[15:22] [no audio]

[15:53] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[15:54] united states of america and to the

[15:55] republic for which it stands, one nation,

[15:56] under god, indivisible, with liberty and

[16:12] justice for all.

[16:13] [no audio]

[17:18] >> what was the other item?

[17:21] >> 15g and h.

[17:28] >> okay.

[17:29] >> and then 20c.

[17:42] >> is there anyone else who would like to

[17:44] have a item pulled from consent and please

[17:46] come forward and make your request,

[17:50] please.

[17:56] >> I like to have 15a pulled-removed,

[18:01] please. Thank you.

[18:08] >> anyone else? Or-

[18:12] >> I move approval of whatever is

[18:14] remaining.

[18:15] [laughter]

[18:16] >> I second.

[18:18] >> probably should list those but I'm not

[18:20] going. Is there a second? Motion

[18:24] gustafson, second holmes for the few

[18:27] remaining items on consent. Roll call,

[18:29] please.

[18:31] [roll call]

[18:36] >> so we will-have to help me through

[18:40] this.

[18:41] >> [inaudible comments]

[18:42] >> item 11 and all of those, correct?

[18:52] >> I can speak to this. So, annually

[18:57] contractual agreements between each of

[18:59] your individual district aids for each of

[19:02] the supervisorial districts come before

[19:06] your board towards the end of the year.

[19:09] each of these contracts are general in

[19:11] nature for each of your individual

[19:16] district directors. Happy to answer any

[19:20] questions that might come about as a

[19:22] result of that but these are the annual

[19:24] contracts.

[19:25] >> thanks todd. Are there any questions

[19:27] by board members? Any questions or

[19:30] comments from the public?

[19:34] >> michael. Go ahead and give your

[19:36] comments.

[19:38] >> okay. Yes, sure. So, I just noticed

[19:43] the pay varied a little bit. It seemed

[19:46] the average pay was $44.30 per hour plus

[19:51] benefits. It seems kind of high to me. I

[19:54] did a search on glass door on like a admin

[19:58] assistant and that was 44k per year and

[20:02] this is base salary looks more around $92

[20:05] thousand if I calculated correctly, plus

[20:08] benefits. I guess-I'm always looking for

[20:13] lower taxes I guess and I was wondering

[20:15] like why is the pay so high? That's all.

[20:22] >> anyone else from the public wish to

[20:24] address this item? Seeing none, what is

[20:28] the pleasure of the beard?

[20:29] >> I think it would be good to clarify or

[20:33] answer the question because these are

[20:36] at-will employees so they are not like the

[20:38] rest of our employees that have the

[20:42] opportunity of being in the employee union

[20:44] and their jobs are at will. The other

[20:47] thing is, they are not -even though it

[20:49] says [inaudible comments] they are not

[20:51] administrative assistant. The do the bulk

[20:55] of our work, they help us analyze the

[20:58] board packets, they help address

[21:02] constituent issues. They are basically

[21:05] our right hand person because in addition

[21:07] to our board meetings we have a multitude

[21:10] of issues to address and other committee

[21:12] assignments so this is really a higher

[21:14] level position. I certainly understand

[21:16] your question michael and appreciate it,

[21:20] but actually some of these folks are close

[21:23] to making more then the supervisors.

[21:25] >> some of them are making more then the

[21:28] board of supervisors and I can do 5 or 6

[21:30] hours on that, but I'm not going to

[21:33] because I'm in a good mood today so far.

[21:35] >> you want to add anything else todd?

[21:38] >> I will say when we do these pay scales

[21:41] h r actually does analysis and looks at

[21:45] comparable positions and again I think as

[21:47] you alluded to, a lot of diversity and

[21:50] variety and honesty the skill sets are

[21:52] different then maybe what we have been

[21:54] looking for in a normal administrative

[21:56] position in the county and so, they are

[22:00] utilized in various fashions the

[22:05] complexity of job duties [inaudible

[22:07] comments] we do look at job complexity and

[22:10] classifications when we look at

[22:11] compensation for these positions.

[22:14] >> chip.

[22:15] >> additionally, particularly during the

[22:19] last two years, the administrative aids or

[22:22] district directors spend inordinate amount

[22:25] of time going through all the e-mail we

[22:28] received, returning calls, explaining what

[22:30] the county's position is on issues and

[22:34] putting them in touch with departments

[22:36] that they need referrals from or help with

[22:40] like building department or planning

[22:41] department or health and human service.

[22:44] they are able to connect these folks with

[22:46] the people that can help them with what

[22:49] their issue is. I don't know about the

[22:51] rest of my colleagues, but I spend about

[22:54] 45 minutes every morning going over my

[22:57] e-mails and many times it is most of the

[23:01] time it is deleting and if there is a

[23:04] issue that needs to be addressed right

[23:05] away I make sure my district director

[23:08] knows about it. Right now we are in this

[23:13] board meeting and she can respond to the

[23:17] issue in question so they dedicate a lot

[23:20] of time throughout their job work day but

[23:24] also many times after work.

[23:28] >> bonnie, your light is still on.

[23:32] suzanne.

[23:34] >> yes, good morning everyone. I also

[23:37] wanted to add in there that our district

[23:40] directors are-they are way more then just

[23:44] an assistant. They doa lot of things for

[23:46] us. They represent us. They deal with

[23:48] our constituents first hand. They call,

[23:52] they return calls. In fact they accompany

[23:55] us everywhere. I have gone on many

[23:58] walking tours in my district. My district

[24:01] director goes with me everywhere. They

[24:03] are responsible for our mac meetings for

[24:05] the mac board members, the mac agendas.

[24:09] they are responsible for articles our news

[24:13] letters online, and they also work-we work

[24:17] way more then 40 hours a week. They

[24:19] accompany us everywhere, nights, evenings,

[24:22] weekends, so they kind of give up their

[24:24] family life just like we do. I just

[24:27] wanted to let you know that that we-they

[24:29] carry a big load. In fact what you see up

[24:32] here is each of us and we have a district

[24:35] director, that is our entire staff. I

[24:39] think we all do pretty good job. Anyway,

[24:42] they work very hard for us. Thanks.

[24:44] >> cindy.

[24:45] >> I just can't go without saying

[24:47] something since everybody-I agree with

[24:49] everything that everyone else has said.

[24:52] our district aids and district directors

[24:54] are essential to getting back to

[24:57] constituents, and are solving problems

[24:59] with our county staff knowing who to know

[25:01] to, who to ask the questions, so they are

[25:04] invaluable, they have great abilities and

[25:07] also to speak on our behalf at times when

[25:10] we cant be everywhere everyone wants us so

[25:13] I guess it is our morning to thank our

[25:16] incredible staff that work for us and all

[25:17] the work they do.

[25:20] >> I'll just add one short thing which is

[25:25] my view in placer county is that I always

[25:27] wanted to try to attract the best and

[25:30] brightest. Pretty simple. You try to

[25:33] figure what that market cost is like any

[25:35] other job and we have a h r department who

[25:38] does that for us and I think the rest is

[25:40] logically just follows from that. So, is

[25:43] there anyone from the public who would

[25:45] like to address this issue?

[25:50] >> go ahead and unmute your mic and give

[25:53] your comments. Vinny, can you unmute your

[26:01] mic and give your comments? Sheryl, go

[26:12] ahead and unmute your mic and give your

[26:15] comments.

[26:16] >> hi, good morning, sheryl [inaudible

[26:17] comments] granite bay. I had a question

[26:20] about-there seemed to be a it related item

[26:25] under one of the district I believe it was

[26:28] district 1 position. It seems to be not

[26:33] in the correct place. I believe that it

[26:36] has a budget and that would have been an

[26:40] it budgeting item. Not sure why district

[26:43] 1 has a greater need for website and it

[26:48] related expenses so if someone can answer

[26:51] that I would appreciate it.

[27:02] >> [inaudible comments]

[27:06] >> I actually don't see that. We'll have

[27:11] somebody take a look at that and see if

[27:13] they can-none of us can see any

[27:15] difference. Anyone else? Okay. I'll

[27:23] bring it back to the board and if somebody

[27:25] would make a motion-

[27:26] >> move a-

[27:28] >> specifically item 11a through g then

[27:33] we'll be compliant.

[27:34] >> as corrected, mr. Chair.

[27:36] >> thank you. Motion gustafson, second

[27:38] holmes, all in favor say aye. Opposed?

[27:42] motion carries. And now we'll go to 15a.

[28:19] I'm not familiar with this item. Could

[28:22] you-

[28:23] >> [inaudible comments]

[28:26] >> my understanding is we were up here to

[28:29] respond to questions but as the board

[28:30] member and viewing public are aware, this

[28:33] is culmination of the year long

[28:36] redistricting effort both with follow on

[28:38] to the november 30 and december 7 board

[28:41] discussion at which we had hours of public

[28:44] input and testimony that culminated with

[28:49] the action to approve redistricting hybrid

[28:54] map alternative 2.0 option 1.

[28:57] >> clayton you do this bert then me.

[28:59] >> I also note the request is to adopt

[29:01] resolution approving that alternative

[29:04] hybrid 2.0 option 1 and there are findings

[29:07] contained in the resolution and the second

[29:09] action item is to adopt the ordinance

[29:12] introduced by your board and oral reading

[29:14] was waved at the last meeting.

[29:15] >> and therefore required a second reading

[29:17] the first of which occurred a week ago

[29:19] last tuesday?

[29:20] >> correct.

[29:21] >> thanks. Anyone from the public wish to

[29:25] address this item?

[29:32] >> thank you chair and supervisors. Funny

[29:35] I get nervous talking to you but can pitch

[29:37] in front of 5 thousand people. Again, my

[29:40] name a anthony [inaudible comments]

[29:42] resident of placer conte since [inaudible

[29:46] comments] 4 years ago I bought [inaudible

[29:48] comments] and farming it ever since. I

[29:50] wanted to pull this map because I believe

[29:53] this map was not truly wanted by all of

[29:55] you and pushed by a small group of people

[29:58] that did not truly represent the majority

[30:01] of 400 thousand residents. Shows

[30:06] segregation between cities and rural

[30:08] communities especially district 3. As

[30:12] resident of rockland and farmer in penryn

[30:16] this gives close connection to the

[30:18] ag community and [inaudible comments]

[30:19] along are resident in rockland. I feel

[30:21] this is happening because days after the

[30:25] map was voted on by all you pleny with

[30:28] reservation I had many resident of the

[30:31] ag community approach me public places

[30:33] like the post office or stopping by

[30:35] [inaudible comments] to say thank you for

[30:37] standing up for us. We feel like we were

[30:40] separated in the loomis basis for gain of

[30:45] rockland city council. A few who spoke in

[30:49] from rockland do not represent all

[30:52] district 3 but seem to have the loudest

[30:55] voice. I have spoken to many resident

[30:57] some knowing about redistricting and many

[30:59] who had no idea. But when I asked would

[31:02] you rather have one supervisor or two the

[31:05] answer I heard the most is it it not

[31:07] better to have two sets of eyes looking

[31:11] out then one? I noticed those who pushed

[31:13] to have rockland as a whole by themselves

[31:16] do not live in district 3. Now with this

[31:19] map it places those who spoke the loudest

[31:22] in district 3. It seems this is a

[31:26] political move by the city council to have

[31:27] all of their homes in district 3 giving

[31:30] the opportunity to run for supervisor in

[31:32] next election for district 3. Looking

[31:34] like it was the best interest of them and

[31:37] not the people of district 3. But the

[31:39] only way to prove this is to see in the

[31:41] future if these council members run for

[31:44] this position. Now this map continues to

[31:48] go forward this takes jim holmes out of

[31:53] his district. That being said, if he is

[31:55] no longer able to run I announce today I

[31:58] will run for his position. Thank you.

[32:02] >> thank you. Anyone else from the

[32:05] public?

[32:13] >> good morning chairman weygandt.

[32:16] supervisors. Karen and todd. I didn't

[32:20] have prepared remarks because I was hoping

[32:22] this was going to pass on through but that

[32:26] isn't happening. I want to tell how

[32:29] grateful I am the decision you made last

[32:33] time. You were listening to the public.

[32:36] now, is the map perfect? None of them

[32:39] were, but what we were trying to do and

[32:41] think all of you were trying to do as well

[32:44] as the staff is at the end of the process

[32:47] we had as few unhappy as we can get and

[32:52] think we did with the public map put

[32:54] together. I appreciate-anthony's

[33:01] comments. I understand that placer county

[33:04] is changing. The dynamics are changes,

[33:08] particularly in the western part of the

[33:10] county. Agricultural is getting small,

[33:14] but I'm thankful for the pccp you passed

[33:17] earlier that is going to protect a lot of

[33:20] that agricultural ground in the western

[33:23] part of the county so I think that going

[33:26] forward agricultural will always have a

[33:28] pretty good place at the table here in

[33:32] placer county. I can speak as one who

[33:36] grew up in agricultural in placer county.

[33:39] I'm nearly a 70 year resident of placer

[33:42] county and I'm honored to be here. I'm

[33:45] honored to be fighting for what is right

[33:47] for this county and so again I am very

[33:51] grateful for your decision and thank you

[33:53] for what you have done and what you

[33:55] continue to do for the residents of placer

[33:57] county.

[33:58] >> thank you. Anyone else from the public

[34:01] like to address this item? With that ill

[34:07] bring it back to the board.

[34:15] >> I'll certainly second that unless

[34:17] there's any other conversation but happy

[34:21] to second the item.

[34:24] >> motion jones, second gore. Cindy has

[34:27] her light on.

[34:28] >> thanks mr. Chair. I want to say to

[34:31] both gentlemen who spoke to us today, your

[34:33] service to placer county residents is

[34:38] greatly appreciated. There was no

[34:40] perspective solution here and as you know,

[34:42] I was not supportive of our final action.

[34:44] I stand unified with my board because I

[34:48] think that is the right thing to do when

[34:50] majority rules we come together to

[34:52] represent the people of this county and

[34:54] just want to assure you that while I may

[34:58] agree or disagree with the map our job is

[35:01] to representative of all the constituents

[35:04] in the best way possible and know and said

[35:06] at both of the previous meetings all our

[35:08] board members do that with all their good

[35:11] intentions and I-there was no perfect map

[35:15] that didn't have some level of separating

[35:20] communities or putting them together, and

[35:22] I sitting in district 5 I can tell you, we

[35:27] heard the least from my district because

[35:29] we were all aware. The 5th district was

[35:32] growing and going down the hill and I only

[35:35] see that happening further in the future.

[35:38] it's incumbent on all of us to make sure

[35:43] we represent all the great interest of

[35:44] this county because that is what makes it

[35:47] such a great county. Thank you.

[35:49] >> all those in favor say aye. Opposed?

[35:52] motion carries. Thank you. We'll now

[35:55] take up I think item 15c.

[36:07] >> good morning chair weygandt members of

[36:10] the board. Vanessa ceo office. This is

[36:15] my first item pulled so I prepared a brief

[36:18] overview of your item and then we have

[36:21] department representation here to answer

[36:22] any questions you have. Background on the

[36:26] item the item is a resolution to accept

[36:28] and make findings per government code 66

[36:31] thousand on our annual development impact

[36:33] fee report. So, ceo takes this

[36:37] consolidated item annually in december on

[36:39] behalf of our department impact fee

[36:42] programs as well as the programs we manage

[36:44] here in the ceo office. Something to note

[36:47] is that this does not increase any of our

[36:49] impact fees, this is just reporting and

[36:51] those increases come as separate items

[36:54] from this report. Per government code 66

[36:58] thousand the annual report must contained

[37:00] specified information that includes the

[37:02] type and fee amount, the beginning and

[37:05] ending balance, fees collected, interest

[37:08] earned, improvements funded as well as

[37:11] anticipated start date of construction.

[37:14] our impact fee program is being reported

[37:18] that meet the definition per government

[37:21] code 66 thousand are the followings: our

[37:23] capital facilities impact fee, fire

[37:26] facility impact fee, parks and

[37:29] recreational facilities impact fee, county

[37:32] wide traffic fee program, city county

[37:34] traffic fee program, riolo vineyard

[37:39] specific plan fee program, placer vineyard

[37:43] specific plan, placer conservation program

[37:49] [inaudible comments] affordable housing

[37:51] fee and employee accommodation fee

[37:56] program. That concludes the background.

[37:59] we have department representatives on

[38:01] zoom, here in person and happy to answer

[38:03] questions you have.

[38:04] >> thanks vanessa. First time you get

[38:08] consent item pulled and this is my last

[38:11] meeting at the board of supervisors.

[38:14] >> I love it. I feel very special.

[38:16] >> both happy. Any board members-suzanne.

[38:19] >> yes. Good morning vanessa. Thank you

[38:22] for coming. I had some concerns not my

[38:26] concerns but constituents concerns and

[38:29] they were wondering what is the difference

[38:32] between the impact fees and tree

[38:35] mitigation fees? Ej.

[38:40] >> going to bring up my subject matter

[38:43] expert.

[38:45] >> that was way too easy. Ej [inaudible

[38:51] comments] planning service division.

[38:53] placer county conversation plan is adopted

[38:55] fee program. We also have the oak

[38:57] woodland ordinance, which was previously

[39:01] our tree preservation ordinance and upon

[39:04] adoption of the placer county conservation

[39:06] plan that moved to chapter 19 of county

[39:08] code. So we have a oak woodland ordinance

[39:11] that applies to tree permits discretionary

[39:14] permits outside the pccp area, but it is

[39:17] not a adopted fee program. It provides

[39:21] for on-site tree replanting, market rate

[39:25] mitigation. We are going to update that

[39:28] ordinance hopefully next year, probably

[39:31] take the better part of next year. There

[39:33] will be a robust outreach component as

[39:37] part of that so that will obviously go to

[39:40] the mac, planning commission, board of

[39:41] supervisors, so hopefully that answers

[39:43] your question.

[39:44] >> that does. That helps a lot. Could

[39:46] you just give a little more information,

[39:48] what is a impact fee? I know this is all

[39:52] dictated by government code 66,000.

[39:56] >> I'm not sure I'm the best person to

[40:00] answer that. Development impact fee for

[40:01] transit, transportation, infrastructure

[40:04] associated associated with development

[40:06] projects. Capital facilities. Park and

[40:10] recreation facilities.

[40:11] >> so that means the development whatever

[40:13] we are developing is the impact that is

[40:15] going to have on these various things?

[40:17] >> and guaranteeing the county will get

[40:20] comp compensated for those facilities.

[40:24] >> how and when are they updated? Are

[40:27] they updated annually?

[40:29] >> they are updated annually. Each

[40:32] program we adopted has some sort of

[40:34] coordinating cci or cpi so that-so for the

[40:38] capital facilities impact fee I brought

[40:41] that the end of september and goes into

[40:45] effect 60 days after adoption so those are

[40:48] brought separately. Some of the programs

[40:50] we also take a consolidated item around

[40:53] april. This is a fire facility fee and

[40:55] specific plan fee programs. It just are

[40:57] depends on how the ordinance is written on

[40:59] when those come back annually but we also

[41:01] do another consolidated item for those.

[41:03] >> okay. And are then this talks about

[41:06] the fees that the actual fees that are

[41:08] collected and then how they are spent and

[41:11] handled. Is that all for the public to

[41:15] review and look at?

[41:16] >> absolutely. So, we have the report as

[41:19] an attachment to this which also includes

[41:22] the reporting of fees, the items I listed

[41:25] that have to be included per government

[41:26] code but also on file we have the fee

[41:28] program information, so that is the actual

[41:31] fee program that we brought for adoption

[41:34] that we maintain.

[41:35] >> okay.

[41:37] >> our department maintains.

[41:39] >> great. Thank you so much.

[41:42] >> absolutely. Thank you.

[41:44] >> anyone from the public wish to comment

[41:47] on this item?

[41:51] >> sheryl, please unmute your mic and give

[41:54] your comments.

[41:55] >> thank you very much. Thank you suzanne

[41:57] jones for bringing this up. We actually

[42:00] brought this up for many years in district

[42:03] 4. I am not sure I agree with the

[42:07] assessment of the fees. The pccp not only

[42:12] does it not cover in land mass other areas

[42:15] so the fact that you are collecting

[42:17] mitigation fees for pools and tree and oak

[42:23] woodlands and only doing it within a

[42:25] certain area of land it is still the same

[42:28] thing. Also, projects approved prior to

[42:35] 2020 when the pccp was approved are not

[42:44] covered. Yearly there is a cadence where

[42:46] I believe it was last week the developer

[42:48] fees were increased. I didn't see the

[42:50] tree mitigation fees increased. Housing

[42:54] fees are increased. I see no reporting.

[42:58] I would suggest this report is incomplete.

[43:01] it does not cover tree mitigation for

[43:05] anything not in the pccp and many of the

[43:09] development agreements that have been

[43:10] reached prior to 2020. Every time a

[43:14] development goes in, there was a nexus

[43:17] study that was done that clearly shows

[43:20] there was an appeal with rancho [inaudible

[43:23] comments] with 4 thousand oak trees that

[43:25] should have been covered by increased

[43:28] fees. Those fees have not been increased

[43:30] I believe for years and years and years.

[43:38] well beyond what steve pedretti was

[43:40] charged with managing so I think it is a

[43:42] incomplete report. I think it should have

[43:44] a line item just like pccp. There should

[43:47] be a tree ordinance and there also was-the

[43:54] nexus study shows those fees are

[43:57] insufficient so hope you will consider

[44:00] actually looking at those fees not a year

[44:01] from now. Every time trees are taken out

[44:05] it is actually encouraging trees to be

[44:07] taken out. I also like to point out that

[44:10] at the legal of women voters when cindy

[44:15] gustafson and suzanne was there and

[44:20] supervisor uhler was there there was a

[44:22] system that kept track of all these tree

[44:24] mitigation fees, we asked for this

[44:28] multiple times. We don't know where the

[44:30] tree mitigation fees are going and why

[44:32] they are so low so hope you will please

[44:37] address this as incomplete item and

[44:39] something that needs to be taken care of

[44:41] because it is state law that this is

[44:43] managed yearly and I believe that you are

[44:45] breaking the state law by not providing

[44:48] those fees. Thank you.

[44:50] >> county counsel.

[44:52] >> there seems to be some confusion here

[44:55] and hopefully I don't make it more

[44:57] confusing. But there is a difference

[44:59] between a impact development impact fee,

[45:03] which is governed by government code 6600,

[45:08] and those impact fees are developed and

[45:12] adopted by this board after public

[45:15] hearings in which a nexus study must be

[45:17] prepared and it must be established that

[45:21] the fee relates to the impact. That is

[45:26] why they are called development impact

[45:27] fees.

[45:28] [streaming cut out]

[45:31] you will often see in eir or deg dec

[45:38] payment of a impact fee will in fact

[45:40] mitigate a particular impact. We see that

[45:42] quite a bit for transportation, however,

[45:45] you can't confuse that with mitigation.

[45:48] in some instances we do have fees for

[45:50] mitigation and one of them is ej mentioned

[45:53] is the oak tree or pardon me, the tree

[45:56] ordinance. That's a mitigation fee, it is

[45:58] not a development impact fee, so I

[46:01] respectfully disagree with mrs. [inaudible

[46:03] comments] that there is anything that is

[46:05] incomplete about this particular study.

[46:07] the study took everyone of the development

[46:10] impact fees this county implemented and

[46:13] reporting as required under the government

[46:16] code.

[46:18] >> thanks karen. Going to add clarity,

[46:23] there is a huge amount of

[46:26] miscommunication, but the tree ordinance

[46:30] and mitigation that started in placer

[46:33] county-got to back 20, 25 years as I

[46:37] recall, the pccp of course is a completely

[46:42] different animal and we adopted it about a

[46:44] year ago, and it essentially shifts

[46:51] federal and state authority for green

[46:53] field impacts on protected environmental

[46:59] properties from the federal state

[47:01] government down to the local level. A

[47:03] part of our program includes an in lieu

[47:08] fee so somebody going through that

[47:09] application process will have the

[47:11] flexibility to provide mitigation that is

[47:14] required or they can pay a fee or they can

[47:20] do a combination of these things so it is

[47:21] unique in the country. Has to be done in

[47:25] placer county and those fees are reviewed

[47:27] annually in their looked at in 5 year

[47:33] windows and that is a part of the contract

[47:34] we have with the state and federal

[47:36] agencies in that regard. I think that is

[47:39] really important for the public to

[47:41] understand generally. Suzanne, do you

[47:46] have something?

[47:47] >> make a motion for approval.

[47:48] >> okay.

[47:49] >> second.

[47:50] >> motion and second. All in favor say

[47:52] aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And now

[47:59] 15e.

[48:00] >> 15e chairman is just being moved off

[48:02] the agenda to a future meeting date.

[48:04] >> that's right. 15e is being-going to be

[48:07] put back on future agenda under consent

[48:11] and so that takes us to 18a I think.

[48:18] >> no, we have 15g and h both requested to

[48:23] be pulled by michael.

[48:24] >> 15g, thanks megan.

[48:26] >> of course.

[48:27] >> good morning members of the board.

[48:30] stephanie holloway with your tahoe ceo

[48:33] office to talk to you about the two items

[48:36] that were pulled from consent. So, both

[48:38] of these items are resolution for renaming

[48:41] of [inaudible comments] in the olympic

[48:45] valley area so squaw valley municipal

[48:48] advisory committee and design review

[48:51] committee. We have been working with the

[48:53] washoe tribe in the area and private and

[48:58] federal entities to rename assets that

[49:02] contain the word squaw. I will mention

[49:06] just a track record here, the olympic

[49:09] valley public service district so the

[49:11] squaw valley public service district as

[49:14] previously named did rename their

[49:16] organization back in august of 2020 as

[49:19] well as the ski resort in this area now

[49:23] named palisades tahoe has adopted the

[49:26] olympic valley base area as their name, so

[49:30] this is just two committees of your board

[49:32] we like you to consider. I will mention

[49:35] we are working with the washoe tribe as

[49:37] well as the community on a number of

[49:39] additional assets. Three public roads in

[49:42] the area as well as the public park

[49:45] considering renaming of those assets as

[49:48] well and those will be hopefully coming

[49:50] before your board early next year. Happy

[49:52] to answer any questions.

[49:54] >> thanks stephanie. Anyone from the

[49:56] public?

[50:00] >> [inaudible comments]

[50:04] >> he did.

[50:05] >> [inaudible comments]

[50:09] >> michael, did you have any comments you

[50:11] wanted to give on these?

[50:15] >> no, I think I understand.

[50:17] >> okay.

[50:19] >> [inaudible comments]

[50:20] >> motion gustafson, second gore. All in

[50:25] favor aye. Opposed? Motion carries. If

[50:28] my notes are correct that takes to 18a.

[50:30] >> can we clarify on the prior motion it

[50:32] was for both items 15g and 15h?

[50:36] >> yes, thanks megan. Yeah. So, 18a,

[50:43] placer housing authority.

[50:47] >> chairman, because it is removed off

[50:51] consent the board needs to adjourn as the

[50:53] board of supervisors and convene as the

[50:55] placer county housing authority.

[50:57] >> thank you. So, the board adjourns as

[51:00] placer county board of supervisors and

[51:02] reconvenes as the housing authority and is

[51:07] someone here to present that or on zoom or

[51:11] somewhere?

[51:12] >> [inaudible comments]

[51:13] >> thanks.

[51:20] >> good morning.

[51:21] >> good morning.

[51:22] >> greg dicer, placer county deputy

[51:26] director of health and human services and

[51:28] housing authority executive director. I

[51:33] am here for your board today to request

[51:36] that the board adopt resolution approving

[51:39] the temporary policy supplement for

[51:43] emergency housing vouchers to accept and

[51:46] distribute the vouchers and sign related

[51:49] documentation and submit to the u.s.

[51:51] department of housing and urban

[51:53] development, hud, and accepting

[51:55] distribution of 9 family unification

[51:58] program vouchers and 26 emergency housing

[52:02] vouchers, ehv. The background on the

[52:05] item, on april 27 earlier this year the

[52:09] placer county housing authority accepted

[52:14] the updated placer county housing

[52:16] authority annual administrative plan

[52:17] update and signed civil rights

[52:20] certification of compliance with the

[52:23] housing authority plans and related

[52:26] regulations and submitted all documents to

[52:30] hud. In july of this year a temporary

[52:33] policy supplement was released which made

[52:36] available additional vouchers available

[52:39] under the placer county housing

[52:42] authority's plan adopted earlier in april

[52:44] and hud also in july of this year awarded

[52:47] the housing authority 9 family unification

[52:54] vouchers to serve parents with children to

[52:58] child welfare and former foster youth.

[53:00] the placer county seeks [inaudible

[53:06] comments] to distribute grant vouchers

[53:09] under this program. The housing authority

[53:11] is partnering with the children system of

[53:14] care to distribute these vouchers. All is

[53:17] no fiscal impact in the matter because the

[53:20] vouchers are already available from hud

[53:23] and hud provides funding for

[53:25] administration of the program. And I'll

[53:30] be happy to answer any questions.

[53:32] >> thank you. Suzanne.

[53:34] >> yes, good morning. Thank you for that

[53:36] report. I wanted a little bit of

[53:40] clarification for my constituents on the

[53:42] housing vouchers. This is not related to

[53:45] any of our covid programs in the past, is

[53:48] it?

[53:49] >> no. You might be referencing the

[53:52] emergency rental assistance. These two

[53:56] programs are--the vouchers existed before

[54:02] and before covid came into being. The

[54:06] emergency housing vouchers are for

[54:09] specific populations, but they are not

[54:14] specifically related to covid.

[54:17] >> so, how does the program work then?

[54:20] >> so, the fup vouchers they serve

[54:23] families that are in reunification through

[54:28] child welfare and or that might be at risk

[54:32] of having children removed due to housing

[54:38] instability. And they work just like our

[54:41] normal housing choice vouchers accept for

[54:45] they are specific to that population, so

[54:47] the household receives a voucher if they

[54:51] are determined to be eligible and able to

[54:53] go out into the community and rent an

[54:58] apartment or home much like any of us

[55:00] would and we supplement their rent through

[55:05] the voucher. It also serves former foster

[55:08] youth, so former foster youth under the

[55:12] age of 25 that are determined eligible

[55:16] essentially can do the same thing, take

[55:19] the voucher to any landlord that rents out

[55:22] a unit and take-and move into the unit

[55:28] with having that supplemented. The

[55:31] emergency housing voucher are specific to

[55:34] populations such as those escaping

[55:37] domestic violence and are trafficking and

[55:40] that are at risk of homelessness or are

[55:44] homeless, and those vouchers we work

[55:48] through the-a number of our community

[55:51] partners and through the continuum of care

[55:54] to receive referrals, both programs come

[55:58] with some supportive services and case

[56:01] management.

[56:02] >> okay, so that means most of these

[56:05] people eligible that already are working

[56:08] with the system here in placer county?

[56:11] >> correct.

[56:12] >> if there are people out there who would

[56:15] qualify who don't know about the program

[56:17] is it something where they can contact the

[56:19] county? Maybe adult system of care or

[56:24] something like that sph

[56:25] >> they are welcome to contact us in

[56:28] essence. The referrals for the emergency

[56:31] housing vouchers go through 211, so the

[56:35] place for anyone to start would be 211.

[56:40] >> okay. Great.

[56:42] >> with regard to the fup voucher more

[56:46] specific because a family has to be

[56:47] working with child welfare or former

[56:49] foster youth would have to be verified as

[56:52] being a former foster youth through

[56:55] children system of care.

[56:58] >> thank you for the information. Very

[56:59] helpful.

[57:00] >> anyone from the public wish to address

[57:02] this item?

[57:05] >> stephen, go ahead and unmute and give

[57:09] your comments.

[57:12] >> good morning this is stephen pres

[57:14] caught from kings beach. Just curious how

[57:17] much is in that program for housing

[57:19] vouchers of placer county and what is the

[57:22] average amount of the voucher per person?

[57:26] >> are you asking how many vouchers? We

[57:29] have 26 of the emergency housing vouchers

[57:32] and 10 of the-sorry, 9 of the fup

[57:37] vouchers. I am sorry I don't know

[57:39] off-hand the average amount used per

[57:46] voucher, but those are the number of

[57:51] vouchers that we have.

[57:52] >> so, that is only for 35 families?

[57:55] >> correct.

[57:56] >> okay. Okay. What's the average amount

[58:00] per voucher that they get to pay

[58:03] landlords?

[58:04] >> again, I don't have the average amount.

[58:07] I can see if I can find that but generally

[58:10] speaking the amount that is paid towards

[58:12] landlords first and foremost the rents are

[58:19] set through hud so in other words the

[58:24] maximum that can be paid is set through

[58:26] hud but the rents or amount of vouchers is

[58:29] specific to that family income, so if a

[58:32] family has no income what so ever, the

[58:37] voucher will supplement all most all of

[58:41] it. If the family has significant income

[58:45] they might not be eligible to it, but if

[58:49] they are somewhere between, the supplement

[58:54] will reflect that.

[58:55] >> okay, sounds good. Thank you.

[58:57] >> welcome.

[58:59] >> anyone else? What is the pleasure of

[59:01] the board?

[59:02] >> [inaudible comments]

[59:03] >> motion jones, second holmes, all in

[59:06] favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

[59:10] I think last from consent-

[59:13] >> we have to reconvene as the board.

[59:16] >> thank you. Need to have good staff for

[59:18] people like me. We are adjourning as the

[59:21] placer housing authority and reconvening

[59:23] as the placer county board of supervisor

[59:27] and think taking up consent item 20c.

[59:35] >> good morning supervisor. Brett wood

[59:38] the purchasing manager here for item 20c

[59:42] which is several action items. First to

[59:45] approve increase to existing contract with

[59:48] mobile med work health solutions san jose

[59:51] california for covid-19 testing for county

[59:54] staff through the end of this fiscal year

[59:56] in the amount of-through the end of the

[59:59] calendar year, in amount of $270 thousand

[1:00:01] for new total of $300 thousands. Asking

[1:00:05] for the board to approve the renewal of

[1:00:08] the contract and maximum annual amount of

[1:00:10] $375 thousand. As over the past year

[1:00:15] there have been multiple changes from cal

[1:00:18] osha with respect to county staff and

[1:00:20] testing requirements there of. Human

[1:00:23] resources has been tasked with the

[1:00:25] responsibility to implement those and

[1:00:26] manage those processes. During this year

[1:00:30] with those new instructions human

[1:00:33] resources went out and solicited quotes

[1:00:37] from 3 different firms to determine who

[1:00:39] could provide the testing services for the

[1:00:41] county employees required. At the

[1:00:43] conclusion of that we awarded two

[1:00:45] different contracts for $30 thousand each

[1:00:47] to mobile med health solutions of san jose

[1:00:51] as well as collection plus of sacramento

[1:00:54] california. Unfortunately the contract

[1:00:57] with mobile med has been prematurely

[1:01:00] exhausted due to changes in cal osha

[1:01:02] requirements resulting in a need to come

[1:01:04] here to your board to ask for additional

[1:01:06] funding. With that, happy to answer any

[1:01:08] questions your board may have.

[1:01:09] >> thanks brett. Any questions of board

[1:01:11] members? Seeing none, anyone from the

[1:01:15] public?

[1:01:18] >> michael, go ahead and unmute your mic

[1:01:22] and give your comments.

[1:01:23] >> thank you. So, I am very much against

[1:01:28] further testing. The covid testing is so

[1:01:34] fraudulent. Every time they test that

[1:01:43] counts as a new case and they are testing

[1:01:44] for the corona virus not covid-19. There

[1:01:49] is a cycle threshold that can be adjusted

[1:01:51] to make the test more sensitive and these

[1:01:54] tests are being used to institute these

[1:01:59] mask mandates for example and are to put

[1:02:01] further restrictions on the people. The

[1:02:06] person that created the pcr test carrie

[1:02:10] mullis said himself the test was never

[1:02:14] designed as diagnostic tool, and there's a

[1:02:20] dr., dr. Peter mccullough, I would really

[1:02:28] recommend you look him up because he talks

[1:02:30] about the pc r test and how fraudulently

[1:02:34] it is being used. You might have to

[1:02:37] search for him on duck duck go because

[1:02:40] google is scrubbing anything that is

[1:02:43] negative against the vaccine or against

[1:02:45] the testing for covid protocols in

[1:02:49] general. One other thing is, the covid

[1:02:57] cannot be spread asystematically and many

[1:03:04] doctors talked about that including peter

[1:03:06] mccullough. So, I'm against spending more

[1:03:09] money to put more restrictions on the

[1:03:14] people. Thank you.

[1:03:17] >> anyone else on zoom, megan?

[1:03:21] >> we have one more on zoom.

[1:03:22] >> one more.

[1:03:26] >> go ahead and unmute your mic and give

[1:03:28] your comments.

[1:03:29] >> hi there. I would-my name is

[1:03:32] jacqueline and I would like to ditto

[1:03:36] michael's comments as far as no more money

[1:03:41] should be spent on testing or vaccines in

[1:03:45] our county. It is all fraudulent and

[1:03:55] honesty all evil and we should not be

[1:03:57] spending taxpayer dollars on more

[1:04:04] fraudulent testing to increase case

[1:04:07] numbers and that is all I have to say.

[1:04:16] >> tina, go ahead and unmute your mic and

[1:04:19] give your comments.

[1:04:21] >> hi. My name is tina. I want to

[1:04:30] reiterate what was said. It is waste to

[1:04:32] continue with testing, especially the-if

[1:04:36] we are following science why hasn't anyone

[1:04:39] showed what the science is? Here in

[1:04:41] california the science supposedly tells us

[1:04:44] that we have to mask no matter what but in

[1:04:47] new york you only have to mask if you are

[1:04:49] not vaccinated and are in florida they

[1:04:51] don't mask at all so which science are we

[1:04:55] following? Please stop wasting the

[1:04:59] taxpayer money.

[1:05:00] >> no further on zoom.

[1:05:01] >> brett-behind-

[1:05:07] >> hi. My name is jennifer and I think-I

[1:05:12] like some information on just two aspects

[1:05:14] of this. Number one, the pc r test is

[1:05:18] like no longer valid at the end of this

[1:05:21] year so what test are you going to be

[1:05:23] using to run these mobile clinics? And if

[1:05:26] you are going to continue using the pc r

[1:05:29] test what cycle per threshold are you

[1:05:31] using because I believe it is anything

[1:05:33] over 26 is basically able to give a false

[1:05:37] positive. I are am not sure which staff

[1:05:42] is included in this for testing, but I

[1:05:47] think if you look at what's happened in

[1:05:49] the u k they test 3 times as much as we do

[1:05:54] on a smaller population and their cases

[1:05:57] keep going up and up and up, and the

[1:06:00] patterns that are showing and coming

[1:06:02] across are the vaccinated people are the

[1:06:04] ones now with this new variant like 80

[1:06:07] percent that are becoming positive are

[1:06:12] vaccinated and so I think if we really

[1:06:17] want to do this heard immunity thing that

[1:06:21] keeps the number keeps getting raised

[1:06:23] higher and higher and higher and it

[1:06:26] doesn't really make too much sense to me

[1:06:28] personally, I don't-I think people are

[1:06:32] just going to be getting sick if they have

[1:06:34] the vaccines the vaccines dont protect.

[1:06:38] that was really what the vaccines are just

[1:06:41] to reduce symptoms, right? So, if you are

[1:06:45] vaccinated you will get it. You will have

[1:06:47] your symptoms reduced if that's what it

[1:06:50] does, and if you had it you are not going

[1:06:53] to keep getting it, so I'm not really sure

[1:06:55] what the urgency is to do all this testing

[1:06:59] all the time, because I do think it is

[1:07:02] bringing up a false positive and I think

[1:07:05] we are starting to see too we are having

[1:07:07] more positive cases in areas where there

[1:07:09] is more vaccinations, so if you wouldn't

[1:07:13] mind just explaining how will the pc r

[1:07:16] test is utilized in these testings that

[1:07:18] you are mobily going around, what

[1:07:22] threshold because I don't know why we

[1:07:24] never ever really gotten that information

[1:07:26] publicly. Our town hall was canceled for

[1:07:30] our covid discussion, and I can't

[1:07:33] understand that. And then what test you

[1:07:36] are going to be using and can you explain

[1:07:38] in detail why and how it actually shows a

[1:07:44] test is positive and not a false positive,

[1:07:46] because at the end of the year the pc r

[1:07:49] tests are no longer valid. Thank you.

[1:07:53] >> thank you. Why don't you go ahead.

[1:08:01] >> with respect to those questions I don't

[1:08:03] have that information at this time. These

[1:08:05] est tests are dictated or testing

[1:08:07] requirements are dictated from cal osha.

[1:08:15] we work with our providers to determine

[1:08:17] that they can meet those requirements.

[1:08:20] >> thanks, brett. That is helpful.

[1:08:25] >> john, please unmute your mic and give

[1:08:28] your comments.

[1:08:29] >> alright. Thank you very much. John

[1:08:31] falk speaking as a individual at this

[1:08:34] time. As someone who would disagree with

[1:08:38] the lion share of the people that spoke on

[1:08:40] this issue, someone who is severely immuno

[1:08:44] compromised and are also understand

[1:08:47] medicine by having been a medic over 27

[1:08:49] years, I can tell you that one, yes there

[1:08:53] are break-through virus occurrences now

[1:08:59] but it is because the virus shifts and

[1:09:00] mutates. First, there is viral drift then

[1:09:03] viral shift have the shift creates a new

[1:09:07] strain which may be less protective when

[1:09:12] you had the former vaccine. That does not

[1:09:15] mean the vaccine is ineffective and the

[1:09:18] vaccine does not lower your chance of

[1:09:21] being hospitalized or dying. What it does

[1:09:24] mean is vaccination is a key important

[1:09:27] first step towards getting back to normal

[1:09:31] and getting where the nob nab needs to be

[1:09:33] and it is absolutely critical people

[1:09:35] disregard the disinformation that is out

[1:09:38] there. Any time you have to go through a

[1:09:41] web search and then by-pass the scrubbers

[1:09:44] that get through the disinformation I

[1:09:47] think that you already told yourself

[1:09:49] something. I would say go to the cdc, go

[1:09:52] to the nih, go to dr. Fauci and find out

[1:09:56] what the real truth is and you'll find

[1:09:58] just like with the flu it changes from

[1:10:00] year to year. It is deadly from year to

[1:10:03] year, especially among those immuno

[1:10:05] compromised or elderly so please do not

[1:10:08] out of hand just dismiss this as a

[1:10:12] non-issue or asystematic people can't

[1:10:15] transmit. Scientifically untrue. The

[1:10:19] first 5 days you are infected even if

[1:10:26] asymptomatic you are most susceptible to

[1:10:30] [inaudible comments] I would just say

[1:10:33] masks are important, vaccines are

[1:10:36] important, testing is important. Thank

[1:10:39] you.

[1:10:41] >> chairman and see no further public

[1:10:45] comment.

[1:10:46] >> suzanne.

[1:10:47] >> my question would be, this program

[1:10:48] here, this is only for testing of county

[1:10:51] employees?

[1:10:54] >> yes, ma'am;

[1:10:56] >> that is what is mandated to us by the

[1:10:58] state?

[1:10:59] >> yes, ma'am.

[1:11:00] >> okay.

[1:11:02] >> what is the pleasure of the board.

[1:11:05] motion gustafson, second holmes. All in

[1:11:08] favor aye. So, if my notes are correct

[1:11:10] that completes our consent agenda. Now is

[1:11:14] the time for public comment. This is time

[1:11:16] when anyone from the public can address

[1:11:19] the board on something that is not on the

[1:11:21] agenda. Keeping in mind we can take no

[1:11:24] action. Anyone who would like to address

[1:11:32] us under public comment? Jennifer, why

[1:11:42] don't you start. We have somebody on zoom

[1:11:44] I'm assuming? Okay. Welcome to proceed.

[1:11:48] >> jennifer. I'm back. So, I saw that

[1:11:52] california is doing the statewide mask

[1:11:54] requirements and I was wondering if you

[1:11:58] can speak how that is going to impact

[1:12:00] placer county. I am not really sure why

[1:12:03] we are being forced to wear masks. There

[1:12:06] is high level of bad air we are breathing

[1:12:11] all day to make our brains not work and I

[1:12:13] think we are seeing that on a large scale

[1:12:15] in general. There is bacteria harbored on

[1:12:19] them. They are not being worn properly.

[1:12:22] everything escapes out the sides and the

[1:12:24] tops, people are wearing them below their

[1:12:27] noses, so I really like to know why we are

[1:12:30] doing it, and if we are going to be doing

[1:12:34] it in placer county if next meeting we are

[1:12:38] here we all have to have our masks on

[1:12:41] sound like and I really just like to

[1:12:44] understand a little bit more how that is

[1:12:47] going to effect us. If we are going to

[1:12:50] have to start wearing masks and continue

[1:12:54] to comply with something that to me

[1:12:56] doesn't make sense and a lot of other

[1:12:59] people doesn't make sense, I really think

[1:13:01] we should really think about

[1:13:04] constitutionalizing our sheriff. Placer

[1:13:07] county can lead the way. People are not

[1:13:10] dropping dead in florida, people are not

[1:13:12] dropping dead in other states that are not

[1:13:14] wearing masks and I think we have to stop

[1:13:19] living in fear because fear is driving our

[1:13:23] economy into the ground as well as a lot

[1:13:25] of other things. It is causing a lot of

[1:13:27] divide and it's creating children with

[1:13:33] lower motor skills, less speech, less comp

[1:13:38] tense because they can't go to school,

[1:13:40] they are having higher suicide rates. All

[1:13:45] kinds of stuff, and I know masks are just

[1:13:48] like a symptom of this, but I really think

[1:13:51] we need to consider what these masks are,

[1:13:55] because to me they are a silencer.

[1:13:59] anything that is not going with what is

[1:14:00] said by the cdc or nih, which continually

[1:14:04] changes. Diseases continually change. It

[1:14:07] isn't going it go away. We have to accept

[1:14:09] that and move forward. Just a change of

[1:14:15] shift from my last 30 seconds. I would

[1:14:18] also really like placer county to consider

[1:14:23] 5g placement as it is going up. We are a

[1:14:26] huge agricultural area as we discussed

[1:14:28] earlier through the redistricting, and

[1:14:32] there is a lot of studies showing 4g

[1:14:35] effects bees and other things like that

[1:14:38] are pollinators, and I think that is

[1:14:42] something to consider. There is no

[1:14:43] long-term studies on 5g or 4g and it

[1:14:47] destroys the cells in the body. Thank

[1:14:49] you.

[1:14:50] >> thank you, jennifer.

[1:14:55] >> michael go ahead and unmute and give

[1:14:58] your comments.

[1:15:01] >> hi. Yes, I'm very much against mask

[1:15:05] mandates and I will not comply with the

[1:15:07] mask mandate. I'm curious to hear what

[1:15:12] you as a board plan to do with this. You

[1:15:16] know, there is other counties that have

[1:15:22] pushed back against these mandates but I

[1:15:24] haven't seen it from placer county. San

[1:15:29] joaquin and el dorado have resolutions

[1:15:33] against vaccine mandates. And then again

[1:15:37] I want to-another thing I like to talk

[1:15:39] about is the covid-19 dashboard for placer

[1:15:44] county. To me it seems it is just

[1:15:46] propaganda. 39.200 cases. Okay. So, and

[1:15:51] then 56 average daily cases. Huh. Likely

[1:15:58] 37.723 likely recovered. 483 deaths. So,

[1:16:03] what does that mean? Is that this month?

[1:16:08] is that this year? Is that ever? And

[1:16:12] then, it looks like the cases are going

[1:16:15] down but yet now we have this mask mandate

[1:16:18] for all of california. On the covid-19

[1:16:24] dashboard could you put some information

[1:16:26] on the vaccine like adverse reactions?

[1:16:31] can we have listings how many people have

[1:16:35] been adversely effected from the vaccine?

[1:16:40] how many died from the vaccine? What

[1:16:44] about just general we never followed this

[1:16:47] before. What about general deaths,

[1:16:49] automobile accidents, deaths from

[1:16:53] automobile accidents, cancer, other

[1:16:56] medical conditions. That might be

[1:16:59] interesting to put on there. As it stands

[1:17:01] it seems like it is just propaganda and

[1:17:04] promoting fear. We really need you

[1:17:12] supervisors to lead and stop promoting

[1:17:15] fear and then I think that the main thing

[1:17:17] I hear from you folks is that well, the

[1:17:22] state mandates it and we don't have power

[1:17:25] to do it. Then why are the other counties

[1:17:29] doing it? Did they have more power then

[1:17:32] you guys? I'm just curious to hear your

[1:17:34] response. Thank you.

[1:17:36] >> thank you.

[1:17:38] >> I see no further comments.

[1:17:40] >> okay. Next is the time for board and

[1:17:44] the county executive reports and todd you

[1:17:47] want to lead?

[1:17:48] >> yeah. Couple things and then dr.

[1:17:51] oldham is on the call to answer a couple

[1:17:54] questions about most recently this

[1:17:56] mandate. The first one I wanted to share

[1:17:59] we are getting to the end of the year and

[1:18:01] think it is really important we reflect on

[1:18:03] just the important stuff our staff has

[1:18:06] done. We have a lot of projects and will

[1:18:08] be remiss not to say between public health

[1:18:11] staff recollect public safety folks those

[1:18:12] are directly impacted and helping address

[1:18:14] just the challenge over the last 2 years.

[1:18:17] I would be remise not to say thank you to

[1:18:20] them. I think we also have a number of

[1:18:22] projects from the corner facility online

[1:18:26] in february, mercy housing project we are

[1:18:28] just completing right now. Our housing

[1:18:31] programs and all the diversity of trying

[1:18:33] to get affordable housing for residents I

[1:18:37] think is not to go unnoticed and I also

[1:18:40] think homelessness and conversation around

[1:18:44] regional discussion are important. So, I

[1:18:46] just wanted to give a quick thank you to

[1:18:48] our staff that have just worked tirelessly

[1:18:51] over the last year. Also wanted to talk

[1:18:54] about some highlights and going to try to

[1:18:58] more as we get to the new year but we had

[1:19:00] two challenge awards. Csac had a winter

[1:19:05] conference and 433 entries from all the

[1:19:09] counties, the 58 counties around the

[1:19:12] state. Our county received two of those

[1:19:14] awards. One a challenge award around

[1:19:16] dispersement for emergency rental

[1:19:19] assistance funding. You as a board

[1:19:20] supported having our internal staff run

[1:19:23] that program in partnership with the city

[1:19:26] of roseville. We were able to distribute

[1:19:29] over $8.1 million for rental assistance

[1:19:34] which allow the residents to stay in their

[1:19:36] homes. We had a merit award that was a

[1:19:39] virtual format and I talked about this

[1:19:42] individually I think collectively as a

[1:19:45] organization there is silver lining we

[1:19:47] have to look at and part of it is how we

[1:19:49] utilize technology to provide a service to

[1:19:51] our residents and this award was a virtual

[1:19:56] format for cal works participants and

[1:19:58] recipients to work in a virtual resource

[1:20:01] huddle format and allowed those folks to

[1:20:04] come in and are speak to us if they didn't

[1:20:06] feel comfortable coming into provide those

[1:20:09] services and think the success of that

[1:20:11] program will probably take place and

[1:20:14] continue long after we moved through the

[1:20:16] pandemic work. Really good work in that

[1:20:19] arena. The last thing I say, [inaudible

[1:20:22] comments] she is a program manager in hhs.

[1:20:25] she last week was recognized through the

[1:20:28] community collaborative in tahoe truckee

[1:20:30] as the partner of the year award. She's

[1:20:33] just a outstanding employee. Partners

[1:20:35] between nevada and placer county. Provide

[1:20:38] service to our residents so she was

[1:20:42] recognized and want to say thank you to

[1:20:44] that for her. The last thing I served

[1:20:47] this last year as chairman for the

[1:20:49] [inaudible comments] regional manager

[1:20:51] association. This is the county and the

[1:20:53] city managers, we get together on a

[1:20:56] quarterly basis talk about transportation,

[1:20:59] green means go, housing, infrastructure

[1:21:02] funding, I think it is always important to

[1:21:05] work regionally on issues, we do that at

[1:21:07] the county level and think it serves well

[1:21:10] to be partners around the region as well.

[1:21:12] I just wanted to say thanks for the

[1:21:14] support for me serving in that capacity

[1:21:17] the last year. Finally I will turn it to

[1:21:20] rob oldham. Rob is here-we heard most

[1:21:24] recently about the state mask mandate and

[1:21:27] I thought it was important you to hear

[1:21:29] directly from him what this means and

[1:21:32] clarity about what's coming down from the

[1:21:36] state here starting tomorrow. Rob, I'll

[1:21:38] turn it over to you.

[1:21:39] >> great thanks todd and thanks for giving

[1:21:43] props to our hhs program with the csac

[1:21:47] award and [inaudible comments]

[1:21:48] congratulations everyone. So, good

[1:21:50] morning chair weygandt and members of the

[1:21:51] board. Rob oldham. Recent development

[1:21:59] with statewide mask mandate discussed this

[1:22:01] morning. Asked to provide a brief covid

[1:22:05] update. As you recall, my last report to

[1:22:08] your board on covid was really back when

[1:22:10] our schools and hospitals and other

[1:22:13] critical infrastructure were being

[1:22:16] stretched very thin by the delta variant

[1:22:20] surge. Since then our case rate and

[1:22:23] hospitalizations have dropped

[1:22:26] significantly, especially from their highs

[1:22:28] back in august and september. They have

[1:22:32] not yet returned to their pre-delta

[1:22:35] variant lows and also sense then many more

[1:22:39] people have been vaccinated or received

[1:22:41] boosters and new promising therapeutics

[1:22:44] have also been introduced that can

[1:22:46] dramatically decrease severe illness,

[1:22:49] hospitalization and death from covid, so

[1:22:51] over all news on the covid front is

[1:22:55] relatively good. But late last month we

[1:22:58] began to hear about a new variant

[1:23:01] beginning to spread in other countries and

[1:23:04] just last week the variant started showing

[1:23:07] up in california. While we haven't had a

[1:23:11] case of the variant identified in placer

[1:23:14] county yet, it has been found in the

[1:23:19] sacramento area and reasonable to expect

[1:23:23] we will find it here in placer very soon.

[1:23:25] while we are still very early in our

[1:23:28] process of learning about omicron. It is

[1:23:31] very new in the world stage. What we know

[1:23:34] is omicron has a large number of mutations

[1:23:38] compared to other variants and those

[1:23:42] appear to decrease the ability of ant

[1:23:44] bodies in the flood which come from

[1:23:48] vaccine or previous infection so can

[1:23:50] decrease the ability of the ant bodies to

[1:23:53] neutralize the virus and recently released

[1:23:57] data seemed to suggest vaccines

[1:24:00] effectiveness may be significant lower

[1:24:02] against omicron, but vaccine boosters

[1:24:06] still appear to be quite effective at

[1:24:08] preventing illness, especially severe

[1:24:11] illness. What will omicron mean? It is

[1:24:17] too early to tell exactly. It is quite

[1:24:20] possible that omicron will become the

[1:24:25] dominant variant later this winter and

[1:24:27] reasonable to expect we'll see a winter

[1:24:29] surge both in covid cases but also in

[1:24:32] other respiratory illness. We already

[1:24:35] have seen recent surges in respiratory

[1:24:38] illnesses and uptick in the last couple

[1:24:42] weeks of covid cases and hospitalization,

[1:24:44] since the thanksgiving holiday. Not at

[1:24:47] the same rates that we saw this time last

[1:24:50] year. In addition, we talked about the

[1:24:57] statewide masking mandate that will go

[1:25:02] effective tomorrow in addition to the

[1:25:04] statewide indoor masking mandate yesterday

[1:25:07] the state tightened up guidance for so

[1:25:10] called mega events so events more then a

[1:25:12] thousand indoor attendees or more then 10

[1:25:15] thousand outdoor attendees and now are

[1:25:18] requiring all attendees to show proof of

[1:25:21] vaccination or a negative test within one

[1:25:23] day for ant jen test and 2 days for pc r

[1:25:30] test. Placer count y impact, we don't

[1:25:33] have many venues that can hold over a

[1:25:35] thousand people indoors in placer county

[1:25:37] but certainly in other counties that will

[1:25:40] have a significant impact. Yard the state

[1:25:44] the issued a new travel advisory

[1:25:46] recommending all travellers arriving in

[1:25:49] california test for covid-19 within 3 to 5

[1:25:53] days after arrival regardless of

[1:25:55] vaccination status. Lots of people are

[1:25:56] asking if we anticipate a return to

[1:25:59] lock-downs or limits on business capacity

[1:26:02] or operations like we did under the state

[1:26:04] blue print for healthier economy. I think

[1:26:07] it is notable it has been all most exactly

[1:26:10] since month since the blue print retired

[1:26:13] back in june so I would be very surprised

[1:26:15] if we back to anything like those levels

[1:26:19] of restrictions. I have been surprised

[1:26:21] before and can be again but we are in

[1:26:24] really good shape relative to where we

[1:26:26] were last year at this time or back in

[1:26:29] june. We now have over 60 percent of our

[1:26:31] population in placer county fully

[1:26:34] vaccinated about 90 pert of the seniors

[1:26:36] are fully vaccinated and now with the

[1:26:39] vaccine available to children and large

[1:26:41] numbers of people getting boosters much

[1:26:43] wider availability of testing and

[1:26:45] effective therapeutics and high quality

[1:26:47] masks we are in much better position then

[1:26:49] we were earlier in the pandemic. With

[1:26:51] that, happy to answer any questions you

[1:26:54] may have and once again thanks and

[1:26:56] appreciate todd's word on the staff. It

[1:26:59] is a long haul both this year and with the

[1:27:03] pandemic throughout the county and in hhs

[1:27:06] and say thank you to the staff and great

[1:27:08] work you have done. Thanks.

[1:27:09] >> thanks rob and back to you for the

[1:27:14] same-want to build on todd comments by

[1:27:17] thanking all our staff regardless of how

[1:27:22] good or bad the board's ideas are or

[1:27:25] successes can never be achieved without

[1:27:28] excellence in staff and committed and hard

[1:27:30] work so great time of year to technology

[1:27:32] we have many standards setting programs

[1:27:35] and specifically rob again you guys have

[1:27:38] done well at health and human services and

[1:27:41] don't want to put pressure on you but come

[1:27:44] to expect that now over the last 27 years

[1:27:46] so next year just looking forward to

[1:27:49] whatever fabulous achievements you have

[1:27:51] out there. Health and human subs

[1:27:55] recognized across the country and

[1:27:56] particularly in the state of california

[1:27:58] and it does not go unnoticed. With that

[1:28:01] I'll open up for questions. Cindy.

[1:28:05] >> I didn't have any questions, just had

[1:28:07] reports to give,

[1:28:10] >> any covid related or specific comments

[1:28:12] for rob?

[1:28:14] >> I do have to ask one question. I had a

[1:28:19] couple of restaurant owners contact me

[1:28:22] last night-the height of holiday season

[1:28:26] for our restaurants who have been severely

[1:28:29] impacted this last year. I know they have

[1:28:32] to worry about state abc, but as far as

[1:28:36] our own county staff, we got folks who

[1:28:40] have to do the environmental health checks

[1:28:43] at our restaurants, do you anticipate

[1:28:44] those folks going out and closing down our

[1:28:47] restaurants?

[1:28:48] >> I really am not hearing about

[1:28:53] enforcement even from the state so that is

[1:28:55] a question we are getting a lot about-by

[1:28:57] the way on restaurants there are a number

[1:28:59] of exceptions on the statewide indoor

[1:29:03] masking mandate and you can go to the

[1:29:05] state website and see that but while

[1:29:07] eating and drinking. A lot of the same

[1:29:11] things I think people are accustom to but

[1:29:16] as far as enforcement of those I'm not

[1:29:19] really hearing a lot across the state

[1:29:23] about that. Really the hope-people are

[1:29:30] asking why now, why is this coming. The

[1:29:34] state website speaks why the timing for

[1:29:37] this. I mentioned the omicron variant and

[1:29:47] up take in cases statewide. Masking

[1:29:50] mandates are in the places that had them

[1:29:54] already we have seen minimal enforcement

[1:29:56] and the idea is they are try to change

[1:29:59] perception of masking and social norms in

[1:30:04] communities making masking more common,

[1:30:06] but as far as--the influence of or the

[1:30:11] enforcement I think that will be minimal.

[1:30:14] also in addition we talked about one the

[1:30:17] quality of masking being really important

[1:30:19] and then masking relative to some of the

[1:30:22] other interventions I think vaccinations

[1:30:24] in particular probably being a more

[1:30:29] effective strategy but combining

[1:30:32] interventions has shown to be the most

[1:30:35] impactful but there are probably other

[1:30:38] intervention like vaccination that are

[1:30:43] more effective then masking.

[1:30:44] >> thank you, I appreciate that and know

[1:30:45] folks are asking when or not the sheriff

[1:30:48] will enforce and I haven't heard from the

[1:30:50] sheriff but he hasn't enforced in the

[1:30:53] past. I don't certainly cant see him

[1:30:55] choosing to do that again and I want to

[1:30:58] let residents know that. We want to be

[1:31:01] concerned about people getting sick and

[1:31:04] probably the best thing about this is that

[1:31:06] it is taught people to stay home if they

[1:31:08] are not feeling well, which is a really

[1:31:11] good thing and I really want to encourage

[1:31:13] people to do that. There are other things

[1:31:16] of washing hands if you are sick just are

[1:31:19] please stay away from all the rest of us.

[1:31:23] thank you dr. Oldham.

[1:31:26] >> thanks again rob. Cindy. This is the

[1:31:30] time again for board members reports and

[1:31:33] we heard from county exec so now going to

[1:31:37] cindy for board member report.

[1:31:39] >> I had a quick report tomorrow the tahoe

[1:31:42] regional planning agency will be meeting

[1:31:43] and later today we'll be talking about our

[1:31:46] placer county transportation fees for

[1:31:49] tahoe. Tomorrow the tahoe regional

[1:31:52] planning agency will be voting on mobility

[1:31:56] fee that is somewhat similar to vmt

[1:32:00] reductions we have been talking about here

[1:32:02] and what is important for the board to

[1:32:03] know is our staff has worked tirelessly.

[1:32:07] stephanie as well as katie jackson

[1:32:10] [inaudible comments] to make sure these

[1:32:11] two programs do not compound on each other

[1:32:15] for a new development in the tahoe basin

[1:32:17] which could have occurred. There is a lot

[1:32:19] to still work out to make sure our

[1:32:21] projects are done. Will collect that fee

[1:32:25] and then make sure that our projects our

[1:32:33] portion the regional transportation fund

[1:32:35] are funded. I wanted to thank staff

[1:32:37] publicly for all their efforts to make

[1:32:39] sure that we safeguard our tahoe

[1:32:42] businesses and residents on that to make

[1:32:45] sure they are not paying double fees

[1:32:48] within the basin. And then obviously

[1:32:51] wanted to say great job on bringing us a

[1:32:53] lot of snow. We need snow for a lot of

[1:32:56] good reasons for most important it is

[1:33:00] essential for our water resources. Headed

[1:33:03] into the holidays we couldn't have asked

[1:33:05] for a better economic boost for many ski

[1:33:08] areas who hadn't been able to open or

[1:33:10] barely opening. It is going to be a great

[1:33:16] white christmas for the ski areas. And

[1:33:18] then finally, today robert if I'm numbers

[1:33:22] are right this is your 5th time concluding

[1:33:25] your 5th time as chair of this board, and

[1:33:30] I could couldn't let it go unnoticed

[1:33:34] because of such a year you had. Between

[1:33:39] everything you had to deal with,

[1:33:41] continuing the legacy with covid but into

[1:33:45] vaccination and vaccination requirements

[1:33:46] and all the public testimony and then

[1:33:50] redistricating of course. Few little hot

[1:33:53] buttons along the way but you have done a

[1:33:55] excellent job and I know that you can't

[1:33:57] open this now, but on behalf of all the

[1:33:59] board, we have a little something that

[1:34:01] will ease the pain for the holidays.

[1:34:04] [laughter]

[1:34:07] can't open it here on the county grounds,

[1:34:10] but hopefully you can enjoy that and just

[1:34:15] wanted to thank you for your great

[1:34:18] leadership. It has been a tough year,

[1:34:20] probably the toughest you had as a chair,

[1:34:22] at least that is what you said.

[1:34:24] >> thank you. Depending how the meeting

[1:34:25] goes today I might defy county rules and

[1:34:28] regulations I might need to call the

[1:34:33] sheriff. Thank you very much. I

[1:34:36] appreciate it. Thank you.

[1:34:37] (applause)

[1:34:39] >> suzanne.

[1:34:40] >> yes. I wanted to just mention that I'm

[1:34:44] also rounding out my first year on the

[1:34:46] board and it's been quite a experience. I

[1:34:50] enjoyed it working with all of you and all

[1:34:52] of my constituents and wanted to tell

[1:34:55] everybody thanks especially to my

[1:34:56] constituents for your continued support

[1:34:58] and I appreciate everybody that reaches

[1:35:00] out to me with concerns that we can

[1:35:03] attempt to resolve here at this level and

[1:35:06] so with that, thank you robert for-you

[1:35:10] have been a great mentor for me for the

[1:35:12] future even though your year was hard. It

[1:35:16] was good for me.

[1:35:17] >> can only get easier, right?

[1:35:19] [laughter]

[1:35:22] >> I just want to end by wishing everybody

[1:35:25] a happy holiday, merry christmas if you

[1:35:27] observe christmas and wish everyone the

[1:35:29] best in the new year.

[1:35:32] >> I'll finish by saying, cindy it is all

[1:35:36] most certain you will be our new chair and

[1:35:38] you will have some incredibly good support

[1:35:40] megan and todd and county counsel office

[1:35:42] and other executive staff and it makes all

[1:35:46] the difference in the world so I just want

[1:35:48] to publicly acknowledge that and express

[1:35:51] my appreciation. Okay, with that and

[1:35:55] seeing no other lights I'm going to take

[1:35:58] the chair prerogative and bounce around.

[1:36:00] we'll take up because of timing our 9:30

[1:36:04] item and after that take the then 1035

[1:36:08] item compared to the 915 item we should be

[1:36:13] taking now. The next item is our placer

[1:36:16] county 2022 legislative advocacy platform.

[1:36:22] joel.

[1:36:26] >> good morning chair members of the

[1:36:28] board. Todd karen. County executive

[1:36:31] office. I should be joined today on zoom

[1:36:34] by rich gold and michael gullano of

[1:36:38] holland and knight and paul yoder and

[1:36:41] karen lang with syasl partners.

[1:36:46] additionally, besides them giving a update

[1:36:49] to the board today you have before you a

[1:36:52] draft legislative platform which serves as

[1:36:55] the basis for county advocacy efforts with

[1:36:58] executive and legislative branches of

[1:37:00] federal government to support sponsor and

[1:37:01] oppose legislation address policy rules

[1:37:04] laws regulations as well as defend county

[1:37:08] local authority and resources. Placer

[1:37:11] county with contractor advocates and

[1:37:14] member associations have been successful

[1:37:15] over the past few years advancing county

[1:37:18] priorities and protecting the county

[1:37:20] ability to have local control over our

[1:37:22] governance and land use decisions. While

[1:37:25] placer county or any county have not won

[1:37:28] every battle placer county does continue

[1:37:30] to mitigate some of the more problematic

[1:37:32] provisions in various pieces of

[1:37:36] legislation over the years. With the

[1:37:37] board's work we continue to have a

[1:37:40] more-take a more proactive approach in dc

[1:37:44] and sacramento. 2021 saw record

[1:37:46] investments on many county priorities from

[1:37:48] dc and sacramento. Infrastructure funding

[1:37:52] reach historic levels over the next 5

[1:37:54] years competing for roads bridges water

[1:37:58] sewer and electric vehicle infrastructure.

[1:38:00] broadband received historic funding with

[1:38:03] $6 billion from the state and $65 billion

[1:38:06] from the federal government of which the

[1:38:08] state should see $6 billion of the $65

[1:38:11] billion. Staff continues to work hard to

[1:38:15] make sure every resident and business that

[1:38:17] wants to receive high-speed internet will

[1:38:21] receive high-speed internet at reliable

[1:38:24] and affordable cost. Wildfire risk

[1:38:28] reduction continue to be top priority of

[1:38:31] the board and county staff. Investment in

[1:38:33] that front has-in the billions of dollars

[1:38:36] range which michael and rich from holland

[1:38:39] and knight will discuss in a minute to

[1:38:42] really try to reduce fuel load in the

[1:38:44] local forest. Going into 2022, which is

[1:38:48] setting up to be a fairly unique year for

[1:38:50] me working with this job on a state level

[1:38:53] you have redistricting which is yet to be

[1:38:55] settled. Today is the self imposed

[1:38:58] deadline. The additional deadline is

[1:39:01] later this month. You also have back in

[1:39:04] 2012 the voters approved term limit

[1:39:07] initiative which you will see the effect

[1:39:10] of the term limit as folks expire for the

[1:39:15] seats in 2024. Many members are looking

[1:39:17] for other jobs at this point. You have a

[1:39:20] gubernatorial this fall, senate election,

[1:39:23] various statewide offices and what is

[1:39:25] setting up to be a pretty large ballot.

[1:39:27] as of this point you have up to 4

[1:39:29] initiatives just on legalizing sports

[1:39:32] gambling in the state. So, with that I

[1:39:34] will turn over to rich gold and michael

[1:39:37] gullano to kick off the presentation and

[1:39:41] following up with paul yoder and rich

[1:39:43] [inaudible comments]

[1:39:44] >> mr. Chair, I have a question. I want

[1:39:47] to clarify. You said members expire. The

[1:39:50] term expires?

[1:39:51] >> the term limits-I should clarify-

[1:39:57] >> the more seasons joel the more you pay

[1:40:00] attention to the distinction.

[1:40:04] [laughter]

[1:40:05] >> if it please your board my name is rich

[1:40:07] gold. I appreciate the opportunities to

[1:40:12] speak with you all today along with my

[1:40:14] colleague mike gullano. I wanted to start

[1:40:17] out just by thanking you all for all the

[1:40:19] good work you as the board did this year

[1:40:22] advocating for the county federal

[1:40:24] priorities. It was obviously a challenge

[1:40:26] with limited capability to have personal

[1:40:29] interaction with members of congress and

[1:40:32] members of the executive branch but we got

[1:40:35] a lot done and I think we are rounding the

[1:40:38] corner and hoping that congress will be

[1:40:40] back in business taking personal meetings

[1:40:43] as well as the executive branch and first

[1:40:45] quarter of 2022. I also just want to tip

[1:40:49] my hat as well supervisor weygandt. We

[1:40:52] worked together what seems over a hundred

[1:40:55] years. He's been a great elected official

[1:40:58] to work with and shown true leadership on

[1:41:00] so many issues from water to

[1:41:03] transportation and look forward to this

[1:41:06] final lap here robert.

[1:41:07] >> thanks rich.

[1:41:09] >> sure. Just wanted to give a brief

[1:41:12] overview here and we can go to the next

[1:41:15] slide. With regard to where things stand.

[1:41:20] obviously at the federal level we have a

[1:41:23] very closely divided congress with the

[1:41:26] senate tied 50/50, the house only a few

[1:41:30] seats apart. That makes getting

[1:41:32] legislation through the process very

[1:41:34] difficult. On the other hand it also

[1:41:37] produced bipartisan infrastructure bill

[1:41:40] this summer which required the margins

[1:41:42] required a very bipartisan effort for that

[1:41:45] legislation. I think we had a very

[1:41:49] productive year. We started out in

[1:41:52] february moving the american rescue plan

[1:41:55] through congress and providing lead

[1:42:00] funding for covid and economically

[1:42:02] impacted interests like restaurants and

[1:42:05] other community facilities that had really

[1:42:08] suffered economically during the shut down

[1:42:12] from the pandemic. That legislation lead

[1:42:16] us into discussion around the bipartisan

[1:42:19] infrastructure bill which started in april

[1:42:22] and we were successful passing that bill

[1:42:25] into law in august, and had good

[1:42:28] bipartisan support in both the senate and

[1:42:31] house for that legislation. And while it

[1:42:35] passed-while that bill passed through the

[1:42:39] senate in august, it only finally passed

[1:42:43] here in november through the house of

[1:42:45] representatives and we will be talking

[1:42:47] about the programs included in that bill

[1:42:49] and in 2022 a lot of those programs will

[1:42:52] be pumping money through the system for

[1:42:55] everything as joel referenced from

[1:42:57] transportation to water infrastructure and

[1:43:03] broadband. We are working on the current

[1:43:05] reconciliation bill entitled build back

[1:43:08] better and that bill likely will go into

[1:43:12] 2022. We will not finish before christmas

[1:43:15] as senators had hoped would be the case,

[1:43:18] so we are likely going to take up that

[1:43:20] bill again when we come back in january.

[1:43:25] in addition in january we need to finish

[1:43:26] up the fy22 federal appropriation bills

[1:43:30] which also provide significant funding for

[1:43:32] county priorities, and move forward then

[1:43:36] into the new cycle for fy23. So, mike let

[1:43:40] me kick it over to you for the next slide.

[1:43:44] >> thanks rich. I'll do a lilt deeper

[1:43:46] dive on topics that rich mentioned. So,

[1:43:50] really the past year, year and a half have

[1:43:54] been focused on covid response. At the

[1:43:58] federal level. Next slide. So, to date

[1:44:06] congress has enacted 5 major covid relief

[1:44:11] packages to the tune of $5 trillion over

[1:44:15] the next decade. The most well known of

[1:44:17] those 5 are really the third, which is the

[1:44:21] cares act, which was enacted in march of

[1:44:24] 2020 and then the american rescue plan act

[1:44:30] arpa enacted in march of 21. So, one of

[1:44:35] the flaws of the cares act even at $1.8

[1:44:39] trillion was that at least from a local

[1:44:41] government perspective, it didn't get

[1:44:44] money directly to most counties and cities

[1:44:48] across the country. It was well

[1:44:51] intentioned but in the response to get the

[1:44:54] money out the door quickly the governor

[1:44:57] got most of those dollars to allocate to

[1:45:00] the local governments and that took longer

[1:45:04] then it should have. Coming into 21 one

[1:45:08] of the goals for the next package, the

[1:45:10] arpa plan was to insure that local

[1:45:13] governments got that funding directly.

[1:45:16] next slide. So, arpa was passed in march

[1:45:22] of 21. It provided $360 billion directly

[1:45:28] to local and state governments and the

[1:45:32] good news one of the big victories from

[1:45:34] earlier this year was that it provided

[1:45:37] directed funding to local governments of

[1:45:39] all sizes including placer county which

[1:45:44] received $77 million from the local

[1:45:48] government relief fund on top of the other

[1:45:51] monies related to rental assistance and

[1:45:56] money through hud and other departments.

[1:45:58] so, that really was the response phase for

[1:46:02] covid, which just ended over the summer of

[1:46:06] 21. Once those bills got done, congress

[1:46:12] attempted to pivot to from recovery from

[1:46:17] response to recovery, so that was when the

[1:46:20] infrastructure package started to pick up

[1:46:23] speed. Initially the president had hoped

[1:46:28] to pass a package in the neighborhood of

[1:46:31] $4 trillion, which even in dc is a lot of

[1:46:35] money, so realizing that was not going to

[1:46:39] be possible they decided to bifurcate the

[1:46:43] package to create a traditional

[1:46:45] infrastructure package and then a social

[1:46:48] infrastructure package. Next slide. So,

[1:46:55] on a parallel track, congress also as rich

[1:47:00] noted proceeding with the annual

[1:47:03] appropriations process and one new

[1:47:07] development on that front, it was the

[1:47:10] return of congressional earmarks. The

[1:47:13] board will recall earmarks at the federal

[1:47:16] level went away in fiscal year 10 so after

[1:47:20] a 11 year hiatus, congress when the

[1:47:26] democrat said won the house and senate

[1:47:29] decided to bring back the earmark process

[1:47:31] really on a trial basis for fy22, and we

[1:47:37] are pleased to report the county has one

[1:47:39] project pending in those fy22 bills, which

[1:47:43] were not completed by october 1 when they

[1:47:47] should have, but we are hopeful to get

[1:47:49] these bills done before the end of

[1:47:53] february, and there is $580 thousand

[1:47:56] pending for a body worm camera program at

[1:48:03] the sheriff office. Next slide. As rich

[1:48:06] noted, the infrastructure bill enacted on

[1:48:11] november 15. It's $1.2 trillion for

[1:48:15] traditional infrastructure. We are

[1:48:17] working with staff to identify the various

[1:48:21] programs of interest to the county. Joel

[1:48:24] noted that there is $3 billion included in

[1:48:28] there for wildfire related activities.

[1:48:35] also importantly new policy changes on the

[1:48:38] wildfire front included including creating

[1:48:41] a new categorical exclusion under neppa

[1:48:44] for fuel reduction and fuel break

[1:48:47] activities, which is welcome change. Not

[1:48:50] a pant sia but a step in the right

[1:48:53] direction. That was signed into law

[1:48:57] november 15. We expect most of the

[1:49:02] formula dollars from this $1.2 trillion

[1:49:06] package to start to flow to the states

[1:49:10] during the first quarter of 2022 for all

[1:49:13] the traditional infrastructure funding

[1:49:16] from roads and bridges and to safe

[1:49:20] drinking water and stormwater projects.

[1:49:22] the other part of that funding package is

[1:49:25] the competitive programs which were

[1:49:27] created. Those are going to take longer

[1:49:29] to get out the door. The various agencies

[1:49:33] and jurisdictions have to hire up and

[1:49:36] write the notice of funding availability,

[1:49:38] so on the competitive side we expect to

[1:49:41] see over the summer of 22. Next slide.

[1:49:50] >> so, the second piece to the

[1:49:55] infrastructure package is social spending

[1:49:56] which is called the build back better

[1:49:59] program here in dc. 24 the house enacted

[1:50:09] a package over $3 trillion. That wasn't

[1:50:12] going to pass in the senate for ez reasons

[1:50:16] you have probably seen in the press so the

[1:50:18] senate is attempting to draft a more

[1:50:20] modest size package to the tune of $1.7

[1:50:22] trillion. Leader schumer and the senate

[1:50:28] told his caucus he is hoping to have a

[1:50:30] vote on the package before they leave for

[1:50:33] christmas. That is unlikely but that is

[1:50:36] their goal. And should that pass we will

[1:50:39] get with your staff to make sure that they

[1:50:42] are aware of what's in it and so woe can

[1:50:47] compete for the social dollars in addition

[1:50:49] to the traditional infrastructure dollars.

[1:50:51] next slide. So, what's left to do over

[1:50:58] the next couple weeks in dc. Rich

[1:51:02] mentioned government funding. We are

[1:51:03] operating under our second continuing

[1:51:06] resolution to keep the federal government

[1:51:08] open through february 18. Congress will

[1:51:12] use these next 6 weeks to finish those

[1:51:15] fy22 spending bills that include the

[1:51:18] funding for the sheriff body worn camera

[1:51:22] program. In addition, the second item

[1:51:24] congress needs to raise the federal debt

[1:51:27] limit which is the government ability to

[1:51:30] barrow. According to the treasury

[1:51:33] secretary we will be up against that limit

[1:51:35] on december 15, which according to my

[1:51:38] calendar is tomorrow, so the senate is

[1:51:41] expected to pass a debt limit increase

[1:51:45] this afternoon and the house will attempt

[1:51:47] to pass that this evening. The third item

[1:51:50] the social spending is again the build

[1:51:53] back better plan that was mentioned on the

[1:51:55] prior slide. The democrats want to get

[1:51:59] that done before christmas. Unlikely it

[1:52:02] is more likely to slide into the end of

[1:52:04] this year or early next year, so stay

[1:52:08] tuned on that. So, in terms of looking

[1:52:10] forward to 2022, next slide--there is a

[1:52:19] lot of federal money coming down the pike

[1:52:23] and we have been working with staff to get

[1:52:25] up to speed on the different programs.

[1:52:29] so, really it is 3 legs of a federal

[1:52:31] funding platform. That is the way we like

[1:52:35] to think about it. There are competitive

[1:52:38] federal grants the county will apply for

[1:52:40] and has done very well historically

[1:52:43] including earlier this year a $5 million

[1:52:45] grant for the western placer county hcp.

[1:52:50] those will come out in the spring time.

[1:52:53] there is the annual congressional federal

[1:52:57] appropriation process which will good

[1:53:02] begin in february which is 12 month

[1:53:04] process and then the-special funding

[1:53:09] opportunities and in our case that is the

[1:53:11] federal infrastructure package which is

[1:53:13] already enacted and then the

[1:53:17] reconciliation bill which may or may not

[1:53:19] be enacted later this year. That is a

[1:53:22] good way to organize our thoughts on that

[1:53:24] and we already had a number of planning

[1:53:26] meetings with your staff to walk through

[1:53:28] the various opportunities for 2022 and

[1:53:31] beyond. With that, thank you and happy to

[1:53:35] take any questions.

[1:53:36] >> thanks mike and rich. Good seeing you

[1:53:39] guys again. Hope next time in person, but

[1:53:42] are there any questions from mike and rich

[1:53:44] federal advocacy at this time by my

[1:53:46] colleagues? Cindy.

[1:53:47] >> hi, thanks so much for the report and

[1:53:50] all the efforts going into this. I was at

[1:53:53] a luncheon on saturday in which members

[1:54:00] the u.s. Forest service of the percentage

[1:54:05] of the budget that changed to I believe 9

[1:54:08] percent of firefighter to over 55 percent

[1:54:10] of fire fighting and I want to again

[1:54:14] emphasize I know you know this

[1:54:16] representing us in the western states as

[1:54:18] well that we need more money to stop fires

[1:54:21] from starting and being able to fight them

[1:54:23] with our fuel suppression, especially in

[1:54:26] our national forest; so any efforts we can

[1:54:30] do to continue to highlight this issue on

[1:54:34] forest fuel reduction on federal lands

[1:54:36] because we have the forest service, we

[1:54:38] have the bureau of land management, bureau

[1:54:44] of reclinations, around the auburn and

[1:54:48] foothill area and up through the sierra

[1:54:50] are our main partners and are there any

[1:54:55] insights you have how we can get more

[1:54:57] funding to the forest service for that

[1:54:59] early fuel reduction work to avoid

[1:55:03] spending 55 percent of their budget on

[1:55:05] fire fighting?

[1:55:12] >> mike you want to-

[1:55:14] [laughter]

[1:55:16] >> that is a great observation supervisor,

[1:55:19] and those discussions are ongoing and have

[1:55:23] been occurring over the past year. There

[1:55:26] is a lot of good in this in the

[1:55:33] infrastructure bill that money will be

[1:55:35] flowing in the first quarter in terms of

[1:55:37] dollars. In addition to policy change for

[1:55:41] categorical exclusion for fuel break

[1:55:43] activities which will speed up things on

[1:55:46] federal lands. There is also policy

[1:55:48] changes in there, such as historically

[1:55:52] when the fire service hires firefighters

[1:55:56] to fight wildfires they are considered

[1:55:59] seasonal employees and that is just-that

[1:56:02] is a challenge to find those folks at any

[1:56:05] time but when we are dealing with covid

[1:56:08] situation and labor shortages around the

[1:56:11] country, the forest service really

[1:56:14] struggled to find the right type of people

[1:56:17] this past cycle, so what they have done is

[1:56:20] created a new employee category at the

[1:56:24] forest service to bring those folks on as

[1:56:27] full-time employees so they have them in

[1:56:30] reserve when these fires do occur across

[1:56:33] the country. So, those are just a few

[1:56:36] things I would note. Really placer county

[1:56:39] speaks with a large voice on these issues

[1:56:43] because of its success on the pccp. Your

[1:56:48] county has a credibility here in town that

[1:56:52] most counties do not, particularly on

[1:56:55] resource issues, so we look forward to

[1:56:57] continuing to work with you on that this

[1:57:01] coming year.

[1:57:04] >> thank you. I appreciate that. I know

[1:57:06] that we are all anxious to see more

[1:57:09] funding to take care of our forests a

[1:57:12] quickly as possible and sometimes that can

[1:57:14] see seen in infrastructure and it is also

[1:57:18] a ongoing process we need for decades to

[1:57:21] come.

[1:57:22] >> great comments. No other questions

[1:57:29] from the board so appreciate it, look

[1:57:31] forward continuing to work together. It

[1:57:32] has been great.

[1:57:33] >> paul and karen you can take it away on

[1:57:35] the state side.

[1:57:36] >> good morning supervisors. Thank you for

[1:57:38] having us this morning. Karen lang with

[1:57:40] [inaudible comments] I'm going to recap

[1:57:44] how the year went and hand it off to paul

[1:57:47] for a good forecasting what we are looking

[1:57:51] at.

[1:57:56] >> [inaudible comments] very much

[1:57:57] incorporated.

[1:57:58] >> okay to keep going? I like to start

[1:58:02] with the budget looks like. We are in the

[1:58:05] enacted 21-22 budget going into

[1:58:10] constructing our budget we are in now. It

[1:58:13] actually took a about 4 budget cycles this

[1:58:16] year. There were 4 separate main budget

[1:58:19] bills passed and dozens and dozens and

[1:58:23] dozens of trailer bills to support the

[1:58:25] spending plan that evolved over time since

[1:58:29] we didn't know what was going to happen

[1:58:31] with the state budget. California general

[1:58:35] fund relies very heavily on the wealthiest

[1:58:39] californians personal income tax

[1:58:42] withholdings and capital gains and if you

[1:58:44] have been following the stock market and

[1:58:46] sure you have, the stock market has done

[1:58:52] wonderful during the pandemic and as a

[1:58:54] result the revenue in california general

[1:58:56] fund even in addition to what came from

[1:58:58] the federal relief package was levels we

[1:59:01] have never seen before particularly

[1:59:03] capital gains revenues that were realized

[1:59:06] in the state budget in the 10s of billions

[1:59:08] of dollars. As a result of that there was

[1:59:11] much more money to spend then I think we

[1:59:12] probably all thought we would have to

[1:59:14] spend in january. The enacted budget has

[1:59:19] a $47 billion with a b surplus built into

[1:59:24] the budget. We have $21 billion reserve.

[1:59:27] I do want to point out about 75 percent of

[1:59:30] the surplus in this budget are in now was

[1:59:34] devoted to 1 time spending and that was a

[1:59:36] result of the fract that as californians

[1:59:40] budget might correct itself a bit if the

[1:59:43] stock market corrects it is a lot easier

[1:59:45] to not spend one time money then to take

[1:59:49] down a new program that relies on ongoing

[1:59:53] funding. 75 percent of the 1 time dollars

[1:59:58] were spent on 1 time expenditures. We did

[2:00:03] get $25 million in the rescue plan and

[2:00:07] alabama california has [inaudible

[2:00:09] comments] to spend the dollars on

[2:00:10] specified allocations. We do have-I

[2:00:13] wanted to point out a couple things

[2:00:15] specifically that are of interest to the

[2:00:17] county. There was about $3 billion for

[2:00:21] job emergency and increased water

[2:00:24] resiliency and think there will be more of

[2:00:26] that in 22. $31 million goes to protect

[2:00:30] fish and wildlife from the changing

[2:00:32] conditions. There is also a special set

[2:00:34] aside for a new type of way to deal with

[2:00:38] bio mass and in the budget itself it is

[2:00:40] $50 million the department of conservation

[2:00:44] will allocate once they build the program

[2:00:46] it will be allocated through, but when you

[2:00:48] peal the union in what is called the

[2:00:51] budget change proposal which is what the

[2:00:52] state department of finance like a book

[2:00:56] report why they want to spend this money,

[2:00:58] placer county were identified by name as

[2:01:03] locations for which the bio mass money

[2:01:07] might be spent in. They want to find

[2:01:10] different ways to use the energy that is

[2:01:13] created out of bio mass. As you are

[2:01:17] painfully aware it is very difficult to

[2:01:19] interconnect to the grid for electricity

[2:01:21] that would be generated from the bio mass

[2:01:23] and they are looking for other ways to

[2:01:25] create energy sources that don't

[2:01:26] necessarily connect to the grid. One of

[2:01:29] the things mentioned in the bcp is a bio

[2:01:32] oil or hydrogen based fuel so we have been

[2:01:38] following with the department of

[2:01:41] conservation, their plan to allocate the

[2:01:42] money, they have to set up the application

[2:01:44] process but we are certainly working to

[2:01:47] position placer in a competitive position

[2:01:49] for the dollars and it is very clear the

[2:01:51] state would like to see you get it. There

[2:01:53] is also funding in what is called the

[2:01:56] climate catalyst fund to deal with funding

[2:02:00] projects that alleviate wildfire risk and

[2:02:04] prevent wildfire again to supervisor

[2:02:07] gustafson's point, there is also funding

[2:02:09] to cal recycle to deal with the organic

[2:02:13] waste infrastructure. For those that

[2:02:16] follow along [inaudible comments] waste

[2:02:18] management authority, there is clearly a

[2:02:21] problem with organic diversion in the more

[2:02:23] rural parts of the state because you don't

[2:02:26] necessarily have a way to separate that

[2:02:28] out and have it collected. There is

[2:02:30] funding through cal recycle to assist with

[2:02:33] that. In addition on wildfire piece, not

[2:02:36] to jump around too much, we are talking

[2:02:38] about budget just just in the last week

[2:02:41] the board of forestry moved to put forward

[2:02:43] a set of regulations that are the fire

[2:02:46] safe regulations that came out of sb901

[2:02:49] from a couple years ago. They were trying

[2:02:51] to pursue it in calendar 21 but the

[2:02:55] regulations were incredibly controversial

[2:02:58] and so much opposition the board pulled it

[2:03:01] back and recrafted them and they just put

[2:03:03] them out. I want to commend r c r c, they

[2:03:10] have been a great partner. The public

[2:03:12] comment starts in january and only a 15

[2:03:14] day public comment period. This has

[2:03:16] enormous implication on your land use

[2:03:19] anywhere where you interact with the wild

[2:03:22] land urban interphase which you have a lot

[2:03:24] of in placer county so believe your

[2:03:27] planning staff is very well aware the

[2:03:29] regulations are going to be going back out

[2:03:32] for public comment. I feel it is really

[2:03:35] incumbent on individual counties to raise

[2:03:37] their concerns with the board as far as

[2:03:40] the feasibility of some of the components

[2:03:42] of the regulations. Certainly the

[2:03:45] regulations are intended to enhance public

[2:03:47] safety during a wildfire, but there are

[2:03:50] some things that would be very challenging

[2:03:52] I think for local governments to comply so

[2:03:54] I wanted to make sure you are aware.

[2:03:56] there is also a significant amount of

[2:03:58] money in the existing budget for

[2:04:00] transportation. There is $4.5 billion new

[2:04:05] and discretionary that went to one time or

[2:04:07] temporary transportation infrastructure.

[2:04:10] certainly with the federal report you just

[2:04:12] heard there is more money coming on the

[2:04:15] federal side. I also wanted to note the

[2:04:18] broadband piece as you told me a year ago

[2:04:22] I get to tell you there was $7 billion in

[2:04:25] the budget for broadband I would be

[2:04:29] confused, but the legislature did a

[2:04:33] wonderful job with the administration of

[2:04:36] setting aside a large amount of fund to

[2:04:38] really make a difference and huge bite at

[2:04:40] the apple for broadband deployment. The

[2:04:43] regulatory process how that will work is

[2:04:46] playing out at the puc. Want to commend r

[2:04:50] c r c making sure the rural count ies who

[2:04:53] residents struggle the most with access to

[2:04:56] broadband during the shelter at home

[2:04:59] order, there is set asides for rural areas

[2:05:01] and there are real set asides. It is not

[2:05:04] just a small percentage, it is big chunk

[2:05:06] of money to invest in the middle mile.

[2:05:09] moving to housing and homelessness, about

[2:05:13] $7.4 billion across 30 programs are in the

[2:05:22] state budget and think you will see more

[2:05:23] investment in 22 with those programs. Our

[2:05:26] funding cycles are a little different then

[2:05:28] the federal government. Frankly about

[2:05:34] every week we send out an announcement on

[2:05:36] a chance to comment on new regulations for

[2:05:39] a grant program or announcing that a new

[2:05:42] grant program is out, so it is happening

[2:05:45] very quickly at hcd. They are pushing out

[2:05:47] money as fast as they can and programs as

[2:05:50] fast as they can to support the

[2:05:53] development of housing in california.

[2:05:56] been trying to send out fast as they come

[2:05:58] in. Finally, before I hand it to paul the

[2:06:04] legislature has been working to transition

[2:06:07] away from fines and fees are collected

[2:06:11] from folks interacting with the criminal

[2:06:15] system. However the program is built

[2:06:19] based on fines and fees and there is a buy

[2:06:23] out of fines and fees included in the

[2:06:25] enact 21-22 budget. It is about $125

[2:06:28] million and then going forward it will be

[2:06:31] hundred million. Csac is working with the

[2:06:34] administration on developing how the funds

[2:06:36] will flow and I would-we just pay close

[2:06:41] attention to how it effects your budget.

[2:06:43] I'm sure your budget folks are watching

[2:06:45] directly as well, but that is a big piece

[2:06:47] and I think those that participate through

[2:06:50] the csac policy committee will hear about

[2:06:53] the development of the applications to

[2:06:54] make sure everybody got what was needed to

[2:06:57] not hold you in harms way as the

[2:07:00] legislature moved away from the fines and

[2:07:02] fees for the sort of lower level

[2:07:05] infractions. With that, I'll hand it over

[2:07:08] to paul.

[2:07:09] >> thanks. Paul, are you there? Looks

[2:07:19] like you are muted.

[2:07:21] >> how is this?

[2:07:24] >> much better we can hear you.

[2:07:26] >> I want to apologize are on that note I

[2:07:28] have a typical zoom setup that I use and I

[2:07:31] came in to the office this morning and it

[2:07:34] didn't-it was not working. On the up

[2:07:37] side, I am able to get my giant gnome into

[2:07:40] the picture behind me so I got that going

[2:07:42] for me. Good morning. Thank you karen.

[2:07:45] couple things very very quickly. First of

[2:07:47] all covid tomorrow we enter back into

[2:07:51] indoor mask mandate per the governor.

[2:07:54] that is expected right now to extend

[2:07:56] through january 15. I know there was

[2:07:58] comments earlier today on that. Similarly

[2:08:02] just to make sure for the public's

[2:08:05] benefit, we are in a state of emergency

[2:08:08] per the governor through march 15.

[2:08:11] hopefully that will be the end. But both

[2:08:14] of those are in effect as of-one currently

[2:08:18] and one as of tomorrow. So, the

[2:08:23] legislature has a couple more pieces of

[2:08:25] business before they shut down in

[2:08:29] december. Most notably for a lot of

[2:08:31] counties will be informational hearing

[2:08:32] tomorrow on possibly reform of the

[2:08:37] [inaudible comments] lps act as it is more

[2:08:41] commonly referred to. That has to do with

[2:08:44] the circumstances under which folks who

[2:08:47] are incapable of taking care of themselves

[2:08:51] can be taken in and detained for at least

[2:08:55] 72 hours as the board is aware. We do

[2:08:58] think there may be additional reform in

[2:09:01] the area in 2022 and there is one bill to

[2:09:04] watch, senate bill 516 by senator eagleman

[2:09:08] who will be up on the dais tomorrow with

[2:09:10] the chairs of the assembly held judiciary

[2:09:14] committee as they discuss reform so we are

[2:09:18] making the counties very aware of those

[2:09:20] activities. We'll continue to track that

[2:09:22] for you. They will come back, take a

[2:09:25] break and come back monday january 3.

[2:09:28] especially for the public benefit I want

[2:09:30] to make sure folks know the capital

[2:09:34] essentially won't be open not because of

[2:09:37] covid but because it is being redone,

[2:09:40] remade. There is now a 10 story so called

[2:09:43] swing space office space into which the

[2:09:46] legislature is moving as I speak.

[2:09:50] hearings will be conducted there, so they

[2:09:52] will be open we hope, coming out of covid

[2:09:57] but on the other hand if you are used to

[2:09:59] coming to the capital you will not go

[2:10:01] there, you will go to a different building

[2:10:02] across the street and will be very very

[2:10:07] different then usual. You have to be

[2:10:08] badged up from the first floor. The

[2:10:11] offices are smaller, only legislatures and

[2:10:15] chief of staff have doors, and a lot of

[2:10:17] conversations are going to occur out in

[2:10:21] the open. Just when you think advocacy

[2:10:24] can't get stranger in california, in fact

[2:10:28] it probably will for the next couple

[2:10:30] years, because of the capital rebuild.

[2:10:33] the next budget and think karen mentioned

[2:10:35] will be out january 10. One thing we want

[2:10:40] to make sure the board staff are aware of

[2:10:42] and the public, we do think the governor

[2:10:44] is going to propose to do more with

[2:10:46] respect to homelessness. We think the

[2:10:49] emphasis going into 22, 23 will be on

[2:10:51] mental health and substance abuse and

[2:10:55] trying to bolster programs in those

[2:10:58] regards. We are hopeful governor newsom

[2:11:03] will propose funding to the counties for

[2:11:05] those purpose. This is a very educated

[2:11:10] guess and we know where some of the

[2:11:11] governor staff have been making visits

[2:11:16] around the state the last couple months.

[2:11:19] folks may want to google hummingbird sf.

[2:11:25] humming bird san francisco a program

[2:11:28] already in effect with a relatively high

[2:11:30] success rate and we know for a fact the

[2:11:32] governor's staff is enamored of that so we

[2:11:35] may see in the january temp proposal very

[2:11:38] specifically encouragement if not

[2:11:41] additional funding to the counties to

[2:11:44] develop and sustain programming along

[2:11:46] those lines of hummingbird san francisco.

[2:11:51] january the second year of the two year

[2:11:54] session because we do have two year

[2:11:56] sessions in california. January is the in

[2:11:59] second year are different. Bills

[2:12:00] introduced last year can and will move the

[2:12:05] instance the legislature comes back and it

[2:12:08] is very important to underscore that to

[2:12:12] you and the public that a bill you might

[2:12:15] have thought was on ice or had died in

[2:12:19] 2021 by virtual of two procedural actions

[2:12:24] in january can be heard on the floor.

[2:12:27] taken off the enacted file and heard on

[2:12:30] the floor and some instances sent

[2:12:32] immediately to the governor. That is very

[2:12:33] very different then what can occur in the

[2:12:36] first year of a 2 year cycle and we want

[2:12:39] to make sure everyone is aware of that.

[2:12:41] we think because of the state surplus

[2:12:43] estimated currently by the legislative

[2:12:45] analyst at $31 billion but buried in the

[2:12:49] same report the analyst says it can go as

[2:12:52] high as $60 billion. We think the

[2:12:55] legislature is going to start budget

[2:12:58] subcommittee hearing sooner then they

[2:12:59] typically would. We are hearing february.

[2:13:02] we actually would not be surprised if

[2:13:05] there is budget action taken by the

[2:13:07] legislature in january. Again,ing I think

[2:13:09] that is just a function of the money and

[2:13:12] also the fact they have legislative

[2:13:13] vehicles again since we are in second year

[2:13:17] of the two year cycle bills are in the

[2:13:19] second house and can be quickly amended

[2:13:22] and sent to the governor just like that so

[2:13:24] we may see state budgeting in january.

[2:13:27] possibly drought relating and fire related

[2:13:30] would be the two at the top sof of the

[2:13:33] list joel mentioned redistricting. In two

[2:13:38] minutes the california redistricting

[2:13:43] commission will begin the hearing today.

[2:13:44] he was correct saying they are probably

[2:13:47] going to wrap up the work very very

[2:13:49] quickly. I listened to most of the

[2:13:51] hearing last night. For those that are

[2:13:52] not aware there is a back and forth with

[2:13:56] respect to the mountain counties and where

[2:13:59] they get population for certain

[2:14:01] congressional seat and the decision before

[2:14:03] the commission is really a lot of

[2:14:05] roseville or a lot of modesto. We don't

[2:14:10] know where they will land. I done know

[2:14:11] where they will land after listening to 7

[2:14:14] hours of testimony yesterday, but we

[2:14:16] probably will know that very very shortly

[2:14:22] here. Joel mentioned initiatives and glad

[2:14:24] he did. Do want to underscore one

[2:14:27] initiative that legalize sports wager in

[2:14:30] california is expected to produce if it

[2:14:31] passes hundreds of million dollars of

[2:14:34] dollars annually for the counties to

[2:14:37] combat mental health and substance abuse

[2:14:39] issues in the homeless population. That's

[2:14:44] not only something that could be dealt

[2:14:46] with the governor and legislature, it is

[2:14:51] something that will be pushed on the

[2:14:53] statewide ballot and have competing

[2:14:55] measures as mentioned. On redistricting

[2:14:59] and going back to the chaos possibly of

[2:15:03] 2022, we are not just going have a new

[2:15:05] building within which the legislature will

[2:15:07] work, we are losing legislators at a rate

[2:15:11] of about one a week. They are not just

[2:15:13] noticing they won't run for reelection.

[2:15:16] some are resigning and taking other jobs.

[2:15:19] I are think by the end of this week karen

[2:15:22] can correct me, there may be as many as 5

[2:15:25] or 6 vacancies in the assembly. That will

[2:15:27] make things pretty interesting as the year

[2:15:30] unfolds. We also have the circumstance

[2:15:32] where members of the legislature depending

[2:15:35] on where the redistricting decide to draw

[2:15:40] the lines members of the legislature

[2:15:43] living in the same district with one

[2:15:46] another. One example in la I can give and

[2:15:49] wrap up quickly and happy to take

[2:15:51] questions of course is that right now in

[2:15:53] la there is a proposed district within

[2:15:57] which 4 incumbent assembly members of the

[2:16:00] same party currently reside. How that

[2:16:04] shakes out-I don't to be in that room. It

[2:16:09] will be very interesting discussions as

[2:16:11] the members decide who is running for what

[2:16:13] going forward. That will in fact impact

[2:16:22] legislation in 2020. We will be ready as

[2:16:24] we can for citizens of placer. I will

[2:16:27] wrap up there. I want to say likewise it

[2:16:30] is heck of a ride and look forward to one

[2:16:33] more year working with you and other 4

[2:16:37] board members so thank you, we'll take

[2:16:39] questions now.

[2:16:40] >> thanks paul. Questions of karen and

[2:16:42] paul by board members. I see none.

[2:16:47] thanks to you two both. Look forward

[2:16:49] working with you further. It has been

[2:16:51] great long relationship for me personally,

[2:16:54] so I think we are doing great work and

[2:16:57] great to hear a lot of [inaudible

[2:17:01] comments]

[2:17:02] so thanks. Anyone from the public wish to

[2:17:04] address this item? Seeing none, I'm going

[2:17:09] to change my mind again and skip to item-

[2:17:11] >> we still have to discuss the platform.

[2:17:15] >> sorry.

[2:17:16] >> in the second part of today's

[2:17:19] presentation is for the board to discuss

[2:17:22] and possibly approve the legislative

[2:17:24] platform for 2022. The platform is proved

[2:17:29] near the beginning of each year and a

[2:17:32] culmination of hard work by county staff

[2:17:35] department heads and contracted lobbyist.

[2:17:37] the platform is intended to be a living

[2:17:39] document and not always possible for staff

[2:17:43] and others to anticipate any additional

[2:17:45] legislative regulatory or budget issues

[2:17:49] that may arise. The board may review this

[2:17:52] document on a periodic basis modify the

[2:17:53] document however they please. It also

[2:17:57] provides direction to myself county staff

[2:17:59] county executive office departments and

[2:18:03] legislative advocates on positions that

[2:18:05] the board may take public support

[2:18:08] positions opposition positions and key

[2:18:11] policy initiatives that county staff works

[2:18:14] on. Among some the bigger changes in this

[2:18:17] year's platform is detailed version to

[2:18:21] forest management and wildfire risk

[2:18:23] reduction issues. More detailed housing

[2:18:26] the homeless issues in key policy areas

[2:18:29] surrounding that. And then one major

[2:18:31] focus this year on the staff side would be

[2:18:34] really focusing on the regulatory rule

[2:18:37] making process at the state level. It is

[2:18:39] not a convenient process. On the federal

[2:18:42] level they do have the federal register

[2:18:44] which is a one stop shop on the state side

[2:18:46] they don't have that. They have a small

[2:18:48] little office of administrative law which

[2:18:51] reviews everything after the fact. It is

[2:18:53] a big priority on the staff side to really

[2:18:55] keep your board apprised of any rules and

[2:18:58] regulations that may arise throughout the

[2:19:01] year through state agencies. Lastly,

[2:19:06] staff will continue to provide the board

[2:19:09] formal positions the county takes on

[2:19:11] legislation through periodic updates and

[2:19:16] board reports and information and continue

[2:19:18] to update the website for public knowledge

[2:19:21] for formal positions the board may take.

[2:19:23] with that, I'm happy to take questions or

[2:19:26] have discussion on the platform.

[2:19:28] >> thanks joel and sorry I jumped ahead.

[2:19:31] bonnie.

[2:19:32] >> thank you joel and thank you for the

[2:19:33] in-depth briefing you gave probably all of

[2:19:37] us this past week. Appreciate the work

[2:19:41] you have done. Really important we focus

[2:19:43] on fire and forest management as we know

[2:19:46] as supervisor gustafson has said. I'm

[2:19:50] certainly supportive of the platform you

[2:19:52] worked really hard this last year. I like

[2:19:54] to ask my colleagues one question

[2:19:56] something I like to include in our

[2:19:58] advocacy. We as a board have discussed

[2:20:02] that we don't like state mandates. We

[2:20:05] have shown our frustration and quite

[2:20:09] frankly definitely frustration about the

[2:20:12] state mandates they continue to hand down.

[2:20:14] we really believe in local control and I

[2:20:19] believe in personal choice so I would like

[2:20:21] our board to consider including in our

[2:20:23] advocacy platform that we would oppose any

[2:20:27] legislation or regulation that mandates

[2:20:30] vaccination or proof of vaccination.

[2:20:34] >> I think joel just to frame up for

[2:20:38] discussion we have a element that emphasis

[2:20:43] local control and long had so anticipate

[2:20:45] this will be a embellishing and grating

[2:20:48] level of specificity for that. Probably

[2:20:52] need guidance what that verbiage would

[2:20:56] look like.

[2:20:57] >> for the specificity purposes, for staff

[2:21:00] to work best I would need a little more

[2:21:02] detail around that whether it's just the

[2:21:05] broad vague opposing vaccine mandates or

[2:21:09] just on the private sector, public sector?

[2:21:11] how do we see fit? Local control is

[2:21:14] typically related to our own governance as

[2:21:17] it is currently written so typically

[2:21:19] surrounding the land use side of things.

[2:21:23] but if the board is so willing to take a

[2:21:25] formal position to oppose vaccine mandates

[2:21:28] for not only county employees and county

[2:21:31] operational aspects but for the private

[2:21:33] sector as well I would need that

[2:21:37] specificity.

[2:21:38] >> procedurally thinking we can consider

[2:21:40] and adopt what we have in front of us

[2:21:42] today if three want to do that and then

[2:21:44] consider perhaps a modification to come

[2:21:48] back based on general direction you hear

[2:21:50] today as a pathway forward.

[2:21:54] >> I agree with that approach. I think it

[2:21:57] needs more discussion as to what we are

[2:21:59] opposing and why and how it would be

[2:22:01] worded.

[2:22:02] >> maybe kind of just go around and we can

[2:22:06] chime in and that's the commonalty among 3

[2:22:09] or 5 hopefully we can clarify that and

[2:22:13] take that approach, but just I support

[2:22:16] what you are saying bonnie. Personally I

[2:22:20] haven't seen anything after having studied

[2:22:23] the issue quite a bit that wants me to

[2:22:26] mandate anything with regards to covid and

[2:22:31] I can talk about that at nauseam I guess

[2:22:33] but that is my bottom line so if partially

[2:22:38] related to employment private public

[2:22:40] sector it is easier. I certainly am

[2:22:43] comfortable with our health department

[2:22:45] talking about recommendations for vaccines

[2:22:47] and boosters and those kinds of things,

[2:22:50] but where I am personally is I do not

[2:22:53] support any of the mandates that have thus

[2:22:56] been dictated or brought forward under

[2:22:59] emergency orders either at the state or

[2:23:02] federal level and I much prefer all of

[2:23:05] that activity being done locally with the

[2:23:08] county public health. Jim you want to add

[2:23:11] to that? Go around that way.

[2:23:13] >> I have no objection to bringing it

[2:23:16] back. -

[2:23:17] >> bring it back but with direction based

[2:23:19] on what the 5-

[2:23:20] >> I think we can all meet with joel

[2:23:23] individually.

[2:23:24] >> yeah.

[2:23:25] >> give our perspective to him so have no

[2:23:28] objection.

[2:23:30] >> suzanne.

[2:23:31] >> yes. I am in agreement that I'm

[2:23:34] against and opposed to all mandates. Be

[2:23:38] vaccine mandates, passport mandates, even

[2:23:43] mask mandates so in agreement with bonnie

[2:23:46] and robert in that we do what we can.

[2:23:50] >> bonnie.

[2:23:51] >> thank you and I think is worthwhile

[2:23:54] advocating for especially for our own

[2:23:57] employees number one. I do not want to

[2:24:00] see us mandating something where people

[2:24:02] should have a personal choice as well as

[2:24:05] they have options. We really been working

[2:24:08] with our staff to give them options. At a

[2:24:11] broader level, I think that we can support

[2:24:16] no vaccinations allowing people have to

[2:24:18] personal choice. There are folks who

[2:24:21] wanted us to mandate mandates or mandate

[2:24:24] no mandates. I want us to not have a

[2:24:26] mandate and want to encourage our

[2:24:28] residents to let them know that we don't

[2:24:30] want to see mandates handed down from the

[2:24:34] state or federal government for our

[2:24:36] residents. If we have to find a balance

[2:24:38] of that where we are advocating I'm okay

[2:24:43] but I do think we need to stand strong and

[2:24:45] just say we-this is not appropriate for us

[2:24:51] as americans and I'm so very distressed

[2:24:58] about what these vaccine mandates are

[2:25:00] doing to our law enforcement to our

[2:25:04] healthcare workers, to our military. We

[2:25:07] are losing people in occupations right and

[2:25:10] left because they are making a choice for

[2:25:13] themselves and our government is saying

[2:25:15] well, your choice doesn't matter and you

[2:25:19] lose your job. I certainly do not want

[2:25:21] that to hap in in placer county.

[2:25:25] shouldn't happen anywhere. And I do

[2:25:27] believe that local businesses also have a

[2:25:30] choice. A local business owner can make a

[2:25:33] choice for what's best for them and I

[2:25:35] don't want to as a local entity tell them

[2:25:41] they can't have something in their local

[2:25:44] business. If we say local control we want

[2:25:46] local businesses to have their choice

[2:25:47] about what works for them as they try to

[2:25:51] navigate staying open and taking care of

[2:25:53] their employees, so I appreciate you all

[2:25:56] hearing what I have to say and looks there

[2:25:58] are a couple more lights on again.

[2:26:01] >> so, suzanne did you have something more

[2:26:04] to add?

[2:26:05] >> yeah, I just are wanted to add that

[2:26:09] the-my voicing against mandates for all I

[2:26:12] include county employees and private

[2:26:14] sector as well. Our businesses and

[2:26:17] restaurants are just now in the process of

[2:26:19] recovering and I think I know our own

[2:26:22] economic interests are the upmost

[2:26:24] importance for all those working living

[2:26:27] working in-I include schools if we could,

[2:26:30] but we don't have that control and

[2:26:32] authority. Thank you.

[2:26:35] >> cindy.

[2:26:36] >> I just wanted to clarify, we know the

[2:26:40] public is very engaged and want to come if

[2:26:43] they knew we would take a position such as

[2:26:45] this so I want to make sure that we open

[2:26:47] that up and I understand who will be

[2:26:49] chairing that meeting if things go in a

[2:26:52] normal rotation, and so thank you merry

[2:26:57] christmas.

[2:26:58] [laughter]

[2:27:03] it is very controversial item and would be

[2:27:07] specific which vaccines. There are many

[2:27:10] vaccines mandated in a variety of existing

[2:27:12] professions and other inoculations

[2:27:18] required so we need to be very specific

[2:27:20] about this vaccine I think is what you are

[2:27:23] talking about and make clear what we are

[2:27:24] going to have for the public to discuss on

[2:27:27] mandates in general.

[2:27:28] >> so, why don't we consider our existing

[2:27:31] legislative platform. I think staff heard

[2:27:33] some notions and of course we individually

[2:27:37] are available to get together with joel to

[2:27:40] provide clarity and take it from there.

[2:27:43] is there anyone else from the public who

[2:27:46] would like to address this item? So,

[2:27:52] before us-pardon?

[2:27:59] >> so, I'm jennifer again still. My

[2:28:04] question is, do we have to have cal osha

[2:28:08] regulations in our county? Because I

[2:28:10] would like to see my understanding is the

[2:28:15] osha regulations and I'm not a law person,

[2:28:17] but just my understanding is it is a

[2:28:20] mandate so it isn't a law necessarily, so

[2:28:23] can we somehow include not having the osha

[2:28:27] regulations in placer county as well and

[2:28:32] either leave it up to businesses as they

[2:28:33] see fit, or maybe that's not a option.

[2:28:37] >> thanks.

[2:28:45] >> michael go ahead and unmute your mic

[2:28:47] and give your comments.

[2:28:49] >> yeah. Hi. Very encouraged by this

[2:28:53] conversation. I appreciate you guys

[2:28:56] bringing this up. I would say that there

[2:28:59] is a question about well, do we oppose a

[2:29:03] mandate for private businesses as well. I

[2:29:07] would say yes, because it is a

[2:29:09] constitutional freedom. We should have

[2:29:11] our right to make our decision.

[2:29:15] regardless of what the employer thinks.

[2:29:20] and there-I don't know if you aware and

[2:29:24] don't know if I can recall off the top,

[2:29:26] but there is many laws, federal laws

[2:29:28] against mandating vaccines. So, there is

[2:29:34] also the nuremberg study for the employer

[2:29:41] to mandate it in a lot of cases employees

[2:29:44] don't feel they have a choice. They

[2:29:46] either take a chance on a experimental

[2:29:49] emergency authorized wonder jab or they

[2:29:55] lose their job, so I would say yes, extend

[2:29:59] that to private as well. Thank you.

[2:30:04] >> chairman I see no others.

[2:30:06] >> is there a motion to approve-

[2:30:08] >> yes, move approval.

[2:30:09] >> second.

[2:30:10] >> motion gustafson, second holmes, all in

[2:30:14] favor aye. Opposed? Motion carries. In

[2:30:16] light of our time and how horrible the

[2:30:22] chair is doing, we will take up our 1015

[2:30:25] timed item so michelle can leave because I

[2:30:27] understand that needs to be continued.

[2:30:35] >> [inaudible comments] make it quick.

[2:30:40] michelle kingsbury. Staff is requesting

[2:30:45] continuance of 5a. We did not receive the

[2:30:48] ballot and been notified by the engineer

[2:30:55] there is a change of ownership so pull off

[2:30:57] the calendar to a later date as we clean

[2:31:01] up the documentation.

[2:31:02] >> move approval of the continuance of

[2:31:04] this item.

[2:31:06] >> motion gore, second gustafson. Anyone

[2:31:09] from the public who would like to address

[2:31:10] the item? Seeing none all in favor aye.

[2:31:14] opposed? Motion carries. Thank you

[2:31:16] michelle. Now we'll jump to the 1035

[2:31:20] item, which is health and human services

[2:31:22] homekey round 2 program application and is

[2:31:29] rob going to kick it off? Y rob is

[2:31:31] kicking it off.

[2:31:40] >> thank you chair weygandt and members of

[2:31:43] the board. Rob with hhs. Very grateful

[2:31:46] to amy ellis and her team who have done

[2:31:49] most of the heavy lifting on this item and

[2:31:51] will hand over to amy to present on the

[2:31:53] item in just a minute. But before I do

[2:31:55] hand it over to amy I wanted to take a few

[2:31:58] minutes to provide your board and our

[2:32:00] community with a bit of context on how

[2:32:03] this proposed homekey application fits

[2:32:06] into the bigger picture of how we are

[2:32:08] addressing homelessless in placer county.

[2:32:11] as you know, we have been working hard to

[2:32:13] address homelessness in placer now for

[2:32:16] many years and in 2015 your board

[2:32:18] contracted with dr. Robert marbit a

[2:32:21] nationally recognized expert on

[2:32:23] homelessness to help us evaluate and

[2:32:25] improve our homelessness continuum of

[2:32:27] care. Dr. Marbit's report had several

[2:32:30] recommendations for us and since 2015 we

[2:32:33] made good progress on most of those

[2:32:37] recommendations including created

[2:32:39] coordinated intake for all unhoused people

[2:32:42] seeking services, coordinating information

[2:32:45] sharing between the homeless services

[2:32:47] providers making improvements to the

[2:32:49] homeless management information system,

[2:32:51] targeting programs like whole person care

[2:32:53] to address chronic homelessness surging

[2:32:56] back in 2015 and adding resources that

[2:32:59] addressed our critical gap in emergency

[2:33:01] and transitional houses and services for

[2:33:04] single adults identified in the report.

[2:33:08] in the last 6 years since the report

[2:33:11] homelessness has surged dramatically

[2:33:13] across california and in the sacramento

[2:33:16] region yet we have seen much more modest

[2:33:18] increases here in placer. Placer now has

[2:33:22] the lowest rate of homelessness in

[2:33:24] northern california and the lowest rate of

[2:33:26] unsheltered homelessness in the state.

[2:33:29] none the less, homelessness is a serious

[2:33:32] problem and increasingly visible in

[2:33:35] certain areas, particularly the homeless

[2:33:39] encampments on public property like at the

[2:33:41] placer conte government center. In

[2:33:44] addition some of the long standing

[2:33:46] approaches to addressing homelessness in

[2:33:48] placer county have been called into

[2:33:49] question recently and we have seen

[2:33:51] increasing interest in the issue of

[2:33:53] homelessness from our cities and some

[2:33:55] other stakeholders who have not

[2:33:57] historically participated in our continuum

[2:34:00] of care. Earlier this year your board

[2:34:02] director staff to organize regional

[2:34:05] homelessness action plan that involved our

[2:34:07] cities. That planning process kicked off

[2:34:09] with the placer county regional

[2:34:11] homelessness summit june 30 and for the

[2:34:14] past 5 months county and city staff have

[2:34:19] and elected officials have been working

[2:34:21] together to learn more about our existing

[2:34:22] continuum of care and been exploring how

[2:34:25] to work more effectively together to

[2:34:32] better prevent homelessness. The initial

[2:34:34] phase of the planning process will come to

[2:34:35] the end later this month. The

[2:34:38] participants hope to bring recommendation

[2:34:42] to this board city council and community

[2:34:44] for input early next year. While the

[2:34:46] regional action planning process includes

[2:34:48] a set of structured and sequential steps

[2:34:51] it remained flexible enough to take

[2:34:55] advantage of time limit and competitive

[2:34:59] opportunities that emerged during the

[2:35:00] process and the process recognizes these

[2:35:02] opportunities may require action before

[2:35:04] the plan is complete. Today's item is one

[2:35:07] such opportunity. Homekey 2.0 released in

[2:35:12] september and represent a highly

[2:35:13] competitive process with applications due

[2:35:15] in january. Not only is the application

[2:35:18] process extremely competitive applications

[2:35:21] are being considered on a rolling first

[2:35:23] time first serve basis thus making it

[2:35:26] necessary we gain board support for as

[2:35:28] many elements of the application as

[2:35:30] possible to insure we are viable. The

[2:35:33] recommendations from the regional planning

[2:35:35] process have not been finalized it is

[2:35:38] understood our continuum of care is in

[2:35:39] need of more housing resources. And

[2:35:42] particularly more permanent supportive

[2:35:44] housing. For many year our continuum of

[2:35:48] care has been providing financial support

[2:35:50] to non-profit to purchase and operate

[2:35:53] permanent supportive housing.

[2:35:55] historically most residents of permanent

[2:35:57] supportive housing have been very

[2:35:59] successful and not had many issues with

[2:36:01] the neighbors. In the last couple years

[2:36:05] there is concern expressed by a few of our

[2:36:07] newer sites particularly in communities

[2:36:11] that did not have much previous experience

[2:36:13] with permanent supportive housing. As a

[2:36:17] matter that concern and desire to work

[2:36:18] more closely with our cities on

[2:36:20] identifying potential permanent supporting

[2:36:23] housing sites the county hasn't funded any

[2:36:26] new [inaudible comments] over a year now.

[2:36:30] given our collective commitment to

[2:36:32] strengthen our partnership the county has

[2:36:34] been working very closely with the

[2:36:36] potentially impacted jurisdictions on this

[2:36:38] homekey application and we look forward to

[2:36:40] beginning the process of adding permanent

[2:36:44] supportive housing and much needed

[2:36:46] elements to our continuum of care in close

[2:36:48] collaboration with our cities and other

[2:36:51] jurisdictions. Before I hand it over to

[2:36:53] amy ellis I wanted to publicly thank amy

[2:36:56] and her team for the tremendous passion

[2:36:58] knowledge and effort they brought to this

[2:37:00] very challenging homekey application

[2:37:02] process. I also like to thank our

[2:37:05] partners internal partners like facility

[2:37:07] management county counsel [inaudible

[2:37:12] comments] who have done an amazing job to

[2:37:16] pull challenging pieces together and what

[2:37:18] has been a short response window. Without

[2:37:21] further ado amy please take it away.

[2:37:24] >> thank you.

[2:37:28] >> just to congratulations again to rob

[2:37:30] you and your team for the grants and

[2:37:31] success we are having. A lot of this is

[2:37:34] new territory and we are all trying to

[2:37:36] figure the best path and it isn't easy, it

[2:37:39] is quite difficult so congratulations for

[2:37:41] the achievements you have gotten so far.

[2:37:46] >> yes, thank you supervisor weygandt and

[2:37:51] dr. Oldham. I want to agree our county

[2:37:54] team here and partner agencies have been

[2:37:58] amazing to collaborate with as typical

[2:38:00] placer is a really special place to work

[2:38:02] and be able to get complicated things

[2:38:05] done. They are capability passionate and

[2:38:09] creative problem solvers. Members of the

[2:38:12] beard I am bringing two actions forward.

[2:38:15] the first is adoption resolution regarding

[2:38:17] the implementation of the homekey program

[2:38:19] to first a, award the request for

[2:38:23] proposal, rfp 20229 for mentally ill

[2:38:28] housing incorporating for the operation

[2:38:30] rehabilitation acquisition and transition

[2:38:32] services stemming from projects roomkey

[2:38:34] and homekey. B, to approve an agreement

[2:38:37] with advocates for mentally housing

[2:38:39] incorporated for operation rehabilitation

[2:38:42] acquisition and transition services

[2:38:44] stemming from as a result of rfp 20229 not

[2:38:52] to exceed 4 million 692 thousand 845

[2:38:55] dollars from december 14, 2021 through

[2:38:58] june 30, $2023 and authorize health and

[2:39:03] human subs to execute the agreement with

[2:39:05] risk management and county counsel and

[2:39:07] sign subsequent amendments up to hundred

[2:39:10] thousand. The second would be to adopt

[2:39:16] resolution authorizing the director of

[2:39:18] health and human services or designee to

[2:39:21] apply for a grant from california housing

[2:39:23] and community development for homekey

[2:39:25] round two in the amount not to exceed $25

[2:39:29] million and to sign the resulting

[2:39:31] agreement and all related documentation

[2:39:35] and forms with risk management and county

[2:39:37] council concurrence. As dr. Oldham

[2:39:40] mentioned thee items come forward on a

[2:39:42] expedited timeline to insure the best

[2:39:45] chance of being successful in the grant

[2:39:46] application for homekey round two. In

[2:39:49] order to potentially bring a new project

[2:39:51] to the south placer region. On september

[2:39:54] 9, 2021 the department of housing and

[2:39:57] community development issued a notice of

[2:40:00] funding available for the round two

[2:40:02] funding of homekey. This $1.45 billion of

[2:40:07] funding is meant to build on the project

[2:40:10] of roomkey and first round of homekey.

[2:40:14] our first program was the brown bear stew

[2:40:18] studios in king's beach. In the past few

[2:40:21] years placer county has been able to seek

[2:40:24] state funding to add additional units of

[2:40:26] permanent supportive housing for

[2:40:28] renovating apartment buildings and or

[2:40:30] hotels and motels. By renovating existing

[2:40:34] structures we have been able to add

[2:40:37] additional units of very low housing

[2:40:39] income housing for roughly 175 to 250

[2:40:43] thousand per unit. These types of

[2:40:45] projects create studio and small 1 or 2

[2:40:48] bedroom apartments often with a small

[2:40:52] kitchenette. This allows individuals who

[2:40:55] would be more successful in non-shared

[2:40:57] housing get out of shelters and out of

[2:40:59] homelessness. Residents typically pay

[2:41:02] about 30 percent of their income and

[2:41:04] receive on site services geared

[2:41:07] maintaining the housing and accessing

[2:41:09] needed support. Placer county staff have

[2:41:12] been working to prepare a home key

[2:41:13] application for funding toward the

[2:41:15] acquisition renovation and operation of a

[2:41:19] project with potential to house between 75

[2:41:22] and 90 individuals and families. It is

[2:41:25] estimated that the county application will

[2:41:27] request up to $25 million towards this

[2:41:30] project

[2:41:31] [streaming cut out]

[2:41:33] fund the acquisition. Specific details

[2:41:39] and public notice would be provided before

[2:41:41] any acquisition of property from homekey

[2:41:44] grant funds and brought to your board for

[2:41:46] authorization at a later date. As a

[2:41:48] result of the identified community need

[2:41:50] and potential availability of state

[2:41:52] funding rfp 20229 [inaudible comments] a

[2:41:58] hotel or motel conversion to permanent

[2:42:01] site in the south placer region.

[2:42:04] additionally, in march of 2020, the state

[2:42:07] launched project roomkey. This is a time

[2:42:10] limited funding for cities and counties to

[2:42:12] operate non-congregate shelter for people

[2:42:17] experiences homelessness infected with

[2:42:19] exposed or high risk of complication from

[2:42:22] covid-19. While expected to be short-term

[2:42:24] funding for project roomkey is anticipated

[2:42:26] to continue and carry on into fiscal year

[2:42:29] 2022, 23 budget. Because of its extension

[2:42:35] within that same rfp we sought a

[2:42:39] organization to assume the operation of

[2:42:42] placer project roomkey and the transition

[2:42:45] of the program when funds no longer

[2:42:47] continue. Finally within the same rfp a

[2:42:51] solicitation made for technical assistance

[2:42:53] to support the application of funds and

[2:42:55] for moving forward new opportunities for

[2:42:57] additional affordable and permanent

[2:43:03] supporting housing. Advocates for

[2:43:06] mentally ill housing has served as a

[2:43:08] provider in placer county since august

[2:43:11] 2003. Since then [inaudible comments]

[2:43:14] grown to offer an array of housing

[2:43:15] supports. For both placer and nevada

[2:43:18] county. They specialize in supporting the

[2:43:20] housing needs of very low income residents

[2:43:22] with mental health and substance use

[2:43:25] disorders. Amy housing renovated and

[2:43:28] operate placer first homekey project

[2:43:30] located in king's beach and another main

[2:43:33] street plaza apartment in downtown

[2:43:37] roseville. Renovating and [inaudible

[2:43:43] comments] as a result of the track record

[2:43:44] and response to the rfp they were selected

[2:43:46] to contract for all four components within

[2:43:49] the rfp. The acquisition and renovation

[2:43:53] if successful with the homekey operation

[2:43:55] homekey program operation, program roomkey

[2:43:59] program operation and technical

[2:44:01] assistance. The purchase price majority

[2:44:03] of renovations and some operating costs

[2:44:06] would be paid by through the homekey round

[2:44:09] 2 funding. And the balance would be paid

[2:44:12] with federal state and local funds. No

[2:44:14] county general fund are required. We will

[2:44:17] come back to update your board to the

[2:44:19] status of this very highly competitive

[2:44:22] application and hopefully with some good

[2:44:25] news. I want to thank your board for

[2:44:29] listening to this and let you know we also

[2:44:31] have jennifer price from amy housing,

[2:44:34] procurement and facility staff needed to

[2:44:36] answer questions and rob and myself of

[2:44:38] course.

[2:44:39] >> thank you. Any questions from board

[2:44:41] members? Jim.

[2:44:43] >> thank you amy. I'm right here.

[2:44:48] [laughter]

[2:44:49] no, I really appreciate bringing this

[2:44:53] forward. It is a excellent opportunity to

[2:44:55] move forward to find more housing for

[2:44:57] folks and I toured the amy housing

[2:45:00] programs. They have been very successful.

[2:45:03] not much-not many people critical of the

[2:45:09] program. It works really well so I thank

[2:45:12] jennifer for her work on this over the

[2:45:13] years and then I'm very supportive of

[2:45:16] moving forward with this.

[2:45:17] >> thank you. Cindy then suzanne.

[2:45:20] >> thank you. I too am really supportive

[2:45:23] and pleased with amy housing and the

[2:45:25] programs that we already have gotten going

[2:45:28] in king's beach and where we are headed.

[2:45:31] I had one question today from a

[2:45:33] constituent about the continuation of this

[2:45:38] opportunity with homekey versus maybe

[2:45:41] other efforts with the campus of hope and

[2:45:43] the gathering in. Could you speak to that

[2:45:46] issue because I like to have a good

[2:45:48] response to our constituents on how many

[2:45:51] do we need and how many-

[2:45:54] >> I will let rob--

[2:45:56] >> okay.

[2:45:57] >> thanks supervisor gustafson. That

[2:46:03] relates to the discussion about the larger

[2:46:05] process of this homelessness action plan

[2:46:09] involving our cities and so that work is

[2:46:12] not complete yet. I think we'll be the

[2:46:14] purview of that group when they come

[2:46:17] together with some recommendations and

[2:46:19] actually I think the next phase of that

[2:46:21] process will be getting specific about

[2:46:23] implementation ideas which includes actual

[2:46:28] locations and specifics of projects, I

[2:46:30] think the work right now of the process is

[2:46:37] really working. As I mentioned working

[2:46:39] with the cities and others to understand

[2:46:42] what resources are available right now.

[2:46:45] looking at continuum of care. Getting all

[2:46:47] on the same page and then thinking about

[2:46:50] big picture strategies of what we want to

[2:46:53] together and how to work more effectively

[2:46:55] together and getting to specific project

[2:46:58] ideas. There is nothing in this homekey

[2:47:01] application that would prevent moving

[2:47:05] forward on the campus for hope is a idea I

[2:47:09] know pretty well, but other potential

[2:47:12] projects as well. Amy, anything else you

[2:47:14] like to say about that?

[2:47:15] >> just two. Just to highlight what rob

[2:47:18] is saying. We know from just doing the

[2:47:20] work and how many vouchers and how many

[2:47:23] people we are working with ready for

[2:47:25] housing that if we are successful with

[2:47:27] receiving these funds and able to pull off

[2:47:29] a project roughly the size I mentioned

[2:47:34] there needs to be continued opportunities

[2:47:36] and projects in the future that it won't

[2:47:38] meet all of the needs, so I think this is

[2:47:41] one step that is taking some-it is taking

[2:47:45] opportunity of the timeline of this

[2:47:47] funding that is coming down to help

[2:47:50] communities solves these issues and there

[2:47:52] will be more opportunities.

[2:47:53] >> great. With this money is available

[2:47:55] right now we are ready to go, we have

[2:47:58] potential project and we want to move on

[2:48:01] this, but at last count our census far

[2:48:05] exceeded this. This is only a 10th of the

[2:48:08] folks we need to help so there is plenty

[2:48:10] room for growth.

[2:48:11] >> one more thing just to add is that

[2:48:12] these competitive funds require a very

[2:48:15] fast timeline on completion and being able

[2:48:19] to move folks in. So, we already talked

[2:48:23] about we know more funds will be coming

[2:48:25] and we need to get those plans together

[2:48:27] and get our projects together sooner so we

[2:48:29] are ready to go because by the time they

[2:48:33] come out we have to pretty much they have

[2:48:36] to be ready to roll.

[2:48:37] >> great. Thank you.

[2:48:39] >> suzanne.

[2:48:40] >> hi, amy. Thank you. I have a question

[2:48:43] for my constituents as well on any time

[2:48:46] they see money going to omni housing or

[2:48:49] gathering in they wonder will the funds be

[2:48:53] used for individual permanent supportive

[2:48:56] housing homes?

[2:48:58] >> so, yes. This will, but it is

[2:49:02] different strategy then we used prior. We

[2:49:05] have very limited supply related to this

[2:49:08] type of housing. I mentioned them, the

[2:49:13] king's beach project which is small in the

[2:49:16] tahoe region is one, and then we do have a

[2:49:19] couple of others smaller projects, but it

[2:49:23] is not the same model as some of your

[2:49:26] constituents expressed concerns about

[2:49:28] related to homes or in neighborhoods or

[2:49:32] things like that. This is not new

[2:49:35] approach, but it is different and we have

[2:49:38] taken in a lot of that community feedback

[2:49:41] into our planning and our thoughts related

[2:49:43] to this this potential project.

[2:49:45] >> okay.

[2:49:46] >> and rob sorry, did you want to add to

[2:49:49] that?

[2:49:50] >> just to say I think we've supervisor

[2:49:54] thank you for the question. We talked

[2:49:55] with some of your constituents about these

[2:49:57] concerns and one of the big concerns is

[2:49:59] around communication and around again

[2:50:01] engagement with our cities and other

[2:50:03] partners and so I think that is our

[2:50:06] commitment including on this application

[2:50:08] as I mentioned we have been working very

[2:50:10] closely with the jurisdictions about the

[2:50:13] potential for this project and so I think

[2:50:15] that is maybe what is different or going

[2:50:19] forward what we will commit to on any

[2:50:22] permanent supportive housing before we at

[2:50:25] least from the county perspective we fund.

[2:50:27] there are other potential funders of

[2:50:29] permanent supportive houses. Lesson

[2:50:35] learned we need to do a better job of

[2:50:39] communication and coordination

[2:50:40] specifically on the location is a concern.

[2:50:42] I think in general there is strong support

[2:50:46] for the idea of more housing resources and

[2:50:49] more permanent supportive housing but it

[2:50:53] is about the implementation and where

[2:50:54] those go and how so that is what we are

[2:50:56] working closely with the jurisdictions on

[2:50:59] on this case of getting that right.

[2:51:02] >> okay. And then lastly, my constituent

[2:51:06] would like a better understanding of how

[2:51:08] you select the particular individuals and

[2:51:12] how you decide where they are going to be

[2:51:16] placed.

[2:51:18] >> the actual people who get in?

[2:51:21] >> the criteria.

[2:51:22] >> yeah, some of that is dependent on the

[2:51:25] fund utilized for the project. Homekey

[2:51:29] funds actually you have to kind of-they

[2:51:33] require us to use our coordinated entry

[2:51:36] process, so which is what all our housing

[2:51:39] providers these days are using which is

[2:51:41] nice. Individuals who are on our what we

[2:51:44] call a by name list are screened for their

[2:51:49] vulnerability, their income levels and

[2:51:56] many other factors. In fact we have amy

[2:52:00] housing here if we have specifics to the

[2:52:04] question because the operators make the

[2:52:06] final determination so she is better to

[2:52:08] answer specifically. In general we look

[2:52:11] at the criteria and make the best

[2:52:16] determination like any landlord. There is

[2:52:19] a interview process for these units and

[2:52:23] they are selected after that rigorous

[2:52:25] application process and interview process.

[2:52:27] >> okay. That would be great if she could

[2:52:31] chime in a little bit.

[2:52:33] >> sure.

[2:52:42] >> good morning. Jennifer price ceo for

[2:52:47] amy housing. We will select individuals

[2:52:51] off the coordinated entry list so we will

[2:52:54] look for folks with the highest need in

[2:52:55] our community but then we also have to use

[2:52:58] the state policy of housing first, so we

[2:53:01] can't deny them for any reason that would

[2:53:03] go against housing first. So, what we

[2:53:06] will be doing is looking for folks who we

[2:53:09] think need the housing the most but won't

[2:53:12] take folks who are on megan's law or who

[2:53:15] have a serious violent felonies or issues

[2:53:19] of that nature, so we are trying to house

[2:53:22] the people most in need but who don't

[2:53:25] wouldn't put your-the other tenants in

[2:53:28] danger.

[2:53:29] >> do some of your tenants have mental

[2:53:35] issues they are recovering from?

[2:53:37] >> could be, yes.

[2:53:41] >> okay. That's good enough.

[2:53:43] >> I wanted to speak to that really quick.

[2:53:45] we also depending on who entered we create

[2:53:48] those services and support plans for each

[2:53:50] individual and for the facility as a

[2:53:53] whole, so there would be staffing

[2:53:55] available onsite and then in addition each

[2:53:58] individual with additional needs such as

[2:54:00] that would have case management usually

[2:54:03] often times from my team intensive case

[2:54:05] management helping to have individual

[2:54:08] plans and keeping-some goals maintained at

[2:54:12] to support their housing and some goals to

[2:54:14] continue their progression on the mental

[2:54:17] health or substance use needs.

[2:54:18] >> that leads to another question then.

[2:54:21] it was my understanding the state with the

[2:54:23] permanent supportive housing is that they

[2:54:25] won't allow 24/7 type supervision, so like

[2:54:30] in the permanent supportive housing

[2:54:32] individual homes that there are no

[2:54:35] supervisor type folks on the premises.

[2:54:39] >> living there, right. You are right,

[2:54:41] there are different types of programs,

[2:54:44] different funding, different

[2:54:47] circumstances, but with these homekey

[2:54:48] funds with a larger project such as this

[2:54:50] there would be onsite support.

[2:54:52] >> okay, great. Thanks so much.

[2:54:56] >> jim.

[2:54:58] >> amy, main street plaza and roseville

[2:55:05] they have a manager on site?

[2:55:06] >> yes.

[2:55:07] >> that is 19 units?

[2:55:08] >> I believe that one has day time staff

[2:55:11] not sure if 24/7. I'm getting a nod. But

[2:55:15] this one we are projecting to have 24/7

[2:55:20] support on site.

[2:55:21] >> they have 24 hour on site person who

[2:55:23] lives there as well as day time staff.

[2:55:26] >> good. Thank you.

[2:55:32] >> okay. Is there anyone from the public

[2:55:34] who would like to address this item?

[2:55:41] >> michael go ahead and unmute your mic

[2:55:43] and give your comments.

[2:55:46] >> thank you. So, when someone gets

[2:55:50] access to the housing do they have it

[2:55:55] indefinitely or temporary or is-

[2:55:59] >> this is permanent if they get access to

[2:56:03] the housing, so long as they are paying

[2:56:05] their rent and keeping the rules of their

[2:56:09] lease then this would be their home until

[2:56:11] they chose to leave.

[2:56:14] >> okay. Okay. So, do you work with any

[2:56:19] churches at all with placing and

[2:56:24] counseling stuff like that?

[2:56:25] >> so, yes. We have many partnerships

[2:56:28] with faith based organizations and other

[2:56:31] service providers who all put use 211 to

[2:56:37] put any individual in need on a

[2:56:38] coordinated entry list which then they are

[2:56:41] given a vulnerability scale, so their need

[2:56:44] level and a screening process through a

[2:56:46] application for rental.

[2:56:49] >> okay, thank you.

[2:56:52] >> okay, with that, I'll bring it back to

[2:56:56] the board. We have two items in front of

[2:57:00] us. The resolution regarding the

[2:57:01] implementation of homekey and the

[2:57:03] resolution authorizing the director to

[2:57:07] apply for a new grant.

[2:57:08] >> move approval.

[2:57:09] >> second.

[2:57:10] >> motion holmes, second gore. All in

[2:57:13] favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

[2:57:16] thank you.

[2:57:17] >> thank you.

[2:57:28] >> our agenda is really gotten kind of

[2:57:32] tripped up and keeping in mind be have a

[2:57:35] 12:30 item come back to that is timed but

[2:57:38] we will be late for that because we are

[2:57:40] late so we are late. Let's accept that.

[2:57:43] we will take item 4a which is

[2:57:45] transportation fee capital improvement

[2:57:47] program update.

[2:58:00] >> good morning chairman weygandt, members

[2:58:03] of the board. Katie jackson and I'm a

[2:58:05] senior engineering with the placer county

[2:58:07] department of public works. I'm here

[2:58:09] today with a overview of proposed update

[2:58:12] to the tahoe transportation fee program

[2:58:16] and joined on the zoom call by our

[2:58:19] consultant team matt [inaudible comments]

[2:58:23] gordon shaw. Today we seeking adoption of

[2:58:30] the update to the tahoe fee district

[2:58:32] program, tahoe capital improvement program

[2:58:35] and nexus study and seeking direction for

[2:58:37] update to the transit project list for

[2:58:39] establishing future zones of benefit in

[2:58:41] the tahoe fee district. Next slide,

[2:58:44] please. So, today I'll provide a brief

[2:58:51] overview of our existing program. I'll

[2:58:54] talk about the proposed updates to the fee

[2:58:57] program and discuss associated changes to

[2:58:59] the the zone of benefit project list and

[2:59:02] open up to questions or comments. Next

[2:59:06] slide, please. So, our transportation fee

[2:59:09] program or traffic fee program is a

[2:59:11] funding mechanism applied to new

[2:59:13] development both residential and are non

[2:59:15] residential and the fees along with other

[2:59:17] funding sources are used to fund

[2:59:21] improvements to transportation network

[2:59:22] needed as a result of new development.

[2:59:24] the tahoe fee district is one of 11 fee

[2:59:27] districts in our county wide traffic fee

[2:59:32] program started in 1996 and you see the

[2:59:36] geography on the slide. It includes

[2:59:40] unincorporated area. Currently the fee is

[2:59:43] $5440 per dwelling unit equivalent and the

[2:59:47] fee program is governed by placer county

[2:59:50] code as well as state law including the

[2:59:52] mitigation fee act. Next slide, please.

[2:59:57] so, typically our fees are used in cun

[3:00:01] junction with other funding sources to

[3:00:02] build projects. Often our fees are local

[3:00:05] match to leverage grant funding. Placer

[3:00:08] is successful securing grant funding here

[3:00:10] so between 2008 and 2018 there were 10

[3:00:14] projects that were funded by traffic fees

[3:00:16] in the tahoe fee district. Over that 10

[3:00:19] year period fees funded in average of 7

[3:00:22] percent of project costs. The fee

[3:00:25] contribution on any individual project

[3:00:27] ranged from 2 percent to 65 percent of

[3:00:29] project costs with that overall average at

[3:00:32] 7 percent. Of course our other funding

[3:00:34] sources include federal and state grant

[3:00:36] programs as well as tot funds and other

[3:00:39] sources. Next slide, please. Our fee

[3:00:42] programs updated periodically to insure

[3:00:44] they align with the latest agency

[3:00:47] priorities funding levels and development

[3:00:49] projections. The tahoe fee district last

[3:00:54] updated in 2017 with adoption of the tahoe

[3:00:56] basin area plan. Since then sb743 has

[3:01:00] gone into effect. It requires all lead

[3:01:03] agencies under ceqa including the county

[3:01:05] shift from analyzing automobile delay or

[3:01:08] level of service to analyzing vehicle

[3:01:10] miles traveled or vmt in the ceqa

[3:01:13] documents. This change is prompting local

[3:01:16] agencies to evaluate the need capacity

[3:01:19] increasing project and look for additional

[3:01:21] funding for bicycle pedestrian and transit

[3:01:23] projects. Additionally, the resort

[3:01:26] triangle transportation plan adopted by

[3:01:28] your board in 2020 and that plan

[3:01:31] establishes the long range vision for the

[3:01:33] transportation network in the tahoe fee

[3:01:36] district and so looking to incorporate

[3:01:40] many of them projects identified in that

[3:01:43] plan. Next slide, please. So, very

[3:01:49] simply, the amount of the fee is

[3:01:51] established through a series of technical

[3:01:52] calculations in the nexus study. Develop

[3:01:57] a project list and associated cost

[3:01:59] estimate, then estimate the portion of

[3:02:00] cost that are attributable to new

[3:02:03] development, and then allocate those costs

[3:02:05] over the projected development in a

[3:02:07] specific area. Next slide, please. So

[3:02:11] our project list was developed based on

[3:02:14] adopted plans in the area including the

[3:02:16] resort triangle transportation plan, the

[3:02:18] tart system plan, the tahoe basin area

[3:02:22] plan and other approve environmental

[3:02:24] documents. With this update we propose to

[3:02:26] shift the focus of the fee district from

[3:02:28] level of service to reduction of vehicle

[3:02:31] miles traveled. This slide shows a sample

[3:02:34] of the project list, the projects span

[3:02:36] these 4 major categories including bike

[3:02:39] and pedestrian infrastructure, transit

[3:02:42] expansion, parking management and fuel

[3:02:46] level of service or safety projects.

[3:02:48] because we shift the focus toward vmt we

[3:02:51] move away from capital intensive projects

[3:02:57] towards a capital component and operating

[3:02:59] cost like transit expansion. The fee

[3:03:01] program can only pay for the capital

[3:03:04] component of the projects and because of

[3:03:06] that we propose a funding strategy that

[3:03:08] includes both the fee program update as

[3:03:10] well as updates to future zones of benefit

[3:03:13] so we have a ongoing local funding source

[3:03:16] that can provide a portion of our

[3:03:17] operating costs as well. Next slide,

[3:03:20] please. So, as part of the update we

[3:03:24] estimated the vmt reduction for projects

[3:03:27] on the cip list as well as other vmt

[3:03:30] reducing programs. In total vmt can be

[3:03:34] reduced by about $4.7 million annually.

[3:03:37] the majority of the reduction as you see

[3:03:39] on the slide comes from transit expansion

[3:03:41] projects. All most 20 percent come from

[3:03:44] parking management and travel demand with

[3:03:48] remaining 7 percent coming from bicycle

[3:03:50] and pedestrian infrastructure. Next

[3:03:53] slide, please. So, with this proposed

[3:03:57] update the fee amount would be reduced.

[3:03:59] the current fee is $5440 per dwelling unit

[3:04:04] equivalent and with this update the fee

[3:04:06] would be $3528 per dwelling unit

[3:04:09] equivalent. While the project list is

[3:04:12] expanding the cost of attributing to new

[3:04:14] development is decreasing and that is due

[3:04:16] in part to the shift in methodology to

[3:04:19] vmt. New development is not fully

[3:04:22] responsible for reducing our vmt and

[3:04:24] therefore only a portion of the costs are

[3:04:28] attributable to the new development

[3:04:29] through the fee program. Other components

[3:04:31] of this update include refinement to the

[3:04:34] dwelling unit equivalent factors with the

[3:04:36] proposed update the amount of the fee

[3:04:39] would vary by land use type. We are also

[3:04:42] proposing a fee for deed restricted

[3:04:46] affordable housing in half. Proposing to

[3:04:48] rename the fee district from the tahoe

[3:04:50] traffic fee to the tahoe transportation

[3:04:53] fee to better reflect the variety of

[3:04:55] projects on the list. And as I mentioned

[3:04:57] earlier the project list has a both

[3:05:00] capital cost which can be partially funded

[3:05:02] through the fee program and those ongoing

[3:05:04] operational expenses which we propose-why

[3:05:08] we are proposing of the joan zone of

[3:05:12] benefit project list which I'll go over in

[3:05:14] a second. Next slide, please. So, this

[3:05:18] slide illustrates the fee amount for

[3:05:21] common land use types. As mentioned

[3:05:23] earlier the updates to the dwelling unit

[3:05:25] equivalent factor result in varying

[3:05:27] changes in the fee by land use type which

[3:05:29] is illustrated on this slide. We looked

[3:05:33] at about 38 different land use types and

[3:05:35] there is one land use that would see a

[3:05:38] slight increase in the fee with this

[3:05:40] proposal and that is the gas station with

[3:05:43] convenience market. That land use would

[3:05:45] see increase by about $235 per fueling

[3:05:49] position under this update. Next slide,

[3:05:52] please. So, of zone of benefit is another

[3:05:57] common funding mechanism and this could be

[3:06:00] used to fund ongoing expenses associated

[3:06:04] with a development. We are talking

[3:06:07] transit service expansion. With the zone

[3:06:09] of benefit we can establish assessment the

[3:06:11] property owner would pay annually with

[3:06:13] their taxes. With their property taxes.

[3:06:15] we do have a handful of existing zones of

[3:06:18] benefit in this area, those would not be

[3:06:20] subject to the update. We are talking

[3:06:23] proposing this for new growth only. The

[3:06:26] transit zones of benefit that have been

[3:06:29] established have a fee that range from $50

[3:06:32] to $70 per developing unit per year but

[3:06:36] the proposed update we look at expansion

[3:06:39] of the project list and future growth

[3:06:41] would have assessment between $150-250 per

[3:06:48] year. Those are preliminary estimates and

[3:06:50] the amount depends how much other funding

[3:06:52] is dedicated to transit. The funds would

[3:06:54] be used for transit expansion meaning

[3:06:57] increasing the frequency of the transit

[3:06:59] service, expanding the hours or days of

[3:07:02] operation and implementing new transit

[3:07:04] lines. We can also provide a permanent

[3:07:06] funding source for current pilot programs

[3:07:08] like our fare free tart service and tart

[3:07:13] connect micro transit service. With

[3:07:15] adoption of the fee program today we are

[3:07:17] also seeking direction to expand the

[3:07:20] project list for future development to

[3:07:23] fund these ongoing operational components.

[3:07:26] next slide, please. So we started this

[3:07:31] program update about a year ago and over

[3:07:34] the last month we have been working on

[3:07:36] outreach with our stakeholder group as

[3:07:38] well as the public and as well as

[3:07:41] finalizing our nexus study. If the

[3:07:45] program is adopted today it will go into

[3:07:48] effect 60 days from now feb 14 and as

[3:07:51] supervisor gustafson mentioned we are

[3:07:54] working closely with the t r pa to the

[3:07:58] mobility mitigation program. Next slide,

[3:08:00] please. So, this is the action requested

[3:08:03] today. I can read it if you like but in

[3:08:06] essence we are proposing an adoption of

[3:08:09] the capital improvement program the tahoe

[3:08:12] transportation fee district, the nexus

[3:08:14] study and as well as direction to staff

[3:08:17] for expanding our zone of benefit project

[3:08:20] list for future growth.

[3:08:25] >> thank you. Any questions from board

[3:08:29] members at the time? Cindy.

[3:08:31] >> first off thanks to staff. Richard,

[3:08:34] kim, katie, especially for all your hard

[3:08:35] work on this and I just wanted to the rest

[3:08:37] of the board to hear the numbers we are

[3:08:39] talking about within the basin in

[3:08:41] comparison because again, the

[3:08:45] disproportionate hit in the basin for new

[3:08:48] development through t r pa mobility fee is

[3:08:51] much greater then what we will be

[3:08:53] proposing in the areas outside of the

[3:08:54] tahoe basin lines. For a home a single

[3:09:00] family home our new fee in placer county,

[3:09:04] $3528 within the basin it could range

[3:09:08] anywhere from $3700 up to $13 thousand.

[3:09:15] potentially based on where it is located

[3:09:17] whether in a what they call a low vmt area

[3:09:20] close to is a town center where they can

[3:09:22] bike and walk versus a high vmt area, so

[3:09:26] very very significant cost differential.

[3:09:30] on a-

[3:09:31] >> I know, I will get to you.

[3:09:32] >> I want to understand that. Can you

[3:09:37] reexplain that? I'm trying to get-

[3:09:39] >> katie is probably better explaining it

[3:09:41] but the fees within a tahoe basin for

[3:09:45] mobility and vmt reduction within the

[3:09:47] basin under t r pa are higher then what

[3:09:51] placer county is looking at outside of the

[3:09:55] basin that would have been proposed had

[3:09:58] there not been a bistate agency overseeing

[3:10:01] the basin.

[3:10:02] >> got it.

[3:10:04] >> so what I been arguing throughout and

[3:10:09] why I seem crazy because I go to way too

[3:10:12] many meetings on transportation, I want to

[3:10:15] get credit as placer county from our

[3:10:18] businesses generating money and reinvest

[3:10:21] ing in micro mass transit, transportation

[3:10:23] solutions with tot and t bid money I want

[3:10:27] to make sure our businesses or new growth

[3:10:30] we can offset some of the higher fees they

[3:10:35] want to charge because we will go back not

[3:10:37] seeing new development redevelopment. The

[3:10:41] single family homes are probably less a

[3:10:43] concern because anybody building

[3:10:46] affordable housing gets a waver, reduced

[3:10:49] fee, but for the mega mansions, they will

[3:10:52] pay a pretty significant fee for those.

[3:10:55] so, this is-staff brought it to me

[3:10:59] attention. We have been trying to work

[3:11:01] through it. We are continuing our efforts

[3:11:03] with t r pa to credit placer county

[3:11:06] because we are the only jurisdiction in

[3:11:08] the basin supplementing transportation

[3:11:11] services at this level, and because of

[3:11:14] that our businesses in our town centers

[3:11:18] need to get credit for that.

[3:11:20] >> can I clarify. In addition to the fee

[3:11:25] charged we are reducing, there is also

[3:11:27] going to be a t r pa fee which is even

[3:11:31] higher so this is helpful to a certain

[3:11:35] extent because it reduces the fee on our

[3:11:37] end, and are then we are the only

[3:11:40] jurisdiction that has a fee like this.

[3:11:42] >> that is higher actually--yes. Not

[3:11:48] only-his is for new development but we are

[3:11:50] already supplementing transportation out

[3:11:52] of our general fund to the tune of several

[3:11:56] millions a year in transit operations

[3:12:02] including what we supported with micro

[3:12:03] mass transit so we have a complicated

[3:12:06] agreement to work out with trpa and I

[3:12:09] appreciate your support working with them.

[3:12:11] they assured me there are ways to credit

[3:12:13] our business community with the tbid and I

[3:12:16] was going to also ask our staff a question

[3:12:18] that on the zones of benefit and in our

[3:12:22] discussions there can we hold until we see

[3:12:25] what is going to happen in agreement with

[3:12:28] the t r pa because the tbid to me is what

[3:12:31] we campaigned for and supported in order

[3:12:34] to supplement our transportation funding

[3:12:36] to turn around ask those people to pay a

[3:12:40] zone of benefit charge, I would hope the

[3:12:43] county we can see the wisdom of the

[3:12:46] collective good on a tbid versus

[3:12:50] individual zones of benefit for small

[3:12:55] redevelopment project. There is a

[3:12:56] question among my education be it very

[3:13:00] weak how to explain the t r pa element of

[3:13:03] this.

[3:13:04] >> so, I think the first-there was several

[3:13:07] questions. I think the first question is

[3:13:09] can we-your board has great flexibility on

[3:13:14] how we do our program both the zone of

[3:13:17] benefit as well as the fee program. It

[3:13:19] can be changed at any time. We are

[3:13:22] convinced and I think absolutely necessary

[3:13:25] that as we understand trpa program no one

[3:13:28] can be first off double charged. We have

[3:13:31] ultimate flexibility but it cannot double

[3:13:35] charge anybody for any sort of fee. So,

[3:13:37] as we understand t r pa program we'll make

[3:13:40] adjustments there. We will have to come

[3:13:42] back to the board. As far as the zone of

[3:13:44] benefit goes, the action today really sets

[3:13:48] up a policy framework saying as people or

[3:13:51] new development comes onboard they also

[3:13:53] participate in the ongoing operation and

[3:13:57] increment of it. Every project is

[3:14:02] evaluated on its merits so there may be

[3:14:05] reasons not charging individual projects

[3:14:08] and may take out a whole class of your

[3:14:12] project. That is up to your board and at

[3:14:14] the appropriate time can have the

[3:14:15] discussion.

[3:14:16] >> on a statewide basis what we have done

[3:14:18] in north lake tahoe and similar to mammoth

[3:14:22] with a tbid that effects so many types of

[3:14:24] businesses and supplements what we would

[3:14:27] see in a sales tax initiative or just a

[3:14:30] tot, is incredible resource and we need to

[3:14:34] be thoughtful in seeing a success for the

[3:14:39] businesses to keep that assessment going,

[3:14:41] because that as long as we are working on

[3:14:45] transportation solutions I think we want

[3:14:47] to encourage that because it goes much

[3:14:50] further then we can go as a county on the

[3:14:52] revenues. We need the businesses to

[3:14:54] support.

[3:14:55] >> I think we will also be able to show or

[3:14:57] at least various instances that different

[3:15:04] types of particularly non residential

[3:15:06] development will have different impacts on

[3:15:08] potential different impacts on vmt. Some

[3:15:11] are actually very good. The more locally

[3:15:13] serving businesses we have that isn't

[3:15:16] sending people down to reno or sending

[3:15:18] people to truckee to provide the services

[3:15:20] we hope to provide within the community.

[3:15:22] that's a positive. That's not a impact,

[3:15:24] that is a benefit.

[3:15:25] >> right.

[3:15:26] >> we definitely need to be able to

[3:15:29] recognize that. It is very complicated

[3:15:31] and we are learning as we go along. I

[3:15:33] think the whole state will learn as we go

[3:15:35] along. Making sure each and every project

[3:15:42] gets evaluated on its own merits. The

[3:15:47] board provided resources outside normal

[3:15:49] local government provided for transit

[3:15:51] operations we do a lot more then that.

[3:15:53] >> absolutely.

[3:15:54] >> we do need to be recognized for that.

[3:15:57] the businesses and your board investment

[3:15:59] there should be able to be recognized by

[3:16:01] someone and some of those that will be up

[3:16:03] to the board who gets recognized for that

[3:16:05] or not.

[3:16:06] >> right. Thank you. I appreciate that

[3:16:07] flexibility and as projects come forward

[3:16:10] I'm sure that you'll be thinking about how

[3:16:13] this can all meld together and pay one fee

[3:16:16] and get as much credit for these and

[3:16:20] support for continuation of the tbid and

[3:16:25] enhance transportation solutions. Thank

[3:16:28] you.

[3:16:29] >> so, this is a public hearing, so I'll

[3:16:33] open up the hearing to the public. There

[3:16:37] is no one from the public so close the

[3:16:39] public hearing and bring it back to the

[3:16:42] board for consideration.

[3:16:43] >> I will move approval.

[3:16:45] >> I'll second.

[3:16:46] >> motion gustafson, second gore. All in

[3:16:48] favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

[3:16:52] thank you very much.

[3:16:53] >> thank you.

[3:16:54] >> and so for all of us and the public in

[3:16:58] my last meeting as chair it has been such

[3:17:01] a management disaster. I'm going to

[3:17:06] announce we are going to break for lunch

[3:17:08] now and then we are going to come up and

[3:17:12] take up our 915 a.m. Timed item fallowed

[3:17:16] by our 1020 timed item then department

[3:17:19] items and then we will start the hearing

[3:17:22] on str which was schedule to be 12:30 and

[3:17:27] during lunch we'll take up closed session.

[3:17:31] >> the board will be adjourning to closed

[3:17:33] session considering the following items of

[3:17:36] existing litigation. County placer versus

[3:17:39] matthew [inaudible comments] the third

[3:17:48] item is being dropped from the agenda.

[3:17:53] [closed session]

[3:19:24] >> the board returned to closed session.

[3:19:27] >> the board met in closed session to

[3:19:29] consider the following: county of placer

[3:19:32] versus matthew[inaudible comments] the

[3:19:33] board heard a report and provided

[3:19:35] direction. [inaudible comments] the board

[3:19:40] heard oo report and authorized settlement.

[3:19:43] that concludes the report.

[3:19:46] >> the board will take up the 1020 timed

[3:19:49] item which is library service update.

[3:19:57] >> [inaudible comments]

[3:20:07] >> good morning everyone or good afternoon

[3:20:09] now right? Thank you very much chair

[3:20:14] weygandt for inviting to come to your

[3:20:16] board to give a little service update on

[3:20:19] library service. Thank you for all you do

[3:20:23] for library service as you now come into

[3:20:25] your last board meeting as the chair.

[3:20:30] anyway, we are going to give a brief

[3:20:33] overview of library mobile service. We

[3:20:36] will talk a little about virtual

[3:20:39] programming. We are going to talk about

[3:20:41] the resumption of service coming in

[3:20:45] january. Give update on the strategic

[3:20:49] planning initiative and library service

[3:20:51] study at the end. I'm mary george direct

[3:20:56] of library subs and next to me is

[3:20:59] assistant director sophie bruno and the

[3:21:02] two of us will be presenting. I have the

[3:21:04] first piece which is about our mobile

[3:21:07] service. Library mobility service book

[3:21:12] mobile service reimagined in a much

[3:21:15] smaller van for efficient and stable

[3:21:19] sustainable outreach opportunity to some

[3:21:21] of most rural communities. Library mobile

[3:21:24] service positions the library in the

[3:21:26] communities where people naturally gather

[3:21:28] to offer core library services that are

[3:21:32] professional and convenient. Current

[3:21:34] stops include the popular coffee spot the

[3:21:36] perky peacock in sheridan. The iowa hill

[3:21:40] and alta stores, and the dutch flat

[3:21:44] community centers. Visitors have access

[3:21:46] to a small curated browsing collection.

[3:21:50] can get a library card place items on

[3:21:53] hold, pick up the holds and also have the

[3:21:56] benefit of knowledgeable staff to meet

[3:21:59] their information needs. Mobile staff

[3:22:01] promote also in-person programming at the

[3:22:04] brick and mortar locations closest to the

[3:22:07] stops including the lincoln library and

[3:22:09] roseville library. So that helps in our

[3:22:12] partnership throughout library service.

[3:22:15] and since the van rolled out september 16

[3:22:18] we had 89 new library card users and we

[3:22:21] checked out 295 items. What is ahead for

[3:22:28] mobile library service is adding stops and

[3:22:31] extending time as staffing allows. For

[3:22:34] example, we currently park in the meadow

[3:22:38] vista community center parking lot, and we

[3:22:40] welcome a steady stream of folks walking

[3:22:42] around the park walking their dogs and

[3:22:45] what happened is the staff noticed that

[3:22:47] the afternoons are quite busy because

[3:22:50] folks are picking up from the elementary

[3:22:54] school adjacent to the park so may have a

[3:22:55] morning stop there and come in the

[3:22:58] afternoon where we hit people are where

[3:23:01] their destinations are and we'll continue

[3:23:03] to evaluate where people are naturally

[3:23:07] gathering. Evaluate how people use the

[3:23:12] stops and scout new locations. For

[3:23:14] instance, in january we are going change

[3:23:16] our stop at the alta store to coincide

[3:23:19] with a non-profit thrift store that opens

[3:23:23] in the afternoon called the attic so there

[3:23:28] is a colocation between the thrift store

[3:23:32] and grocery store. We like to participate

[3:23:34] at more community event. We had a

[3:23:37] successful event at colfax railroad days

[3:23:40] so will look for opportunities to add book

[3:23:42] clubs or storey times at the stops and

[3:23:44] also to participate at fair farmers

[3:23:48] markets and other community events

[3:23:50] including events in tahoe. And then we

[3:23:53] like to assist those unable to travel to

[3:23:55] the library as soon as safe to do so by

[3:23:58] entering senior facilities care facilities

[3:24:01] and schools so we can provide book talks,

[3:24:07] kids can check out items, we can do book

[3:24:11] clubs and senior centers and promote the

[3:24:16] level of reading to folks who can't reach

[3:24:18] us. Finally, the near future including

[3:24:22] now we started working with fleet to put

[3:24:25] together a permanent vehicle. Now we are

[3:24:27] using a temporary vehicle but we are

[3:24:28] watching it carefully to insure we know

[3:24:31] which modifications to the vehicle so it

[3:24:36] is easy for the staff to move and be

[3:24:39] nimble and get the items in and out. Now

[3:24:43] I like to turn it over to sophie.

[3:24:46] >> good afternoon chair. Sophie bruno

[3:24:51] assistant director of library service and

[3:24:53] I'm honored to share today some of the

[3:24:56] talented work our library specialists have

[3:24:58] been able to do over the last 6 months or

[3:25:01] so. I never had have a problem bragging

[3:25:05] about staff skill sets and dedication to

[3:25:07] our communities and certainly it isn't

[3:25:10] more true then during the pandemic and all

[3:25:13] we asked staff to do and how we asked them

[3:25:15] to pivot and how they go from in-person

[3:25:19] library service to something other and

[3:25:21] particularly wanted to highlight today the

[3:25:23] ways they have-I want to highlight their

[3:25:27] work doing in-person-sorry, virtual

[3:25:31] programming offerings for the families

[3:25:33] that we sever. Essentially the charge we

[3:25:37] gave our team was to design a virtual

[3:25:39] program that families could easily access

[3:25:41] and want to participate in and that would

[3:25:45] call upon all the elements that library

[3:25:47] staff use to great effect for our

[3:25:49] in-person programs. So, what elements

[3:25:51] could we pull through and condense into 5

[3:25:55] minutes or less online to connect with

[3:25:59] those families. Essentially what looked

[3:26:02] like is one of our team shared a digital

[3:26:05] recording on library social media sharing

[3:26:08] a book or story and families come to the

[3:26:12] library each week and pick up a bag that

[3:26:14] had all the materials to create a craft or

[3:26:19] activity that correspond to that week book

[3:26:21] or story. Here is a thing about library

[3:26:25] staff is they make it look easy and they

[3:26:28] make it look amazing. It is amazing

[3:26:33] because 5 minute or less sharing a story

[3:26:37] or using a flannel to share a folk tale

[3:26:42] from a country half way across the world

[3:26:45] and combine with [inaudible comments] on

[3:26:48] the surface it looks easy. Reading a book

[3:26:56] and making paper dolls. I want to

[3:26:59] highlight what is below the surface and

[3:27:01] that benefit to the community because we

[3:27:04] really take our charge as librarians

[3:27:07] seriously and we when we talk early

[3:27:13] literacy we recognize we are entrusted

[3:27:15] with the care of youngest and most

[3:27:18] impressionable in our communities and so

[3:27:21] what we do each week how we connect young

[3:27:25] minds, how we build their skills study

[3:27:28] after study shows us that all those skill

[3:27:31] sets we are developing are directly tied

[3:27:34] to school readiness with children ability

[3:27:36] to succeed in school to know how to read

[3:27:38] to take joy and delight in literacy and

[3:27:44] reading and their own success in doing so

[3:27:45] which are really critical markers to their

[3:27:50] journey to adult hood. Intentionality is

[3:27:54] woven into all these steps from the

[3:27:55] selection of the story, age appropriate is

[3:27:58] it relevant? We use a metaphors for

[3:28:05] mirrors or windows so it is a mirror they

[3:28:09] can see reflected back or a window they

[3:28:11] can peak into another world and compare to

[3:28:14] their own. Specific to sharing a stor y

[3:28:16] virtually staff had to be following pretty

[3:28:18] specific copy right rules to do so so that

[3:28:22] was a new challenge for them. And then

[3:28:24] the take home activity itself, created

[3:28:27] kind of a virtual or habit to bring

[3:28:29] families back into the libraries after so

[3:28:32] long. Had to am up and to the service

[3:28:35] desk themselves, speak to a grown up, use

[3:28:38] their manners. The child is developing

[3:28:47] sequencing skills as they follow each

[3:28:49] directional step. Scissor skills even.

[3:28:52] kindergarten teachers told us so often it

[3:28:55] is a advantage when kids learned to use

[3:29:01] fine motor skills and you get the play

[3:29:04] with this thing you created so you are

[3:29:07] building your narrative as you talk about

[3:29:10] it and telling mom and dad about it so it

[3:29:12] could be a spider web or finger puppet or

[3:29:15] a lady bug crown like my little one is

[3:29:20] wearing. Okay, the charge we gave for our

[3:29:24] team in preparing for our flag ship summer

[3:29:28] at your library program had a little bit

[3:29:31] of added weight so we asked staff to pivot

[3:29:37] to offer a hybrid virtual in person

[3:29:41] offering that offered safe but dynamic and

[3:29:44] fun ways to access the resources the

[3:29:46] library offered during the summer months

[3:29:48] and the significant increase we saw and

[3:29:50] participation on the digital platform

[3:29:52] helps tell the story of their success in

[3:29:56] meeting that challenge. Summer

[3:29:59] programming is such a draw and so popular

[3:30:02] with families and the intentionality here

[3:30:04] is that we are keeping young people

[3:30:07] engaged with these reading challenges,

[3:30:09] with take home activities we develop

[3:30:12] following for with performers and reducing

[3:30:18] the negative effect of the summer slide

[3:30:20] when student are not in school and their

[3:30:24] skill sets are regressing because they are

[3:30:29] on home on break. We are looking for ways

[3:30:31] to nurture the connections staff has with

[3:30:34] the families we know so well that come to

[3:30:37] our locations. I want to highlight the

[3:30:40] department's commitment to supporting

[3:30:42] local talent for our summer performers so

[3:30:46] that is gabe cristner out of wild things.

[3:30:55] they worked so well with our team to be

[3:30:57] able to adapt their talent to online venue

[3:31:01] to reach families and we have really built

[3:31:05] a nice community of practice there and

[3:31:07] really proud to support their work. Okay,

[3:31:11] finally, I am happy to share the library

[3:31:14] service department continues to move

[3:31:17] forward and starting january preschool

[3:31:22] story times and book clubs will resume and

[3:31:25] meeting rooms available for community use

[3:31:27] in january. With that I'll turn it back

[3:31:29] to mary to give a update on the library

[3:31:32] strategic plan.

[3:31:33] >> so, we have 4 primary goals in the

[3:31:36] strategic plan. All of the library teams

[3:31:39] and divisions are working towards

[3:31:40] completing the goals and they are doing a

[3:31:42] excellent job. We have a number of work

[3:31:47] going on in each one of these areas but I

[3:31:51] wanted to highlight one in each.

[3:31:53] innovative service delivery, the automated

[3:31:58] handling and book drop installed in

[3:32:00] february. Should be up and running for

[3:32:02] customers in march and we are planning for

[3:32:04] but don't expect any interruption in

[3:32:06] service to our customers. Under community

[3:32:09] engage. We'll be contracting a marketing

[3:32:12] consultant to assist in developing a

[3:32:14] strategies to advertise library services

[3:32:17] and increase our use more broadly.

[3:32:20] strategic partnerships, we have developed

[3:32:23] a wonderful partnership with the tahoe

[3:32:26] truckee unified school district. One of

[3:32:28] the capstones goals end goals in the

[3:32:34] strategic plan is to get a library card

[3:32:36] into the hand of young school age child so

[3:32:41] tahoe truckee unified school district

[3:32:44] reached out to us and we used a mou from

[3:32:49] nevada county library and that has been

[3:32:51] vetted by council and we will be before

[3:32:53] your board for your consideration in the

[3:32:55] coming weeks. We hope to use that mou as

[3:32:59] a starting place for future mou that will

[3:33:03] develop throughout placer county schools

[3:33:07] and reach that capstone goal. Under

[3:33:10] service oriented workforce developed and

[3:33:12] training a set of customer service

[3:33:14] standard we annually evaluate to guarantee

[3:33:18] excellent service. These standards also

[3:33:21] emphasize the unique public service nature

[3:33:23] of librarianship and offer a blue print to

[3:33:27] build upon the staff skill set. Staff

[3:33:30] training seek opportunity to acknowledge

[3:33:31] and train to staff and customer safety

[3:33:34] while out on the public service floors.

[3:33:37] finally, I like to tell you about the

[3:33:40] library services study. Your board and

[3:33:42] the ceo office initiated a study and hired

[3:33:45] a consultant to provide best practices for

[3:33:49] optimal library service moving forward.

[3:33:51] we are pleased to support that effort.

[3:33:54] the study is in its initial gathering

[3:33:57] phase and look outward to community input

[3:34:00] holding many virtual town hall meetings

[3:34:05] early january and in-person regional

[3:34:08] meetings the end of january so please stay

[3:34:10] tuned as the meeting will be broadly

[3:34:12] publicized. Thank you so much for your

[3:34:14] time and for your support of our libraries

[3:34:17] always. Sophy and I are happy to address

[3:34:20] your questions and wish you all a happy

[3:34:22] holidays.

[3:34:23] >> thanks mary and sophie. Any questions

[3:34:26] or comments from board members? Jim.

[3:34:29] >> thank you mr. Chair. As you know I'm a

[3:34:33] big library fan. You can put a book on

[3:34:36] that. Sorry.

[3:34:38] [laughter]

[3:34:39] >> punt intended.

[3:34:41] >> which of our libraries is the most

[3:34:44] active, the busiest?

[3:34:46] >> auburn. Auburn does about 35 percent

[3:34:51] for the system. Rockland is close second

[3:34:53] with about 25, 26 percent.

[3:34:56] >> I kind of assumed that. Because it is

[3:35:00] the oldest library been there since the

[3:35:06] 70?

[3:35:07] >> 1973, yep.

[3:35:08] >> a lot of people know where it is at.

[3:35:12] I'm pleased at the innovative services you

[3:35:14] are bringing forward are being utilized in

[3:35:16] the rockland library. Is that correct?

[3:35:19] because it is up scale more newer library

[3:35:22] facility and more upscale so they are able

[3:35:25] to do that. I remember when I first took

[3:35:28] office I went down to rockland and looked

[3:35:32] at their library, springview park. It was

[3:35:36] very disappointing and it was important-I

[3:35:39] worked with supervisor weygandt. We went

[3:35:42] to the rockland city council, worked

[3:35:45] together with them and came up with a plan

[3:35:48] to they were able to buy that building but

[3:35:52] working with them we got the new library

[3:35:56] in rockland. It has been now 11 years in

[3:35:58] service.

[3:35:59] >> yep.

[3:36:00] >> and that was one of the most important

[3:36:02] things in my career that I was able to do

[3:36:06] and just hope citizens of rockland

[3:36:09] understand that the role of board of

[3:36:14] supervisors had in that is instrumental.

[3:36:16] again, great job. The numbers at the

[3:36:19] auburn library are probably-I'm over there

[3:36:22] about once or twice a day. My last

[3:36:26] question is, can you recommend any good

[3:36:28] books?

[3:36:30] [laughter]

[3:36:32] >> you can?

[3:36:33] >> I'm reading a biography about the doors

[3:36:37] right now. Robby creiger, the guitarist

[3:36:40] for the doors just published his biography

[3:36:43] so that is what I'm reading. Sophie.

[3:36:46] >> I have a 6 year old so we read a lot of

[3:36:49] children books. Not sure that would fit

[3:36:51] your needs.

[3:36:55] >> that would be a good fit for me if you

[3:36:57] can keep the 6 year old recommendations.

[3:36:59] >> sure, sure. I'll reach out.

[3:37:02] >> I'm hoping to get the fun little kids

[3:37:04] activities to give me something to do when

[3:37:07] I want to--do something mindless after

[3:37:10] crazy days so I was really excited to see

[3:37:14] that and sure it is a great hit for the

[3:37:17] kids and thank you for the update.

[3:37:18] >> cindy.

[3:37:19] >> thank you and thanks for your service

[3:37:23] and dedication, especially I know it has

[3:37:25] been a very challenging year for all of us

[3:37:27] to deliver public services during covid.

[3:37:31] two questions on the mobile library you

[3:37:33] made a point you visited colfax with the

[3:37:38] vehicle and thinking colfax has a fixed

[3:37:41] library. Shouldn't we focus those

[3:37:44] energies-you were trying to promote but

[3:37:46] shouldn't we focus the energies on the

[3:37:48] communities that don't have libraries?

[3:37:51] that was just to promote it is

[3:37:54] >> we just started mobile services on

[3:37:57] september 16 so it was really to support

[3:37:59] the colfax library staff and they were

[3:38:02] giving away things, railroad books and

[3:38:04] doing event so it was more a literacy

[3:38:06] promotion of library services in general.

[3:38:09] we probably should have been in colfax for

[3:38:11] the holiday parade this weekend. We

[3:38:15] should always be in tahoe for snow-fest

[3:38:20] and hot car or cool car hot chilly in

[3:38:23] rockland so we probably will do a little

[3:38:27] of that but I hear you we will be

[3:38:30] supporting the rural and remote areas

[3:38:34] farthest away from the brick and mortar.

[3:38:37] >> community events versus visitor events

[3:38:40] are important to build support for the

[3:38:42] libraries. Secondly, on the community

[3:38:45] engagement you talked hiring a consultant.

[3:38:48] I hope you are working with our pio who

[3:38:50] has tremendous social media skills because

[3:38:55] I think if people got a most in next doors

[3:38:58] the mobile library was visiting their

[3:39:02] community today at noon come out you would

[3:39:04] get a lot more response and same with

[3:39:06] social media on hours and closures and

[3:39:08] those sorts of things because it has been

[3:39:10] challenging in some of the branches.

[3:39:13] >> thank you.

[3:39:14] >> otherwise it looks like a great plan

[3:39:15] and thanks for the report.

[3:39:18] >> yeah, thanks to both. Look forward to

[3:39:23] the updates going forward and been amazing

[3:39:26] how technology has changed with library

[3:39:29] service and look forward hearing more

[3:39:32] about that and how we do reach out more

[3:39:34] effectively to the community so thank you.

[3:39:41] now we are going to go sorry, public

[3:39:46] comment, please.

[3:39:49] >> dave, go ahead and unmute your mic and

[3:39:52] give your comments. Dave. Can you unmute

[3:40:00] your mic and give your comments? Jeffrey

[3:40:14] can you unmute your mic and give your

[3:40:17] comments? Jeffrey are you unable to

[3:40:26] unmute your mic?

[3:40:56] >> thank you.

[3:40:57] >> okay.

[3:40:58] >> okay, so now thank you we'll take up

[3:41:01] our 915 timed item, which is-

[3:41:07] >> are we in hawaii?

[3:41:12] >> I know. The 915-

[3:41:15] >> I just said in hawaii.

[3:41:18] >> 915 in the morning timed item which is

[3:41:22] deferral program extension and by the way

[3:41:23] it is on page 1 of the agenda item.

[3:41:27] claudia.

[3:41:28] >> thank you good afternoon chair members

[3:41:30] of the board. Claudia wade engineering

[3:41:33] manager with community development

[3:41:34] resource agency. We asking the board

[3:41:36] introduce and wave the oral reading of

[3:41:38] ordinance to amend placer county code

[3:41:40] chapter 15 article 15.70 to extend the

[3:41:44] existing fee deferral program until

[3:41:47] december 31, 2023. Brief background in

[3:41:51] response to statewide slowing of the

[3:41:53] housing market economy the board adopted a

[3:41:55] fee deferral program in 2008. Fees are

[3:41:58] typically due at building permit issuance

[3:42:02] allows for fees to be paid early of final

[3:42:06] inspection or 2 years. Impact fees

[3:42:09] associated with the fee deferral program

[3:42:10] are county traffic fee, the capital

[3:42:13] facility impact fee, parks fees and sewer

[3:42:16] connection fees. This short-term deferral

[3:42:19] program allows fee payment closer to the

[3:42:22] time impacts occur on associated

[3:42:26] infrastructure. The program helps make

[3:42:27] projects more feasible which can stimulate

[3:42:30] economic development while still requiring

[3:42:33] fee collection in time to fund needed

[3:42:36] improvements. As well as provide cash

[3:42:39] flow flexibility at the onset of the

[3:42:41] project. Examples of projects that take

[3:42:44] advantage of the program include the hill

[3:42:46] top hotel in auburn, most affordable

[3:42:48] housing projects of which this program is

[3:42:50] a benefit due to the timing of

[3:42:53] reimbursement from the state. As well as

[3:42:55] individual property owners building their

[3:42:57] homes. This fee program expires december

[3:43:00] 31 this year. By approval of the item the

[3:43:02] program will be extended 2 years. This

[3:43:09] concludes my presentation and available

[3:43:10] for questions.

[3:43:11] >> thanks claudia. Cindy question or

[3:43:15] comment?

[3:43:16] >> no.

[3:43:17] >> seeing no questions from board members

[3:43:18] at this time anyone from the public who

[3:43:20] would like to address the item?

[3:43:22] >> we have a few on. Jeff, can you unmute

[3:43:27] your mic and give your comments?

[3:43:29] >> yes, thank you. This is jeff short

[3:43:31] north state building industry association,

[3:43:35] thank you for the opportunity to comment

[3:43:37] on the very important item. This program

[3:43:40] fee deferrals began back because of the

[3:43:44] construction slow down associated with the

[3:43:46] recession in 2008 but that is-the

[3:43:49] ramifications of the slow down are still

[3:43:52] dealt with today. As you know, we have a

[3:43:55] long way to go to build whether the

[3:43:57] housing we need in the state in the county

[3:43:59] and in the unincorporated portion of the

[3:44:01] county so we very much appreciate your

[3:44:04] board continuing this fee deferral program

[3:44:06] and allowing these incentives for housing

[3:44:08] construction to continue, especially right

[3:44:11] now the timing is right building is really

[3:44:13] just starting to take off in

[3:44:16] unincorporated placer so this extension

[3:44:20] could not come at a more opportune time.

[3:44:23] thank you so much.

[3:44:24] >> thanks jeff.

[3:44:27] >> veronica, can you unmute your mic.

[3:44:30] >> good afternoon this is veronica blake

[3:44:33] ceo placer county foundation. Just wanted

[3:44:36] to give a quick comment. Given the cost

[3:44:38] barriers for the development of projects

[3:44:41] we want to encourage your board support of

[3:44:43] the fee deferral program for affordable

[3:44:45] housing projects. This is one of many

[3:44:48] strategies we need to employ to achieve

[3:44:50] housing for all our residents and with

[3:44:52] that that's just all of our comments for

[3:44:54] today.

[3:44:55] >> thanks veronica.

[3:45:01] >> jeffrey can you unmute your mic and

[3:45:03] give your comments? Jeffrey, can you

[3:45:11] unmute your mic and give your comments?

[3:45:17] >> it's not our end, sir.

[3:45:20] >> okay. Thanks for that. I'll bring it

[3:45:23] back to the board.

[3:45:24] >> I'll move approval of the item.

[3:45:26] >> second.

[3:45:27] >> motion gore, second gustafson. All in

[3:45:30] favor say aye. Opposed?

[3:45:33] >> I wanted to ask some questions, but-

[3:45:36] >> I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[3:45:39] >> okay. Okay. Who will answer my

[3:45:43] questions? Okay. I was just curious

[3:45:47] about a couple things since I'm new. Has

[3:45:50] this been-is this reviewed every 2 years

[3:45:54] for renewal?

[3:45:58] >> that's correct. Claudia you want to

[3:46:00] confirm?

[3:46:01] >> sure, this fee program has been

[3:46:05] extended 4 times prior and in 2 years we

[3:46:09] can review the program again.

[3:46:11] >> okay, I was curious as to what

[3:46:15] determines the rate the housing market, it

[3:46:16] is good, not good? I thought the housing

[3:46:19] market caught on fire but can be wrong.

[3:46:22] is there some measuring gauge we use for

[3:46:25] that determination?

[3:46:29] >> can you repeat your question, sorry?

[3:46:32] >> how do you gauge whether the market has

[3:46:35] picked up or it has not?

[3:46:38] >> it is picked up the fees have also

[3:46:43] increased with it and this is a mechanism

[3:46:45] just to assist for a cash flow

[3:46:53] perspective. Deferral is until final

[3:46:55] inspection or occupancy or 2 years. After

[3:46:58] 2 years of building permit issuance these

[3:47:00] are due.

[3:47:01] >> okay, because like I said, what is your

[3:47:04] gauge as far as everybody is saying the

[3:47:07] housing market has not picked up in the

[3:47:09] last 13 years--it was 2008 when this was

[3:47:17] started so 13 years have gone and say is

[3:47:20] the housing market in a similar situation

[3:47:22] as it was in 2008?

[3:47:23] >> it has improved, but at this point it

[3:47:26] is being used more so as a cash flow and

[3:47:29] economic development. Sean I see sean at

[3:47:33] the podium. I'll let her speak.

[3:47:36] >> good afternoon sean [inaudible

[3:47:38] comments] community development resource

[3:47:40] agency. The housing market picked up as

[3:47:43] far as sales of housing that was on the

[3:47:45] market, we are just now starting to see

[3:47:48] the construction, so the new permits

[3:47:49] picking up. Generally on average the

[3:47:52] unincorporated area placer county see 300

[3:47:56] single family new starts per yearment we

[3:47:58] are anticipating closer to 500 maybe a

[3:48:01] little more this year and see the

[3:48:04] trajectory go up but the construction side

[3:48:06] is just now picking up in response to the

[3:48:09] demand we saw in the retail side of the

[3:48:11] for sale.

[3:48:12] >> great. Thank you shana. And thank you

[3:48:16] claudia. Appreciate it. Okay, I'm good.

[3:48:19] >> do you want to reconsideration or-

[3:48:21] >> no, no, I'm good-just had questions.

[3:48:23] >> sorry I didn't catch your light quickly

[3:48:26] enough. We have a vote, right?

[3:48:30] >> yes.

[3:48:31] >> now we'll take up our 920 timed item,

[3:48:35] 920. Item number 2. I just asked the

[3:48:41] same question.

[3:48:42] >> you have a motion [inaudible comments]

[3:48:46] >> we haven't voted? Okay. All in favor

[3:48:49] say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

[3:48:52] thanks. Thank you bonnie and megan. On

[3:48:59] my last meeting. 920 timed item is the

[3:49:02] placer vineyard specific plan fee schedule

[3:49:05] annual adjustment. Claudia.

[3:49:07] >> good afternoon once again. Chair

[3:49:09] members of the board. Claudia wade.

[3:49:15] today we are asking to conduct a public

[3:49:17] hearing adopt resolution to adjust the

[3:49:19] placer vineyard specific fee schedule for

[3:49:23] fiscal year 2021-22. A clerical

[3:49:25] correction was made on the map shown in

[3:49:28] exhibit b. Exhibit b has been provided to

[3:49:31] the board and public. Staff request the

[3:49:33] board adopt the resolution with amended

[3:49:36] exhibit b. A brief background.

[3:49:41] [inaudible comments] add article 15.85

[3:49:43] which established the placer vineyard fee

[3:49:46] program. The county code requires this

[3:49:49] program be adjusted annually using the

[3:49:52] average of the change from the most

[3:49:54] currently available index for the same

[3:49:57] month of the previous year using the

[3:49:59] average percent change in the san

[3:50:02] francisco and [inaudible comments] average

[3:50:04] construction cost index reported in

[3:50:05] engineering record. The calculated

[3:50:08] average of the change from november 2020

[3:50:11] to november 21 resulted in increase of

[3:50:14] 8.64 percent. Attachment one provides the

[3:50:18] updated cost to the fee schedule. This

[3:50:21] concludes my presentation and available

[3:50:22] for any questions.

[3:50:24] >> thanks claudia. Any questions

[3:50:26] by-bonnie?

[3:50:27] >> no questions, but interesting I thought

[3:50:29] I would point out it is a 8.64 percent

[3:50:33] increase so we are definitely

[3:50:35] unfortunately seeing the effect of

[3:50:37] inflation, especially on our building

[3:50:41] industry, the construction industry.

[3:50:43] >> thanks. Any other questions? Seeing

[3:50:46] none, this is a public hearing so open up

[3:50:50] the public hearing. Anyone from the

[3:50:51] public wish to comment on this item?

[3:50:56] >> [inaudible comments]

[3:50:57] >> seeing none, we'll close the public

[3:50:59] hearing and bring this back to the board

[3:51:00] for consideration. Motion holmes, second

[3:51:07] gustafson. All in favor aye. Opposed?

[3:51:10] motion carries. Now we'll take up the

[3:51:12] first department item which is amend

[3:51:14] placer county code chapter 2 regarding

[3:51:17] compensation reimbursement for grand

[3:51:19] jurors.

[3:51:20] >> alright. Good afternoon chair weygandt

[3:51:23] members of the board. Mr. Leopold

[3:51:26] [inaudible comments] I where am amanda

[3:51:30] flow here today to request change to the

[3:51:33] placer county code to update the grand

[3:51:35] jury meeting limit. Also here with me

[3:51:38] today waiting very patiently is lor ina

[3:51:44] sims the grand jury foreman. Chapter 2 of

[3:51:52] the placer county code provides

[3:51:54] regulations for compensation and

[3:51:56] reimbursement for grand jurors. Following

[3:51:58] a recent review of section 2.112.060 the

[3:52:03] county executive office identified the

[3:52:05] need to update language related to

[3:52:07] compensation for attendants by grand

[3:52:10] jurors at committee and subcommittee

[3:52:12] meetings. Current code states each member

[3:52:15] of the grand jury receive $10 for

[3:52:19] attendance at each committee or

[3:52:20] subcommittee meeting up to a limit of 2

[3:52:22] meetings per day. In recognition that

[3:52:26] very duties of the grand juries may

[3:52:30] require attendance of 3 or meeting in a

[3:52:32] day especially with zoom and special

[3:52:34] back-to-back meetings and less driving,

[3:52:37] the proposed ordinance removes this daily

[3:52:39] limit of 2 meetings per day for the

[3:52:43] committee and subcommittee meetings for

[3:52:45] members of the grand jury. The proposed

[3:52:47] amendment to this county code is not

[3:52:49] expected to result in any fiscal impact.

[3:52:52] the action requested today is introduce

[3:52:55] ordinance, wave oral reading, amending

[3:52:58] chapter 2 article 2.112 [inaudible

[3:53:02] comments] of the placer county code to

[3:53:04] remove the daily limit for committee

[3:53:07] subcommittee meeting attendants for the

[3:53:09] placer county grand jurors. With that,

[3:53:11] I'll open for any questions.

[3:53:13] >> thank you. Any questions by board

[3:53:15] members at this time? Seeing none, is

[3:53:18] there anyone from the public who would

[3:53:19] like to address this item? Seeing none,

[3:53:23] bring it back to the board.

[3:53:28] >> I move approval and my goodness I think

[3:53:30] it is probably worth giving more then $10

[3:53:33] for just two meetings. Wow! When you

[3:53:36] realize what that is it is a active

[3:53:38] community service that our jurors are

[3:53:41] doing.

[3:53:42] >> [inaudible comments]

[3:53:45] >> motion gore, second gustafson. All in

[3:53:48] favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

[3:53:50] >> great. Thank you.

[3:53:52] >> and now we'll take up our second

[3:53:55] department item which is critical success

[3:53:57] factors progress report. Jane

[3:54:02] christensen.

[3:54:12] >> good afternoon board chair supervisors.

[3:54:17] jane christensen from the ceo office here

[3:54:20] today along with ben mills who is our new

[3:54:22] process and program administrator to

[3:54:25] essentially provide a 2021 progress report

[3:54:27] year end review. You may recall we do

[3:54:31] this quarterly. The beginning of the year

[3:54:34] in march to kick off what we anticipate to

[3:54:36] be the work ahead for the coming year and

[3:54:39] embedded update in both the proposed

[3:54:41] budget in june and the final budget in

[3:54:43] september and here in december for what I

[3:54:48] call the victory lap, the year end review

[3:54:50] on all things we have accomplished, you

[3:54:53] have accomplished together with our county

[3:54:56] staff over the intervening or preceding

[3:54:59] year. Critical success factor timeline.

[3:55:02] you recall we then had a new ceo todd

[3:55:05] leopold in 2018 who initiated the

[3:55:10] strategic planning effort. From 2019 to

[3:55:15] 2021 I and others provided progress

[3:55:20] reports to advance the critical success

[3:55:23] factors and will turn the page in 2022

[3:55:27] over to ben to take to the next level with

[3:55:29] performance metrix on those mentioned

[3:55:32] initiatives. Tracking progress. As I go

[3:55:37] through each of the critical success

[3:55:39] factors you heard highlights from todd

[3:55:41] this morning but this is some of the same

[3:55:44] highlights but in the critical success

[3:55:46] factors context that the board outlined at

[3:55:50] february 2021 retreat. We know a

[3:55:54] potential for under consideration a

[3:55:56] calendar for item coming soon to a board

[3:55:58] meeting near you, arrows for work in

[3:56:04] progress moving ahead and check for

[3:56:05] completed and pleased to say there is

[3:56:07] quite a few checks as we look back on

[3:56:12] 2021. Strategic relationship and

[3:56:17] community engagement. What a year had t

[3:56:19] has been. Executing the 2021

[3:56:24] redistricting process. We'll look for

[3:56:28] volunteers in 10 years time so mark your

[3:56:30] calendar. Also we are at work now with

[3:56:33] interdisciplinary team of ceo, council,

[3:56:37] the board of supervisors staff and sedra

[3:56:40] to examine mac process improvements and

[3:56:43] revisions for 2022 to expand the menu of

[3:56:47] board outreach alternatives to reflect a

[3:56:50] number of the lesson learned for what

[3:56:52] works over the many months of covid. Also

[3:56:56] coming in 2022 is your action plan on the

[3:56:59] homeless services infrastructure needs

[3:57:02] based on the regional effort begun this

[3:57:04] past june in partnership with our city

[3:57:06] elected's. Also too, the board number one

[3:57:11] priority from the february 2021 retreat

[3:57:14] was to really move the needle when it

[3:57:16] comes to forest health and wildfire

[3:57:21] management. We were successful hiring

[3:57:26] kerrie [inaudible comments] and done great

[3:57:28] things engaging regional partners on bio

[3:57:31] mass work groups, completed the work done

[3:57:34] under brett storey's leadership on french

[3:57:37] meadows and advance our efforts and

[3:57:40] hopefully secure federal and state funding

[3:57:42] referenced earlier in the meeting today.

[3:57:45] also too as mary just noted we have begun

[3:57:48] our library service study. Really to look

[3:57:51] at the library system as a whole as well

[3:57:53] as to optimize service in eastern placer

[3:57:56] exploring service alternatives with

[3:57:59] potential partners in the eastern region

[3:58:01] of nevada county in partnership with our

[3:58:04] eastern region of placer county.

[3:58:10] achievable housing. Again, another board

[3:58:13] priority. Great credit is due here to

[3:58:17] shana pervines updating the housing

[3:58:19] element together with partners in the

[3:58:23] state cog region which is something to be

[3:58:25] proud of particularly given it is foremost

[3:58:29] among board priorities. We moved

[3:58:33] workforce housing preservation programs

[3:58:35] and supporting partnership with supportive

[3:58:38] how housing with mercy and meadow view

[3:58:41] opening january 2022, hawkins village

[3:58:44] april of 2022 so achievable progress

[3:58:47] coming soon. Also too we continue to

[3:58:52] expand programs and projects to provide

[3:58:53] affordable housing through regional

[3:58:55] partnerships pictured here was the recent

[3:58:58] event we attended and participated in

[3:59:01] partnership with truckee for 5 affordable

[3:59:04] housing projects in the eastern placer

[3:59:05] region two of which in placer county.

[3:59:09] pursuing the deed restriction program.

[3:59:12] promoting adu. Here is where I need to

[3:59:16] give a shout out to the pio team. They

[3:59:18] developed a booth they have taken to the

[3:59:21] home shows, they hope to take to the

[3:59:23] county fair next year promoting adu as

[3:59:27] alternative for affordable housing. Also

[3:59:30] the housing code amendment workshop. That

[3:59:35] actually is now scheduled for february 8

[3:59:38] your housing workshop follow-up with

[3:59:41] actions to follow for board action again

[3:59:43] to keep moving forward on affordable

[3:59:45] housing. Public serving infrastructure

[3:59:51] and amenities. Many who have heard todd

[3:59:54] speak out and about in the region know he

[3:59:56] speaks often about how you are moving from

[3:59:59] a period of planning in placer county to

[4:00:03] implementation. That implementation

[4:00:05] doesn't happen without the infrastructure

[4:00:08] to support growth. We have adopted parks

[4:00:11] master plan, updated the capital impact

[4:00:13] fee program, advancing transportation

[4:00:16] funding in the basin and invest in

[4:00:19] infrastructure to serve as economic and

[4:00:20] land use leveraging federal fund available

[4:00:24] earlier this year. Funding for [inaudible

[4:00:33] comments] advance the new health and human

[4:00:35] service building for early 2022 ground

[4:00:38] breaking february 23 to be specific if you

[4:00:40] want to mark your calendars and we also

[4:00:42] through our work with pc ad-hoc

[4:00:47] incorporated placer county fire facility

[4:00:50] in the maintenance plan. Outcome focused

[4:00:58] economic development. Here is a area

[4:01:01] where the county excelled over the last

[4:01:03] year. Many recall we had weekly meetings

[4:01:05] at the onset of covid with all our county

[4:01:08] cities county chambers as we tried to

[4:01:11] navigate the beginning early days of

[4:01:14] [streaming cut out]

[4:01:16] crisis. Those weekly meetings biweekly

[4:01:21] meetings and now monthly meetings as

[4:01:24] hopefully on the path of recovery but the

[4:01:26] partnerships were forged during that time

[4:01:28] and continue to be built upon. Just last

[4:01:31] month we finalized the csus placer center

[4:01:35] master plan which is a game changing

[4:01:37] development. I know from prior experience

[4:01:40] that educational institutions are just an

[4:01:43] incredible nucleus for growth and economic

[4:01:49] development. We have another [inaudible

[4:01:53] comments] we also continue to evolve our

[4:01:55] business retention strategy which is a

[4:01:56] work in progress right now by the economic

[4:01:59] development staff. Also under outcome

[4:02:03] focused economic development we are in the

[4:02:05] process of assessing eastern placer tot

[4:02:08] renewal in 2022. I understand for

[4:02:11] election that it tent atively planned for

[4:02:14] june next year to continue to extend that

[4:02:16] 2 percent tot for improvements in the

[4:02:19] basin. Lastly, I really want to call if

[4:02:21] you have not seen it in our efforts to

[4:02:23] enhance placer county ag sector marketing.

[4:02:28] this was the top 10 of projects the board

[4:02:29] wanted to highlight in february 2021 and

[4:02:32] if you haven't had a chance I encourage

[4:02:34] you to go to the ag commissioner web page

[4:02:38] which highlights the diversity of the crop

[4:02:41] portfolio across the country. They have a

[4:02:43] story map tour of placer county

[4:02:45] agricultural and you can essentially

[4:02:47] scroll through to view areas all across

[4:02:49] the county. Crop information all across

[4:02:52] the county and it really again shout out

[4:02:54] to not only josh hutchinson the ag

[4:02:57] commissioners but the pio team for

[4:03:00] developing a really incredible story of

[4:03:03] agricultural in placer county so please

[4:03:05] check it out if you haven't already.

[4:03:10] prudent and comprehensive financial

[4:03:12] planning. As you all know, we have been

[4:03:14] well served by those who have gone before

[4:03:16] in placer county for the resources we

[4:03:20] enjoy today. Ment those efforts continued

[4:03:22] in 2021 with the refresh of the community

[4:03:25] budget guide, again the leverage of the

[4:03:27] federal and state covid assistance to

[4:03:29] advance county needs, in 2020 all about

[4:03:32] cares, in 2021 it was all about arpa and

[4:03:37] putting the $77 million to work.

[4:03:46] integrated financing plan something you

[4:03:49] hear about and continue to hear about as

[4:03:51] budgets move. We continue to explore

[4:03:54] health benefit alternatives, enhance

[4:03:57] funding of pension trust fund, optimizing

[4:04:01] the use of cash reserves debt financing to

[4:04:03] achieve county and city infrastructure

[4:04:06] goals. Ongoing work of the county finance

[4:04:09] committee comprised of ceo the auditor and

[4:04:12] the treasurer working together. Fiscally

[4:04:20] sustainable public safety service. It has

[4:04:22] been a year for that. November 9 we were

[4:04:26] before this board with our placer county

[4:04:28] fire sustainable blue print. Actions will

[4:04:33] be coming in the first 5 months of 2022 to

[4:04:37] essentially execute those various actions

[4:04:39] we said improve the long-term fiscal

[4:04:42] health of placer county fire. We also

[4:04:44] revamped probation programs. The van you

[4:04:47] see here I believe was one that marshal

[4:04:49] hopper might have previewed last month.

[4:04:52] this is your purposed book mobile which is

[4:04:54] now our mobile outreach community court

[4:04:57] homeless service van which is actually

[4:04:59] proven to be very successful and to

[4:05:02] marshal's credit now a model that 4 other

[4:05:05] counties are looking into because of the

[4:05:06] efficacy and reaching out to had the hard

[4:05:08] to reach populations with probation

[4:05:10] services. Work is ongoing with supervisor

[4:05:14] holmes and supervisor jones on the cjc

[4:05:18] priorities in the context of state

[4:05:20] legislation and funding challenges. Also,

[4:05:24] on the public safety front shout out to

[4:05:27] our district morgan guyer for efforts to

[4:05:31] implement the community prosecution to

[4:05:33] manage those quality of life crimes so

[4:05:37] often go underserved. We established a

[4:05:40] new model for competitive sustainable pay

[4:05:43] for dsa and expanded the pipe line with

[4:05:46] actions by the board to add intro-level

[4:05:50] law enforcement positions to start the

[4:05:52] career with the sheriff cadet program.

[4:05:57] innovative integrated county services. I

[4:06:00] thought we had quite a year in 2020, but

[4:06:04] our staff only raised the bar in 2021 with

[4:06:07] our continued adaptation to covid telework

[4:06:11] approach while still getting the job done

[4:06:14] via cloud technology and hard work of it

[4:06:17] team under jared [inaudible comments]

[4:06:19] expanding online service offers. In my

[4:06:22] other job as interim [inaudible comments]

[4:06:24] I was advised 80 percent of the activity

[4:06:27] occurs online versus over counter which

[4:06:32] was a shocking figure in terms of money

[4:06:35] well spent and investing in technical

[4:06:47] infrastructure. [inaudible comments]

[4:06:49] moving our agenda process into the 21

[4:06:52] century also partners with county

[4:06:55] department on information and data

[4:06:56] security e. Deborah curtis and it is doing

[4:06:59] amazing work and continuing to test the

[4:07:01] waters with our county teams on fishing

[4:07:04] and other efforts so we are not in the

[4:07:06] boat many other public agencies found them

[4:07:09] in in terms of hacks, ransom ware and

[4:07:13] other things that can make county life

[4:07:16] quite unpleasant. Also on the innovation

[4:07:18] front we advanced rural broadband needs.

[4:07:21] in october the board took action for

[4:07:23] county specific programs but as noted in

[4:07:26] the morning legislative update we are also

[4:07:28] partnering with r c r c golden state

[4:07:32] connect jpa to try to access some of

[4:07:35] that-what was the figure? $7 billion in

[4:07:40] state money for broadband in the new year.

[4:07:44] and the idea which you heard about in 19

[4:07:48] and 20 will also be launching again. 2.0

[4:07:54] under ben's leadership in 2022. Land use

[4:08:01] planning and environmental stewardship.

[4:08:04] these efforts are ongoing. The update on

[4:08:07] the general plan our participation in the

[4:08:09] water form renegotiation and next month

[4:08:14] see the groundwater sustainability plan.

[4:08:17] also too I'm pleased to highlight in the

[4:08:20] chair year of bord service the culmination

[4:08:26] of decades of placer conte conservation

[4:08:29] program work with multiple partner signing

[4:08:32] ceremony earlier this year. I mentioned

[4:08:34] continue to advance forest health and

[4:08:36] wildfire prevention and water should

[4:08:38] management efforts and as I are mentioned

[4:08:41] todd continued emphasis on transitioning

[4:08:45] from land use plan to implementation net

[4:08:48] will continue in earnest in 2022. Lastly

[4:08:52] I want to highlight for you again these

[4:08:54] were the 10 initiatives the board

[4:08:57] highlighted back in february 2021. The

[4:08:59] critical success factors are areas of

[4:09:06] emphasis. Many of these are ways of doing

[4:09:09] things rather then discreet projects but

[4:09:12] all ongoing. As you note here with the

[4:09:14] homeless action plan, with our cities

[4:09:17] coming before you on january 11, but these

[4:09:19] efforts as I noted are well underway. So,

[4:09:23] with that, I will turn it over to ben to

[4:09:25] talk about what to expect in 2022.

[4:09:28] >> thank you. Good afternoon chairman and

[4:09:31] supervisors. Ben mills processing program

[4:09:35] administrator. As we look forward to 2022

[4:09:38] the platform implementing tools will be

[4:09:41] updated including a overhauled version of

[4:09:44] the work plan the document that incompass

[4:09:48] the board strategic plan process. It will

[4:09:51] contain new information for funding and

[4:09:54] future needs staffing and at a glance

[4:09:56] symbols to track progress. The work plan

[4:09:59] is a living document with new initiatives

[4:10:05] added and completed initiatives removed.

[4:10:10] other update said include a new

[4:10:11] organizational monitoring report. Which

[4:10:13] provide you metrix and benchmarks to

[4:10:16] measure progression of the critical

[4:10:18] success factors. These items will be

[4:10:21] regularly updated and presented to your

[4:10:23] board and also be added to a new county

[4:10:26] strategic plan website under development.

[4:10:28] beginning in the new year our team will

[4:10:30] meet with each of our offices to discuss

[4:10:33] in detail and priorities what types of

[4:10:36] metrix you like to see for our office to

[4:10:38] report out to your board. And to better

[4:10:41] define success as far as implementation of

[4:10:43] the strategic plan. So with that I look

[4:10:46] forward working with you all and

[4:10:48] appreciate it. Thank you.

[4:10:49] >> thank you.

[4:10:51] >> that concludes our progress report. If

[4:10:54] there are any questions both ben and I are

[4:10:57] here.

[4:10:58] >> thanks to both of you for the update

[4:11:01] and preview into our next steps. I have

[4:11:03] to say I'm exhausted hearing all of the

[4:11:06] work going on to live through the part you

[4:11:09] played. It tires you out when you have

[4:11:11] been around for a while. When I came here

[4:11:15] the budget was a quarter of the size it is

[4:11:17] currently and a lot less sophisticated and

[4:11:20] there was always a appetite by the board

[4:11:23] to have more measurable performance

[4:11:27] standards and a place by which the board

[4:11:29] can actually measure its impact on the

[4:11:31] budget because so much of what we do is

[4:11:34] prescribed state and federal law and it is

[4:11:37] easy in any organization just to keep

[4:11:39] doing things we have been doing rather

[4:11:43] then shake things up and think

[4:11:45] differently. But those that elected want

[4:11:48] to come on board and shake things up a bit

[4:11:50] so I want to thank todd particularly for

[4:11:53] from the time I have been here 27 years

[4:11:55] the process now by which we are going

[4:11:57] forward that you brought forward with the

[4:12:00] first workshop 3 or 4 years ago by far the

[4:12:03] best I have seen and think we are pointed

[4:12:05] in the right direction as it relates to

[4:12:08] having bord members engage on the parts of

[4:12:10] our expenditures that can be flexible and

[4:12:13] creative. Having staff listen to that.

[4:12:16] the 5 fight it out among ourselves what

[4:12:19] direction gets settled abon but think we

[4:12:22] are well positioned to be far more

[4:12:25] entrepreneur and innovative then thing

[4:12:28] last 27 years I have been around. Just a

[4:12:34] shout out and thanks. Todd.

[4:12:36] >> first thanks. I know you have done

[4:12:39] this for a while. Trying to get more

[4:12:41] quarterly update of what is going on so

[4:12:44] thank you for doing this. Ben, I know you

[4:12:46] will take pieces and build off of it and I

[4:12:48] think as we is seen over the last 3 or 4

[4:12:51] years take and put baselines in place and

[4:12:54] building off those so I think we have a

[4:12:56] good financial model to do and obviously

[4:12:59] it comes down to projects and it is

[4:13:03] interest to look back and I'm like did

[4:13:05] that happen last year? That seemed 2 or 3

[4:13:08] years ago. Things just fly by but think

[4:13:12] we are just really positioned well not

[4:13:15] only operation about financially and think

[4:13:18] we have amies amazing staff. Appreciate

[4:13:22] the update. Good for you all to hear.

[4:13:25] what are the policy decisions you put in

[4:13:27] place and how they come to materialize and

[4:13:29] there is a lot gone on this year even with

[4:13:33] interesting pandemic that plagued us for a

[4:13:35] while.

[4:13:45] >> I'll open up to the public if there is

[4:13:48] any.

[4:13:49] >> trudy please unmute your mic and give

[4:13:52] your comments.

[4:13:53] >> thank you. My name is trudy gardener,

[4:13:55] can you hear me okay?

[4:13:56] >> yes.

[4:13:57] >> great. I was wondering, I wanted to

[4:14:01] step back a little bit to talk about the

[4:14:03] affordable housing just mentioned. I was

[4:14:08] wondering approximately how much money

[4:14:12] have you put towards achievable community

[4:14:15] housing programs in the tahoe area? Say

[4:14:21] since 2010.

[4:14:26] >> jane, do-we can get you specific

[4:14:29] information on that for sure which we

[4:14:31] probably will have to do as it relates to

[4:14:33] detail, but jane, I think can give you

[4:14:35] some perspective.

[4:14:37] >> we can absolutely follow-up. I believe

[4:14:40] the request was back to 2010 which

[4:14:43] predates my time with the county so I can

[4:14:45] work with sean and others who are leads on

[4:14:48] housing to get the number.

[4:14:49] >> I will say I think [inaudible comments]

[4:14:52] we acquired the dollar hill property in

[4:14:55] the process of identifying the land use

[4:14:58] and layout for affordable and workforce

[4:15:01] housing. I think there is a lot of

[4:15:04] investment made and continue to be made

[4:15:06] with the approval of the tbid it is able

[4:15:09] to reallocate dollars to both housing and

[4:15:12] transportation. This was the board

[4:15:14] directive for those what we call freed up

[4:15:17] tot dollars are used for those specific

[4:15:20] purposes, so we are more then happy to get

[4:15:22] you more information. I know 10 years,

[4:15:26] now 11 years of funding is quite a bit but

[4:15:30] in the last 2 or 3 years this is a

[4:15:33] concerted effort by the board.

[4:15:35] >> good.

[4:15:36] >> thank you. Yes, the chairman did

[4:15:39] mention the measurable spending and was

[4:15:43] just wondering would there be a way of

[4:15:46] providing that by next month's meeting?

[4:15:49] it shouldn't take long.

[4:15:51] >> I don't have to do the work but will

[4:15:55] say sure.

[4:15:56] [laughter]

[4:15:57] >> we'll do a quick update.

[4:15:59] >> we are both looking for the same thing

[4:16:01] mr. Chairman.

[4:16:04] >> we'll get that for you for sure within

[4:16:08] a month.

[4:16:09] >> thanks so much.

[4:16:10] >> thank you. Thank you again and with

[4:16:14] that, we have to do a little cleanup on

[4:16:18] another issue county counsel advices me

[4:16:21] and so I'll turn it over to karen.

[4:16:28] >> mr. Chair, members of the board it has

[4:16:31] come to our attention that we had a-this

[4:16:35] is a procedural glitch in our consents

[4:16:38] calendar and as a result what I like to

[4:16:41] ask the board to do is reconsider items

[4:16:44] 19a and 20a and I'll explain why. If I

[4:16:49] can have a motion for that.

[4:16:50] >> so moved.

[4:16:51] >> second.

[4:16:52] >> motion and second. All in favor say

[4:16:53] aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

[4:16:56] >> great. For 19a, I would now like the

[4:17:00] board to adjourn as the county and to

[4:17:06] reconvene as the placer vineyard park and

[4:17:11] recreation district.

[4:17:14] >> adjourn as placer county board of

[4:17:18] supervisors and reconvene as placer county

[4:17:20] parks district?

[4:17:21] >> yes, park district. As such I like to

[4:17:24] request that you move to approve once

[4:17:29] again the adoption for resolution to

[4:17:31] approve a joint community facilities

[4:17:37] district.

[4:17:38] >> move approval.

[4:17:39] >> second.

[4:17:40] >> motion and second. All in favor say

[4:17:41] aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

[4:17:43] >> like you to adjourn as the park and rec

[4:17:46] district and reconvene as the bord.

[4:17:48] >> placer county parks district is

[4:17:53] reconvening as the placer county board of

[4:17:56] supervisors.

[4:17:57] >> to take up consideration of 20a as the

[4:18:00] placer county board of supervisor,

[4:18:03] assessment work flow software.

[4:18:04] >> so moved.

[4:18:05] >> second.

[4:18:06] >> motion and second. All in favor say

[4:18:07] aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

[4:18:09] >> thank you very much.

[4:18:10] >> thank you. And now we will take up our

[4:18:14] 1230 timed item which is short-term rental

[4:18:17] ordinance update so this is a update that

[4:18:20] I want to say from the beginning that

[4:18:24] staff definitely is looking for

[4:18:26] specificity and direction from the board

[4:18:28] in terms of the comments and hopefully

[4:18:30] consensus so if we can keep that in mind I

[4:18:32] think it will be helpful as we move

[4:18:34] forward. Stephanie.

[4:18:35] >> good afternoon stephanie holloway with

[4:18:37] the tahoe [inaudible comments] chairman

[4:18:40] weygandt members of the board mr. Leopold

[4:18:43] mrs. Schwab. I lost my cohort. She will

[4:18:47] be back. Here this afternoon to really

[4:18:49] kick off a presentation on short-term

[4:18:53] rentals and convene workshop with your

[4:18:55] board to seek further direction so I'm

[4:18:57] joined by a diverse team here-not here but

[4:19:01] will be here really working diligently for

[4:19:06] the options around short-term rentals and

[4:19:09] really bringing that before your board for

[4:19:10] consideration hopefully early in january

[4:19:14] before the end of had moratorium. Crystal

[4:19:19] jacobson deputy director and aaron

[4:19:23] [inaudible comments] with bay area

[4:19:25] economics and going to copresent the item.

[4:19:28] aaron is on zoom with us this afternoon.

[4:19:32] also I didn't to mention nick martin in

[4:19:34] the and emily setzer are also available

[4:19:40] via zoom for technical questions that may

[4:19:42] come up. So, I am going to advance our

[4:19:47] slide here. Okay. So, let me start with

[4:19:50] brief history around the short-term rental

[4:19:53] ordinance. Your board is familiar with

[4:19:54] this but will go back through. The

[4:19:56] ordinance was first considered by your

[4:19:58] board at the end of 2019, and really to

[4:20:03] address some nuisance and growing safety

[4:20:05] concerns within the community. The

[4:20:07] adoption of article 19.42 january 2022

[4:20:11] included a list of operational standards

[4:20:14] focused on noise, trash, fire and building

[4:20:17] code compliance as well as parking

[4:20:20] concerns brought up tie buy the community.

[4:20:22] your board recently adopted urgency

[4:20:24] ordinance and extension in july and august

[4:20:26] of the past summer which established a

[4:20:28] moratorium for the increase on the

[4:20:31] increase of new short-term rentals within

[4:20:34] the community until march 31, 2022 so the

[4:20:39] purpose is to create a pause and give

[4:20:41] staff time to really dig if had to some of

[4:20:43] the concerns related to increase usage of

[4:20:48] second homes and around the short-term

[4:20:52] rentals and think concern the effects of

[4:20:55] the demand for these homes on workforce

[4:20:57] housing specifically availability and the

[4:20:59] potential for price escalation. So, just

[4:21:05] a timeline here from the adoption of the

[4:21:07] urgency ordinance back in july and august.

[4:21:10] staff quickly appreciated the very short

[4:21:12] window of time we had to engage the

[4:21:15] community to really dig in on a number of

[4:21:17] issues around housing to crunch some the

[4:21:20] data that we were still working on

[4:21:23] acquiring and really kind of come up with

[4:21:26] some options to bring forward to your

[4:21:29] board. It has been about 3 months since

[4:21:32] then. I will say we really set to work

[4:21:35] initially by listening doing large

[4:21:37] stakeholder meetings as well as a number

[4:21:40] of different focused stakeholder

[4:21:42] discussions to really dig in and

[4:21:45] understand the big picture, understand

[4:21:46] every voice. The issue of short-term

[4:21:50] rental touches so many different community

[4:21:53] members in different ways so we wanted to

[4:21:55] make sure we understand the full depth of

[4:21:57] the issue. We are here today to really

[4:22:00] give you a update on the progress. We

[4:22:02] promised we would do that this summer so

[4:22:05] here before the end of the year to do that

[4:22:06] and also engage with the board on

[4:22:08] potential options around str restrictions.

[4:22:16] so just to talk briefly on the outreach

[4:22:18] efforts, county staff lead two larger

[4:22:21] stakeholder workshops really like I said

[4:22:25] kind of coming together with a multitude

[4:22:27] of voices really seeking some community

[4:22:30] lead solutions around str. From that

[4:22:33] initial brainstorming we did dig in on a

[4:22:37] number of focus groups having deeper

[4:22:40] discussions and identifying more detailed

[4:22:43] concerns. So, overall we held 12

[4:22:47] stakeholder meetings targeted discussions

[4:22:50] over the last 12 months. And then

[4:22:53] additionally just to mention stakeholder

[4:22:55] outreach really once we felt we had

[4:22:58] refined the issues and are formulated

[4:23:01] options for the community to consider, we

[4:23:04] did launch a larger online survey, which

[4:23:08] resulted in over 1500 direct responses so

[4:23:12] we felt that was a pretty good

[4:23:14] representation of the community. I will

[4:23:17] say that the survey was provided through

[4:23:22] three different delivery method. We

[4:23:25] contracted with a contractor to do a

[4:23:28] initial blast to people within the

[4:23:31] community that were sort of signed up to

[4:23:34] give feedback around community issues. We

[4:23:37] also specifically sent that survey out

[4:23:39] through our pio office to our str owners

[4:23:43] and operates and then thirdly just a

[4:23:46] general public getting on next door to get

[4:23:48] it out to the greater community. We

[4:23:52] really felt this method provided us with

[4:23:55] some understanding of where the potential

[4:23:57] biases may be within different groups

[4:23:59] within the issue. So, I'll mention there

[4:24:02] is a detail on that survey in the results

[4:24:04] are contained in your packet and I'll

[4:24:07] highlight I think of importance here

[4:24:09] really is that there is a

[4:24:10] significant-maybe not significant but a

[4:24:14] variation in the response between the

[4:24:16] flash vote and open survey and then also

[4:24:18] the survey that we sent out specifically

[4:24:20] to our str owners and operators. So,

[4:24:26] boiling it down the issues we heard from

[4:24:30] the community outreach, really around

[4:24:32] workforce housing I think your board heard

[4:24:34] those concerns previously this summer.

[4:24:38] neighborhood character around nuisance

[4:24:39] issues, trash, noise, parking. Fire life

[4:24:43] safety, we did talk to the fire districts

[4:24:46] specifically. Them having concerns about

[4:24:48] just consistency of inspections, making

[4:24:53] sure the units were inspected before the

[4:24:55] permit was issued. Also heard from them

[4:25:00] just overall desire for potentially

[4:25:03] folding into defensible space inspection

[4:25:07] so a number different issues we talked to

[4:25:09] the fire districts about. Also of note

[4:25:12] just really the connection with the

[4:25:15] potential for impact on our hotel economy.

[4:25:20] I think the discussion here is really just

[4:25:21] the equity between hotels and second homes

[4:25:26] used as tourist accommodation, so that

[4:25:29] conversation seemed to boil up to the

[4:25:31] surface as well over and over. Lastly,

[4:25:34] I'll mention staff has been really focused

[4:25:39] on the effectiveness of the ordinance as

[4:25:41] far as enforcement and making sure that we

[4:25:46] are being purposeful and removing any

[4:25:49] barriers for implementation of the

[4:25:51] ordinance so you will see that in

[4:25:53] crystal's presentation. Just to mention

[4:25:56] our vision I think like I said we did a

[4:25:58] lot of listening tried to boil down these

[4:26:01] issues and come up with a vision to move

[4:26:03] forward striving for a balance of housing

[4:26:06] between housing in the residential

[4:26:08] community potentially but also our tourist

[4:26:12] housing accommodation within the town

[4:26:14] centers creating a balance there. And

[4:26:17] then also creating a balance and

[4:26:19] supporting our economy in eastern placer

[4:26:22] which is predominantly tourism allowing

[4:26:26] workforce housing and incent vising

[4:26:28] workforce housing. Lastly achieving code

[4:26:31] compliance and maintaining our community

[4:26:32] character so I think this boils it down to

[4:26:35] the three big issues that seem to come out

[4:26:38] of all the engagement. Our team did

[4:26:43] perform additional research. We mentioned

[4:26:46] this to you last time over the summer that

[4:26:48] we started research on other jurisdictions

[4:26:51] and really what they were doing to sort of

[4:26:54] solve some of the challenges they were

[4:26:55] having around destination stewardship and

[4:26:59] tourist mitigation on the screen here is

[4:27:01] just a few of those common actions that

[4:27:04] other areas are taking to address these

[4:27:06] concerns. There is a more detailed

[4:27:10] breakdown in attachment d in your packet.

[4:27:12] so, from this we took clues of some

[4:27:15] practices that we might think are valuable

[4:27:18] and viable within our communities in

[4:27:21] eastern placer and kind of started vetting

[4:27:24] those with the community and stakeholders.

[4:27:27] so we did review approximately 20s

[4:27:31] different jurisdictions in the local

[4:27:34] areas. There are a number of counties

[4:27:35] that have taken action in the area around

[4:27:38] str and targeting other tourist economy

[4:27:41] mountain towns to really look for common

[4:27:44] practices. So, these areas included

[4:27:47] summit county, avon, steam boat springs,

[4:27:51] crest butte in colorado and jackson

[4:27:57] wyoming and moab utah. I will sort of

[4:28:03] highlight the prevalence and you will see

[4:28:05] that in the packet of options related to

[4:28:13] zoning. It is not something we are

[4:28:15] bringing forward today and it is mostly

[4:28:17] because our area of eastern placer is

[4:28:20] really pretty diverse. The zoning

[4:28:23] district and the zoning area is very

[4:28:27] complex, especially when we start

[4:28:29] considering the tahoe basin and the

[4:28:31] overlay of the zone districts from t r pa,

[4:28:34] so you will see that in the packet. It is

[4:28:37] very common around cities opposed to

[4:28:40] counties that have a different

[4:28:42] jurisdictional structure. I'll note the

[4:28:47] uniqueness and inconsistency of

[4:28:50] application of some of these options

[4:28:52] within different areas. I think we were

[4:28:55] really looking for a tool box of best

[4:28:57] practices. I think we found there are a

[4:29:00] lot of practices, but they are applied

[4:29:02] very uniquely for different jurisdictions

[4:29:05] and so I think our charge was to find the

[4:29:07] right tool box and right options for

[4:29:10] placer that we wanted to bring forward for

[4:29:12] you today. Crystal will dive into this a

[4:29:17] little deeper but this is a preview of

[4:29:19] options that we vetted. So before she

[4:29:23] does that I wanted to introduce aaron new

[4:29:26] sane again from bay area urban economics.

[4:29:30] aaron was instrumental in digging in on

[4:29:33] the tot and str data he'll walk through

[4:29:37] and coming up with initial findings around

[4:29:42] the economic questions raised earlier this

[4:29:44] year. So, I'll mention his full report is

[4:29:47] available as attachment b in your packet

[4:29:51] and just sort of to report out again there

[4:29:56] is a very short timeline we asked aaron to

[4:29:58] pull this information together and to have

[4:30:00] this packet ready for you, so it was

[4:30:03] available online on friday for your

[4:30:06] consumption as well as the public. So,

[4:30:08] with that I'll hand it over to aaron.

[4:30:19] >> we had the privilege working with the

[4:30:22] county to pull together information a

[4:30:25] relatively short-term prime with the

[4:30:28] associations between short-term rentals

[4:30:30] and the availability and pricing of

[4:30:32] long-term housing and then also dug into

[4:30:35] some of the available data on the str

[4:30:41] market in eastern placer county specific.

[4:30:45] in terms of the data we looked at specific

[4:30:47] to eastern placer county, the primary data

[4:30:50] source we ended up relying was county

[4:30:54] inventory of tot certificates that is any

[4:30:57] property that collects and remits

[4:30:58] transient occupancy tax as well as the

[4:31:01] county inventory of permitted str. Looked

[4:31:04] at data from a couple private data

[4:31:11] vendors. The data coverage was pretty

[4:31:13] subpar so did not rely on the data

[4:31:15] particularly heavily. We also looked at

[4:31:17] census data with regard to the housing

[4:31:20] inventory and the placer county assessor

[4:31:23] parcel data with regard to home owner

[4:31:26] exemption. The first main phase of the

[4:31:31] research was to do a review of the

[4:31:35] contemporary academic literature with

[4:31:37] regard to relationship with regard to str

[4:31:40] and availability of pricing of long-term

[4:31:42] housing. We also looked at studies and

[4:31:45] specifically spoke to relationship between

[4:31:48] str and hotel viability in particular

[4:31:50] looking at occupancy, average daily rates

[4:31:54] and revenue per available room night. We

[4:31:56] looked at total of about 23 articles about

[4:31:59] 16 of those specifically spoke to the

[4:32:01] relationship between str and housing. 4

[4:32:04] looked at relationship between str and

[4:32:08] hotels and had a handsful of others more

[4:32:11] focused on the regulatory responses to str

[4:32:18] markets. The scope of the current

[4:32:20] academic literature mostly focus on large

[4:32:23] urban tourist destinations. Places like

[4:32:26] new york, san francisco, barcelona,

[4:32:29] london. We found study that -looked at a

[4:32:36] variety of communities across oregon

[4:32:40] including larger and smaller rural

[4:32:43] destinations. So, with those caveats in

[4:32:49] mind, the literature on str consistently

[4:32:53] found a significant relationship between

[4:32:57] the prevalence of str in a certain

[4:33:00] residential market and the availability

[4:33:01] and pricing of long-term housing.

[4:33:04] generally speaking the effect seem to be

[4:33:08] stronger between str and for sale housing

[4:33:10] compared to pricing of rental housing.

[4:33:15] the logic is str effect the pricing

[4:33:20] rational for for sale housing where they

[4:33:22] effect pricing for rental housing more in

[4:33:25] terms of reduction in the available

[4:33:27] supply. The literature found that in

[4:33:30] general str do incentivize conversion of

[4:33:33] long-term housing and a number of studies

[4:33:36] specifically identified increase trend

[4:33:39] toward investor activity. That is a

[4:33:43] effecting housing pricing. In terms of

[4:33:46] the document relationship between the str

[4:33:49] and hotel market, it is much less well

[4:33:52] studied and the results are somewhat

[4:33:54] inconsistent, however there is a handful

[4:33:56] of studies that did document relationships

[4:33:59] in particular on hotel pricing and result

[4:34:03] higher str in the market correlating to

[4:34:08] less aggressive pricing for hotel

[4:34:10] properties. As a general indication those

[4:34:13] effects may effect mid-tier and lower tier

[4:34:18] properties more compared to higher tier

[4:34:20] properties. The research seems to suggest

[4:34:23] hotels across the spectrum are more or

[4:34:27] less equally impacted. Studies also

[4:34:31] specifically noted that while some of the

[4:34:33] coefficients of impact and magnitude of

[4:34:37] str 1 percent increase in str may appear

[4:34:41] relatively modest the rapid growth in the

[4:34:44] str market can have a significant

[4:34:47] cumulative affect on the markets. Next

[4:34:49] slide. So, I want to change gears and

[4:34:54] talk about the

[4:34:56] [audio cut out]

[4:34:58] according to data provided by the county

[4:35:01] there are about 15600 total housing units

[4:35:06] in the eastern county. Of those about 12

[4:35:08] percent are owner occupied but 9 percent

[4:35:12] are estimated to be long-term rented with

[4:35:15] just under 80 percent being second homes.

[4:35:19] based on the tot certificate data we have,

[4:35:24] it appears as of the 2020-2021 fiscal year

[4:35:28] there are about 4420 residential units

[4:35:31] that were submitting tot. That represents

[4:35:35] about 28 percent of the total housing

[4:35:38] stock. There were additional 1445

[4:35:41] residential unit that were registered,

[4:35:45] they had tot certificates about not

[4:35:47] actively generated tot to the county.

[4:35:49] that represents 9 percent of the housing

[4:35:51] stock. To be more specific, we were

[4:35:54] looking at single family units,

[4:36:00] condominium, townhomes, plex units, mobile

[4:36:02] homes and apartments as being

[4:36:03] representative of short-term rentals. We

[4:36:06] are categorizing hotel motel property bed

[4:36:09] and breakfast condo hotel and time share

[4:36:12] property as part of the long-term lodging

[4:36:14] market so those units are not included in

[4:36:17] the totals. Next slide. So, this figure

[4:36:25] illustrates growth in a number of active

[4:36:27] revenue generated tot certificates by unit

[4:36:30] type. So, the orange line essentially

[4:36:33] shows the inventory of hotel motel b & b

[4:36:38] over time shows that inventory being

[4:36:41] relatively stable. The blue line shows

[4:36:43] residential units, again single family,

[4:36:46] plex, condo, etcetera. And it shows

[4:36:50] fairly consistent growth over time among

[4:36:52] the short-term rental market. Next. Here

[4:36:59] we are layering in an additional line in

[4:37:02] gray that specifically shows the inventory

[4:37:04] of condo hotel and time sharing units and

[4:37:07] we see a significant increase and

[4:37:12] volatility. We are still working to

[4:37:17] identify [inaudible comments] next slide.

[4:37:22] here we show the same data but in a

[4:37:24] slightly different format and you see the

[4:37:27] cumulative inventory of overnight visitor

[4:37:31] accommodations. You can see the single

[4:37:36] family plex and apartment inventory of

[4:37:38] short-term rentals along the bottom in

[4:37:45] increase. Gradual increase in condo unit.

[4:37:49] increase in hotel motel properties and

[4:37:52] significant increase but volatility in the

[4:37:55] condo hotel and time share. Next slide.

[4:38:02] this data shows the total number of str in

[4:38:05] a couple different buckets as a percentage

[4:38:08] of the housing stock. The most recent

[4:38:11] numbers there were about 2510 total

[4:38:14] permitted str in eastern placer county

[4:38:16] that represented about 16 percent of the

[4:38:18] total housing stock. If you look more

[4:38:20] broadly include unit excluded from the

[4:38:26] current permit regulations that total

[4:38:28] increases to just over 4400 units total

[4:38:31] which is about 28 percent of the total

[4:38:33] housing stock. If you also layer in other

[4:38:39] tot certificates associated with

[4:38:41] residential units not generating revenue

[4:38:44] but have the potential to do so, that

[4:38:47] percentage increases to about 30 percent

[4:38:48] the total housing stock that could

[4:38:51] potentially engage short-term rental

[4:38:55] activity. This shows a slightly different

[4:38:59] percentage looking at just single family

[4:39:02] inventory both within the str inventory

[4:39:08] and total housing stock. Just under 2600

[4:39:14] units generating revenue that represented

[4:39:17] about 21 percent of the total single

[4:39:19] family inventory. If you are in the unit

[4:39:24] not generating revenue about the tot

[4:39:27] certificate it increased it 3800 or 31

[4:39:32] percent of inventory. This figure shows

[4:39:37] the distribution of active revenue

[4:39:41] generating tot certificates that were

[4:39:44] joined with the county parcel inventory

[4:39:46] and the reason we did that was to identify

[4:39:50] which revenue generating str were

[4:39:54] associated with properties that had

[4:39:56] claimed the state and federal home owner

[4:39:59] exemption on the taxes and we are using

[4:40:02] that essentially as the proxy for

[4:40:04] full-time occupancy. The data generally

[4:40:08] indicate units with home owner exemptions

[4:40:12] represent 3 percent of all revenue

[4:40:14] generating residential units that have tot

[4:40:17] certificates. About 133 units in total

[4:40:21] and most of the units are second family.

[4:40:24] the remainder of the inventory is presumed

[4:40:26] to be second homes as well as investor

[4:40:28] owned properties. Next slide. On the

[4:40:34] left here we can see information that was

[4:40:36] pulled from the county's permitted str

[4:40:40] inventory so this is just permitted str

[4:40:43] and among those properties about 62

[4:40:47] percent were professionally managed while

[4:40:49] 38 percent were owner managed. On the

[4:40:52] right we see data for all revenue

[4:40:57] generated units and from that we see 57

[4:41:03] percent of the total active str inventory

[4:41:05] was permitted under the county existing

[4:41:08] regulations. Next slide. This figure

[4:41:14] illustrates distribution of revenue

[4:41:18] generating tot certificates by type

[4:41:22] throughout the county. Generally speaking

[4:41:23] we see significant clustering of

[4:41:26] short-term rental properties in proximity

[4:41:28] to major tourist destinations in

[4:41:31] particular you have olympic valley alpine

[4:41:35] meadows north star and north and west

[4:41:41] shores of lake tahoe and [inaudible

[4:41:45] comments] this figure illustrates the

[4:41:49] distribution of revenue generating str by

[4:41:52] bedroom size. We can see the majority of

[4:41:55] units have between 2 and 4 bedrooms with

[4:41:58] only about just under 6 percent of the

[4:42:01] total str inventory having 5 or more

[4:42:04] bedrooms and this generally suggests the

[4:42:06] majority of rental properties in eastern

[4:42:09] placer county are of a size functionally

[4:42:11] appropriate for long-term housing as well.

[4:42:14] next slide. Now we will talk about the

[4:42:20] availability of occupancy of revenue

[4:42:22] generating short-term rental properties.

[4:42:27] this slide in particular is illustrating

[4:42:28] for the most part short-term rental

[4:42:31] properties are making available for

[4:42:34] occupancy for very large segments of the

[4:42:36] year. You can see the largest cohort is

[4:42:39] 271 nights per year. The general thinking

[4:42:43] is most property owners are making their

[4:42:45] property available for large portions of

[4:42:47] the year so they can take advantage of

[4:42:50] peak in demand as they materialize within

[4:42:53] the market and they really only intend to

[4:42:56] rent the unit for smaller amounts of time.

[4:42:59] next slide. Here we see the distribution

[4:43:05] of occupancy by number of nights. All is

[4:43:09] a large clustering around hundred nights

[4:43:12] and less and then a tale going off with

[4:43:17] fewer and fewer properties being rented

[4:43:22] throughout the year. Here we have the

[4:43:25] average and median availability and

[4:43:28] occupancy for revenue generating

[4:43:31] residential properties with tot

[4:43:32] certificates. You can see that on average

[4:43:36] units are being made available of about

[4:43:40] 250 nights per year and occupied 103

[4:43:44] nights average. There is about 104

[4:43:48] weekend nights per year. So, we can see

[4:43:52] units are occupied for significant

[4:43:54] portions of the year and we also have to

[4:43:56] acknowledge that it may not be every

[4:43:58] weekend but you may have certain times of

[4:44:00] year that have concentrations of demand

[4:44:04] and a unit may be vacant for other

[4:44:06] portions of the year. In general this

[4:44:08] equals out to be average occupancy rate of

[4:44:11] about 41 percent based on the available

[4:44:14] self reported dat aa. In terms of the

[4:44:17] average price paid per occupied night, we

[4:44:20] are seeing total of about $344 per night

[4:44:25] per unit. Based on average occupancy that

[4:44:28] averages out to total gross revenue of

[4:44:32] little over $35 thousand per year and if

[4:44:34] we break that down into monthly average

[4:44:37] that total is about $2900 per month. We

[4:44:41] are recognizing the revenue may accrue in

[4:44:45] lumps throughout the year and may not be

[4:44:47] evenly distributed [inaudible comments] we

[4:45:03] also compare that gross revenue generating

[4:45:07] potential that is equal a little over 50

[4:45:10] percent of the total debt service payment

[4:45:12] for medium priced home. If you like at

[4:45:17] sales between january and september this

[4:45:19] year. Next slide. So while we don't

[4:45:24] necessarily have a direct sufficient data

[4:45:29] to substantiate direct relationship in

[4:45:32] eastern placer county between str and

[4:45:35] long-term pricing availability the

[4:45:37] available literature suggests there is

[4:45:39] likely some possible relationship.

[4:45:45] [audio cutting out]

[4:45:47] showing the average occupancy and vac ancy

[4:45:54] between the 2006, 2010 community survey.

[4:46:03] [inaudible comments] increase in the

[4:46:04] number of units or percentage of units

[4:46:06] held vacant for seasonally occasional use,

[4:46:09] decrease in percent on units that are

[4:46:13] full-time occupied. Next slide. So, one

[4:46:18] other piece of the analysis we were

[4:46:20] charged evaluating what the relationship

[4:46:23] between str and the hotel and motel

[4:46:32] overnight accommodations market. We are

[4:46:34] doing this in order to essentially better

[4:46:38] understand the extent to which regulating

[4:46:43] str constrain the ability of tourist

[4:46:46] accommodation recognizing eastern placer

[4:46:48] county is a tourist driven economy. We

[4:46:52] initially did that looking at the 2016

[4:46:55] dean ronion visitor demand economic impact

[4:47:00] study and we updated the numbers to get a

[4:47:03] sense of the total number of visitor days

[4:47:05] and or overnight-demand for overnight

[4:47:13] accommodations and seen a significant

[4:47:15] increase. There is insufficient data at

[4:47:18] this time to fully assess the extend to

[4:47:20] which the current inventory of overnight

[4:47:23] accommodations is adequate. That said,

[4:47:26] additional data that summarized in the

[4:47:28] report attached to your packet suggests

[4:47:31] that occupancy among hotel and motel

[4:47:34] properties has been decreasing moderately

[4:47:37] over the last handful of years which

[4:47:40] corresponded with increase in occupancy

[4:47:42] among short-term rental properties. This

[4:47:46] suggests that perhaps the regulation of

[4:47:49] short-term rental properties might result

[4:47:55] in increased occupancy among hotel motel

[4:47:58] properties. However, we also acknowledge

[4:48:00] that demand among tourists for overnight

[4:48:05] accommodations tends to occur in an uneven

[4:48:10] way, so additional research may be

[4:48:14] necessary to assess the balance of demand

[4:48:16] and supply between tourists overnight

[4:48:19] stays and the lodging industry. Next

[4:48:22] slide. So, again in summary, the

[4:48:26] literature review we prepared as part of

[4:48:29] the research generally indicated str do

[4:48:31] have a significant relationship between

[4:48:34] the availability and pricing of long-term

[4:48:36] housing as well as occupancy and pricing

[4:48:38] for hotel motel properties. About 28

[4:48:42] percent of the current housing stock is

[4:48:45] actively used for short-term rental

[4:48:49] purpose. Since 2010 we have seen 43

[4:48:52] percent increase in the number of str

[4:48:55] units that are active in eastern placer

[4:48:57] county. We have seen 47 percent increase

[4:49:00] in the number of condo hotel and time

[4:49:05] share property and virtually no change in

[4:49:08] hotel motel units. In general there is

[4:49:11] str properties are generating average of

[4:49:13] around $35 thousand per year in gross

[4:49:16] revenue and occupied for average around

[4:49:19] 103 nights per year. The current average

[4:49:22] gross revenue generated by short-term

[4:49:28] rental property is competitive for

[4:49:30] long-term rental housing and that gross

[4:49:34] revenue is sufficient to offset

[4:49:37] significant portion of the holding cost

[4:49:39] for second home owners and residential

[4:49:44] property in eastern county. Next slide.

[4:49:47] I think with that I'll hand it back to

[4:49:49] stephanie. Thank you very much.

[4:49:54] >> thank you aaron. And good afternoon

[4:49:56] everyone. Crystal jacobson with the

[4:49:59] community development resource agency and

[4:50:01] so I am going touch on-I will walk you

[4:50:06] through some of had amendments we have

[4:50:09] been framing up for the board

[4:50:11] consideration but before I do that, I want

[4:50:13] to touch on our overall housing and

[4:50:16] economic development strategy because with

[4:50:18] this effort we are working on right now

[4:50:21] updating our str ordinance, it is

[4:50:25] important to look what we are doing

[4:50:27] overall. This is just the ordinance

[4:50:30] update is one piece of the puzzle to

[4:50:34] address housing and increase tourism and

[4:50:36] impact tourism bring to the region so we

[4:50:40] want to think what we are doing on the

[4:50:41] incentive side and regulatory side.

[4:50:44] carrot and stick approach. On the housing

[4:50:46] side we have been focusing on the

[4:50:48] development of workforce housing in the

[4:50:49] tahoe region. Celebrating the

[4:50:53] construction of hundred units in placer

[4:50:55] with meadow view and hopkin village

[4:50:58] projects which jane touched on earlier.

[4:51:02] and then we also have other housing

[4:51:03] projects in the works namely the dollar

[4:51:07] creek crossings and orts looking at the

[4:51:09] development of construction both in and

[4:51:12] out of the basin. We also freed up tot

[4:51:16] dollars from the tbid dedicated to housing

[4:51:20] and transportation. The workforce housing

[4:51:32] preservation program is a great example of

[4:51:34] your board's commitment to incent vising

[4:51:38] home ownership to the local workforce in

[4:51:40] the county. In addition your board

[4:51:43] involvement and contribution to the the

[4:51:44] truckee tahoe workforce housing agency is

[4:51:47] just another example of how we are

[4:51:50] addressing housing needs in our region.

[4:51:53] the north lake tahoe economic development

[4:51:55] incentive program tot rebate program for

[4:51:59] commercial lodging which your board

[4:52:01] approved is a example of providing

[4:52:03] incentives to help get lodging units

[4:52:05] constructed and on the ground in our tahoe

[4:52:08] region. And then on the regulatory side

[4:52:11] we brought forward and continue to work on

[4:52:14] various code amendments aimed at

[4:52:18] eliminating barriers to housing and

[4:52:19] promote redevelopment in our town centers

[4:52:21] in the tahoe basin area, so in the spring

[4:52:24] we are going to bring forward another

[4:52:27] amendment package to the area plan aimed

[4:52:30] at redevelopment of our town centers. So,

[4:52:32] while this effort this update to the

[4:52:35] short-term rental ordinance could result

[4:52:37] in the potential restriction of str uses

[4:52:40] it is heavy on the regulatory side. It is

[4:52:43] important to look at the big picture and

[4:52:45] what we are doing to address housing and

[4:52:48] tourism in the region and again, it is

[4:52:50] that carrot and stick approach. I will

[4:52:55] touch on some of the str restrictions you

[4:52:58] board could consider as part of this

[4:52:59] ordinance update. As you know our current

[4:53:02] ordinance is intended to address

[4:53:07] nuisances. We do continue to track the

[4:53:08] various areas of the code we need to clean

[4:53:11] up and modify and I will go through those

[4:53:13] here in a minute. But before I do that, I

[4:53:16] am going to outline additional policy

[4:53:18] options that your board could consider

[4:53:21] with this update. These are more

[4:53:23] restrictive options that can be considered

[4:53:27] individually or layered and I'll walk

[4:53:29] through this list here. I'm one over.

[4:53:35] are we missing a slide? I think we might

[4:53:45] be missing a slide or we are having a

[4:53:48] slide problems. There we go. Okay. So,

[4:53:51] the first on the list is the establishment

[4:53:53] of numerical cap on str. There are three

[4:53:57] options listed here that you could

[4:53:59] consider. The first option a is taking

[4:54:03] into consideration the existing str

[4:54:06] inventory and active tot certificates.

[4:54:09] so, as aaron reported after fully studying

[4:54:12] our inventory we know this number is about

[4:54:14] 4400 or so, it is 4420 represents about 28

[4:54:20] percent of the housing stock. And then

[4:54:23] again as he indicated these numbers do not

[4:54:26] include hotel motel units. And then I

[4:54:30] will skip to the bottom number which is

[4:54:31] the existing inventory of str plus all tot

[4:54:36] certificates so this is a larger number,

[4:54:38] about 5800 and represents 38 percent of

[4:54:42] our housing stock so again both of the

[4:54:44] numbers mentioned do not include housing

[4:54:47] or hotel or motel units. And then option

[4:54:50] b there in the middle is your board could

[4:54:53] consider something less then those

[4:54:56] numbers. You can come in under that.

[4:54:58] what we did not include here is an option

[4:55:02] to consider the full inventory, the 5800

[4:55:06] plus an additional 5 or 10 percent. I

[4:55:08] know that was discussed at the last

[4:55:10] hearing we had with the board on the

[4:55:15] moratorium. We did not include that

[4:55:17] option for your consideration today

[4:55:18] because I think the inventory after

[4:55:20] studying it was much larger then we had

[4:55:22] anticipated. I remember our permit

[4:55:24] numbers right now for str are around 2500

[4:55:27] and so we didn't include that but that is

[4:55:30] certainly something your board could

[4:55:31] consider is the full inventory plus in

[4:55:33] addition. So, the next item is a minimum

[4:55:37] or maximum night rented per year. This is

[4:55:40] another item again you could consider this

[4:55:42] individually or layer it. And for the

[4:55:46] minimum this is something that could be

[4:55:48] layered if your board decides to impose a

[4:55:52] numerical cap and this is a way to incent

[4:55:55] vise folks that have permits or tot

[4:55:59] certificates but not been renting, so we

[4:56:01] know that number is around 1400, folks on

[4:56:07] a tot certificate or str permit and not

[4:56:10] renting. By establishing a minimum you

[4:56:12] would incent vise the folks to rent and by

[4:56:18] not using it the next person with access

[4:56:21] the permit and rent it. Establishing

[4:56:24] maximum standard can do two things.

[4:56:26] first, is that we got a average number of

[4:56:30] nights stays around 103 we know per year

[4:56:34] and then the return on that investment of

[4:56:38] throwing that into the mix is about 35

[4:56:40] thousand per year these folks are making

[4:56:43] on their str. Your board could the

[4:56:53] maximum. If long-term renting is more

[4:56:55] profitable they may rethink their strategy

[4:56:57] and throw their unit into a long-term

[4:57:00] housing mix. This option may also limit

[4:57:05] people or corporations from purchasing

[4:57:07] homes for the sole purpose of short-term

[4:57:18] renting it. The next item on the list is

[4:57:22] a waiting period. This could be 6 months

[4:57:25] 12, this is something the town of truckee

[4:57:27] has been considering so we added it for

[4:57:29] your board to contemplate on. This would

[4:57:33] limit new str being rented for certain

[4:57:36] period of time. It can be 6, could be 12

[4:57:38] months but the idea is that folks may

[4:57:41] reconsider purchasing homes for the sole

[4:57:45] purpose of renting it if they dont have

[4:57:48] the capital to buy the house and sit on it

[4:57:50] for 6 or 12 months with that waiting

[4:57:53] period. Really it would be all extension

[4:57:58] of moratorium so you can apply for a

[4:58:01] permit but have to wait. Again, this is

[4:58:03] something that is being considered in the

[4:58:04] region so we throw it in here for

[4:58:07] discussion. The next item is special

[4:58:11] provisions for primary ownership and

[4:58:14] hosted str so we know we got locals in the

[4:58:18] community that rent their units. They may

[4:58:20] rent to a room or two may rent their unit

[4:58:24] while on vacation. We included this

[4:58:27] because this is a response to comments we

[4:58:29] heard from the community about how renting

[4:58:32] short-term is a way to locals to off set

[4:58:34] or supplement their mortgage. Again, we

[4:58:37] know this is about 3 percent of our str

[4:58:43] but your board could consider special

[4:58:46] provisions for local. If you establish or

[4:58:48] impose a cap on str these folks can be

[4:58:52] exempt from that cap. Moving on the last

[4:58:56] one on the list is density or geo spatial

[4:58:59] limitations. Those are the provisions

[4:59:02] that limit str per neighborhood. Some

[4:59:05] folks explain them as clustering

[4:59:09] provisions where you might have a str

[4:59:11] every 500 feet for example. We do believe

[4:59:13] this is a tool that may help address

[4:59:15] concerns regarding neighborhood

[4:59:17] compatibility and integrity. Again,

[4:59:21] essentially limiting how many you can have

[4:59:25] per neighborhood so you don't is a row of

[4:59:28] str on any street. We believe this option

[4:59:35] would require a high demand in terms of

[4:59:39] staff resources needs to implement

[4:59:40] something like this. It is labor

[4:59:43] intensive. We also think there are

[4:59:46] impacts that need to be analyzed so we

[4:59:48] think that with this option we need a

[4:59:50] little more time to analyze this option

[4:59:53] and thoroughly vet it before the community

[4:59:56] and your board so for those reasons it

[4:59:58] isn't something that we are bringing

[4:59:59] forward at this time for your board's

[5:00:01] consideration but it is something if your

[5:00:03] board desires we can bring forward at a

[5:00:06] later date. So, as I stated earlier we do

[5:00:11] continue our team continues to track areas

[5:00:14] of the code that are problematic that we

[5:00:16] believe are not effective or need to be

[5:00:20] revisited or cleaned up so this is a list

[5:00:23] of the items. We were before your board

[5:00:26] last march with a cleanup effort so these

[5:00:28] items I will talk about now are really in

[5:00:31] that same spirit of cleaning it up. The

[5:00:35] first is to propose to eliminate the

[5:00:38] exemption provisions or modify them in the

[5:00:41] ordinance. The ordinance apply to all

[5:00:45] residential properties. Not apply to

[5:00:47] hotel motel condo tells or time shares.

[5:00:51] that function like hotel we say they would

[5:00:56] be not subject to the ordinance but if

[5:00:58] they are functioning as residential use

[5:01:04] they are subject are. This is a gray area

[5:01:06] in the code. It is hard for staff to

[5:01:09] implement it. There is a lot of back and

[5:01:11] forth with property owners a lot time

[5:01:14] spent reviewing and a lot of folks that I

[5:01:16] think think they are exempt and don't

[5:01:20] request exemption and operating without a

[5:01:22] permit so we know have about 40 percent of

[5:01:25] our units that either think they are

[5:01:28] exempt or come for exemption request.

[5:01:34] because of that then they are also

[5:01:39] not-don't have the benefit of inspection

[5:01:41] so not getting the fire life safety

[5:01:43] inspections and also not being enforced.

[5:01:46] so, we believe that this eliminating the

[5:01:49] exemptions would help provide consistency

[5:01:51] in permitting and inspections and

[5:01:55] enforcement. The next item on the list is

[5:01:57] to add or increase fire protection

[5:01:59] standards. This proposing to require fire

[5:02:02] inspections at the time of permit

[5:02:04] application. Currently applicants have 3

[5:02:07] to 5 years to get inspections so for the

[5:02:09] privately managed str they have 3 years

[5:02:14] and professionals have 5 years. What we

[5:02:19] are finding is that we are two years into

[5:02:22] the program. This is our second permit

[5:02:24] cycle and we have only about 8 percent of

[5:02:27] properties that have been inspected have

[5:02:31] had the fire inspection. What we know is

[5:02:32] the current model is really not working

[5:02:35] and so we are proposing to change that.

[5:02:38] we are also requiring more frequent fire

[5:02:40] inspections so currently we have a system

[5:02:44] where just mentioned every 3 years the

[5:02:47] private managed folks get inspections and

[5:02:50] are or supposed to and then every 5 years

[5:02:53] the profession al folks are and the burden

[5:02:56] is on the applicant to initiate the

[5:02:58] inspections. What we are proposing is 1

[5:03:01] and 3 your model. 1 year for the

[5:03:04] privately managed folks and 3 for

[5:03:06] professionals. Also proposing a rolling

[5:03:09] annual permit model, so changing the

[5:03:12] permitting to rolling model instead of

[5:03:14] permits that expire at the same time

[5:03:16] annually. We believe this would allow

[5:03:19] applicants would help would be in support

[5:03:23] of this because they come any time of the

[5:03:26] year I and get a permit and run the full

[5:03:29] year instead of expiring every march.

[5:03:31] this would help our staff to spread out

[5:03:33] the processing of applications, lesson the

[5:03:37] demand and resource need at one time every

[5:03:39] year. The same is true for the fire

[5:03:44] district. This allows them to continually

[5:03:46] inspect properties if your board elects to

[5:03:49] go with a model where fire inspections are

[5:03:51] required a that time of permit

[5:03:53] application, the fire districts will have

[5:03:55] to do those inspections with every

[5:03:58] application but if you rolled it out

[5:03:59] through the year it is a little more

[5:04:01] manageable. Talking with the fire

[5:04:03] districts they did express they are open

[5:04:06] to the model. I will say they are

[5:04:08] currently concerned with how few str units

[5:04:12] have been inspected and worried about

[5:04:16] getting big influx within the next year in

[5:04:19] terms of numbers of units they need to

[5:04:21] inspect. We have talked to the fire

[5:04:24] districts about the capacity to handle the

[5:04:26] type of inspection load. We need to have

[5:04:28] further discussion there. We have talked

[5:04:31] about the county could have a inhouse

[5:04:35] inspector to help with districts that need

[5:04:39] capacity do inspections. Moving on to the

[5:04:41] the stricter nuisance standards. We

[5:04:45] proposing to strengthen noise and

[5:04:48] occupancy limits. The occupancy standards

[5:04:51] to bring those in line with industry

[5:04:53] standard which is 1.5 times the nightly

[5:04:57] occupancy so if you have a unit that has

[5:05:00] an occupancy limit of 8 you can have 1.5

[5:05:04] times that number for day time occupancy.

[5:05:11] the idea is limit parties. There is

[5:05:13] provision in the code that allows to get a

[5:05:15] special use permit. Special event permit

[5:05:19] for str that is through the planning

[5:05:20] department, so if you were hosting a

[5:05:23] larger party there is a avenue for folks

[5:05:25] to do that. And then for parking we would

[5:05:29] require parking stall counts to be posted

[5:05:32] in the advertisement so folks know what

[5:05:34] the constraints are on a site for parking

[5:05:37] and are for noise propose to increase

[5:05:40] quite hours and then prohibit outdoor

[5:05:42] amplified sound. Moving on to the next

[5:05:46] one increasing str unit postings requiring

[5:05:50] posting in common places inside the unit

[5:05:52] plus each additional bedroom and outside

[5:05:55] on either a [inaudible comments] or a

[5:05:58] window and it would require the permit

[5:06:00] number general information about the

[5:06:04] operational stander, warnings about red

[5:06:06] flag days, and again this is really

[5:06:09] industry standard. It would also have the

[5:06:11] str hot line and provide a way for folks

[5:06:13] to understand this is a str unit and know

[5:06:16] where to call if there are issues.

[5:06:19] limiting 1 per parcel apply to multifamily

[5:06:23] and single family and not condo units. We

[5:06:26] believe this alignment with the state

[5:06:28] housing goal if there are two units on a

[5:06:32] property a d ru intended for to be

[5:06:36] available for housing. The other logic

[5:06:39] behind this is it provides for on site

[5:06:41] management so if you have two units on a

[5:06:43] property someone could live there and

[5:06:45] provide on site management. We'll point

[5:06:48] out we did take a look, we currently have

[5:06:52] four parcels now, so so 4 parcels with

[5:06:59] active permits 2 permits on a property.

[5:07:01] three of those are duplexes. Not a lot of

[5:07:05] units right now where we see two permits

[5:07:07] on one property. The next on the list

[5:07:11] here is increased penalty fines. We are

[5:07:15] prosing to bring up the fines to industry

[5:07:17] standard in line with senate bill $60,

[5:07:21] which sets maximum fines for str so we

[5:07:23] would propose- first under the current

[5:07:27] model we got escalating structure from

[5:07:30] $500 fine that goes to a thousand and we

[5:07:34] propose to change that from start at $1500

[5:07:38] go to $3 thousand and go to $5 thousand so

[5:07:42] escalates up. Also proposing just to

[5:07:44] change this standard so you got different

[5:07:46] fines for operational standards and

[5:07:50] different fine structure for operating

[5:07:52] without a permit, so a little different

[5:07:56] fining structure for those two violations.

[5:07:59] modified appeal process. Currently the

[5:08:03] penalties are determined by as outlined in

[5:08:08] the code determined by administrative

[5:08:10] hearing office. Those can be appealed to

[5:08:12] the board. We are just up for the board's

[5:08:17] consideration is to change that and

[5:08:19] perhaps have the penalty determined by the

[5:08:24] sedra director and appeal could go to the

[5:08:26] administrative hearing office and stop

[5:08:28] there if your board desires to make that

[5:08:30] change. Really quick I will touch on some

[5:08:35] work that ben actually has been doing on

[5:08:39] the permit system and really the idea here

[5:08:42] is to align with str permit system with a

[5:08:45] tot certificate system. So, we have

[5:08:48] partnered with deckhard technologies for

[5:08:51] software integration, so as part of this

[5:08:53] update we are looking to improve the

[5:08:55] permit system and are align these two

[5:08:58] processes. Currently we have two separate

[5:09:00] systems so it causes-I mentioned to the

[5:09:04] board. We have a lot of confusion delay

[5:09:09] in permits and inefficiency tracking

[5:09:14] metric. Different data sets and st. Is a

[5:09:17] challenge to track these as you can see in

[5:09:20] the report indicates that. It was hard to

[5:09:23] fully understand the inventory without

[5:09:25] studying it so we believe that partners

[5:09:27] with deckard and really aligning these two

[5:09:29] processes will help us with that data.

[5:09:33] pulling the data. We also think it will

[5:09:37] improve the user interface that allow to

[5:09:40] better serve the customers one stop shop

[5:09:43] you go for the permit and get the tot at

[5:09:46] the same time. It also allows better

[5:09:49] tracking. Also allows to track online

[5:09:52] listings, fire inspection sign off and

[5:09:54] just maintain a single database.

[5:09:57] essentially this will streamline we

[5:09:59] believe the permit process and help us

[5:10:01] with reporting and enforcement. So,

[5:10:05] that's all I have on that. I will toss it

[5:10:07] to stephanie to wrap up.

[5:10:09] >> I'll close us out here. Just remind

[5:10:11] your board we are not asking for action

[5:10:13] today. This is just to give a update of

[5:10:16] everything we have been working on since

[5:10:17] the moratorium and working up towards the

[5:10:20] deadline of the moratorium. We are

[5:10:24] prepping to potentially come back to your

[5:10:26] board with a ordinance consideration in

[5:10:29] january and as crystal just outlined all

[5:10:33] the details we are working on specifically

[5:10:35] cleanup items as a baseline and then

[5:10:38] asking your board for considerations on

[5:10:41] potential regulations on top of that those

[5:10:44] ordinance cleanups. With that, I will

[5:10:48] just put up this slide. I think this was

[5:10:51] key areas that staff has identified for

[5:10:55] conversation with you all today to seek

[5:10:58] further feedback but obviously open to any

[5:11:00] questions or any area of feedback. I

[5:11:08] appreciate your attention and welcome

[5:11:10] comments.

[5:11:11] >> start with cindy and then june.

[5:11:14] >> thank you for all the hard work. Staff

[5:11:19] has done outreach and spent countless

[5:11:23] hours in our community because this is so

[5:11:25] critical to our north shore economy but I

[5:11:28] did have a couple questions on the data

[5:11:29] and this might be for you or bae. Did the

[5:11:34] data for the exempt properties show up in

[5:11:38] the occupancy numbers and revenue numbers

[5:11:41] you show in these charts? Do you know?

[5:11:44] >> I know aaron is on but yes. The

[5:11:48] exempt-

[5:11:49] >> so that included that. And as you know

[5:11:51] we have gotten tremendous number of

[5:11:55] e-mails and comments from north star

[5:11:58] condos I believe were exempted last time

[5:12:00] and you are suggesting no longer be

[5:12:06] exempt, is that correct?

[5:12:07] >> correct, any residential use we are

[5:12:09] suggesting they be pulled into the

[5:12:11] ordinance requirements. If it operates

[5:12:16] like a hotel motel it is assessed as a

[5:12:18] hotel motel and permitted that way they

[5:12:21] are not subject to the ordinance.

[5:12:24] >> great. I want to make sure that is

[5:12:25] clear because I read all the comments and

[5:12:28] will have other comments but we received a

[5:12:32] slug from that group and not other groups

[5:12:35] because they have already been complying.

[5:12:39] this group was due to some judgment issues

[5:12:45] that-anyway, but there is many other

[5:12:47] condominiums that haven't been exempt we

[5:12:51] haven't heard as much from.

[5:12:52] >> just to add more detail to that. As

[5:12:55] crystal mentioned this is a area of the

[5:12:57] code that is very gray and the

[5:13:01] requirements are that if somebody thinks

[5:13:04] they are exempt from the ordinance they

[5:13:06] apply for us to verify that and think that

[5:13:08] is confusing so think there is a lot of

[5:13:10] properties out there that read the code

[5:13:13] and believe they are exempt without coming

[5:13:15] to us for determination. Just to put that

[5:13:17] out there as well.

[5:13:18] >> right. Right. And I don't know if all

[5:13:21] the other ones know that some were exempt

[5:13:25] and some weren't and [inaudible comments]

[5:13:28] I just was trying to understand why that

[5:13:31] particular group and part of it is that

[5:13:33] you did meet with them in particular and

[5:13:36] reach out to them but there is other

[5:13:38] exempted properties that may not have

[5:13:41] known to write e-mails to us. Set the

[5:13:43] stage for that. The vacancy data the home

[5:13:48] owner vacancy data is two years old. How

[5:13:51] often can we update that data? This will

[5:13:55] go to some of my later comments. Right

[5:13:59] now it goes through 2019 and we know the

[5:14:01] big slug of change happened in the last 2

[5:14:08] years so when you look at home owner use-I

[5:14:11] can't remember the title but it is based

[5:14:13] on the acs data, american community survey

[5:14:17] data.

[5:14:18] >> maybe we can look to aaron.

[5:14:20] >> how often would we get the data to

[5:14:24] monitor that?

[5:14:25] >> publications of census based data come

[5:14:29] out essentially every year, but they are

[5:14:31] usually

[5:14:33] [audio cutting out]

[5:14:41] >> I bet what you are telling me is census

[5:14:44] data we get a year in delay?

[5:14:48] >> it takes time for them to collect that

[5:14:51] data process data and get it summarized

[5:14:54] for publication.

[5:14:56] >> but we could start tracking and do some

[5:15:00] sort of adaptive model to look at

[5:15:06] occupancy as we build housing-and then

[5:15:12] quite often I know you mentioned safety

[5:15:14] but quite often we talk about nuisances

[5:15:17] but the nuisances also relate to safety

[5:15:19] for instance the open fire people report

[5:15:22] on red flag days, are those categorized as

[5:15:28] nuisance or safety? I want to remind the

[5:15:34] board we started on real health and safety

[5:15:37] issues as well as nuisances and those get

[5:15:40] reported and just not sure how they are

[5:15:43] categorized like a open fire.

[5:15:45] >> they are categorized as complaint

[5:15:51] tracked as a complaint. We lost our slide

[5:16:04] deck. Sorry about that.

[5:16:07] >> that's okay. In general I just want to

[5:16:10] make sure we try to understand that there

[5:16:13] are health and safety issues that get

[5:16:15] reported by neighbors concerned about fire

[5:16:18] pits open fires, people not understanding

[5:16:22] red flag warnings.

[5:16:25] >> what I was going to pull up I think is

[5:16:27] supposed to be hidden in the back here.

[5:16:32] >> the last slides?

[5:16:33] >> yeah.

[5:16:36] >> I think they are in the back if it-

[5:16:40] >> it isn't important what is important is

[5:16:43] you hear there are a lot of public safety

[5:16:45] issues intertwined with nuisance because

[5:16:47] sometimes nuisance is diminished like it

[5:16:50] is a subjective call. I think for those

[5:16:52] of us living in fire prone areas and

[5:16:58] people not paying attention that is much

[5:17:00] more then-

[5:17:01] >> right, and with those complaints we

[5:17:03] take notes about every complaint so we are

[5:17:05] tracking what type of complaint we get. I

[5:17:08] have to look at the slide to see. I'm

[5:17:10] pretty sure life safety issues is called

[5:17:13] out in our-yes.

[5:17:17] >> it doesn't have-

[5:17:20] >> it has noise is 49 percent. It does

[5:17:24] not have like fire safety. Probably falls

[5:17:29] under other, which is 15 percent.

[5:17:36] >> I heard from a large number of people

[5:17:38] yesterday I e-mailed you a couple where

[5:17:41] people dont seem to--they look at the

[5:17:44] total complaints we received and say that

[5:17:46] is de minimus, but then I hear from the

[5:17:48] community there is far more, they don't

[5:17:50] know who to call, people second home

[5:17:53] owners don't know who to call. Do you

[5:17:57] hear that as well or is that my office

[5:17:59] hearing-

[5:18:01] >> I do hear that and constantly e-mailing

[5:18:05] folks with information. What we can do is

[5:18:11] a campaign to help educate folks. I think

[5:18:13] there is a need for better communication

[5:18:15] and pushing stuff out through the pio

[5:18:17] office to get the word out about our

[5:18:21] hotline and the resources that are there

[5:18:23] to respond to these kinds of complaints.

[5:18:26] >> okay.

[5:18:27] >> there is a requirement for a point of

[5:18:32] contact so people may call property

[5:18:33] managers, they may call specific contacts.

[5:18:38] the question is does it really get to the

[5:18:40] county and do we get to tag it.

[5:18:43] >> right.

[5:18:44] >> I think a lot of people are weigh in

[5:18:46] that we only had this many complaints and

[5:18:48] total there is a very few complaints and

[5:18:50] yet I think if you walk around our

[5:18:52] community and talk to individuals they all

[5:18:55] have stories about even the gentlemen that

[5:18:59] we tracked down yesterday one licensed one

[5:19:03] not, how do we make sure that person who

[5:19:05] was a educated member of our community

[5:19:07] didn't know or hadn't called and I said

[5:19:10] why didn't you call? Those are-there is

[5:19:14] some responsibility there. And then I

[5:19:16] think another question I had on the data,

[5:19:19] so in the chart I think that nick prepared

[5:19:24] to the other jurisdictions. Currently

[5:19:27] from everything I have seen the only other

[5:19:29] community with the high percentage of

[5:19:33] housing stock to str is cresta butte

[5:19:39] colorado. Everyone else is far below the

[5:19:41] housing stock being absorbed by short-term

[5:19:44] rentals.

[5:19:45] >> correct.

[5:19:46] >> cresta butte and everyone else is far

[5:19:49] less from what I can tell from this chart.

[5:19:51] >> correct.

[5:19:52] >> the research done. And then in several

[5:19:57] communities instead of just fines they

[5:19:59] actually revoked permits immediately or

[5:20:03] two year suspension, and I just-I'm

[5:20:07] putting comments out for the public to

[5:20:09] react to because I do think we heard we

[5:20:11] want stricter standard. It seems

[5:20:15] everybody is in agreement bad actors need

[5:20:17] and when they make $35 thousand if they

[5:20:19] pay a $5 thousand fine it is not a big

[5:20:22] deal, but if you're potentially taking

[5:20:25] away $35 thousand worth of revenue they

[5:20:28] may do more to address their nuisance

[5:20:30] issues. I like to hear feedback and staff

[5:20:36] to look at the suspensions and there's I

[5:20:39] think santa cruz, and el dorado county.

[5:20:45] cresta butte and jackson wyoming that

[5:20:50] proposed 2 up to 5 year suspension because

[5:20:55] I think the discussion is getting a lot of

[5:20:57] interest in people finding compliance and

[5:21:00] being in compliance because they don't

[5:21:02] want to lose their permit so I urge that

[5:21:03] and us to continue to track that part of

[5:21:07] our housing stock. And then another

[5:21:09] comment for our public to think about is

[5:21:14] I'm-I have always been open to looking at

[5:21:18] what's our cap now and how many could we

[5:21:23] expand that to insure turnover so we start

[5:21:27] to insure that there is turnover along

[5:21:30] with that you must use that permit. So,

[5:21:34] there is minimum number of nights using it

[5:21:37] you are not sitting on the permit keeping

[5:21:39] somebody else from having the opportunity

[5:21:41] while you for more then is that a 1 year

[5:21:44] or 2 year, I like to hear how other

[5:21:47] jurisdictions have dealt with that so we

[5:21:48] insure turn over of these if there is a

[5:21:51] cap and so I love to hear public comment

[5:21:54] on that. And I'm not particularly in

[5:22:01] favor of the waiting period but that is

[5:22:03] because I think it will be hard to get

[5:22:06] there. I would be more in favor of trying

[5:22:08] to find a cap that maybe is adjusted

[5:22:11] higher but looks at the numbers it is hard

[5:22:14] to judge. If we have 2500 permitted but 5

[5:22:19] thousand tot certificates what is the

[5:22:21] right number? Have none of the 5 thousand

[5:22:23] come forward to try to get permits?

[5:22:26] >> probably half are exempt.

[5:22:28] >> okay.

[5:22:29] >> exactly. Just explain the difference.

[5:22:31] the 2500 are the permits we have for str.

[5:22:36] if you jump to that-let me get this slide

[5:22:39] back up here. If you jump to the next

[5:22:41] tier in the slide, those are the 4420.

[5:22:47] those are incompass the str, the 2500 plus

[5:22:53] potential exemptions so property-

[5:22:57] >> 28 percent of the housing market and

[5:22:59] then when we go to the 38 percent what are

[5:23:01] those?

[5:23:02] >> those are tot certificates. So all the

[5:23:06] certificates whether they are remitting

[5:23:08] tot so active or have a tot certificate

[5:23:13] and not active. They can have a

[5:23:15] certificate and not rent not remit tot but

[5:23:18] they have the certificate so that last bar

[5:23:20] shows you the potential that if all of

[5:23:24] those 5800 were to want to rent they can

[5:23:28] turn on tomorrow and rent. That is the

[5:23:31] potential with those tot certificates. I

[5:23:35] dont know if we have dug into whether all

[5:23:37] those are exempt or whether they would

[5:23:40] need a str but the differential between it

[5:23:45] last 2 are whether they are actively

[5:23:47] renting or not.

[5:23:48] >> if we were to set a number that

[5:23:50] included went to the middle column there,

[5:23:53] 4420, and added a buffer right now I

[5:23:56] understand there is about 75 on a wait

[5:23:58] list?

[5:24:00] >> yeah, 77.

[5:24:01] >> 77 on a wait list. And so that might

[5:24:05] be something for the board to consider

[5:24:07] because I do hear from a lot of people

[5:24:09] that want the opportunity, caught in the

[5:24:13] middle. Didn't understand they needed a

[5:24:15] permit. I want to include all those

[5:24:19] exempted that get permitted because it was

[5:24:22] their issue they are exempted and say they

[5:24:24] are not. Should we have some level to

[5:24:30] allow people to see that turnover and then

[5:24:35] finally I want it to be in an adaptive

[5:24:37] program so we could track how we are

[5:24:39] delivering on housing. Are we addressing

[5:24:42] this crisis in our community that we can

[5:24:45] serve visitors? We hear e-mails about we

[5:24:48] can rent but if there is no one to serve

[5:24:50] food or wash dishes or clean or paint

[5:24:56] condos we can't serve these people and

[5:24:58] there is frustration and anger that

[5:25:00] creates a division I have never seen in 40

[5:25:03] years living there. I like adaptive

[5:25:05] management and as painful as it is to go

[5:25:08] through this, it seems like there should

[5:25:10] be a formula as we deliver housing or see

[5:25:14] housing changes we adjust whatever cap

[5:25:17] numbers are set up and we learn as we go

[5:25:19] because we have been learning every step

[5:25:23] of the way since we started this. Anyway,

[5:25:25] I wanted to get that out mr. Chair because

[5:25:27] the public may have-I love to hear where

[5:25:30] my colleagues feel but also where the

[5:25:32] public weighs in. I have been asking some

[5:25:35] of the properties owners who contacted me

[5:25:37] how many more? What is the tolerance, 50

[5:25:41] percent short-term rental, 80 percent?

[5:25:45] where the balancing act to deliver on

[5:25:47] services versus allowing short-term

[5:25:50] rentals? That's the balance I'm

[5:25:53] struggling with. Love to hear feedback on

[5:25:56] that.

[5:25:57] >> jim then suzanne.

[5:26:00] >> well, thank you for all the hard work

[5:26:04] on this. I know it has been real

[5:26:06] challenge. A lot of outreach particularly

[5:26:09] in the district 5. Is this the end of

[5:26:13] your public outreach other then people

[5:26:15] that will start contacting for more

[5:26:19] information?

[5:26:21] >> no, this isn't the end of outreach. We

[5:26:28] are hoping to seek direction from you

[5:26:30] today and frame up our final

[5:26:32] recommendations on the ordinances. We

[5:26:35] will bring that before a number of

[5:26:37] community groups through january before we

[5:26:40] come back to your board for action.

[5:26:42] >> so, you have it down at the next steps

[5:26:45] is january 2022?

[5:26:47] >> yes.

[5:26:48] >> for board action?

[5:26:49] >> correct.

[5:26:50] >> do you have time to do that?

[5:26:51] >> it is a very short window. That is our

[5:26:56] target at this point but we-we have framed

[5:27:00] up quite a bit of ordinance modification

[5:27:02] with the exception of a couple pieces we

[5:27:06] need to finish up and dig into.

[5:27:09] >> supervisor gustafson you have been

[5:27:15] living these 2 years now. You were

[5:27:19] starting on a call with--so I know it is a

[5:27:23] really tremendous challenge and I just

[5:27:25] appreciate your hard work on this because

[5:27:28] a lot of constituents up there really

[5:27:31] concerned. Let's hope we get it right.

[5:27:34] >> suzanne.

[5:27:35] >> yes, hi. Thanks for the presentation.

[5:27:39] very good. I wanted to mention a couple

[5:27:41] of things that I know I did the other day

[5:27:45] at our briefing, but there was a finding

[5:27:49] here by your team you hired that shows

[5:27:53] where there is a move towards increase

[5:27:55] investor activity, and so for me, I know

[5:28:01] concerns in the community are your that a

[5:28:04] lot of those short-term rentals may gobble

[5:28:08] up your housing availability. And so it

[5:28:12] is a thought that maybe there's some way

[5:28:15] of limiting those that can be purchased

[5:28:18] for investment only. I know I understand

[5:28:22] people go up and buy a second house

[5:28:24] because they want to live there eventually

[5:28:27] retire and move in or whatever, but for

[5:28:32] investors to move in and think this is a

[5:28:35] great opportunity buy up everything there

[5:28:37] you are really going to be in a hurt for

[5:28:40] availability of housing. I express my r

[5:28:51] by the 2 tier permitting fees. I think

[5:28:55] everybody should be on the same footage.

[5:28:58] I think that in addition to if you have

[5:29:00] people that violate that maybe there some

[5:29:03] sort of step where you violate once okay,

[5:29:06] you get a warning, maybe a fine but step 2

[5:29:10] you get a warning and fine but now your

[5:29:13] permitting fees are going up. And have a

[5:29:16] scaled level for those permitting fees

[5:29:18] because your violators should pay more in

[5:29:22] permitting fees. I don't think it should

[5:29:25] be if you got this person owns a house and

[5:29:27] they have a property manager and he owns a

[5:29:31] house and manage themselves to say that

[5:29:33] one is going to be better then the other

[5:29:36] we already experienced one of the property

[5:29:38] management people did not adhere to your

[5:29:42] regulations several months back, remember?

[5:29:46] so, they are not always perfect and I

[5:29:49] understand that regular privately owned

[5:29:53] property maybe are not perfect either but

[5:29:56] I don't like the two tier permitting fee.

[5:30:00] curious about the-I don't really like the

[5:30:05] 2 tier scheduled for fire inspections

[5:30:08] either. The privately owned versus

[5:30:12] property managed because I just think fire

[5:30:16] inspections should be extremely important

[5:30:19] and make sure everybody has everything

[5:30:21] that they need whether inside fire

[5:30:26] hazards, outside fire hazard, smoke

[5:30:31] detectors and carbon monoxide detectors

[5:30:34] and all that stuff. So, I just think that

[5:30:38] everybody should be on the same schedule.

[5:30:41] maybe every other year or something

[5:30:43] because how can you say this property

[5:30:46] doesn't need to be inspected for fire for

[5:30:48] every 3 or so years but this one needs to

[5:30:52] be inspected every year? That doesn't

[5:30:54] seem equitable to me. I then on your

[5:31:00] postings I don't know you may already do

[5:31:01] this, but on your postings I'm wondering

[5:31:04] do you have all the numbers listed for

[5:31:06] fire, police complaints your hot line

[5:31:10] etcetera because you have to have it

[5:31:12] posted on the inside, posted on outside

[5:31:15] because say someone maybe there is smoke

[5:31:18] coming from the place and who ever is

[5:31:22] renting are skiing or at the lake and the

[5:31:24] neighbor sees it and if they go to the

[5:31:27] house they see the posting and find the

[5:31:28] numbers they could call. Easy they don't

[5:31:31] have to go home google it and do whatever

[5:31:33] and the same time your renters have it

[5:31:39] also. You may already do that. And we

[5:31:44] talked earlier too about penalties and

[5:31:48] fines, agree they need to have teeth. It

[5:31:52] has to be something whether you have a

[5:31:54] tiered fine and fees for complaints

[5:32:00] etcetera that maybe eventually at some

[5:32:02] point you have revocations suspension that

[5:32:05] sort of thing in your tool box as well.

[5:32:10] do the suspensions work because I mean you

[5:32:12] probably get some people who are like I

[5:32:14] paid a lot of money for this place, I

[5:32:16] don't care if they suspend my permit I

[5:32:19] will still rent it. Do you get much of

[5:32:21] that?

[5:32:22] >> we have not issued suspensions to date,

[5:32:25] so being a brand new program I don't know

[5:32:27] I can answer that question, but there is

[5:32:29] always I think there are always bad actors

[5:32:33] that are renting without a permit. We

[5:32:36] know that. It is possible.

[5:32:38] >> yeah. And so in your rental or

[5:32:45] permitting documents, do you have

[5:32:47] somewhere like at the bottom of the thing

[5:32:49] that says along with this completed rental

[5:32:53] application includes your tot certificate

[5:32:57] or this or that fire inspection, is the

[5:33:00] all in that document so when somebody

[5:33:02] thinks they submitted their application

[5:33:05] for a permit it is on there so they can't

[5:33:08] say I didn't know?

[5:33:10] >>b it is and actually after the

[5:33:12] experience we had earlier this year with

[5:33:14] the appeal that went to your board we

[5:33:16] updated that document to include

[5:33:20] additional items as requested by the

[5:33:24] board.

[5:33:25] >> since last spring with you first

[5:33:28] brought this to the board I see a lot of

[5:33:31] improvement and work you have done so

[5:33:33] kudos to all you for a job well done.

[5:33:37] thank you.

[5:33:38] >> bonnie.

[5:33:39] >> thank you. Appreciate your work. So,

[5:33:43] as I have been thinking about this this is

[5:33:45] really challenging and supervisor holmes

[5:33:48] said, cindy this is a lot of work and just

[5:33:52] reading through all the documentation the

[5:33:54] other day to be a good amount of time. I

[5:33:58] thought about a couple things. What are

[5:33:59] we really trying to address it is really

[5:34:02] clear we have nuisance issues. Concerned

[5:34:09] about parking and noise and we have to

[5:34:11] address enforcement and talk about

[5:34:12] penalties. I think that will go a long

[5:34:14] way to keep the bad actors in line and

[5:34:17] think we heard that from our residents a

[5:34:20] lot of the feedback so I really think that

[5:34:22] is important. The other reason I think

[5:34:24] this has come about is because we want to

[5:34:28] address workforce housing which is why I

[5:34:31] asked you to know what effort we have been

[5:34:35] doing to address workforce housing. There

[5:34:37] is a number of efforts the opportunity to

[5:34:40] do deed restrictions through our housing

[5:34:43] program I think is great. The challenge

[5:34:45] with this is that the properties are

[5:34:49] already so high. The cost to buy in this

[5:34:53] area is already so high that a normal

[5:34:58] working person couldn't afford to buy a

[5:35:01] home and live in the basin. And so, I

[5:35:05] look at this and go, how are we going to

[5:35:07] address workforce housing? I couldn't

[5:35:10] afford a $900 thousand home, and I don't

[5:35:13] make a lot of money. I make a decent

[5:35:16] salary, I don't make a lot of money so the

[5:35:18] challenge is how do we address this? I'm

[5:35:20] looking at the needs for long-term or

[5:35:24] long-term rentals for our ski industry,

[5:35:28] for the summer time. How do we incent

[5:35:30] vise that so that people would if they

[5:35:34] have a second home they could rent out

[5:35:36] their home for 5, 6 months at a time and

[5:35:40] let's incentivize some of that. I

[5:35:43] struggle with caps and saying no to the

[5:35:46] free market at the same time we supera

[5:35:48] issue here and how do we balance that? I

[5:35:51] just think that how do we invent size what

[5:35:55] we need, which is workforce housing. It

[5:35:57] is probably the biggest issue and don't

[5:35:59] know if just stopping short-term rentals

[5:36:02] is going to accommodate that because I

[5:36:05] read the study, if prices in the area

[5:36:09] decline then more people might be able to

[5:36:11] own a home. The real estate market those

[5:36:18] prices are not going to be declining in a

[5:36:22] market like that that is really valuable

[5:36:24] and desired to purchase in. And then I

[5:36:28] wanted to ask aaron a question because as

[5:36:30] I read this it is really not clear the

[5:36:32] impact that short-term rentals have on

[5:36:37] long-term housing because I read the study

[5:36:39] and read key findings because it is just

[5:36:44] not a strong correlation. It is sort of.

[5:36:49] the academic literature indicates there is

[5:36:51] likely a statistically significant

[5:36:54] relationship between str and availability

[5:36:56] and affordable long-term housing. But it

[5:37:00] goes on-none the less represent just one

[5:37:08] factor influence long-term housing

[5:37:11] availability and affordability and another

[5:37:13] time it says it may likely contribute to

[5:37:16] the increase in demand for second homes.

[5:37:18] so, it is just not hard and fast. The

[5:37:22] data-right aaron or not aaron, is it

[5:37:25] aaron? I think that is his name. Not

[5:37:27] hard and fast. It might, we don't really

[5:37:29] know, covid had a impact. I think what we

[5:37:33] know is we don't know the answer but do

[5:37:35] know housing prices are really high and we

[5:37:38] have to do something to address workforce

[5:37:40] housing. If that is incentivize long-term

[5:37:44] rents, maybe a cap, I'm not a big fan of

[5:37:48] caps, but we really have to do something.

[5:37:50] I know we are doing efforts with the

[5:37:53] mountain housing council but--we just have

[5:38:00] to-we need to fix it and at least start

[5:38:02] providing more ways that we have workforce

[5:38:05] housing. I think we got tot. We have

[5:38:09] freed up tot dollars and we need to use

[5:38:11] those dollars to find some ways to get

[5:38:14] people housed, so we do have housing to

[5:38:17] provide for all the services that are

[5:38:19] needed for the area.

[5:38:26] >> okay. No further comments by the board

[5:38:29] at this point we'll open to the public.

[5:38:37] >> waited a long time.

[5:38:38] >> I have. Before I get started and not

[5:38:40] going to be very long. I just want to

[5:38:42] give you a little background of who is

[5:38:45] speaking. I have 6 children, I live in

[5:38:48] auburn but I came from a family of 6 and

[5:38:52] grew up at lake tahoe. My parents moved

[5:38:55] there in 1961 and my dad was a realtor and

[5:39:00] developer. I used to play on the lawn of

[5:39:04] what used to be a hotel where cobblestone

[5:39:08] shopping center is. I used to teach

[5:39:13] sailing and play shuffle board at tahoe

[5:39:16] marina lodge where condominiums are and

[5:39:21] there are, notice the occupancy tourism

[5:39:24] accommodations there is flat line on

[5:39:27] hotels. I had friends who used to parents

[5:39:32] ran the hotels and they are now 8 glorious

[5:39:36] beautiful single family homes and so my

[5:39:40] parents my dad was a developer he

[5:39:42] developed star harbor, and he like other

[5:39:48] developers he put it all in and lost and

[5:39:52] my mother ran the rentals then for star

[5:39:55] harbor, and we cleaned the units, and but

[5:39:59] for those short-term rentals I wouldn't

[5:40:01] have graduated from north lake tahoe high

[5:40:05] school. I think they are a blessing and

[5:40:06] for me I have gone through the struggle, I

[5:40:14] finally two years ago bought a house in

[5:40:18] carnelian bay with my son and I'm anxious

[5:40:21] to be able to short-term rent it. I take

[5:40:24] pride in the properties I buy. I really

[5:40:26] want to fix them up and I know that I

[5:40:29] can't enjoy it all the time and for me I

[5:40:31] want other people to enjoy it. I want

[5:40:35] families to go and if you don't have 6

[5:40:38] children and go to a hotel and you

[5:40:42] can't-you have to rent multiple rooms.

[5:40:44] the fire code, you can't go there. And so

[5:40:47] for me to take my family on vacation is a

[5:40:50] really hard thing and to me short-term

[5:40:52] rentals are the blessing for the large

[5:40:54] family. They provide the opportunity to

[5:40:58] go and vacation buy food at the grocery

[5:41:03] store, bbq, enjoy what you can't afford

[5:41:06] and to me I enjoy tahoe. I saw it through

[5:41:10] when it on golden pond the old movie, a

[5:41:15] romantic place of wooden boats, chamber-my

[5:41:19] brothers went to the high school now

[5:41:21] chamber landing. My dad put together the

[5:41:24] land that became home would ski area. I

[5:41:26] know tay tahoe and me. I drove in my 2001

[5:41:36] suburban. I barely afford what it and for

[5:41:38] me that short-term rental is going to help

[5:41:40] me be able to take my family and enjoy

[5:41:44] christmas--and so that's the part about

[5:41:50] short-term rentals. The thing I didn't

[5:41:56] hear is how many second home owners don't

[5:41:59] use their property? How many second home

[5:42:02] owners are just growing? Those people are

[5:42:06] not in the stats. We need the opportunity

[5:42:08] for the middle class, the guys who just

[5:42:10] barely make it to enjoy it and I can't

[5:42:13] afford it without short-term rental. So,

[5:42:17] I for me it is blessing. Not just for me,

[5:42:21] but for the other people who I hope to

[5:42:23] rent to if I ever get a permit.

[5:42:28] >> if you can wrap up your comments.

[5:42:30] >> yeah, yeah, yeah. I think actually

[5:42:35] supervisor gore made all the comments.

[5:42:38] exactly I didn't see the correlation and I

[5:42:41] just hope you leave it open for people

[5:42:43] like me. Regulate, penalize, make people

[5:42:48] be civil. Anyway, thank you very much.

[5:42:51] >> thank you.

[5:42:56] >> we didn't get your name.

[5:42:57] >> could you state your frame name for the

[5:43:00] record.

[5:43:01] >> chris.

[5:43:02] >> thank you.

[5:43:03] >> I got to meet your dad a long time ago.

[5:43:05] >> you know my dad?

[5:43:08] >> yeah.

[5:43:10] >> dave, go ahead and unmute your mic and

[5:43:13] give your comments.

[5:43:15] >> hi. Thank you mr. Chairman and members

[5:43:18] of the board. My name is dave norad just

[5:43:23] finishing my lunch getting ready to go to

[5:43:26] work. I would be one of the rare people

[5:43:28] who are considered a local but also use my

[5:43:32] property as a short-term rental. Been a

[5:43:36] resident and owner and taxpayer in placer

[5:43:38] county tahoe city since 1996. I rent

[5:43:43] short-term through airbnb and manage

[5:43:48] myself. I have a one bedroom condo with 2

[5:43:52] night minimum. I have and continue to

[5:43:54] work in the area in the service industry

[5:43:56] in many different aspects ski resort, golf

[5:43:59] courses restaurants. And just as a point

[5:44:04] of reference to for today and the meeting,

[5:44:07] the item regarding the maximum limit on

[5:44:09] nights for the rentals is something that

[5:44:14] I'm concerned with. As my property

[5:44:18] provides me a significant source of my

[5:44:21] income. In addition to that I support

[5:44:24] other aspects down stream and up stream

[5:44:28] with my rental in the community and for my

[5:44:32] guests. I provide services and

[5:44:35] suggestions and am in close contact

[5:44:40] advices my guests on places to go and

[5:44:42] things to do and places to respond spend

[5:44:47] their money and as far as employing people

[5:44:50] in the area to help me clean my condo if

[5:44:55] work is being done and happen to be out

[5:44:57] of-work needs to be down and I happen to

[5:44:59] be out of town I have people that help me

[5:45:01] with that so I have been in the community

[5:45:03] for a long time and proud home owner. As

[5:45:08] I said I'm in a condo and there's-never

[5:45:11] been any noise safety parking or fire

[5:45:13] issues in relation to my rental and just

[5:45:19] one other thing, when I travel which I do

[5:45:22] frequently when where mainly use my condo

[5:45:25] as a rental, I prefer to stay in a hotel.

[5:45:29] I never used airbnb hotels are my

[5:45:33] preference and for whatever reason that is

[5:45:35] I don't see those as being in competition.

[5:45:40] basically so just as noted earlier my

[5:45:45] objection to the maximum night limit on

[5:45:48] the short-term rentals is my reason for

[5:45:52] taking your time today. Thank you very

[5:45:53] much for your consideration.

[5:45:55] >> thank you.

[5:45:59] >> brett unmute your mic and give your

[5:46:04] comments.

[5:46:05] >> thank you board of supervisors. I have

[5:46:08] questions for the bae report. Is the

[5:46:11] gentlemen still available?

[5:46:13] >> yeah, if you direct your questions to

[5:46:17] the board and we'll try to get those

[5:46:19] answered.

[5:46:20] >> great. Thank you. It follows with

[5:46:23] supervisor gore's observation about

[5:46:27] correlation and on the literature review

[5:46:30] it says str activity correlate to increase

[5:46:33] housing cost. But wouldn't that mean that

[5:46:37] str are more prevalent in resort areas

[5:46:41] where housing costs of course are more

[5:46:43] expensive for example str are fewer in

[5:46:48] modesto then they would be in north lake

[5:46:51] tahoe? And then, another question that I

[5:47:00] would have regarding the impacts on hotels

[5:47:03] and I guess overall supply, has it been

[5:47:06] taken into consideration that we have a

[5:47:09] 19.5 mile stretch from the state line at

[5:47:15] [inaudible comments] down to tahoma post

[5:47:17] office that we haven't built a new hotel

[5:47:19] or motel since 1962?

[5:47:23] >> I think that is accurate.

[5:47:25] >> yeah. I just are wondering if that's

[5:47:27] taken into consideration when it comes to

[5:47:30] impacts of hotel and whether it also comes

[5:47:34] into impacts on these ratios of short-term

[5:47:37] rentals to the total housing stock?

[5:47:45] sounds like he is not on the line. I

[5:47:47] guess another observation in the

[5:47:50] presentation would be 28 percent the

[5:47:52] revenue of the housing stock has tot

[5:47:56] certificate greater then zero, even if

[5:48:02] that is the amount if the median price is

[5:48:05] 855 and we consider 855 and lower to be

[5:48:10] achievable community housing, isn't it

[5:48:13] just 14 percent because we dont need to

[5:48:16] consider pertains to achievable community

[5:48:18] housing the properties that are above 855,

[5:48:23] correct?

[5:48:24] >> brett, sorry I wasn't clear, what you

[5:48:26] need to do is sort of make your questions

[5:48:29] available to the board and we'll ask staff

[5:48:31] including with aaron to-

[5:48:33] >> okay.

[5:48:34] >> to get responses.

[5:48:35] >> okay. Great. Thank you.

[5:48:39] >> thanks.

[5:48:40] >> the last observation would be on the

[5:48:44] slide that goes over str occupancy and

[5:48:47] revenue. I are think those are pretty

[5:48:51] accurate but what stories isn't being told

[5:48:54] there are the costs associated with

[5:48:58] short-term rental versus the cost

[5:49:00] associated with the long-term rental.

[5:49:04] short term rental needs to be finished.

[5:49:08] the owner needs to pay for the utilities.

[5:49:10] owner needs to pay for snow removal. The

[5:49:13] owner is unable to deprecate the asset

[5:49:16] over a 28 and a half year time period so

[5:49:21] when you look at the profitability of

[5:49:23] short-term rental and long-term rental at

[5:49:26] 855 the profitability for long-term rental

[5:49:30] is far greater then profitability of

[5:49:32] short-term rental by the reason people do

[5:49:37] it it is the same thing since people have

[5:49:40] coming here because they want to use it

[5:49:42] and the long-term rental displaces the

[5:49:44] whole purpose of ownership to begin with.

[5:49:47] >> brett, one other thing just to brought

[5:49:52] to my attention. We are in a process

[5:49:55] where we are not making any compelling

[5:49:57] decision today but generally provide

[5:49:59] direction, so if we don't get answers to

[5:50:03] your questions by the end of the hearing,

[5:50:05] just e-mail us or contact us and we'll get

[5:50:09] you any information we have and can get

[5:50:12] for you.

[5:50:13] >> great. Thank you. I know you guys are

[5:50:15] running behind, that's it for me.

[5:50:17] >> thank you.

[5:50:18] >> thank you.

[5:50:22] >> john, go ahead and unmute your mic and

[5:50:25] give your comments.

[5:50:26] >> thank you john falk legislative

[5:50:30] advocate for board of realtors. Hopefully

[5:50:33] in receipt of 13 december 4 pages in

[5:50:37] length flushes out the [inaudible

[5:50:42] comments] I did want to drive in on a few

[5:50:44] specifics and core among them is that I

[5:50:49] served on the stakeholder group and

[5:50:51] attended the larger town hall groups. I'm

[5:50:54] on the town of truckee stakeholder group.

[5:50:59] even on t r p when it was looking at str

[5:51:03] and every instance it is a question of

[5:51:06] looking at what we are going to do rather

[5:51:09] then if we should be doing something so

[5:51:11] this is happened in every instance where I

[5:51:15] always start with I think it shouldn't be

[5:51:19] over regulated and definitely artificial

[5:51:24] scarcity must be avoided because we are

[5:51:27] tourism based economy. If you want to

[5:51:32] provide workforce housing first you need

[5:51:34] jobs to have that workforce. And if you

[5:51:37] rely on the existing hotels to back fill

[5:51:41] the loss of str or limiting the str you

[5:51:44] are going to one, lose economic viability

[5:51:47] and two, jobs and equally important also

[5:51:51] going to further widen the chasm between

[5:51:54] the have and have nots because it is more

[5:51:57] expensive to come up here whether it is to

[5:51:59] str or to stay in a hotel or motel. We

[5:52:03] would urge you not to engage-if you are

[5:52:07] direct to staff in any way to not engage

[5:52:10] in any activities that involve

[5:52:13] artificially capping or limiting str as a

[5:52:16] activity. Alternatively you could direct

[5:52:20] staff to report out every year str usage

[5:52:23] and overall economy and even workforce

[5:52:26] housing shortage and anything done to

[5:52:30] improve it relieve it or have exacerbate

[5:52:33] it and that way you would be able each

[5:52:36] year then to reconsider whether or not you

[5:52:39] need to do something but at this point you

[5:52:41] are getting out in front of it and when

[5:52:44] you start to metal with economy as

[5:52:49] delicate as ours because it is tourism

[5:52:52] based and when you try to compare that to

[5:52:55] urban areas not rural areas, and areas

[5:52:58] with diverse stable economies rather then

[5:53:03] seasonal economy comprised of primary

[5:53:09] residents and not second homes and apply

[5:53:10] restrictive standard you will not end up

[5:53:12] with the same result, you end up with the

[5:53:16] potential to do economic damage that take

[5:53:18] years and years to undo. We urge you not

[5:53:28] to go down that road and to end please

[5:53:32] incentives not mandates. There are a

[5:53:35] number of ways you can truly incentivize

[5:53:38] people to consider especially those second

[5:53:40] home owners that want to use their home on

[5:53:43] occasion to lease it out or rent it out on

[5:53:46] a semi longer term like seasonal workers

[5:53:49] you have a number of options and have the

[5:53:53] current suite of options in play. I did

[5:53:57] want to make the point the county staff

[5:54:00] both tahoe and auburn have been

[5:54:12] outstanding being accessible responsive to

[5:54:15] every question comment concern I put

[5:54:16] forward so our many concerns about the

[5:54:20] potential moving forward is is no way

[5:54:24] reflective of any negative appraisal of

[5:54:27] how it has been pursued in terms of

[5:54:30] outreach to the community. I think it has

[5:54:32] been more then outstanding, but at this

[5:54:36] point if you are asked to give direction

[5:54:38] as to construction of a ordinance that

[5:54:40] would be relatively permanent in nature, I

[5:54:43] would urge you to only do clean up things

[5:54:47] not add caps or other limitations and ramp

[5:54:53] up the bad actor enforcement.

[5:54:56] >> thank you john. If you can wrap up.

[5:55:00] thank you. Reminder we are not adopting

[5:55:02] any ordinance today or doing anything

[5:55:04] specific other then giving general

[5:55:06] direction to staff before we come back in

[5:55:09] january.

[5:55:12] >> go ahead and unmute your mic and give

[5:55:15] your comments.

[5:55:16] >> good afternoon board. Thank you for

[5:55:19] the opportunity to address this topic and

[5:55:24] to put down the snow shovel. Dan tester

[5:55:32] granite peek management home owner

[5:55:36] association condo hotel and individual

[5:55:38] home rentals through the vacation rental

[5:55:40] brand all in eastern placer county. We

[5:55:43] are a local company. Employ local people

[5:55:46] and face the same challenges with

[5:55:55] [inaudible comments] I have been involve

[5:55:56] would the short-term rental ordinance. We

[5:56:04] have been team players and good stewards

[5:56:06] of the community. I dismayed when the

[5:56:11] moratorium enacted and extended as our

[5:56:13] company have been good citizens and left a

[5:56:16] fair amount of business on the table as a

[5:56:18] result. Great presentation today by

[5:56:23] staff. I am in favor of some of the items

[5:56:27] presented and have ern cans about other.

[5:56:29] specific to options being presented today

[5:56:31] I think I heard condo hotels exempted and

[5:56:38] should be exempt for several different

[5:56:42] reason. I think that I heard this bad

[5:56:45] actors need to be punished. Couldn't

[5:56:47] agree more. I would support a more

[5:56:49] aggressive approach to finding bad guest

[5:56:52] owner and agent behavior. Dwelling repeat

[5:56:57] offenders should have their permit revoked

[5:57:01] and rental without a permit should be

[5:57:03] severe so strongly support increased

[5:57:05] enforcement. On caps, I would say that I

[5:57:10] would prohibitively and begrudgingly

[5:57:16] support a cap. I understand right or

[5:57:19] wrong this is a hot button issue in the

[5:57:20] community and we as a industry need to be

[5:57:24] part of a compromise on this. I think we

[5:57:28] would all need to agree on the data we are

[5:57:30] basing these decisions on and cap number

[5:57:35] so there is a lot of work to be done and

[5:57:37] has to work for everyone. On the maximum

[5:57:40] nights rented I don't support a

[5:57:43] restriction on that. I think most owners

[5:57:45] will choose to rent during the highest

[5:57:48] [streaming cut out]

[5:57:50] impact periods because that is when rates

[5:57:55] are highest so this doesn't make a lot of

[5:57:58] sense to me. I do support a minimum. I

[5:58:00] don't think people who have reserved a

[5:58:02] permit and don't use it should have a

[5:58:04] permit. I do support different tiers for

[5:58:07] professional property managers. As a

[5:58:10] professional property manager we have

[5:58:12] local staff dedicated to responding to

[5:58:14] these issues 24/7 of the properties we

[5:58:18] manage. We are asset managers for our

[5:58:21] clients homes and we manage them to

[5:58:23] professional standards. Through all this

[5:58:27] I understand the challenge and difficulty

[5:58:31] and finding a balance solution to this for

[5:58:34] our community. I support reasonable

[5:58:37] restrictions in the community for

[5:58:38] short-term rentals. And ask you consider

[5:58:42] the health of the local short-term rental

[5:58:45] operating businesses and the process and

[5:58:48] again I thank you and happy to answer any

[5:58:51] questions if you have any.

[5:58:52] >> thank you.

[5:58:56] >> go ahead and unmute your mic and give

[5:58:59] your comments. Roxy, can you unmute your

[5:59:05] mic and give your comments?

[5:59:07] >> hi. I might not be able to talk for

[5:59:10] long but wanted to say thank you for

[5:59:11] today. I know it has been long process

[5:59:13] for you guys. But I just wanted to say

[5:59:20] that the long-term rental market in lake

[5:59:24] tahoe has always been very difficult for

[5:59:27] myself. I started with glen martin at

[5:59:31] remax property with vicky singleton and

[5:59:36] renee. We managed over 250 units, and it

[5:59:42] was very difficult. It wasn't very easy,

[5:59:48] and I think that the problem with the

[5:59:54] maintenance on a long-term rental is-I got

[5:59:58] my little guy here so think I have to wait

[6:00:00] and talk another time, but I wanted to say

[6:00:04] that because we dont have the staff up

[6:00:07] here to maintain the long-term rentals, it

[6:00:11] is is a difficult proposition I think you

[6:00:14] will have moving forward to try to talk

[6:00:18] people into doing long-term rentals. I

[6:00:21] would love myself to turn my vacation

[6:00:24] rental into a long-term, but it is really

[6:00:32] difficult to maintain a long-term rental.

[6:00:38] so, that's the first thing that I wanted

[6:00:40] to say. And, the second thing I wanted to

[6:00:47] say is I'm not in favor of taking away the

[6:00:51] night-the number of nights that I can

[6:00:55] rent. Because I donate a lot of my funds

[6:01:02] to people who can't afford rent in the

[6:01:05] neighborhood. So, I say like on a nightly

[6:01:10] basis if I'm able to rent out 22 nights I

[6:01:17] give about 6 percent of that to charity

[6:01:21] and I give another 10 percent to people

[6:01:27] who need to pay rent. To have lost that

[6:01:33] income would be sad because I have to tell

[6:01:36] them I'm unable to do that anymore and

[6:01:38] that is something I have done with my

[6:01:40] nightly rent for a long time. I have a

[6:01:47] little one in my lap no I'll let you go.

[6:01:52] I don't have enough time to talk or pull

[6:01:55] up my notes but ip wanted to thank you for

[6:01:59] taking your time moving slowly with the

[6:02:01] process. I think that is really important

[6:02:03] is take our time and keep talking about it

[6:02:06] and try to finds solutions to the

[6:02:10] long-term housing market. I'm all for

[6:02:13] change but I think trying to take away

[6:02:16] from the short-term market might be

[6:02:20] hurtful to the people that do donate in

[6:02:23] our community which I know there is a lot

[6:02:25] of us that do. Thank you so much for your

[6:02:27] time.

[6:02:28] >> thank you.

[6:02:31] >> go ahead and unmute and give your

[6:02:34] comments.

[6:02:36] >> yes. Thank you board of supervisors.

[6:02:41] to start there is a lot of nuance in the

[6:02:44] problem. What investment to we encourage

[6:02:48] as a community? I am speaking to you as a

[6:02:51] long-term home owner in the eastern part

[6:02:53] of placer county. Cindy may or may not

[6:02:56] remember me from the past, but I am a

[6:03:01] retired or semi retired business owner,

[6:03:04] and I guess I'm torn-

[6:03:06] >> I don't know your name so how can I

[6:03:10] remember you?

[6:03:12] >> this is charley riley. We know each

[6:03:15] other from your past more honorable-no,

[6:03:18] very honorable in what you are doing.

[6:03:23] what I guess I would say is I have been a

[6:03:25] landlord for years and years, and this

[6:03:28] really is a problem but I would share that

[6:03:31] just recently retired. I had a retail

[6:03:35] store that was based in truckee but

[6:03:37] serviced all of the eastern part of

[6:03:40] placer, and one thing that caused me it go

[6:03:44] and decide at 66 it was time to retire was

[6:03:48] that businesses need employees and

[6:03:50] employees need housing and there is so

[6:03:53] much cause and effect and nuance in this

[6:03:57] that I had a quick talk with the truckee

[6:04:01] town council years ago but I pointed out

[6:04:03] there is a line of cars every morning from

[6:04:05] reno going up to north star, and that's

[6:04:10] because those workers are critically

[6:04:12] needed but no place for them to live and

[6:04:14] so I look at this about what we encourage

[6:04:17] and no I'm not going to go as a $45 hour

[6:04:23] carpenter buy a $2 million house but I can

[6:04:28] afford a reasonably priced house but we

[6:04:32] made those houses too good investment for

[6:04:36] short-term rental guy and so I'm

[6:04:38] encouraging a thoughtful balance between

[6:04:42] not capping stuff but just saying what are

[6:04:45] we doing what is important? Short-term

[6:04:47] rentals what I saw from the presentation

[6:04:49] was it reduces the available housing of

[6:04:55] low of 28 percent to lot more. If that is

[6:04:59] the right amount fine but we need to think

[6:05:01] about the whole thing. I look at safe way

[6:05:03] in tahoe city and cindy you and I get jobs

[6:05:07] there for about as much as you are paid

[6:05:09] for the members of the board as they are

[6:05:10] so desperate. I am just looking at this

[6:05:14] thing trying to be what the heck. Anyway

[6:05:17] I like to suggest that you strongly

[6:05:20] consider supporting the proposed ordinance

[6:05:23] changes in your packet. I know those are

[6:05:25] not final decisions but those are

[6:05:26] recommendations. I read through

[6:05:29] attachment c and thought they were fairly

[6:05:31] reasonable in what they came up with. The

[6:05:34] next thing I share is I e-mailed all of

[6:05:40] you with a slight challenge I came up

[6:05:43] with. I am moving to auburn. I will

[6:05:45] still be in district 5, so cindy will

[6:05:49] still hear from me but in trying to sell

[6:05:52] me house the current moratorium actually

[6:05:54] gave somebody living in san jose or santa

[6:05:58] clara when I lived 20 years ago somebody

[6:06:02] buying a house could go and get a permit

[6:06:06] and so I had people by-passing my property

[6:06:10] because my property wasn't as sexy as a

[6:06:12] permit. I don't want a permit but I want

[6:06:13] you to treat everybody with parody and

[6:06:17] equity.

[6:06:18] >> can you wrap up your comments?

[6:06:21] >> at this point I support what I read in

[6:06:24] the recommendation. I would point out the

[6:06:26] businesses in all eastern placer need

[6:06:29] employees. We got to be there meeting

[6:06:33] both sides of the problem.

[6:06:37] >> go ahead and unmute your mic and give

[6:06:41] your comments hillary.

[6:06:43] >> hi there. My name is hillary

[6:06:46] [inaudible comments] I sent an e-mail into

[6:06:49] the board a few days ago. I am 33. I am

[6:06:55] a broker in california. Also a consultant

[6:06:57] with there department of real estate. My

[6:06:59] mom started property management company

[6:07:02] over 30 years ago. We manage 3 thousand

[6:07:10] single family homes. [inaudible comments]

[6:07:15] I bought it for the sole purpose of

[6:07:17] bringing my children to truckee because it

[6:07:19] was a place I grew up and I wanted to

[6:07:22] expose them to that as well. So, the

[6:07:26] other thing about that is I rent it out

[6:07:29] for a living because it is a passive

[6:07:36] source of income.

[6:07:37] [captioning will continue in a moment.]

[6:12:48] >> doesn't have parking spaces to support

[6:12:50] that and so the rest of the neighborhood

[6:12:55] gets to participate in that with no

[6:12:58] accompany profit. Also, the landlord or

[6:13:03] vrbo enacts a 500 fine for non compliance.

[6:13:09] that goes to the property owner as profit.

[6:13:13] >> if you can wrap up your comments.

[6:13:15] >> I do support the efforts to increase

[6:13:20] the penalties for non compliance and to

[6:13:25] increase communication to report non

[6:13:27] compliance. I would support that and I

[6:13:29] also support your efforts in trying to

[6:13:32] look at this problem, see for what it is I

[6:13:35] make the changes required so we can all

[6:13:37] live here happily and I appreciate your

[6:13:39] time.

[6:13:46] >> brian unmute your mic and give

[6:13:52] comments.

[6:13:53] >> this is brian donnelly and own a condo

[6:13:58] in north star and been [inaudible

[6:14:05] comments] think north star needs to be

[6:14:07] [inaudible comments] from these rules

[6:14:10] thing in north star. Condos single family

[6:14:14] homes, whether they are managed

[6:14:17] professionally, whether they are

[6:14:20] individually or by the owner. I think

[6:14:24] that it is intellectually dishonest

[6:14:31] talking about my condo across the street

[6:14:33] from the fair station as housing stock.

[6:14:36] it isn't housing stock. It was built in

[6:14:40] 1973. It is pretty poor construction. It

[6:14:42] was meant to be a second home/ski rental.

[6:14:48] when it was built. It was built inside a

[6:14:51] ski resort. It was not built next to

[6:14:54] elementary school. It isn't a

[6:14:55] neighborhood. This is a resort and

[6:15:03] survives on short term rentals to ski

[6:15:08] [inaudible comments] and so it is really

[6:15:11] important that we be intellectually honest

[6:15:15] about the fact I will never rent my unit

[6:15:19] to a will you local working there because

[6:15:21] that takes away my ability to use it which

[6:15:26] is why I bought inside a ski resort in the

[6:15:28] first place so this is not housing stock.

[6:15:33] [inaudible comments] coming up and talking

[6:15:37] about housing stock, I think that there is

[6:15:39] a desired result by certain staff and then

[6:15:42] they are working backwards to justify and

[6:15:46] back fill that result. But if we are

[6:15:48] going to be honest, my unit is not housing

[6:15:52] stock, and so I just hope that people are

[6:15:57] going to acknowledge that one size does

[6:15:59] not fit all here and that we do need to

[6:16:02] look at neighborhoods and treat them

[6:16:05] differently. What might be a nuisance for

[6:16:08] a family that has school aged children

[6:16:12] [inaudible comments] up in the north star

[6:16:14] village. It is the same exact act but it

[6:16:19] does matter where it occurs and so I hope

[6:16:22] that we can honest conversation about the

[6:16:25] fact one size does not fit all the entire

[6:16:30] eastern placer county. Thank you.

[6:16:36] >> please unmute your mic and give your

[6:16:39] comments.

[6:16:42] >> hi. I lake to say that we own a home

[6:16:45] in chamberland, our second home and we do

[6:16:50] not feel that limiting short-term rentals

[6:16:53] will allow for-

[6:16:55] >> excuse me, could you state your name

[6:16:57] for the record, please?

[6:16:59] >> lisa [inaudible comments] and ed

[6:17:01] [inaudible comments]

[6:17:02] >> thank you.

[6:17:05] >> we don't feel limiting short-term

[6:17:08] rentals will solve the problem that the

[6:17:11] board is looking as the major problem

[6:17:13] which is allowing long-term rentals for

[6:17:16] workers. The pricing in the neighborhood

[6:17:19] has gone through the roof and limiting

[6:17:22] short-term rentals in our view is just

[6:17:24] going to basically make tahoe a

[6:17:27] millionaire playground where mow average

[6:17:30] person can come and rent for a week, and I

[6:17:33] do support you know, regulations in terms

[6:17:38] of like non compliance and you know,

[6:17:42] penalty and you know, fining people that

[6:17:47] disobey the ordinances like the quite time

[6:17:50] and the garbage and do feel for the last

[6:17:55] speaker that says it does rely on the

[6:17:58] local community to report violators. That

[6:18:02] seems there could be more outreach so that

[6:18:06] that could be fixed, but I really don't

[6:18:08] think that the primary problem of housing

[6:18:13] workers is going to be solved by limiting

[6:18:19] short-term rental especially in

[6:18:22] chamberland and that is all I have to say.

[6:18:23] thank you.

[6:18:24] >> thank you.

[6:18:25] >> go ahead and unmute and give your

[6:18:28] comments.

[6:18:30] >> hi. My name is [inaudible comments] we

[6:18:33] own a place in north star which we bought

[6:18:36] in july. We are in a pretty [inaudible

[6:18:47] comments] we bought our place a week

[6:18:49] before the [inaudible comments] and we did

[6:18:51] not anticipate [inaudible comments] we are

[6:18:54] kind of stuck between a rock and hard

[6:18:58] place because we were working with a

[6:19:00] property manager to figure out how to rent

[6:19:02] it and get a permit and everything and

[6:19:04] then this came in, so what one comment I

[6:19:08] have is to consider people like us who are

[6:19:15] not anticipating this to happen a

[6:19:18] regulation like this doesn't happen over

[6:19:20] night, but while this one did, so I would

[6:19:23] really appreciate if that is considered

[6:19:24] and whether we have a limit or not to have

[6:19:31] exemptions for folks like me who are not

[6:19:33] planning for this. If the str are not

[6:19:40] available and buying a new case I would

[6:19:43] consider this but this is million plus

[6:19:45] dollar properties and it caused a lot of

[6:19:48] hardship for because it happened so

[6:19:50] suddenly.

[6:19:57] >> samir, unmute your mic and give your

[6:20:00] comments.

[6:20:01] >> good afternoon samir north lake tahoe

[6:20:06] resort association. Just want to run

[6:20:08] through points. Over the course of the

[6:20:10] last couple months as the ordinance has

[6:20:13] been being discussed I spent a lot of time

[6:20:16] certainly nothing close to what supervisor

[6:20:18] gustafson spent but spent a lot of time

[6:20:21] talking to different constituents and

[6:20:23] different groups including local

[6:20:25] businesses, community members, str

[6:20:29] operators hotel, the resort association

[6:20:32] board and sometimes getting stopped on the

[6:20:35] street by locals and want to have a chat

[6:20:37] about this. And I just have a few

[6:20:42] observations. I think there is a lot of

[6:20:44] support and a lot of consistent discussion

[6:20:48] regarding the nuisance and public safety

[6:20:50] issue and think a lot of what you focused

[6:20:53] on and talk about needs to be implemented

[6:20:55] and think there is broad support for that.

[6:20:58] there may be tailoring or things that need

[6:21:02] to be done there but I think where the

[6:21:04] real diversity of views shows up is with

[6:21:06] respect to how if at all does this impact

[6:21:11] housing prices and housing availability.

[6:21:13] there is a wide wide range of requests or

[6:21:17] possible solutions here on the one end is

[6:21:21] do nothing change nothing and just allow

[6:21:22] it to function the way it is. On the

[6:21:26] other hand I heard discussion regarding

[6:21:29] voter initiative that would be very

[6:21:31] similar to what happened in south lake

[6:21:33] tahoe and that could be really

[6:21:36] catastrophic for the industry and for the

[6:21:37] community and those types of limitations

[6:21:41] would just create enormous problems and

[6:21:45] the problems everybody has been talking

[6:21:48] about today on both side. Even within the

[6:21:51] various groups I have been talking to for

[6:21:53] example on the resort association board or

[6:21:57] the short-term rental operators there is a

[6:21:59] diversity of views in terms of what if

[6:22:02] anything should be done by way of caps.

[6:22:04] again, some say caps are fine, caps need

[6:22:07] to happen, some say don't cap anything at

[6:22:10] all. So, one thing the resort association

[6:22:14] is doing is convening discussions with

[6:22:18] some of the short-term rental operators

[6:22:20] with county staff with board members and

[6:22:23] other local business owners to try to see

[6:22:25] if there is some middle ground or some

[6:22:28] sort of compromise people can live with.

[6:22:31] I will ask that there was a letter that

[6:22:35] came from the short-term rental operators

[6:22:37] asking for data. I know some of that has

[6:22:40] been provided and I know staff is working

[6:22:44] to respond to other components of the

[6:22:46] letter and really appreciate the

[6:22:48] transparency that comes about with result

[6:22:51] of those disclosure. And then I think

[6:22:54] finally someone made a comment this would

[6:22:56] be permanent and don't think any way shape

[6:22:58] or form it needs to be permanent. I think

[6:23:00] there is a lot of opportunity for it being

[6:23:04] of a fixed period of time analysis and

[6:23:08] review and that sort of thing. I think

[6:23:10] the notion it would be permanent is

[6:23:13] overstated and think what would be

[6:23:15] necessary with any changes here is they be

[6:23:17] evaluated on a regular basis against fixed

[6:23:20] criteria. Thank you very much for your

[6:23:22] time.

[6:23:29] >> unmute your mic and give your comments.

[6:23:31] >> hi. Can you hear me?

[6:23:34] >> yes.

[6:23:35] >> hi. Wonderful. Hi everybody. First

[6:23:40] of all, thank you very much for your time

[6:23:42] and for all the efforts you put into it.

[6:23:45] it is a really complicated issue. My name

[6:23:49] is [inaudible comments] and my family just

[6:23:56] bought second home in dutch flat and we

[6:24:00] experience similar issue. We are not able

[6:24:02] to rent it because we are can't get a

[6:24:08] permit and that is a huge financial

[6:24:10] hardship [inaudible comments] as many

[6:24:17] people say, I want it to be working well

[6:24:23] for everybody for all the neighbors who

[6:24:26] live there so for this reason there needs

[6:24:30] to be regulations, but if we don't get

[6:24:36] permits we won't be renting it long-term.

[6:24:39] we just definitely don't want to do that.

[6:24:42] it isn't something that we envisioned, we

[6:24:46] live in san jose in condo with two kids we

[6:24:49] cant afford a house in our area so that

[6:24:52] was our dream to live in a house and the

[6:24:55] only way to afford it was up there. The

[6:24:59] permits moratorium is not an ideal

[6:25:03] situation. Rather there should be some

[6:25:06] process that you can apply for the permit

[6:25:10] and maybe pass an exam which educate you

[6:25:13] as a property owner how to take care

[6:25:21] of-how to manage your renters. How to

[6:25:24] follow the rules. How to be a responsible

[6:25:27] for community. And also if keep

[6:25:37] moratorium in place people will find ways

[6:25:39] to rent it. I prefer to pay fees to make

[6:25:44] it fully legal and be responsible but not

[6:25:47] being able to rent at all. There is

[6:25:51] something to consider to maybe educate

[6:25:54] those who get permits rather then limit

[6:25:57] permits. That's all I wanted to say.

[6:25:59] thank you very much.

[6:26:00] >> thank you.

[6:26:06] >> cathy please unmite your mic and give

[6:26:09] your comments.

[6:26:10] >> thank you. My name is cathy fairbanks

[6:26:14] and I live in sacramento and in 2019 I

[6:26:18] purchased a condo in tahoe city. I didn't

[6:26:22] start doing short-term rentals until late

[6:26:26] july this year and in october I submitted

[6:26:29] my first payment for the second quarter

[6:26:32] for the transit occupancy tax. I missed-I

[6:26:38] am working so missed the presentation and

[6:26:40] coming into this late but I did want to

[6:26:42] lay out a couple of thoughts that I had

[6:26:45] and things to keep in mind as this process

[6:26:51] moves forward and thank you for giving me

[6:26:53] a opportunity to speak. I agree there

[6:26:59] should be structure around the short-term

[6:27:03] rental permit process and the situation in

[6:27:07] tahoe, but I think what I'm hearing and

[6:27:14] what I'm seeing and experienced is really

[6:27:16] a problem with like three things I would

[6:27:18] say, bad actors who we all attacked about

[6:27:22] and everyone I heard agrees that we need

[6:27:24] to do something to address habitual bad

[6:27:28] actors and I would be in favor of that.

[6:27:32] I'll not in favor of capping the permits

[6:27:35] or capping the number of nights until

[6:27:38] perhaps there is more study and everyone

[6:27:40] is firm on how the market is working in

[6:27:44] tahoe. One thing I haven't heard talked

[6:27:47] about much though is the tax revenue that

[6:27:49] this brings in and maybe I missed this in

[6:27:51] part of the presentation.

[6:28:14] [streaming cut out]

[6:28:17] >> I think that can help alleviate traffic

[6:28:20] and looking forward to using that.

[6:28:24] affordable housing is a huge issue and not

[6:28:29] just in tahoe it is everywhere in

[6:28:31] california. This isn't just because of

[6:28:32] short-term rentals the tahoe area has a

[6:28:36] housing affordability problem. There is a

[6:28:38] problem but it is all over the state.

[6:28:42] developers aren't not incent vised to

[6:28:46] build housing without subsidy from local

[6:28:49] government. It doesn't pencil out and

[6:28:51] that is one thing we need to consider as

[6:28:54] it relates to short-term rentals and to

[6:28:56] the ability to the extent they can help

[6:28:59] subsidize additional affordable housing.

[6:29:05] thank you.

[6:29:06] >> thank you.

[6:29:07] >> go ahead and unmute your mic and give

[6:29:09] your comments.

[6:29:10] >> hi. Thanks. Phillip welch I shared

[6:29:15] last time on this. My family purchased a

[6:29:18] house and hoping to rent it but my

[6:29:21] comments are on the workforce housing

[6:29:23] portion of this. I fully agree with

[6:29:26] supervisor gore that I don't think this is

[6:29:29] going to effect prices. We have a perfect

[6:29:32] case study in south lake study. Measure t

[6:29:35] husband been effect 12 months now and the

[6:29:37] prices haven't gone down if you look at

[6:29:40] zillow it isn't effecting it, so I hate

[6:29:43] for us to be pursuing this as a solution

[6:29:46] for problem and waiting for a couple years

[6:29:48] to see did this fix it, wait it didn't fix

[6:29:51] this at all. So that is one thought. The

[6:29:55] other thought I noticed in the written

[6:29:58] document on the update to the ordinance

[6:30:00] mentioned of future hotel developments and

[6:30:03] economic viability of that being

[6:30:06] challenged by this and I'm concerned we

[6:30:08] are thinking of that instead of thinking

[6:30:10] why can't we build long-term workforce

[6:30:13] housing that isn't rentable? Instead of

[6:30:16] hotels we have small hotels now.

[6:30:20] short-term rentals and people like using

[6:30:22] them. Why worry about the economic

[6:30:25] viability of something not economically

[6:30:31] viable anymore? Thank you. And recollect

[6:30:41] chairman no further public comment.

[6:30:43] >> thanks megan. So, with that, again,

[6:30:49] first thing I want to ask is if there are

[6:30:53] any questions or comments that staff would

[6:30:55] like to address or clarify noting also we

[6:31:00] will be coming back so there's ample time

[6:31:03] to respond to individuals if they get in

[6:31:07] touch with us but might be low hanging

[6:31:13] fruit you want to address before we go

[6:31:15] farther.

[6:31:16] >> I think I would just mention to mr.

[6:31:21] williams a lot of comments to unpack and

[6:31:24] welcome a follow up conversation with him

[6:31:27] and I think to connect with our consultant

[6:31:29] on a more detailed level. That was one

[6:31:36] thing I had written down.

[6:31:38] >> I wanted to respond to the women that

[6:31:41] spoke in dutch plat the ordinance does not

[6:31:44] apply to dutch flat area so welcome

[6:31:48] her-she can e-mail me and further discuss.

[6:31:51] >> generally anyone who wants to remain on

[6:31:55] the board would be happy to get responses

[6:31:58] back to you and help out particularly with

[6:32:01] information as we move to our january

[6:32:04] date. So with that, again keeping in mind

[6:32:07] that staff is seeking from us some

[6:32:11] feedback related to help them craft more

[6:32:14] specifically what will be on the table in

[6:32:16] january and with that I'm going to give to

[6:32:21] cindy and then suzanne.

[6:32:22] >> thank you. I really appreciate the

[6:32:24] time today and I know it is late in the

[6:32:27] day and we spent a lot of time discussing

[6:32:29] this and all staffs work. I would ask

[6:32:33] that bae site the literature on the

[6:32:37] inflation value on the housing. When

[6:32:39] people can earn $35 thousand a average and

[6:32:53] up to hundreds of thousands of dollars on

[6:32:56] short-term rental it is inflating the

[6:32:59] housing market and the evidence is there

[6:33:01] and they mentioned but let's cite those

[6:33:05] that literature. I sent you literature.

[6:33:07] I have been researching there is many

[6:33:09] documents studies on it let's make sure

[6:33:11] all the board members have that and the

[6:33:13] public has that. Option d which I like to

[6:33:18] put forward on the numerical cap would

[6:33:22] mean some level of what we have existing

[6:33:25] plus a small addition and I'm not sure

[6:33:29] what that is to incorporate those on the

[6:33:32] waiting list that were caught in the

[6:33:34] middle of this moratorium and those that

[6:33:37] have who want to rent. I think I want to

[6:33:42] see turnover, I want to see availability

[6:33:46] of thesis and like to consider that

[6:33:49] option. Many other-every other

[6:33:51] jurisdiction in the basin has some of

[6:33:55] restriction and if we lift this with no

[6:33:57] cap I'm concerned and I'll argue about

[6:34:00] that later but concerned as to what then

[6:34:02] continues to happen. I don't care for the

[6:34:06] maximum nights rented I do like minimum

[6:34:11] nights. If be are going to cap we must

[6:34:14] make sure they are used so we can

[6:34:15] immediately take them back and get them

[6:34:17] out into the hands of people waiting for

[6:34:19] them. I told you already about the

[6:34:22] waiting period. I totally agree and

[6:34:26] forgot to mention this earlier on the

Board of Supervisors

Agenda

Transcript