RECAP: Board of Supervisors' June Meetings
Our recap of public meetings on June 9 and 23, and the closed session on June 11
By the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Resident Review Committee
What did the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors decide at the June 9 and June 23, 2026, regular meetings? This recap does not cover the June 11 special closed-session meeting, which was limited to performance evaluations of the Chief Executive Officer and County Counsel under Government Code §54957. District 3 is large so focus on Morongo Basin items only.
Following the agenda previews we published for the June 9 and June 23 meetings, this is our first recap of Board actions at the meetings. We lead with the items that ran across both meetings, then list what the Board did on every Morongo Basin specific and impact item, by date.
Across both meetings
Solar — and a candid word from the Chair about energy development in District 3. Two June 23 items turned on how the County sites solar: the appeal of the denied Bear Valley project near Erwin Lake (Item 203) and the Energy Ad Hoc Committee discussion (Item 205). We framed both in our preview against the already-approved Lear Solar project just outside Twentynine Palms. We also did a deep dive into the approval of the Lear Solar project.
During the Bear Valley discussion, Board Chair and District 3 representative Dawn Rowe, said something the Basin should sit up for:
The third district is the area that we have developable land for energy, and that’s just unfortunate, because it’s not in some of the other districts.
In plain terms, the Chair identified District 3 — the Basin’s district, our district — as the County’s energy-development frontier, a designation that lands squarely on the unincorporated and economically disadvantaged Basin communities most exposed to large-scale solar.
The Bear Valley appeal itself drew more than an hour of testimony, overwhelmingly from Bear Valley Electric Service employees in favor and immediate neighbors opposed on grounds of zoning, wildlife corridor, fire risk, and lack of notice. The Board voted 3–2 to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the project, with Supervisors Curt Hagman and Jesse Armendarez voting no. The speakers are not Basin residents — the project and its neighbors are in the Big Bear area — but the objections they raised, that they received no notice and that the site sits in a functioning wildlife corridor, are the same two issues we flagged in the Lear approval, which is why the item is worth watching from the Basin.
A correction to our June 23 preview: we identified the appellant as EDF Renewables. The applicant and appellant is Bear Valley Electric Service, Inc.; EDF Renewables Distribution-Scale Power is the project’s development and permitting partner, not the applicant. Appearing for the project were Paul Marconi, president of Bear Valley Electric Service; Jannik Tam of EDF Renewables; and land-use counsel Dan Quinley of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.
On Item 205, the Energy Ad Hoc Committee, which is comprised of Supervisors Rowe and Hagman, took direction from the other supervisors. Supervisor Armendarez asked the committee to consider a regional, multi-county approach coordinating with neighboring counties, to look at nuclear options, to prioritize siting on already-disturbed or contaminated land over open desert, and to weigh energy development against the housing crisis.
Supervisor Hagman framed the scale of the challenge, citing his view that California must roughly double its electrical output over the next two decades. Supervisor Rowe emphasized community outreach, noting that desert residents turn out in force on these projects because developers too often look at the desert and “think it’s big and open space,” and said the Morongo Basin Conservation Association had brought her recommendations for the committee. What it pursues could shape County solar-siting policy Basin-wide.
Basin water rates: adopted, while others organized to block theirs. The two meetings are two halves of one story. On June 9 the Board held the Proposition 218 hearing on the three Basin systems in County Service Area 70 — Little Morongo Heights (Zone F) and Hacienda Heights (Zone W-3), both in Morongo Valley, and Pioneertown (Zone W-4) — and approved introduction of the rate ordinance unanimously, on a motion by Supervisor Paul Cook seconded by Vice Chair Joe Baca, Jr.
County staff confirmed from the dais that none of the zones in that hearing drew a majority protest. No resident of any of the three Basin communities spoke to the item. On June 23 the Board gave the ordinance final adoption on the consent calendar, locking the five-year schedules through 2030. As we reported from the rate study in June, that means Pioneertown’s typical fixed charge rises about 61% and its per-unit usage rate about 92% over five years, and the Little Morongo Heights fund is projected to run roughly $1.3 million into deficit by 2030 even with the increases. The County’s own June 9 summary characterized the countywide adjustments as ranging “approximately 1.7% to 10%,” framing that does not surface those five-year Basin totals.
Pay attention to where the protest energy was, and wasn’t. Of the June 9 rate hearings, the one successful majority protest came from Lytle Creek (Zone S-3) in the Cajon Pass — not the Basin — where residents organized, reached the 56.1% Proposition 218 threshold, and blocked their proposed sewer increase outright.
In Oak Hills (Zone J), on the Victor Valley side, a resident-led drive gathered 557 protest letters and speakers alleged the Prop 218 notices were never properly delivered, but that effort fell short of the majority needed and the increase there was not blocked.
The Morongo Basin’s three water systems, by contrast, drew no organized protest and no testimony from the affected communities. Under Proposition 218 these rates move forward unless a majority of affected property owners formally protest; Lytle Creek shows that threshold can be met, but it takes organizing the Basin zones did not see.
Children and Family Services. The County’s Children and Family Services (CFS) department was a through-line at both meetings. On June 9, parents and advocates raised concerns about CFS during general public comment, and Supervisor Armendarez and CEO Luther Smoke directed them to return June 23 for a scheduled CFS workshop, a presentation the Board’s Child Welfare ad hoc committee had requested specifically to address mounting public criticism. That presentation (Item 206) came June 23 as a receive-and-file overview and consumed much of the afternoon.
The department walked the Board through how the child-welfare system works: roughly 30,000 calls a year to the child-abuse hotline, the screening and investigation funnel that narrows to a much smaller number of substantiated cases and fewer removals still, a stated priority of keeping children with family through kinship placement rather than group settings, caseload reductions credited to staffing investments, and a 2025 permanency rate of about 85% through reunification, guardianship, or adoption. The department also described an independent review by national child-welfare experts and the ongoing work of the ad hoc committee.
The public comment attached to the presentation ran long and pointed. Parents, grandparents, and former foster youth told the Board that children were removed without adequate basis or notice, that completed case-plan services went uncredited, and that reunification dragged on for years; several argued that federal foster-care funding creates a financial incentive to remove children rather than reunify families.
A few speakers used the period to allege misconduct by County officials. These accounts come from individuals describing confidential dependency cases the County cannot discuss publicly, and the Desert Trumpet has not independently verified them; we report them as what speakers told the Board. Most of the speakers did not state a community of residence, and the few who did named places outside the Basin.
For Basin readers, the overview still matters: these are services that reach Basin families through the County system, including the Joshua Tree Mental Health Court and school-based work in Morongo Unified, though the presentation, like the agenda as a whole, described the system at the County level without breaking out the Basin or other rural areas.
A note on how the County Board works: member comments. One feature of these meetings has no real parallel in the Twentynine Palms or Yucca Valley council format Basin residents may be more familiar with. Near the top of the meeting, before the discussion items, each supervisor takes a turn highlighting items on the day’s agenda and recapping events from their district. On June 23, for instance, Supervisor Hagman used his turn to flag the Energy Ad Hoc discussion (Item 205) and his view that California needs to roughly double its electrical output over the next two decades, which telegraphed well before the item came up where he stood and why it mattered to him. The practice gives the public an early read on which items the Board considers significant and how individual supervisors are thinking about them, though it can also mean an item’s framing is set before any public testimony is heard.
June 9 meeting
Of the 135 items on the June 9 agenda, the consent calendar (items 2–121) passed in a single vote with no Basin item pulled. The Basin items it carried:
Basin-Specific:
Item 20 — Flamingo Heights tax-sale rescission.
Item 97 — Morongo Basin Unity Home; the Basin’s domestic-violence shelter provider’s contract doubles to $705,902.
Item 102 — CSA 70 special taxes (Yucca Mesa, Wonder Valley, plus Morongo Valley and Pioneertown standby charges).
Item 104 — Joshua Tree / Family Service Association food-services license.
Broader Items with Basin Impact:
Items 23 and 25 — children’s mental health ($125.1M) and substance-use treatment; the children’s mental-health contracts name high-desert providers Desert/Mountain Children’s Center and Mountain Counseling & Training.
Item 69 — refuse permits.
Item 80 — Onyx Peak communications site.
Two items were heard separately rather than on consent:
Item 122 — Basin water-rate hearing. Heard as a discussion item; passed unanimously (see “Across both meetings”).
Item 126 — County 2026-27 budget. Adopted; a roughly $10.9 billion total spending plan including about $273.7 million in new County priorities. During the budget hearing, Pauline Pisano, a Flamingo Heights resident, urged the Board to remove what she described as funding for automated license-plate-reader and surveillance camera systems, including Flock cameras, from the budget. She cited state law SB 34 and other California cities that have canceled Flock contracts over data-access concerns, and said high-desert residents had gathered more than 1,000 signatures across two petitions opposing surveillance expansion.
June 23 meeting
Of the 206 items on the June 23 agenda, the consent calendar (items 2–200) passed in a single vote with only Item 70 pulled for discussion. The Basin items it carried:
Basin-Specific:
Items 13 & 17 — Reach Out Morongo Basin (+$135,000 combined for caregiver and older-adult services).
Item 47 — crisis residential treatment contracts (+$9.2 million, to $83.2 million); the County’s own summary names the “Eastern Desert” region, which ties in to the Morongo Basin, among the service areas. (Not in our preview; we fold it in here.)
Item 115 — waste-disposal renewals (Twentynine Palms, Yucca Valley).
Item 134 — Donnell Hill communications-site license (Twentynine Palms).
Item 157 — Sheriff patrol contracts (~$13.7 million combined for Twentynine Palms and Yucca Valley).
Item 169 — CSA 70 road-district ballot results (Copper Mountain, Flamingo Heights, Yucca Mesa East and West). Copper Mountain approved its increase; the other three rejected theirs, and the County will begin proceedings to dissolve them, after which their fees end and road maintenance through the districts stops.
Item 178 — Fire Station 41 land donation (Yucca Valley).
Item 200 — Basin water-rate ordinance, final adoption (see “Across both meetings”).
Item 78 — special assessments on abated nuisance properties; primarily Lucerne Valley parcels, with one in Landers. (Not in our preview.)
Broader Items with Basin Impact:
Item 3 — Mojave Desert Resource Conservation District appointment.
Item 44 — Student Assistance Program / behavioral health (+$10.4 million; Desert/Mountain, Mountain Counseling).
Item 122 — SB 1 road-maintenance list (includes Yucca Valley-area work).
Item 196 — CSA 70 parks water/wastewater maintenance (10-year; Big Morongo Regional Park); the 10-year term is nonstandard for the County.
Heard separately, as discussion items or presentations:
Item 70 — Measure I transportation sales-tax extension. Pulled from consent; the Board placed it on the November ballot with no rate increase. SB CTA’s Otis Greer presented. Supervisor Rowe relayed a Lucerne Valley concern that aggregate hauled out of that area’s mines generates road wear without generating proportional Measure I revenue locally, under the measure’s return-to-source structure.
Item 122 — SB 1 road-maintenance list (includes Yucca Valley-area work). Adopted on consent.
Item 196 — CSA 70 parks water/wastewater maintenance (10-year; Big Morongo Regional Park). Approved on consent; the 10-year term is nonstandard for the County.
Item 204 — floodplain regulations ordinance. Introduced and adopted after a public hearing that drew no comment.
Item 205 — Energy Ad Hoc Committee discussion. A discussion item; covered above under “Across both meetings.”
Item 206 — Children and Family Services overview. A receive-and-file presentation; covered above under “Across both meetings.”
The Board’s next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 4, 2026, at the County Government Center, 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, with closed session beginning at 9:00 a.m.
This recap was produced with AI assistance and human review by the Desert Trumpet’s San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Resident Review Committee. Corrections and feedback are welcome.
Hi, new subscribers! Desert Trumpet understands you might not be interested in all of our coverage. That’s why it’s divided into separate newsletters allowing you to opt out of reporting that’s not important to you. For instance, you may want our Education news but not City Hall 29.
Here’s how to opt out: go to your Substack settings, scroll down to “subscriptions,” and select “Edit” for the Desert Trumpet. Simply uncheck the box next to the newsletters you don’t want to receive in your email inbox. You’ll still be able to access all coverage online if you change your mind.
Thanks to you, Desert Trumpet exceeded our $10,000 paid subscription goal!!!
Not a paid subscriber yet? Did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?
Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.
Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.
Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complementary tickets.
Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.
This coverage is free - please share!
Regarding County Water Districts in Morongo Valley and Hacienda -- at a preliminary public meeting residents, were told that the Golden State Water Co.would be purchasing 70F and Hacienda and that the purchase should close by the end of this year.A representative of Golden State attended the meeting.
My subsequent research identified the following:
--We were also told that CPUC has mandated that Prop 218 be applied to these districts. However, this is not true!
Prop 218 ONLY pertains to privately owned commercial districts -- not to public utilities.
-- Golden State is a private company whose first and foremost obligation is to its shareholders.
-- Golden state has a very uneven reputation as a provider to small communities
-- Significantly, this decision failed to follow guidelines stipulated by the by our Community Action Guide.
I contend that that the county mislead residents by imposed Prop 218. It appears that their sole purpose in doing so is to facilitate the purchase of our water systems by Golden State. Not only did the county misinform residents, we were also left with a premise that we would be 'voting' on the sale.
Importantly, the fact that the county has decided to commodify a public resource should have required a substantial element of public input and planning.