[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.