[0:01] Good evening. We'd like to call the
[0:04] meeting to order.
[0:06] So, with that, can we do roll call? And
[0:10] Mary Hefty's missing, but we're we think
[0:12] she's coming, so we'll get her included
[0:14] once she gets here.
[0:16] >> Council member Walter,
[0:18] >> present. Council member Hasco
[0:21] >> here. Council member Flynn
[0:23] >> here.
[0:24] >> Mayor Taylor,
[0:25] >> present.
[0:25] >> We have a core out.
[0:26] >> Thank you. All right. So, we have no
[0:30] presentations this evening. So, then the
[0:32] next item up is the town manager report.
[0:34] Mercy.
[0:36] >> Yeah. [laughter]
[0:37] Sorry.
[0:41] » Sorry. Was I
[0:42] >> I've got orders to move along. In my
[0:44] >> defense tonight, Hel me to task.
[0:48] >> Asking Vice Mayor Hufty where she is.
[0:50] Okay, hold on. I have a beautiful
[0:54] PowerPoint because there's a lot of
[0:55] exciting things happening in town.
[0:57] Excellent.
[0:59] >> Starting with the Hold on. The music
[1:02] series which will be
[1:05] Thursday night. Hold on. I have a great
[1:08] graphic that shows you who's playing.
[1:10] It's a fancy guitarist.
[1:13] Steel guitar, I think. Hold on.
[1:15] >> Yeah, should be fun.
[1:16] >> Yeah.
[1:18] Here we go.
[1:25] Okay. Darcy Smith, town manager. Yes.
[1:27] So, excitement summer concert series
[1:30] start this week on Thursday with Dennis
[1:33] Johnson and we'll have two more nights
[1:36] and then many of you know we also have
[1:38] the PB Palooa on August 29th. The lineup
[1:41] has been announced and town members were
[1:45] sent a lovely postcard with details.
[1:49] More excitingly, we had the town
[1:51] emergency preparedness and safety day
[1:54] which was well attended. Here's some
[1:56] photos.
[1:57] and count Vice Mayor Huy and I attended
[2:00] as well as council member Flynn and we
[2:04] successfully made ham radio contact. I
[2:07] talked to someone as far away as
[2:09] Nebraska or maybe it was South Dakota.
[2:12] Yeah. So, thank you to all who helped
[2:14] the fire department, Epic, WPB ready,
[2:17] WPBERT, and the town emergency
[2:19] preparedness committee.
[2:22] Next, some of you hopefully received the
[2:25] Portolla Valley Post, which is our
[2:27] quarterly printed newsletter, which was
[2:29] delivered to residents this week. And as
[2:32] part of this year's budget process and
[2:34] last year's evaluation of potential
[2:38] fiscal stabil stability measures, we've
[2:40] engaged our residents to identify the
[2:42] town's services, needs, and priorities.
[2:44] And that information is included in the
[2:47] post. And this is an extension of the
[2:50] scientific survey conducted last
[2:52] September. We relaunched this Portella
[2:55] Valley conversation to ensure that we
[2:57] could hear from all residents on these
[2:59] important matters and again that
[3:01] information is on our website.
[3:04] So last our public works completed some
[3:10] nice projects around town. They
[3:12] completed some or sorry the fireart
[3:15] district completed some valuable tree
[3:17] removals and then our staff in completed
[3:21] a sinkhole repair and they replaced you
[3:25] might have noticed some very old rotten
[3:27] wheel stops that were crumbling and
[3:29] people were they were a little bit of a
[3:31] hazard. So we have these beautiful new
[3:34] wheel stops and also nice handicapped
[3:38] parking signs. So, thank you to our
[3:39] public works team, Justin Scott who work
[3:42] really, really hard and then the
[3:44] Woodside Fire Protection District. So,
[3:46] that's all for my report. I hope to see
[3:48] all of you on Thursday night at the town
[3:50] center.
[3:51] >> Thank you, Darcy. And thank you show for
[3:53] showing up at the radio. I mean, I know
[3:56] it's appreciated that you were there.
[3:57] So, I think they even get a few extra
[3:59] credit for, you know, a town official
[4:01] showing up. So, thank you. I was out of
[4:03] town. All right, with that, we'll move
[4:05] on to oral communications. Is there
[4:07] anyone that would like to speak on
[4:09] issues not on the agenda? So, I see no
[4:12] one in the schoolhouse
[4:15] and I don't see any hands online
[4:19] and I see Mary. Yay.
[4:25] Hello, Mary.
[4:28] >> Oh, that doesn't feel good.
[4:32] » Wish am I saying hello? [laughter]
[4:39] Well, welcome.
[4:41] >> And let it be noted that Council Member
[4:43] Hufty is in the building and seating at
[4:46] the podium. So, all right. So, yeah, no
[4:49] worries. So, we we just finished up oral
[4:50] communications. We're going to move on
[4:53] to the consent agenda. Yeah. Helen gave
[4:55] me Helen said, you know, you need to
[4:57] move this meeting along. So, we're
[4:58] moving it along. So, all right. So,
[5:02] consent agenda. Is there any public
[5:04] comment on the consent agenda? So, I see
[5:07] none in the schoolhouse. Is there
[5:10] anybody online that would like to
[5:12] comment on
[5:14] consent agenda? I don't see any hands.
[5:18] All right. So, I'll bring it back to the
[5:20] council. Are there any consent items
[5:22] that anybody wants to pull?
[5:26] >> I'm sorry. Say again. 6D.
[5:27] >> 6D.
[5:28] >> Okay. Um, I'd like to pull the regular
[5:31] meeting minutes unless they've already
[5:33] been corrected.
[5:39] » Yep. And I I would pull the special
[5:42] meeting minutes cons.
[5:46] >> Okay. So, I think I've heard 6A, 6B, and
[5:49] 6D.
[5:50] >> Yeah.
[5:50] >> Okay. Um, do I have a motion to approve
[5:54] the loan remaining consent agenda item 6
[5:56] C?
[5:57] >> So, move.
[5:59] Thank you. I have a motion to second.
[6:02] >> I
[6:04] any
[6:06] hearing? None. Um six approved. All
[6:10] right. Why don't we start with 6A?
[6:12] Ellen, I think that was yours.
[6:13] >> Yeah, I just needed uh and I did notify
[6:16] that um Darcy and Veronica. Uh I was
[6:20] recused on 6A, excuse me, on this on the
[6:24] item for the special meeting minutes.
[6:26] So, I just wanted the record to reflect
[6:28] that I am recused even I was stuck in
[6:32] traffic for five minutes and then I was
[6:33] recused as well due to my day job. So,
[6:37] thank you.
[6:39] >> And Veronica, do you have what you need
[6:40] on that?
[6:41] >> Uh, yes. A was already revised and
[6:45] reposted.
[6:46] >> Okay. So, this new revision that's here
[6:47] is Okay, great. All right. Um, if you
[6:51] guys don't mind, why don't we just go
[6:52] through all of them and then we'll just
[6:54] unless they're substantial, we'll we can
[6:56] just approve all of them at the same
[6:57] time.
[6:58] >> All right. So, why don't we go with 6B?
[7:00] >> So, mine's just minor typos. I already
[7:02] let you know that there's three
[7:03] indications where the vote is listed as
[7:07] um for uh recusal and then against. And
[7:12] it just needed to be listed as four,
[7:14] against, and then either recusal or
[7:17] absent. So, the three votes were listed
[7:20] incorrectly.
[7:24] » So, Veronica, you feel like you have
[7:26] >> Yes.
[7:26] >> correction. You know what to make. Okay,
[7:28] great.
[7:28] >> Um, all right. Judith 6D.
[7:31] >> Yeah. I I wanted to understand a little
[7:33] bit more of the history of this. It
[7:36] sounds like everybody's in the county
[7:39] signs up to this, but I there are some
[7:42] strings attached in the underlying
[7:45] documents. So, I wanted to understand
[7:47] the context here. What's the benefit?
[7:50] And I think it's that we're eligible to
[7:52] receive grant money. I'm not sure for
[7:55] what. Uh, if somebody could give me a
[7:58] highlevel non-detailed
[8:01] sense of that. Yeah. So, we'll have
[8:03] Sarah course building director
[8:06] answer that question. She's done some
[8:08] great research on this.
[8:15] Sir, plan bailing director. So, thank
[8:16] you for that question. Um, so this
[8:19] agreement, as you know, this is an
[8:21] amendment to a previous agreement that
[8:23] the town has entered into with county of
[8:26] San Monteo. So, this amendment really
[8:30] why it's coming forward is there's just
[8:32] a couple updates around HUD's own
[8:35] policies and one of the policies was
[8:36] around the renewal requirements or how
[8:39] this agreement gets renewed. So really
[8:41] it can only get renewed so often and
[8:43] then you have to come forward for um I
[8:46] guess a full renewal of the agreement
[8:48] itself instead of the auto renewal. So
[8:50] it's really the auto renewal policy and
[8:51] there few other bullets they called out
[8:54] um that are kind of the main things for
[8:55] this agreement amendment. And then with
[8:58] us entering into this, there's about 16
[9:01] other jurisdictions that are less than
[9:03] 50,000 people or have a population of
[9:05] 50,000 or less that have chosen to enter
[9:09] into this agreement with the county. And
[9:11] so my understanding is that funding
[9:13] comes in, I don't have an exact number,
[9:15] but I was on the phone with the county
[9:17] today. I thought it was anywhere between
[9:18] like four and six million that is coming
[9:21] in that's allocated to different
[9:22] programs and grants that's distributed
[9:25] throughout the county. They mentioned
[9:27] things like meals on wheels and some
[9:28] other programs to support um housing and things like that. So I have I do
[9:33] have a list unfortunately that wasn't
[9:35] distributed to town council but um there
[9:37] are a variety of things that this goes
[9:40] towards that um can also be of benefit
[9:42] to the town and the surrounding
[9:43] community.
[9:46] Um, so
[9:48] watered under the bridge on this to be
[9:50] clear. Um, there are some costs we might
[9:54] incur by complying with a cooperation
[9:57] agreement. Um, we've got to commit to
[10:01] adopt and enforce certain certain
[10:05] prohibitions on excessive force, which
[10:08] I'm sure we do, but
[10:11] and then you also
[10:13] uh are restricted from applying for
[10:15] certain grants independently. That kind
[10:18] of makes sense. Um, but then affirmative
[10:22] action uh requirements. And my my my
[10:26] issue isn't with these line items. It's
[10:28] with have we looked at and confirmed
[10:31] that the costs of continuing cooperation
[10:35] are reasonable in light of the revenue
[10:39] that you say we're going to get.
[10:43] I
[10:43] >> mean, there wasn't a full analysis done
[10:45] related to cost. It really was just
[10:47] looking at the amendment language. Mhm.
[10:52] Um, so I guess my only comment would be
[10:55] I think when this comes up again in the
[10:58] future, we ought to just make sure since
[11:00] we're in cost monitoring slashminimizing
[11:04] mode uh that we understand what we where
[11:07] our costs are here and and just confirm
[11:10] a little bit more formally next time um
[11:13] where they are. But these amendments
[11:15] don't seem particularly material to me.
[11:17] Um, and they seem to be required. So for
[11:21] me, I'm I'm fine with that with that
[11:23] explanation. But next time around, I'll
[11:25] want more structure around the analysis.
[11:30] >> Okay. Thank you.
[11:30] >> Could I ask just another quick question?
[11:33] um if we do get one of these grants
[11:36] because I was a little bit under the
[11:38] impression that we probably wouldn't
[11:39] qualify anything, but um would we then
[11:42] have to have incur these updates to
[11:45] ordinances and what have you or is it
[11:48] just in general we have to
[11:51] um have all these things set up already?
[11:55] >> So, I'm not sure if I can answer that.
[11:57] >> I think we're committing to do these
[11:59] things regardless of whether or not we
[12:00] get grants. I don't know if that helps.
[12:02] That's that's what I'm questioning. And
[12:05] I don't know that now is the moment to
[12:08] dive into this, but next time around
[12:09] I'll want a more wholesome understanding
[12:12] of that.
[12:12] >> I'm going to I have affirmative action
[12:14] in our code. We have
[12:17] >> maybe beside the point. I agree.
[12:19] >> Okay.
[12:21] Thank you.
[12:22] >> So with that, I'll motion to approve
[12:24] 60D.
[12:25] >> Okay. So I'd like to do but let me just
[12:28] ask a quick question before we go there.
[12:29] Yeah. Um, so Katherine or Darcy, do you
[12:31] have any more to add? And no is an okay
[12:33] answer. I just wanted to follow up.
[12:35] >> I'll just add that we've been under this
[12:37] agreement for a long time
[12:40] >> and the is a long-standing agreement and
[12:42] we haven't to my knowledge incurred
[12:45] substantive additional costs.
[12:46] >> Thank you.
[12:47] >> Okay, great. Okay, so with that, um, if
[12:50] you wouldn't mind 6 A, B, and D that we
[12:53] just get them all done.
[12:56] >> So I would accept a motion for that.
[13:00] So moved. A
[13:01] >> second.
[13:01] >> Thank you. I have motion a second. All
[13:03] in favor say I. I.
[13:05] >> I.
[13:05] >> Any opposed? I hear no opposition. All
[13:09] right. So that one consent agenda is
[13:11] approved. So moving on to regular
[13:14] agenda. Thank you, Sarah.
[13:17] U moving on to regular agenda 7A. Tony,
[13:21] I assume you have a staff report for us.
[13:26] » Yes, I do.
[13:35] » [clears throat]
[14:18] » So tonight we are accepting
[14:21] having council consider acceptance of
[14:23] the fiscal year 2223
[14:25] audited financial statements and other
[14:27] related reports.
[14:56] So uh the audited results are we did
[14:58] receive an unmodified or a clean opinion
[15:00] and that means the the financial
[15:03] statements re within reasonable
[15:05] assurance reflect the financial
[15:06] condition of the town of portola valley
[15:08] for fiscal year 2223.
[15:10] Uh just some brief um highlights total
[15:13] net position decreased by 1.6 million.
[15:16] uh general fund balance decreased by
[15:18] 1.26 million and then there was a new
[15:21] finding in the memorandum of internal
[15:22] control. Uh the chart you see is some of
[15:26] the um variance are the changes in some
[15:29] of the balances from 2122 to 2223.
[15:33] Um our financial statements are in
[15:36] regard and when you look at the gazsby
[15:40] adjustments we are minimal. we only have
[15:43] uh the you know we have to do an
[15:46] adjustment for compensated absences our
[15:48] pension liability and our oped
[15:50] liability. Uh so um those are what's
[15:53] being reflected in excuse
[15:55] [clears throat] me in um this table.
[16:00] This chart this actually was requested
[16:02] by the finance committee. Um just an
[16:05] update of all the findings from previous
[16:07] years and the status um of where we are.
[16:11] As you can see, as we're getting closer
[16:13] and closer to uh current fiscal year, uh
[16:16] we are um making those corrections,
[16:19] implementing council or the the
[16:21] auditor's recommendations
[16:23] and but [clears throat] like I said, the
[16:25] uh the the 2223 there was a new finding
[16:29] and it was untimely renewal removal of
[16:33] uh authorized signers on the bank
[16:35] accounts um primarily due to um the the
[16:40] amount of staff turnover between 22 23
[16:43] and 23 24 that we didn't keep up with.
[16:47] But at no time was there a situation
[16:50] where we did not have an authorized
[16:52] signer on staff. So, we were not
[16:56] completely um out of compliance, but uh
[16:59] the auditor just thought it was a
[17:01] finding and a comment uh that this is
[17:03] something that we need to stay on top of
[17:05] with with staff separation, especially
[17:07] with authorized signers like town
[17:09] manager or assistant town manager or or
[17:12] finance director.
[17:13] >> Tony, could you just clarify how to read
[17:15] that table because yeses and nos and
[17:18] reds and green. So in 2021, yes, means
[17:20] it was a finding. Um, and that's why
[17:23] it's colored red. It's not good. Um, and
[17:26] then the end is it's no longer a finding
[17:28] and it's green. So, which is good. Um,
[17:32] 2526 we will probably get a finding for
[17:36] uh timelit
[17:38] because we will be behind. Um, but um
[17:41] but as I as I stated, we are in the
[17:44] process of catching up. We're
[17:45] implementing the changes and
[17:47] recommendations that the auditors um had
[17:50] uh suggested in their memorandum of
[17:51] internal control.
[17:56] Uh other reports that you were given was
[17:58] the report on the GAN limit measure A
[18:00] and measure W. Uh the auditor reported
[18:03] that we're in compliance. We are
[18:04] compliant with all the requirements for
[18:07] the GAN limit, measure A, measure W, Required communications. is
[18:11] there were no disagreements between
[18:13] staff and the auditor.
[18:16] Um the finance committee did review the
[18:18] financial statements at its last meeting
[18:20] on June 30th and did recommend that
[18:22] council accept the audited financial
[18:26] statements as presented. Um
[18:29] with that that clears up my report and I
[18:31] turn it back to council for questions.
[18:34] >> Thank you Tony.
[18:36] >> Questions for Tony? Clarifying questions
[18:38] on the audit.
[18:41] Rebecca
[18:43] and no iss okay answer. This is just
[18:44] questions and then we'll go to public
[18:46] comment and come back. So, just
[18:47] checking.
[18:48] >> Um I I just had some really minor
[18:51] questions because I had some
[18:54] used about some of the phrasing of some
[18:56] of this stuff. Um
[18:59] just um
[19:01] so page 53 of the packet.
[19:04] I don't you probably don't have it right
[19:06] in front of you.
[19:08] Um, page 53 of the packet. So it said
[19:26] the beginning fund balance for the
[19:28] general fund was restated by 368,000
[19:31] due to accounting entry errors from the
[19:35] prior year that resulted in overstating
[19:37] current liabilities
[19:39] and general government expenses.
[19:42] >> Yes. So when I read that,
[19:45] I read it as if you're overstating your
[19:48] liabilities and your expenses.
[19:51] To me, that says that you have more
[19:54] money. But when I look at the tables,
[19:57] it's shown that 368,000 is shown as a
[20:00] negative.
[20:01] >> So yes, so when you look at the basic
[20:04] accounting equation, you have assets
[20:06] equals liabilities plus fund balance.
[20:09] The issue was that the 22202
[20:13] or 2122 financial statements, we did a
[20:16] prior period adjustment and how I booked
[20:20] it and how the auditor booked it, they
[20:23] increased the liability, but we were
[20:25] actually reducing the liability. So even
[20:27] though the net effect was zero on the
[20:29] right hand side of the equation, um
[20:32] liabilities were overstated, fund
[20:33] balance was understated. So we had to
[20:35] make that correction in 22 the 23 24 I'm
[20:39] sorry the 22 23
[20:41] >> because you had made some kind of
[20:42] correction the year before.
[20:44] >> Yes. But if you were looking at
[20:46] liabilities and fund balance you know
[20:49] those two together add up to assets that
[20:53] the we were still in balance. However
[20:56] liabilities were over fund balance was
[20:59] under.
[21:01] >> Okay. But it was still the net effect
[21:04] was zero. But we had to make the
[21:06] correction because they are two separate
[21:08] components in the same equation.
[21:11] >> Okay. I I think I kind of understand a
[21:13] little bit. Um
[21:16] and then there was a bunch of situations
[21:18] where I consider it to be kind of a
[21:20] double negative way of these are just
[21:22] minor minor things but I was confused
[21:24] and might as well get it clarified. um
[21:27] statements that said find an example.
[21:32] Well, it said something like decreased
[21:33] by minus whatever.
[21:37] >> So to me that's a double negative. But I
[21:39] think the way when I look at the numbers
[21:41] it just meant so decreased by minus 3.1
[21:44] million when it's fact it's in English
[21:46] for me it would have been decreased by
[21:47] 3.14 million. You see, but every time
[21:50] there's that little minus stuck in
[21:52] there, which I found very
[21:54] >> This is pretty standard language.
[21:56] Financial statements.
[21:58] >> Okay. Well, I haven't experienced it
[21:59] that way, but maybe government does
[22:01] everything a little little weird. And
[22:04] then I noticed that we have a
[22:06] outstanding liability that we've loaned
[22:10] something or someone money or a minor
[22:12] amount. What was
[22:13] >> the road maintenance districts?
[22:15] >> Oh. Oh, okay. So they they pay it's
[22:20] $13,000 each year for 10 years. It was
[22:23] about 131,000 total.
[22:26] >> Okay.
[22:26] >> And that was in 2122, I believe.
[22:30] >> Um and then I kind of got confused with
[22:33] the unassigned fund balance. The number
[22:35] kept changing from one page to the next.
[22:38] And I kind of think it was due to the
[22:40] library 20,000
[22:44] uh payable liability there that kind of
[22:47] was sometimes included, sometimes wasn't
[22:49] included when you listed the unassigned
[22:52] fund balance.
[22:53] >> Right? So if you're looking at the
[22:56] there's the statement of net position,
[22:58] which is all funds plus the Gazsby
[23:01] adjustments, and then the next section
[23:03] is the fund financial statement. So the statement in deposition the
[23:07] unassigned would include anything
[23:09] related to the gazsby adjustments which
[23:11] are not in the fund financial statement.
[23:13] So those numbers are going to be
[23:14] different.
[23:15] >> Okay. And then I was found it odd that
[23:18] um page 65 last year we had a general
[23:22] government I have notes here that I
[23:24] don't have complete that was only
[23:25] $660,000
[23:27] >> and then the next this year we're
[23:29] dealing with 6 million and something.
[23:32] What adjustments related to pension
[23:35] because we had a significant reduction
[23:38] in the previous year that was showing up
[23:40] in the deferred outflows and deferred
[23:42] inflows. Well, those get recognized in
[23:45] this year. So, it's a constant back and
[23:46] forth, but it's related to the Gazsby
[23:49] adjustments.
[23:50] >> Okay. Um,
[23:55] and we didn't have any SBITA liabilities
[23:58] for that new software as a service
[24:01] thing.
[24:01] >> We we did have we do have
[24:06] um speed of receivable or uh payables
[24:09] with our subscription based, but it was
[24:12] immaterial because we didn't exceed the
[24:15] threshold of $300,000.
[24:17] >> Okay. And I assume that will be
[24:18] different for this year when we get to
[24:20] 2020.
[24:21] >> No, but it has to be 300,000 per
[24:24] subscription.
[24:25] >> Oh,
[24:26] >> so yeah. So that and the the previous
[24:29] year was loans. It was the same
[24:31] >> it was the same threshold where each
[24:33] loan had to be over 300,000 for us to
[24:35] recognize it. But we have such a small
[24:37] volume.
[24:38] >> Oh, okay.
[24:39] >> We won't be recognizing. And then I just
[24:41] happened to notice that our audit for
[24:43] 2022, the report was dated August 11th,
[24:46] 2025. And then this audit for 2023, it
[24:51] said they made a comment, the audit
[24:52] auditor made comment about the documents
[24:54] not being provided until miday 2026.
[24:58] So do you have some sort of explanation
[25:00] for what happened and why it took so
[25:02] long? Part of it was the $300,000
[25:06] >> variance and um it was in May where we
[25:10] finally came to a resolution.
[25:12] >> Okay. So, they kind of a little
[25:14] misstated that.
[25:15] >> Yeah. I see. Okay. So, we won't
[25:18] hopefully won't encounter that.
[25:20] >> Okay. Great. Thank you so much.
[25:21] >> Thank you.
[25:22] Rebecca. Judith, do you have
[25:24] any questions?
[25:25] Um if you just go back to the chart that
[25:27] the finance committee
[25:30] asked for
[25:36] out of the thing I mean the bottom line
[25:37] is out of the things that are remaining
[25:41] to be worked on are those
[25:46] do you anticipate any significant
[25:47] impediments
[25:49] in correcting those in the remaining
[25:53] audits or going forward from here on.
[25:58] >> Yeah, the third slide there.
[26:00] >> Anticipate
[26:02] um any impediments in resolving these
[26:06] issues.
[26:08] >> So, we've got all the processes and the
[26:10] people that we need to right
[26:12] >> staff is um
[26:16] each year staff's getting more and more
[26:18] knowledgeable.
[26:19] Um, so they're they're catching it as
[26:22] they're entering it as as you know as it
[26:25] is as as it's going in. So
[26:27] >> what's actually being entered into the
[26:29] system the first time is clean or done
[26:32] what hadn't done in the pri the prior
[26:33] years.
[26:35] >> Okay. And the one
[26:39] that is a blank you're
[26:43] just going to have to wait and see.
[26:45] Yeah. About that.
[26:46] >> Yes.
[26:46] >> Okay.
[26:47] That's it. Thank you. Thank you,
[26:49] Mary.
[26:51] >> Thank you.
[26:53] >> Hi. So, uh, first, thank you.
[26:58] This is, um, you know, this town has
[27:01] been waiting for this for a long time. I
[27:03] know this is not comments, so quick
[27:04] couple quick questions.
[27:07] >> Um,
[27:09] I didn't have as much time as I normally
[27:11] do, so just um, bear with me. Total
[27:14] revenues increased from 66 million to
[27:17] 9.3 million. That was just sales of
[27:21] houses, right? Differences, but well,
[27:24] it's all funds, not just general funds.
[27:26] So, we did have some significant with
[27:28] measure A, measure W. Um, we also had
[27:32] investment earnings. We had positive
[27:35] investment earnings where the previous
[27:36] year we had losses.
[27:38] >> Great. Um, and the total expenses, you
[27:41] know, to go from
[27:43] 6.1 million to 10.9. That was the year.
[27:47] Remind me that was the year.
[27:49] >> That was the the Gazsby adjustments that
[27:51] I alluded to with council before,
[27:54] >> right? Okay.
[27:56] Um, just making sure.
[28:00] Hang on. Let me go. Um
[28:12] I was just a little bit confused on
[28:14] segregation of duties. Um found that the
[28:17] def uh deficiencies had not been
[28:20] mitigated as of June 23. Therefore they
[28:24] are deemed to be the current year's
[28:26] significant deficiencies. Is that s
[28:30] current year being 23?
[28:32] >> Yes.
[28:33] >> Okay.
[28:34] >> Yeah. Because that it's a finding from
[28:36] the prior year. So all the all the
[28:39] memorandum all those findings is for
[28:42] fiscal year 2223.
[28:44] >> Right. Se segregation of duties at the
[28:46] time there was only two members of the
[28:49] finance staff. So you can't have
[28:52] segregation of duties with two. So now
[28:55] we have three and actually four. Um so
[28:58] we have we have uh alleviated or
[29:01] mitigated that finding.
[29:03] >> Great. Thanks. Okay. Um and in terms of
[29:07] the timely deposit of checks that was a
[29:09] problem. Um, you know, there were
[29:12] stories of checks getting lost and is
[29:14] there now a more clear process for
[29:18] tracking and deposits and
[29:20] >> every check that's received is logged,
[29:23] scanned,
[29:25] deposited within 7 to 10 days.
[29:29] >> Excellent. Thanks. Okay. Um.
[29:49] that might be it. Um,
[29:52] okay. Uh, let me just double check.
[29:56] Yep, that's it. Thank you so much.
[29:58] >> Thank you. All right, let me open it up
[30:00] for public comment. Um, is there any
[30:03] public comment on this item? See no one
[30:06] in the schoolhouse? Is there anyone
[30:07] online that would like to comment on the
[30:09] audit? See Rita's hand. Rita, go ahead.
[30:14] » Hi. Uh, thank you for taking my comment.
[30:18] And you know um as we applaud the 22 23
[30:24] audit moving forward uh we still have to
[30:27] acknowledge that today is uh July 8th
[30:32] 2026 and we have a we have a ways to go
[30:36] and I just hope that with all the moving
[30:38] parts that we have that um be before we
[30:43] put something on the ballot that uh the rest of them are are caught up so
[30:49] that the town residents can have a
[30:51] clearer picture of what our finances
[30:54] are. Thank you for taking my comment.
[30:57] >> Thank you, Rita.
[30:59] There any other public comments?
[31:05] All right, I don't see any other hands
[31:07] up online. So, I will close this
[31:12] item public comment and bring it back to
[31:14] the council for discussion. Any further
[31:16] discussion?
[31:22] » Thanks, somebody. I just wanted to thank
[31:23] you for incredibly hard work that's gone
[31:25] into this. I know cleaning up accounts
[31:28] that you had nothing to do with and had
[31:30] having to try and find uh missing
[31:34] information, lost checks and all that
[31:35] stuff. Put in place all sorts of new um
[31:38] processes was a huge amount of work and
[31:41] you definitely have my gratitude. Thank
[31:43] you.
[31:46] Yeah. Uh I have this similar statement.
[31:49] Um
[31:51] you and your whole staff and you know
[31:53] the auditors working on this have not
[31:56] had a simple task. So while it looks
[31:59] nice and tidy and short here, I know
[32:01] that's not a reflection of the
[32:03] complexity that you've been dealing
[32:04] with. Um,
[32:08] in terms of
[32:10] not a granular level of detail, but an
[32:13] overarching
[32:15] setting of expectation on the future
[32:17] audits, my general sense had been this
[32:20] is a super tough one, but once this is
[32:24] kind of put in line, the others should
[32:26] be a fraction of some nature of the
[32:30] future ones. So, if you could just
[32:32] comment directionally on how to think
[32:34] about that, that would help me. Y
[32:38] >> um yeah, this is this one was getting
[32:40] over the hump.
[32:42] >> 24 23 24
[32:45] um
[32:47] is
[32:49] pressing 24 25 26 um should um there
[32:55] should not be any issues in regards to
[32:57] providing information. Um and u they
[33:01] should be done relatively uh
[33:05] I don't want to say short manner but um
[33:07] it'll be um
[33:10] quicker than the previous audits.
[33:13] And I guess the only since this is
[33:15] discussion, the only request I have is
[33:18] as you work through with the auditors,
[33:21] obviously the the public comment
[33:23] regarding the ballot measure is
[33:25] something that's on all of our minds,
[33:27] and I'm not asking tonight for granular
[33:29] detail, but it this is a request for
[33:33] updates from over the next several
[33:35] months on where we are and what what's
[33:38] realistic and expected. So, you don't
[33:40] have to answer that now. There's not
[33:42] something to go after there, but
[33:44] >> we will have an update at the next
[33:46] council meeting.
[33:47] >> Great. Thank you.
[33:52] » I just wanted to share the enthusiasm
[33:55] for the work you're doing and I really
[33:57] appreciate it.
[33:59] Glad to see that we're getting onto the
[34:02] slope and and heading down the slope to
[34:04] get to the finish line. So,
[34:07] >> thank you. Good luck.
[34:09] >> Yeah. Um, can you remind me when you
[34:13] what month and year you started?
[34:16] >> May 2020.
[34:17] >> Yeah. So, here you are having to
[34:19] reconstruct
[34:22] what other people left and you've put
[34:25] done a great job. I know it's taken time
[34:28] but you know good things take time and
[34:30] you did a really so kudos joining my
[34:33] colleagues and thank you for what you're
[34:35] doing it is appreciated.
[34:37] >> Thank you
[34:40] >> and ditto I mean thank you Tony I mean
[34:43] yman's work that you're doing we really
[34:45] appreciate it and I'm looking forward to
[34:46] the update at the next meeting.
[34:49] All right, with that I'm gonna close 7A
[34:51] and move to 7B,
[34:54] which is Tony again.
[34:56] >> Yeah.
[34:57] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Um, if we need
[34:59] >> I make a motion to accept the
[35:03] >> audited financial statements.
[35:05] >> Thank [clears throat] you very motion in
[35:07] a second. All in favor say I.
[35:08] >> I.
[35:10] >> Any opposed? I hear no opposition. All
[35:12] right. Now,
[35:14] thank you. We'll move on to 7B.
[35:17] >> Okay. Tony Tony gets a little break
[35:19] first. We're this was really a team
[35:22] effort, but I want to emphasize a budget
[35:25] conscious team effort. So you're you're
[35:27] looking at the team. We have only one
[35:29] other person who's not here, Lauren
[35:31] Tarpe, who's assisted us. Um, but I want
[35:35] to emphasize because I think there was a
[35:36] public question about, you know, has
[35:38] this been expensive? Will it be
[35:39] expensive in the future? And I just want
[35:41] to emphasize we've we have done a lot of
[35:43] work on this um to minimize the cost. we
[35:46] don't have some expensive consultant
[35:48] working for us it's it's rolling up our
[35:51] sleeves and doing the work and when I
[35:54] look to the future would this in incur
[35:56] more cost for the town I don't see any
[35:58] um we became a charter town so we here
[36:02] to talk about sorry the uh review of the
[36:04] draft ordinance presented potentially to
[36:07] the voters that decision is not tonight
[36:10] so this is essentially just a study
[36:11] session no decisions are made um and we
[36:15] have been working on this item for a
[36:16] long time. It's tied into the audits,
[36:18] but we the council's top priority this
[36:21] year and last year is working on our
[36:24] financial responsibility and long-term
[36:26] viability. So, we've been doing a lot on
[36:27] that. We've been doing
[36:30] leading this backlog of audits, as you
[36:32] heard, financial consultant best
[36:34] practices. We got the user fee study and
[36:37] adopted the master fee schedule done and
[36:40] is being implemented. So, great work on
[36:42] that. Um, and we're here tonight to talk
[36:45] about a very key part of this fiscal
[36:49] responsibility plan, which is the
[36:51] development of a town charter and real
[36:53] property transfer tax ordinance, which
[36:55] would be placed on the November ballot
[36:57] should the council make that decision at
[36:59] a future meeting. So, you've all seen
[37:01] this many times.
[37:03] It's the infamous black line. We already
[37:06] know we have a structural deficit
[37:07] because the council approved this fiscal
[37:09] year budget with one. um and things are
[37:12] just looking grim. So that's essentially
[37:15] what we're trying to solve for. Um as I
[37:19] mentioned in my town manager report, we
[37:21] have had the portal valley conversation
[37:23] starting last year with the scientific
[37:25] survey and more recently with community
[37:28] surveys and they've identified
[37:30] priorities. I don't think this is
[37:31] anything new to the the community that
[37:33] we prioritize wildfire prevention,
[37:35] emergency,
[37:37] we want to preserve our town autonomy
[37:39] and we want to focus on infrastructure
[37:41] and Tony will present a little bit about
[37:43] that. There's a lot of infrastructure
[37:45] needs in this town that have been
[37:47] neglected.
[37:49] So, back in April, council directed this
[37:52] team to prepare the charter and you
[37:55] reviewed that in May and June. So, we've
[37:57] completed the public hearings on those.
[37:59] So, thank you very much. Um, I just want
[38:01] to revisit it because it does tie into
[38:02] this ordinance that you're reviewing
[38:04] tonight. And the charter will lay the
[38:06] groundwork for this revised ordinance by
[38:09] converting the town from a general law
[38:11] to a charter town. It's really important
[38:14] um because without that, the town cannot
[38:17] enact this ex um
[38:21] real property transfer tax ordinance.
[38:23] Really important to note this this
[38:25] source of revenue goes entirely to the
[38:27] town. Um and so we've finished the work
[38:31] on the charter and just important to
[38:34] note then this is this charter will
[38:36] allow the town to adopt this real
[38:39] property transfer tax beyond the state
[38:41] approved minimum. So right now there is
[38:44] an existing tax we receive 55 cents per
[38:47] thousand. Um and we have been collecting
[38:50] that since we think 1967. Yeah. So our
[38:54] current ordinance is that old. Um, and
[38:57] so if you look at the red line of the
[38:59] ordinance that was attached to your
[39:00] staff report, it amends our existing
[39:02] chapter 3.12 to eliminate and our
[39:06] current existing documentary transfer
[39:08] tax and we would replace it with a new
[39:11] real property transfer tax. The amount
[39:13] is not in the ordinance at this time
[39:15] because we're not here to talk about the
[39:17] amount tonight. I just want you to re
[39:18] looking for you to review the ordinance.
[39:20] We'll be talking about the rate later.
[39:22] Um but I want to talk a little about bit
[39:25] about exemptions because we got a public
[39:26] comment on um and there's been some
[39:28] questions that this ordinance approach
[39:32] that we've presented is simple um and we
[39:35] don't recommend any changes to the
[39:37] current exemptions in the ordinance
[39:38] which are consistent with state law.
[39:41] They are complicated exemptions and I I
[39:44] guess I want to pause these are very
[39:46] different than exemptions that you might
[39:48] have heard of about related to like Prop
[39:50] 13. So, you know, like when properties
[39:52] trans transferred from parents to
[39:55] children or you move out of the county.
[39:57] These are specific exemptions and
[40:00] they're nothing new. Again, we've been
[40:01] applying them since 1967.
[40:04] Um,
[40:06] the one that is most commonly used is if
[40:09] there's a community property division on
[40:11] a dissolution of a marriage or legal
[40:14] separation. A lot of these other ones
[40:16] are very rare and we either never use
[40:20] them or would very rarely use them. Um
[40:22] like for example, if the town were to
[40:24] acquire property, we would not pay the
[40:26] transfer tax. Same with other
[40:29] governmental agencies. So I just want to
[40:31] pause because we have had an interest in
[40:33] these exemptions and I think they're
[40:34] easily confused with like you know a
[40:36] senior exemption for a partial tax
[40:39] measure or a Prop 13 exemption. These
[40:41] are very different and they're in state
[40:43] law and staff's recommendation right now
[40:45] is to keep these simple, base them on
[40:47] state law because we can always come
[40:49] back and amend later. The amendments to
[40:51] these exemptions are under council
[40:52] control. So that would not need to go to
[40:54] the voters. But throughout this whole
[40:56] process, I've talked about keeping it
[40:58] simple, keeping it streamlined, you
[41:00] know, not and that ties in with
[41:02] minimizing our upfront costs. Um, so I
[41:06] mentioned that we're not here to talk
[41:08] about the rate, but I just want you to
[41:09] be aware that that will be presented at
[41:11] the next meeting on July 22nd. But I
[41:14] just want to pause um so that we don't
[41:17] get distracted by the rate to just
[41:18] mention important piece which is that
[41:21] the council in this ordinance there is
[41:23] language that allows the council to
[41:25] reduce or repeal the rate without voter
[41:28] approval. We have that currently from
[41:30] the for the UUT. I believe it has been
[41:32] exercised. So, I just want to make sure
[41:34] you're aware of that because that is
[41:35] language here that you'll be reviewing
[41:37] tonight and giving us feedback on. Um,
[41:40] so we're marching towards the November
[41:43] ballot. So, tonight's our meeting to
[41:46] have your preliminary review of this
[41:48] ordinance and then at the next meeting,
[41:50] we will give you a resolution to
[41:53] consider to place this on the ballot
[41:55] with the election being November 3rd.
[41:58] And why are we doing this now? We are up
[42:00] against a filing deadline of August 7th.
[42:02] Important to note that this ordinance
[42:05] and the charter would take effect if
[42:08] approved by the voters. Um there's a
[42:10] little bit of a distinction I just want
[42:12] to mention with the effective date. It
[42:15] would take effect 10 days after the
[42:17] council certifies the election results.
[42:20] If in fact it's passed the charter takes
[42:22] effect when the town files it with the
[42:24] secretary of state and we should get the
[42:26] election results on December 3rd.
[42:31] So, and now we have a presentation by
[42:33] Tony.
[42:37] » So, I will be providing some additional
[42:39] context for your discussion.
[42:42] Um,
[42:46] this could be more related to what are
[42:48] some of our long-term needs in relation
[42:51] to uh council priorities.
[42:57] Not looking for any direction or
[42:58] decision tonight. This is just adding
[43:00] some additional context um for your
[43:02] discussion tonight.
[43:15] So, here's the council priorities. Um
[43:19] financial responsibility, long-term
[43:20] diversity. Um these are what the budget
[43:24] was um developed with uh in mind. Um the
[43:30] you know we've identified these
[43:32] priorities these they've been our
[43:34] priorities uh for the past couple fiscal
[43:36] years. We've added um community uh for
[43:39] 2627
[43:41] um and you know but you know we've said
[43:44] these are our priorities but what are
[43:46] the strategies that are going to be
[43:48] implemented with these priorities in
[43:50] mind. Um so you know when you say
[43:53] financial responsibility long-term
[43:55] viability what exactly is that? Um, so
[43:59] for the town, historically, the town has
[44:03] not had a long-term uh financial
[44:05] spending plan. Uh, we haven't
[44:07] prioritized
[44:09] uh we haven't identified what's what's
[44:11] going to be coming down the road. Um,
[44:14] and also we haven't prepared for a rainy
[44:16] day. Uh, if there's any type of economic
[44:19] uncertainty or if there's any type of um
[44:22] natural uh disaster or emergency. Um and
[44:26] you know just with that in mind this
[44:28] winter we're anticipating in El Nino. Um
[44:31] so u but other policy uh questions that
[44:35] council will have to uh discuss is you
[44:38] know the reserve level is currently at
[44:40] 20%. Um it was reduced from 60%. So the
[44:43] question will be is the reserve at 20%
[44:47] acceptable is it or do we do we want to
[44:49] increase reserves? if we want to
[44:51] increase reserves and we're gonna have
[44:53] to build in surpluses in the in future
[44:57] budgets. Um also there's been discussion
[45:00] at finance committee as well um about
[45:03] pension funding whether we want to make
[45:05] additional contributions to lower our
[45:08] pension liability. Um and you know these
[45:11] are like I said we're just identifying
[45:13] these. We're not we don't have a dollar
[45:15] amount um associated with them but these
[45:17] are things that will be further you know
[45:18] developed if council does get that
[45:20] direction. Um and looking at safety
[45:23] obviously our sheriff contract that's
[45:24] going to increase every year. Um but
[45:27] every three to four years there's going
[45:28] to be a spike with labor when they go
[45:30] through labor agree or negotiations.
[45:33] um wildfire res resilience and um
[45:36] evacuation planning and implementation
[45:39] of the evacuation plan. We do have an
[45:40] evacuation plan, but we do not have the
[45:43] funds to implement that plan. Uh
[45:46] wildfire resilience, we do have Woodside
[45:48] Fire Vegetation Management. Um it has
[45:51] been 80 days per year. However, last
[45:54] year we reduced that to 60 days and we
[45:57] we're keeping it at 60 days this year.
[45:59] But, you know, we would like to have
[46:01] some additional funding to increase
[46:03] those days because, um, having the town
[46:06] resilient to wildfire is very important.
[46:08] Um, also, emergency backup power and
[46:10] cooling centers. Um, our backup our
[46:14] power issues with the town have been at
[46:17] the forefront the past few months uh,
[46:20] with with the theft of copper pipe,
[46:22] copper wires, but we've also had just
[46:24] power outages. And when a power outage
[46:26] does hit the schoolhouse and that the
[46:28] schoolhouse is down for a significant
[46:30] amount of time, we lose the
[46:33] functionality of the equipment that's
[46:34] here. Um, also we do have a backup
[46:37] generator, but it's one, so we probably
[46:39] should uh consider some type of
[46:41] redundant backup system. Um, operational
[46:44] efficiency and effectiveness. Um, our IT
[46:48] infrastructure is aging. Um, and that's
[46:51] well documented. Um, we have aging
[46:54] equipment. We are in the process of
[46:56] selecting a new IT service provider. Um
[47:00] and um but again significant investment
[47:03] is going to be needed in our IT
[47:04] infrastructure. Um and that also
[47:07] includes our GIS systems. Um also
[47:11] increasing our customer service uh
[47:13] training our employees, retaining our
[47:15] employees um is uh essential for the
[47:19] town to be operationally efficient and
[47:21] effective. And we do and when we redo
[47:24] review some of these CIP projects that
[47:27] uh we need to consider funding uh we
[47:30] need to have some grant writing
[47:31] capability uh which we currently do not
[47:33] have on staff at the moment.
[47:37] looking at community uh looking at town
[47:40] center facilities including Ford Field
[47:42] uh the town courts uh we do have some
[47:45] CIP projects impacting those areas that
[47:48] um quite frankly we might not have the
[47:50] funding for but we do have some grants
[47:52] available um we have talked
[47:55] significantly about storm drain master
[47:57] plan u the last one was done in 1970 uh
[48:01] three months after I was born um and
[48:04] with the storm drain master plan uh is
[48:07] going to identify some repairs and those
[48:09] repairs are going to be in the millions
[48:10] of dollars. Um and because we we we have
[48:14] a good idea of the external parts of the
[48:18] storm drain because we can visibly see
[48:19] those. But the internal part of this of
[48:22] the storm drain system, the the the
[48:24] corrugated metal or the corrugated
[48:27] steel, the PVC, we don't know the
[48:28] condition. We don't know if there any
[48:31] significant corrosion. Um but I mean the the master plan needs to be done. Uh
[48:38] and also we talked about you know
[48:40] modernization for greater resilience for
[48:43] power outages extreme heat and
[48:44] everything. Uh and then on the
[48:46] sustainability side developing a climate
[48:49] action plan implementing that plan. Um
[48:51] those are going to cost funds as well.
[48:56] So looking at the capital improvement
[48:58] program again with the evacuation plan.
[49:00] One of those was widening of Alpine
[49:02] Road. Um that is going to be north of a
[49:06] million right there. Uh we have streets
[49:08] and roads maintenance effort. Um we are
[49:11] required
[49:13] um to uh the general fund needs to
[49:16] contribute at least $350,000 per year
[49:19] into our streets and roads and that's
[49:22] where we have our street resurfacing
[49:23] program, our pavement management
[49:24] program. Um we have not been uh
[49:29] maintaining that effort in the last two
[49:31] fiscal years and we are subject of
[49:33] possibly having our SP1 funding uh
[49:37] withheld and that's about $125,000.
[49:40] Um and that's for transportation
[49:43] um and for other road improvement
[49:44] projects. Um again the Ford field
[49:47] bathroom and concession stand um those
[49:50] costs are going to exceed what the grant
[49:52] amount is that we have. Um and then also
[49:55] uh the town courts and just the other
[49:57] items that we've identified um that um
[50:01] you know we that council will need to
[50:03] consider uh moving forward should the uh
[50:06] if we do receive if the revenue measure
[50:08] does pass. But if it does if it does
[50:10] pass then these are uh conversations
[50:13] that we're going to need to have not
[50:14] just with the council but with the
[50:16] community as well. um just what um what
[50:19] services are they going to expect from
[50:20] the town.
[50:24] So these are some of the strategic
[50:25] investment priorities and we'll keep
[50:27] this chart up as we uh go through your
[50:30] discussion. Um and that concludes my
[50:33] report and give it back to council.
[50:39] » Okay. So there's kind of two parts to
[50:41] this. there's sort of our needs um and
[50:46] sort of potential revenue from RPTT and
[50:49] then there's the actual ordinance
[50:51] itself. Given it's going to be very
[50:53] clumsy to switch back and forth between
[50:54] the two presentations, why don't I
[50:57] suggest that we start with Tony's
[50:58] because it's up we ask any questions.
[51:01] I'll open it to public comment um and
[51:04] then we can come back and discuss this
[51:07] and move to the ordinance sort of do the
[51:10] same thing. I think that'll just keep it
[51:12] the most streamlined. So with that on
[51:14] Tony's presentation, are there
[51:16] clarifying questions?
[51:23] » Yeah.
[51:23] Go ahead, please.
[51:25] >> Um, so thanks for that. Um,
[51:29] >> my my understanding of
[51:33] the intent behind this um is to remind
[51:38] us of what's at stake if we don't
[51:42] enhance the revenues and get to a place
[51:44] where we're more fiscally viable. So is
[51:48] it correct that these are
[51:51] really examples taken both from the
[51:54] public input but also our prior our
[51:57] prior discussions on we can't do that we
[52:01] can't do that it would be great to do
[52:02] that we need to do that um but it's not
[52:06] like a a throughz listing of everything
[52:09] is my interpretation
[52:11] >> but it's items that need to be
[52:13] considered uh moving forward and the
[52:15] alternative being Without the revenue
[52:17] measure, I'm going to be the finance
[52:20] director or the assistant town manager
[52:22] bringing a budget. That's going to be
[52:26] draconian.
[52:26] >> Yeah. Yeah. And and these are things at
[52:29] stake,
[52:30] >> right?
[52:31] >> If we don't somehow get to a better
[52:34] financial position,
[52:35] >> right? Specifically with the the
[52:36] evacuation plan, we're we have no
[52:39] funding for that. Mhm. Mhm.
[52:42] And that's not to say that we won't also
[52:45] seek grants for some of these things.
[52:46] These are we have degrees of freedom is
[52:49] my interpretation if we have more
[52:52] revenue to spend or to seek grants or do
[52:55] have a different playbook.
[52:57] >> Right. And with grants there's there's
[52:59] still the matching component that will
[53:01] be coming out of the jungle.
[53:03] >> Yeah. Yeah. And if I could just so the
[53:07] other thing I think I heard from Judith
[53:08] is was the the sort of a couple of
[53:10] slides before this that that you showed
[53:12] those are just some examples like that
[53:14] wasn't an exhaustive list right that was
[53:16] just part a partial list
[53:17] >> including but not limited to
[53:18] >> yeah fine perfect okay yeah that's what
[53:20] I understood
[53:22] >> but I just want to because it's an
[53:23] important discussion and you know
[53:26] there's going to be a lot of work going
[53:27] forward is my sense to refine these to pick and choose but that's not
[53:33] today's task. today is to say
[53:35] >> this is just giving you context.
[53:37] >> Okay,
[53:37] >> because that you know you're going to be
[53:39] discussing the ordinance. The next
[53:41] >> conversation is the rate and it's based
[53:43] on what what do we need?
[53:46] >> Okay. All right. Those are my questions
[53:47] for Tony. Thank you.
[53:50] >> Thank you Rebecca. Do you have
[53:51] questions?
[53:53] >> I guess just from a legal question legal
[53:55] standpoint when this list of things for
[53:58] example
[53:59] um falls into sort of the general expenses, right? General
[54:06] operating expenses.
[54:08] >> The general fund
[54:09] >> general fund expenses, right? Okay. Um I
[54:13] think that's it. That's pretty seem very
[54:14] clear. All the the extreme needs.
[54:18] Thanks,
[54:19] >> Mary. Question.
[54:21] >> My question is u a higher level. As you
[54:26] move into uh this next phase, are you
[54:30] feeling like you've gotten to the bottom
[54:31] of the barrel of the problems or do you
[54:34] feel like there's another layer that I
[54:37] mean is there another infrastructure
[54:40] issue that we're looking at or is there
[54:43] do you do you see do you have a sense
[54:45] that you've actually accomplished you've
[54:47] dug all the way in?
[54:49] Yeah, I I believe storm drain is the
[54:52] highest priority. Our infrastructure, I
[54:55] mean, we do we do have funding for our
[54:58] streets. Um those are our two largest
[55:01] infrastructure u and trails. Um in
[55:05] regards to volume, the miles of roads
[55:07] and the miles of storm drains and um
[55:11] that you know, we have two people in
[55:12] public works that kind of keep an eye on
[55:15] these things for us. Um but the only
[55:18] other areas would be just our facilities
[55:21] itself. Uh the buildings that we're in
[55:23] are over 20 years old except I mean it's
[55:26] older than that. But
[55:28] you know we've been deferring
[55:30] maintenance on our facilities as well.
[55:33] uh that if we start looking more and
[55:35] more into it that yeah we might have to
[55:38] look at but for me the biggest concern
[55:40] is the storming
[55:42] >> and that's the most recent two the HVAC
[55:45] etc we're all old
[55:47] >> right
[55:48] >> okay the one the one thing that has
[55:50] never um shown up on this is the idea of
[55:54] undergrounding the uh
[55:57] wires
[55:59] as a capital improvement
[56:00] >> that yeah that's that that would be the
[56:03] absolute uh looking down the barrel of
[56:06] the gun.
[56:06] >> Yeah, we're nowhere near
[56:08] >> having that.
[56:09] >> Thank you. That's that is my
[56:11] >> And I I think again these are examples,
[56:13] but I think the reason is undergrounding
[56:15] is prohibitively expensive. It's like $2
[56:18] million a mile.
[56:19] >> Like five five million a mile
[56:22] >> is now okay. I keep you know I remember
[56:24] the days it used to be a million dollars
[56:26] a mile. So if you probably have better
[56:28] data than I do, but the point is you you
[56:30] can imagine that that you know
[56:33] everything else we've talked about here
[56:35] would be dwarfed if we decided to
[56:36] underground [clears throat]
[56:37] >> I just wanted to know whether he had a
[56:39] sense that he was coming getting to the
[56:42] bottom of the
[56:44] cleanup
[56:45] >> can't can't get more bottom and storm
[56:46] drink [laughter]
[56:48] >> oh yeah there's the septic there's the
[56:50] septic
[56:52] there's sewer and septic Ellen
[56:57] >> so um question
[57:00] obviously
[57:02] Um,
[57:04] obviously if if this if we were to vote
[57:08] and put this on, if we were not to if we
[57:12] were to vote against it, we would still
[57:15] have, for instance, the ongoing cost
[57:17] plus our pension liability.
[57:20] >> Correct.
[57:21] >> And could you talk speak to the pension
[57:23] liability issue that we're facing in
[57:27] town? um our our liability is about 2
[57:30] million and that's the difference
[57:32] between our our net li our total
[57:35] liability and our market value of
[57:37] assets. Uh the market value of assets
[57:39] fluctuates from year to year. Investment
[57:42] returns, contribution rates and all that
[57:44] other uh stuff. When it's good
[57:46] investment return year, it shrinks but
[57:49] it also expands and when they don't meet
[57:52] uh the goal um it's not going to go
[57:55] away. Um, you know, it's it's we're
[57:59] contractually obligated. Um, but um,
[58:04] you know, regardless of if it passes or
[58:07] not, we're still going to have to pay
[58:09] it.
[58:11] >> And that is that 2 million
[58:13] >> that's also including
[58:15] >> the U as well.
[58:16] >> And that's annually.
[58:18] No, what is that? So, so what what PERS
[58:23] does is they take the the pension
[58:25] liability and advertise it over a
[58:27] rolling 20-y year
[58:30] um cycle. And so we actually pay an
[58:34] additional
[58:36] I think it's going to be 190,000 this
[58:38] year on top of what we payroll
[58:41] deductions
[58:43] um in the budget.
[58:45] So, for instance, if we were to go
[58:47] bankrupt and the county were to take us
[58:49] over, they would need to find $2 million
[58:53] somehow to long-term from our assets.
[58:59] That is a legal conversation. There's
[59:02] been court cases. Uh there's no example
[59:05] of that happening, so I can't really
[59:08] answer that question, but it would be a
[59:09] legal kurfuffle.
[59:11] >> Hypothetical. I wanted to uh unwrap
[59:14] that.
[59:16] >> Okay.
[59:16] >> Leave that as a term legally.
[59:19] >> Okay. So, but we have an some Yes.
[59:22] obligation, contractual obligation.
[59:24] Correct. Okay. Great. Um,
[59:31] thank you. That's my questions. Thank
[59:33] you.
[59:34] >> Thank you, Helen. Um, Tony, this last
[59:36] slide that you put up, um, could you
[59:38] speak to this a little bit? So, is this
[59:41] your recommendation or staff's
[59:43] recommendation on various ranges? And
[59:46] >> yes,
[59:47] >> are you asking council to sort of weigh
[59:50] in and and sort of discuss some of these
[59:52] different because I mean obviously the
[59:54] sheriff's contract is, you know, we know
[59:55] what that is. It's 1.4 million and it's
[59:58] roughly an additional 200 to $250,000 a
[1:00:01] year.
[1:00:01] >> Correct.
[1:00:02] >> Just we know that until we get to a
[1:00:04] next, like you say, the next contract
[1:00:06] with the deputies. Um, but like the CIP
[1:00:08] fund, are you looking for us to weigh in
[1:00:11] on sort of do we go leaner or richer?
[1:00:15] And the same thing with ongoing
[1:00:16] expenses, do we go leaner or richer? Is
[1:00:18] that part of this discussion?
[1:00:20] >> Um, yes, but I mean it's more of a
[1:00:22] range.
[1:00:23] >> Okay.
[1:00:23] >> But the, you know, with with the sheriff
[1:00:25] services, I mean the 1.4 is basically to
[1:00:28] recover the cost increases over the last
[1:00:32] three to four fiscal years. uh CIP fund,
[1:00:35] you know, I my recommendation would be
[1:00:38] 750,000
[1:00:40] uh per year. Um but you know, again,
[1:00:42] that's council has to give that
[1:00:44] direction. Um and that's, you know, 750,
[1:00:47] but minus 350 for roads, so that leaves
[1:00:49] 400 for the CIP projects. Um but yeah,
[1:00:53] there could be some years where we
[1:00:54] invest more. Could be years where we
[1:00:57] actually just do the 350. uh other
[1:00:59] ongoing expenses. I mean that's going to
[1:01:02] fluctuate. Um the you know because
[1:01:05] there's personnel costs built into that
[1:01:07] increases with our medical um but you
[1:01:10] know there could be one time cost
[1:01:13] increases got to do another element
[1:01:15] update or um there's some other
[1:01:18] significant unfunded mandate that we
[1:01:20] have to take care of. Um, but this was
[1:01:22] just to kind of give you a range of
[1:01:24] between 2.3 and 3 million of the revenue
[1:01:27] needs that we're going to need uh just
[1:01:30] for ongoing operations and capital
[1:01:35] improvements.
[1:01:36] >> Okay. So, so the the goal of tonight is
[1:01:38] just to give us roughly an idea what the
[1:01:40] range is so that under next meeting Yes.
[1:01:42] >> when we're setting the rate, we can
[1:01:43] think about whether the rate gets us
[1:01:46] >> right
[1:01:47] >> a a annual revenue that we need. Is that
[1:01:49] okay, Got it. Okay. Great. Perfect.
[1:01:51] Thank you. Um, yeah, I think that's all
[1:01:54] my questions. So, let me open it up to
[1:01:56] public comment. So, I don't see
[1:02:00] >> Mayor I think it's fine to do public
[1:02:01] comment now. I just I did just want to
[1:02:02] flag that um you would probably want to
[1:02:05] do it a second time if Oh, you are going
[1:02:08] to do
[1:02:08] >> Yeah. My plan is to do public comment on
[1:02:09] Tony.
[1:02:10] >> Public comment twice. Okay.
[1:02:10] >> And then we'll do discussion on Tony's
[1:02:12] part and then we're going to go back to
[1:02:13] the ordinance and we'll do questions on
[1:02:16] the ordinance and public comment and
[1:02:17] then discussion.
[1:02:18] >> Okay. Okay, we sort of broke it into
[1:02:19] two, but because the slide,
[1:02:21] >> this is Yes, it's one agenda item. So,
[1:02:23] normally we would just do one public
[1:02:24] comment, but uh discretion of the
[1:02:26] council to do multiple public comments.
[1:02:28] >> Yeah, I think it's just that that'll let
[1:02:29] people comment on parts that they care
[1:02:31] about. Um because otherwise people going
[1:02:33] to potentially, you know, the council's
[1:02:36] going to want to bring up the other deck
[1:02:37] and then we'll spend minutes doing that.
[1:02:39] So, okay. So, with that, let me open a
[1:02:41] public comment on Tony's slides. So, I
[1:02:46] don't see any hands in the schoolhouse
[1:02:47] um online. I see Rita. Rita, go ahead.
[1:02:51] >> Hi, thank you for taking my comment. Um,
[1:02:54] I I just I have one simple one. Uh, what
[1:02:57] if this stuff doesn't pass in November?
[1:03:01] Uh, what becomes of us and uh there was
[1:03:04] a recent article in uh about Brisbane
[1:03:07] and their housing element and some other
[1:03:09] things and we were mentioned in it. Um,
[1:03:12] you know, how how does all of this
[1:03:14] affect us if if this doesn't pass? Thank
[1:03:17] you.
[1:03:19] Okay. Um Tony, do you want to just
[1:03:22] provide a a quick answer to I I know
[1:03:24] you've sort of said it already, but you
[1:03:25] want to just remind
[1:03:27] the public to get this. So
[1:03:29] >> So the you know it would be we're we're
[1:03:32] then bound by the policy of maintaining
[1:03:34] the 20% reserve. So and that would be
[1:03:38] done on the expense side.
[1:03:40] >> Okay.
[1:03:41] >> And um we really can't do anything with
[1:03:43] the sheriff's contract.
[1:03:45] um we can reduce the use of consultants,
[1:03:48] we can further reduce uh wildfire
[1:03:51] um mitigation. Uh but it would come at
[1:03:56] the on the back so staff um to balance
[1:03:59] the budget,
[1:04:00] >> right? So I think like all the long-term
[1:04:01] needs you just showed us, we'd do none
[1:04:03] of those.
[1:04:04] >> We wouldn't put any money into our
[1:04:06] capital fund
[1:04:07] >> and we would cut staff. I think that's
[1:04:09] >> and we would lose our SB1 funding and
[1:04:10] we'd lose
[1:04:12] >> Yeah.
[1:04:12] then we would be going back into
[1:04:14] where we were four or five years ago,
[1:04:16] >> right? Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, any
[1:04:18] other public comment on Tony's.
[1:04:22] >> All right, going once, going twice. All
[1:04:25] right, I don't see any hands. So Tony,
[1:04:27] thank you very much. Um, that's really
[1:04:28] helpful and I think it's going to help
[1:04:30] inform our discussions at our next
[1:04:32] meeting. So with that, Darcy, can we go
[1:04:35] back to your slide deck?
[1:04:36] >> I thought I'm sorry.
[1:04:37] >> I thought we were gonna
[1:04:38] >> We're just I'm sorry. I I apologize. I I
[1:04:41] get confused by separating this as well.
[1:04:44] So now can I'll bring it back to the
[1:04:46] council for discussion on Tony's part
[1:04:48] and then we'll go to the next part. My
[1:04:50] apologies.
[1:04:52] >> The finance committee will be discussing
[1:04:54] this on Tuesday as well. Great.
[1:04:57] >> Thank you. Okay. Yeah. And thank you
[1:04:58] Judith. Okay. Go ahead.
[1:05:01] >> Um All right. If you want me to go
[1:05:03] first. Um,
[1:05:06] so the the question on leaner or richer,
[1:05:10] um, I mean I to do this all properly
[1:05:15] probably takes five to 10 Tony's over
[1:05:18] three years. Not no offense intended.
[1:05:21] Um, and so I think for myself, I find
[1:05:26] those ranges and those parameters very
[1:05:30] helpful to think about. So, I I do think
[1:05:32] they're really helpful context, but I do
[1:05:35] think that I'm personally not prepared
[1:05:38] to say, "Well, that one ought to be 750
[1:05:40] or eight." Like, I think the range that
[1:05:43] you suggested for me, I'm not going to
[1:05:45] second guess because I don't I don't
[1:05:47] find that a useful um endeavor and I
[1:05:50] think it's a little bit outside of
[1:05:52] what's practical tonight and that's just
[1:05:54] speaking for me. Um the other thing is
[1:05:59] there are two aspects of the question.
[1:06:01] what if it doesn't pass? One is um you
[1:06:04] know severe reductions, right? Um but we
[1:06:08] haven't said you know a backup plan for
[1:06:12] additional revenue enhancements going
[1:06:14] forward. So, tell me if I'm wrong, but
[1:06:17] to me,
[1:06:20] among other things, and I defer to staff
[1:06:24] and and council on this, you could be
[1:06:26] looking at a special election and a
[1:06:29] different approach for revenue
[1:06:30] enhancement in March at some cost. Like,
[1:06:34] tell me if that's wrong. But but I do
[1:06:36] think the public has to understand
[1:06:39] while we're trying here our best to do
[1:06:43] what's right in one shot.
[1:06:46] It would be some more likely some
[1:06:48] combination of severe cutbacks and
[1:06:50] trying again with something else.
[1:06:52] >> Right. We'd have to declare a fiscal
[1:06:54] emergency immediately.
[1:06:56] >> Yeah.
[1:06:56] >> To be on the March
[1:06:59] >> ballot.
[1:07:00] and but yeah, there would be some
[1:07:02] significant cost because, you know,
[1:07:05] we'll probably be the only one having a
[1:07:07] special election in March or fewer uh
[1:07:10] towns would have items on the ballot.
[1:07:12] So, there'll be a higher cost for that
[1:07:14] election.
[1:07:15] >> Yeah.
[1:07:16] >> Um but yeah, and it would be what other
[1:07:19] revenue uh options um would we consider?
[1:07:23] >> Yeah. And I'm not saying I advocate for
[1:07:26] that. I just think people have to
[1:07:28] understand there's tools out there and
[1:07:31] you know they're not our preferred route
[1:07:33] but there are tools out there to
[1:07:35] consider in real time as we go forward
[1:07:38] because there's no guarantee
[1:07:39] >> right
[1:07:40] >> okay
[1:07:40] >> and Jude if I could just add to that I
[1:07:42] mean the finance committee also
[1:07:43] discussed some of this and there are
[1:07:44] other options like a lease back
[1:07:47] >> where we basically you know the the
[1:07:49] county you know takes our buildings and
[1:07:51] we lease them back from them. I mean,
[1:07:53] none of them seem like great options,
[1:07:55] but right, you know,
[1:07:56] >> I think those options though take effect
[1:07:59] as your reserve gets lower and lower. I
[1:08:01] mean, so I mean that obviously we still
[1:08:03] have a reserve and we can still use it
[1:08:04] for a while, but at some point we need
[1:08:07] to keep enough for an absolute emergency
[1:08:09] and we need to keep the lights on. So, you're absolutely right. I mean,
[1:08:13] there's some combination, but they all
[1:08:15] seem pretty drastic. So,
[1:08:16] >> and for what it's worth, I've been in a
[1:08:19] lot of the finance committee meetings
[1:08:20] and we did discuss at a couple years ago
[1:08:25] at a council meeting whether or not to
[1:08:26] declare a fiscal emergency. So, we as a
[1:08:29] council have had these concepts floated
[1:08:33] in the past. We would have to take that
[1:08:35] out, dust it off again, and figure out
[1:08:38] what if anything
[1:08:40] um as a game plan. Okay. Thank you.
[1:08:42] That's it.
[1:08:44] >> Thank you, Judith. Becca, do you have
[1:08:46] any comments?
[1:08:51] » So, I would say that the range that
[1:08:54] you've provided, that staff has provided
[1:08:57] is pretty realistic. Um, I mean, we
[1:09:00] really need to face reality here. We've
[1:09:03] been delaying our maintenance for
[1:09:05] several years. Um costs have been going
[1:09:08] up everywhere. Whether it's um
[1:09:12] insurance, health insurance, the
[1:09:14] sheriff's contract, we know that's
[1:09:16] getting to be crazy. Um
[1:09:20] staff costs. Um we haven't been paying
[1:09:23] staff enough to keep up with the market.
[1:09:26] Um we we just know that to have a stable
[1:09:32] and resilient community, we have to pass
[1:09:36] some type of revenue measure. So, I I I
[1:09:42] feel like the numbers that that have
[1:09:43] been provided, the the lists of
[1:09:45] potential things that we've delayed not
[1:09:48] doing, that we really need to be doing
[1:09:50] to secure the town, to make the town
[1:09:52] safe, so that we don't have a blowout in
[1:09:54] our storm drain, so we don't have so
[1:09:56] that we have better evacuation
[1:09:59] uh routes, so that we have better
[1:10:01] clearance of our brush. These are all
[1:10:03] critical for the working of the town. Um
[1:10:06] and that includes also supporting our
[1:10:08] staff. Um having a full staff that uh
[1:10:12] can handle all the responsibilities that
[1:10:13] we have enough bandwidth to deal with
[1:10:16] anything that happens whether it's an
[1:10:17] emergency, whether it's uh the new new
[1:10:20] laws that come down every year. Um so I think the range is realistic. I I
[1:10:25] might
[1:10:27] [laughter] I mean the finance committee
[1:10:28] will play around with the numbers as
[1:10:30] well and try to kind of give us some
[1:10:32] recommendations I guess in terms of
[1:10:34] where they fall out but you know I would
[1:10:37] probably put us in the middle of that
[1:10:39] range or maybe a little bit bit on the
[1:10:42] slightly lower side and go out with that
[1:10:44] and then you know depending on how the
[1:10:47] market is, how the sales go um we'll be
[1:10:50] able to kind of um gauge how well we're
[1:10:54] doing and how well um the money that's
[1:10:58] coming in through this through a
[1:10:59] potential transfer tax covers our needs.
[1:11:03] Um and it at least will give us a
[1:11:06] several years of of being able to be
[1:11:08] more stable and solve some of the
[1:11:10] problems, some of the unmet needs. Um so
[1:11:14] that would be my where I'm at with this.
[1:11:17] >> Great. Thank you.
[1:11:18] >> Can I go next?
[1:11:21] >> All right. Thank you.
[1:11:22] >> Sure. Um,
[1:11:24] so, uh, first of all, I just wanted, you
[1:11:27] know, we've had some comments about the
[1:11:29] question on parcel taxes. So, I'm
[1:11:31] backtracking a little bit because I want
[1:11:32] this publicly on the record. We did have
[1:11:34] the conversation on, you know, about
[1:11:37] whether to move forward with the
[1:11:38] transfer tax or parcel tax. So, I'm just
[1:11:40] reminding the public that we did um,
[1:11:42] vote 5 to zero to move forward with the
[1:11:44] transfer tax um because, you know, we
[1:11:49] all decided that that made the most
[1:11:51] sense. um because of the ongoing lots of
[1:11:55] ongoing cost of living and this would
[1:11:57] increase proportionally over time
[1:12:00] continuing
[1:12:01] um in terms of uh where we should come
[1:12:05] in on the amount is kind of what I'm
[1:12:08] hearing. There's been a statewide
[1:12:10] conversation because of the Howard
[1:12:12] Jarvis um ballot measure about the
[1:12:15] amount um and whether you know whether
[1:12:18] or not and what we pulled at at 1% is
[1:12:22] exactly
[1:12:24] allowed. We could go higher, we can go
[1:12:26] less, but 1% is what we pulled at. And
[1:12:30] that was, you know, we can go up to 1.1
[1:12:33] or 1.5 is what is what just happened to
[1:12:37] get Howard Jarvis to pull it off the
[1:12:39] ballot. Um, [clears throat] so, you
[1:12:42] know, at 1% what we pulled at is exactly
[1:12:47] we are in the complete uh sweet spot for
[1:12:51] that. Um, I know like state of Hawaii
[1:12:55] does 7 and a half%. It's insane for
[1:12:58] people who live out, but state of
[1:13:00] California with Howard Jarvis pressuring
[1:13:02] like this is we are in the sweet spot of
[1:13:04] what we can do. Um, so I just wanted to
[1:13:08] state that. Um, and then the exemptions.
[1:13:11] Um, what no one asked about is the
[1:13:13] comments and I'm sorry to bring this
[1:13:15] back up. That's later. Okay. Okay. Um,
[1:13:19] so those are my comments. Thank you.
[1:13:21] >> Thank you, Mary.
[1:13:25] Well, um just in a general sense, I'm I
[1:13:28] feel that the value of our our community
[1:13:31] is it is in its stability. Um and uh
[1:13:36] without financial stability, uh the
[1:13:38] value of our properties, the value of
[1:13:40] our town is greatly diminished. And uh
[1:13:44] this is something we have to do. Um, and
[1:13:48] this we've put a lot of thought and and
[1:13:50] care into making sure it was done in a
[1:13:53] way that was as painless and as
[1:13:55] effective as possible. Um, and of course
[1:14:00] I'm fully supportive.
[1:14:02] I also think u that
[1:14:06] I believe we pulled at 10% but at any
[1:14:08] rate the uh
[1:14:10] >> No, it's $10 per thousand which is one%.
[1:14:13] Thank you. That helps me. um the uh
[1:14:18] that we we need to we need to actually
[1:14:21] make sure that we get our reserve back
[1:14:23] up to what we considered safe before in
[1:14:27] less risky times. We're now in more
[1:14:29] risky times, more climate instability.
[1:14:32] We have more need for reserve, not less.
[1:14:35] And uh and I think the value of our
[1:14:37] community is diminished by not moving.
[1:14:41] >> Thank you, Mary.
[1:14:43] So, I just wanted to say thank you. I
[1:14:44] thought the the list was helpful. Um, I
[1:14:48] think it's worth noting that this isn't
[1:14:51] a sort of shopping list of all possible
[1:14:54] things we could spend money on. This is
[1:14:56] already clearly a paired down list. So,
[1:14:59] the range you're proposing doesn't fund
[1:15:03] all the needs that you listed. And the
[1:15:05] things you listed were only some of the
[1:15:07] examples. So, you know, our long-term
[1:15:09] needs are probably much greater than
[1:15:11] this. But I think we as a town have
[1:15:13] always been fiscally responsible um and been a low tax. So and so I think
[1:15:18] we're balancing the serious needs, storm
[1:15:21] drains, wildfire, evacuation,
[1:15:24] those things feel like things that need
[1:15:26] to get funded and we need to find a way
[1:15:27] to fund it. So but I just wanted to be
[1:15:29] clear that there are a lot of things
[1:15:31] we'd like to do that aren't on this list
[1:15:33] and aren't going to get done.
[1:15:35] And the other thing I would add is we
[1:15:37] also have the option as this once we
[1:15:39] figure you know if we figure out sort of
[1:15:41] roughly the revenue and roughly the rate
[1:15:43] based on the ordinance we'll get to in
[1:15:45] this next section. We also have the
[1:15:46] ability to adjust those if we were
[1:15:49] collecting too much money. So that's the
[1:15:51] other thing I feel comfortable with that
[1:15:53] range. Um so with that um I'm going to
[1:15:56] close this section but thank you. I
[1:15:58] think this was very helpful and I look
[1:16:00] forward to the finance committee next
[1:16:02] Tuesday.
[1:16:05] Okay. Now, now that I've split one
[1:16:08] agenda item into two parts, can we go
[1:16:10] back to the first part of the agenda
[1:16:12] item? Um, are there any questions for
[1:16:15] Darcy and Katherine?
[1:16:20] » Yep.
[1:16:20] >> Okay. Start with you, Judith.
[1:16:23] >> Sure. Um, and some of these are
[1:16:27] reflected in a public comment as well,
[1:16:29] and I think it's helpful to get people
[1:16:33] oriented to ask them anyway since they
[1:16:36] over overlapped in part with mine. And
[1:16:38] the first area,
[1:16:42] and I don't really have a great sense of
[1:16:45] them. Obviously, the concern is the
[1:16:48] exemptions swallow the upside. So, I
[1:16:52] want to make sure I understood. Um, the
[1:16:55] first one, exemption instrument to
[1:16:56] secure debt. That would be we're not
[1:16:58] taxing a mortgage. Is that essentially
[1:17:00] it? But, but somebody, even if someone's
[1:17:04] buying a house with a mortgage, the
[1:17:07] purchaser and the seller still have to
[1:17:09] come up with the money. We're just not
[1:17:11] going after the banks providing the
[1:17:13] mortgage.
[1:17:14] >> That is correct. Or if someone just
[1:17:15] refinances, um, they would not be, you
[1:17:18] know, they would be exempt from paying
[1:17:19] taxes. This is again this is an existing
[1:17:22] um exemption. Um since 1967 the town of
[1:17:25] Portulla Valley has had this exemption
[1:17:27] um and all of the ones actually almost
[1:17:29] all of them there a couple of that were
[1:17:31] amended in 1987. Uh but these have been
[1:17:33] on the books and so the proposal is to
[1:17:35] keep those in place with no changes.
[1:17:37] >> Yeah. And apologies if I'm raising old
[1:17:41] and cold, but I do want to understand
[1:17:43] because there's a proposal for
[1:17:46] considering other
[1:17:48] while we're looking at it that I
[1:17:50] understand. The other one um that I had
[1:17:54] a question
[1:17:56] about was um the continuing partnership.
[1:18:00] Again, this has to do with um the way a
[1:18:05] property is held, but does this take out
[1:18:09] of the applicability of the tax anything
[1:18:14] held in a partnership? Like it's pretty
[1:18:16] tough to read and I want to make sure
[1:18:18] that we're not creating loopholes where
[1:18:22] people can hold things in a certain way.
[1:18:24] It's unlikely, but I just want to ask
[1:18:26] that question. Yeah. Yeah. This I you're
[1:18:30] right. This exemption is quite dense.
[1:18:32] Again, this is based on um state law and
[1:18:35] um is also one of those that's been in
[1:18:37] place for a long time. The idea behind
[1:18:39] this one is that when partnership
[1:18:41] interests um change hands, the property
[1:18:44] held by the partnership is not taxed. Um
[1:18:48] but when the partnership terminates, the
[1:18:50] property it owns is taxed, but no more
[1:18:53] than one time.
[1:18:54] >> Okay. Okay. And the public comment had
[1:18:57] said, you know, maybe there's an
[1:18:59] exemption for people who incur these,
[1:19:03] you know, a buy and a sell within a
[1:19:05] certain period of time. And I'm sure
[1:19:07] this is old, you know, trotten path that
[1:19:12] one of the downsides of creating that
[1:19:14] type of exemption could be that we're
[1:19:16] kind of encouraging flipping and and
[1:19:18] also we don't know if this is even an
[1:19:22] issue in town. So, let me know if
[1:19:24] there's any background here or framework
[1:19:26] to apply as as I consider my view on
[1:19:30] that.
[1:19:31] >> I I'll just note yes, I did um notice
[1:19:34] that comment as well. And you know, the
[1:19:36] count big picture, the council does have
[1:19:38] discretion to add additional exemptions
[1:19:41] either now um before it goes to the
[1:19:43] voters or if passed um the council
[1:19:46] retains that discretion to add
[1:19:48] additional exemptions. Um, you know,
[1:19:51] Darcy and I have looked at a lot of
[1:19:52] other um, ordinances. Um, probably a
[1:19:55] dozen different, you know, or ordinances
[1:19:58] by charter towns and cities and and some
[1:20:01] of them do add additional exemptions.
[1:20:04] Um, again, we're not um recommending
[1:20:08] that at this time, but the the council
[1:20:10] retains that discretion. Yeah, I mean
[1:20:12] I'm all in
[1:20:14] keeping simple is good, but also um
[1:20:19] making sure we're like streamlining.
[1:20:23] But my question is if we did want to
[1:20:26] create another exemption, does that is
[1:20:28] that a vote or is that an ordinance that
[1:20:30] the council has the right to change? Uh
[1:20:34] so so the council would have the right
[1:20:36] to change that. So if if it goes to the
[1:20:38] vote, let's say you added that exemption
[1:20:40] in this um you know in this and decided
[1:20:42] to change your mind later, the council
[1:20:44] could make that make that change.
[1:20:46] >> Okay.
[1:20:47] >> And can I add on or
[1:20:49] >> so
[1:20:51] >> I understand we could add an exemption
[1:20:53] to basically protect people if they sold
[1:20:56] within a certain period or something.
[1:20:58] But presumably you can't make an
[1:21:00] exemption that would actually increase
[1:21:01] the tax. Is that correct? Without a
[1:21:04] vote.
[1:21:05] I mean, I just I mean, just think
[1:21:08] probably somewhere in this legal
[1:21:11] framework, something that would prevent
[1:21:12] us from like if we deleted all of these
[1:21:15] exemptions,
[1:21:16] >> then that would have an increased tax
[1:21:19] consequence and presumably we couldn't
[1:21:20] do that. Is that correct?
[1:21:22] >> That would require some legal research,
[1:21:23] I would say. Um,
[1:21:25] >> I'm not thinking we would do that. I
[1:21:26] think we're I would be happy with this,
[1:21:28] but I was just trying to understand.
[1:21:29] Yeah. that I'm guessing that we are
[1:21:32] talking about decreasing tax burden, not
[1:21:35] increasing tax.
[1:21:36] >> Correct. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. And thank
[1:21:37] you, Judith. Go ahead.
[1:21:38] >> Yeah. No, that that's fine. That's a
[1:21:39] good good flip side of what I was trying
[1:21:41] to get at. And the um the costs of
[1:21:46] operating in the city like this isn't
[1:21:48] quite this. It's a different but I think
[1:21:51] Darcy in your presentation you kind of
[1:21:53] were covering if I understood correctly
[1:21:56] that the costs of operating under this
[1:21:58] framework there's no anticipated
[1:22:01] significant addition once we get through
[1:22:04] something
[1:22:05] operationally.
[1:22:06] >> That's correct. Okay. Thank you.
[1:22:09] >> Uh let me just click through.
[1:22:14] » No, those are my questions. Thank you.
[1:22:16] >> Thank you.
[1:22:18] Becca, you want to go next?
[1:22:19] >> Um, I guess I asked this privately to
[1:22:22] the town manager, but um,
[1:22:26] in terms of ballot language, we would
[1:22:29] just
[1:22:33] in the actual ballot language. So, we're
[1:22:36] not going to or would this exhibit A
[1:22:40] actually show up somewhere in the
[1:22:42] booklet or or or how how does that
[1:22:44] actually work? Um yeah, the um that will
[1:22:47] be decided at the next meeting. Um but
[1:22:50] the council would have discretion to
[1:22:52] print the entire text of the ordinance
[1:22:53] in the ballot pamphlet. Um and I I I
[1:22:56] will just double check. I I there may be
[1:22:58] an extra additional cost for that. So
[1:23:00] we'll actually might want to run that
[1:23:01] run down um the costs for printing the
[1:23:04] entire um ordinance for for for next
[1:23:07] time. Yeah,
[1:23:12] » I don't have other questions. Thank you.
[1:23:14] Mary. Questions?
[1:23:16] >> Well, uh I I
[1:23:20] suppose I I maybe we've done this, but I
[1:23:23] suppose I'd like to ask what we think
[1:23:26] what the council thinks about Bill
[1:23:28] Urban's suggestions for exemptions
[1:23:32] and whether you can say anything about
[1:23:33] that or not.
[1:23:34] >> So whether the the council will discuss
[1:23:36] it when we get to council discuss that
[1:23:38] did you mean to ask what the council
[1:23:39] thinks?
[1:23:40] >> Staff
[1:23:41] >> or ask the staff.
[1:23:42] >> Oh, yes. He said,
[1:23:43] >> "Okay."
[1:23:44] >> Is that wrong?
[1:23:45] >> No, but you said you're asked what
[1:23:46] council thought. No, you meant what
[1:23:48] staff.
[1:23:49] >> Got it. Oh, our attorney.
[1:23:50] >> We have an attorney who is a counsel.
[1:23:52] Sorry.
[1:23:53] >> Yeah, it's a it's a confusing use of the
[1:23:54] word then. No problem. I understand.
[1:23:58] [laughter]
[1:24:00] >> So, uh I I would want to research that a
[1:24:02] little bit more um in in terms of the
[1:24:08] whether that would have any impact. I
[1:24:09] guess work with Tony actually to see
[1:24:11] what kind of impact it might have on
[1:24:12] revenue uh projections. U adding that
[1:24:16] additional exemption. Uh and I'd want to
[1:24:19] look at I guess other other samples.
[1:24:20] Like I mentioned, we've looked at
[1:24:22] probably a dozen other um RPT ordinances
[1:24:26] and I haven't seen this one. Um so I
[1:24:29] would just want to, you know, make sure
[1:24:31] it could be implemented. Um yeah, and
[1:24:34] we're feasible. I don't have a policy
[1:24:37] leaning one way or the other about
[1:24:39] whether it's a good or a bad idea, but
[1:24:40] those are those are my thoughts. There
[1:24:42] was also a comment that was in that same
[1:24:44] um and forgive me if you're not asking
[1:24:47] about this, but about the operative
[1:24:49] versus effective date.
[1:24:50] >> Yeah, I was going to ask about that one.
[1:24:52] The 30 days versus 30 days.
[1:24:54] >> Yeah, I'll go ahead and answer that one,
[1:24:55] too. So, uh, staff's, you know,
[1:24:58] recommendation has has for quite a while
[1:25:01] been to, you know, if passed, get this
[1:25:03] on the books and going as soon as
[1:25:04] possible for two reasons. One is the
[1:25:06] town needs the money. The other reason
[1:25:08] is that the Howard Jarvis measure going
[1:25:11] to be on the same ballot and um it was
[1:25:14] basically a race to see which one would
[1:25:16] go into effect first because there was a
[1:25:18] grandfathering prison provision in the
[1:25:19] Howard Jarvis measure. Um now that um
[1:25:23] that is no longer the case there's still
[1:25:26] the the first reason is you know I think
[1:25:28] from staff's and I really Darcy and Tony
[1:25:30] speak to this more more readily um the
[1:25:33] sooner the better in terms of revenue
[1:25:35] generation is generally the staff's
[1:25:37] perspective but I will say you know in
[1:25:39] looking at the dozen or so ordinances um
[1:25:42] there are some that actually do choose a
[1:25:45] date certain um uh even potentially a
[1:25:48] few months later to have like July
[1:25:51] uh to have the tax go into effect. So
[1:25:54] that would be a council decision.
[1:25:55] >> And if I could follow up because that my
[1:25:57] question was I mean given that the the
[1:26:00] election is early November and it gets
[1:26:03] certified a month later and then we
[1:26:06] enact it 10 days after that. There
[1:26:08] actually is 30 days plus 10 days from
[1:26:12] the time it goes on the ballot. So, I I
[1:26:15] appreciated the public comment in the we
[1:26:18] don't want somebody to have entered into
[1:26:20] a transaction and then gone, "Oh, I had
[1:26:22] no idea this was going to happen." But
[1:26:24] at this point, I mean, it's going to be
[1:26:25] over 30 days where they're know it's
[1:26:27] they know it's on the ballot. They may
[1:26:28] not know the result because we won't
[1:26:30] know the result, but I would say from a transaction, if I were in one of those
[1:26:34] transactions, I would be assuming that I needed to think about that. So is that
[1:26:40] a reasonable way to think about that
[1:26:42] part of the the sort of public comment
[1:26:45] which it was sort of a fairness the way
[1:26:47] everybody was
[1:26:47] >> yeah I I would say so I mean you know if
[1:26:49] the council put puts this on the ballot
[1:26:50] in two weeks then there would be you
[1:26:52] know notice that this is a possibility
[1:26:53] and then as you say um you know
[1:26:55] basically the election results you can
[1:26:57] you know are ascertainable within within
[1:26:59] about a week of the election
[1:27:01] >> right even though it's not official.
[1:27:03] >> Even though it's not official.
[1:27:04] >> Perfect. Thank you.
[1:27:05] >> Okay Mary other Thank you. I didn't mean
[1:27:07] to
[1:27:08] >> No, it's fine. I I uh it's a lot to take
[1:27:12] in and and I appreciate the discussion.
[1:27:15] >> No questions.
[1:27:16] >> Okay, Ellen.
[1:27:17] >> Um I do have some questions. So um
[1:27:23] uh does staff have an opinion on the
[1:27:25] three years versus the five years
[1:27:27] exemption idea?
[1:27:30] >> So I'll just say I don't recommend we
[1:27:32] add any exemptions. Our mission this
[1:27:34] whole process has been keep it simple,
[1:27:36] keep it streamlined.
[1:27:39] We've presented you with our
[1:27:41] recommendation and the other factor is
[1:27:44] that we we've been working on modeling
[1:27:48] you know the fiscal anal impact and the
[1:27:53] minute you start adding in exemptions
[1:27:56] you're muddling with that. My advice is
[1:27:58] just what we said earlier, which is that
[1:28:00] we recommend we exemptions that are in
[1:28:02] our current ordinance. Don't make any
[1:28:04] changes. We can certainly entertain any
[1:28:08] changes in the future, but I think we're
[1:28:10] just getting a little ahead of ourselves
[1:28:12] right now.
[1:28:14] >> Okay.
[1:28:14] >> Just caution you not to.
[1:28:16] >> Right. And in terms of the partnership
[1:28:19] exemption, obviously under IRS it looks
[1:28:22] like, but my understanding is like
[1:28:24] Disney has used it to avoid. Right.
[1:28:28] >> Well, and again, we can look at that's
[1:28:30] another thing we could look at if we
[1:28:32] need to. I would also emphasize that,
[1:28:35] you know, this tax is in effect in over
[1:28:37] 500 counties and right now, and their
[1:28:40] ordinances largely mirror what we have
[1:28:42] right now. the minute we start getting
[1:28:43] unique, you start confusing realators
[1:28:46] who work across the entire state and I
[1:28:48] just wouldn't recommend that. Um, but
[1:28:52] yeah, we if we do have issues and it's
[1:28:54] important to note that we can amend this
[1:28:56] ordinance
[1:28:58] quickly if we need to. I mean, you need
[1:29:01] introduction adoption, but that could be
[1:29:03] done a month in a month if we need to.
[1:29:07] >> Okay. Um
[1:29:10] what about Proposition 19 and the you
[1:29:14] know transfers from
[1:29:17] >> Yeah. Again so as I said earlier
[1:29:18] Proposition 13 tax implications those
[1:29:22] are completely separate from this. So
[1:29:24] that has
[1:29:24] >> I said proposition 19 not 13.
[1:29:27] >> Well but 13 and 19 are very similar
[1:29:30] where they relate to your property taxes
[1:29:33] and this is completely separate than
[1:29:35] that. But um so for instance under a
[1:29:39] qualified real estate transfer
[1:29:42] um uh when people will transfer property
[1:29:46] to to significant others for instance
[1:29:52] how like I what I'm confused about is
[1:29:54] like how does the transfer tax work on
[1:29:57] those situations?
[1:29:58] >> Well there's still a transfer of title
[1:30:00] right and a and it's the same. Yeah.
[1:30:04] >> Got it.
[1:30:04] >> Yeah. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to
[1:30:06] confuse Prop 13 all but this is very
[1:30:08] different than property taxes
[1:30:10] >> and Prop 19 deals with the assessed
[1:30:12] value
[1:30:13] >> the assessed value
[1:30:14] >> that they can transfer best value
[1:30:16] >> from property
[1:30:17] >> right and except for
[1:30:19] >> the transfer taxes still get
[1:30:21] >> there and there are exemptions within
[1:30:24] Prop 19 for like if the per if a child's
[1:30:27] living on the property etc so that's
[1:30:30] where I'm
[1:30:31] >> still related to the assessed value
[1:30:34] of Basically, whatever the assessed
[1:30:36] value was when property transferred,
[1:30:38] they can transfer to the new propert.
[1:30:42] >> Got it. Okay. And then that would still
[1:30:44] trigger it property.
[1:30:46] >> Well, the transfer tax would still be
[1:30:49] assessed at value.
[1:30:50] >> Got it. Okay.
[1:30:51] >> Of the trans Yeah.
[1:30:52] >> The transfer.
[1:30:53] >> Remember, it's a property or it's a real
[1:30:55] property transfer tax. So, if there's a
[1:30:58] transfer and there's a real property and
[1:31:00] there's a sale, a dollar amount,
[1:31:03] >> then there's a tax.
[1:31:04] >> Got it. Okay.
[1:31:06] >> And but so even if there's not a sale,
[1:31:09] but there's a transfer,
[1:31:12] >> right?
[1:31:13] >> But again, yeah, unless there's an
[1:31:15] exemption. Yeah. But you could transfer
[1:31:16] it for $5 to your son,
[1:31:20] >> right? Got it. Okay. Just curious how
[1:31:22] that would work. Okay. Thank you.
[1:31:23] >> Yeah.
[1:31:24] >> Thank you. All right. And I think my
[1:31:26] colleague have asked the questions I was
[1:31:28] going to ask. So let me open it up to
[1:31:30] public comment. So let's start with Dave
[1:31:32] Cardinal.
[1:31:34] Go ahead Dave.
[1:31:36] >> Yeah, sure. Thanks. Um I think this is a total no-brainer honestly and I just
[1:31:42] want to put my support in. I don't think
[1:31:46] um like messing with the UT is I don't
[1:31:49] like Tidly Winks or something. that's
[1:31:52] not
[1:31:53] a reliable source of revenue because we
[1:31:56] don't even know what our utilities look
[1:31:57] like in the age of the internet. Um, and
[1:32:01] I don't see another way we can do
[1:32:03] anything. So, I I just want to lend my
[1:32:07] full support to
[1:32:10] uh the idea of an RPP RPT and the
[1:32:14] charter city and I would support
[1:32:18] whatever rate we need and can afford or can get past. So, thanks. That's my thought.
[1:32:28] >> Thank you, Dave. Betsy,
[1:32:37] welcome, Betsy.
[1:32:38] >> Yeah, sorry, I was waiting to be waiting
[1:32:40] to be unmuted. Thank you. Um,
[1:32:44] >> I too I mean the town absolutely needs
[1:32:46] to raise um money uh in order to to to
[1:32:51] survive. And so um I'm in favor
[1:32:53] generally. I have a specific um point um
[1:32:58] and question about the council
[1:33:00] amendments. That would be 3.12.130
[1:33:04] regarding B, which I prefer to A. Um and
[1:33:09] I prefer it because the council would
[1:33:11] seemingly be more likely to reduce a tax
[1:33:15] rate that was collecting more money than
[1:33:19] needed. were they less cautious around
[1:33:21] creating a future potential
[1:33:24] insufficiency were they to take that
[1:33:26] action and so I'm in favor of incenting
[1:33:30] a council to reduce rates um where
[1:33:34] whenever possible as I read A then I
[1:33:38] guess my question is isn't that
[1:33:40] redundant isn't it one over the other
[1:33:43] and the other question regards C which I
[1:33:46] straight out didn't track I couldn't
[1:33:48] follow what it was trying to get at. Um,
[1:33:51] so perhaps that's um because I'm late in
[1:33:54] the night or perhaps it could be stated
[1:33:56] more clearly or you could explain it
[1:33:58] now. Thank you very much.
[1:34:01] >> Thank you, Betsy.
[1:34:03] Um, Katherine, do you want to quickly
[1:34:06] respond to those? I mean, that seem
[1:34:08] pretty those seem pretty
[1:34:09] straightforward.
[1:34:10] >> I I'd be happy to. Um, so, uh, this
[1:34:13] refers to the, uh, section of the
[1:34:15] ordinance that expressly allows for
[1:34:16] council amendments so long as the
[1:34:19] amendments do not increase tax rates.
[1:34:21] And there was a question about, um, uh,
[1:34:24] subsection B, well, subsection A, I
[1:34:27] would just say, um, allows the council
[1:34:28] to repeal or reduce the tax. Subsection
[1:34:31] B allow says that the council may reduce
[1:34:34] tax rate and later restore the tax rate
[1:34:36] to a rate that does not exceed the tax
[1:34:38] rate approved by the voters. And um
[1:34:41] there is a question about well isn't
[1:34:42] that redundant with a and I I certainly
[1:34:44] see that point and um maybe there would
[1:34:46] be a way to make this a little bit
[1:34:48] tighter but the idea is that the council
[1:34:50] could increase the tax rate if it is
[1:34:53] simply to restore it. So if it the
[1:34:55] council takes an action to reduce it in
[1:34:57] year one and then in year five uh
[1:35:00] decides oh wait we've actually need the
[1:35:02] money now and so we need to increase the
[1:35:04] tax rate. It's basically this is just
[1:35:06] saying that the council can increase the
[1:35:08] tax rate after a previous reduction of
[1:35:10] the tax rate.
[1:35:11] >> Right? But a the way I read a is it's
[1:35:14] not quite the same in the sense the
[1:35:16] council could decide because you know
[1:35:19] the public has asked for it that it be
[1:35:21] permanently and irrevocably reduced
[1:35:25] >> uh completely repealed.
[1:35:27] >> Well repealed or reduced but we could
[1:35:28] reduce it.
[1:35:29] >> Yes.
[1:35:30] >> And reduce it in a way that it could not
[1:35:32] be raised back up. Is that possible or
[1:35:34] is it just a we can either revoke it or
[1:35:37] we have this sort of up and down?
[1:35:39] >> Uh so given the right to repeal it, I
[1:35:41] believe the council could actually just
[1:35:42] repeal the tax. Yeah.
[1:35:44] >> Altogether.
[1:35:45] And [clears throat] then not
[1:35:46] would not be able to restore it at a
[1:35:47] later date,
[1:35:48] >> right? Could we reduce it? I mean, let's just say we picked the $10 per
[1:35:52] thousand. Could we reduce it to five and
[1:35:55] say we're doing we're going to five
[1:35:57] permanently and the only way to raise it
[1:35:59] back up would be to have another
[1:36:00] election. Like if that's what we were
[1:36:02] being
[1:36:03] >> you could Yeah, I I see what you're
[1:36:04] saying. But no, you you couldn't do
[1:36:06] that. Um
[1:36:06] >> No, it's either repeal or it's the we
[1:36:08] can reduce with the potential. Okay,
[1:36:11] thank you.
[1:36:12] >> Otherwise, you'd be tie in the hands of
[1:36:13] a future council for what this council
[1:36:15] to say future coun that. So
[1:36:17] >> fair enough.
[1:36:17] >> Um and then there's a question about
[1:36:18] subsection C which would allow for
[1:36:20] clarifications.
[1:36:22] Uh and that's really just to give the
[1:36:23] council some leeway and flexibility to
[1:36:26] clarify language that may not be crystal
[1:36:29] clear. um with with over o you know um
[1:36:34] overarching restriction though is that
[1:36:36] the council cannot increase the tax
[1:36:38] rate.
[1:36:40] >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Is there any
[1:36:42] other public comments?
[1:36:47] Wait just a minute. All right. So I
[1:36:49] don't see any hands online. So I will
[1:36:51] bring it back to the council for
[1:36:52] discussion. Who would like to start?
[1:36:58] Judith. [laughter]
[1:36:59] This is your night to start first. Thank
[1:37:01] you.
[1:37:02] >> Go in. Go in first. Um, I like the idea
[1:37:05] of keeping this simple, being in the
[1:37:07] range of what other jurisdictions
[1:37:10] are as long as they're
[1:37:13] reasonably applicable to us. And I don't
[1:37:15] view it what I've read here is something
[1:37:17] that requires tailoring to us. Um, I
[1:37:22] think it's important for us to have
[1:37:25] flexibility. So the council amendment
[1:37:28] section to me
[1:37:30] uh you have to read them in the
[1:37:32] alternative or
[1:37:34] being applied sequentially or whatever
[1:37:36] other than the repeal. Um so I I find
[1:37:40] and I read these for a living. So you
[1:37:43] know I I found it pretty clear. So, I'm
[1:37:45] not sure I would find the need to
[1:37:47] clarify it unless somebody were looking
[1:37:50] at like could say in this particular
[1:37:53] instance something bad could happen.
[1:37:56] Like I I think these are all uh tools we
[1:38:00] might want. And I just my interpretation
[1:38:03] of C is that, you know, if there's a
[1:38:07] certain type of
[1:38:10] ownership structure that isn't clearly
[1:38:12] within the ordinance as it exists today,
[1:38:16] we could go, oh yeah, something new
[1:38:18] happened, so let's extend these
[1:38:21] principles and here's how that would be
[1:38:22] treated. like it's kind of like we don't
[1:38:25] know what it's about, but as long as
[1:38:26] it's not increasing the tax, we could do
[1:38:29] that without a a new vote with the
[1:38:32] public, which is a big hurdle and a big
[1:38:34] expense for us. So, to me, all all that
[1:38:38] makes sense and I like the targeted
[1:38:41] edits that you've made. Uh so for me
[1:38:45] I I'm in uh this has been very helpful
[1:38:48] to have the preview of it this week. Um
[1:38:51] so that we can all go away think about
[1:38:54] any other questions for the next time
[1:38:56] around. But uh thank you for preparing
[1:38:58] this and providing the examples and
[1:39:00] going and doing the research on the 12
[1:39:03] jurisdictions. So that's it.
[1:39:05] >> Thank you. You'd like to go next? Mary,
[1:39:07] you ready?
[1:39:09] Oh,
[1:39:11] >> I'd say I have to say as real estate
[1:39:13] documents go, this is very clear and
[1:39:16] it's very understandable [clears throat]
[1:39:18] and simple. Uh, and uh, and I'm I'm
[1:39:22] fully in support.
[1:39:24] >> Okay. Thank you, Rebecca.
[1:39:27] >> Um, I agree that keeping it simple right
[1:39:30] now makes the most sense. Um, I'd like
[1:39:35] the amendment where um you're able to
[1:39:38] reduce the tax. If we find that somehow
[1:39:42] we we're huge numbers of sales of very
[1:39:44] expensive homes happened and we we're
[1:39:47] raising much more than we we kind of
[1:39:50] need to operate safely, though probably
[1:39:52] initially we'll we'll need to put some
[1:39:54] of that money into reserves and into the
[1:39:56] storm drains. Um, but it gives us a lot
[1:39:58] of flexibility for future. And I also
[1:40:01] appreciate the addition of being able to
[1:40:03] kind of tailor the ordinance, whether
[1:40:05] it's for exemptions or whether it's for
[1:40:06] the implementation if we do discover
[1:40:09] that, you know, there's some sort of
[1:40:10] issue with how how it's working out. Um
[1:40:14] sort of unintended consequences that we
[1:40:16] haven't predicted. So I I think it's well done and I appreciate the all
[1:40:21] the effort that's gone into crafting it.
[1:40:24] Thanks.
[1:40:25] >> Thank you, Ellen. Yeah, just echoing
[1:40:28] what my uh colleagues have said. Um I
[1:40:31] appreciate this. It's a strong flexible
[1:40:35] document that gives you know that gives
[1:40:38] on-ramps and offramps later which I
[1:40:41] appreciate. So um I support this draft.
[1:40:44] Thank you.
[1:40:46] >> Thank you. And I would echo the same
[1:40:48] thing. Um, keeping it simple I think is that was the direction we gave you
[1:40:53] and I think you've done an excellent job
[1:40:54] of of following our direction. I like it
[1:40:58] because I think if there are unintended
[1:41:00] consequences, we have the ability to
[1:41:02] either adjust the tax or we could also
[1:41:05] adjust UT. I mean there there are
[1:41:07] multiple ways that we can adjust this if
[1:41:10] the town ends up raising more money than
[1:41:12] we need, which at the moment is is sort
[1:41:15] of hard to imagine, but I I can believe
[1:41:17] it. you know, I mean, we could get there
[1:41:18] and and I appreciate that people are
[1:41:20] sensitive to that and I'm sensitive to
[1:41:22] it as well. So, I like the fact that
[1:41:24] we've got some knobs that we can turn to
[1:41:26] adjust that so we're not overcolcted
[1:41:28] because that's definitely something
[1:41:29] that's important to me that we don't end
[1:41:31] up creating a mechanism that just
[1:41:33] collects taxes [snorts] that we don't
[1:41:35] know what to do with. Like that's that's
[1:41:37] not good public policy. So, so I think
[1:41:39] that's great. I would also say the same
[1:41:41] thing about the exemptions. I like that
[1:41:43] it's simple. I would not make any
[1:41:45] additional exemptions and I think we can operate and you know after six
[1:41:49] months or a year if we find that wait a
[1:41:51] minute I mean this really does seem
[1:41:53] ownorous then we can bring it back to
[1:41:55] the council and pretty quickly we can
[1:41:57] add the exemptions as appropriate but I
[1:41:59] think I'd rather see those exemptions as
[1:42:02] something that's needed rather than try
[1:42:04] to second guessess and and add more
[1:42:06] complexities to document. So I I very
[1:42:09] much appreciate that. Um and I I think
[1:42:11] this is definitely the you know the
[1:42:13] right direction for us to be going. So
[1:42:16] thank you. Thank you for all the work um
[1:42:19] both in finance department, legal
[1:42:20] department in the administration. Um
[1:42:22] this this has been great. All right. So
[1:42:25] with that I'm going to close this agenda
[1:42:27] item
[1:42:29] and try to find my
[1:42:33] agenda.
[1:42:37] All right. So, moving on to
[1:42:40] agenda item number eight, which is
[1:42:43] subcommittee liaison and regional agency
[1:42:46] reports. Um, there's one ASC liaison in
[1:42:50] the packet. Thank you, Mary. Um, are
[1:42:52] there any other oral um reports?
[1:42:56] >> I I just wanted to say that I have
[1:42:58] signed up for the League of California
[1:42:59] Cities annual conference in September.
[1:43:03] >> Okay. and they actually have um
[1:43:07] uh you know they have the general
[1:43:08] assembly so that you can actually
[1:43:10] present a motion that you would like to
[1:43:12] have covered. So if there's anything
[1:43:14] that the town council would like to have
[1:43:17] presented, we do have to get I think
[1:43:19] several other municipalities to join in
[1:43:21] with us. But if there's some pressing
[1:43:23] need that you feel that the the League
[1:43:25] of California Cities should be
[1:43:26] addressing, then please think about it.
[1:43:29] I think the deadline is coming is coming
[1:43:32] up in the next month maybe.
[1:43:34] >> So just give it some thought if there's
[1:43:36] some burning issue that we need to do to
[1:43:41] encourage Sacramento to kind of be a
[1:43:44] little more reasonable, if you will.
[1:43:46] Anyway,
[1:43:47] >> okay. Thank you. All right. Any any
[1:43:49] other oral reports? Helen,
[1:43:52] >> so I have a um I wanted to talk about
[1:43:54] ebikes for a second. Obviously, I poked
[1:43:57] a bear this week. um kind of on purpose,
[1:44:01] but to try to let people know what's
[1:44:03] going on with the ebike situation. Um I
[1:44:06] did want to do one correction because
[1:44:08] I'd been telling people that uh we will
[1:44:10] have some laws probably in January, but
[1:44:14] um the education and the manufacturing
[1:44:17] situation, um those will not go into
[1:44:20] effect if they pass, which I'm assuming
[1:44:22] they will pass until 28 and 29. Um so um
[1:44:28] letting you know the manufacturing you
[1:44:30] know you need to let manufacturers
[1:44:33] uh
[1:44:35] put you know figure out how to put
[1:44:37] headlamps on and and to put on um
[1:44:42] speedometers and the other things that
[1:44:44] are in the bill so that they're um and
[1:44:47] the second one uh for um the education
[1:44:51] to create curriculum and get that into
[1:44:54] schools you know kind of idea that's
[1:44:56] going to take some time. So, I wanted to
[1:44:58] correct that for the record. Um the
[1:45:00] other
[1:45:02] uh so that's ebikes. Um I still think
[1:45:06] you know we're we are still all going to
[1:45:08] need to work on ebikes with the parents.
[1:45:10] So I'm that I don't see this changing to
[1:45:13] be honest. But um the other one I wanted
[1:45:16] to report about is I'm not sure that you
[1:45:19] guys and I'm on the I'm the leazison to
[1:45:21] the utility committee. Um, so this is a
[1:45:24] utility committee that hasn't been
[1:45:26] meeting um for uh I wanted everyone to
[1:45:30] know that AT&T
[1:45:32] uh went to the FCC because the CPU had
[1:45:37] said that they cannot end their
[1:45:39] landlines.
[1:45:41] Um but the FCC 3 days ago came out and
[1:45:43] said that AT&T can no you know can end
[1:45:48] landlines.
[1:45:49] Um, so that will, uh, so there's still a
[1:45:53] lawsuit and other things, but I wanted
[1:45:55] to make sure that you all were aware of
[1:45:57] that. Um,
[1:45:59] uh, and then lastly, I had a question
[1:46:02] about the ASC 501 wayside. Um, uh,
[1:46:08] motion for continuence. Um, this 501
[1:46:13] wayside continuence, isn't it under the
[1:46:16] housing accountability act? They only
[1:46:19] get five bites of the apple.
[1:46:23] >> Just curious.
[1:46:24] >> I I'm not actually super familiar with
[1:46:27] this application, so I would
[1:46:33] » under the Housing Accountability Act,
[1:46:35] you usually only get five bites of the
[1:46:37] apple of a public meeting,
[1:46:39] >> right? Um, yeah, I probably don't want
[1:46:42] to get too into I'm not sure this is
[1:46:44] agendaized, but the there there is and
[1:46:46] this came up with the Stanford project
[1:46:48] actually. Um, under SP 330, there is a
[1:46:50] five hearing rule. Um, and so, you know,
[1:46:55] that that is something to be mindful of
[1:46:56] in terms of housing development
[1:46:58] projects. This doesn't apply to other
[1:47:00] types of approvals, but for housing
[1:47:01] development projects specific, there is
[1:47:03] a five hearing,
[1:47:04] >> right? Well, I was gonna say, can can
[1:47:07] you guys work with our attorney on this
[1:47:09] because this isn't agendaized, but but
[1:47:10] why don't you have this conversation
[1:47:11] with our attorney?
[1:47:12] >> Well, yeah. Yeah. So, the two of you can meet with the
[1:47:16] >> Well, it is on.
[1:47:19] >> Okay. Well, this was on the leazison
[1:47:21] memo and I wanted to check in about the
[1:47:23] five bites of the apple. Okay. So, so
[1:47:27] those are my questions. Thank you.
[1:47:30] >> Thank you.
[1:47:34] » Okay. So, now I'd like to open it up for
[1:47:36] public comment. Rita, your hands up.
[1:47:41] » Yeah,
[1:47:41] >> welcome. Um, I just wanted to comment uh
[1:47:44] on the just on the ebikes. You know,
[1:47:46] maybe this isn't the right time, but I I
[1:47:49] really hope that our town along with the
[1:47:51] parents and the school system can uh can
[1:47:55] really do some education because uh
[1:47:57] everyone wants to talk about the kids,
[1:47:59] but these kids are not purchasing these
[1:48:02] bikes themselves and they're not paying
[1:48:04] for the electric bill. So, I I really
[1:48:06] hope that um with our committees or with
[1:48:09] the council that we can do something. So
[1:48:11] thanks for bringing it up Helen.
[1:48:14] >> Thank you Rita. Is there any other
[1:48:16] public comment on the reports?
[1:48:20] All right seeing none I will bring it
[1:48:23] back. Is there any further discussion
[1:48:25] from the council? Okay. So with that we
[1:48:28] move to number nine. I would accept a
[1:48:30] motion for adjournment.
[1:48:32] So moved
[1:48:34] >> and a second. Gosh.
[1:48:36] >> All right. All in favor? I I. Excellent.
[1:48:39] Thank you everyone.