Okay, good evening.

It is 531 and our call are meaning of the local agency formation commission to order.

And Matt Clerk, would you please call the roll to establish a quorum and then read the

meaning statements?

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Members, Kaplan, here, Murphy, Carter, here, Hume, here, Jones, here, Desmond, here.

And Dr. Karpinski-Kostak.

President, thank you.

You have a quorum with the members that are present.

This meeting of the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission is live and recorded with

closed captioning.

It is cable cast on MetroCable Channel 14, the local government affairs channel on the

Comcast and direct TV universe cable systems.

It is also live stream at Metro14live.saccounty.gov.

Today's meeting replaced Friday, February 7th at 2pm on MetroCable Channel 14.

Once posted, the recording of this meeting can be viewed on demand at youtube.com forward

slash MetroCable 14.

The Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission fosters public engagement during the meeting

and encourages public participation, civility, and use of courteous language.

The board does not condone the use of profanity, vulgar language, gestures, or other inappropriate

behavior, including personal attacks or threats directed towards any meeting participant.

A speaker will be given two minutes to make a public comment and are limited to making

one comment for agenda or off agenda item.

Please be mindful of the public comment procedures to avoid being interrupted or disconnected while

making your comment.

To make a comment in person, please fill out a speaker request form and hand it to the

clerk's staff.

The chairperson will open public comments for each agenda, off agenda item, and direct

the clerk to call the name of each speaker.

When the clerk calls your name, please come to the podium and make your comment.

If a speaker is unavailable to make a comment prior to the closing of public comments, the

speaker waves their request to speak and the clerk will file the speaker request form

in the record.

The clerk will manage the timer and allow each speaker two minutes to make a comment.

This concludes your announcement.

Oh, pardon me, excuse me, continue the announcement.

You may send written comments by email to boardclurketsetcounty.gov.

Your comment will be routed to the board and filed in the record.

A accommodation.

If you need an accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act or for medical

or other reasons, please see clerk staff.

For assistance or contact the clerk's office at 916-874-5451 or by email at boardclurketsetcounty.gov.

Thank you in advance for your courtesy and understanding of the meeting procedures.

Okay, thank you, Larice.

And we'll everybody please join me in the blood of allegiance.

Well, thank you.

It's great to be here for the very first to kick off the first meeting of the year and especially

to welcome our newest member to Lafkoe here, supervisor Pat Hume, who has been elevated

from alternate status to the actual represent one of the representional county.

So please join me in a warm round of applause for our newest district review.

And with that, Madam Clerk, please read the first item.

The first item was the welcome to the new members and the oath of office.

Okay, so that will bring us to the oath of office.

Did we just want to be clear?

Did we already have the vote for new Chair and Vice Chair?

I believe we did.

Oh, that'll be item number two on the agenda, Mr. Chair.

Right now the new officers.

Okay, so excuse me.

And so it's the only, are we swearing everybody else in or just?

It's just that Commissioner Hume and then alternate city commissioner, Jane Akarpinski-Costa,

who is here, well at the moment as the alternate, that might change, but at the moment she's

the alternate city representative.

And so how do you want us to do this?

Just do it from up here on the dias and-

Yeah, just up here in the dias.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, I don't think unless you want to stand on ceremony and go down to the podium, I'm

happy to do it.

I would appreciate it if you would refer to me as former Chair.

Former Chair, you mean, that's right.

That's right.

When you were at the last moment.

That's right.

What am I thinking?

It's nice to have you here.

It's nice to have you here in this capacity, Supervisor Hume.

So I will start with administering the oath of office to Director Hume.

So please raise your right hand.

Repeat after me.

Aye, state your name.

Aye, Pat Hume.

Do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

And the Constitution of the State of California?

Against all enemies foreign and domestic?

Against all enemies foreign and domestic?

That I will bear True Faith and Allegiance?

I will bear True Faith and Allegiance?

I will bear True Faith and Allegiance?

Do the Constitution of the United States?

And the Constitution of the United States.

Do the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution

of the United States?

Do the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California?

I take this obligation freely.

I take this obligation freely.

Without any mental reservation.

I take the agribocation freely.

without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

Well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I'm about to enter discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter

Congratulations

Okay

Oh, how about that? Well, thank you director Carpinski Costa

Okay repeat after please raise your right hand repeat after me. I state your name. I

Jaina Carpinski Costa do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States

Do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of California and

Against all enemies foreign and domestic against all enemies foreign and domestic that I will bear true faith and allegiance

That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of California

to the Constitution of the United States and to the Constitution of the state of California

that I take this obligation

without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

Without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

And that I will, I will well and faithfully.

And that I will well and faithfully.

Discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

Discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'd like to separate that one phase well and faithfully

and just make it stand on its own,

because it's always a difficult one to do.

Okay, that will bring us to our appointment

of the Lafko Officer's for 2025.

Mr. Chair and commissioners,

your commission has a rotation schedule

that's been around since 2005,

in which you rotate the two officers

would be the chair and vice chair.

Last year, if you recall,

Commissioner Kaplan served as the vice chair,

so she would be rotating into the chairmanship.

And then into the rotation would be the public member,

which would be Chris Little.

But since Commissioner Little is not here,

he can't protest.

So, presumably you can at that point,

a point of to the vice chair.

Okay, so we can take both those in one motion.

Okay.

Mr. Chair, I so move.

Second.

Okay, we have multiple seconds,

but the motion made by Commissioner Jones,

seconded first, I think by Commissioner Leibzig.

Please would a voice vote suffice on this?

Actually, we can do.

Okay.

You may vote.

Please vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Okay, now I get to swear in the new chair.

Not on the new chair, we just switch seats.

You just switch seats and name plates.

And I'm ready to do that right now.

Thank you for your service chair.

My pleasure, my pleasure.

Well done, well done.

The Gabbling viewers.

Now we have to change name plates.

Sign out.

Thanks for your time.

I mean, unless you want to vote,

that's if you're meeting.

You know what, Mia?

Okay.

Alrighty, thank you, everyone.

Welcome to 2025.

We are, Quirk, can you read the next item?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Item number three is the public is encouraged

to address the commission concerning any matter

not on the agenda.

Public comments are limited to three minutes.

The commission is prohibited from discussing

or taking any action on any item

not appearing on the posted agenda.

And we do have two speakers, speaker requests.

First we have Kathy Lael.

I'm sorry.

Kathy Lael, I'm sorry.

And Apollo.

Now would you remember, would you?

We did.

We never missed an opportunity to let mention

how much we appreciate this work with fireworks.

No problem.

January 1st was the best date for people to know

how to do that.

It's been fantastic.

Thank you for your good work.

Keep it up.

It's very traumatic for Apollo

to experience violence.

Also for those who have been interested

in this, it's a fresh and that it's been.

It is devastating with the past.

It's under the bed, beating his heart so bad.

We're here to have a heart attack.

So we're here to say thank you, Rich, for your good work

and your staff.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming.

Thanks Apollo.

Our next speaker we have is Kathy and Kurt Lauer.

Oh, what do you think about the agenda?

The consolidation plan.

Oh yes, okay.

We'll hold it to consolidation.

Okay.

I have to take that out.

We'll hold off until we get to the item.

Thank you though.

Clerk, next item.

The next item is approved the meeting action summary

for November 6th, 2024.

Consent of the entire Consent of California.

We'll take consent.

I do believe there was a.

I have to.

I have four through six.

I'll leave this.

Four through nine.

Four through nine, I apologize.

Four through nine.

And I do want to highlight that we are proving

a resolution of appreciation for former supervisor

Sue Frost for her service as well as four council member

Iva Walton for her service on the Lafko committee.

I do believe that there was a minor technical amendment

to the minutes as well that should be noted.

That's correct.

Okay.

Any any public comments?

We do not have any public comments.

Any commissioner comments?

Yes, supervisor Hume.

Thank you Madam Chair.

I'd just like the record note that I will abstain

from item four.

Happy to move the consent calendar.

Moved by a supervisor Desmond.

Second.

Or Hume.

Sorry.

I'm so used to somebody being to the left of me

that it's odd.

And I probably should abstain from item four as well.

Which are the minutes of where they were not here.

So we have.

All abstain from four.

Do we still does that still leave us with a quora?

You do have a quora move.

Is that four?

Four.

Okay.

Four and anyone else fades.

I'll move approval of the consent item.

Thanks Commissioner Jones.

And a second I think I heard by Ms. Jo.

All right.

Vote.

May I vote?

Motion passes unanimously.

Or you guys want to.

Oh yes it did with registered abstentions on item four.

And the next item.

Or can you please read it under public hearings.

Yes public hearing to consider and approve

Sequick categorical exemption 15320 and the setting

of a zero spirit influence amendment for

Del Paso Manor Water District.

Lathco project number 2022-01.

I will open this public hearing.

Is there any comments or reports updates for the board.

Madam Chair your analyst, Christy Grabo will be presenting this item.

Okay.

Yeah.

Can we have the PowerPoint presentation pulled up please.

Maybe okay well that's being pulled up.

Good evening commissioners.

My name is as mentioned is Christy Grabo.

One of your policy analysts.

Tonight one of the presentations I have for you is a request of a zero sphere

of influence amendment for Del Paso Manor Water District.

Del Paso Manor Water District provides water services for Sacramento County's

unincorporated community of Ardenar Cade.

The district is 672 acres in size and generally bound by Marconi Avenue,

Cottageway, Eastern Avenue, Wat Avenue.

It has approximately 1800 residential and 100 commercial connections.

A little background but not going in total detail because I know this has quite a

lengthy history.

In 2021, Sacramento County Grand Jury released a report that initiated a municipal service

review.

It was approved by the commission in 2022.

The MSR identified infrastructure and financial concerns with the district.

Then in 2024, an MSR addendum was approved that dove more into the deficiencies of

the district's water flow.

This document supported the commission's approval of a resolution of intent to initiate

the dissolution and basically giving the district 12 months to address the deficiencies.

Since last year, conversations with Sacramento suburban water district continued and a change

of board members occurred in November based on the elections, which brings us to the

request tonight.

The district is requesting to amend their SOI to a zero sphere and will transfer responsibility

and function at the district to SACS for urban.

Currently, SACS for urban has a production and distribution teams taking charge of a 24-hour

system monitoring emergency responses and ongoing maintenance operations at Del Paso, so kind

of in the works.

This request is consistent with CKH local policies and applicable principal X. Speaking of policies,

Sacramento, Lafko has a policy that requires an SOI not to be amended concurrently with

a reorganization application, so this is part one of part two.

So part two will be come back to you next month.

So with that, staff is recommending the commission to adopt the resolution saying that this project

is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act.

And for staff to file a notice of exemption to adopt a resolution approving a zero sphere

of influence and direct the EO to complete the necessary filings and transmittals.

That concludes SACS presentation.

Thank you.

Just to kind of for the next process of the hearings, I'd like to hear if we have any

public testimony.

And by the way, do we have any proponents or opponents of this before we go to commission

questions and comments?

Not that we know of Madam Chair, but I do have one clarification to make.

In a couple of places, the public notice for this item had a fat finger error.

It said February 5, 2023.

However, the notice that got posted in the, was published and the notice that was up here

on the, on the chambers had the correct date of 2025.

So Councilor Knight discussed about what the next course of action is.

We feel that which pretty reasonable that people would have just saw that date and recognize

it as a fat finger error.

And as a result, we do recommend that we proceed with approval tonight, even though in a

couple of places, it had the wrong date.

And General Counsel concurs with us?

I do.

And on one location, one posting had both dates.

So it seems reasonable since it had 2025 and 2023 on the same posting that, you know,

it would be reasonable on the 25th on the date.

So that we've evaluated that it's appropriate to move forward with the notice that occurred.

And on this specific item, I want to look to my commissioners.

Do you feel comfortable with moving forward any comments on this?

Okay.

Seeing no objection.

The next step, if we don't have any proponent or opponent, to public comment.

And on that, you can hold the public hearing.

You can always hold off on the final action and closing the public hearing.

So based upon comments or the deliberation of the commission, you could determine that

you wanted to continue the public hearing with it open.

If for some reason during your deliberations and the comments, there's any concerns raised

during the concerns of the commission.

And I do believe the clerk has public comment.

There aren't proponents necessarily, but there is a public comment.

That is correct.

I spoke with both general managers.

They're very supportive of this.

Both boards have applied to Lafko, as you saw, as part of your commission packet to reorganize

the two districts.

So as far as we know, there hasn't been any organized opposition to this, both districts,

both general managers are supportive of it.

Okay.

So I'd like to call public comment.

We do have K-E-Lawr.

Are you wanting us to do on this?

Now, can you hear me?

Good.

I came here tonight to tell you how disturbing the situation is at Del Paso Manor Water

District.

At that meeting at Mission Avenue School, when we were talking about the consolidation,

I have a neighbor that stood up, an elderly neighbor, that's paying $101 for water, that

she won't drink, because the iron pipes have not been replaced.

Instead, she takes a plastic bottle and takes it to railies to fill it up with water.

That is so disturbing to me.

Many people should not be carrying water.

Water is very heavy.

I have a very bad situation as well.

We don't have meaners in Del Paso Manor.

My next door neighbor, you know how he cleans his swimming pool, his above ground swimming

pool.

He puts a garden hose in it, unless the water overflow onto my property.

The waste in Del Paso Manor needs to stop now.

The situation is so bad, we have a manager and a board.

The board actually asked to give this manager an additional $50,000 severance.

It's a good thing that three out of those five board members voted no.

The compelling reason was that they don't want Del Paso Manor to suffer from any more

financial loss.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Okay, about that time.

You are.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you for coming.

Any further public comments?

Madam Chair, I don't have a card may I speak.

Yeah, if you want to make sure afterwards you fill out the information and give it to

our board clerk, come on down.

Just state your name for the record.

My name is Carl Dole and I'm the board president of Del Paso Manor Water District and I

want to I support these resolutions.

The voters in November spoke voted highly for candidates that wanted to combine with

Sachs suburban and I think that their voices need to be heard.

I look forward to working with SSWD, their great organization and we look, I think we'll

do very well under their to the ledge.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for making public comment.

Any other further public comment?

We didn't have any further public comment.

Seeing none, I will now turn it over to my commissioners, commissioner Desmond.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And first I want to start by thanking staff for all the work you've done to get us to

this point.

Before I go with some additional thanks for some of the folks here, either Jose or Kristi,

let me know what is the timeline going forward in terms of the consolidation and our next

steps here at Lafgo and among the two districts?

Essentially, if you decide to adopt the SOI tonight, actually regardless of whether you

do it tonight or are the next meeting, the reorganization will come to you in March.

So at that point, should you approve the reorganization, the districts have one year to

comply with any conditions of approval associated with that approval?

And then once that year is done, hopefully all the conditions are met, then a certificate

of filing can be completed.

And then once that's filed, basically it's five days after that and it's done.

The target that we're going for and speaking with the general managers is for them to comply

with all conditions by the summer.

So by the summer, the total reorganization should be complete.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you, Jose.

I just think it's important to always kind of reiterate this and outline it for a lot

of folks who are affected who want to know what the timeline is looking like.

So the switch will be flipped probably sometime in July.

I also want to thank, certainly fellow Commissioner Jones, who attended a public event with me

and thank you for coming here.

I do remember Apollo at that meeting, but I also want to thank Carl from Del Paso

Manor and I know Jay out here from Saxoburban.

I know it's taken a lot of work to get to this point and I'm so glad that we had good

results after the election.

So it didn't have to go.

I think a more hostile route, which is what we were contemplating if these districts

had not come together and agree on this consolidation.

So with that, Madam Chair, I'm happy to move approval of the resolutions.

And open and close the public hearing as well as approve the resolutions.

I think I heard that.

I heard an open and close.

There's a motion.

I'll second the open and close as well as approval of recommendation.

All right.

Motion and a second.

Okay.

May both.

And I just want to echo thank you and I know that this has been a lot of work, Commissioner

Desmond, for taking the lead and working with the community on this as well as staff.

Okay.

Your motion passes unanimously.

All right.

Moving on to the next one, which is clerk, if you wouldn't mind reading it.

Yes.

Public hearing to consider and approve Sequit, categorical exemption 15320 and the amendment

to the spirit of influence for a Sacramento suburban water district.

Lath co project number 2, 0, 2, 3, is 0, 2.

Madam Chair, your policy analyst will handle this one as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

So this request is the sphere of influence amendment for a Sacramento suburban water district.

And so much to the other one.

Here's an outline of the service map.

Sac suburban water district provides water services to Sacramento counties and incorporated

communities.

Again, a portion of our NARCade, Carmichael and North Highlands.

The district is a lot larger and that it's 36 square miles in size and serves a population

of 194,000 people.

The background behind this district is that it was formed by reorganization of two districts

back in 2002 and has not had any SOI amendments to date.

So today there was a municipal service review conducted and approved by the commission

last year in March.

At that time, there were no SOI requests and it was determined that Sac suburban had ample

supply to meet current and future demands of water service.

The district is requesting to amend their SOI to expand in annex Del Paso Manor's water

district service area.

Again, this request is consistent with CKH local policies and applicable principal acts.

And staff recommends the commission to, again, adopt the resolution saying that this project

is consistent with CQA and file a notice of exemption, adopt a resolution approving the

sphere of influence and direct the EO to complete the necessary filing and transmittal

and the fourth one ignore that one.

So that's not there.

So that concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'd now like to open this public hearing and see if there are any public comments.

We do not have any speaker slips or anyone else in the public for public comments.

Okay.

Commissioners, any comments, questions as this goes into part two?

Commissioner Desmond?

I will move approval of staff recommendation.

As well as closing.

I heard open and close closing means.

Close and clear job public hearing.

Yes.

You're now making me the official rulemaker.

There was a motion and a second from Commissioner Hume.

We can now vote.

You may vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you again to staff for all of this.

Now moving on to our business items part two.

Item 12 item 12 is approved contract with RSG for the preparation of a municipal service

review and spirit of influence study for Floren County water district.

Lafko project 2 0 2 4 dash 0 2.

Madam chair, your policy analyst will handle this one.

Miss Graybo.

You have a lot of work tonight.

Here we go.

Ernie, my keep right now.

So good evening again.

So this item is another water district for you.

I do not have a presentation as it's just needing to get your approval on it.

But in June of last year there was another grand jury report for water district.

It's the Floren County water.

And Lafko was recommended to conduct a municipal service review for that district.

And as there's not been a MSR conducted for that district also we need to do in.

Lafko staff released a request for proposal at the end of the summer for a consultant team

to write that document.

We had a couple of semidels but RSG submitted a competitive proposal.

It just demonstrated that the firm has experienced skills, resources, and an understanding of the

scope of work meeting to complete an MSR to the commission's aspect.

The firm has experience working with Lafko statewide and has prepared numerous types

of MSRs.

They are partnering with a gentleman Tom Kennedy who is a subject matter expert to evaluate

and form the technical aspects of the district.

The timeframe for this project will be five to six months with a deadline of completion

in August of this year.

The cost of the project will be $73,920.

This is before you tonight because of a purchasing policy that we have and it says anything that exceeds

10,000 requires your approval.

So staff recommends that the commission approve the contract and authorize the chair to sign

the final agreement.

Thank you for that information.

Anybody have any questions comments?

I will just say thank you.

The grand jury is busy but I'm glad we have the opportunity to do this as well as never

having had an MSR done for floor and water district.

I think it's timely.

Might be having some of these same discussions that we've just have.

So I want to appreciate staff's time on this.

And then just one question is the amount for the contract is that tend to be in the norm

of what MSRs for this type.

Yes, no.

The cost always very significantly.

We've had a tremendous run of having relatively inexpensive MSRs been done lately.

It just ended.

But 75,000, well, it's high based on relatively recent experience.

It's not really necessarily out of the norm and we just concluded an MSR for a SACMITRO

fire.

And the prices are different.

They're higher.

So it's to meet 75 for a district in which we know nothing about.

And it has a lot of governance problems associated with.

I think it's pretty reasonable because the consultants are going to have to dig a lot.

We don't know anything about the state of their infrastructure.

We don't know if they have any equipment failures or the state of their equipment I should

say.

Not that we're presuming that there are any failures.

But we know nothing about their equipment.

We don't know the infrastructure and we know nothing about their finances.

So there's going to be a lot of digging that's going to be happening.

And I think 75,000 is pretty reasonable.

I am excited about RST partnering with Mr. Kennedy.

He's pretty well known in the water industry, mostly in Southern California.

But he's a pretty solid person to be the one who's going to be evaluating the infrastructure.

Thank you so much.

There's my question popped up another one.

Commissioner Carpensky-Coste.

I had a question.

Is this the only response we had to the RFP?

Was this the only guy?

Because I thought we are policies too.

No, we did receive another response.

Okay.

I'm going to miss it.

Yeah, another response.

But we felt more comfortable with RSG's.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Seeing no other questions, comments, I'll take a motion.

Madam Chair, I would happily move this item.

Proof the contract by Commissioner Heum.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Carter.

Yes?

Sure.

Yeah.

Um, you may vote.

Your motion passes unanimously.

All right.

Moving on to business item 13.

Madam Chair, item 13 is consider supporting legislative effort to address underperforming

water system in disadvantaged areas.

All right.

Madam Chair and commissioners, this started off as an academic exercise by UC Berkeley.

I need to find out what prompted the question.

And essentially started writing a study on why water consolidations were not happening

in the state and why they weren't as frequent.

If you may or may not recall the back in 2015, it was a question that actually was posed

by the Little Hoover Commission in which Lafkoz were getting beaten over the head that

Lafkoz were not approving or consolidating water systems fast enough.

We indicated that there were structural issues in the law that prevented Lafkoz from

taking a lot of actions.

Ultimately, that resulted in the policy group formed by CalAFCO, the California Association

of Lafkoz.

And CSDA, the California Special District Association, as well as our partners in the

League of California cities and the California State Association of counties.

And that resulted in Bill SB938, which I was a part of in negotiating those provisions

and that would allow us to do the pass-on manner from last year.

And so, Dr. Kristen Robin did a paper and frankly, unless you live Lafko, you really don't

know Lafko and the report reflected it.

I was part of the people that responded back with a lot of technical corrections to her

credit.

She took that all in.

She did additional interviews.

And then she also compiled a working group to kind of really study the issue.

And that resulted in much superior study.

And in talking with our partners around the state and in talking with a lot of advocacy

groups, we felt that there was a, there were some real good proposals here.

And eventually, we coalesced around the three points that were outlined in the second

page of your staff report.

The first flaw is that Lafko cannot initiate annexations.

Lafko can initiate consolidations.

Lafko can initiate formations and they can initiate dissolutions.

But in the case of like in the pass-on manner, you could take action to dissolve.

But then we have to ask pretty pleased with the cherry on top for some district to take

it.

And if they chose not to do it, then we're kind of stuck in the water and that prevents

addressing troubled water systems.

To their credit, Sacramento suburban stepped up.

I know they were not crazy about it, but they understood the larger policy and governmental

issue at hand and they were willing partners with us on addressing the pass-on manner.

But around the state, that's not necessarily the case.

So the first thing that's part of this initiative is basically empowering Lafko's to initiate

annexations under certain circumstances.

That would be to address troubled water systems.

So we believe we have a good handle, a good level of support on that piece.

The second piece was basically amplifying the MSR role.

The commission creates MSRs and they're brought to public knowledge through the website,

through the adoption, through public hearings.

The thing is that the districts are not compelled to actually actively address some of the findings

in the MSR.

So we do invite comment, but a district that's hostile to an MSR might not provide any comment

at all.

So then at that point, you only hear one side of the story.

The amplification of the MSR role under this proposal is basically it would compel a district

that if there's an MSR that's written about it, they need to address it just like a grand

jury.

When a grand jury report comes out, they have to address those issues.

So that would be the second piece to the proposal.

And the third piece is essentially addressing service barriers for mutual water companies

and mobile home parks.

And what we're finding is basically these types of organizations are private.

Lafko has no jurisdiction over them.

So the idea was let's try to bring them into the MSR fold so that we can study them even

if Lafko has no jurisdiction over them.

Of the three, the two that really seem to have legs in terms of getting buy-off from

a lot of groups are the first two.

The third one is proving to be problematic from a legal standpoint.

We may need to address that in the future.

But at the very least, we know that the first two we can run with.

So the ask from staff is essentially that you support the efforts that we're able to

submit letters of support with our letterhead to indicate the Sacramento Lafko is supportive

of these legislative efforts.

This group essentially has brought in advocates for disadvantaged communities into the fold.

They're willing to run with it.

And they're willing to gather allies in the legislature and garner support from other

groups.

We just need to indicate that basically that we would be supportive of this and that ends

up being legislation.

They believe that we have one or two legislators who are willing to be the sponsors of the

bills through the legislature.

And we think that something good can come out of it.

So the ask is to essentially direct staff to continue with these efforts.

Being able to provide support when needed.

Should the legislation ever change beyond the parameters that we outline here, I'll bring it back to you for your review and reconsideration of the support.

But for now, as it stands, I think this is good.

This is good public policy.

And I'm happy to answer any questions you have on this.

All right.

First, any public comments in this?

We do not have any public comment.

All right.

Turning it over to commissioners.

Commissioner Hume.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Regardless of being good public policy, have we done an analysis as to far as the existence of or

how many potential water systems and disadvantaged areas might be under the purview of Sacramento Lafko?

It's about private organizations.

No, I'm talking about the ones that we would actually be able to affect change.

Because what I heard you say is for the private organizations, Lafko has no jurisdiction in this legislation, wouldn't James Ed.

That's correct.

So do we done any analysis of how many water systems exist that Sacramento Lafko does have jurisdiction over?

There are about 20 water providers here in Sacramento County.

We have two that are actually provided by the city.

Everything else is by special district.

The private water companies, because we have not studied them, they're kind of a black box to us at the moment.

But for the most part, because we have no jurisdiction over them, we haven't had any compelling reason to be asking them for information.

So at the moment, they are unknowns to us of the other water systems, basically as issues pop up on the MSR.

This would be a collaborative effort.

I mean, even if Lafko gains all these additional authorities, this would be a collaborative effort with the district.

So if we do find that there's a district that's in trouble, elected for mention, the past water district, we wouldn't be going in like Godzilla goes to Tokyo.

We would basically be going, talking to them, encouraging them to take certain matters.

Only if things get pressed, who would Lafko take an extraordinary action, that would be viewed as hostile.

But for the most part, we'd be doing a collaborative approach.

So the answer to the question is we don't know.

We don't know yet.

Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner Himm, Commissioner Murphy.

Okay, so Jose, you said that the third item has legal issues and would not be part of the legislation.

So I presume that means that the letter you're asking us to authorize would not have an endorsement of item three.

Well, I think in concept, I would ask for your support for item three.

The problem is that because these mutual water systems and these mobile home water parks or mobile home park water systems,

they're in the corporations code under the subject of the CPUC.

And so it isn't that it's legally problematic.

It's more along the lines of how do you take something that's in the corporation code under the CPUC jurisdiction,

and you have Lafko's that are in the government code, how do you bridge that gap?

And so it isn't because it's controversial.

It's just that we're having a difficult time of how to be able to reconcile that.

So does the potential legislation create the fix with which code this would fall under so they can make that change?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Commissioner Desmond.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So on the first part relating to the annexation, this is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that we could be confronted with that kind of situation.

I remember in the discussion with Del Paso Manor, at one point we were worried that Saxor bourbon would lose interest in this.

And the default may have ultimately ended up becoming Sacramento County Water Agency taking over because there would be no one else.

How would it change that in that scenario?

We could essentially be like the bad guys.

And if Saxor bourbon says they're going to step away, but we determine that Saxor bourbon is the best provider.

We could force them.

We could.

Yeah.

Okay.

It would also be subject to the same type of rigorous justification as we did for the solution of Del Paso Manor, where that notice.

You have to build up a case.

But like I said earlier, to Commissioner Kim's question, we would only take that step if really we're just back up against the wall and there's no other options available.

Right. That's the last option.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Carpenskiy-Cosco.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm new and I apologize for asking a given question that I'm sure you all know the answer to.

Municipal Services Review.

Is that a document that agencies publish on their website for public review or is that a secret document?

It's secret to their constituents because there's nothing that compels them to put it on the website.

Is it on ours?

It is on ours.

So Lafko does put it on your website for people to pay.

Yes. So when it's being considered by the process typically is we work with the district to, and this is probably more information that you want, but.

Never more information.

We work with the district essentially to create the document, either us or via consultant.

A document is created. It becomes basically an administrative draft in which the district gets to review and provide comments to.

Once it's in the shape in which both agencies are comfortable with publishing, then it comes to the commission and it becomes a public document.

And typically it's a two-step process.

It's brought to the commission to open the public comment period.

And then we give the public a certain amount of time for them to review and comment.

And then it's brought back for adoption with incorporating any comments that were received.

So it shows up on the website as an item that's on the commission agenda.

Once it's adopted, then it goes to a different page in our website that has municipal service review for that district.

So it lives on there there.

So the missing pieces, which is the second component to this proposal, is that the district would have to put it on their website.

They would have to address the findings or determinations in that MSR.

And they would have to provide comment and elevate it so that they have essentially another, the public has another opportunity to read these reports.

So you have transparency and public awareness of what you're paying for.

Correct.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Seeing no other questions, do I have a motion to support these efforts?

Move by Commissioner Desmond.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Jones.

I know I don't want to say people's first name.

I'm trying to be the official vote.

It's not good when I know all of y'all and I don't call you by your last names.

Madam Chair, your motion passes unanimously.

I'm still getting used to it.

All right. Now moving to item 14.

Item 14 is received update from General Counsel on the Sacramento County reclassification of the Lafko Executive Officer.

Make appointment to Commission Personnel ad hoc committee and provide direction.

Hi, Dianne.

Gillick, General Counsel for the Commission.

As the Commission may recall, we have a couple new members.

I've been providing updates on the current status of the classification efforts with the county.

As you know, the employees of the Commission throw an agreement between the Commission and the county are county employees.

The current effort is to evaluate and approve a reclassification for the executive officer.

And I'm happy to report in December the county Civil Service Commission approved the new job description.

I was informed this week that the county is provided notice to the union and there's no objection.

And the position is moving forward as an unrepresented position.

And that the county staff has completed the salary review and its under management review within the Department of DPS.

And it's anticipated that they'll have that ready to go to the board of supervisors for approval of the new job classification.

At the March 11th board meeting.

So I anticipate in March I can bring back to this commission update on what that classification study is.

So I have to report that update on the reclassification for the executive officer position.

In addition, as you recall, we appointed an ad hoc committee of the Commission members to assist in this effort and the information on the staff report.

So I would like to thank the commission members for the change in the commission members.

We want to bring this back for your consideration of potential appointment for new members.

We currently have a commissioner Jones and Desmond serving on that committee.

And if there's desire to add an additional committee member, we wanted to allow you to have that opportunity to do that tonight.

And our executive director did let me know that is generally that chair comes on, but I will look to commission our Desmond since he's been taking the lead on this if it's his will to allow me to join the personnel ad hoc committee.

Of course, I'd be delighted.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no

So I think we have a motion from Chair Kaplan or was it a motion from it was making a statement but the actual motion was Commissioner Tessmann. There you go. To add Commissioner Chair Kaplan to the committee with Commissioner Jones and Desmond. Correct. Yes. To clarify the record over our cacles.

Now your motion passes unanimously. I watched, I watched Commissioner Humpres no first. That was an exciting positive update. That's the most positive update we've had on this thing in a long time. It is a win. All right. Item 15. It's the most positive update we've had on this thing in a long time. It is a win. All right. Item 15.

Madam Chair, item 15 is considered the Cal AFCO conference October 22nd through 25th 2025 in San Diego.

Madam Chair, I am in the process of starting the craft the budget for next fiscal year and then that includes the cost of commissioners attending.

Given the venue, I wanted to bring it up to you so that if you were interested in going, please let me know so that I can build that into the budget.

San Diego is a beautiful city, but there are costs associated with it and so I need to make sure that I take all that into account.

So you don't have to make a decision tonight, but please email me by the end of the week if possible whether it's a yes or no, and then I'll build it in.

Doesn't necessarily commit you to it. It just means that I just take those costs into account into the budget just in case.

And more importantly, the Cal AFCO conference is always a good event for, you know, Lafgo geeks like all of us, staff and commissioners to come and discuss those Lafgo issues on learn something, discuss those state right concerns.

So does prove to be a good conference and as you may or may not know, I believe commissioner Jones is currently the chair of the Cal AFCO organization.

So it'd be supporting commissioner Jones as well as our executive director who has taken on more leadership in the organization as well.

If we were to go down, be it for learning as well as moral support.

Yes, commissioner.

I would say, you know, I went last year the first time I went.

It is an amazing experience.

You're around a lot of policy walks. That's for sure.

And just I was kind of set up though actually when I went down there.

I mean, we know that. But just to be clear, so it was a great experience.

I mean, I'd be interested in attending again, but thank you for bringing this to us because it is a great venue, but it's also a great event to learn all the rest of the know about Lafgo.

All right.

Well, everybody can follow up with our executive director on any statements, concerns, questions, interest that they have now moving on to questions and announcements.

Item 16.

Madam chair, your policy analyst will talk about the about the Astrosheet and the sec, but just prevent on that date. It's okay.

I do want to do have a couple of things to bring to your attention.

First and foremost, you may notice that your policy analyst, Desiree Fox is not here.

And that's because she's on maternity leave.

She had a beautiful baby girl, January 2nd, right?

January 2nd.

Third, and I have not seen her have only seen pictures of her.

Your policy analyst, Grabo has and says that reports that she's a very lovely girl.

She'll be back in May. So she left us at a great time when workload is increasing in Desiree if you're watching this. Thank you.

Second thing and this is an announcement, it should not interfere with my regular duties, but the California Association of Lafcos has named me or is about to ratify this on Friday.

In term executive director for the association, the previous executive director has left and I'm there to essentially to bridge the gap between executive director La Roche and former executive director La Roche and the new person who's going to be recruited.

Not soon enough for my taste, but it is what it is.

So a lot of evenings and weekends will be sacrificed, but it should not interfere with regular business hours.

And of course, as always, you can reach me whenever you have a question or concern.

But that's what I'll be doing on all of my remaining free time from here until August or October.

Miss Grabo can give you an update on the on the on the astrosheet.

Is there anything new or interesting we need to be updated about on the astrosheet?

I'm sorry. So we do have a in March, we do are replying the reorganization application to come through and that's moving forward and that was the Desiree project, but I'm doing it.

So it's great. Other than that, we do have some new applications that have been submitted.

It's on astrosheet now, but they just submitted them last week or two of an MSR and an annexation for sex sewer.

So other than that, everything's moving along like normal.

It is quite all right. You are a significant person down and your executive director has taken on a new load to make sure that the Cal LaFgo can

thrive in its new iteration. Commissioner Jones, it's a lot of work. So no apologies needed. It is quite all right. We can read.

And I know my fellow commissioners know how to do their homework and they can they can get a hold of staff if they have any questions or concerns.

Yeah, really quick. If I can, I just looking at this list. We did that. We did it. Do a request for proposal for the Metro fires. Jose mentioned earlier.

We did get to applications that did come in or proposals. They both look really great and we're excited to kick that project off.

So that's when that's coming down the pipeline that's going to be keeping us busy as well.

And then I will just I will save it for next, but we do we have any other further correspondence we need to know about?

No, not that it's come to our attention.

All right. They're moving on to item 17 Commissioner, Commissioner Chair and Commissioner statements items.

I will just let everybody know because I've been very public about this. I'd request an opinion from the Fair Political Practices Commission as it relates to the Lafko and Sphere of Influence Amendment related to airport south.

I am as I predicted completely out. I have the pleasure of living too close to to where this is. So when the time comes with the Sphere of Influence, I will probably have my alternate here, but I can have no opinion statement.

Anything to have to do with this and my alternate, which is newly elected City Council Member Phil Plucky-Bom is getting up to speed now and I have full trust in the work that he does.

But any other Commissioner's statements? Comments? All right. With that, I call the meeting adjourned at 627. Thank you so much.