10:00 a.m. We'll begin our meeting. Mr. Amabile, Please lead the salute, please.
thank you
and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under god, Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
okay roll call please. Okay commissioner. Reed.
present. Commissioner amabile. Present. Commissioner and chair bertao.
here. Okay. We do have a quorum for today's business. It's a bare minimum quorum, but we can proceed with business.
okay. Everybody get a chance to look at the minutes or call for approval of the minutes.
if not, I'll give you a minute to look at them.
I'll move to approve minutes from the 17th. Second okay. Motion by commissioner amabile seconded by commissioner reed to approve the minutes Of july 17th.
any comments on them? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion passed. Okay, citizen communication.
public opportunity to address the local agency formation commission on items of interest Over which lafco has
jurisdiction that are not anything that's not on the agenda today.
anyone have any comments or anything they'd like to say?
seeing none and hearing none. We'll proceed. Number 6, Which is the public hearing, the adoption of the city laws of los banos municipal
service review update, mr. Nicholson. Yeah go over to
we'll have the presentation first, and I'll open the public hearing for comments and then We'll have action on it.
all right. This is the municipal service review update for the city of los banos.
as you mentioned, and it's an update from the last municipal service review, Or msr, that was completed in 2012.
and the first one goes back to, I think, 2002.
so just as an introduction on municipal service reviews, It was a requirement
created in state law under government code section 56340.
and it requires that lafco prepare and approve an msr prior to or in conjunction with an Update to a city or district's sphere of
influence. The periodically, you would review them even if you didn't have a sphere Involved.
and we've done that. We're doing that right now for resource conservation districts. That's been kind of dragging on, but I'll give a report on that later. But for cities,
it typically is initiated when the city updates their general plan, And it's going to request lafco to update their sphere of influence.
and so in those cases, lafco encourages the city to pay for the consultant costs to update The municipal service review.
and we did that in that case or in this case. And we've traditionally used a firm of economic and planning systems, Eps, to prepare our municipal service reviews.
and that's the group that prepared this one with staff support.
and the purpose of the municipal service reviews are promoting more efficient and higher Quality services.
these are the dictates out of state law by the state legislature required that lafcos Prepare municipal service reviews,
which was added in 2000 to the state law. It also allows lafco to be the agency where People
and businesses can go to get information about cities and special districts.
and especially it's important on special districts who are sometimes more hidden than Hard,
hard to get information from compared to cities which have a lot of public information it Assesses the adequacy of services and the levels of services that are provided,
and also would identify
as like special district consolidations. There are seven factors in the msr
that you have to look at and include growth and population projections disadvantaged Unincorporated communities or ducs that are within their contiguous to the
sphere of influence. There's also another low income category, Very similar to a disadvantaged unincorporated community.
and the word unincorporated is excluded, such as disadvantaged community or we call them Dac.
and that that has relevance for this msr as you'll see in my presentation.
then you look at planned and present and planned capacity of services and facilities and Their adequacy the,
the financial ability of agencies to provide the service. And this would be various departments of the city status and opportunities for shared Facilities,
which there are some for los banos, the accountability for community service needs, Including governmental structure,
operational efficiencies that can go into consolidations with other entities if you're Dealing with special districts,
especially, and then any other matter that we might find unique to the situation.
so the again, this is the msr for los banos, Initiated by the city's request with their new general plan,
their 2042 general plan, and the related utility and service master plans that were Prepared in conjunction with that.
and it's taken a couple of years to get to this hearing after we entered the contract with Eps.
so in terms of the projected growth and development of the city the city's 2024 population Is estimated at
47,419 people. In the general plan that was adopted in 2022, It had a build out capacity of about
72,500 people, which is the eir environmental impact report.
evaluation of all the land uses and all the residential land uses identified in the plan Of.
if the densities contemplated, that would be the population.
it wasn't necessarily the city's goal to achieve that population by by 2020,
2042. But that's what the bill that would be.
so the population growth, actually, in the msr document, There's a chart showing it, but the growth has.
has been very fast historically, but it has slowed down in the recent decades from over 6% Some years down to 2% during the
2010 decade. And then since 2020, it's been growing at 1.3% per year, Which is much slower than the historic 6% yeah 6%
rate that they were experiencing in the city was really booming. The as I mentioned, There's a lot of studies for facilities that the city prepared
for the general plan update, and in those studies, Some of them are for fees.
the city had assumed a population by 2038. That was like a 20 year horizon of 56,400.
so when you're looking at sewer and water and other facilities, That was the number that was used to determine especially like fees.
how much do we need to charge over this 20 year plan.
and so that you'll see that that number is much smaller or much lower than the 72,500.
that would be on the colored map of the of the land use diagram that I'll show you next.
but that's so that's kind of the target that the city has over the life of this general Plan in terms of their expectations and then how they're providing services.
and yes, I just mentioned it's an important focus for the sphere of influence of what. What the growth of the city is more realistic to be than the than the filling out the General plan boundary by 2042.
not being, not being proposed by the city or necessarily being realistic.
again so here's the general plan. As I mentioned the red line area through the middle is Commercial,
and that's following highway 152 or pacheco boulevard. And then kind of in the center is mercy springs or highway 165 running to the point on the North that's got another red,
red commercial area. And the boundary of this, I refer to it as a goldfish, kind of because it's like a swimming goldfish [laughter] in
the color pointing towards merced or to the east.
that that dark green thick line is the alignment of the, I'll say, formally proposed 152 bypass.
I'm sure the city still wants that, but it was a major factor in this general plan diagram Which
because of competing funding across the county.
mcag the merced county association of governments has prioritized regional traffic Projects,
and they've shifted emphasis from this to the merced atwater area and specifically what's Called the merced atwater
expressway, which would link buhach, which has started. There's an interchange there and link up to bellevue road in merced and getting a link to The northern growth and the uc campus.
so one of the issues when we get to this fear stage which isn't today, Is this large boundary tied to
commercial areas to the north and to the west at interchanges that aren't really planned In the in the horizon of this general plan any
longer. It was when they started this it was but it's been altered.
so that's that's a consideration. And again, The other part is the the land use is shown,
the yellow is residential and then there's higher density residential and brown and then Industrial.
there's purple and commercials red. So this would the build out of all that that's been Colored would be about
72,000 people. This map, unfortunately, is a little bit hard to read.
you have it in your packet. It's a little easier to see the it's kind of a gold golden Boundary.
shows the proposed sphere of influence. The black line is the current city limits.
and then there's a dashed line. Again, it might be easier to see on your in your packet.
that's the current sphere of influence. Which is tighter, Much tighter, closer to the current city limit.
although there's areas for growth, especially on the north, The north side and a little bit on the south.
and then another component of the msr, which I mentioned was this disadvantaged Communities or ducs and or disadvantaged
unincorporated. There's also the disadvantaged community which are the difference between That and a duc is that the u stands for unincorporated,
whereas the dac the dac is just disadvantaged communities that exist.
and they're not they can be in the city. They don't have to be in the county. And so this map highlights the areas that are identified as the state department of water Resources.
who who administers this. The bright yellow is the lowest income, And it's a combination of low income
and also having environmental problems. And the the biggest problems cited is water Quality with
chromium-6 and arsenic being constituents in the, In the water.
and so that one of the state's efforts is to target areas, Especially for grant money and for improvements that have underserved communities or low
income communities to get better quality. Don't don't have environmental impacts always Affecting the lowest income people.
the other effect is air quality, which is not localized. It's the the valley. So they have high, you know, High particulate matter affecting everybody.
the lighter the lighter brown is also disadvantaged.
and you can see it goes all the way to the west out in the agricultural area.
so their mapping is is by census tracts, block groups, Not by jurisdictional boundary.
and then the white areas are not disadvantaged. So most of the city 75% of it is, is actually designated as disadvantaged, With the darker yellow severely disadvantaged.
and then the white areas are not. So it's an important issue for the city.
the msr document identified the disadvantaged issue on a service by service level.
so rather than just do a summary up front, the document talks about how our how our parks,
how our the police protection house fire, how are the different services affected Affecting these,
these dac, these disadvantaged communities. So it's presented in that in that manner.
and then another global view is just the physical conditions of the city overall.
the city was not so heavily impacted by the covid 19 pandemic, As many jurisdictions were.
and they actually had a surplus coming out of the pandemic.
but more recently, or actually during 2022-23 and 2023-24 fiscal years, They had a deficit of $2,500,000.
and our standards for, for the past fiscal year, I don't know if they've completed the books,
but it was estimated by the consultants that there was a $400,000 surplus this past fiscal Year.
so it's it's trending in the right direction. And the city actually received almost $72 million in revenue back in fiscal year 2022-23.
so they're doing well with a lot of the commercial and other revenue sources they have.
in terms of funding the government and services, The city had passed measure h, the city residents passed measure h back in
2019, which is a half cent sales tax devoted to police, Fire and recreation services, which is allocated through the general fund.
and then back in 2004, many years ago, measure p was passed with another half cent sales Tax that was devoted to police and fire and 911.
but more on capital improvement expenditures. So those are well supportive of city operations.
and they also have established community facilities districts for ongoing operations and For certain services.
so now we're going to get into the summary of the services by the the categories that are In the municipal service review document.
and the first is police service where the city has 48 sworn officers.
and that's approximately a one officer per 1,000 population, Which is reasonable for a size of the city,
like los banos. The about 50% of the general fund budget goes to the police department Funding.
so it's a high priority of the city. And takes up a big part of their budget.
and as the impact fee justification study noted, For police that to maintain that one officer per thousand resident
ratio, they have to have 9 more officers over the 20 year capital or impact fee study Period,
which is four years shorter than the the 2020 or, Excuse me, the 2042 general plan horizon.
but it's so it's very close. And then the talk about the measure h sales tax of
5% that goes to support police and fire. So that helps support the in this category.
the police services and then measure p again supports capital facilities for police.
then on to fire the city provides its own fire protection and ambulance service within the City and has currently two fire
stations, with two more in to be planned in the future. One that's actually in the design phase. The city has 19 career firefighters and five Volunteer staff,
which results in a firefighter per 1,000 resident ratio of 0.4, Which is below what the national fire protection association
study in 2022 identified, which would be about double that from maybe 0.84 to 1.3 Firefighters
per 1,000. The previous year budget to 2024-25 budget included funds for two more Firefighters,
and perhaps the city has hired them by now, so they are trying to address it.
I just, you know, maintaining staff as they grow. The city has a response time of 5 to 6 minutes within one and a half mile radius.
and then they're investigating ways to supplement or to to allow the the firefighting Staff,
the professional staff to spend more time on actual emergencies, Response and fires by creating a new funding category that some
cities have called the operational permit fee. And that would be when you're operating businesses that you'd pay an annual fee that's Used to help provide
inspections and other service that you need to, To show fire safety that that your career
firefighters take it takes away from their response into the field by doing these tasks.
so this would create new employees that would be under a different department that do Inspections,
maybe like buildings and safety division or something. So the city is investigating that. And that's kind of how to address the fire staffing Support in the future.
on to storm drainage. They the city updated which it's a big issue for the city.
the storm drainage master plan was updated in 2023. And it was evaluated the general plan growth, Of course, and then problems in the older developed parts of the city which have
the, the discharge for wastewater, excuse me, For stormwater gets into the sewer pipes and causes backup and maybe overflowing of sewer
with, with the stormwater. And again, it affects a lot of the older downtown and a lot of That's the disadvantaged community area.
so it's been a historic problem that the city has been grappling with.
the city has 17 stormwater detention basins, And it's routed to a system of drainage canals and catch basins and lift stations.
and the city's historically been working with ccid and grasslands water district to direct Drainage into their canals and
creeks and trying to reduce studying or flooding. And they're designing a new 500 to 600 acre north east detention basin to help capture That
water during peak flows. And so it's an ongoing effort, But in terms of collaboration, the city is collaborating with the irrigation districts.
they have been in the past, and they're continuing to finding joint joint solutions to, To help reduce this term drainage
impacts. And findings for storm drainage comes from lighting and landscape assessment Districts,
which are established over kind of neighborhood levels and for new development areas.
and it generates between $100,000 and $200,000 annually.
for wastewater the city's wastewater master plan was 15 years old, But they they for the general plan update,
there was a supplement prepared management plan in 2019 and that.
12019 [laughter] in compliance with state state requirements for district existing Problems they had and for more efficient
operations. So they want to increase the discharge capacity to 4.9 million gallons per Day,
which would accommodate that population identified in the impact fee study of 56,400, Which again,
just pointing out for the sewer they're not planning on sewer plant expansion for the General plan build out.
they're doing it based on the expected growth over the 20 years that the fee studies are Targeted at,
and their fee structure. The current average flow in the recent budget was 3.46 million Gallons per day,
and the revenues for wastewater enterprise were $9 million.
and so, no, they don't put any city general fund money on tour. It's all enterprise fund money. Then, in terms of water, The city prepared a water supply assessment for the general plan update
and also an urban water management plan, which was required by the state department of Water resources.
the current demand is 7,900 acre feet and the city has 13 existing wells, Which is their current water supply.
the water supply assessment or urban water management plan identified a need for 11,233 Acre feet by 2045.
so that was the life of the urban water management plan went beyond the general plan by a Few years.
but it basically shows the need for the additional supply.
the challenges that were identified in the msr pointed out that that the merced county Association of governments,
who did the background studies for the housing element, Updates of the six cities and the county identified a
problem that the local groundwater sustainability plan for the the area where the city is Has
a the city is over drafting a sustainable yield by yield by 2,300 acre feet
as of 2019. So right now there are over, over what would be sustainable yield.
and then the growth of the city identified in the water supply assessment would exacerbate That further.
and of course, ag irrigation districts also have to deal with with groundwater pumping.
so it's a it's a joint effort through the groundwater sustainability plan and both ponds
agency, gsa, but coordinating with with ccid and san luis and grasslands.
so and so they have the water quantity is a challenge.
and the other challenge is water quality. As I mentioned earlier, There's high arsenic and chromium-6 concentrations.
and and that's part of that disadvantaged community impact cited.
so the city is working with ccid and the grasslands water district to help try to address That through groundwater
recharge and measures that would help clean, Clean the groundwater, which has these natural constituents in it.
besides other, you know, other water treatment systems which are expensive.
and the city has a water fund. It's got a $46 million balance.
and the msr points out revenues may not meet that keep that fund in positive balance.
it's it's in the last year, it was going negative in several million dollars.
and so the part of it, I guess, is the city looking at they may have to increase their Water rates to their customers to maintain a positive balance.
and the, the category of parks and recreation, Has pointed out that the city has 264 acres of
variety of parks, from neighborhood and community wide parks to little pocket parks, And they also maintain trails,
some of which are ccid canal banks that the city maintains for for recreational use for Citizens.
and they have an updated parks master plan, kind of parallel with their general plan Update.
they have a ratio of 5.6 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, Which exceeds the general plan standard of 5 acres.
so they're doing they're doing good in that regard. Staffing levels are more of a Challenge,
though they have 3.9 full time equivalent employees per 10,000 residents where in the msr Points out the national average is more like 8.9
staff, so they're about half of what what many cities have managed.
so in response to information from the parks and rec department, Though, they feel that they are maintaining their parks and trails successfully and
they've upgraded park facilities, including playgrounds.
23% of the parks and recreation funding does come from the general fund, With a $10 million balance coming from their half cent sales tax measure h that's shared
with police and fire. So that concludes all the different service levels provided by the By
the city. There was one more section that's briefly mentioned in the msr, But I didn't highlight it here.
and the msr doesn't have a separate chapter for it, But it's the city runs the los banos airport,
so that's a major facility that many cities don't have.
and there's no separate chapter on that. But it, As I understand it, these it's the parks and rec department that that maintains the
airport and mayor amabile if you have during our discussion, If there's any if you have any clarification to that,
we could modify that that text. I think it's actually public works
public works okay. Okay, great. All right. So on to the the actions for the commission.
the first is in under environmental review. Normally we're we're dealing with annexations And sphere amendments and things like that.
and they all have a document, environmental document to comply with the california Environmental quality act.
but an msr is actually considered exempt under section 15306 information collection.
as a as just information gathering with we may have recommendations, But there's no action coming out of it that you're going to build something or
change the environment anyway. It's more of an analysis of conditions now and in the Future over the horizon of the of the msr.
so with that the recommendation actions are to make the environmental determination that Municipal service review is categorically exempt,
categorically exempt from ceqa review under that section 15306.
the msr determinations which are required to seven determinations are presented chapter by Chapter on each service rather than a summary at the end.
it's what are the conditions of each service level. And those appear on at the end of each section from page 19 all the way to page 60 at the End of each individual
section. So you make those determinations and then staff recommends that you approve the Municipal service review based on the four project
determinations that are presented on section four of your executive officer's report Before you,
which is at the at the end, I think it's page 9.
and that concludes my presentation. And I'll stay here. If you have any questions, I can go back to a page or a map or whatever.
thank you. I'm going to open the public hearing at 10:33 a.m.
if anyone in the audience would like to comment about the public hearing, The public hearing is open about the presentation.
we'll hear we'll hear that. We'll hear any comments that the commissioners could have Pertaining to questions or anything the public has and will return
it to the commission for approval. Anyone care to come forward and say anything and Comment on the report?
okay seeing or hearing none. I'll close it at 10:34 a.m.
and return it to the commission. Commissioners, Any comments or anything on the on the presentation before we seek approval?
rob
I really when I went over it, it does show what the city council has to look at in the Next few years.
and it does reinforce a lot of the things we've changed over the last six months so I, I do like that.
I like it how spheres haven't changed. And, and I do enjoy that.
and I think we're going to be looking at removing that bypass in the future, Because that's the $1 billion bypass now that
caltrans does not want to see done [laughter] anymore. And so there'll be a lot of changes in the future.
but I appreciate all the help that this staff has given to the city of los banos, And we know how to move forward now.
okay okay, I do. City, the city of los banos sits at it provides
ambulance service, but I don't see any ambulances around that town and city of los banos On them are there?
it's the riggs service that. It's the riggs
the riggs the riggs service that provides the? Yeah, the whole county. Okay. We're just that one area from centinela.
yeah all right. That's that's what I thought. I mean, I think that's kind of a facetious thing here that the city provides.
are you paying? Is the city paying for a specific vehicle
I think the way it's done, it's. We don't pay. The county is paying for county goes out for a bidding process.
all right. We could clarify that chair. And we can do some cleanup edits here.
following so we can clean that that point up that it's not a city staff like it's not city Fire staff let's say
no well that's what it insinuates though. Yeah. Great. Okay. Second thing about the the water.
water use if you're already pumping, pumping more water than than you're supposed to.
and if the sgma people are going to complain about that.
it brings me back to the to the comment I made with the city of merced when it was time For the university,
when the young lady was here making the presentation and, And she said, and they needed more water and this and that.
and it was during a drought and the yards were drying up. And I asked her, well, what's the what's going to happen when they need more water?
her comment was, well, we'll just dig more wells. Well maybe today that's not going to be the thing.
maybe los banos needs to look at that. If they have to dig more wells, Or if they're going to be into a fight with with the government agencies
about whether they can drill or not and use water instead of restricting, Putting more restrictions on the residents you already have,
maybe they shouldn't expand as much as maybe the plan is but.
you have a very good point. So we're looking at surface water, You know, so we're talking to the districts about surface water in the future.
all our wells do have the natural occurring issues that
and so we know there's an issue there. And with the state coming down and changing their, Their standards,
I should say they just did. It's a it's a big challenge for it's for the whole state.
but we realize we have to figure something out. We're going to probably put a new, tank on the west side of town and start mixing water.
so hopefully we can clean things up but are we getting any water from the from the canals right now or not?
no. No? That's how. Did you in the past? Yes. In the 40s, 50s. It was done that way. Yeah
that madison yard had that but. Okay the city went to wells. Yeah
I had just one other thing. I'd like to see when the time is not for that right now.
but when you do do your sphere. Your sphere deal. I'd still like to see the city north of of pioneer.
and I think there's a little bit projected to go between pioneer and copa de oro.
and I, you know, I don't live in los banos, but personally I always hated to see that Idea.
and I think I've been opposed to that idea ever since I've been on this commission. So, you know, you guys need to take that into consideration too.
yeah, we we understand that's probably the prime ag
so
with that, I would like to move that the los banos municipal service review is exempt from Ceqa review under section 15306,
from the information collected of the ceqa guidelines and adopt the municipal service Review.
I second. Okay. Motion by commissioner amabile, Seconded by commissioner reed that we adopt the the municipal service review with all the
considerations and stipulations. Any other discussion?
all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried.
okay
of a resource conservation msr.
yes thank you, chair. This item is the other municipal service review that's been ongoing For a couple of years with eps for the
resource conservation districts, and we ran into the problem of finding two of the rcds on The west side are not active.
and we've been working with east merced and trying to trying to get more information from Some of the other rcds on the idea of a consolidation.
so it's delayed completion of the msr, although we're getting getting progress.
we're kind of on the final steps here. And so we wanted to have a six month extension of The contract so that we can detail.
and I'm actually working with eps to keep the costs down to do some of that writing Myself.
but on the the benefits of the consolidation and the desire for it.
and I just actually recently found out that grasslands, Because they have a unique the resource conservation district with grasslands,
is tied to the water district in a lot of ways and including, You know, internal staff they have a different board,
but their, their function being a, a wetlands and duck club oriented district is very Different than ccid in san luis and all the other pretty much all the other ag districts
in the county. So they don't want to consolidate with the other rcds.
so we will probably work on leaving them out of it and then trying to get the others Engaged.
so anyway, this this is a simple this doesn't increase the funds, Is just delaying the date and there's money left to complete the effort.
so we'd recommend support of the amendment. Right
yes, yes motion by commissioner reed. Seconded by. By commissioner amabile that we extend the Contract with eps for the regarding the review of
the resource conservation districts. All in favor, Say aye.
aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Okay. B is the update on the current restructuring of Calafco.
all right yeah. This has been a big process for for a long time now.
and really with a heavy duty involvement of staff from both the.
yeah, the staff of the professional association bringing back under consultant basis.
pamela miller, the former executive director, And jenny tickler was the the head clerk, and she's back.
and then jose enriquez, who was the executive officer of sacramento, Lafco, and still is.
and he he stepped in to perform the lafco executive director duties on top of everything Else he's doing.
and they've done a very good job. Some of the I was going to use the word contentious, But some of the the directors on the board for calafco have
dropped off who were trying to shift the direction of the association.
it was getting dysfunctional and not cooperative and a lot of infighting and people Wanting to quit out of frustration.
and actually about 8 lafcos have dropped out of calafco, Which is historic. It never the only one that dropped out was probably 15, 20 years ago with kern county.
they're the only one who didn't join, and it was completely over budget. But other ones have left for many reasons. And a lot of it is the, The, the dysfunction.
so they've done a lot of effort to update the bylaws and change them.
and at the conference coming up this in october down in san diego, That will there will be a vote on those changes.
and I reported over time on some of the changes that I've been involved in, A lot of the meetings,
you know, attending them and giving input. And it just is getting back to a very good Place.
and maybe with this turmoil has actually caused kind of an upgrading of things that had Been done many years ago and needed to be cleaned up.
but it's back to being much more cooperative, And their goal is to try to get the other lafco to come back.
we're talking some big ones, like los angeles and orange county, And riverside's in there,
and we have smaller ones. Napa dropped out, el dorado dropped out, But most of them are willing to come back if they see they get frustrated and just said,
okay, we don't need to be part of this, but they may come back so. They're going to send representatives to the conference as non-voting members and Observers any of them?
some of them will. Yes, some of them will yeah. Unfortunately, I as I heard, the conference is in san diego and so one of the first to Drop out was san diego.
and so they're not participating. I don't know if they'll show up, But they're not on. They're not doing panel work and they're but but in terms of voting yeah all the ones who Dropped out will not be voting on these bylaws yeah.
they're not entitled to. So yeah. [laughter] so it's good. So hopefully it's it's going in the right direction.
is she still active in this? Oh, yeah. She's she's actually the chair right now.
she's in favor of all these new chairs
a bearcat [laughter]. Yeah. So good. Yeah she's that's the one
yeah. Right. The email saying positive things so.
yeah so that was just more of an update. Just no, No action but
yeah it does. Yes it does. Okay. Anything else on that subject?
no. Okay. We have the appointment of the voting delegate and alternate for the for the Conference.
and from what I understand, it's we're going to recommend that commissioner pedrozo is Going and be the voting
delegate, and you be an alternate. Is that correct? Yes
commissioner amabile, seconded by commissioner reed that we appoint commissioner pedrozo As the voting
delegate and executive director, bill nicholson as the alternate.
all in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion is passed. Okay. Any other comments bill? Anything else that could have officer report on anything?
coming up? No it's pretty yeah. Pretty much just getting gearing up. Oh, well, yeah, I would just mention we we don't have any active applications yet, But there would be plenty on the horizon.
and we have we're completing that, hilmar annexation to the hilmar county water district. But but many more projects will be will be coming
october meeting? I do not think so. I don't. Because we're down to just one for november, December.
right we're just down to one. So yeah. So at this point I don't have anything for the October meeting. So it would be.
yeah november, december. We do we combine those into one meeting and do it in the second Week.
yeah thanks for bringing that up. Okay
no. Hearing none. I'll adjourn the meeting at time is your thing 10:45 a.m.
thank you very much. All right. Thank you for coming.