[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.