1. Proposition 218 Process Facing Major Delays Due to Missing Data The required evapotranspiration (ET) data for individual parcels that was supposed to be available by July 8th has not been provided, creating what several public commenters called an "incomplete notice" that may require restarting the entire 45-60 day Proposition 218 process. Land IQ, the consultant calculating ET data, did not attend the meeting despite expectations, and staff indicated the parcel-by-parcel data would only be posted by Monday, approximately 5 days before the August 1st hearing.
2. Financial Operations and Check-Signing Authority Approved Despite Concerns The board approved allowing Hallmark Group's CEO to serve as an authorized signatory on the authority's bank accounts, along with the chair and treasurer, despite some board members expressing concerns about having a third-party consultant sign checks. The board also approved using ACH transactions for payments and deferring the current 2-month audit into next year's 14-month audit to save costs.
3. Authority Spending Nearly $105,000 in First Two Months of Operations Financial reports showed the authority has spent approximately $104,740 through June 2025, including $42,303 for Hallmark Group administrative services, $51,259 for legal fees, and various startup costs, with member agencies contributing different amounts to fund operations while the Proposition 218 process continues.
4. August 1st Public Hearing Still Scheduled Despite Data Concerns Staff confirmed the Proposition 218 public hearing remains scheduled for August 1st in the council chambers, with responses to legal objections and a redlined cost of service study to be provided before the hearing.
5. ET Data Quality Control Issues Caused Delays The consultant Land IQ had to rerun evapotranspiration calculations due to "unforeseen complications" requiring quality control, contributing to the delay in providing parcel-specific consumption data.
6. Public Commenters Raised Brown Act Compliance Questions Multiple speakers questioned whether draft financial policies discussed and voted on during the meeting were properly noticed to the public 72 hours in advance as required by the Brown Act.
7. Insurance Coverage Proving Difficult to Obtain Staff reported that four insurance companies have declined to provide general liability coverage for the authority, primarily due to the lack of historical financial information for the new organization.
8. Member Agency Funding Allocation Formula Not Disclosed Public commenters noted that the specific percentage allocation between the four member agencies for ongoing funding contributions has not been publicly disclosed.
9. Workshop on Funding Alternatives Scheduled for Early August Staff recommended holding a public workshop in early August to discuss short-term funding alternatives for the authority's operations.
10. Board Members Required to Complete Ethics and Harassment Training A public commenter reminded newer board members that state law requires completion of ethics training (AB 1234) within the first year of service and harassment training for public agency directors.
Board Actions:
Next Steps: The next meeting is the Proposition 218 public hearing scheduled for August 1st. For questions or to provide input, contact the authority through their website at www.PasoRoblesAGA.org or sign up for email updates at the Paso Basin email list. The authority meets at Paso Robles Council Chambers with public comment opportunities at each meeting.
