[1:01] Why do we have extra copies of the ordinances?

[2:21] Hey, >> so I I get this the resolution

[2:28] » because

[2:32] on these um Austin had mentioned that question

[2:39] ores, >> but there actually

[2:43] already. I just want to show you

[3:10] So for example

[3:17] short terminal >> it's actually

[3:42] And then on the other

[3:46] that's the shortterm and then it's actually

[4:02] actually in the the meat of the other one is sort of the these are sort of the

[4:10] covers that say we're hereby adopting this law

[4:13] » and what you want to be concerned about is it won't be so much this that

[7:52] All right. Good evening and happy Tuesday, the 1st of September. We have

[7:57] officially entered the burr months. That means [laughter] I can start

[8:03] drinking um pumpkin spice lattes now. I can't do that in October because that

[8:08] just doesn't feel right. So, you guys will get to hear this again. I'm

[8:10] practicing. >> I'm glad you didn't stop with I

[8:13] [laughter]

[8:17] » All right. I will call this meeting to order at 5:00 pm. Can I get a roll call,

[8:21] please? Council member Lara >> here.

[8:24] » Council member Fen >> here.

[8:26] » Council member Martinez >> here.

[8:27] » Mayor Prom White >> here.

[8:29] » Mayor Vo >> here.

[8:31] » All right. And um can we do we have any public comment for close session?

[8:36] » I have no written requests. Simone, do you have any callers on the line?

[8:46] » Simone, can you hear me? Do we have any callers on the line?

[8:50] She's not. >> Sorry. No, we have no callers at this

[8:52] time. Thank you. >> All right. Excellent. And Mr. Pinkney,

[8:55] can we please get a readout for the items for discussion?

[8:58] » Yes. The council meeting in close session. Item B1 is conference with

[9:01] legal counsel regarding potential initiation of litigation. That involves

[9:05] three potential cases. Item B2, conference with legal counsel regarding

[9:10] significant exposure to litigation, one potential case.

[9:14] » All right. And we will adjourn to close session at 501.

[1:17:05] member Laura. The second was by Mayor Prom White and the vote was as follows.

[1:17:10] Mayor Voit uh was yes in favor of the motion. Mayor Prom White in favor,

[1:17:16] council member Martinez in favor, council member Fen in favor of the

[1:17:19] motion, and council member Laura was also in favor of the motion.

[1:17:23] The other item that the council met on in close session was item B2, conference

[1:17:26] with legal counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation. One potential

[1:17:31] case and there was no reportable action on that item. And that concludes a

[1:17:34] report out. >> All right. Thank you, sir. And if you um

[1:17:39] would please join me as we bring up Mr. Bolognio for our u prayer this evening

[1:17:45] followed by the pledge of allegiance by Council Member White.

[1:17:55] Thank you. Let's bow our heads for a word of prayer.

[1:18:00] Dear God of all faiths and of no faith, we come together today in gratitude for

[1:18:06] our city of Bumont and the people who call it home. We thank you for the gift

[1:18:12] of community and for the opportunity to work together for the common good.

[1:18:18] We ask for your wisdom and discernment to rest upon our mayor, city council

[1:18:24] members, and city staff. Will you grant them clear minds, compassionate hearts,

[1:18:30] and the strength to lead with integrity and fairness?

[1:18:35] Help everyone in this room to listen well, respect one another, and seek

[1:18:41] solutions that benefit all residents. Bless their discussions tonight and

[1:18:46] guide their actions so that they build a stronger, safer,

[1:18:52] and more united community. We pray. Amen.

[1:18:57] » Amen. >> Join me

[1:19:03] to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it

[1:19:08] stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice

[1:19:14] for all.

[1:19:22] » And that will take us on to our announcements and recognition section.

[1:19:28] And for that, uh, we will start out with E1, our national senior center month,

[1:19:33] and bring up Mr. Story and Miss Star.

[1:19:41] Thank you, mayor. I want to bring staff up to uh talk about National Senior

[1:19:45] Center Month to share some highlights and some great things that are happening

[1:19:48] with our senior.

[1:19:52] » Good evening, Mayor and Council. Tonight, as we recognize National Senior

[1:19:56] Center Month, I am excited to share with you the tremendous growth we have seen

[1:19:59] in programming at our senior center or what we refer to as club 55. So in 2022

[1:20:06] 23 we had offered eight events and five programs for our seniors. Today we offer

[1:20:11] 23 events and 20 programs dedicated specifically to this age group. That's a

[1:20:16] 231% increase in what seems like we're adding something new every single week.

[1:20:21] Our participants range in age from 55 to 85 and beyond, which is a tremendous

[1:20:26] span of ages, experiences, and interests. So, we work hard to provide a

[1:20:30] variety of opportunities that fit people in every season of their lives. These

[1:20:34] range from wellness classes like aerobics to reliving activities from

[1:20:38] their youth like attending prom or summer camp to learning more about their

[1:20:42] community through our tour programs or destination walks at our parks. We have

[1:20:46] done speed dating, sing karaoke, create works of art, learn about new

[1:20:51] technology, dress up for every holiday, and have had intense chair volleyball

[1:20:55] competitions, just to name a few. >> [laughter]

[1:20:58] » One of our more recent and exciting expansions is our ASB, our associated

[1:21:03] senior body. So, you may be familiar with an associated student student body

[1:21:08] in a school setting. Well, we decided that our seniors deserve one of their

[1:21:11] own. The group of individuals I have with you here tonight volunteer their

[1:21:15] time and energy and creativity to help us advertise and promote the senior

[1:21:19] center to both current and potential members. And our growth does not stop

[1:21:23] within the walls of our facility. Our staff and ASB members have also begun

[1:21:27] outreach efforts in the community and with other senior centers. Just last

[1:21:31] month, we hosted SIP with the senior center in conjunction with coffee at the

[1:21:35] cop at Panera. We also toured the Banning Senior Center and are scheduled

[1:21:39] to tour Calamea and Ukipa very soon. The goal of these outreach efforts is to

[1:21:43] build a stronger network of resources and opportunities for older adults, not

[1:21:47] just in Bulmont, but throughout our entire region.

[1:21:51] Some of the wonderful events we have happening at our senior center this

[1:21:54] month are our red, white, and boots senior dance on September 11th. And on

[1:21:59] September 22nd, we're hosting our senior health fair featuring more than 30

[1:22:03] vendors providing information resources um to help our residents live happy and

[1:22:08] active lives. And on September 22nd, we'll be hosting a talent show for our

[1:22:13] amazing group to show off their skills. And we want to thank you, our council,

[1:22:17] our staff, especially um our recreation specialist, Alma Frostto, here, uh our

[1:22:21] community partners, and all of our seniors for helping us shape what the

[1:22:24] future of senior programming looks like in Bowmont, and for making Club 55 a

[1:22:28] place where fun never gets old. So, thank you.

[1:22:36] [applause]

[1:22:39] And thank you. And thank you ladies for your time and energy and all that you

[1:22:43] have dedicated to the community. You know, when I first was walking for

[1:22:48] campaigning for city council, one of the things I heard often was, "We don't have

[1:22:51] our own designated senior center." But let me tell you, you guys have

[1:22:55] designated this as the senior center. And it's amazing to see all the

[1:22:59] activities and I love to watch all that you guys do and participate in what you

[1:23:03] have. I think we had a bingo night recently, didn't we?

[1:23:07] » We did, mayor. And I I had a chance opportunity [laughter]

[1:23:10] to call a bingo game. >> Yes,

[1:23:12] » it was a big M, you know, for Mike, but I you know, I digress. [laughter]

[1:23:18] » I was looking for a big W for like winning, right?

[1:23:23] [gasps] >> All right. Well, thank you guys very

[1:23:25] much. I believe we have a proclamation. We do have a proclamation. I think maybe

[1:23:30] just a photo with the Absolutely. Come on up and we'll take our photo. Go here,

[1:23:34] lady.

[1:23:54] You ready? Three, two, one. Thank you.

[1:24:00] [applause]

[1:24:12] All right. And that moves us to recognizing the city of Bowmont's

[1:24:16] finance department through their achievement in excellence in procurement

[1:24:20] award. Miss Lisa Leech.

[1:24:29] Good evening, madame mayor and councel. Tonight, I am proud to recognize the

[1:24:34] city of Bumont Fi finance department for receiving the achievement of excellent

[1:24:39] in procurement award from the national procurement institute. This

[1:24:44] distinguished award recognizes public agencies that demonstrate excellence,

[1:24:49] professionalism, transparency, and accountability in

[1:24:53] their procurement practices. Receiving this award reflects the dedication and

[1:24:58] hard work of our finance department and purchasing team as well as their

[1:25:02] commitment to managing public resources responsibly and serving our organization

[1:25:08] with the highest standards. The city of Bumont is among only one of 93 cities

[1:25:13] and a total of 251 public agencies nationwide.

[1:25:19] As interim finance director, I am incredibly proud of the team and

[1:25:23] grateful for their continued dedication to the city of Bumont. Please join me in

[1:25:28] congratulating them on this outstanding achievement

[1:25:33] [applause]

[1:25:36] and they have a nice little award. Excellent. Thank you guys. And uh it's

[1:25:41] always excellent when we get to present financial awards and um the stewardship

[1:25:46] that you guys have towards all of that. So, thank you, council.

[1:25:50] » You still have room on the wall for that? [laughter]

[1:25:54] » We're adding a lot lately. Well, very good. Come on up and let's get a

[1:25:57] picture.

[1:26:16] Okay, ready? Three, two, one. [clears throat]

[1:26:26] [applause]

[1:26:36] And moving right along, that'll bring us to our public comment period for items

[1:26:40] that are not on the agenda. Any one person may address the city council in

[1:26:44] any manner not on the agenda. If you wish to speak, please fill out a public

[1:26:48] comment form provided to the at the back of the table, excuse me, at the back

[1:26:52] table and give it to the city clerk. There are there is a threeinut time

[1:26:56] limit on public comments. There will be no sharing or passing of time to another

[1:27:00] person. State law prohibits the city council from discussing or taking

[1:27:04] actions brought up by your comments. And do we have any public comment this

[1:27:08] evening? >> Yes, ma'am. I have an in person of

[1:27:11] Douglas Emory.

[1:27:19] » Good evening, Mayor Voy, Mayor Prom White, and council members. I'm here

[1:27:23] just to say thank you. Thank you to the city of Bowmont for your support of the

[1:27:28] Bowmont Cherry Valley Rotary Club and everything we uh do in the community. I

[1:27:32] want to say a thank you to Laura James who came to our club meeting on July

[1:27:36] 30th and talked about the great development in the city of Bowmont,

[1:27:40] what's happening here and that was uh very educational for our Bowmont Cherry

[1:27:44] Valley Rotary Club members. Uh thank you for Christopher Bowman, city manager

[1:27:49] coming August 20th and sharing his experience and what's happening within

[1:27:53] the city. I think Chris, we put you on the spot a couple of times, but uh he

[1:27:57] did a great job in uh responding and supporting our club members. Uh last

[1:28:02] Thursday, um I want to thank we had the K9 program for the city of Bulmont. So

[1:28:08] thank you to Police Chief Christopher Ramos, Lieutenant Jeremy Harris, and

[1:28:12] Corporal Taylor and Corporal Lynn. They brought their two K9 dogs um at the

[1:28:18] Chattney Center and we had a great uh presentation about the K9 program. So

[1:28:22] that was exciting. And I also want to thank Oh, she's here. Both um Ashley

[1:28:28] Star and Doug's story. As you know, we meet the Chattney Center and it's a

[1:28:32] great uh venue uh great team that they have and we couldn't have our successful

[1:28:38] growing Rotary Club meetings without Ashley's and her and her staff and

[1:28:43] everything they did and Doug's story. And so I just want to thank you Ashley

[1:28:46] and and Doug um for everything you support our club on. We're going to have

[1:28:51] a little lunch tomorrow celebrating the staff. So um the other part is um

[1:28:55] invitation. And as you know, we had an excellent peace pole unveiling at the

[1:28:59] Chattney Center on a couple of months ago. And thank you, Mayor Voit, for

[1:29:03] coming and speaking. The weather was beautiful. I know Ashley missed that cuz

[1:29:06] you were enjoying some vacation time and all that. Um, but we're having our

[1:29:10] second one on Friday, September 18th at 11:00 a.m. at the renovated Bulmont

[1:29:16] Library District. And thank you for Mayor Prom uh being our guest speaker.

[1:29:21] And I'm going to hand out the flyers to the invitation. Uh hopefully council

[1:29:25] members can attend that event. Chris and Lauren, others as well. We're looking

[1:29:28] for an exciting, peaceful unveiling event at the library on Friday,

[1:29:32] September 18. So pass these invitations over. So thank you. We'll see you then.

[1:29:37] » And thank you, >> Simone. Do we have any callers on the

[1:29:42] line? >> We have no callers at this time.

[1:29:46] » No other speakers. >> All right. Very good. That will move us

[1:29:50] on to our consent calendar. Are there any items to be pulled from the consent

[1:29:54] calendar for discussion?

[1:29:59] All right, seeing none, do we have any public comment for our consent calendar?

[1:30:05] I have no written request. Simone, do we have any callers on the line?

[1:30:13] » Simone, do we have any callers on the line?

[1:30:18] » We have no callers at this time. All right. And seeing no public comment,

[1:30:24] I will entertain a motion. >> Mayor, I'll move that we uh approve

[1:30:28] consent item um consent calendar items um G1 through G8.

[1:30:34] » I'll second. >> And can we get a roll call, please?

[1:30:37] » Council member Laura, >> yes.

[1:30:38] » Council member Finn, >> yes.

[1:30:40] » Council member Martinez, >> yes.

[1:30:42] » Mayor Pro Tim White, >> yes.

[1:30:43] » Mayor Voit, >> yes. And I just do want to make a

[1:30:46] comment for G5 as uh just a thank you for uh the grants specific to traffic

[1:30:52] enforcement. I know that that is always um a big topic throughout the city. So

[1:30:57] it's nice to see when we're able to um enhance our opportunities there. So

[1:31:02] thank you. And yes.

[1:31:06] All right. That will take us to our youth council report.

[1:31:09] » Yes, mayor. Just a quick um report that we have concluded our application

[1:31:13] process for the youth council and uh our first meeting will be on the 8th and

[1:31:18] we'll be going over all of the bylaws and such and we'll be presenting council

[1:31:23] to you on the 15th and I'm not sure what was our final accounting goal was 18

[1:31:28] » 18. >> It was 18.

[1:31:30] So we look forward to >> Wow. Is that more this year than last

[1:31:33] year? >> Um

[1:31:34] » or about the same? Pretty >> about the same. About the same. So but

[1:31:38] that was good. I was really impressed. Um, and it looks like a nice blend and

[1:31:42] balance of of grade levels. So, look forward to that.

[1:31:45] » Great. Always looking forward to their inclusion. Okay. And that will take us

[1:31:50] on to our public hearings. We have our first public hearing to consider the

[1:31:55] adoption of the 2026 Bumont Sustainability Plan. And for that, we

[1:31:59] have Mr. Jones for a report. >> Yes. Good evening, your honor, Mayor Pro

[1:32:03] Tim, and council members. This evening, we are pleased to welcome Sammy Taylor

[1:32:06] from Alta Planning and Design, who will present the city sustainability plan

[1:32:10] prepared as an update to modernization of the 2015 climate action plan. Miss

[1:32:15] Taylor.

[1:32:19] » All right, let me just get sorted here. Is it presenting

[1:32:30] » here? Let me see.

[1:32:34] Is there like a Okay,

[1:32:37] » there. >> There we go.

[1:32:40] » Not

[1:32:43] » sorry everyone. Bear with me one second.

[1:32:55] » Yeah. Do we have that option?

[1:33:00] » Your notes. Yeah, I've got my computer. We can

[1:33:17] [laughter]

[1:33:20] » That's okay. We can We're flexible

[1:33:30] » yet adaptable. Okay.

[1:33:37] » Okay. Sorry everybody.

[1:33:42] » Just have >> look. Oh, we did it. Fantastic.

[1:33:52] » Are you able to see the slides? Oh, [clears throat]

[1:33:57] » it's still giving.

[1:34:03] » All right. Sorry everyone for that delay. Are we ready? You can see the

[1:34:07] slides. Yes, >> we can see the slides, but we have your

[1:34:10] notes on there. >> Ah, okay. [laughter]

[1:34:13] We will get this sorted. Okay, we'll do it this way.

[1:34:16] » There we go. All righty. Okay.

[1:34:25] [clears throat]

[1:34:39] All right. Well, sorry for that delay. Um, let me introduce myself. Good

[1:34:43] evening, Mayor Boy and council members. I'm really excited to be here tonight to

[1:34:46] present the uh 2026 Bumont sustainability plan. Uh I am with Alta

[1:34:53] Planning and Design. We are the consultant team who has been leading the

[1:34:56] development of this plan. So a brief overview of what we'll cover

[1:35:01] tonight. Um we'll give an overview of the sustainability plan development

[1:35:04] process, greenhouse gas emissions in Bowmont, followed by natural hazards and

[1:35:08] climate impacts in in Bowmont as well as the sustainability and resilience

[1:35:12] measures to red to reduce both of those uh issues.

[1:35:18] So moving right along, sustainability um the city is of Bowmont is committed to

[1:35:25] providing a more livable, fair, and economically vibrant community. Uh these

[1:35:30] three components the environment, people and the economy make up the concept of

[1:35:34] sustainability. Sustainability is the ability to meet the needs of the present

[1:35:38] without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own

[1:35:42] needs. In Bowmont, this means creating a thriving, healthy, diverse, and

[1:35:46] resilient community for this and future generations.

[1:35:52] So, some of the benefits of sustainability include cost savings for

[1:35:55] families, improved health outcomes due to less air pollution and more active

[1:35:59] lifestyles, less traffic congestion and safer streets for biking and walking,

[1:36:03] and more trees and increased access to nature resulting from healthier

[1:36:07] ecosystems and cleaner watersheds. Additionally, while not shown on this

[1:36:11] slide, uh another important benefit of sustainability is improved community

[1:36:16] resilience to climate hazards and natural disasters.

[1:36:22] So, the Bumont sustainability plan updates the 2015 plan with new

[1:36:26] implementation focused actions to advance environmental sustainability.

[1:36:30] Uh, it is a short-range plan with a timeline of about 5 to 10 years. Uh, and

[1:36:35] it builds on Bowmont's existing plans and policies, most notably the general

[1:36:39] plan update. Um, it aligns with recent state laws and charge a sustainable path

[1:36:43] forward to continue implementation as resources and capacity become available

[1:36:47] in the city.

[1:36:51] So, in addition to the full plan, we created some collateral materials,

[1:36:54] including a comprehensive and standalone executive summary that is more

[1:36:58] accessible and distills the plan into its most important parts. Additionally,

[1:37:02] for those who want to take a deeper dive into the topics of the plan, uh we

[1:37:06] developed focus area fact sheets that detail the measures within each section

[1:37:10] um that enhance community sustainability and resiliency.

[1:37:15] So, how did we get here? The plan development process has followed the

[1:37:18] sequence seen on the screen. We started with background technical analysis to

[1:37:22] understand the underlying conditions in Bowmont, including updating the city's

[1:37:26] greenhouse gas inventory and conducting a vulnerability assessment. Uh, which

[1:37:30] I'll touch on the results of those coming up next. Um, the technical

[1:37:34] analysis creates the foundation to develop the measures which are really

[1:37:37] the meat of the plan. Uh, and these lists of strategies reflect the city's

[1:37:40] unique characteristics, priorities, and needs. The second step then is that

[1:37:45] measure development phase. Uh and this was an iterative process that included

[1:37:49] collaboration with staff partner agencies and incorporates feedback from

[1:37:52] the community. Uh finally we wrote the plan, released it for public comment and

[1:37:57] are moving through the final adoption process. And then most importantly you

[1:38:01] can see here at the bottom community engagement has been a throughine of this

[1:38:04] effort.

[1:38:08] So community input has been incorporated throughout each step in the development

[1:38:11] process. We utilized different methods to engage different populations in the

[1:38:15] city. Uh we uh conducted two rounds of focus groups with stakeholders including

[1:38:20] representatives of the business community, residents, the youth

[1:38:23] commission, seniors and cyclists. Uh we gathered feedback on the measures via an

[1:38:28] online community survey and attended events like Bowmont nights. Uh we also

[1:38:32] distributed executive summaries to the chamber of commerce and finally like I

[1:38:36] mentioned released the plan for public review and comment.

[1:38:42] So we heard a lot of things re received a lot of different comments from

[1:38:46] stakeholders throughout the process and this is a small collection of what we

[1:38:50] heard but mainly there is support for creating a more livable community that

[1:38:53] is resilient to the natural hazards has clean air and safe access to walking and

[1:38:58] biking and more dependable utilities. Uh to be sure the community did express

[1:39:02] concern over the cost to themselves and to the city uh of implementing these

[1:39:07] sustainable lifestyle changes. Um, and all of these comments helped us draft

[1:39:10] measure language that prioritize actions and prioritize actions that make things

[1:39:15] feel more accessible um, and catered to this community.

[1:39:21] So, next I'll explain the results of the foundational technical analysis uh,

[1:39:25] including where Bowmont's greenhouse gas emissions come from and understanding

[1:39:29] where our emissions come from help us to focus efforts on where meaningful

[1:39:32] reductions can take place uh, to improve our environment. And this technical

[1:39:37] analysis informs measure development. And we look at emissions because they

[1:39:41] also help us um when we reduce those emissions, help reduce the impact of

[1:39:45] climate hazards, which we'll get into next.

[1:39:49] So, moving back to 2022, total communitywide emissions, greenhouse gas

[1:39:54] emissions were about 376,700 metric tons of carbon dioxide

[1:39:58] equivalent, which is how we measure the suite of greenhouse gases. Um, we use

[1:40:03] 2022 because when we did this analysis, that was the most recent year for which

[1:40:07] complete data was available. Uh, on-road transportation, so that includes driving

[1:40:12] cars and trucks on our roads, was the largest contributor to emissions at 63%,

[1:40:17] followed by residential and non-residential energy use, including

[1:40:21] both electricity and natural gas, which accounted for 28% combined. Uh this

[1:40:26] distribution aligns with many cities across California and shows us where the

[1:40:30] biggest opportunities for reductions lie, which again is that energy and

[1:40:34] transportation sectors.

[1:40:39] So we also compared these results back to 2018 which was the other inventory

[1:40:45] that was done for the city. Um and emissions did rise by 11% from 2018 to

[1:40:51] 2022. uh the breakdown by sector did remain constant but the per capita and

[1:40:56] per service population so the total number of jobs and people in the city

[1:41:00] decreased by 6% as compared to 2018. So that suggests that emissions are not

[1:41:05] increasing at the same rate that the city is growing which is good news.

[1:41:13] So moving on to the natural hazards. So, Bumont currently faces a range of

[1:41:19] climate hazards um such as extreme heat, wildfire, flooding, and severe weather.

[1:41:24] Most of the comm community feedback that we heard was about people's experiences

[1:41:29] with these natural hazards. Um we also use natural hazards and climate hazards

[1:41:34] somewhat interchangeably. Climate exacerbate exacerbates many of these

[1:41:38] hazards. So, and that's also why we look at reducing emissions to avoid the

[1:41:43] greatest impacts of these hazards. So, in terms of heat, uh, we're expecting

[1:41:47] more extreme heat days and warm nights and hotter average maximum temperature

[1:41:51] in the future. For precipitation, we're not expecting to see a great change in

[1:41:56] total precipitation. However, there will be more variability and extreme weather

[1:42:00] events. Um, and the next two are kind of related to that. Flooding may become

[1:42:04] more frequent and extreme. Um, and drought on the flip side may become

[1:42:08] longer and more intense. Uh, finally, wildfire. We're expecting to see more

[1:42:12] area burned. wildfires that burn more intensely and increased impacts from

[1:42:17] wildfire smoke.

[1:42:21] So, these hazards have impacts not only on the environment but on our community.

[1:42:25] Children, older adults, low-income households, and renters face greater

[1:42:29] risks and have fewer resources to recover after an event. Um,

[1:42:33] additionally, buildings and infrastructure can be damaged uh leading

[1:42:37] to disruptions in daily life and business activity. And furthermore,

[1:42:40] continued environmental stress on our natural systems can do reduce their

[1:42:44] ability uh to function and recover after a disaster as well.

[1:42:51] So like I mentioned, all of that background analysis that has been done

[1:42:55] um helped to inform measure development. So the measures included in the plan

[1:42:58] have been vetted by staff including the departments responsible for

[1:43:02] implementation uh to ensure capacity uh partner organizations including

[1:43:06] Riverside County Fire as well as CalFire and the community most importantly uh

[1:43:11] and based on the feedback we received the measures have been designed to

[1:43:14] incentivize action rather than mandate it uh and leverage existing external

[1:43:20] resources like existing regional programs and utility rebates. Um, we're

[1:43:26] also building these measures off of ongoing city city efforts to best fit

[1:43:30] into department work plans. So, the plan focuses on things that are within the

[1:43:34] city's control and under its direct influence.

[1:43:41] So the plan contains 37 community sustainability measures focused on

[1:43:45] buildings and energy, transportation and land use, solid waste, water and

[1:43:49] ecosystems, and community uh accountability and activation. Um by

[1:43:54] taking steps to support sustainable development, we can lower energy use in

[1:43:58] our homes and businesses, make it easier to travel by different modes, uh reduce

[1:44:03] waste, and protect natural resources. The measures included in the

[1:44:06] sustainability measure section were selected based on their benefits to the

[1:44:10] community, local priorities, staff capacity, alignment with the general

[1:44:14] plan and state goals and legislation, and the availability of resources for

[1:44:19] implementation.

[1:44:24] So, the city also worked on developing a suite of 21 community resilience

[1:44:28] measures and these ones um address the climate hazards that we just talked

[1:44:32] about. Um and so they are designed to increase the resilience of residents,

[1:44:37] natural resources, critical facilities and infrastructure and services from the

[1:44:41] impacts of climate change. Uh the actions in this plan section focus on

[1:44:47] preparing for emergencies, maintaining essential services, and supporting quick

[1:44:51] recovery when disruptions do occur. Uh with particular attention to residents

[1:44:56] who may need additional assistance. Uh the benefits of the measures contained

[1:44:59] in this section include improved air quality, lower risk of property damage,

[1:45:04] improved habitat quality, job creation, as well as strengthened infrastructure,

[1:45:09] emergency response systems, and community readiness. And this, of

[1:45:13] course, all can improve our public safety, reduce damage and downtime after

[1:45:16] an event, and support long-term sil stability, excuse me, for residents,

[1:45:22] businesses, and city operations. So, we took uh the draft plan to

[1:45:28] planning commission earlier this summer, and these are some of the thoughtful

[1:45:31] questions that the planning commission asked us in our responses. I won't go

[1:45:35] into detail uh now, but we can certainly return to any of these if uh if needed.

[1:45:40] And so, there's a second slide of of those questions.

[1:45:45] And so, today we're asking you to discuss ask us questions. I have Shannon

[1:45:48] George from David J. Powers on the Zoom who is um available to answer any

[1:45:54] questions related to the environmental review. Uh and with that we hope that uh

[1:45:58] we recommend that you adopt the 2026 sustainability plan.

[1:46:04] Thank you so much. >> All right. Thank you for that. Um I will

[1:46:10] open this public hearing at 6:38. Do we have any public comments?

[1:46:16] I do have a written uh email public comment that I can read into the record.

[1:46:20] Sure.

[1:46:24] This is from Sergio Perez. Says, "Hello, as a longtime resident, I would like to

[1:46:29] first and foremost express my appreciation to the city council for its

[1:46:33] work over the years. I do believe the council has the best intentions in mind

[1:46:37] for the development of the city and I very much appreciate the particular

[1:46:41] emphasis placed on revitalizing the downtown core. I do believe there is

[1:46:45] still room for improvement with this revitalization plan. However, there is

[1:46:49] simply a lack of density for people who want to come to downtown.

[1:46:53] I believe Bulmont lacks middle housing today. There aren't enough duplexes,

[1:46:58] triplexes, or multiplexes or vertical housing developments that offer a middle

[1:47:03] ground between single family housing units and midrises. Especially for young

[1:47:08] adults and single adults who would like entrylevel housing. The downtown core

[1:47:13] could be revitalized if some of these projects were to be initiated. One

[1:47:18] particular solution could be vertical two to threetory mixeduse property where

[1:47:22] the ground floor could be used for commercial space such as a cafe,

[1:47:26] restaurant or retail while the above floors would be designated for

[1:47:30] residential use. I would strongly suggest looking into this concept and

[1:47:34] seeing if the feasibility of it.

[1:47:38] This would not only offer housing in the heart of town, but it could also create

[1:47:44] new job opportunities while simultaneously making downtown more

[1:47:47] attractive for residents and visitors to each as well. We can even see

[1:47:52] neighborhood neighboring Redlands developing similar concepts on a large

[1:47:57] scale like the transit village specific plan and the Tennessee Village mixeduse

[1:48:02] project. On the corner of Edgar Avenue and East Fifth Street, there is a fairly

[1:48:06] sizable empty lot. next to the newly refurbished pass area bizub.

[1:48:12] I think this could make for an ideal location to consider developing

[1:48:15] developing into a multi-story mixeduse property and would make for an effective

[1:48:21] use of land. I strongly suggest an inquiry be made into this lot along with

[1:48:25] the mixeduse concept so we may see a stronger revitalization plan for

[1:48:30] downtown. Thank you for your time and consideration

[1:48:35] and I have no other written comments. Simone, do we have any callers on the

[1:48:38] line? >> We have no callers at this time.

[1:48:43] » All right. Thank you. Seeing no further public comment, we'll close it at 6:40

[1:48:48] and I will open it up for council discussion.

[1:48:56] » Mayor Prom. >> Hi. Yeah, I have a couple questions.

[1:49:00] Adopting this plan is a state mandate, correct?

[1:49:06] » It is. It is and the states uh provided um financing for us to have the study

[1:49:12] and sustainability plan created. >> There are grants available but for this

[1:49:16] particular project and sustainability plan there's been no state funding.

[1:49:21] » Okay. And then how was how were the emission numbers calculated or or where

[1:49:27] did those numbers come from? >> Sure. So the greenhouse gas emissions

[1:49:31] inventory and forecast were calculated using the US community protocol which is

[1:49:36] a very standardized approach to how all of these inventories are done across

[1:49:40] both the US and then there's a global version of that protocol as well and

[1:49:43] it's based on real data. So we collected real data activity data is what we call

[1:49:48] it from Bowmont including you know energy use in kilowatt hours as well as

[1:49:52] therms from both our residential and non-residential customers. uh real

[1:49:57] vehicle miles traveled which we used from the general plan update to align

[1:50:00] with that um forecasting as well. Uh we looked at solid waste hall data all

[1:50:06] these real data that then we apply what we call emission factors to. So um there

[1:50:14] is an emissions intensity associated with each of these different activities.

[1:50:19] So we apply emissions factor to that number to get us our greenhouse gas uh

[1:50:24] emissions. So it's kind of an amorphous topic but it's based in real Bowmont

[1:50:29] local data. >> So when when you calculate the amount of

[1:50:33] electricity used to generate the uh electric electric vehicles um that adds

[1:50:39] to the emissions too. Correct. >> Yes. So how we do energy for example is

[1:50:43] we get a report from the utilities. So we have we got data um at a high level

[1:50:49] um fromce and the gas company about total emissions or total excuse me

[1:50:54] kilowatt hours and therms consumed within the community um by residential

[1:50:59] and non-residential customers. We can't tell exactly how that energy was being

[1:51:03] used. So if it was being used, you know, to heat your home using a heat pump, we

[1:51:08] can't tell the difference between those kilowatt hours and kilowatt hours that

[1:51:11] are going to charge an EV, for example. >> Okay? And when you're using these

[1:51:15] protocols uh to sort of I guess basically you're taking um averages or

[1:51:22] comparisons of other cities. So we c no so this is all like based only on bowont

[1:51:29] and so these are a standardized set of methods and data sources that we use to

[1:51:34] then um you know make this inventory and all cities who are complying with the

[1:51:39] protocol do it the same way so that we can look across jurisdictions and

[1:51:44] compare apples to apples. >> So do you so apples to apple comparison

[1:51:47] do you take into account that the interstate 10 goes right through our

[1:51:51] city? >> So no. So that's a great question. So

[1:51:53] when we look at vehicle miles traveled, we don't count pass through traffic. So

[1:51:59] anything all travel that doesn't um either originate or end in Bowmont is

[1:52:04] not considered because it's not under the city's control to do anything about.

[1:52:08] » So even if we do everything that we need to do in the plan to curb our emissions

[1:52:15] and we can't do anything about I 10 corridor going through our city.

[1:52:20] » Yeah. Um, how much did we pay for the for the sustainability plan?

[1:52:27] » Close to 300,000. >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:52:30] » That was what was budgeted for the plan. I don't know that we've spent that much

[1:52:34] yet, though. >> Okay.

[1:52:38] If there are no other comments, I'll go ahead and make a motion.

[1:52:41] » All right. >> I'll move to approve the adoption of

[1:52:43] this plan per the state requirements. >> I'll second.

[1:52:49] » All right. Can I get a roll call, please?

[1:52:52] » Council member Laura, >> yes.

[1:52:53] » Council member Finn, >> yes.

[1:52:55] » Council member Martinez, >> yes.

[1:52:57] » Mayor Prom White, >> yes.

[1:52:58] » Mayor Voit, >> yes.

[1:53:01] » Thank you for your time. >> Thank you.

[1:53:03] » All right, that will move us on to our public hearing for our short-term rental

[1:53:06] program and ordinance. And we will have a staff report by Mr.

[1:53:11] Usher.

[1:53:28] Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Tonight's item we are bringing forward

[1:53:32] is the first public hearing for the city's short-term rental program.

[1:53:39] The action before council is to introduce chapter 5.21, 21 adopt the

[1:53:43] related fee schedule and establish a framework needed for beginning the toot

[1:53:49] collection in January of 2027. This is the next step in the discussion council

[1:53:54] has had over the years with staff and the ordinance reflecting direction

[1:53:58] council previously provided to move forward with this program.

[1:54:06] So this item has been brought to council several times in the past by staff.

[1:54:11] first beginning this discussion in 2023. In 2025, council asked staff to return

[1:54:16] with additional information on the number of short-term rentals in the city

[1:54:20] of Bumont, regulatory operations, program cost, and of course, Toot, which

[1:54:26] is a transient occupancy tax. By April 2025, staff had identified more than 50

[1:54:32] short-term rentals operating in the city of Bulmont. In March 2026, council

[1:54:36] directed staff to move forward with a short-term rental management software

[1:54:40] option and prepare to implementation beginning January of 2027. Tonight's

[1:54:45] ordinance puts that prior direction into enforcable local framework.

[1:54:52] What is being proposed now is an ordinance that creates an annual

[1:54:55] licensing program for short-term rentals and establishes clear operating

[1:54:59] standards. Each property and each dwelling unit that is used as a

[1:55:04] short-term rental would require its own license. Applicants would provide basic

[1:55:08] ownership, operation information, insurance, a floor plan, parking

[1:55:13] information, and toot registration to the city. The ordinance would also

[1:55:17] require local responsible party, whether that's the owner or a manager to provide

[1:55:23] information that is available 24 hours a day, and a response time within 60

[1:55:28] minutes if there's a code violation. It establishes standards related to

[1:55:32] occupancy, parking, quiet hours, life safety, trash, property maintenance, and

[1:55:38] advertising. And it requires that the city have the short-term rental license

[1:55:43] number appear on the listing.

[1:55:49] So, the proposed fees, as you see on the screen, are intended for cost recovery,

[1:55:54] not for the sole purpose of generating revenue. The annual short-term rental

[1:55:59] license is proposed at $250 with a $100 compliance inspection or reinspection

[1:56:04] fee. A $100 late renewal or appeal fee. And then operating without a license

[1:56:10] would require or would follow the city's existing administrative citation tier

[1:56:15] with the first tier being $100 for the first violation, 200 for the second

[1:56:19] violation, and 500 for the third and any other violation afterwards. Failure to

[1:56:24] display the short-term rental license would would carry a $250 penalty. The

[1:56:29] program would be administrator through administrated through community

[1:56:33] development in coordination with the city manager's office using the council

[1:56:37] selected software model that was approximately $16,000.

[1:56:41] Code enforcement would conduct the initial compliance inspection and

[1:56:45] respond to violations as needed. Inspections would not automatically

[1:56:48] occur every single year.

[1:56:53] The overall goal of this program is to allow short-term rentals to operate

[1:56:56] while creating clear local accountability, protecting

[1:57:00] neighborhoods, and ensuring that operators are compliant with Toot

[1:57:03] requirements. Staff recommends that council wave the first reading, adopt

[1:57:08] the fee resolution with any council directed changes, and will bring it back

[1:57:12] for the second reading at the next available council meeting. Once the

[1:57:15] program is operating, staff can also return to council if the experience

[1:57:19] shows that the fees or penalty structures need to be adjusted. That

[1:57:22] concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

[1:57:28] » All right. Thank you. And I will open that up to public comment at 6:49.

[1:57:35] And do we have any public comments? >> I have no written requests. Simone, do

[1:57:39] we have any callers on the line? >> We have no callers at this time.

[1:57:44] All right. And I will close the public comment period at 6:49 and open it up

[1:57:49] for council discussion. Um, Council Member Finn,

[1:57:54] » I'll defer to Mr. Martinez. He had his light on first.

[1:57:56] » Oh, very. >> Well, thank you. Uh, just clarification

[1:57:59] on the non-compliance. Can you put that back up because it looked different than

[1:58:05] it did in the staff report?

[1:58:10] So here we have a proposal of 250

[1:58:16] plus 100. So 350 correct for your license and the inspection and then

[1:58:23] non-compliance we have at one two and five. I thought the uh report said 500

[1:58:29] for first offense. Am I reading it wrong? established

[1:58:34] amounts of 500 for operating without a license and 250 for failure.

[1:58:39] » So the 500 was referenced to the highest tier. So the administrative citation has

[1:58:46] multiple tiers and so it is just an error in the report where it's just 500.

[1:58:50] It was supposed to state one, two, and 500 for operating without a license.

[1:58:54] » Right? Because I have a concern that it's too low. I mean your violation is

[1:58:58] is cheaper than your license. So I mean I mean, I understand it's we're starting

[1:59:05] and we don't want to come in with very large because we're getting everybody

[1:59:08] used to it, but on the other hand, I'm a strong believer if you don't have a a a

[1:59:13] non-compliance that's going to give a little bite, then it's really

[1:59:17] ineffective. So, I was hoping that we were going to start with five, not the

[1:59:22] third violation. But if you started at five, um, and then 250 for your no

[1:59:28] license number, because they're not going to have one if they're not

[1:59:30] compliant, then that pulls to a 750, uh, violation,

[1:59:35] uh, versus the 250 that they paid if they would have gone through the proper

[1:59:39] procedure. So, it's it's a little it's not thousands like the other one, but

[1:59:43] it's a little, you know, significant more to, you know, if you're not

[1:59:48] complying with the license. Am I making sense?

[1:59:50] » Yeah. >> Okay. Um, so that's my suggestion. Um,

[1:59:54] to bring it up a little higher to re um to have more of an effect.

[1:59:59] » I just want to clarify too that is a fine per day. So, every day that they

[2:00:02] they operate without the license. >> Oh, I didn't know that.

[2:00:05] » Yes. I I don't know if that if that materially changes your thought on that.

[2:00:08] » Did I miss that? No, I think it just states a flat rate. I maybe in the

[2:00:13] ordinance it's different. >> In the ordinance it states it's it

[2:00:15] specifies per day. >> Per day, correct?

[2:00:18] » So, we're going back at 100 per day. >> Yes.

[2:00:21] » Okay. Well, that's different then. So, I'm okay. I We'll discuss that, but

[2:00:25] that's different than the 215. >> Um, so I'm okay. If it's a per day, then

[2:00:32] I mean still though it's difficult for me to have a fine that's lower than your

[2:00:37] fee. just doesn't make sense to me because if they get a fine and they come

[2:00:40] in and pay it, then it was, you know, they still have to go and get a license.

[2:00:44] So, they'll have to go back and pay the 250 and 100 anyway, right? So, they're

[2:00:49] paying the fee, then they're coming back and paying for the license and the and

[2:00:53] the um compliance inspection. We we and you know we could council with council's

[2:00:59] direction we can certainly adjust the first tier violation to be consistent

[2:01:02] with the the fine the the license amount and then we could tier to um 500 and 700

[2:01:10] or 750. >> It just seems to me there has to be for

[2:01:13] your first has to be higher than than not because if not they're going to play

[2:01:17] the odds you know and the odds are if I get you know hit all hundreds 100 bucks.

[2:01:22] » Yeah. >> I I don't know. That's my suggestion,

[2:01:24] but I'll hear counsel of course. Thank you.

[2:01:28] » But again, I just want to also just I guess and city attorney was brought up a

[2:01:32] good point. So with those tiers, the the first violation of $100 is for the first

[2:01:38] violation. So that's day one. >> So that's

[2:01:41] » the second violation of $200 is the sec is for the second violation, which is

[2:01:46] day two in a calendar year. >> Okay. The third violation is $500, which

[2:01:51] is which is is technically day three in a calendar year.

[2:01:54] » So, let me go back then because I'm still not quite following it. So, if

[2:01:58] they're fined Yes. >> So, they don't have a a um a license,

[2:02:02] they're fined $100, day one. >> Yes.

[2:02:04] » They don't come in on day two to pay that, then it goes to 200.

[2:02:07] » That's my question. >> Yeah. So, basically what this is saying

[2:02:10] is technically they could be fined um $300 for operating two days in a row.

[2:02:17] Technically, they could be they or they could be fined $800 for operating three

[2:02:22] days in a row without a license or three days within a calendar year.

[2:02:26] » So, >> so it's every day they're operating.

[2:02:28] » Every day they're operating. So, if they oper if if they have if we if we confirm

[2:02:32] a violation for three days at any point within a

[2:02:38] calendar year, that's $800. It could be three days in a row. It could be three

[2:02:42] days spread across the year. Yeah. Wouldn't it make sense that we would

[2:02:46] find them a flat fee for not having it and then for every day that you follow?

[2:02:53] Because to me, if if you don't have the license and you're operating and you

[2:02:59] close, that was one day. So, what was what did you have to pay? $100 for one

[2:03:04] day operating. That was all >> what one day if it's the first violation

[2:03:08] or first offense within a calendar year. >> So, then what was the incentive of not

[2:03:12] paying the 250? to me. Maybe I'm I'm thinking about it wrong, but it makes

[2:03:16] sense to me. If you have 250 for a for a fee and you got caught and you didn't

[2:03:21] have a license, then you have to pay a something higher than that 250 for not

[2:03:26] doing what you were supposed to do. And then if you continue to operate, then

[2:03:29] whatever that number is, council decides, you know, if that can be done.

[2:03:33] But to me, the first initial hit has to be, hey, you were caught, you didn't

[2:03:37] have it. Here's your here's your fine higher than what it was that if you

[2:03:40] would have just come and complied. And then if you go on then that's that's

[2:03:44] another story. But that's the way I look at it. I'm just trying to see we want

[2:03:48] people to comply but if you don't put a a sting enough on there then they're

[2:03:52] going to play the odds and say well we'll just see if we get caught or not.

[2:03:55] And to me that doesn't make sense. >> Council member Fen.

[2:04:00] » Okay. Thank you. I've got a few questions. Um first on the violation and

[2:04:04] the license is it by property or by property owner?

[2:04:09] because there's a high in my opinion there may be a high probability that

[2:04:12] that somebody owns more than one property and you know if they've

[2:04:17] » Yeah, it's by property. >> Okay. And so then do they need a license

[2:04:21] for each property? >> Yes.

[2:04:23] » Okay. All right. And then um how is the city staff going to go about informing

[2:04:28] the current ones that are out there?

[2:04:34] So, if council moves forward with the adoption of this program, the city

[2:04:37] manager's office and community development department would work with

[2:04:40] communications to have a campaign notifying the current short-term rentals

[2:04:45] because the software that we purchased that we're onboarding right now has the

[2:04:48] address based on the listings that they have on Airbnb and all the other

[2:04:52] short-term rental websites and they have the contact information for them. So

[2:04:56] then we can contact them directly with letters that we're already drafting. But

[2:04:59] then, as I mentioned, we can do a campaign with our communications

[2:05:02] division so that it's on social media and it's available for everyone to know

[2:05:06] that we're going to start implementing this program come January 2027.

[2:05:10] » Okay. And then um after the program starts, if we had a new listing pop up

[2:05:16] from someone that was was a brand new short-term rental, is there a grace

[2:05:21] period for them to be, you know, would we reach out to them and say, "Hey, I

[2:05:24] see you just listed your property for the very first time. We have this

[2:05:27] ordinance. Do they have a grace period? Do they

[2:05:30] have a, you know, a certain number of days to get on board?" Or it's no, you

[2:05:33] immediately get fined because you didn't follow the rules. My thought was if

[2:05:37] somebody new came in after all those notices went out, they may not know this

[2:05:41] exists. So, as of now, there is no specific

[2:05:45] grace period. However, it's something that we can establish if council would

[2:05:49] like a specific time frame. There is going to be, of course, a time period

[2:05:52] between when a letter is sent out to them and of course when code enforcement

[2:05:56] can then go out and visit the property to make sure they are in compliance. But

[2:06:00] our software also checks the websites to make sure that if a listing pops up, if

[2:06:04] there is no short-term rental license number, which will be assigned once they

[2:06:08] purchase one, then they will be sent a letter saying, "Hey, you need to be in

[2:06:11] compliance and purchase a short-term rental license." Okay? So then, so fast

[2:06:16] forwarding, let's say we're in the month of February now, and this has been

[2:06:19] passed and a new one pops up, you see it advertised online, reach out to that

[2:06:25] property owner. At what point does that property owner need to get that license

[2:06:29] or they're looking at fees? Are we just catch them hopefully while it's just

[2:06:33] listed and not rented out yet or is it or is the fee kick in once it's been

[2:06:39] once it's been rented and they've actually used it?

[2:06:42] » You understand my question? >> Yeah. Okay. So, the software runs weekly

[2:06:46] reports on when a short-term rental license is listed on the website and it

[2:06:51] scans through all the websites online. Now, once one is listed, they are sent a

[2:06:56] notice or a letter stating, "Hey, you need to be in compliance with getting a

[2:06:59] short-term rental license." >> Then they have 15 days in between each

[2:07:03] notice. >> Okay?

[2:07:04] » And then once they receive the first notice, it's just a, "Hey, you need to

[2:07:07] get a short-term rental license." After 15 days, then they'll get their forced

[2:07:11] warning and then that's when the citations end up kicking in.

[2:07:14] » And we've got an automated automated system that is correct,

[2:07:17] » currently doing that. So, we don't have to wait on human intervention in case

[2:07:20] they missed it. And I just want to add we we wouldn't penalize somebody if they

[2:07:23] didn't receive that initial notice. We would make sure they get a notice first.

[2:07:27] » Okay. All right. Thank you. And that 15 days is what I was was I was looking

[2:07:31] for. Thank you, >> Council Member Lara.

[2:07:35] » Thank you, Mayor. Um and I I agree with Council Member Martinez. I think maybe

[2:07:40] the the initial fee may need to be higher and then maybe what you do is you

[2:07:43] give a 15-day grace period in order to obtain that license because what I've

[2:07:47] seen that that can happen is if you do it by the day staff will lose track and

[2:07:53] then it ends up being $100 or maybe it's you know 200 or 300 but it's it's

[2:08:00] difficult to track the number of days I think in some instances especially if

[2:08:03] you're you're busy with other items. So, you just might be easier to do a $500

[2:08:08] and then wait 15 days. If they don't comply within the 15 days, then it's

[2:08:13] another 500 or it's another 200, whatever that next level is. But that

[2:08:16] may be something to consider to look at. The other uh question I have is if you

[2:08:21] go into the draft ordinance under section B or excuse me, C

[2:08:29] subsection, >> it's under section 8.

[2:08:33] » Oh, section 8, excuse me. and then C

[2:08:36] » and then C. And then subsection B goes into any person violating the subsection

[2:08:42] may be ordered to immediately cease a short-term rental operations, but those

[2:08:47] fines are $1,000 for the first violation, 3,000 for the second, and

[2:08:51] 5,000 for the third. So, [snorts] they're completely different than what

[2:08:56] we're talking about on the proposed uh recovery fees. So the attachments that

[2:09:02] were on the dis were the updated ordinance that was in correlation with

[2:09:05] our current administrative citation. Now this is an option that was from when

[2:09:11] we did a survey of surrounding cities that had short-term rental license as

[2:09:15] well. They did have higher amounts but the what the ordinances on the dis is

[2:09:20] the correct amount based on our current administrative citation. As you guys

[2:09:24] stated, if you want an higher fee, that's something that council can direct

[2:09:28] staff to incorporate and then we can bring that back. However, the current

[2:09:32] amount is the 100, 200, 500 based on what's currently in the code.

[2:09:38] Okay. Um,

[2:09:43] and here does not reference the number of days. Is that is that somewhere else?

[2:09:57] At least >> it's un sorry it's under section C

[2:10:04] » right below that >> each calendar day that the unlicensed

[2:10:06] operation can use constitutes an additional violation under C.

[2:10:14] » Okay. And then it uh aside from the fees or

[2:10:20] the the penalties once we get those uh worked out um

[2:10:27] » just for clarification it's under section C subsection C

[2:10:31] » correct [laughter]

[2:10:34] each separate

[2:10:42] » see and and and that kind of goes to my concern is that how does staff verify

[2:10:47] that that is in operation for those calendar days because they can say, "Oh,

[2:10:51] we stopped, but the advertisement is still up." Because you'll see that the

[2:10:55] website will stay up so they can continue to make reservations, but they

[2:10:58] can tell you, "Well, nobody's been here."

[2:11:00] » You you'd have to validate it. So, you have to perform a site visit and

[2:11:04] » yeah, I'd like to try to keep it and at least in this initial roll out, make it

[2:11:08] simpler for staff. Um, that's just my my thought on that. Um, and then we we

[2:11:16] looked at contracting out. It sounds like we're we've p we're going to

[2:11:19] purchase software and then roll this out and see how that goes. And I'm assuming

[2:11:23] it's going to be our first year is going to be pretty dynamic. Uh, obviously we

[2:11:27] we compared fees with other jurisdictions without because we don't

[2:11:31] have anything to do a nexus study on. And so I think maybe after a couple

[2:11:34] years we'll see how this operates and and go from there.

[2:11:39] » Okay. >> Yeah. So the initial agreement with the

[2:11:41] software company will be one year. Okay? It'll be one year from last month and

[2:11:46] then we will bring it to council with results. We'll have tangible results

[2:11:49] based on number of listings, revenue that's received by the city and then of

[2:11:53] course the toot tax collected and then we'll bring forth a multi-year agreement

[2:11:57] if council decides to move forward with continuing the short-term rental

[2:12:00] program. >> Okay. Thank you very much. That's all I

[2:12:02] have. >> Mayor Prom White.

[2:12:04] » Uh yeah, I have a couple questions. I I noticed that um in that same section, I

[2:12:10] believe, no, it's down below operational standards, the occupancy is limited to

[2:12:15] two persons per approved bedroom. I know every time I've gotten a Airbnb, it

[2:12:20] always has one bedroom that has two bunk beds in it. So, you got four people

[2:12:24] there. Um how do we how do we deal with that?

[2:12:30] that that's going to be. So, some of these provisions in here are provisions

[2:12:34] we're stating to to create limitations, but in practice, they're hard to monitor

[2:12:39] and enforce. So, you know, theoretically, you could get an

[2:12:42] inspection warrant and go in and see four bunk beds in a room if it if

[2:12:45] something really escalated to that level, but but definitely in practice,

[2:12:49] it's going to be a difficult thing to monitor, enforce.

[2:12:52] » I would think if they have a license, we know how many bedrooms they have. And if

[2:12:55] they're advertising it sleeps 10, you know. And the other question I have,

[2:12:59] again, my experience with Airbnbs or um what do they call short-term rentals is

[2:13:06] um there's also usually a fold out in the front room and that kind of stuff.

[2:13:11] Um I think my bigger question is,

[2:13:16] is it really worth it to try and enforce all this?

[2:13:21] I mean, I I I could see where we could have things that we can enforce and some

[2:13:26] things are in here like noise, parking, um, some of those things without having

[2:13:33] to, you know, go into the house. I mean, sure, we can go into the house if they

[2:13:37] want a license. I'm just wondering how much it's going to cost for staff time

[2:13:42] to do all of this when it may be easier to maybe have higher dollar amounts and

[2:13:47] and and only focus on the kinds of things that we can point to and take a

[2:13:52] picture of and say, "Look, you've got five cars in your parking in your

[2:13:56] driveway and and you got a party in the back with 50 people." Uh those kinds of

[2:14:02] things we can we can monitor a lot easier. So, so just so for for I guess

[2:14:06] number one, I agree with you. I the main reason to create an ordinance like this

[2:14:10] in a city is to deal with house short-term rentals that come be could

[2:14:14] become a nuisance or or an issue. That's the idea behind it is having an active

[2:14:19] monitoring mechanism with parameters in place and expectations in place with how

[2:14:22] they operate. Um it's it's not a revenue generating tool. It is an administrative

[2:14:27] burden and that's one of the reasons why um staff presented a recommendation to

[2:14:32] council early this year to have this third party help us with this and staff

[2:14:36] was supportive of that. Um for clarification, are you suggesting that

[2:14:40] rather than having a system or an active monitoring mechanism, we address permits

[2:14:47] on a case-byase basis when we get a com when we get a complaint on a prospective

[2:14:51] short-term rental? >> You know, I don't know. I I I'm a big

[2:14:55] proponent of regulating in some way the uh short-term rentals. I know that it it

[2:15:02] can impact neighborhoods. It can impact higher cities um and countries that have

[2:15:08] so much air, you know, so much short-term rentals that kids in their

[2:15:14] 20s and 30s can't find a place to rent because it's much more, you know, much

[2:15:18] more um it's a a better investment for a home to turn it into short-term rental.

[2:15:23] So, I understand when you try and put 10 people into to a home that has three

[2:15:28] bedrooms. I've been in those homes and and they're really not that bad. And I

[2:15:32] mean, you're not expecting a Taj Mahal type home, but um I just I think this is

[2:15:38] going to be a big issue when the Olympics come and I think that we we

[2:15:43] need to address it some way. I just now I'm I'm more interested in what

[2:15:48] you're talking about as far as a third party doing this because I, you know, I

[2:15:51] think that's something that they're going to do it in a way that is

[2:15:56] profitable for them and that's going to give them a little more direction and

[2:16:00] we're not spending a lot of staff time on on these kinds of issues. And then

[2:16:04] the the other question I have for you is if somebody in in a lot of the other

[2:16:08] things that the ordinances that we have, there's always an appeal process. So, if

[2:16:14] someone comes through and says, "Wait a second. I I didn't have two bunk beds in

[2:16:19] that room, and you're charging me x amount of dollars." And does it then go

[2:16:23] I think in here talked about a um an appeal hearing person? Um, and then if

[2:16:31] if that if that hearing or that process is not satisfactory to the person who's

[2:16:38] bringing it forward, then it does it that does it then come to council and

[2:16:42] we're sitting there deciding these kinds of issues. At that point,

[2:16:46] what I would say is it would revert to the standard code enforcement process.

[2:16:50] It can't be remedied through this fine tier, which does include other remedies

[2:16:54] for addressing an issue. And sometimes these do resort to that. Um,

[2:17:00] so what I I guess I would what I would say just going through the the course of

[2:17:04] some of your points. Number one, I think that the idea behind utilizing this

[2:17:08] particular software product that I think is 16,000 a year is it automates it

[2:17:12] automates identifying, noticing, and monitoring rentals. That's the main um

[2:17:19] advantage of it and it takes most of the administrative burden off of it. the

[2:17:23] part the portion of the administrative burden it doesn't remove is having to in

[2:17:28] you know investigate a situation and then follow up on the violation part of

[2:17:33] it. I I think the the software is a good starting point for us to give a to to to

[2:17:39] begin the program and see what we have and then we can re you know revisit it

[2:17:43] in the future to to um evaluate if that if that is a good approach if that

[2:17:50] software is worth it or if we should retool. Um, and I also think that, you

[2:17:54] know, when we come back later, we'd probably also have a better perspective

[2:17:58] on if some of these fine amounts um need to be further tweaked. And and and I'm I

[2:18:03] certainly um, you know, I'm I agree with everything the council has said tonight,

[2:18:08] and I think adjusting a fine amount to be equal to the first tier or more of of

[2:18:13] the license makes a lot of sense. But, um, I do think we'll learn a lot that

[2:18:16] first year, and we'll be able to come back and and further evaluate. Um, and

[2:18:21] that answered my next question, which was when you say come back later, you're

[2:18:24] saying after it's in place for a year as opposed to coming back with some of the

[2:18:28] changes that we've talked about up here. We can make the changes now to the fine

[2:18:32] amounts. If the council would like, we can, you know, per whatever with your

[2:18:36] direction tonight, we can adjust the fine amounts to equal whatever you

[2:18:40] suggest. 250 for the first fine, 500 for the second fine, 700 750 for the third

[2:18:45] fine, or a different amount if you suggest a different amount. Um,

[2:18:49] » I really like the 1,00 2,000 5,000. >> That's fine. We can do that, too. We can

[2:18:55] do that, too. >> I want to be clear here. I I I

[2:18:58] appreciate the work that's gone into this. I think this is a

[2:19:03] an issue that has got a lot of a lot of issues with it, a lot of problems that I

[2:19:10] see going forward. And I think the easier we can make it to identify the

[2:19:16] issues we're finding them over and increasing the fine amounts that makes

[2:19:21] it a lot I think it makes it more palatable for me. Um I think we need

[2:19:26] something. So um again I I unlike ADUs this is a place where we can actually

[2:19:31] restrict parking. Correct. I mean we can we can say and and that's another

[2:19:36] question. If you have a home and an ADU, how does how does that play into it? If

[2:19:41] you're I'm sure if I'm a short-term rental person with a home, I'm going to

[2:19:46] put an ADU on there for sure and and now increase the amount of people and amount

[2:19:51] of cars that can can be in there. So, I don't know. I don't know what the

[2:19:55] answer is. We need something. Um >> Well, why don't we why don't we seek for

[2:20:00] a couple um points of clarification? So, let's start with

[2:20:05] Go ahead. I do want to mention um accessory dwelling units are not allowed

[2:20:08] to be used as short-term rentals per this ordinance.

[2:20:11] » Okay. >> Just wanted to mention that. Sorry.

[2:20:13] » Okay. >> No, thank you. No, that's okay.

[2:20:16] » All right. So, if we want to address the fines, let's um figure it out. What

[2:20:20] seems to be a reasonable fine that we would like to see here? Is it double so

[2:20:25] that it stings a little bit? So, if 250 is your license or are we seeking for

[2:20:30] compliance? For me, I would be seeking for compliance. So, I would think that

[2:20:34] the 250 would be reasonable. I get your point, though, you know, it's not

[2:20:38] really, you know, but I'm we're I think we're trying to to seek for compliance.

[2:20:42] So, for me, it'd be the same as um that first tier. And I would suggest 250,

[2:20:47] 500, and then a thousand because if you don't comply, I do like um Council

[2:20:52] Member Lara's discussion about 15 days. So, you get your initial warning, that's

[2:20:56] your 250, you don't pay it. your next one's 15 days later, we send you a

[2:21:00] notice, you're paying 500 on top of the 250 and then um kind of compounding from

[2:21:06] there. >> I I like either 350 or 500. And the

[2:21:11] reason I say that is because it's if somebody follows the the ordinance,

[2:21:17] » it's 250 for the license plus $100 for the inspection. So, they're out 350 to

[2:21:21] begin with. And so there's got to be a a in my head anyways a benefit to

[2:21:27] following the ordinance as opposed to not following. So that's why I would say

[2:21:30] 500 um and then 15 days to uh obtain your license.

[2:21:38] » Okay. >> You know, I um I look make an analogy

[2:21:43] here. Um when you're driving on the freeway and you see HOV lane, there's no

[2:21:47] one around to stop you from going in there. But when the sign says it's a

[2:21:51] $450 violation or $500 violation, I'm not I'm not gonna even think about it.

[2:21:57] So I think if we can if the fines are a deterrent because even atund 250, we're

[2:22:04] not we're not regulating how much they can charge for for a rental. So, they

[2:22:10] could charge a rental $ 1,500 for a night and then they have to pay a $250

[2:22:18] fine if they get caught. I I think I think if we don't have a

[2:22:24] fine structure that is a deterrent more than a cost savings or a co or a revenue

[2:22:31] I know it's not a revenue um process but I just um I think I' I don't know how

[2:22:38] I've never rented a short-term rental for less than $5 $600

[2:22:44] uh not a night but you know what I'm saying I

[2:22:47] » I do want to add I have had quite a bit of experience with this and the ones

[2:22:51] that tend to be nuisances tend to rely on booking many days of rentals. They

[2:22:57] they end up, you know, they're relying on continually booking out their rental.

[2:23:02] So, um I think you definitely and again, I'm not advocating for any particular

[2:23:07] dollar amount, but there is there's a lot of um ability the city has to ramp

[2:23:13] up fines quickly when there are repeated offenses, and we can validate them. I

[2:23:17] mean, they do happen during the week, too. It takes staff time and work, but

[2:23:20] it is something that can be validated. A >> and I'm okay with a small first one. I'm

[2:23:26] okay with $100 for the first one, but then it really needs to go up after that

[2:23:29] because the first one is like someone's like, "Well, oh, shoot. I didn't know

[2:23:33] about that." Um, and then they say, "Well, maybe I won't pay the hundred."

[2:23:36] Well, now it's 500 tomorrow. >> So, one suggestion might be 500 for the

[2:23:40] first offense, a thousand for the second, and 2,000 for the third. And

[2:23:43] each individual date, each individual offense constitutes a separate

[2:23:48] violation. >> What does the council think about that?

[2:23:50] » I'm good with that. >> Okay. Looks like we have an answer.

[2:23:54] You're good. >> All right. Check that one off the box.

[2:23:58] [laughter] >> I love checklists. Okay. What did we

[2:24:02] have?

[2:24:08] » Okay. So, I just want to make sure I understand the $500 fine. the initial

[2:24:13] fine when they're operating without a license is that 500 per day or 500 and

[2:24:19] then they have 15 days to get a license. >> I think the way I the way I the way I

[2:24:24] recommended it is 500 for the first offense which is day one,000

[2:24:29] for the second offense which is day two and and 2,000 for the third offense

[2:24:33] which is day three. Now, we don't have to apply it that way every time, but we

[2:24:37] have the ability to. And when there's a repeat offender, you know, it would ramp

[2:24:41] up to the 2,000 very quickly. >> I'm still good with a low first day be

[2:24:46] just because some people I mean, we talked about a grace period for new pe

[2:24:49] for new a short-term rentals, but short-term rentals that are in operation

[2:24:55] right now and maybe still we don't c we don't catch on to them until two or

[2:24:59] three months from now, they're probably still not under a grace period. But I

[2:25:03] think the $100 says, "Hey, you know, please don't do this again. It's only a

[2:25:07] hundred bucks this time." Um, if you if you plan to fix if you you know, make

[2:25:11] arrangements to fix it, it won't be 500 the next day. Um, but

[2:25:18] » Council Member Martinez, >> the only the only concern

[2:25:19] » and they will they will get noticed first. I just want to make sure you

[2:25:22] » Yeah, they're going to get a warning. Everyone get So, to be clear,

[2:25:25] everybody's getting a warning. Yes. >> And then you're coming into compliance.

[2:25:28] If you get a second notice, that is day one. That is your first fee.

[2:25:33] » I was under the impression that we would um so after the warning if you got the

[2:25:38] fine 500 and then I thought there'd be a 15 days to come and get it settled

[2:25:43] before it hits a thousand and and >> so the so the council did bring that up

[2:25:47] as an option. I'm in in practice though um and you we we could do that where we

[2:25:51] have 15 days in between violations. The only caveat is they could theoretically

[2:25:56] operate 15 days, book for 15 days, then get another violation, then operate for

[2:26:01] another 15 days, and then get the third violation.

[2:26:05] » 500 and then 100 days for every day they haven't come in.

[2:26:09] » And it would be it would be >> 500, a,000 2,000,

[2:26:13] » right? >> One, day, two, day, three. You got your

[2:26:15] warrant. They have already had a warning.

[2:26:16] » And in practice, we don't have to apply it as

[2:26:21] » $2,500 for a three-day run. We could give them, you know, if they ignore it

[2:26:26] the first time, we could give them $500 for the violation and then let them give

[2:26:30] them time to comply and then wait till the second to charge them the 2,000 to,

[2:26:34] excuse me, the the 1,000. But this gives the latitude if there's a really

[2:26:38] significant offense, for example, to apply a greater fine amount.

[2:26:42] » Well, to me, having the 500 in the beginning, to me, again, like I already

[2:26:48] stated, it's above what they're paying in the first place. So, that's your

[2:26:51] first deterrent. Plus the fact that it would to me it's more work on staff. If

[2:26:55] you keep it low, then they have to kind of keep going back and checking. But if

[2:26:59] they have a higher one or at least equal like a 500 one, then their chances of

[2:27:04] coming in and getting that taken care of is easier for staff to deal with and not

[2:27:08] having to keep following up and so forth. So,

[2:27:10] » and if you wanted a pause between it, you could you could say per um per

[2:27:15] booking instead of per day. But >> too much.

[2:27:20] » I mean, it to me it appears the city manager is recommending that we do it

[2:27:24] one, two, and three to give latitude um for us to then use it at our discretion

[2:27:31] essentially. But that puts it to the strictest if I'm

[2:27:34] » gives us the tool basket to do that. Yes.

[2:27:36] » Which is five 1,00200 >> 5 1,000 2000.

[2:27:41] » I'm okay with that latitude. The concern that I would have is

[2:27:46] homeowner A gets $5,000 fines in three days and homeowner B gets a th000. And

[2:27:53] so there's no consistency in regards to the fines. And that's where I would have

[2:27:57] a concern because then they're just arbitrary or they can be. I shouldn't

[2:28:01] say that they would be, but that's that would be my concern in that regard. the

[2:28:04] the code and the code right now has that is actually states similar language for

[2:28:09] a lot of a lot of offenses in the code a lot of nuisances and in practice the way

[2:28:13] it's applied is based off of you know there's a number of factors. So for

[2:28:17] example with short-term rentals maybe somebody's hosting a commercial wedding

[2:28:20] at their house and it lasts two days or three days and we've we've talked to

[2:28:24] them and they're still holding it. you know, that might be a situation where,

[2:28:28] you know, it's determined a greater, you know, more significant application is

[2:28:33] necessary, especially if we're validating every consecutive day. That's

[2:28:37] » well, and then I like the booking idea as well. So, however you think is the

[2:28:40] easiest way to be

[2:28:45] » and just so to be clear for someone who is following the rules, the initial fee

[2:28:51] is >> $500 after a warning.

[2:28:54] I'm saying they no warning. They're just they come in and they say, "Look at I

[2:28:58] don't want to deal with any of this. I'm going to follow the rules. The initial

[2:29:02] fee for the license, I guess, is >> $250 and $100 for the inspection

[2:29:07] » and then so it's 350 for the year." >> Mhm.

[2:29:10] » Okay. >> Correct.

[2:29:13] » Okay. Yes. I've got a concern that you these are absentee owners and if we try

[2:29:17] to do it per day, I would think nearly everyone's going to have a, you know,

[2:29:21] $3,000 or so by day two or three. Um that I I like the idea of a of a time

[2:29:27] frame in between those um you know, the fees, you know,

[2:29:32] increasing. Um so I think of maybe a bigger fee initially for not having the

[2:29:38] license. Um, but I think there needs to be a time frame in between. If you've

[2:29:43] got an absency owner that's on the other side of the country, depending on what

[2:29:46] time of day you contact them, they've already lost a day. Um, and so I think

[2:29:50] that we're getting to a point where then it's going to get everybody's going to

[2:29:54] be looking at really high fees and it's going to just not to say get out of

[2:29:58] hand, but it's going to get very expensive on them and they'll probably

[2:30:02] come back to say I responded as soon as I could and now I'm, you know, I would

[2:30:07] think a 48 or 72h hour response time would be reasonable for somebody, but

[2:30:12] then if they're looking at a $3,000 fine because it was the weekend or they were

[2:30:16] gone or family emergency or they were in Tahiti or whatever,

[2:30:19] that >> it it would be troublesome. So, I think

[2:30:23] that there should be a I like the idea of a 15 day window in between each each

[2:30:28] increase. >> Yeah. How are uh noise uh disturbances

[2:30:32] dealt with currently? So, if you get a fine for a noise disturbance and then

[2:30:36] you have it the following day, how do we currently rectify that issue? Is it day

[2:30:42] it's compounding? >> It's dependent on it's dependent on how

[2:30:44] the note that the it's served, the citation is served. So if it's served in

[2:30:48] person then it's it can be applied immediate then well usually there's a

[2:30:52] period there's a 15 period day period of correction if it's served in period in

[2:30:56] person and typically a 20-day if it's mailed. Um however there's a caveat in

[2:31:01] the code that if it has to do with health safety and welfare you can apply

[2:31:05] it immediately. So, you know, and and if you want to be

[2:31:09] consistent with that and based off the council's comments, then then you you

[2:31:13] could you could add a 15-day, especially considering a lot of these probably

[2:31:17] would be mailed. >> In the ordinance, they are required to

[2:31:20] have somebody that's responsible 247 and that person be the one that pays the fee

[2:31:25] if an owner is >> on the ball is going to have that person

[2:31:29] be able to take care of that. So, I think that that's on on the owner to to

[2:31:32] make sure that that happens. >> Okay. So, um,

[2:31:37] » one more comment, please. >> Yeah.

[2:31:39] » Um, this is a first reading, right? >> Yeah.

[2:31:42] » I think there's too many unknowns and too many different ideas up here that we

[2:31:49] should bring it back for another, you know, you you take into account what

[2:31:53] we're what we're talking about. Try and find something that sort of addresses

[2:31:56] what we're concerned with and then we bring it back for the next one as

[2:32:00] opposed to approving anything tonight. >> Can we narrow down the concerns first?

[2:32:04] So, I'm I know it's the fees. What are the other concerns?

[2:32:07] » I think we've voiced all the concerns and I think you you guys normally what

[2:32:10] you do is you go back and review the video and and and look at I think you

[2:32:14] have a good sense of where we're coming from. We're not in that kind of a hurry.

[2:32:19] I mean, there's nothing urgent that makes us have to move forward with this

[2:32:22] tonight without getting some of our concerns answered. Maybe you won't

[2:32:27] answer the concerns of each one of us. But if if you put it more in a way that

[2:32:31] that I'm I know what I'm voting on right now, I don't really know what I'm voting

[2:32:35] on because even if we give you a list of of things that you're going to put into

[2:32:39] this and it comes back for a second reading and we're at the point now where

[2:32:42] we need to approve it or or start over, that's my that's my concern and that's I

[2:32:47] would >> I would like I don't want to table it.

[2:32:49] If if I need to table it, I'll make that motion. But I think just bring we can

[2:32:53] address that in a second reading, can't we? No, we I and and I concur. I think

[2:32:57] based off of some of the comments, especially if we're adding um the gap in

[2:33:01] there, it would be good for us to have some additional time to work on the

[2:33:04] language. So, I would I would say continue it to the first meeting in

[2:33:07] October and we can bring it back to you with some revised language. Okay.

[2:33:11] » So, not just as a second reading. You'd like to continue this first meeting.

[2:33:14] » First reading, correct? >> So, I will move to continue this to the

[2:33:17] first meeting in October. >> I'll second.

[2:33:20] » All right. Can I get a roll call, please?

[2:33:22] » Council member Laura? >> Yes.

[2:33:23] » Council member Finn. Yes. >> Council member Martinez.

[2:33:26] » Yes. >> Mayor Prom White.

[2:33:28] » Yes. >> Mayor Voy.

[2:33:29] » Yes. >> All right. Well, we will go on to our

[2:33:33] next public hearing. Ebikes and e-conveyance ordinance. Also, a staff

[2:33:37] report by Mr. Usher.

[2:33:58] Good evening, mayor and city council. The items on the dis are the corrected

[2:34:03] versions with this uh ordinance. They're just adjustments in the formatting.

[2:34:08] » So there's no adjustments or changes to the to the fine amounts. It's just the

[2:34:11] formatting. >> Got it.

[2:34:17] So tonight, council's first review of a comprehensive local ordinance addressing

[2:34:22] bicycles, ebikes, e scooters, and other electric conveyances. Staff is asking

[2:34:27] council to review this ordinance, adopt the fee related schedule, and establish

[2:34:32] a clear framework for how these devices may be operated and forced within the

[2:34:37] city.

[2:34:41] So why this ordinance is needed? Now, the use of ebikes, e- scooters, and

[2:34:46] similar devices has increased significantly both for transportation

[2:34:50] and recreation. With that growth, staff has seen more concerns involving

[2:34:54] excessive speed, reckless riding, conflicts with pedestrian and motorists,

[2:34:59] and the use of motorized devices in parks and other areas that were not

[2:35:03] designated for this specific activity. We're also seeing high-powered electric

[2:35:08] scooters off off the highway and sometimes even driven on sidewalks,

[2:35:13] which does not fit neatly within the rules most residents associate with

[2:35:16] traditional ebikes. The purpose of this ordinance to give riders, parents, and

[2:35:21] enforcement staff one clear set of operational standards.

[2:35:29] The ordinance focused primarily on unsafe operation where these devices can

[2:35:33] be used. It prohibits riding against traffic, unsafe passengers, racing,

[2:35:38] stunts, willies around pedestrians or vehicles, distracted riding, operating

[2:35:43] without required lighting or helmet, and operating on sidewalks or unnecessary or

[2:35:49] prohibited areas. Sidewalk riding would be limited to 5 mph or a lower speed

[2:35:54] when conditions require it, and riders must yield when entering sidewalks or

[2:35:59] roadways. E-conveyances would also be prohibited in city parks, recreation

[2:36:04] areas, athletic fields, landscaped areas, or similarly public spaces unless

[2:36:09] the city specifically designates those areas for that use.

[2:36:17] So, the ordinance also specifically addresses electric offhighway

[2:36:21] motorcycles. Unless they are lawfully manufactured and registered for

[2:36:25] onhighway use, they would not be permitted on public streets, sidewalks,

[2:36:29] parks, paths, or trails. The ordinance preserves ADA mobility devices use and

[2:36:34] exempt for first responders performing official duties. Helmet requirements are

[2:36:39] already within the code, which is why it's not mentioned specifically in this

[2:36:42] code. For minors, a parent or guardian may be

[2:36:46] held responsible for these violations, and limited empoundment authority would

[2:36:50] be allowed if a device is to be taken for safekeeping when an unaccompanied

[2:36:54] minor is operating in a manner that creates an immediate danger for

[2:36:57] themselves or the public. The proposed penalties on the screen, as

[2:37:02] you can see, for first violation offense of any violation of this code is $500.

[2:37:09] And there's an error supposed to be 2,000, not 200. The second violation is

[2:37:14] a thousand and the third violation is 2,000. That is correct in the ordinance,

[2:37:18] just not on the presentation. So there is a comparison with the city

[2:37:22] of Akypo, which is what we heavily base this ordinance on where every violation

[2:37:26] is a $2,000 fine. Now the city of Meny, they have similar to our standard

[2:37:31] administrative citation, which is a $100, $200, and $500 tiered amount

[2:37:36] citation.

[2:37:42] So this ordinance is intended to provide a meaningful enforcement tool, but

[2:37:46] education and clear notice are also important. Community services and staff

[2:37:50] plan to update park signage after adoption, and the city manager or their

[2:37:54] designate would have the authority to designate additional no dismount or

[2:37:59] restricted areas within the within the city specifically to address any safety

[2:38:03] concerns. Staff recommends that the city council wave the first reading, adopt

[2:38:08] the resolution, and return and staff will return with the ordinance for a

[2:38:12] second reading at the next available council meeting. The goal of this is not

[2:38:15] to discourage ebike use. Is to create predictable rules so these devices can

[2:38:20] be used safely and responsibly without creating unnecessary conflicts in the

[2:38:24] streets, sidewalk, parks, or other public areas. That concludes my

[2:38:28] presentation and staff's available for any questions. I I just want to add to

[2:38:31] there actually is one mention of helmets under 10390205.

[2:38:36] It refers to chapter 10.35 and actually we're recommending that

[2:38:40] that that um a subsection 5 be removed um just because it's duplicative and

[2:38:48] already in in chapter 10.35 of the municipal code which is our helmet

[2:38:53] ordinance. We don't feel like it it needs to be um restated twice.

[2:39:01] And also um the helmet issue is already covered in our existing ordinance and

[2:39:08] it's also raised again in 1039050 BNC. So we'd recommend approving it with

[2:39:14] those provisions deleted because we feel like it's adequately covered.

[2:39:24] All right. Thank you. I will open up the public hearing at 7:31. Do we have any

[2:39:29] public comments?

[2:39:33] » I have no written requests. Simone, do we have any callers on the line?

[2:39:36] » We have no callers at this time. >> All right. I will close the public

[2:39:41] hearing at 7:31 and open it up for council discussion. Council member Lara.

[2:39:47] » Thank you, Mayor. Um, I had brought this up last year, so just want to thank

[2:39:51] staff for getting on this so quickly. And my concern at that time was I was

[2:39:55] coaching little kids on the soccer team and they were we were in the park

[2:39:59] practicing and it was a bunch of ebikes turn terrorizing the uh the park. Um,

[2:40:06] since then though there's been a lot of ebike issues in regards to accidents,

[2:40:12] hospitalization as a result of those accidents, kids riding. I mean, you see

[2:40:16] them riding all through the town without helmets and uh and they're traveling at

[2:40:20] a high rate of speed. It just so I it's it's good that we've got this. I think

[2:40:25] the timing is is right. Um as a the school leaison, I did reach out to the

[2:40:31] school district because I think we need to I really like the ordinance and I

[2:40:35] think I'd like to try to obviously if council agrees to partner with the

[2:40:40] school district on a educ some type of an education campaign for this

[2:40:44] ordinance. um and and if possible to do some type

[2:40:49] of training for these uh kids that are using these ebikes because they they

[2:40:55] they go a lot faster than they appear. Um I got on one and haven't been on one

[2:41:00] since. So um that could be just cuz I'm old, but I don't you know I don't want

[2:41:04] to go that going down that road. But I think this timing is perfect. I

[2:41:07] appreciate the efforts that have been put forth by staff. Um I like the

[2:41:11] ordinance. I just want to make sure that we get that word out and let folks know

[2:41:14] that there is a ordinance that we have that we're looking at. Thank you, Mayor.

[2:41:20] » Absolutely. Uh, Council Member Fen. >> Uh, yes. Thank you, Mayor. Um, so I know

[2:41:25] that there's some legislation that's being proposed or maybe even recently

[2:41:30] signed in reference to um, ebikes and so forth at the state level. Is there

[2:41:35] anything that in process on that that would impact what we're trying to do

[2:41:39] tonight? So, I have a ledge update coming next

[2:41:43] council meeting that will address those concerns. However, there are a few

[2:41:47] bills. I think it's about four or five bills that address it. Some do include

[2:41:51] education. Some include speeds and even the types of vehicles that are allowed

[2:41:54] to travel based on the speed that they have. So, if a vehicle is in excess of a

[2:41:59] certain speed, then it requires educational and then the state will then

[2:42:03] come out with how we're supposed to enforce that and the time frame for it.

[2:42:06] But, I'll have more information during the ledge update on the 15th. Okay.

[2:42:10] Thank you. >> Piggybacking on that just a little bit,

[2:42:14] do you feel confident that this ordinance will meet those if any of

[2:42:17] those do pass or get signed into law? >> Yes. So, drafting this ordinance, we had

[2:42:21] it in mind that these were going to pass due to in contact with our legislative

[2:42:25] consultant. All these bills have been flying through the committees. So, none

[2:42:28] of them look like they won't pass, but we've made sure that the ordinance is

[2:42:31] compliant with those bills, making sure that if they do pass, we wouldn't have

[2:42:35] to change anything. >> Okay, great. Thank you, Mayor Prom. Uh,

[2:42:39] first of all, I I like Mr. Lara's idea. I think partnering with the school

[2:42:44] because I think who we really have to reach are the parents who are going to

[2:42:47] have to pay these fines. Um, my question here is in in the definitions you talk

[2:42:53] about um where is it? It's an offhighway

[2:42:57] motorcycle. We're talking about an electric vehicle that drives as fast as

[2:43:02] a motorcycle or we are actually talking about mo gas gas motorcycles.

[2:43:08] So all this is in related to specifically to electric vehicles. Now

[2:43:12] there are electric motorcycles that go just as fast 60 mi or even higher. And

[2:43:17] so the whole point of this is specifically is some of those are ridden

[2:43:21] off on the sidewalks on the side of the street and in parks in some instances.

[2:43:26] So it's in hopes to regulate those specific vehicles. Um I have two

[2:43:30] concerns. Uh number one is I think uh Mr. Finn can attest to this, but you

[2:43:37] drive up and down or go for a walk on um Oak View

[2:43:42] » Oak View and there are gas motorcycles going on the sidewalks. Do we have an

[2:43:47] ordinance for that? Do we have a way to, you know, to penalize that?

[2:43:52] » Yep. So, that falls under the vehicle code and what's allowed on on streets

[2:43:56] and highways. Um this further refineses that. So, offhighway vehicles as defined

[2:44:01] from here would be essentially a bike without pedals. It's a motorcycle, an

[2:44:05] electric motorcycle. So, there's vehicle code, California vehicle code

[2:44:09] definitions for this. And I'm happy to call um Chief or his design up to

[2:44:13] » because my, you know, my concern is um especially with what you guys just said

[2:44:18] um is that gas driven motorcycles um are a vehicle violation, which means

[2:44:27] the police are involved. are they involved with electric bikes or is that

[2:44:32] something that a that a citizen can can file a complaint? Um and then the other

[2:44:38] question I have is there is an area right in front of um my my development

[2:44:45] where I live in Stson. It's a goodiz area that is a

[2:44:50] required natural um natural area the city owns and maintains. Um, and it's

[2:44:57] turning into a motorcycle track because the kids are going out there both with

[2:45:02] ebikes and with ga mainly gas motorcycle and they're not kids. They're in their,

[2:45:07] you know, I would call them kids, but they're adults.

[2:45:10] » Oh, so they're my age. >> No. [laughter]

[2:45:16] » Uh, thanks. >> Sorry.

[2:45:18] » Thanks. >> I could get I couldn't. But if we're not

[2:45:22] addressing that um here I know that in here it talks about uh these vehicles

[2:45:27] cannot these rules and restrictions are based on being on city rightaway

[2:45:33] property. Um and so again I just wonder if if there's not a way to to make this

[2:45:38] apply to uh kids on on motorcycles because they're all over Oakland or Oak

[2:45:46] View. Yeah. So anyways, that's just my two cents.

[2:45:52] » Yeah, just to address if the question is is yeah, the those that are riding in

[2:45:56] the field as well as on um city manager said when it comes to the gas uh

[2:46:01] motorcycles, we yeah, anything on the roadway has to meet the same as the DMV

[2:46:05] for blinkers, for you know, brake lights and so on so forth. So, we have that

[2:46:09] ability to um they would have to have a license that meet the requirements as

[2:46:15] well as have a valid driver's license. We can sign them for that. Impound the

[2:46:19] motorcycle, impound the vehicle. And we do that as well with some of the e-

[2:46:24] motorcycles um as well that uh as Miss Rusher mentioned when it comes to the um

[2:46:31] that do reach up to that 60 plus mile an hour and treat them as as vehicles on

[2:46:36] the roadway and have to have licenses accordingly. So the ordinance would

[2:46:39] strengthen that or give us another option to enforce um when it comes to um

[2:46:44] it's nice to have multiple options out there and hold accountability. Sometimes

[2:46:47] at the local side we have that more in our grasp to uh deal with than through

[2:46:53] maybe the court system. So it gives gives options.

[2:46:57] » Okay. Um okay. Thank you.

[2:47:00] » Does that Okay. >> I too want to I just thank you. I think

[2:47:04] this adds to the tool in the tool box that we have to enforce some of these

[2:47:08] things. Um we have a a local neighbor that rides up and down the street doing

[2:47:12] wheelies every day and I think Addison screams and yells at him every time.

[2:47:16] you're going to die. Um because she too is concerned for this uh kid as well. Um

[2:47:22] additionally, I think that the education campaign if we could coordinate through

[2:47:25] the PIO and communications office I think would be absolutely vital

[2:47:29] specifically for the younger generation um who are writing these that maybe

[2:47:34] they're writing them when their parents aren't home or are working um and they

[2:47:37] don't even know that their kids are on them uh out during those time frames. So

[2:47:40] um thank you for the work on this. I think that it um you know the goal is

[2:47:44] compliance once again and not revenue and that it is a true public safety

[2:47:48] concern. Um I am back in the hospital now as a nurse and I can't tell you how

[2:47:52] many of these um I mean we call them auto versus auto at this point, right?

[2:47:57] Or auto they're not auto peds um because it's not hitting a pedestrian. This is

[2:48:01] truly an auto versus auto uh traffic collision for us now with the impacts

[2:48:05] and they have much less um protective gear on um and the speeds are

[2:48:10] essentially the same. So, the injuries um are significant. So, um I truly thank

[2:48:15] you guys for the work that's gone into this because I know that it was

[2:48:18] collaborative. So, with that, if there's no further

[2:48:22] comments or no changes, um I will move to wave the full reading

[2:48:28] um and adopt the recommended action. >> I'll second.

[2:48:32] » All right. Can I get a roll call, please?

[2:48:34] » Council member Laura, >> yes.

[2:48:35] » Council member Finn, >> yes.

[2:48:37] » Council member Martinez, >> yes.

[2:48:38] » Mayor Prom White, >> yes. Moroy.

[2:48:41] » Yes. All right. That takes us to our action

[2:48:46] items and we will be moving on to item J1, memorandum of understanding with the

[2:48:51] Bowmont Chamber of Commerce for fiscal year 2627 sponsorships and determination

[2:48:57] uh that the sponsorships provide a public benefit. And for that we have a

[2:49:02] staff report by Julie

[2:49:07] and Laura. >> Good evening council. Um I do that every

[2:49:10] time and um actually Laurel will be joining too um for tonight's

[2:49:15] presentation. So before you is anou between the city and the Bowmont Chamber

[2:49:19] of Commerce and in the audience today we have executive director Crystal Leaper

[2:49:24] with us um here tonight to support um theou in front of you is just under

[2:49:29] 40,000. Um it was actually um the amount was already approved in your budget

[2:49:34] allocation back in June. The agreement itself before you is just

[2:49:40] um to establish a framework uh between the city and the chamber with a primary

[2:49:44] focus on planning and presenting the 2026 state of the city. The um how theou

[2:49:50] is written the chamber will take lead on hosting and supporting this year's event

[2:49:55] um which includes a couple things such as collaboration on the event

[2:49:58] production, some marketing and collaboration here with the city as well

[2:50:02] as engagement and with our business community.

[2:50:06] the city will provide some leadership content um highlighting accomplishments,

[2:50:11] video um production um information on our current projects, programs, and

[2:50:15] future initiatives to name a few. So um the other half of the the agreement also

[2:50:22] provides a structure for other community and business initiatives um throughout

[2:50:27] the year that we do with the chamber. And so at this point, I'm going to hand

[2:50:30] it over to Laura to talk a little bit about that.

[2:50:36] Good evening, mayor and council. Thank you. So, as Julie said, the main focus

[2:50:40] of thisou agreement is um regarding the state of the city event coming up.

[2:50:46] That's $30,000 of the proposed $37,350.

[2:50:52] The remaining $7,350 of thisou agreement covers other

[2:50:58] events that we traditionally do in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce

[2:51:01] throughout the year. Those are listed on the final page of exhibit A in your

[2:51:05] packet and they include the uh one sponsorship of a good Morning Bowont

[2:51:10] breakfast at $300. The communitywide business egg hunt sponsorship which is

[2:51:15] an event that the chamber organizes and the city supports that gets the

[2:51:19] community going out and visiting different businesses all throughout the

[2:51:22] city. And that we split the cost of in half. So, it's estimated that that costs

[2:51:29] about will cost about $700 this year. And then the chamber's annual

[2:51:34] recognition night, the city has traditionally provided whatever the top

[2:51:38] level sponsorship. And on some of these, you'll see a range. This says 3500 up to

[2:51:42] $5,000. That's because the chamber has recognized that some of their

[2:51:46] sponsorship prices need to increase a little bit this year because the cost of

[2:51:50] putting on events has gone up quite dramatically. So, so the first numbers

[2:51:54] there that you're seeing are kind of what they've historically been, but the

[2:51:57] projected new amounts for this year are those higher higher numbers. And then

[2:52:02] the final one is our chamber sustaining membership, which we get lots of great

[2:52:06] recognition for at $1350. So those those events combined make up

[2:52:11] the remainder of this amount. And in total, as Julie said, it all falls well

[2:52:16] under the initial $40,000 that was allocated in the budget. Um, so we are

[2:52:22] happy to answer any questions. Either Julie, myself, or Crystal.

[2:52:26] » All right. Great. Thank you. >> All right. Do we have any public comment

[2:52:30] on this item? >> I have no written requests. Simone, do

[2:52:33] we have any callers on the line? >> We have no callers at this time.

[2:52:37] » Okay. We will open it up for council discussion.

[2:52:42] All right. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion.

[2:52:47] Mayor, I'll make a motion to move and approve the memorandum of understanding

[2:52:50] between the city of Bumont and the Bowmont Chamber of Commerce authorizing

[2:52:54] sponsorships for fiscal year 2627 and further determine that the sponsorship

[2:52:58] provide a public benefit because the help support they help support and

[2:53:04] further local businesses within the community.

[2:53:07] » I'll second. >> All right. Can I get a roll call,

[2:53:09] please? >> Council member Laura,

[2:53:11] » yes. >> Council member Finn,

[2:53:12] » yes. >> Council member Martinez,

[2:53:14] » yes. Mayor Prom White, >> yes.

[2:53:16] » Mayor Voy, >> yes.

[2:53:19] » All right. Thank you. And that will take us to J2.

[2:53:24] Consideration of a relocation agreement between the city of Bowmont and Lamar

[2:53:28] Advertising Company. And uh Mr. Steven Jones.

[2:53:32] » Yes. Good evening, your honor. Again, thank you. Mayor Pro Tim and council

[2:53:34] members, assistant planner Kylie Presiato will briefly present key

[2:53:38] details for tonight's council consideration of a proposed relocation

[2:53:42] agreement. Miss Braciato. >> Good evening, council members and mayor.

[2:53:46] Kylie Brciato, planning staff. The item before you tonight is a request to

[2:53:50] review and consider the resolution in the billboard relocation agreement

[2:53:53] between the city of Bowmont and Lamore Central Outdoor LLC.

[2:53:58] The project was approved pending a relocation agreement with terms that are

[2:54:02] agreeable to the city. The proposed relocation agreement is subject to the

[2:54:06] council's discretion regarding parameters. The request is to convert

[2:54:09] the southern face of the existing static billboard located at 174 Bowmont Avenue

[2:54:14] to an electronic billboard with a digital display. Lamar Outdoor Palm

[2:54:18] Springs limited a sign permit application to the city prior to the

[2:54:21] draft billboard ordinance. Therefore, the application is not subject to

[2:54:25] pending regulations. The existing static billboard was originally constructed in

[2:54:29] 1989, but in March 2007, the city passed provisions prohibiting billboards making

[2:54:35] the billboard non-conforming. On July 22nd, 2026, the planning

[2:54:40] commission unanimously approved the billboard.

[2:54:43] The existing billboard is located in the community commercial zone and has a

[2:54:47] general land use designation of general commercial. The billboard policy in the

[2:54:52] Bowmont Municipal Code allows existing billboards to be relocated through a

[2:54:55] relocation agreement with the city. The proposed project would deconstruct

[2:55:01] and remove the existing south-facing billboard face and construct a new

[2:55:05] electronic billboard in the same location with a slight change in

[2:55:08] orientation. The north face is proposed to remain static, but the south facing

[2:55:12] display would be converted to a digital display measuring 9 ft 8.25 in by 32 ft

[2:55:18] and maintain an overall height of 28 ft 10 in. The applicant also proposes to

[2:55:24] install a decorative support pole that incorporates city of Bowmont

[2:55:27] identification. The proposed relocation is subject to

[2:55:32] council's discretion for parameters. The staff recommends that city council

[2:55:36] review and consider the resolution and relocation agreement and if terms are

[2:55:40] not agreeable, direct staff to make findings for subsequent council action.

[2:55:46] This concludes my presentation. We are happy to answer any questions that you

[2:55:50] might have. All right, thank you for that. Do we

[2:55:54] have any public comments related to this item?

[2:55:56] » Yes, I do. I have a couple in person. >> Uh, first one is last name of Fiser.

[2:56:03] [snorts]

[2:56:11] Oh, I see.

[2:56:15] » Um, Mayor Voit, uh, Mayor Pon White, members of the council, my name is Ethan

[2:56:20] Fischer and I'm from AMG Outdoor Advertising. We would urge the council

[2:56:25] to reject the relocation agreement. Um, we understand that the planning

[2:56:29] commission next week is going to be considering a um a uh comprehensive

[2:56:35] ordinance to regulate all digital signage. And uh we feel that you should

[2:56:39] establish a co coherent policy governing the number location, concentration of

[2:56:44] digital billboards before allowing additional conversions. Um we spoke

[2:56:48] about the signs being illegal non-conforming. Uh once these signs are

[2:56:51] up, they're impossible to get down. The the city's got to pay pay to get them

[2:56:55] down. We're concerned because we're spending about a million dollars to

[2:56:59] construct a welcome to Bumont sign on the 10 freeway that's supposed to reach

[2:57:04] 140,000 140,000 cars a day and try to bring people into the city to shop,

[2:57:09] shop, and spend money here. Um, there is a limited advertising market and the

[2:57:15] investment we're making requires that we be able to sell advertising at certain

[2:57:19] rates. Lamar is one of the largest companies in the country. They have

[2:57:23] signs in 45 states. I think they haveund uh let's see actually

[2:57:29] 360,000 signs across the United States and in Canada. Uh this is a minor deal

[2:57:35] for them. This is a major deal for AMG. We're a local company. Uh this is a uh

[2:57:40] sign we're we care about. We're going to maintain. We're going to try to promote

[2:57:44] the city. We're going to offer discounts to local businesses when we have this

[2:57:48] kind of competition. And we're not we're not uh concerned so much about fair

[2:57:53] competition, but this is going to be oversaturation. There's only these you

[2:57:57] have to remember these signs. Each one of these signs has eight slides on it.

[2:58:01] So this one sign becomes effectively eight signs on one side and the static

[2:58:06] sign remains one sign. So you're adding you're adding eight additional signs,

[2:58:11] seven additional signs to the city. Uh the air the advertising traffic in there

[2:58:16] already can't support this. So, it's going to mean that we're going to have

[2:58:19] less money for maintenance, less money to um provide discounts for local

[2:58:23] businesses and free advertising to the city. And just generally, it's not it's

[2:58:28] not a good idea. What you want to have is you want recognition of Bowmont. You

[2:58:32] want people driving through here to know that they're in Bowmont and to want to

[2:58:36] stop here. You don't want saturation, oversaturation of these signs. Um, in

[2:58:41] particular, we want the planning commission to consider the the how much

[2:58:44] light pollution you want, how how much of these these glowing signs you want at

[2:58:48] night. One sign is a nice nice feature to tell people where they are, but you

[2:58:53] don't want a forest of these things. We've encountered this sort of thing in

[2:58:56] other cities and it just is not it's not economically viable. It the South Bay

[2:59:01] curve in Los Angeles or in Long Beach area is a good example. It's just run

[2:59:05] down because there's no money for the advertising and the structures are not

[2:59:09] maintained and so forth. If I have any if there are any questions, I'd be happy

[2:59:12] to answer it. >> Thank you.

[2:59:14] » Thank you.

[2:59:18] » I have one more speaker, uh, Lesie Lockin.

[2:59:28] » Good evening, honorable mayor and council members. It's good to see you

[2:59:31] all again. Um Lamar, first of all, I want to

[2:59:35] respectfully disagree with uh the comments ahead of of mine or or what I

[2:59:41] have to say. Um fair care competition is something that exists in every market

[2:59:47] and um one comment I want to address is the uh oversaturation.

[2:59:54] um this would be a second digital billboard and I would not consider that

[2:59:59] oversaturation um of digital billboards. The

[3:00:04] location that we proposed is a gateway to the city and we we feel that we chose

[3:00:10] this location because of the gateway to the city and the benefit that it has to

[3:00:15] the city with the decorative sign and the identification welcome to Bowmont.

[3:00:21] Um, my comments are to address the alternative recommended by staff or

[3:00:28] suggested [snorts] by staff. Lamar respectfully asks council to approve

[3:00:32] plan 2026-0042 as recommended by staff and by the

[3:00:38] planning commission without imposing the takedown alternative described on the

[3:00:42] last page of the staff report. The alternative should not be adopted for

[3:00:46] four reasons and with legal input provided by our council as follows.

[3:00:51] First, the al alternative is inconsistent with the very draft

[3:00:55] ordinance it references. The draft DBOD ordinance under council's consideration

[3:01:00] would require a 3:1 takedown ratio only for new digital billboards approved by a

[3:01:06] major sign permit within the Bowmont Freeway digital billboard overlay

[3:01:11] district along Interstate 10 or State Route 60. The Mr. Taco site is on State

[3:01:18] Route 79 and is not within the proposed overlay. More fundamentally, the draft

[3:01:24] ordinance expressly accepts from the 3:1 ratio any project authorized through a

[3:01:30] relocation agreement under section 17C 08040

[3:01:36] M2, which is exactly the path Mr. Taco

[3:01:40] follows. Even if the draft ordinance were adopted tomorrow, it would not

[3:01:44] require a 3:1 takedown for this project. Second, applying an unadopted ordinance

[3:01:50] to a pending application is contr contrary to California law and to basic

[3:01:55] fairness under settled California land use principles and applicants rights are

[3:02:00] determined by the ordinances in effect when the complete applica application is

[3:02:04] filed. Lamar submitted its complete application in March 2026 and staff has

[3:02:11] expressly determined in the staff report before council today that the subject

[3:02:16] application has been evaluated under and is consistent with the city's existing

[3:02:21] regulations. The alternative will layer on a requirement that staff in its own

[3:02:26] professional judgment did not find necessary or applicable under the rules

[3:02:30] that actually govern. Third, Lamar has been working on this

[3:02:35] project with the city since 2024 in reliance on the rules then and now in

[3:02:39] effect. Through Lamar's initial inquiry in 2024,

[3:02:45] I received an email confirmation from the city that this location would be

[3:02:50] acceptable and that Lamar could move forward. Since that time, Lamar has

[3:02:54] expended substantial time, resources, including engineering, application fees,

[3:02:59] entitlement work, and attorney work. Changing the rules at the final approval

[3:03:04] stage based on an ordinance that has not been adopted undermines any applicant's

[3:03:09] ability to rely on published city codes. Fourth, the alternative would establish

[3:03:15] a precedent that harms every future applicant in Bowmont. If council can

[3:03:20] impose the terms of an unadopted ordinance on pending fully vetted

[3:03:25] applications, no applicant can plan, invest, or process a project through

[3:03:30] Bumont with any confidence in the standards that will actually govern

[3:03:34] approval. The city's own interest in an orderly and predictable entitlement

[3:03:39] process cuts strongly against this alternative.

[3:03:43] We are prepared to move forward immediately and with the modernization

[3:03:47] of this site as discussed and we believe this agreement represents a balanced

[3:03:52] reasonable path forward for both Lamar and the city.

[3:03:57] Lamar respectfully requests approval as recommended by staff and by the planning

[3:04:02] commission. Thank you for your consideration.

[3:04:09] Simone, do we have any callers on the line?

[3:04:13] We have no callers at this time. >> Okay. Very good. I will open it up for

[3:04:18] council discussion. [clears throat]

[3:04:23] » Council member Fen. >> U Mayor U. I have a point of order

[3:04:27] question. Could we give uh Mr. Ethan Fischer another minute or two to

[3:04:31] respond? Um given that Lesie went over the three minutes.

[3:04:37] » Yeah, we can. >> Thank you.

[3:04:39] Um I would just point out that uh this is a discretionary action by the

[3:04:44] council. Uh there's no there's no issue that uh Lamar's relied upon laws in

[3:04:49] place. The law in place says that the council can approve or disapprove. It's

[3:04:53] entirely discretionary. Um again Lamar has built for example a bunch of bunch

[3:04:59] of these signs on the 91 freeway. We're aware because we have other operators

[3:05:03] out there that the sign advertising rates have plummeted to about $2,000 per

[3:05:08] slide, which is not viable. The signs can't can't maintain and the other

[3:05:12] companies are going out of business. This is the equivalent of letting Costco

[3:05:15] come in and driving out smaller businesses. Uh this is a major major

[3:05:19] investment for AMG. Lamar's not even putting up two two sides. They're

[3:05:23] spending a little bit of money to modernize one side because this is not

[3:05:27] this is only a dot on a on a national map for them. this we we is a Southern

[3:05:32] California company. We're in Corona and we have a limited number of signs in

[3:05:37] premier locations that we we've for example put one in uh banning and we've

[3:05:42] we've invested a great deal in the land empire and it's important to us uh far

[3:05:46] more important as a local company than a national company. Uh this is not about

[3:05:50] competition. This is about a controlled growth. The city is going to put one

[3:05:54] large welcome to a bowont sign on the 10 freeway the major entrance to the city.

[3:05:58] uh other other growth should be planned and if this if the planning commission

[3:06:02] is going to put come up with an overall overall uh idea of how many signs you

[3:06:06] want because you can't get rid of these again you have bill you have static

[3:06:10] billboards in the in town and I'm sure you would get rid of those if you could

[3:06:13] but you can't and you're going to end up with a situation if you do this peace

[3:06:17] meal where you've got digital signs where you don't want them night

[3:06:21] » okay thank you all right council member Laurara

[3:06:26] » thank you mayor Um so just just to verify this um relocation agreement is a

[3:06:33] discretionary action. Correct. >> Yes, that's correct.

[3:06:38] » Okay. Um so ju just a a couple things. One is I'd

[3:06:44] like because I believe Lamar has reviewed the draft ordinance. Um Mr.

[3:06:49] Fischer, have you had an opportunity to review the draft ordinance as well? I

[3:06:53] just would suggest that you do that. We would appreciate any input you have uh

[3:06:57] just as well as any other billboard uh company.

[3:07:01] » Thank you. >> Um

[3:07:04] I mayor pro Tim White had brought up a a

[3:07:08] point early on when we that we first started discussing this which was the

[3:07:12] option for potential revenue sharing of electronic billboards. Um, I would like

[3:07:19] staff to consider that. Um, work with the developer to see if that's something

[3:07:24] that they would be interested in. Um, I do think that the removal of at least

[3:07:29] three static signs or something else that the developer would agree to would

[3:07:32] be something we could work on. Um, I I like the sign, but I would like to see

[3:07:39] something a little bit more monument type style that is coming into Bulmont.

[3:07:44] It is the only sign coming in off the 79. So, I like the direction they're

[3:07:48] going, but I would just like to see maybe something a little bit um

[3:07:53] more stylish, I guess I would say. Um and those would be the the things that I

[3:08:00] would like and the staff to give an up to give staff an opportunity to discuss

[3:08:04] with the developer. Thank you, Mayor. >> Sure. Mayor Promip.

[3:08:08] » Um wow. Um, I've been working on this for five, six

[3:08:14] years trying to get a movement towards more billboard signs or I'm sorry,

[3:08:19] digital signs. And I think one of the issues as as Mr. Laura just brought up

[3:08:23] is is the ability to uh to share revenue. I know that that's happening in

[3:08:30] other cities. Um, and I think but at the same time, you know, he brings up my

[3:08:36] argument that now it makes sense the revenue. I'm going to bring up his

[3:08:40] argument which was that we [clears throat] believed that

[3:08:47] Let me back up for a second. What does our ordinance say now? Because my

[3:08:51] understanding is for years we had an ordinance no billboard signs or no

[3:08:56] digital signs and then I thought we came up with an ordinance that said there

[3:09:01] they were available in some cases. Um, and if we have a draft ordinance, then

[3:09:08] the existing ordinance is is in place at this point. Correct. So any decisions

[3:09:12] that Lamar made was based on the ordinance at the time.

[3:09:17] She brought up two dates. She brought up uh May of this year as far as the

[3:09:21] application and she talked about working with the city in 2024. So I'm really I'd

[3:09:28] like to get a better understanding on where we are as far as what's required

[3:09:31] and when it's required. So,

[3:09:35] I'll jump in first and then they can correct me if I'm wrong. So, council

[3:09:38] discussed um a draft ordinance several times and the last time council

[3:09:43] discussed it uh you referred it back to the planning commission for further

[3:09:47] refinement. That has not occurred yet. There there um we we are continuing to

[3:09:52] work on the draft and it's most likely going to go to planning commission next

[3:09:56] month. The so today the current ordinance prevails and the current

[3:10:01] ordinance states that a relocation agreement is required. It does not it's

[3:10:05] silent on digital billboards but through through the relocation agreement excuse

[3:10:08] me through the relocation agreement a digital billboard can be approved and uh

[3:10:15] Stephen can correct me if I'm wrong. >> That's correct, Mr. City Manager. and

[3:10:17] and the language does include that the term should be agreeable to the city

[3:10:21] council and that leaves it broadly open for your discretion and your your

[3:10:25] parameters for what an agreement should look like.

[3:10:29] » See, and and and my concern or my issue is I don't I was a one in the four votes

[3:10:36] for this is about the maybe the fourth time we've addressed this, third or

[3:10:40] fourth time. Um, and I thought originally we said no digital at all.

[3:10:45] And that's what I was trying to change. And I don't ever remember a vote coming

[3:10:49] forward that was in favor of digitals. Um, other than the idea, I think

[3:10:56] originally we had the idea, is the ordinance the one that says um, for

[3:11:00] every face you take down, you have to or you want to put up, you have to take two

[3:11:05] down. >> That's the that's one of the drafts that

[3:11:08] have come before you. >> Okay. So So are what ordinance? What are

[3:11:11] we under right now? It's is it >> discretion

[3:11:14] » a very broadly worded relocation agreements should be agreeable to the

[3:11:19] terms of the city council and that that can authorize a digital or electronic is

[3:11:24] what it's called but trending now marketwise we call it digital but it

[3:11:27] says an electronic billboard may be placed with approval of an a re

[3:11:31] relocation agreement. So, all the all the discussions and and votes we've had

[3:11:36] in the past um I thought were to allow digital

[3:11:41] boards in the city and >> subject to

[3:11:46] » sub subject to >> let me let me read you the relevant

[3:11:49] provision of this is our existing code >> and I'm not going to read the whole

[3:11:53] thing but I'll read what I think goes to the point that you're uh raising a

[3:11:57] question about notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter upon entry

[3:12:01] into a relocation agreement with the city. In accordance with business and

[3:12:05] professions code section 5412, the owner of an existing billboard within the city

[3:12:10] may convert a static billboard to an electronic billboard subject to approval

[3:12:17] of a permit application. And then it goes on and then it talks about what a

[3:12:22] relocated billboard is. A relocated billboard is an existing billboard that

[3:12:26] is located in the city that is relocated through a city council approved

[3:12:31] relocation agreement including the replacement of a static billboard phase

[3:12:35] with an electronic message. The relocated billboard is not considered a

[3:12:40] new billboard. Then under state law, business and professions code section

[3:12:44] 5412, it [snorts] provides um it defines what

[3:12:49] relocation is and as used in this section includes removal of a display

[3:12:53] and construction of a new display to substitute for the display removed. And

[3:12:58] then it talks about these relocation agreements. It says cities are, and I'm

[3:13:02] paraphrasing, I'm just cutting to the chase here. Cities are specifically

[3:13:06] empowered to enter into reloc relocation agreements on whatever terms are

[3:13:13] agreeable to the display owner and the city. So as was stated by the city

[3:13:18] manager earlier the agreement the relocation agreement is discretionary on

[3:13:23] terms that the two parties agree to. >> Okay. And the two parties agreeing to

[3:13:29] this is the the applicant >> and the council. not applicant and

[3:13:36] staff. >> So, so but at this point we do not have

[3:13:41] an application agreement until we make it official tonight. Is that correct? I

[3:13:46] mean that was what I think that's what uh the um the representative from Lamar

[3:13:52] pointed out was that we're going under the original the existing ordinance

[3:13:57] » and what I just read is the existing ordinance. So, what's before you tonight

[3:14:00] is the terms of a relocation agreement that would permit them to replace their

[3:14:06] static billboard face with an electronic one. But you have to agree to those

[3:14:10] terms. They have to agree to those terms. It's a negotiated agreement.

[3:14:13] » Okay. And and a negotiated agreement, if it's not approved by both sides, can

[3:14:18] continue to be renegotiated. Correct. >> Right. It requires

[3:14:22] two willing parties that agree on the terms.

[3:14:25] » Okay. And I have I have a question for both representatives if you don't mind.

[3:14:30] » Yeah, absolutely. >> So I'll start with the gentleman from

[3:14:32] AMG, please.

[3:14:37] » So you mentioned the sign in Banning. Um there's two signs in Banning, right?

[3:14:42] There's another digital those, right? There's two digital.

[3:14:46] » That's correct. >> Who's who's the owner of the other

[3:14:48] digital? >> Uh I believe uh actually I don't I don't

[3:14:50] know. They might be general. I'm not sure.

[3:14:53] » Okay. And so which one is closer to your sign?

[3:14:57] » Which of which >> or Mr. Taco?

[3:15:00] » Oh, I see. Uh I >> No, not Mr. Taco.

[3:15:03] » The the welcome Bont. Which banning sign is further west?

[3:15:08] » Yours or theirs? Yours or Generals? >> Uh Generals, I believe.

[3:15:12] » Okay. So, I just wonder um because you bring up the saturation issue,

[3:15:18] you're saturating yourself. >> Yes. It's just it's just a matter of how

[3:15:23] many signs you want. I'm just saying it might be a good idea to to set overall

[3:15:27] parameters rather than do this peace meal. That was my only suggestion.

[3:15:30] » Okay. Because I think what we discussed and even though it's not yet ordinance

[3:15:34] that's been drafted, it's it's the the position or the point of view of of the

[3:15:40] council was what we wanted in the ordinance and some of those things are

[3:15:44] not um not being applied in in in this agreement as far as I understand at this

[3:15:49] point. Uh thank you sir. If I could ask for the other um representative,

[3:15:56] » I I my first question may be for you or for staff. I'm sure you probably know.

[3:16:00] » Sure. >> Um the the one that's coming in on the

[3:16:04] 79 is a much smaller billboard. Correct. >> It would be a 10x6 by 36, which um is

[3:16:11] not Yes. >> And what what

[3:16:14] » it would be the same size that it is now. And what is the size of of a usual

[3:16:18] like the uh the other billboards we're talking about?

[3:16:21] » They're called bulletins and those are 14 by 48. So this would be a smaller

[3:16:26] sign. The Mr. Taco site would be smaller than a a freeway sign that you see. And

[3:16:32] if I may just make a couple of corrections

[3:16:35] um to this gentleman's comments, the billboard the there is another digital

[3:16:40] billboard on the I 10 freeway besides the AMG sign and it is a Lamar sign and

[3:16:46] it was approved by the city to banning under a relocation agreement oh gosh

[3:16:50] four or five years ago. Um, I'd also like to point out that um AMG was I

[3:16:57] believe um here before council a few weeks ago or I'm sorry maybe at the last

[3:17:02] council meeting and had a extension to an existing relocation agreement

[3:17:08] approved to modify the sign that has been in existence for many years that

[3:17:15] unmaintained. Um, and at that point, I don't believe that he brought up that

[3:17:22] council should possibly delay or I'm sorry, or approve his relocation

[3:17:28] agreement um, under the terms of the new ordinance as he's asking that ours be

[3:17:35] but that >> not to get in a debate or an argument

[3:17:39] with you, but um, the ordinance was just read to us and the ordinance says that

[3:17:44] it it's mutual agreement. Absolutely. >> And if the council here is of the

[3:17:48] mindset that we like what the direction the draft ordinance was going

[3:17:52] » that even though it's not it's still a draft ordinance we can talk about some

[3:17:57] of those those issues and those concerns in that.

[3:18:01] » Let me the question I wanted to you brought that up. So the question I

[3:18:04] wanted to ask you is the concern that that we've all had and and Mr. Laura has

[3:18:10] presented this many times over the years is the number of billboards on the tin.

[3:18:15] Not just digital but static billboards and they're all Lamar, right?

[3:18:20] » Well, >> in Bumont

[3:18:21] » in the city of Bowmont, the static billboards are Lamar. We are the largest

[3:18:26] stakeholder. One of one of our ideas and one of our big concerns here was that

[3:18:30] first of all, I don't have I have a problem with the the language and I

[3:18:35] don't know where it's coming in the draft ordinance, but I had a problem

[3:18:37] with the language that said um only the o only owners of existing signs can can

[3:18:43] bring in new digital signs because that limits other individuals who want to

[3:18:47] come in who may who make who may make a better revenue offer to us than than

[3:18:52] than um than you might. >> Sure. and and we bring in another

[3:18:58] digital off the 79. We still have I don't know how many on do you know how

[3:19:03] many are on on Lamar that are on the 10 by the train tracks and on the other

[3:19:08] side of the freeway? >> You know, I'm sorry I don't have that

[3:19:11] exact number with me. Um no, I don't know. [laughter]

[3:19:14] » Will you will you um make a commitment to re to eliminate some of those if we

[3:19:20] we start putting in digitals? and and that is what the um Lamar has been

[3:19:26] involved and worked with Mr. Jones on the um the forthcoming uh draft

[3:19:34] ordinance that would make those changes and we are in agreement with the 3:1 for

[3:19:41] future ordinance. This this one that we're here forth tonight obviously is as

[3:19:47] you are everybody is aware based on the reading

[3:19:52] is permitted um without the takedown, but we absolutely would agree to any

[3:19:59] future um digitals by Lamar or any digital request or to the 3 to1

[3:20:05] takedown. In fact, when Mr. Jones consulted us and our attorney, we we

[3:20:09] were in agreement with that. >> Well, I I mis I guess I misunderstood

[3:20:13] either the our attorney's uh opinion or your your opinion. um if you're in

[3:20:19] agreement to doing that. Actually, our current ordinance says it's permitted

[3:20:26] and we don't put a restriction on how many you have. But as we know, our

[3:20:32] current ordinance also says we can say yes or no to whatever we want to say yes

[3:20:36] or no to. >> That is true. And and all I'm asking for

[3:20:40] is um if if Lamar would make a commitment going forward to to reducing

[3:20:47] the number of billboards that are on the tin. Now I'm I'm in favor if you've

[3:20:51] watched some of our rather I'm in favor of the billboards and I'm also in favor

[3:20:55] of the idea that we put one at each entrance and and yours in 79 I think

[3:21:00] makes sense to me. I think uh the welcome Bowmont coming in west makes

[3:21:04] sense. We've already agreed that the uh the uh Regency uh property is going to

[3:21:11] have one coming in from that direction. We've all already agreed one coming into

[3:21:15] the 60, but it doesn't address the problem that I've been trying that I've

[3:21:19] been that Mr. Laura and I have been discussing for years now is it doesn't

[3:21:24] bring down any additional um billboards at this point. And we have an

[3:21:29] opportunity here to to get that kind of commitment from you. Um, and if we have

[3:21:34] to make it part of the agreement for me to for me to vote yes on this, um, I'm

[3:21:39] in favor of that. >> Sure. And I I think I I I thought I had

[3:21:43] stated that we are in favor of the new ordinance, which

[3:21:47] » but but you're saying in favor you're not

[3:21:49] » Well, we are I'm not sure how you want me to say it. I we are in agreement that

[3:21:55] the new ordinance should have a um 3:1 ratio takeown.

[3:22:00] » So why not take down two now? will agree to to to your your proposal.

[3:22:05] » Couple of reasons. Um one there's a financial impact that this sign Mr. Taco

[3:22:12] when when we um evaluate whether a digital makes sense. We look at all the

[3:22:18] factors in revenue and and advertising dollars and and the cost to Lamar and

[3:22:23] you know the cost to even uh upgrade this sign with the city um wrapping pole

[3:22:28] wrapping if you is what it's called is about $45,000. So we we consider all

[3:22:33] those factors on whether this digital makes sense. It made sense under all the

[3:22:37] parameters with the existing ordinance and and with the existing um parameters

[3:22:43] that the city has. We would have to take another look at this because there may

[3:22:48] be another sign or digital location that would make

[3:22:53] more sense if you're asking us to take down faces. So we have to look at the

[3:22:58] financial impact and then we also look at the impact of um your local you know

[3:23:04] the local uh land owners who are going to be affected by this

[3:23:10] » and and I understand that and that's the argument you brought up in the past and

[3:23:13] and I we have a shot clock up here. It's unspoken shot clock and I'm over it

[3:23:18] [laughter] and and I can see there's other light

[3:23:20] » but I do want to finish my thought and that is

[3:23:24] » when we talked to you about this before and I've had a phone call with you as

[3:23:28] well. Sure. >> You've made the argument that those are

[3:23:31] properties that those current billboards are billboards that are the property is

[3:23:36] owned by local land owners and we would be impacting them for taking them down

[3:23:40] which is a really good argument. But it also tells me that if if we put this

[3:23:45] bill if we approve your billboard now on the 79 and then we change our we now

[3:23:51] have an ordinance in place where you have to take two or three down, you

[3:23:54] can't take them down anyways. >> Well, we would look at where what

[3:23:58] locations those would be. So, I mean, there's there's

[3:24:01] » you would have to tell us and and I'm I'm like I said, I've overdone it, but

[3:24:05] um >> but but we look at there's there's many

[3:24:08] um considerations, financial considerations that Lamar takes in into

[3:24:13] consideration um as to what location makes the best sense or most sense for a

[3:24:20] digital. What's the financial impact? What's the financial impact on taking

[3:24:23] down other signs to you know, should we do we look at the railroad? Would that

[3:24:28] be a better um less impact so we're not impacting local residents? There's

[3:24:33] there's several factors. I mean, the city has a a billboard um you know, do

[3:24:38] we look at taking this city's billboard down and reducing your revenue? I I

[3:24:42] don't think that's something we'd want to do. [laughter]

[3:24:46] » Not a great way to to start talking about a negotiation development

[3:24:50] [laughter] agreement. >> No, but I think we're I think we're

[3:24:52] saying the same thing. I we are definitely in favor of everything the

[3:24:57] new ordinance states. We are just trying to get this approved under the current

[3:25:01] ordinance because honestly I started this process with Carol Kendrick, I

[3:25:06] believe her name was. >> You know, I understand, but I really

[3:25:08] would like my other my colleagues to have a chance to speak.

[3:25:11] » No problem. >> All right, Council Member Fen.

[3:25:13] » Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Uh staff, am I correct that there's only two billboards

[3:25:17] on Bulmont Avenue south of the freeway? Um, I know that there's another one at

[3:25:23] the norththeast corner of Bowmont Avenue and Fourth Street, just a few feet away

[3:25:28] from the entrance to the freeway. So, to my understanding, there's only two

[3:25:33] billboards on that whole part of of Bowmont Avenue. Is that correct?

[3:25:37] » Based on Lamar's website, there's four, but it might be four faces. I would have

[3:25:41] to validate, >> I would think.

[3:25:42] » Okay. Um, and from a satellite photo, I can tell that this is a two-face

[3:25:47] billboard. the one that I'm talking about fourth and um and Bulmont Avenue.

[3:25:52] Um when as when you're driving up into Bowmont, coming from the south, I think

[3:25:57] a monument type sign and a welcome to Bulmont's a good idea. Um I think and

[3:26:03] the discussion with swapping billboards for other billboards that to me would be

[3:26:09] in higher saturated areas along the 10. I don't think we're overly saturated on

[3:26:14] 79 south of the freeway. Um, and again, I think there's only the two billboards.

[3:26:19] Um, Lesie, do you know if that billboard

[3:26:22] belongs to Lamar? >> Yes. And it's um it's on the city

[3:26:25] property. >> Okay.

[3:26:26] » So, that is that's >> and it's a and it's a small one. It's

[3:26:30] very close to the freeway. >> That's exactly right. That is actually

[3:26:32] city property and that is one that the city does um you do a revenue share with

[3:26:38] the city. Okay. And they >> they get a percentage.

[3:26:41] » Have her use the mic. >> And I would think that that's probably

[3:26:44] not a good place for digital billboarders. People are trying to get

[3:26:46] on the freeway right there and they're probably not even paying attention to

[3:26:49] that quite so much. >> It's it's a size um there's a size

[3:26:53] limitation that's a smaller billboard and it it does not

[3:26:56] » is that even smaller than the t the Mr. Taco one? Yes, it is. Okay. All right.

[3:27:00] » It's a considered a poster. >> So to move forward to give some type of

[3:27:04] direction, I would I would support what's being proposed tonight. Thank

[3:27:07] you. >> Thank you, Council Member Martinez.

[3:27:09] » Yeah. It baffles me that we're even having a discussion on billboards when

[3:27:13] we're process revising our ordinance. Um, you know, there's a comment made

[3:27:18] about the uh we shouldn't be looking at the ordinance that's still in draft form

[3:27:23] yet because it's not finalized. But the whole idea of that is because our

[3:27:27] mindset was still in many different places. We still don't have an agreement

[3:27:31] on an overlay. We still don't have an agreement on how many we take down

[3:27:35] statics where they go. And to sit there and to start saying yes, we'll approve

[3:27:39] this and that to me is ahead of ourselves because we haven't seen the

[3:27:43] whole totality of what the ordinance looks like. I think we really should

[3:27:47] wait until the ordinance is done, see what it says because I have a feeling

[3:27:51] we're still going to go through some debate on it and then once we get to a

[3:27:54] consensus for those things that come up, we can start looking to see how are they

[3:27:58] fitting in this, you know, whole totality. Because what we're doing is

[3:28:02] one-offs. We're doing this one. Yeah. And then what happens when the next one

[3:28:06] comes up? And then well, we're going to is that a saturation? Is that an

[3:28:09] outsaturation? And that's what the whole idea of the ordinance revision is for is

[3:28:14] to sit there and come up with a plan of how this is looking. So why would we sit

[3:28:18] there and start saying yes and no before that's done. It makes no sense to me.

[3:28:23] Um, so I I have in agreement uh to not pass anything right now until that's

[3:28:28] done so we can look at this in totality because I think, you know, we made a

[3:28:32] comment which is a good comment and let me be clear, I'm not for or against the

[3:28:37] sign or anything like that. I I think it's a good place for one. I think it'll

[3:28:41] work. But to me, doing a decision or making a decision without having the

[3:28:45] ordinance in front of us doesn't make sense because it's a oneoff and then and

[3:28:51] I just don't know where it's going to stop. So I say, why don't we wait and

[3:28:55] get the thing here, get it fine-tuned, and then come up and say, "Okay, where

[3:29:00] does that fit in this totality?" Because the comment is, well, it makes sense to

[3:29:04] them, but it doesn't make sense to us if we don't have an agreement of what what

[3:29:09] it is we're talking about. Because we brought up saturation, we brought up

[3:29:12] zoning, we brought up uh how many to take down, and we there's just too many

[3:29:17] questions. And to me, to make a decision on something that we don't even have

[3:29:22] clear uh vision and unity on doesn't make sense to me. So, maybe I'm I'm solo

[3:29:28] on that. But to me, I think the council got ahead of itself and I I think we

[3:29:32] should say, you know, thank you for this, but let's wait until it's done,

[3:29:36] then come back and let's see how it fits in with the ordinance. That's my

[3:29:39] comment. >> Thanks, Council Member Martinez. Mart

[3:29:41] Mr. Martinez, I do believe that we have the city attorney who has some

[3:29:44] additional information. Yeah, I just wanted to say, you know, I read earlier

[3:29:48] provisions that I think are relevant to this discussion from the existing

[3:29:51] ordinance and that's the only ordinance or law that you have before you on which

[3:29:57] to deal with this application and you know the the the provisions that

[3:30:04] deal with the discretionary agreement. If there are terms, if if you're able to

[3:30:09] work out a deal with the applicant on terms that you find acceptable, that's

[3:30:14] the way to deal with it is through the mutually negotiated agreement. Um rather

[3:30:20] than applying a rule that has not been adopted yet, you should work with the

[3:30:24] ordinance that you have on the books now.

[3:30:26] » So, so may I ask on that? >> Yes. So going back then, so when we look

[3:30:32] at something to our discretion as the ordinance is written now, we would be

[3:30:36] discussing what where it fits, where it stands.

[3:30:42] » It's it's actually what does that mean? Our discuss

[3:30:45] » Well, that's that's a good question and and it's very broad both under the city

[3:30:49] ordinance and I think intentionally broad under the city ordinance and under

[3:30:53] state law. it's um to enter into relocation agreements on whatever terms

[3:30:58] are agreeable to the display owner in the city. So you can negotiate those

[3:31:02] terms but do it through the agreement rather than trying to apply what might

[3:31:06] be adopted at a future date. >> So then let me rephrase and say that I

[3:31:10] don't believe that we should have digital any more digital at this moment

[3:31:14] and that's what I would base my decision on. So I I think I'd like to step in for

[3:31:18] just a second. And I think when I'm looking at things through the lens of

[3:31:22] always trying to think about right reason, right time, right place, and and

[3:31:26] for the right purpose, you know, these are often things that we're thinking

[3:31:30] about and contemplating while we're up here. And and we have to look at it

[3:31:33] right now, which is we have the opportunity to enter into an agreement

[3:31:38] and have a discussion. And I think that we can direct staff to go further out

[3:31:42] into that discussion and then to bring back what that agreement would look

[3:31:46] like. Now, at that point, there's negotiating power and we do have the

[3:31:50] opportunity to come to a sensible agreement that says, "Hey, yeah, this

[3:31:53] might be the place to go." But currently, right now, I personally have

[3:31:58] an issue with not looking at what is in place currently. So, right now, we are

[3:32:04] bound by this ordinance, which actually gives us great latitude to be honest

[3:32:07] with you. And when I'm looking at policy decisions, sometimes it's nice to have

[3:32:10] great latitude because then I'm not painted into a corner. You know, there

[3:32:14] in policy from a nursing perspective, I have what's called nursing judgment. And

[3:32:18] sometimes it's important to exercise my judgment because not everything is black

[3:32:23] and white. And sometimes we need to live in a gray area. And for this, this feels

[3:32:27] like a gray area. This is, is it the right

[3:32:32] project for the right reason for the city of Bmont? I think that's really the

[3:32:37] question that we're grappling with and I think that we all at this point probably

[3:32:41] to council member or mayor pro Tim White's point for the previous

[3:32:45] discussion don't have enough information to make that decision today and I would

[3:32:50] like to see us go to the drawing board on what an agreement looks like that has

[3:32:54] further parameters and I don't know what the rest of the council looks like or to

[3:32:57] investigate right now we don't know a revenue sharing we've heard on the table

[3:33:01] a removal of other ones um and so for me it makes sense to go out into an

[3:33:06] agreement and to start negotiating that process.

[3:33:10] » So, so yeah, just to tear off what you said and you know, of course staff can

[3:33:14] go back and further work with the applicant. The the ideas that were

[3:33:16] brought up tonight include um removal of additional static billboards in exchange

[3:33:21] for approval of this one. U potential revenue sharing. Uh looking at the

[3:33:27] opportunity to make this into more of a monument sign or aesthetic improvements

[3:33:32] to what it's what's currently proposed. Um, I believe that's all the I believe

[3:33:37] that solidifies all the comments I've heard. I

[3:33:39] » I just have one more that I forgot to add. I apologize. Um, it it kind of goes

[3:33:44] along the lines of revenue sharing or perhaps maybe um

[3:33:48] where it go public uh public service announcements like if the city has

[3:33:53] something projects that they could be on there and then that's a it's a a

[3:33:58] trade-off so to speak. So just something else to negotiate.

[3:34:01] » Thank you, mayor. >> Yeah, absolutely. Go ahead, M.

[3:34:03] » I just want to mention that I guess tonight I'm fickle. So, I will say that

[3:34:08] um I've never wanted to stop, you know, discussion and compromising. So, I am

[3:34:13] also for going back to see maybe what we can do about this to to see if this

[3:34:17] could work. So, go ahead and state that. >> Okay. Very good. Do we need a motion to

[3:34:21] move forward? I think we

[3:34:25] » my sense is we probably have the city manager just went over his understanding

[3:34:29] of some of the direction that was given and and we could work um staff can work

[3:34:34] with the parameters that have been provided and then try to negotiate and

[3:34:38] see if there's an interest on the other side.

[3:34:40] » Okay. >> And then bring something back based on

[3:34:42] the direction given tonight. >> Okay.

[3:34:44] » So yeah, direct staff to move forward and I would table the item tonight and

[3:34:48] then we'll bring it back. >> Okay. So, I will make a motion to table

[3:34:52] the item. Uh, pending further discussion.

[3:34:55] » I'll second. >> Can we get a roll call, please?

[3:34:58] » Council member Laura, >> yes.

[3:35:00] » Council member Finn, >> yes.

[3:35:02] » Council member Martinez, >> yes.

[3:35:03] » Mayor Pro Tim White, >> yes.

[3:35:05] » Mayor Voit, >> yes.

[3:35:08] » All right. Do we want to take uh 10 minutes?

[3:35:12] » Five. >> Five minutes. Okay. How about we take a

[3:35:15] five minute break? We'll we'll come back at How about 8:35?

[3:35:20] 8:35 we'll come back. All right.

[3:45:22] All right, we are back at 8:37 and we will be moving on to J3, adoption

[3:45:30] of the city of Bowmont sponsorship policy and we have a staff report by Mr.

[3:45:33] Craw. >> Mayor, I'd like to uh interject if if

[3:45:36] it's possible to see if there's any public comments. I'd like to make a

[3:45:39] motion if there are no public comments. Are there any public comments on this

[3:45:43] item? >> I have no written requests. Simone, do

[3:45:46] we have any callers on the line? >> We have no callers at this time.

[3:45:50] » Okay. So, I will move to approve the city of Bowmont sponsorship policy and

[3:45:54] direct staff to administer future sponsorship requests in [clears throat]

[3:45:58] accordance with policy and subject to available funding. I did read the right

[3:46:01] one this time. Right. >> Yes.

[3:46:05] » Okay. Before I've done it >> for the recommended action.

[3:46:09] » I'll second if it's the right one. All right, we have a first and a second

[3:46:13] and it was the right one. Uh, can I get a roll call then?

[3:46:16] » Great job, Don. >> Wow.

[3:46:18] » Council member Laura. >> Yes.

[3:46:20] » Council member Finn. >> Yes.

[3:46:22] » Council member Martinez. >> Yes. I'm sorry.

[3:46:26] » Mayor Prom White, sit down.

[3:46:32] » I just want to know if you have a pool tonight. Which ones are going to get

[3:46:35] pushed through? >> Okay. Are you operating?

[3:46:39] » Uh uh yes, I approve it. [laughter] >> Mayor Void.

[3:46:43] » Yes. Okay. [snorts] And in an expeditious fashion, we'll go

[3:46:47] to J4 2026 Bowmont Night season recap and proposed 2027

[3:46:53] program. >> Yes. Uh mayor and council, we do want to

[3:46:57] provide a recap of some of the successes from uh this last year and our Bowmont

[3:47:04] Nights program. This is our third season running the Bowmont Nights on Thursday

[3:47:09] nights in downtown. Uh, and we had some great successes. I have Ashley here from

[3:47:14] our staff to go over some of the uh, exciting things that we saw this year to

[3:47:20] help provide uh, just a little bit of context of some of the victories and

[3:47:23] things that uh, happened out there. So, I will turn it over to Ashley and I will

[3:47:28] pull up a PowerPoint as she goes through her presentation.

[3:47:35] So there we go. So our 12week Bumont nights

[3:47:41] ran from April 30th to July 30th from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m. Um we had

[3:47:46] approximately 130 vendors applied for our 94 available booth spaces. Um which

[3:47:52] did represent 1.4 applicants per available booth space. The 94 space

[3:47:58] figure represents our physical capacity, not a target of 94 vendors because we do

[3:48:03] have like food trucks take up two spaces. So, um that does impact the

[3:48:09] number of vendors we are allowed to take. For our visits, Placer AI um

[3:48:15] estimated there are approximate 33,000 total visits across the 12 event dates

[3:48:20] with an average of about 2,700 visits per event. The strongest estimated

[3:48:25] attendance occurred during block one, which is in April and May with visits

[3:48:29] about 3,500 on May 7th and 3100 on May 21st. We do estimate that some of the

[3:48:37] numbers for our events were a little under reppresented specifically with

[3:48:40] National Night Out. Due to how Placer AI uses their analytics based on cell phone

[3:48:45] data, events that are heavily attended by youth may not be captured in that

[3:48:50] data because they don't come around with their cell phones. So we do anticipate

[3:48:54] that there were highly attended events later on in the year as well. Uh next

[3:48:59] slide Doug. >> Okay. So your enterprise and downtown

[3:49:02] civic life. This whole event provided affordable opportunities for our small

[3:49:06] businesses, our food vendors, artisans, entrepreneurs to reach the residents as

[3:49:10] well as our city departments and our nonprofits to engage with the community.

[3:49:14] Um you can also see if you attended the events that we had a lot of the downtown

[3:49:18] businesses came out to participate. You had Red Dragon Karate, the Modern Music

[3:49:22] Studio, um, Red, Dance Spectrum, Chamber of

[3:49:28] Commerce was out there, the antique shop did little promos to get people to come

[3:49:31] inside. So, it's really engaging, not for just the vendors, but also the

[3:49:34] downtown businesses as well. The family experience, we had live entertainment

[3:49:39] and activities with a broad range of ages and encouraged which encouraged

[3:49:43] repeat attendance. Um we do remain committed to providing a broad range of

[3:49:47] musical entertainment across a variety of genres. Although do we do typically

[3:49:52] see higher attendance and we have like classic rock and country bands.

[3:49:58] Next slide. >> Yeah.

[3:50:01] [snorts] So, new for this year, we did have our Battle of the Bands, which took

[3:50:05] place June 11th through July 23rd and added a participatory element to the

[3:50:10] entertainment program um providing emerging musicians of the opportunity to

[3:50:16] um showcase their talents and connect with the residents. And this also tied

[3:50:21] in with our Blizzard bash. So, the winner of the Battle of the Bands, which

[3:50:25] was Crimson Rose, is now going to perform on December 12th. Um, we did

[3:50:30] learn that these local entertainments, they do bring out more attendees. They

[3:50:34] invite their family, their friends to come out and watch and to vote for them.

[3:50:38] So, it does increase attendance earlier on in the evening, which was amazing to

[3:50:42] have that. Another enhancement we had this year was our kids zone and our

[3:50:45] extended shade structure. So, we moved our kids zone from 7th Street over to

[3:50:50] the Sheer Wonders parking lot, which provided a little bit more area so we

[3:50:54] could have different types of games and activities. We also had um Highland

[3:50:59] Academy Charter School. They attended with us, had a booth, did some outreach

[3:51:03] as well. And then our shade structure was a 30 foot x4t extended shade

[3:51:08] structure, which provided a lot more comfort to our attendees, especially

[3:51:13] during the summer months. And we had the addition of a four pod

[3:51:20] layout. The two previous years we had pods of six and fours as a variety

[3:51:24] throughout the event, but streamlining it to a four pod layout made the whole

[3:51:28] event space just planned out a little bit better with a little bit more flow

[3:51:32] of traffic through the event. And then our July 23rd beer garden was a

[3:51:38] success. So, we look forward to your feedback on bringing that back in the

[3:51:42] future. And I'll turn it back over to Doug for our 2027 plans.

[3:51:47] » Yes. And as we get into the 2027, um Ashley and her staff did just a

[3:51:55] fantastic job. And I know um each of you were out at different times and saw

[3:51:58] different things going on with the staff. I can't um give them enough

[3:52:01] credit. And I, you know, please continue to give them their praise because they

[3:52:06] they worked hard. They deserve it and did a fantastic job. We did learn a lot

[3:52:09] of different uh lessons and a lot of things throughout the 2026 season and

[3:52:13] going into the 2027. Uh a couple of things that we are looking to change and

[3:52:20] to adjust is uh the offerings the dates in which we offer the um program. Uh we

[3:52:27] are finding that the hotter summer months definitely impacts the attendance

[3:52:30] and um as we have multiple years of data uh we see that kind of no matter no

[3:52:37] matter what we do and what we offer you know it's just hard to get people to

[3:52:40] come outside when it's 102. Uh and so one of the things we want to do is

[3:52:45] adjust the schedule. We would like to introduce an opportunity to have um a

[3:52:50] single night of a month uh dedicated to a Bowmont Nights program where that'll

[3:52:56] open us up an opportunity to have some other thematic programming go on during

[3:53:00] those nights. So what we're looking at is um doing um single nights per month

[3:53:06] in the months of March and April. uh in March that would allow us to do some fun

[3:53:11] theming maybe with St. Patrick's Day. Uh in April, we have some fun opportunities

[3:53:16] with some partnerships that are coming to the city and hopefully some an

[3:53:19] exciting event uh that's going to be able to happen on that day as well. And

[3:53:22] so we're going to kind of incorporate some of some of that as well. Then you

[3:53:25] go into uh the month of May where we saw our highest nights. That's when we would

[3:53:30] start our each week program. And so we would operate uh the four weeks in May

[3:53:34] and then offer the times in June as well. Uh, and that would be our

[3:53:39] consistent weeks that we would work through the summer. Uh, and then as we

[3:53:42] get into the July, uh, we would have our Fourth of July night tied with our

[3:53:46] weekend for the Fourth of July event. And then we'll end it with a national

[3:53:51] night out event again as well. Then as we go into the fall, open us up for some

[3:53:55] new opportunities, take uh, the hot the hot time of August off. Uh, and then get

[3:54:00] back into things in September and October. perhaps do like an October Fest

[3:54:04] themed night where we can have some of those fun things or a fall themed event.

[3:54:08] And then November 11th is Veterans Day and we want to do a a fun uh just a a

[3:54:14] really great uh national themed day and honor our veterans and bring out some

[3:54:18] real special agencies and groups uh that can partner us with those days. No

[3:54:22] matter what day we do the market night event, we'll have some of the same

[3:54:25] formatting. So, we're looking at having u musical performance, we'll have the

[3:54:29] same type of closure, the same type of stage performance. uh the the shade uh

[3:54:33] when we need it uh and then be able to offer some of that other thematic uh

[3:54:37] opportunity. So the scheduling we're looking at tweaking a little bit. Uh

[3:54:41] we're able to absorb these into our current budget that we have right now.

[3:54:45] And so we're not necessarily asking for additional funds to fix any of these

[3:54:49] right now. We're just going to shorten some of the things that we have. And

[3:54:52] this also uh we have in our budget some other events that are taking places at

[3:54:56] other places. Uh we've tried to do a um St. Patrick's Day event up at the CRC.

[3:55:01] Uh, and it's been great and our staff's been doing a fantastic job, but now this

[3:55:04] kind of opens us an opportunity to bring it downtown and make it a little bit

[3:55:07] bigger. Uh, so some of these things are already in the budget in different

[3:55:10] categories and we're just going to move them into the Bowmont Nights category.

[3:55:13] Uh, and then [clears throat] one of the other enhancements and that Ashley

[3:55:18] mentioned too as well is the the beer garden. We did try a beer garden and one

[3:55:22] of the nights that operated on on Seventh Street and we had a local uh

[3:55:26] vendor that operated that for us. we were only in charge of kind of setting

[3:55:30] up that area for them and then they operated that area. Uh went through the

[3:55:34] necessary permitting and the process with ABC and the police department to go

[3:55:38] through that. Uh and and that was a a great turnout and I think people really

[3:55:42] enjoyed having additional areas to sit and enjoy the the music and the

[3:55:47] environment and the fun. Uh and they were able to make it successful on

[3:55:50] probably one of the the hottest nights that we had out there. Uh and so that is

[3:55:55] something that we want to look uh at uh if if council's in favor of that is

[3:56:00] figuring out ways to uh encourage that and expand that opportunity in the

[3:56:05] event. We're also looking at adding some specialty items to our market nights.

[3:56:09] One of those and one of the requests from community has been a certified type

[3:56:14] farmers market that sells vegetables and different foods and artisan eats and

[3:56:19] stuff. Uh and so we're looking at carving out that. there's a few uh

[3:56:22] additional hoops that we have to jump through in order to have a farmers

[3:56:25] market on site, but we think we can navigate through that process. Uh so

[3:56:29] there's uh some really cool uh distinctive programming and some

[3:56:33] different elements that we would like to encourage adding in 2027. So all in all

[3:56:37] uh has been a great thing uh mostly because we have such a great staff and I

[3:56:41] will say that I think over the three years our staff has become uh very

[3:56:46] proficient and efficient in putting on these events. um whether that's through

[3:56:51] building relationships with the county or different permitting agencies and

[3:56:54] getting this process done or also teaming with all of our other

[3:56:57] departments that we have here. Uh we couldn't do it without public works and

[3:57:01] planning and building and everyone else who comes out and fire and PD and

[3:57:04] everyone who's there to to help support us. But um the community and the staff

[3:57:07] as a whole feels that that um those experiences have been really strong and

[3:57:11] it's it's just providing a great opportunity for our community. So, we'd

[3:57:14] love to continue to operate it and offer it to our community and love to hear

[3:57:18] some comments from your experience. >> All right, great. Thank you. Do we have

[3:57:22] any public comment for this item? >> I have no written request, Simone. Do we

[3:57:26] have any callers on the line? >> We have no callers at this time.

[3:57:32] » All right, great. First off, I'd like to start off with a huge thank you. As you

[3:57:35] said, um I spent many nights down at Bowmont Nights this year and absolutely

[3:57:39] enjoyed myself thoroughly. um the family time, all of the families that were out

[3:57:44] there. Um you know, and even a date night out there as well. So, I thought

[3:57:49] it was an excellent event. Um I think the entertainment was better this year

[3:57:53] as well and uh that truly helped to step it up. Um I sat many times underneath

[3:57:59] that shade structure. So, I can tell you that that was a very added very much an

[3:58:03] added benefit. And in fact, uh, the two nights I sat underneath the shaded

[3:58:07] structure, I met people from other cities, um, who were there, who were

[3:58:11] coming to our event. And I think that not only is this a community event for

[3:58:15] us, but it also showcases our community to other communities. Um, and I truly

[3:58:20] appreciate all of the work that has gone into that. Um, on another note, I like

[3:58:26] beer and I like uh the opportunity uh to partake. Um, and so I appreciate the

[3:58:34] addition of the beer garden as well. I think that it provides um an area

[3:58:40] outside for um our community to be able to listen to the entertainment and enjoy

[3:58:46] it uh in a safe manner. Um and I appreciate all the work that went in for

[3:58:50] that night to try it out. Um I also like an October Fest and so I think that that

[3:58:55] is a great addition and a wonderful theme uh to bring to the town. In fact,

[3:59:01] uh I had this vision for State of the City. I didn't really voice it to a lot

[3:59:04] of people. Um but I thought that I could string lights, you know, down a street

[3:59:08] one day and have picnic tables line it and it would be like a coronation for

[3:59:11] me. Um but who knows, maybe we could do that at an October Fest [laughter] in

[3:59:16] the beer garden downtown. Um but great work on this. I really um like the

[3:59:22] addition. I have heard consistently that vendors would like more options

[3:59:27] throughout the year. Um, and I also have visited uh numerous businesses downtown

[3:59:32] who have said that Bowont Nights is what gets them through the summer when um it

[3:59:38] is slower for them. And so I think that being that partner with our community

[3:59:43] businesses is absolutely vital to their success as well. Um, and I really thank

[3:59:48] the team for you guys being such great partners with the businesses downtown

[3:59:52] because they can feel it. So great job. All right, Council Member White.

[3:59:58] Um, there was no way I was going to pass on

[4:00:02] this one to have the discussion. So, sorry there Doug. Um,

[4:00:05] » happy to have it. >> Um,

[4:00:08] it's amazing you guys have raised the bar significantly each year. Um, it's

[4:00:14] going to be hard to continue to do that, but I know you will. Um, and I'm I'm not

[4:00:19] texting other people. This is how I write notes since I don't have a pen up

[4:00:22] here, but um, uh, what happens? We had last year the

[4:00:29] very first event was I think in March or was it even April?

[4:00:33] » April. It was very April >> rainy and it rained on us cold.

[4:00:37] » It was >> and what happens if we do a special

[4:00:41] event earlier in the year and it just bombs because of the weather.

[4:00:46] » Yeah. And it is a I mean weather as awesome as our staff is you know

[4:00:51] controlling weather is still a challenge for us and we have to operate within the

[4:00:56] confines of weather. We get it. Um you know we do have some because we do a lot

[4:01:02] of events and so when um rain p you know for specifics you know we have

[4:01:08] thresholds where it's got to be a certain percentage of rain guaranteed

[4:01:11] during the event uh in order for us to cancel it. So, we try to do things rain

[4:01:15] or shine or in different in different weathers. Um, we are counting on the,

[4:01:20] you know, it will be a little bit of a challenge. I think that because we'll be

[4:01:23] out there when it's not just 102 and so we'll probably deal with a little bit

[4:01:27] cooler weather, we could deal with a little bit of rain or different things.

[4:01:30] We have some parameters that would be be set um and if we had to cancel it when

[4:01:34] most of our vendors know that um we're collecting a fee uh where we would we

[4:01:39] usually give back 50% of that fee if the vendor comes to all those events. So

[4:01:42] obviously if if we initiated that cancellation, we wouldn't we wouldn't do

[4:01:46] that. If we still had the event and it was like marginal weather uh or not the

[4:01:51] best weather, um we would still encourage that vendor to be out there um

[4:01:54] because they paid that fee and they want to get that part of that fee back.

[4:01:58] » Um the shade structure this this year was was amazing.

[4:02:03] » Um if we did if we consider I think we need to do the beer garden. She's

[4:02:08] actually made four references to drinking tonight.

[4:02:11] » [laughter] >> Not who's counting

[4:02:13] » not counting the >> crown long item. It was a long item.

[4:02:18] » Um I think a second straight shade structure. I don't know how much you

[4:02:23] know how much those cost. Um it's something we're renting. Correct.

[4:02:27] » Yes, sir. Yes. >> Yeah. So I you know maybe another one

[4:02:30] because the first the first couple nights when it was really hot there was

[4:02:35] there wasn't a whole lot of room under there. Um

[4:02:37] » Yeah. And um I think the farmers market is is a great

[4:02:43] idea. I think people have been asking us for that forever and and if you can put

[4:02:47] it together. I think in the past when we've brought it up it's the response

[4:02:51] has been that it's not easy to do. But I guess there's companies that will put

[4:02:56] those together for you. Yeah, we're reaching out and trying to build some

[4:02:59] relationships and there's some successful ones in the area and we're

[4:03:02] trying to build those relationships and figure out how they're doing it and see

[4:03:06] if we can get them to come out on some of our specific dates.

[4:03:08] » Okay. And two suggestions even [clears throat] on the really I

[4:03:13] missed one night >> and it was ACTC and I couldn't believe I

[4:03:17] I missed that one night but I had I had something else to go to. Um,

[4:03:23] what about on the hot nights going later? Because even on the very hot

[4:03:28] night, the one of the last ones was really hot. People started showing up at

[4:03:31] 7:00 or 7:30. >> Mhm.

[4:03:33] » You know, [clears throat] I got we got there, we came late and when we came

[4:03:37] there, it was sort of lower attendance and then within an hour everyone came

[4:03:41] out because it was the sun was down. Yep.

[4:03:44] » And it was cooler. >> Yeah. And that was one of our successes

[4:03:47] of this year. I think in 25, 2025, and 2024, we started at 5:00 p.m. And then

[4:03:53] after two years doing that, we realized it is just it's really, really hot on

[4:03:56] some days at 5:00 p.m. And so bumping it to 6 helped us do that. And then we

[4:04:01] extended it a little bit longer till 9:30. We were originally ending at 9:00

[4:04:05] and then we kind of left it open till till 9:30. Uh, but you're right. I think

[4:04:09] the the later the once the sun starts getting behind those trees and heading

[4:04:14] down uh it it definitely makes a big difference. People more people come out.

[4:04:17] So we can look at that and see if that's an option for us.

[4:04:19] » Yeah. And and a lot of the people especially if you do have a beer garden,

[4:04:23] a lot of people are still hanging around after 9:30, you know, [clears throat]

[4:04:26] watching you you guys take the whole thing down and that that's something fun

[4:04:30] to watch. Um, and then one last suggestion. When when we first started

[4:04:34] discussing Bulmont Nights, we still hadn't really decided what downtown was.

[4:04:40] And I think with all the investments we've made on Grace Street, trying one

[4:04:46] Belmont night there might be just just worth trying. I know you're right by the

[4:04:50] freeway. Um, I know all of that, but it's set up for for bringing in vendors.

[4:04:56] there's a lot of, you know, the parking you don't really

[4:04:59] » want to you you could use that parking for more vendors and more activities,

[4:05:02] but um just just think about it. Um I thought that was an idea and that's all

[4:05:07] I had. But good job and I really appreciate the fact that every year

[4:05:11] you're trying to make it better and you're doing it. So thank you.

[4:05:16] » Yes. And I echo the sentiment on the farmers market. I forgot to mention

[4:05:19] that. Uh Council Member Martinez. >> Yes. So thank you, Mayor. So, when I

[4:05:23] first saw that we were uh increasing days, my first thing is, "Oh my gosh,

[4:05:27] we're going to burn the staff out." >> But you made it so clear that the

[4:05:32] efficiencies improved, that we're spreading it out, and you know, they've

[4:05:37] they got the routine now, and best of all, they're motivated. They want to do

[4:05:41] it. And thank you for clarifying that um with me when we talked um because it

[4:05:45] makes me confident that we're not putting too much, you know, they're

[4:05:49] they're handling it. and I'm sure they would speak up and said, "Hey boss,

[4:05:52] we're probably stretching it." So, [laughter] I encourage them to do that.

[4:05:56] But, you know, we really have been upping the bar. Um, I'm supportive of

[4:06:00] the beer garden. I think it's necessary because it has that and, you know, I

[4:06:04] wouldn't want to disappoint the mayor, but it brings that element, you know, in

[4:06:09] uh for those extra. And I think it was well done and and I compliment the

[4:06:14] public safety presence. Uh, I sense a clear message that we're familyfriendly.

[4:06:19] people felt comfortable because they were there and you know and it just it

[4:06:23] just had that overall fun feeling. So, um you know I'm supportive of everything

[4:06:28] you're doing and I appreciate you thinking how you know adjust here and

[4:06:32] there and so forth. And like I said, it just keeps getting improving and things

[4:06:36] that didn't work, we'll we'll adjust that and maybe that time didn't work or

[4:06:39] so forth. Another shade structure would definitely be nice if it's possible. I

[4:06:43] know they're expensive. Um, but I just and I like the data, the ability to go

[4:06:48] back and and quantify things. Um, so we're just not guessing. So that helps

[4:06:53] us subst, you know, um, uh, with the decisions for, you know, money that we

[4:06:57] give into it that it's, you know, substantiated. So I appreciate that. So

[4:07:00] I think everything's going in the right direction. I'm fully supportive. Um, you

[4:07:05] know, just come back when you think we need to adjust things here and there as

[4:07:08] you usually do, but um, I think we're on the right track. So, I appreciate it and

[4:07:12] thank you staff for all their hard work and everyone because it just takes this

[4:07:16] whole village to do to make those work every time. Not just one time, but every

[4:07:21] time. So, thank you. >> Thank you.

[4:07:23] » All right, Council Member Fen. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh Doug and your

[4:07:27] staff, thank you so much for the good work that you guys have been doing. I

[4:07:30] appreciate that. And I'm excited about the farmers market.

[4:07:33] » First year that we did it and I was mayor that year and was there nearly

[4:07:37] every night and that was something I heard multiple times every night. Hey,

[4:07:40] can we get a farmers market? So, appreciate the effort towards that and

[4:07:43] look forward to hopefully that works out. Um, two questions for you. Um, one,

[4:07:48] the Veterans Day, would you would staff be planning on maybe blocking out a

[4:07:52] certain number of spaces for veteran services or something like that? Is that

[4:07:56] kind of the vision for it? >> Yeah. and and council member Fen, you

[4:08:01] know, with our relationship with the Vet Expo, uh we have just a really great

[4:08:06] connection with different vet groups that um are wanting to either provide

[4:08:11] information or um help provide services. And so that would be our one of the

[4:08:16] goals uh is is is reserve some of those spaces for them or or maybe a little

[4:08:20] area uh for them, but then also incorporate some some fun recognition

[4:08:25] maybe before or after the concerts and and get some folks on stage and uh maybe

[4:08:29] get some of our electeds from from outside of even Bowmont to give some

[4:08:33] certificates and just really acknowledge some some great people in our community.

[4:08:36] So uh tie that in. We'll still have a parade that day as well. Uh and so we'll

[4:08:42] coordinate all those things together and just make it a real fun day uh where we

[4:08:46] honor our veterans. >> Very good. Would it make sense to try to

[4:08:48] do the parade in the afternoon then? >> We're working on some of those

[4:08:52] logistics. So Okay. Yes. So we've we we've

[4:08:55] » that's a challenge we do is we during the week that it's hard to get folks out

[4:08:58] in the morning sometimes. >> Yeah. So, that's one of the things we're

[4:09:01] considering. And we've we've in the past with Blizzard Bash, when we do the

[4:09:05] Blizzard Bash and we also do the the Christmas light parade, uh, we've

[4:09:08] changed that route to be able to have Bowmont Nights up and running, but also

[4:09:12] allow for a parade route to kind of come in and around the, uh, the event area.

[4:09:18] And so, yeah, that's one of the things that we would consider doing as well.

[4:09:21] » Okay. Very good. And then, um, if I understood you correctly, you had more

[4:09:25] vendors than you had spaces. Is that right?

[4:09:27] » Yeah, we have a really large waiting list. There's a lot of people that

[4:09:29] really want to be in Bowmont for >> Do we have a priority like pecking order

[4:09:34] like, "Hey, Bowmont business gets first dibs." That kind of thing.

[4:09:37] » Yeah. If you're in the downtown, if you're a Bowmont business, if you're

[4:09:41] local, you get first dibs on things. And then once we have that all settled, we

[4:09:45] start moving uh down that list, but we do have a priority for everyone that

[4:09:49] comes in. >> All right. Very good. Thank you. Thank

[4:09:50] you, Mayor.

[4:09:54] » All right. Well, that leaves us to a motion for tonight. So, I will move to

[4:10:00] receive and file the 2026 Bowont Knights season recap and direct staff to develop

[4:10:04] the proposed 15 date 2027 program calendar through the annual budget and

[4:10:10] contracting process. As I'm doing this, Mr. Laura, did you want to

[4:10:14] » Okay, sorry. Um, and to approve alcohol services within a designated beer garden

[4:10:19] at 20 in 2020, excuse me, at 2027 Bowmont Nights event in the Town Center

[4:10:25] area subject to applicable licensing and responsible alcohol service

[4:10:29] requirements. >> I'll second.

[4:10:32] » Can I get [snorts] a roll call, please? >> Council member Laura,

[4:10:34] » yes. >> Council member Finn,

[4:10:36] » yes. >> Council member Martinez,

[4:10:38] » yes. >> Mayor Proim White,

[4:10:39] » yes. >> Mayor Voy,

[4:10:41] » yes. All right. Thank you for that. And that takes us I don't believe we have a

[4:10:45] ledge update today. City manager report. >> Well, in light of me losing my bet

[4:10:52] against um Deputy City Clerk Willight on what time this meeting will end, I'm

[4:10:56] going to give you a really a bridged version of my report tonight. So, um I

[4:11:01] really the biggest thing is I want to announce just remind everybody that

[4:11:04] we're going to have a ribbon cutting tomorrow at the sports park uh at 400

[4:11:08] pm. It's a great opportunity to recognize the completion of a $4.5

[4:11:12] million investment that brings significant improvements and upgrades to

[4:11:15] the park and its athletic facilities and um we'll have a number of fun activities

[4:11:20] for anybody who joins. So, we hope that the public can make it and we're looking

[4:11:23] forward to it. And that's it. >> Great. I will be there and hopefully the

[4:11:29] rest of us can join as well. All right. Any future agenda items?

[4:11:35] Council member Martinez. >> No.

[4:11:37] » Okay. All right. That takes us to our council reports. We'll start with

[4:11:40] council member Finn. >> Well, yes, Mayor. Thank you. Um question

[4:11:43] for Stephen out there. He mentioned when I asked about the ebikes, he said there

[4:11:47] was um state that we'd have an update. Did I

[4:11:52] » Did I It was next meeting. Okay. All right. Just making sure I heard that

[4:11:55] correctly. Okay. >> All right. Very good. All right.

[4:12:01] » I just heard later and I wasn't sure what the later was. So, thanks for the

[4:12:04] clarification. Um on the 27th of um of August, I attended RTA's um general

[4:12:10] meeting. And after that meeting, we had a ribbon cutting um for a new hydrogen

[4:12:15] bus um that was delivered and a ribbon cutting for the new hydrogen fueling

[4:12:20] station that's there at their facility on Third Street in Riverside. So, we're

[4:12:23] all excited about that. Um trying to meet the mandates from the state in

[4:12:27] terms of zero or very low emissions. And we think the the hydrogen wave for now

[4:12:32] is the the best way to make that happen. So, uh, that's my report for the

[4:12:35] evening. >> All right, Council Member Martinez.

[4:12:38] » Thank you, Mayor. I attended the libraryies, uh, books and bruise,

[4:12:42] » and, uh, it was, uh, well attended. It was well attended, and it's really nice

[4:12:46] to see how the new annex fits, um, in the whole scheme of things being my mind

[4:12:52] couldn't get around it because I was still thinking Carnegie side. And, you

[4:12:56] know, they explained to me and it several times what the difference was.

[4:13:00] They built a false wall between the two. So, my brain's looking for the old and

[4:13:05] it's not there and I know now it's behind the other side being part of

[4:13:09] phase two. So, it's really nice to see. I think the community should be really

[4:13:13] appreciative of the modernization going on and I'm proud to have it in the city

[4:13:17] because it really gives that feeling of, you know, we are really building up here

[4:13:21] and and moving things. So, I just want to give kudos to Lauren and and all the

[4:13:26] trustees at the library and all library and all of the uh volunteers because it

[4:13:31] takes a lot to get the library going and there are a lot of volunteers, friends

[4:13:35] of the library and so forth and and kudos to all of them.

[4:13:39] » Great. Mayor Pro Tim.

[4:13:46] » Okay, Council Member Laura. >> Okay. Um

[4:13:51] they moved the WRCOG meeting to the 14th, Monday the 14th because of the

[4:13:56] holiday coming up. Um I did attend the senior citizen day at Chhattney Center

[4:14:01] was uh well attended at least that I can remember you know. So um and I did they

[4:14:08] did allow me to call a bingo game which was great. Um, and then just just

[4:14:12] lastly, the staff here, you know, with the Bulmont Knights and all the stuff

[4:14:17] that it takes to prepare uh the the ideas that they have for the different

[4:14:21] events for seniors and youth and it's just they do it with a great attitude

[4:14:26] just like council member Martinez referenced and it's just very proud to

[4:14:30] be a part of that. So, I just wanted to reference that and that's all I have,

[4:14:32] mayor. >> All right. Thank you, Mayor Prom.

[4:14:36] » I have nothing to report. >> Oh, look at that.

[4:14:40] Uh I attended uh the mayor breakfast. We were able to get it off the ground for

[4:14:45] um Calama and Banning. It was great to see our colleagues. Um a lot going on in

[4:14:50] those areas as well, but always good to collaborate with them. And then today I

[4:14:54] had the absolute honor to attend um our Banning and Bulmont Unified School

[4:14:59] District student of the month. Um these four students that they um awarded today

[4:15:06] had every single one of us crying in the room today. The dads were so proud um

[4:15:12] and it was just a great great experience to start off the day and I am so

[4:15:15] thankful that we participated in that as well. So it was truly a wonderful day.

[4:15:19] All right so with that we will adjourn to our next meeting at 9:07.

City Council Meeting 9/1/26 | City of Beaumont

Transcript