HAD SCOTT HUNTER FOR MANY YEARS AS ALTERNATE AND HE'S INTERESTED IN SERVING AGAIN.

SO HE'LL SUBMIT THE APPLICATION, BUT WE MAY GET OTHERS AND THE COMMISSION GETS TO DECIDE.

BUT THE REASON I PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA, BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF A FORMALITY ANYWAY, IS THAT SOME LAFCO, WHEN THEY HAVE INCUMBENTS IN THE POSITION THAT THEY LIKE, THEY THEY DO AN ABBREVIATED NOTIFICATION PROCESS TO MEET THE MINIMUM OF THE LAW.

BUT THEY WOULD PUT OUT THERE, WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO REFILL THIS WITH THIS CURRENT POSITION.

AND I CAN BRING WORDING FORWARD WITH OUR CURRENT INCUMBENT.

AND IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SUBMIT, WE'LL TAKE THAT.

WE'LL LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT'S WHAT THEIR THEIR PRIORITY IS.

SO THIS IS SOMETHING KIND OF WHAT OUR COMMISSION HAS DONE WITH OUR REGULAR MEMBERS AS WELL, THAT BUT WE'VE NEVER CHANGED OUR PROCEDURES.

OUR PROCEDURES ARE WRITTEN UP JUST OUT OF THE CORTESE KNOX HERTZBERG ACT PROCESS.

SO IT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE CAN'T DO IT THIS YEAR FOR THIS RECRUITMENT, BUT IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THE COMMISSION WANT TO CONSIDER AND WE COULD BRING IT BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING OR AT A FUTURE MEETING TO LOOK AT CHANGING OUR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO SUPPORT A MORE LIMITED RECRUITMENT WHEN WE HAVE AN INCUMBENT THAT THE COMMISSION IS HAPPY WITH.

SO LIKE I SAID, THERE'S MANY LAFCO THAT DO THAT AND YOU SEE EMAILS PERIODICALLY ABOUT HOW DO YOU DO THAT WHEN YOU HAVE AN INCUMBENT THAT YOU WANT TO SUPPORT? SO OTHER LAFCO HAVE THAT.

SO I BROUGHT IT UP FOR FOR DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION, I GUESS.

ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.

I MEAN, IF WE HAVE GOOD PARTS THEN AND THERE'S AND WE'RE STILL FOLLOWING THE LAW, BUT BUT ALSO PUTTING IT OUT THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CONSIDERING GIVING CONSIDERATION TO THE PERSON THAT'S ALREADY SITTING THERE BECAUSE AS YOU GUYS ALL ARE WELL AWARE, AND APRIL, YOU'RE NEWER IS IT TAKES YOU A LITTLE

[00:35:06]

AND SO THERE'S THERE'S SO MUCH VALUE IN HAVING SOMEBODY THAT HAS THE KNOWLEDGE VERSUS BRINGING IN SOMEBODY BRAND NEW.

IT'S IT BECOMES IT'S QUITE THE LEARNING CURVE.

SO I THINK AT LEAST FOR ME, I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU BRING THAT BACK TO A FUTURE MEETING AND THEN WE CAN HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION AND POTENTIALLY TAKE A VOTE ON IT. OKAY.

IS EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT? OKAY. OKAY, PERFECT.

I'LL WORK WITH COUNSEL ON IT, OF COURSE, TO BE SURE.

WE'RE SURE WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT.

YEAH. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM B, EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S ORAL UPDATE ON UPCOMING APPLICATIONS AND OTHER BUSINESS.

YEAH, SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A PENDING APPLICATION THAT'S BEEN PENDING.

IT WAS RE SUBMITTAL OF AN OLD ONE, BUT IT'S PENDING FROM LOS BANOS AND IT'S CALLED THE AMG ANNEXATION.

IT'S INDUSTRIAL ANNEXATION ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TOWN OFF OF WILMOT.

AND THERE'S WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT IN THE PAST AND THE CONCEPT OF WHAT JUST WOULDN'T HAPPENED IN STANISLAUS COUNTY WITH NEWMAN, WHERE THE CITY HAS ANNEXED A LOT OF LAND OVER THE YEARS, AND THE CCID PROPERTY THAT'S IN THERE WAS FARMLAND THAT GOT ANNEXED STAYS IN CCID.

AND SO CCID DOESN'T LIKE THAT, AS WE KNOW.

AND THEY JUST WENT THROUGH A BIG DETACHMENT OF HUNDREDS OF ACRES IN SEPARATE PARCELS ALL AROUND NEWMAN TO DETACH THEM FROM CCID.

AND A LOT OF THOSE WERE DEVELOPED SUBDIVISIONS WITH PEOPLE LIVING IN THEM FOR FOR YEARS.

SO IT MADE NO SENSE.

THEY PROBABLY NEVER KNEW THEY WERE ON CCID.

BUT IN THE CASE OF LOS BANOS, IT'S MORE BEING CONTENTIOUS.

SO [INAUDIBLE] ANNEXATION IS ONLY AN ANNEXATION AND IT'S FARM GROUND AND SO CCID WANTS THAT TO BE DETACHED.

AND SO THE CITY IS IS TALKING TO CCID ABOUT IT AND MAYBE NEGOTIATING, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF GOALS FOR FUTURE ANNEXATIONS YOU KNOW, THEY'RE JUST GETTING THEIR GENERAL PLAN ADOPTED THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE SO WE'RE EXPECTING THEM TO SUBMIT A BUNCH OF ANNEXATIONS BEFORE TOO LONG.

AND SO THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AND IF IT CAME IN AS A REORGANIZATION AN ANNEXATION OF THE CITY.

A DETACHMENT FROM SEASIDE.

THEN WE PROCESS IT THAT WAY.

BUT IF IT CAME IN IN A STRAIGHT ANNEXATION, THEN WE DO OUR REFERRALS AND WE HAVE TO NOTIFY EVERY AGENCY THAT'S ON THAT LAND, LIKE ESPECIALLY SCHOOL DISTRICTS, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE NO CONTROL. WE NOTIFY ELEMENTARY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, IRRIGATION DISTRICTS, RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, HOSPITAL DISTRICTS. AND SO CCID WOULD COMMENT, HEY, WE WANT THIS DETACHED, I'M SURE WHAT THEY'D SAY.

SO THEN THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

SO THEY'RE TRYING TO WORK ON IT HEAD ON WITH WITH THE CITY SO THAT APPLICATION HAS BEEN ON HOLD NOW FOR OVER SIX MONTHS.

AND I'M NOT SURE I KNOW THE CITY HAS HAD SOME TURNOVER AND, YOU KNOW, THE NEW CITY MANAGER OR OLD CITY MANAGER COMING BACK.

SO THEY MAY BE CREATING A NEW DIRECTION FOR WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THE BONUS.

YEAH. YEAH.

SO, YEAH, SO THAT'S THE ONLY FILED APPLICATION RIGHT NOW.

BUT LIKE I SAY, THE WE'RE EXPECTING A LOT OF ANNEXATIONS TO COME FOLLOWING THAT, BUT THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO DO THE MSR UPDATE TO CHANGE THE SPHERE.

SO MR BERTAO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? THIS IS A REPEAT OF OLD, OLD THINGS I'VE SAID AND IT ALWAYS BUGS ME WITH CCID'S POSITION.

OKAY. AND WE YOU COULD STILL SEE IT TODAY ON A PIECE ALONG MERCER SPRINGS ROAD THERE RIGHT BEHIND THE DAIRYMEN'S ALMOST A QUARTER OF A MILE DOWN THE ROAD THERE. THAT'S STILL IT'S STILL AN AGRICULTURE THAT WAS DETACHED SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

THEY GET WATER FOR IT WHEN THEY HAVE IT AVAILABLE, WHICH THIS YEAR WILL BE AVAILABILITY.

SO THEY'LL BE ABLE TO USE CANAL WATER OUT OF IT IF THEY WANT, IF THEY CAN STILL GET IT.

AND THERE'S OTHER PLACES THERE.

I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEIR MENTALITY IS THAT AS SOON AS AN ANNEXATION HAPPENS, THEY WANT THE DETACHMENT.

I MEAN, I SEE THE POINT THAT THE DETACHMENT SHOULD HAPPEN WHEN DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS, NOT WHEN THE ANNEXATION HAPPENS, BECAUSE IT COULD BE IT COULD BE YEARS BEFORE IT HAPPENS BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT LEGAL OR OR PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LANDOWNERS AND WHATEVER.

AND HERE THERE'S A PIECE OF GROUND THAT THAT COULD BE FARMED OR PASTURE.

THAT'S PASTURE, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE.

BUT WHATEVER HAPPENS, I MEAN, THEY COULD PUT WATER ON IT WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY TWICE THE PRICE BECAUSE IT'S BECAUSE IT'S OUT OF DISTRICT WATER, YOU KNOW? SO I KIND OF WISH THERE WAS SOME WAY WE COULD CONVINCE THEM TO REVISIT THAT.

AND THAT'S THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHETHER THEY'RE IN MERCED COUNTY OR STANISLAUS COUNTY OR FRESNO COUNTY.

I MEAN, THEY PROBABLY HAVE THE SAME I'M SURE THEY HAVE THE SAME RULE FOR FOR EVERYBODY THAT THEY WANT YOU TO DETACH WHEN THE ANNEXATION HAPPENS.

[00:40:02]

I WANT TO YOU ENLIGHTEN THAT.

I WANT TO COMMENT ON. I CAN'T TELL YOU WHY.

I KNOW THAT YOU CAN SPEAK FOR THE CITY OF LOS BANOS.

THERE WAS A POINT WHEN CCID WASN'T REALLY PAYING ATTENTION TO THAT STUFF.

AND AND THEN THERE WAS ANNEXATIONS THAT HAPPENED.

AND THEN YOU ENDED UP WITH PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE CITY LIMITS THAT POTENTIALLY GOT BUILT ON THAT THAT STILL HAD THE WATER RIGHTS TO THE GROUND. AND I GET IT.

I THEIR WHOLE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND WANTING THEM TO DETACH IS BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT IF YOU LET'S JUST SAY THERE'S 100 ACRES AND IF YOU CAN PUT FIVE HOUSES TO THE ACRE RIGHT NOW, ONE PERSON OWNS THAT 100 ACRES.

WHOEVER LIVES AT THAT ADDRESS GETS TO VOTE FOR THEIR BOARD, RIGHT? YOU PUT 500 HOUSES ON THERE.

NOW THOSE 500 HOUSEHOLDS GET TO VOTE.

YOU HAVE 500 FOLKS THAT LIVE WITHIN WITHIN A CITY THAT ARE VOTING FOR AN IRRIGATION.

SO I TOTALLY GET THAT.

BUT I'M IN THE SAME BOAT WITH YOU.

IS, IS THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE AGREED UPON THAT SAYS THAT YES, WE'RE THIS ANNEXATION GETS PROCESSED AND YES, THE WATER RIGHTS WILL BE DETACHED BUT SOMETHING THAT TRIGGERS THAT, WHETHER IT'S DEVELOPMENT OF A FINAL MAP, SOMETHING THAT WE CAN AGREE ON, AND YOU PUT IT IN INTO THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE ANNEXATION, THE AGREEMENTS THAT THEN WHEN THIS HAPPENS, IT TRIGGERS THE DETACHMENT. RIGHT.

BECAUSE I'M WITH YOU.

YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, AS WE WITNESSED IT WITH THE WITH THE BIG WITH THE GREAT RECESSION, ALL THIS PROPERTY THAT GOT ANNEXED AND THEY FORCED HIM TO DETACH. WELL, THEN THE HOUSING JUST OVERNIGHT IN LOS BANOS WENT FROM BUILDING 750 A YEAR TO ZERO.

AND NOW YOU HAVE THIS GROUND THAT'S JUST SITTING THERE.

AND IT'S I MEAN, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT DUST CONTROL, YOU TALK ABOUT ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT IF THEY'RE ABLE TO KEEP FARMING THE SOIL, RIGHT, IT DOESN'T BECOME A NUISANCE.

BUT WITHOUT WATER, YOU KNOW, ON NON CRITICAL YEARS.

YEAH, YOU CAN YOU CAN GET WATER TO IT AT A HIGHER RATE.

KNOWING IT'S COMING. SO I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU.

I THINK THAT THOSE ARE DISCUSSIONS AND I'VE HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH CCID AS WELL THAT, LISTEN, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT NEEDS TO BE DETACHED.

I JUST DON'T AGREE WITH YOU WHEN IT NEEDS TO BE DETACHED.

I THINK THAT IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE TRULY YOU KNOW, IF AS LONG AS THE GROUND IS ABLE TO BE FARMED, CONTINUE TO FARM, BUT ONCE IT STARTS TO GET DEVELOPED, WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE, THEN, YEAH, THEN IT'S TIME TO DETACH THE WATER RIGHTS.

BUT I DON'T KNOW.

YOU KNOW, WE AS A COMMISSION, I THINK WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, TO, TO, TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS OR NOT MAKE NOT MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.

I THINK HISTORICALLY WE'VE ALWAYS KIND OF JUST GIVEN DEFERENCE TO THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT AND WHATEVER THEY WANTED WE HAVE AGREED TO.

I WANT TO WORK WITH THEM.

I DON'T WANT TO BE THE BIG BULLY AND SAY, NO, YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT THIS WAY.

BUT I WOULD LOVE TO TO WORK WITH THEM AND HELP THEM KIND OF, YOU KNOW, EVENTUALLY IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, RIGHT? COMMUNITIES ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GROW, BUT IT'S JUST ALLOW THOSE TO BE DETACHED AS THE GROWTH HAPPENS AND NOT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THIS GOES BACK TO A PHILOSOPHY THAT I HAVE EVEN FURTHER IS I FEEL LIKE CITIES THEY WANT TO PIECEMEAL EVERYTHING.

THEY WANT TO ANNEX 50 ACRES HERE, 25 ACRES THERE, 30 ACRES THERE.

WHEN IF YOU GO LOOK AT COMMUNITIES AROUND US, YOU GO LOOK AT THAT MISSION VIEJO THERE IN ON 41 AND AVENUE 12 WHERE, YOU KNOW, THEY THAT WHOLE DEAL THERE IS I DON'T EVEN KNOW.

I'M JUST GOING TO SAY IT'S 1000 ACRES.

AND THEN WHAT THAT DOES IS THAT ALLOWS THE DEVELOPER TO MASTER PLAN THE DEVELOPMENT.

RIGHT? AND SO WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE, OKAY, IF I ANNEX THIS 100 ACRE PIECE, I NEED TO PUT IN A 12 INCH WATER LINE TO SUPPLY WATER THERE.

IF I ANNEX A 1000 ACRE PIECE, I NEED TO PUT IN A 36 INCH WATER LINE.

RIGHT? I'M JUST MAKING UP NUMBERS.

THE COST OF DIGGING THE HOLE IS RELATIVELY THE SAME.

WHETHER YOU DIG A HOLE FOR A 12 INCH 1 OR 36 INCH ONE, THE PIPE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPENSIVE, BUT THEY'RE PUTTING THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN ONCE VERSUS WE ANNEX THIS HUNDRED AND WE NEED A 12 INCH AND THEN WE GET DOWN THE ROAD.

NOW WE GOT TO GO TEAR UP TO 12 INCH TO GO PUT IN A 36 INCH THAT GOES TO THAT KIND OF THAT PHILOSOPHY.

BUT WHERE THAT COMES IN, I'LL TIE THIS ALL TOGETHER IS, IS THAT THESE MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENTS, THEY DON'T DEVELOP THEM OVERNIGHT.

YOU GO LOOK AT THAT MISSION VIEJO.

THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON THAT THING FIVE YEARS AND THEY PROBABLY GOT ANOTHER 5 TO 7 YEARS BEFORE IT EVER GETS TO BUILD OUT.

BUT WHEN YOU AND THEN THIS COMES BACK TO COMMUNITIES WANTING THESE AMENITIES, WANTING THESE THINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT TO PAY FOR IT.

WELL IT'S A SIMPLE NUMBERS.

IF I ANNEX 100 ACRES AND I PUT 500 HOUSES ON IT, I WANT THE COMMUNITY SAYS, HEY, WELL, I WANT AN AQUATIC CENTER.

THIS IS A $5 MILLION AQUATIC CENTER THAT THEY WANT.

WELL, FOR THAT DEVELOPER TO STRETCH THAT COST OVER 500 HOUSES, IT BECOMES IMPRACTICAL.

THEY CAN'T DO IT. BUT NOW THEY ANNEX A THOUSAND ACRES AND THEY PUT 5000 HOUSES AND THEY CAN STRETCH THAT AQUATIC CENTER.

[00:45:02]

THAT MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE.

NOW THE COMMUNITY GETS THE AMENITIES THAT THEY WANT AND THE COST IS SPREAD AMONG MORE AND MORE UNITS, IF YOU WILL.

AND I THINK IT'S A WIN WIN FOR EVERYBODY.

BUT IT'S AGAIN, THAT COMES.

YEAH, EXACTLY.

YOU YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S NO SECRET IF THE COUNTY OR THE CITY BUILDS A FIRE STATION, IT'S CRAZY.

YOU CAN YOU CAN MAKE DEALS.

AND I KNOW THAT IT'S NOT ILLEGAL BECAUSE I'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN IN GILROY WHERE, OKAY, YOU WANT THIS DEVELOPMENT, YOU'RE GOING TO HERE'S OUR SPECS.

YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD US A FIRE STATION, AND THERE'S VALUE IN THE DEVELOPER BUILDING THE FIRE STATION FIRST BECAUSE THEN EVERYBODY THAT BUYS A HOUSE AROUND THERE KNOWS THAT THERE WAS A FIRE STATION THERE, AND YOU DON'T GET THE COMPLAINTS.

WELL, NOW WE DECIDE TO PUT A FIRE STATION THERE AND YOU'VE GOT ALL THESE THESE HOUSES AROUND IT.

NOW, PEOPLE ARE UPSET BECAUSE THEY GOT A FIRE STATION, YOU KNOW, WITH SIRENS AND WHATNOT GOING THROUGH THERE.

SO I KNOW I KIND OF GOT OFF TOPIC THERE.

BUT YEAH, BACK TO THE CCID WATER THING IS, IS THAT I THINK THAT AS A COMMISSION, I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF AUTHORITY TO REALLY SIT DOWN AND I DON'T WANT TO USE THIS WORD, BUT I'M GOING TO IS, IS IS KIND OF FORCED THE DISCUSSION.

WHAT DOES WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? LET'S COME TO I THINK WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT ON WHY YOU WANT TO DO IT.

BUT THERE'S PROBABLY A BETTER WAY BECAUSE I KNOW I PUT MYSELF IN THE SHOES OF YOU KNOW, IT WAS IT WAS THE CARDOZA PIECE.

THEY HAD PASTURE ON IT.

THAT'S WHAT THEY ALWAYS WANTED TO DO WITH IT.

WELL, WHEN IT HAS PASTURE ON IT, THAT'S NOT A BIG CASH CROP.

RIGHT. SO TO BUY TIER TWO WATER TO IRRIGATE PASTURE, IT'S NOT FEASIBLE.

YEAH. SO.

OKAY, SORRY, BILL.

I DIGRESS. OKAY.

I JUST, YOU KNOW.

YEAH, WELL, I DO.

I THINK THE HISTORY WAS RIGHT BECAUSE WORKING WITH THE COUNTY FOR SO LONG IS CCID THOUGHT THE CITY WOULD NOTIFY THEM WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO DEVELOP SO THEY COULD DETACH IT.

AND THE CITY NEVER DID.

AND THAT WAS HAPPENING IN NEWMAN.

THEY'RE WORKING WITH NEWMAN AND STANISLAUS.

OH, IT'S MARLA. YEAH.

SO LET ME. LET ME TAKE THIS.

YEAH. YEAH. HELLO, MARLA.

SHE'S WATCHING THE MEETING AND SHE'S PROBABLY TELLING US, HEY, OKAY, YOU GUYS ARE GETTING OFF TOPIC.

YEAH, OKAY.

I THINK THEY JUST TAKE THE PHONE RANG.

THEY GOT. THEY GOT THE MESSAGE.

YEAH, THEY DO.

SO. OKAY. THANK.

THANK YOU MARLA. OKAY, BYE.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

YEAH, WE. IT WASN'T AGENDIZED TO GO THIS FAR, SO.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MARLA.

YEAH. YEAH. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. SHE'S ON THE JOB.

YEAH. OKAY.

SO. YEAH.

SO NO OTHER.

I HAVE NO OTHER PENDING APPLICATION ACTIVITY AT THIS POINT TO TALK ABOUT.

RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM C, COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.

COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL.

THANK YOU. HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MERCED COUNTY.

JUNE 19TH, 1855.

WE BROKE OFF FROM THE MOTHER OF ALL COUNTIES, MARIPOSA.

MERCED COUNTY IS 168 YEARS OLD AS OF YESTERDAY, NOT ON 4/20.

THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY MAY 19TH.

YOU SAID JUNE 19TH. MAY 19TH.

MAY 19TH. SORRY.

OKAY. MAY 19TH WAS OUR BIRTHDAY.

APRIL. IT'S WHY YOU SAID IT FOR YESTERDAY WAS WE TURNED 168 YESTERDAY, BUT IT IS APRIL 19TH, APRIL, APRIL, APRIL.

I SAID MAY. HE SAID JUNE.

I SAID MAY. APRIL.

YOU'RE RIGHT. IT IS APRIL.

I'M LOOKING RIGHT HERE. OKAY.

COMMISSIONER BERTAO. YEAH.

THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE IS THAT THE ON I THINK ON MARCH 23RD OF THIS YEAR, THE DOS PALOS PORTUGUESE DES ASSOCIATION ATTAINED 100 YEARS OF INCORPORATION.

WE'RE CELEBRATING OUR 100TH ANNIVERSARY FEST THIS YEAR ON MAY 14TH AND 13TH AND 14TH.

AND JUST THAT WE'VE BEEN PART OF THE DOS PALOS FOR ALL THOSE YEARS, AND..

BOB'S BEEN THERE FOR ALMOST ALL OF THEM.

YEAH, HALF THE HALF THE TIME.

A HALF THE TIME FOR SURE.

SO, YOU KNOW, JUST TO COME OUT TO THAT ONE.

THANK YOU. PERFECT.

COMMISSIONER ESPINOSA. COMMISSIONER HOGUE..

AND I HAVE ONE. GO AHEAD, SIR.

OKAY. JUST ON THIS TOPIC OF HISTORY, ON APRIL 4TH, 40 YEARS AGO, IS WHEN I FIRST CAME TO MERCED COUNTY FROM LOS ANGELES.

SO HERE I AM. I'M WORKING PART TIME AND ONLY DOING LAFCO, BUT I'M STILL IN THE SAME BUILDING.

I'M THE SAME FLOOR AFTER 40 YEARS.

SO I WAS ALMOST GONE LAST YEAR.

BUT HERE, HERE I AM.

WE'RE THANKFUL. EVERYTHING HAPPENS FOR A REASON.

BILL AND AND. YEAH, YEAH.

SO, WELL, FINAL COMMENT IS, IS BILL, I DO WANT TO JUST THANK YOU FOR, FOR LIKE STICKING AROUND.

I MEAN, YESTERDAY I WAS IN A MEETING AND IT WAS CALLED HIM AND HE CAME UP AND JUST BECAUSE HE KNOWS SO MUCH ABOUT LAFCO AND REALLY JUST TRYING TO HELP FOLKS WORK THROUGH

[00:50:05]

SO WE THANK YOU FOR AND HOPEFULLY YOU'RE HAPPY AND, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T LUCKILY, WE'RE NOT A CRAZY BUSY LAFCO, SO I'M THANKFUL FOR IT.

SO WITH THAT, WE'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:01.

THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.

CRAZY BUSY. THAT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.