et Manager, Christina Mowry, our County Financial Advisors, Suzanne Harold, our Bound Council, Scott Ferguson, and as well as our County Senior Administrative Analyst, Trish Daniels. We've done a wonderful job pulling the financing together for this project that you just heard about. So move on to the next slide. Thank you, Stephanie. Thank you for including those people and even then they've been a phenomenal job. So we really appreciate it. Thank you. You're welcome. Before you, the few items will quickly go through. The staff reports and attachments are very detailed, very much like you saw a different on presentation last month, May 11th. These things are very lengthy in their nature. There's a lot of details in the staff report. There are a lot of attachments, but we'll try to summarize them now and certainly be available for questions. We'll be reviewing the project current projected costs, our bond financing details, as well as the timing. And then we'll finish with summarizing the approvals that are required today and conclude with the recommended actions. Again, there are two separate actions here today. One to be taken by the County Board of Supervisors and then a second action to be taken as the Board of Directors of the Santa Cruz County Capital Financing Authority. Next slide, Stephanie. Thank you. This slide here illustrates the projected costs as they stand now. You just approved the purchasing and acquisition costs to $16.4 million. Currently, we are projecting at a total cost of about $27.6 million to required in financing. If that were to be the final price, we would issue bonds the same size to make sure the financing is fully covered. Move on to the next slide, Stephanie. The details of the bonds at that sizing include a very favorable 2.5% average interest rate. As you heard last month, rates are still at a really great place and we're projecting to close quickly. So we want to lock that in as fast as we can. These would be a 30 year term and due to the nature of this project where we will be conducting improvements on site and then relocating staff operations. There'll be a little bit of a delay before we occupy the building. So we've timed the debt service to allow us and cushion in the first year, we would not have any debt service payment. And then we would go to the full debt service payment in year three, allowing a little bit of a step up in year two. That's just to match the nature and the timing of the project. Next slide, please. What this asset requires to get that favorable interest rate is a lease financing agreement. The County of Santa Cruz will be entering into the lease agreement and a lease back agreement with the County of Santa Cruz Capital Financing Authority. And we will be securing the Center for Public Safety on Soquel Avenue as the least asset. As soon as title is cleared and the county obtains full title of the property in Watsonville, we will switch the least asset to the new acquisition site in Watsonville. So for a very, very short period of time, the least asset will be public safety center and they don't convert to this asset. Next slide, please. Our bond cell, as I mentioned, we are moving quickly. And if we were able to conclude all of the contingencies on the project, we will try to close the bond in early August and close escrow in middle of August, just about two months from now. And the final slide, please. The final, our approval is required for you today as detailed in the staff reports and including all attachments include the following approvals that authorize the issue to the sale of bonds. It includes establishing the team that will conclude the issuance of these bonds. It sets the maximum parameters for these bonds, both the interest rate and the maximum issuance of up to $30 million. That will be capped based on any variability in interest rates or any gaps we need in project costs. And we'll have a lot of financing documents, including a very lengthy but very detailed preliminary offering statement. And they will all be included in the packet and have been available for the whole public to review as well as yourselves. Finally, the underwriters will issue the preliminary offering statement. So those are the actions that will be required and we'll now move to the final slide. Again, this is a joint presentation for two items. So the first item that will be conducted by the County Board of Supervisors is to open the public hearing, allow for comments and then close the public hearing and take action to adopt a resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds and all the related actions. We will then convene as the County, Santa Cruz County Capital Authority Bond Board of Directors and move forward with adoption of resolution for the authorizing the issuance of the bonds and directing the city clerk to take on the County Clerk to take on the actions required. That includes our staff presentation and we are available for questions. And mute, Bruce. Oh, mercy. Yeah, it's a long day. Scott, thank you. Any questions from members of the board just on the financing aspects of this great project? They don't see that anybody's raising their hands, so to speak. Any questions from the public? Yes, I have one speaker, caller 2915. Your microphone is available. Hello, this is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. First of all, I really wanna thank the presenter for putting the slide presentation available to the public on the Board of Supervisors Agenda Portal. Thank you very much. I am able to look at this as you've gone through it and I appreciate it very much. I do have a question on slide number five and the speaker touched on it briefly, but I am curious about why initially the least asset will be the Center for Public Safety at SoCal in Chanticleer. Why do you have to do that when it looks like the payments annual debt service would not begin until year two? I would very much appreciate that explained. Thank you. That's the only public comment, is that correct? That is correct. Can you briefly answer that? Absolutely. So required for the lease, this is in essence a lease transaction. There has to be an asset behind it because we do not have title yet of the new asset in Watsonville. We currently will have a substitute asset for our SoCal's Public Safety Center. Very quickly, as soon as the bond closes within about two months, it'll switch from the public safety center to the new asset in Watsonville. So it's just the nature of this is backed by a lease to back the bonds. We need a leased asset. We don't have title yet on the Watsonville property. So as soon as we do have title, we'll substitute it very quickly. Very good. Thank you for that explanation. Thank you. I'll close the public hearing. Any comments from the board? Entertain a motion. Unlive the recommended actions. I'll second. Okay, call the roll please. Sorry for clarity, was that Supervisor Caput seconded the motion? Correct. Thank you. Supervisor Koenig. Hi. Friend. Hi. Caput. Hi. McPherson. Hi. Thank you, motion passes unanimously. Okay, the third item on this measure as a board of directors of the Santa Cruz County Capital Finance Authority authorize the issuance sale and delivery of lease revenue bonds in the not to exceed amount of $30 million and take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the County Administrative Officer Resolution to authorize the lease revenue bonds, preliminary official statement, attachment two, site lease attachment three, lease attachment four, bond purchase agreement attachment five, indenture attachment six and assignment agreement attachment seven. I think we have the same presenters in this. Ms. Mowry, are you going to lead off in this or who's on first? Actually, we covered that item already. It was included in the previous presentation. So your board just needs to take action on the item 15, adopt the resolution. Okay, I'll see if there's any questions from the board first. Any public comment? There are no speakers to this item. Okay, I entertain a motion on item 15. I'll move to approve. Second. Move by Caput, second by Friend. Please call the roll. Supervisor Koenig. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Thank you, motion passes unanimously. And again, congratulations to everybody for a mammoth project and a great accomplishment. I will move to item number 16 now to consider approval and concept of an ordinance adding chapter 5.53 to the Santa Cruz County Code regarding regulations for shared mobility device services and schedule the ordinance for a second reading and final adoption on June 29th, 2021 as outlined in the memorandum of Supervisor Mono Koenig. We have an ordinance adding chapter 5.53 shared mobility device services. I think to the rest of Koenig, we're going to address this issue. Yes, thank you, Chair. I have a brief presentation. I will just share my screen here. Great. Are you all able to see my screen? Yes. Why? Yeah, I can. Yeah. All right. So I'll talk a little bit about why shared mobility, some of the good and bad things about it, the status of policy around shared mobility in our county, the nature of the proposed ordinance comparison to some of the other ordinances that the other cities in our county have the risk of not taking action today and finally review the recommended actions and address some questions and concerns. So the reason why we need a shared mobility program really is that mode shift out of single occupancy vehicles and into transportation alternatives like small electric vehicles that are provided by shared mobility services is essential to rolling back the climate crisis. I mean, you can see from our own County of Santa Cruz Climate Action Strategy that transportation accounts for 61% of our local emissions. It's by far the biggest chunk and we have to create transportation alternatives for people if we're gonna do anything about that. The other big thing here is housing. We will never be able to build enough affordable housing unless we reduce single occupancy vehicle use. You know, ask any developer, they have to park a project before they plant anything else about it and often it can consume, you know, as much as 50% of the parcel or more and really limit the amount of housing that we can build. Finally, shared mobility services provide a great way to the connections to transit for that last mile service as people arrive at their destination and then just need to get from the bus stop to a place of work. And, you know, they can also reduce competition for vehicle parking and spaces in high-impact areas. So we've, of course, the City of Santa Cruz already had a shared mobility program for a while with the jump bikes. We saw just how well-used they were in our area. They averaged four trips per bike per day. They provide a healthy and fun transportation option. And I think what's most important is they really provide an easy way for people to test out this new technology. I know personally, the first time I ever rode an electric bike was a jump bike and the first time that I ever rode an electric scooter was also a shared scooter. And so it's a way for people to realize just how fun and convenient this technology is and maybe even be inclined to purchase one themselves. Of course, with a robust enough shared mobility network, they won't have to and will always be able to enjoy the most up-to-date technology. Some of the challenges we know both from the jump bikes within the City of Santa Cruz as well as hearing stories from other locations that have rolled out these programs is people will ride on the sidewalks and that can cause conflicts. People will park the vehicles on the sidewalks, as you can see in this picture of the jump bikes blocking the middle of the sidewalks. Pedestrians have been injured because of this unsafe riding on sidewalks. The equipment can be vandalized. So it's really important to have a good local ordinance and program to manage the use of this technology. So the status of a rollout for shared mobility in the County today, so we may know or remember that the County was actually moving towards signing a deal with jump bikes in early of 2020. However, jump was basically pulled out in the City of Santa Cruz during the pandemic and then was purchased by Lyme, which was purchased by Uber. So jump no longer exists as an entity. A coalition of partners, all of the cities in the County, the County itself and UCSC have been moving forward towards a regional program. And this is fantastic. We released a request for information on April 21st. We recently received those applications back and I expect that soon, I believe in this month will be asked by staff to proceed with the next step and to release an RFP. So a more formal process there for folks to apply to be a shared mobility provider in Santa Cruz County. The challenge is that we're still months out from actually getting that done and that we're not likely to see a program that can be rolled out uniformly across all the cities, the County UCSC until early 2022. The other challenge is that it seems likely that having one operator for all the cities, the County UCSC would basically be a monopoly provider. If we only have one shared mobility provider through the whole County, where basically the network is riskier. We've already seen this as a problem in the city of Santa Cruz. I mean, we had just one provider, Jump Bikes, and their company basically failed. It was absorbed and they pulled out. Other jurisdictions that had multiple micro mobility providers or shared mobility providers were able to maintain shared mobility service throughout the pandemic. So I just really want to reiterate that because a lot of these companies are fairly new and the market is changing, that it wasn't the pandemic that killed Jump Bikes and killed micro mobility in Santa Cruz County. It was the fact that we were reliant on one provider and other areas that had multiple providers and did not see that drop in service. I also think there was an opportunity to help establish a fee schedule for all the partners. And finally, today the County has no laws preventing rogue operators within our jurisdiction. So the proposed ordinance is really very simple. It's based on the city of Santa Barbara's ordinance and it primarily does one thing, which is prevent shared mobility operators from using our streets without a permit. In the same way that you need a license to drive a car, you'd need a permit from the County to operate a shared mobility service within our jurisdiction. Now, just to clarify that today, certainly we do have control over our own right of way and the public streets and sidewalks, but a shared mobility operator, if they wanted, could make an agreement with O'Neill or Penny Ice Creamery or other local businesses to park those shared mobility devices and then really operate it well because we have no ordinance or no laws governing shared mobility devices in the County today. So that's the primary thing that this ordinance would do. It would also establish a way to charge permit fees and the use of those fees, which is primarily to recover costs from operating and managing this program. And it would define a process for removal and impoundment of shared mobility devices that are improperly parked or used improperly. And then while it's not within the ordinance itself, the permit application could include a map of slow or no go zones as well to ensure, for example, that people do not ride a shared bike too quickly on East Cliff Drive on the sidewalk or mixed use area there. For example, we could cap the speed limit there at five miles per hour or we could make sidewalks no go zones. So the ordinance really is pretty minimal and then additional provisions of operating can be included in a permit application agreement. So just to compare this proposal to proposed ordinance to other ordinances that regionally and within the County itself, as I said, this ordinance is modeled very closely on the city of Santa Barbara's ordinance. Both the city of Santa Cruz and city of Capitola have ordinances already. And they, oops, sorry, they basically describe the same thing that this one describes it. If you're going to operate a shared mobility service within the city limits, you've got to have a permit and also establish some safety and operating guidelines. And finally the city of Santa Monica, as I mentioned, they launched a pilot program with four companies, two went out of business or ceased operations during COVID and the pandemic, but they were able to maintain service throughout that period. And then their latest recommendation is to expand that to allow up to three companies to deploy electric scooters and bikes in the area. So what are the risks of not taking action? So if we don't create an ordinance, there is still the opportunity that a rogue operator could come in. We have no laws regulating operation of shared mobility devices in the unincorporated areas of the county. The second risk is that, if we simply only choose to move forward with the group action, the regional approach that we really could see, probably won't see a program till early 2022. And then even when we do, there could very well be increased risks. And that's because number three here, as I said, having a sole contract means that if we have a failed operator, we could then go again a period with no shared mobility service within the county. And that kind of on again, off again approach could really impact uptake and use of these devices within the county. So the recommended actions are to prove a proven concept and ordinance adding chapter 5.53 to the Santa Cruz County Code regarding regulations for shared mobility devices and schedule the ordinance for final adoption on June 29th. And then of course, some additional work that needs to be done is to actually write the permit or operating agreement that a shared mobility provider would sign with the county, establish a permit fee and the unified fee schedule, which could be updated, of course, regularly based on the actual cost of the program. And then to begin design a potential pilot program after the ordinance goes into effect on July 29th. I do want to take an opportunity just to address some questions and concerns that came in from some of the folks who are participating in the regional program that exists today. And I also want to reiterate that, the intention of implementing this ordinance or bringing forward this ordinance now is very much to continue to stay in the regional and collaborative process. Really, we're just catching up by creating an ordinance very similar to two other cities that are already within the county and creating a framework by which we can also work with other mobility providers if we so choose. But again, to address the primary concerns of folks who are participating in the regional program, we received a letter from the city of Santa Cruz and the same letter essentially, carbon copy was submitted also by Cabrillo and the city of Watsonville. And the central tenant of that letter was this statement, which was bolded in the letter that says, if approved, this ordinance will eliminate the county from the regional system and create a hole in the regional mobility framework. So actually, if county council's there, I just wanted to address a, have him address a couple of questions. So the first is related to this statement. Council, do you see that this ordinance would prevent us from signing on to a regional RFP? No, nothing from a legal perspective would prevent us from doing that. Okay, and would this ordinance prevent us from supporting a single county wide bike operator if that's what the working regional group recommended? It would not. Okay. From a legal perspective, there's nothing in this ordinance that would prevent that. All right. And are we at risk of a rogue operator coming in today if we don't pass an ordinance like this? We do not have anything on the books that would prevent jump or any other agency from starting in our, in the unincorporated area, it would be on code enforcement in the Department of Public Works to pursue folks for encroachments and the like if they put them in the right-of-way. Got it. And then also in the letter there was a suggestion that somehow this would create a county program that prioritizes companies that can make the most profit. Council, can the county excessively profit from permit fees? No, we can't, we can recover our costs for programs but we're not permitted to use something like this as a revenue generator. I don't understand the argument, frankly, but I haven't had a chance to talk with folks about what they're basing that on. And then additionally, the suggestion was made that we rewrite the ordinance so that only applies to scooters and therefore wouldn't interfere with any kind of regional bike share program. Would it make sense to do that? Well, that's a policy question. From a legal perspective, there would be nothing preventing that from happening if you want me to actually weigh in on the policy question. Are you inviting me to do that? I am inviting you to do that. Okay, okay. Yeah, no, I don't think it would make sense to have a scooter ordinance basically or that's something that's limited to scooters if you're trying to do a shared mobility services ordinance that applies to all multimodal transportation facilities other than cars. Right. Did I understand correctly that mean that we would basically only disallow scooters in the county if a scooter operator that doesn't have a permit whereas a bike operator didn't have a permit permit could still come in because they're not covered by the ordinance. Correct. And so I think those are all the major concerns that were raised by some of the folks in the regional discussions. Again, I wanna reiterate that the goal is in no means to challenge that work or to divert that work. It's absolutely to do that and more. So in summary, this proposed ordinance would provide us the same basic protections that the cities of Capitola and Santa Cruz already have. It will create a simple and flexible framework for moving forward, including potentially bringing back shared mobility to the county this year. It will not interfere with our ability to join a regional program. In fact, the regional working group intends to bring forward an RFP for approval at the second meeting this month, concurrent with the final read of this ordinance. And I'll say I'd be the first that if there were any legal conflicts between the regional program and this ordinance I'd be the first to withdraw this ordinance or vote against it on the final read. So I've not been able to identify any conflict between the regional program and this proposal. And with that, I turn it over for any questions. Okay, any questions, comments from the board? Supervisor Friend. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Ms. Supervisor Koenig for bringing this forward. I'm not supportive of the item today. I mean, I think that the board has already been through a pretty extensive discussion in advance of you joining the board. Obviously COVID gotten away a bit of that where we made direction to the Department of Public Works on things we wanted. We had a pretty robust community discussion. The community at the time had said, and I agreed with them that they had concerns about scooters and the safety of scooters both for pedestrians and seniors walking as well as for those that were actually using it. I'd actually attended a CSAC conference with Chair McPherson pre-COVID where one of the transportation presentations was on these scooters and the amount of traumatic brain injuries associated with them in San Diego had exploded as a result of the introduction of them. So I have concerns about the broadness of it. I do think, I honestly believe that it is in no way your intention to get out in front of the work that Public Works has been doing, but I do think just based on the letters we receive, I'm like, it's pretty rare to get a letter from basically every city in the county opposing something that we're proposing, including Cabrillo College. They view it as such that they would interfere with the discussions and get out ahead and create a narrative and expectation. And so I want to, I do want to honor that because I feel like the board had already provided this direction and empowered Director Machado to do the work. He was working on it obviously as you noted, COVID delayed that. I don't think scooters in particular do anything from an environmental perspective like the bikes do. I think that'd be a tough argument to make that the CO2 reduction would be caused by the introduction of the scooter ordinance. I don't see a significant community clamoring for this right now. I mean, just speaking candidly, the only thing I've ever heard in regards to shared mobility was people that were opposed to it, at least within my district, but I was still in support of creating a construct, at least on the bike side. So I just don't see that the need is now to get out in front of it. And that's where this is for me as a timing perspective. I'd like to see the work that's currently being done come out. If we feel unsatisfied with what gets negotiated at least on the bike side in regards to that working group, then I think we have a secondary policy discussion on whether we should expand it to additional things. And I appreciate it that you brought it forward and tried to address those questions, but that's where I am today. So I won't be supporting the item today. Thank you, Mr. Koenig. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Any other comments from the board members? Yeah, I appreciate you bringing this forward. I think it's valuable to the community to provide additional sustainable transportation opportunities. But I too am concerned to receive the correspondence from the cities and Carrillo. And they've been working on a cooperative effort with the county to implement a countywide shared mobility service focused initially on bike sharing. I think the cities are supportive of finishing that work and cooperating before the county considers, I think, putting a formal ordinance on the book. So while I'm inclined to agree with where I'm not going to be supporting this item at this time, but I do appreciate you're bringing it forward. I think it's part of our future, that is for sure. And maybe the jump bikes could be that they were well used, but maybe not that successful, but I think that I'd like to see this other work its way out first before we get into something of this nature at this point. Any other comments from the board? You know, I'll just to respond again, I feel like I've laid out a pretty clear argument. I understand the, you know, really emotional response from our partners. There's no reason why this conflicts with any of the work that we're doing with our partners. And, you know, again, the challenge if we only pursue that route, you know, we could see nothing until the beginning of 2022, COVID pandemic, of course, has impacted supply chains. If we only choose one provider, because we want to, you know, basically add a bunch of requirements that, you know, we'll really make it could make it more difficult to operate and honestly increase the risk of them being able to come into our county with a bunch of expectations to do so successfully. You know, I guess the question is for me is at what point do we consider that we need to do something differently?  Well, I could raise one, if I, Mr. Heath and I apologize to put you on the spot on this from a county council perspective, but could we not just bring forward an emergency ordinance prohibiting these from occurring within the unincorporated area and doing an outright ban that we could bring forward as an urgency ordinance that our next meeting that would at least address this? I mean, I consider it to be a little bit of a false argument, but this construct that we don't have anything built around the protections of our right-of-way. I mean, somebody can't just build something on a right-of-way. We obviously have code enforcement capabilities of that, but if this is a real and legitimate concern that in the coming seven months something's gonna occur, could we not just bring forward a brief ordinance that just prohibits this kind of activity pending an upcoming ordinance? One could do that. I would not recommend it be done on an urgency or emergency basis unless you could make the findings that an emergency exists associated with the item. You could definitely, one could definitely put forth a moratorium though on these in some kind of an ordinance fashion. Okay, yeah, I apologize. I'd use it in an artful language on that. No, no. I just meant, no, I appreciate the clarity. My sense is just that if there's a problem, we can address it with an ordinance. I mean, this isn't a problem right now. And I don't, nobody anticipates it being a problem. Well, I shouldn't say nobody anticipates it being a problem. It hasn't been shown that it is. So, but we do have a tool at our disposal of a pretty quick turnaround. A, we have the code enforcement mechanism in the intervening time should somebody try to block our right of way in an unpermitted fashion. And if that is deemed inadequate in the course of not a lot of time, we could, well, actually at that point, you could actually have an urgency ordinance because you would have something that would be showcasing that this is something that may justify. But either way, we could have a secondary tool if needed in that intervening time. I just think that that I would rather wait for this process to put that the board had already voted unanimously to direct GPW to do, let it play out. And if we deem that, and ideally to have a countywide policy, meaning not just the unincorporated, but the cities as well, if we deem that to be inadequate, then we come back and do something just the unincorporated areas if need be. But that's where I am on this. But I truly do believe, supervisor Koenig, that you, I mean, I appreciate you pushing this and also responding to those concerns that our partners in the cities brought forward. I just, you know, maybe at a point in the future, I'm still gonna be very skeptical of the scooter component. I think it's a safety issue legitimately. And I just don't think it brings forward a significant public benefit for the public risk that it poses. But at least on the bike side, I do see a real value. Any other comments from board members? This is Ryan. I think, look, I think we're ready for a vote. I think for the reasons outlined, I can't support this initiative when we have so much concern being raised by our partners. Go meet with the partners. If you wanna, if after meeting with them, we can craft this effort in such a way that it doesn't raise their concerns. And if you wanna try a pilot program in mid-county, if it's gonna take too long to get it to get a, you know, the overall county-wide approval, the reality is having been through this, the community is gonna demand a lot of conditions on these. And so just sort of allowing them without the sort of, it takes longer, but these conditions are important, otherwise we lose public support. And you end up losing this, what is I think an important component of a mobility plan. So I think just go have a conversation, see what we can do that doesn't interfere with their effort or raise concerns and we can come back and do something. I think you have a point of order. I think we need to go to the public on this as you have a couple of hands. Sure. Any other comments from the board? I got a surprise. Let me just make one statement. Could we pass it as a pilot program, try it out for, you know, six months for a year? I don't know. I don't know if that's workable or not, could we? I'll try to field that question, Supervisor Caput. That wasn't what was agendized today. And so I would recommend against adopting something as a pilot program. What's before you as the ordinance to either adopt it on First Street or not? Well, I just to clarify, I mean, couldn't it affect the ordinance be adopted with additional direction that, you know, initial permits would only be considered pilots, for example, not to last more than 90 days or three months? No, essentially what you would be doing is you would be sending me back to recraft the ordinance to insert provisions to that effect into the ordinance and then it would come back to your board for First Street. Okay. Do we have any comments from the public? Yes, I have two speakers from the public. Claire G, your microphone is available. Good afternoon, Chair and Supervisors. This is Claire Glogley, the City of Santa Cruz Transportation Planner and the former Jump Program Manager. Thank you for bringing this up in the discussion today. As you know, we are working on a current collaborative effort to secure a regional system of a bike-only system between all of the four cities, the county, UCSC, and Cabrillo. You've received a letter from us, Outlining Concerns, which we had expressed, and many of them have been spoken to today, but they do not allay the express concerns that we had that we had originally expressed to Supervisor Koenig and they still stand today. So today we have two asks. The first is to table this item until after the RFP process has been complete, as direction has been given by the county and by our council and other decision-making bodies within our region. The second ask is simply that, when and if you do move forward with this ordinance to remove bikes and e-bikes from the permitted vehicle types of a permitted program that the county would run, this would ensure that the market's available for a regional vendor and that we could pursue our approach to issue an RFP and enter into a contract with a bike share vendor in order to secure public benefit. A single vendor secured these public benefits, things such as geographic equity and fair programs that benefit low income members of our community, not just those who could afford the higher prices. Of note, a few corrections. Bike Share did not fail because we relied on one provider. It ended because a provider that we had was assumed by another vendor who had a sharply different offering and we could not, through public contracting, just let them assume that contract. The ordinance in front of you is a departure from the work that we're doing. If the concerns rogue operators, I would encourage you to simply look to the city of Santa Cruz, existing moratorium on shared mobility where we do permit our contracted vendor that we had.  And I also know that if you wanna go fast, you go alone, but if you wanna go far, you go together and I hope that we can continue our regional work to secure a bike share system for Santa Cruz County. Thank you so much. Thank you. Robert Singleton, your microphone is available. Good afternoon, Chair McPherson, board. So I really want to just wanna make a couple points, namely because I kind of see where this ordinance is headed. And even though I would have been super excited to work with you all on a kind of short-term pilot program this summer in the unincorporated area, I understand and I understand the concerns made by some of the community partners. I do wanna speak to some of the concerns voiced by our board that I think may have been, well relevant, have been certainly improved upon within the industry of micro-mobility. Just for reference, I'm the government partnerships manager for the Pacific Northwest for Bird. So we do bike and scooter share as well as adaptable vehicles and over 170 cities across three continents. We've learned a lot from our experience in the micro-mobility industry. We've greatly improved upon our practices with regard to safety as well as the technology and capabilities of our vehicles. I would actually love and revel in the opportunity to demo some of these new vehicles to you members of the board as well as county staff. Again, we've made a lot of strides in combating concerns about safety, making sure that we have slow zones, no ride zones, better park zones, equity zones. And unlike bike share programs, scooters do offer a very unique demographic appeal. Scooters in places based upon 2019 data and places where you had bike and scooter share programs. Scooters are written about five times more often as bikes, roughly over one third of those scooter trips directly replace car trips. So the impact on carbon emissions is quite clear and is well backed by research. But scooters are also easier to deploy, they're cheaper, and they also help share revenue with communities. So for instance, Bird in partnership with the city of San Jose was able to sponsor 16 miles of new bike lanes over the course of two years through revenue sharing. So there's a lot of opportunities and benefits for scooter share. And I do hope to work with jurisdictions in the future to allay concerns and build a robust and meaningful program that can reduce car emissions while also being safe and addressing community concerns. So thanks for your time today. Thank you, Mr. Singleton. Thank you. Any other comments? There are no other speakers to decide them. Okay, I'll bring it back to the board. Chair, I don't think I have the votes to get this ordinance passed today. Am I able to withdraw it until such time is I'm able to review this? Any ordinance that can be implemented with regional partners and bring it forward in a future date? Fine, that's certainly acceptable. Okay, so there will not be a motion on the floor then. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. All right, then we will just move on to item number 16, or excuse me, 17, 17. Consider, or excuse me, it's a public hearing to consider approval and concept of an ordinance amending Santa Cruz County Code Chapter 1501 and sections 1303.050 and 13.10.418A, 13.10.352B and 14.01.411 regarding park, parkland dedication and in lieu fees and the additions of section 15.03 regarding parking back fees and section 15.05 regarding trail and coastal access. Adopt resolution to improving the sequence notice of exemption and schedule the ordinance for secondary reading the final adoption on June 29th, 2021 as outlined in the memorandum of director of parks, open space and coastal services. We have several ordinances of exhibit A, B, A, B, C, D, A, B, F, G, H, I, J. There's about the fees reviewed, the fee study, the plan commission resolution and the parks commission minutes and staff report from the parks as well. Thank you. Who is going to be presenting on this as Mr. Gaffney? Is Mr. Gaffney going to be able to, is he here? Yes, he is promoted now. He should be rejoining. There he is. Okay. Thank you for bringing me on. And we saved the best for the last of the day or getting towards the end of the day. We wanted to make it really complex and complicated, but I don't want to take up too much of your time. Obviously, let's try to move this along quickly. Thank you, Chair McPherson and fellow board members. I'm going to turn it over to Will Fort, who's much more succinct and thorough than I am. I am seeing him come up right now. So if you have any questions, we'll both be available at the end of the presentation. Thank you. We can see your screen well and I haven't heard you yet though. Okay, there we go. I'm sorry, I was muted. Good afternoon. Can you hear me now? Yeah. Thank you, Jeff. So I see you can see my screen. Yes, we can. And great. So thank you for your consideration. I will go through the proposed updates to the park dedication fee program. And these are fees that apply to new development to provide the funds needed to expand the park facilities to meet the new demand created by that development. So for today's consideration, I will go through three sections of this presentation. First, some background information on the program and the issues to be addressed. Next, the required board actions. These include first, the ordinance amendments and second, the unified fee schedule amendments. Today's hearing is about the ordinance amendments. I will also cover the fee schedule which will be considered at the June 29th budget hearing. But since these updates go hand in hand, it would be appropriate to discuss the fee schedule amendments at this hearing today as well. And this information was reviewed by the Parks Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission on February 8th and they recommended that the board take these actions. And the Planning Commission reviewed on April 28th and approved a resolution recommending the adoption of the portion of the ordinance in their purview as well. So let me start with some background information. The goals of this program update are to comply with the current state law to align the county code with the general plan standards for parks, to increase equity and how fees are applied, to institute an incremental fee increase and a new fee structure to provide for more effective use of limited funds from this program and to incorporate fees for non-residential development including commercial and visitor serving impacts on the park system. To understand these goals, here are some context California code require or includes the possibility of levying two types of fees related to this program. First, the Quimby Act allows fees for residential subdivisions. They are in lieu of dedicating park land with that subdivision. Second, the Mitigation Fee Act allows impact fees for parks that developers pay for the expansion of the park system. These two types of fees have similar goals but have some differences in their requirements and how they are set up. There is some room to improve the clarity between Quimby and Mitigation Fee Act fees to be consistent with state law with our current program. This table shows the existing fee rates for the county as well as all the cities within county for comparison and the fees for the county are considerably lower than the neighboring jurisdictions and they have not been updated for over 20 years. They would need to be increased to keep pace with the increased cost of acquiring and developing park lands. Currently, there are 19 park dedication districts shown in the black outlines. Fees collected in a district currently are held and spent only within that district. And there are three fee zones shown in the three colors. These zones have differing fee rates. To look at the district boundaries, Park Staff completed a series of park user surveys in the fall of 2018. More than two thirds of user survey did not live, work or stay in the same district as the park they were visiting. And because of this, we can say that the current districts are not an effective boundary for determining which park serves which neighborhood and rather people use parks throughout the county. Additionally, when you look at the fee zones with the differing fee rates and summarized by median income in each zone, it's clear that the areas in the county with the lowest income are paying the highest park dedication fees. So that is a summary of some of the background and issues we're trying to address so I can now go through the specific ordinance amendments. Currently County Code chapter 1501 has policies related to Quimby fees and trail and beach access dedication. The proposed update includes moving the trail and beach access policies to a different chapter to allow this chapter to be solely about park dedication. There are also some other revisions to chapter 1501 that are proposed in this revision, including separating and clarifying these fees as separate from impact fees, establishing the park acreage standard that is consistent with the county's general plan, which is five acres per 1,000 people, revising the formula for calculating park land dedication to match this standard, adjusting the reporting and trust administration requirements and making miscellaneous changes to the organization and wording of chapter 1501. The new chapter 1503 creates a new park impact fee chapter which will provide for fees distinct from the in-loop fees. It will also adjust the reporting and trust administration requirements to make these fees consistent with the mitigation fee act. It will require regular review of the fee rates. It will allow creation of fees for new visitors serving and commercial development. It will change the fee structure from per bedroom to per square foot, which is a recommendation by the Housing Advisory Commission, and it will expand exemptions for affordable housing and accessory dwelling units. So the next section is chapter 1501. The portions of the existing chapter 1501 that are related to Trail and Beach Access will be moved to this new chapter 1501. There will also be minor changes included such to make it work as a standalone chapter. The word beach will be changed to coastal access throughout in the minimum public shoreline access. With easement would be increased from five feet to 10 feet to new current development standards. Additionally, there are other small changes. Portions of chapters 13 and 14 of the County Code will be amended to reference these new changes to chapter 15. As 1505 will be referenced as part of the local coastal program and the cross-referencing in 13 and 14 will be updated to the new scheme of 1501. So that concludes the ordinance amendments. We'll go through the unified fee schedule amendments that will be considered at the June 29th budget hearing. These are the five main changes which are to separate and clarify the in lieu fees from park impact fees, including the trust administration requirements and exemptions and how they're applied to change the park impact fee structure from per bedroom to per square foot to include the non-residential park impact fees to eliminate the three zones of different fee rates and the separation of fees into 19 funds for the 19 park districts and lastly to include an incremental fee increase as compared to the existing fees. There are also two accounting changes that go along with this. One is to consolidate future fees and current funds into one account. And second is to clean up some previous loans that have been made between park dedication districts. So this chart shows the proposed fees to be considered at that June 29th hearing. The first category is for park land in lieu fees or the Quimby fees. There is a fee per residential unit for residential subdivisions. The proposed single family rate is 4,200 and for multifamily is 3,125. And the next set of categories is for park impact fees to be applied by square foot of new development. For projects that do not pay that in lieu fee at the time of subdivision, the proposed fee for residential is $2 for single family and $1.50 for multifamily. This is per square foot. For projects that did dedicate land or paying in lieu fee at that time of subdivision, this recommended fee is only 23 cents for single family or 17 cents for multifamily. It's just the cost of developing park land, not acquiring it. Then there are the three proposed fee categories for commercial development, including $2 for retail, restaurant and office, $3 for hotel and motel and $1 for industrial and research and development. And all these fees are less than 25% of the maximum fee which was recommended in the NEXA study. So these are still quite a bit lower than those recommended fees. And I have one table here that shows some examples of scenarios of new development of different sizes and location in the existing and proposed fees. But because currently fees are done by bedroom, new fees and they're different by zone, it's not possible to directly compare all of them. So you have to look at different scenarios. In the interest of time, I won't go through all of these, but I will say while the proposed fees are generally an increase as compared to existing rates, they are still quite low when considering the recommended fees in the NEXA study and the fees in surrounding neighboring jurisdictions in the cities. And when you consider the large capital need associated with expanding the park system. So that's all I have today. Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. I'd like to make a few comments. I especially wanna thank our parks director, Jeff Gaffney and the parks department and commission as well as the planning commission for all their work and input at this has taken a long time to get here. It's well needed. I do support the clarity that we can manage the funds on a countywide basis as it was showed how people who attend the parks where they do live or where they go to enjoy those parks. And I do think that we should apply these to commercial properties because it's not just residential users that create the need for parks in an open space. I also really appreciate the affordable housing exemption that's being extended to mixed use projects as well. And even though we're not in approving fee increases literally today, I'm just concerned that we're too low that we're too low, it was mentioned. I'm not gonna ask that, well, we'll get to that later, but we haven't, it's been more than 20 years, 1998 since we increased these fees for parks. And when I was a member of the committee to put the parcel tax for parks, they said we should limit that to $8.50 per parcel. And we were saying, no, it should be up to 20 and people approve it anyway. Well, the voters approved that parcel tax, but we should have had it higher. And the pandemic showed us how important these parks are and our open spaces. And I think we should not set them so low that they aren't a significant component, but that's to be discussed a little later. So when there is a motion that does come which I will support this proposal, I'd like to ask for additional direction to have our parks director or parks department return to the board on June 29th with the options that are available about increasing fees at higher levels. I'm not gonna be asking for it. It appears the chair is having technical difficulties. One moment, please. Supervisor Koenig, would you like to continue the meeting? I'm happy to step in as vice chair. Are there any additional comments by my colleagues? Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. And I don't have much to add other than I'll be supporting this when it comes once we've gone out to the public on this. I appreciate the work Mr. Gaffney, Mr. Ford on this. I think this is an important modernization of the work we're doing. Thank you. I think my internet connection was off. Any comments from other board members? Yeah, I'll make your comment. I don't know where I was cut off exactly but it's been a long time since fees have been increased for parks. And when we did increase them in a separate parcel tax, it wasn't nearly enough. But so I'd like to get an indication of what are the needs that our parks system is going to create when we come back on the 29th. If you would, please, Mr. Gaffney. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman, Supervisor Caput. Thank you. Yeah, thanks a lot, Jeff. How are you doing? Good, thank you. Good. Yeah, then everybody I think, well, most people agree that beautiful places to live, the beautiful places to visit all have parks. They have neighborhood parks. They have bigger parks for the whole community. And we are on the coast and coastal trails and access is a must. And it's something that we need to not only take care of but actually expand. And South County, when we're talking about five acres per 1,000 residents, is that only in the unincorporated area or does that include the city? That's us as an unincorporated county parks. That's what we're looking to try to do. I actually believe the city is not doing well in that regard either. I don't have their numbers off the top. They're behind also. Yeah. And just so the rest of the board knows, what is the acreage in District 4? You have a total of one and a half acres of County Park. Yeah, I know. And part of that's because we have a large population in Watsonville and when they do the redistricting, it goes by population rather than a geographic, you know, a geographic map. So anyway, I'm just, I'm all for trying to get more parks, especially for South County. It's a disadvantaged community. And they have to have access also to beautiful places to visit. So anyway, thanks. And we're gonna be working on that. Okay, we'll be talking soon. Thank you. Thanks a lot. Any other comments from the board? I'm not sure where I was cut off. Somebody probably wanted to cut me off when I was talking about the need for additional funding for parks. Supervisor Koenig, go ahead. Just a few quick comments. Thank you, Director Gaffney for the presentation today and for speaking with me ahead of this item as well as my planning commissioner who does work in design and construction. And, you know, we had expressed some initial concerns about the impact of these kinds of fees on development and ultimately making housing less affordable. You know, I think that you've made it pretty clear that ultimately, you know, these fees are pretty minimal. You don't have a lot of funds to work with in parks. And it's really even with the modest increase probably won't be enough. Parks are one of those issues that it didn't rise to people's minds a whole lot during the campaign. But now that I'm in office, I hear about them all the time because it is just one of those areas of county services that people use every day and love very much and are very involved with. So, you know, again, thank you for this work to ultimately make the way that we collect and manage fees more efficient and right size the amount that we collect and support for the actions. So thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for the board? Any input from the public? Yes, we have one speaker, Color 2915. Your microphone is available. Thank you. This is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. I'm very supportive of the park system. And I understand that the per bedroom assessment rate is a little challenging. I'm interested in hearing more about the differences that have been taking place between the three zones in the county for park in lieu fees. I'd like to hear more about that disparity, how big is it? In the staff report under item D fee rates, I'm a bit surprised to see that it would indeed really increase the construction cost for single family homes. It says, for example, the maximum fee supported fee according to the fee study for a new three bedroom residence of the average size, $2,375 square feet would be $8.96 per square foot or a total of $21,280. While the current fee if located in zone one, and there we are alluding to the differences in the three zones would be $3,000. This would be an increase of over $18,000 or over seven times the existing rates, end quote. And then just right below that, it has a table of the proposed Parkland in lieu fee categories. I'm confused because it says the proposed fees per unit for a single family project would be $4,200. And for a residential subdivision project multi-family, $3,150. Me, I do not have access to CTV, could please allow the speaker. Thank you very much. It's been a long day for me too. Thank you for giving me a little more time. So I would like a bit of clarification and I also want to make it clear to the board and to the park staff that Quimby Act funds can be used for community gardens, which may have less need for maintenance because the people who use them would be in fact doing the maintenance. And I would like to see that considered more for Parklands to be incorporated to serve people. It brings people together. They learn how to grow food and it is an acceptable use under the Quimby Act. Thank you very much for the extra time. There are no other speakers to this item. I'm prepared to remove the recommended actions. Okay, and I think I wasn't sure if they said again with the additional comments, I'd like to have the parks director come back to the board on June 29th with several options to consider about increasing the fee at higher levels or what are the needs in the parks today and how much would that take to upgrade them to the level that they should be? Sure, I'll include that as a friendly amendment. And the seconder signed with that as well. Thank you. Yeah, Supervisor Koenig, do you have a comment? No additional comments, thank you. Okay, any board member have additional, I'll close the public hearing. Excuse me, back to the board, any additional comments? Okay, please call the roll. Supervisor Koenig? Aye. Friend? Aye. Coonerty? Aye. Caput? Aye. McPherson? Aye. Thank you, motion passes unanimously. Thank you, congratulations Mr. Gaffney and Dan. We will move to item number 18. We're closing in on it, we have to go to 21. This is to consider adopting an ordinance repealing ordinance 3678 uncodified which established the findings of fact fee for proceedings related to assessment appeals, a doubt resolution on authorizing the establishment of the findings of the fact fee as part of the United Fees Schedule and direct the clerk of the board to take related actions as outlined in the memorandum of the County Administrative Officer. We have an ordinance to repeal, ordinance 3678 uncodified, ordinance 3678 uncodified resolution findings of fact fee. Excuse me. I think, is this, who's going to be presenting this? I will be presenting the item chair. Okay, Stephanie, go ahead. So this is a fee associated with our assessment appeals board. The finding of facts fee ordinance was approved in 1985, setting our fee at $60 flat based on the Board of Equalizations assessment appeals board rule 308. The County may impose a reasonable fee determined by the Board of Supervisors to cover the expense of preparing the findings and conclusions and may require a deposit to be paid prior to the end of the hearing. We are asking to update this fee to better match what is actually costing the County to provide this service. We did seek counsel from our County Council and they recommended $250 based on what we are charging our internal departments to provide the same fee. This record or this report, the finding of facts fee is usually used when an appellant is going to contest the decision of the assessment appeals board, which leads to further litigation. At this point, the County is subsidizing the cost of this fee at $190 per hour. So we're seeking to remove it from the ordinance and set it by the unified fee schedule as well so that we have more flexibility to maintain the accurate pricing and better recuperate the cost to the County to provide this service. Recording in progress. So the request is to seek adoption of an ordinance to repeal ordinance 3678, which is uncodified that established the finding of facts fee relating to the assessment appeals board actions and to adopt a resolution setting the assessment appeals finding a fact fee at $250 per hour with an initial deposit of $500. This was reached by the reports generally taking two to four hours to create. And we're asking that the board direct staff to add the fee to the unified fee schedule to allow for flexibility and maintaining accurate pricing for this service. Okay, thank you. Any questions from the board? Mr. Chair, I don't have any questions. I think this is very reasonable. I just think that in general, this is also a good lesson that we always need to make sure that we keep these fees as updated as possible so we don't see these large jumps, which I know is never the intention, but we also shouldn't be subsidizing public tax dollars, shouldn't be subsidizing these kinds of situations. There should be a cost recovery situation as proposed. So I will be supporting it once we receive public input. Thank you. Very good. Any other comments from the board? Do we have any public comments? Yes, caller 2915. Your microphone is available. Hello, this is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. I would like to, I appreciate that legal costs are high, but I think I have been to some of the assessment appeals hearings. And what I have seen is that these are mostly, this is the property owner's only ability to go before a quasi-judicial tribunal to settle a dispute when they couldn't get help any other way. Many of these people represent themselves because they can't afford legal fees. If a finding of fact is required for this, in essence, civil due process, I think there needs to be some method that indigent people bringing their cases to the assessment appeals board are able to file for a fee waiver or a fee reduction. Because otherwise this is cost prohibitive. You're saying that most findings of fact take four hours. That's a lot of money, $250 times four is $1,000. That will prohibit people who cannot afford it from taking any action and they are stuck. And in some cases, this is the only method they have to try to get relief. I've seen it happen in some of these appeals. So I urge your board to consider that there is some method for indigent people to be able to apply for a fee waiver and have the same civil due process as those who can afford it coming before this board. Thank you very much. Any other public comments? There are no other speakers to this item chair. I return to the board, any comments? I move the recommended actions. I'll second. Community and friend, please call the roll. Supervisor Koenig? Aye. Friend? Aye. Coonerty? Aye. Caput? Aye. McPherson? Aye. Thank you, motion passes unanimously. Item number 19, public hearing to consider the 2021-22 benefit assessment service charge reports for Sanitation County Service Areas 257-10 and 20 and adopt resolution confirming that 2021-22 benefit assessment service charge reports is outlined in the memorandum of the deputy CEO director of public works. We have Sanitation County Service Area area electronic charge reports, summer report of 2021-22 service charge, sewer service charges for various county service areas and a resolution for all CSA charges 2021-22. I think our department of public works deputy CEO, Madam Shado is going to be presenting or is it still Ashley? Yes, I'll be presenting. Okay, good. Thank you. Thank you. So on April 13th, 2021, the board approved the 2021-22 benefit assessment service charge reports for County Service Areas 257-20 and set today as the date of the public hearing on the 2021-22 benefit assessment service charge reports that have been posted public review. Therefore, it is recommended that the board open the public hearing and hear the objections or protests, if any, to the proposed 2021-2022 benefit assessment service charge reports for the Sanitation County Service Areas 257-10 and 20 close the public hearing and adopt the resolution confirming the 2021-22 benefit assessment service charge reports for the various Sanitation County Service Areas. Thank you. Thank you, Ashley. Any comments from the board, board members? Comments from the general public? There are no speakers to this item. Okay, we'll close the public hearing and return it to the board for action. I'll move the recommended actions. Second. Seconded by Grant, seconded by Coonerty. Please call the roll. Supervisor Koenig. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Thank you, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Ashley. Will you be, go to a public hearing to consider resolution confirming proposed fiscal year 2021-22 assessment service charge reports for the County Service Area 12, wastewater management as outlined in the memorandum of the Director of Health Services. We have resolution County Service Area 12 service area charge reports, fiscal year 2021-22. I notice a public hearing 2021 CSA 12 annual charges. Is Ms. Hall going to be presenting this or? I am promoting her and also Marilyn Underwood will be joining her. Okay. Good afternoon. Thank you, Supervisor McPherson. I believe Dr. Marilyn Underwood, Director of Environmental Health is here to walk the Board of Supervisors through this item. Good evening. I say that because I'm calling from the East Coast here. I wanted to say that the item before you right now is something that you took up on May 11th of this year that the Board adopted resolutions confirming the established benefit assessment and service charges for CSA 12 and set this date of Tuesday, June 8th as the time for the public hearing. These are the rates and charges are described in that report. This is for the on-site sewage disposal service systems in the County, both education, covering the lamp and other activities. We are proposing to remain, choose the rates to remain the same as in previous, the previous year. We asked you to open the public hearing. Here's the Board objections or protest to then close the public hearing and adopt the resolution confirming these rates, service assessments and service charge reports for the coming year. Thank you. Thank you. Well, there's the weather back there. Do we have any comments from the Board of Supervisors? Seeing none, do we have any comments from the public? Yes, caller 2915, your microphone is available. Hello, this is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. I am curious about the status of the lamp and how that will affect these rates and vice versa. I'm very concerned about this issue because I think it will make rebuilding in many areas of our rural area affected by the CZU fire, financially impossible. So I would like some discussion about that status and how these fees are linked with that. Thank you very much. Ms. Underwood, I don't know if you could comment on that very briefly or comment on that. Yes, I could definitely. They are definitely not connected at this point. Just for the public's benefit, we did release a public comment on the lamp yesterday and we will be holding a public meeting on that on June 23rd. But I think the cost that I believe that Becky, Ms. Steinbruner is referring to may be the cost of implementing the outcomes of the lamp which is different really than what we're talking about here, our service assessment charges which are related to educating people, actually getting the lamp completed and other activities related to overall our program for overseeing the on-site septic sewage program in our county. So they really are not necessarily directly related. Okay, thank you, that brief explanation. Thank you very much. Are there any other public members of the public who want to speak? There are no other speakers to this item. Okay, we will close the public hearing. I'll entertain a motion. I'll move the recommended actions. I'll second. Moved by Koenig, seconded by Friend. Please call the roll. Supervisor Koenig. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Thank you, the motion passes unanimously. Okay, we'll go to item 21, a public hearing to consider County Service Area 48 and County Service Area 4. As far as protecting the test and service, charge reports for fiscal 2021-22 and adopt resolution to the service charge reports for CSA 48 and County Service Area 4 as outlined in the memorandum of the Director of General Services. We have resolution CSA 48 to confirm assessment, resolution CSA 4 to confirm assessment and a script for the CSA fee hearing 2021. Is Michael Beaton going to be presenting this? And he should be joining. Okay. This is our Director of General Services, Michael Beaton. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Board. Michael Beaton, Director of General Services for the County of Santa Cruz. This item is being brought to your Board on May 25th, 2021. The Board adopted resolution to set today's date as a public hearing for the benefit assessment increase for CSA 48 and CSA 4. The recommended increase for the assessments is identified as 1.7% utilizing the CPI index. We are available for any questions that the Board may have. Thank you. Any comments from the Board? Comments from the public? Currently have two speakers. Charlie Eadie, your microphone is available. Thank you. I just wanted to chime in on behalf of the Power O'Doom's Homeowners Association for whom I work. They are very thorough and pay a lot of attention to detail and did in fact review this proposed fee increase and got information from Cal Fire who works well with us in providing what we need. So I just wanted to let you know that the Power O'Doom's people are aware and support this increase as it's consistent with the way it should be done. I'd also like to recommend that when you have short items like this, you put them at the beginning of the day instead of the end. Thank you. Becky Steinbruner, your microphone is available. This is Becky Steinbruner. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. I heartily second Mr. Eadie's comment. This is at the very end of your agenda today. It should have been at the beginning or at least scheduled for a time like you did other things. So please don't do that to the public in the future. It's really wrong, especially on this issue.  This should have followed on its heels. I sent you all a letter and got no response and I have copied that letter and a subsequent comment here on the website portal. I have a lot of questions about how this is being done, this adjustment. I'm very, very glad that those who lost their homes in the CZU fire are not having to pay the extra benefit assessment fee to protect them. Thank you for doing that. They should have been done last fall, but thank you for doing it now. I have a lot of questions having looked through the binder at the clerk of the board's office about how these adjustments are in fact being made. It says in the binder that the calculations are not being shown because there are errors. But how can we find what those errors are? How can we find the calculations that is all not transparent at all to the public? How was this hearing noticed? I didn't receive anything in the mail. I didn't see anything in the paper. So this is all not transparent at all. But again, I wanna thank you for reducing the CZU fire people assessments to recognize that they have no special benefit at all in this protection assessment. In looking at the... There are no other speakers to this item, Chair. Okay, I don't know, Mr. Beaton, if you have any comments, brief comments on that? Thank you, Board Chair. Reviewing the email that we did receive from Becky Stein-Brunner, looks like that we received it on June 3rd. We currently have it sent over to our county or to our engineer that was identified over our CSA-48 and we're currently still reviewing. We don't believe there's any significant issues or items related to the issues that she's raised in the email. Okay. I'll move the recommended action. The public hearing recommended action moved by Coonerty. Second. Second by Koenig. Please call the roll. Supervisor Koenig. Aye. Friend. Aye. Coonerty. Aye. Caput. Aye. McPherson. Aye. Thank you, Motion passes unanimously. Okay, that completes our regular agenda. Now we did shorten the, or cut off the public comment period after 30 minutes. Is there anybody that wants to comment to us now? Becky is available to speak. Okay, two minutes. Thank you. I've waited all day to be able to speak on item 21 and to only get two minutes. When you have given me other time earlier, it's an insult and I'm sorry. I want to continue because Nicene Mark State Park land is now assessed at zero. State Park government land is not exempt from special benefits for these sites sorts of actions.  You've had a long day and so have I. So I just want to say that this really needs further examination and more transparency for the CSA 48 special benefit assessment. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from the public? There are no other speakers to this item chair. The hour of five o'clock haven't been reached. That concludes our meeting of June 8th, 2021 of the County Board of Supervisors. We made it by five o'clock. That was the target. With that, this meeting is adjourned and we will see you next during budget hearings. Have a good evening and we'll see you later. Bye-bye.