County of San Diego

Fiscal Transparency & Accountability Ad Hoc Subcommittee Meeting

Meeting Minutes

Date: March 18, 2026 Time: 3:30 PM – 5:00 PM

1.Opening Remarks

Supervisor Joel Anderson

•Emphasized focus on information gathering, not public testimony (not a Brown Act meeting).

•Highlighted:

o County budget: $8.6 billion

o Prior $138 million funding gap

o Annual contract spending: ~$2.3 billion (25%)

•Stressed need for:

o Efficiency, accountability, and cost savings

o Avoiding additional financial burden on residents

•Goal: Identify internal savings before considering new revenue sources.

Supervisor Pro-Tem Aguirre

•Emphasized:

o Commitment to transparency, accountability, and fiscal stewardship

o Importance of protecting services for vulnerable populations

•Noted:

o Potential $300 million funding gap due to fiscal uncertainty

o County contract spending: ~$2.2 billion annually

•Clarified:

o Subcommittee purpose is oversight and improvement, not punitive action

•Highlighted importance of:

o Equity, local business participation, and economic impact

2. Presentation Overview

Presenter: DCAO Brian Albright

• Overview of:

o Purchasing & contracting processes

o Leasing, small business support, and labor protections

• Multi-department collaboration emphasized

3. Questions & Answers

Q1. Selection Committee Process (RFPs)

Question (Supervisor Aguirre): Who determines the selection committee for complex RFPs?

Answer (Chief Sheena Figueroa):

• The department selects Source Selection Committee members

• Selection is based on subject matter expertise

• If external members are included:

o Department of Purchasing & Contracting (DPC) ensures no conflicts of interest

Q2. Single Source Contracts (A-87 Standards & Transparency)

Question (Supervisor Aguirre): What standards and independent reviews are required for single source contracts?

Answer (Chief Sheena Figueroa):

• Three justification categories:

1. Unique Capability

 Verified through market research

2. Standardization

 Often tied to state mandates

3. Continuity of Services

 Example: interoperable systems (e.g., health records)

• Review Process:

o DPC validates and justifies all single-source requests

• Thresholds:

o < $200K: Not presented to Board

o $100K–$200K: Additional DCAO review

• Transparency:

o Documents not publicly posted, but are disclosable upon request

o Contracts > $200K are public via Board review

Q3. Small Local Business Participation Goal (25%)

Question (Supervisor Anderson): Progress toward 25% contract spend with small local businesses?

Answer (Deputy Director Steve Lockett):

• Current participation: 21% (as of Jan 2026)

• Monitoring:

o Quarterly analysis with Technology Office

• Challenges & Strategies:

o Need for increased outreach and awareness

o Use of procurement forecasts (6-month outlook)

o Programs supporting businesses:

 STEP Program

 CORE Program

 BUILD Program

Q4. Procurement Methods: Lowest Bid vs. Best Value

Question (Supervisor Anderson): Why differentiate between lowest bid and best value?

Answer (Chief Richard McCarvell):

• Request for Bid (RFB):

o Awarded to lowest responsive, responsible bidder

o Required for:

 Construction (state law)

 Standard commodities (e.g., fuel)

• Request for Proposal (RFP):

o Based on best value

o Evaluation includes:

 Price (e.g., 25%)

 Experience, technical approach, qualifications

 Small/local business participation

Q5. Contractor Performance & Termination

Question (Supervisor Anderson): How is contractor performance monitored and contracts terminated?

Answer (Chief Richard McCarvell):

• Oversight:

o Managed by Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) (~600 staff)

• Process:

1. Issue identified by department

2. Corrective Action Notice (informal)

3. Cure Notice (formal via DPC)

4. Opportunity to resolve issue

5. Termination for cause if unresolved

• Goal: Achieve compliance before termination

Q6. Due Diligence & Compliance (Licensing, Status, etc.)

Question (Supervisor Aguirre): Does performance monitoring include due diligence (licenses, nonprofit status)?

Answer (Staff):

• Yes:

o Contractors must maintain required licenses and certifications

• Responsibility:

o Post-award: Department oversight

o Pre-award: DPC screening

• Non-compliance triggers:

o Same corrective and cure process

Q7. BuyNet System & Vendor Access

Question (Supervisor Aguirre): Are there plans to streamline BuyNet (e.g., single sign-on, interoperability)?

Answer (Assistant Director Brenda Miller):

• Challenges:

o Systems are proprietary and customized

o Integration with external systems is complex and costly

• Current approach:

o Focus on training and outreach, including:

 BuyNet labs

 Webinars

 Community sessions (e.g., Alpine, Valley Center)

Q8. BuyNet Vendor Notifications & Outreach

Question (Supervisor Anderson): Do vendors receive notifications for relevant opportunities?

Answer (Brenda Miller):

• Yes:

o Vendors register and select goods/services categories

o System automatically notifies them of matching opportunities

• Registration also:

o Tracks plan holders and participation

o Helps identify need for additional outreach

Q9. County Parking Contracts

Question (Supervisor Anderson): Overview of County parking contracts and revenue structure?

Answer (Deputy Chief Krista Ellis):

• Downtown Garages (County-managed):

o Locations: Cedar/Kettner & Ash Street

o Contract term: Through 2030

o Revenue:

 County receives 95% of net proceeds

 Approx. $720,000 annually

• Mills Building Garage:

o Managed via Joint Powers Authority (SDRBA)

o Partners:

 County + MTS

o Revenue:

 Used for operations & maintenance, not direct County revenue

4. Closing Remarks

• Subcommittee emphasized this is ongoing work

• Focus remains on:

o Transparency

o Efficiency

o Community engagement

County of San Diego

Fiscal Transparency & Accountability Ad Hoc Subcommittee Meeting

Date: April 13, 2026
Time: 3:30 PM – 5:00 PM 

Meeting Minutes

Opening Remarks

Supervisor Pro Tem Paloma Aguirre & Supervisor Joel Anderson 
 The presentation aimed to demonstrate the team’s commitment to supporting subcommittee work and ensuring responsible management of public funds. It was noted that even a 2–3% efficiency gain on a $2.3 billion portfolio could result in tens of millions of dollars being reallocated to other Board priorities.

Presentation Overview

Presenter: DCAO Brian Albright

• Overview of:
  • Purchasing & contracting processes
  • Leasing, small business support, and labor protections
• Multi-department collaboration emphasized

General Goals & Priorities

Q: What are the Board’s priorities regarding procurement improvements?
A: The Board aims to improve spending efficiency while also uplifting small businesses, removing barriers, and ensuring contracts serve the public good. There is no intent to sacrifice equity or community impact for cost savings.

Contracting Policy Benefits

Q: What benefits have resulted from recent contracting policy changes?
A:

• Increased small/local participation (from 12% to 21%) 
• Greater alignment between service providers and communities 
• Improved cultural competency 
• Enhanced innovation in service delivery 
• Stronger integration of sustainability and equity considerations 

Implementation Challenges

Q: Which contracts face the greatest challenges with new requirements?
A:

• Existing (mid-term) contracts are the most challenging 
• Amendments require renegotiation, time, and potential service disruption 
• New contracts are easier to implement as requirements can be built in from the start 

Local & Small Business Definitions (Policy B-53)

Q: How is a “local business” defined?
A: A business must:

• Have headquarters or a substantive operational presence within county boundaries 
• Perform meaningful work locally (not just a nominal presence) 

Q: What is the 25% target based on?
A: It is calculated as 25% of total county contract spend, with no exclusions.

Retroactive Policy Application

Q: What are the impacts of applying new policies retroactively?
A:

• Would be administratively complex 
• Could require replacing subcontractors mid-contract 
• May cause service disruption and increased costs 
• Generally not recommended 

Contract Duration & Turnover

Q: What is the typical contract length?
A:

• Most contracts are 5 years (1 year + 4 option years) 
• Some exceptions exist (e.g., IT systems) 

Q: How often does the contract portfolio turnover?
A:

• Approximately 20–25% annually 

Compliance Reviews

Q: What triggers a compliance review?
A:

• Initial contract execution 
• Contract amendments 
• Risk factors (e.g., investigations, performance concerns) 
• Ongoing monitoring by departments 

Vendor Feedback & Support

Q: How is vendor feedback incorporated?
A:

• Continuous engagement with businesses and associations 
• Real-time program adjustments based on feedback 

Q: What support is provided to unsuccessful bidders?
A:

• Debrief sessions explaining evaluation results 
• Feedback on strengths, weaknesses, and improvements 

Small Business Support Programs

Q: What helps small businesses succeed in procurement?
A:

• STEP program (technical assistance and training) 
• CORE and BUILD programs 
• Support navigating procurement systems and proposals 

Small Business Definition Updates

Q: How is a small business defined under updated policy?
A:

• State-certified small businesses 
• Self-certified businesses meeting revenue/size thresholds 
• Veteran/Disabled Veteran-owned businesses 
• Nonprofits (newly included) 
• Social equity enterprises 

Participation Growth

Q: What contributed to increased participation (12% → 21%)?
A:

• Expanded definitions (including nonprofits) 
• Increased outreach and partnerships 
• Improved data tracking 
• Greater engagement with small/local vendors 

Partnerships & Outreach

Q: How does the County engage with the community?
A:

• Workshops, business walks, and outreach events 
• Collaboration with chambers, nonprofits, and associations 
• Programs developed directly from community feedback 

Cooperative Agreements (Co-ops)

Q: What are cooperative agreements?
A:

• Contracts leveraging group purchasing (e.g., with other counties/agencies) 
• Used to obtain better pricing and service through economies of scale 

Examples:

• Wireless services (Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile) 
• Office supplies (Staples) 

Q: Do co-ops impact service quality?
A:

• Service levels are built into agreements 
• Vendors must meet County performance requirements 

Efficiency & Procurement Improvements

Q: Would a countywide procurement review be beneficial?
A:

• Yes, it could identify efficiencies, standardization opportunities, and modernization strategies 
• Multiple evaluation options were presented to support this effort 

Equity Considerations

Q: How will efficiency efforts avoid excluding small/local businesses?
A:

• Analysis of direct and indirect impacts 
• Exploration of hybrid models 
• Focus on avoiding unintended consequences 

Action Items

Q: What follow-up actions were requested?
A:

• Staff to prepare a memo within 30 days 
• Memo to include: 
  • Procurement pathway recommendations 
  • Market intelligence insights 
  • Opportunities for consistency, efficiency, and performance improvements 

Closing Remarks

• Appreciation expressed to staff and presenters 
• Public encouraged to provide feedback and participate 
• Next meeting scheduled for June 16 (3:30–5:00 PM) 
• Meeting adjourned 

Presented by: Juan R. Perez, Chief of Audits, Auditor & Controller; Branden Butler, Director, Office of Ethics, Compliance and Labor Standards

County staff presented a plan to centralize contract oversight through a new governance structure that assigns a designated liaison to work with each department.

Discussion Highlights

Supervisor question / comment: Asked whether the new contract structure would require additional time, and staff confirmed no significant change in procurement administration is expected.

Supervisor question / comment: Asked how the County ensures a single point of contact for a contract cannot be improperly influenced by a vendor — for example, through gifts — and what specific checks and balances catch that kind of activity before it becomes a problem. Staff explained that separation of duties is central to the new design: a DPC representative continues to guide procurement, single-source justifications must be validated by more than one party, and the new structure allows issues to be escalated early rather than after a contract is already in place.

Supervisor question / comment: Asked staff to confirm that the corrective actions referenced on the closing slide are being formally documented, so the Board can track follow-through over time. Staff clarified that there will be defined corrective action.

Supervisor question / comment: Asked whether each department would have a single liaison. Staff clarified that departments will have at least one — and in some cases more than one — liaison responsible for escalating issues and implementing the centralized approach, serving as a direct point of contact for the Board.

Supervisor question / comment: Asked which contract-monitoring responsibilities should remain with individual departments versus being standardized County-wide. Staff explained the intent is to establish a minimum baseline standard for contract monitoring and oversight that every department must meet, even though some departments already exceed it.

Supervisor question / comment: Asked whether the weaknesses identified were concentrated in a few departments or spread broadly. Staff confirmed the issues — largely inconsistent practices, with each department operating differently — were found across all 23 departments interviewed, reinforcing the need for a standardized, County-wide approach.

Presented by: Jamie Abbott, Director, County Airports; Brooke Hill, Chief Deputy Assessor, Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk

Staff presented how the County's seven airports generate lease and real-property revenue, and how associated property taxes are assessed, covering both aviation leasing (hangars, fixed-base operators, airline terminal space) and non-aviation leasing (industrial parcels, concessions, ground/commercial development).

Discussion Highlights

Supervisor question / comment: Noted the presentation focused on direct tax revenue and asked why broader economic value to the community — such as sales tax and other indirect benefits — was not included in the analysis. Staff confirmed the figures shown reflect tax revenue only.

Supervisor question / comment: Raised concerns that short lease terms make it difficult for tenants to secure financing for capital improvements, which in turn limits their ability to invest in their property or pursue new contracts. Staff explained that new construction is deductible from valuation, and that property value considerations change as a lease nears its end, though this can vary if a lease is extended.

Supervisor question / comment: Asked whether property assessments under Proposition 8 occur annually or on an ongoing basis, and how often fair market value is reassessed. Staff confirmed assessments occur annually, and that lease information is obtained from the airports each year, with reassessment triggered whenever a new lease is identified.

Supervisor question / comment: Asked whether any leases could go unnoticed or fall through the cracks, and how the County stays proactive. Staff stated that as long as lease information is received from the airports, all leases are captured, and the County proactively requests this information on a regular cycle, so no revenue is missed.

Supervisor question / comment: Asked what oversight exists for master leases, specifically whether the County can confirm who is occupying a space and whether they are meeting required standards. Staff explained that sub-leases are tied to the master lease; on the aviation side, master lessees must obtain County consent for sub-leases, which are reviewed internally to confirm the space is being used for its intended aviation purpose. At the County's industrial park, a similar internal review mechanism applies. Staff added that sub-lease consent records may not be fully public, though information is available through a Public Records Act (PRA) request.

Supervisor question / comment: Noted that some tenants who tried to extend their leases were financially harmed by delays and asked how many leases have been renewed or extended under the new expedited process. Staff reported the Board approved long-term, 50-year leases at both Gillespie Field and Palomar Airport, generating an estimated $300,000 in revenue, or approximately $30,000 per year over the next three years. Staff further reported nine additional leases are in the pipeline and under active negotiation.

Supervisor question / comment: Pressed staff on whether the County is proactively reaching out to tenants whose leases are approaching expiration, rather than waiting for tenants to initiate contact, citing a high volume of constituent calls from his office regarding a property near Gillespie Field. He urged staff to increase proactive outreach so opportunities are not missed and workload can be managed ahead of time. Staff stated that property agents are encouraged to build relationships with the lease holds that they are responsible for, to ensure regular communication.

Supervisor question / comment: Asked how staff are evaluating development opportunities at County airport sites. Staff reported that at Gillespie Field, the County has hired a project coordinator to advance development of a 70-acre parcel that has been vacant for some time, with an RFP package targeted for release in the first quarter of next year. Staff noted that other airport sites face limiting factors such as distance and weather, while Palomar Airport is largely built out, with remaining opportunity focused on renewing leases as they come due.

Supervisor question / comment: Asked what the subcommittee could do to help expedite airport lease renewals and extensions, emphasizing the goal of strong constituent service. Staff committed to continued process improvement, noted a new position has been approved to support this work, and explained that additional resource requests are evaluated through the County's five-year forecast process. Supervisor Anderson also suggested establishing consistent office hours so lease holders know where to direct their questions.

Presented by: Brenda Miller, Assistant Director, Department of Purchasing & Contracting

Staff provided an update on the County's review of cooperative (“co-op”) and other-government-agency (OGA) purchasing agreements.

Discussion Highlights

Supervisor question / comment: Noted that expanding the use of co-op contracts is expected to save the County both time and money.

Presented by: Jamie Beam, Director, Clinical and Safety Net Coordination, HHSA; Angela Mitchell, Chief Nursing Officer, HHSA

Staff presented two specific contracted service lines being evaluated for potential in-sourcing.

At the close of the meeting, the subcommittee directed staff to translate the day's discussion into concrete, trackable progress. Staff are directed to:

Develop and move forward with an implementation plan to strengthen contract monitoring across the County and return to the Board of Supervisors by the end of the calendar year with any staffing or funding requests needed to fully implement the audit's recommendations. Also, submit a memo to the subcommittee within 90 days with an update outlining progress.