Turn that on.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Welcome to the uh local agency formation commission of Sacramento County.

The meeting is called to order.

Will the clerk please read the roll?

Yes.

Directors Little?

Here.

Jones.

Here.

Wickard.

Yes.

Desmond.

Hume here.

Pratton.

Here.

And Pluckybond.

You have a quorum with the members that are present.

Thank you very much.

Let's see.

Well, Mr.

Hume, would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Sure.

Please address the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands one nation.

Under God, indivisible, but with every meeting.

Thank you very much.

Do we have any announcements?

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

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

It is cable cast on Metro Cable Channel 14, the local government affairs channel on the Comcast and Direct TV Uverse Cable Systems.

It is also live streamed at Metro 14Live.gov.

Today's meeting replays Sunday, June 7th at 2 p.m.

on Metro Cable Channel 14.

Once posted, the recording of this meeting can be viewed on demand at YouTube.com forward slash Metro Cable 14.

This concludes your announcement.

Thank you.

Uh do we have any public comment?

That would be item one.

Correct.

Okay.

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 at this time we do not have any speaker slips.

Thank you.

Would you please read the next item into the record?

The next item is the consent calendar calendar to approve items two through eight.

Mr.

Chair, I move consent.

I would like to, Mr.

Chair, if I might.

Okay.

Um I would like to ask that the action summary for April 1st be discussed.

Okay.

I would second the rest of the consent items.

Okay.

Well, we can pull that out.

Okay.

May I read that into the record, please?

Correct.

Item two is approve the meeting action summary for April 1st, 2026.

Yes, that's the one I'd like to discuss.

Go ahead.

The other two, uh the other ones I would move, or I would actually second.

I accept the friendly.

Okay.

I have a question on uh item number six.

Item number six is annual review and approval of ongoing consulting contracts.

Thank you.

So I was looking through that and uh I noticed that one of the uh sort of uh uh contracts to be renewed is with CV strategies, and it's a retainer not to exceed 2500 a month, which is supposedly commensurate with 15 hours worth of work, um given that there are uh obviously months where we don't meet and even months where we you would meet, but we cancel those meetings.

Uh can you quantify that we're actually getting roughly 15 hours of work a month?

It essentially averages out to 15 uh 15 hours a month.

Um so you're right, there are some months in which the commission doesn't meet.

Um however, that doesn't mean that there isn't uh some background information that's going on in front of administrative matters, and in addition to some months for heavier than others, so we don't get charge for the overage on those months, it just averages out um uh throughout the year.

Okay, so in other words, then the roughly whatever that would be 27, 28,000 annual.

Uh it we don't normally exceed that amount, correct?

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Okay, you may vote.

Thank you.

Your motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Would you please read the next item?

Can we discuss item two?

Sorry, I wanted to discuss item two.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

My recollection is that at the meeting in April, we approved an annual update for the Florin County Water District.

And that is not reflected in these meeting summaries, and I believe that it ought to be added.

That can be added.

And we can do it without having to bring it back.

I would move that.

Thank you.

Second.

Good catch.

Okay.

Okay, your motion passes unanimously for item two.

Thank you.

All right.

Mr.

Chair, item nine is review the parameters of for a lease for 1000 G suite 380 and authorize the executive officer to sign a lease consistent with them.

Mr.

Chair and Commissioners, um the lease on the current LAFCO offices at uh 11 1112 i Street expires in August.

Um the we've been in that space for about 25 years at least, and uh the needs of the business um have changed.

And in addition, the space that we have um we needed to essentially be able to both expand with that increasing the footprint, and also we have an opportunity to uh co-sign or co-lease a space with the California Association of LAFCOs, saving this agency money.

So uh with the help of uh of a uh real estate um uh commercial real estate uh agent, we viewed uh different uh spaces, and uh we came to land at 1000 G, which is two blocks west, two blocks north of our current location.

So we're still within the grid.

We're still within uh driving distance of of most um most of the places that we typically drive to as staff.

Uh and in addition, uh like I said that it it allows us for expanding to use this the space more efficiently.

So the space is a little bit larger, the rent is a little bit bigger, however, we would only be paying um a um uh was it seventy-two percent of the rent.

Um because Calavco will be using 70 uh 28 percent of that space.

So it ended up being I think a really good deal for everybody.

The building also has some amenities that um that we did not have access to um at 1112A street, for example.

It's got a large conference room, so in case the commission wanted to have a special meeting, um, there's uh there's a larger space for you to meet as well as to have uh the public be able to attend.

Um it also has more conference rooms that we can utilize.

Um the office itself, uh we will have a small conference room for us.

But if we're meeting with other parties that cannot fit into that space, we can rent a um a larger conference room space within not rent, but it's included.

We can reserve, I should say, a larger space within the building to to have meetings.

So for the special district advisory committee, in case we have a meeting in which we can't find a home, that can also be hosted at 1000 G.

So I my preference was to actually do bring you the lease for you to approve.

We're still working out a little bit of the details.

We're like at the 99 percent there.

Um and but we're drafting the final language as we speak.

So once the the lease is is uh it is is essentially approved by both parties, I'll send that out to you.

Um I can also put it in the next meetings packet as well.

Um so the action today is uh the request that as long as we stay within the parameters that are in the staff memo, um that you authorize me to sign that lease for um for lafco's uh administrative offices.

Uh the lease is it is indicated in the staff report is five years, but we have two five-year options, five years each to extend it.

So um so it it ends up working out really well, and clearly we're long-term tenants uh in various spaces.

So that is the action and uh would request that you uh provide the authorization.

Mr.

Chair, I move staff's recommendation.

I've looked it over and uh it ends up being about 4370 for uh LAFCO, and uh so there's a really good cost sharing opportunity with the state association.

So I move staff recommends staff's recommendation.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

No.

Okay.

We do not have any public comment on this item as well.

Okay, your motion passes unanimously.

Next item, please.

The next item is update on the public members' selection service, excuse me, selection process.

Uh Mr.

Chair and um and commissioners, I gave an update last month relating to the um the terms for the public member and the alternate public member uh being up at the end of this year.

We started the circulation process per the government code, all of the local agencies with the exception of 10 that I have to do a hand physical mail to have been notified as well as the media.

It's been posted online on our website, and um uh we've met the the requirements under the law for the circulation.

Uh the application has also been sent to the two incumbents so that they have access to it as well.

Um and uh that's really the the extent of my update on on this matter.

Uh the um I have not fielded any phone calls yet about it, but I would imagine that as word starts getting out that it'll um but that'll change.

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

It's I'm sure it's in the packet, but I forget what is our what is the deadline for uh application?

Yes, uh the deadline for the application is uh July um I believe I said it as at July 31st.

Or sorry, July 3rd.

Yeah, July 3rd.

July 3rd, 3.

123, okay.

Thank you.

Before July 4th.

I appreciate the update.

Uh question about how you recruit.

So you're gonna put the word out, I get that.

Um there they can't be a special district board member or anything.

So is there any way that you reach out to other people who might be interested?

Well, how'd you do it last time?

Well, it's supposed to be a passive recruitment.

Um if I reach out to folks to apply, that's almost like putting the the finger on the scale.

So that's the reason why um the government code uh requires requests, whatever word you want to use, that we send it out to all the public agencies within the county, because then at that point, those elected officials can spread the word or those um because it can't be either an elected or an appointed official, so you can't have general managers or city managers um or the county CEO applying um for this position.

But if they know someone who is interested, they could recruit on our behalf.

So I can't go out there and do that that um that active rec you know um recruitment, but other folks can.

Is there any prohibition to putting it in the local newspapers of any kind?

No, that's a requirement.

We have to circulate it.

Those have been sent to yeah, and those have been sent to all the media, both in print and in um uh TV.

Okay, thank you very much.

Oh, and and radio, too.

All right, thank you.

Next item, please.

And Mr.

Chair, for item 10, we do not have any public comment.

The next item is uh executive officer commission council astro sheet correspondence and calfco quarterly report.

Uh Mr.

Chair, uh Ms.

Grabo, we'll give you an update on on the astro sheet.

Uh, regarding the Califco quarterly report.

Um that's a new initiative from the the new ish uh executive director for CalAfco, she'll be sending those quarterly updates on the association.

So those will be included in your packet as we receive them.

Um relating to uh any and any correspondence or um uh anything work related, I I do want to highlight um it's not here, but uh we'll do it anyway.

Uh the uh budget uh update.

We're uh we had a SNAFU with a couple of uh funding agencies, but we're now I'm happy to report 94% funded.

Um so we're just waiting on one large check and then the few little checks, but otherwise we're from a financial standpoint, we're good.

And then I'll hand it over to Ms.

Grabo.

Great, good evening, Commissioners.

Um so just to highlight a couple things that we're working on in-house.

Uh we have the Florent Resource Conservation District Detachment that'll probably be coming to the commission late summer, early fall.

Uh almohemy Hartnell.

No, I'm slaughtering that name, so I apologize.

OH Water District.

Um, we are on their second review of the MSR um in-house and it'll be sent out to the district soon.

Metro Fire MSR was sent to staff earlier this week, so we are actively reviewing that as well.

Uh Sakslewer annexation of Hood and Franklin will be coming to you guys um in August.

Uh the countywide MSRs for the cemeteries and count uh in the within the county are is currently being worked on as of the calendar, you guys approved RSG working for the city of Sacramento MSR.

Uh Fulton Alcamino is uh moving forward as well as Southgate Um parks and rec will be coming, I think in August uh for your review, and uh Orangeville uh Rec and Park MSR will is actively being worked on.

So pretty busy, but that's all I have for you.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chair, I'd like to add that um essentially we're we're currently in year one and a half of your five-year MSR project plan.

The intent is for uh a year from now to give you a halfway point of where we're at with the with the MSRs uh since those are being generated um on a fairly good clip.

Um plus we have a member of staff who is dedicated to um working on MSRs as well.

So we should have a really good update for you a year from now in terms of where we started where we're at right now, where we're going.

Thank you.

Mr.

Hume.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I was gonna save this for commissioner uh comments and questions, but since we're discussing it, I'll go ahead and mention it now.

Uh the MSR process, my understanding from you that there is an MSR plan, much like a capital improvement plan that lines out the MSRs that we will be undertaking for the foreseeable future.

That's correct.

There is an MSR project plan that was started um and completed in 2024, with year one being 2025.

Um, and so what the commission did uh for folks in the audience, we have uh seven cities, sixty-three independent special districts, and um I think ten dependent special districts.

Um that's a lot of MSRs, and we cannot complete that within five years.

So the project plan essentially has um we split all those agencies into two uh into two categories.

So there's a five-year plan for the first category, and then in 2030 we'll switch to the second category and update those MSRs.

And the plan is essentially that each agency's MSR will not be more than 10 years old by the time we complete the we complete the cycles.

So uh because right now we have we had a huge rush of MSRs that were done, but they most of them are when I when I started, uh the majority of them were completed in 2008.

And um there were a few that were updated more recently, but for the most part, a lot of them were 2008, and you know they just get stale after a while.

Um so the intent is to keep them as fresh as possible with the with the resources the LAFCO has.

And is there a process uh to add or prioritize a new MSR?

Yes, there um it is part of that of that project plan to the your commission has prioritized the um uh the categories of districts that will that will be studied, and um essentially uh put them in, I don't want to say order, but that's that's not the right word, but basically try to uh coordinate coordinate them, coordinate them so that they're in the same category.

So you'll have all your water districts reviewed and and they're of a certain vintage, all your fire districts review and of a certain vintage.

So there is a I don't want to say prioritization, but there is an order to which these MSRs are being done.

Okay, so now we're getting to the meat of the issue of what I'd really like to ask.

Yes, which is down in the South Delta, there are three fire districts uh that have contiguous boundaries.

Um Delta Fire, River Delta Fire, and Ialton uh fire department.

Uh I did not look specifically for Ileton, but Delta Fire and River Delta Fire, uh, their last MSR was in 2014.

Uh I know that one of those districts actually contracts with a fire district from a different county, which I have questions regarding the legality of that of using taxpayer resources from one county uh for an agency in a in another county.

So that would be one question.

Second question is I know that Iilton is um uh should come as no surprise to anyone struggling uh right now.

Um they're I think they're coming out of their tailspin a little bit, but one of the problems that seems to be pernicious is the fire department.

Uh they just let their fire chief go, and I think the acting city manager had installed himself as fire chief, at least on a temporary basis.

It's a strange situation.

I have heard through the rumor mill that they are looking at also coordinating with a fire district outside of the county.

Um I'm not in favor of that.

I don't again, I think there's legal issues.

I think there's issues of if the bridge is up because a ship's going through, that creates a real public safety issue.

Um and so what I would be curious is is it appropriate or could a commissioner request, and I don't even know that an MSR is the is the the right document, but something that examines the economy of scale and or consolidation of those fire districts in order to serve uh Tyler, Andrus, Sherman, and uh and the southern southern portion of uh Grand Island.

Yes, uh fire districts are within the current scope of the five year plan.

Um so you can move them up in the latter because they're within that category.

Uh so yes, it can be requested.

Uh it would have to be a um a vote of the commission entirety, and we can put that on the agenda for the next um for the August meeting so that you can give staff that authorization.

Um we can outsource it.

There are uh several consulting firms that will be independent and will be and and they're um fire district focused, so they will be able to provide expert um uh recommendations to you.

Um so all of that can be all of that can be done.

Um the question about the contracting with a dist with a district outside of the county that that actually there's nothing illegal about that.

That's that's perfectly um politically, it's a different question.

But from a legal standpoint, there's nothing there.

But yes, the commission can direct staff to basically that the next priority we're we're on the I think well three quarters into the SAC Metro review process.

So as that winds down, we can ramp up um the review of of the Delta of the Delta districts.

And and in that review, if even if we're not prompted by any of the agencies, can we examine economy of scales and consolidation?

Yes, that can be part of the scope uh to be given to the to the consultants.

Um, you know, you know this better than I do.

A lot of these uh communities have very long routes and you know they will resist any attempts at consolidations, um, just because of their their history, but that is something that can be within the scope of of the consultant to explore what would it take to consolidate these districts um to achieve certain economies of scale or maybe some operational consul consolidations if you don't have a political one.

So there's different ways of being able to get to the heart of of what you of what you're requesting.

Uh and that can be all be put on the scope of the fire, um of the fire RFP.

Okay.

Well, if my uh fellow commissioners will indulge me, I'd like to have that agendized for the August meeting.

Yeah.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

Thank you, uh, Commissioner Hume.

I really appreciate you bringing that up.

Uh I mean, I am in total support because that's been quite the uh a consternation in terms of service, emergency service delivery.

And uh LAFCO is in a unique position to help encourage or LAFCO initiated um consolidation.

So we get into all the ra ramifications of uh LAFCO law and percentages and approval for voters.

Uh I know there's CKH 56133 about delivery of services outside of boundaries, and uh that that gets us in right there to evaluate that.

So I very much appreciate you bringing this to the commission's attention.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Do we have any any further items?

We do not have any public comments, Mr.

Chair, item number 12 is commission chair and commissioners.

Does anyone have any additional comments or questions that they'd like to bring up?

Seeing none.

All right, we will you can adjourn to closed session, which will be in here in room one.