[0:00] Thank you.

[0:18] » All right. So, Monica, um I'd like to

[0:20] start the meeting. So, will you keep an

[0:23] eye out for her and just let me know if

[0:25] she gets on and then we'll stop and try

[0:27] to do the rest of this.

[0:31] Is that okay, Catherine?

[0:33] >> Um I I had a question. I think you just

[0:35] say what you're going to proceed and

[0:36] then if if she's able to rejoin, go

[0:39] through the script. So, that's Yes,

[0:40] that's fine.

[0:41] >> Okay.

[0:43] All right, then. I would like to call

[0:45] this meeting to order. So, we do roll

[0:47] call.

[0:51] » Coun- Yes, Councilmember Walter.

[0:53] Present. Councilmember Hasko. Here. Vice

[0:56] Mayor Hufty.

[0:57] >> Here.

[0:58] >> Mayor Taylor.

[0:59] >> Present.

[1:00] >> We have a quorum.

[1:01] >> Thank you.

[1:02] All right. So, we're still waiting for

[1:03] Rebecca, but um we'll bring her in if if

[1:06] she comes on board. Um so, then for

[1:09] tonight, we don't have any presentations

[1:10] or proclamations. We do have the town

[1:13] manager report. So, Darcy.

[1:15] >> Yes. Hello, Darcy Smith, Town Manager.

[1:18] I have two quick slides to go over.

[1:21] So,

[1:22] first update,

[1:24] planning and building. They've been

[1:25] doing a lot of work. We have our

[1:27] Planning and Building Director here,

[1:28] Sarah, tonight.

[1:29] So, I just want to point out some great

[1:31] things that they've been doing to

[1:32] improve service to our community.

[1:35] Uh we now have a dedicated development

[1:37] review technician at the front counter.

[1:38] So, for customers that come in and need

[1:40] service when we're open,

[1:43] there's a development review technician

[1:45] there. We formerly had an ad-

[1:46] administrative assistant there.

[1:48] Helped a lot.

[1:49] Uh we're working hard on implementing

[1:51] our digital permit software, OpenGov,

[1:53] and also with that looking

[1:56] at our permit processes and updating

[1:58] those to be more streamlined and

[1:59] efficient.

[2:01] We are updating our

[2:03] geographic information system or GIS

[2:06] data for permit integration and we also

[2:08] hope to have a public viewer online where folks

[2:12] visit that website and look up all sorts

[2:14] of information like that not just their

[2:16] zoning and land use but other items

[2:18] like their geologic stability and other

[2:21] things that are important if they're

[2:22] looking at buying or building on their

[2:25] property.

[2:26] Next, the housing element amendment

[2:28] which was sent to HCD previously, we got

[2:31] the comments back so they're working on

[2:32] that and we will be bringing that update

[2:34] to the town council soon. We just don't

[2:36] have a date yet.

[2:37] There's also ongoing housing element

[2:40] implementation work which is partially

[2:42] supported by our partners heart and hip

[2:45] housing.

[2:46] Um and there's information about what

[2:48] they're doing on our website but we're

[2:49] also launching

[2:50] community engagement work.

[2:52] Um their bread and butter which is their

[2:54] ongoing reviews, permits and

[2:56] coordination especially with the

[2:57] Stanford Wedge project which if you're

[2:59] driven by, there's more activity there.

[3:03] The draft safety element, this is

[3:04] exciting. In 2 weeks there'll be a joint

[3:06] planning commission and town council

[3:08] study session here at 5:30 p.m. and we

[3:10] will be releasing the draft safety element

[3:14] uh either late this week or early next

[3:16] week so watch out for that. Um this is

[3:18] exciting. And then last, there's a plan

[3:21] planning commission and ASCC study

[3:23] session on June 17th working on that

[3:26] agenda but we're trying to engage those

[3:28] groups more and bring them meaningful

[3:30] content.

[3:32] So, more exciting news. If you've been

[3:35] outside today, you notice it's very

[3:36] windy out there and we do have our local

[3:39] rep from PG&E who will say a few words

[3:41] tonight um cuz we have had some power

[3:43] outages. I don't know of any today but

[3:47] better not get one tonight during this

[3:49] meeting. But today we had a tree go down

[3:51] and it it's a one-way drive uh

[3:54] Portola Green Circle. So they weren't

[3:56] necessarily stuck, but it wasn't great.

[3:58] But our public works staff responded

[4:00] quickly, got out there and removed the

[4:02] tree. And that's what we like to see and

[4:05] the residents said they were

[4:06] professional and friendly fast response.

[4:08] So really great to see that with our

[4:10] hard working public works team.

[4:12] That's all I have.

[4:14] >> Great. Thank you, Darcy.

[4:16] All right, I'd like to open it up for

[4:17] public comment or sorry, for oral

[4:20] communications.

[4:21] Um so

[4:22] I'm sorry about that. No.

[4:25] Is Rebecca back on?

[4:27] Yeah, if you could just hold on just a

[4:28] sec. Let's see if we can

[4:30] get a hold of her.

[4:33] » Uh Mayor, shall I go ahead and proceed?

[4:36] All right. Um Council member Flynn, um

[4:38] looks like you're back. Um so I just

[4:40] wanted to go you go through a few

[4:42] questions with you so we can confirm

[4:43] that everything's working okay. Um can

[4:45] you hear me?

[4:46] >> Yes, I can.

[4:48] >> Great. And um were you able to hear the

[4:50] proceedings um

[4:53] from the schoolhouse?

[4:55] >> Yes, I was.

[4:56] >> Great. And do you have a copy of the

[4:57] agenda for tonight's meeting?

[4:59] >> I do, yes.

[5:00] >> And have you posted the agenda at the

[5:02] location where you are?

[5:04] >> Yes, I have.

[5:05] >> And is the location reasonably

[5:07] accessible to the public such that any

[5:08] member of the public could participate

[5:11] in this teleconference from your

[5:13] location if he or she wished to do so?

[5:16] >> Yes.

[5:17] >> Is there any member of the public there

[5:19] with you now?

[5:20] >> No, there's not.

[5:22] >> I know it's very early where you are. Um

[5:24] great. Okay, so then I will just like to

[5:26] remind the council um that all votes um

[5:29] taken tonight uh need to be done by roll

[5:31] call.

[5:32] And with that um you can go ahead and

[5:34] proceed with the meeting, Mayor. Thank

[5:36] you.

[5:37] >> Thank you, Catherine. All right, so

[5:39] going back to oral communications,

[5:41] please come to the podium.

[5:43] >> Hi. Just a reminder you from the last

[5:45] meeting, I'm Bob Bauer. I'm on the

[5:46] school board in Portola Valley and

[5:48] clerk. And I just came to thank our town

[5:51] manager, Darcie, and Tony McFarland for

[5:53] meeting with our superintendent, who may

[5:55] be online. She's maybe going to try to

[5:57] join. Uh

[5:59] she met uh yesterday with uh with

[6:02] Roberta and with our chief business

[6:04] officer, and it was very collaborative

[6:06] and positive meeting. And I just wanted

[6:09] to express to you at the same time we

[6:11] reached out to Midpeninsula Open Space

[6:13] and

[6:14] did not hear back. So, um that probably

[6:18] won't surprise many people here.

[6:20] But, we're very concerned. We have not

[6:22] formed a formal subcommittee yet, but we

[6:24] sort of intend to. And we sort of And we

[6:27] very much like to work with the town,

[6:28] because we think that that's a very

[6:30] important coordination we can do for the

[6:32] safety of the kids who are coming and

[6:34] leaving school. So, I'm just here to

[6:37] sort of bring you up to date and let you

[6:39] know that we're moving forward to

[6:41] have a great collaboration on this new

[6:43] area. And And uh Amy Armsby, our

[6:46] president, is the liaison to the town.

[6:48] So, there is an easy way to reach out to

[6:50] her or to me at any time on this issue

[6:53] concerning the Hawthorne property

[6:55] and the access. Thank you very much.

[6:58] >> Thank you.

[6:59] And Veronica, could you get a timer up

[7:01] when people come up? Is there anybody

[7:03] else in the schoolhouse that would like

[7:04] to make oral communications? Please.

[7:07] Betsy

[7:08] Welcome, Betsy.

[7:11] » Thank you very much. Um Betsy Morgan

[7:14] Taylor. You may have received um my note

[7:17] to you is posted this afternoon, but

[7:19] because I think it's a very important uh

[7:21] subject, I care to read it into the

[7:23] record. Thanks.

[7:25] The learnings at the town finance

[7:28] committee meeting last Tuesday, May

[7:29] 19th, were very hard to hear.

[7:33] The audits are significantly behind

[7:35] schedule. The 22 2022-23

[7:39] audit, already 6 months late, may be

[7:42] done next month. But the 2023-24

[7:46] and 24-25 audits that were to be done by

[7:49] end of summer,

[7:51] we were we were told are postponed

[7:53] beyond fall.

[7:55] We heard they'd likely become available

[7:57] in 2027.

[7:59] If there has been one

[8:01] area where the town has been united and

[8:04] in agreement for years, remedying the

[8:07] town's financial reporting and deficits

[8:10] were indisputably it.

[8:12] The council's priority setting sessions

[8:14] has consistently put it in first place,

[8:17] and the residents expressed the same

[8:19] sentiment

[8:21] in surveys the town conducted.

[8:24] Our financial priorities were to

[8:26] complete the audit backlog, to make

[8:29] I'm sorry. Sorry.

[8:31] Uh

[8:31] to make

[8:33] to complete the backlog, to make the

[8:34] town finances accessible to residents,

[8:37] opening OpenGov to all,

[8:39] and to address the town's shortfall of

[8:41] money at the ballot box this November.

[8:44] These issues are intertwined. The audit

[8:48] schedule the town staff developed and to

[8:50] which it had been committed recognized

[8:53] the import of completing back audits

[8:56] prior to asking for voter support for a

[8:58] tax measure on the November ballot.

[9:01] To further postpone the completion of

[9:03] our audit backlog is to continue

[9:06] repeating our past mistakes.

[9:08] You all inherited this problem. And in

[9:11] both volunteering your services and in

[9:14] making finances your number one

[9:16] priority, you adopted it as your legacy

[9:18] responsibility.

[9:20] With all that is riding on it, we need

[9:23] to get the audits done before we vote.

[9:26] Let the town actively choose to do what

[9:28] we committed to do. It's protective of

[9:31] our seriousness of purpose and our

[9:34] credibility.

[9:36] The problem does go beyond audits,

[9:38] though. Town finances are not

[9:40] transparent and haven't been since 2020.

[9:43] They are open to the very few, none of

[9:46] whom are sitting council members.

[9:49] That translates to depriving the council

[9:52] of the means to take your responsibility

[9:54] your fiscal responsib-

[9:56] as seriously as you could.

[9:59] Please be a force to complete all

[10:01] outstanding audits and to open open gov

[10:05] in a time frame that contributes to

[10:07] enhancing our November prospects.

[10:11] Thank you very much.

[10:12] >> Thank you.

[10:14] Anybody else? Yeah, please come to the

[10:17] podium.

[10:19] Welcome.

[10:23] » Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, City

[10:24] Council members and staff, hello. I am

[10:26] Marjorie Ruizi Valdero. I am your local

[10:29] government affairs representative

[10:30] serving all of San Mateo County and the

[10:33] lovely hometown of Portola Valley. I

[10:36] have come to you tonight to talk about

[10:38] public safety. I will be coming back at

[10:39] a later time in June to talk about EPSS

[10:42] outages specifically, so we'll look

[10:43] forward to that. But today I want to

[10:45] talk to you about the Report It app. So,

[10:46] as you know, PG&E has a robust safety

[10:49] program. We monitor our lines with

[10:53] drones, cameras, and as I know Portola

[10:55] Valley knows, in-person patrols that

[10:57] personally inspect those lines. But we

[11:00] also have an invitation to the public.

[11:01] We have something called the PG&E Report

[11:03] It app. It is available for Android, for

[11:05] the App Store. It's also available as a

[11:07] web desktop version. And what it does is

[11:10] it allows members of the public, and

[11:13] I'll give you an example. Let's say

[11:14] you're walking down the street and you

[11:15] think you see a tree that's a bit too

[11:16] close to a primary or a secondary line.

[11:19] You can snap a picture, you can submit

[11:20] it to the PG&E public safety team. And

[11:23] what they do is they will reach out to

[11:24] that customer or your constituent

[11:26] directly and they'll let them know

[11:27] what's happening, if we're concerned,

[11:29] what the results are, what the

[11:30] conclusion is, and if anybody else in

[11:32] the area has reported that same issue.

[11:35] Now, please hear me. I want to be very

[11:36] clear.

[11:37] This is not emergency response.

[11:40] If you see a down power line, please

[11:42] call 911. If you smell gas, please call

[11:45] 911. So, the PG&E Reported app is not a

[11:48] replacement for emergency response.

[11:51] It is simply another toolkit in our

[11:53] safety toolkit in our robust safety

[11:55] program that just allows members of the

[11:57] public to reach the PG&E Public Safety

[11:59] team directly and report anything that

[12:01] they might be concerned with. It's just

[12:04] another tool in the toolkit. So, it is

[12:05] the PG&E Reported app. It's available

[12:07] for Apple, for Android, for web desktop

[12:10] version. It's incredibly easy to use.

[12:12] You can pull it up on your phone now.

[12:13] It's the first Google result type it in.

[12:15] So, and it hopefully it's accessible for

[12:17] everyone. If you have any questions,

[12:18] please feel free to reach out. I've left

[12:20] cards with Veronica. You can reach out

[12:22] to me directly and I'm happy to answer

[12:24] any of those questions, and I look

[12:26] forward to seeing you later in June

[12:28] where we will discuss EPSS.

[12:30] >> Thank you, Marjorie.

[12:33] Anybody else in the schoolhouse

[12:36] or communications?

[12:46] So, I see one hand online.

[12:51] Rita, welcome.

[12:53] >> Hi. Uh thank you for taking my comment.

[12:56] Um my comment will be much shorter than

[12:58] it usually is because Betsy said

[13:02] everything that I'd like to say and what

[13:05] I've been saying since 2020. So, I

[13:07] really appreciate her words, but I I I

[13:12] know uh the five of you, the four of you

[13:14] on the dais and the others uh can only

[13:17] do so much. But please, I I strongly

[13:21] encourage that before

[13:24] uh

[13:25] extra money is put towards that ballot

[13:28] in November that we have a a a different

[13:32] type of approach in dealing with uh the

[13:35] finances and the audits and that we

[13:38] actually hire somebody uh I know that

[13:41] our finance director is now doing

[13:43] another job

[13:45] and we do not technically have a

[13:47] committed finance director and we need

[13:51] it's a priority for all of these years

[13:53] and we need somebody in that position. I

[13:56] don't know if a position has been posted

[13:59] or if um our current or the person that

[14:02] was being our finance director has now

[14:04] officially moved over into that other

[14:06] job within the Portola Valley but um

[14:11] we can do better and I I know it's a lot

[14:14] of moving parts but uh somehow we we've

[14:17] got to get control of this so that we

[14:20] can have some form of

[14:23] planning for our future in our beautiful

[14:25] town.

[14:26] Thank you for all that you're doing and

[14:28] trying to do.

[14:32] » Thank you, Rita.

[14:34] Is there anybody else for oral

[14:36] communications? I don't see anybody in

[14:37] the schoolhouse.

[14:39] Don't see anybody else online.

[14:41] Um since since several people um spoke

[14:44] on the finance issue, I would just add

[14:46] at the finance committee that um our

[14:48] finance director said that we will have

[14:50] proformas and that our real bottleneck

[14:53] here is the auditor. Um it's not our

[14:55] town staff. So um I think we'll continue

[14:59] to pursue this but you know, that's

[15:01] the other piece that we heard at the

[15:03] finance committee last week.

[15:08] Okay, so I'm going to close oral

[15:10] communications and move on to the

[15:12] consent agenda.

[15:14] So are there any consent agenda items?

[15:18] >> Um I'd like to make a comment. I'm not

[15:20] going to pull anything but I did want to

[15:22] comment.

[15:22] >> Okay.

[15:23] >> So, why don't why don't you make your

[15:24] comment?

[15:25] >> Okay.

[15:25] >> Um and then maybe I'll take public

[15:27] comment and then we'll decide what we're

[15:28] going to pull.

[15:29] >> Okay. If um so, I just wanted to give an

[15:32] update on the ADU sewer fees that I

[15:36] heard about. Um they're two short uh

[15:41] because we're dealing with the ADU. So,

[15:43] um because and that deals with fees

[15:46] around the ADUs for

[15:48] um for permitting purposes.

[15:51] Um the West Bay Sanitation District ha-

[15:54] on May 13th, they they decided to roll

[15:57] back the 5 years of retroactive

[16:01] billing to 3 years of retroactive

[16:04] billing,

[16:05] um which they are allowed to do. It

[16:07] should be noted that the CPU, which over

[16:10] has oversight over private companies,

[16:12] only allows 3 months of retroactive

[16:15] billing.

[16:17] So, um but for those folks who have

[16:20] gotten West Bay Sanitary District bills,

[16:23] um supposedly will be refunded for 2

[16:26] years if you were billed for 2 year or

[16:28] for 5 years.

[16:30] Um secondly,

[16:32] um local agencies may only charge water

[16:35] and sewer connection fees for ADUs and

[16:37] JADUs in circum- certain circumstances.

[16:41] So, for example, fees may be charged for

[16:43] ADUs that are 750 square feet or larger

[16:46] and for JADUs that are 500 square feet

[16:49] or larger.

[16:50] Consistent with government code section

[16:53] 66311.

[16:56] 5C1,

[16:58] any fees charged must also be

[17:00] proportionate to those for the primary

[17:03] dwelling based on square footage. And I

[17:06] so, there has been some issues that they

[17:08] are not doing the proportionate billing

[17:10] at this point. So, I just wanted that to

[17:11] be read into the record and for folks to

[17:14] be aware of the situation with West Bay

[17:16] Sanitary District. Thank you.

[17:19] >> Thank you, Helen.

[17:20] Rebecca, do you have a comment? Is that

[17:22] what your hand's up?

[17:24] >> No, I I I think the process is you have

[17:27] to go to public comment first before we

[17:29] pull things.

[17:31] >> I'm already said I was going to do that,

[17:33] but thank you.

[17:35] All right, so with that first public

[17:38] comment, are there any other public

[17:40] comments in the room?

[17:42] Okay, so I don't see any public comments

[17:44] in the room.

[17:46] And I don't see any online.

[17:48] So I'll bring it back to the council.

[17:50] Are there any consent agenda items that council member

[17:55] wants to pull?

[17:57] >> 6F

[18:02] » I Hello, I'd like to pull

[18:04] D and E, please.

[18:10] » D and E. Are there any others?

[18:13] >> No.

[18:14] Okay.

[18:15] All right. So with that, I would accept

[18:18] a motion to approve A, B, C.

[18:23] I think No, you wanted D pulled, sorry.

[18:27] Yeah, so A, B, and C, is that

[18:29] We're good on A, B, and C?

[18:30] >> I move to approve A, B, and C.

[18:32] >> Thank you.

[18:32] >> Second.

[18:34] >> I have a second. Roll call, please.

[18:37] >> Council member Walter

[18:38] >> Aye.

[18:39] >> Council member Hasco

[18:41] >> Aye.

[18:41] >> Council member Flynn

[18:43] >> Aye.

[18:45] >> Vice Mayor Hefty

[18:46] >> Aye.

[18:46] >> Mayor Taylor

[18:47] >> Aye.

[18:48] >> Motion carries 5-0.

[18:50] >> Thank you.

[18:52] Okay.

[18:53] So why don't we just do these in order,

[18:55] so um

[18:56] let's talk about D first.

[19:01] » Um hang on, let me get my notes in front

[19:03] of me.

[19:06] Um

[19:23] » So, I had questions about the um animal

[19:26] control contract.

[19:29] Um

[19:33] So, it it keeps referencing a section

[19:35] 3.7, but there is no 3.7 in what was

[19:38] provided to us. So,

[19:41] it seems that 3.7 is the doc the portion

[19:43] of the contract that actually details

[19:47] how the calculation is made and how they

[19:49] determine it.

[19:51] Um

[19:53] So, I I'm unclear on that.

[19:56] Um

[19:59] And then

[20:01] So, and then I just I don't really

[20:02] understand how the system works with

[20:04] animal control. Um

[20:06] What you know, which animals need to be

[20:08] licensed? And then do people do

[20:10] residents

[20:11] come into Portola Valley staff to to

[20:14] fill out some paperwork or do they have

[20:15] to go to the county?

[20:17] I'm unclear on that.

[20:19] Um

[20:22] I I'm just it's the costs are are a

[20:24] little to me are pretty

[20:26] astonishing astonishing to me. I mean,

[20:29] for we're getting $40,000 worth of

[20:31] services from

[20:32] Peninsula Humane Society, I guess.

[20:35] And I it just I I realize we had two

[20:38] rabies since incidents and I assume some

[20:41] lost pets showed up over there and they

[20:43] had to take care of them.

[20:45] But

[20:46] I don't know. I mean, we when I look at

[20:48] the the the list of um

[20:52] the percentages, we we use 0.14% of

[20:54] their services and because their

[20:56] services are so expensive, we you know,

[20:58] it ends up being a huge amount of a huge

[21:01] dollar amount.

[21:02] So, I'm just I I just am unclear on on

[21:05] what exactly we're getting for for the

[21:07] $40,000.

[21:11] Okay.

[21:13] Percy, do you want to speak to this?

[21:15] Thank you.

[21:17] >> Yes, I'm happy to speak to this and

[21:19] actually have a presentation, but of

[21:21] course, as luck would have it, I lost my

[21:23] Zoom presentation.

[21:25] Um my Zoom connection. So, first of all,

[21:28] the reference to the amendment or sorry,

[21:32] the current agreement, it is posted on

[21:34] our website. So, it's about 147 pages.

[21:37] We didn't include in the packet, but

[21:39] in the staff report, there's a hyperlink

[21:42] to it.

[21:43] If that hyperlink doesn't work on our

[21:45] town website, um

[21:47] it's posted under

[21:50] the website that's

[21:53] included under community, the community

[21:55] tab, and then community conversations

[21:57] and interests. So, we have a section

[21:59] there about animal control service and

[22:01] barking dog dog issues, and so

[22:05] members of the public can go there.

[22:07] Um

[22:08] but

[22:09] the animal control agreement has with

[22:12] the

[22:14] um Peninsula Humane Society, also known

[22:17] as PHS, has been in place for a long

[22:21] time. I think it dates back to 1952.

[22:24] It's one of the longest-running shared

[22:26] contracts in the county, and all 20

[22:28] cities contract.

[22:31] Our perspective is that that provides a

[22:34] great benefit of economies of scale, cuz

[22:37] we have much lower costs than if each

[22:38] city provided animal control. I can tell

[22:40] you it probably be

[22:42] like maybe 10 times the amount if we did

[22:45] it ourselves,

[22:46] because they have a robust staff. So,

[22:49] they provide a lot of services. Um many

[22:51] people just think of them as a shelter,

[22:54] but in fact, they do a lot more.

[22:56] Um

[22:57] they respond to lots of calls for

[23:00] service in our town. I think for example

[23:03] in one month that they gave me data for

[23:06] they had seven calls for service.

[23:08] Um and the types of calls that they

[23:10] respond to are very varied. They will

[23:13] respond to cruelty investigations. They

[23:16] will respond

[23:18] dangerous animals and frankly we do have

[23:21] a lot of off-leash dogs here and they

[23:22] get called when an animal presents

[23:24] itself as

[23:26] um

[23:27] being challenges that challenge they

[23:29] will respond to sick, injured, or stray

[23:31] animals and frankly we do get a lot of

[23:33] those. We have a lot of animals here

[23:35] that wander out into traffic or into

[23:37] other people's yard. We also see a

[23:40] pretty big amount of calls for dead

[23:42] wildlife unfortunately.

[23:44] Um but for example in in February they

[23:48] had three calls for dead wildlife and

[23:50] two sick or injured wildlife. So I think

[23:52] given the amount of wildlife in our town

[23:54] including raccoons, deer, birds,

[23:56] you name it. You know, we did have the

[23:58] dead bat on the playground and they were

[24:00] very helpful for that. They also deal

[24:02] with quarantining animals and I have had

[24:05] uh members of the public report to me

[24:06] that their dog bit someone and so that

[24:08] dog had to be quarantined for oh,

[24:10] unfortunately dog bites are a reality.

[24:13] And in respect to the licensing, so they

[24:15] do that. All dogs and cats are required

[24:18] to be licensed as in part to ensure that

[24:20] they're vaccinated

[24:22] Um that is

[24:24] done online. So that's administered

[24:26] through Pet Data which was is also a

[24:28] pretty big cost of theirs, but So that's

[24:30] typically done in person or individuals

[24:33] can go to their shelter in Burlingame or

[24:36] a Samateo office. Other things that they

[24:38] offer at low cost are things like

[24:40] microchipping, vet care, um they have a

[24:42] spay neuter clinic, they have a

[24:44] vaccination clinic. Those are much lower

[24:46] costs than if you went to a normal um

[24:49] veterinarian.

[24:51] Also they have a wildlife care center.

[24:53] So they do education for that, but they

[24:54] have a very elaborate wildlife care

[24:56] center where they do rehabilitative care

[24:59] for sick, injured, and orphaned native

[25:01] wildlife. And for example, they came to

[25:03] one of our music series and had a whole

[25:05] booth about wildlife care. Um

[25:08] So, that's a big part of it. But,

[25:09] another thing, if we do have a dangerous

[25:11] animal, they provide administrative

[25:13] hearing process, and that is very

[25:15] efficient. And again, if we were doing

[25:17] this ourselves, including the fact that

[25:19] they provide 24/7 response,

[25:21] um

[25:23] for animal control, it would be very

[25:25] expensive. So, the staff recommendation

[25:27] here is to approve this amend We think

[25:29] it's very efficient. The cost this year,

[25:32] our next fiscal year, is about $23,000.

[25:36] And again, we think there's immense

[25:38] economies of scale there.

[25:40] >> Thank you, Darcy.

[25:41] Is there any other discussion on this

[25:43] topic?

[25:45] >> Discussion.

[25:45] >> I had one other question. Was about this

[25:47] pet data?

[25:48] I mean, it sounded like we're being

[25:50] charged the the whole contract is

[25:52] $219,000 a year for pet data. Can you

[25:56] address why a

[25:58] what would sound like an online pet

[26:00] database is $219,000 a year?

[26:04] >> Sure. Well, yeah, so that's

[26:06] sounds simple, but my guess is, having

[26:09] dealt with town software, that it's

[26:12] more complicated than it sounds. And

[26:14] also, what we've seen, I think our

[26:16] finance director raised this, is that

[26:17] most softwares are now

[26:19] to subscription services, and they're

[26:22] getting to be very expensive.

[26:25] Um

[26:26] So, that's the key.

[26:27] >> I'm under the impression that's even

[26:29] more than OpenGov. That what we're what

[26:31] we're paying for OpenGov.

[26:32] >> True. But,

[26:34] >> pet database.

[26:36] >> Keep in mind, they're providing service

[26:37] to the entire county and all 20 cities

[26:40] in the So, they may have

[26:42] I don't I don't want to guess at how

[26:44] many dogs and cats are in the county,

[26:46] but a lot. This is a a high-volume

[26:48] service.

[26:51] » Okay, thank you.

[26:54] >> Comments? Uh Um

[26:56] Are you taking public comment?

[26:57] >> did.

[26:58] >> Okay, so we're done with that. That's

[27:00] fine.

[27:01] Now, um PHS is a pretty special resource

[27:05] for the town and the county. I've

[27:07] adopted from them. My husband's

[27:09] volunteered for them.

[27:11] Uh they do a lot and there's high value

[27:14] and we are the lowest we're charged the

[27:16] lowest amount. I'm very supportive of of

[27:19] continuing this contract as proposed.

[27:23] >> Thank you.

[27:24] Any other discussion?

[27:25] >> I also was a naysayer in before, but having been in

[27:30] this job for a while now, I'm pretty

[27:31] convinced this is really an important

[27:33] service that we're provided by the county.

[27:36] >> Okay, thank you.

[27:38] All right, I would entertain a motion.

[27:40] It's either going to be to approve or

[27:42] deny.

[27:44] >> A motion to approve item 60.

[27:47] >> Do I have a second?

[27:48] >> Second.

[27:49] >> Thank you. Roll call, please.

[27:51] >> Council member Walter.

[27:53] >> Aye.

[27:54] >> Council member Flynn.

[27:56] >> Aye.

[27:57] >> Council member Hasco.

[27:58] >> Aye.

[27:59] >> Vice Mayor Hufty.

[28:01] >> Aye.

[28:01] >> Mayor Taylor.

[28:02] >> Aye.

[28:03] >> Motion carries 5-0.

[28:04] >> Thank you.

[28:05] All right, moving on to 6E.

[28:10] Becca, this is yours as well?

[28:12] >> Okay, um I had a couple questions. I I

[28:14] spent more time thinking about this and

[28:16] since it was um pretty rushed

[28:20] um

[28:21] at the last meeting, there was just so

[28:23] many things to deal with.

[28:25] Um there were some stuff that just kind

[28:27] of sped through and um

[28:32] I had a couple of questions that come up

[28:34] came up. Let me pull up that those notes

[28:37] real quick. 80 units.

[28:40] Um

[28:43] so we had talked about the fact that the

[28:46] code

[28:47] us to require one parking space per ADU

[28:50] and the concern that was brought back by

[28:52] staff was that

[28:54] if we allowed this that there was a

[28:56] possibility that applicants would

[28:59] take advantage of that and um do some

[29:02] massive earthworks

[29:04] that required ASCC approval

[29:08] um

[29:09] that normally would require ASCC

[29:11] approval and they'd be able to get out

[29:12] of it.

[29:13] And we were told that somehow that was

[29:15] just unreasonable and I'm just when I

[29:17] think back through that concept I'm just

[29:20] a little concerned that we couldn't just

[29:22] write

[29:24] um

[29:25] into our code a sort of an exception

[29:28] that says we require uh one parking lot

[29:31] one parking space offsite

[29:33] off street um

[29:37] Sorry, my brain's a little slow this

[29:39] morning. Um

[29:41] that we require one that we require one

[29:44] parking space off street

[29:46] unless it required you know

[29:49] so much earthwork that that that it fell

[29:52] into Portola Valley's ASCC site uh

[29:55] development requirements and if it did

[29:58] then we didn't then in that case we

[30:00] would not require the parking space

[30:02] unless somebody and if somebody wanted

[30:04] one they would have to go to the ASCC.

[30:06] It seems that verbage could have been

[30:08] put into the contract into the ordinance

[30:10] that would get rid of that um concern of

[30:13] the staff and I'm just curious as to why

[30:15] that wasn't offered to us as a

[30:18] as an option.

[30:22] And I guess my second one was again um

[30:25] going back to the idea of the size of

[30:28] the ADU. I mean I think we're all in

[30:30] support of allowing people to have 1200

[30:32] square foot ADUs.

[30:34] The biggest concern however was that

[30:36] those ADUs would be placed four could be

[30:38] placed four feet from on property line

[30:40] because of the interpretation of the

[30:42] law.

[30:43] However, when I look at this, I when I

[30:45] rethink this, um

[30:49] my concern is that next year

[30:52] we're going to have to go back to this

[30:54] ADU ordinance because there's already

[30:56] laws going through the system that

[30:58] probably will get passed. So, we're

[30:59] going to have to make a modification and

[31:01] then

[31:02] I'm hopeful that by next year we will

[31:04] have our objective design requirements

[31:06] finalized, so we will need to

[31:07] incorporate them into this.

[31:10] And since this uh current version has to

[31:12] go to the HCD next month or within 30

[31:15] days of our approval,

[31:18] HCD will see this, will see the 1,200

[31:20] square feet, and then next year when we

[31:22] go back

[31:24] and if we make a decision to then

[31:27] not continue to allow the 1,200 square

[31:29] feet because somehow we're starting to

[31:31] see them replaced 4 feet from the

[31:33] property line and we retract that and go

[31:35] back to what the the minimum the maximum

[31:38] that state law allows us to to put,

[31:41] that HCD is going to take a look at that

[31:42] and say, "Why are you reducing, you

[31:44] know,

[31:46] your

[31:47] allowances, if you will?" So, I'm just a

[31:49] little concerned about that. And so, I

[31:52] um

[31:53] I just wanted to have some feedback on

[31:55] that those two items.

[31:59] » Thank you.

[32:01] Catherine, please.

[32:03] >> Thank you. Yeah, I can I can start and

[32:04] perhaps Sarah Darcy wants to chime in. I I guess I'll start with a procedural

[32:09] point, which is that um

[32:12] so, this this item is before you on a

[32:14] second reading.

[32:15] And so, if the council um

[32:19] wants to make sub- substantive changes

[32:21] such as changing the size of um the ADU

[32:24] or the parking requirements,

[32:26] uh that would um trigger the need to go

[32:29] back to a to reintroduce the ordinance

[32:31] at a new public hearing. So, you would

[32:34] not pass the the ordinance tonight, and

[32:36] rather you'd provide direction to staff

[32:38] to bring it back for reintroduction.

[32:42] Uh so you know,

[32:44] discretion is fairly limited to make

[32:45] changes tonight. I guess is the bottom

[32:47] line. Uh in terms of the um

[32:52] the size of the ADU of course Council

[32:54] does have discretion um to make that

[32:56] determine it that was considered by

[32:58] Planning Commission. Um they looked at

[33:00] 1,000 square feet I believe and there

[33:02] was quite a bit of back and forth about

[33:04] that and I know that was debated before

[33:05] Council as well.

[33:07] Um I don't know that HCD would

[33:09] necessarily

[33:10] um

[33:11] retract. I mean the Council has

[33:12] discretion um in that way in terms of

[33:15] the size and so uh when the when the

[33:18] town decides to update the ordinance

[33:20] um

[33:21] you know, it it can use that discretion

[33:23] how how it sees fit.

[33:25] Um we will get comments back from HCD as

[33:28] Councilmember Flynn Flynn noted and you

[33:30] know, it there may be um an opportunity

[33:33] or a requirement to to make changes at

[33:35] that time and respond to their comments.

[33:37] We don't know yet.

[33:38] Uh in regards to parking um I guess I I

[33:42] um I thought there's lots of different

[33:44] ways to word the ordinance so I'm not

[33:46] sure if I can say one or the other why

[33:47] certain certain options were weren't

[33:49] presented. Uh but ultimately the current

[33:52] ordinance um does not require parking

[33:55] for ADUs but then goes on to say if

[33:57] parking is provided um parking space

[33:59] design shall conform with section

[34:01] 1860020 parking dimensions and access.

[34:05] Um I know Sarah you're up here at the

[34:07] but if you want to say something more

[34:09] along those lines or um regarding the size.

[34:13] >> Sir course Planning Building Director.

[34:15] So with the ADU ordinance what was

[34:17] proposed was what staff felt was the

[34:19] best um option and best proposal to put

[34:22] forward with that was a lot aligned with

[34:25] um

[34:26] state law and policies and

[34:27] recommendations that were coming from

[34:29] HCD. So So, wasn't necessarily

[34:30] discussion around a variety of options.

[34:33] We were putting forward the option that

[34:35] was on the table for town council to

[34:37] vote on that night, and that was also what was confirmed with

[34:41] planning commission and sent to you

[34:42] after that.

[34:43] Um I believe I guess to respond more to

[34:46] that question about parking, again

[34:48] looking at what is best in compliance

[34:50] with state law, and given you know this

[34:53] question, it sounded like this might be

[34:55] more of a policy level discussion or

[34:58] additional research

[35:00] um

[35:01] you know, or guidance might be needed to

[35:03] determine

[35:05] what should be required in terms of

[35:07] parking. And there were a few other

[35:09] discussion topics, and we felt like if

[35:11] there are

[35:13] you know, additional needs for research

[35:14] and data that that would be potentially

[35:16] a separate project that might be a

[35:18] little bit different than really trying

[35:19] to get through with the ADU organs and

[35:22] kind of the minimum requirements with

[35:24] state law.

[35:27] » Thank you.

[35:27] >> I had another question.

[35:29] If the ordinance had stuck with the 850

[35:32] or 1,000 square feet, and somebody had

[35:34] come to the town wanting a 1,200 square

[35:36] foot guest house, if you will,

[35:39] what would have been the process for

[35:41] that person to build it? Would it be the

[35:43] normal ASCC review process, because it

[35:46] wouldn't be an ADU according to

[35:49] you know, state law?

[35:54] » It would not be an ADU according to

[35:55] state law, and there would not be a

[35:57] discretionary process for it. Um most

[36:00] likely they would need to go with an SB9

[36:03] project.

[36:06] Uh also that would not require ASCC

[36:08] review.

[36:09] Um unless I don't know if there's any

[36:11] other ideas about how that could be

[36:12] processed.

[36:14] Yeah, probably SB9.

[36:17] » Okay, thank you.

[36:20] » All right. Any more discussion or

[36:22] comment on this item?

[36:24] No? No?

[36:25] Okay. Um

[36:28] I mean, I have to say that I mean, I

[36:29] feel like we talked about this last time

[36:32] and we got a proposal from staff. The

[36:35] difference between 1,000 and 1,200, if

[36:37] it's already on the 4-ft property line,

[36:39] I'm not sure it's going to make the

[36:40] difference.

[36:41] Um but we also have an opportunity to

[36:43] revisit this. So, my recommendation is

[36:46] that we move forward with this, get it

[36:49] on the books, and then the question I

[36:51] would have for planning is to make sure

[36:54] that when we come back to this, that

[36:56] these issues are reconsidered.

[37:00] All right, with that, I would entertain

[37:02] a motion for 6E.

[37:05] >> I move that we approve uh 6E.

[37:08] >> And a second?

[37:09] >> Second.

[37:10] >> Thank you. Have a motion and a second.

[37:12] Veronica, roll call.

[37:13] >> Council member Walter.

[37:15] >> I.

[37:15] >> Council member Husco.

[37:17] >> I.

[37:17] >> Council member Flynn.

[37:19] >> Yes.

[37:21] >> Vice Mayor Hefty.

[37:23] Yes. Mayor Taylor.

[37:25] >> I.

[37:25] >> Motion carries 5-0.

[37:27] >> Thank you.

[37:28] All right, moving on to 6F. Judith, this

[37:30] is yours?

[37:31] >> Yeah. Um so, I I just need more

[37:34] explanation, I believe. Uh we're

[37:37] increasing the compensation value under

[37:40] this contract from 200,000 to 650,000,

[37:45] which is a bit of a sticker shock for

[37:48] us, given our financial circumstances.

[37:51] The fiscal impact does note that

[37:55] you know, there there's increased

[37:57] compensation of 450,000,

[37:59] most of which are going to be funded by

[38:02] application fees and deposits and are

[38:05] passed through. So, I'd like an

[38:07] explanation for why such a big swing. Is

[38:11] this surprising? And

[38:14] um

[38:15] and

[38:16] you know, I hesitate to say most of

[38:19] 450,000

[38:20] is going to be funded by application

[38:23] fees. So, what is

[38:25] the actual potential exposure to the

[38:27] town's budget?

[38:29] Net net of

[38:31] reimbursements or

[38:34] application fees and deposits.

[38:37] >> So,

[38:38] who would like to speak to this? Is this

[38:40] Sarah or Darcy?

[38:42] >> Let's pass the buck. Um

[38:44] >> No, no, I mean I I have

[38:46] somebody in mind.

[38:48] >> Sarah has some data points, but I will

[38:50] just explain sort of how we got here cuz

[38:52] I would did work on the contract in

[38:54] October and Sarah wasn't here. So, it

[38:56] would not be fair to pass this all off

[38:57] onto her. But, if you remember in

[38:59] October, we brought forward three

[39:01] different contracts. And what we

[39:03] envisioned then was distributing up the

[39:06] work amongst three. And honestly, all

[39:08] three of them totaled, I think, 600,000.

[39:10] And we thought we'd sort of

[39:12] see how each consultant is doing. And

[39:14] you might recall at that point, we were

[39:16] using different consultants.

[39:18] What we found pretty quickly, um as

[39:21] Steven and I, the former interim

[39:23] director, worked with the different

[39:25] contractors, is that this one rose heads

[39:28] above the rest. And so, we have

[39:29] sole-sourced essentially all of our

[39:31] building permit work with them. And

[39:33] again, that wasn't envisioned

[39:34] originally.

[39:36] Um another thing we've seen is that we

[39:39] have a greater demand for work for the

[39:42] Stanford project, for example, that is

[39:44] quite actually like gigantic. If that

[39:46] was a T-shirt, it'd be an extra extra

[39:48] large. Whereas, normally we do like the

[39:50] small projects. Um we've also seen

[39:54] increase in code enforcement work, for

[39:56] example, cuz we've been more responsive

[39:57] through our systems.

[39:59] Um

[40:00] another thing is we've been carrying a

[40:01] vacancy. We didn't know that in October,

[40:03] but we have a vacancy. We have not been

[40:05] able to fill that. We tried. So, one of

[40:08] these uh one of the vacant staff

[40:11] positions is being filled by a

[40:12] contractor that's pulled from this fund.

[40:14] And we had no idea. So,

[40:16] Sarah can talk a little bit about the

[40:18] actual cost of the budget, but I what I

[40:20] want to emphasize is that we are not

[40:22] asking for any more budget

[40:23] appropriation. We are funding it from

[40:25] the existing budget and we're in line

[40:27] with that and

[40:29] for the exact amount of what we call

[40:31] pass-through or sort of applicant

[40:33] payments that are then pay our country

[40:35] uh our contractors, Sarah can speak to

[40:37] that.

[40:40] » Mercy.

[40:41] Um so, with this contract, CSG really

[40:43] provides a wide variety of support for

[40:45] the town. So, as a reminder, they also

[40:47] include our building inspector, building

[40:49] official, code enforcement, building

[40:51] permit reviews and a variety of things in that

[40:55] regard. So, with looking at the specific

[40:57] costs that we've spent, it's about 24%

[41:00] is

[41:01] in the kind of non-pass-through category

[41:04] and the rest is pass-through. So, about

[41:06] 75% of that is pass-through cost, which

[41:09] is pretty significant in terms of the

[41:11] amount that we're doing for reviews and

[41:14] the projects that we're getting into

[41:15] that.

[41:18] » Can I ask a follow-up question?

[41:19] >> Yeah, please.

[41:19] >> Um so, 24% is not pass-through, but

[41:23] there's no budget impact. So, that's

[41:26] where I want to come out is

[41:28] are are we adding to the budget by

[41:31] increasing the amount and by how much

[41:33] roughly?

[41:34] >> I'll speak to that a little bit and I'll

[41:35] let Tony chime in if he wants. So, sorry

[41:37] and I forgot to mention one of the key

[41:39] points is they also cover permit tech

[41:41] support as well. So, we did increase

[41:42] some of the permit tech support because

[41:44] it's been needed. So, looking at permit

[41:46] tech support and code enforcement, those

[41:48] are kind of the two main categories that

[41:50] are not pass-through right now, which

[41:52] we're hoping to address with the new

[41:54] updated master fee schedule to make sure

[41:57] that we are including permit tech where,

[41:59] you know, within

[42:01] um our kind of pass-through and with our

[42:03] fees.

[42:04] So, with this, typically the town has

[42:07] had development review technicians on

[42:09] staff and right now we we have any DRTs

[42:11] or senior DRTs in staff right now, so

[42:13] that has been coming from consultants.

[42:19] » And Tony, did I mean I I think what

[42:21] Judith getting at I certainly like to

[42:23] hear the same is

[42:25] we had a position for a DRT, but we're

[42:28] not funding it, so we're using the money

[42:29] for consultants or we have these other

[42:32] contracts, but we're not using those as

[42:34] we've sort of moved it over to CSG. Um

[42:37] and so this all nets out to

[42:39] is this within the budget that we have?

[42:42] Yeah. Um and given we have contracts out

[42:44] there, is it possible because the

[42:45] contract exceeds our budget that somehow

[42:49] we could spend through the budget?

[42:50] >> No, with the the town work which is in

[42:53] the budget is we're within line there.

[42:56] Uh we are using data vacancy savings to

[42:59] offset some of those costs. The other

[43:01] issue is that with the work being done

[43:03] in the project applicant area, which

[43:05] would be funded out of fund 71 customer

[43:07] deposits,

[43:08] that is

[43:10] difficult to budget

[43:12] from year to year because it's pretty

[43:14] volatile. So but it is applicant deposit

[43:17] money and it's technically not our

[43:20] money. We're holding it as you know, the

[43:22] custodian.

[43:23] So if if if they are doing work on

[43:25] behalf of the applicant deposit, we have

[43:26] to spend this money. If dollar amount

[43:28] does exceed what was already approved by

[43:30] the contract total value line, then yes,

[43:33] we have to come back and say we need to

[43:34] increase the value of the contract, but

[43:36] it's not impacting the budget because we

[43:39] have vacancy savings

[43:41] to offset some of those costs.

[43:43] >> Okay, thank you. Judith, does that

[43:45] answer your question?

[43:45] >> I wanted.

[43:46] >> Okay. Any other discussion on this

[43:47] topic?

[43:48] No.

[43:49] All right. Um with that, I would

[43:51] entertain a motion for 6F.

[43:53] >> Motion to approve 6F.

[43:55] >> Second.

[43:56] thank you. A motion is second.

[43:58] Veronica, roll call, please.

[44:01] >> Councilmember Wolcott?

[44:02] >> Aye.

[44:03] >> Councilmember Hesko?

[44:04] >> Aye.

[44:05] >> Councilmember Flynn?

[44:06] >> Aye.

[44:08] >> Vice Mayor Haftie?

[44:10] >> I.

[44:11] >> Mayor Taylor?

[44:12] >> I.

[44:12] >> Motion carries 5-0.

[44:14] >> Thank you very much. Thank you, Sarah.

[44:18] All right. I'd like to move on to number

[44:20] seven.

[44:21] So, remind me the exact words I'm

[44:23] supposed to use. Do I open a public

[44:24] hearing? Is that the

[44:26] >> Well, first you can take this this staff

[44:28] report. And then you will be opening the

[44:30] public hearing. Yes.

[44:31] >> Perfect. All right. So, is there a staff

[44:33] report on number seven? Thank you.

[44:36] >> Yes, but it doesn't appear on any yet.

[44:38] So, we need

[44:39] >> Okay.

[44:53] Having locked in Tony in?

[45:08] Okay.

[45:12] So, so where are we at?

[45:15] Okay.

[45:19] » I'll just introduce them.

[45:20] Uh Tony McFarland,

[45:22] newly appointed assistant town manager,

[45:25] is presenting tonight as well as

[45:27] Courtney Ramos from Matrix, who I've

[45:29] actually known, I think, for 10 years.

[45:31] Um

[45:32] Yeah, so she's our consultant from

[45:33] Matrix. She's very well qualified on the

[45:36] fee schedule work and can answer the

[45:39] questions, and Tony has a PowerPoint,

[45:42] which maybe he's bringing to life.

[45:45] >> We have two PowerPoints.

[45:46] >> Oh, two PowerPoints. Okay, you got a

[45:48] twofer tonight.

[45:52] » I will just start by introducing Well,

[45:54] Darcy already introduced Courtney, but

[45:57] the the first presentation is going to

[45:59] be about uh the results of the user fee

[46:01] study and the dollar amount being used

[46:03] and then

[46:04] accordingly we'll be uh handling that.

[46:06] So, with that, thank you for the

[46:07] recording.

[46:13] » Good evening, everyone.

[46:15] >> So, you really really as you notice when

[46:16] I speak into the mic, it has to be right

[46:18] in front of you. It can be a little

[46:20] below, but you have to speak directly

[46:21] into

[46:22] Yeah, yeah, you can chew on it if you

[46:23] want. We'll We'll clean it up later.

[46:25] Thank you.

[46:26] >> Uh I while you're getting this up, do

[46:27] you want me just to start the

[46:28] presentation?

[46:30] Okay. Fantastic.

[46:32] Uh well, I've Good evening, everyone. Uh

[46:34] appreciate this opportunity to meet with

[46:37] all of you and kind of talk about

[46:39] high-level details with you

[46:41] of the

[46:42] comprehensive user fee study that we've

[46:44] conducted.

[46:45] I'm just going to jump into some of the

[46:46] slides just

[46:47] fast.

[46:48] Um but to kind of give you a little bit

[46:50] of the overview of the why we conducted

[46:52] a user fee

[46:53] It is important to set context.

[46:56] And the reason we do that is

[46:58] services and service level assumptions

[47:01] that go behind uh fees for the services.

[47:04] >> Uh my apologies. You people are saying

[47:07] you need to speak more directly.

[47:13] » And then I go this way? Okay.

[47:16] Is this better?

[47:17] Much better? Okay.

[47:19] You can almost kind of hear the echo

[47:20] now, too. Okay.

[47:22] All right. So, starting over. So, why do

[47:24] we conduct a user study? We do the next

[47:26] slide.

[47:28] The I I

[47:29] sufficiently installed long enough to

[47:30] get us there.

[47:32] Um so, a user fee study helps us

[47:34] document the service

[47:35] and the service level assumptions behind

[47:38] the things that we provide. So closer?

[47:39] Okay. Wow, really just all Okay.

[47:44] Um so, we want to document those

[47:45] services and those service level

[47:47] assumptions. We want to document the

[47:48] full cost associated with that. So,

[47:50] that's not just the salary and benefits

[47:52] associated with a staff person who might

[47:54] plans or providing inspections, but

[47:56] that's what does it cost the town to

[47:58] provide those services. Um, so we've

[48:00] got, you know, HR costs, finance costs,

[48:02] all of those things that go into

[48:03] supporting that staff person to provide

[48:06] that service. So, what this study does

[48:08] is it identifies all of those things. It

[48:10] lets us know what is that full cost. Um,

[48:12] it also ensures compliance with Prop 218

[48:15] and 26, which are very important. I'm

[48:17] going to get into those in the next

[48:18] slide. Um, but it also aligns with um,

[48:21] fiscal best practices. So, the um,

[48:24] government finance officers association,

[48:26] GFOA,

[48:28] um, outlines several best practices

[48:30] associated with understanding your cost

[48:31] of service, benchmarking, and things

[48:33] like that. And so, these types of

[48:35] studies help us understand that. It

[48:36] gives us that factual documentation.

[48:39] Um, but to go a little bit more about

[48:40] 218 and 26, the slide.

[48:44] Maybe.

[48:48] It'll catch up.

[48:50] All right, I'll just start talking about

[48:51] it. Um, the core principles of 218 and

[48:54] 26 require that there's a direct benefit

[48:57] between the fee that's being charged and

[48:59] the cost associated with it. Um, so fees

[49:01] have to be cost-based. They can't exceed

[49:04] the total cost of service. So, what this

[49:05] study does is it essentially gives you a

[49:07] ceiling. It says, this is what the total

[49:08] cost of service is. You can set your

[49:10] fees up to anything up to and including

[49:13] that fee. There is a caveat or that, and

[49:16] that would be for parks and recreation.

[49:18] Um, and there is a carve out in Prop 26

[49:21] um, for recreation services. Part of

[49:23] that is because if you're building your

[49:24] house, here. Um, but

[49:28] it uh, you know, you want to have a

[49:29] picnic, you want to use some fields, uh,

[49:33] you know, you can go to Palo Alto, you

[49:35] can go to Menlo Park, you can go to

[49:36] Woodside, right? Like we could go to

[49:37] different places and use that. And so,

[49:39] parks and recreation services tend to be

[49:41] market-driven. And so, it's really

[49:42] taking a look at what the market can

[49:44] bear, and also looking at a comparison

[49:46] between what is that What's the value of

[49:48] what you're getting

[49:50] versus what that value might be

[49:51] somewhere else. So, there is that kind

[49:53] of carve out there. Um but generally

[49:55] speaking, when we're looking at

[49:56] planning, building, engineering

[49:58] services, administrative services, um

[50:00] the cost for that service that we're

[50:02] charging an applicant cannot exceed the

[50:04] cost that we incur. And again, that's

[50:06] the total cost that the town incurs, not

[50:08] just for a particular staff person who's

[50:10] providing that service.

[50:13] Next slide.

[50:16] All right. So, as I just kind of

[50:17] mentioned, um the services that we

[50:19] looked at um incorporated administrative

[50:22] services, building code enforcement,

[50:24] planning, and recreation.

[50:26] Um so, pretty much all the application

[50:28] services provided by the town.

[50:31] I miss anything easy? Uh so, if we go

[50:34] for the study objectives, right? So, we

[50:36] know why we're doing the study, but what

[50:37] were we doing? So, first we want to look

[50:39] at fee structures.

[50:40] Um it's been a while since the town has

[50:42] conducted a fee study, so we want to say

[50:44] we want to look at what is it that we're

[50:45] charging for?

[50:47] How um

[50:49] how relevant are those applications, the

[50:52] nomenclature that we're using, the

[50:54] structure of those? How relevant is that

[50:56] to the

[50:57] um to the services that we're actually

[50:59] providing? So, we might want to

[51:00] streamline that, we want to condense,

[51:02] consolidate, we want to eliminate uh not

[51:04] necessarily a fee here, but my favorite

[51:06] example is a lot of times we still

[51:08] microfiche fees, something that we tend

[51:10] to get rid of nowadays. Um but you know,

[51:13] taking a look and seeing are there

[51:14] outdated services? Are there new

[51:15] services? You know, obviously we've got

[51:17] new things that are coming online,

[51:19] different types of solar permits and

[51:20] solar applications, right? So, looking

[51:22] at those and making sure that we're

[51:23] accounting for all of those services.

[51:26] Um we want to calculate fully burdened

[51:27] hourly rates. So, we want to take a look

[51:29] at what is it costing per employee,

[51:32] right? What is that fully loaded rate?

[51:33] Salaries, benefits, um overhead, lights,

[51:36] buildings, vehicles if we're using

[51:38] those, kind of taking a look at that

[51:39] full cost.

[51:41] Then we're going to talk with staff, and

[51:42] we're going to collect time estimates,

[51:44] and look at the assumptions associated

[51:46] with those services and those service

[51:47] levels.

[51:49] We conduct a comparative survey because

[51:51] I know everybody here and I'm sure

[51:52] everybody watching and and and behind me

[51:54] is curious to know what is everybody

[51:55] else charging for these services. Um so

[51:58] providing contextual information for

[51:59] that as well so that you understand

[52:02] when we're doing those comparisons how

[52:04] comparable are they.

[52:06] Um we want to make sure again that legal

[52:07] compliance making sure that we have

[52:09] appropriately accounted for costs or in

[52:11] compliance with the

[52:12] fixed.

[52:13] And then finally kind of putting

[52:14] together that master fee listing. So

[52:16] what is that consolidated list of fees

[52:18] look like?

[52:20] Um next slide.

[52:22] So the methodology for determining cost

[52:25] of service is it's not super

[52:26] complicated. It's great times time

[52:28] equals cost.

[52:29] Um but there's some nuances in there. So

[52:31] when we talk about time estimates and

[52:33] we're talking to staff to understand

[52:34] what it takes for them to provide a

[52:36] particular service

[52:37] we're asking them to not think of the

[52:39] easiest project they've ever done. Also

[52:42] not the most complex project they've

[52:43] done. So we want to look at what is the

[52:45] average time that it takes to process a

[52:47] particular application or permit.

[52:50] We also want to take a look at if we

[52:51] have different skill levels with our

[52:53] staff. We don't want to peg that time

[52:55] estimate at a junior level staff who's

[52:57] maybe only been here for a couple of

[52:58] months. We also don't want to look and

[53:00] peg that time necessarily

[53:02] at somebody who's been here for 20 years

[53:04] and you know practically wrote the code,

[53:05] right? Again, we want to look at what is

[53:07] the average time that it takes to

[53:09] provide those services.

[53:11] Then we look at those fully burdened

[53:12] hourly rates. That's salary, benefits,

[53:14] it's looking at productive hours,

[53:16] services and supplies and town wide

[53:18] overhead and that gives us that fully

[53:20] burdened cost. Again, that gives us our

[53:22] maximum justifiable amount that we can

[53:24] charge.

[53:26] So then we get into

[53:29] the good stuff. Remember.

[53:31] Um so it's been about 14 years since the

[53:33] town has looked at its fees.

[53:36] Um so obviously in that time costs have

[53:39] increased, on levels and uh way we

[53:42] provide services has changed

[53:44] significantly. So, it's really important

[53:45] that we do this. I mean, especially

[53:47] because, you know, in the last 5 to 6

[53:49] years, we've had some pretty significant

[53:50] changes in technology and how we're able

[53:52] to accept plans, how we're able to

[53:54] review things. So, this is really um

[53:57] a really good time to have this study to

[53:59] understand what those service levels and

[54:00] those costs are. Uh we looked at about

[54:03] 245 fees. So, we looked at flat fees, uh

[54:06] which means what you see is what you

[54:08] pay.

[54:09] Uh we've looked at valuation-based fees.

[54:11] That's how building fees are assessed

[54:13] based on the value of a project. Uh

[54:15] we've also looked at deposit-based fees,

[54:17] understanding when we have when we put

[54:18] down a deposit and we bill against that.

[54:21] I'm taking a look at what were those

[54:22] services, were those deposits

[54:24] appropriate, could we convert some of

[54:25] those to flat-based fees? And uh well,

[54:28] history on deposit-based fees usually

[54:30] charge that for a service where it could

[54:31] just be, you know, so varied in what

[54:34] that service is that in order to make

[54:35] sure that not only does the town get an

[54:37] appropriate cost recovery, but the

[54:38] applicant isn't overcharged.

[54:40] We do those on time and materials or

[54:42] deposit-based.

[54:44] So, overall, this study um

[54:46] found a $500,000

[54:48] um under-recovery. And I will I do want

[54:50] to highlight I know that there was a

[54:51] previous uh number here. Um and and I

[54:55] just want to call that out and highlight

[54:56] that. And the reason that this number

[54:58] has changed is because the previous

[54:59] number we're showing kind of all revenue

[55:01] and all costs,

[55:03] uh which kind of gives a misleading

[55:05] understanding of what the town could

[55:07] actually recover. What I mean by that is

[55:09] that the town uses a lot of consultants

[55:11] and contractors to provide plan review

[55:14] and inspection services related to

[55:16] development services. Um and the part of

[55:19] those contracts is that the part of the

[55:20] revenue that you get goes directly to

[55:22] them and gets offset. And so, that

[55:24] previous number that was getting shown

[55:26] made it look like the town could be

[55:28] getting this this revenue. Uh and what

[55:30] we really wanted to do was be um

[55:33] narrow-focused and reflect what it was

[55:35] that you could recover by increasing

[55:37] fees. What would the town get to collect

[55:40] in fees for those costs and those

[55:41] services? So, we wanted to be more

[55:43] accurate.

[55:44] Um, and ultimately, that results in 55%

[55:47] cost recovery level.

[55:49] Uh, which is a bit lower than what we

[55:50] would like to see, but obviously, it

[55:52] depends on what that particular

[55:54] vision is. If we go into that, moving on

[55:56] to the next slide.

[55:59] So, if we kind of dive deep into this,

[56:01] um, building is at about 93% cost

[56:03] recovery.

[56:04] Code enforcement, uh, not so much. We're

[56:07] not really collecting a lot for that.

[56:08] Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[56:09] It could mean that, you know, obviously,

[56:11] code enforcement, the goal is, uh, to

[56:13] get compliance. So, we're not looking to

[56:15] generate revenue, we're looking for

[56:16] people to comply with the code. So, just

[56:19] because we have no revenue there,

[56:20] doesn't mean it's a necessarily a bad

[56:22] thing.

[56:23] Um, planning, uh, has the biggest

[56:26] deficit at $260,000,

[56:28] um,

[56:29] and 33% cost recovery. Public Works is

[56:32] at about 52,000 at 42%, and recreation

[56:35] is at about 58%.

[56:38] And so, to kind of put this in context

[56:39] for you,

[56:40] um, if you go to the next slide,

[56:43] you can kind of see what those typical

[56:45] cost recovery ranges are. So, that blue

[56:46] band is typical cost recovery.

[56:49] Um, the dot is kind of where you fall,

[56:51] um, on that cost recovery.

[56:53] Uh, so, if we look at something like

[56:54] building, between typically between 80

[56:56] and 100%. So, at that 93%, doing good.

[56:59] Um, for code enforcement, again, it's at

[57:01] that 0%. Not really concerned about that

[57:03] cuz again, it it doesn't necessarily

[57:05] mean that you're not recovering, it

[57:06] could just mean that we don't have, you

[57:08] know, again, we're abating those issues

[57:09] before they come to fees.

[57:11] Um, for planning, a little bit low at

[57:13] 33%, but typically see

[57:15] 70%. Public Works, again, a little low,

[57:18] we see, uh, at 42%. Typically see it

[57:20] between 80 and 100%. Uh, and recreation

[57:23] is actually doing pretty well, um, at

[57:25] the 58%. Um, a little bit higher than

[57:28] what we would typically see it at. So,

[57:29] doing

[57:32] Um,

[57:34] moving on.

[57:35] Oh, what the whole thing?

[57:38] About

[57:40] Oh, about recreation recreation at 58%

[57:43] is really good. It's it's it's higher

[57:46] than most than what we see. Usually

[57:48] we'll see a much lower like 20

[57:50] something. So

[57:52] Um

[57:53] >> So before you go on, I mean just because

[57:55] you're speaking about it. I mean you

[57:57] just showed a range. We're in the middle

[57:58] of that range and you're saying it's

[57:59] higher than most. That doesn't make

[58:01] sense to me. I mean it's either you're

[58:02] in the range or you're not. I mean

[58:05] >> I I actually think this the range on

[58:06] this graph is actually I think wrong

[58:08] because it should be between 20 and 50%.

[58:10] For recreation. For recreation. Correct.

[58:13] >> All right, so I'll repeat it. So she

[58:15] said she thought for recreation that the

[58:17] bar should be between 20 and 50

[58:20] and we're at 58. So that's why she's

[58:22] saying that we're high even though if

[58:24] you look at the graph it looks like

[58:25] we're right in the middle. So thank you

[58:26] for that clarification.

[58:27] >> No, thank you.

[58:32] Um and then finally just to kind

[58:34] obviously we have all these numbers

[58:36] and we're going to talk all about that,

[58:38] but I think some of the recommendations

[58:40] aside from, you know, reviewing the

[58:42] report, understanding what your cost of

[58:44] service is, determining what your cost

[58:45] recovery levels are is just kind of

[58:49] understanding what are your goals

[58:51] um

[58:52] as a town as a council

[58:54] for what you want to do. Again, this report gives you that ceiling. It

[58:58] lets you know kind of legally what you

[58:59] need to do in order to comply. That does

[59:02] not mean that you need to charge full

[59:03] cost recovery.

[59:04] Um so what is kind of before all of you

[59:07] is to determine what cost recovery

[59:09] levels want and that can be holistically

[59:11] as a town we want 100% cost recovery,

[59:14] although we would we would typically

[59:15] recommend that you look at it more

[59:17] nuanced and say

[59:18] you know, as an example, we think

[59:20] building should be 100% cost recovery.

[59:21] We think building should be 70% or

[59:23] whatever that happens to be. Um but that

[59:26] you take a look at and say based on your

[59:28] understanding of the community and

[59:30] what's before you, what is it that you

[59:32] are looking to recover for these

[59:33] services? Document those assumptions

[59:36] so that as you move forward and you look

[59:38] at these things again in the future,

[59:40] that you understand why fees were set

[59:42] the way they were set. Um, and if there

[59:44] were subsidies and we can always make

[59:46] exceptions to that. So, for example,

[59:47] with building, you might say you want

[59:49] 100% cost recovery, um, but there might

[59:51] be certain fees or certain areas that

[59:53] you are choosing to subsidize above

[59:56] that. So, again, just kind of

[59:57] documenting those policies, those

[59:59] assumptions of why it is that we want to

[1:00:00] set these lower.

[1:00:02] Maybe we want compliance, we're trying

[1:00:03] to promote certain things.

[1:00:05] Um, we can do that. Um, to also kind of

[1:00:08] take a look at once you've you know,

[1:00:10] staff and everyone has done all of this

[1:00:11] work, you all have are putting in the

[1:00:13] time

[1:00:14] to help create these policies and make

[1:00:17] the decision on where fees should be

[1:00:18] set. We don't want to just set the fees

[1:00:20] and forget them. Um, to adopt an annual

[1:00:23] inflationary factor um, that'll allow

[1:00:26] your fees to increase in a certain with

[1:00:28] your costs. Um, so something like a CPI

[1:00:31] or cola factor. Again, what that does is

[1:00:33] it means that next year when fees come

[1:00:36] around, because costs will have

[1:00:37] increased, the fees will increase and

[1:00:39] that'll help you maintain whatever cost

[1:00:41] recovery levels that you

[1:00:43] put out there.

[1:00:44] And then lastly, we would say that, you

[1:00:46] know, we want to recommend that you

[1:00:48] conduct a study. You don't need to do a

[1:00:50] study like this every year. Uh, it's

[1:00:52] intensive and they're good for a while,

[1:00:54] right? But about every five to seven

[1:00:57] years, it's important to kind of

[1:00:58] re-evaluate those services and those

[1:01:00] service levels.

[1:01:01] Codes can change. The building code can

[1:01:04] change. The municipal code can change,

[1:01:06] right? You might change some zoning

[1:01:08] codes or other things within the city.

[1:01:10] Like I mentioned earlier, we've seen a

[1:01:11] lot of changes with technology and what

[1:01:14] we're able to do and how we're able to

[1:01:15] provide those our services. And

[1:01:17] sometimes that means that we can be more

[1:01:19] efficient with what we're doing or as we

[1:01:21] were talking about earlier, sometimes it

[1:01:23] can add additional cost Um, because of

[1:01:26] certain technologies that we need in

[1:01:27] order to provide those particular

[1:01:29] services. So, conducting a study again

[1:01:31] in about 5 to 7 years will allow you to

[1:01:34] reevaluate and make sure that you're

[1:01:35] still on track and in alignment with

[1:01:38] So, with that

[1:01:40] I'm sure everybody has a lot of

[1:01:41] questions.

[1:01:43] And I'm happy to go back to any previous

[1:01:44] slides or

[1:01:48] » Okay, and Tony, do you have anything

[1:01:49] else you want to add or she is

[1:02:03] » Um while we're reading, do we have any

[1:02:05] idea what the temperature is set in this

[1:02:06] room? Because I I don't know about you

[1:02:07] guys, but Yeah, like can I mean, can

[1:02:11] somebody go look?

[1:02:12] Yeah, I mean, it feels

[1:02:14] Yeah, I was going to say, it feels like

[1:02:15] it's 75 in here.

[1:02:19] » Thank you for that.

[1:02:22] » Yeah, okay, well, put your jacket on.

[1:02:24] Sorry.

[1:02:26] Yeah.

[1:02:27] So, Veronica, what's the temperature in

[1:02:29] the room?

[1:02:32] What did you turn it down to?

[1:02:35] How about like 68?

[1:02:37] We can open windows.

[1:02:39] I mean, it's going to be a long meeting

[1:02:40] and if it's this warm for the next

[1:02:43] 4 hours, I'm probably going to wilt.

[1:02:47] You got to find the right Not all

[1:02:48] windows open, it's an old schoolhouse.

[1:02:53] » All right.

[1:02:53] >> So, I'm just going to be supplying some

[1:02:55] supplemental context.

[1:02:58] More specific to the town.

[1:03:06] So, as we're discussing earlier, uh

[1:03:09] side the item is we're reviewing and

[1:03:10] approving the study report.

[1:03:12] Looking at setting a cost recovery

[1:03:13] levels and then considering adopting a

[1:03:16] resolution.

[1:03:20] So,

[1:03:20] I you seen the slide earlier, uh user

[1:03:22] fee study that shows $500,000 in the

[1:03:25] recovery

[1:03:27] uh or 55%.

[1:03:31] Um

[1:03:34] looking at the different categories of

[1:03:35] recommended rate of cost recovery is

[1:03:37] 100% for the rate of

[1:03:39] building code enforcement, engineering,

[1:03:41] and planning.

[1:03:45] But, uh carving out recreation, uh

[1:03:48] looking at the different categories of

[1:03:49] recreation, the recommended rates

[1:03:52] um 80% for classes, field rentals range

[1:03:55] from 60% to 100%.

[1:03:58] Um park rentals 80% to 100%.

[1:04:02] And then looking for other rentals,

[1:04:03] local non-profit in town, and public

[1:04:05] agency, these are for community hall.

[1:04:07] Um 60% for local non-profit, 100% for

[1:04:11] public agency, and then for special

[1:04:12] events is 100%. Um as Courtney alluded

[1:04:15] to earlier, these rates can be uh

[1:04:18] not necessarily adopted at 100%. We can

[1:04:21] set these rates at any uh rate uh

[1:04:24] um council um desires. Um

[1:04:27] and but I just wanted to provide this

[1:04:29] context to council as to see where uh

[1:04:34] the NEC scale that you did see in the

[1:04:36] report that these these were the numbers

[1:04:37] that drove the recommended cost of of

[1:04:41] the recommended fee.

[1:04:42] And but as as we said, uh council does

[1:04:45] have discretion um where we want to set

[1:04:47] the cost recovery levels for certain

[1:04:49] categories within recreation.

[1:04:53] Um looking at recreation results for

[1:04:56] 2024-2025,

[1:04:58] uh we had 11 community hall rentals for

[1:05:01] almost $17,000.

[1:05:03] Uh sports user groups, uh these are our

[1:05:06] little league fees and our uh soccer

[1:05:08] leagues and our

[1:05:09] um

[1:05:10] and adult leagues as well. Uh, we had 14

[1:05:13] uh, rentals, um, almost $77,000.

[1:05:17] Again, these are the numbers from

[1:05:18] 2024-2025.

[1:05:19] Uh, picnic spaces, we had 17 rentals for

[1:05:23] $1,200.

[1:05:24] Other, we had 24. Those Those looked

[1:05:27] were instances of insurance being bought

[1:05:30] or other small minimal rentals, but um,

[1:05:34] over than the $4,000.

[1:05:36] And then, uh, parking lot rental for

[1:05:38] Ford Field, we had three uh,

[1:05:41] rentals for almost $25,000.

[1:05:43] So, total revenue for 2024-2025

[1:05:46] recreation actual results uh, was 124.

[1:05:49] In the fee study, we were using budgeted

[1:05:52] numbers um, for 2025-2026.

[1:05:59] So, looking at some specific fees that

[1:06:01] uh,

[1:06:02] for council direction, solar panels, um,

[1:06:05] there is an option there. Number one is

[1:06:07] you can adopt um, the state fee or uh,

[1:06:11] you can

[1:06:12] adopt the recommended fee because the the code does allow for a variance,

[1:06:18] um, if we have a fee study that

[1:06:20] justifies the cost being higher than the

[1:06:21] state rate, then council can implement

[1:06:23] the state rate.

[1:06:24] Also looking at the business license

[1:06:26] application processing fee, um, I

[1:06:29] believe it was $230

[1:06:31] or $240.

[1:06:33] Um,

[1:06:34] that would be per uh, business license.

[1:06:37] Uh, we're looking for compliance with

[1:06:39] the business license, so we would

[1:06:40] probably want to set that dollar amount

[1:06:42] uh, significantly lower.

[1:06:44] Um, and then with the regulate the same

[1:06:46] with the recreation application

[1:06:48] processing fees,

[1:06:49] um, the numbers were um, over $240,

[1:06:53] about $240. Again, um, looking for not

[1:06:57] wanting to um,

[1:07:02] cuz some of these are for the

[1:07:03] instructors. Um,

[1:07:04] so we don't want to

[1:07:06] make their cost more than what they're

[1:07:07] already doing.

[1:07:08] And then uh the sports user groups

[1:07:10] um some of the costs were the

[1:07:13] recommended fee was a pretty significant

[1:07:15] jump. Um and there's also concern that

[1:07:18] if we do have any if we do increase uh

[1:07:20] rates or fees significantly,

[1:07:23] uh there's a potential that we could

[1:07:24] lose some of these groups and lose uh

[1:07:25] some of that revenue. Uh and it was a

[1:07:28] significant portion of recreation

[1:07:29] revenue, so

[1:07:30] um these are items for council to

[1:07:32] consider as they're doing their

[1:07:33] deliberation.

[1:07:34] Um and that concludes my report.

[1:07:37] And I will give it back to council, but

[1:07:39] I will bring back up Courtney's

[1:07:41] spreadsheet or PowerPoint.

[1:07:44] Um

[1:07:46] You want that for reference.

[1:07:48] >> Okay. Thank you, Tony.

[1:07:49] So Catherine, can we do council

[1:07:52] clarifying questions, then go to open

[1:07:54] the public hearing? Great, perfect. All

[1:07:56] right. So, clarifying questions for

[1:07:59] either Courtney or Tony.

[1:08:00] Mary.

[1:08:03] Uh you turn your mic on.

[1:08:04] >> The

[1:08:05] uh Courtney, I uh

[1:08:07] I

[1:08:08] It's a huge package, of course, and uh

[1:08:11] full of uh

[1:08:13] stuff that doesn't really where a lot of

[1:08:15] us are here thinking about the fees for

[1:08:17] the pickleball uh courts or uh whatever,

[1:08:20] but it's really not about that. It's

[1:08:22] about a bunch of permitting and fees and

[1:08:25] penalties and uncollected things over

[1:08:28] the years, etc.

[1:08:30] Um my question is

[1:08:33] uh when was the last uh

[1:08:36] such evaluation? Uh going through it and

[1:08:39] talking to chat GPT about it, I learned

[1:08:42] that we did do fee adjustments in 2024.

[1:08:46] We were do Were we doing that just

[1:08:48] completely blind? And and I guess it's

[1:08:50] many point many part

[1:08:53] to the question because how long has it

[1:08:56] been required that you do this kind of

[1:08:58] formal regulated fee evaluation?

[1:09:02] And uh uh

[1:09:05] I mean, you say you're supposed to do it

[1:09:07] every 5 years. Has it been more than 5

[1:09:09] years that people have been supposed to

[1:09:10] do it? Uh when did this whole thing

[1:09:13] start?

[1:09:14] And uh there was obviously PE evaluation

[1:09:18] changes happening all along because

[1:09:21] the few PEs that I followed through on

[1:09:23] myself

[1:09:24] have changed radically since I've been

[1:09:26] here for 35 years. So, I'm just uh

[1:09:30] confused as to when people say, "Well,

[1:09:32] it's been a long time since we did a

[1:09:35] evaluation."

[1:09:37] What does that mean?

[1:09:38] >> Absolutely. Okay, so I'm going to

[1:09:41] There were a lot of questions there, and

[1:09:42] I think 99% of them I can answer.

[1:09:45] Um so, um my understanding is that it

[1:09:47] was I think it was about 2014 was the

[1:09:50] last time that a study like this

[1:09:53] meaning where you go in and you you

[1:09:55] comprehensively look at all the services

[1:09:58] that are being provided, you kind of

[1:10:00] collect time estimate information,

[1:10:02] determine fully burdened cost, um and

[1:10:05] you you do that kind of an analysis.

[1:10:08] Um now, that was the last time that the

[1:10:11] full analysis and like I said, the

[1:10:12] recommendation, right, the best practice

[1:10:15] is every 5 to 7 years. I will tell you

[1:10:17] right now that there are not very many

[1:10:19] jurisdictions, certainly that I have

[1:10:21] worked with in the past, who kind of

[1:10:24] follow with that. Um I've worked with

[1:10:26] jurisdictions where it's been 10 years,

[1:10:28] 20 years, um and some that just don't

[1:10:31] know. Um and there's no historical

[1:10:33] information. So, to have have it been

[1:10:36] that long, so the 2014 is the last I

[1:10:38] think study that that we could find that

[1:10:41] is that detailed. Um you know, that's

[1:10:44] 12 years. Um

[1:10:46] >> Not bad.

[1:10:47] >> Right, it's not bad. Um

[1:10:49] and but you know, again, what I was

[1:10:51] talking about when I was talking about

[1:10:52] the the annual inflationary factor. So, lot of times you will see that a

[1:10:56] jurisdictions will change every year,

[1:10:58] every couple of years. And that's

[1:11:00] usually because staff have gone in and

[1:11:02] they have updated those fees to account

[1:11:05] for changes in cost. It doesn't mean

[1:11:07] that they have done a study like this.

[1:11:10] It's more just that they're looking at

[1:11:11] it and they're saying, "We haven't

[1:11:13] touched these, we haven't increased

[1:11:14] these, and we make sure that they are in

[1:11:16] alignment with our costs." Um and

[1:11:18] sometimes, you know, you will say, "You

[1:11:20] know what, we need a fee for this." And

[1:11:22] so, staff will kind of do an internal

[1:11:24] calculation and they'll bring it to the

[1:11:26] council uh and get that fee approved.

[1:11:28] So, you can sometimes also see those

[1:11:30] one-offs um associated with that, but

[1:11:32] that's that's the one that's the 1% um I

[1:11:35] think of all the questions that you're

[1:11:36] asking that I can't answer is if there

[1:11:38] were um updates in in 2024. I don't know

[1:11:41] specifically what went into that or what

[1:11:43] was behind that, but that's my

[1:11:44] assumption based on kind of what you

[1:11:47] typically see.

[1:11:49] >> I think that helps.

[1:11:50] >> It was adjusted by CPI, and we were

[1:11:53] doing that every year.

[1:11:56] And the the CPI number was the February

[1:11:59] uh 12 months, which is what we use for

[1:12:02] the the cola as well. So, that seems to

[1:12:04] be our benchmark is the February

[1:12:07] >> And

[1:12:08] then the other sort of driving question

[1:12:10] for me is uh was this exercise worth it?

[1:12:13] Uh

[1:12:14] you know, I we weren't that far

[1:12:17] out, and uh what it looks like is we

[1:12:20] weren't that far wrong, and we got a lot

[1:12:23] of other problems we're trying to solve,

[1:12:25] and we're doing zero collections, uh and

[1:12:29] we're not doing any enforcement of our ordinances, and etc. etc. What

[1:12:36] How do we justify this kind of

[1:12:38] expenditure of our staff time and our

[1:12:41] limited finances?

[1:12:44] » Besides from the legal Besides from the

[1:12:46] it's illegal not to have it.

[1:12:48] >> Then then no, that aside. I think um

[1:12:51] well, I'm I'm obviously I do this for a

[1:12:53] living, right? And I've been doing it

[1:12:55] for about 20 years.

[1:12:57] So I kind of enjoy it.

[1:12:59] Um, but for me, I think it is really

[1:13:01] important to understand what your costs

[1:13:03] are and to be making fact-based

[1:13:05] decisions. And I think that that's what

[1:13:07] this report and these types of reports

[1:13:09] do. Um, is that it lets you know, and I

[1:13:11] will say, you know, your your under

[1:13:14] recovery is not as significant as I have

[1:13:17] seen it in other areas. However, I would

[1:13:19] say that $500,000 isn't nothing. Um,

[1:13:22] there are things that you could do with

[1:13:24] that revenue

[1:13:25] in a lot of different places within the

[1:13:27] city. And so if you look at a study like

[1:13:29] this,

[1:13:30] the cost associated with that and you

[1:13:32] annualize it over 5 to 7 years, uh, you

[1:13:35] know, the return on what you're getting,

[1:13:37] I think is is worth it.

[1:13:40] But like I said, I think for me, the

[1:13:42] biggest thing is just making sure that

[1:13:44] policy makers are informed because I

[1:13:46] think a lot of times we sit there and we

[1:13:48] think, oh, my my everything is covered.

[1:13:50] It's fine, right? Um, and and that may

[1:13:53] be true, but we also might be covering

[1:13:55] that with other money.

[1:13:57] Um, right? Because if we're not

[1:13:59] generating fee revenue to offset these

[1:14:01] services, then we're using tax dollars

[1:14:04] or other dollars to be providing that

[1:14:05] service. And I think it's just important

[1:14:07] that it's a conscious decision. Um, that

[1:14:10] that's how you want to fund those

[1:14:11] services.

[1:14:15] » Now, I certainly learned a lot from it.

[1:14:17] And one eye-opener for me was how we

[1:14:19] budget

[1:14:20] our allocations for pre-personnel

[1:14:22] positions.

[1:14:23] Um, like for recreation, for example,

[1:14:26] Justin, he's primarily funded out of

[1:14:29] public works.

[1:14:30] So his costs are not necessarily being

[1:14:32] charged to

[1:14:34] community hall, park and fields. And

[1:14:37] whereas, Cindy, our administrative

[1:14:39] services manager, she does spend a lot

[1:14:41] of time in recreation processing. And

[1:14:44] her costs are allocated out of

[1:14:47] administrative.

[1:14:48] So, this is an eye-opener for me that I

[1:14:50] need to reallocate some of our costs

[1:14:53] in our personnel budget so that it can

[1:14:55] actually reflect

[1:14:56] the source of the service that's being

[1:14:58] provided.

[1:15:02] » Other questions, Mary?

[1:15:05] >> The other is an intangible and I'm not

[1:15:08] quite sure how to but we have funny

[1:15:11] little town

[1:15:13] and uh do you feel that in your process you

[1:15:17] got a sense of

[1:15:19] the funny little town and why we have

[1:15:21] our fee structures and permit structures

[1:15:24] and uh

[1:15:26] how those permit structures and fee

[1:15:28] structures actually

[1:15:30] uh underline the quality underline and

[1:15:34] refine the quality of our community.

[1:15:40] » I would say that I mean that's kind of

[1:15:42] the purpose of you know a lot of times

[1:15:44] some these schedules get developed by

[1:15:49] looking to see what our neighbor is

[1:15:50] doing.

[1:15:52] Um and so a lot of times then and that's

[1:15:53] another reason I think that you need to

[1:15:55] do these studies is to make sure that

[1:15:57] it's reflecting your services your

[1:15:58] service level assumptions. I know

[1:16:00] um you know when I talk about service

[1:16:02] level assumptions um some jurisdictions

[1:16:04] are very much like you know what it

[1:16:06] should only take you two trips it should

[1:16:07] only take you two inspections.

[1:16:09] So, that's all you get and if it takes

[1:16:10] me three then I'm going to charge you

[1:16:11] for that. Other jurisdictions are a bit

[1:16:13] more lenient, right? And they might say

[1:16:15] you know what we understand things

[1:16:16] happen so we're going to give you that

[1:16:18] third inspection it's going to kind of

[1:16:19] be included in that cost of service. Um

[1:16:22] and so I think that's that's

[1:16:25] I think one of the things that I enjoy

[1:16:27] about doing these types of studies is

[1:16:29] understanding the different service

[1:16:31] level assumptions um the different

[1:16:32] things that make a jurisdiction

[1:16:35] um and while there are certain things if

[1:16:37] the building code is the building code

[1:16:38] you can't get around that, right? Uh but

[1:16:40] you look at something like parks and

[1:16:41] recreation and the different types of

[1:16:42] services and the different philosophies

[1:16:45] that communities and stakeholders have,

[1:16:47] um, I think can be very informative and

[1:16:49] can give you a different picture or a

[1:16:52] different part of the picture of

[1:16:54] community benefits.

[1:16:57] » Good work.

[1:17:00] Is it Mary?

[1:17:01] >> Yep.

[1:17:02] >> Okay. Who would like to go next?

[1:17:05] Judith? Thank you.

[1:17:06] >> Yeah.

[1:17:07] Um,

[1:17:08] okay. So,

[1:17:10] um,

[1:17:11] I spent time with the packet as

[1:17:13] originally

[1:17:15] distributed. The new numbers, and I this

[1:17:19] is a question. I want to confirm my

[1:17:20] understanding because the original

[1:17:23] numbers were kind of crunched without

[1:17:26] giving I'll use my words, you correct

[1:17:29] them, appropriate recognition for how

[1:17:31] much we rely on independent contractors.

[1:17:35] Um, you redid those. What

[1:17:40] because I assume if it takes a

[1:17:43] consultant

[1:17:45] two hours to review an application,

[1:17:48] that's viewed as a pass-through and that

[1:17:50] is not cost recovery for the town. Is

[1:17:53] that essentially the way to think about

[1:17:55] it? Cuz the swings are pretty

[1:17:57] significant. It was public works 24% to

[1:18:00] 42%.

[1:18:02] Um, recreation 33% to 58%,

[1:18:07] building and planning 52 to 93%.

[1:18:11] And uh, or sorry, building and then

[1:18:13] planning was 76% down to 33%.

[1:18:17] So, that's a little bit difficult to

[1:18:20] process in terms of how to think about

[1:18:22] this for policy, right? Because I don't

[1:18:26] think we're going to change

[1:18:27] like the we might we're going to be

[1:18:29] discussing later a couple of different

[1:18:31] positions we might add to the roster,

[1:18:34] but essentially in the next couple

[1:18:36] years, we have who we have and we have a

[1:18:39] limited budget. So,

[1:18:42] um

[1:18:43] are are we out So, A, you're nodding, so

[1:18:47] I'm getting it right in terms of the the

[1:18:49] reasons. Um are we very unusual in in

[1:18:54] that um use of outside contractors

[1:18:58] relative to

[1:18:59] peers?

[1:19:01] >> Not to peers of your size.

[1:19:03] >> Okay.

[1:19:04] >> Yeah. I mean, obviously, I mean, even

[1:19:06] I would say even even someone like um

[1:19:09] Palo Alto

[1:19:10] um uses a significant number of

[1:19:12] contractors.

[1:19:13] They have obviously much more in-house

[1:19:15] staff than you do.

[1:19:16] Um and bigger than you are. Um but are

[1:19:18] still using a fair number of contacts.

[1:19:20] Where you would see

[1:19:22] very minimal is in a much larger city,

[1:19:25] you know, like San Francisco or San Jose

[1:19:27] um or something like that, where they're

[1:19:29] they um have enough projects that they

[1:19:33] can afford to have a full-time staff

[1:19:36] person because they have enough projects

[1:19:38] that they can work on, right? And the

[1:19:40] fee revenue to generate um associated

[1:19:42] with that. But for jurisdictions um this

[1:19:44] size, especially jurisdictions, and it's

[1:19:47] not just the size of Portola Valley, but

[1:19:49] your unique makeup. There's not a lot of

[1:19:51] commercial here.

[1:19:53] >> Yeah.

[1:19:53] >> And usually that's where you'll see a

[1:19:55] lot of those projects. Um so, we're

[1:19:57] talking about lower

[1:19:59] um

[1:19:59] a lower frequency of projects. We still

[1:20:02] not to say that you're not getting

[1:20:03] projects coming in, but they're not the

[1:20:05] types of projects that are associated

[1:20:07] with um commercial projects.

[1:20:08] >> Yeah.

[1:20:09] >> Um and so, it yes, I would say that

[1:20:11] you're very

[1:20:12] comparable in that

[1:20:14] >> Okay.

[1:20:15] And in terms of the questions you have

[1:20:17] for us on policy, how much up to 100%

[1:20:20] that we want to

[1:20:22] be saying um we should recover.

[1:20:26] It's a little

[1:20:29] I'm trying to process the the large

[1:20:31] swings in these numbers and how to think

[1:20:34] about it in terms of policy because

[1:20:37] we use the contractors more for

[1:20:39] planning, for example,

[1:20:41] um yet we may want to subsidize certain

[1:20:46] EDU

[1:20:47] uh out uh funds.

[1:20:50] Um but the 33% that we

[1:20:54] are currently recovering it as opposed

[1:20:57] to the 76%

[1:20:59] before you took into account the

[1:21:01] contractors,

[1:21:03] um it seems like there's just less room

[1:21:06] there to really subsidize much.

[1:21:09] Is that

[1:21:11] >> Well, I mean I I think I would look at

[1:21:12] it like

[1:21:15] it it's now a known known

[1:21:17] from the perspective of we have this

[1:21:19] half a million dollar subsidy.

[1:21:20] >> Mhm.

[1:21:21] >> And

[1:21:22] uh

[1:21:24] as Sakti was saying, you know, it's it

[1:21:26] it's not that bad

[1:21:27] >> Mhm.

[1:21:28] >> comparatively speaking, right? And so I

[1:21:30] think then the question becomes what

[1:21:32] could we do with increases? Um so for

[1:21:35] example, you know, does it make sense to

[1:21:38] build institutional knowledge in

[1:21:40] planning?

[1:21:41] And maybe what we do is and maybe it's

[1:21:43] not tomorrow, maybe it's not the next

[1:21:45] year, maybe it's in two years, but the

[1:21:46] goal is is that we have an in-house

[1:21:48] planner.

[1:21:49] >> Mhm.

[1:21:50] >> Or we have somebody given the type of

[1:21:52] work that we get um from building plans.

[1:21:55] Um but maybe the goal is is that we want

[1:21:57] to increase these fees. We don't need to

[1:21:59] you don't need to rip the band-aid The

[1:22:00] other thing is you have to rip the

[1:22:01] band-aid off, right? Our goal could be

[1:22:03] 100% and our goal can be to achieve that

[1:22:04] 100% in two or three years or four

[1:22:07] years. So we can take a while to get

[1:22:09] there.

[1:22:10] >> Okay.

[1:22:10] >> But again, I think it's it's

[1:22:12] I think it's taking a look at what could

[1:22:14] you be doing with that additional

[1:22:16] funding, whether it's in planning and

[1:22:18] building and engineering and parks and

[1:22:20] recreation, or whether it's um

[1:22:24] hopefully not

[1:22:26] opening a wound here, but you could be

[1:22:27] using the tops at animal services.

[1:22:29] Right? Like they could be using it

[1:22:30] elsewhere.

[1:22:31] >> Animal services.

[1:22:33] Okay.

[1:22:34] that's that's helpful. Um

[1:22:37] now getting down to Tony's

[1:22:40] couple of slides, you were identifying

[1:22:43] solar panels, business license

[1:22:45] applications, recreational fees, and

[1:22:48] sports user fees as areas where there

[1:22:52] could be some policy

[1:22:54] considerations, and you kind of put your

[1:22:56] thumb on the scale on a couple of those

[1:22:57] saying

[1:22:58] we want to encourage compliance, so we

[1:23:00] don't we might not want to go to 100%

[1:23:03] for example on the business license.

[1:23:06] Um so drilling down into that solar

[1:23:08] panels, there's a couple of different

[1:23:10] charges. There's EV stations, and then

[1:23:14] there's storage. So if you're talking

[1:23:16] about solar panels, how do I translate

[1:23:19] that into the numbers in the matrix

[1:23:21] report?

[1:23:27] » So the if we're talking about solar

[1:23:29] panels

[1:23:30] uh and most people are going to be the

[1:23:31] single-family residential.

[1:23:33] >> Mhm.

[1:23:34] >> Um so you're either going to have

[1:23:35] roof-mounted

[1:23:36] >> Yep.

[1:23:37] >> roof

[1:23:37] or ground-mounted. Uh and it'll be per

[1:23:40] kilowatt. So that's going to be

[1:23:41] primarily there. Uh the

[1:23:43] >> Okay.

[1:23:43] >> the chargers

[1:23:45] right? So I want to uh I've got a Tesla

[1:23:47] or whatever, and I want to do that.

[1:23:49] That's going to be your energy storage

[1:23:51] system. The ESS, that's the batteries.

[1:23:54] Um and then we also there's also the

[1:23:56] solar app

[1:23:57] that is there. But those would be your

[1:23:59] primary fees that would impact 90%.

[1:24:02] >> That policy, okay. Business license

[1:24:04] apps, I get. The recreational fees

[1:24:08] um looking at those sport user fees

[1:24:11] $44, 137. Are those per participant?

[1:24:17] They are. So how are they paid? Like you

[1:24:22] the the soccer organization comes and

[1:24:24] says we have X number of people

[1:24:26] >> Yes, they they submit their application, they

[1:24:30] identify the number of participants, and

[1:24:32] it's

[1:24:33] per

[1:24:35] So, it's currently 44 per

[1:24:37] I think for the soccer league it's 44

[1:24:38] per participant.

[1:24:39] >> Okay.

[1:24:40] >> Um and um

[1:24:43] and then yeah, they they submit their Do they pay by check,

[1:24:47] credit card, e-check?

[1:24:48] >> Okay.

[1:24:49] >> They can pay them online.

[1:24:51] >> Okay. And then they handle distributing

[1:24:54] those charges however they will in their

[1:24:56] own organization.

[1:24:57] >> Yeah, in their own organization, but on

[1:24:59] our end there's a deposit. Um and

[1:25:01] there's also including in that deposit

[1:25:03] is

[1:25:04] you know, um

[1:25:06] just um

[1:25:08] how they leave the the conditions of the

[1:25:09] field.

[1:25:10] >> Mhm.

[1:25:11] >> Uh but uh the deposits are are refunded

[1:25:13] when the season's over.

[1:25:15] >> Okay. And um getting down to the last

[1:25:18] questions,

[1:25:19] um

[1:25:20] so if you I don't know if you can

[1:25:23] might not be easy to flip to that uh

[1:25:25] slide

[1:25:27] um but

[1:25:29] are these all areas where

[1:25:31] you're kind of saying people often

[1:25:34] subsidize more? In other words, go for

[1:25:36] less than 100% recovery?

[1:25:40] For all of them, I just wanted to

[1:25:41] confirm my understanding of what you

[1:25:43] were saying.

[1:26:18] » Work really well.

[1:26:19] >> Are you talking about the recreation

[1:26:23] breakdown?

[1:26:24] >> Uh

[1:26:26] Yes, that's the slide cuz you're you're

[1:26:28] kind of having recommended rates. So,

[1:26:30] that's the one I just wanted to look at

[1:26:33] again.

[1:26:33] >> Mhm.

[1:26:34] >> So, field rentals at 100%

[1:26:38] but then there's an indent for local

[1:26:40] organized adult youth

[1:26:41] >> Mhm.

[1:26:42] >> So, can you explain for example the

[1:26:44] field rental organization here? What's

[1:26:47] 100%?

[1:26:48] >> So, it's 100% of its full cost.

[1:26:52] >> Mhm.

[1:26:52] >> Um and that's what's reflected in the

[1:26:55] recommended rate in the fee schedule.

[1:26:58] >> Okay.

[1:26:58] >> However,

[1:26:59] um

[1:27:01] there's another

[1:27:05] slide that they or another

[1:27:07] spreadsheet they provided that said

[1:27:09] you know, the the 80% of the So, it's

[1:27:12] 80% of the 137.

[1:27:16] Um so, that's

[1:27:18] >> Mhm.

[1:27:18] >> still

[1:27:20] it goes from 44

[1:27:22] to 80% of that number, which is still

[1:27:24] pretty significant increase

[1:27:26] uh to these

[1:27:28] uh local organized groups. So,

[1:27:32] you know, the

[1:27:34] council's being asked, you know, do we

[1:27:35] want to set it at 100%? Do we want to

[1:27:37] set it at 80%? Or do we want to

[1:27:39] >> Mhm.

[1:27:40] >> uh maybe come in at a lower percentage.

[1:27:44] That way it's not

[1:27:45] >> much of a um

[1:27:48] shock to the groups.

[1:27:50] >> Um

[1:27:51] >> And like I said, they do provide almost

[1:27:53] half of the revenue.

[1:27:54] Uh actually a little more than half of

[1:27:56] the revenue for recreation.

[1:27:57] >> Mhm.

[1:27:58] >> Um but

[1:27:59] with all fee studies, there's always

[1:28:01] going to be sticker shock at the initial

[1:28:03] um

[1:28:04] >> I think it's both.

[1:28:05] >> Yeah.

[1:28:06] >> Um and but, you know, it's just this is full cost recovery. However,

[1:28:11] council can go and

[1:28:13] we

[1:28:14] and shift levers on certain off certain

[1:28:16] categories of costs.

[1:28:18] Taking into consideration one compliance

[1:28:20] or you just want to subsidize because I

[1:28:22] mean

[1:28:23] with recreation is there is a group

[1:28:26] benefit, not necessarily a specific

[1:28:27] benefit

[1:28:28] uh to the individual and it's also

[1:28:30] voluntary.

[1:28:31] >> Mhm.

[1:28:31] >> So, um those were some considerations

[1:28:33] that council prepared.

[1:28:34] >> So, so the way to read this is $137 per

[1:28:38] participant is

[1:28:40] what's on the matrix schedule.

[1:28:43] And you're kind of dangling out there. I

[1:28:45] don't know if the 80% is what we

[1:28:47] currently

[1:28:49] charge or what the $44 equated to or

[1:28:52] you're just saying 137%

[1:28:55] >> We are currently charging 44.

[1:28:57] >> Right.

[1:28:58] >> Full cost is 137.

[1:29:00] >> Right.

[1:29:01] >> Recommendation is 80% of 137.

[1:29:04] >> Yeah, okay. Got it.

[1:29:06] Okay, if you could just leave that up

[1:29:08] there I'll I'll peruse it while I'm

[1:29:10] people ask questions.

[1:29:13] » You're done?

[1:29:14] Great, thank you. Helen.

[1:29:16] >> Um so similar to council member Pascoe,

[1:29:21] um I did not see the other

[1:29:24] email coming at 4:46 this afternoon

[1:29:26] because I was at work.

[1:29:29] Um

[1:29:30] that that's unfortunate. So can I just

[1:29:32] go explain the one that we were sent

[1:29:35] originally and I worked off of?

[1:29:38] Could you explain that, please?

[1:29:41] >> Oh, and just to be clear, the only

[1:29:43] change between what we got before and

[1:29:46] most recently but was that just this

[1:29:48] table or did that trickle through

[1:29:50] everything that's there? Just this top

[1:29:51] level table, right?

[1:29:52] >> It only impacted the what the the

[1:29:55] allowable revenue deduction.

[1:29:57] >> Right, so that's just table two.

[1:29:59] >> The table two full cost recovery table.

[1:30:02] >> And there's a table in

[1:30:04] table

[1:30:05] 10, also.

[1:30:07] >> Okay.

[1:30:08] >> It's in the

[1:30:09] annual impact section.

[1:30:12] Um cuz they're essentially the same

[1:30:13] table.

[1:30:14] Um but that was the table that was

[1:30:16] impacted. Um but to kind of reiterate

[1:30:20] what changed

[1:30:21] um is that before

[1:30:23] um the table was capturing costs and and revenue that was not

[1:30:30] town related

[1:30:32] and or in the case of with public works

[1:30:35] um not only just fee related. So, I'll

[1:30:38] use public works as the example um that

[1:30:41] public works as a as a budget unit

[1:30:44] includes field maintenance and um other

[1:30:47] kinds of public works related things

[1:30:49] that are not fee related. Um so, that

[1:30:51] was kind of artificially um inflating

[1:30:54] what the cost of fee related services

[1:30:56] was and that's what we wanted to do was

[1:30:59] um be clearer and more transparent about

[1:31:02] what you know, before was making it look

[1:31:05] like, "Oh, you could generate I think

[1:31:07] the number

[1:31:08] to a million dollars, but that was not

[1:31:10] revenue that the town was actually going

[1:31:13] to generate um and nor was it accurately

[1:31:15] representing the town's cost.

[1:31:18] You have consultants, those are costs

[1:31:19] that you pay, but they're immediately

[1:31:21] offset through pass through of that

[1:31:23] revenue. So, that's why we adjusted that

[1:31:26] table because we wanted to be clearer um

[1:31:28] about what we're doing.

[1:31:30] >> Okay.

[1:31:30] >> all those and not getting

[1:31:32] noticing that sooner and not getting

[1:31:34] that

[1:31:35] >> Okay.

[1:31:36] Thank you.

[1:31:37] Um

[1:31:38] a couple of specific questions.

[1:31:41] Um

[1:31:42] uh

[1:31:43] in terms of

[1:31:46] uh temporary What What is a temporary

[1:31:49] occupancy permit versus a

[1:31:51] permanent occupancy permit?

[1:31:55] » I'll take that one.

[1:31:56] >> Okay.

[1:31:58] » A temporary occupancy permit is one

[1:32:01] that's given when the building permit

[1:32:03] isn't 100% final. Maybe they haven't

[1:32:06] completed landscaping.

[1:32:08] They have to have met all life, health,

[1:32:10] and safety requirements, but for a

[1:32:12] bigger project, it may be that a small

[1:32:15] component is delayed that doesn't affect

[1:32:18] the ability of humans to safely habitat the building. And we do charge

[1:32:23] for that because it's

[1:32:25] it is quite a bit of time to go through

[1:32:27] the process to validate that it's safe.

[1:32:30] And then ultimately they get the final

[1:32:31] certificate of occupancy. Could It can

[1:32:34] be anywhere from 3 months as long as

[1:32:36] I've seen it even be 2 years later where

[1:32:38] they get that.

[1:32:39] >> Great. Thank you.

[1:32:41] Okay.

[1:32:42] Um

[1:32:44] in terms of public agencies versus

[1:32:47] nonprofits,

[1:32:49] um

[1:32:51] obviously other public agencies, the two

[1:32:54] that I can think of recently have been

[1:32:56] Congressman Sam Liccardo hosting an

[1:32:59] event, and then Assemblymember Mark

[1:33:01] Berman.

[1:33:03] Neither of those teams have any budget

[1:33:05] for hosting

[1:33:07] those type of events actually. So, if we

[1:33:10] were to charge them, the town

[1:33:12] like is

[1:33:14] like were you we thinking of different

[1:33:17] public agencies and or what type of

[1:33:19] public agencies are we usually talking

[1:33:21] about here?

[1:33:22] >> So, the specific example for that was

[1:33:25] Monterey County or

[1:33:27] San Mateo County

[1:33:29] has They'll They've They've had like

[1:33:31] work events here.

[1:33:33] >> Ah.

[1:33:33] >> Uh and like they've had They've taken

[1:33:35] over the community hall for like 3 days

[1:33:37] and

[1:33:38] I mean, they just take over the whole

[1:33:40] complex. And so, uh there was no fee in

[1:33:43] place for public agencies. So, this is

[1:33:46] specifically

[1:33:47] uh shouldn't say specifically, but any

[1:33:49] other public agency that wants to use

[1:33:50] the community hall for any type of

[1:33:53] retreat or

[1:33:54] >> For a actual rental versus hosting a

[1:33:57] >> Yeah.

[1:33:57] >> out, you know a community event for the

[1:33:59] town. Okay, thank you for clarifying.

[1:34:02] >> And then can I just follow on that just

[1:34:03] to mean so in the the other two cases

[1:34:06] like say San Mateo I mean

[1:34:08] would we charge them or be is he

[1:34:10] basically coming because we've invited

[1:34:11] him to come?

[1:34:13] >> Um

[1:34:15] >> Yeah, we don't charge because we're

[1:34:16] co-hosts.

[1:34:17] >> Yeah, exactly. So I just I just wanted

[1:34:19] to clarify that.

[1:34:19] >> Yeah, we are co-hosts. We waive that

[1:34:21] fee. We also sometimes waive fees for

[1:34:23] example third events like for the

[1:34:26] Woodside uh

[1:34:29] things like that where they're partner

[1:34:31] agencies with us.

[1:34:32] >> Yes. And this is a case-by-case basis

[1:34:34] that we evaluate.

[1:34:36] >> Um thank you. Um next question about the

[1:34:39] solar

[1:34:40] uh

[1:34:42] in your calculation so currently

[1:34:45] the solar

[1:34:47] I hope I get this straight. My

[1:34:49] understanding is that solar

[1:34:52] installations

[1:34:55] um

[1:34:56] currently have a property ex- tax

[1:34:59] exclusion.

[1:35:01] So that expires in January 1st of 2027

[1:35:06] is my understanding. It sunsets. So

[1:35:11] does your calculation take into account

[1:35:14] I'm assuming it doesn't but I just want

[1:35:16] to make sure it doesn't take into

[1:35:18] account any of the

[1:35:20] tax reve- potential tax revenue that

[1:35:23] will be incurred from solar. Is that

[1:35:26] correct?

[1:35:29] » That is correct. It only looks at what

[1:35:31] is it what's the service that's being

[1:35:33] provided, right? So what do we need to

[1:35:34] do do those plans and conduct those

[1:35:37] inspections to make sure that it meets

[1:35:39] the code uh and what is the cost to the

[1:35:42] town to provide

[1:35:46] » Okay, thank you. Um in terms of uh field

[1:35:49] rentals back to field rentals um

[1:35:52] and I'm glad the slide is still up here.

[1:35:55] Um, is there any difference some cities

[1:35:57] I know do a difference um,

[1:36:00] for the AYSO volunteer model versus the

[1:36:04] club model?

[1:36:06] Um, and I don't see that that and we do

[1:36:08] have both types of organized youth

[1:36:12] sports in around soccer in town. I'm not

[1:36:17] as familiar with baseball. So, um,

[1:36:20] Little League. So, I'm just curious if

[1:36:22] there would be a way to break it out.

[1:36:24] AYSO is volunteer led, far less

[1:36:27] expensive, provides easier access for

[1:36:30] instance,

[1:36:31] um, or lower cost access initially for

[1:36:35] kids

[1:36:37] um, and their families to try out the

[1:36:39] sport.

[1:36:40] Um,

[1:36:41] and I know like I know city of Mountain

[1:36:44] View breaks it out differently from

[1:36:47] um, club.

[1:36:49] I don't There's a different verbage, but

[1:36:52] um, for you know, I don't Some of the

[1:36:54] clubs are for profit, some of them are

[1:36:57] nonprofit. So, versus AYSO for instance,

[1:37:00] which is very volunteer based.

[1:37:04] Did that make any Did that So, basically

[1:37:06] could we further break it out for

[1:37:11] like a non-prof

[1:37:13] I don't I don't know how you would do

[1:37:14] it, you know, for AYSO versus club. I'll

[1:37:17] leave it at that. Yes. So,

[1:37:20] >> Uh, you can you could make those

[1:37:23] designations.

[1:37:24] Uh, some jurisdictions kind of stick

[1:37:26] high level resident, non-resident,

[1:37:28] profit, for profit.

[1:37:29] Uh, and other jurisdictions will kind of

[1:37:31] really get into the nitty-gritty and, you know, resident, for profit,

[1:37:35] resident, non-profit, that kind of

[1:37:36] stuff. So, if if that was what you

[1:37:38] wanted to do was to further subsidize or

[1:37:40] promote more volunteer based organized

[1:37:44] sports youth or adult, um, you could

[1:37:47] certainly create additional categories

[1:37:48] in your business plan.

[1:37:50] >> Okay, thank you.

[1:37:52] Let me just make sure let me see what

[1:37:54] else I have.

[1:37:56] Can we also talk about

[1:37:59] the tree permit?

[1:38:03] Okay.

[1:38:07] Where is that tree removal permit?

[1:38:10] Obviously,

[1:38:12] your recommended tree cost

[1:38:15] compared to the average fee of other towns is almost

[1:38:23] at least double if not triple.

[1:38:26] So, I am curious and right now I think

[1:38:31] current fee is under $100. You're

[1:38:32] recommending a 10% or 10 time increase

[1:38:36] to $1,000.

[1:38:37] Can I get clarification on that where

[1:38:39] that

[1:38:41] cost comes from?

[1:38:44] recommendation

[1:38:46] >> So, that it's the report is just telling you what it's

[1:38:50] costing the town to provide that. So,

[1:38:53] and I would say that they can look at

[1:38:55] from a comparison perspective.

[1:38:58] Tree removal

[1:39:01] especially in the Bay Area can be a hot

[1:39:05] button item and is often something that

[1:39:07] is subsidized. So, when you see

[1:39:09] something on somebody else's fee

[1:39:10] schedule as a lower fee, it doesn't mean

[1:39:12] that their cost is lower. It means that

[1:39:15] they've that that's what they've chosen

[1:39:16] to charge for that particular service.

[1:39:18] And I will say that

[1:39:20] you know, we I have seen

[1:39:22] in my experience in

[1:39:25] other like I said Bay Area jurisdictions

[1:39:27] where tree removal can be something that

[1:39:30] especially back when we had all those

[1:39:32] storms a couple of years ago,

[1:39:34] things like that that was something that

[1:39:37] was purposely chosen to be subsidized.

[1:39:41] But these are usually if you know this

[1:39:44] we're not talking about the tree got

[1:39:46] damaged by the storm. This is usually

[1:39:49] you know, I don't want this tree here

[1:39:50] because I want to build an extension.

[1:39:52] So those are the types of things and

[1:39:54] given the promotion of forestry

[1:39:58] and things like that that kind of goes

[1:40:00] along with that and and

[1:40:02] usually maybe arborists and other people

[1:40:03] to come in for that. But again, that's

[1:40:07] what it's costing you to provide the

[1:40:08] service. It's not

[1:40:10] Again,

[1:40:11] you have the

[1:40:13] ability to set that fee lower.

[1:40:18] » Could you clarify

[1:40:20] where those costs are?

[1:40:23] And

[1:40:24] like

[1:40:25] is it staff time? Is it I mean, we only

[1:40:29] have three species that are heritage

[1:40:32] trees in town.

[1:40:34] Um

[1:40:35] So and then it goes before you know, the

[1:40:40] tree our tree board.

[1:40:42] So could I get clarification on where

[1:40:47] $1,000 per tree and is it per tree or is

[1:40:49] it per

[1:40:50] right?

[1:40:52] >> I don't think it's per tree.

[1:40:59] » It's a tree permit. So

[1:41:02] tree removal.

[1:41:15] » So it's a it's a deposit.

[1:41:17] >> Okay.

[1:41:18] >> Meaning that the town would we would

[1:41:20] take the $1,000 deposit. You bill

[1:41:22] against it.

[1:41:23] If it didn't cost you that much, right?

[1:41:25] You would return the difference.

[1:41:27] For some reason it took more time than

[1:41:29] that. You would take

[1:41:31] request more funds. So it's not a flat

[1:41:34] fee. And then so therefore it wouldn't

[1:41:36] be it could be one tree, it could be

[1:41:37] five trees.

[1:41:39] >> Got it. Thank you for clarifying. Okay,

[1:41:41] and can you and is it's expected staff

[1:41:44] time primarily? Is that where the ex-

[1:41:47] potential for cost could come from or

[1:41:49] are there other

[1:41:50] >> It's all staff time. I mean, it

[1:41:53] this is probably a place where we've got

[1:41:55] um, consultant

[1:41:57] time.

[1:41:58] Um, so it's not necessarily just staff

[1:42:00] who are

[1:42:01] um,

[1:42:02] paid by the town, right? Um, who are

[1:42:05] staff of the town, but uh, you know,

[1:42:07] you're getting an arborist involved. Um,

[1:42:09] other specialized people can be involved

[1:42:11] in it. So, that's where that cost comes

[1:42:12] from.

[1:42:13] >> Okay.

[1:42:15] Um, thank you.

[1:42:20] Let me just make sure. Okay.

[1:42:22] Um,

[1:42:28] And in terms of recreation, there's

[1:42:32] um,

[1:42:33] we seem to be missing some things.

[1:42:36] Like I didn't see

[1:42:39] the court fees. Maybe I just missed it.

[1:42:46] Okay, court fees are missing, I we

[1:42:48] think.

[1:42:50] For instance.

[1:42:57] Although I really liked the the the

[1:42:59] pricing right now.

[1:43:01] But

[1:43:03] >> I would have to look into that. I don't

[1:43:05] know that those were part of

[1:43:08] I don't know that that was in the fiscal

[1:43:09] year 2020.

[1:43:11] >> Okay.

[1:43:12] >> I can look into that.

[1:43:13] >> Okay.

[1:43:14] great. Um, thank you. Those were

[1:43:16] my questions.

[1:43:18] >> Thank you, Helen. Rebecca.

[1:43:21] >> Uh, yes. Um, I wanted to just start with

[1:43:24] sort of a process

[1:43:26] question. Um,

[1:43:29] So, there were three things we were

[1:43:30] supposed to consider and I'm looking at

[1:43:32] Tony's slide right here in terms of

[1:43:34] recommendations just for

[1:43:36] um

[1:43:37] recreation.

[1:43:39] And um it has all these percents and it

[1:43:41] sounds like we have to kind of do the

[1:43:43] percents in our head versus the fee

[1:43:46] schedule that's listed in the document.

[1:43:48] So that's a little challenging.

[1:43:51] Um is the expectation is that we just

[1:43:54] accept these recommendations that staff

[1:43:56] have provided and then we

[1:43:58] vote for this fee study and then that's

[1:44:00] it or is this fee study based on all our

[1:44:03] questions

[1:44:05] going to come back again for another

[1:44:08] public hearing? What what what is the

[1:44:10] process we're doing tonight?

[1:44:17] » Yes, we are reviewing and

[1:44:20] trying to establish some uh

[1:44:22] cost

[1:44:23] um recovery levels.

[1:44:25] Um

[1:44:26] we can continue the item uh to a future

[1:44:29] meeting and I still have to close

[1:44:32] uh the public hearing

[1:44:34] um if we don't come to a consensus

[1:44:35] tonight. Um but uh or we can agree to

[1:44:41] uh adopt the fees that we

[1:44:43] are

[1:44:44] uh okay with at at the recommended rate.

[1:44:47] Uh we'd still continue

[1:44:49] uh for items that we haven't come to a

[1:44:52] consensus on tonight.

[1:44:55] » Okay. Um

[1:44:57] So

[1:44:59] my other question is as I understand it,

[1:45:02] you spoke to staff. Our staff is brand

[1:45:04] new, so

[1:45:06] I'm not 100% sure they would really have

[1:45:08] a good sense of how much something

[1:45:09] takes, you know, except that they have

[1:45:11] experience working in other

[1:45:13] jurisdictions.

[1:45:14] Um I assume that you spoke to Good City

[1:45:17] who does a lot of our planning

[1:45:20] and to maybe CSG and some of our others

[1:45:22] to get a sense of how much time it takes

[1:45:25] to do these planning and building

[1:45:26] checks. is that a good understanding of

[1:45:29] how the process went?

[1:45:31] >> Yes, we talked with both town staff and

[1:45:34] the various consultants

[1:45:36] that the town utilizes to provide those

[1:45:38] services.

[1:45:39] And then if there were

[1:45:42] deviations, let's say,

[1:45:44] between what we've seen in other

[1:45:46] jurisdictions,

[1:45:48] we had conversations about why that is.

[1:45:50] You know, for example,

[1:45:51] your planning code could be different

[1:45:53] than Hillsborough's planning code.

[1:45:55] So what might take them 2 hours to

[1:45:58] review could take you 4 hours to review.

[1:46:00] So there was also that kind of vetting

[1:46:02] and understanding if something seemed

[1:46:05] extraordinarily

[1:46:08] excessive or extraordinarily kind of

[1:46:13] under

[1:46:14] you know, under the time. You know, we

[1:46:17] had those conversations with staff to

[1:46:18] understand to make sure that we weren't missing something one way or

[1:46:21] the other.

[1:46:22] That if there was something unique about

[1:46:26] the town,

[1:46:27] which would

[1:46:29] mean that time estimates were higher or

[1:46:30] lower than someone else,

[1:46:32] that we kind of vetted that information.

[1:46:35] >> So in terms of unique, I know that the

[1:46:37] consultants have mentioned many times

[1:46:39] that our code is excessively complex and

[1:46:42] therefore it takes much longer to

[1:46:45] do planning projects, for example.

[1:46:48] Um

[1:46:49] And then we have the issue of our

[1:46:51] planning consultants tend to be a

[1:46:53] revolving door.

[1:46:55] So we're constantly having to retrain

[1:46:58] people, so things of course take longer.

[1:47:01] Um

[1:47:03] So I'm just wondering, I mean, I

[1:47:04] understand you kind of compared it to

[1:47:05] other jurisdictions, but and you

[1:47:07] mentioned at the beginning that you're

[1:47:08] kind of between a junior employee versus

[1:47:11] an experienced employee. You're trying

[1:47:12] to find a middle ground, but

[1:47:15] I guess I'm not totally clear on where you even found a middle-ground

[1:47:22] person given the the change, you know, how much

[1:47:27] turmoil we've had in planning for the

[1:47:29] past, you know, 2 years or whatever.

[1:47:36] » I think that um you know, like I said,

[1:47:38] the um

[1:47:40] there can be you can have a

[1:47:43] more complex code. Um it doesn't

[1:47:45] necessarily mean the time estimates

[1:47:46] could be double that of somebody else.

[1:47:49] Um so, you would you know, kind of take

[1:47:51] a look at is it within a reasonable

[1:47:54] range that you would see for a for a

[1:47:56] tree removal, for a conditional use

[1:47:58] permit, um for any of those items. Um

[1:48:02] and there were certainly discussions

[1:48:03] with with staff and with management to

[1:48:05] say, "You know what? Um you know, I'm

[1:48:08] new and this this will take me an hour,

[1:48:10] but it should only take me 45." You

[1:48:12] know, something, you know, think having

[1:48:14] discussions like that. And then pegging

[1:48:16] those assumptions based on that, and

[1:48:19] looking at what you know, what it should

[1:48:21] take, not necessarily what it is.

[1:48:25] >> Okay. And then um when we talk about

[1:48:28] recovery of fees, so when I look at this

[1:48:31] new table

[1:48:33] for planning, we're only getting 33%.

[1:48:37] That's I think our lowest, but yet when

[1:48:40] I look at the fee schedule, it seems to

[1:48:42] me as if we've lowered a lot of our

[1:48:45] planning fees, or maybe I think I mean,

[1:48:49] it was this is a lot to absorb. Um

[1:48:52] Is is that correct, or was am I

[1:48:54] confusing with building fees?

[1:48:58] >> Well, I think there there is a

[1:48:59] difference between So, the the detailed

[1:49:02] table is giving you you per unit result.

[1:49:05] Um and depending on where your workload

[1:49:08] is, right? So, you could have a lot of

[1:49:09] fees that are going down, and then you

[1:49:12] have only a handful of fees that are

[1:49:13] going up, but if your workload is where

[1:49:16] the fees are going up, right? You would

[1:49:19] see a a greater

[1:49:20] um subsidy. So, that's

[1:49:23] And it And it's hard because we didn't

[1:49:24] There isn't great information on

[1:49:26] specific workload tied to the way the

[1:49:29] fee schedule is structured to be able to

[1:49:32] do a detailed line item comparison,

[1:49:33] which is why it's kind of this

[1:49:35] high-level

[1:49:36] um cost to revenue comparison.

[1:49:39] Um but that's why you will see a mix of

[1:49:42] things going up or things going down,

[1:49:43] but still showing um a deficit.

[1:49:48] » But these fees are set in a way to get

[1:49:51] rid of that planning deficit. Is that

[1:49:54] correct?

[1:49:56] >> I believe the recommendation is to set

[1:49:59] fees such that you would eliminate the

[1:50:01] subsidy.

[1:50:04] >> Okay. And then um our planning and building departments

[1:50:08] are going through a huge uh new software

[1:50:12] implementation project, and they're

[1:50:14] going back through all of our processes

[1:50:17] to kind of figure out what's inefficient

[1:50:20] and to try to make it more efficient. Um

[1:50:23] Do Do you think these fees these new

[1:50:26] fees are taking into account these

[1:50:29] future efficiencies, or are they just

[1:50:31] looking kind of backwards into what

[1:50:34] has been the history of how long it

[1:50:36] takes a good city planner, for example, to

[1:50:39] deal with a particular type of

[1:50:41] application? I mean

[1:50:45] » So, I think if if it's a

[1:50:48] if it's something that was if it was a

[1:50:50] known

[1:50:53] quantitative

[1:50:54] um process change

[1:50:58] that was coming down the pipe, let's say

[1:50:59] in the next 6 months, then that process

[1:51:02] change would have been accounted for.

[1:51:05] But if it's um I I use AI as the

[1:51:08] example, right? We It's there, it's

[1:51:10] coming. There are a lot of different

[1:51:12] ways that it can be incorporated, but we

[1:51:15] don't know how it's going to be used. We

[1:51:17] don't know how specific the town may

[1:51:18] want to. So, trying to estimate

[1:51:23] um impacts on time estimates wouldn't be

[1:51:25] appropriate in this case.

[1:51:26] But, that's again why we kind of have

[1:51:28] that recommendation for at that

[1:51:30] reevaluation within every 5 to 7 years,

[1:51:33] or if some I mean, you could do it

[1:51:34] sooner if you had some significant um

[1:51:37] technological change um to take a look

[1:51:41] then at how is that impacting the

[1:51:43] process. I will say though that

[1:51:44] sometimes the technology

[1:51:47] makes it faster, it doesn't always make

[1:51:50] it cheaper.

[1:51:51] Um because there's the cost of the

[1:51:52] technology. So, there is this you know,

[1:51:55] like I said, it can make the process

[1:51:56] happen faster, you can get that permit

[1:51:58] within a day, within a week, within a

[1:52:00] month where it might have been 3 months,

[1:52:01] 6 months. Um but, there is a cost to

[1:52:04] that technology, and that's also

[1:52:05] something that has to be considered um

[1:52:07] in that.

[1:52:11] » Okay.

[1:52:12] And um

[1:52:14] I guess I have some individual questions

[1:52:17] related to the various fees, but um I

[1:52:21] don't want to

[1:52:23] belabor too many of them, but um

[1:52:29] Uh let's see. Engineering

[1:52:32] what are the typical revenues for

[1:52:35] engineering? Is that just curb cuts? Is

[1:52:37] that Is that the type of revenues that

[1:52:39] we typically get?

[1:52:45] » I'll answer.

[1:52:45] >> I think encroachment permits.

[1:52:47] >> Yeah, we see actually quite a bit of

[1:52:49] encroachment permits, not just for like

[1:52:51] construct residential construction, like

[1:52:53] curb cuts, but actually the utilities

[1:52:55] have been pulling a lot of permit.

[1:52:59] AT&T, PG&E, they're all required to get

[1:53:01] town permits, and then they have

[1:53:03] sometimes have all just say complex

[1:53:04] traffic control plans, so that takes a

[1:53:07] bit of time to review.

[1:53:09] >> And our resident and our residential

[1:53:11] project required to provide uh traffic

[1:53:16] >> Not typically.

[1:53:18] Because they're not shutting down a

[1:53:19] street or partially closing a street.

[1:53:22] >> Okay. And then the my understanding is

[1:53:24] the building permit fees are now going

[1:53:26] to be based on

[1:53:28] um

[1:53:30] deposits based on valuation.

[1:53:35] Uh

[1:53:36] um is that what the way it was currently

[1:53:38] or is that new?

[1:53:42] » Um they it it it is not a deposit. It

[1:53:46] would be a flat fee, but it would be

[1:53:47] based on

[1:53:49] the value of the project.

[1:53:51] Um I believe previously there was some

[1:53:55] um consideration for square footage.

[1:53:59] >> Mhm.

[1:54:00] >> Um

[1:54:01] And so it it it is a it's converting it

[1:54:04] it's a common

[1:54:06] mechanism for

[1:54:08] assessing

[1:54:10] building permits.

[1:54:11] >> So when I look at the table, it it

[1:54:13] struck me as a little odd when you're

[1:54:15] 2,000 to 25,000, each additional

[1:54:18] thousand is 14, and then for the next

[1:54:20] segment it's 12, so you're going down,

[1:54:24] and then for the 50 to 100,000 somehow

[1:54:26] the per thousand fraction thereof jump

[1:54:29] doubles, it goes up to almost doubles to

[1:54:31] 21, and then from there on each of the

[1:54:34] other segments each additional thousand,

[1:54:37] the numbers keep going down and down and

[1:54:38] down. So is there some reason the 50 to

[1:54:40] 100,000 that

[1:54:42] fraction

[1:54:43] price per thousand went up so much? I

[1:54:46] mean it it kind of went against the

[1:54:48] trend.

[1:54:52] » Well, that

[1:54:53] the um

[1:54:56] the the cost would be it it it based on

[1:54:59] the time estimates for for ranges. And

[1:55:00] so there are different types of projects

[1:55:02] that would fall into the this, the which

[1:55:05] can mean that it kind of increases a

[1:55:07] little bit. So you wouldn't necessarily

[1:55:09] always see it um

[1:55:11] continually decreasing from an each

[1:55:14] additional unit perspective.

[1:55:17] >> So you're saying that for projects

[1:55:18] typically in the 50 to 100,000, there's

[1:55:20] just a lot more

[1:55:22] smaller things that just take a lot more

[1:55:24] time. So therefore the the cost kind of

[1:55:27] needs to be higher.

[1:55:28] >> You kind of jump up into a different

[1:55:30] kind of level of of project. Yeah.

[1:55:33] >> Okay. And then under construction and

[1:55:35] demolition waste management review fee,

[1:55:37] it says each additional

[1:55:39] What does that refer to?

[1:55:42] This is page

[1:55:44] one 14 of the report, 145. Well,

[1:55:49] 145 of the original packet.

[1:55:53] So it says each additional.

[1:55:55] Is that ton?

[1:55:58] » I believe it's each additional review.

[1:56:02] Uh but I would have

[1:56:03] >> Oh, okay.

[1:56:05] And then it it has this

[1:56:08] technology surcharge and general plan

[1:56:10] maintenance fee are listed as 5% and

[1:56:12] 16%. What what does that refer to?

[1:56:16] >> So the technology surcharge and the

[1:56:18] general plan maintenance, those are are

[1:56:19] common surcharges that you will see. Um

[1:56:22] the technology surcharge is meant to

[1:56:25] account for um

[1:56:27] amortized costs associated with like the

[1:56:30] permitting system.

[1:56:31] Um so what we do is rather than layering

[1:56:33] that on as overhead, it's it's itemized

[1:56:37] as its own fee. Uh those revenues are

[1:56:39] put into a a special revenue fund, as it

[1:56:43] were.

[1:56:44] Uh and those monies are set aside

[1:56:45] specifically for

[1:56:47] um the replacement of technology costs.

[1:56:49] So you have a a nice permitting system.

[1:56:52] Uh eventually it will become out of date

[1:56:54] and you will need to get a new one.

[1:56:56] That's what those funds are for. The

[1:56:58] general plan maintenance fee um is to

[1:57:00] help offset impacts to the general plan

[1:57:05] associated with development.

[1:57:08] So, that's

[1:57:08] >> So, every building permit that comes in

[1:57:10] will be charged this building permit fee

[1:57:13] for the valuation of their project, and

[1:57:15] then they will be charged in addition

[1:57:17] this technology and general plan

[1:57:19] percentage of the

[1:57:21] original fee.

[1:57:23] Is that how I'm understanding these

[1:57:25] fees?

[1:57:26] >> Correct. Um and I'm not I

[1:57:29] would have to double-check, but I don't

[1:57:30] know the general plan fee gets applied

[1:57:32] to every building permit. Um I believe

[1:57:35] it's um I believe

[1:57:43] » Who would determine that?

[1:57:45] The

[1:57:47] I mean, when somebody comes and

[1:57:48] considers a permit, how do they know

[1:57:50] kind of

[1:57:52] a general sense of what that thing's

[1:57:53] going to cost without having to come

[1:57:55] into the town, have a staff, spend time

[1:57:58] figure out what it is

[1:58:00] for which they're charged presumably?

[1:58:02] So, you know, it's kind of you One would

[1:58:05] hope that one could look at the fee

[1:58:06] schedule and actually figure out before

[1:58:08] they walk in kind of what their project

[1:58:10] might cost cuz it goes into a

[1:58:12] determination of whether they really

[1:58:13] want to move forward with it or not

[1:58:16] per se. So, I I guess I'm a little

[1:58:18] unclear based on the way this is set up

[1:58:21] how people can read it to to understand

[1:58:24] what will be charged to them.

[1:58:27] >> Um well, I would say one that these are

[1:58:30] common fees and common ways of

[1:58:31] representing those fees. However, um

[1:58:34] there are some jurisdictions um where if

[1:58:37] that's a concern, they'll put examples

[1:58:40] on their website to say uh you know, for

[1:58:42] example, a common fees associated with

[1:58:45] an ADU or common fees associated with uh

[1:58:48] a renovation or a remodel. Um and

[1:58:51] they'll give examples so that it's help

[1:58:54] it helps the public understand what

[1:58:56] categories might be applicable because

[1:58:58] you might think, "Oh, I'm you know, I'm

[1:59:00] updating my you know, my kitchen." and

[1:59:02] you're only looking in one place, but

[1:59:03] there might actually be other

[1:59:05] that could be applicable.

[1:59:07] Um, and if you are navigating that as a DIY

[1:59:10] um, home improvement person,

[1:59:12] um, you know, it might be more

[1:59:13] complicated than obviously if you have

[1:59:16] an experienced contractor who is

[1:59:18] well-versed in in reading these types of

[1:59:20] fee schedules, but that is a way to kind

[1:59:22] of combat those issues if if the town

[1:59:25] thinks that that there could be that

[1:59:27] kind of confusion.

[1:59:29] >> So, once this is approved by town

[1:59:30] council, it takes 30 days, I think,

[1:59:32] before it starts getting implemented or

[1:59:34] is it we're we're planning to try to

[1:59:35] implement it by July 1st?

[1:59:39] >> The planning, building, and engineering

[1:59:42] fees require a 60-day waiting period.

[1:59:45] So, I believe the goal was September.

[1:59:47] >> August 1st.

[1:59:48] >> August. August 1st. Um, but the

[1:59:51] recreation and the administrative fees

[1:59:53] would be they would go into effect July

[1:59:55] 1st.

[1:59:56] >> And what is our staff bandwidth in order

[1:59:58] to put it onto the websites these

[2:00:01] examples that you're suggesting?

[2:00:05] And when would those go up?

[2:00:10] » Uh

[2:00:15] I mean, it would take some time on our effort on

[2:00:19] our part. Um, I don't have a time estimate for you

[2:00:23] at this time.

[2:00:25] » Can you give a range? I mean, if this

[2:00:27] were to go into place August 1st, would

[2:00:29] we have those examples up for the

[2:00:31] housing and for the building and

[2:00:32] planning numbers or are we talking end

[2:00:35] of year or something?

[2:00:36] >> We We could target for August 1st, but

[2:00:39] um

[2:00:40] you know, it's

[2:00:44] » Presumably, if you start implementing

[2:00:46] it, then you'll have some examples right

[2:00:48] then and there, but

[2:00:50] >> Right, but I mean, we'd have to come up

[2:00:52] with examples and develop it and then review it and then put it on

[2:00:56] the website.

[2:00:59] » And the staff time to um

[2:01:02] get trained up on these new numbers, is

[2:01:05] the software going to spit them out

[2:01:07] automatically or somebody going to

[2:01:09] actually have to kind of

[2:01:11] learn how to go through this?

[2:01:13] >> Someone's going to have to put it

[2:01:14] together, yes. But I don't have a time

[2:01:16] estimate for you.

[2:01:17] I don't know how long this is going to

[2:01:18] take.

[2:01:19] >> Okay, but it But will the software

[2:01:21] actually do the calculations or is that

[2:01:23] not part of the

[2:01:25] Yeah, part of the

[2:01:27] or software not able to do that?

[2:01:30] >> Sorry. Siracusa Planning Building

[2:01:32] Director. So, with the updated digital

[2:01:35] permitting software,

[2:01:38] we would have to ultimately incorporate

[2:01:40] this new master fee schedule within it.

[2:01:42] So, we've already talked to the person

[2:01:44] we're working with with OpenGov and gave

[2:01:46] them a heads-up about this new master

[2:01:47] fee schedule, how we're going to

[2:01:48] incorporate the fees. No matter what,

[2:01:50] it's going to be put into that and we're

[2:01:52] trying to roll that out almost around

[2:01:54] the same time,

[2:01:56] aiming for potentially August-September

[2:01:58] of launching the new permitting kind of

[2:02:01] process and software.

[2:02:03] So, as part of that project though,

[2:02:04] we'll also be rolling out a lot of the

[2:02:06] other information related to our

[2:02:09] permits, processing, and things like

[2:02:11] that. I think we could wrap in this

[2:02:13] information related to the fees well.

[2:02:16] >> Okay, that's great to hear.

[2:02:18] Um okay, going on the solar app for

[2:02:21] $191,

[2:02:23] what is that exactly? What what

[2:02:26] This is this external at soft software

[2:02:30] package?

[2:02:35] » Yeah, I mean, I I I don't want to get

[2:02:37] too technical on it cuz

[2:02:39] I'm not a solar expert, but yes, it is

[2:02:41] it's a new software package that is

[2:02:45] » So, somebody is paying to get 15 kW,

[2:02:48] they're paying the $450, and then

[2:02:50] they're paying the $191 for the solar

[2:02:52] app, which is provided I thought for

[2:02:54] free by the state.

[2:02:56] Um

[2:02:57] And then if they're putting battery,

[2:02:59] they also pay 536 for the battery

[2:03:01] storage. Is that my understanding if

[2:03:02] someone wants to put solar on their

[2:03:04] roof, they're out about a little over a thousand dollars?

[2:03:11] >> That is correct, although I don't know

[2:03:12] that the solar app is a requirement

[2:03:14] for it. So, all all in that might be,

[2:03:17] but I don't

[2:03:18] Again, I'm not 100% on that.

[2:03:22] >> Okay.

[2:03:23] Um it says in here under code

[2:03:25] enforcement that the fines are not

[2:03:28] actually included in the fee schedule.

[2:03:31] So, my understanding of fines are

[2:03:33] defined by the municipal code, is that

[2:03:35] correct?

[2:03:37] >> Correct.

[2:03:38] >> So, how do we go about changing the

[2:03:39] fines? Because um when I look at

[2:03:41] Woodside for tree illegal tree cutting,

[2:03:43] they charge $5,000 per tree for the

[2:03:46] first tree, and then I think it jumps to

[2:03:48] 7,500 for the second heritage tree, and

[2:03:50] then it gets to be like 10,000. Somebody

[2:03:52] was charged I think last year the year

[2:03:55] before $225,000

[2:03:57] for having cut 22 trees. Or I I don't

[2:03:59] know what I forget how many. But anyway,

[2:04:02] um it seems like we need to have our

[2:04:05] fines updated as well. So, why would

[2:04:07] that not be part of this fee schedule?

[2:04:11] >> That would require a code update.

[2:04:13] >> Yeah, I was going to say we're we're

[2:04:14] talking about the master fee schedule

[2:04:15] tonight, Rebecca, and that's those fines

[2:04:18] are in a different place. So, we could

[2:04:19] update our ordinance, but that's a

[2:04:21] different conversation than tonight.

[2:04:23] >> But why would fines not be part of a fee

[2:04:25] ordi- a fee part of the fees master fee

[2:04:28] schedule? Why are they in the ordinance

[2:04:29] and not in the fee schedule? That's my

[2:04:31] question.

[2:04:34] » I I part of the reason is because it's

[2:04:36] not a fee-based service. It's not a um

[2:04:39] it it is a penalty

[2:04:41] um

[2:04:42] for doing something that you shouldn't

[2:04:43] be doing. So, it's the the amount has no

[2:04:46] correlation to um staff time and cost.

[2:04:50] Uh and that's why it's not included in

[2:04:51] the fee study because it's not a

[2:04:53] service-based cost assessment.

[2:04:56] >> But, it takes service. It takes staff

[2:04:58] time. So, and part of our code

[2:05:00] enforcement

[2:05:02] here we want to recover our costs for

[2:05:04] code enforcement and a big chunk of that

[2:05:06] is involved in

[2:05:08] assessing a fee. So, that to me is the

[2:05:11] revenue of the code enforcement

[2:05:12] department. So, I'm a little confused

[2:05:15] about that. But,

[2:05:17] >> Hey Rebecca, can I ask that we move up a

[2:05:19] little bit? It it's going to get late

[2:05:20] and I haven't done my stuff yet. So, I

[2:05:23] was hoping you could wrap up. I feel

[2:05:24] we're we're starting to kind of deep

[2:05:26] dive.

[2:05:27] >> Well, I think that's the point, isn't

[2:05:29] it? To deep dive into this? We're

[2:05:30] changing all the fees for the entire

[2:05:32] community. I think it's I think that's

[2:05:34] the point of the town council to deep

[2:05:36] dive. I I don't know, but

[2:05:38] >> You're you're deep diving into fines,

[2:05:40] which isn't part of fees. So, I'm just

[2:05:42] trying to move us off the fines. And if

[2:05:44] you have more stuff on fees,

[2:05:46] we should continue on the fees.

[2:05:48] >> Okay.

[2:05:50] Um

[2:05:52] So, under code enforcement, it it says

[2:05:55] Oh shoot, I'm about to lose my battery

[2:05:56] here. I'm sorry. It says there's a fee

[2:05:59] inspection. So, if somebody calls in to

[2:06:01] complain about somebody,

[2:06:04] uh who gets charged that code

[2:06:06] enforcement fee?

[2:06:14] » I believe that this fee would be

[2:06:18] and somebody can correct me if I have

[2:06:19] the process wrong here, but if you if

[2:06:22] somebody calls to complain, code

[2:06:23] enforcement will come out and do an

[2:06:25] assessment. If

[2:06:27] something needs to be abated, they'll

[2:06:28] let you know, and they will give you

[2:06:30] time to appropriately abate the issue.

[2:06:34] If they come out again

[2:06:36] and you have not abated the issue, that

[2:06:39] would be kind of your first quote

[2:06:40] unquote inspection

[2:06:42] and that would be the $290.

[2:06:45] And any and any additional trips that

[2:06:47] they would need to take,

[2:06:48] um

[2:06:49] wherein you had not abated the issue,

[2:06:52] that would be the increased.

[2:06:56] » Okay.

[2:07:00] Um

[2:07:02] So, debris box, 194, is that just every

[2:07:05] debris box or only those that are put on

[2:07:07] the street?

[2:07:16] » I would have to defer to staff on that.

[2:07:19] >> It's listed under the header

[2:07:21] encroachment into public right-of-way,

[2:07:24] so it would be

[2:07:25] debris boxes in the street.

[2:07:31] » Okay. So, I

[2:07:33] Yeah, so fence wall,

[2:07:37] why would there be a fence or a wall in

[2:07:40] the public right-of-way?

[2:07:45] » It'd be pretty rare, but they have been

[2:07:47] known to happen.

[2:07:49] >> And that looks like it's only $17.

[2:07:52] I mean, that seems like a pretty serious

[2:07:54] issue. A fence in the right-of-way

[2:07:58] or a

[2:07:59] wall in the right-of-way.

[2:08:01] >> I I would believe it's $17 per linear

[2:08:03] foot.

[2:08:05] >> Okay. That makes more sense.

[2:08:08] Um

[2:08:13] Let's see.

[2:08:20] So, it's a pretty dramatic increase uh

[2:08:23] being recommended for the 51 for the

[2:08:27] site development permits?

[2:08:30] Um

[2:08:32] I assume it's just because there's

[2:08:33] somehow a lot of engineering involved in

[2:08:36] review engineering review involved. Is

[2:08:38] that why the prices are literally it

[2:08:41] would appear to be doubling?

[2:08:44] >> I would also

[2:08:46] call back to the beginning when we

[2:08:47] talked about it's been about 14 years

[2:08:50] since the last time these were actually

[2:08:52] studied. So, it's not so much that there

[2:08:55] has been a significant increase in

[2:08:57] service or cost. Um but that your

[2:09:00] current fees were not aligned

[2:09:02] appropriately with your cost of service.

[2:09:06] >> Okay.

[2:09:07] Um

[2:09:09] So, general plan amendment and zoning

[2:09:12] ordinance amendment, I'm now under

[2:09:14] planning, I guess.

[2:09:16] What do those refer to?

[2:09:23] » Um the a general plan amendment would be

[2:09:25] if somebody wanted

[2:09:27] plan. Um

[2:09:30] So, and you know, the general plan that

[2:09:32] you have as a town, if somebody wanted

[2:09:34] to make changes to that

[2:09:36] and that would be that was the other

[2:09:37] one. And then the zoning ordinance, is

[2:09:38] that the other one you were asking

[2:09:39] about?

[2:09:42] » So, an applicant is asking for a general

[2:09:44] plan amendment

[2:09:46] and they would pay $6,000 deposit for

[2:09:48] that. What I don't know I'm see what

[2:09:50] that's where that scenario would happen.

[2:09:53] >> Well, the fee schedule also has um

[2:09:57] services and and applications and

[2:10:00] processes for things that may be

[2:10:02] uncommon. Um general plan amendment is a

[2:10:04] very common thing to have on a fee

[2:10:06] schedule. Uh it's definitely something

[2:10:08] where should it happen, you want to have

[2:10:10] it on your schedule. Uh but the

[2:10:12] likelihood of it um actually being used

[2:10:15] or having been used in the last 5 or 10

[2:10:17] years is is minimal.

[2:10:20] >> So, why are we reducing the cost on

[2:10:21] those two? Because it seems like those

[2:10:23] are enormous amount of work. They

[2:10:24] require public hearings. They require a

[2:10:26] lot of staff, a lot of legal time. Why

[2:10:29] would we reduce the amount on those?

[2:10:31] >> Sarah, do you want to speak to this?

[2:10:36] » I can just chime in a little bit on

[2:10:37] this. So, also something to keep in mind

[2:10:39] with the planning fees is that they are

[2:10:42] deposit-based.

[2:10:44] So, there is opportunity if something

[2:10:46] did take longer and cost

[2:10:48] additional funding that you could cover

[2:10:51] those costs. Or if it costs less, you

[2:10:53] could get a refund as well. So, that's

[2:10:55] why we kept the planning at as a deposit

[2:10:58] because there is such variability

[2:11:00] sometimes with some of our projects

[2:11:03] because some of them ultimately might go

[2:11:05] through commission review and others

[2:11:07] will not. So, it's really just to

[2:11:09] accommodate the fact that we recognize

[2:11:11] this town and that there's a lot of

[2:11:13] different types of projects we get. And

[2:11:15] so, to make sure that we kept it

[2:11:16] flexible in that regard.

[2:11:21] » Okay. It seems like we're under pricing

[2:11:23] the deposit there and people are going

[2:11:25] to end for a bit for a huge shock once

[2:11:27] they do that if they want that. Um back

[2:11:30] on the tree removal permit, this one is

[2:11:33] concerning to me. I realize it's a

[2:11:35] deposit, but when we talk about arborist

[2:11:38] um we actually have the conservation

[2:11:41] committee is tasked with evaluating

[2:11:43] trees. They do that for free.

[2:11:45] Um so, I don't know where this thousand

[2:11:47] dollars why that people are being asked

[2:11:51] to put out a thousand dollars when the

[2:11:53] conservation committee does the work for

[2:11:55] free. So, are we planning to change our

[2:11:58] process and actually use a

[2:12:01] an arborist

[2:12:03] um

[2:12:04] for evaluating tree tree removal

[2:12:06] permits?

[2:12:10] » So, I'll just chime in that this was the

[2:12:11] best estimate for now for a deposit for

[2:12:14] a permit for tree removal. So, it does

[2:12:16] include planner time for this and

[2:12:19] coordination as well.

[2:12:22] >> So, I had removed some redwood trees a

[2:12:24] couple years ago,

[2:12:26] four of them, because they were

[2:12:28] encroaching on my foundation.

[2:12:31] Um it required me to fill out a paper

[2:12:33] one piece of paper. I had to provide

[2:12:35] pictures of the trees.

[2:12:38] Uh the staff sent that my application

[2:12:41] over to conservation. Conservation

[2:12:43] called me up, took a look at the

[2:12:44] pictures.

[2:12:44] >> Rebecca, Rebecca.

[2:12:45] >> Yes.

[2:12:46] >> like you're going I feel like you're

[2:12:47] going into discussion. Like you asked

[2:12:48] the staff a question, they've answered

[2:12:50] it. Um and now I think you're going into

[2:12:53] discussion on what you think it should

[2:12:54] be, which is fine, but we should hold

[2:12:56] that for the discussion period.

[2:12:58] >> Okay.

[2:13:00] Um so So, back on the tree, um were the conservation committee, were

[2:13:13] they consulted for for the cost and for

[2:13:16] these sorts of things?

[2:13:18] Since it's their responsibility.

[2:13:20] >> No, because I think as you stated, they

[2:13:22] volunteer their time for this.

[2:13:25] >> Okay. Um

[2:13:29] And then when we get into recreation, we

[2:13:31] have a note from the chair of the the

[2:13:33] parks and rec committee, where they said

[2:13:35] that they weren't consulted either. So,

[2:13:38] um

[2:13:39] and it would appear that

[2:13:41] um our fees are quite a bit more than

[2:13:44] some of our surrounding towns. So, was

[2:13:46] there a survey done of the surrounding towns

[2:13:50] in terms of

[2:13:52] field fees?

[2:13:58] » There There was a a look at that. Um

[2:14:01] again, there there's there's what it

[2:14:04] costs you and there's what it you choose

[2:14:07] to charge for the service.

[2:14:08] And parks and recreation would would be

[2:14:10] one of those areas where

[2:14:12] uh just cuz you see a number on another

[2:14:14] jurisdiction's schedule does not mean

[2:14:16] that that's what it's costing them to

[2:14:17] provide the service, it's what they've

[2:14:19] chosen to charge for that.

[2:14:21] So,

[2:14:21] um again, there will be differences in

[2:14:24] what that is and which is reflected in

[2:14:26] that kind of 50% cost recovery that we

[2:14:28] did with the DC in 20 to 50% cost

[2:14:30] recovery

[2:14:31] um for those uh particular rentals or uh

[2:14:36] programs, etc.

[2:14:39] >> Okay. And then under the community hall,

[2:14:41] um I you know, in general under the

[2:14:43] facility rental fees, I don't see

[2:14:44] anything for non-resident fees.

[2:14:49] So, if somebody non-resident wanted to

[2:14:51] rent the community hall who's not uh

[2:14:53] agency, who's not a non-profit, somebody

[2:14:56] wanted to have their wedding there,

[2:14:58] that's not a resident, what would their

[2:15:00] fee be? Or they are we not allowing

[2:15:02] that?

[2:15:04] >> So, we I'll Darcy Smith, I'll answer

[2:15:06] this one since it's been a subject that

[2:15:08] I've been contacted about many times.

[2:15:11] Um

[2:15:13] we're proposing to charge the same fee

[2:15:15] for residents and non-residents and

[2:15:17] agency

[2:15:19] um and the reason why is because the

[2:15:22] town

[2:15:23] cannot exclude non-residents.

[2:15:26] You do have the opportunity to reduce

[2:15:28] fees for residents if you want to, and

[2:15:30] that for example could come into field

[2:15:33] rentals for residents versus

[2:15:34] non-residents or

[2:15:37] community hall rentals, you could again

[2:15:39] subsidize the cost for residents, but

[2:15:41] it's really important that we do not

[2:15:43] have a fee schedule that's

[2:15:45] discriminatory or exclusionary to

[2:15:47] non-residents.

[2:15:50] >> But we can charge more.

[2:15:52] >> I I wouldn't say charge more, I would

[2:15:54] say you can charge the fee at 100% for

[2:15:58] non-residents and then reduce it to say

[2:16:02] 50% or 75% for residents. So, you would

[2:16:06] be

[2:16:07] subsidizing with local funds the local

[2:16:10] use of parks and recreation facilities

[2:16:13] by residents.

[2:16:17] And it's important to note that you can

[2:16:18] only do that if, for example, state

[2:16:20] funds or federal funds haven't been used

[2:16:23] to fund those recreation facilities, for

[2:16:25] example. So, for example, Ford Field was

[2:16:27] partially constructed with state funds,

[2:16:31] so you couldn't apply It would not be

[2:16:33] appropriate to apply to that.

[2:16:36] And that's just a little bit of a

[2:16:37] nuance.

[2:16:38] >> Ford Field would not be appropriate to

[2:16:40] subsidize?

[2:16:43] » Reduce the cost for residents in part

[2:16:47] because state funds were used to build

[2:16:50] the field.

[2:16:51] >> Oh, okay.

[2:16:54] So, when we're talking about soccer

[2:16:56] players playing at Ford or Ford Field is

[2:16:59] baseball or so or softball or Little

[2:17:02] League.

[2:17:04] » Correct, but I think most of the users

[2:17:06] are local. Our main field that's used by

[2:17:09] non-residents is Risati Field, and I'm

[2:17:12] not aware of any state or federal funds

[2:17:14] that were used with Risati's Field.

[2:17:17] >> And um I I see Ford Field parking lot.

[2:17:21] So,

[2:17:23] the commercial price there looks like

[2:17:25] it's going

[2:17:27] to 117

[2:17:30] and the parking lot is 3,500.

[2:17:33] Is this the the

[2:17:36] So, this is Ford Field. Do we have

[2:17:37] anything for the Risati's Field parking?

[2:17:41] >> So, the Risati's Field parking is a

[2:17:43] separate topic. It's not a user fee

[2:17:46] based on appraisal for market rent,

[2:17:49] which isn't covered in this fee

[2:17:51] schedule. And I just want to point out

[2:17:53] for the public and for the record that

[2:17:55] this parking lot fee is for a special

[2:17:58] event, which would not be a

[2:18:01] um

[2:18:02] a parking lot usage by a

[2:18:06] commercial use. It would be for

[2:18:07] something like a special event, like a

[2:18:08] commercial auto show or

[2:18:11] a summer camp that was renting Ford

[2:18:13] Field and the parking lot. But this

[2:18:15] isn't this would not be utilized in a

[2:18:18] um repeat repetitive rental use. That

[2:18:21] would be handled through a lease and

[2:18:23] through a a market appraisal.

[2:18:27] » Okay.

[2:18:28] Um

[2:18:35] Okay. Yeah, so I guess those are my

[2:18:36] questions. Thank you.

[2:18:39] Rebecca.

[2:18:41] >> All right. I have a bunch of questions

[2:18:43] as well. Thank you for your patience.

[2:18:45] So, I will try to keep them brief and I I'm happy to get very quick short

[2:18:50] answers.

[2:18:51] Um COLA versus CPI?

[2:18:54] Sounds like that's one of the decisions

[2:18:55] we're going to need to make. What's the

[2:18:57] typically what's the difference?

[2:19:00] >> Well, we we use CPI to determine the

[2:19:02] COLA.

[2:19:03] So, for the fee schedule,

[2:19:06] um it's always been adjusted based on

[2:19:09] the CPI in February. So, that's the

[2:19:11] standing practice right now.

[2:19:13] Um we're not recommending changing that

[2:19:15] at all.

[2:19:16] >> Um but if we if if all these fees are

[2:19:19] based on

[2:19:20] effectively employees and their

[2:19:22] salaries,

[2:19:23] isn't COLA effectively

[2:19:25] being factored in?

[2:19:27] So, shouldn't we be using COLA instead

[2:19:29] of CPI?

[2:19:31] I mean, anything that's got an a

[2:19:32] significant employee cost to it seems

[2:19:34] like that's a COLA. It's going to

[2:19:35] increase with the cost of COLA. And it

[2:19:38] seems like our our

[2:19:40] fees should keep up at COLA rate. Is

[2:19:42] that the right way to think about it?

[2:19:47] » I think in in this instance, the city

[2:19:49] uses the city the town uses CPI as the

[2:19:52] COLA. Some jurisdictions will say uh,

[2:19:55] annually staff will get a 3% raise.

[2:19:58] Whereas your cola the CPI for that year

[2:20:01] could be 2 and 1/2% it could be 4% 5%.

[2:20:04] So, in that instance you could look at

[2:20:06] either or, but the town's practice right

[2:20:09] now is that that staff costs and fees

[2:20:13] are increased by the February CPI. Um,

[2:20:16] so I think what what's being said is

[2:20:18] that for Portola Valley cola and CPI are

[2:20:22] energy.

[2:20:24] >> Okay. I mean, I would have thought

[2:20:26] they're potentially different, but do

[2:20:27] you need us to make a decision tonight?

[2:20:29] I mean, that's the only reason I'm

[2:20:30] trying to clarify.

[2:20:33] » Well,

[2:20:35] certain decisions need to be made so

[2:20:36] that we can develop cost recovery

[2:20:38] policy.

[2:20:39] Um, and you know, I guess that we do

[2:20:42] have a standing practice to adjust based

[2:20:45] on February CPI. So, if council is okay

[2:20:47] with that, we'll continue doing that

[2:20:49] practice.

[2:20:50] Um, like I said, I'm not making any

[2:20:51] recommend or recommending any changes to

[2:20:53] the annual

[2:20:55] inflation factor, but

[2:20:57] um, if we do

[2:20:59] anything tonight

[2:21:01] is if we can adopt building and planning

[2:21:04] fees, that way

[2:21:05] they can go into effect.

[2:21:07] And the rest we can come back with

[2:21:09] um, more analysis.

[2:21:10] >> Yeah, and I was going to get to So, so

[2:21:12] it sounds like we could stay with CPI,

[2:21:14] but in the future if we chose to we

[2:21:16] could change the rate that we increase

[2:21:18] this without going back to the schedule

[2:21:20] itself. And it's we don't need another

[2:21:22] study, we just decide the multipliers

[2:21:24] are a little bit different. Yeah, okay,

[2:21:25] great.

[2:21:26] Um, so then you you led into my next

[2:21:28] one. I just wanted to be clear. So, we

[2:21:31] can go through take the building and

[2:21:32] planning those are the things that have

[2:21:33] 60-day clock.

[2:21:35] We can basically

[2:21:37] um, continue say the fields um, and

[2:21:41] other issues to a date certain.

[2:21:45] And that would allow some of our

[2:21:46] committees a chance to opine on those

[2:21:49] fees.

[2:21:50] Does that

[2:21:51] the right idea?

[2:21:52] Okay, great.

[2:21:58] So,

[2:21:59] talk about residential and

[2:22:00] non-residential.

[2:22:02] So, there's

[2:22:04] a bunch of tables

[2:22:07] sort of at the intersections, and then

[2:22:08] there's the big table at the bottom.

[2:22:10] Of all is the big table at the bottom

[2:22:12] meant to be all the little tables all

[2:22:14] combined?

[2:22:16] Cuz it seemed like I and then this is

[2:22:17] just a nit, but like there was like

[2:22:19] weddings like $18. And then in the big

[2:22:22] table I couldn't find that, but it was

[2:22:23] in the little table one of the little

[2:22:25] tables.

[2:22:26] So,

[2:22:27] is the bottom table meant to be

[2:22:29] inclusive? I know we're getting way into

[2:22:30] the weeds here, so

[2:22:32] but I'm just trying to figure out

[2:22:34] whether it should have been there and we

[2:22:35] just missed it.

[2:22:42] » I am not sure exactly what you're

[2:22:43] talking about.

[2:22:44] >> Okay.

[2:22:44] >> I I I I'm sorry.

[2:22:49] I would have to

[2:22:52] » Okay, well, the thing I was talking

[2:22:53] about is in each of the sections like

[2:22:54] the administrative section,

[2:22:56] there's a table.

[2:22:57] Um

[2:23:02] Oh, here. Look. I mean, let's let me

[2:23:03] just find this I mean, this let's just

[2:23:05] be one. This is a pretty minor example,

[2:23:07] but I will use it just so we can find

[2:23:09] it.

[2:23:10] Um so,

[2:23:17] All right, so,

[2:23:25] Where is it? Can I find it now?

[2:23:32] So, under the total cost per unit

[2:23:35] results recreation. So, that's that's a

[2:23:37] table. It's not the big master table at

[2:23:39] the very end.

[2:23:40] And that is on page of the

[2:23:44] on the old one,

[2:23:46] which I assume the pages maybe haven't

[2:23:47] changed you that was in page 24 of your

[2:23:50] number.

[2:23:52] There was a thing here that said Redwood

[2:23:54] Grove weddings only.

[2:23:57] And then I didn't remember seeing that

[2:23:58] again later in sort of master. So I'm

[2:24:02] asking is the table that we're looking

[2:24:04] here on page 24. Is this meant to be

[2:24:07] sort of duplicated like are they meant

[2:24:08] to all be concatenated together as the

[2:24:11] big table at the bottom?

[2:24:16] » I

[2:24:17] >> This wasn't there.

[2:24:18] >> Believe so. Although it's so in the

[2:24:20] recreation chapter it details the per

[2:24:23] unit

[2:24:24] results for each of those items and I

[2:24:27] guess at the very end of the report

[2:24:29] >> Yeah.

[2:24:30] >> is the comparison.

[2:24:32] And so those are separate tables. So it

[2:24:33] calls out like picnic rentals and it

[2:24:35] talks about the different jurisdictions.

[2:24:38] >> Um well the thing I'm looking at now I'm

[2:24:40] on page 40 again of the thing that got

[2:24:42] sent out

[2:24:44] um not at 4:00 but before and it says

[2:24:47] master fee schedule and it's like fee

[2:24:49] name and then building and building fees

[2:24:51] and it goes on from there. I was just

[2:24:53] trying to understand is that table meant

[2:24:56] to be all the other tables combined or

[2:24:58] is this table something different?

[2:25:01] >> Yes, I think what you're referring to is

[2:25:03] the master fee schedule. So it lists all

[2:25:06] of the fees all together whereas each

[2:25:08] chapter is only focused on the

[2:25:10] individual fee of that particular

[2:25:11] department.

[2:25:12] >> Right. But then that means there's some

[2:25:13] things that I can see in one of the

[2:25:16] section tables that I can't find in the

[2:25:18] master fee schedule.

[2:25:20] >> Okay.

[2:25:21] >> And I use the wedding just as as as an

[2:25:23] example. I didn't do a thorough analysis

[2:25:25] to see

[2:25:26] but

[2:25:28] are in the master? Okay, did I miss it

[2:25:30] cuz maybe I just

[2:25:33] Uh that's not going to help me. But what

[2:25:35] can you tell me what page it's anyway,

[2:25:37] if it's there I'm fine. I I'm let's move

[2:25:40] on. I don't want to spend too much time

[2:25:41] on it. I just want to make sure um it

[2:25:43] does bring me to the question that like

[2:25:45] some of these numbers seem like

[2:25:47] ludicrously low.

[2:25:49] Like reserving for a wedding, like

[2:25:51] somebody's got to go put a sign out

[2:25:52] there that says it's reserved,

[2:25:54] somebody's got to answer the phone,

[2:25:56] answer questions.

[2:25:58] At like $250 a burden fully burdened

[2:26:01] hour, like $18 is like 2 minutes or something. So, I I

[2:26:06] don't want to drill into all of these,

[2:26:07] but I just I sort of question the

[2:26:09] outliers cuz if the outliers seem wildly

[2:26:12] off, then I kind of wonder how we got to

[2:26:14] some of the rest of it.

[2:26:15] >> Well, I think some of those and I I'd

[2:26:17] have to find it specifically, but I

[2:26:19] believe it's a per hour fee. And so,

[2:26:21] when you look at how long somebody

[2:26:22] actually rents it for that type of

[2:26:23] service, it's at that cost is actually

[2:26:26] more than that, right? So, it cuz it's

[2:26:27] if it's $18 an hour and you're renting

[2:26:29] it for 4 hours,

[2:26:31] right? It you're

[2:26:33] >> Okay.

[2:26:33] >> So, I think that's kind of why so it's

[2:26:35] spread over what that

[2:26:37] average rental would be, right? Because

[2:26:40] the staff time that the time that staff

[2:26:42] spends

[2:26:44] is kind of set

[2:26:45] >> Sure, for event. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, no,

[2:26:47] that that that makes sense to me. Um

[2:26:48] then the only question I would ask is

[2:26:51] how would we know that?

[2:26:55] » The unit should be in the master fee

[2:26:57] schedule.

[2:26:58] >> Okay. So,

[2:26:59] >> And

[2:27:00] >> All right. And since I couldn't find it

[2:27:01] in the master sheet and I was only

[2:27:03] looking at the recreation table, maybe I

[2:27:05] see it. So, okay. Well, all I'd ask

[2:27:07] staff is to go through and and make sure

[2:27:09] that these super low numbers are some

[2:27:11] kind of per unit where the unit's per

[2:27:14] hour or whatever.

[2:27:18] Okay. Um

[2:27:23] So, then um you have some

[2:27:25] recommendations relatively near the end,

[2:27:27] not at the very very end, but you have

[2:27:29] some recommendations. And there's also

[2:27:31] some text after the different sections,

[2:27:33] which also kind of look like sort of

[2:27:35] recommendations or best best practices.

[2:27:39] Are tonight are you asking the council

[2:27:41] to review the sort of verbage at the end

[2:27:43] of the sections and the recommendations?

[2:27:47] Or is that for another day? I mean it

[2:27:49] wasn't clear to me what what we would do

[2:27:51] with some of the information.

[2:27:53] >> I believe the recommendations pertain to

[2:27:55] like establishing a CPI establishing an

[2:27:58] annual inflationary factor, which would

[2:28:00] be continuation of what you're doing.

[2:28:02] Um

[2:28:03] establishing cost recovery policies

[2:28:06] um for the different areas

[2:28:08] um and then

[2:28:11] kind of a a policy regarding how often

[2:28:14] you would re-evaluate these.

[2:28:17] >> Okay, cuz there I mean there's you know

[2:28:18] there's paragraphs here that talk about

[2:28:20] the township would review review excuse

[2:28:22] me, review results um help bridge the

[2:28:25] gap, blah blah blah. And

[2:28:27] it felt like I'd read through a couple

[2:28:29] of these and I just So you think that

[2:28:31] your recommendations incorporate all of

[2:28:33] that verbage.

[2:28:35] >> Correct.

[2:28:39] There are

[2:28:40] in the staff report, there are three

[2:28:42] recommendations.

[2:28:47] » Oh, in the Matrix report, is that what

[2:28:49] you're

[2:28:49] >> No, I'm actually saying in the staff

[2:28:51] report that introduces

[2:28:53] >> Right, but there's also I'm talking

[2:28:54] about the ones from Matrix though. I was

[2:28:56] just trying to understand those um

[2:28:58] >> Thank you.

[2:29:00] Um

[2:29:01] there's a bunch of and again, I'm

[2:29:02] willing to defer this just have staff

[2:29:04] look at it and particularly if we

[2:29:05] continue the um

[2:29:07] field costs and and other um

[2:29:09] costs in that area, but you know, some

[2:29:11] of the fields are per person, other

[2:29:13] jurisdictions use monthly. I couldn't

[2:29:16] figure out like even how to compare

[2:29:18] those.

[2:29:19] Right? Cuz one was telling me per person

[2:29:20] and the other told me monthly, so I

[2:29:22] didn't have any comparison. So I don't

[2:29:24] need an answer tonight, but it seems

[2:29:25] like if we come back, I would like to be

[2:29:27] able to compare them to other

[2:29:28] jurisdictions in some meaningful way.

[2:29:32] Does that make sense?

[2:29:35] I mean, there's got to be aware. I mean,

[2:29:35] we even if we just go to look at past

[2:29:37] data and just say, well, these fields

[2:29:39] get used, you know, this many times with

[2:29:41] this many people. If we translate that

[2:29:44] into a monthly fee, it would be this

[2:29:46] versus the per person fee is this. I

[2:29:48] mean, I just want some way to be able to

[2:29:51] compare those so that we have a

[2:29:52] reasonable analysis on what we're

[2:29:54] charging people who are playing sports

[2:29:56] here.

[2:30:00] Is that I just want to make sure I'm

[2:30:01] clear. I don't need an

[2:30:03] I'm not looking for you to give me the

[2:30:05] what the number is cuz I don't think

[2:30:06] that's probably Yeah.

[2:30:08] >> In those particular instances, some some

[2:30:10] comparisons might be more

[2:30:12] easily determined than others just

[2:30:15] because of right, per per person versus

[2:30:18] per month, but how many times are you

[2:30:20] using it? That all that there other

[2:30:22] factors to go into it. So,

[2:30:24] I understand what you're asking for and

[2:30:26] I to the best of our ability we

[2:30:29] >> That's

[2:30:30] Right. And all I'm looking for is I'm

[2:30:31] not looking for there's an you know, a

[2:30:33] perfect equation where X is going to eat

[2:30:35] X. Like I get that, but you can still

[2:30:37] come up with a pretty good approximation

[2:30:40] cuz I think, you know, when it basically

[2:30:42] goes to the committee, they're going to

[2:30:44] ask the same question.

[2:30:47] Um

[2:30:48] So, just to to clarify, reasonable

[2:30:50] recovery rate, like that five $500,000,

[2:30:53] that's assuming we recovered 100%.

[2:30:56] Right, which is unrealistic. So, I mean,

[2:30:58] just so everybody's clear, we're we're

[2:30:59] not going We're not likely to recover

[2:31:01] that.

[2:31:02] Um

[2:31:04] Public Works,

[2:31:05] I got to say I'm still confused about

[2:31:07] the two table twos.

[2:31:09] Um cuz there's I mean, Public Works was

[2:31:12] $900,000

[2:31:14] different of the difference. It was the

[2:31:15] largest by far. So, just help me

[2:31:17] understand again, what is it that's

[2:31:20] s-

[2:31:21] the town only costs versus the other

[2:31:24] like 900,000 that sort of showed up and

[2:31:27] then disappeared. I mean, I I think

[2:31:29] you're doing the right calculation. I'm

[2:31:30] just want to make sure that everybody

[2:31:32] understands if we've gone to this new

[2:31:33] table

[2:31:34] why it was drastically different, and

[2:31:36] that's the biggest contributor.

[2:31:39] >> Well, it would it was also it wasn't

[2:31:41] it was not just about it being town only

[2:31:45] cost that it needed to be town only fee

[2:31:47] related cost. So, public works as a

[2:31:50] budget unit includes the town engineer

[2:31:54] and includes maintenance and workers.

[2:31:56] Um it includes services that are not fee

[2:31:59] related, that are general town

[2:32:02] maintenance

[2:32:03] related services. And so, those costs

[2:32:05] shouldn't Again, those

[2:32:08] the revenue is not meant to offset those

[2:32:10] costs.

[2:32:10] >> Got it. So, so public works, the 1.26 is

[2:32:14] the actual cost of that department, all

[2:32:16] in.

[2:32:17] That's what we pay per year, not the the

[2:32:20] fees part of it. Okay, that's that's

[2:32:22] helpful. Thank you.

[2:32:24] Okay, um small fees we talked about.

[2:32:29] So, there's a thing in here that there's

[2:32:31] an appeal. It was like $14,000

[2:32:35] that seemed, you know, like it was a

[2:32:37] huge outlier when you looked at the

[2:32:39] comparisons.

[2:32:40] Was that a flat fee or was that a

[2:32:41] deposit?

[2:32:44] >> Um let me

[2:32:46] Is it a deposit? Um I would also say

[2:32:48] that this is

[2:32:51] um

[2:32:53] the when I first started

[2:32:55] 20 years ago, you would see these fees

[2:32:57] at $75 or $100.

[2:32:59] Um these have uh

[2:33:02] the philosophy on appeals um

[2:33:05] has certainly changed throughout the

[2:33:07] years. Uh these are

[2:33:10] staff time intensive. They take a lot of

[2:33:12] time, thereby a lot of cost associated

[2:33:14] with them. Um and different

[2:33:16] jurisdictions have different

[2:33:17] philosophies on

[2:33:20] barriers to entry to provide those

[2:33:24] um services to allow for appeals of

[2:33:27] projects.

[2:33:27] >> Sure.

[2:33:28] >> Um so,

[2:33:29] what you see on another fee schedule is

[2:33:32] not indicative of what it's costing,

[2:33:34] it's what they're using to charge for

[2:33:36] that appeal.

[2:33:39] » Um yeah.

[2:33:41] Okay, I mean $14,000 sound like a lot of

[2:33:44] money for an appeal. Forget about

[2:33:45] whether it's, you know, people are

[2:33:48] subsidized. I mean, it just seemed like

[2:33:49] a lot of money, period. Um but, I think

[2:33:52] what I'm hearing is we could do that as

[2:33:54] a deposit

[2:33:56] rather than the flat fee. Since since

[2:33:58] >> Okay.

[2:34:00] Great.

[2:34:03] » All right. Um

[2:34:06] I'm sure I have more Oh, one other small

[2:34:08] question. Indirect costs, does that

[2:34:10] include building maintenance costs that

[2:34:12] for where offices are?

[2:34:14] >> Includes lights.

[2:34:15] >> Yeah, so

[2:34:16] >> and so forth.

[2:34:17] >> Yeah. Okay, perfect.

[2:34:18] Okay, thank you. I know that was kind of

[2:34:21] exhausting, but thank thank you very

[2:34:22] much. Um

[2:34:23] as you can see, we care about the

[2:34:24] details, so thank thank you. Um please stay around. Um

[2:34:29] I think Catherine now

[2:34:33] So, open the public hearing, take come

[2:34:35] public comment, and we'll close the

[2:34:36] public hearing, bring it back to the

[2:34:38] council. Yeah, okay. All right. So, with

[2:34:41] that, I'd like to open the public

[2:34:42] hearing. Is there anyone in the room

[2:34:44] that would like to speak? Please come up

[2:34:45] to the podium.

[2:34:47] And thank you for your patience.

[2:34:50] Yeah, we

[2:34:51] So are we all, but thank thank you for

[2:34:53] being here.

[2:34:53] >> I'll be quick. Be quick. Okay, my name

[2:34:55] is Cindy Rowe, and I organize pickleball

[2:34:58] for the town. I, you know, run So, we

[2:35:00] don't use the fields.

[2:35:02] Yet, there is no um schedule fee

[2:35:05] schedule for the courts. So, we have to

[2:35:08] pay the field prices, and it's

[2:35:09] inappropriate. But, works out for us for

[2:35:12] the amount of time that our leagues um

[2:35:15] reserve the courts, we're paying $100 an

[2:35:18] hour. Now, all the other towns in the

[2:35:20] area charge 10 to 20 for court rental.

[2:35:22] So, we would like to see a separate

[2:35:25] section for courts in the fee schedule.

[2:35:28] Is that Yep. Then the other thing is

[2:35:31] that I saw on the classes, I also teach

[2:35:34] pickleball through Parks and Rec.

[2:35:36] You can all take the course.

[2:35:39] Um, you're charging

[2:35:41] the instructors

[2:35:43] a new fee of $197 just to apply to teach

[2:35:47] and then take 20% of the proceeds. I

[2:35:49] don't like it.

[2:35:50] That's all.

[2:35:52] Thank you.

[2:35:56] Please.

[2:36:05] Hi, I'm Karen Askey. I am a member of

[2:36:08] Parks and Rec

[2:36:09] uh and a resident of Portola Valley. Um,

[2:36:12] and first of all, thank you Courtney for

[2:36:14] the presentation and Tony. And this was

[2:36:17] a lot of data to absorb in a very short

[2:36:20] period of time and I almost wonder if

[2:36:22] there should be um

[2:36:24] further review or a subcommittee that

[2:36:26] looks at each of these and makes sure

[2:36:28] that things are

[2:36:30] um clarified for residents and those

[2:36:33] that are charging. Um, but what um the

[2:36:36] other thing I appreciated hearing was

[2:36:38] that Parks and Rec is actually doing

[2:36:40] really well, that the recreation fees

[2:36:42] are good and that we are above the norm

[2:36:45] in what we're recovering compared to

[2:36:47] other communities. I think that's

[2:36:48] important to think about because

[2:36:51] recreation is not just about cost

[2:36:54] recovery. There's a lot of soft elements

[2:36:56] to it. And I have been asked to read a

[2:36:59] letter from the Alpine Little League

[2:37:02] because uh they had playoff games

[2:37:03] tonight and couldn't make it.

[2:37:05] Alpine Little League is very concerned

[2:37:08] by the proposal to raise field usage

[2:37:10] fees by 86%.

[2:37:12] This unexpected decision mirrors many of

[2:37:14] the inquiries raised by the Parks and

[2:37:16] Recreation Committee specifically

[2:37:18] regarding whether this change is driven

[2:37:20] by actual maintenance cost increases or

[2:37:23] if it serves as a strategy to burst

[2:37:25] boost town revenue.

[2:37:27] At all events, as part of the PV

[2:37:29] community for over 65 years, the league

[2:37:32] is committed to working together with

[2:37:34] the town to ensure the league payers pay

[2:37:36] a rental fee sorry, the league pays a

[2:37:39] rental fee that covers its fair share of

[2:37:41] the maintenance costs.

[2:37:43] The league thoroughly appreciates the

[2:37:45] tremendous work done by Justin Bixby and

[2:37:48] his team. Since his arrival, Justin has

[2:37:51] shown he is dedicated to providing the

[2:37:53] youth and adults of Portola Valley the

[2:37:55] best possible field conditions for

[2:37:57] competitive soccer, baseball, and

[2:37:59] softball.

[2:38:00] To complement his and his team efforts,

[2:38:03] Alpine Little League has demonstrated a

[2:38:05] significant commitment to field

[2:38:07] maintenance as well. In 2026, the league

[2:38:11] invested approximately $42,000

[2:38:14] in an environmentally friendly electric

[2:38:16] maintenance tractor for the Town Center

[2:38:19] and Ford Fields. Maintenance of the

[2:38:21] infield dirt at these locations remains

[2:38:24] primarily a volunteer-driven effort with

[2:38:27] over 48 hours of manual labor

[2:38:29] contributed by volunteers since January

[2:38:31] alone.

[2:38:32] Not to mention the collective work in

[2:38:34] prior years for upkeep of the pitching

[2:38:36] mounds, infield dirt, as well as an

[2:38:39] investment of over $20,000 to renovate

[2:38:42] the batting cage and install new

[2:38:44] backstop padding, etc. This rate hike is

[2:38:47] particularly surprising given Alpine

[2:38:49] Little League's existing $60,000 plus

[2:38:52] pledge toward the bathroom and snack

[2:38:55] shack development at Ford Field. We

[2:38:57] respectively inquire whether the rate

[2:38:59] hike is in lieu of or in addition to the

[2:39:02] substantial pledge.

[2:39:04] While the league intends to avoid

[2:39:05] passing these costs on to players, the

[2:39:08] increase may force a strategic shift.

[2:39:11] Woodside has allocated $1.5 million for

[2:39:15] field and facility enhancements with a

[2:39:17] target completion date before the spring

[2:39:20] 2027 season. We understand costs are

[2:39:23] increasing across the board in this

[2:39:25] current economy. I'm almost done.

[2:39:26] >> almost done. Okay.

[2:39:27] >> Which may include field maintenance

[2:39:29] costs. We respectively invite a

[2:39:31] discussion to learn about the costs

[2:39:33] incurred by PV to maintain Ford and

[2:39:36] Portola Valley during youth baseball

[2:39:38] rental periods.

[2:39:40] And just so you know, they do we are not

[2:39:43] the only field in the area that is used

[2:39:46] by both the soccer and baseball teams.

[2:39:49] Thanks.

[2:39:49] >> Thank you.

[2:39:51] Please.

[2:39:57] » Maryanne Plunge the chair of the

[2:39:59] conservation committee.

[2:40:00] Um, I strongly urge the town council to

[2:40:04] keep the fee of $95 for the standalone

[2:40:08] tree uh uh permit application at $95 and

[2:40:13] not make it into a thousand dollar um

[2:40:16] uh dep- deposit. And the reason is is a

[2:40:20] sort of twofold. The the work that is

[2:40:24] needed for the approval of a or or

[2:40:27] denial of a

[2:40:28] um tree permit which is only significant

[2:40:31] trees. If you cut down a eucalyptus,

[2:40:33] there is no tree uh

[2:40:35] um uh

[2:40:36] approval requested. It currently needs

[2:40:40] or historically needs clerical work by

[2:40:43] town staff to take the application, to

[2:40:47] send the application which

[2:40:49] may or may not have a um arborist report

[2:40:53] because that is not required

[2:40:55] um their email to the conservation

[2:40:57] committee.

[2:40:58] then does all

[2:41:00] the work

[2:41:01] and sends a comprehensive report back to

[2:41:05] the town and then all the town needs to

[2:41:08] do again clerical work say approved or

[2:41:11] not approved and and

[2:41:13] send that to the um

[2:41:15] applicant.

[2:41:16] Um I failed to see how this could be

[2:41:19] costing a thousand dollars.

[2:41:22] And then the second thing is if we make

[2:41:25] tree uh

[2:41:26] um

[2:41:27] tree removal applications expensive,

[2:41:31] what will happen is that some people in

[2:41:33] town will use unlicensed uh

[2:41:37] people to cut trees down. These um

[2:41:41] contractors have no idea about um

[2:41:45] processes to to clean the chainsaws

[2:41:48] afterwards so so uh diseases are not

[2:41:51] carried in. So this could have

[2:41:53] significant um

[2:41:58] we could get sick trees in town um which

[2:42:02] then uh uh costs uh

[2:42:04] that I don't know who who would be

[2:42:06] paying. So I just urge you um it's

[2:42:09] doesn't seem to be completely clear to

[2:42:11] some people what is really

[2:42:14] what the costs are because the

[2:42:16] conservation committee does all the work

[2:42:18] and we don't cost anything. And so I I

[2:42:21] wanted to to bring this in front of you.

[2:42:23] Thank you.

[2:42:25] » Thank you.

[2:42:27] Can I just ask

[2:42:29] are there arborists on the conservation

[2:42:31] committee other than Megan?

[2:42:35] » Megan Megan is the only arborist and

[2:42:38] almost everybody brings an arborist

[2:42:40] report. So we go out and we work off the

[2:42:43] arborist report and of our judgment.

[2:42:45] >> Thank you.

[2:42:48] » Madam, please.

[2:42:55] » Uh Nona Ceriello, I'm also on the

[2:42:57] conservation committee and I also work

[2:42:59] on the tree permit uh team.

[2:43:03] And I I just want to add two points to

[2:43:06] what Mary Ann has said. One is that we actually appreciate the question of

[2:43:11] what are the costs? What are things

[2:43:13] costing you? And as Mary Ann said, it's

[2:43:16] not costing the town very much to uh

[2:43:19] decide on these tree permit requests.

[2:43:22] The second thing is,

[2:43:24] you know, we're not a revolving door.

[2:43:27] We're not like staff in that sense. We

[2:43:29] have a member of our committee who's

[2:43:31] been doing tree permit removals uh for

[2:43:35] 50 years and the rest of us have been

[2:43:38] there, you know, doing them for 10 years

[2:43:40] or more. So, uh we appreciate the

[2:43:42] question and we also appreciate the

[2:43:46] importance of compliance with the town

[2:43:49] ordinances. So, please reconsider

[2:43:54] what it is costing the town to uh either

[2:43:57] in terms of deposits or actual fees to

[2:44:00] do the tree removal permits. Thank you.

[2:44:04] >> Thank you.

[2:44:05] Bob, please.

[2:44:12] » Uh Bob Sportola Valley.

[2:44:14] Um

[2:44:16] I didn't see anything in the report

[2:44:18] about courts.

[2:44:20] Uh and you know, I've been up here

[2:44:21] before about courts a couple of times.

[2:44:23] Um

[2:44:24] so, I'm trying to understand the uh

[2:44:27] expense for the court and the the cost

[2:44:30] recovery for the court. Um the only

[2:44:33] thing that I can see that's done

[2:44:34] regularly with the court, but in fact

[2:44:35] it's not regularly,

[2:44:37] they occasionally wash the court and

[2:44:39] they occasionally trim the uh leaves off

[2:44:41] the the um

[2:44:43] the the fence that has leaves that come

[2:44:45] into the court.

[2:44:46] But other than that, we clean the

[2:44:48] courts, we dry the courts, we fix the

[2:44:50] nets, we do all the things that need to

[2:44:52] be done on the court. So, I don't think

[2:44:54] there's much town expense.

[2:44:56] But, if it's put in with the fields,

[2:44:58] which it seems to be done been being

[2:45:00] done, then we are subsidizing the field

[2:45:03] costs. And so, I'd like to see that that

[2:45:06] the general ledger has a line item for

[2:45:07] courts.

[2:45:09] So that you can identify what is a court

[2:45:11] expense versus a field expense. Fields

[2:45:13] are much more expensive. They have to be

[2:45:14] maintained every week. They have to be

[2:45:16] watered every week. We don't have any of

[2:45:17] that. So, I'm asking that there be some

[2:45:20] judgment made about fields versus

[2:45:23] courts. Also, just for the leagues, that

[2:45:26] we have a slightly different orientation

[2:45:27] to leagues because the way you charge is

[2:45:29] for leagues.

[2:45:30] We play short three times a year.

[2:45:34] Most of leagues play longer leagues

[2:45:36] twice a year. So, we end up paying 150%

[2:45:40] of what others would pay for their their

[2:45:42] league fees. So, we

[2:45:45] uh and normally our teams are four

[2:45:48] players are playing in a league versus

[2:45:51] 12 to 18 players playing on a soccer

[2:45:53] team or a baseball team.

[2:45:55] Uh so, I just like to have you

[2:45:57] understand that it really is a

[2:45:59] difference and I think it should be

[2:46:00] accounted for differently. Thank you.

[2:46:03] >> Thank you.

[2:46:05] Is there anybody else in the

[2:46:06] schoolhouse?

[2:46:12] All right, going online.

[2:46:13] Patty, go ahead. Welcome.

[2:46:20] » This is uh Hi, it's Patty Deuce, chair

[2:46:22] of the Parks and Rec Committee. Sounds

[2:46:24] like um

[2:46:25] you all read my letter. I do want to

[2:46:27] clarify

[2:46:29] that

[2:46:30] the Parks and Rec Committee did not vote

[2:46:32] on the letter. However, we did discuss

[2:46:36] the issue and we are all in agreement

[2:46:39] with the components that I put in the

[2:46:40] letter,

[2:46:41] but we did not vote on it as a

[2:46:43] committee. I do respectfully request

[2:46:47] that the council

[2:46:48] um allow more time

[2:46:50] for the recreational fee portion of the

[2:46:52] study

[2:46:53] and continue the approval of these fees

[2:46:56] until a future meeting.

[2:46:58] And we've talked through a lot of the

[2:47:00] issues that already got them at touched

[2:47:02] on. Not going to go into a lot of

[2:47:04] detail, but I think

[2:47:06] there are several reasons why we want

[2:47:08] this to happen. One,

[2:47:10] Courtney mentioned that

[2:47:12] again, we are over above the range of

[2:47:16] normal cost recovery. However, if you

[2:47:18] look at schedule that Tony put up,

[2:47:22] we're recommending or they are

[2:47:23] recommending

[2:47:24] 100% cost recovery on many, many of the

[2:47:28] like items well above the 58% that we

[2:47:32] already have.

[2:47:34] We think we need to take a look at that

[2:47:36] for a couple reasons. Number one,

[2:47:39] competitive. Greg already pointed this

[2:47:41] out. We do a cost per user. Many of our

[2:47:45] the community

[2:47:46] do a cost per hour. Let's translate that

[2:47:50] so that we understand the competitive

[2:47:53] costs.

[2:47:54] We've done it in the Parks and Rec

[2:47:55] Committee before. We can do it again.

[2:47:58] The other one is, and I'm going to

[2:48:01] lean on my old econ 101,

[2:48:04] do we really understand

[2:48:06] the elasticity of the rates that we're

[2:48:09] charging?

[2:48:10] As Courtney has mentioned, couple other

[2:48:12] people as well,

[2:48:14] there are choices that are clubs

[2:48:17] and uh uh

[2:48:20] leagues can make in terms of alternate fields to

[2:48:25] go play on, and they will make those

[2:48:27] choices based upon the economics of

[2:48:31] where they play. So, we really need to

[2:48:33] understand

[2:48:34] um what it would cost us

[2:48:37] to

[2:48:38] raise the rates, and are we really going

[2:48:40] to get the revenue that we think we're

[2:48:42] going to get? So, we need more time to

[2:48:46] take a look at the rates. We're willing

[2:48:48] to work with the town, with Matrix,

[2:48:51] to

[2:48:52] uh work in tandem and so that we can

[2:48:54] come up with the best solution for the

[2:48:56] town, our users, and our residents.

[2:49:00] Thank you.

[2:49:01] >> Thank you.

[2:49:03] done?

[2:49:13] » Hi. Thank you for taking my comment.

[2:49:16] This has been really hard to to listen

[2:49:18] to and uh

[2:49:21] you know, this meeting started off

[2:49:23] during oral statements from residents uh

[2:49:26] talking about

[2:49:28] uh the delayed audits and finances

[2:49:32] uh that are delayed till 2027.

[2:49:35] And and then now we're asking for uh

[2:49:39] you know, uh fees to be raised

[2:49:42] uh when the books aren't right.

[2:49:45] And it's just really hard This is This

[2:49:47] has been like really hard to listen to

[2:49:50] and you know, as far as the the fees for

[2:49:53] the trees, you know, PG&E has been

[2:49:56] coming into our town and decimating the

[2:49:59] trees um

[2:50:00] while the wires aren't being underground

[2:50:03] for our issue and their issue.

[2:50:06] Are they paying any fees

[2:50:08] to do what they've been doing to the

[2:50:10] trees? And

[2:50:12] um are we Are they giving arbor reports

[2:50:15] on

[2:50:16] how they are breaking those trees down,

[2:50:19] which are now growing all kinds of ways?

[2:50:22] Um

[2:50:23] But

[2:50:24] this meeting has been hard and it looks

[2:50:27] like the you know, the paperwork has

[2:50:29] been updated this afternoon

[2:50:32] uh without an alert.

[2:50:35] And uh it needs to be clarified and this

[2:50:38] information along with the

[2:50:41] you know, the audits that have been

[2:50:43] corrected and it seems like there's from

[2:50:45] this presentation there's another

[2:50:46] $500,000.

[2:50:49] There's lots of numbers rolling around

[2:50:51] here.

[2:50:52] While we don't have our books in order.

[2:50:55] So please if if someone can

[2:50:59] just clarify that and get it to the

[2:51:00] residents.

[2:51:02] I will be all in a much better state to

[2:51:05] make some decisions. Thank you.

[2:51:10] » Thank you, Rita.

[2:51:11] All right, one last time is there

[2:51:13] anybody in the room? I don't see any

[2:51:14] hands in the room.

[2:51:16] Uh Christine.

[2:51:18] Go ahead. Welcome.

[2:51:24] » Yes, I just wanted to thank you for your

[2:51:26] presentation.

[2:51:28] Um

[2:51:29] the fact that it came in so late and the

[2:51:32] public was unaware that it came in.

[2:51:36] We usually ask for any changes to be

[2:51:39] redlined so it's obvious to us what the

[2:51:42] changes were. So I'm just hoping that

[2:51:45] can happen in the future.

[2:51:49] Uh also an alert to go out to people

[2:51:51] that read it prior and that they need to

[2:51:54] go read it again. So I don't know if

[2:51:56] that would be on PB forum or what.

[2:51:59] Um

[2:52:01] I also agree with Cindy and Patty on the

[2:52:05] recreation fees and that we need more

[2:52:08] time for to be analyzed.

[2:52:11] I didn't really appreciate well, they're

[2:52:14] volunteers. Well, we the committees have

[2:52:18] advisory roles.

[2:52:20] And the advisory roles are really

[2:52:22] respected in this town. And I hope in

[2:52:25] the future

[2:52:27] uh committees are respected in this town

[2:52:30] uh to

[2:52:31] look at past history, past knowledge. We

[2:52:35] really need to reach out and learn about

[2:52:38] past knowledge.

[2:52:40] Um the 86% increase in Little League

[2:52:43] fees is not okay. We've worked with um

[2:52:47] the Little League

[2:52:48] closely in the past and we value that

[2:52:51] relationship.

[2:52:53] Um

[2:52:55] I I want to see if you can really

[2:52:58] explain the difference between your

[2:53:00] Nexus study and this study.

[2:53:03] I I really want to understand and the

[2:53:05] public needs to understand the

[2:53:06] difference of those two studies. Nexus

[2:53:10] study we had $68,000.

[2:53:12] Where does that stand? How does that

[2:53:14] compare to this study?

[2:53:16] And please explain that. I didn't see

[2:53:19] the land rental fees that I was hoping

[2:53:22] to see in this A study presented

[2:53:26] anywhere. And that's Ladera Oaks half

[2:53:28] acre we're running out annually for a

[2:53:31] field

[2:53:32] and Alpine and parking lot. So I would

[2:53:36] like to see those how those were figured

[2:53:39] in detail.

[2:53:41] Um

[2:53:42] let's see.

[2:53:46] Um I am noticing that in Independence

[2:53:49] Hall at Woodside,

[2:53:51] um they are saying it's for the Woodside

[2:53:54] resident and they're doing $100 per

[2:53:57] hour.

[2:53:58] So I just looked that one up just for

[2:54:02] information.

[2:54:04] And

[2:54:07] I think that's all I'm going to say for

[2:54:09] now. Thank you. Oh, I noticed that one

[2:54:11] other thing that Woodside put in $30,000

[2:54:15] for a grant writer. So we in the future

[2:54:18] may want to get grants and I I'm always

[2:54:22] for a grant writer. Thank you.

[2:54:25] >> Thank you, Christie.

[2:54:26] Um I I would add that the comment about

[2:54:29] the volunteers wasn't that we don't

[2:54:30] appreciate them. I mean, they're the

[2:54:31] core of what we do. When you're doing a

[2:54:33] fee and they charge us zero, their fee

[2:54:37] is zero. So, you don't you can't put

[2:54:38] that in the fee study that the master

[2:54:40] fee study. That was the thing that was

[2:54:42] being mentioned. So, it wasn't about the

[2:54:43] quality or the expertise.

[2:54:46] Okay. So, with that, I don't see any

[2:54:48] hands online. I don't see any hands in

[2:54:50] the um schoolhouse. So, I'm going to

[2:54:54] Now, let me ask um before I close it, if

[2:54:56] we are going to bifurcate say the

[2:54:58] recreation fees from the rest, can we

[2:55:00] still close it? And then council can

[2:55:02] discuss it, decide what we're going to

[2:55:04] do, and then continue part of it.

[2:55:06] >> reopen it and continue for the purposes

[2:55:07] of continuing it to a future date.

[2:55:10] >> Perfect. Great. Okay, then I'm going to

[2:55:12] close the public hearing.

[2:55:14] Okay. So, with that, it's been 3 hours.

[2:55:17] Um, I'd like to suggest we take a short

[2:55:19] 5-minute break, and then we'll come back

[2:55:21] and the council will deliberate.

[2:55:24] » We have a slide that you're going to see

[2:55:32] » All right. Welcome back, everyone.

[2:55:35] So, now we're going to have council

[2:55:36] discussion.

[2:55:38] Um So, obviously everybody's going to,

[2:55:41] you know, discuss the various fees. If

[2:55:44] you think there's something we should do

[2:55:45] different than what's in the staff

[2:55:47] report, I'd also like to hear your

[2:55:49] opinion on whether we should um separate

[2:55:52] out the recreational fees or any of the

[2:55:55] other fees. Um, I think what we heard

[2:55:57] from staff was that their preference is

[2:56:00] that the building and planning fees

[2:56:02] get approved so that the 60-day clock

[2:56:05] can start. But again, we could choose to

[2:56:07] continue those as well. But I'd like to

[2:56:09] hear everybody's opinion on the idea of

[2:56:12] bifurcating um some of the fees.

[2:56:15] So, who would like to go first?

[2:56:19] » First or second? You started first.

[2:56:21] >> Yeah, I'm around

[2:56:24] I'm I'm actually waking up. Um

[2:56:26] I think we should the building and

[2:56:29] planning should be bifurcated for sure.

[2:56:31] Uh there's plenty of

[2:56:34] >> Do you mean recreation fees?

[2:56:35] >> Yeah, I mean dig go ahead and

[2:56:37] >> separate out recreation fees, but keep

[2:56:39] everything else. Well, I'm I'm trying to

[2:56:41] separate out building and planning and

[2:56:42] then there's administration fees.

[2:56:44] There's a bunch You can go We can go

[2:56:46] different ways.

[2:56:47] >> fees?

[2:56:48] >> Well, Tony Tony, could you bring up

[2:56:50] >> three days, that's not a bi- a

[2:56:51] bifurcation. That's a trifurcation.

[2:56:53] >> Well, no, I'm proposing that we

[2:56:54] bifurcate, but the bifurcation with

[2:56:56] recreation fees and everything else. And

[2:56:58] you were saying planning and building

[2:57:00] and everything else.

[2:57:01] >> It would be to bifurcate building and

[2:57:03] planning.

[2:57:05] And engineering.

[2:57:06] >> Well, so can you bring up your

[2:57:08] >> That's what That's what That's what I

[2:57:10] was trying to do.

[2:57:13] >> Well, I yeah, and I'm I want to say you

[2:57:15] can do that. I'm I want to make sure

[2:57:17] that as we respond, we're

[2:57:18] >> Right.

[2:57:19] >> responding clearly.

[2:57:20] >> And does administration need to be also

[2:57:22] the three month?

[2:57:23] >> No. Administrative

[2:57:25] um recreation

[2:57:27] um can go into effect.

[2:57:29] We can adopt all the way up until

[2:57:32] >> June 30th.

[2:57:35] 10 days?

[2:57:36] >> But Tony, if you can bring up that

[2:57:37] slide, then we know what we're

[2:57:43] » So, I guess what I Well, I can keep

[2:57:46] discussing a way which basically that we

[2:57:49] go ahead and approve the I'd be in favor

[2:57:53] of approving the building and planning

[2:57:55] fee schedule.

[2:57:57] Realizing, of course, that the devil is

[2:57:59] in the details and in the instituting of

[2:58:01] it because

[2:58:04] we're have to going to have some They're

[2:58:05] going to have They're going to have some

[2:58:06] administrative leeway in order to be

[2:58:08] able to actually do a decent job cuz

[2:58:10] some of it doesn't make sense.

[2:58:12] Got to say.

[2:58:14] Um

[2:58:15] but

[2:58:17] uh

[2:58:18] it seems like we should be able to

[2:58:19] approve that and then

[2:58:21] keep out the administrative and the

[2:58:23] recreational

[2:58:25] for further work.

[2:58:35] Also,

[2:58:36] although I got to say the tree ordinance

[2:58:39] is got to I I think we have to uh

[2:58:44] tip our hats to the conservation and and

[2:58:46] keep the uh tree removal fee the same.

[2:58:50] I don't know what to do about uh the

[2:58:52] compliance and I thought I thought uh

[2:58:55] Rebecca's points were really extremely

[2:58:58] good. Uh

[2:58:59] the

[2:59:00] we're just not getting uh people to pay

[2:59:04] for these things uh

[2:59:06] cuz

[2:59:08] it's first of all, it's very awkward

[2:59:10] trying to get them uh trying to get to

[2:59:12] get on the website and get it done and

[2:59:14] so forth. They

[2:59:15] the mechanisms are just not there for

[2:59:17] people to pay.

[2:59:19] Uh

[2:59:20] and the uh

[2:59:23] the devil

[2:59:24] is in the details of how we actually

[2:59:28] make these monies available.

[2:59:31] So, anyway, I'm I'm for the bifurcation.

[2:59:35] » Just to clarify, it's building,

[2:59:37] planning, and engineering.

[2:59:39] >> Does that include the trees?

[2:59:41] >> Cuz it's well

[2:59:42] the tree permits are included in that,

[2:59:44] yes, but building, planning, and

[2:59:46] engineering cuz there's there is a

[2:59:48] development component to these fees and

[2:59:51] require the 60 days. Administrative and

[2:59:53] recreation, those fees

[2:59:55] um

[2:59:56] we can adopt those

[2:59:58] um

[2:59:59] these 10 days prior to adoption.

[3:00:01] >> Yeah, so for sure with the exception of

[3:00:03] the tree ordinance.

[3:00:07] I don't under I mean

[3:00:09] so complicated

[3:00:11] uh

[3:00:12] and to us to uh

[3:00:15] do this level of detail

[3:00:17] in this context is is is pretty um

[3:00:21] daunting.

[3:00:22] Um because there there are things that

[3:00:24] are like we're talking about $17 for a

[3:00:26] fence permit.

[3:00:28] I is stepping back and wanting to

[3:00:30] discuss it. I I I feel the need to say

[3:00:33] that

[3:00:35] uh the things that uh we're focusing on

[3:00:39] are things like fences,

[3:00:41] uh all the all these

[3:00:44] uh the trees, these are the things that

[3:00:46] people care about and and whether or not

[3:00:50] we're actually

[3:00:52] we need to make exceptions for those for

[3:00:54] those things. I think the fence permits

[3:00:56] were were pretty outrageously cheap in

[3:00:59] this. Uh and and penalties are only

[3:01:03] twice what the fee is. So, who who would

[3:01:07] ever uh

[3:01:08] ask the uh

[3:01:11] It It It It doesn't seem to respect the

[3:01:14] things that

[3:01:17] completely make our make our our our

[3:01:20] town unique,

[3:01:21] which is the the um

[3:01:26] the easements, the enforcement of the

[3:01:28] easements, the keeping of the easements,

[3:01:30] the keeping of the fences, and the

[3:01:32] ability to and the and the ability to

[3:01:36] enforce those.

[3:01:38] Uh and without those, we're just not

[3:01:40] we're going to lose our town.

[3:01:42] So, anyway, maybe that's not quite what

[3:01:44] you wanted because I don't see an option

[3:01:46] for you.

[3:01:48] But I do think we need to move ahead

[3:01:50] with some of the building.

[3:01:52] >> Sure. Well, and Mayor, I would say that

[3:01:54] enforcing the rules is not what the fee

[3:01:57] schedule is about.

[3:01:58] >> Well, there is

[3:01:59] >> No, it's No, it's No, it's not. So, I

[3:02:00] just let me try to answer because what I

[3:02:02] heard was you were saying like the the

[3:02:04] fee on the fences, that's what they're

[3:02:06] going to charge if you ask to put a

[3:02:08] fence in the right-of-way.

[3:02:10] That's what they're going to charge you

[3:02:13] to process your request. That's not a

[3:02:15] we're going to come and say you can't

[3:02:17] put this fence in. That's a That's an

[3:02:19] enforcement thing. That's not what that

[3:02:22] money is. So, it just seemed like you

[3:02:23] were conflating a little bit

[3:02:25] >> Yeah.

[3:02:25] >> enforcement of our values, which I

[3:02:27] completely agree with you, versus

[3:02:29] somebody who is asking permission to do

[3:02:32] something.

[3:02:34] Does that make

[3:02:35] >> Yes, it does. I mean, it doesn't clarify

[3:02:38] to me because I didn't I didn't

[3:02:39] understand that to begin with.

[3:02:41] But, uh the the it is a component of I'm

[3:02:46] just trying to figure out how

[3:02:49] to get these fees to feel like they're

[3:02:51] trying to get us a better town.

[3:02:54] Thank you. I appreciate your help.

[3:02:58] >> Look out. It's getting late.

[3:03:00] Stuff's flying.

[3:03:01] I am, man. I tell you, stuff's flying.

[3:03:04] >> Okay, somebody else go. Okay.

[3:03:06] >> So, you are you Are you

[3:03:07] >> I'm done.

[3:03:08] >> You are you Are you done?

[3:03:09] >> AI is apparently was about to

[3:03:11] >> So,

[3:03:12] >> take over.

[3:03:12] >> So, hang on just a sec. So, before we

[3:03:14] leave, so what I heard is you're for

[3:03:16] bifurcating building, planning, and

[3:03:17] engine

[3:03:18] >> Yeah.

[3:03:18] >> Okay, great.

[3:03:20] >> But, I do have some corrections. I think

[3:03:22] we should go with the public input that

[3:03:23] we got.

[3:03:24] >> Okay, well, what So, what let's Let's

[3:03:26] capture So, the corrections are

[3:03:28] >> Trees are

[3:03:29] uh

[3:03:29] >> So, what What's your proposal?

[3:03:31] >> I think the tree fee should stay the

[3:03:33] same.

[3:03:34] >> Okay. So, stay

[3:03:35] the $95 or whatever the existing fee is.

[3:03:38] >> sure Yeah.

[3:03:38] >> Okay.

[3:03:39] And some Is there

[3:03:40] >> We'd have to get people to sign up for

[3:03:41] it.

[3:03:42] >> That's okay. And Is there anything else?

[3:03:44] I'm just trying to capture where you stand.

[3:03:50] » I think that Well,

[3:03:52] No, I think I I have to trust that

[3:03:54] they're going to make it right.

[3:03:56] >> When they when they put it in in place.

[3:03:58] No, I think it's okay.

[3:04:00] >> Okay.

[3:04:01] Helen, go ahead.

[3:04:03] >> Thank you. Uh Um

[3:04:06] you know, obviously master fee schedules

[3:04:08] are comprehensive and deep. So, I

[3:04:09] appreciate the opportunity to have to

[3:04:12] comment.

[3:04:14] Um

[3:04:16] So, first um

[3:04:18] this is a minor thing. Community Hall

[3:04:19] public agency. I just would like it to

[3:04:21] be noted like that it would be exempt if

[3:04:24] we are co-host. Like I know that sounds

[3:04:26] weird, but I would like that like in

[3:04:28] case there is institutional knowledge

[3:04:30] that is lost along the way.

[3:04:32] Um that is a minor one.

[3:04:34] Um

[3:04:37] Uh ch- ch- ch- ch- ch- ch- ch-

[3:04:41] Okay, great.

[3:04:42] Um

[3:04:43] in terms of recreation versus

[3:04:47] um

[3:04:47] Uh I think especially because of the

[3:04:50] lack of court fees that we have noted, I

[3:04:52] think we should bifurcate. So, I'm fine

[3:04:55] with that.

[3:04:56] Um

[3:04:56] >> And can I ask just

[3:04:57] >> Yep.

[3:04:58] >> the bifurcation, are you saying

[3:05:00] >> for recreation.

[3:05:01] >> Okay, so yours is slightly different

[3:05:03] than Mary's cuz Okay, that's

[3:05:04] >> Yeah.

[3:05:06] Um

[3:05:06] >> not administration.

[3:05:08] >> Yeah, that's actually that's what she

[3:05:09] says, right? Yeah.

[3:05:10] >> I mean, that's the only difference and

[3:05:12] I'll get back to what it mean

[3:05:13] administration means. It's pretty small.

[3:05:15] >> But right.

[3:05:16] >> And I might be missing something with

[3:05:18] administration, but I think right now I

[3:05:19] just I'm saying recreation.

[3:05:22] Um I would also recommend a lower price

[3:05:26] for CYSA over AYSO.

[3:05:29] Or

[3:05:30] uh excuse me, vice versa. A higher cost

[3:05:33] for CYSA versus and lower for AYSO.

[3:05:37] Um

[3:05:39] EV chargers,

[3:05:41] I actually

[3:05:43] um

[3:05:44] I actually would like to see a lower

[3:05:47] cost for that as well.

[3:05:49] Um

[3:05:50] we want to try to encourage chargers. Um

[3:05:54] I would

[3:05:55] I I I don't know what the right cost is,

[3:05:58] but we're one of the highest. Um what

[3:06:01] this doesn't take into account, having

[3:06:03] put in an EV charger, is the trenching

[3:06:05] that's involved.

[3:06:07] Um

[3:06:08] which is exorbitantly expensive. So, I

[3:06:12] would and to incentivize it to lower a

[3:06:14] cost for an EV charger is what I would

[3:06:17] like to see.

[3:06:18] Um

[3:06:21] and

[3:06:22] we didn't I should have asked your

[3:06:24] recommendations for that one or what

[3:06:26] would be some cost recovery, but to give

[3:06:29] them some sort of a break.

[3:06:31] Um ADUs

[3:06:41] Um

[3:06:42] you know, again, we have one of the the

[3:06:46] zoning clearance. We have the highest

[3:06:50] of any jurisdiction in the comparison at

[3:06:53] 1,000. Hillsborough is at 685.

[3:06:56] Um and again, to incent potentially

[3:06:59] incentivize a little bit to give some

[3:07:01] sort of cost break um

[3:07:04] because of our housing element. Um I'm

[3:07:07] not saying huge, but something a little

[3:07:10] bit

[3:07:11] is what I would like to see.

[3:07:13] Um

[3:07:17] The tree removal, I absolutely I'm also

[3:07:20] concerned because of um

[3:07:24] vegetation management, you know, there

[3:07:26] are trees out there. They're pine trees

[3:07:28] that are not they don't need a permit.

[3:07:30] There are other trees out there that

[3:07:33] um

[3:07:34] for

[3:07:35] uh for fire safety, again, I would try

[3:07:38] to incentivize, so I would consider

[3:07:40] lowering that cost.

[3:07:42] Um

[3:07:43] >> Would you lower the existing cost?

[3:07:46] I mean, matching married or are you

[3:07:47] suggesting something there?

[3:07:50] » So, I'm looking at Woodside at 125

[3:07:54] Uh um um

[3:07:55] and then Los Altos Hills at 250 and

[3:07:58] those two jurisdictions are similar fire

[3:08:03] hazard. So, I personally would put

[3:08:05] something in between those two.

[3:08:07] Um

[3:08:09] uh just to do some

[3:08:12] Right, somewhere in between those two.

[3:08:14] Um

[3:08:16] So, there is some cost I think to

[3:08:18] process them to staff. So, I want to

[3:08:21] make you know, but I agree like I do

[3:08:23] really

[3:08:24] want I don't want it to be

[3:08:28] too excessive. Like I think $1,000 is

[3:08:31] excessive and we want we want to help

[3:08:33] manage the tree the canopy. So, I want

[3:08:36] to make sure that

[3:08:37] tree removal is accessible and not um

[3:08:41] and not have people avoid it. In terms

[3:08:44] of the fines, we're not that's not on

[3:08:46] the agenda, but some history Woodside

[3:08:48] incorporated their ex-

[3:08:50] their very high fines because someone

[3:08:53] cut down trees without permits rep- rep-

[3:08:56] like a

[3:08:57] you know, 10 years ago or something and

[3:08:59] that's when they instituted their fines.

[3:09:01] Just um

[3:09:05] and

[3:09:07] um instructor fees

[3:09:09] um

[3:09:10] I know we're five or we're it looks like

[3:09:13] we might go towards recreation at a

[3:09:15] later date, but I would

[3:09:17] you know, to have

[3:09:19] one-time fees for a new instructor and

[3:09:22] then

[3:09:23] if it's a long-time instructor, not it's

[3:09:26] a one-time fee and not a repeated fee.

[3:09:29] Um is what I would ask.

[3:09:31] Um

[3:09:35] » Do you want to have an

[3:09:37] instructor?

[3:09:38] >> We do, but to have I mean and I don't um

[3:09:41] the 197 I um

[3:09:45] I

[3:09:46] didn't have a chance to compare it to

[3:09:48] other cities. So,

[3:09:51] um

[3:09:52] but we're I'm just saying like I'd like

[3:09:55] exemptions for long-time

[3:09:56] instructors. I'm not making a comment

[3:09:59] like exemption like a one-time fee for

[3:10:02] new instructors.

[3:10:04] But to have people potentially

[3:10:06] grandfathered in or some something to

[3:10:08] have a one

[3:10:09] um and probably lower, but I don't I

[3:10:11] haven't done enough research on that

[3:10:13] particular fee, but it does seem like

[3:10:16] people that have been an instructor for

[3:10:17] a long time

[3:10:19] to have them have to pay $200 every

[3:10:23] you know, every session or something

[3:10:25] seems expensive to me. And it

[3:10:28] um

[3:10:29] and then the EV charging fees um often

[3:10:33] like piece you know, PCE

[3:10:35] you

[3:10:36] um I don't know if we can do a midnight

[3:10:38] to 3:00 p.m. rates.

[3:10:40] You know, usually that's 23 cents per

[3:10:43] kilowatt, not 43 cents and that 43 cents

[3:10:46] is a higher rate. So, I don't and I

[3:10:49] don't know if we can do that, but I

[3:10:50] thought I'd

[3:10:51] uh

[3:10:52] again to incentivize EVs. Right now at

[3:10:55] 43 cents, that almost is comparable to

[3:10:58] gas cars. So, to lower the cost when

[3:11:01] it's cheaper and there's solar going

[3:11:04] um and it could be cheaper from if we

[3:11:06] put the chargers and I don't know

[3:11:08] because we have ChargePoint if we can do

[3:11:10] that. Um right? Like I don't know if

[3:11:13] they can do a load shift timing.

[3:11:16] >> So, are you you talking about installing

[3:11:18] EV chargers or you char-

[3:11:20] >> No, EV charger is a the It is included

[3:11:24] on this rate master rate

[3:11:26] >> Right, I'm just trying to understand

[3:11:28] which one you're So, you're talking

[3:11:29] about

[3:11:30] >> about the 43 cent rate. So, I don't know

[3:11:34] if if ChargePoint allows us to do any

[3:11:37] load shift or when it's cheaper.

[3:11:39] Um for them like I know ChargePoint is

[3:11:43] private and wants to make money, but I noticed that the 43 cents was in

[3:11:48] our

[3:11:51] So, do you Sorry. Does ChargePoint offer

[3:11:54] reduced rates during

[3:11:56] >> I haven't seen it. I don't but that

[3:11:59] doesn't mean that it's not offered or

[3:12:00] that it's not possible, but it's not

[3:12:02] something that I have seen in

[3:12:05] municipal fee schedules that ChargePoint

[3:12:07] >> Right. Yeah, I don't know if it's

[3:12:09] possible.

[3:12:10] Thank you.

[3:12:11] So, um

[3:12:14] that's all I got.

[3:12:15] Um

[3:12:17] Oh, did I say Little League fees?

[3:12:19] >> Yes.

[3:12:19] >> Uh

[3:12:21] >> I mean, at least you talked about I

[3:12:22] guess you talked about soccer, I think.

[3:12:23] >> Yeah, I haven't looked I missed the

[3:12:26] Little League fees. I'm not going to

[3:12:27] comment on that because it does seem

[3:12:29] So, I'm not sure. It seems high, but I

[3:12:32] haven't done enough research, so I'm not

[3:12:34] going to actually comment on that. But

[3:12:35] yeah, if we're going to do recreation at

[3:12:37] a later date.

[3:12:38] >> Thank you.

[3:12:39] >> Thanks.

[3:12:40] >> Rebecca?

[3:12:42] >> Uh yes. Um so, I'm in favor of

[3:12:44] bifurcating out the recreation.

[3:12:49] Um I wasn't clear on whether code

[3:12:52] enforcement was included

[3:12:54] in the 60 days.

[3:13:00] » No, there's no development component

[3:13:03] to code enforcement.

[3:13:05] >> Okay. Um

[3:13:09] I mean, code enforcement to me, the only

[3:13:11] change you're making I think is

[3:13:16] Uh hang on, let me pull up that page.

[3:13:20] Uh

[3:13:22] Oh, it doesn't have a master fee

[3:13:24] schedule. It just has a table, right?

[3:13:27] It's the only

[3:13:28] table six, right? That's it for code

[3:13:30] enforcement?

[3:13:34] The inspection reinspection fee and the

[3:13:36] permit investigation fee is just

[3:13:39] that that's it though, right?

[3:13:44] » I believe that's correct.

[3:13:45] >> So I would favor including that

[3:13:48] in not with parks and rec, but including

[3:13:50] that with the building and planning. Um

[3:13:53] And so Tony, you have on the screen your

[3:13:56] the staff is recommending 100% for all

[3:13:57] of these areas,

[3:13:59] but I vaguely remember you saying

[3:14:04] >> Sorry, go ahead.

[3:14:05] >> That's what was in the matrix study

[3:14:07] report.

[3:14:09] >> Oh, and but you had a different

[3:14:11] recommendation, I thought.

[3:14:13] You had different percentages because

[3:14:15] you had something about

[3:14:18] Uh oh, the business license fee.

[3:14:24] Oh, yes. You so

[3:14:26] >> Yeah, so the the application processing

[3:14:28] fee.

[3:14:29] Yeah, it was um

[3:14:32] uh I would recommend a lower fee.

[3:14:35] >> And then um I didn't actually see the

[3:14:37] annual business license fee. Is that

[3:14:40] something different?

[3:14:42] >> No, the annual business license fee is

[3:14:43] in the fee schedule, and it can't change

[3:14:44] because it's a tax.

[3:14:46] We would have to we'd have to uh

[3:14:49] we would have to have a vote to increase

[3:14:51] that.

[3:14:52] Or change the methodology of how it's

[3:14:54] collected.

[3:14:55] >> And you're saying it is in here?

[3:14:58] >> It is in the fee schedule, yes.

[3:14:59] >> Under administration?

[3:15:09] » Table four.

[3:15:12] >> Yes.

[3:15:14] >> and then the $4 uh

[3:15:17] ask fee and

[3:15:19] >> I'm looking at table four, and I don't

[3:15:21] see a business license fee, annual fee.

[3:15:29] But I mean, obviously we can't change

[3:15:30] it, so it's

[3:15:32] neither here nor there, but I don't see

[3:15:34] it in table four, but okay.

[3:15:36] >> Well, table four is just highlighting

[3:15:37] the the the fees that are changing.

[3:15:40] >> Oh, okay.

[3:15:42] >> But in the master fee schedule it'd be

[3:15:43] under administrative.

[3:15:47] » Okay.

[3:15:50] Um okay, so yeah.

[3:15:52] >> Yeah, it's just $134

[3:15:54] a year, right?

[3:15:55] >> 134 and then there's a $4 task fee, so

[3:15:58] it's $138. Yeah.

[3:16:01] >> Okay, so yeah.

[3:16:04] This report was a little challenging. Um

[3:16:08] Okay, so let me go back to my notes

[3:16:10] here.

[3:16:11] Um

[3:16:13] So again, I'm in favor of the

[3:16:14] bifurcation of just

[3:16:16] rec recreation.

[3:16:18] Um

[3:16:21] Uh let's see, you are recommending

[3:16:23] reducing some solar panel fees, business

[3:16:26] license fees, and then the rest we'll

[3:16:28] deal with later. So what what is your

[3:16:30] recommendation for solar and business

[3:16:32] license? What what percent

[3:16:35] I don't know what's your

[3:16:36] >> The solar panels, there's two options.

[3:16:38] You can you can go with the state rate

[3:16:40] or you can go with the rate that's been

[3:16:41] calculated based on the study.

[3:16:44] Um

[3:16:46] So the state rate I believe is 450.

[3:16:50] And then we've calculated a rate that's

[3:16:51] higher.

[3:16:53] Um we can adopt the higher rate because

[3:16:55] we have a user fee study to justify the

[3:16:56] increase.

[3:17:00] » And what are you proposing?

[3:17:03] we use the higher rate

[3:17:04] or you're proposing that

[3:17:05] >> No, that's

[3:17:07] council.

[3:17:08] >> Okay, do you do you have a

[3:17:09] recommendation or you're just saying

[3:17:10] those are our choices?

[3:17:11] >> Those are the choices.

[3:17:12] >> Okay.

[3:17:13] >> And then with the business license

[3:17:15] application processing fee,

[3:17:17] um I was looking to reduce that to $45

[3:17:21] uh for compliance purposes.

[3:17:24] >> Okay, so just I'm just trying to capture

[3:17:26] all the So, business license processing

[3:17:29] fee you're proposing 45 and for solar

[3:17:31] panels you're saying we have a choice

[3:17:33] between 450 or 1,000.

[3:17:36] >> No, it's 680.

[3:17:38] >> Oh, sorry.

[3:17:39] >> 680

[3:17:43] Okay.

[3:17:45] Go ahead, Rebecca.

[3:17:47] >> The application processing fee for this

[3:17:49] business license, is that one-time or is

[3:17:52] that each year?

[3:17:54] >> It'll be for new

[3:17:56] >> New. New businesses. Okay. Okay.

[3:18:00] So, I'm I'm in favor of that lower rate

[3:18:03] for the business license application

[3:18:05] fee.

[3:18:06] Uh for solar I

[3:18:10] Solar falls under which section again?

[3:18:14] » Building.

[3:18:18] » Um

[3:18:22] I I don't I don't

[3:18:24] I mean, this is the sort of thing that's

[3:18:25] kind of a last-minute thing where we're

[3:18:27] shoving stuff you know,

[3:18:30] Um and we don't have enough time to even

[3:18:32] evaluate it cuz this is the first time

[3:18:33] I'm hearing that there's two potential

[3:18:35] fees. So, it it's a little frustrating

[3:18:37] for for me. I I I don't know.

[3:18:40] Um

[3:18:42] Do we have an idea of what other

[3:18:44] municipalities are charging for solar?

[3:18:51] » I think right now the most jurisdictions

[3:18:54] default to the state fee.

[3:18:57] >> Well, then I guess it would make sense

[3:18:58] for us to do the same.

[3:19:00] Okay, let me go on to the next thing.

[3:19:03] Um

[3:19:05] I would expect that I would think that

[3:19:07] the general plan amendment and zoning

[3:19:08] ordinance charges should be higher, a

[3:19:10] higher deposit even though I know it's a

[3:19:12] deposit. So, but I think to avoid the

[3:19:14] sticker shock of what it will take, I

[3:19:17] think it should be higher. Maybe not as

[3:19:19] high as what we used to charge, but at

[3:19:21] least a thousand dollars more.

[3:19:23] Um

[3:19:26] Let's see. The CPI versus COLA, I was

[3:19:29] only mildly following that, but I think

[3:19:32] whichever one is higher, I think they're

[3:19:34] kind of supposed to be the same. They're

[3:19:35] kind of the same.

[3:19:37] But um

[3:19:39] Well, no. I think

[3:19:42] when we looked at the staff, we decided

[3:19:45] to take the

[3:19:47] CPI, right? For our COLA?

[3:19:54] » Correct.

[3:19:55] But council has the option to adopt a

[3:19:58] higher COLA.

[3:20:01] So we did

[3:20:01] >> your recommendation for these fees?

[3:20:03] Should we adopt a higher COLA or is the

[3:20:05] COLA based on staff?

[3:20:07] >> our current our current practice is the

[3:20:09] CPI.

[3:20:10] And I'm not proposing to make a change

[3:20:12] to that.

[3:20:13] >> Okay. So let's keep it at CPI. Um the

[3:20:16] tree permit, I would put it at a hundred

[3:20:18] twenty-five dollars as a deposit, not as

[3:20:21] a flat fee.

[3:20:22] That way in the event it takes

[3:20:25] more effort, then we would have the

[3:20:28] option to recover it, but in general,

[3:20:30] the basic the basic tree permit, which

[3:20:34] includes however many trees you put on

[3:20:35] that day's permit, would be processed in

[3:20:39] the normal way, go through the to the

[3:20:41] conservation committee,

[3:20:43] and it would one expectation is that it

[3:20:45] would be a hundred twenty-five dollars.

[3:20:47] Only if it all of a sudden required

[3:20:49] completing arborist reports or something

[3:20:51] like that, at least the town could

[3:20:53] recover those costs.

[3:20:55] Um

[3:20:57] The res- residential data report and

[3:20:59] allowed floor area, this is under um

[3:21:02] administration, I think, or is it

[3:21:03] something else? I

[3:21:10] » It's I mean it's seated in the building.

[3:21:12] I think it's planning.

[3:21:14] Residential data report.

[3:21:22] » I'm sorry, it's I have a small screen

[3:21:23] here and it's

[3:21:27] » Yeah, it's under planning.

[3:21:29] >> Okay, so does that require a uh 60 days?

[3:21:35] >> Yes.

[3:21:36] >> Okay.

[3:21:38] So

[3:21:41] they both seem extremely high. The

[3:21:43] second one in particular. The first one

[3:21:45] okay, I can get requires quite a bit of

[3:21:47] work. The second one the

[3:21:50] im- um impervious coverage and lot

[3:21:53] coverage just seems like a lot. Um

[3:21:58] I would hope eventually that this would be data

[3:22:04] that's collected into our system so that

[3:22:06] it's a push of a button, in which case

[3:22:08] then those fees would need to be

[3:22:10] lowered. I guess it's a deposit, so

[3:22:13] eventually that would be the situation.

[3:22:15] Am I correct?

[3:22:20] Is that a correct understanding that

[3:22:22] it's a deposit, I think. I don't have it

[3:22:24] right in front of me.

[3:22:25] >> It is a deposit, yes.

[3:22:27] >> So in the future when we start we get

[3:22:29] our GIS system working in a couple years

[3:22:31] and all that, then the the the staff

[3:22:34] time it takes to generate that may be

[3:22:36] zero because somebody can just look it

[3:22:38] up themselves, right? Is that kind of

[3:22:43] sort of the understanding for the um

[3:22:45] lot coverage numbers and stuff?

[3:22:50] » I cannot speak to the future.

[3:22:52] >> Okay.

[3:22:54] Um

[3:22:55] let's see.

[3:22:58] >> Buyer's choice.

[3:22:59] >> Uh so

[3:23:01] um

[3:23:03] I guess just a quick comment on public

[3:23:05] works. You know, we we have this new

[3:23:06] table with different numbers. I assume

[3:23:08] the original number included all the

[3:23:09] road repair stuff, which is why it was

[3:23:12] so high.

[3:23:13] Um

[3:23:16] The fence permit, I just wanted to say

[3:23:18] that there's two different fence

[3:23:20] permits. One is under

[3:23:22] planning or building, I forgot which,

[3:23:24] and that's a thousand dollars deposit.

[3:23:27] And then there's this other fence permit

[3:23:29] that's just encroachment,

[3:23:32] which is $17 a linear foot. So, I think a and fence permit's deposit,

[3:23:37] it's a lot of money,

[3:23:39] but I think it's okay cuz it's goes

[3:23:41] through the ASU C, so there are definite

[3:23:44] expenses required there.

[3:23:46] In terms of giving lowering the ADU

[3:23:48] cost, I personally would only lower it

[3:23:51] for people who are planning to do a

[3:23:52] rental ADU.

[3:23:54] Um

[3:23:55] and I don't They can rent it whatever

[3:23:57] price. I'm not restricting it that way,

[3:23:59] but I would not lower the cost for ADUs

[3:24:01] unless it was for a rental.

[3:24:04] Um

[3:24:08] Uh and then EV chargers, Helen brought

[3:24:10] that up. I actually pay peak rates at

[3:24:14] over 60 cents an hour, and then off-peak

[3:24:17] is obviously down at 23 26, depends the

[3:24:20] number. So, I guess the 48 was just an

[3:24:23] average of these. I would

[3:24:25] want somebody to talk to ChargePoint to

[3:24:28] kind of understand if they are capable

[3:24:29] of doing that um

[3:24:32] pricing because

[3:24:34] um if we're only charging 48 cents an

[3:24:36] hour during peak, and that's peak is

[3:24:39] really from 3:00 till midnight, we're

[3:24:41] going to be losing money. So, um

[3:24:45] uh you know,

[3:24:46] I think peak should be what what what I

[3:24:49] think we should be charging what peak

[3:24:50] is.

[3:24:51] Uh you know, certainly during peak time.

[3:24:54] So, um

[3:24:57] Okay. So, I think those are the main

[3:24:59] things, and then just a real quick

[3:25:01] because we're going to be coming back to

[3:25:03] parks and rec stuff. I would like to

[3:25:05] have these changes made. I want

[3:25:07] community hall. I want the rental for

[3:25:09] non-residents to be listed as a line

[3:25:11] item. My understanding is that we can

[3:25:13] charge facility fees and we can charge

[3:25:15] market rate for facilities

[3:25:18] legally.

[3:25:20] That's my understanding, you know, and I

[3:25:21] think for non-residents we should be

[3:25:23] charging market rate.

[3:25:25] For you know, if someone wants a

[3:25:26] wedding, we should be doing comparison

[3:25:27] of other wedding venues and we should be

[3:25:29] charging appropriately, which means

[3:25:32] several thousand.

[3:25:33] Um AYSO and CYSA should be different

[3:25:36] price. Uh Little League for search

[3:25:38] should not be more than about

[3:25:40] $50 or whatever the kind of comparable

[3:25:43] somewhat increased to handle the

[3:25:45] um

[3:25:47] uh the inflation over the past few

[3:25:49] years. So, just a little bit higher.

[3:25:52] Um

[3:25:55] Courts charges, we need that included.

[3:25:58] Um

[3:26:03] And then I like as people have said, we need when we come back with Parks and

[3:26:06] Rec, we need to kind of have a

[3:26:07] comparison of per hour, per team, per

[3:26:12] you know, league, for whatever to kind

[3:26:14] of understand what what other people are

[3:26:16] charging.

[3:26:19] And that I think is it for me.

[3:26:23] >> Thank you, Rebecca. Judith?

[3:26:26] >> Then a point of clarification.

[3:26:29] Um so, say we

[3:26:31] don't subsidize ADU costs right now.

[3:26:36] Um

[3:26:37] but separately, does that impinge on our

[3:26:40] ability to

[3:26:42] subsidize if we develop an ADU policy,

[3:26:45] if there is rental

[3:26:47] to subsidize it or to pay it out of a

[3:26:50] affordable housing fund? Cuz I I want to

[3:26:52] know what other tools there might be

[3:26:54] besides this rate schedule

[3:26:57] decision today.

[3:27:02] Like how much are we locking tonight on

[3:27:05] stuff like that? Um

[3:27:07] couple couple responses. One is we're

[3:27:10] the council will revisit this fee

[3:27:11] schedule annually

[3:27:13] and could you know make adjustments in

[3:27:15] addition to the CPI could make other

[3:27:17] adjustments.

[3:27:19] In terms of the use of affordable

[3:27:21] housing funds to incentivize ADUs

[3:27:25] um

[3:27:27] that would remain an option. The council

[3:27:30] can also consider

[3:27:31] fee waiver requests as it's done in for

[3:27:34] other types of affordable housing

[3:27:36] projects.

[3:27:37] >> So those are the tools that are

[3:27:38] available and not precluded by this. So

[3:27:42] the way we should think about it is we

[3:27:45] still have flexibility to formulate

[3:27:48] policy using other tools and then

[3:27:51] annually

[3:27:53] we could do it through this as well.

[3:27:55] Okay, that's very helpful.

[3:27:57] >> And Judith could I just add on quickly?

[3:27:59] >> Yeah.

[3:27:59] >> Um if I understand this, this is sort of

[3:28:01] setting the ceiling.

[3:28:03] Like we it's hard for us to justify

[3:28:06] going over this. It's easy for us if we

[3:28:08] decide to charge less.

[3:28:10] Right, okay.

[3:28:11] >> Okay, that that's going to inform

[3:28:14] um

[3:28:15] some of my comments here.

[3:28:17] So the thing I'm struggling with I do

[3:28:20] agree to bifurcate. One question is do

[3:28:22] we bifurcate recreation and admin or

[3:28:26] versus other?

[3:28:27] And I'm hearing differences in my

[3:28:30] colleagues views on that. The reason I

[3:28:32] would bifurcate rec and admin is I don't

[3:28:36] feel I have a good understanding of the

[3:28:38] EV charging fee.

[3:28:40] Um and I I would have a hard time having

[3:28:43] an opinion.

[3:28:45] Um we can't go

[3:28:47] up from here is my understanding.

[3:28:50] So I guess I could get comfortable if

[3:28:52] others really feel strongly

[3:28:55] about

[3:28:56] needing to have the admin fees

[3:28:59] um in

[3:29:01] finalized tonight. I I would be okay

[3:29:04] with that, but but to me, I don't

[3:29:05] understand that enough to really make an

[3:29:08] informed choice.

[3:29:10] Um because of the other tools on the

[3:29:12] ADUs and because, you know, concepts

[3:29:16] like if it's rented, we'd be more

[3:29:19] willing potentially to

[3:29:22] quote subsidize. And by that, I just

[3:29:24] mean give give fee breaks.

[3:29:27] I think that needs more of a policy

[3:29:29] thought. So, I would probably just

[3:29:32] leave that ADU

[3:29:34] uh fee as

[3:29:36] it is proposed.

[3:29:38] On the tree removal, I do want to remind

[3:29:41] people we're a town that doesn't have a

[3:29:44] lot of money. One of the big drivers for

[3:29:47] years has been we ought to do a fee

[3:29:49] study so that we could increase fees and

[3:29:52] get something more than nothing from

[3:29:55] these fees. So, um

[3:29:58] because of that, I certainly don't want

[3:30:00] to keep things 14 years old fees. I do

[3:30:04] not want to keep them. Everything has to

[3:30:07] come up a bit um where it's justifiable

[3:30:10] under the matrix study. So, to me, the

[3:30:13] tree removals

[3:30:15] um you know, I can see that not a

[3:30:17] thousand

[3:30:19] dollar deposit may or may not make any

[3:30:21] sense, but I certainly wouldn't go any

[3:30:23] less than 250. Um and what that looks

[3:30:27] like is a deposit

[3:30:29] um versus anything else. I don't know. I

[3:30:31] mean, it that just still seems pretty

[3:30:33] low and very reasonable to me.

[3:30:37] Um

[3:30:38] business license, I would reduce it to

[3:30:41] $45.

[3:30:43] Uh recreation

[3:30:46] Sorry, is there something going on?

[3:30:48] >> This wants to comment, please.

[3:30:50] >> Okay, no problem. Um recreation fees,

[3:30:54] when we get there since we're I I think

[3:30:56] we're going to end up bifurcating, I do

[3:30:58] think being more thoughtful about the

[3:30:59] courts

[3:31:01] and and breaking that out really is is

[3:31:05] something we ought to do. There's so

[3:31:06] much interest in that and it doesn't

[3:31:08] strike me as fair the way it's coming

[3:31:10] over right now.

[3:31:12] The instructors, maybe give repeat

[3:31:14] instructors a break. Um, I would be open

[3:31:17] to that and I do think we ought to

[3:31:20] be subsidizing or giving teams, you

[3:31:23] know, a a break. So, what that looks

[3:31:25] like, I I'm open

[3:31:28] to what,

[3:31:29] you know, future input might be from the

[3:31:32] community, but when we get there we

[3:31:34] ought to be looking at not going to the

[3:31:36] maximum on those.

[3:31:38] And then on solar, I would go to the

[3:31:41] state rate

[3:31:43] and I'm perfectly fine with the CPI. Let

[3:31:45] me know if I missed anything.

[3:31:48] >> All right, thank you. Um, one more

[3:31:50] comment.

[3:31:50] >> Thanks. Sorry, I think I forgot some

[3:31:52] things. Um, I absolutely support lower

[3:31:55] rates somehow for residents as long as

[3:31:57] we can make it

[3:31:59] legally. Um, I support the CPI.

[3:32:02] Um, in terms of the tree, I agree with

[3:32:05] um, Council Member Hasko bec- um, for

[3:32:08] 250.

[3:32:10] Um,

[3:32:11] I am worried that Megan could step down

[3:32:13] and the conservation committee could not

[3:32:16] have an arborist and the town could then

[3:32:18] need arborist to hire an arborist. So, I

[3:32:21] am worried about that in case Megan were

[3:32:23] to step down.

[3:32:25] Um, in terms of the EV charging, just to

[3:32:27] clarify to Council Member Hasko, um, I

[3:32:30] was wondering if we could do any if

[3:32:33] ChargePoint, who is our service

[3:32:34] provider, does need load shifting

[3:32:36] potentially to make it cheaper for

[3:32:39] people during the day when it's not um,

[3:32:41] and and um,

[3:32:44] Rebecca, you need to check out your

[3:32:45] different rates because they're um

[3:32:48] they're are they're 53 cents at

[3:32:52] that you can load shift to and during

[3:32:54] prime 3 8 and midnight. Um but I don't

[3:32:58] think that's feasible it sounds like. So

[3:33:00] I'm I'm guessing we are probably set at

[3:33:02] 43.

[3:33:03] Um and I'm fine with the solar

[3:33:06] being at the state rate.

[3:33:08] Thank you.

[3:33:09] >> Thank you.

[3:33:10] Okay. Um so hopefully I can wrap this

[3:33:13] up.

[3:33:15] So so we just talked about EV. I I think

[3:33:17] the only thing I'd say about EV is I

[3:33:18] would expect that we charge what we pay.

[3:33:21] Whatever that is. So and and I can't

[3:33:24] quite the current fee says modified and

[3:33:26] the things is total cost. So if 43 cents

[3:33:28] is our total cost could be 43 cents I'm

[3:33:31] fine with that. Um I'm in favor of just

[3:33:35] taking out recreation and just going

[3:33:37] ahead with the administration, building,

[3:33:39] planning, and engineering. Um

[3:33:43] other than the EV stuff, the rest of the

[3:33:44] stuff that's in administrative I don't

[3:33:46] have any issues. So I'd recommend we do

[3:33:48] all of those.

[3:33:50] Um business license I'm happy with the

[3:33:52] $45 for the sort of initial processing

[3:33:55] fee. Solar panels at 680 seems

[3:33:58] reasonable. Trees at 250. CPI.

[3:34:03] Um

[3:34:04] I had

[3:34:05] one question. Um

[3:34:07] if somebody wants to replace their deck,

[3:34:10] you know, it's just a replacement.

[3:34:12] That's a $500 charge?

[3:34:15] Is that the right way to look at this?

[3:34:16] Because I mean that that's what's in

[3:34:18] here it as I understand it because it

[3:34:21] would be sort of zero to two $2,000.

[3:34:27] » If it's if it would be a valuation for

[3:34:29] me.

[3:34:31] >> Well, and that's my question is if I

[3:34:33] want to replace an existing deck. I'm

[3:34:35] not building a new one. Just I'm just

[3:34:37] replacing one that's there.

[3:34:39] Because I mean here's my concern is

[3:34:41] replacing old redwood decks, replacing

[3:34:43] fire hazards, things that are going to

[3:34:45] make us fire safe. I really don't want

[3:34:47] to penalize people cuz it then you're

[3:34:49] just going to replace it with whatever

[3:34:50] they had before. They're not going to

[3:34:52] come get a permit. So, this is a little

[3:34:54] bit like the tree argument that, you

[3:34:55] know, we kind of want to encourage

[3:34:56] people to get this permit and do

[3:34:58] something. So,

[3:35:01] do we know if I'm just doing a

[3:35:03] replacement versus a new deck cuz I

[3:35:05] can't tell when I look at this

[3:35:08] whether replacement fits under this

[3:35:10] valuation.

[3:35:11] >> I I believe it would.

[3:35:12] >> Okay.

[3:35:14] All right. So,

[3:35:17] yeah.

[3:35:23] » So, that would

[3:35:25] if you're

[3:35:28] if it's like there was a fire and I'm

[3:35:30] reconstructing it and that's what No,

[3:35:32] you're just like in general, I just want

[3:35:34] a new deck.

[3:35:35] >> No.

[3:35:35] no, no, it's like I got an old

[3:35:37] rotten redwood deck

[3:35:38] >> Uh-huh.

[3:35:38] >> and I I want to replace it

[3:35:40] >> Mhm.

[3:35:40] >> and the town would say, if you're going

[3:35:42] to get a permit, you're going to have to

[3:35:43] put class A material down.

[3:35:45] >> Mhm.

[3:35:46] >> And so, we're going to charge them $500

[3:35:49] before they even get started just to

[3:35:51] replace what they had there.

[3:35:53] >> Mhm.

[3:35:53] >> And I'm suggesting that that's something

[3:35:55] we want to encourage, not discourage.

[3:35:57] Cuz if we discourage them and they just

[3:35:59] say, "Okay, I'll just have my contractor

[3:36:01] come up and I'll hope the building

[3:36:02] inspector doesn't show up and I'll just,

[3:36:04] you know, replace the boards and be done

[3:36:05] with it."

[3:36:06] >> Right. So, there's there's two options.

[3:36:08] One is that you create a standalone fee

[3:36:13] for

[3:36:14] decks

[3:36:15] or deck replacement.

[3:36:17] >> Right.

[3:36:17] >> And that would apply to any replacement

[3:36:20] of a deck

[3:36:21] regardless of the circumstances.

[3:36:23] >> Well, yeah, good but as if as long as

[3:36:25] like for like, if you will. I mean, you

[3:36:26] know, you you're you're not expanding

[3:36:28] the deck, you're not doing wild things

[3:36:30] to it. You're just basically putting

[3:36:31] back the same deck. And yeah, I don't

[3:36:33] care whether it's cuz your house burned

[3:36:35] down or you're just the boards rotted

[3:36:37] out.

[3:36:38] >> Right.

[3:36:38] >> Yeah.

[3:36:39] >> Uh and

[3:36:40] to make the standalone fee

[3:36:42] what we should do is work with staff to

[3:36:44] say if it's a deck, how much time does

[3:36:46] it take, what is the cost?

[3:36:47] Uh

[3:36:49] because

[3:36:50] the obviously right now it would be

[3:36:52] under the valuation schedule, so it

[3:36:54] would depend on the valuation

[3:36:55] uh deck

[3:36:57] that's being replaced.

[3:36:58] Um so we wouldn't it it's not as easy as

[3:37:01] just saying we think it should be

[3:37:03] $513.

[3:37:07] That's it.

[3:37:08] >> Is this a deposit we're talking about or

[3:37:10] are we talking about a

[3:37:11] >> The flat it's

[3:37:12] >> Okay.

[3:37:13] >> It's a valuation fee.

[3:37:14] for you.

[3:37:16] Um

[3:37:19] yeah, I mean alternatively you might be

[3:37:21] able to create a policy that caps the

[3:37:23] fee.

[3:37:24] So you could say if it's a deck

[3:37:26] replacement

[3:37:27] um that your policy is that the fee

[3:37:30] should be no more than X. So you would

[3:37:32] still go through the valuation table and

[3:37:34] if it calculated out less than whatever

[3:37:37] you thought the amount should be

[3:37:40] it would be capped.

[3:37:41] >> Okay, so what you're proposing is we

[3:37:42] could pass the fee schedule and then

[3:37:44] later define a policy that capped the

[3:37:46] fee.

[3:37:47] >> Right.

[3:37:47] >> I'm I'm I'm would be comfortable with

[3:37:49] that. Um

[3:37:51] and then the last piece is that yeah, I

[3:37:53] would remand to the Park and Recs the

[3:37:56] basically all the recreation fees and

[3:37:58] have them follow up on this discussion.

[3:38:01] Um cuz I think you know, we've talked

[3:38:02] about courts, we've talked about rental

[3:38:03] fees

[3:38:05] um and I I would have them

[3:38:07] talk about room rentals as well and just

[3:38:10] all the conversation cuz what I would

[3:38:12] hope would come back to the council is a

[3:38:14] you know, sort of fully vetted set of

[3:38:16] ideas for the council to decide.

[3:38:20] So

[3:38:21] with those thoughts, um let me try a

[3:38:24] trial balloon and see if this is close

[3:38:26] enough. Oh, and I had I I had one other

[3:38:28] thing I wanted to add. Um this is where

[3:38:30] I was asking earlier about some of the

[3:38:32] questions that are embedded in the the

[3:38:34] document. You were proposing that we use

[3:38:37] construction cost tables um with a

[3:38:41] modifier for the region.

[3:38:43] So um

[3:38:45] So So I think my trial balloon for a a

[3:38:48] proposal here would be that we do that.

[3:38:50] So this is basically instead of what

[3:38:54] happens today is a contractor comes in

[3:38:55] and says, "Oh, this is a $5,000 job."

[3:38:58] And he bills the client 15,000, but we

[3:39:02] never know because

[3:39:05] we're not doing what

[3:39:05] >> No, we we changed the process last year

[3:39:08] and we're

[3:39:09] >> Do we already use the

[3:39:10] >> Yeah, we already use this.

[3:39:11] >> Okay, so we All right, well, it talks in

[3:39:13] here about potentially council should

[3:39:15] decide that. So you're saying that's

[3:39:16] already decided. Okay, great. Then I

[3:39:18] will leave that off my motion. Um then

[3:39:21] business license at $45,

[3:39:24] solar panels at 680,

[3:39:26] tree removal at flat 250, CPI.

[3:39:31] I'll leave off the deck and we'll think

[3:39:33] about a policy for the future um and

[3:39:36] that we remand the recreation fees to

[3:39:39] Park and Rec.

[3:39:41] Yeah. Yeah, please.

[3:39:45] » The 680 for solar, is that state or the

[3:39:49] schedule?

[3:39:49] >> the state.

[3:39:50] >> That That is the state. Thank you.

[3:39:52] State fee

[3:39:52] >> Yeah, that's what I thought.

[3:39:53] >> I'm My apology. Okay, so So let me take

[3:39:56] that. So where where is the council on

[3:39:58] the Are we at state fees or at 6

[3:40:01] >> I was at state.

[3:40:03] >> State.

[3:40:04] >> Okay, I I'm I'm okay with state. Great.

[3:40:06] Then state. So the 450. Thank Thank you

[3:40:08] for that correction. Okay? Anything

[3:40:11] else?

[3:40:14] » I I prefer to have admin held off.

[3:40:18] >> And And what is it in admin that we're

[3:40:20] holding off on?

[3:40:21] >> Um I think we need a conversation with

[3:40:23] ChargePoint to find out what their

[3:40:25] capabilities are.

[3:40:29] » Right, but I

[3:40:30] So, my suggestion would be just like for

[3:40:32] the deck flat fee replacement, we could

[3:40:34] do that as a policy.

[3:40:38] » Alternatively, you could adopt this fee

[3:40:41] and then work with ChargePoint. Cuz I

[3:40:43] don't know how long that would take for

[3:40:44] ChargePoint, so this gets you a new fee

[3:40:47] now and then once you get that info cuz

[3:40:49] that that fee that isn't for you don't

[3:40:51] have a 60-day implementation for that,

[3:40:53] so

[3:40:54] um otherwise, you're sticking with what

[3:40:56] you have now

[3:40:58] till you

[3:40:58] >> I mean, was an analysis of our PG&E bill

[3:41:01] done for this number?

[3:41:04] » No, it looks at the the cost of the of

[3:41:07] the charging stations at

[3:41:10] There's other

[3:41:11] components in that, but I don't I again,

[3:41:13] I don't know whether or not I mean

[3:41:16] um

[3:41:17] >> So, the cost came from ChargePoint? Is

[3:41:20] that they took an average of all their

[3:41:22] of all our stuff? Is that where this

[3:41:23] number came from?

[3:41:26] >> The number factors in costs associated

[3:41:29] with ChargePoint as well as the

[3:41:32] um

[3:41:33] material and electricity costs.

[3:41:36] >> Well, like depreciation of the charge

[3:41:38] units, stuff like that, is that

[3:41:40] >> Yeah, all of those things get get

[3:41:41] factored in.

[3:41:42] >> Factored in.

[3:41:43] >> And and and all of that, but um

[3:41:46] like I said, I don't know that what

[3:41:47] you're looking to have done can be done.

[3:41:50] >> Right.

[3:41:51] >> So, I think that's just pointing that

[3:41:52] out.

[3:41:52] >> Yeah.

[3:41:53] So, I mean, Rebecca, if it's okay, I I'd really like to move this forward

[3:41:57] tonight,

[3:41:58] um and we can look into this. We do have

[3:42:00] the option to change it in the future.

[3:42:03] Rather than, you know, delaying it. Um

[3:42:05] we've got plenty coming up when the

[3:42:07] deputies come back.

[3:42:08] >> So, and can I can I also say I support

[3:42:10] moving this forward as well? Um

[3:42:13] I this I actually met with PCE last week

[3:42:17] and asked them the same question, and

[3:42:18] they didn't know if it could be done

[3:42:20] either. So, like I was just trying to

[3:42:23] figure out if there's any way we if

[3:42:25] anyone knows if there's a way to do

[3:42:26] that.

[3:42:27] So, I think for the time being we should

[3:42:29] move it forward.

[3:42:34] Okay, so

[3:42:36] I'm

[3:42:36] >> So, when does it take advantage when would that particular fee take

[3:42:40] effect? Would it be a July 1st?

[3:42:42] >> July 1st.

[3:42:44] >> Okay. Okay, I'm fine with moving forward

[3:42:46] and then we need to do an analysis in

[3:42:47] the future with PG&E's data

[3:42:50] and ChargePoint. But, okay.

[3:42:52] >> Okay, is there anything else people feel

[3:42:55] like be added? Otherwise, I will make

[3:42:57] this as a motion.

[3:42:59] All right.

[3:43:00] So,

[3:43:02] whoever's taking notes here, do you feel

[3:43:03] we have enough for this or do you want

[3:43:04] me to repeat this?

[3:43:07] >> I I have one other thing. I'm sorry. Um

[3:43:10] it says we're going to bring this back

[3:43:11] annually.

[3:43:13] Um

[3:43:14] I don't think this is a good time to

[3:43:16] bring this back annually. I think the

[3:43:18] annual should be more in

[3:43:20] March or April, not at this end point.

[3:43:24] So, just I don't know if that's part of

[3:43:26] this whole thing, but

[3:43:28] it's just too much. There's too many

[3:43:30] other things going on. So, just if we

[3:43:34] need to specify that, we should.

[3:43:39] » Next year will be in April.

[3:43:40] >> Great. Thank you.

[3:43:42] >> So, that we can meet the 60-day deadline

[3:43:43] if there's any changes in development.

[3:43:45] >> Perfect. Thank you.

[3:43:47] >> Okay. So, do I do I need to

[3:43:50] >> Do you want to check with with um Tony

[3:43:52] um to make sure you're

[3:43:54] and

[3:43:55] uh

[3:43:56] Matrix to make sure you're comfortable

[3:43:57] with all of those changes to the fees.

[3:44:00] >> Couldn't make any notes because I had my

[3:44:01] screen

[3:44:02] >> Sure.

[3:44:03] >> shared.

[3:44:03] >> Why don't you unshare Why don't you

[3:44:04] unshare But, I did

[3:44:05] >> Yeah, just wanted just so it was $45 for

[3:44:08] well

[3:44:08] >> Yep.

[3:44:09] >> And it was 450 for solar.

[3:44:12] >> Correct.

[3:44:13] >> 250 for the tree permit.

[3:44:15] >> Correct.

[3:44:16] >> Um deck was not

[3:44:18] >> I left that off. Use Use the CP Use the

[3:44:21] CPI.

[3:44:21] >> CPI.

[3:44:22] >> Um, and then we're going to remand the

[3:44:24] rec remand it back to parks and rec.

[3:44:27] Okay.

[3:44:28] All right. So, I made a motion. Is there

[3:44:29] a second?

[3:44:32] Okay, roll call.

[3:44:36] » Councilmember Walter.

[3:44:38] >> I.

[3:44:39] >> Councilmember Hasco.

[3:44:40] >> I.

[3:44:41] >> Councilmember Flynn.

[3:44:42] >> I.

[3:44:44] >> Vice Mayor Haffty.

[3:44:45] >> I.

[3:44:46] >> Mayor Taylor.

[3:44:47] >> I.

[3:44:47] >> Motion carries 5-0.

[3:44:49] >> Thank you everyone. Thank you for an

[3:44:51] excellent presentation. Sorry to keep

[3:44:53] you here until 11:00 at night, but you

[3:44:54] did a stellar job. So, thank you.

[3:44:56] There's a lot of complexity here. Um,

[3:44:59] I'm sure you're going to get called back

[3:45:00] cuz park and rec is going to want to dig

[3:45:02] in through a whole bunch of stuff with

[3:45:03] you. Um, so be prepared for that, but this has really been wonderful. So,

[3:45:07] thank you for all your hard work.

[3:45:16] We think this is really interesting,

[3:45:17] too.

[3:45:22] Okay, with that

[3:45:24] let us move on. Yes.

[3:45:31] Now, we had to wait before we I don't

[3:45:33] need to think you need to say, but so

[3:45:34] now to make this formal, I need to

[3:45:36] reopen the public hearing. Continue the

[3:45:39] park and recs.

[3:45:42] >> Correct. Yes, we actually do need to

[3:45:43] continue that to a date certain. Thank

[3:45:45] you for reminding me cuz that way we

[3:45:46] don't have to re notice it.

[3:45:48] >> Right.

[3:45:48] >> Yeah.

[3:45:49] >> So, can Do we have a date that we think

[3:45:52] that's going to fit?

[3:45:56] » And and if we don't, we can just re

[3:45:57] notice it.

[3:45:59] >> Yeah.

[3:45:59] Let's Let's continue it to June

[3:46:01] 10th cuz June 24th is a big so

[3:46:04] >> Well

[3:46:04] >> I will So, you do want to pick a date.

[3:46:07] Oh, no.

[3:46:09] >> Yeah, we want to get it to park and rec.

[3:46:10] I think we're going to just continue it

[3:46:12] and

[3:46:13] >> Oh, okay.

[3:46:14] >> I think that makes sense. I mean, I'm

[3:46:15] sorry, but it it's not that big a deal

[3:46:17] to re-notice it, right? I mean, I mean,

[3:46:20] we had

[3:46:20] >> Uh, the the challenge is that it were we

[3:46:23] have to back up about 4 weeks.

[3:46:25] So, you're essentially deciding the

[3:46:27] noticing process for 4 weeks.

[3:46:29] >> and rec. You have to get a park and rec

[3:46:31] meeting on the calendar. They have to

[3:46:32] discuss it.

[3:46:33] >> They are I will emphasize they are not a

[3:46:35] Brown Act body.

[3:46:37] And so, they could meet

[3:46:40] basically anytime, anywhere. They could

[3:46:42] meet tomorrow in my office.

[3:46:44] >> I don't I mean, we're trying to get this

[3:46:46] done

[3:46:47] for what?

[3:46:49] You You ideally you'd like these fees

[3:46:51] for July You were hoping for July 1st,

[3:46:53] Tony, is that

[3:46:55] for the recreation fees?

[3:46:56] >> Yeah, recreation fees July 1st, yes.

[3:47:00] But, I mean, if if we can, then it's going to be August.

[3:47:04] >> August, yeah.

[3:47:08] I'm just worried that I mean, we

[3:47:09] have a lot of things coming up. That's

[3:47:11] the only thing I'm trying to be careful of. So.

[3:47:18] do you have a I mean, if we continue

[3:47:20] it, we could continue

[3:47:21] >> Do you think that continue it to a date

[3:47:22] certain, and if for some reason

[3:47:24] uh staff isn't ready, uh you could

[3:47:26] continue it again?

[3:47:27] >> To a date certain?

[3:47:27] >> Yeah.

[3:47:28] Uh, so I I guess I'm looking

[3:47:31] We would not need to re-notice it if we

[3:47:32] continue it tonight to a date certain.

[3:47:33] So, I guess the question is what is that

[3:47:35] date that we should choose?

[3:47:37] That we should recommend to council. Is

[3:47:39] it Is it the next meeting or or the

[3:47:42] second meeting in

[3:47:49] » Do we need to look at the roll forward?

[3:47:50] >> Here. No, I know. I'm thinking June

[3:47:52] 24th. Continue it to June 24th.

[3:47:55] We'll do our best to to make that date.

[3:47:58] Yeah, cuz then we could still have the

[3:48:00] fees go into effect in July.

[3:48:03] >> Okay. So,

[3:48:05] I read So, if I reopen the public

[3:48:07] hearing, I take public comment again?

[3:48:08] >> No, you can just

[3:48:10] >> it, continue it, and then close it.

[3:48:11] >> Yes. Just ask for a motion to um

[3:48:14] continue the public hearing to June

[3:48:17] 24th.

[3:48:17] >> Okay. So, I'm trying to follow the

[3:48:20] script here. So, I'm reopening the

[3:48:21] public hearing.

[3:48:22] I'm looking for a motion to continue the

[3:48:26] park and rec fees

[3:48:28] decision until June 24th.

[3:48:30] >> So moved.

[3:48:32] >> Second.

[3:48:33] >> I have a

[3:48:34] motion and a second. Roll call.

[3:48:36] >> Council member Walter.

[3:48:37] >> I.

[3:48:38] >> Council member Hesko.

[3:48:40] >> I.

[3:48:40] >> Council member Flynn.

[3:48:42] >> I.

[3:48:43] >> Vice Mayor Hefty.

[3:48:45] >> I.

[3:48:45] >> Mayor Taylor.

[3:48:46] >> I.

[3:48:47] >> Motion carries.

[3:48:48] >> Thank you. All right. So, now I close

[3:48:49] the public hearing

[3:48:51] and we're ready to move on. All right.

[3:48:52] Again, thank you everyone. Tony, thank

[3:48:54] you for your patience. Um

[3:48:57] Thank you for the consultant. That was

[3:48:58] interesting. All right. So, moving on.

[3:49:02] Let's see if I can find the

[3:49:05] agenda. Okay. Um

[3:49:16] Yeah, yeah. I know. I got it.

[3:49:17] >> where

[3:49:18] town committee funding

[3:49:20] >> Way ahead. Right. Unfortunate

[3:49:24] Yeah.

[3:49:24] >> Yeah.

[3:49:25] we're just We've just finished

[3:49:27] seven.

[3:49:28] >> Page 180.

[3:49:29] >> All right. We've just finished seven.

[3:49:31] We're moving on to eight. All right. So,

[3:49:34] provide an update and receive direction

[3:49:37] on town committee funding request for

[3:49:39] the fiscal year '26-'27. Tony, please.

[3:49:44] >> I will be brief.

[3:49:45] >> Thank you.

[3:49:59] » Okay. So, this is a town committee

[3:50:00] funding request um

[3:50:04] » Is this it, Blaine?

[3:50:06] >> Yep, this is it.

[3:50:09] So, again, thank you. Review by

[3:50:11] direction on town committee funding

[3:50:12] requests.

[3:50:14] Um couple of add-ons since

[3:50:18] um

[3:50:18] the

[3:50:21] agenda was sent out on Friday,

[3:50:23] um I received an email from uh

[3:50:26] Nancy Lyon, the the historic resources

[3:50:29] committee.

[3:50:30] Um she said she sent it in, I did not

[3:50:32] receive it.

[3:50:33] Um

[3:50:34] but um

[3:50:36] there were some technical difficulties,

[3:50:37] so um I'm including this in the packet.

[3:50:41] Um their request is $4,500.

[3:50:44] Uh one a new computer that's compatible

[3:50:47] with Windows 11,

[3:50:48] and then their online historic archive

[3:50:50] project of $3,000, so total of 4,500 is

[3:50:53] their request.

[3:50:55] And then um

[3:50:57] the trails and paths

[3:50:59] request did not have a breakdown

[3:51:02] of their or did not have an itemized

[3:51:03] budget. Um but it is a carryover from

[3:51:06] this year this fiscal year's

[3:51:08] uh

[3:51:10] request of $10,000, and

[3:51:12] I've itemized the list

[3:51:14] as you can see.

[3:51:16] Um

[3:51:17] and again, their request is $10,000.

[3:51:22] So, looking at total requests of 61,000

[3:51:26] um

[3:51:27] with all of these funding requests,

[3:51:29] there will be some staff time involved,

[3:51:31] uh some more than others.

[3:51:33] Um and also, I also added um

[3:51:36] you know,

[3:51:37] how each funding request ties to a

[3:51:40] certain council priority.

[3:51:42] Uh most of them are community, uh but um

[3:51:45] three of them are for safety and regards

[3:51:47] to emergency preparedness, geologic

[3:51:48] safety,

[3:51:49] and wildfire preparedness.

[3:51:54] So, this table is the funding what's

[3:51:57] going to be recommended. uh 61,000 was

[3:52:00] proposed.

[3:52:02] I'm recommending 48,000.

[3:52:05] Um

[3:52:06] with the historic resources

[3:52:09] being reduced or or not funding historic

[3:52:12] resources request. This could tie into town work.

[3:52:17] Um specifically with the

[3:52:20] historic online

[3:52:21] or historic archive online project. They

[3:52:25] could also work with the library

[3:52:26] as well.

[3:52:28] And then

[3:52:29] if they need use of a laptop, we do have

[3:52:32] surplus laptops with town hall that are

[3:52:35] Windows 11 compatible. The other

[3:52:38] reduction is geologic safety.

[3:52:41] Um and again, that's also related to a

[3:52:43] project that is

[3:52:44] um

[3:52:45] that is tied to town work as well.

[3:52:48] So the budget requests are the fund the

[3:52:50] recommended amount is for committee

[3:52:52] work.

[3:52:53] Um but

[3:52:54] council also has the discretion of um

[3:52:58] changing the dollar amounts, reducing

[3:52:59] them or increasing them.

[3:53:01] Um so with that concludes my report and

[3:53:04] I give it back to council for discussion

[3:53:06] and direction.

[3:53:09] >> All right, are there questions for Tony?

[3:53:12] >> You know, go ahead.

[3:53:13] >> Since those numbers are adjusted, can

[3:53:16] you

[3:53:17] blow that up or pinch it out a little

[3:53:19] bit cuz I I honestly can't see that and

[3:53:23] they're different than

[3:53:25] what I've got.

[3:53:30] » While he's doing that, can I just make

[3:53:31] one clarification?

[3:53:32] >> Yeah.

[3:53:33] >> I had a conversation with the chair of

[3:53:35] the geologic safety committee today, Nan

[3:53:38] Shostak, about her request because it

[3:53:41] overlaps with a staff work item that

[3:53:43] planning is working on, which is

[3:53:46] updating the geologic maps to reflect

[3:53:49] amendments.

[3:53:51] The council authorized budget for the

[3:53:53] GIS work

[3:53:54] with the mid-year. We talked about that

[3:53:56] and she was in agreement that that the

[3:53:59] staff should do the work. However, she

[3:54:01] did text me and clarified that they

[3:54:04] would still like to request

[3:54:07] a thousand dollars for

[3:54:10] copying to digital format some blueprint

[3:54:14] size figures and she requested a

[3:54:16] thousand dollars for that. So, her

[3:54:19] budget revises sixteen hundred dollars.

[3:54:22] But I would

[3:54:24] >> what what is the thousand dollars for?

[3:54:26] >> Yeah, so

[3:54:27] to be honest, I'm having a hard time

[3:54:29] understanding it.

[3:54:31] Copying the digital format or copying to

[3:54:34] digital format the blueprint size

[3:54:36] figures and plates in common in old hard

[3:54:41] copy geotechnical reports.

[3:54:44] That may be something though that staff

[3:54:46] could do. So,

[3:54:47] it it

[3:54:49] >> Yeah, I guess I sort of expect that

[3:54:51] would be part of the staff project to

[3:54:53] get I mean, if it's a record we need,

[3:54:54] the staff should be responsible for it.

[3:54:56] >> Yeah, agreed. Agreed, yeah. I just don't

[3:54:59] want to ignore her request.

[3:55:01] Yeah, but it would be what I'd like to

[3:55:03] do with especially even with some of

[3:55:04] these other committees is have a more

[3:55:06] in-depth conversation

[3:55:07] about

[3:55:08] Like I'll I'll give you one example.

[3:55:10] They some committees had money for

[3:55:12] mailers and I told them, "Hey, we're

[3:55:14] doing a town newsletter. We can include

[3:55:16] it." That's an example.

[3:55:19] » So, other questions for Tony. I really

[3:55:20] that you're starting to get a little

[3:55:21] into this.

[3:55:22] >> That was my bad. I apologize.

[3:55:23] >> I know. Do you Does the town have one of

[3:55:25] those big scanners? No. Okay. So, maybe

[3:55:28] that's what she needs.

[3:55:30] >> So, I changed it to the Excel

[3:55:31] spreadsheet. Does that help?

[3:55:35] >> Can you expand it in the lower

[3:55:36] right-hand corner?

[3:55:40] It'll

[3:55:43] Can you comment again on what was

[3:55:45] reduced?

[3:55:49] » There's

[3:55:49] >> proposed and recommended, so

[3:55:52] >> The recommended.

[3:55:53] >> Are you Are you asking specifically on

[3:55:57] geologic safety, which is what we were

[3:55:58] just discussing, or in general?

[3:56:00] >> In general. In general.

[3:56:02] >> So, historic resources, they requested 4,500 or recommend zero.

[3:56:08] And geologic safety

[3:56:11] um proposed uh 9,100.

[3:56:15] Uh we're recommending 300, but

[3:56:19] plus

[3:56:20] >> Okay. Do we have a a policy on food?

[3:56:25] at events?

[3:56:27] >> No.

[3:56:28] >> Because um I feel that a $1,000 for food

[3:56:32] is a little excessive. Um if anything

[3:56:36] um

[3:56:38] in in the past

[3:56:39] >> Which one is this?

[3:56:40] Rebecca, which Which one are we talking

[3:56:42] about?

[3:56:42] >> Cultural arts.

[3:56:44] >> Okay.

[3:56:44] >> Um I I just I don't think we need to be

[3:56:47] budgeting for um

[3:56:49] caviar and uh salmon things and

[3:56:53] expensive food like that. So,

[3:56:55] um

[3:56:57] I I personally don't think we spending

[3:56:58] more than $300, $400 on food for events,

[3:57:02] if that. Um so, I I think we kind of need to think about

[3:57:08] that.

[3:57:10] >> And And are you proposing this relative

[3:57:12] to the Spring in Portola Valley event?

[3:57:13] Like

[3:57:14] There isn't a $1,000 with the food on

[3:57:17] the cultural arts budget that I'm

[3:57:18] looking at.

[3:57:19] >> There is.

[3:57:21] >> Um okay, maybe we looking at different

[3:57:23] things.

[3:57:23] >> Spring Spring in Portola Valley has food

[3:57:25] $1,000 opening night and closing party.

[3:57:29] >> Okay.

[3:57:34] » So, I I don't think that's reasonable.

[3:57:37] >> It's for sub

[3:57:38] >> Yeah, there's a There's additional

[3:57:40] documentation behind the budget

[3:57:43] worksheet for

[3:57:44] um

[3:57:45] >> Okay. Um but again, we're getting into

[3:57:46] discussion. These are questions right

[3:57:48] now for Tony. We haven't taken public

[3:57:50] So, are there other clarifying questions

[3:57:52] for Tony?

[3:57:53] Ellen?

[3:57:53] >> I do have a question. In term uh the

[3:57:55] horse night

[3:57:57] um the horse night or horse day has $500

[3:58:02] for a

[3:58:04] taco truck, I think.

[3:58:06] >> Mhm.

[3:58:06] >> Um is that

[3:58:09] just to get the truck here or are we

[3:58:11] paying for people's food?

[3:58:14] >> Yeah.

[3:58:14] >> We're we're just paying to get the truck

[3:58:16] here. It is

[3:58:18] the consumer pays for it. But usually

[3:58:20] food trucks do have like a base fee,

[3:58:22] especially to get them out here.

[3:58:23] >> Fine.

[3:58:26] » And

[3:58:28] can I just ask um for staff's

[3:58:31] clarification, the recommendation? Like

[3:58:33] I'm I'm concerned that like emergency

[3:58:36] preparedness has been cut down, but

[3:58:39] horse the horse day

[3:58:42] is still quite robust. So, could I get

[3:58:44] clarifications on that?

[3:58:47] >> It's just been historic practice with,

[3:58:50] you know, parks and recs and their event

[3:58:52] with the town fair. Trails and paths has been doing the horse fair.

[3:58:56] And it's it's been their request for the

[3:58:58] past couple of years and council has

[3:59:01] funded it.

[3:59:02] >> And I can speak to emergency

[3:59:05] preparedness. Um we just moved a bunch

[3:59:07] of their things

[3:59:08] into the town budget. Because it didn't

[3:59:12] really belong to the committee. It was

[3:59:13] like Starlink, paying for Starlink,

[3:59:15] stuff like that. Seemed like

[3:59:17] it should be paid for out of our

[3:59:18] operational budget, not out of their

[3:59:19] committee. So,

[3:59:21] the things that were normally there, it

[3:59:23] was roughly the same number until we

[3:59:25] moved those things out into the town

[3:59:27] operational.

[3:59:28] >> Right. And then okay. And then we've now

[3:59:31] cut historic Obviously, um

[3:59:34] computer What is the historic resources was

[3:59:40] You remind me what they were asking for

[3:59:42] again?

[3:59:42] >> So, they've been working on a project to

[3:59:44] digitize or put online the town's

[3:59:48] historic records. So, what they were

[3:59:50] asking for was money for the host the

[3:59:54] host website and I think some support

[3:59:56] for that.

[3:59:57] I'm the one though who's tried to

[3:59:59] facilitate them working with the

[4:00:00] library, which may be able to do it at

[4:00:03] no cost or other resources. So, we just

[4:00:05] want to keep looking at that and

[4:00:07] if there are IT costs for example, then

[4:00:09] the town would look at that as part of

[4:00:11] our operating budget much like EPC and

[4:00:13] some of the other committees.

[4:00:15] Okay.

[4:00:16] >> Thank you.

[4:00:17] That's all. Those were my questions.

[4:00:19] >> Thank you.

[4:00:21] Any other clarifying questions?

[4:00:23] >> Yeah, yes.

[4:00:24] >> Okay.

[4:00:25] >> Did I miss the detail for the horse

[4:00:29] fair?

[4:00:30] Was that provided somewhere?

[4:00:32] >> That was on the first second slide.

[4:00:36] >> The

[4:00:37] >> presentation.

[4:00:37] >> It's not in the packet though.

[4:00:42] It's in the packet.

[4:00:44] Can we bring that up? I mean, I guess

[4:00:46] you're on the other thing, but it's

[4:00:52] » Yeah, the packet just has a lump sum of

[4:00:53] $10,000.

[4:00:55] >> And in the past actually, I distinctly

[4:00:57] remember that at least a year ago that

[4:00:59] somebody had volunteered to pay for

[4:01:01] that. So, whatever happened to that that

[4:01:04] payment?

[4:01:08] » You can say they pledge it until I

[4:01:10] receive it. It's just a pledge.

[4:01:12] >> But does nobody follow up with them to

[4:01:13] ask them for the the follow up on the

[4:01:16] money?

[4:01:16] >> I don't know who made the pledge.

[4:01:20] >> Oh.

[4:01:22] >> So, right. Can you pull up the Oh, you

[4:01:25] are pulling it up. Thank you.

[4:01:27] >> So, just on a on a similar question and rec, are we paying for the food

[4:01:32] trucks as well? Their base fees? Is that

[4:01:35] part of the 25,000?

[4:01:41] » Are you talking for the

[4:01:43] um

[4:01:43] town picnic? Cuz they don't have food

[4:01:45] trucks at the town picnic. The only food

[4:01:46] truck I'm aware of is the horse fair

[4:01:49] food truck, which again we cover a $500

[4:01:51] base to get them to come here.

[4:01:53] >> But we have food trucks for the

[4:01:55] concerts, the Palooza concerts.

[4:01:57] >> are

[4:01:58] Yeah, the town doesn't pay for that.

[4:02:00] That's PV Palooza and I think they do

[4:02:02] some sort of in-kind or sponsorship for

[4:02:04] that.

[4:02:09] » So, it doesn't not make sense to have

[4:02:11] people who are buying the food pay for

[4:02:13] the the cost of the truck?

[4:02:19] » I think I'll

[4:02:20] the issue is that we have to pay them a

[4:02:22] base fee to get them here.

[4:02:25] And for the taco truck at the horse

[4:02:27] fair, that's $500 base to get them here.

[4:02:30] And then the consumers do pay for all

[4:02:31] their own food.

[4:02:34] >> Well, technically they're not because

[4:02:36] they're not paying the base fee. You

[4:02:38] know,

[4:02:40] it's a subsidized fee, but

[4:02:44] » Okay.

[4:02:54] All right.

[4:02:56] Yeah, there you go.

[4:02:57] >> Thank you.

[4:02:58] >> Keep going. Keep going.

[4:03:02] » Well, now I can't see it.

[4:03:04] >> Just scroll up. Just scroll up a little

[4:03:06] bit. It's It's all right. We We can see

[4:03:08] it.

[4:03:08] You can come stand on our side and see

[4:03:10] it.

[4:03:12] Okay.

[4:03:13] Can everybody see that the

[4:03:15] We stop there. That's good. Don't Don't

[4:03:17] go any more.

[4:03:18] >> So, I and I will Okay, you're not asking

[4:03:21] for comments. I'll make that.

[4:03:22] >> No, so this is just clarifying questions

[4:03:24] for Tony. Anything else?

[4:03:27] » So, I I had another question was that

[4:03:29] there's some It's not overlap yet, but

[4:03:32] couple of different committees wanted

[4:03:34] technology fees

[4:03:37] payments for Google Drives and for

[4:03:39] Dropbox and what have you.

[4:03:42] I mean, I think it

[4:03:44] So,

[4:03:46] are we Is the town looking into kind of

[4:03:48] consolidating these different options

[4:03:51] for committee

[4:03:55] their committee database, if you will?

[4:03:57] Several committees are embarking on

[4:03:59] these projects, so

[4:04:03] » We have no plans at the moment.

[4:04:06] >> I have a question.

[4:04:07] >> Okay.

[4:04:09] >> Then go ahead, Judith.

[4:04:10] >> What

[4:04:12] How has the committee budget then, I

[4:04:16] assume, reduced

[4:04:18] over the last 3 years, ish, ballpark

[4:04:21] numbers?

[4:04:22] >> For all committees or

[4:04:24] >> Yeah, what we're doing the exercise that

[4:04:26] we're doing now. Yeah, all of them

[4:04:28] together.

[4:04:36] » So, these are actually actual results,

[4:04:39] um but I mean, it was 24 25

[4:04:43] we spent over 30,000,

[4:04:47] with cultural arts cuz

[4:04:50] cultural arts at the time was PV

[4:04:52] Palooza.

[4:04:53] >> Oh, right.

[4:04:54] >> Um and then Parks and Rec was the town

[4:04:56] fair.

[4:04:57] Parks and Rec has been the town fair,

[4:05:00] uh pretty much consistently.

[4:05:02] >> Mhm.

[4:05:02] >> Um and then we've actually 25 26, we

[4:05:06] actually increased the town committee

[4:05:08] budget.

[4:05:10] Um and

[4:05:12] >> Mhm.

[4:05:13] >> recommended 26 27 is actually an

[4:05:15] increase from 25 26.

[4:05:21] » Thank you.

[4:05:24] Mhm.

[4:05:24] >> And Tony, one question I had is on the

[4:05:26] Park and Rec budget, um, you know, like

[4:05:29] the town picnic related expenses at like

[4:05:31] 18,000. Do we get reimbursed for any of

[4:05:34] that through

[4:05:36] Zots to Tots registration or any

[4:05:38] >> The revenue generated from Zots to Tots

[4:05:40] gets deposited into the town

[4:05:42] committee's.

[4:05:44] So, that actually does reduce the

[4:05:45] subsidy

[4:05:46] that the general fund does provide, but

[4:05:47] their budget is still 25,000.

[4:05:51] >> Right, but that's not 25,000 going to

[4:05:53] It's not going to end up as a 25,000 hit

[4:05:55] to the general fund.

[4:05:57] >> No.

[4:05:58] >> Okay. Do we know roughly

[4:06:00] >> Um

[4:06:02] Well, for this fiscal year, it's a

[4:06:06] 10,000

[4:06:08] hit to the general fund because we

[4:06:09] received $8,000

[4:06:11] in Zots to Tots revenue, plus we also

[4:06:13] received a $1,000 donation.

[4:06:16] >> Okay.

[4:06:20] So, that was like $9,000.

[4:06:23] Is that Am I getting that right?

[4:06:24] >> It's Yeah, it's 10,000 611.

[4:06:27] >> probably 10,000. So, so it might be a

[4:06:28] this If if it's they spend the full

[4:06:30] 25,000, it might be a 15,000 hit.

[4:06:33] >> We did budget 6,000 of this for

[4:06:36] bathroom.

[4:06:39] That was part of the mid-year budget.

[4:06:41] >> Okay.

[4:06:43] Um

[4:06:47] I'm not sure I So, are you saying the

[4:06:49] Zots to Tots related expenses What

[4:06:52] what's the 6,000 on You just lost me on

[4:06:54] that last comment.

[4:06:55] >> So, for the mid-year Parks and Rec said,

[4:06:58] "Hey, we're only going to spend 19,000

[4:07:00] of our 25."

[4:07:02] So, they offered the 6,000 for the Board

[4:07:05] Field bathroom study.

[4:07:07] >> Okay, but I I'm asking you about this

[4:07:09] budget, not what happened last So, if

[4:07:11] they spent the full 25,000, and you're

[4:07:13] projecting we might get 10,000 back

[4:07:16] in

[4:07:17] revenue, it might be a $15,000 hit to

[4:07:20] the general.

[4:07:20] >> Correct.

[4:07:21] >> Okay, thank you.

[4:07:22] Okay, any other questions for Tony

[4:07:24] before I go to

[4:07:25] public comment?

[4:07:27] All right, anybody in the room want to

[4:07:29] speak? All right, I see no hands.

[4:07:33] All right, Nan, you're up. Welcome.

[4:07:41] » Okay, unmute. Thank you. Can you hear

[4:07:43] me?

[4:07:44] >> We can. Welcome.

[4:07:46] >> Thank you. Okay, before you slash my

[4:07:47] budget to $300 for the Geologic Safety

[4:07:51] Committee, um please consider the 300

[4:07:55] was for

[4:07:56] I believe insurance, estimated insurance

[4:07:59] for um

[4:08:01] one of the

[4:08:03] monthly events that Rebecca has proposed

[4:08:06] for the town. So, we have a We think we

[4:08:09] have probably have a speaker. This is

[4:08:12] just for the insurance. It's not even to

[4:08:15] buy the speaker a dinner or anything

[4:08:17] like that.

[4:08:19] $200 I have

[4:08:22] um

[4:08:23] which is really for a reimbursement for

[4:08:26] personal

[4:08:27] um expenses for especially printer

[4:08:30] expenses,

[4:08:32] which

[4:08:33] far exceed the 200, but I put that in

[4:08:36] for reimbursement

[4:08:38] to

[4:08:39] especially Bob Rocky, whose personal

[4:08:42] printer has printed out maps for the

[4:08:45] whole town,

[4:08:46] for the um borough

[4:08:49] evacuation map for fire following

[4:08:51] earthquake and and other maps. So,

[4:08:54] we owe him money. I don't know how Maybe

[4:08:56] it doesn't come out of budget, but it We

[4:08:58] do need um

[4:09:00] a way to reimburse for expenses.

[4:09:03] And the 9,100

[4:09:07] I arrived at uh because there was an

[4:09:09] estimate of 7,500 for updating maps, And

[4:09:13] I just wanted a placeholder

[4:09:15] to remind everyone that

[4:09:18] uh we absolutely need to update the

[4:09:21] maps, but I think Darcy's taking care of

[4:09:23] that. So, that's that's

[4:09:25] and uh between Darcy and Sarah

[4:09:28] that's going to be done. So, that's

[4:09:29] fine. That leaves me with 1,600, and I

[4:09:32] would be satisfied if you would leave me

[4:09:35] with

[4:09:36] 500

[4:09:38] 600 would be more comfortable, but

[4:09:41] minimum 500, please.

[4:09:43] Not just 300. That's not going to cover

[4:09:46] expenses.

[4:09:47] So, thank you.

[4:09:50] >> Thank you, Nan.

[4:09:53] All right, Patty.

[4:09:54] You're up.

[4:09:55] Welcome.

[4:09:57] >> I'm hanging in there.

[4:09:59] Um

[4:10:00] two quick points

[4:10:02] on the picnic, we will do

[4:10:04] uh everything we can to

[4:10:06] continue to have that come in under

[4:10:09] budget.

[4:10:10] Um that is not our expectation to spend

[4:10:13] the entire amount. And the second point

[4:10:16] is we do have a food truck at the town

[4:10:20] picnic. It is a taco truck. We do not

[4:10:23] pay them anything. They just come out,

[4:10:26] and all they get is what they generate.

[4:10:28] So, there's no fee for the food truck

[4:10:31] for the town picnic.

[4:10:33] Just FYI.

[4:10:36] » Okay. Thank you.

[4:10:39] Is that it? Patty, I broke up at the

[4:10:40] end.

[4:10:41] >> Oh.

[4:10:42] Yeah, that's just my voice.

[4:10:44] >> Yeah, no no worries. And it's late, so

[4:10:46] we're all starting to

[4:10:47] >> Yeah, it's late.

[4:10:49] >> Did you have anything else for us?

[4:10:50] >> No, I'm good.

[4:10:52] >> Thank you.

[4:10:53] >> All right.

[4:10:54] Christie, you're next. Welcome.

[4:10:59] » Yeah, thank you. I I think these

[4:11:01] committees are so important, and to

[4:11:05] slash the historical and and absorb it

[4:11:08] in the current

[4:11:10] staff. I I'm just afraid it won't be

[4:11:12] done and I believe that the history of

[4:11:16] this town is is worth putting some money

[4:11:18] into and keeping the history.

[4:11:21] Uh I spent a lot of time going through

[4:11:23] things in there and I believe they do

[4:11:26] need an upgraded system.

[4:11:29] So, I would ask you to keep the

[4:11:32] historical budget

[4:11:35] and

[4:11:36] restore

[4:11:38] um the geological.

[4:11:40] And again, you're you're saying that

[4:11:44] it will be done by the staff and so

[4:11:47] we're going to be watching that it is

[4:11:48] done if these two areas are cut.

[4:11:52] Um I would prefer these two committees

[4:11:55] to be fully funded things.

[4:11:58] >> Thank you, Kristy.

[4:12:00] Okay.

[4:12:01] Um I think that's everyone.

[4:12:04] We'll leave you in the schoolhouse. All

[4:12:05] right, so I'm going to bring it back to

[4:12:07] council.

[4:12:11] So, discussion? Anybody want to lead us

[4:12:12] off?

[4:12:21] I got to just pick somebody. Helen, how

[4:12:22] about you?

[4:12:24] >> Yeah, so I'm happy to go, but

[4:12:27] I know people here are not going to like

[4:12:29] what I have to say.

[4:12:31] Um the next item

[4:12:34] we are cutting from people who are

[4:12:36] hungry.

[4:12:38] Meals on Wheels 1,500

[4:12:40] 430 to heart, 900 to hip

[4:12:45] and it looks like 3,000 to cert.

[4:12:48] Um

[4:12:49] and I'm worried that we're

[4:12:52] supporting

[4:12:54] the horse day with no cuts when we need

[4:12:57] geologic for our safety reason and

[4:13:00] historic, you know, Nancy Lund is a town

[4:13:03] jewel.

[4:13:05] Um

[4:13:06] So, I actually would ask that we cut

[4:13:09] something out of the horse day to make

[4:13:11] up some of the areas.

[4:13:14] Um we've cut everything else.

[4:13:16] Um So,

[4:13:18] you know, obviously

[4:13:21] like what is being proposed in the next

[4:13:24] item is that um without cert it's 2830

[4:13:29] which I think

[4:13:30] I would take out of the horse day.

[4:13:33] Um personally, and I know people are not

[4:13:36] going to like that. Um and then I would

[4:13:38] app you know, non I would definitely

[4:13:41] push the geologic at least a 600.

[4:13:44] Um and historic, I'm not sure what to

[4:13:48] app propose that. So, I know and I'm

[4:13:51] sorry and I love you know, I appreciate

[4:13:54] horses.

[4:13:55] Um but I am worried about people who

[4:13:58] can't eat right now and can't afford

[4:14:00] housing. And you know, these programs

[4:14:03] really rely on funding. So,

[4:14:06] um

[4:14:07] I you know, like I want a horse day, but

[4:14:10] maybe everything else has been cut. So,

[4:14:12] I would propose cutting horse day down

[4:14:15] to 7,000 and

[4:14:17] uh taking the $3,000

[4:14:20] in the next item. Um and I don't know

[4:14:23] about what to do about the cert. And

[4:14:25] that's safety, too. So, thank you.

[4:14:28] >> Thank you, Helen.

[4:14:30] Rebecca?

[4:14:32] >> Um

[4:14:34] So,

[4:14:35] um I support giving GO their full 600.

[4:14:41] Um

[4:14:42] historic, I I it's not in the packet and

[4:14:46] they asked me for a computer. Was that

[4:14:47] their full amount or was there something

[4:14:49] else?

[4:14:51] >> It was a computer and it was some online

[4:14:54] archive stuff. So, it was 3,000 for

[4:14:57] online, 3,000 for online arcade, and

[4:15:00] 1,500 for a computer.

[4:15:01] And Tony said he had they could get a

[4:15:03] computer in five

[4:15:04] >> Right. So, I definitely don't support

[4:15:05] that. And the online I I don't

[4:15:07] understand exactly what's being asked.

[4:15:09] Is this another database? Because I

[4:15:11] don't I would not support spending 3,000

[4:15:13] on a database,

[4:15:15] um given that Conservation's got a

[4:15:18] fantastic database, and they're not

[4:15:20] charging nearly as much. So, I think

[4:15:23] Historic needs to coordinate with uh

[4:15:25] Conservation

[4:15:27] for that, but um if if I mean, I would

[4:15:31] support giving them maybe $500 just to

[4:15:34] get them started so that they can detail

[4:15:36] a little bit more about what their needs

[4:15:37] are, but I we don't have enough

[4:15:40] information to

[4:15:41] I don't have enough information to

[4:15:42] support $3,000. Um

[4:15:46] I don't support paying a base fee for a

[4:15:49] food truck. I I I mean, just to supply

[4:15:52] food for for people. I I don't support

[4:15:53] that at all. So, that definitely needs

[4:15:55] to go, especially after Patty said that

[4:15:57] they don't pay for that. So, there's no

[4:15:59] reason for Horse Fair to pay for that.

[4:16:01] And the Horse Fair is from 10:00 to

[4:16:02] 2:00. It was a lovely event, um but I

[4:16:04] have to say that even though I don't

[4:16:06] know everybody in town,

[4:16:08] um most of the booths were not booths

[4:16:10] from town things. Um only the horses I

[4:16:14] don't even know if all the horses were

[4:16:15] from town horses, but most of the booths

[4:16:17] were for Los Altos uh riding rink. Um

[4:16:21] Whatever. All these riding rings and

[4:16:23] riding programs that are outside of the

[4:16:25] town. So, I And a lot of the kids there,

[4:16:27] I don't know that they were necessarily

[4:16:29] Portola Valley kids, but

[4:16:31] 10:00 to 2:00, I'm not sure anybody

[4:16:33] spends a full 4 hours there that we need

[4:16:34] to even supply food for them. So, the

[4:16:37] food's got to go. I tend to agree with

[4:16:40] um Helen that, you know, we we last year

[4:16:42] we cut all of the committees by a

[4:16:44] certain percent, I think. And then we

[4:16:47] cut some out completely. So, we are

[4:16:49] until until July January, we won't

[4:16:51] really know whether we have enough

[4:16:52] funding. So, I think we need to be a

[4:16:54] little careful about

[4:16:55] providing free events for everybody. Um

[4:16:59] So, I might support cutting them by

[4:17:02] you know, a couple thousand.

[4:17:04] Um

[4:17:06] uh let's see. What else was on this

[4:17:08] list? Oh, same thing for cultural arts.

[4:17:10] I do not support spending a thousand

[4:17:12] dollars on food.

[4:17:14] Um

[4:17:15] max probably 300. Um I think

[4:17:19] I I it's not the food that people come

[4:17:21] to for these events. It's for the actual

[4:17:23] activity. I mean, their photo photo

[4:17:25] exhibit was fabulous. It was a wonderful

[4:17:27] event. Um it didn't need a thousand

[4:17:29] dollars worth of food, that's for sure.

[4:17:30] Most of it actually ended up being

[4:17:32] thrown away because there weren't that

[4:17:33] many people at the opening night. So, I I don't think we should be spending

[4:17:38] that kind of money on food. So, I would

[4:17:39] cut way back there. The rest I think are

[4:17:42] completely reasonable. Um I think people

[4:17:44] were careful

[4:17:46] and really thoughtful the committees in

[4:17:48] terms of what they presented as

[4:17:49] reasonable. So, I'm I'm fine with

[4:17:51] everything else, I guess. Was there some

[4:17:53] Oh, yeah, with Yeah, yeah, I'm fine with staff recommendations otherwise.

[4:18:00] » All right. Thank you.

[4:18:04] » I'd like to go next.

[4:18:08] » Sure.

[4:18:10] Um

[4:18:13] Well,

[4:18:14] our town is a volunteer town.

[4:18:17] These volunteers have created these

[4:18:19] budgets.

[4:18:20] And we've

[4:18:21] minimized the budgets

[4:18:24] over the last several years.

[4:18:26] Um I think it's pretty demoralizing to

[4:18:29] go in and second-guess line items for

[4:18:32] people who

[4:18:34] donate dozens of hours.

[4:18:37] And while I would request that people do

[4:18:40] things like

[4:18:42] not order a food truck if you can get

[4:18:44] one for for

[4:18:45] don't pay for it.

[4:18:47] I think I would want them to get that

[4:18:50] direction and

[4:18:52] act as a good committee would

[4:18:54] in a town that is under financial

[4:18:56] distress.

[4:18:58] But this is a core principle for our

[4:19:00] town, so I would approve the budget pretty much

[4:19:06] as it is. Um, I would make sure

[4:19:08] geologic, which has already

[4:19:11] been paired back hugely relative to its

[4:19:14] ask,

[4:19:15] they only want, you know,

[4:19:17] 5 600, I would absolutely

[4:19:20] um, support them getting that. And the Day of the Horrors, I think, is a a

[4:19:27] big community thing. It's not quite as

[4:19:29] big as our town picnic by any means, but

[4:19:32] it's an important event for many in the

[4:19:35] community.

[4:19:36] And

[4:19:38] you know, looking at the food truck

[4:19:39] costs is something I'd ask them to do

[4:19:40] and manage and see if there's a

[4:19:42] different way and ask them to be more

[4:19:44] creative. But I want people to continue

[4:19:46] to

[4:19:47] feel good about volunteering for the

[4:19:49] town, and I think cutting back anymore

[4:19:52] than, um, what Darcy's already outlined

[4:19:55] is taken care of otherwise,

[4:19:57] uh, makes no sense. So, that's where I

[4:19:59] am.

[4:20:02] >> Thank you, Mary.

[4:20:07] » Well, I second the emotion that, uh, we want

[4:20:12] to give a a good message to the to the

[4:20:15] volunteer committees.

[4:20:17] Uh, and that that this is not sounding

[4:20:20] like that. Uh,

[4:20:23] and, uh, but I think, um,

[4:20:26] Darcy's done a good job working with the

[4:20:28] geologic safety committee, which I could

[4:20:30] have done, too, cuz I was the liaison.

[4:20:33] Um, getting it down to 600 is very

[4:20:36] reasonable.

[4:20:37] Uh, I think the same goes for historic

[4:20:40] resources. They need guidance. They're

[4:20:42] digitalizing all the uh, the

[4:20:44] our historic data. It's really

[4:20:47] important. It's got to be done.

[4:20:49] These people are just giving their time

[4:20:52] and they're expert. They've got a

[4:20:54] younger guy who's

[4:20:56] willing to do it and it's it's a great

[4:20:59] project.

[4:21:00] Um

[4:21:01] again, that's a manager's it's not even

[4:21:04] a manager's committee. It's just I'm not

[4:21:06] even sure why we

[4:21:08] uh

[4:21:08] why we have it on our budget list. It's

[4:21:10] not either of it. Manager's committee or

[4:21:13] a

[4:21:14] it's a group of people.

[4:21:16] Um so you know, you could just as a good

[4:21:20] you could just do 600 for for historic

[4:21:23] resource and

[4:21:25] uh and at least and give them some

[4:21:28] guidance on on how to use the library.

[4:21:31] Is what I would do.

[4:21:33] Rather than pointing out that they need

[4:21:34] to either be a Brown Act committee or a

[4:21:36] manager's committee in order to be able

[4:21:38] to take

[4:21:39] Just a thought.

[4:21:41] Um

[4:21:43] but we don't want to demoralize Nancy

[4:21:45] because

[4:21:47] anything we can do to support her, we

[4:21:49] need to do it.

[4:21:50] >> Right.

[4:21:50] now.

[4:21:52] So no for the food truck. The food truck

[4:21:55] uh

[4:21:56] the horse fair uh

[4:21:59] has always been heavily subsidized by

[4:22:02] the members of of who bring their horses

[4:22:05] there. We all ensure our horses because

[4:22:09] the town makes us. I get out of policy

[4:22:11] every year in order to be able to bring

[4:22:13] my horses over.

[4:22:14] Uh it's all very bureaucratic and and

[4:22:17] troublesome to to participate in it.

[4:22:20] Uh lots and lots of difficulties getting

[4:22:24] um permits, getting the horses there,

[4:22:26] getting

[4:22:27] they sort of rural uh quality

[4:22:30] represented and it's very well done.

[4:22:34] Uh it it feels completely different from

[4:22:36] the Woodside Day of the Horse.

[4:22:38] Um it's a it's a real country fair.

[4:22:43] Uh

[4:22:44] and uh I think

[4:22:48] that the town has been extremely

[4:22:49] generous in supporting it.

[4:22:51] Uh it was we were asked to do it

[4:22:54] originally as part of the 50 50-year-old

[4:22:57] the 50th anniversary.

[4:22:59] Uh and we've done it every year since.

[4:23:02] Um

[4:23:03] the finance has always been difficult.

[4:23:05] Um but everybody's so generous.

[4:23:09] Um

[4:23:10] we had got a don- a donor for 2,000 this

[4:23:12] year.

[4:23:13] Um they just wrote us a check for 2,000.

[4:23:17] I don't know where it is, but anyway,

[4:23:19] hopefully it's coming to you.

[4:23:21] Um

[4:23:23] and so we think that

[4:23:26] the cost were only about 8,000 that what

[4:23:29] people put in. It doesn't count the

[4:23:32] thousands and thousands of dollars that

[4:23:33] people did not put in more.

[4:23:36] Um

[4:23:38] so I'm for

[4:23:43] I guess I decrease it to 750 maybe 800

[4:23:46] 750 7,500

[4:23:49] in the spirit of of of community

[4:23:53] tight belt tightening. Um

[4:23:56] I don't know what we'd lose. We might

[4:23:57] lose the heavy horses, which are of

[4:24:00] course

[4:24:02] what makes it amazing.

[4:24:04] Uh and that's where the the big expense

[4:24:08] is and I think that the insurance issue

[4:24:12] I I think I saw that the insurance was

[4:24:14] on the uh line item. So apparently we we

[4:24:18] build it.

[4:24:19] The insurance for the heavy horses was

[4:24:22] probably 2,500

[4:24:24] to get them there.

[4:24:25] Um

[4:24:30] I I I don't know what we'll lose, but at

[4:24:32] any rate we'll probably be able to raise

[4:24:34] the money somehow.

[4:24:37] So, that would be my thought.

[4:24:39] >> Thank Thank you.

[4:24:41] Um

[4:24:43] All right, I'll try again to sort of

[4:24:45] float a proposal. Um I think I what I've

[4:24:48] been hearing that seems generally

[4:24:50] agreeable if we went to 7,500 for the

[4:24:52] horse, 500 for geologic, and 500 for

[4:24:56] historic.

[4:24:57] >> 600?

[4:24:57] >> Well, I I didn't hear what it would be

[4:25:00] spent on. So, I was thinking that we're

[4:25:02] giving historic 500, I'm comfortable

[4:25:05] giving geologic 500. Um

[4:25:08] >> Geologic, I'd like to she Non asked for

[4:25:11] 600.

[4:25:12] >> She said five or six, and she didn't she

[4:25:14] wasn't specific. That's My issue is if

[4:25:16] it were for something specific, I'd be

[4:25:18] fine with it, but it's kind of like I I

[4:25:20] got part of what it was for, and then

[4:25:22] the rest was just like I need some more

[4:25:23] money. Like maybe to take somebody to

[4:25:25] dinner or something, and I'm not sure

[4:25:27] we're in a place to pay for people's

[4:25:29] dinner. So, that's why I was proposing

[4:25:31] five. I was trying to not, you know,

[4:25:33] completely drop, you know, down to what

[4:25:35] was 300.

[4:25:36] >> So, she said

[4:25:37] >> Mhm.

[4:25:38] What was it?

[4:25:39] >> She has an itemized budget.

[4:25:41] >> Right, but this is

[4:25:44] the things We cut the things that were

[4:25:46] in the itemized budget, and then

[4:25:48] the new thing was I need more than 300.

[4:25:51] How about five or six? That's what I

[4:25:53] heard her ask for. So, So, anyway, that

[4:25:56] I'm I'm floating a trial balloon. I'm open to suggestions. I'm just trying

[4:26:00] to get us to a place that we can get

[4:26:03] some kind of motion and move to the next

[4:26:05] item.

[4:26:08] » Well, geologically

[4:26:10] we only cut the external coordination

[4:26:12] for the 10-year update. So, the

[4:26:14] remaining three things are still on her

[4:26:16] list, which is $600.

[4:26:19] >> Yeah.

[4:26:21] >> I I would respectfully submit 600 for

[4:26:24] both of them. And that we're splitting

[4:26:26] hairs.

[4:26:27] >> She does have a evacuation maps

[4:26:30] report and public communication for six

[4:26:34] but each is broken down.

[4:26:37] And it adds up to 600.

[4:26:39] >> Right. And she said that

[4:26:40] evacuation maps was reimbursing somebody

[4:26:43] for costs that are already expenditure.

[4:26:44] So it's budget this year, not next year.

[4:26:47] I mean, I I just had a difficult time with the budget items. But if everybody wants

[4:26:53] to go for 600, I mean, somebody can make

[4:26:55] that proposal. I'm just trying to get us

[4:26:57] a a motion that we can vote on.

[4:27:00] So does somebody have a ultimate

[4:27:01] proposal?

[4:27:04] » Can you finish the proposal? I think you

[4:27:06] were starting.

[4:27:07] >> I I think I'm done. I I was going to

[4:27:09] leave every I was seven

[4:27:11] 750 7,500 for the horse, 500 for

[4:27:14] geologic safety, 500 for historic, and

[4:27:17] leave everything else the same.

[4:27:19] >> Cultural arts, 1,000 on food?

[4:27:22] >> I was going to leave everything else the

[4:27:24] same.

[4:27:27] I mean, you're you're welcome to make an

[4:27:28] alternate proposal. I'm just looking for

[4:27:30] either

[4:27:32] some consensus or we can put a motion

[4:27:35] and see if we get a second and vote on

[4:27:36] it.

[4:27:37] It's getting It's obviously getting

[4:27:38] late, so we're starting to lose our

[4:27:40] effectiveness.

[4:27:40] >> Yeah, our effectiveness.

[4:27:42] Uh

[4:27:42] would it be simplifying to give 600 for all three of those, cultural arts,

[4:27:49] geologic safety, and historic resources?

[4:27:53] Or is that too disrespectful of the fact

[4:27:55] that they submitted a budget?

[4:27:56] >> I'm sorry, say that one again. Historic,

[4:27:59] geological

[4:27:59] >> and cultural arts.

[4:28:03] » Well, cultural arts has um

[4:28:06] uh

[4:28:08] >> Actually, I'm not sure if they wanted

[4:28:10] >> They've asked for Yeah, they've asked

[4:28:12] for 40 almost 4,500 4,350.

[4:28:18] Um

[4:28:21] » Tony, could you help me put up the slide

[4:28:24] with the staff recommendation on the

[4:28:26] numbers?

[4:28:30] » There's nothing

[4:28:36] » Can I just clarify through the chair?

[4:28:37] The We don't need a motion. This is a

[4:28:40] direction, but we would definitely

[4:28:42] appreciate clarity in the direction cuz

[4:28:44] at the next meeting we're bringing the

[4:28:45] budget.

[4:28:46] >> I see.

[4:28:47] >> Thank you.

[4:28:48] for the clarification.

[4:28:53] » Well, I would recommend um 600 for um

[4:28:59] geo- geologic safety. Um

[4:29:03] I would cut cultural arts by

[4:29:07] um 600 at least.

[4:29:12] Um

[4:29:13] and then trails and paths, it sounds

[4:29:16] like three of us have said 7,500.

[4:29:19] >> Yes.

[4:29:20] >> And I actually I would support

[4:29:23] cutting cultural arts the thousand

[4:29:26] um as well.

[4:29:28] Um other Yeah.

[4:29:30] Pot It's It's potluck, I'm

[4:29:33] unfortunately.

[4:29:39] » Yes.

[4:29:44] » It'd be down to 3,350

[4:29:48] for cultural arts.

[4:29:52] » Which is more than last year, which I

[4:29:54] think we gave them 3,000.

[4:30:01] » So, maybe cut it back to 3,000 again?

[4:30:06] Uh

[4:30:08] Can somebody make a motion?

[4:30:09] >> Yeah. I'll make a motion. So, um 7,500

[4:30:13] for horse day

[4:30:15] um

[4:30:16] >> horse fair.

[4:30:16] thank you. Um We'll we'll do

[4:30:20] I'm cutting a thousand out of cultural

[4:30:23] arts, we'll give them 3350.

[4:30:26] Um 600 for geologic and 600 for

[4:30:31] historic.

[4:30:34] » I second.

[4:30:37] » There we have a motion, we have a

[4:30:38] second. Is there any more discussion?

[4:30:40] >> I thought we weren't

[4:30:42] >> I'm not sure. You know, you're you're

[4:30:43] right. We're

[4:30:44] Well, I guess what I So, you're right.

[4:30:46] We don't need a motion, so thank you.

[4:30:47] Again, it's getting it's getting late.

[4:30:49] Um but is there any more discussion? Is this acceptable direction for staff?

[4:30:55] >> And yeah, I think everything else would

[4:30:57] be what staff recommended except for

[4:30:59] those four changes.

[4:31:01] >> So

[4:31:02] is everybody else comfortable with that

[4:31:04] direction to staff?

[4:31:05] >> No, but I'm happy to be the odd person.

[4:31:07] I don't

[4:31:09] No, I'm really not happy, either. What's

[4:31:11] your What do you want?

[4:31:13] >> I said my peace. There's nothing more to

[4:31:15] say, so.

[4:31:20] » Yeah, well, unfortunately, I feel like

[4:31:22] we need to give staff some kind of

[4:31:23] direction. So, there

[4:31:25] >> Rebecca and I I I put a motion on the

[4:31:27] table. Rebecca

[4:31:29] >> no motion.

[4:31:29] >> I know.

[4:31:29] >> And I I'll take it off the motion, but

[4:31:31] there's the two of you agreed on

[4:31:33] >> Yes.

[4:31:34] >> some numbers, so

[4:31:34] >> Those four.

[4:31:35] >> Yeah, so I got that. But Mary says she's

[4:31:37] unhappy.

[4:31:38] >> I'm just

[4:31:38] >> Judith says she's unhappy.

[4:31:40] >> Uh

[4:31:40] >> And they're not the numbers I would have

[4:31:42] picked, either, but I'm willing to go along

[4:31:45] >> as

[4:31:46] >> probably, but

[4:31:47] What's your What's your issue, Mary?

[4:31:49] >> Um

[4:31:50] I I am puzzled by cultural arts. I that

[4:31:54] came in and

[4:31:56] I know I should have been ready for

[4:31:57] this, but

[4:31:59] it came as a surprise that all of a

[4:32:00] sudden they need that much food.

[4:32:03] >> It's too high, you think?

[4:32:04] >> too much, yeah.

[4:32:08] » Okay, well, but so

[4:32:09] >> in comparison to the 600 bucks we're

[4:32:11] giving to Nancy is for the first time in

[4:32:14] her life ask for money.

[4:32:16] >> So

[4:32:18] the the general proposal was just to

[4:32:20] reduce their budget by a thousand

[4:32:21] dollars.

[4:32:21] >> Yeah, I mean I can do I think that I I

[4:32:24] personally feel like we've got to give

[4:32:26] them enough direction to the staff to

[4:32:28] realize that what we're trying to do is

[4:32:30] make it feel generous in a way.

[4:32:33] We're trying to provide education.

[4:32:36] How do

[4:32:37] use our own resources there

[4:32:40] to them and

[4:32:41] suggest potlucks

[4:32:43] and we hopefully we'll get this money

[4:32:45] back.

[4:32:48] » Okay.

[4:32:49] >> We haven't even spent it. So I'm I'm

[4:32:50] going along with it.

[4:32:52] >> Okay. All right. So staff I think you

[4:32:54] have direction. So

[4:32:56] and I think in addition I would add that

[4:32:58] we asking all committees given that the

[4:33:00] town is in financial

[4:33:03] um issues that they try to economize in

[4:33:06] every possible way including using

[4:33:08] potlucks and other ways to reduce

[4:33:11] All right.

[4:33:12] So

[4:33:15] Sure.

[4:33:17] Whatever.

[4:33:20] All right. So now somehow my

[4:33:23] I have to go back to the

[4:33:26] I don't know.

[4:33:30] I'll give me a minute to get thing back

[4:33:32] there.

[4:33:34] agenda

[4:33:50] No, I got it. Thank you.

[4:33:52] All right. So that closes out um 8 A.

[4:33:55] We're moving to 8 B.

[4:33:57] So Tony you have a presentation?

[4:34:00] >> The presentation will be brief.

[4:34:02] >> Thank you.

[4:34:05] » So this is the not for profit not for

[4:34:08] profit funding requests.

[4:34:11] >> Thank you, everyone. I appreciate you

[4:34:12] being here.

[4:34:23] » Um so, basically tonight it's review and

[4:34:25] provide direction

[4:34:27] on not-for-profit funding requests.

[4:34:31] Um

[4:34:34] Historically, we've spent around $21,000

[4:34:38] on not-for-profit funding requests.

[4:34:41] Uh this year, we we received a request

[4:34:43] of over 56,000.

[4:34:45] Um

[4:34:49] with uh EPIC at 15,000,

[4:34:52] Human Investment Project or HIP at

[4:34:54] 15,000,

[4:34:56] uh HEART at 1361,

[4:34:59] Joint Venture Silicon Valley at 5,000,

[4:35:03] Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center at

[4:35:05] 5,000,

[4:35:07] uh PV Palooza has submitted two

[4:35:09] requests, one for 4,000 for the actual

[4:35:12] PV Palooza,

[4:35:14] um and then 4,000 for the Summer Concert

[4:35:16] Series.

[4:35:18] Uh Sustainable San Mateo County has

[4:35:20] $5,000 request.

[4:35:22] And uh CORA, um

[4:35:25] their request is I I put in 1,700. It's

[4:35:28] usually around

[4:35:30] it increases each year, but it shouldn't

[4:35:32] go above 1,700 for next year.

[4:35:34] Um this year, uh given our financial

[4:35:37] constraints,

[4:35:39] um the recommendation is that we focus

[4:35:42] our funding on

[4:35:44] nonprofits to do services within uh the

[4:35:48] town of Portola Valley.

[4:35:50] Uh so, that's why we're recommending

[4:35:51] EPIC for 7,500,

[4:35:54] uh HIP uh 15,000,

[4:35:56] uh HEART for 1361, which is the annual

[4:35:59] dues.

[4:36:01] And then PV Palooza, um the $4,000 for

[4:36:04] the PV Palooza Foundation

[4:36:07] that's going to be an in-kind

[4:36:09] contribution.

[4:36:10] Uh cuz we

[4:36:12] uh

[4:36:13] staff time alone is over $6,000 in

[4:36:15] support of PV Palooza then there's also

[4:36:18] the use of the field which could be

[4:36:21] another 6,000. Um so I believe with our

[4:36:25] in-kind contributions we could meet that

[4:36:27] 4,000 uh request. Um the summer concert

[4:36:31] series is a community event. It is well

[4:36:34] attended.

[4:36:35] Um and um

[4:36:38] so posing a $4,000 contribution

[4:36:41] uh for the the summer concert series and

[4:36:44] then Cora at $1,700. So total

[4:36:48] requested is 56,000. Well we're

[4:36:50] recommending funding 33,561

[4:36:53] of which 16,361

[4:36:56] will be coming out of the affordable

[4:36:58] housing fund.

[4:36:59] So the impact to the general fund would

[4:37:02] be 17, 561 which be would which make it

[4:37:06] um matching 25 26 um actuals.

[4:37:11] >> Thank you Tony. Questions for Tony?

[4:37:16] Rebecca, do you have any questions?

[4:37:17] >> The HIP Housing fee of 15,000 is that

[4:37:21] the their uh consulting for us or is

[4:37:23] that completely separate?

[4:37:26] >> It's separate.

[4:37:29] » So what is it that they're providing for

[4:37:31] that? So it

[4:37:33] >> It's not related to their contract.

[4:37:35] >> But we have a consulting contract with

[4:37:38] HEART.

[4:37:39] >> Right.

[4:37:39] >> Oh. Yeah, that's separate. HIP Housing

[4:37:42] this cost covers their services to the

[4:37:45] town which is assistance with ADU

[4:37:48] uh

[4:37:50] ADU rental matching and home share

[4:37:53] matching.

[4:37:54] And that's 15,000. We don't have a

[4:37:56] consultant agreement because we fund

[4:37:58] their services, so we don't put them in

[4:38:01] that funding bucket, but this is our

[4:38:03] contribution for assistance for housing

[4:38:06] element implementation.

[4:38:10] » And that fee that the amount they put

[4:38:13] I mean we paid 2,100 last year and now

[4:38:16] it's 15,000. Is that the normal amount

[4:38:19] that we were supposed to be paying for

[4:38:20] that service? Is it sort of a

[4:38:22] county-wide thing?

[4:38:24] >> It's It is supplemental services. Most

[4:38:27] small towns, us, Hillsborough, I think

[4:38:30] maybe Woodside pays this additional cost

[4:38:33] for additional

[4:38:35] um

[4:38:36] work to support our housing element

[4:38:38] implementation. And And I'll emphasize

[4:38:40] our housing element requires this work.

[4:38:42] It explicitly identifies funding this

[4:38:45] program through HIP.

[4:38:49] » Okay.

[4:38:50] >> And they do it for the smaller cities.

[4:38:53] The bigger cities

[4:38:54] >> don't do it.

[4:38:56] >> And you added it at the mid-year last

[4:38:58] year. So, last year at mid-year you

[4:38:59] adjusted it and provided 7,500 for half

[4:39:03] the year and this would be for the full

[4:39:05] fiscal year for next year.

[4:39:09] » Okay, so it's not reflected in this that

[4:39:11] 7,500 is not reflected in this

[4:39:13] >> Right. Yeah. Okay.

[4:39:15] >> Right. Yeah. So,

[4:39:16] >> And then for Meals on Wheels, by not

[4:39:18] funding them, does that mean that our

[4:39:20] seniors who use them will not have

[4:39:22] access to that service?

[4:39:24] >> We did not receive a request for Meals

[4:39:26] on Wheels.

[4:39:27] >> Oh. Oh, okay.

[4:39:29] >> And we haven't received one in a several

[4:39:30] years.

[4:39:32] >> Oh, okay.

[4:39:34] All right, that's my questions. Thank

[4:39:36] you.

[4:39:37] >> Thank you.

[4:39:38] All right, with that I'll open it up to

[4:39:40] public comment. There's no one in the

[4:39:41] speaker

[4:39:42] >> did have a question. I'm sorry.

[4:39:43] >> That's right.

[4:39:44] >> Um

[4:39:45] do we know if uh these NGOs will be impacted by the

[4:39:49] loss of VLF situation? Obviously, VLF

[4:39:53] like do we know?

[4:39:54] >> Well, VLF

[4:39:56] >> I know. Vehicle license.

[4:39:57] >> cities and counties. So, it's it's if

[4:40:00] they're going to be impacted, it's

[4:40:02] will the the cities governments be able

[4:40:05] to fund requests.

[4:40:06] >> Yeah.

[4:40:07] >> Now, there's probably other issues

[4:40:09] they're going to be dealing with on the

[4:40:10] federal side, so.

[4:40:11] >> Right. So, the

[4:40:12] for those who don't know, VLF was not

[4:40:15] included in the governor's May revise.

[4:40:17] So,

[4:40:18] uh strategically

[4:40:21] Becker, Berman, and Papen are working on

[4:40:23] it.

[4:40:25] Okay. Thank you. That was my question.

[4:40:30] » It's not

[4:40:32] that's not in this item.

[4:40:39] The airport, no.

[4:40:40] >> That's not a nonprofit.

[4:40:42] >> That's another

[4:40:43] issue.

[4:40:44] That's That's a Yeah, that's a

[4:40:47] >> CBA.

[4:40:50] » Okay.

[4:40:51] >> Then, can I open Yes. for a comment?

[4:40:53] >> All right. I see no one in the room. I

[4:40:54] see somebody called Zoom user.

[4:40:57] You could unmute and identify yourself.

[4:41:05] » Mhm.

[4:41:07] Okay.

[4:41:11] » Or is there somebody acting as

[4:41:14] Go ahead.

[4:41:15] >> It's Dana Breen.

[4:41:17] >> Hey, Dana.

[4:41:18] >> I am called I I I called in just to say

[4:41:22] that ACC did not

[4:41:25] I mean, we're not looking for anything.

[4:41:27] However, we used to have study sessions

[4:41:30] when we when we had quiet times. We used

[4:41:33] to talk about the things that we have

[4:41:35] done wrong and done right. And and I I

[4:41:40] I'm not going to throw that in there,

[4:41:42] but I I think that that would be really

[4:41:44] a wonderful thing to bring back.

[4:41:46] Um

[4:41:48] and

[4:41:50] Anyway, I That's all. Thank you.

[4:41:54] Bye-bye.

[4:41:55] >> Thank you. Thank you, Dana.

[4:41:58] All right. I don't see any other hands

[4:42:00] up

[4:42:00] in the schoolhouse, so I will bring it

[4:42:02] back to the council for discussion.

[4:42:07] So, anybody want to start?

[4:42:10] Rebecca, why don't you start?

[4:42:13] >> Um

[4:42:15] Well, I'm I'm sad that we can't support

[4:42:17] sustainability, but it's not our biggest

[4:42:19] priority right now given our budget

[4:42:21] constraints. Other I I I think the

[4:42:24] recommendations of staff are reasonable given our constraints. We

[4:42:28] won't you know, maybe we revisit this or

[4:42:30] we obviously can revisit this in July in

[4:42:33] January if if everything is goes well.

[4:42:37] That's otherwise I support the staff's

[4:42:39] recommendation.

[4:42:42] >> Okay. Thank you.

[4:42:43] Susan?

[4:42:44] >> Um same.

[4:42:45] >> Okay. Mary?

[4:42:48] >> Same too.

[4:42:49] >> Great. Thank you. Helen?

[4:42:51] >> Same.

[4:42:51] All right.

[4:42:53] So, Ernie, I think you have your

[4:42:54] direction.

[4:42:55] >> Yes.

[4:42:55] >> Thank you for your presentation.

[4:42:57] All right. So, you know, close out the B

[4:43:01] Um so, I'd like to take a short break.

[4:43:03] It's almost midnight. I I don't mean to

[4:43:05] break from the dais, but I I want to ask

[4:43:07] people

[4:43:08] are we willing to try to push through

[4:43:10] the rest of these or do we want to try

[4:43:11] to move to

[4:43:13] setting up a special meeting to finish?

[4:43:16] I know that the next one is something

[4:43:18] you probably need for the budget, right?

[4:43:20] Um

[4:43:21] I'm just worried that you know, we're

[4:43:23] it's almost midnight. We're we're

[4:43:24] starting to lose focus. So, what do

[4:43:26] people think? I'm I'm willing to keep

[4:43:27] pushing. I I think we can probably

[4:43:29] >> What I what I would suggest is at least

[4:43:32] for

[4:43:33] our item is that we do the first part

[4:43:35] and and then uh continue the second item.

[4:43:43] The two

[4:43:44] >> Okay.

[4:43:45] >> Tony, you need this for the budget,

[4:43:48] right? I just want to prioritize for

[4:43:51] >> C C is a budget thing.

[4:43:53] Yes.

[4:43:54] >> Yeah, we can

[4:43:54] >> And then D and E we could

[4:43:57] have a special meeting. I I I don't see

[4:43:59] us moving it to the 10th. The 10th is

[4:44:01] already

[4:44:02] packed. We've got the safety element in starting at 5:30, so

[4:44:07] it would have to be a special meeting if

[4:44:09] we're going to do that. I'm okay with

[4:44:10] that, but I did I want to get the sense

[4:44:12] from people. I mean, should we should we

[4:44:14] try to keep going? I just worry that the

[4:44:16] these next two not the next two, but D

[4:44:19] and E

[4:44:20] may need some discussion. I'm not sure

[4:44:22] whether you're up for it. So, what do

[4:44:24] you think? So, just can I get a sense of

[4:44:26] Judith, where are you at?

[4:44:28] >> I'm willing to do the

[4:44:30] item that's necessary for the budget.

[4:44:33] Um

[4:44:34] I'd prefer not to keep going. I I don't

[4:44:36] think it's going to be a good quality

[4:44:39] you know, analysis at that point.

[4:44:41] >> Okay. Mary, where are you at?

[4:44:44] >> Um

[4:44:46] >> I think you just said

[4:44:46] >> I'm trying to open my old agenda. It's

[4:44:49] the one

[4:44:49] >> I think I think you were you were

[4:44:50] proposed So, C is the salary schedule.

[4:44:53] That's Tony. And then this this is your

[4:44:55] report out

[4:44:56] >> Yeah, I mean it makes sense that this

[4:44:59] >> I think D and E kind of belong together.

[4:45:01] >> Well, I don't.

[4:45:02] >> Okay.

[4:45:03] >> is a different issue.

[4:45:04] >> Okay.

[4:45:04] >> And then it should be put both of them

[4:45:06] in order

[4:45:08] >> of what we do. When when when which case

[4:45:10] >> I think the both of them both. But I

[4:45:11] think we need to

[4:45:14] You all need to know where where we're

[4:45:16] at at this point.

[4:45:18] >> You What do you think,

[4:45:22] » Just being practical, I think the audit

[4:45:24] we need to think about.

[4:45:25] >> And then stop.

[4:45:26] >> Yeah.

[4:45:27] >> Okay.

[4:45:28] >> Ellen?

[4:45:29] >> I absolutely agree with Judith. So, uh

[4:45:32] yeah. No, I'm fine doing C and then

[4:45:34] doing a special meeting for D and E.

[4:45:37] >> Okay. And then I'm sure Rebecca will be

[4:45:38] happy to keep going cuz it's like 9:00 in the morning there. She's

[4:45:42] probably thinking it's time to get up

[4:45:44] and get moving. So, Rebecca, are you

[4:45:46] okay if we postpone D and E?

[4:45:49] >> Um

[4:45:51] D seemed to be just a report out that

[4:45:54] the subcommittee is recommending that we

[4:45:56] hire this this substitute

[4:45:59] um

[4:46:01] substitute lawyer. So,

[4:46:04] um

[4:46:06] Yeah, it it didn't seem like it was a

[4:46:08] big thing. But um if the subcommittee

[4:46:11] itself feels that we need to have a long

[4:46:12] discussion, then they're the ones who

[4:46:14] know.

[4:46:15] Um

[4:46:16] And then E, of course, would be a long

[4:46:18] discussion. So, I'm not keen on a

[4:46:20] special meeting, but

[4:46:23] it'd be great if it was in the morning,

[4:46:24] but um

[4:46:25] yeah, I mean, I guess what what

[4:46:27] everybody else wants. I'm fine. Just

[4:46:29] doing C.

[4:46:31] >> Let's

[4:46:31] >> I mean, unless we need to do D, unless

[4:46:33] we need to appoint that lawyer sooner

[4:46:35] rather than later.

[4:46:36] >> No, I think it's Let's We don't

[4:46:39] >> We don't. So, all right. So, let's let's

[4:46:41] move on to HC

[4:46:43] um and then I'm going to ask that we

[4:46:45] postpone D and E.

[4:46:47] All right. So, Tony, with that, do you

[4:46:50] want to give me a sub?

[4:46:52] >> Thank you.

[4:46:56] So,

[4:46:57] this item is the fiscal year 26-27

[4:47:00] salary schedule,

[4:47:01] which is adopted by council annually.

[4:47:05] So, we're going to be reviewing salary

[4:47:07] schedule, and these are the list of

[4:47:09] authorized positions that the town can

[4:47:12] hire.

[4:47:14] Uh so, beginning with administration,

[4:47:17] um

[4:47:18] and this is the um and the salaries are

[4:47:21] reflective of 2 and 1/2% cola already.

[4:47:25] Um and so, we'll start with the town

[4:47:27] manager.

[4:47:28] The salary set by contract to

[4:47:32] Uh the assistant town manager

[4:47:35] range bottom 196 to 253.

[4:47:38] >> So, Tony, I would say you probably don't

[4:47:39] have to read each of this. We we can

[4:47:40] read the table. Thank you.

[4:47:44] >> Okay, so next up is the finance section.

[4:47:47] In this one, we are adding a position,

[4:47:49] uh finance manager.

[4:47:51] With uh

[4:47:52] my promotion to assistant town manager,

[4:47:54] we need a

[4:47:56] finance manager position to um oversee

[4:47:59] finance staff, also add to another layer

[4:48:02] of internal controls.

[4:48:03] Um and also keep uh the day-to-day

[4:48:07] functioning going. Um also, we're adding

[4:48:10] an accountant one position

[4:48:12] to the finance department. Um and this

[4:48:15] is to uh close the loop on a career

[4:48:19] track. So, now you go finance

[4:48:21] technician, accountant one,

[4:48:23] senior accountant, finance manager. So,

[4:48:25] now there's a career progression uh

[4:48:27] within the finance function.

[4:48:31] And uh planning and building, uh we're

[4:48:33] we are adding a position, senior

[4:48:35] development review technician,

[4:48:38] building inspector.

[4:48:39] Um this is again is to provide more

[4:48:42] flexibility to the planning and building

[4:48:43] department uh to enhance customer

[4:48:46] service. Um

[4:48:50] And then public works facilities,

[4:48:51] there's no change to the

[4:48:53] classifications.

[4:48:56] And so, uh all department positions do

[4:48:59] reflect the 2 1/2% cola.

[4:49:01] All hourly positions are based on 40

[4:49:03] hour week. And all classifications are

[4:49:06] authorized to be filled.

[4:49:07] And we default to the California state

[4:49:09] minimum wage results or minimum minimum

[4:49:11] wage rates.

[4:49:14] So, looking at the cola increase, it's

[4:49:16] increase of 52,000 to salaries.

[4:49:19] However, with um

[4:49:22] replacing the finance director with the

[4:49:24] finance manager,

[4:49:25] there's approximately $90,000 in

[4:49:27] savings.

[4:49:29] But in

[4:49:31] you know, increasing to an account one.

[4:49:33] That's adds $15,000 and then increase to

[4:49:37] the senior development review

[4:49:38] technician.

[4:49:39] That would add another $18,000. So the

[4:49:41] net decrease to salaries will be 5K

[4:49:43] by reclassifying from finance director

[4:49:45] to finance manager.

[4:49:47] That concludes my report and it's back

[4:49:49] to council for discussion and direction.

[4:49:51] >> Perfect. Thank you, Tony.

[4:49:53] All right, so verifying questions for

[4:49:55] Tony.

[4:49:57] Helen?

[4:49:58] >> Just to be clear,

[4:50:00] and maybe your graphs don't show it. It

[4:50:03] says the annual range of your salaries.

[4:50:06] I don't are there steps within it? Like

[4:50:09] ABC?

[4:50:09] >> Steps.

[4:50:10] >> You guys do not have steps. So just the

[4:50:12] range within that.

[4:50:15] And just to be clear for the record, it

[4:50:17] looks like

[4:50:19] um

[4:50:20] with the cola

[4:50:22] you

[4:50:23] Tony, you would be making more money

[4:50:25] than our town manager. Is that correct?

[4:50:28] >> Yes.

[4:50:30] Which needs to be

[4:50:32] negotiated with town.

[4:50:33] >> Right. That's a negotiated contract.

[4:50:35] >> Okay.

[4:50:37] That's my questions. Thank you.

[4:50:41] » Do you have a question?

[4:50:43] Helen?

[4:50:44] >> When we see that

[4:50:47] these positions may not be

[4:50:50] filled, I'm paraphrasing there.

[4:50:54] What does that mean? Cuz these are new

[4:50:56] positions, right?

[4:50:57] >> So it's for the when cuz the budget has

[4:51:01] FTEs. And so we pull the FTEs from the

[4:51:04] salary schedule.

[4:51:05] So not every position on the salary

[4:51:07] schedule will be authorized in the

[4:51:08] budget.

[4:51:12] » Um

[4:51:13] >> But like there's one position that's

[4:51:14] building inspector or building official.

[4:51:16] We don't have a building official.

[4:51:18] And it's not in the budget.

[4:51:21] >> Right, but our action tonight, if we

[4:51:24] approve this,

[4:51:25] we are approving new slots

[4:51:29] for personnel.

[4:51:31] >> Yes.

[4:51:31] >> Right?

[4:51:32] >> Yes, and then

[4:51:33] they will be programmed into the budget,

[4:51:35] but then council will still need to come

[4:51:37] back and approve

[4:51:38] whatever the authorized FTEs are.

[4:51:40] >> It'll be a two-step process by the time

[4:51:43] we actually commit to spend that money.

[4:51:46] >> Yeah. Just to clarify, we're not

[4:51:48] approving FTEs tonight.

[4:51:50] >> Yeah.

[4:51:51] Okay.

[4:51:52] Uh and then just procedurally,

[4:51:56] the job descriptions here

[4:51:58] for these new positions, how how were

[4:52:00] they derived? I don't want to get into

[4:52:03] the lines, but but are they from

[4:52:06] comparable jurisdictions?

[4:52:08] >> They are from comparable jurisdictions.

[4:52:10] >> And pretty plain vanilla, like there's

[4:52:12] nothing here you would point out.

[4:52:14] >> the the accountant one classification is

[4:52:17] being same job duty, same functions from

[4:52:21] town to city throughout.

[4:52:26] » Okay. Uh those are my questions.

[4:52:29] >> Larry?

[4:52:30] No. Rebecca?

[4:52:32] >> Um I'm just confirming we're not

[4:52:33] planning to fill the finance director.

[4:52:35] We're going to try to find a finance

[4:52:37] manager. Um has that search started?

[4:52:42] >> That has not started yet, but once

[4:52:45] council

[4:52:48] authorizes this, then we can start that

[4:52:49] process.

[4:52:50] >> And the accountant one, you said it's

[4:52:52] going to be an impact of 15K, I think.

[4:52:56] So, is the plan to promote someone soon?

[4:52:58] Is that for next year? Is that the plan?

[4:53:04] Possibly.

[4:53:05] >> We We do have an internal candidate that

[4:53:06] can meet that position.

[4:53:08] >> Okay. And then um 18K

[4:53:12] was an increase for the senior

[4:53:13] development review,

[4:53:15] which is a building official inspector

[4:53:17] combo project. My understanding is that

[4:53:19] you did do a search for that and it

[4:53:21] failed. So, is the increase in the

[4:53:24] salary to try to attract more candidates

[4:53:26] or

[4:53:27] >> It's also to reflect the additional

[4:53:29] duties of building inspector.

[4:53:32] >> And um

[4:53:34] >> And so, well, we we will budget

[4:53:37] for that position using this higher

[4:53:39] salary.

[4:53:40] So, and we will and we will recruit for

[4:53:42] that position. If we can't fill that

[4:53:44] position,

[4:53:46] then we will still have flexibility to

[4:53:47] bring in

[4:53:48] uh a senior development radio technician

[4:53:51] if we find one.

[4:53:52] >> Okay, great. Thank you.

[4:53:55] » Tony, could you go back to the salary

[4:53:57] schedule?

[4:54:01] For which?

[4:54:03] Uh a couple more. So, um finance There

[4:54:06] you go. Um so,

[4:54:08] I'm used to overlapping ranges and I

[4:54:11] noticed that the finance tech and the

[4:54:12] accountant one don't overlap.

[4:54:19] I mean, I'm not trying to put you on the

[4:54:20] spot. It's just you know, I I usually

[4:54:23] there's room to sort of it work your way

[4:54:25] up in one,

[4:54:26] you know, rank and then sort of slip up

[4:54:29] into the next one and sort of have a

[4:54:31] steady progression rather than a sort of

[4:54:34] jump in between.

[4:54:35] >> Then that's an oversight on my part.

[4:54:37] >> All right.

[4:54:40] Okay, I mean,

[4:54:41] so, is this something

[4:54:43] you should consider fixing? Cuz you This

[4:54:45] is going to come back to us as part of

[4:54:46] the budget. Are we Again, are we

[4:54:48] approving this tonight or are we just

[4:54:49] giving you direction?

[4:54:50] >> Give me direction.

[4:54:51] >> Okay.

[4:54:52] All right. So, I guess

[4:54:54] I'll save my as my comment.

[4:54:56] All right. Um

[4:54:57] >> Can I ask one more question, sorry?

[4:54:59] >> Yeah, go ahead.

[4:55:00] >> Um

[4:55:02] how many employees in these different um

[4:55:05] categories are kind of

[4:55:07] really close to their max already?

[4:55:12] » Believe we have four.

[4:55:17] » Okay.

[4:55:18] >> Yeah.

[4:55:18] >> All right, thanks.

[4:55:18] >> It's three or it's it's three or four.

[4:55:22] » Okay.

[4:55:27] » All right.

[4:55:27] >> That's it.

[4:55:28] >> Thank you. I'll open up for public

[4:55:29] comment. I see no hands in the

[4:55:31] schoolhouse.

[4:55:34] Um and I see no hands online.

[4:55:36] So, I will close public comment. Bring

[4:55:38] it back to the council. Is there any

[4:55:41] direction for Tony other than my one

[4:55:44] >> Just a clarification. This is adoption

[4:55:46] of a resolution.

[4:55:48] It's okay. It's after midnight now, but

[4:55:49] yeah. The you would be approving this

[4:55:53] and

[4:55:54] certainly I think for It comes back next

[4:55:56] year, but for this particular position

[4:55:58] accountant one given we have an

[4:56:00] incumbent who's likely I don't know if

[4:56:02] that's an issue with this position, but

[4:56:03] we will certainly look at that. Could

[4:56:05] look at it in the future

[4:56:07] if you choose to approve it tonight.

[4:56:10] >> Um

[4:56:12] >> Or you could give us direction to widen

[4:56:14] the band, but you'd have to give us an

[4:56:15] if you want to make it as part of the

[4:56:16] motion, you'd have to give us

[4:56:18] more explicit some explicit direction.

[4:56:22] >> Well, I yeah, I mean I guess

[4:56:24] I would widen the band and

[4:56:27] but I you know, these are decisions I

[4:56:29] don't like making on the fly. Like this

[4:56:30] these are these are you know, salary

[4:56:32] issues. So, this is not things, but

[4:56:35] generally I mean

[4:56:37] we may have a candidate. I have no idea

[4:56:39] and I this public meeting. I don't want

[4:56:41] to know, but you know,

[4:56:43] where this candidate is in the

[4:56:46] one's rank and where they would move in

[4:56:48] the other and are we making too large a

[4:56:50] jump? I mean I don't know the answer.

[4:56:52] So,

[4:56:53] um and I'm not I'm not looking to get an

[4:56:56] answer to this question, but that's my concern. I mean that's what's

[4:56:58] driving my concern here.

[4:57:00] Um

[4:57:01] so,

[4:57:03] I mean I guess my proposal Tony, if you think you can

[4:57:07] lower the range on the accountant one to

[4:57:11] decrease some overlap, I'd be

[4:57:13] comfortable with that and I think I

[4:57:14] would trust your judgment on it. I mean,

[4:57:16] you know, you have financial expertise.

[4:57:18] But I think, you know, kind of what

[4:57:19] Judas was asking earlier, I sort of

[4:57:21] expect these things to match sort of,

[4:57:24] you know, roughly what other people are

[4:57:26] doing, you know, that are comparable

[4:57:27] jurisdictions.

[4:57:28] >> Right.

[4:57:29] >> So, so is that enough, Catherine? Is

[4:57:33] that enough direction for us to

[4:57:36] approve this?

[4:57:38] >> I mean, I I guess I would I would prefer

[4:57:40] to see an actual number in there, Tony,

[4:57:42] but I I don't know if you can

[4:57:46] I mean, if the council's approving the

[4:57:47] salary schedule, it seems like we need

[4:57:48] to have a number in there for the range.

[4:57:52] >> And if we didn't approve it tonight and

[4:57:54] we just approved it the next meeting

[4:57:56] when you just showed us this stuff,

[4:57:57] like, could this even be in consent?

[4:58:00] Would it have to be?

[4:58:01] >> I believe it could be on consent. We

[4:58:03] could also put it on a special We're

[4:58:04] going to have a special meeting for the

[4:58:05] other items.

[4:58:06] We could potentially bring this at that

[4:58:08] meeting as well. Uh but Tony, I this is

[4:58:10] your item, so I want you to be able to

[4:58:12] weigh in on some of the the options.

[4:58:15] >> Um yeah, I mean, yeah, I'll I can adjust the range

[4:58:20] um to include an overlap.

[4:58:22] >> Okay.

[4:58:23] And And are you okay if I mean, if we

[4:58:25] put this off to the special meeting

[4:58:27] where we're going to pick up B, D, and

[4:58:28] E, that still give you

[4:58:31] the time you need?

[4:58:37] » Yeah, I'll make it work.

[4:58:38] >> Can you make it work? I mean, cuz

[4:58:40] otherwise, I mean, I'm I'm willing to

[4:58:42] forego my issue

[4:58:43] >> I I can't I mean, we're it's June.

[4:58:47] June's next week, so I mean, it's it's

[4:58:50] >> Right, but this is for July, right? I

[4:58:52] mean,

[4:58:53] >> Yeah, but it needs to be adopted on the

[4:58:54] 24th.

[4:58:56] So,

[4:58:57] um yeah.

[4:58:58] >> The budget as a whole

[4:58:59] >> is to be adopted, so

[4:59:00] >> Right, right, but I mean, I think just

[4:59:02] to get to Catherine's point, you're to

[4:59:03] just come back with a number. We're

[4:59:04] going to say, "Great. That At least I'm

[4:59:06] going to say they overlap now. Good.

[4:59:07] Done. Check. Move on." So, I don't see

[4:59:10] that there's going to be a big

[4:59:11] discussion on this the next time it

[4:59:12] comes up. Right. So, I think we could

[4:59:14] get it through. I'm I'm happy the next

[4:59:16] available

[4:59:18] um slot on the council agenda, I'm happy

[4:59:20] to see this again.

[4:59:22] Okay. Um yeah, sorry. I just I I think

[4:59:24] it's important we get this right. I

[4:59:25] think it just shows good discipline on

[4:59:27] our part.

[4:59:28] So, thank you. And again, I know it's

[4:59:30] late, but I appreciate you working with

[4:59:31] me.

[4:59:32] >> Uh

[4:59:33] could I

[4:59:34] weigh in?

[4:59:35] >> Um

[4:59:36] >> I'm not quite getting

[4:59:38] Look, there's there's a

[4:59:42] 2,000-plus dollar gap between a finance technician and an accountant

[4:59:48] one.

[4:59:49] Is that

[4:59:50] like I think we got to view ourselves as

[4:59:54] trying to get a lot done in a very short

[4:59:56] period of time.

[4:59:57] I don't get why

[5:00:00] we would postpone this for a couple

[5:00:02] thousand bucks. Like, I I don't get it. And I just want to move

[5:00:07] on because coming back, someone's going

[5:00:10] to notice a typo. And it's not that I

[5:00:12] want to be cavalier about it. I'm just

[5:00:15] trying to gauge how big a deal

[5:00:17] this is. And I'm fine either way,

[5:00:21] really, but I think we have so much

[5:00:24] coming up in the next month.

[5:00:26] I'm nervous about that. So, you know,

[5:00:29] you make the decision, but I just needed

[5:00:31] to weigh in.

[5:00:36] » Well, we need a motion one way or

[5:00:37] another. And so, that I I can live with

[5:00:41] taking what we have here. Um

[5:00:43] I also think, given we're going to have

[5:00:44] a special meeting, we have the

[5:00:45] opportunity. Right.

[5:00:48] So, but again, I I would accept

[5:00:51] So, you

[5:00:51] >> I move to approve it.

[5:00:53] >> As is.

[5:00:54] I'll second it.

[5:00:56] >> Okay. We have a motion, we have a

[5:00:58] second, roll call.

[5:01:01] >> Council member Walter.

[5:01:02] >> I.

[5:01:03] >> Council member Hasco.

[5:01:05] >> I.

[5:01:05] >> Council member Flynn.

[5:01:08] >> Um.

[5:01:11] I I guess. I I I have I I'm going to say no actually.

[5:01:17] I'm going to say no. Cuz I I agree with Craig, you know.

[5:01:26] No.

[5:01:28] » Vice Mayor Hufty.

[5:01:30] >> I.

[5:01:31] >> Mayor Taylor.

[5:01:32] >> Nay.

[5:01:33] >> Motion carries 3-2.

[5:01:36] >> So there you go Tony, you got it. So and

[5:01:38] we'll just let's try to fix this for

[5:01:39] next time. Thank you very much.

[5:01:42] Okay, so do I need to do anything to

[5:01:44] continue the rest of the items in the

[5:01:46] agenda or can we just adjourn the

[5:01:47] meeting and then we schedule these?

[5:01:50] >> Uh I believe we can just none of these

[5:01:52] are public hearings so there's no formal

[5:01:53] action required. I think staff just has

[5:01:55] direction to find um a suitable date for

[5:01:59] to bring these back.

[5:02:00] >> Okay, great.

[5:02:02] All right, then with that I would

[5:02:04] entertain a motion to adjourn.

[5:02:07] I'm on but somebody else.

[5:02:08] >> Seconded.

[5:02:10] >> All right.

[5:02:12] Thank you everyone.

[5:02:13] Thank you for being here until well

[5:02:15] after midnight. Good night.

05-27-2026 Town Council Meeting

Transcript