[0:00] Right. Do we want to kick off?

[0:03] Yes, please. Okay. I will call to order

[0:06] this uh January 12th council meeting at

[0:10] 5:00. Beth, can you call the role,

[0:12] please?

[0:13] >> Council member Cooper,

[0:15] >> Council Member Burke,

[0:16] >> here.

[0:16] >> Mayor Wilkinson,

[0:17] >> present.

[0:18] >> Council member Mark,

[0:19] >> here.

[0:19] >> Council member Keriet,

[0:21] >> here.

[0:24] >> Okay, we are going to be going into

[0:26] closed session. Um and I um Beth, do we

[0:30] have any public comment on those close

[0:32] session items?

[0:32] >> There are no attendees.

[0:34] >> Okay. In that case, I think we can

[0:36] adjourn to go into close session.

[1:10] Adam.

[1:16] » Okay, I'm going to call back to order

[1:18] this uh council meeting. Nothing to

[1:20] report out from our closed session.

[1:22] Beth, do I do you need to do another

[1:23] roll call or we're fine? No. Okay,

[1:25] perfect. Okay, we are um going to move

[1:28] on to item number 3A, city council

[1:31] reports. Does any council member have a report?

[1:36] >> I I I have a quick report. I attended

[1:38] the um January RBR um meeting and um I'd

[1:44] like to report that the um anchor routes

[1:49] um in Richardson Bay are down to the

[1:52] number five and they uh three of those

[1:55] five are currently actively in the

[1:58] process of getting um housing

[2:01] um on land. So, the numbers are

[2:04] dwindling and they do anticipate having

[2:07] everyone out of the um EEL zone um by October of this year.

[2:16] >> Thank you. Anybody else?

[2:18] >> I I didn't really have a council report,

[2:20] but I know that we're um planning on um

[2:25] placing uh Mr. Snyder back uh I'm

[2:27] assuming back on the mosquito and vector

[2:30] control district. And I was just going

[2:33] to remind everyone that we decided we at

[2:36] one point we'd love to have our um

[2:38] agencies come and speak to us at

[2:41] sometime. And I think it would be nice

[2:42] if we could also hear from him whether

[2:45] over Zoom or in person and also um Larry

[2:49] Binkley who's our representative to the

[2:51] Marin County Commission on Aging.

[2:54] So, so Beth, can you think about that in

[2:56] terms of the next few months agendas to

[2:58] get these people uh scheduled? Uh,

[3:01] anybody else? No. I'm going to give a

[3:04] quick update on um Ring Clean Energy. Um

[3:07] I'm not sure if people are following,

[3:10] but uh PG& has made some pretty

[3:12] aggressive moves as of January 1st. So

[3:15] they are both cutting their generation

[3:17] rate um and they're also there's

[3:20] effectively an increase in the charge to

[3:23] MCE consumers uh it's an indifferent

[3:26] charge to charge consumers for the

[3:28] ongoing cost to PG&E from the shift. So

[3:32] um the result is that MCE rates right

[3:36] now will be pretty uncompetitive to

[3:38] compared to PG&E but MC is just going

[3:41] into its budget and rate cycle. So over

[3:43] the next few months those decisions will

[3:45] get made and hopefully we will be able

[3:46] to bring down rates for consumers as

[3:48] well so that we will be able to be um

[3:51] close to competitive with PG&.

[3:56] » Um in that case I'm going to if with no

[3:58] questions or comments from council I'm

[3:59] going to open this section up for public

[4:01] comment.

[4:04] » We have Dr. Rothman.

[4:07] >> Mr. Rothman. Good evening.

[4:09] >> Yes. Thank you very much. I'm so glad

[4:13] that uh Mayor Wilkinson

[4:17] uh is keeping

[4:19] uh a very close eye and a close hand on

[4:22] what's happening uh with MCE.

[4:26] Um

[4:28] I know that when I I I read the

[4:30] explanation in the J I'm sorry to say it

[4:34] was too complex for me to understand. Um

[4:39] but uh when MCE as it was announced at a

[4:44] previous meeting uh that although the

[4:46] cost of electricity were going down uh

[4:49] the rate our rates were going up

[4:53] and Sally intervened uh to get an

[4:56] oversight committee. I think that's just

[4:59] so wonderful. I don't know whether the

[5:03] correction that she's hoping for can be

[5:05] made. As I say, I I acknowledge it's a

[5:08] very complex issue, but I'm so glad that

[5:11] she's doing her best in in that respect.

[5:15] Thank you very much.

[5:17] >> Thank you, Dr. Rothman. Any further

[5:19] comment, Beth?

[5:20] >> Hands raised. Great. Okay, we're going

[5:22] to move on to the city manager report.

[5:24] Robert,

[5:26] >> yes. Uh, thank you, Mayor Wilkinson. I

[5:28] have a few updates this evening.

[5:31] I'll start off by mentioning that over

[5:33] the next couple of months, you may

[5:34] notice a new face around city hall, uh,

[5:37] Alex Olivaria will be helping out on a

[5:40] temporary basis at the front desk while

[5:42] we work through a position vacancy left

[5:44] by Christina Cook. We'll be advertising

[5:46] an opening for an administrative aid

[5:48] technician this week. So, if you know

[5:50] someone who will be a good who would be

[5:52] a good fit, you'll be able to find

[5:54] details on the position, including job

[5:56] duties and salary, on the city's

[5:57] website.

[5:59] Shifting gears to public works, I'd like

[6:01] to announce that the structural and

[6:03] seismic update project for Beach Road is

[6:05] in its final design stage. This project

[6:08] will strengthen the failing seaw wall on

[6:10] Beach Road, particularly in locations

[6:12] where the seaw wall's foundation is

[6:14] undized and would fail during an

[6:16] earthquake. Notably, this project does

[6:18] not increase the height of the seaw

[6:19] wall. Even still, at $4.4 million, it

[6:22] does represent a large public work

[6:24] project that this one of the largest

[6:26] that the city has tackled in several

[6:27] decades. So with that in mind, we want

[6:30] to uh ensure success. We've been working

[6:32] with the mayor and director Boyd to

[6:34] establish an ad hoc working group. This

[6:36] group will be as will be asked to assist

[6:39] staff in audit uh auditing the final

[6:41] project plans, financials, contract bid

[6:45] documents, and ultimately the

[6:46] contractor's proposals over the next few

[6:48] months. We're looking forward to having

[6:50] the extra eyes and expertise on the

[6:53] project before we ultimately bring it

[6:54] back to city council to approve the

[6:57] final project and the contract. We

[7:00] anticipate the majority of the ad hoc

[7:02] group meetings will be open to the

[7:04] public for continuity. Some of the

[7:06] project's EIR review committee that met

[7:09] in 2022 will be returning. We're also

[7:11] looking to pull in volunteers from the

[7:13] finance committee and disaster

[7:15] preparedness task force. We'll be

[7:17] publishing a work plan and agenda. So,

[7:19] keep your eye on the website if this

[7:21] project interests you.

[7:24] Moving on, there are a couple important

[7:25] dates I don't want you to miss. First is

[7:27] the annual town meeting which will be

[7:29] held on January 27th at 6 PM. Please

[7:32] join us to celebrate our 2025 citizen of

[7:35] the year in CIS in the Merita. And the

[7:38] second date to remember is in February.

[7:40] We'll be hosting the annual council

[7:42] retreat in the community center. We'll

[7:44] be discussing a variety of important

[7:46] future planning topics for the city.

[7:48] That date will be Monday, February 23rd

[7:50] from noon to 4 pm. Uh you can keep an

[7:54] eye on the monthly newsletter with the

[7:55] Belvier Breeze or you can check the

[7:57] city's website for more information as

[7:59] the events get closer.

[8:03] And then finally, please be aware that

[8:05] the special planning commission meeting,

[8:06] which was originally scheduled for

[8:08] tomorrow, the 13th, has been rescheduled

[8:10] to the 2nd of February.

[8:14] Uh on the agenda is the topic of

[8:15] Mallerie's request to amend two

[8:17] conditions of approval regarding the

[8:19] expiration of the entitlements and when

[8:21] the certificates of occupancy will be

[8:23] issued for the project's build sequence.

[8:25] In parallel, city staff continue to meet

[8:27] with the developers team to work through

[8:29] required information for the demolition

[8:32] bulkhead per demolition and bulkhead

[8:34] permits on that same project. Uh that's

[8:37] all I have now, but I am open for

[8:38] questions.

[8:40] >> Do any council members have questions?

[8:44] I I'm curious about the ad hoc group.

[8:47] So, do you are is that open for people

[8:51] to join at this point or do you feel

[8:52] like you're pretty set on

[8:56] um who who you want to have given that

[8:58] you have certain groups?

[8:59] >> That's something that the mayor, myself,

[9:01] and public works director Boyd have been

[9:03] talking about, you know, who's the who's

[9:05] the best group of uh people to be on

[9:08] there and looking at backgrounds and

[9:09] experience. Um we've made we've made

[9:12] some initial outreach to see who's

[9:13] available and we're still working on

[9:14] that but if you have recommendations

[9:16] we'd certainly take them.

[9:17] >> Okay. Yeah.

[9:18] >> Great. Thanks.

[9:21] >> Uh couple a question and a comment. Uh

[9:25] first of all on the beach road

[9:26] stabilization project. Do you have a

[9:27] sense of the timing meaning when when the next milestones would be

[9:32] reached?

[9:33] >> Uh ideally we'd be going out to bid the

[9:36] project sometime in February. There's a

[9:38] few things that have to happen. Of

[9:39] course, the schedule with this ad hoc

[9:41] subcommittee has to align uh and give

[9:44] the committee enough time to review the

[9:46] documents. Like I said, we'll be they'll

[9:47] be looking at final project plans, the

[9:50] RFP, which is the, you know, kind of

[9:52] contractor's bid package that ends up

[9:54] being published, the financials, and

[9:56] then finally after a couple of months of

[9:59] the project being bid out, then we'd be

[10:00] returning back with those bids and

[10:02] reviewing those with the with the

[10:04] working group as well. So between three

[10:06] to four months is what we're estimating

[10:07] before we get to that, you know, final

[10:09] point where we be able to bring it back

[10:11] to city council.

[10:12] >> Perfect. Thank you.

[10:13] >> Yeah.

[10:14] >> And um

[10:16] you mentioned this the second question

[10:17] has to do with um um ancillary or or

[10:20] additional staffing both for this

[10:23] project, the the beach stabilization

[10:25] project and potentially not potentially

[10:26] but but but Malard Point as well. Um,

[10:29] and I'm just curious, um, what's your

[10:32] thinking or what are the what what's

[10:33] the, um, the, um, not the algorithm, but but but your calculus to to when you

[10:38] would bring those people in for those

[10:40] two various projects, because I

[10:42] understand that, especially with an

[10:44] outside um, project like Mal Point,

[10:46] there's there's ultimately a fixed fee

[10:48] that this would go against and the

[10:51] longer we have that person, the less the

[10:53] more we spend for that person out of

[10:54] that fee. So, we want to be efficient

[10:56] about how we do that. I just curious

[10:58] about your calculation for both those

[10:59] projects when you think you would need

[11:01] the the additional support.

[11:03] >> Yeah, absolutely. It's a balance

[11:04] between, you know, what we can afford

[11:06] necessarily and, you know, what do we

[11:07] actually need? I think for both

[11:09] projects, there's a benefit in bringing

[11:10] somebody on sooner than later. Um,

[11:12] particularly with the seaw wall project,

[11:14] knowing how complex that is and getting

[11:16] that person integrated early.

[11:18] >> I see the beach road

[11:20] >> beach road seaw wall project. Yes. with

[11:22] bringing them in and getting them

[11:23] integrated with the project and the you

[11:25] know the stakeholders is a good thing.

[11:27] Um I think there's also benefits in

[11:29] doing that with Malard Point all you

[11:31] know to your point though we we do want

[11:32] to make sure we're collecting fees and

[11:34] revenue from that to to fund that

[11:36] position. We're not getting too far

[11:38] ahead of ourselves. Um, director Rebecca

[11:42] Marwick has been working on uh doing

[11:44] some outreach and she's she has a few

[11:46] names on her list um of uh consulting

[11:50] firms that do that type of project

[11:51] management and oversight work

[11:53] >> as as the uh I know you mentioned that

[11:56] the um potential review by those

[11:59] conditions move to February, but as that

[12:01] gets resolved or whatever the subsequent

[12:03] um steps might be, it would be great to

[12:06] let us know specifically your timing and

[12:09] the type person and when they would, you

[12:11] know, come on board to to support the

[12:12] staff that you already have.

[12:13] >> Yeah, of course. I can keep you updated.

[12:18] » Any other questions for Robert?

[12:20] >> Oh, um, Robert, I know we we talked

[12:22] about this separately, but I wanted to

[12:24] raise it again in public. Obviously with

[12:26] all of the um flooding that we saw

[12:29] throughout Marin over the the weekend,

[12:31] there's been questions raised about um

[12:33] the extent to which the beach road

[12:35] stabilization project may or may not

[12:37] address any of the the flood the

[12:40] potential flooding issues related to

[12:41] that seaw wall. Can you just elaborate

[12:43] on that?

[12:44] >> Yeah, like I mentioned in the report,

[12:46] this project and and truthfully that the

[12:48] EI that was done to study this project

[12:51] did not contemplate any increase in

[12:53] height of the seaw walls. We're looking

[12:55] that at that as a separate phase.

[12:57] Really, we're focusing right now on

[12:59] structurally improving the seaw wall so

[13:01] it can withstand an earthquake event and

[13:03] not topple over just over a long period

[13:05] of time. Um, it's a costly project at 4

[13:08] and a.5 million and to integrate uh

[13:11] increasing the height of the seaw wall

[13:12] would require would require more

[13:14] engineering and more cost. Um, that's

[13:17] something that we need to plan for in

[13:18] the future and it's kind of on a

[13:20] long-term outlook.

[13:22] I think there is some nuance there

[13:23] though however in that there are some

[13:26] areas of that that stretch that are

[13:28] being contemplated to be worked on where

[13:30] there's clear settle settlement

[13:32] >> um so at the end of the day I can

[13:34] imagine you're going to leave it settled

[13:36] you're going to probably restore it to

[13:38] the elevations of the the the you know

[13:41] immediate area I don't mean raising

[13:43] everything but if something is

[13:44] noticeably lower than other places it'll

[13:46] probably at the end of the day be be

[13:48] consistent in height with with the rest

[13:49] of the wall I'm talking about like the

[13:51] lower curve. I'm not talking about

[13:52] anything higher,

[13:53] >> right? Yeah. And it's a the more you dig

[13:55] into that topic, it's actually fairly

[13:57] complex about how the water enters

[13:59] through those areas and ultimately could

[14:01] get trapped even if you build up a small

[14:03] segment. So, we had originally

[14:06] contemplated a passive seaw wall that

[14:08] didn't have any breaks, a continuous

[14:09] height. That's something we'd have to

[14:11] think about and it's something I've

[14:12] asked Tony to look into with our

[14:14] engineers is is there some kind of a an

[14:16] intermediate phase that would give us

[14:18] some real flood protection while we're

[14:20] working on this project. So, it's uh

[14:22] it's something we'll look into.

[14:26] >> Okay. Um I'll open this to public

[14:27] comment. Do we have any public comment,

[14:28] Beth?

[14:30] >> Yes, we have Dr. Rothman.

[14:36] » Hi, Dr. Rothman.

[14:39] Thank you very much. Uh with respect to

[14:41] the uh beach road, there seem to be two

[14:44] aspects and you've alluded to them in

[14:47] your discussion this evening and Mr.

[14:49] Zadnik did in his introduction. One is

[14:53] strengthening the the location. when I

[14:57] served on the uh flood committee,

[14:59] whatever it was called, uh they said

[15:02] there was no foundation under uh Beach

[15:05] Road, that it was just big rocks and

[15:07] small rocks, that there was no

[15:09] intentional foundation in a sense of

[15:11] resisting the water and that that was

[15:13] the problem. And I'm glad that's being

[15:16] dealt with. The second though doesn't

[15:18] seem that complicated to me, and that's

[15:20] the height.

[15:22] Anyone who goes by there knows that

[15:24] there is a seaw wall. It's about four 4

[15:27] and 1/2 ft high. The only trouble is

[15:30] it's got holes in it. I don't mean holes

[15:32] from deterioration. It was designed with

[15:35] openings in it. Now, whatever may be the

[15:38] need for some long-term thing, if those

[15:41] holes were simply filled up with

[15:44] concrete,

[15:45] it seems to me, unless Mr. Adnik has

[15:48] some reason why it's not true that that

[15:51] would keep the water, the waves and the

[15:53] spray from coming over Beach Road. So, I

[15:57] don't know. Sometimes when there's a

[15:59] project, people want it to be a big

[16:01] project. And maybe sometimes it does

[16:03] have to be a big project, but now if you

[16:05] look at the that the the wall that's

[16:08] along there, you'll see that it's more

[16:10] open with those holes than it is closed

[16:13] with the stansions. So, I would like to

[16:16] know whether someone on the council

[16:18] could say why the simple measure of

[16:21] filling up those holes isn't being done.

[16:25] Thank you very much.

[16:27] >> I have asked the same question. I'm

[16:29] going to ask the same question to Robert

[16:30] if you'd like to comment on it.

[16:33] >> And like I said, it's a complex

[16:35] engineering discussion. Uh when you

[16:37] start looking into it, whether or not it

[16:38] could uh reduce the amount of wave

[16:40] action, that's one component. If you

[16:42] recall what we've studied in this

[16:43] project, that might be true. The the

[16:46] more significant or severe condition is

[16:48] the still water action. Uh I think

[16:51] traditionally when you know agencies

[16:53] look at uh providing real protection,

[16:55] that's what they're trying to focus on

[16:56] is how do we keep the still water out

[16:58] and that's where the engineering

[16:59] complexity comes into play of how that

[17:01] water uh would enter that you know kind

[17:04] of a hole with with a a seaw wall with

[17:07] holes in it and how it would evacuate

[17:09] afterwards. Um, it works great when you

[17:11] have a full project. It doesn't work so

[17:13] great when it's just peace meal. So,

[17:14] again, that's something what we're

[17:16] looking at with our uh our engineers and

[17:18] hopefully we'll have an answer soon.

[17:19] >> Okay. Thank you, Robert. Um, okay. We

[17:22] are going to move on to item 3C, our

[17:26] police chief report from Jason.

[17:34] Which one? This.

[17:38] » Okay. Thank you.

[17:41] >> All right. Good evening, Mayor Wilkinson

[17:43] and council members. Tonight, I'm

[17:45] pleased to present the police

[17:46] department's fourth quarter report for

[17:49] 2025.

[17:53] Um, starting off with the department

[17:55] policy manual. Now, during this quarter,

[17:57] we updated 19 and implemented two new

[18:00] lexable policies in alignment with amen

[18:04] laws and best practices. And these

[18:06] updates are detailed in the staff

[18:08] report.

[18:10] And during this quarter, the department

[18:12] handled 801 incidents which included two

[18:15] part one offenses and nine part two

[18:19] offenses. And they are all highlighted

[18:21] in bold. And the remaining 790 incidents

[18:25] are generically classified as all other

[18:27] incidents.

[18:30] In another snapshot, the department

[18:32] conducted nine traffic stops, made one

[18:35] arrest, and referred one case for

[18:37] prosecution. We received multiple

[18:39] citizen appreciations and zero citizen

[18:42] complaints. We also assisted Tibberon PD

[18:45] on two occasions.

[18:47] One applicant for the vacant police

[18:49] officer position successfully met all

[18:52] post pre-employment requirements.

[18:54] Meanwhile, we are continuing to recruit

[18:57] for reserve officers.

[19:01] Regarding ARIPA data, officers detained

[19:04] 13 individuals stemming from nine

[19:06] traffic violations, two suspicious

[19:09] activities, and two mental wellness

[19:11] checks. The perceived racial

[19:13] compositions consisted of nine

[19:15] Caucasians, one Hispanic, one Middle

[19:18] Eastern, one Asian, and one Pacific

[19:20] Islander. Of these 13 contacts, nine

[19:24] were officer initiated while four were

[19:27] related to calls for service. In all,

[19:30] nine warnings were given, two citations

[19:32] were issued, and one arrest was made.

[19:36] And during this quarter, PD personnel

[19:38] attended in-person and online training

[19:40] that were either mandated or for

[19:42] knowledge and skill enhancements. Uh

[19:45] this during this quarter, Sergeant Clark

[19:46] attended week two of the posts

[19:49] supervisory school which he successfully

[19:51] completed.

[19:52] And as part of our ongoing community

[19:55] policing, we always take great pride and

[19:57] joy in participating in community

[19:59] events.

[20:00] And with that, I am available for

[20:02] questions.

[20:04] >> Does anyone from the council have

[20:06] questions for Chief Woo?

[20:10] >> No questions. Okay, let's open this up

[20:11] for public comment.

[20:19] We have Dr. Rothman.

[20:25] » Hi Dr. Rothman.

[20:26] >> Thank you very much. Um I'm sorry if it

[20:29] seems like I'm monopolizing things, but

[20:31] I these are all very uh interesting and

[20:34] important things I believe. Um you know

[20:37] the saying it can happen here. Uh well,

[20:40] sometimes the things that can't happen

[20:42] here do happen here. And I'm hoping that

[20:46] the with the recent events of the

[20:48] killing of the of of the woman in

[20:51] Minneapolis,

[20:53] my own opinion uh is that these ICE

[20:56] people are irresponsible, many of them.

[20:58] And I do hope that if it does happen

[21:01] here, I don't mean that somebody gets

[21:03] killed. God forbid that that should

[21:04] happen. But if there is a coming to

[21:08] Belvadier

[21:09] of ICE

[21:12] uh to arrest people, to deport them, I

[21:15] do hope that the police department w

[21:20] um a policy about how to deal with such

[21:23] circumstances. I don't know what the

[21:26] policy should be and I'm not

[21:29] knowledgeable enough to make a

[21:30] suggestion about what it should be, but

[21:32] I do think that and it doesn't have to

[21:34] be broadcast or something, but I do hope

[21:37] that Chief Woo uh has considered that

[21:41] and and will have a plan uh to to convey

[21:46] to the officers if God forbid ICE comes

[21:50] to Belvadier. Thank you very much.

[21:55] Jason, would you like to comment?

[21:57] >> Um, yes. U, in short, the Belvadier

[22:00] Police Department along with the rest of

[22:02] California law enforcements are governed

[22:04] by SB2 with regarding to ICE activities

[22:07] rendering assistance to ICE. It is not

[22:10] our our job. In fact, we're prohibited

[22:13] by law to assist ICE uh in immigration

[22:16] enforcements.

[22:19] >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. We will move on

[22:22] to item 3D which is swearing in of

[22:25] police officer Tyler Preston. Jason, I

[22:28] think the floor is yours.

[22:29] >> Thanks again, Mayor Wilkinson. It is

[22:32] with great pleasure that I present

[22:34] Officer Tyler Preston to the council and

[22:36] to the community as the newest member of

[22:39] the Belair Police Department.

[22:41] Accompanying him tonight is his fiance

[22:43] Jasmine and their oneyear-old son,

[22:46] Atlas.

[22:48] Tyler was born and raised in

[22:49] Connecticut. While pursuing a college

[22:51] degree, he became a corrections officer

[22:54] for the state of Connecticut. Tyler's

[22:56] passion for the great outdoors led him

[22:58] on a journey to the west, where he

[23:00] managed to visit 26 national parks along

[23:03] the way. It was at this point that he

[23:06] decided to move out to Northern

[23:07] California to pursue his stream job as a

[23:10] police officer.

[23:12] Tyler began his law enforcement career

[23:14] in 2023 with the Mil Valley Police

[23:17] Department where he worked as a patrol

[23:19] officer. Tyler is a community caretaker

[23:23] at heart and has always expressed a

[23:25] strong desire to work in Belvadier.

[23:28] There is no doubt that he will serve our

[23:30] residents with dedication and

[23:32] professionalism.

[23:34] What he enjoys the most is spending time

[23:36] with his family in seeking outdoor

[23:38] adventures. So at this time will officer

[23:41] Tyler and his family please come to the

[23:42] front of the das for the swearing

[23:44] ceremony.

[24:01] All right, please raise your right hand

[24:03] and take office.

[24:05] I

[24:08] do solemnly swearly

[24:11] that I will support and defend

[24:14] the Constitution of the United States

[24:16] and the Constitution of the States of

[24:18] California. United States

[24:22] against all enemies, foreign and

[24:24] domestic against all enemies, foreign,

[24:26] domestic. that I will bear true, faith,

[24:30] excuse me, that I will bear true faith

[24:32] and allegiance

[24:35] to the Constitution of the United States

[24:37] and the Constitution of California.

[24:39] Constitution

[24:42] >> that I take this obligation freely take

[24:45] this obligation freely

[24:47] >> without any mental reservation

[24:51] >> for purpose of evasion

[24:53] >> purpose of evation

[24:54] >> and that I will well and faithfully

[24:56] discharge I will well and faithfully

[24:59] discharge

[24:59] >> the duties upon which I sought to

[25:03] accomplished.

[25:31] Congratulations.

[25:56] I think that's probably the youngest

[25:57] member of our audience that we've seen

[25:58] in a long time.

[26:03] Okay, we're going to move on to item 3E,

[26:06] which is I believe Adam, you're coming

[26:08] to present on the homemade film festival

[26:11] and the concerts in the park.

[26:13] >> Good evening, Mayor Wilkinson and uh

[26:16] council members. My name is Adam Gabser.

[26:18] I'm here first on behalf of the

[26:20] Belvadier Homemade Film Festival. I will

[26:23] be producing a third annual event this

[26:25] year and I am asking for your continued

[26:28] support. Um, keeping the ask as the same

[26:32] as last year. I think um, we had a

[26:36] really successful year last year. I

[26:38] ended up screening 33 films, had an

[26:40] audience of about 350 people. In

[26:43] addition, I ran uh, free film making

[26:46] workshops at the library all summer. Had

[26:49] about 200 attendees there and uh, that

[26:52] brought a bunch of films in. I also

[26:54] worked with the Redwood High School and

[26:57] closely with the library um to get the

[27:00] word out and to receive films. So, um I

[27:04] won't go on any longer. I just want to

[27:06] say uh I'm hoping for your support again

[27:08] this year and I'll take any questions.

[27:13] >> Any questions? Jane,

[27:17] >> good evening.

[27:18] I um wanted to know for

[27:23] people who weren't able to attend or

[27:25] couldn't stay through the whole viewing

[27:28] experience, is is there ever a way that

[27:30] you have that available that we could

[27:32] either put on the city's website so

[27:34] people could see it or there's a link to

[27:37] it that we could put out in the breeze

[27:39] so that people had the opportunity. I

[27:41] think it would be nice since we

[27:44] participate that people of Belvadier

[27:46] could um go back and look at it if they

[27:49] didn't have a chance and it might be

[27:50] great advertising for you for next time.

[27:54] >> Uh the short answer is yes. I have all

[27:57] of the films. The question becomes

[28:00] >> I don't mean those films. I meant the

[28:02] one you put together.

[28:03] >> Oh, my personal films.

[28:04] >> The one that you showed us.

[28:06] >> It's the films the the the curated films

[28:09] that you showed at the film festival.

[28:10] There were 33 films. Is that what we're

[28:12] talking about?

[28:13] >> Whatever you showed that night.

[28:15] >> That night. Yeah. So, I do have all of

[28:17] them.

[28:17] >> Okay.

[28:18] >> The question becomes,

[28:20] have the filmmakers approve them to be

[28:22] posted publicly on a website.

[28:25] >> Okay.

[28:26] >> And I don't know. I we could talk about

[28:28] that. I'm happy to provide a link to all

[28:31] of them and they could be posted on the

[28:33] website, but I think I should check with

[28:35] the filmmakers first to see whether

[28:37] they're comfortable with that. But my

[28:39] five films, you're welcome to.

[28:41] >> I I misunderstood because I thought you

[28:45] had created one film from all the

[28:48] individual ones, but you load up each

[28:52] one.

[28:52] >> Correct. They're all loaded into a

[28:54] PowerPoint presentation.

[28:56] >> Oh, okay.

[28:56] >> Which generally speaking should work,

[28:58] but we had a little sniffer. But yeah.

[29:00] >> Yeah. Okay. Well, if if anything like

[29:03] that could happen, um

[29:05] >> would that be something you'd want to

[29:07] post on the city website?

[29:09] >> It might be.

[29:10] >> Okay.

[29:10] >> Or it might be a link that we could send

[29:13] out if that's possible.

[29:14] >> I would love that.

[29:15] >> Promote, promote, promote.

[29:16] >> Yeah. I I just think people would

[29:19] >> enjoy seeing what happened last year and

[29:22] then it might entice more.

[29:24] >> We might consider maybe just a

[29:25] highlights of

[29:26] >> or highlights of Yeah.

[29:27] >> Okay. I'm happy to

[29:28] >> anything along those lines. I think

[29:30] >> great. I would love that.

[29:31] >> Be great. Um, what one of the things

[29:36] that happened last year at your event

[29:39] was that B Ready Belvadier had their go

[29:41] bag giveaway.

[29:43] >> And um, those of us on the committee

[29:46] thought it was it worked out really

[29:49] well. I think there were some timing

[29:50] ideas that could change, but is that if

[29:53] the committee had another event, would

[29:56] you be opposed to joining up that same

[29:59] way having it the same evening?

[30:01] >> So, I will come up with a double

[30:03] negative. I am not opposed to it.

[30:05] >> Okay.

[30:06] >> Um, in fact, I think it was great. Uh

[30:08] the I was going to talk to Pat a little

[30:10] bit more about this as we get further

[30:12] along with this timing, but I'm thinking

[30:14] of starting my event at six o'clock. So

[30:16] there's not that lag time because we had

[30:19] people like, "Oh, we're here." And then

[30:21] they came over to my event and was like,

[30:22] "Wait, we're not ready for you." So I

[30:25] thought if you start at 5 to 6, then

[30:27] mine will start right at 6 so people can

[30:29] just come straight over.

[30:31] >> That that would be great. Either way,

[30:34] either we start ours later or you start

[30:36] earlier, but I think it would be great

[30:38] to link up

[30:39] >> and have people come down.

[30:41] >> Agree.

[30:42] >> Yeah.

[30:43] >> And I just want to add something to what

[30:45] Jane said is is that um I'm sure you

[30:47] must have

[30:50] some kind of agreement or something that

[30:52] all these people with their

[30:55] films um sign.

[30:56] >> Yeah. when they submit on film freeway.

[30:59] I think there is a waiver there that

[31:00] you're giving me the right to screen

[31:03] them at my festival.

[31:06] I mean, we could also do it and wait for

[31:08] people to say, "Wait, I don't want mine

[31:10] up there." But

[31:10] >> no, no, no. Not saying go to them and

[31:12] ask permission, but maybe in the future

[31:14] you can have

[31:16] >> live there on anything that the city

[31:20] funds since you do a lot of community

[31:22] events that you know we always have the

[31:25] right

[31:26] >> to

[31:28] use the content.

[31:29] >> That's a great suggestion and I will

[31:32] execute on that.

[31:34] >> You might want to have some optouts

[31:36] there. People that have children might

[31:37] not want their kids all over the

[31:40] internet.

[31:41] Right.

[31:42] >> Um, any other comments?

[31:45] >> No, just thank you. They're both great

[31:47] events.

[31:49] >> I haven't talked about concerts yet.

[31:50] Well,

[31:51] >> Pety, are you up next for the concerts

[31:53] or

[31:55] >> Yeah.

[31:56] >> Oh, I didn't My executive producer

[32:03] » executive producer for the film

[32:04] festival. Okay. Now, shall I switch

[32:06] hats?

[32:08] >> Okay. Now, we'll switch sides. Um, now

[32:10] I'm here on behalf of the Belvadier

[32:12] Concerts in the Park and uh we are now

[32:15] planning our 29th event, 29th season uh

[32:19] with four concerts, free concerts in the

[32:21] park. We met this past Saturday to start

[32:23] the process of uh selecting bands.

[32:28] We are, you're probably very aware that

[32:30] costs of things are just going up and

[32:32] up, but we are very conservative on our

[32:35] committee. We're really trying to keep

[32:37] it tight. Um, so we're not increasing

[32:40] our ask this year. We're asking for the

[32:42] same amount last year and we're going to

[32:44] be living within that budget. So, um,

[32:48] the bands are not finalized as of yet.

[32:50] Once that's settled, we will publicize

[32:53] it in the normal way.

[32:56] >> Any question?

[32:57] >> Want to say we have a a small but mighty

[33:00] committee and we actually even probably

[33:03] got one or two bands figured out on

[33:05] Saturday in one meeting. So, we have a

[33:08] few more meetings. If you all have any

[33:10] anybody has any b idea of bands, now's a

[33:12] good time to to put them to Adam or me

[33:15] and we can make sure they get

[33:16] considered. Um, thank you for I just

[33:18] want to say thank you always for

[33:20] supporting us and always for coming to

[33:22] the concerts because we love what we do

[33:25] and we're really excited to be a part of

[33:26] the community and be able to offer this.

[33:31] >> Thank you to both of you. Any questions

[33:32] from city council? No, I just want to

[33:35] say that um for the concerts in the

[33:37] park, I think that the community just

[33:39] loves the concerts and the word has

[33:41] gotten out. So now we're getting people

[33:42] from all over and uh but people really

[33:46] enjoy it and and I think that it's a

[33:49] great community event that brings people

[33:51] together in a very social fun way and I

[33:54] think the same holds true for the film

[33:56] festival. So, thank you both and your

[33:59] co-en directors and everything else and

[34:02] their committees for all their hard

[34:03] work. We truly appreciate it.

[34:05] >> Thank you.

[34:08] >> Anybody else? No. Let's open for public

[34:10] comment.

[34:11] >> Uh, Mayor Wilkinson, there are no hands

[34:13] raised.

[34:14] >> Okay. Thank you to the three of you for

[34:16] tonight and for everything that you do.

[34:18] Um, okay. We will now move on to the

[34:23] consent calendar. Um, the consent

[34:26] calendar consists of items that the city

[34:27] council considers to be routine or

[34:29] council has discussed previously and do

[34:31] not require further discussion. Unless

[34:34] any item is specifically removed by any

[34:36] member of the city council, the consent

[34:38] calendar will be adopted by one motion.

[34:40] Council will take public comment on all

[34:42] items on the consent calendar when the

[34:44] calendar is called. Um, so I believe

[34:47] here that we're going to separate out E.

[34:50] So, um, does anybody beyond that wish to

[34:53] have any item? uh removed from the

[34:55] consent calendar.

[34:59] » No.

[34:59] >> Nope. Um

[35:02] should I seek public comment now? So,

[35:04] let me uh ask for public comment on

[35:07] consent calendar items 4A through 4 I

[35:11] excluding 4E.

[35:14] >> We have Dr. Rothman.

[35:16] >> Dr. Rothman, welcome back.

[35:19] >> I hardly left. Uh

[35:22] I I'm sorry. I don't know how to put up

[35:25] on my screen uh the c the agenda and the

[35:29] pictures of you people. So I would like

[35:32] to discuss or have discussed beyond

[35:35] consent the item I don't know the number

[35:38] of it but it's the one that involves uh

[35:41] the the fine the $300,000 fine.

[35:45] >> So Dr. that's the one that's been

[35:47] removed separately so we can we can

[35:48] treat that separately.

[35:50] >> Thank you very much. Thank you.

[35:51] >> Okay. So, can I get a motion to approve

[35:54] 4 A through 4 I with the exception of

[35:57] 4E?

[35:58] >> So, moved. Second.

[36:00] >> All in favor?

[36:01] >> I

[36:03] >> motion passes. Okay. So, let's move to

[36:06] 4E. And the reason this is separated is

[36:08] because

[36:09] >> yes, I am um I'm not recused, but I was

[36:11] absent so I won't vote on it. So, I'll

[36:13] abstain from discussion and voting.

[36:15] >> Okay. And so, let's reopen this for

[36:17] public comment.

[36:21] Oh, we have no hands raised.

[36:23] >> Oh,

[36:25] >> Dr. Rothman, this is the item 4E

[36:29] >> which is discussing 339 Golden Gate.

[36:33] >> There we go. There he is.

[36:41] » Thank you very much. Uh I for the long

[36:45] discussion that you had uh this being I

[36:48] guess you call the second reading or

[36:50] something. It went on longer than I

[36:52] could be by the uh by the computer. So I

[36:56] didn't get to comment and since the item

[36:58] is still open I would like to comment at

[37:01] this time. I think you're making a big

[37:04] mistake by pursuing uh this huge fine.

[37:08] Uh, I look back over the cases, you've

[37:11] only had one success in court on these

[37:14] overtime fines, and that was back in

[37:16] about 2005, and that was the Ley case,

[37:20] and that case did not involve the same

[37:23] issues, and it was only a $100,000 fine.

[37:26] I think that's a very weak read on which

[37:29] to hang any feeling that you may have

[37:32] that you're going to succeed against

[37:35] David Flare's situation.

[37:37] Um I spoke with um uh Mr. Van's son and

[37:43] asked him how many of the big projects

[37:45] on the uh island itself get done in the

[37:49] period of time and in the last three

[37:52] years and he said none none get done.

[37:55] Therefore uh it it's just hard to

[37:58] construct things on the island. Uh and

[38:01] um the fines keep going up from the

[38:05] lately of $100,000. You're now up with

[38:07] one of $300,000.

[38:10] And um the bigger the fines, the more

[38:14] likely that someone's going to sue. You

[38:16] just found yourself out uh approximately

[38:20] $130,000

[38:22] uh with the case of the Lafuetses. If

[38:25] you consider the legal expenses that you

[38:27] had and the amount of money that you

[38:30] have to pay the Lafuetses and that

[38:32] doesn't include the extra staff time

[38:34] that had to be put up. So I would

[38:36] imagine that that case is costing

[38:38] $160,000

[38:41] and it you obviously felt that there was

[38:44] something or the lawyers felt that there

[38:46] was something weak about your case or

[38:48] you wouldn't have given them $50,000.

[38:51] Now uh

[38:54] it said that we try to be fair. We have

[38:57] to be fair. So we have to give the

[38:58] fines. But if and you say in the

[39:01] ordinances each of them that have come

[39:03] up with the overtime it states clearly

[39:05] we consider these time limits to be

[39:07] reasonable. Well, if no one can get the

[39:09] jobs done in the time, then by by

[39:13] definition, they aren't reasonable

[39:15] unless you consider that it's reasonable

[39:17] to make unreasonable demands on people.

[39:20] So instead of being fair to everyone,

[39:23] you're becoming equally unfair to

[39:25] everyone. And I would close by saying

[39:28] that who is it who feels that this

[39:31] ordinance that you're prosecuting under

[39:33] is a bad ordinance? You people feel it.

[39:37] And the reason I know that you people

[39:39] feel it is because you changed it. If it

[39:41] was a good ordinance, you would be

[39:43] standing by it and saying, "Oh, this is

[39:46] a good ordinance." But you know that

[39:47] it's no good. So what's happening is in

[39:50] my opinion, you're being unfair to

[39:52] everyone. And I hope you're not going to

[39:54] go along with this. If you want to go

[39:56] over a financial cliff, okay, but please

[39:59] don't take the residents over the edge

[40:01] with you. Thank you very much.

[40:05] Thank you for your comment. Okay, so

[40:08] we're going to move to item 4E. Um,

[40:11] >> excuse me, mayor. May I just add offer a

[40:13] brief comment?

[40:14] >> Of course you can.

[40:15] >> All right. Thank you. My apologies. So,

[40:16] we certainly always appreciate public

[40:18] comment here at Belvadier City Council,

[40:20] but I just do want to know for the

[40:21] record that Mr. Vanson is not in

[40:23] attendance tonight. He cannot speak to

[40:25] the accuracy of Mr. Rothman's claim that

[40:27] no projects are completed on time on the

[40:29] island. Um, I won't go into all the

[40:31] details here, but I believe that

[40:32] statement is untrue. Again, you know,

[40:35] Mr. Rothman has every right to make such

[40:37] comment at these public meetings. Uh,

[40:39] but again, I do just want to know note

[40:41] that that statement is not verified in

[40:44] any way. Thank you.

[40:46] >> Thank you, Andrew. Okay. Um, can I get a

[40:49] motion for 4E?

[40:53] » I move to approve.

[40:55] >> I'll second.

[40:56] >> All in favor?

[40:57] >> I.

[40:58] and you're abstained. Okay.

[41:03] All right. We are moving on to item

[41:05] five, which is our um public hearing,

[41:07] which is a second reading and approval

[41:09] of an ordinance adopting the 2025

[41:12] California Fire Code and 2025

[41:16] California Wildland Urban Interface Code

[41:19] as modified by Tibbron Fire Protection

[41:21] District Ordinance number 133. Is there

[41:25] a staff report?

[41:27] >> No staff report. Mayor Wilkinson, I'll

[41:29] just comment that this item was

[41:30] introduced and uh approved on first

[41:33] reading last month with the presentation

[41:34] from our building official. Timberon

[41:37] Fire Protection District also attended

[41:39] to answer any questions. There were no

[41:41] requests or changes or edits. So, we're

[41:43] looking for a motion to approve the

[41:44] attached ordinance. Ordinance is on a

[41:47] second reading this evening.

[41:48] >> Okay. Thank you. Um do any members of

[41:51] council have any uh questions? Okay. In

[41:53] that case, I will open the public

[41:56] hearing. Beth, um, is there anybody

[41:58] online that would like to make a

[42:00] comment?

[42:01] >> Traced. Okay. In that case, I will close

[42:03] the public hearing um, and bring this

[42:05] back for a motion.

[42:09] >> No discussion. I can make a motion.

[42:11] >> Second. All in favor?

[42:14] >> I motion passes.

[42:19] Okay, we're moving on to

[42:22] uh item number six, discussion and

[42:25] possible action to approve allocation of

[42:27] fiscal year 202425 excess reserves.

[42:30] Helga, I believe this is you.

[42:32] >> Yes. Good evening, Mayor Wilkinson and

[42:35] council members. The item before you

[42:38] tonight is to review the allocation of

[42:40] the city's fisc year 2425 excess

[42:43] reserves and approve the resolution

[42:45] authorizing the budget amendment to

[42:47] approve these appropriate these funds.

[42:51] At the completion of the fisc year 2425

[42:54] audit after accounting for all actual

[42:56] revenue expenditures and transfers the

[42:58] city's general fund balance was 7.4 4

[43:01] million, which becomes the fiscal year

[43:04] 2526 revised starting balance based on

[43:08] the city's reserve policy, which

[43:10] requires that that unrestricted reserves

[43:13] equal at least 50% of projected general

[43:16] fund expenditures plus buyer transfer

[43:20] plus debt service. Throughout the

[43:21] five-year planning period, staff have

[43:24] identified 1.38 million in excess

[43:27] reserves that could be reasonably

[43:29] appropriated and the ratio would remain

[43:32] above the 50% threshold throughout the

[43:35] 5-year forecast period.

[43:38] Budget outcomes can vary from forecast

[43:41] and maintaining a buffer above the

[43:43] minimum is a sensible approach. Like

[43:46] past practice, staff requests that

[43:48] 350,000 of the 1.38 million remain in

[43:52] the general fund as unassigned,

[43:56] leaving 1,30,000

[43:59] in one-time funds to be appropriated.

[44:02] The finance committee held a meeting on

[44:04] December 2nd to review the audit results

[44:07] and approve staff's recommendation of

[44:09] the amount of excess reserves to be

[44:12] allocated. Before you tonight is the

[44:15] allocation of these funds for your

[44:17] approval.

[44:18] Staff have identified several immediate

[44:21] operational and capital one-time

[44:23] projects for the use of the 1.03

[44:25] million. Staff are recommending an

[44:28] allocation of 830,000

[44:31] for the Beach Road stabilization

[44:33] project. Construction is expected to

[44:36] begin in June of 2026 and conclude by

[44:40] fall of 2026.

[44:42] When the fiscal year 2526 budget was

[44:45] prepared, the project's cost was

[44:47] estimated at 3.8 million. However, due

[44:51] to increases in construction and

[44:53] construction management costs, the

[44:55] project estimate has risen to 4.4

[44:57] million. The current budget includes

[45:00] 1.25 25 million in transfers from the

[45:03] general fund to the critical

[45:05] infrastructure fund over the next two

[45:08] fiscal years with a proposed allocation

[45:11] of 830,000.

[45:13] This is anticipated to eliminate the

[45:15] need for further transfers from the

[45:17] general fund assuming there are no

[45:20] additional cost overruns.

[45:24] Secondly, an additional 50,000 is

[45:27] proposed to advance the storm drain and

[45:29] retaining wall condition assessment to

[45:31] support long-term capital planning.

[45:34] 100,000 is proposed for a required BCDC

[45:38] shoreline cleanup project on Beach Road.

[45:41] The project involves removing sections

[45:43] of an outdated retaining wall that has

[45:46] fallen into the bay on a city parcel

[45:48] known as the strip. The Bay Conservation

[45:51] and Development Commission has

[45:54] jurisdiction over the beachfront area

[45:56] and considers this unpermitted fill.

[45:58] They are mandating that the city clean

[46:00] up the site and the project must be

[46:02] completed within the next few months to

[46:05] meet BCDC's deadline. And finally,

[46:08] 50,000 is proposed for police department

[46:11] facility improvements to better align

[46:14] the space with current operational

[46:15] needs. Any savings from the BCDC cleanup

[46:19] would be directed to this project.

[46:22] In total, the proposed use of the 1.03

[46:25] million aims to address critical

[46:26] infrastructure project that are already

[46:29] in progress, meet operational needs, and

[46:31] support priority community initiatives.

[46:35] With the allocation of the 1.03 3

[46:37] million. The city's estimated general

[46:39] fund balance at June 30th, 2026 will be

[46:42] 4.9 million and the budget will remain

[46:45] in compliance with its reserve policy

[46:48] over the 5-year forecast period. And

[46:50] with that, I'm available for questions.

[46:55] >> Does anybody have questions for Helga?

[46:59] » I have a few just simple questions just

[47:02] clarification. So, working backwards for

[47:05] the critical critical infrastructure

[47:07] fund, um there's 2.2ish in there now

[47:11] plus the 830 plus the 125 over the next

[47:15] two years gets us north of the 4.4. Is

[47:17] my math generally correct?

[47:19] >> Yes, it would be about uh four

[47:25] >> I guess I'm asking what's in there now?

[47:26] >> There would be about 49,000 left.

[47:29] >> But but so what's in there now is

[47:30] 2223ish something. 2.5.

[47:33] >> Oh, okay.

[47:34] >> Yeah,

[47:35] >> that seems a little higher. But um uh

[47:37] the second question is relating to

[47:40] BCDC's demands to clean up the shoreline

[47:42] there. These are private improvements

[47:45] that fell from private property,

[47:49] >> Robert.

[47:50] >> Yes, that's correct.

[47:52] >> And I mean, were they on private

[47:55] property initially? I mean, they're the

[47:58] improvements prior to their destruction

[48:01] or or deterioration.

[48:03] >> That's where it gets a bit complicated

[48:04] because these are very old structures

[48:06] that were built probably before

[48:07] revocable licenses were a thing in

[48:09] Belvadier. So, it's on the shoreline

[48:11] band. They're private improvements on

[48:14] what is technically public land in that

[48:16] case, but without a clear revocable

[48:18] license.

[48:19] >> No, no, no. I understand that. But, but is it on the is were they originally

[48:22] installed in the in in the strip?

[48:24] >> In the strip. Correct. Yes.

[48:25] >> Okay. So, they were on our property.

[48:27] Yes.

[48:28] >> Okay.

[48:29] Thank you. Um uh and

[48:34] last couple months ago, we we looked at

[48:37] the um snapshot at the 2425

[48:41] year end prior to the audit. And if I

[48:43] recall correctly, the

[48:46] financial surpluses, I'm sorry, the

[48:48] revenue surpluses and the cost less than

[48:52] expected costs were greater than the

[48:54] 1.03. I assume that's the difference of

[48:57] that is why it's not rolling all down to

[48:59] this to this um um um reserve fund um

[49:04] surplus is capital improvement rollovers

[49:06] and some other things. Could you just

[49:08] comment on that briefly?

[49:09] >> Right. So at the end of June 20

[49:14] June 30th 2025 the surplus showed 3.07

[49:19] 07 million but that was based on the

[49:22] expenditures.

[49:25] The fiscal year the reserve amount was

[49:30] based on the 2526

[49:33] general fund expenses fire transfer and

[49:37] debt service that was part of the 2425

[49:41] budget. And when you roll that 7 million

[49:45] forward and you account for the new

[49:48] expenses in 2526 and the increase in

[49:53] expenditures and then the reserve amount

[49:57] is based on 2627's

[50:01] general fund expenses plus fire transfer

[50:04] plus debt service. that number is higher

[50:07] than what was used at as part of 2425.

[50:13] So,

[50:13] >> no, I understand. I understand. Thank

[50:15] you.

[50:19] » No, no, just I I think what you're

[50:21] saying is is as of as of as of the end

[50:23] of 2425,

[50:25] there was the 38, but that 38 isn't

[50:28] doesn't drop to the um um general fund

[50:30] reserve. It it's applied to the 2526

[50:34] budget um which rolls down at that point

[50:36] but that applies 2627

[50:39] >> expenditures.

[50:39] >> Correct.

[50:42] >> Thank you.

[50:43] >> Any other question?

[50:44] >> I remember Mark from asking that

[50:46] question.

[50:47] >> Any other questions?

[50:49] >> I I don't have a question. Do you want

[50:52] me to wait until after?

[50:53] >> Let's Let's open this up for for public

[50:55] comment quickly.

[50:57] >> Do you have a question? No,

[50:58] >> let's open for public comment. No,

[51:01] >> Mayor Wilkinson, there are no hands

[51:02] raised.

[51:03] >> Okay, in that case, let's bring this

[51:04] back for discussion. Jane,

[51:08] >> so first of all, it's always nice to

[51:11] have money left over even though it's a

[51:13] lot. Um, so thank you. H

[51:18] >> even though it's a lot.

[51:20] >> It shouldn't be. That's great that it's

[51:22] a lot.

[51:22] >> No, it's great that it's a lot. And I

[51:24] think we're all really excited that the

[51:26] beach road project will actually happen

[51:28] and hopefully get done as planned. So

[51:32] definitely having the funds to get that

[51:34] done is a number one. So thank you um

[51:38] for that. Um I I noticed in going

[51:43] through everything, this is minor, but

[51:46] in the 2425 budget, there's a nice big

[51:50] chart that compares all the different

[51:52] years. And in the 2526 one, there's

[51:56] nothing. It doesn't it doesn't have that

[51:58] in there. So, I'm hoping that in the

[52:01] next version that can go back in again

[52:04] because it helps people that aren't as

[52:07] familiar as you are with all the

[52:08] different line items.

[52:10] >> So, I'm just suggesting that that could

[52:12] please

[52:13] >> Sure. We can take a look at that.

[52:14] >> I've been trying to create my own and

[52:16] not that easy. So, um and then you know I think this is it

[52:24] it's great when we have one-time items

[52:27] that we need funded which we always do.

[52:30] So that's terrific. But um I think you

[52:33] know planning having our our when we

[52:36] finish that infrastructure

[52:39] process and um you know just determining

[52:43] what things in the city over time need

[52:45] to be looked at and need to be addressed

[52:48] and storm drains, retaining walls, etc.

[52:51] that that'll really help with long-term

[52:54] planning. So, it doesn't just have to

[52:56] come from one-time funds because the

[52:59] one-time funds seems like we're cutting

[53:01] off

[53:03] long-term funding things by always

[53:06] having it be one time.

[53:07] >> And that is that is the goal of the

[53:09] long-term why we're doing these

[53:11] assessments is so that we can plan

[53:14] better.

[53:14] >> Yeah, that would be great. That will be

[53:16] great. Thanks,

[53:22] Um, so my only comment was when um I was

[53:28] uh looking over the allocations for all

[53:30] the funds. Um, and I know this doesn't

[53:34] necessarily directly to you, but in

[53:36] general, I just want to say that, um,

[53:40] I'm not quite sure 100% of all the

[53:42] things that the police department needs

[53:44] to have done, but the 50,000 seems a

[53:48] little skinny in these days with the

[53:51] cost of things. And it would be nice

[53:54] that they could have a um,

[53:58] pleasant, healthy space to work in.

[54:02] Right. And so the 50,000 is basically

[54:05] just to get things started down there

[54:07] kind of design and then as part of the

[54:10] next budget cycle, you know, we

[54:12] anticipate putting more money towards

[54:14] that project.

[54:15] >> Okay. All right. Good. So the 50,000 is

[54:17] just to get the project off the ground.

[54:20] It's not actually for the construction

[54:22] part of it.

[54:23] >> That's my understanding.

[54:28] » Yes. Right. Okay. Thank you.

[54:30] Yes.

[54:32] >> Anything else?

[54:34] >> No, I would just say I appreciate how

[54:36] the city continues to be very

[54:38] disciplined in managing the budget. Um I

[54:41] think we are very fiscally conservative

[54:43] and uh as a result we have um these

[54:46] types of results where we can uh

[54:48] allocate money to um projects that need

[54:50] uh additional funding. So I appreciate

[54:52] the diligence that the team goes through

[54:54] and uh how you operate um fiscally. So

[54:57] thank you.

[54:58] >> Thank you. Um, and how could I just add

[55:00] in there that we for the at the retreat

[55:02] we're going to bring back a much more

[55:03] complete discussion of long-term budget

[55:06] planning. Correct.

[55:10] » Um, yes, we can.

[55:11] >> But did you just get surprised by that?

[55:13] Because there's there's a lot of things

[55:16] in motion right now and so there's a lot

[55:18] of pieces that will be slowly coming

[55:19] together and so we can have a more

[55:20] strategic discussion around some of

[55:22] those items.

[55:23] >> Yes, we can.

[55:24] >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Unless there's um

[55:30] you have work to do that you didn't know

[55:31] about. Um, okay. So, in that case, can

[55:35] is do we need a motion for this? We do

[55:36] know.

[55:38] >> Uh, yes.

[55:41] Can I get a motion from um one of the

[55:44] council members? I can make a motion to

[55:48] authorize a budget amendment to allocate

[55:51] fiscal year 202425

[55:53] excess reserve funds as noted in the

[55:57] staff report.

[55:58] >> Second.

[55:59] >> All in favor?

[56:00] >> I.

[56:01] >> Motion passes. Okay. We move on to our

[56:04] final item which is the open forum. Um,

[56:06] this is an opportunity for any member of

[56:08] the public to briefly address the city

[56:09] council on any matter that does not

[56:11] appear on this agenda, but that is

[56:13] within the city council's subject matter

[56:15] jurisdiction. Upon being recognized by

[56:17] the mayor, please limit your oral

[56:18] statement to no more than 3 minutes.

[56:20] Under the Brown Act, council members may

[56:22] not deliberate or take action on items

[56:24] not on tonight's agenda. Matters that

[56:27] may warrant a more lengthy presentation

[56:28] or council consideration may be placed

[56:31] on the agenda for further discussion at

[56:33] a later meeting.

[56:35] Paige, would you like to make a public

[56:37] comment? No. In that case, is it anybody

[56:40] on Zoom?

[56:41] >> We have Dr. Rothman.

[56:44] >> Dr. Rothman, welcome again.

[56:49] » Thank you very much. Um,

[56:52] uh, Council Member Mark, uh, this is a

[56:55] process, uh, question or statement. Uh,

[56:58] Congress,

[57:00] not yet. Council member Mark uh said

[57:04] that uh I had said that no project

[57:08] on the island ever gets finished in the

[57:12] time within the time restraints. U

[57:16] perhaps I don't speak clearly enough but

[57:18] that's not what I said. What I said was

[57:22] no big project meaning a two-year

[57:26] project

[57:28] according to what I was told by Mr. Ban

[57:30] sun gets done within the time

[57:33] restriction. It's on that basis. Now, if

[57:37] uh I I that stands as a fact and it's on

[57:40] the tape. So, please I don't want to say

[57:43] disregard what uh council member Mark

[57:46] said, but it's on the tape and I said

[57:48] the project the big projects on the

[57:51] island where construction is more

[57:52] difficult do not get done. And that I

[57:54] have been told that by Mr. Vansson.

[57:56] However, having said that, I'm so glad

[58:00] that council member Mark raised that

[58:02] question, raised that issue. Do they or

[58:05] don't they get done? Because if they

[58:07] don't get done, then the statement in

[58:10] the ordinance that the time limit is

[58:12] reasonable is actually an untrue

[58:15] statement. So, what I would urge the

[58:19] council to do is to find out what the

[58:22] circumstance is. You certainly don't

[58:24] want to have an ordinance that has an

[58:27] untrue statement in it. So, please, as

[58:31] Cong as Council Member Mark uh alluded

[58:35] to, please have Mr. Van Son there and find out, do the projects get done

[58:43] or don't they? One other thing, I

[58:45] appreciate the fact that council person

[58:49] uh Mark uh took such great care to

[58:52] reassure me that I had a right to make a

[58:56] public statement as a member of the

[58:58] public. I'm very thankful that he is so

[59:02] protective of me, but I really was aware

[59:05] of that. Thank you very much for your

[59:08] attention.

[59:10] >> Bill, thank you for the clarification. I

[59:12] think our legal counsel wants to

[59:13] comment. Yeah, just very briefly, um, I

[59:16] do want to clarify, Dr. Rothman, of

[59:17] course, we always appreciate your public

[59:19] comment. I do just want to clarify the

[59:20] record that I was the person who

[59:22] previously spoke um, when you, uh,

[59:25] address this item, not council member

[59:27] Mark. Until now, I did not realize I

[59:29] sounded like council member Mark, but

[59:30] thank you again for your participation

[59:31] tonight.

[59:34] >> Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else,

[59:35] Beth?

[59:37] >> I see none.

[59:38] >> Okay. In that case, we will adjourn.

[59:40] Good night.

[59:43] 6:30.

City Council Meeting: January 12, 2026

Agenda

Transcript