Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

[00:00:03]

OK, THE MEETING OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF MERCED COUNTY COME TO ORDER.

WE'RE GOING TO DO OUR PLEDGE.

MR. NAGY, WILL YOU LEAD US, PLEASE? READY, BEGIN.

NEXT, IS OUR ROLL CALL, MR. NICHOLSON, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL.

PRESENT. COMMISSIONER NAGY.

PRESENT. COMMISSIONER SERRATTO. PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER MCGLYNN.

ACTING CHAIR BERTAO.

HERE. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.

AND BECAUSE OF THE ATTENDANCE OF BOTH REGULAR CITY MEMBERS, COMMISSIONER MCGLYNN'S ATTENDANCE AS ALTERNATE NON-VOTING, BUT HE CAN PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE ALSO HAVE PRESENT OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BILL NICHOLSON AND OUR SECRETARY KIM ZINKE.

AND IS OUR COUNSEL MALATHY ARE YOU ON THE LINE SOMEWHERE? I AM. THANK YOU VICE CHAIR BERTAO.

THANK YOU. OK, OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

[IV. CONSENT CALENDAR]

. DO I HEAR A MOTION.

MOVE TO APPROVE. SECOND.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NAGY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SERRATTO WHO WE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING.

ANY DISCUSSION OR ANYTHING ON THEM, IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED OK, MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS CITIZEN COMMUNICATION.

LET'S SEE HERE.

I'M LOOKING AT THE WRONG PAPER, BUT THAT'S.

PUBLIC COMMENT.

PUBLIC HAS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA.

YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO TO MAKE YOUR POINT.

SO IF ANYONE HAS ANY NOT AGENDA ITEMS THEY'D LIKE TO BRING BEFORE THE COMMISSION.

YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO SO NOW.

WE ALSO ARE TAKING PUBLIC COMMENT VIA EMAIL, AND THAT'S AVAILABLE DURING THE MEETING, AND KIM, IS THERE ANYTHING, THERE IS NOTHING.

ALL RIGHT. PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[VI.A. Adoption of the Water and Sewer Service Providers Municipal Service Review (MSR) Update. The MSR presents determinations and conclusions addressing the municipal services and organizational issues performed by 14 special districts which provide potable water and/or sewer in unincorporated communities within the unincorporated county.Determinations regarding various district services and issues are presented in compliance with Government Code section 56430, corresponding references to the district’s Spheres of Influence. The actions requested are to make an environmental determination that the Municipal Service Review is exempt from CEQA review under Section 15306, “Information Collection” of the CEQA Guidelines, and adopt the Municipal Service Review]

WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TODAY AND.

YOU CAN COMMENT IN PERSON OR YOU CAN ALSO COMMENT VIA EMAIL.

OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING IS A ADOPTION OF THE WATER, SEWER AND SERVICE PROVIDERS, MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW.

SO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NICHOLSON, YOU'RE IN CHARGE.

THANK YOU, HAVE A POWERPOINT FOR THIS ONE.

YEAH, THIS INVOLVES AN UPDATE OF OUR 2007 REVIEW FOR THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS THAT SERVE WATER OR SEWER OR BOTH WITHIN MERCED COUNTY AND BEING UNIQUE OR NOT UNIQUE BUT COMMON IN MERCED COUNTY IS THAT ALL THE DISTRICTS ARE SERVING UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OR CITY FRINGE AREAS, BUT THEY DON'T PROVIDE ANY SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.

THE REQUIREMENT FOR PREPARING A MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW IS UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION FIVE SIX FOUR THREE ZERO, AND THE COMMISSION IS TO PERIODICALLY REVIEW AND UPDATE OUR MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS BEFORE OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, CHANGE OR EXPANSION. AND TYPICALLY, THE COMMISSION IS REACTING FOR SPHERE AMENDMENTS WHEN A DISTRICT OR CITY WANTS TO GROW OR EXPAND THEIR SERVICE BOUNDARY, THEN WE'LL BE AMENDING

[00:05:01]

THE SPHERE. BUT PERIODICALLY WE LOOK AT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT THE SPHERES AND PREPARE AN MSR TO UPDATE FACTS AND CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE.

I'LL BE SPEAKING ABOUT IT IN A MOMENT.

JUST FOR REFERENCE AND FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION.

A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE IS DEFINED AS A PLAN FOR THE PROBABLE PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES AND SERVICE AREA OF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY, AND IT IS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION.

SO WHETHER A CITY OR A DISTRICT HAS A PROPOSED SPHERE AND SOME GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENT OR SOME OTHER POLICY DOCUMENT, ONLY LAFCO CAN APPROVE OR DEMAND A SPHERE.

SO IT IS YOUR IT'S YOUR AUTHORITY TO ADOPT OR AMEND THE PURPOSES OF MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW OR TO PROMOTE MORE EFFICIENT AND HIGHER QUALITY SERVICES TO ASSESS THE ADEQUACY OF THE SERVICES AND PUBLIC FACILITIES THAT THE ENTITY PROVIDES.

IDENTIFY AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT TO SERVICES OR PUBLIC FACILITIES, INCLUDING POSSIBLE CHANGES TO GOVERNMENT STRUCTURES OR THE SHARING OF FACILITIES BETWEEN DISTRICTS OR DISTRICTS AND CITIES. AND SOME OF THOSE POSSIBLE CHANGES COULD BE CONSOLIDATIONS WITH OTHER AGENCIES OR DISILLUSIONS OF AN AGENCY THAT'S INACTIVE OR SIMILAR MEASURES.

THE ONE OF THE MAIN PURPOSES THAT THE STATE WANTED IN REQUIRING LAFCOS TO PREPARE MSRS IS THAT LAFCO IN EVERY COUNTY, ALL 58 COUNTIES IN THE STATE AND LAFCOS THEN BECOME A REPOSITORY OF DATA AND INFORMATION ON ALL THESE PUBLIC AGENCIES, THE CITIES AND THE INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS, SOME DEPENDENT DISTRICTS LIKE COUNTY SERVICE AREAS, AND DEFINITELY DOES NOT INCLUDE PRIVATE WATER COMPANIES OR PRIVATE UTILITY COMPANIES.

IT'S ONLY THE PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT WE HAVE AUTHORITY OVER.

THERE ARE SEVEN FACTORS TO REVIEW IN AN MSR AND YOU HAVE TO MAKE THEM WRITTEN DETERMINATIONS ABOUT EACH ONE.

SO I JUST QUICKLY GO THROUGH THOSE THE GROWTH IN POPULATION PROJECTION OF THE AREA OR ENTITY, THE LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF ANY DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES WE AFFECTIONATELY CALL DUCS WITHIN OR CONTIGUOUS TO THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, THE PRESENT AND PLAN CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND THE ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING SERVICES TO DUCS IF THEIR URBAN SERVICES, WHICH THIS MSR IS RELATED TO.

THE FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES AND THE STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES, ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES, AND THEN CATCH ALL ANY OTHER MATTER RELATED TO THE EFFECTIVE OR EFFICIENT SERVICE DELIVERY AS REQUIRED BY COMMISSION POLICY.

AND WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC POLICY WHERE WE ADDED MEASURES WHEN WE REVIEW MSR IS JUST MORE BASED ON THE INDIVIDUAL ENTITY OR ENTITIES THAT WE'RE EVALUATING.

FOR THIS MSR WE DID INCLUDE AN EIGHTH FACTOR FOR EACH DISTRICT, WHICH IS THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW, WHICH FOCUSES ON THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE CURRENT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BOUNDARY ANY CHANGE OR ANTICIPATED CHANGE IN THE BOUNDARY.

AND WE ARE NOT CHANGING ANY BOUNDARIES WITH THIS.

THERE'S NO ACTION ON THE SPHERES TODAY IN TERMS OF MODIFICATION, BUT WE DO IDENTIFY WHERE THAT CHANGE MAY BE NEEDED IN THE FUTURE, ESPECIALLY IN THE URBAN COMMUNITIES THAT ARE TARGETED FOR GROWTH BY THE COUNTY AND WHERE THE COUNTY IS PREPARING COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATES. THAT'S THE LOCAL GENERAL PLAN FOR THE URBAN AREAS THAT ARE GROWING.

AND WHEN THE COUNTY DOES THAT, THEN USUALLY THE SPECIAL DISTRICT PROVIDING THE SEWER AND THE WATER SERVICE WILL FOLLOW UP WITH A REQUEST TO AMEND THE SPHERE TO MATCH THAT URBAN BOUNDARY. AND THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE IMAGES OF A SPHERE FOR THE COMMUNITY OF HILMAR AND THE HILMAR COUNTY WATER DISTRICT.

AND THIS THE DISTRICT AREA IS IN GRAY AND THE RED BOUNDARY SHOWS THE GROWTH AREAS AND IT MATCHES UP WITH THE GROWTH AREAS IDENTIFIED IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY FOR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL GROWTH, SO IT'S A SAMPLE OF A SPHERE THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY ALREADY AMENDED BY THE COUNTY AND EXCUSE ME, THE COMMUNITY PLAN ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY AND AMENDED BY LAFCO TO MATCH THE COUNTY'S DETERMINATION.

SO WE HAVE AN EIGHT AND EIGHTH FACTOR.

SO ONTO THE MSR OVERVIEW OF THE DOCUMENT.

AGAIN, WE'RE TO DO A PERIODIC REVIEW OF SPHERES OF INFLUENCE UNDER SECTION 56425.

[00:10:03]

AND IT'S EVERY FIVE YEARS OR AS NECESSARY.

AND WE'VE BECAUSE BUDGETING, WE'VE ALWAYS HAVE BEEN BUDGETING FOR MSR UPDATES.

BUT WE HAVE SO MANY WELL OVER 40 SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND WE HAVE SIX CITIES.

SO WE'VE BEEN ROTATING OUR BUDGET ACCORDINGLY TO DEAL WITH WITH ALL THIS.

SO WE ACTUALLY JUST FOR REFERENCE, WE ARE INTO THE AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW UPDATE RIGHT NOW WITH THE SAME CONSULTANT ECONOMIC AND PLANNING SYSTEMS AND THEIR SUB CONSULTANT, RICHARD BURK'S AND ASSOCIATES.

AND THAT HELPED PREPARE THIS DOCUMENT.

SO WE'RE ON TO OUR NEXT ONE IS WE AS WE WRAP THIS UP.

SO THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED ARE COVERED IN THIS MSR ARE THE 14 SPECIAL DISTRICTS THAT PROVIDE SEWER AND OR WATER.

WE SPECIFICALLY LEFT OUT THE CELESTE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, WHICH IS A DISTRICT JUST EAST OF MERCED, WHICH WAS REALLY FORMED TO GET FUNDING GRANT FUNDING TO PUT IN A SEWER AND WATER SYSTEM. BOTH SYSTEMS ARE 100 PERCENT RUN BY THE CITY OF MERCED, ALL BUILDING, ALL MAINTENANCE, ALL COLLECTIONS.

AND SO THE DISTRICT, IT SHOULD BE DISSOLVED.

AND THE ISSUE IS TO THE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DISTRICT.

AND THEY ACTUALLY OWN THE FACILITIES OUT THERE TO HAVE THE CITY OF MERCED TAKE THOSE OVER AND HAVE THE CITY AGREE TO THAT BECAUSE WE CAN'T REALLY FORCE THEM TO TAKE IT.

SO ANYWAY, THE COMMISSION DID DIRECT STAFF TO DO A SPECIAL STUDY THAT'S UNIQUE ON WRAPPING UP THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT DISTRICT AND WORKING ON A CONSOLIDATION WITH OR AT LEAST A DISSOLUTION AND COORDINATING WITH MERCED.

SO THAT'LL BE PROCESSED SEPARATELY FROM THIS DOCUMENT, WHICH DOESN'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC ACTIONS RECOMMENDING ANY DISSOLUTIONS OR ANYTHING.

SO OUT OF THESE 14 DISTRICTS, EIGHT PROVIDE BOTH SEWER AND WATER FOUR ONLY PROVIDE WATER AND TWO OF THEM ONLY PROVIDE SEWER AND ONE DISTRICT PROVIDES STORMWATER IN ADDITION TO SEWER AND WATER. AND THAT'S THAT'S HILMAR.

OTHERWISE, THE COUNTY PROVIDES STORMWATER SERVICES IN THESE COMMUNITIES.

EACH DISTRICT HAS A SUMMARY TABLE.

SO IF YOU LOOKED AT THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE FEE DOCUMENT, THERE'S TEXT COVERING THE BROAD ISSUES IN A NARRATIVE ABOUT DETERMINATIONS AND CONTACTS WITH THE DISTRICT AND DATA THAT WE RECEIVED. BUT FOR EASE OF REVIEW AND ACCESS, ESPECIALLY BY THE PUBLIC, THERE'S A SUMMARY TABLE FOR EACH DISTRICT WHICH HAS THE CONTACT INFORMATION EMAIL ADDRESS.

ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS NOW IS THAT EACH SPECIAL DISTRICT HAVE A WEBSITE AND MANY OF THE SMALLER ONES DO NOT, STILL AND THERE ARE EXEMPTIONS.

IF YOU'RE SUPER SMALL AND HAVE A REALLY LOW BUDGET, YOU MIGHT ADOPT THE DISTRICT CAN ADOPT A RESOLUTION SAYING YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT.

BUT MANY OF THEM DIDN'T HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET OR THEY HAVE SINCE WE'VE PREPARED THE DOCUMENT. IT'S BEEN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS.

WE ALSO TALK ABOUT THE AREA SERVED, THE NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS AND THE POPULATION.

WE HAVE HISTORIC DISTRICT DATA OF WHEN IT WAS FORMED AND WHAT UNDER WHAT PRINCIPAL ACT OF TYPE OF DISTRICT IT WAS FORMED UNDER UNDER STATE LAW, THE SERVICES THAT ARE PROVIDED AND THAT THEY'RE AUTHORIZED.

AND LAFCO IS THE BODY TO AUTHORIZE WHAT SERVICES THEY CAN PROVIDE AND THEN FISCAL INFORMATION, WHICH IS TYPICALLY FOCUSED ON THEIR REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES AND ANY DISCREPANCIES OR ANY PROBLEMS WITH A NEGATIVE BALANCE IN THEIR ACCOUNTS.

AND IF WE HAD THE INFORMATION, WE ALSO IDENTIFIED ANY DEPTH THAT THEY HAVE.

SO THIS IS SOME ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED.

WE DID GENERALLY FIND THAT ALL THE DISTRICTS ARE PRETTY WELL AT HAVING ADEQUATE CURRENT CAPACITY, ALTHOUGH SOME HAVE HAVE SOME PROBLEMS THAT THEY'RE WORKING ON, USUALLY WITH THE STATE AND ITS MORE OVER WATER SUPPLY, SOMETIMES TREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR SEWER, BUT REALLY NONE OF THE DISTRICTS HAD MUCH, IF ANY, CAPACITY FOR GROWTH.

AND ONE THING THAT'S POINTED OUT IN THE DOCUMENT WAS WHEN WE DID OUR LAST MSR UPDATE, THE ORIGINAL MSR, BACK IN 2007, THERE WAS A BIG DESIRE BY MOST DISTRICTS TO HAVE EXTRA CAPACITY AND BE PROMOTING GROWTH IN RESPONSE TO THE COUNTY'S GENERAL PLANNING.

AND SO THE LAST MSR HAD A LOT OF NUMBERS ABOUT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GROW AND PROVIDE THIS AND THAT. AND THEN OVER ALL THESE YEARS, DUE TO WHAT WE HAD A BIG RECESSION AND THAT THAT PERIOD DURING MOST DISTRICTS HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON MAINTAINING THE LEVEL OF

[00:15:03]

SERVICE AND MEETING STATE STANDARDS FOR WATER QUALITY OR WASTEWATER TREATMENT QUALITY, TRYING TO MAINTAIN FUNDING, DEAL WITH ADEQUATE RATES.

SO THERE REALLY ISN'T A BIG EXCESS CAPACITY OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.

AND IT SHOWS UP IN THE COUNTY WHO HAS PREPARED THESE COMMUNITY PLANS.

SO MANY COMMUNITIES, THEY TARGET GROWTH LIKE HILMAR, DELHI, PLANATA, LAGRAND, BUT THERE'S NOT THERE HAVEN'T BEEN A LOT OF GROWTH HAPPENING JUST BECAUSE THE FACILITIES, THE EXCESS CAPACITY IS NOT THERE.

A LOT OF THE COMMUNITIES WEREN'T TARGETED FOR GROWTH.

THE SMALLER ONES, LIKE WE HAVE WATER SYSTEMS FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY REASONS.

THEY WERE NEVER PLANNED TO ACCOMMODATE A LOT OF GROWTH.

BUT THE IN THE CASES WHERE GROWTH WAS PLANNED, LIKE HILMAR, IT WOULD BE DOUBLING THE POPULATION OF THE COMMUNITY.

SO WITH DELHI, THERE JUST BEEN A LACK OF ABILITY TO GET THE CAPACITY FOR THE EXPANSION, EVEN THOUGH THE DISTRICT HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT.

SO THE NEXT CATEGORY WAS REGARDING THE DISADVANTAGE UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY OR DUCS.

AND THEN THERE'S A SIMILAR DEFINITION OF A DAC DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE UNINCORPORATED.

IT COULD BE CITIES TOO.

THERE'S DEFINITIONS THAT ARE SIMILAR, BUT THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT UNDER STATE LAW.

AND AGAIN, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT THE DUCS, BUT BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF OUR UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES, WE LOOKED AT WE LOOKED AT THE DAC DEFINITION TOO WHICH BOTH OF THEM ARE ARE BASICALLY WHERE YOUR COMMUNITY IS AT OR BELOW 80 PERCENT OF THE MEDIAN INCOME OF THE STATE, WHICH IS INCOME TO BE 80 PERCENT.

YOU'RE ABOUT FIFTY NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER FAMILY PER HOME.

AND IT TURNED OUT THAT EVERY SINGLE COMMUNITY IN THE COUNTY MEETS THAT DEFINITION EXCEPT FOR ONE WHEN ONE DISTRICT I SHOULDN'T CALL ALL COMMUNITIES.

BUT THE LITTLE COUNTRY CLUB WATER DISTRICT IS A SMALL PROBABLY THE SMALLEST DISTRICT, SERVING TWENTY THREE HOMES IN A SUBDIVISION NORTH OF THE COMMUNITY OF HILMAR HAT'S NEAR THE TURLOCK COUNTRY CLUB.

AND SO IT'S NEXT TO A GOLF COURSE AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES NEAR THE COUNTY LINE WITH BUT WE WOULDN'T HAVE THOUGHT HILMAR WAS.

AND WE WE WROTE THIS REPORT THAT HILMAR WAS NOT A DUC, BUT HILMAR COUNTY WATER DISTRICT DID THEIR OWN STUDY. AND THEY WHEN WE SENT THIS TO THEM, THEY RESPONDED WITH A COPY OF IT THAT THEY COMMISSIONED TO SEE IF THEY WERE QUALIFIED AS LOW INCOME.

AND THEY DO. AND THE BENEFIT OF THAT IS THAT THEY CAN GO AFTER MORE FUNDING FOR SEWER OR WATER IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH LOANS OR GRANTS.

AND IF THEY'RE LOW-INCOME THEY GET, THEY CAN GET A BETTER RATE OR MAYBE GET SOME OF THE FUNDS EXCUSED WITHOUT HAVING TO REPAY.

AND THEY WERE ABLE TO PROVE THAT.

SO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A COMMUNITY WE WOULDN'T HAVE TRADITIONALLY THOUGHT WOULD HAVE BEEN LOW INCOME. SO BASICALLY ALL THE COMMUNITIES, THEY HAVE THE NEGATIVE SIDE OF HAVING LOW INCOME RESIDENTS, WHICH MAKE IT HARDER TO PAY UTILITY FEES AND THEIR MONTHLY BILLS AND ALL THAT, BUT THEY CAN ALSO QUALIFY FOR GRANTS AND THINGS.

AND MANY OF THEM HAVE LIKE GOT A NEW SEWER PLANT WITH SOME EXCESS CAPACITY, BUT USUALLY YOU DON'T GET A LOT OF MONEY FOR GROWTH. YOU COVER THE EXISTING ONGOING PROBLEMS. SO, YEAH.

SO THAT WAS KIND OF A SURPRISE TO US THAT THERE WAS EVERY ONE OF THESE SPECIAL DISTRICTS EXCEPT FOR ONE. SO GOING ON THE NEXT DETERMINATION THERE, ARE SOME DISTRICTS THAT SHARE ALREADY SHARED TREATMENT OR DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES WITH CITIES AND THERE COULD BE THERE COULD BE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE, BUT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THE NORTH DOS PALOS WATER DISTRICT, SOUTH DOS PALOS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT AND THE MIDWAY COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT, ALL ON THE FRINGE OF THE CITY OF DOS PALOS.

AND THEY ALL SHARE WATER SYSTEMS WITH THE CITY AND MIDWAY AND SOUTH DOS PALS ALSO SHARE SEWER SERVICE WITH THE CITY AS PART OF A JPA.

THE WINTON WATER SANITARY DISTRICT HAS ITS OWN WATER SYSTEM AND THEY HAVE THEY OPERATE THEIR SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM.

BUT THE SEWER TREATMENT IS PERFORMED BY THE CITY OF ATWATER UNDER A CONTRACT.

SO THEY RUN THEIR WATER SYSTEM, BUT THEY COORDINATE WITH THE CITY OF ATWATER FOR SEWER.

IN RESPONSE TO THIS MSR WE WE SENT IT NOT ONLY TO THE DISTRICTS, BUT AFTER WE GOT FEEDBACK FROM THE DISTRICTS, WE SENT IT TO ANY CITY THAT WAS NEAR DISTRICT, NEIGHBORING COUNTIES, OTHER DISTRICTS LIKE AG

[00:20:01]

DISTRICTS, EVEN THE GSA, IS THAT THAT HAVE THESE WATER DISTRICTS WITHIN THEIR, AND WE GOT FEEDBACK FROM THE THE CITY MANAGER CLARIFYING SOME POINTS ABOUT THE CONCLUSIONS FOR THREE OF THE DISTRICTS THAT ARE ADJACENT OR OVERLAPPING WITH THEIR PLANNING AREA, WHICH INCLUDE NORTH DOS PALOS WATER DISTRICT, AND IT'S ONLY WATER, BUT THEY'RE PART OF A WATER JPA WITH THE CITY AND THESE OTHER TWO DISTRICTS AND MERCED COUNTY, ACTUALLY FOR AREAS TO THE EAST OF TOWN.

AND THEN THEY'RE PART OF THE SEWER JPA WITH MIDWAY AND SOUTH DOS PALOS AND NORTH DOS PALOS IS MUCH MORE RURAL SO THEIR ON SEPTIC.

SO THE POINT HERE, THIS IS A LOT OF TEXT HERE.

BUT IN THE STAFF REPORT, I IDENTIFIED SOME RECOMMENDED TEXT MODIFICATION TO REFLECT SOME CLARIFICATION FROM THE CITY.

THE FIRST IS THAT THIS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE INCLUDES BOTH MIDWAY AND SOUTH DOS PALOS AND THE CITY ANTICIPATES EVENTUAL ANNEXATION.

BUT IT ALSO INCLUDES PART OF THE NORTH DOS PALOS WATER DISTRICT THAT IS BELOW CARMELLIA ROAD. AND SO ON THIS MAP, YOU SEE NORTH DOS PALOS ON THE NORTHERN SIDE.

CARMELLIA IS THE EAST WEST BOUNDARY OF WHAT THE LAND USES THAT ARE CALLED FOR IN THE CITY GENERAL PLAN. THIS IS THE CITY OF SOUTH DOS PALOS AT SOME POINT.

BUT IN THE NORTH, IT WOULD BE A LOWER PRIORITY AND A GREEN DESIGNATION IS AGRICULTURAL.

SO THEY DON'T REALLY ANTICIPATE ANNEXING THAT AREA UNTIL LONGER INTO THE FUTURE.

BUT IF THEY DO OR WHEN THEY DO, THEY WOULD STOP OR CAMELLIA AND THE NORTHERN AREA WOULD STAY IN THE COUNTY.

THEY DON'T ANTICIPATE EVER ANNEXING THE NORTHERN PART OF NORTH DOS PALOS.

THEY ALSO IN THE SECOND AND THIRD BULLET, THEY NOTED ISSUES WITH THEIR JPA RECENTLY WHERE THE CITY WAS PAYING OFF.

THEIR JPA IS PAYING OFF THEIR SEWER FUNDING OR LOAN THAT THEY HAD.

AND BECAUSE OF THE DECLINING INTEREST RATES, THEY WENT OUT AND REFINANCED THEIR DEBT.

AND THEY ACTUALLY INDICATED THAT THE DEBT WENT FROM A SIX PERCENT INTEREST RATE TO DOWN TO A THREE PERCENT INTEREST RATE.

SO THEY'RE SAVING ABOUT A YEAR'S WORTH OF INTEREST PAYMENTS.

SO THEY REACHED OUT TO BOTH MIDWAY AND SOUTH DOS PALOS TO JOIN IN WITH THAT.

AND THEY EVEN SAID WE WOULD BUY OUT YOUR DEBT AND AND GET YOU RELIEVED FROM IT.

AND BECAUSE THEY WERE SAVING SO MUCH MONEY AND IF THEY COULD HAVE GOTTEN THE WHOLE PACKAGE DONE, IT WOULD HAVE SAVED ENOUGH MONEY TO MAKE IT WHOLE.

BUT NEITHER DISTRICT WAS INTERESTED.

I GUESS THERE WAS SOME SUSPICION OR SOME FEAR THAT THEY WOULD EITHER IF THE CITY TOOK OVER ALL THE DEBT. THE DISTRICTS MAY NOT HAVE ANY INDEPENDENCE.

THEY MAY NOT BE PART OF THE JPA ANYMORE, OR LAFCO WOULD LOOK AT THEM, MAYBE SAY YOU SHOULD BE DISSOLVED. SO THEY WANTED TO KEEP OUT OF FEAR OF THAT.

THEY WANTED TO KEEP THEIR INDEPENDENCE.

I COULD NOT VERIFY THAT THESE DISTRICTS DIDN'T RESPOND TO ANY OF THE SURVEYS, THE MULTIPLE OUTREACH THAT WE DID, AND THEY DIDN'T RESPOND TO THE DRAFT WE SENT THEM.

SO WE WROTE IN THAT THE CITY REFINANCED AND WE DID DISCOVER THAT EACH DISTRICT HAD A FAIR AMOUNT OF OUTSTANDING DEBT, WHICH IS NINETY THOUSAND FOR MIDWAY AND ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND FOR SOUTH DOS PALOS.

BUT WE DIDN'T PUT IN MSR.

THE REASON WHY THEY REFUSED BECAUSE WE COULDN'T VERIFY THAT.

BUT THE FACT IS THEY HAVE THIS REMAINING DEBT AND THEIR BUT THEIR SERVICES.

BASICALLY HOW THESE DISTRICTS WORKS IS ALL THE SYSTEMS ARE RUN BY THE CITY THROUGH THE JPA IS RUN BY THE CITY, BASICALLY.

AND BUT THE DISTRICT'S CONTROL, THE CONNECTIONS, THEY HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER A NEW HOME OR NEW BUSINESS COULD GET A SEWER OR WATER CONNECTION, AND THEN THEY CHARGE A CONNECTION FEE THAT WOULD HELP PAY DOWN THEIR DEBT.

BUT THE MONTHLY BILLING IS DONE BY THE CITY.

AND IF THERE'S A BREAKDOWN IN SOMETHING, THE CITY'S CREW MAINTAINS THAT.

SO THE DISTRICTS KIND OF ACT AS A LOCAL ARBITRATORS OF NEW CONNECTIONS AND GROWTH WHILE THE CITY CONTROLS THE UTILITY SERVICE.

SO, AGAIN, WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT THE TEXT ON PAGES IS FOUR AND FIVE, THE EXECUTIVE OFFICES REPORT, BE INCORPORATED INTO THE THE MSR IN THE FINAL VERSION.

SO WITH THAT, THE I HAVE A MAP OF EACH INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT IF YOU WANT TO SEE OR TALK ABOUT ANY INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT.

I ALSO HAVE THE PDF VERSION OF THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT AVAILABLE.

WE CAN IF WE WANTED TO GO LOOK AT A TABLE OF A SPECIFIC DISTRICT OR LOOK AT SOME TEXT WE CAN PULL THAT UP TOO, BUT OTHERWISE WE'D RECOMMEND THAT THE COMMISSION TAKE TWO ACTIONS.

[00:25:04]

ONE IS TO DETERMINE THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING FOR THIS PROJECT, WHICH WE ALWAYS HAVE FOUND THAT THERE IS AN EXEMPTION FOR INFORMATION, CONNECTION OR COLLECTION FROM CEQA ONE FIVE THREE ZERO SIX THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUBLIC SOURCE CODE ETHICAL GUIDELINES AND THAT THEY'RE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT AND DO NOT NEED ANY SPECIAL STUDY FOR CEQA.

AND THEN FOR THE MSR DETERMINATION ADOPT RESOLUTION TWENTY TWENTY DASH ONE APPROVING THE WATER AND SEWER SERVICE PROVIDERS MSR BASED ON THE FOUR DETERMINATIONS IN SECTION FOUR OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERS REPORT, AND WITH THE FOUR MODIFICATIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE RECOMMENDED MODIFICATION PORTION OF SECTION TWO OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERS REPORT.

AND THAT WOULD CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. OK, THE WAY WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, THE MSR REPORT AND AFTER THE MOTION AND SECOND ARE MADE THEN WE'LL DISCUSS ANYTHING ANY OF THE MEMBERS MAY HAVE ABOUT THAT BEFORE WE VOTE.

ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS.

CORRECT? OK, SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER NAGY.

ALL RIGHT. NOW WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE.

DOES ANYONE IN THE, FROM THE COMMISSION, SINCE THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, I'M GOING TO ASK ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE, HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR ANYTHING TO MAKE ABOUT THIS MSR.

I NOTICED THE PRESENTATION ABOUT THIS WELL DEAL FOR VOLTA AND ALL THAT, DOES THAT, IS THAT OK? CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION LATER? OK.

ANYONE ELSE? ANYTHING ON ONLINE KIM? OK, WE'LL RETURN IT TO THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION.

ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS MSR? ALL RIGHT. I HAVE. AND THESE ARE TWO.

MR. MCGLINN. YES SIR? ALL RIGHT. TURN YOUR MICROPHONE ONE THERE WHERE IT SAYS MIC ON.

OK, IS THERE A PROBLEM? WHAT'S THE PROBLEM BETWEEN SOUTH DOS PALOS AND MIDWAY? WHY THEY DIDN'T WANT TO ACCEPT LOWER INTEREST RATE OTHER THAN THEY THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE STUCK WITH SOMETHING ELSE? FILL US IN. IT'S A LONG STANDING DISPUTE GOING BACK TO AT LEAST THE NINETEEN FIFTIES.

AND WE SPEAKING FOR THIS CITY AND FOR THE CITY MANAGER.

WE WORKED EXTREMELY HARD TO RELIEVE THEM OF THEIR DEBT, BUT I WOULD HAVE TO USE THE WORD PARANOIA. THEY THOUGHT IF THEY DID THAT AND NO LONGER HAD THE DEBT, THAT THEY WOULD BE DISSOLVED AND THEREFORE HAVE NO SAY.

BUT WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM THEN IF THEY CANNOT PAY THEIR DEBT TO THE CITY SINCE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SAVE HALF THEIR HALF THEIR INTEREST RATE OR WHATEVER THAT THEY WERE GOING TO SAVE? IF THEY DON'T HAVE ANY NEW CONNECTIONS AND THEY HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEMS WITHIN THEIR DISTRICTS, THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE THEM TO SPEND MORE MONEY.

WHAT IS WHAT'S THE CITY'S PLANS TO WHAT? NO, THEIR SERVICES WILL CONTINUE TO BE PROVIDED, IRONICALLY ENOUGH, AFTER THE LOAN TRANSACTION WAS COMPLETED AND THEY HAVE REFUSED, IRONICALLY ENOUGH, THEY HAD SOME WISHFUL THINKING THAT THEY WISH THEY HAD, BUT THEY THINK THAT THE THINKING SEEMS TO BE THEY NEED THAT DEBT TO STAY IN EXISTENCE.

AND AS FAR AS INCREASING CAPACITY OF SOUTH DOS PALOS, THAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH THE COMPLETION OF A NEW WATER PLANT, WHICH IS A WHOLE ANOTHER BALL OF WAX I'M SURE ALL OF YOU ARE AWARE OF. RIGHT.

OK, AND ARE THE WATER RATES, DO THEY PAY THE SAME WATER RATE AS THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY AND WATER SEWER RATE, OR ARE THEY PAYING MORE? DO YOU KNOW? I, DON'T TAKE IT AS GOSPEL.

I THINK THEY'RE PAYING A LITTLE BIT MORE.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM ANYONE? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR.

[00:30:01]

MCGOWAN. WE'LL PROCEED TO VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MSR REPORT AS PRESENTED SIGNIFY BY SAYING, AYE.

AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRY.

MR. CHAIR. THAT INCLUDED THE CEQA DETERMINATION? YES. THE DETERMINATION THAT WAS IN THE MOTION.

OK.

OK. ALL RIGHT.

NEXT, WE HAVE GENERAL BUSINESS, THE ELEVENTH EXTENSION FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF THE

[VII.A. 11th Extension for Reorganization involving the Santa Nella County Water District and San Luis Water District – LAFCO File No. 0642 – To request an eleventh extension, for a period of one year, for a proposal involving the detachment of 5,864 acres from the San Luis Water District and the annexation of 910 acres into the Santa Nella County Water District generally located in a four mile radius of the Interstate 5, State Route 33 interchange in the Community of Santa Nella in western Merced County]

SANTA NELLA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT AND THE SAN LUIS WATER DISTRICT.

MR. NICHOLSON, GIVE US THE HIGHLIGHTS AND THEN WE'LL LET THEM, THE SANTA NELLA PEOPLE SPEAK. THANK YOU.

I PUT THE MAP UP OF SANTA NELLA JUST TO GIVE YOU A GEOGRAPHIC.

REMOVAL OF THE TERRITORY FROM THE SAN LOUIS WATER DISTRICT.

THAT'S BASICALLY AN AG DISTRICT FROM THE SANTA NELLA COMMUNITY AND THE ANNEXATION OF THAT AREA INTO THE SANTA NELLA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT.

AND ONE OF THE MAIN CONDITIONS BY THE COMMISSION TO ACCOMPLISH THAT WAS THAT THE WATER RIGHTS, THE BUREAU OF REC WATER RIGHTS TO THAT LAND BE TRANSFERRED TO SANTA NELLA SO THAT SAN LUIS DIDN'T PULL THOSE RIGHTS AWAY.

AND THEN SANTA NELLA HAD THE LAND IN THEIR DISTRICT.

BUT NO, NO SURFACE WATER, BECAUSE THIS AREA IS NOT VERY THERE'S NOT ADEQUATE WATER, GROUNDWATER SUPPLY. THE DETACHMENT AREA FOR SAN LUIS IS LARGER BECAUSE THE THE ENTIRE JUST SHOWS THE AERIAL PHOTO WITH THE O'NEIL REFLECTION. BUT THAT AREA IS ACTUALLY ALL IN THEIR DISTRICT AND IT HAS NO, THERE'S NO DISTRICT PURPOSE IN THAT AREA.

NO, NO DEMAND FOR MORE WATER SO IN FACT THEY WOULD LOVE TO OWN THAT WATER.

BUT SO THEIR DETACHMENT IS THE AREAS WITHIN SANTA NELLA THAT ARE BEING REMOVED, BUT ALSO THE OWNERS OF O'NEIL SO IT'S A MUCH BIGGER BOUNDARY BEING DETACHED.

BUT THE IMPETUS BEHIND IT AGAIN WAS THE FUTURE GROWTH AND URBAN SERVICE OF POTABLE WATER FOR SANTA NELLA. SO EXCUSE ME, AS THE COMMISSION IS AWARE, IT'S BEEN HELD UP YEAR AFTER YEAR, MULTIPLE DIFFERENT REASONS OVER TIME, INCLUDING THE RECESSION FOR A WHILE, INCLUDING THE BUREAU OF NOT BEING INTERESTED IN GIVING IT ANY ATTENTION FOR SOME PERIODS AS THEY DEALT WITH OTHER ISSUES.

AND THEN MORE RECENTLY, THEY'VE GOTTEN THE BUREAU TO WORK ON THIS.

THEY CALL IT A PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT OF THE CONTRACT, AND THEY'RE GETTING GOOD PROGRESS ON THAT, INCLUDING A CEQA OR A NEPA DOCUMENT TO GO WITH IT FOR FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

BUT MOST RECENTLY, SINCE THE LAST EXTENSION, THE SAN LUIS WATER DISTRICT AGREED OR DETERMINED TO AGREE WITH THE BUREAU TO CHANGE THEIR CONTRACT THAT THEY HAVE FOR THE WATER TO A RESERVE REPURCHASE.

I'M SORRY, MAYBE YOU COULD HELP ME.

OR REPAYMENT.

OK, THANK YOU. THE REPAYMENT CONTRACT.

AND SO WITH SANTA NELLA BECOMING A RECIPIENT OF THAT PORTION OF THE CONTRACT OR THE PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT OF THAT, IF THE CONTRACTS CHANGING, THEY NEED TO HAVE THAT CHANGED THROUGH THE SAN LUIS WATER DISTRICT FIRST, AND THAT BECOMES THE REPAYMENT CONTRACT.

AND THEN SANTA NELLA WOULD BECOME THE HOLDER OF THE PORTION OF THAT WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARY. AND THE LANDOWNERS INDIVIDUALLY HAVE THE RIGHT NOW, THEY HAVE THOSE CONTRACTS FOR EACH ACREAGE THAT A LANDOWNER HOLDS, BUT IT'S UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE SAN LUIS WATER DISTRICT TO COMPLETE THAT. SO THAT'S IN THE WORKS RIGHT NOW.

AND THE REQUEST IS FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION WITH THE ANTICIPATION THAT THAT WOULD ALL GET WRAPPED UP AND THE BUREAU THEN WOULD FINISH THEIR PAPERWORK TO DO THE PARTIAL REASSIGNMENT BASED ON THE NEW FORMAT OF CONTRACT.

SO ATTACHED TO THE PACKAGE IS A LETTER FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER OF SANTA NELLA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, MAYBE MONTGOMERY, AND POINTING OUT THE PROGRESS THAT'S BEEN MADE AND THE NEED FOR THIS ONE MORE EXTENSION AND A REQUEST FOR THE CONTINUED PATIENCE OF THE COMMISSION TO ALLOW ONE MORE EXTENSION ON THIS PROPOSAL.

AND STAFF DOES SUPPORT THAT.

[00:35:02]

AND SO THERE'S A RESOLUTION ATTACHED GRANTING ONE MORE EXTENSION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. OK, WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION ON THIS? MR. CHAIR, I'LL MOVE TO SUPPORT AN EXTENSION.

I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN AN ONGOING EXTENSION AND I THINK AS I WAS CHAIRMAN, WE HAD THIS COME THROUGH AND WE UNDERSTAND THEY HAD BUT UNDERSTANDING WITH THE UNDERSTANDING WITH CORONAVIRUS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S IMPACTED THE TIMING OF EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENING, I CAN UNDERSTAND AN EXTENSION BEING GRANTED.

SO I MOVE TO HONOR THEIR EXTENSION.

OK, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NAGY.

WE GRANT ANOTHER YEAR EXTENSION TO THE SANTA NELLA WATER DISTRICT TO TRY TO GET THEIR LOOSE ENDS TIED UP. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, ANYTHING FROM SANTA NELLA THAT YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT? YES, LET ME TURN YOU ON HERE.

I WORKED FOR THE DISTRICT ABOUT 15 YEARS, AND I'VE BEEN LITERALLY WORKING ON THIS PROJECT THAT WHOLE TIME. SANTA NELLA AND SAN LOUIS HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE WORK DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS REQUESTED BY RECLAMATION ON THIS MATTER.

AND IT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO TO PUBLIC REVIEW ON JUNE 19TH.

BUT RECLAMATION POSTPONED THAT PUBLIC REVIEW UNTIL THE WIIN ACT CONVERSION SAN LUIS WATER DISTRICT'S CONTRACT.

I DID REACH OUT TO JIM COSTA.

I DID WANT TO TELL THE COMMISSION THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS THE REQUEST LAST YEAR AND WE MET WITH HIM RIGHT BEFORE COVID KICKED IN.

AND I THINK HE WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN CONTACTING RECLAMATION.

RECLAMATION BELIEVES THE DRAFT CONTRACT WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE SPRING.

AND SO I HUMBLY REQUEST THAT YOU WOULD GIVE ME THE EXTENSION.

OK, THANK YOU.

THE THE WELL INCORPORATING VAULT INTO YOUR THING.

IS THERE ANYTHING HAPPENING WITH THAT OR? WE HAVE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD THAT WILL INCLUDE THE CONSOLIDATION OF VOLTA WITH THE SANTA NELLA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, AS WELL AS IT INCLUDES A PRODUCTION WELL THAT WOULD PROVIDE DRINKING WATER TO VOLTA AND SANTA NELLA.

BOTH DISTRICTS HAVE WATER QUALITY ISSUES.

VOLTA HAS A HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM SIX PROBLEM AND SANTA NELLA HAS WE EXCEED THOSE MCLS.

NOW, THERE'S BEEN SOME CHANGES IN THE STATE STANDARD.

BUT LONG STORY SHORT, THE STATE HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE DISTRICT TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR PRODUCTION WELL, THE CONSOLIDATION, BLENDING FACILITIES FOR SANTA NELLA.

SO WE HAVE A CONTRACT TO CONSOLIDATE WITH VOLTA OR VOLTA TO CONSOLIDATE WITH US.

AND AGAIN, IT'S ALL IN THE STATE'S HANDS.

OK, IS THIS WELL GOING TO BE DRILLED IN A SANTA NELLA OR? DRILLED IN VOLTA NEAR VOLTA AND THE IT'LL GO BOTH WAYS AND THE WATER WILL GO TO VOLTA AND THEN SOME WILL SANTA NELLA AND WE'LL BLEND IT WITH OUR SURFACE WATER.

SANTA NELLA IS DEPENDENT ABOUT THREE QUARTERS OF THE WATER IS SURFACE WATER THAT SERVED TO SANTA NELLA.

OK. SO THIS WILL HELP BLEND OUT THAT SURFACE WATER CHLORINE. DOES YOUR SURFACE WATER HAVE THE ALGAE BLOOM PROBLEMS AND STUFF LIKE DOS PALOS HAS OR YOU'RE GETTING IT FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE? I THINK IT'S COMING OFF THE SAME CANAL, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THOSE PROBLEMS. TREATMENT OPERATOR THAT WE DO A LOT OF THINGS TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE.

OK, ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE CARE TO COMMENT? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND POSITION.

GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS DISTRICT, BEEN WORKING WITH AMY FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS ON THIS.

THANK YOU FOR THE EXTENSION.

WE ARE I THINK BOTH DISTRICTS WILL END UP WITH A MUCH BETTER WATER SUPPLY.

AND I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WIIN ACT.

AND WHAT IT DOES FOR US IS EVER SINCE THE BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS IN TWO THOUSAND EIGHT TWO THOUSAND NINE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS REQUIRED US TO OPERATE UNDER A TWO YEAR INTERIM RENEWAL CONTRACT.

EVERY TWO YEARS, OUR CONTRACT EXPIRES AND THEN CAN BE RENEWED.

WHAT THE WIIN ACT PROVIDES, AS LONG AS WE PAY OUR DEBT OFF, WHICH IS A THIRTY SIX MILLION

[00:40:02]

DOLLAR DEBT THAT OUR LANDOWNERS VOTED IN SUPPORT OF PAYING OFF.

EIGHTY TWO PERCENT SUPPORTED THAT PROP 218 HEARING.

SO OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FROM SAN LUIS WATER DISTRICT TO PAY OUR DEBT OFF AND CONVERT OUR CONTRACT TO WHAT'S CALLED A REPAYMENT CONTRACT, MEANING IT DOES NOT EXPIRE.

SO WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THIS TRANSACTION IS PARTIALLY A SIGNING, A CONTRACT THAT DOES NOT EXPIRE TO SANTA NELLA VERSUS PRE WIIN ACT.

WE WOULD HAVE BEEN PARTIALLY ASSIGNING A CONTRACT THAT EXPIRES EVERY TWO YEAR.

SO THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT EFFORT AND WE'RE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN DO WITHIN OUR POWER TO MAKE SURE SANTA NELLA ENDS UP WITH A LONG TERM, UNEXPIRING CONTRACT ALONG WITH SAN LUIS WATER DISTRICT. I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS. THANK YOU.

AND THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS, I FEEL FREE TO ANSWER THEM.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE FROM THE BUREAU? MY COMMENT ON THIS IS THAT YOU'VE BEEN THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON A LONG TIME AND YOU PEOPLE DESERVE TO HAVE A SOLUTION TO IT.

AND I PUT MAXIMUM PRESSURE ON THE BUREAU TO GET THIS DONE BECAUSE WHO KNOWS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT YEAR.

ADMINISTRATION COULD STAY THE SAME, COULD CHANGE.

THEY COULD DELAY THINGS MORE.

AND IT JUST HURTS YOU AND YOUR IN YOUR FUTURE.

SO KEEP THE PRESSURE ON MR. TELL HIM YOU WANT THIS DONE.

BE NICE TO HAVE IT DONE BY BY DECEMBER 31ST OF THIS YEAR.

TELL THEM NOT TO DRAG IT ON ANYMORE.

BUT THAT'S MY PERSONAL COMMENT ON IT.

I THINK THAT THE CRITICAL COMMENT AND FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS, SAN LUIS WATER DISTRICT HAS MAPPED OUT THIS PROCESS.

SO EVERYTHING HAS TO HAPPEN ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULE.

BUT WE PLAN ON EXECUTING THIS CONTRACT FEBRUARY OR JANUARY 13TH OF TWENTY TWENTY TWENTY ONE PRECISELY TO MITIGATE YOUR CONCERN.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL PROCEED TO VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THE ONE YEAR EXTENSION SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OK.

NEXT, WE HAVE AN UPDATE ON THE NORTH MERCED ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

[VII.B. Update on the North Merced Annexation Feasibility Study being prepared by the City of Merced, and the status of AB3312 (Gray) involving annexation of the UC Merced Campus along with a “road strip” and land contiguous to the UC Merced Campus]

BILL? OK, YEAH, IT WAS BACK IN APRIL WHEN WE WERE, WELL, AROUND APRIL OR ALERTED TO A SPECIAL LEGISLATION GOING ON FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF ALLOWING THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA MERCED TO BE ANNEXED BY THE CITY OF MERCED, AND THEN CONTIGUOUS LANDS TO UNIVERSITY TO ALSO TO BE ANNEXED. SO WE BROUGHT THAT TO THE COMMISSION TO SEE IF YOU WANTED TO TAKE A POSITION ON IT. AND ALL ALONG THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, WE'VE BEEN PERIODICALLY GETTING UPDATES FOR THE CITY ON THEIR DESIRES FOR ANNEXING THE CAMPUS IN THE AREA BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE CAMPUS AS PART OF THEIR NORMAL GROWTH AND PART OF THEIR GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION. AS OF THE WRITING OF THE REPORT, WHICH WAS LAST WEEK, WEDNESDAY, THE LEGISLATION HAD PASSED BOTH THE ASSEMBLY AND THE SENATE AS WAITING FOR THE GOVERNOR'S SIGNATURE. AND AT THAT POINT, I COULDN'T TELL THAT THE GOVERNOR HAD SIGNED IT, BUT HE ACTUALLY SIGNED IT THAT DAY.

SO WE HAVE AN UPDATED FOR THE TEXT THAT CHANGED.

WE HAD THE FINAL VERSION AND I WAS GOING TO HAVE OUR CLERK CAN PASS OUT THE FINAL VERSION. SO YOU DON'T GET, YOU PASSES IT OUT ALREADY? GREAT. OK, SO YOU'LL HAVE A COPY OF THAT.

SO BASICALLY WHAT THAT LEGISLATION DOES IS ALLOWS AN EXCEPTION TO THE STATE LAW TO HAVE WHAT ARE NORMALLY REQUIRED OF CONTIGUOUS ACCESS TO A CITY IN THE IN THIS CASE TO ALLOW THE ANNEXATION OF UC MERCED TO THE CITY OF MERCED AND A ROAD STRIP WHICH ISN'T DEFINED.

AND THERE'S ONLY TWO ROAD STRIPS THAT YOU COULD USE, WHICH WOULD BE THE EAST WEST ROAD, BELLEVUE ROAD, OR THE NORTH SOUTH ROAD OF LAKE ROAD, BECAUSE BOTH DISTANCES ARE TWO MILES AWAY FROM THE CURRENT CITY LIMITS.

AND THAT WOULD THAT ROAD STRIP WOULD MAKE THE CAMPUS CONTIGUOUS IN A WAY THAT'S NORMALLY NOT ALLOWED UP.

THEN IF THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION, A SUBSEQUENT ANNEXATION CAN OCCUR TO LANDS

[00:45:05]

THAT ARE CONTIGUOUS TO THE CAMPUS.

SO THAT'S BASICALLY THE CAMPUS AREA, MORE OR LESS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE YELLOW ON THIS MAP. THIS MAP IS FROM THE CITY PRESENTATION AND CITY COUNCIL LAST MONTH.

BUT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO ANNEX THE VIRGINIA SMITH TRUST PROPERTY THAT'S JUST SOUTH OF THE CAMPUS. OR YOU COULD ANNEX, WHEN I SAY YOU BEING THE COMMISSION, COULD APPROVE AN ANNEXATION WEST OF LAKE ROAD FOR PROPERTY THAT'S TOUCHING THAT CAMPUS.

AND THERE'S ARE SEVERAL PARCELS ACROSS THAT BASICALLY ACROSS LAKE ROAD.

ONE OF THEM IS VERY LARGE AND IT GOES ALL THE WAY OVER TO HALFWAY TO THE CURRENT CITY LIMITS.

SO IT'S A BIG, BIG PARCEL.

THE OTHER ONES ARE ARE SMALLER, BUT THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE A FAIR AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT.

SO AND THEN THE BILL SAID THE ONLY OTHER ANNEXATION DO YOU COULD HAVE ALONG THAT ROAD STRIP WOULD BE IF YOU'RE CONTIGUOUS TO THE CAMPUS.

BUT ONCE THOSE LANDS ARE ANNEXED, YOU CAN'T ANNEX TO THOSE LANDS.

SO IF IF THE VIRGINIA SMITH TRUST GETS ANNEXED, YOU CAN'T ANNEX TO THE LAND SOUTH OF IT UNLESS YOU'RE ALREADY CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY SOMEWHERE ELSE.

OR YOU COULD THE OTHER PART OF THE LEGISLATION IS IF YOU'RE NEXT TO THE CITY LIMITS AND IT SAYS AS OF JANUARY 1ST, 2021, IF YOU'RE CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS, THEN YOU COULD ANNEX EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE ALONG THE ROAD STRIP.

THERE'S BEEN CONTROVERSY OVER THAT WORDING AND CONFUSION OVER THAT WORDING SO THAT IF THE CITY ANNEXED TO A PROPERTY AT BELLEVUE ROAD AND G STREET ON THE EAST SIDE AND IT WAS 40 ACRES, THE CONCERN WAS, WELL, THAT'LL BE A NEW BOUNDARY AND THAT'LL BE AFTER 2021.

AND IF YOU'RE NEXT TO THAT PROPERTY NOW, EAST OF THAT, COULDN'T YOU ANNEX? BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE NEXT TO THE CITY AND THE REAL ANSWER IS YES, YOU COULD THE JANUARY FIRST 2021 BOUNDARY REFERENCED IN THE BILL IS FOR THIS PURPOSE OF THIS BILL, WHICH WAS REALLY TO ANNEX THE UC CAMPUS, WHICH OTHERWISE YOU COULD NOT DO UNDER EXISTING LAW AND ALSO ANNEX CONTIGUOUS LAND TO THE CAMPUS THAT IT IS PHYSICALLY TOUCHING THE CAMPUS BOUNDARY, BUT NOTHING ELSE.

SO WHEN JUST FOR INSTANCE, WHEN STAFF IS PROCESSING OTHER APPLICATIONS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE CITY, IF IF IT'S A UC OR ADJACENT TO UC, WE'LL BE USING THIS BILL AB 3312.

IF IT'S AN ANNEXATION CITY ANYWHERE ELSE, INCLUDING G STREET AND BELLEVUE ROAD, WE WON'T BE USING THIS BILL. WE DON'T NEED THE BILL WE'LL BE PROCESSING ANNEXATIONS LIKE WE DO TO LOS BANOS OR ATWATER. ARE YOU CONTIGUOUS AND GOING THROUGH ALL THE CRITERIA THAT WE USE SO THE BILL BASICALLY DOESN'T APPLY.

THE BILL WAS CREATED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE UC CAMPUS AND THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT TO THAT CAMPUS TO BASICALLY TO SPUR DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NEXT DOOR, WHICH WAS EXPECTED IN THE BEGINNING WHEN ALL THE PLANNING WENT ON.

BUT HERE WE ARE 15 YEARS LATER, AND THERE'S NOT A STITCH OF DEVELOPMENT.

AND ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS FOR THAT, TOO, IS THAT THE COUNTY HAS THE AREA SOUTH OF THE CAMPUS PLAN FOR GROWTH, BUT THERE'S NO SEWER AND WATER.

SO THE ONLY WAY IT COULD HAPPEN IS IF THE CITY PROVIDED SEWER AND WATER, WHICH LAFCO WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE THROUGH AN OUT OF BOUNDARY EXPANSION.

BUT THE CITY HASN'T WANTED TO DO THAT.

THEY REALLY WANT TO PROVIDE SEWER AND WATER INTO THEIR CITY.

SO THE OTHER PART OF THIS PRESENTATION WAS ON WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL RECENTLY DID BACK ON AUGUST 17TH, A MONTH AGO ON THIS NORTH MERCED PLANNING EFFORT THAT THEY'VE BEEN CONDUCTING FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS WITH A LOT OF PUBLIC OUTREACH AND A LOT OF STUDIES ON SEWER CAPACITY AND WATER AND GROWTH NEEDS.

SO JUST TO KEEP YOU UPDATED ON THAT.

WELL, MR. CHAIR, IF YOU WANT TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BILL FIRST AND WE'LL LEAVE THAT TOPIC, WE COULD STOP RIGHT NOW AND WE COULD DISCUSS THAT IF WE WANT TO BEFORE I GET INTO THE NORTH MERCED PLANNING.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BILL? YES, MR. SERRANO.

HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THE PHRASING A ROAD STRIP.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S TWO OPTIONS. THERE'S LAKE AND THERE'S BELLVUE.

AND THE CITY COULD CONCEIVABLY EITHER ONE IS AN OPTION.

THERE ARE PLUSES AND MINUSES TO BOTH.

BUT DO YOU INTERPRET A ROAD STRIP AS WE HAVE TO ELECT ONE OR BECAUSE THE PLAIN LANGUAGE, THAT STATUE, THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE THE REQUIREMENT THERE.

BUT OR COULD THE CITY POTENTIALLY AND LAFCO ESSENTIALLY DO BOTH? IT'S REALLY A ROAD STRIP.

[00:50:01]

THERE WAS TALK ABOUT CHANGING THE LEGISLATION TO MAKE IT PLURAL.

AND THE CONCERN, THE REASON THAT CAME UP AS AN ISSUE WAS BECAUSE REALLY ALL THE PLANNING AND ALL THE EFFORT HAS FOCUSED ON BELLEVUE ROAD FOR YEARS.

IT HASN'T FOCUSED ON LAKE ROAD SO MUCH.

AND BELLEVUE ROAD HITS THE CAMPUS AT LAKE ROAD AND LAKE ROAD RUNS IN FRONT OF THE CAMPUS.

SO THERE WAS A CONCERN THAT YOU NEEDED TO INCLUDE LAKE ROAD IN THE BILL WITHOUT NAMING WITHOUT NAMING NAMES, BUT ALLOW IT TO BE PLURAL SO THAT THE PROPERTY WEST OF LAKE ROAD WOULD BE CONTIGUOUS TO THE CAMPUS.

THE CONCERN WAS IT'S NOT CONTIGUOUS BECAUSE THERE'S LAKE ROAD IS IN BETWEEN, BUT IN REALITY AND IT'S COMMON FOR MANY LAFCO BECAUSE FOR OUR LAFCO, WE REQUIRE WHEN A CITY ANNEXES LAND WHEREVER IF IT'S YOU DON'T LEAVE THE ROAD IN THE COUNTY AND HAVE THE CITY DEVELOP NEXT TO IT.

AND YOU DON'T GO TO THE CENTER LINE OF THE ROAD AND HAVE HALF THE ROAD APPROVED BY THE CITY. THE OTHER HALF IS COUNTY.

SO YOU TAKE THE WHOLE ROAD. AND SO IF IF MERCED LAFCO APPROVES ANNEXATION OF THE CAMPUS, LAKE ROAD WILL BE IN THE CITY AND THEN THE LAND WEST OF LAKE ROAD WILL BE CONTIGUOUS.

AND SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT THAT PROBLEM AND LIKEWISE WOULD LIMITS ARE ON THE EAST SIDE OF IT.

YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

YEP. ALL THE ANNEXATIONS WENT THAT WENT THROUGH BELLEVUE RANCH INCLUDE ALL OF G STREET.

G STREET ALREADY IS IN THE CITY.

ALREADY IS IN THE CITY, UP TO BELLEVUE ROAD NOW OR ACTUALLY NORTH BELLEVUE TO.

ON THIS MAP ACTUALLY CHOSE THE RED LINE IS MORE OR LESS THE CITY LIMITS ON THE WEST SIDE, THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY ANNEXING THE ROAD STRIP WAS TO MAKE IT CONTIGUOUS.

BUT IT'S ALSO AN ISSUE FOR LAFCO THAT IF THE CITY DID A BUNCH OF DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE CAMPUS AND ALL THAT DEVELOPMENT WAS GOING BACK TOWARDS THE CITY, WHICH IS IT'S GOING TO BUT IT'S A COUNTY ROAD, THEN THE COUNTY HAVE A TWO MILE ROAD TO MAINTAIN THAT'S PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY THE UC, WHICH IS ALREADY AN ISSUE WITH UC OF PAYING THEIR SHARE, BUT THEN ALSO CITY DEVELOPMENT. SO THE ROAD BEING IN THE COUNTY WOULD BE A NEGATIVE, BUT IT WOULD BE AN ISSUE FOR THE COUNTY TO CONSIDER.

I'M SORRY, THE COUNTY WOULD ARGUE TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE BOUNDARY, BUT LAFCO WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE TO INCLUDE THAT ROAD OR NOT.

BUT THE MODEL FOR THIS BILL WAS BASED ON LEGISLATION FROM OVER IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY WITH THE CITY OF CUPERTINO.

AND THEN THAT HAD SIMILAR LANGUAGE THAT YOU ANNEX LAND ALONG A ROAD STRIP THAT WAS OTHERWISE IN THE COUNTY WITHOUT HAVING TO HAVE A BIG CONTIGUOUS BLOCK THAT YOU COULD ANNEX UP THAT ROAD STRIP.

SO THAT'S WHERE IT CAME FROM TWO I GUESS YOU ANTICIPATED THE IDEA OF ANNEXING BOTH.

IT WOULD ONLY THE ONLY REASON TO ANNEX LAKE ROAD WOULD BE THE SAME ISSUE IS IF THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC ON THAT ROAD FROM THE DEVELOPMENT, THEN THAT ROAD SHOULD BE IN THE CITY, TOO, AND THE CITY, MAINTAIN IT.

SO COULD THE COMMISSION REQUIRE THAT TO BE ANNEXED? THAT I WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO TALK TO OUR COUNSEL.

I KNOW, MALATHY SUBRAMANIAN IS ON THE LINE, BUT DIDN'T ANTICIPATE THAT WE WOULD DO BOTH ROADS. I DOUBT THE CITY WOULD WANT.

YOU MIGHT KNOW BETTER THAT THE CITY WOULD NOT WANT TO HAVE BOTH ROADS BEING MAINTAINED.

BUT IT SEEMS MY QUESTION MORE WAS THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE.

IT SEEMS LIKE IT SAYS A, YOU'VE GOT TO PICK ONE.

YOU DON'T HAVE AN OPTION. YOU CAN'T.

THE OPTION TO HAVE BOTH IS NOT EVEN ON THE TABLE.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING READING THIS.

AND I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF THAT'S YOU UNDERSTAND.

YEAH, THAT WAS THE INTENT WITH A ROAD.

AND THERE WAS TALK ABOUT SWITCHING IT BECAUSE OF THE LAKE ROAD FRONTAGE OF THE CAMPUS AND MAYBE MAKING IT PLURAL SO THAT THERE WAS NO CONFUSION WHEN IT CAME TO LAFCO.

BUT THAT'S IT'S NOT AN ISSUE.

WE WOULDN'T REQUIRE ANNEXATION OF THE ROAD AND SO THAT IT REALLY BE THE CITY APPLYING TO GO FOR THIS SO THE CITY WOULD PICK WHICH ROAD.

AND IT JUST DOES NOT MUCH SENSE ON LAKE ROAD BECAUSE IF EVERYTHING GET THINGS WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT UNDER THE CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS.

OK, THANK YOU. OK, AND IF I COULD, I COULD SAY THAT THE CAR COUNT ON BELLEVUE ROAD IS CONSIDERABLY LARGER THAN THE CAR COUNT ON LAKE ROAD.

WE'VE BEEN MONITORING THOSE CAR COUNTS.

JUST BECAUSE IT'S A MORE DIRECT WAY, I MEAN, YOU GO STRAIGHT OUT G AND THEN THROUGH BELLEVUE INSTEAD OF HAVING TO GO ON YOSEMITE AND THEN UP LAKE, IS THAT THE REASON PROBABLY? YOUR NATURAL PROGRESSION FROM THE NORTH, THE WAY THE COMMUTING PATTERNS GO, THE COMMUTING PATTERNS ALSO SUGGEST THAT COMING DOWN BELLEVUE AS WELL, AND FROM THE ATWATER AREA.

FROM THE FROM THE WEST.

PEOPLE COMING OVER FROM 99, JUMPING OVER ONTO BELLEVUE, WHICH IS WHENEVER YOU LOOK AT ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, THE ATWATER MERCED EXPRESSWAY WILL OR THE LOOP.

OR THE LOOP. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AND WE'LL PROCEED MORE.

I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

[00:55:02]

WHERE EAST BELLEVUE.

IT HAS TO CROSS LAKE ROAD TO ACTUALLY CONNECT TO THE CAMPUS, CORRECT? SO IS THAT PORTION WHERE IT CROSSES GOING TO BE IN THE CITY? IS LAKE ROAD GOING TO BE PART OF THAT? WOULD THAT BE PART OF IT THEN? LAKE ROAD ON ITS ENTIRETY OF FRONTAGE OF THE CAMPUS WOULD GO IN. SO BELLEVUE, THAT COMES IN HIGHER THAN THE SO A STRIP, AND I DON'T KNOW, A SECTION OF FRONT OF THE CAMPUS. EXACTLY.

YEAH. OK, OK.

YEAH. ANYTHING ELSE? OK, WELL I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD.

OK. YEAH. GREAT. SO ON TO THE NORTH MERCED ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY STUDY.

WITH ALL THE FEEDBACK THAT THE CITY RECEIVED AND ALL THE ANALYSIS THEY CAME UP WITH THIS PREFERRED GROWTH PATTERN, WHICH IS THE TWO BLUE NODES HERE, WHICH IS THE WEST GROWTH NODE AND THE EASTERN GROWTH NODE.

AND THAT WE HAVE ALSO HEARD REFERRED TO AS THE BARBELL PATTERN WITH THE BELLEVUE ROAD CONNECTING THE TWO. AND SO THE CITY WOULD SUPPORT CONTINUED HISTORIC TYPE OF GROWTH FROM G STREET GOING EAST BY PROJECTS.

AND THEY COULD BE CONVENTIONAL PROJECTS LIKE BELLVUE RANCH WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR COMMERCIAL OR WHATEVER MATCHES OR GENERAL PLAN, BUT ALSO FOR GROWTH ON THE EAST SIDE NEXT TO THE CAMPUS. AND THEY MADE IT CLEAR THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS MAP SHOWS THAT MODULE BEING WEST OF THE CAMPUS, IT DIDN'T PRECLUDE THE CAMPUS. SO THE IDEA IS THERE TO BE GROWTH GOING ON NEAR THE CAMPUS WITH CAMPUS ORIENTATION AND THEN GROWTH, HISTORIC TECH GROWTH ON THE WEST SIDE ON YOUR G STREET.

BUT THEY'RE NOT TARGETING BASED ON THAT.

THEY'RE NOT REALLY TARGETING ANY OTHER AREA SPECIFICALLY RIGHT NOW IN THIS WHOLE LARGER PLANNING AREA WITH ONE OF THE HIGHLIGHTS BEING THE HILLCREST AREA NORTH OF FARMLAND.

THEY'RE ADAMANT THAT THEY DON'T WANT ANNEXATION.

THEY DON'T WANT REALLY ANY DEVELOPMENT NEAR THEM AND ALL THAT.

SO RELATED TO THAT THEN WOULD BE WHERE DO APPLICATIONS COME FROM OR HOW IS THE CITY PROCESS THEM? AND SO THAT THE STAFF HAD COME UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNCIL AND THE COUNCIL ACCEPTED THAT, THAT IT WOULD BE A RATING, THEY WOULD COME UP WITH SOME PRIORITIES FOR THE TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT THAT'S INVOLVED AND THE BENEFITS OF THAT, WHETHER IT'S STUDENT HOUSING OR LOW INCOME HOUSING OR MIXED USE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL R&D PROJECT WITH HOUSING AND THE CITY COUNCIL, THEN RATHER THAN HAVE STAFF PROCESS, EVERY APPLICATION THAT CAME IN THE DOOR, WHICH IS COMMON, THAT THEY COULD TRY TO PRIORITIZE THEIR TIME AND THEIR EFFORT BY FOCUSING ON ANNEXATIONS THAT HAVE MORE CHANCE FOR APPROVAL AND MEET OBJECTIVES OF THE CITY, AND THAT THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING WHAT THOSE OBJECTIVES ARE. THEY WEREN'T IDENTIFIED SPECIFICALLY AT THAT MEETING.

THE RELATED TO THAT WOULD BE THIS.

THERE'S A LIMITATION ON THE WHAT THEY CALL THE INTERIM SEWER CAPACITY THAT'S AVAILABLE NOW AND A WHOLE LOT OF EFFORT ON THE CITY'S SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM GOING ON.

AND THEY JUST RELEASED AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THAT ANALYSIS.

BUT AS PART OF THAT, THEY IDENTIFIED THAT WITH CERTAIN ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE IN ANALYSIS OF WHAT'S THE TYPICAL PER UNIT USAGE OF SEWER.

AND THE CITY STAFF USED A VERY CONSERVATIVE NUMBER IN SOME OTHER CITIES, USE A MORE GENEROUS NUMBER SO YOU COULD ACCOMMODATE MORE GROWTH.

SO THE CITY IS LOOKING AT THAT AGAIN.

BUT BASED ON THAT, THERE WAS A LIMITATION ON HOW MUCH GROWTH COULD REALLY OCCUR IN THE NEAR FUTURE. AND SO ONE OPTION WAS THEY HAD THIS BELLEVUE COMMUNITY PLAN FOR THE WHOLE CORRIDOR APPROVED.

IT WAS A TWO MILE LONG PLAN.

AND ONE OPTION WAS WHY DON'T WE JUST ANNEX THAT WHOLE AREA? AND THE COUNCIL DID NOT SUPPORT THAT AND ONE REASON IS WE DON'T WE CAN'T SERVE ALL THAT AND WE WON'T BE ABLE TO SERVE IT FOR A LONG TIME, AND SO DILUTING THE REMAINING CAPACITY AND SAYING, WELL, WE'LL THROW EVERYBODY IN AND THEN WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT LATER WASN'T DESIRED SO THAT THE CITY PART OF THEIR FOCUS IS TO DETERMINE WHAT KIND OF PROJECTS AND WHAT VALUE DO WE GET FROM THOSE PROJECTS AND HOW DO THEY FIT WITH THE NEEDS OF THE CITY TO ALLOCATE THAT REMAINING CAPACITY? SO WE GET THE BEST PRODUCT, THE BEST LAND USE PATTERNS AND SERVICES THAT THE CITY COULD GET FROM THAT. SO THAT'S PART OF THEIR PLANNING PROCESS RIGHT NOW.

AND LET ME SEE.

YEAH, I PUT SOME NUMBERS IN HERE LIKE THEY USED EIGHTY FIVE GALLONS PER DAY PER PERSON IN

[01:00:05]

THEIR STUDY. AND OTHER CITIES USE THE NUMBERS EVEN AS REASONABLE AS 73 GALLONS PER DAY FOR THE CITY OF MODESTO.

AND THEY HAD SEVERAL DIFFERENT EXAMPLES.

BUT USING THE CITIES NUMBER, THEY CAME OUT WITH CURRENT NUMBER.

THEY CAME OUT WITH A POTENTIAL CAPACITY OF AROUND THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS, AGAIN, WITH THE IDEA THEY DO SOME COMMERCIAL OR MAYBE R&D, IT WOULDN'T ALL JUST BE HOUSING. AND SO THEY WOULD BE TRYING TO PRIORITIZE HOW THEY WOULD ALLOCATE THAT CAPACITY WITH THE TYPE OF PROJECTS THAT COME IN AND THE LOCATION FOR SUPPORTING UC MERCED.

AND ALSO FOLKS WHO BEEN WAITING TO ANNEX FOR YEARS THAT ARE NEXT TO G STREET THAT WOULD MAYBE DO SOMEWHAT UC RELATED, BUT THEY ALSO MIGHT JUST DO TRADITIONAL HOUSING.

SO AND SO AGAIN, THEY'RE GOING BACK TO RE REFRESH THOSE NUMBERS AND SEE IF THE NUMBER COULD BE HIGHER OR THEY CAN MODIFY THE NUMBER OF UNITS SERVED.

SO STAFF IS BACK WORKING, WORKING ON THAT.

THE EIR IS OUT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW ON THEIR SEWER COLLECTION MASTER PLAN AND CURRENTLY THE VIRGINIA SMITH TRUST HAS AN APPLICATION IN FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH MERCED COUNTY.

AND IN ORDER FOR THAT TO BE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY, THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO AGREE TO SERVE IT, SEWER, WATER. AND OF COURSE, GOVERNMENT CODE FIVE SIX ONE THIRTY THREE.

THAT APPROVAL IS NEEDED LIKE THE COMMISSION HAD TO APPROVE THE UC CONNECTION.

BASED ON THE PASSAGE OF AB 3312.

THAT PROJECT, YOU KNOW, MAY TRANSITION OVER TO THE CITY OR THE COUNTY COULD KEEP PROCESSING IT IN THE CITY, WOULD INHERIT WHATEVER WHEN THEY COME TO ANNEX THAT THEY'LL INHERIT THE PLAN THAT IS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY.

I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF JOINT COORDINATION GOING ON AND THE UCS AT THE TABLE, TOO, ON THAT. BUT THE OTHER PROPERTIES WEST OF LAKE ROAD THAT ARE CONTIGUOUS, THE CAMPUS DON'T HAVE ANY APPLICATION IN IT RIGHT NOW, AS FAR AS I KNOW, TO THE CITY OR THE COUNTY.

SO THAT'S KIND OF AN UPDATE OF THAT PLANNING EFFORTS.

SO THEY'RE NARROWING IT DOWN. THEY'RE GETTING IT MORE FOCUSED AND IDENTIFYING WHAT WHAT THE REAL CAPACITY OF DEVELOPERS THAT THEY COULD SERVE.

SO I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANYBODY.

MR. SERRATTO, YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY? YOU'VE GOT A DIFFERENT HAT ON TODAY.

YEAH, UM, WELL, THERE'S A LOT OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, AND THE COUNCIL HASN'T DECIDED UPON ANY SPECIFIC PLANS YET.

IT'S ALL STILL IN THE STUDY AREA.

AND SO THERE'S STILL A LOT OF UNANSWERED POLICY QUESTIONS AND UNANSWERED GROWTH PATTERNS AS WELL. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT AT THE OBVIOUSLY GETTING THE GOVERNOR TO SIGN THIS LEGISLATION AND GETTING IT THROUGH BOTH HOUSES OF THE LEGISLATURE. SO THAT'S STEP ONE.

NOW, IT'S JUST SIMPLY ANOTHER TOOL THAT THE CITY HAS.

THE CITY HASN'T DECIDED FORMALLY TO ATTEMPT TO DO THIS ANNEXATION.

IT'S GOING TO BE A LENGTHY PROCESS AND IT'LL BE A LOT OF DELIBERATION.

UM, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN TRIED AND HAS SUCCEEDED IN OTHER UC COMMUNITIES AS WELL, UC HAS A PATTERN THAT YOU'D KNOW BETTER IT WOULD BUILD.

BUT THE UC HAS A TENDENCY TO BUILD WAY OUT.

UCLA, WHEN IT WAS FIRST BUILT, WAS PEOPLE WERE SAYING, WHY ARE THEY BUILDING UCLA WAY OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE? UC DAVIS, SAME THING.

AND SO THERE'S BEEN A, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A HISTORY OF BUILDING UCS BUILDING THERE AND THEN GROWTH LATER ON COMING AROUND THERE.

AND TO POINT MADE EARLIER, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN FIFTEEN YEARS AND THERE'S NO GROWTH AROUND THE CAMPUS. AND A HUGE PART OF THAT IS, WELL, THE SEWER ISSUE AND THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT ANNEXED INTO THE CITY YET. SO AND THERE'S A LOT OF DECISIONS FOR THE CITY TO MAKE IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, TAKING ON EXTRA RESPONSIBILITIES AND ALSO TRYING TO STIMULATE GROWTH AS WELL. AND THE SEWER ISSUE STILL, WE'RE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF OUR NORTH MERCED SEWAGE STUDY AS WELL.

AND THAT COMPLICATES EVERYTHING, TOO, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, AGAIN, THIS PRECIOUS SEWER CAPACITY RIGHT NOW. AND WHO GETS THAT? I KNOW A FELLOW THAT HAS PASTURE LAND SOUTH OF THE SEWER PLANT IN MERCED, AND HE'S HEARD RUMORS THE LAST FEW MONTHS THAT THE CITY WANTS TO BUY SOME OF THIS PASTURELAND.

ARE THEY THINKING OF EXPANDING PONDING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT OF YOU? ARE THERE ANY-- DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OF THAT? YEAH, THERE'S A NEED TO EXPAND THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.

SO THERE'S OK, THAT'S A PROPOSED PROJECT.

SO I'M NOT SURE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT I'D AGAIN BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T MENTION THAT ACTUALLY WHENEVER THE CITY WAS WORKING WITH THE COUNTY ON THE REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT, THE INTERPRETATION THAT WE GOT FROM THE CITY

[01:05:03]

WAS YOU GUYS HAD TRACTORS AND SHOVELS SETTING AT THE WEST GROWTH NODE ON BELLEVUE ROAD AND THE COUNTY WAS HOLDING YOU UP.

AND WE HAVE YET TO SEE ANYTHING HAPPEN WITH THAT YET.

AND IT'S BEEN A FEW YEARS SINCE WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED THAT REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT.

SO IN ANTICIPATION, I THINK THAT THE GROWTH WOULD START WITH THE WEST GROWTH NODE AS INTERPRETED BY THE CITY.

AND THAT WAS PRETTY I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING TO MATT HERE, BUT JUST THOUGHT I'D STATE THAT, FOR THE RECORD.

WE'LL LET YOU THROW THAT, ACTUALLY LAND THAT PUNCH.

I'D LIKE TO CAUTION, BECAUSE IN MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION, I LIKE TO CAUTION BOTH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY WHEN THESE ANNEXATIONS HAPPEN, BECAUSE THEY WILL HAPPEN.

THE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOUR REPRESENTATION? BECAUSE ALL THE STUDENTS THAT MAY LIVE IN OFF CAMPUS HOUSING OR CAMPUS HOUSING WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE.

AND WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA'S MENTALITY, I SHALL CALL IT, YOU GUYS BETTER BE CAREFUL THAT YOU MAY NOT GET SOME OF THE THINGS YOU WANT OR THEY MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT AGENDA THAN THE PEOPLE OF MERCED OR THE PEOPLE OF MERCED COUNTY HAVE.

SO I THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE VERY, VERY CAREFULLY.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OK, THAT TAKES CARE OF THAT ITEM.

NEXT, WE HAVE MR. SAMRA.

[VII.C. Adopt resolution of appreciation for former Commissioner Samra]

WHO? MR. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A RESOLUTION FOR YOU HERE TO PRESENT TO YOU FOR YOUR TIME ON AND KIM, YOU HAVE IF WE NEED TO READ THE WHOLE THING, DO WE USUALLY READ THEM OR JUST DO THE PRESENTATION, BILL? YEAH, WELL, WE ADOPTED.

OK, WELL, IT'S--.

I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE DISCUSSION.

CHAIR IT'D BE AN HONOR FOR ME IN THANKING MR. ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION.

OK MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NAGY, THAT WE ADOPT AND APPROVE THE RESOLUTION HONORING FORMER COMMISSIONER ANY COMMENT? YES, SIR.

ACTING CHAIRMAN BERTAO AND COMMISSIONERS, I WANT TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR THE RESOLUTION.

IT'S REALLY, REALLY APPRECIATED AND ALSO WANTED TO ADD THAT MY TIME ON THE LAFCO WAS ENJOYABLE. I LEARNED A LOT.

AND ALSO IT KIND OF GIVES ME A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE AS FAR AS WHAT I DO AT THE CITY LEVEL, BECAUSE IT GIVES YOU A BROADER KNOWLEDGE OF OTHER CONCERNS.

SO I WANT TO THANK YOU AND OUR STAFF AT LAFCO.

MR. NICHOLSON, THEY ALWAYS ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS, EVERYTHING I NEEDED.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MR NICHOLSON WILL YOU PRESENT THE PLAQUE.

DARON YOU WANT TO DO IT.

OH, THAT'S RIGHT. WE'VE GOT TO VOTE SORRY.

ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION HONORING FORMER COMMISSIONER AYE. OPPOSED.

MOTION ADOPTED. OK.

THAT WAS A CLOSE ONE. YEAH.

YOU DON'T WANT A DIVISION OF THE HOUSE, DO YOU? WE NEED WHO SHOULD HAVE A PICTURE SO YOU COULD HAVE ONE FOR..

WELL WHATEVER.

YEAH. TAKE ONE BILL.

OK, RIGHT.

YEAH SURE.

OK, HERE WE GO.

YEAH, CAN YOU CAN YOU SEE IT . OK. THERE YOU GO.

MIKE YOU WANT TO COME OVER HERE.

OK, HERE YOU GO.

[01:10:02]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S RIGHT.

I THOUGHT HE WAS COMING. YEAH.

YEAH. PERFECT.

GOOD LUCK. AND THE LAST THING TODAY IS THE APPOINTMENT OF THE VOTING DELEGATE FOR THE CAL

[VII.D. Appointment of Voting Delegate and Alternate for the 2020-21 California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions (CALAFCO) Board of Director Election, and any other business requiring a vote at any virtual business meeting held by CALAFCO.]

LAFCO ANNUAL MEETING, WHICH IS NOT GOING TO BE IT'S GOING TO BE A VIRTUAL MEETING OR ZOOM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OR MAYBE MAYBE EVEN BY MAIL.

SO, BILL, YOU'RE GOING TO EXPLAIN THAT.

OK, YEAH. THE AS WE KNOW THE CAL LAFCO ANNUAL CONFERENCE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN MONTEREY NEXT MONTH HAS BEEN CANCELED THERE.

NOT TO REPLACE IT, BUT THE COMMISSION TO HELP ON THE EDUCATION FRONT IS PROVIDING SOME FREE WEBINARS THAT THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE.

AND YOU'LL GET TO NOT. THEY ALSO WILL KEEP THEM ON THEIR WEBSITE FOR TRAINING AND ALSO FOR THE BENEFIT OF COMMISSIONER MCGLYNN THERE'S A LAFCO 101.

WHICH 101 BEING LIKE INTRODUCTION TO THE TOPIC AT SCHOOL.

THE LAFCO 101 THAT'S UP ON THE WEBSITE THAT I COULD PROVIDE YOU THE LINK TO.

SO IT'D BE LIKE A 90 MINUTE PRESENTATION THAT THEY WOULD NORMALLY DO AT THE CONFERENCE FOR NEW COMMISSIONERS.

THAT'S REALLY BENEFICIAL.

YEAH. SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME OTHER TOPICS ON THE ECONOMY AND LAFCO'S ROLL AND THINGS LIKE THAT COMING UP. SO THEY STILL HAVE TO CONDUCT NORMAL BUSINESS.

AND ONE OF THEM IS THE ELECTION OF THE CAL LAFCO BOARD.

AND SO WE ALWAYS WOULD HAVE A DELEGATE, AN ALTERNATE DELEGATE TO ATTEND THE CONFERENCE, AND THEY WOULD BE THE PEOPLE THAT GET THE PACKET TO VOTE ON THE VACANCIES FOR RIGHT NOW IN THE CENTRAL SECTION, WHICH IS WHERE MERCEDS LOCATED, OUT OF THE FOUR SECTIONS, YOU VOTE ONLY ON THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM YOUR SECTION.

AND THERE'S A VACANCY FOR COUNTY BOARD MEMBER AND FOR A SPECIAL DISTRICT MEMBER.

AND IN ORDER TO VOTE FOR SPECIAL OR TO NOMINATE A SPECIAL DISTRICT MEMBER, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE THEM ON YOUR LAFCO.

AND WE DON'T. SO WE DON'T WE DON'T SUPPORT ANY CANDIDATE, BUT WE STILL GET TO VOTE ON THE CANDIDATES THAT PUT THEIR HAT IN THE RING.

I DID REACH OUT TO OUR BOARD EARLIER TO SEE IF ANYONE WAS INTERESTED IN RUNNING.

AND AT THE TIME, NO ONE INDICATED THEY WERE INTERESTED WITH REALLY OTHER DUTIES.

TIME PRESSURES WAS THE MAIN REASON.

BUT I DID HEAR BACK YESTERDAY THAT THEY DIDN'T GET ANY CANDIDATE RUNNING FROM THE CENTRAL SECTION. AND IF YOU DON'T GET SOMEONE RUNNING, THEN THE OTHER SECTIONS COULD NOMINATE SOMEONE. SO YOU COULD GET SOMEBODY FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ON THE CAL LAFCO BOARD REPRESENTING YOUR AREA OR NOT REPRESENTING YOUR AREA BASICALLY.

SO IN RESPONSE, WHAT ACTUALLY, I GOT A CALL FROM A COMMISSIONER ON CAL LAFCO BOARD FROM EL DORADO COUNTY, AND SHE KNOWS COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL FROM PAST WORK, ESPECIALLY WITH OUR CRC. AND SO I'VE TALKED TO DARON AND HE'S AT THIS POINT, YOU CAN SAY HE'S INTERESTED.

SO WE IF WE COULD, BESIDES JUST VOTING ON THE DELEGATES, IF WE COULD GET A NOMINATION FOR HIM, THERE'S SOME FORMS WE CAN FILL OUT OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS.

BUT IF THE COMMISSION IS SO INCLINED, YOU CAN NOMINATE ONE OF YOUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FOR THAT. THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER HAD ANYBODY FROM OUR LAFCO.

BIG PUSH FOR A WHILE, BUT NEVER WERE SUCCESSFUL.

JOHNNY MAYS, HE LOST BY ONE VOTE ONE TIME.

HE WAS REALLY PUSHING FOR IT.

SO SO IT'D BE GREAT TO HAVE MERCED ON THERE.

YEAH. WE'VE NEVER, NEVER BEEN ON.

SO THIS WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY.

OK, SO YEAH WE COULD HAVE A A NOMINATION AND VOTE FOR THAT AND THEN ALSO VOTE FOR THE THE VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE DELEGATE AND IT'LL ALL BE DONE THROUGH I THINK EMAIL OR I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE BY ZOOM, BUT I THINK IT'S CAN BE DONE BY EMAIL.

WELL, DANIEL PARRA WAS OUR REPRESENTATIVE THAT HE DOES THIS TERM EXPIRE.

RIGHT. AND THERE'S TWO AND SO SHE'S STILL ON.

BUT THE OTHER COMMISSIONER DIDN'T WANT TO RUN AGAIN.

I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION INTO TO THAT WE HAVE COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL NOMINATED TO RUN FOR THE CENTRAL SECTION CAL LAFCO BOARD.

SO MOVED.

SECOND. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NAGY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SERRATTO THAT WE NOMINATE

[01:15:01]

FELLOW COMMISSIONER DARON MCDANIEL TO BE A NOMINEE FOR THE CENTRAL SECTION.

ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE. OPPOSED.

MOTION CARRIED.

AND I AND THEN MAYBE WE COULD JUST REQUEST. I DON'T THINK IT HAVE TO BE A MOTION.

YOU WANT TO BE THE VOTING DELEGATE COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL.

YEAH, OK, THAT'S OK WITH EVERYONE ELSE.

I MEAN WE'LL SEE.

I MEAN I'VE BEEN VOTING DELEGATE SEVERAL TIMES SO I MEAN YOU CAN SINCE YOU'RE A CANDIDATE YOU CAN BE THE VOTING DELEGATE TO.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

AND WE HAVE AND WE NEED AN ALTERNATE WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE THE ALTERNATE VOTING DELEGATE.

I MEAN, HE'S THE CHAIR. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? NO. OK, THE VOTING DELEGATE WILL BE COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL.

THE ALTERNATE WOULD BE COMMISSIONER SILVEIRA IF HE OBJECTS.

AND WE'LL CHANGE IT LATER.

YEAH, OK.

THE LAST THING I THINK I SEE HERE IS ANY UPCOMING APPLICATIONS OF THE STATUS BILL.

[VIII. EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND COMMISSIONERS’ COMMENTS]

YEAH, JUST BRIEFLY, AS I MENTIONED, WE'RE WORKING ON THE MSRS FOR THE AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION DISTRICTS, AND IT'S GOING TO BE GOOD BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF INFORMATION OUT OF THE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLANS THROUGH SO THERE'S A LOT MORE INFORMATION THAN WE TYPICALLY HAVE AVAILABLE IN TERMS OF REGULAR APPLICATIONS. WE HAVE ONE APPLICATION FOR CCID FOR ONE OF THEIR REORGANIZATIONS, WHERE THEY TRANSFER THE WATER RIGHTS, FOREIGN PROPERTY TO ANOTHER DETACH AND ANNEX, PRETTY SMALL, SMALL PROJECT.

AND THEN WE'RE EXPECTING TWO APPLICATIONS THAT THE COMMISSION ACTED ON LAST TIME IN DELHI FOR THE DELHI WATER DISTRICT TO ANNEX TWO PARCELS.

BUT THEY'RE NOT NEAR EACH OTHER.

BUT THEY'RE GETTING THIS LOW INCOME GRANT TO DO WATER CONNECTIONS.

AND THE COMMISSION AGREED TO CHARGE ONE I REMEMBER THAT. SO THEY'RE WORKING ON THE FINAL DETAILS OF THAT RIGHT NOW.

AND THEN THE THIRD PROJECT IS FROM THE FRANKLIN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT.

A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, WE APPROVED AN OUT OF BOUNDARY SEWER CONNECTION FROM THAT DISTRICT BECAUSE THEY JUST DO SEWER TO THE JOE STEFANI SCHOOL, A JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL THERE BECAUSE THEIR SEPTIC WENT BAD. SO THEY CONNECTED IT, BUT THEY ALWAYS WANTED TO ANNEX IT.

SO WE'LL BE GETTING AN APPLICATION TO ANNEX THAT CAMPUS AND THEN IT'S NOT IN THEIR SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. SO WE'LL GET A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT WITH THAT.

AND ACTUALLY, THE BOUNDARY IS LIKE A DONUT.

THERE'S ALMOST AN AREA IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COMMUNITY THAT'S HAD ONE ACRE LOTS ON SEPTIC.

SO WHEN THE DISTRICT WAS FORMED, IT WAS IT DIDN'T INCLUDE THOSE AREAS, BUT THERE'S COMPLETELY SURROUNDING IT AND THE SCHOOL IS PART OF THAT.

SO I THINK STAFF WILL BE RECOMMENDING THAT WE BRING THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE TO INCLUDE ALL OF THAT. AND AS WE KNOW, OVER TIME, SEPTIC SYSTEMS FAIL.

AND IF YOUR SEWER NEARBY THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT WILL MAKE YOU CONNECT.

SO WE MIGHT AS WELL CLEAN THAT ALL UP AND PUT IT ALL IN THE SPHERE AT ONCE.

SO THEY'RE KIND OF MINOR, MINOR PROJECTS.

BUT REFRESH MY MEMORY, I DON'T KNOW IF IT THE LAST MEETING WE HAD OR THE ONE BEFORE THAT WHEN MR. SLOAN AND HIS COLLEAGUES WERE HERE WITH THEIR GROUNDWATER.

BASICALLY,ANYTHING HAPPENED ON THAT OR NOT? YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THAT. THAT'S ACTUALLY REAL IMPORTANT TO BIG.

IT'S THE FORMATION OF THE OWENS CREEK WATER DISTRICT.

YEAH. SO THAT APPLICATION HAS BEEN PENDING.

THEY'VE PAID THE FEES. IT'S BEEN PENDING FOR OVER A YEAR NOW, FOR ABOUT A YEAR NOW AND A LOT OF WORK TO GET THE APPLICATION COMPLETE AND GET GET WHAT THEY'RE DOING DEFINED MORE CLEARLY AND ESPECIALLY THE JUSTIFICATION FOR CREATING A DISTRICT TO DO WHAT THEY'RE DOING. WHY DO THEY NEED TO DO A DISTRICT? AND WE KIND OF LEARNED THAT GAVE US THAT PRESENTATION.

WE LEARNED THAT TO DO IT THEY HAVE TO HAVE A BUREAU CONTRACT OR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BUREAU. AND TO DO THAT, THEY CAN'T BE A PRIVATE LANDOWNER.

THEY NEED TO BE A DISTRICT.

SO THAT THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY THEY WOULD BECOME THE LAFCO BUT THERE'S A LOT OF TRUST, A LOT OF QUESTION.

THAT'S STILL PENDING AND THERE'S STILL MORE WORK TO BE DONE ON.

YEAH. SO THEY WOULD HOPE TO BRING IT IN AND GET IT TO THE COMMISSION BY THE END OF THE YEAR. AND WE'LL SEE IT ALWAYS ON AN APPLICATION.

YEAH. SO THANK YOU. IT'S STILL OUT THERE PENDING.

THANK YOU. RIGHT NEXT IS COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.

I'M GOING TO MAKE MINE FIRST.

OUR CHAIRMAN SILVEIRA IS STANDING IN THE BACK.

HE JUST WALKED IN. I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT YOU'VE BEEN APPOINTED THE ALTERNATE VOTING DELEGATE TO THE CAL LAFCO BOARD AND THAT YOUR COLLEAGUE, MR.

[01:20:03]

MCDANIEL, IS GOING TO BE A CANDIDATE FOR CENTRAL SECTION DIRECTOR.

OK, ANY OTHER COMMENTS, MIKE, YOU GOT A COMMENT DOWN THERE.

I APPRECIATE BEING CALLED UPON CONTINUING MY LEARNING CURVE.

I HOPE TO ATTEND FUTURE MEETINGS, BUT I HAVE THE LITTLE MATTER OF THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF DOS PALOS, SO HOPEFULLY THAT WILL WORK OUT AND I'LL BE SEEING YOU ALL AGAIN.

OK, THANK YOU, MR. SERRATTO. NO COMMENTS THANK YOU.

OK NAGY.

NO COMMENTS SIR. AND MCDANIEL.

I LIKE TO WELCOME MATT UP HERE TO THE DAIS.

SO LOOKING FORWARD TO THE NEW CHAIRMAN AND RUNNING IT ON.

I LIKE VISITING IT FROM AFAR AS YOUR ALTERNATE, BUT STILL VERY ENGAGED.

OK. ALL RIGHT.

IT'S 11.

TWENTY THREE AND THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.