[0:04] From Kern Government Television, welcome to this week's Kern County Board of Supervisors meeting.

[0:10] Originating from the Kern County Administrative Center, located at 1115 Truxton Avenue in Bakersfield, California.

[0:17] Grounded in ideas, energy and innovation, Kern County's vision is to be a driving force for the world's fifth largest economy.

[0:25] And our mission is to exceed expectations of the communities we serve, changing the way they feel about government.

[0:31] those who manage it and the services it provides today's board of supervisors

[0:36] meeting will convene momentarily board

[0:50] to reconvene madam clerk please call the

[0:52] roll Supervisor Peters here Supervisor Parley Supervisor Flores Supervisor

[0:58] couch here Supervisor Perez here okay good afternoon welcome to the Tuesday

[1:04] July 20th 2026 2 p.m. board meeting we'll begin with a report on action

[1:09] taken in closed session.

[1:11] Good afternoon.

[1:13] This morning, following the AM agenda,

[1:15] your board heard items 63 and 64 in closed session.

[1:19] There were no reportable actions taken.

[1:21] Thank you.

[1:24] Okay, well next, consider the consent agenda.

[1:26] All items listed with the CA or C above the item

[1:28] are considered to be routine and non-controversial

[1:30] by county staff.

[1:33] The CA represents the consent agenda

[1:35] for the Board of Supervisors.

[1:36] Consent items will be considered first and may be approved by one motion.

[1:40] If members of the audience wish to comment or ask questions regarding an item or items on the consent agenda,

[1:46] they may do so prior to a vote being taken.

[1:49] Members of the Board may remove any item from the consent agenda,

[1:52] and it will be considered in listed sequence with an opportunity for any member of the public

[1:56] to address the Board concerning the item before action is taken.

[1:59] the consent agenda includes items 3 through 5 on page 2. 6 through 9 on page 3. Oh, I'm sorry. I

[2:12] skipped right over that. I'm supposed to skip over that. 10 through 15 on page 4. Item 16 has been

[2:29] items twenty five through thirty two on page six

[2:33] items thirty three through forty on page seven and items forty one through forty three on page eight

[2:40] are there any members of the public that would like to speak regarding the consent agenda

[2:45] okay thank you

[2:47] with that i will bring it back to the board for motion

[2:51] motion

[2:51] the

[3:05] motion has approved all rights

[3:07] okay our first item on the agenda will be public presentations

[3:12] This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons to address the board on any matter, not on this agenda.

[3:17] But under the jurisdiction of the board, board members may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed.

[3:22] They may ask questions for clarification, make referral to staff for factual information,

[3:26] or request that staff report back to the board at a later meeting.

[3:30] The board may also take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.

[3:35] The speakers are limited to two minutes.

[3:37] Do we have any members of the public?

[3:38] We have one remote speaker, Marisa Rangel.

[4:57] Okay, thank you for your comments.

[5:01] Thank you. Supervisor Perez.

[5:03] Thank you. Thank you so much to the caller.

[5:05] I would really ask you if you could please call my office

[5:09] and speak to Priscilla Sanchez,

[5:12] because she has been working out in the community

[5:15] to bring all the resources out to vendors

[5:19] to comprehend what's required,

[5:22] but also streamline the process.

[5:25] We have had, you know, really big success

[5:28] in communicating with the public.

[5:30] month, how to get into compliance, stay in compliance, and we have all kinds of ways to

[5:36] help out.

[5:37] So I really appreciate your call.

[5:38] You're absolutely right on what's the solution after we deal with the problem.

[5:42] And I would please invite you to call my office, 8-6-8-3-6-9-0.

[5:47] Speak to Priscilla Sanchez, and she can bring you up to speed entirely on this issue.

[5:52] Thank you for your interest in your call.

[5:55] Thank you, Supervisor. Is that the end of our callers? Okay, thank you. That takes us to item number two, which is Board Member Announcements and Reports.

[6:06] Supervisor Parlie. Thank you, Chairman.

[6:14] I want to highlight an urgent issue affecting sheet and goat grazing operations here in Kern County who provide essential wildfire prevention services, not only within our county, but really throughout the state.

[6:27] A state law taking effect next month would increase required pay for sheep and goat herders

[6:34] to an unsustainable level, threatening to shut down these operations, eliminating a

[6:41] critical vegetation management tool.

[6:44] I also want to say Kern County is number one in shepherding, goat herding, number

[6:52] Number one in the county and also number one for meat producing

[6:56] For sheep also given our wildfire wildfire risk

[7:01] I am requesting staff return with recommendations on how our board can engage with legislators and support of a legislative fix

[7:09] That preserves these essential fire prevention resources

[7:15] Thank you supervisor probably it requires the motion. I'm having to do so

[7:19] whole heartily support you supervisor parley in second motion all right we

[7:26] have motion a second please catch your votes

[7:34] motion is approved all right okay

[7:38] supervisor couch thank you this morning at our public comment session there was a

[7:43] young man named Alejandro if you call he spoke about nonprofits in LA that

[7:48] were busing people up you're giving them bus tickets to bring them homeless

[7:53] people to Bakersfield. And I asked about the names of those nonprofits. He gave me the

[7:59] names. He also gave me a little bit more information, which is some of these nonprofits require proof

[8:04] of a family member who they will reunite with. If that's actually happening, we do the

[8:10] exact same thing as I understand it. We will send people all over the country if

[8:14] we know they're going to, a family member that has agreed to take them in. However,

[8:20] next sentence says others do not require a relative to be given a ticket so I

[8:25] just want to give this list to the clerk and see if we can't research that a

[8:30] little bit and I want to thank Alejandro for giving us the names. Thank you.

[8:35] Thank you Supervisor Capuch. Any other additional announcements or reports from

[8:41] the board?

[8:43] Okay seeing none. That'll take us to Public Works Department. We'll

[8:51] We'll be combining agenda items six through nine

[8:53] since they're functionally equivalent for process,

[8:55] so they will be heard concurrently as one hearing,

[8:58] but still treated separately for voting purposes.

[9:03] Do you wanna introduce these ads

[9:05] before we start the public hearing

[9:06] or do we just start the public hearing now?

[9:11] Chairman Peters, I would like to present

[9:14] and then we can open the public hearing after.

[9:16] Okay, perfect.

[9:17] I'll turn it over to you, Director Chaplin.

[9:27] Chairman, members of the Board,

[9:28] Before you today, we are conducting four separate public hearings to determine possible rate increases for four distinctly geographically separate CSAs that would consist of CSA 71, 71.1, 71.2, and 71.3.

[9:47] Property owners received a mailed notice at least 45 days before this public hearing.

[9:52] This process requires submission of written protests in accordance with the California Constitution.

[9:57] Public Works mailed a notice to each property owner.

[10:00] Each mailed notice included instructions

[10:03] to where a protest letter would need to be submitted,

[10:06] the deadline needed for submission,

[10:08] identification of the property within the protest letter,

[10:11] and a name and signature of the owner needed

[10:13] to indicate the property's protest

[10:15] of the proposed rate increase.

[10:17] Director Chamber, could I interrupt you for just one second?

[10:20] On my screen, I've got one showing Item 6

[10:24] and one showing the board information, I just want to make sure that the information that

[10:31] we're seeing is also being seen on the live stream by folks.

[10:37] If I may, Supervisor Peters, this is just a lead-in and then I'll, this is kind of,

[10:41] I'm sorry, this isn't on the slides, but this is kind of a lead-up of the legals,

[10:46] and then the presentation will follow.

[10:48] Okay, thank you.

[10:50] Staff verified each protest letter submission, the proposed increase fails if a majority

[10:54] 50% plus one of the property in her cement protests.

[11:01] So a little background on CSA 71.

[11:05] CSA 71 was formed to provide sewer planning

[11:08] and sewer disposal to unincorporated Northwest

[11:10] region of metropolitan Bakersfield

[11:12] for over 600 residential properties

[11:14] and 55 non-residential properties.

[11:17] Within CSA 71, county portion,

[11:20] we maintain over 13 miles of active sewer mains.

[11:24] CSA 71 provides sewage to four separate zones

[11:26] of benefit that I previously listed.

[11:31] City of Bakersfield provides sewer treatment

[11:33] for CSA-71 under an agreement

[11:35] that has been in effect since the 1980s.

[11:38] Per the current agreement with the city,

[11:39] the city charges CSA-71 for the number

[11:41] of connected users based on the city's sewer rate.

[11:45] CSA-71 pays these fees on behalf

[11:47] of CSA-71 customers as pass-through costs.

[11:50] On May 27th of this year,

[11:52] the city approved a new five-year Prop 218 sewer

[11:54] rate increase.

[11:55] CSA 71 has administration engineering and operational costs due to maintaining CSA 71 within the county jurisdiction.

[12:06] This is a summary of what the city approved prior at the 527-26 meeting.

[12:15] The current rate as of last fiscal year residents in the city were paying $247.13 per year.

[12:23] City Council recently approved a five-year plan.

[12:28] Year one would increase that fee to $475,

[12:30] and then $100 a year for the next four years,

[12:34] totaling $875 in five years.

[12:40] This is just a map of CSA 71.

[12:43] As you'll notice, everything in the red boundary is CSA 71.

[12:46] But for the sake of this conversation,

[12:49] only properties south of that dash blue line,

[12:51] which are in the city portion, are considered today.

[12:54] everything north of that is in NRSD's jurisdiction.

[12:58] It's important to note on that slide too, it says we have 630 total properties, 575

[13:03] residential, 55 commercial, and we maintain county portion is 13.8 miles of sewer main

[13:10] as well as one lift station.

[13:18] The proposed ordinances for these four CSAs intend to provide a sewer rate that will

[13:22] pay the city of Bakersfield pass-through cost and CSA 71 cost of service for each

[13:27] specific CSA to avoid support by the county general fund.

[13:32] City sewer fees that are the pass-through costs

[13:34] will be the wholesale cost of sewer from the city,

[13:37] which is based on the recently approved

[13:38] city of Biggersfield sewer rate increase,

[13:41] and the charge of the CSA residents,

[13:42] which may or may not include a discount.

[13:45] If inflation costs exceed the estimated 3% annual CPI,

[13:49] then the CSA will pass through those costs

[13:51] not to exceed 5% based on the cost of service.

[13:53] I'm going to run through quickly each CSA, where we are today, if we do nothing, and what

[14:03] the staff recommendation is.

[14:04] So let's start with CSA 71.

[14:07] If we did nothing today, fiscal year 2627, the revenue would be $28,305, however the

[14:16] expenses would exceed $41,600, $35,000 of that going directly to the city of Bakersfield.

[14:22] So for a net loss of $13,296 and this would be at the current rate of $295 per year.

[14:32] Our proposal for CSA 71 is shown in the first column fiscal year 2627.

[14:40] The total cost of service would be $549 per parcel per single family parcel, 475 of which

[14:48] would go directly pass through to the city of Bakersfield and the cost for the county

[14:52] to maintain services in the unincorporated areas stands at $74 per year.

[14:58] This would run through a follow-up.

[15:01] The total will be $957, $875 of which goes directly to the city as a pass-through and the county cost would increase $2 per year to $82 in year five.

[15:12] Please note that the net impact on the general fund for all of these situations that we're proposing is $0.

[15:17] dollars. CSA 71.1. The revenue generated at the current status is $37,465 with expenses

[15:28] exceeding $74,000. $60,325 would be directly passed through to the city of Bakersfield

[15:35] for a net loss of this CSA of $36,671 annually for the first year, the current rate of

[15:41] $295. The proposal for CSA 71.1 is the first year would be the total would be $585, $475

[15:51] of which would go directly to the City of Bakersold as a pass-through. The county only

[15:56] cost would be $110 per equivalent single-family dwelling. This one is notably higher than

[16:02] some of the others because this one does maintain a sewer lift station that benefits

[16:06] that's the property owners in this area.

[16:09] And you notice that in the fifth year,

[16:11] we would be exceeding $1,000 total,

[16:13] 875 of which goes directly to the city

[16:16] based on the recently approved rates,

[16:18] and 130 at a $5 per year increase for five years.

[16:23] Thanks to CSA 71.2.

[16:26] The revenue with the current rate is projected

[16:28] to be $70,210, but the expenses exceed $126,000

[16:35] with 113,000 passing through to the City of Bakersfield

[16:39] for a net loss of over $56,000 for the first year.

[16:43] Our proposal for 71.2 first year,

[16:47] the total would be $535 per single family,

[16:50] 475 going directly past through to the city,

[16:53] $60 for county staff to maintain

[16:57] the portion of sewer lines

[16:59] within the unincorporated areas.

[17:02] Increasing to $955 total in year five

[17:05] 875 going to the city, $80 for county maintenance.

[17:10] And finally, CSA 71.3.

[17:13] Revenues at the current rate would be just shy of $95,000

[17:17] annually for the first year. Expenses

[17:22] $174,695 with $130,000

[17:25] directly passed through to the city of Bakersfield for a net loss of $79,710

[17:30] at the current rate. Our proposal for

[17:33] seventy one point three is twenty six twenty seven fiscal year of five hundred

[17:37] seventy five dollars four hundred seventy five which goes directly to the

[17:41] city one hundred dollars per year for the county maintained services and

[17:46] escalating to a fifth year of over a thousand dollars a year with eight

[17:51] seventy five going to the city and one hundred and forty dollars for county

[17:54] maintenance. Now in doing this I read these numbers are very high and I

[18:01] I think we've seen that throughout this entire process,

[18:05] but I think it's important to show what we're passing

[18:10] through to the city versus what the county charges

[18:12] to maintain what we have in the county.

[18:14] So in doing so, I've seen that this is a very large amount

[18:17] of money, and we have given you this option,

[18:19] this staff's recommendation,

[18:20] because this is the only option that I'll present today

[18:24] where the county general fund is not asked to contribute.

[18:29] The next, this next slide is, this is an alternate that I've come up with.

[18:34] This is not staff recommendation today, but I wanted to give you some options.

[18:37] And this first option is solely to increase the county's portion to maintain the services that we provide within the county.

[18:48] This doesn't account for any increased pass-through costs to the city of Bakersfield.

[18:52] And so if you look in the column just that says first year change, those would be the changes in year 1 to each CSA.

[19:01] So CSA 71 would increase by $26.13, 71.1, 62.13, 71.2, 12.13, and 71.3, 52.13.

[19:14] At the bottom it's a good explanation.

[19:16] The current last fiscal year's pass-through cost was $247.13.

[19:21] That's what city customers pay for their service last year.

[19:26] So that's where the 13 cents at the end of every charge comes from.

[19:29] And last year all of our CSAs charged $47.87 more than the city rate.

[19:36] And that was attempting to cover our county liabilities and costs.

[19:42] Those had been held constant for some years.

[19:45] And so the numbers that you see that you see there are what we need to cover the basic costs to maintain the county infrastructure.

[19:55] This is just an alternative to that very large increase that you saw in those previous slides.

[20:02] And then finally I call this the do nothing alternative.

[20:07] Back on June 9th of this year, your board approved countywide ordinance for all CSAs.

[20:15] These four CSAs were in that list, and they were in that list at the fiscal year 2526 price.

[20:23] So if this board, if there's no action taken today,

[20:27] then we will continue to bill existing customers at last year's rate with no change.

[20:33] This concludes my presentation, and we're here to answer any questions

[20:38] or address any concerns that you may have.

[20:40] Okay.

[20:44] Thank you. Supervisor Forrest. Thank you, Chairman.

[20:49] Just quick calculation, it's not exact, but it's an estimate.

[20:52] So the first year, the four CSAs were looking at an increase of 185,000.

[20:59] But I noticed in your earlier presentation that there were future increases in the city over time.

[21:06] So do you have an estimate of what what these are going to be like in a in a five-year and a 10-year projection?

[21:16] Thank you supervisor floors to the chair. I did have it on this slide. It's the final row on there

[21:22] So that would be general fund obligation if you do nothing

[21:28] I'm sorry. This is if you were to just cover county costs if you were to not cover county costs

[21:33] It would be slightly higher, but if you were to vote for the alternative

[21:37] We would be year one one hundred and forty six thousand three hundred

[21:40] hundred dollars general fund obligation and that would escalate to approximately

[21:44] four hundred sixty five thousand a year in year five. Does that that help. Thank

[21:50] you.

[21:56] Thank you. Thank you Supervisor. So I don't understand why why this is being

[22:04] considered again and maybe we need some more clarification on that but in

[22:09] In March of this year, we had a proposed resolution to set public hearing on a proposed increase

[22:17] in ordinance within CSA 71, all these same CSAs that we're considering, and it was voted

[22:24] down by this board.

[22:25] And then it was brought back for us to consider again.

[22:31] And we, as a county, have filed a lawsuit against the city of Bakersfield over the inappropriateness of their fees.

[22:46] And I don't see the justification for bringing this back to the board for us to just have another bite at the apple.

[22:52] And I need to understand a justification for why we would now reverse course and approve these.

[23:03] Supervise Chairman Peters my understanding we brought this back because the city subsequent to the the last time when

[23:10] well let me let me back up when we first brought it it never the you did not approve a 218 so we never got to a hearing

[23:18] phase subsequent to that the city of Bakersfield imposed their fees which were higher than we which were lower than

[23:25] they anticipated. So the decision was made to bring it back to your board to see now

[23:31] that the city had imposed those fees and it's at a lower amount than we had anticipated.

[23:37] Did we want to reconsider that item? And at that point, your board did vote. I believe

[23:42] it was a 3-2 vote to go ahead and send out the 2-18 and try to recoup some of that

[23:49] money.

[23:52] That's the best explanation I can give to you on that at this time. And I'm happy

[23:57] to answer more questions or I can also refer to Claire Collins who's here with me or the

[24:02] department. However, I did also want to point out that we do need this item is on the agenda.

[24:10] Your board can certainly make a motion to not hear this item. And if that passes

[24:17] then we can not hear the item, but if we're going to go forward with the item

[24:21] we do need to open the public hearing receive public comment and count the

[24:25] protests. I understand. I just want to get some more clarification. I'm just happy

[24:30] to answer our questions. So it's a to set the public hearing and all that for

[24:36] for a rate increase. That's a simple majority vote 3 3 2 correct. Okay

[24:41] understand. So it was brought back and then three to two it was set for public

[24:49] hearing understood. And then the

[24:55] numbers that we saw these these are for the

[24:58] next I guess the impact that we were seeing to the general fund would be

[25:02] over a three, four, five year period these big numbers but that's assuming that

[25:07] nothing changes but we're in the middle of litigation with the city of

[25:10] that may impact what these rates ultimately are and I think that was the point that the board made the first time around is that

[25:17] we can hold off on this for a year and not pass along something that's patently unfair and unjustifiable, frankly, to the city of Bakersfield

[25:30] and reconsider this in a year. And I don't think that my position has changed on that any.

[25:37] So I would make a motion that we not hear these items.

[25:47] I'll second that motion.

[25:50] Okay, we have a motion and a second.

[25:55] Can I ask a question?

[25:56] Sure.

[26:01] If that motion passes, does that mean we don't even want to consider the

[26:08] alternative that Mr. Champion described?

[26:12] Or would we get a chance to consider that?

[26:15] If the motion passes, we're not hearing this at all and we're done.

[26:19] Correct.

[26:20] Correct.

[26:23] So I think the public deserves a little bit of an explanation for this.

[26:30] And I'm going to do my best to try to describe it as I understand it, but you all, you over

[26:36] here and you over here correctly where I go wrong.

[26:39] In order to implement, we've sent out the 218 notices.

[26:45] We didn't get adequate protests.

[26:48] In fact, we got very few, which is kind of surprising.

[26:51] The board could go ahead and implement a maximum of what was on the notice, so far so good?

[27:01] Or anything lower than that?

[27:03] Supervisor Couch, through the chair, we've not yet gotten to the point where we counted

[27:07] the protests, so we need to do that before we make that statement.

[27:11] We also haven't asked anybody to speak.

[27:13] I get that.

[27:13] Right, right.

[27:14] But I only heard in passing that we got a few protests.

[27:18] So I know you haven't counted them and all that, but I'm assuming that the number is relatively low.

[27:25] This is all theoretical at this point.

[27:29] It takes four votes to implement whatever fee we choose to adopt, if we choose to adopt one.

[27:37] Is that right?

[27:39] That is correct.

[27:40] Okay, so you had two members before that were not in favor of doing it at all.

[27:46] So the

[27:49] question, in my mind, is if there's not four votes to implement the much higher

[27:56] fee, is there four votes to implement anything lower than that?

[28:01] The motion doesn't provide us an opportunity to do that and even consider that.

[28:08] So I would like to vote no on that motion, but I would like to hear others, or how

[28:17] how they feel about that. Since I made the motion I'll say that we haven't heard anything

[28:25] up to this point about an increase to cover some different range than what we've been

[28:33] presented already up to this point. I haven't had a chance to sit down and look and understand

[28:39] the justification for this new rate increase. I haven't had a chance to get educated

[28:46] on it, and so I would have a hard time voting for something, a fee that I haven't had that

[28:51] information on.

[28:52] Maybe I don't understand it either then, because I want to make, let me, can I ask a question

[28:56] about that?

[28:57] Chairman?

[28:58] Oh, sure, I'm sorry.

[28:59] I thought, I thought the middle ground, I'll call it, or the option that provides

[29:06] for your department to recover your costs, which is much, much lower than what the

[29:11] City of Beggarsville's pass-through would be, we had discussed in the past.

[29:17] Am I incorrect about that? Or is this an entirely new subject that you're interjecting today?

[29:23] Supervisor Couch through the chair. It's in our engineer study as part of the packet that we submitted for the entire packet.

[29:30] So each item has a...

[29:32] Even back in March, I thought you had these figures available.

[29:38] Yes, we have always... It's always been my understanding that my department needed a modest increase

[29:45] in order to cover costs moving forward for just our department's functionality.

[29:50] And is this for the public's benefit as well?

[29:55] We had two, maybe three causes of action in the lawsuit.

[30:00] One of them was that the county is paying for maintenance in CSA 71 of these lines, but

[30:08] we don't receive any credit for it from the city of Bakersfield, and that's what this money

[30:12] is, right? Or am I wrong about that? You are correct. We don't receive, we have

[30:19] anything outside of the city of Bakersfield limits. That's the responsibility of public

[30:23] work from the county staff to maintain those lines and those facilities. The city doesn't

[30:31] reimburse us for any of that. Their fee is solely for facilities within the incorporated

[30:35] portion of the City Bakership.

[30:37] Okay.

[30:39] Thank you.

[30:40] So I think Supervisor Katch, if I heard your question correctly, is the motion before

[30:49] does that exclude us from entertaining future motions

[30:53] to support at least at a minimum his admin costs?

[30:56] So I don't think that the motion before us would exclude us

[30:59] from pursuing a secondary motion for that purpose.

[31:03] Back to the primary motion,

[31:06] I will not support the motion to discontinue the hearing

[31:11] based on my philosophical grounds.

[31:14] And I know that the first vote that we took,

[31:16] that we did not approve the pass-through.

[31:19] And I think that's going to be the case here,

[31:21] reading the tea leaves.

[31:22] But just for the record, my position

[31:24] is if there's a increased cost for the end user,

[31:29] this should be borne by that user

[31:30] for the fees for service.

[31:32] So if I live in a CSA for utilities, or roads,

[31:35] or lighting, or waste management,

[31:39] any increase that I get or that district gets

[31:43] is born by the citizens of that service.

[31:46] We don't saddle a general fund and make the taxpayers pay for that.

[31:50] So here we have a situation where those that should be paying or not paying

[31:54] and those that shouldn't be paying or paying, but that's the reality

[31:58] of where we're at and I'm willing to accept that to move on.

[32:03] But that just, I support, thank you for bringing this back.

[32:07] It's not easy. We're navigating, ultimately, the genesis for this

[32:11] This is a city of Bakersfield with a huge increase in fees for all our metro residents,

[32:20] the people we serve, as well as the people in the CSAs specifically, and so that's what

[32:25] gets us into this point today.

[32:27] So our board is unified on fighting those fees and capturing the costs, and I'm hopeful

[32:33] with my colleague here that we can recapture those at a future date and bring needed

[32:39] tax relief.

[32:40] So just thank you for doing the work. I know it's not easy. But at least you gave us options

[32:44] And so maybe on the on the second motion Dave

[32:47] If you want to make something where we can try at least capture the minimum cost of the admin fees

[32:51] Maybe we can do that after

[32:54] Well, as I understood the motion it would not allow us to do that

[32:58] What I well I could clarify. I think the motion was not to continue

[33:03] This pass through element for the maximum fee cost capture

[33:07] But I think that has been precluded us from a secondary motion to cover the minimum cost, but I want to

[33:15] I'll I'll I'll leave that to the maker of the motion

[33:18] I appreciate that Supervisor Florez. Thank you

[33:21] Council had

[33:23] Buzz in if you want to say yeah, I just wanted to clarify it sounds to me like what we have on the tables of motion not to

[33:29] Hear these items to remove them

[33:32] So in that case it would be a done deal. However, I had

[33:35] I requested to speak because I wanted to make sure even before you vote on that there could

[33:42] be public who wants to speak that you should hear before you take the vote. But yes, if

[33:47] you vote to remove these items, it's a done deal. And if it fails, then there could

[33:55] be a second motion after you open the public hearing receipt and do all the things you

[34:00] do at a hearing.

[34:00] So we could we could have a second motion for at least cost it's a motion to remove these from the agenda fails

[34:08] Then we would move forward with the item and hold the public hearing

[34:11] Okay, but so if his motion fails and we hold the hearing

[34:16] Do we have a chance at a secondary motion for the cost capture of the admin fees at a more basic level? Yes? Yes

[34:24] Thank you

[34:29] I would just say this is the second bite of the apple third bite that we've had and that

[34:37] doesn't happen a lot on items and this is the first time that I would say this option

[34:41] has been brought to us and as I understand this is the last day that this can be implemented

[34:48] is that correct August 10th is the last day it can be implemented so this would

[34:54] be the last board date to get that done unless you had a special board meeting before the

[35:01] August 10th. So that is correct. And just for clarification, this is the first time

[35:07] a hearing has been held on this, but there was previously an item requesting to do a

[35:14] 218 hearing and that failed. Right. Failed once, succeeded once.

[35:27] So I don't think my position has changed. I think that this is something that we it's one year theoretically until you know we'll come back we'll consider it again. We're in the in the middle of litigation right now we're going to work through those issues.

[35:45] I, I stand by my amendment, but I would open it up to the public for any, any comment before we take a vote or move forward.

[35:55] We have no registered speakers.

[35:57] Okay.

[36:00] Understood. So that being said,

[36:05] no, I don't believe so.

[36:07] That's last time.

[36:10] That being said, I don't know if Supervisor Perez, after the further clarification, if

[36:17] you still are, if that's still a second for the motion, but my original motion stands.

[36:22] Yes, it is.

[36:23] Okay, thank you.

[36:25] So, please cast your votes.

[36:28] Mr. Chairman, real quick, I just want clarification one last time.

[36:33] If this motion passes, we have no other, the hearings are over.

[36:37] We cannot make any more motions on this item, any of these items.

[36:41] This is a motion to remove these items from the calendar and not hear them.

[36:44] We will no longer be able to talk about it.

[36:46] It is a dental, correct.

[36:47] And to be clear, the rates that have already been approved that were already in place last year

[36:53] will already be on the tax rolls and we will continue collecting those for another year.

[36:56] We just won't increase them this year.

[36:58] That's correct.

[36:59] So the opportunity to recoup the public works costs,

[37:04] we will not have that opportunity if the motion passes.

[37:07] Why don't you have the opportunity to talk about it?

[37:09] Not this year unless you do a special meeting and have a fourth bite at the apple.

[37:15] Would the maker of the motion be amenable to amending the motion to at least not doing the full increase, but capturing the low admin cost?

[37:27] I'm going to be honest. I do appreciate where you're coming from. I understand it, but I don't think that this is the right way to go.

[37:34] I'm not at all in favor of it. So I want to stick by my motion and then if this doesn't doesn't pass

[37:40] Then then by all means of the force

[37:43] Open back up. Thank you. Okay

[37:52] that motion fails. So I did returns to the board for additional

[37:57] Conversation sure and I'll make a motion on the staff's

[38:03] Alternative that would allow

[38:06] the fee, the rate to be increased to capture your public works costs, the maintenance costs.

[38:14] Is that adequate?

[38:18] Yes.

[38:19] May I interject? I'm sorry. I think it would be appropriate before we take a motion to open

[38:25] the hearing and go through the proper hearing process before we make a motion.

[38:30] But we just did that.

[38:31] No, I don't think we've opened the hearing yet.

[38:35] Okay, so this is the time and place for the public hearing to consider the proposed resolutions establishing service levels and boundaries and the proposed ordinances establishing the schedule of sewer service charges for fiscal year 2026, 2027 and providing for collection of the same on the tax roll.

[38:49] These items are for the following county service areas CSA 71 CSA 71.1 West Bakershield Lewis Ranch CSA 71.2 West Bakershield the board ranch and CSA 71.3 city West Bakershield.

[39:05] So I believe I turn it back over to Director Champlin or do we just go to public hearing on this at this point.

[39:15] I think you can go straight to public hearing, receive public comment, and then if there's

[39:22] no public comment, close the hearing and consider written protests.

[39:25] Okay.

[39:28] Let's go to public comment now.

[39:31] We have no registered speakers.

[39:33] Okay, thank you.

[39:36] So I will return to Director Chamble.

[39:50] It would be appropriate to count the votes at this time.

[39:53] Total

[39:58] for these four CSAs, we've received a total of three total protests over these 630 areas.

[40:06] We received two protests for CSA 71.2 and one for CSA 71.3,

[40:12] which does not constitute a formal protest for any of these CSAs.

[40:23] Now it would be appropriate for the Board to consider motions

[40:26] and move toward motions and voting on each of the four agenda items separately.

[40:34] And just to clarify, I know I had a couple of buzz-ins from County Council and

[40:40] CAO position 2. Are there any comments before we go to those?

[40:47] I do not have any further comments at this time.

[40:49] It would be appropriate to take board questions and motions at this point.

[40:56] Thank you.

[40:57] Okay, so this is the time and place for the public hearing

[40:59] and to submit written protest considering an increase in the assessment

[41:03] for the various CSA 71 areas for fiscal year 2026, 2027.

[41:08] Before I open the hearing for public comment,

[41:10] are there any comments or questions for the board?

[41:13] I'll

[41:16] now open the public hearing for the CSA 71 areas

[41:18] affected by the City of Bakersfield sewer rate increases

[41:21] and ask if there are any public comments.

[41:25] Excuse me, and if anyone in the audience

[41:26] has written protests, now would be the time

[41:29] to deliver them to the clerk or the board.

[41:31] Again, the board will individually vote on the items

[41:33] at the conclusion of this comment period,

[41:34] but now is the time for public comment on all four items.

[41:38] In public comment.

[41:40] Okay.

[41:43] Seeing no public comment, we now close the public hearing and return to staff.

[41:47] Madam Clerk, have you received any written protests that need to be considered?

[41:50] No.

[41:51] Okay.

[41:52] Mr. Champlin, would you please summarize the written protest results for County's

[41:55] service area number 71?

[41:59] There were zero protests for CSA 71.

[42:03] Okay.

[42:04] Now, I will bring it back to the board for a motion on staff's recommendation for item 6 for county service area at number 71

[42:18] There's a motion on the table. I

[42:21] believe I

[42:23] Guess we need four separate motions. So for the first CSA

[42:28] Emotion is to increase the rate to

[42:33] The cost that would provide for the recovery of the public current County Public Works cost of I think it's $74

[42:43] Supervisor Couch through the chair as the last slide second to last slide

[42:48] It actually be an increase of twenty six dollars and thirteen cents for year one and then there's a five-year schedule there with CPI

[42:56] Added in

[42:57] Okay, so the motion is to increase the rate by twenty six dollars and thirteen cents for CSA 71 second and again just for clarification

[43:04] We're already collecting rates at the same rate as last year

[43:09] Regardless they're already on the tax rolls. This is just for an increase to those rates correct

[43:13] correct week that this is in addition to the two hundred ninety five dollar

[43:17] rate and it puts it at three hundred twenty one dollars and thirteen cents

[43:20] okay i just want to be clear thank you

[43:22] we have a motion in a second please cash your votes

[43:31] the motion is posed

[43:33] three yes

[43:34] to know

[43:35] supervisor peters supervisor press

[43:39] okay mr chamberlain would you please summarize the written protest results

[43:42] for county service area number seventy one point one

[43:51] We have received zero protests for County Service Area 71.1.

[43:57] Mr. Chairman, why don't you remake your first motion all over again?

[44:01] Because we need three votes to increase, four votes to increase these, correct?

[44:06] So three votes doesn't get it done.

[44:08] So it looks like we're going to have three, it's going to be three to two all the way out.

[44:12] So reverting back to your initial motion would save us a little time.

[44:17] You guys are sure. You don't want to take the time.

[44:22] Well, I thought we needed to make the motion to give it a chance, and we did, and it failed.

[44:27] Yeah. I'd be happy to make the motion that we deny the rest of these items.

[44:33] So, second.

[44:35] Thank you. Please cast your votes.

[44:43] The motion is approved. All eyes.

[44:45] Okay. Thank you.

[44:53] All right.

[44:56] Oh, we heard you.

[44:57] Yeah.

[44:58] This secures us, Rob.

[45:00] Our next item is item number 19 under CAO's office, and that is a proposed salary for chief

[45:05] probation officer Elaine Moore at step 8, salary range 83.6, and bi-weekly auto allowance effective

[45:12] retroactive to July 25, 2026.

[45:15] Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Last month, many of you are aware, the Kern County Superior

[45:20] Court judges selected Elaine Moore as a chief probation officer for Kern County.

[45:28] And

[45:29] As the appointing authority, your board has jurisdiction over her salary.

[45:34] Staff is recommending step eight of the salary range for the Chief Probation Officer, which

[45:38] is consistent with the step level that retiring Chief Probation Officer William Dickinson

[45:43] began at three years ago.

[45:45] When he was appointed and who you honored this morning, therefore it is recommended

[45:49] that your board approve a salary of step eight.

[45:52] At salary range 83.6 and the department head auto allowance for Elaine Moore, Chief

[45:57] probation officer effective retroactive to July 25th, 2026. Also, Ms. Moore is present

[46:05] today and with your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, she'd gladly like to introduce herself and

[46:10] say a few words.

[46:12] That'd be great. We look forward to hearing from her.

[46:15] Can I see you?

[46:15] Oh, I'm sorry. Supervisor Perez.

[46:17] Thank you. Please come on forward, Director. I also just wanted to add that while the

[46:22] official selection occurs by the judges that the board of supervisors has engaged in

[46:27] that process very extensively, usually D5 and D2. And so I want to say that Supervisor

[46:33] Parley and I did participate, we did listen to, which were an excellent panel of candidates.

[46:39] I was just floored, really, I mean it. And obviously you shine and we were so thrilled

[46:45] to select you, but that was really an incredible group of people. I'm so pleased to see the

[46:50] quality of people interested in this and within even your own department that were

[46:56] just so knowledgeable. But the Board of Supervisors did engage in that process and we, you know,

[47:01] this is a family operation, so we're just so pleased. Of course, congratulations again

[47:06] to you, Chief.

[47:08] Thank you, Supervisor Perez, through the Chair. I am Elaine Moore, your newly appointed Chief

[47:13] Probation Officer. I've worked for the department for 30 years. I started there

[47:17] when I was 18 years old as an extra help department aide, making $6.86 an hour.

[47:23] I've never had another job and I am very committed to the department and to the county and to

[47:30] providing the exceptional level of service that I know you've become accustomed to under

[47:35] Chief Dickinson and Chief Miracle before him.

[47:39] I do realize I have some big shoes to fill and I am accepting that challenge and looking

[47:45] forward to all of the great things that we're going to be able to do together and

[47:48] And I appreciate your support.

[47:50] I appreciate your participation in the interview process.

[47:54] I think that that's truly very important since I do work for you, even though I am appointed

[48:02] by the Superior Court.

[48:03] So thank you so much for your participation in the process.

[48:06] And I look forward to continuing our relationship and the good things that probation can do

[48:11] for the community.

[48:12] So thank you so much.

[48:13] Thank you, Chief.

[48:14] Congratulations.

[48:15] And I can do a good job.

[48:16] Thank you.

[48:18] Okay sure that's your brush catch chief. I just want to say welcome and give you an opportunity to weigh on in the sewer

[48:24] rate issue

[48:30] Well, I do live in the county, but not the west side and so I think I'm gonna like step away from

[48:36] That'll be my first major decision. It's a to not

[48:52] Do you have any members of the public that would like to comment on this issue?

[48:57] We have no public speakers. Okay, perfect. We'll bring it back to the board then for comment or motion.

[49:02] I'll happily make that. I told Chief Moore last week at her swearing-in ceremony that everybody is seeing her praises and everybody is so happy, which means you're just at the beginning.

[49:13] It just means it's a honeymoon. I said, you asked for it, says her, so here we are. I think you have the goods. You can take it.

[49:20] motion on staff's recommendation.

[49:24] The

[49:27] motion has approved all ayes.

[49:30] All right. Thank you. That takes us to item number 20.

[49:33] And that's proposed amendments to Kern County Ordinance Code

[49:36] adding section 2.24.010 to establish the Department of

[49:40] Elections and appointment of the registrar of voters adding

[49:43] section 2.24.020 to describe the duties of the Department

[49:48] of Elections and amending section 3.04.020

[49:53] Chapter 3.04, Title III, human research is exempting the registrar voters from the civil

[49:59] service system.

[50:00] I'll turn back over to Mr. Jason Levy.

[50:02] Thank you, Chairman Peters.

[50:04] So it's been about 10 months since Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 858, which allows

[50:09] Kern County to have separately appointed registrar voters.

[50:13] A few weeks after he signed that bill, staff provided your board and the public

[50:18] with an outline and timeline of steps that needed to occur.

[50:21] And I thought the introduction of this ordinance would be a good opportunity to update your

[50:26] board and the public on that progress.

[50:28] So for the first six months of 2026, your board approved a job description and salary

[50:33] range for registrar voters.

[50:35] It was filed and accepted by the Civil Service Commission.

[50:38] And the recruitment process for filling the registrar voters position is well underway.

[50:44] For the final six months of this year, these four steps will complete the transition

[50:49] to a stand-alone Department of Elections, adopt an ordinance establishing the Department of Elections

[50:54] and registrar of voters as a department head, amend the civil service system ordinance to

[50:59] exempt the registrar of voters position from the civil service system, select and hire a registrar

[51:06] of voters to lead the Department of Elections, and then establish a budget and evaluate staffing

[51:12] levels and the needs to create and or delete positions to effectively staff a Department

[51:17] of elections. So implementation of these first two steps begins today with the introduction

[51:22] of the proposed ordinance, and initial interviews with registrar or voters is nearing and will

[51:31] occur by mid-August with a final round of interviews occurring soon thereafter.

[51:36] So we're almost there. This is one more step with the introduction of this ordinance today.

[51:42] The recommended action is for your board to waive reading and introduce the proposed

[51:45] ordinance, adding Section 2.24.010 to establish a Department of Elections and the appointment

[51:53] of the registrar voters, adding Section 2.24.020 to describe the duties of the Department of

[52:00] Elections and amending Section 3.04.020, Chapter 3.04, Title III, Human Resources, exempting

[52:09] the registrar voters from the civil service system. Happy to answer any questions or

[52:13] provide clarification if you need it.

[52:15] Thank you, sir.

[52:16] Any questions or comments from the board?

[52:20] Supervisor Perez.

[52:21] Jason, thank you.

[52:23] You are exceptional.

[52:24] And you are consistently exceptional.

[52:27] You really, we're really lucky to have you.

[52:30] I just want to say thank you.

[52:35] Thank you, Supervisor.

[52:36] Any other questions, comments, or a motion?

[52:42] Motion on staff recommendation.

[52:44] Also, don't do it, Jason.

[52:46] Right.

[52:47] All right. We'll wait and see who's selected for these.

[52:50] All right. We have a motion to second. Please cast your votes.

[52:57] The motion has approved. All eyes.

[52:59] Okay. Thank you. That takes us to the end of our afternoon agenda.

[53:03] So with a motion.

[53:06] Motion to adjourn.

[53:07] Okay. Perfect. With that, without any further objection, we're adjourned.

Board Agenda Minutes and Video-split-by-year-and-responsive-test — Regular Meeting PM

Agenda

Transcript