[0:06] Welcome to everybody. Welcome here to

[0:08] the city council meeting today, Monday,

[0:09] July 13, 2026. I now call this meeting

[0:12] to order. Roll call, please.

[0:14] >> District 1, council member Casey,

[0:17] >> here.

[0:17] >> District two, council member Vieiraa

[0:19] >> here.

[0:20] >> District three, council member Oro

[0:22] >> here.

[0:23] >> District 4, Vice Mayor Martinez,

[0:24] >> present.

[0:25] >> Mayor Lopez

[0:26] >> here. Everyone, please stand for the

[0:28] invocation by Connor Lar Roza from

[0:30] Valley Grace Community Church, followed

[0:32] by the pledge of allegiance from the

[0:33] American Legion Post Commander, Pete

[0:35] Cement.

[0:37] Welcome.

[0:38] >> Good evening everybody. Please join me

[0:40] in a word of prayer.

[0:42] Almighty God, creator of the heavens and

[0:44] the earth. We thank you for another day

[0:46] on earth. Another day that you have

[0:48] raised the sun on us, given breath for

[0:50] our lungs and strength for our bodies.

[0:52] We thank you for your goodness in all

[0:54] these moments every day, the seen and

[0:56] the unseen moments of goodness. Lord, I

[0:58] pray for your blessing on the city. I

[1:00] pray for the families to be united and

[1:02] to love one another. For the safety of

[1:04] series and her citizens, as well as

[1:06] those who serve her and our police and

[1:08] our fire departments. Thank you for this

[1:10] council, this collection of individuals

[1:12] that you, God, have sovereignly placed

[1:14] here. I pray that they govern well. I

[1:17] pray that you would give them courage

[1:18] and strength. I pray that they would

[1:20] serve you and that they would serve the

[1:22] people of this city well. Thank you for

[1:24] their lives. Thank you for their

[1:26] families. Thank you for what they have

[1:27] dedicated themselves to. Thank you,

[1:30] Lord, for your faithfulness. Thank you

[1:32] for your mercies that are new every

[1:34] morning. I pray for the well-being and

[1:36] the redemption of all who live in series

[1:38] and call her home. It is in the name of

[1:40] Jesus Christ that I pray these things.

[1:42] Amen.

[1:49] Good evening everyone. Please remain

[1:50] standing.

[1:52] Place your right hand over your heart.

[1:54] Remove your covers and join me in the

[1:56] pledge of allegiance. I pledge

[1:58] allegiance to the flag of the United

[2:01] States of America and to the republic

[2:04] for which it stands, one nation under

[2:07] God, indivisible, with liberty and

[2:10] justice for all. You may recover and be

[2:13] seated, please. Thank you.

[2:19] Pete. We'll now begin with a

[2:22] presentation from Stan RTA.

[2:28] Welcome.

[2:29] Hello. Good evening. Uh Siri City

[2:31] Council. I'm

[2:34] Adam Bar. I'm the chief executive

[2:35] officer for the Stannos Regional Transit Authority or ST standard. I have

[2:39] Angela Swanson here. Angel.

[2:42] >> Good evening. I'm Angela Swanson. from a

[2:43] senior transit analyst at Stan RTA and

[2:46] the project manager for this short range

[2:48] transit plan update.

[2:51] >> Um so tonight we're um providing an

[2:53] update to um our um transit routes and

[2:56] have a have a presentation up on the

[2:57] screen and sure

[2:59] my

[3:08] » All right, here we go. Awesome. Um so

[3:11] the Sanier was formed about five years

[3:13] ago and start started operations and we

[3:15] made a few uh service changes at the

[3:17] beginning of our service um at beginning

[3:19] of the San RTA. Um we're at a point now

[3:21] where we're re-evaluating our routes uh

[3:23] due to a due to a couple things. One, we

[3:25] just need to take a fresh look at our

[3:26] routes, see where they're see they're

[3:28] see where they're working and see where

[3:29] they're not working and make some make

[3:31] some refinements. Um although we're also

[3:34] in a in a time right now where we are

[3:37] having to make some service cuts due to

[3:39] a funding reduction in our revenue. Um

[3:42] so because of that we're looking at our

[3:43] routes trying to find ways to make to to

[3:45] make them better but also trying to deal

[3:46] with this funding funding shortfall and

[3:49] how we can better craft our route. So

[3:51] tonight we're going to talk through um

[3:52] what the routes look like today and h

[3:54] and what we propose them to to look like

[3:56] in the future. Uh we do have next steps

[3:59] here. We're in this um public

[4:01] participation phase today where we're

[4:03] looking to the looking to you and

[4:05] looking to the public to provide us some

[4:06] comments on the proposed routes, what

[4:08] they what they look like, would they

[4:10] work for would they work for you or not?

[4:12] And that uh public feedback will help us

[4:14] refine our service changes, which we'll

[4:16] start to do in the late in the here in the late summer and come to a

[4:20] final resolution in the fall on what

[4:22] routes that we're going to change and

[4:23] how we're going to change it. And then

[4:24] we'll implement th those changes that we

[4:26] come to next [clears throat] year.

[4:29] So just a recap of the existing

[4:31] conditions. Uh again like I said our

[4:33] service formed in 2021 um and it was um

[4:37] [clears throat] uh formed uh between

[4:40] where JPA that that was formed in 2022

[4:43] and 2023. We did a big a big big

[4:45] planning effort where we looked at all

[4:46] the routes looked at all the former

[4:48] routes and how we could better align

[4:50] them. Um so in that in that process we

[4:53] ended up with 27 routes with four types

[4:55] of routes. So we have the frequent

[4:57] routes, local routes, the inner city

[4:59] routes which run obviously be between

[5:01] the city. Then we have express routes

[5:02] and inner county routes where we run

[5:04] over to the park station in Pleasanton,

[5:05] the A station in Leup and then um down

[5:09] here down to down to Turlock as well.

[5:13] So you can see this is a wrership trend

[5:16] since um tw since July of 2022. So we we start off low and there's ups and

[5:21] downs through throughout this time. But

[5:23] you can see there's an upward tra upward

[5:25] trajectory of of of these of our of our

[5:28] ridership, which is awesome to see. You

[5:30] know, more and more people are are are

[5:31] riding the bus or using the bus to get

[5:33] around to to medical to jobs to

[5:35] education and whatever they need to do.

[5:37] But it's been great great to see how the

[5:38] routes have really the route changes

[5:41] that we did back in 2022 and 20 2023 re

[5:44] really took hold and provided a better

[5:46] service for the communities that we

[5:48] serve. So we really get more people

[5:49] around to more places which is really

[5:51] the goal of what of what we wanted to

[5:53] do.

[5:54] So this uh this screen um shows uh the ridership distribution amongst all

[6:00] the all the bus stops that we have in

[6:02] the Modesto series area. So the so each

[6:05] dot is a bus stop and the larger the dot

[6:08] the more people use that bus stop. And

[6:10] so we this is one of the tools that the

[6:12] planners use to figure out where the

[6:14] wrership is at and how we could better

[6:16] you better run the routes to get more

[6:18] people on the bus. Obviously that does

[6:21] doesn't make a whole lot of sense to run

[6:22] routes on on roads that um have bus

[6:24] stops but no one's on the bus. So we

[6:26] want to focus the efforts and focus the

[6:28] resources on on on areas where more

[6:30] people

[6:32] ride the bus. Although we do need to

[6:34] balance that with our rural areas as

[6:36] well because there are some rural areas

[6:37] in our county that we serve that we

[6:39] don't want to cut off service to

[6:40] completely but we do want to provide

[6:42] some service but we need to need to

[6:44] balance that. So this is just one one of

[6:46] the tools that the planners use to um to that they use as they develop the

[6:50] proposed routes for what they want to

[6:52] do. Um if you if you look at some of the

[6:54] Billy big big big dots, those are really

[6:56] those those key um destination points

[6:59] and all the that are listed there on the

[7:01] screen from from MJC to the mall in

[7:04] Modesto to the Walmart here in series.

[7:08] Um route performance. This is a graph to

[7:11] show the different routes that we have

[7:13] and how many people ride the bus versus

[7:16] how many people um how many people are

[7:19] on are on the bus each hour. And so you

[7:22] can see that that we have some high high

[7:24] ridership routes are on the right hand

[7:25] side of the graph. Um middle routes are

[7:27] in the middle obviously and the ones

[7:28] that are down below in the lower left

[7:30] hand quadrant are the are the routes

[7:32] that don't do the best. There are rural

[7:34] routes or they have other other other

[7:36] limitations to to them. But it shows

[7:39] gives you some perspective on which

[7:40] routes do well and which routes don't.

[7:43] The ones that are circled in red are

[7:44] routes that serve that serve here here

[7:46] in series and go to different parts of

[7:48] town depending on the route. And so it's

[7:50] another tool that the planners used as

[7:52] they looked at the different routes.

[7:53] Which routes are doing well and which

[7:55] routes aren't.

[7:57] So as the planners continued with their

[8:00] process, they um did a lot of had a lot of other inputs that they

[8:04] used to develop their the the proposed

[8:06] route. So we'll start on the left hand

[8:08] side the existing conditions report

[8:10] which was showed the existing condition

[8:11] of the routes themselves. The routes as

[8:13] ex exist today. They did an analysis of each route and an analysis

[8:17] of the market as well. Moving on to the

[8:20] community input phase. We were out in

[8:22] the community back in December to get

[8:23] input from the writers on what's working

[8:25] well for them today, what's not and use

[8:27] that input to help craft the proposed

[8:29] routes that we'll talk about here just a

[8:31] moment. We had a survey back then as

[8:33] well which helps help help which help

[8:35] infor inform that. Uh we have some some

[8:38] financial um some financial realities

[8:40] that I talked a little bit about the

[8:42] beginning of the presentation. And we

[8:43] are seeing a decrease amount of revenue

[8:46] in our in our system which is making um

[8:48] us look at some route reductions due to

[8:50] that decrease in revenue. And then they

[8:53] also also talked to staff. Obviously we have a good a good um a good

[8:57] perception of the system and want to get

[8:58] our input as well on the best way that

[9:01] we saw that we could improve the routes.

[9:04] Our priorities were to preserve coverage in the area. That

[9:08] means that we want to stay in our

[9:10] service area, stay in it, stay stay in

[9:11] the county, and even if there's routes

[9:13] that don't serve, don't uh don't perform

[9:14] the best, but they still serve a a

[9:17] population that that needs to be served.

[9:19] So, we still want to maintain that coverage, but we still

[9:22] want to optimize the network, make sure

[9:24] that we're serving the best way we can,

[9:26] needing to balance the service versus

[9:28] coverage areas. Um so we're looking at

[9:31] connections as well connections on how

[9:33] we can better place connections or

[9:35] transit hubs throughout the system to

[9:37] better connect people to the different

[9:40] um looking at simplifying the routes

[9:42] making them easier to understand which

[9:44] is a key principle to make it easier to

[9:45] use as well and then improving the

[9:48] schedule reliability. Um also looking at

[9:51] service efficiency as well to prioritize

[9:54] the productive prioritize the productive

[9:56] services but still balance um the less

[9:59] effective services.

[10:02] With that with that I'm going to hand it

[10:03] over to Angela. She's going to talk

[10:04] through the proposed changes.

[10:07] >> And I can start off by saying we can all

[10:09] take a deep breath here in series. Your

[10:11] service is essentially going to remain

[10:13] unchanged under the plan and the

[10:15] proposals being brought forward. So we

[10:17] know that that that's very meaningful to

[10:19] you all especially because I remember

[10:21] being part of the team that came here

[10:23] when seriesir um terminated running

[10:25] operating CAT and entrusted it to Max

[10:28] and then allowed it to move forward to

[10:29] us as standard RTA. So we're happy that

[10:32] we are continuing in good faith to serve

[10:35] the community of series. So is it down?

[10:39] Oh, there we go. Okay. So we're looking

[10:41] at so one of the things that we're

[10:43] trying to do that's transformative in

[10:44] the long run and I'll focus on series is

[10:47] originally as max we ran everything

[10:50] coming out of hub and spoke coming in

[10:52] and out of Modesto downtown and the

[10:54] Modesto transit center. What we're

[10:56] finding though is that people don't

[10:57] always need to come from the outer areas

[10:59] of the the cities and the rural areas

[11:02] into downtown Modesto and then pulse

[11:04] back out again. We need hubs to move

[11:06] around more the way airlines are are

[11:08] designed we're distributing. So you're

[11:10] moving people around without having to

[11:12] go into the center. So a key place that

[11:15] we see still needing to have a satellite

[11:17] hub is to develop the series Walmart

[11:20] property more to be able to do more than

[11:23] what we have for our street level where

[11:25] we have the five routes that come in and

[11:27] out. Right now we're looking longterm to

[11:29] be able to do some sort of an off-site

[11:31] facility and to really develop that. But

[11:33] that we really with the new service

[11:35] plan, one way to cut hours and but not

[11:39] cut service is to do shorter routes that

[11:42] come to these other um satellite hubs

[11:45] and then moving people out from there.

[11:47] So that's one of the key changes we're

[11:49] making and continuing to keep it. And

[11:51] then here we're looking at the routes

[11:53] that affect you. West Modesto and series

[11:55] are kind of clustered together. The key

[11:58] routes you're looking at though are the

[11:59] 29, the 42, the 47, and then the 10 that

[12:03] comes down that's are expressed between

[12:07] Modesto and um Turlock that now is

[12:10] coming into SE we propose to bring into

[12:12] series. We've also redesigned a little

[12:15] bit of how people are moving around in

[12:17] West Modesto. The one piece right here I

[12:20] can call your attention to where we the

[12:22] only service you are losing is the

[12:25] connectivity coming from West Modesto on

[12:28] the 47. It was on Hatch that connected

[12:30] over to the um into where the 20 and 21

[12:35] are. That was something that was

[12:37] requested that never um writership never

[12:39] materialized. So we had to let that

[12:42] segment go even though people like the

[12:44] idea of it. Otherwise, you remain it um

[12:47] as you are and keeping you intact.

[12:49] Again, everyone being able to get to the

[12:50] churches, to get to business down here,

[12:53] to get to series, Walmart, and the CSA

[12:55] and those services operated by the

[12:57] county. Then the 2019 is being

[13:00] reorganized a little bit. This is the

[13:02] primary connection between Modesto,

[13:05] Series, Keys, and Turlock. Keeping that

[13:07] connection going through the county

[13:09] going minor realignment, but keeping the

[13:11] service essentially unchanged.

[13:15] And then the east county the 61 comes

[13:17] directly from Houston to seriesir

[13:19] Walmart and then goes up to to the

[13:22] transit center midestto we are looking

[13:24] at some options um to because this is an

[13:27] underutilized service but Houston is

[13:29] loud and clear they still need to come

[13:31] to seriesiries they need to get to

[13:32] downtown so do we run maybe fewer hours

[13:35] do we run more express hours we're

[13:37] looking at some options but again that

[13:39] remains a service and then to a real

[13:42] quick summary We looked, as I talked

[13:45] about, simplifying it where sometimes

[13:47] it's being able to make the route

[13:48] shorter so it's more efficient so we

[13:50] aren't tying up as many buses, really

[13:52] making the system flow better. Um,

[13:54] really prioritizing frequency where we

[13:57] need it. We are asking people, the

[13:59] common theme underlying all this is

[14:01] we're asking people to walk a little bit

[14:02] further. Right now, our standard in the

[14:04] urbanized areas is about a quarter mile

[14:06] or about a five to seven minute walk.

[14:09] We're looking now at asking people to

[14:11] walk up to a third of the mile, but

[14:13] we're keeping their frequency up so that

[14:15] it's worth it to walk that little bit

[14:17] further to the bus, but that allows us

[14:19] to make the routes a little more

[14:21] streamlined. And then I will tell you

[14:22] the place to send everybody in your

[14:24] community to if they want to learn more

[14:26] or be more involved is connectthes.org.

[14:31] And this is a sample of what goes on. So

[14:34] right now you'll see on the website

[14:40] should start going

[14:43] I got impatient with it. What we have is

[14:45] the bar will start swiping from the

[14:47] right to the left.

[14:50] It's done it every other place but

[14:51] series.

[14:54] Oh okay.

[14:56] won't keep you on this, but anyway,

[14:58] where it will show the existing is

[15:00] overlaid over the proposed, so you can

[15:02] compare how the routes look in

[15:04] relationship to each other, going back

[15:05] and forth with this toolbar moving back

[15:07] and forth across. I apologize that that

[15:09] didn't work tonight. And then this is

[15:12] one more way of showing you how we're

[15:14] making those 15% cuts without

[15:16] compromising service. The navy blue

[15:18] lines show you the pro the proposed

[15:21] routes that we're doing. The red lines

[15:25] are where we've given up service. And

[15:27] what you can see is generally there's

[15:30] service happening within a third to a

[15:32] half mile of where that red line was.

[15:35] That there is still service available.

[15:36] You just have to walk a little further

[15:38] or do it a little differently to be able

[15:40] to make your connections. But no service

[15:43] is completely gone.

[15:45] And then another thing again where I

[15:47] referenced cout one of the key concerns

[15:49] your community had at that time was

[15:51] preserving paratransit service for the

[15:53] elderly and individuals with

[15:55] disabilities so they would still have

[15:56] the rides. This route shows in the pink

[15:59] is where the couple of areas where our

[16:02] transit network is a little smaller so

[16:04] they won't receive service. And if you

[16:06] look at it as you see the Modesto series

[16:09] area, we're really only talking about

[16:11] very rural areas and anyone who's

[16:13] currently served what we proposed to

[16:15] grandfather in to keep them in the

[16:16] service. So essentially all of the

[16:18] paratransit service and that within the

[16:20] city of series limits will remain

[16:22] unchanged.

[16:24] There is one change that we are

[16:26] proposing though that's a a no-brainer

[16:28] costsaver. We think is currently

[16:30] parransit operates 365 days a year but

[16:32] fixed rout is closed for six holidays.

[16:35] We're proposing to close for four out of

[16:37] six holidays, but to still operate

[16:39] paratransit on Christmas and

[16:41] Thanksgiving, so those individuals with

[16:43] limitations and mo for their mobility

[16:45] will still be able to be with friends

[16:47] and loved ones.

[16:49] And then next steps, I won't need to say

[16:51] anything except at the bottom

[16:53] connects.org. If any of the folks in

[16:56] this community of series have any

[16:57] questions or comments, they're more than

[16:59] welcome to please go to the website,

[17:01] learn more. There's ways you can leave

[17:03] questions asked for us to respond to.

[17:05] Come to our next board meeting in

[17:07] August. We'll be talking about it and

[17:09] then it'll go be going to our board in

[17:10] September. Again, connectbs.org.

[17:14] And then this is the note we love being

[17:17] able to close on. In other news, coming

[17:20] to series fall 2029, the new standard TA

[17:22] headquarters facility at the corner of

[17:24] Pro Landing and Service Roads across the

[17:27] street from the county service areas. We

[17:29] want to um give a huge shout out to your

[17:33] planning and community and um staff here

[17:36] at the city. You have been the most

[17:38] amazing partners to us. We are so

[17:40] looking forward to moving forward. This

[17:42] is the latest rendition of the um

[17:46] facility that will include our

[17:47] administrative operations headquarters

[17:50] and our fleet maintenance facility to

[17:52] house up to 200 buses. So, we thank you

[17:54] and look forward to joining you and I'll

[17:56] hand it back to Mr. Bur.

[18:00] And so with that, um, definitely thank

[18:03] you for the time. Thank you for for the

[18:04] time tonight and, um, happy to answer

[18:06] any questions you might have.

[18:07] >> Thank you very much. Council have any

[18:09] comments or questions?

[18:11] >> Thank you very much for the

[18:12] presentation. Appreciate that.

[18:22] Moving on to citizens communications.

[18:24] While the city council welcomes and

[18:25] encourages participation in the city

[18:26] council meetings, adopt the rules allow

[18:28] no more than five minutes. Resolution

[18:30] 2007106 for expression of non-aggenda

[18:33] items. Matters under the jurisdiction of

[18:34] the city council and not on the posted

[18:36] agenda may be addressed by the general

[18:38] public. However, California law

[18:40] prohibits city council from taking any

[18:41] action on any matter which is not posted

[18:43] on the agenda unless it is determined to

[18:45] be an emergency by the city council.

[18:47] Citizens are entitled to address city

[18:48] council on any agenda item subject to

[18:50] the five-minute provision. Anyone

[18:51] wishing to address city council must

[18:53] adhere to the rules of decorum and the

[18:54] rules of decorum are posted outside the

[18:56] chambers doors. Are any of our

[18:58] representatives here today?

[19:01] Seeing none and we'll go ahead and start

[19:03] off with some in-person comments. And

[19:06] the first person I have here is I

[19:07] believe it's Gary Condit.

[19:16] Okay, sir. My apologies.

[19:21] Please state your name, please. That's

[19:24] probably why I thought it was Gary

[19:25] Condid. I just saw the last name.

[19:27] Welcome, sir. Please state your name.

[19:28] >> Good evening. My name is Burl Condid. I

[19:30] live at 3613

[19:32] Dormia Court and Series. Been here for

[19:35] 60 years.

[19:37] The other a week ago, yesterday, I was

[19:40] having lunch at Amaritas

[19:43] and I came out and I noticed a flock

[19:46] camera in the parking lot.

[19:49] I hadn't seen it when I went in. Had I

[19:52] seen it, I wouldn't have went in. I

[19:53] would have left.

[19:55] I talked to the manager and I asked her,

[19:57] "Where did that thing come from?" And

[19:59] she said the city of Siri put it there.

[20:03] And so I got home, I called Mr. Casey

[20:06] and I asked him about it and he said he

[20:09] had find out. He called me back Monday,

[20:12] last Monday today, and um told me that

[20:15] the city didn't have anything to do with

[20:17] it.

[20:18] So, I'm kind of puzzled who put it

[20:20] there. Manager said they didn't do it.

[20:24] Mr. Casey says the city didn't do it.

[20:27] Now, I know what these flock cameras are

[20:28] all about and they're not good. And I

[20:32] don't I won't I told the manager I won't

[20:35] come back and I've been going to Lamaras

[20:37] for a lot of years. I won't go back as

[20:40] long as that camera is parked in front

[20:41] of their business. And I won't go to any

[20:44] business that has those cameras parked

[20:46] in front of me. I went up toies last

[20:48] week and has one. I told the lady there,

[20:52] I said, "I'm not coming back again until

[20:54] that camera's moved." City of Medesso

[20:56] put that one in. City of Medessa is in

[20:58] bed with flock. They got them all over

[21:00] the town. You can't go nowhere in

[21:02] Modesto without being recorded. These

[21:05] things take your license plate, your cell phone, any medical device that

[21:10] transmits anything to your doctor, your

[21:13] kids cell phones. They take track and

[21:15] they keep track of everything. This is

[21:17] all going to these data centers. It's a

[21:19] highly sophisticated surveillance system

[21:21] going in to control the people of this

[21:24] country. If you don't believe that, then

[21:27] feel sorry for you. But I hope the city

[21:29] of Series doesn't have anything to do

[21:31] with this flock people or these cameras.

[21:34] I understand the license plate readers

[21:36] are a cop for 31 years. That's all good.

[21:39] Cameras inside these businesses,

[21:41] security cameras, we have them at our

[21:43] church. They're not connected to They're

[21:45] connected to the internet because I can

[21:48] watch them at home, but they don't go

[21:50] anywhere. They don't go to the

[21:53] government or there some place, some it

[21:56] or AI place or whatever. I just want to

[21:59] I don't think the people of Siri want

[22:01] them here watching them 24 hours a day.

[22:05] It's our constitutional rights under the

[22:07] Fourth Amendment to live without this

[22:09] stuff. And I urge you not to have

[22:11] anything to do with it. Thank you.

[22:14] >> Thank you, Mr. Condit. The next person

[22:16] that I have is Linda Rhino,

[22:24] » former council woman Linda Rhino.

[22:34] Well, this is a different side for me to

[22:37] be speaking for from, but before the

[22:40] 2627 budget was adopted by the city

[22:42] council, our parks were already showing

[22:44] signs of neglect. In fact, it was so bad

[22:47] that residents were posting on social

[22:49] media about the condition of the parks.

[22:52] Yet with 14 parks, five of which have

[22:55] restrooms totaling approximately

[22:58] 148 acres, the city council still

[23:01] eliminated one full-time parks worker,

[23:04] now leaving four

[23:06] employees to maintain all those parks.

[23:09] Since the council eliminated the

[23:11] contract for the company that had been

[23:13] cleaning those five park restrooms, who

[23:15] will do that? One of those four

[23:18] remaining park workers. The city council

[23:21] also eliminated two part-time code

[23:24] enforcement officers who gathered up

[23:26] homeless leftovers in parks. Who will do

[23:29] that? The city council also cancelled

[23:32] the contract for security at the park

[23:34] which included locking park restrooms at

[23:37] night. Is that even being done by city

[23:40] staff? Because that's what I heard

[23:42] during the discussion on the budget cuts

[23:45] that other city staff would step up and

[23:48] take care of that. The city council also

[23:50] cancelled the contract for right-of-way

[23:53] landscaping.

[23:54] Were you thinking those four park

[23:56] workers could add that to their duties

[23:58] or did you want our right-of-way

[24:00] landscaping to look as bad as our city

[24:03] parks?

[24:05] Hopefully, the council will find a way

[24:07] to make cuts somewhere else and do a

[24:09] budget amendment to get the help our

[24:12] city parks desperately need and not let

[24:15] them continue to look like parks in

[24:17] third world countries unless that's the

[24:20] plan to get that 1 cent tax passed in

[24:23] November.

[24:25] >> Thank you very much, Councilwoman. I

[24:27] think it is appropriate for me to ask

[24:28] the city manager, I believe, that you

[24:30] could possibly answer some of her

[24:32] questions if that's okay.

[24:34] Yes. Good evening. Thank you, mayor and

[24:36] council members. [snorts]

[24:40] >> [clears throat]

[24:41] >> Uh it is true that one park full one

[24:44] full-time park maintenance worker was

[24:46] eliminated from this year's budget as

[24:49] well as the funding for the Bright View

[24:53] landscaping contract which included

[24:56] service at

[24:58] Smyrna Park and Riverluff along with

[25:02] several right-of-way landscaping duties

[25:05] throughout the city. And that work

[25:07] currently falls on city staff to do. The

[25:11] public works superintendent intends to

[25:13] put out a request for proposal very soon

[25:17] specifically for landscape and lighting

[25:19] district areas as well as uh CFD areas.

[25:24] But unless there is a budget amendment

[25:26] or some other additional funding

[25:29] recognized that those duties will

[25:31] continue to fall on city staff.

[25:35] And in fact, we have a meeting tomorrow

[25:38] at 8:00 in the morning uh to discuss the

[25:41] current condition of Smyrna Park along

[25:45] with OOA Park Independence Park so that

[25:49] we can develop a realistic staffing

[25:53] deployment plan with our limited staff

[25:55] that is available. Since we no longer

[25:58] have the maintenance agreements,

[26:00] we will be able to create and make

[26:04] available a schedule of activities so we

[26:06] can know when each park is planned to be

[26:09] served, how often it's going to be

[26:12] served, by how many staff members it

[26:15] will be served. So that way that will be

[26:17] a document that can be shared and

[26:19] everyone can be aware of what the

[26:21] expectation will be moving forward. That

[26:23] meeting is at 8:00 tomorrow morning.

[26:26] Thank you very much, city manager. Is

[26:28] there anybody else that would like to

[26:29] ask a question? Please step up to the

[26:31] podium, please.

[26:46] » Good evening, city council, city staff,

[26:48] community. I don't have a question, but

[26:50] I do have my report for the chamber.

[26:52] So, my name is Brandy Meyer, president

[26:55] and CEO of the series Chamber of

[26:57] Commerce. I just wanted to give some

[26:59] updates. Um, this past weekend, we had

[27:03] at the Modesto Roadsters baseball game a

[27:07] 19 time

[27:10] boxing champion Damian Flores throughout

[27:12] the first pitch. He did an awesome job.

[27:15] So, if you guys see him, make sure you

[27:16] tell him congratulations. He did he got

[27:18] it right over the plate. So, he did

[27:19] great. And there's videos online if you

[27:21] want to see them.

[27:22] Um, second, I'd like to thank everybody

[27:24] who came to our grand opening for Little

[27:26] Papa. Uh, it was from when I heard

[27:28] standing room only, it was packed and I

[27:30] really felt the love and I really

[27:31] appreciate it. Um, we had a great time.

[27:34] I wasn't expecting that many people, but

[27:36] um, we got through it and we've been

[27:38] busy ever since. So, if I look exhausted

[27:41] and dirty and tired, I am exhausted,

[27:43] dirty, and tired, but it's a good thing.

[27:45] It's a good problem to have, so I'll

[27:46] take it. Um, I just want to remind

[27:48] everybody that on September 19th, we are

[27:51] trying to plan our one table one

[27:52] community. So, stay tuned for that. And

[27:54] on September 25th, we're doing our golf

[27:57] tournament. This is our third annual

[27:58] golf tournament starting at 8:00 at the

[28:01] uh River Oaks Golf and Event Center. And

[28:05] uh we'll bring some more details for

[28:06] that as well. We are looking for teams

[28:07] of four plus sponsor whole sponsors. And

[28:11] um once again, we're going to be

[28:14] providing all the funds raised will be

[28:15] going back into the community to

[28:17] nonprofits around the area. So, we want

[28:19] to make sure that we continue that

[28:20] tradition. Any questions? You know where

[28:23] to find me. Come see me. Thank you.

[28:26] >> Thank you very much, Brandy. Is there

[28:28] anybody else that like to make a

[28:29] comment?

[28:36] » [clears throat]

[28:37] >> Greetings, mayor, vice mayor, council,

[28:40] city staff. My name is Nason Sanchez and

[28:44] series is a city that I call home.

[28:47] Excuse me as I read this really quick. A

[28:50] definition of philanthropy.

[28:54] It is a derived word, Greek word of

[28:57] philos and anthropist.

[29:00] Philanthropy is an active effort to

[29:04] promote positive human welfare

[29:08] and improve the quality quality of life.

[29:13] The key concepts philanthropy

[29:17] acts are driven

[29:19] by the desire to help others without

[29:23] expecting immediate immediate personal

[29:26] or financial gain.

[29:30] It is of giving of time,

[29:33] talent,

[29:35] and treasure.

[29:37] The reason I bring up this word

[29:39] philanthropy

[29:40] here in the next couple of weeks, we all

[29:43] know what's going to be taking place not

[29:46] only here in our beautiful city of

[29:48] Series, but also in the neighboring

[29:51] towns and the towns nationwide.

[29:55] It is a day set aside. we all know as

[29:59] national night out.

[30:02] This day is driven, this day is

[30:05] specifically focused to bring the

[30:08] community together and to recognize and

[30:12] to give proper recognition and

[30:14] appreciation

[30:16] to all of our 911 emergency services.

[30:21] But this day on National Night Out,

[30:24] there is going to be many neighborhoods.

[30:27] There's going to be many families, not

[30:29] only myself and my beautiful wife Sonia

[30:32] and my fellow neighbors on Saturn Court,

[30:35] but also citywide. We are going to be

[30:38] doing this what we call philanthropy.

[30:42] Nobody is asking us to do it. Nobody's

[30:45] saying here is a paycheck for you for

[30:47] your own personal gain to do it to spend

[30:50] on yourself.

[30:52] Surely there are individuals and

[30:54] businesses and directors and and other

[30:57] elected officials that are helping out

[30:59] to cover costs for it.

[31:02] But I sent an email the other day to

[31:06] reserve a time slot to have our our

[31:09] police department join us. And as I was

[31:11] reading this email, I came across a

[31:14] section where it said that there could

[31:16] be possible

[31:18] um fees

[31:20] to to pay.

[31:23] Now, to do this would damper it.

[31:28] What I'm asking for the council and the

[31:30] city staff or whoever is going to be the

[31:31] one to make the final decision on if

[31:34] there's going to be permit fees that are

[31:36] going to have to required to be paid

[31:39] on this day. If there is a day to wave a

[31:42] fee, let it be this day.

[31:46] Why to keep it alive? Keep what the

[31:49] community is doing, taking time out of

[31:51] their time, out of their own time to do

[31:54] this.

[31:56] It would be a good thing. It would be a

[31:58] positive thing to have the support and

[32:00] to know the backing for this. I've

[32:02] called various cities, our neighboring

[32:04] towns, and I've asked them. I didn't

[32:07] give them the details on what the

[32:08] question was or why I was even asking

[32:10] them to begin with, but I questioned

[32:12] them, are you guys going to require

[32:16] permits and pay permits? And they uh

[32:20] were a little bewildered when I asked

[32:23] them that question, confused in a way,

[32:25] like

[32:27] uh no, it it was almost uh one of them

[32:31] almost started laughing at that

[32:33] question. not necessarily to me but just

[32:36] a thought of that.

[32:38] So I ask again, keep in mind on this day

[32:43] whenever you do decide, please let it be

[32:45] so to wave the fees regardless of the

[32:48] size of the event that they are having.

[32:50] Nurture it, protect it what we are doing

[32:52] as a community. And I'm going to leave

[32:55] some flyers here to invite our elected

[32:57] officials and of course our chief and

[33:02] our fire department representative. We

[33:03] thank you time and time again for being

[33:05] involved in all aspects. Thank you.

[33:08] >> Thank you, Nason. City manager, I think

[33:11] that it's warrant that we answered that

[33:13] question about fees, but I don't think

[33:14] that we've ever given direction about

[33:16] fees. That correct?

[33:18] >> That's correct. The council has not

[33:20] given direction about fees, but I

[33:21] believe the chief has a plan. Chief, do

[33:24] you have anything to share?

[33:27] >> Yes. Thank you for that. Uh we do have a

[33:29] staff report coming to city council that

[33:32] we're going to ask that any fees

[33:34] associated with the uh uh conditional

[33:36] use permit are waved for that one night.

[33:39] If you have a registered National Night

[33:41] event with the police department, it

[33:44] goes against the whole uh premise of

[33:47] National Night Out, if we're charging

[33:48] the communities to hold these events,

[33:50] but I also think it's important that

[33:53] they don't hold events without the

[33:55] proper work where they're shutting down

[33:57] roadways uh where we could have issues

[34:00] um getting emergency vehicles in for

[34:02] emergencies and stuff. So, that that

[34:04] will be coming at the next council

[34:06] meeting.

[34:07] >> Thank you very much.

[34:08] Nason, I hope that helps answer your

[34:11] question, sir. I know that we talked

[34:12] about it at the concert in the park and this is your answer, but thank you

[34:15] very much for bringing that to our

[34:16] attention. Is there anybody else that

[34:18] would like to make a comment?

[34:22] Closing the public period. Is there any

[34:24] emails?

[34:25] >> We're no emails and there's no hands

[34:27] raised on Zoom.

[34:28] >> Okay, thank you very much. Now move on

[34:30] to

[34:32] there's actually can I ask the council

[34:34] if there is any conflicts of interest?

[34:39] Seeing none, moving on to appointments

[34:41] to boards and commissions. Measure H,

[34:43] Citizens Oversight Committee interviews

[34:45] and appointment. City clerk. Thank you,

[34:48] mayor and councel. Uh, our Measure H

[34:50] oversight or Measure H Citizens

[34:52] Oversight Committee currently has one

[34:54] vacancy. The term is July 1st, 2026

[34:58] through June 30th, 2029. So, it's a

[35:00] three-year term. The final filing date

[35:03] to submit an application for this

[35:05] vacancy was June 15th. We did receive

[35:07] two applications, Angela Huerta and John

[35:10] Fiad. Both applicants were notified via

[35:13] email and phone call of tonight's

[35:14] interviews and appointment. Um, a list

[35:17] of questions have been provided to the

[35:18] council to ask the applicants. I do see

[35:21] one of the applicants is on Zoom and I

[35:23] do believe another the other applicant

[35:25] is here in person. So, with that said,

[35:27] I'll turn it over to the council.

[35:29] >> Thank you very much. And we'll go ahead

[35:30] and open this up for public comment. Is

[35:32] there anyone in the chambers that would

[35:33] like to make a comment on this item?

[35:36] Seeing none, anybody on Zoom?

[35:39] >> There are no hands raised.

[35:40] >> And we'll bring this item back to begin

[35:42] the interviews. And the first person

[35:44] that we will interview will be Angela.

[35:48] Please step up to the podium.

[35:51] >> Angela is actually um attending via Oh,

[35:54] >> no. She's right there.

[35:57] Thank you, Angela, very much for being

[35:58] here. And city council, everyone has

[36:00] questions right in front of them from 1

[36:02] to 5. And it is labeled with your name

[36:04] on it. And we'll begin with question

[36:06] number one.

[36:11] » What is the purpose and the goal of

[36:14] measure H? What do you think it is?

[36:19] » I believe the purpose is to collect a

[36:21] tax from the city uh taxpayers. Uh it's

[36:25] about a half cent tax. It's a

[36:27] transaction and use tax. Uh it's voter

[36:31] approved. Um, and this the goal is to

[36:33] help provide funding to improve critical

[36:36] um, public safety services to the police

[36:41] and fire departments to utilize, you

[36:44] know, equipment and tools

[36:46] to help keep us safe.

[36:56] » Go ahead.

[36:59] >> Thank you. Um, question two. Should you

[37:02] be chosen, what do you see your role

[37:04] being on the committee?

[37:07] >> Uh, as a committee member, my role would

[37:09] be um

[37:12] uh help uh

[37:16] oversight of the cost containment and

[37:19] public reporting um based on the um

[37:25] budgets that are being presented to us

[37:27] from the departments.

[37:35] Thank you. Please tell us please tell us

[37:38] about yourself and what you feel best

[37:40] qualifies you to serve on the measure H

[37:42] citizens oversight committee.

[37:47] » I just completed three years terms as a

[37:51] measure H committee member in the city

[37:53] of series. I have lived here since 2010.

[37:57] Um, I've also served on the Centennial

[37:59] Committee hearing series. Um, I

[38:02] currently as a case manager for homeless

[38:05] individuals, uh, sometimes work

[38:08] alongside fire and police in the county.

[38:12] Um, and I was interested in being able

[38:16] to be on such a good committee to help

[38:18] oversee the budget in the city for fire

[38:22] and safety.

[38:27] Thank you, Angela, for being present

[38:28] this evening. Uh, question number four

[38:30] is, as an advisory committee responsible

[38:32] to make recommendations to the council,

[38:34] the final decision-making process is

[38:35] held by the council. Please describe any

[38:38] experience you have in an advisory

[38:40] committee and how you will carry out

[38:41] your duties.

[38:44] >> Um, uh, I have served on various home

[38:48] homeless oversight committees, uh, in

[38:51] the county. Um I have served through

[38:53] measure H here in the city of seriesir.

[38:56] Um I am a executive director of a

[38:59] nonprofit here in Santa Los County where

[39:01] we do annual budget and reviews.

[39:04] Um

[39:11] uh have experience in safeguarding uh

[39:14] intent for tax money's use.

[39:17] um

[39:18] and help identify any financial

[39:22] discrepancies

[39:24] um and address any community concerns or

[39:27] expenditures regarding the funds.

[39:31] » Thank you. Do you have any questions for

[39:34] us relating to the application to be a

[39:36] member of the Measure H oversight

[39:38] committee?

[39:41] >> You said related.

[39:43] >> Yes. Do you have any questions for us?

[39:45] >> I do have a question. Um, how can we

[39:47] incentivize the community to learn and

[39:49] participate in Measure H meetings?

[39:52] >> That's a great question. I think that

[39:55] would really fall on the city manager.

[39:58] >> Sir,

[39:59] >> yes. Thank you, good, mayor. Um, as a

[40:02] city, we are just now in the process of

[40:08] transitioning to a more formalized

[40:10] communication plan with the public to

[40:13] include social media, updating our

[40:16] website, and really engaging with the

[40:18] community in an effort to get them

[40:21] engaged with us. So this effort through

[40:25] social media, website update, word of

[40:28] mouth, and just community engagement is

[40:32] something that we will be focusing

[40:34] strongly on over the next month.

[40:37] >> Thank you. Thank you everyone for your

[40:39] time.

[40:39] >> Thank you very much.

[40:42] City clerk, you said John is in person

[40:44] or is he on Zoom? John, you're here.

[40:48] Please step up to the podium, sir.

[40:51] Evening council members. Thank you very

[40:53] much for coming. Council member Casey,

[40:55] go ahead, sir.

[40:58] >> Sure. What is the purpose and goal of

[41:01] measure H?

[41:03] >> Measure H was voted on and approved back

[41:06] in 2007

[41:08] uh with the taxes the sale the

[41:09] additional half percent sales tax to aid

[41:13] police, fire, and emergency services.

[41:18] » Thank you. Should you be chosen, what do

[41:20] you see your role see your role being on

[41:23] the committee?

[41:25] >> I would like to think that with my 35

[41:27] years of service at Mission Linen, I

[41:29] managed my own successful route that I

[41:32] understand profit and loss. I understand

[41:35] about return on investment. Being a

[41:37] member of that council, I would be in a

[41:40] collective with other people where we be

[41:42] passing ideas that would benefit the

[41:44] citizens of Sir.

[41:51] Thank you.

[41:52] Please tell us about yourself and what

[41:54] you feel best qualifies you to serve on

[41:56] the Measure H Citizens Oversight

[41:59] Committee.

[42:00] >> I'm uh I'm retired now. Uh I like to

[42:03] volunteer. I volunteer with the What

[42:06] Would Jesus Do Ministries. I serve at

[42:09] the shower shuttle there on Hatch Road

[42:11] at the New Vision um church uh every

[42:14] Thursday. I also serve and help out with

[42:17] the 9 to99 project. Um I just uh I have

[42:21] time that uh I would like to donate back

[42:23] to my community.

[42:32] » Thank you, John, for being here this

[42:33] evening. I appreciate that, sir. As an

[42:35] advisory committee responsible to make

[42:37] recommendations to the council, the

[42:39] final decision-making process is held by

[42:40] the council. Please describe any

[42:42] experience you have in an advisory

[42:44] committee and how you would carry out

[42:45] your duties.

[42:47] >> Well, as the member of the of the

[42:50] council, what we would do is we would

[42:52] have ideas and pass them around and

[42:54] propose those to you. Also, we would

[42:57] have to discuss what the advantage or

[42:59] disadvantage would be of certain money

[43:01] spent that the money was spent u

[43:04] appropriately and not squandered.

[43:10] Do you have any questions for us

[43:12] relating the application to be a member

[43:13] of the Measure H, Citizens Oversight

[43:15] Committee?

[43:16] >> No sir, I don't.

[43:17] >> Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate

[43:19] your time.

[43:25] » Okay. I bring this item back to the

[43:27] council. Council members, any comments

[43:29] and or questions and or a motion?

[43:35] No comments.

[43:37] Okay. Councilwoman,

[43:38] >> thank you, Mayor. Well, first off, uh I

[43:41] just want to thank um Angela and John

[43:45] for being present here tonight. I know

[43:46] that, you know, sometimes it can be a

[43:49] little intimidating coming up in front

[43:50] of the public to hold these interviews.

[43:52] Um but I think it's important for the

[43:54] public to hear. Um, based on the

[43:57] interview tonight and reviewing the

[43:59] application,

[44:01] I would like to make a motion to um

[44:05] appoint John Fad, I'm sorry if I said

[44:09] the last name wrong, to the Measure H,

[44:10] Citizens Oversight Committee.

[44:15] >> I'll second that.

[44:18] Get a roll call, please.

[44:20] >> Council member Casey,

[44:23] >> yes. Council member Vieira,

[44:27] » no.

[44:28] >> Council member Otto,

[44:30] >> yes.

[44:31] >> Vice Mayor Martinez,

[44:32] >> hi.

[44:33] >> Mayor Lopez,

[44:34] >> no.

[44:35] >> Motion carries 32.

[44:38] >> Congratulations, John. You are now

[44:39] appointed to the men's race committee.

[44:47] We will now move into consent calendars.

[44:51] All matters listed on the consent

[44:52] calendar are considered routine in

[44:53] nature and will be enacted by a single

[44:55] motion unless otherwise requested by an

[44:57] individual council member and public for

[44:59] special consideration. Other otherwise

[45:01] the recommendation of staff will be

[45:03] acted and excuse me accepted. Did I skip

[45:05] something? Did I skip something?

[45:09] I'm sorry. Let me go ahead and drink my

[45:11] energy drink. I think I'm a little

[45:12] tired.

[45:16] That [clears throat] was a windful.

[45:17] Okay. Council design designating of the

[45:19] voting delegates and alternate delegates

[45:20] to represent the city of series at the

[45:22] League of California Cities for 2026

[45:24] annual conference. City clerk.

[45:27] >> Thank you again, Council and Mayor. The

[45:29] League of California Cities has their

[45:31] annual conference this year, September

[45:33] 23rd through the 25th. We have two

[45:36] council members that will be attending

[45:38] the conference. The general assembly

[45:40] meeting is a component to the annual

[45:43] conference. Uh this is where members

[45:45] consider to take action to establish

[45:47] policies with the league. The general

[45:49] assembly meeting is scheduled for Friday

[45:51] the 25th of September. It's the last day

[45:53] of the conference. In order to vote at

[45:56] the general assembly meeting, the city

[45:58] council must designate a primary voting

[46:00] delegate delegate. Uh council may

[46:02] appoint up to two alternate voting

[46:04] delegates. And in order to be a voting

[46:07] delegate, uh the they must be registered

[46:09] to for the conference and they must be

[46:12] present at the general assembly meeting

[46:14] in order to cast their vote. Uh so with

[46:17] that said, I will turn that over to the

[46:18] council for discussion.

[46:21] >> City council, any comments? Could you

[46:23] please tell the public who exactly is

[46:24] the two council members who are going?

[46:26] >> Yeah, so uh Mayor Lopez and Vice Mayor

[46:29] Martinez will be attending the

[46:30] conference at this time. Okay. Are any

[46:32] other council members going to be

[46:33] attending the conference at the moment?

[46:36] I'm not sure yet um if I'm going to be

[46:38] able to attend, but if I do, it's going

[46:40] to be for my committee that I have

[46:41] scheduled.

[46:43] >> Any other council members have any

[46:44] comments?

[46:45] >> Um no, I am available if you do need

[46:48] another alternative though. Alternate.

[46:50] Sorry.

[46:50] >> Okay, sounds good, Mr. Casey. Okay, now

[46:53] you need consensus, correct? So,

[46:56] >> yes,

[46:56] >> me and Vice Mayor will be attending the

[46:58] conference. I I can be the main

[46:59] delegate.

[47:00] >> Okay, you'll want to open up to public

[47:02] comment, too.

[47:02] >> Okay, sounds good. We'll go ahead and

[47:03] open this up to the public or any

[47:04] members of the public would like to make

[47:06] a comment on this item.

[47:08] Seeing none, bring this item back or

[47:13] just consensus. You don't need a motion.

[47:14] Correct.

[47:15] >> Correct. Consensus is fine.

[47:17] >> Okay, sounds good. Um, then it will be

[47:19] me and Vice Mayor and then I know that

[47:22] Councilwoman Serino will probably not

[47:24] likely be there, but we can also have

[47:26] you as a third just in case you change

[47:27] your mind as a second alternate just in

[47:30] case. That's fine. So, we'll need one

[47:33] primary and up to two uh alternates. So,

[47:36] Mayor Lopez will be primary and Vice

[47:38] Mayor and Council Member Oro as

[47:41] alternates.

[47:42] >> Correct. Consensus.

[47:47] Okay. Thank you very much.

[47:51] Now, we can move on to consent calendar.

[47:55] All matters listed on the consent

[47:56] calendar considered routine in nature

[47:57] and will be enacted by a single motion

[47:59] unless otherwise requested by an

[48:00] individual council member or public for

[48:02] special consideration. Otherwise, the

[48:04] recommendation of staff will be acted

[48:06] upon by a roll call vote. Is there

[48:08] anybody in the council that would like

[48:09] to pull a consent item? I am pulling

[48:11] item number nine.

[48:14] And I see councilwoman.

[48:19] Um, mayor, I'd like to pull item number

[48:21] four and

[48:27] » number. Yeah, you pulled number nine.

[48:28] Thank you,

[48:29] >> Councilwoman Beer.

[48:32] Nine. Okay. Anybody else?

[48:34] I take this out to the audience. And the

[48:36] members of the audience would like to

[48:37] pull an item on the consent calendar.

[48:43] Hello. This is Galan Guzman, City of

[48:46] Series. I'd like to pull number four. Uh

[48:48] number six, seven and nine.

[48:51] >> Six and seven, sir.

[48:54] Okay, we already pulled nine, sir, but

[48:57] thank you. Bring this item back to the

[48:59] council for a motion.

[49:00] >> Make a motion to approve items 1 through

[49:02] 3, 5, and 8 of the consent calendar.

[49:05] >> Second that.

[49:06] >> A roll call, please.

[49:08] >> Council member Casey,

[49:10] >> yes.

[49:10] >> Council member Vieira,

[49:12] >> yes.

[49:13] >> Council member Otto,

[49:14] >> yes.

[49:15] >> Vice Mayor Martinez,

[49:16] >> hi. Mayor Lopez.

[49:18] >> Yes.

[49:18] >> Motion carries 50.

[49:20] >> Okay. We'll go ahead and go to item

[49:22] number four, which was council member.

[49:25] >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh, my first question

[49:27] was, and I did email city staff earlier,

[49:30] so I apologize that it was probably a

[49:31] late question, but what is the valley

[49:34] water contribution payment for?

[49:38] >> Thank you, Council Member Terror. And we

[49:40] did receive your email this afternoon. I

[49:43] believe the public works superintendent

[49:45] is prepared to answer that question.

[49:48] >> Thank you for your question, council

[49:49] member. Um, Valley Water Collaborative

[49:52] is um an agency, a multi-jurisdictional

[49:55] agency that the city of Sir is part of.

[49:58] um the city of Siri along with uh

[50:01] agriculture, poultry, wastewater uh all

[50:05] these different agencies have

[50:07] contributed to the nitrate that's in the

[50:08] ground based on all the years of of

[50:11] running the way that you know they run.

[50:13] So all these agencies have contributed

[50:15] to this. The state required um every

[50:18] agency to either create their own path

[50:22] for mitigating these nitrate issues um

[50:26] or the the wells that have been affected

[50:30] by them um on their own and submit a

[50:34] whole process and a whole um get that

[50:36] approved by them. Or you could join in

[50:38] with a larger agency. Um us along with a

[50:42] lot of other um local cities including

[50:44] uh Modesto and Salida um went with path

[50:48] B which was joining an agency. We joined

[50:51] Valley Water Collaborative. Um it's our

[50:53] annual cont contribution. We're in the

[50:56] Turlock subbasin. So sometime there was

[50:58] a little bit of confusion when that came

[51:00] out because it said Turlock on it. Um

[51:02] there's two water basins. There's the

[51:04] Modesa subbasin and the Turlock

[51:06] subbasin. Um and we are part of the

[51:08] Turlock subbasin. So that's what some of

[51:10] the confusion comes from there. Um but

[51:12] any other questions you have with that?

[51:14] That's just our annual contribution to

[51:16] keeping the for our portion of the

[51:19] funding requirement.

[51:21] >> Thank you Josh for that explanation. Uh

[51:24] my second question is regarding the

[51:26] bright view um payment that was made.

[51:30] It's it's always interesting in

[51:31] government because you know payments are

[51:33] made sometimes to co contracts that

[51:36] maybe work hasn't actually been done. So

[51:40] uh my question is for a bright view

[51:42] payment for the month of May is was

[51:44] there somebody from the city that

[51:46] actually verified the work? Um the

[51:48] reason why I say that is because in my

[51:52] district the city rightaways haven't

[51:54] been maintained. Uh city manager is

[51:56] aware of this. I've been bringing it up

[51:57] for over well actually about a year now.

[52:00] Um I noticed that right now the city

[52:04] rightaways at least let's say for June

[52:06] they did not complete the work at all. I

[52:08] know SRNA hasn't been maintained like it

[52:10] was supposed to. Um so my question is uh

[52:15] who's verifying the work before these

[52:17] payments are made?

[52:20] >> Thank you council member.

[52:22] I understand the concern and staff um

[52:26] shares the disappointment with the

[52:30] services that um were provided as a part

[52:32] of that contract.

[52:34] [clears throat and cough]

[52:35] As you pointed out, this invoice was for

[52:37] the month of May. And I appreciate you

[52:40] asking the question by email because it

[52:42] caused me to go back and look at the

[52:44] agreement that was in place. The

[52:46] agreement is now terminated and it was

[52:48] not performance-based. It was strictly

[52:50] budget- based. So, as a result of budget

[52:52] reductions, we are no longer in uh a

[52:55] maintenance agreement with Bright View.

[52:58] But when we were in that maintenance

[53:00] agreement in May, there are provisions

[53:02] within that agreement that would allow

[53:04] us to withhold payments. But there are

[53:07] specific things that would have needed

[53:09] to have been done in May which were not

[53:11] done. things like documenting the actual

[53:14] service that was not performed,

[53:18] conducting routine and consistent spot

[53:21] checks and documenting those spot

[53:23] checks. So by you bringing up this

[53:24] question, it pointed out a weakness or a

[53:27] deficiency in the process. So moving

[53:29] forward, we are going to implement with

[53:32] all of our agreements that have this

[53:33] type of language that allows for

[53:35] withholding payments for non-service or

[53:37] unsatisfactory service the inspections

[53:41] that will be necessary, the

[53:42] documentations that will be necessary.

[53:44] It talks about photographs, it talks

[53:46] about um formalized written

[53:50] communication with the other party from

[53:53] the city. So those things will be put

[53:56] into place in the future. So, while I

[53:59] would very much agree that it would um

[54:02] it would be nice not to pay May and not

[54:04] to pay June, I can tell you that the

[54:06] steps were not taken that would allow me

[54:08] to be comfortable with withholding those

[54:10] payments at this time, even though I

[54:12] agree all of the services were not

[54:15] performed. I will be working with the

[54:17] city attorney specifically for the month

[54:19] of June to see if there's anything that

[54:21] we have done as a staff during that

[54:23] month that would allow us to withhold

[54:25] payment for June. But for May, I don't

[54:27] believe that's possible.

[54:30] >> I think um you know, the the work speaks

[54:33] for itself. The the lack of maintenance

[54:37] and the weeds are you know growing tall.

[54:39] You can tell those weren't you know they

[54:42] didn't grow in one month or a couple

[54:43] weeks. So I think that's something that

[54:44] we should evaluate as well. Thank you.

[54:49] >> We'll go ahead and open this up to the

[54:50] public. Any members of the public would

[54:51] like to comment on item number four?

[54:53] Please step up to the podium.

[54:57] Hello, City of Series Galang Guzman.

[55:00] Well, Galang Guzman and I live in City

[55:02] of Series. All right. So, the first

[55:04] question is I see that a lot there's a

[55:07] lot of like uh telephone service

[55:10] providers. Uh could you provide some

[55:12] clarification on why there is AT&T and

[55:15] then also like Verizon and then

[55:17] T-Mobile?

[55:21] That's one. Secondly, uh there's how

[55:24] much is how much does the grant writer

[55:27] get paid? Because there's a fee here for

[55:29] $7,000 specifically for Prop 64, which I

[55:32] think um it's for law enforcement. And

[55:35] then secondly, there's like another fee

[55:38] uh I mean another payment

[55:41] that was given to her. I'm like I don't

[55:45] know. This one was pretty long, so bear

[55:46] with me.

[55:51] Um I don't know. you could go back in

[55:52] and and look for it, but there's like uh

[55:55] she's paid like three times. So, I just

[55:57] have a question on like how she gets

[55:58] paid and then if it's per like contract

[56:01] or if it's per like grant that she

[56:03] writes kind of thing. Uh thirdly,

[56:07] uh the janitorial supplies. So, I've

[56:09] been keeping track mentally of like uh

[56:12] the uh how much is paid to for

[56:14] janitorial supplies. Um, so usually it's

[56:18] like 1,000 and if I'm not mistaken, this

[56:22] uh community the the series community

[56:25] center there's a contract in place uh

[56:28] for like 75,000 uh which uh I think in

[56:32] the contract it said that the um the

[56:35] company was supposed to supply uh their

[56:39] own like stuff. So I just have a

[56:41] question about that and what what does

[56:43] the jamtorial supplies actually uh

[56:45] entail and if from like what I think

[56:48] that there's a lack of transparency in

[56:49] like the voucher list uh because it's

[56:52] kind of hard to tell what uh department

[56:55] like cost center is coming from you know

[56:57] it's not really transparent to to say

[57:00] like oh like Travis Hudson's uh uniform

[57:02] allowance of like 7 or whatever it's

[57:05] allowed it's coming from like the police

[57:08] department budget you know what I mean?

[57:10] So, uh I would just like a little bit

[57:12] more of transparency in that regards

[57:14] too. I know other uh other cities they actually have it a

[57:21] little bit more organized. So, I mean

[57:23] this is a lot and it could it's hard to

[57:25] process. Um I know usually the agenda

[57:29] packet itself is like hundreds of pages

[57:32] and to the average person that takes a

[57:34] lot of mental tax. Um, so also look into

[57:38] that about condensing or providing like

[57:40] a table of contents where there's a

[57:42] hyperlink for each each thing cuz if you

[57:45] spend a few quite some time then it kind

[57:48] of like zones out and it brings you to

[57:50] the beginning and then you lose your

[57:51] place. So uh oh yeah also the PG&E uh it

[57:56] says like there's multiple addresses.

[57:58] There's one for Fort Street service and

[58:00] then Fowler, but then at the very bottom

[58:03] on page five of the voucher list,

[58:06] there's like a services for various

[58:08] locations and it's uh total amount is

[58:11] 1,962.

[58:13] What are those various locations? Like

[58:15] what other what specific addresses are

[58:17] these? Um

[58:20] uh let's see.

[58:22] So Verizon it was like 2,2500

[58:25] and then you have AT&T for like 438.

[58:28] Then there's another T-Mobile one. Um

[58:31] also how many oh yeah this one's

[58:34] important. So the the settlement it's

[58:37] listed here as 341 and I read the

[58:39] minutes um which was like 325,000. So I

[58:43] just would like some clarification on

[58:44] that. And then uh I did ask for like

[58:46] some public worker public I did submit a

[58:49] public records request and the request

[58:51] was a little bit incomplete or not to my

[58:53] satisfaction.

[58:55] Um it was very Yeah. So if if a

[58:59] department is sued I I understand that

[59:01] the insurance will you know give the

[59:03] money or whatever. Um so but in the

[59:05] future like does that money come from

[59:08] like uh that budget from that

[59:10] department? Because uh yeah it's Yeah.

[59:17] And then for like the uniform allowance

[59:19] of 646 for Travis Hudson. Uh this is the

[59:22] first time that I see this um actually

[59:24] listed but not listed for every specific

[59:28] police officer. So why why was this

[59:32] different? Um

[59:35] next. Oh yeah, Alpine Protective

[59:37] Solutions. I thought we had not I

[59:40] thought that we were no longer being

[59:42] provided services by this company but

[59:44] here it's listed uh as um 4774

[59:47] whereas like I think it was like

[59:49] sometime last year uh I think it was

[59:51] like removed from the agenda so yeah

[59:54] what happened um the AT&T you know it's a lot it's like

[59:59] >> 2069

[1:00:02] your time is up I appreciate your time

[1:00:04] we'll try to get that information over

[1:00:05] to you sir thank

[1:00:09] Anybody else have a comment on item

[1:00:11] number four?

[1:00:16] Anybody with their hands raised?

[1:00:18] >> There are no hands raised on Zoom.

[1:00:20] >> Bring this item back for a motion.

[1:00:21] >> Make a motion to approve item four, the

[1:00:23] consent calendar.

[1:00:25] >> Second.

[1:00:25] >> Roll call, please.

[1:00:27] >> Council member Casey,

[1:00:28] >> no.

[1:00:29] >> Council member Vieiraa,

[1:00:31] >> yes.

[1:00:32] >> Vice Council member Otto,

[1:00:34] >> yes. Vice Mayor Martinez.

[1:00:36] >> I,

[1:00:37] >> Mayor Lopez,

[1:00:38] >> yes.

[1:00:38] >> Motion carries 41.

[1:00:41] >> Item number six.

[1:00:44] >> Believe that was you, Guzman.

[1:00:53] So interesting. Will I get a like

[1:00:55] response to my questions?

[1:00:59] Because it does mean no service to come

[1:01:00] up here and talk to and preach to the

[1:01:02] choir if you I'm not going to get any

[1:01:03] answers. Okay, for number six, um, so

[1:01:07] yeah, there was just a typo. It was just

[1:01:09] more more so like a typo. And then why

[1:01:11] are we selling land? Um, and not

[1:01:14] maintaining it. I mean, what's the

[1:01:16] purpose of uh of number six? And then uh

[1:01:20] I hear it's exempt. And let's see. Let's

[1:01:24] go back to number six.

[1:01:32] So the typo is on

[1:01:41] Let's see.

[1:01:43] Uh oh. It would great if it would be

[1:01:45] great if these had page numbers, you

[1:01:47] know. Um,

[1:02:15] don't lost it. Oh,

[1:02:21] actually, no. The title was number nine.

[1:02:23] Um,

[1:02:29] yeah. So, I I guess I could just ask for

[1:02:31] like a public records request of like

[1:02:33] all the uh city property and then how

[1:02:35] much has been sold over the years and

[1:02:36] what for what price. So, never mind if I

[1:02:40] digress. Thanks.

[1:02:41] >> No problem. Anyone else would like to

[1:02:43] make a comment on item number six?

[1:02:48] Bring this item back for a motion.

[1:02:51] >> Make a motion to approve item number six

[1:02:52] of the consent calendar.

[1:02:55] >> I'll second.

[1:02:57] >> Roll call, please.

[1:02:58] >> Council member Casey,

[1:03:01] >> yes.

[1:03:01] >> Council member Vieiraa,

[1:03:03] >> yes.

[1:03:03] >> Council member Otero,

[1:03:05] >> yes.

[1:03:05] >> Vice Mayor Martinez, I.

[1:03:07] >> Mayor Lopez,

[1:03:08] >> yes.

[1:03:09] >> Motion carries 5-0. Item

[1:03:11] >> number seven, Mr. Guzman, this was yours

[1:03:13] as well, I believe.

[1:03:20] Uh the typos is on the notice of public

[1:03:24] uh public hearing, excuse me. Um it's

[1:03:27] mid page right where the second uh pole

[1:03:30] punch is. It says u the engineers report

[1:03:34] blah blah blah. Um landscape and

[1:03:37] lightning act of 1972. I think it should

[1:03:41] read 87 if I'm not mistaken. And then

[1:03:44] secondly, um, the company that was

[1:03:47] contracted to do this assessment and

[1:03:50] >> excuse me, I'm sorry for my

[1:03:52] interruption. You're on item number

[1:03:54] seven, correct, sir? Cuz that's the one

[1:03:55] that you had pulled.

[1:03:58] >> Oh. Uh, yeah, my bad. Okay, I'll sit

[1:04:01] down for the next one.

[1:04:02] >> Okay, no worries. Anyone else would like

[1:04:04] to make a comment on item number seven?

[1:04:10] He was referring to item number nine.

[1:04:12] Yeah, he pulled seven.

[1:04:14] Anybody else? Any back for council for a

[1:04:17] motion for number seven?

[1:04:19] >> Make a motion to approve item number

[1:04:21] seven of the consent calendar.

[1:04:22] >> Second.

[1:04:23] >> And a roll call, please.

[1:04:25] >> Council member Casey,

[1:04:26] >> no.

[1:04:27] >> Council member Vieiraa,

[1:04:28] >> yes.

[1:04:28] >> Council member Otto,

[1:04:30] >> yes.

[1:04:30] >> Vice Mayor Martinez,

[1:04:31] >> I.

[1:04:32] >> Mayor Lopez,

[1:04:33] >> yes.

[1:04:33] >> Motion carries 41.

[1:04:35] >> So item number nine, [clears throat]

[1:04:38] Mr. Bill Trans, could you please um do

[1:04:42] the report on this item and then I'll

[1:04:43] ask my questions if that's okay.

[1:04:46] [clears throat]

[1:04:46] >> Thank you, mayor, members of the

[1:04:48] council. Uh so this is uh the uh

[1:04:53] resolution to declare

[1:04:56] um our intention to levy assessments uh

[1:05:00] per the 1987 uh landscape and lighting

[1:05:04] district act. Um so this uh

[1:05:10] we this will also set the public hearing

[1:05:12] for August 10th uh which will actually

[1:05:16] levy the tax. Um and so really this goes

[1:05:21] through it presents the report um on you

[1:05:24] know for instance we the the total

[1:05:27] budget is $659,397

[1:05:31] and change. Um there are $527,597

[1:05:37] in revenue that is projected for this uh

[1:05:40] is about a 31

[1:05:43] uh% increase in the assessment that will

[1:05:46] go um and those those are all listed in

[1:05:49] the report which parcels and how much

[1:05:51] they um that they are getting. Um and so

[1:05:57] there is a general fund supplement of

[1:06:00] $131,799.

[1:06:03] However, that supplement was not

[1:06:04] approved in the budget. So that will be

[1:06:08] something that will um will not be

[1:06:11] fulfilled whether that's you know we

[1:06:13] don't provide as many services for it um

[1:06:16] for the landscape and lighting district

[1:06:18] or you know however we kind of maneuver

[1:06:20] around trying to uh make all the

[1:06:24] services happen that that we can with

[1:06:26] the funding that we are going to

[1:06:28] receive. In general, there's about

[1:06:30] $140,000

[1:06:32] in lighting um that is that is paid for

[1:06:35] lights in all the landscape and lighting

[1:06:37] districts. Um there's about $250,000

[1:06:41] in total staff. And then there's about

[1:06:43] $90,000 in contracts. Um and now, mind

[1:06:48] you, this is just for the LLDS. Um this

[1:06:51] does not include the CFDs uh that that

[1:06:53] will come to you at a separate council

[1:06:56] meeting. Um, and so

[1:06:59] if if we have questions regarding where

[1:07:01] services are provided or we want to dig

[1:07:03] a little deeper in the uh fiscal aspect

[1:07:06] of it, uh, both Vanessa, the the finance

[1:07:10] director, and the public works

[1:07:12] superintendent, we've all talked about

[1:07:14] this. Um, so we're happy to answer any

[1:07:17] questions that you guys might have uh,

[1:07:19] with regards to the LLDS.

[1:07:22] >> Thank you very much, Mr. Beltran. I had

[1:07:23] a concerned citizen reach out to me and

[1:07:25] asked several questions and I've emailed

[1:07:27] those questions to you and the city

[1:07:28] manager. You already answered the first

[1:07:30] question. The first question was how

[1:07:31] much revenue was collected for this

[1:07:34] fiscal year and you've already answered

[1:07:35] that question. And the second question,

[1:07:37] what specific services and areas are

[1:07:39] funded by those assessment dollars? I

[1:07:42] know you you kind of uh responded to

[1:07:44] that, but if you can clarify, please.

[1:07:46] >> So, uh there is a map. The map is not

[1:07:49] 100% clear. It's a color-coded map in

[1:07:52] the actual report just with the PDFing

[1:07:55] of it and those types of things. We do

[1:07:57] have a more clear map um that that we

[1:07:59] can send out. That's not a problem. Um I

[1:08:03] can I can let Josh uh Casus go over any

[1:08:06] specific geographic areas, but generally

[1:08:09] speaking um there are it's taking care

[1:08:12] of landscape in certain districts um

[1:08:15] which are all listed in the report. Um

[1:08:18] and it is taking care of the lighting

[1:08:20] also within those districts uh that are listed in the report. Um and

[1:08:25] Josh if you can give any details on the

[1:08:28] geographic areas would be great.

[1:08:31] >> Thank you Mike. Um [clears throat] so I

[1:08:34] do have uh as part of our uh as part of

[1:08:36] our work for creating a new request for

[1:08:39] bid um from the from a new a new

[1:08:43] landscaping contract.

[1:08:45] Um, I have our current rideways, uh,

[1:08:49] streets, all the medians, everything

[1:08:50] that we have listed. Um, and then going

[1:08:53] over the areas with, uh, Michael, uh,

[1:08:56] from the C, the CFDs and the LD, but

[1:08:58] specifically right now, speaking about

[1:08:59] the LDS, uh, we're seeing which areas

[1:09:02] from the current contract are already

[1:09:04] covered in, um, in the previous contract

[1:09:07] and then which areas we may have to

[1:09:09] include in the new contract. So although

[1:09:12] there may be some time, you know, in the

[1:09:14] time that we're getting this contract

[1:09:15] out that it's not being serviced by a

[1:09:18] contractor, uh the result that we have

[1:09:20] like like this uh city manager said,

[1:09:22] it's fallen on staff. So at the moment,

[1:09:25] we're trying to resolve these issues

[1:09:27] when they come up and when they're

[1:09:28] reported to us, uh we're having staff go

[1:09:30] out just because we have not had the the

[1:09:35] time to plan out the the exact um

[1:09:38] staffing allocation for for these areas.

[1:09:40] But that is something that we're we're

[1:09:42] looking at right now.

[1:09:44] >> Thank you very much Josh. So

[1:09:46] [clears throat] one of the questions

[1:09:47] that was asked of me was and I believe

[1:09:49] that you sort of answered the question.

[1:09:51] So Bright View were they responsible for

[1:09:53] any of these areas?

[1:09:58] Uh, I believe some from the from the report some of those areas are

[1:10:03] on our are listed because I know um some

[1:10:06] of the I think Eastgate was on there,

[1:10:08] some of the Eastgate streets and some of

[1:10:09] the the medians were on there, they are

[1:10:11] on the the current um list, even if they

[1:10:14] were not being serviced to the

[1:10:16] satisfaction of, you know, us. Um,

[1:10:20] Briiew was providing us with a weekly

[1:10:22] report of the areas that they hit and we

[1:10:24] would send somebody behind them and

[1:10:25] respond, hey, this is not done, this is

[1:10:27] not done. Um, so we've we've categorized

[1:10:30] all that, but um, some of those areas

[1:10:32] are in the previous contract and some

[1:10:34] will have to be added to a new contract.

[1:10:36] So our goal is to make sure that you

[1:10:38] know with with in conjunction with

[1:10:40] finance with um engineering to make sure

[1:10:43] that all the money that is um allotted

[1:10:46] for landscaping is being used for

[1:10:48] landscaping. All the money that's

[1:10:49] allotted for lighting is being used for

[1:10:51] lighting. Um we want to make sure that

[1:10:53] um and even if there's specific money,

[1:10:55] which there is specific money uh

[1:10:58] allotted to staffing versus allotted to

[1:11:01] contractors. So, we're trying to get all

[1:11:03] that separated right now and make sure

[1:11:05] that we um the new contract that we put

[1:11:07] forward is clear in those in those uh

[1:11:09] sense.

[1:11:10] >> Thank you, Josh. I know that the the

[1:11:12] question was also answered about the

[1:11:13] funding sources. You explained that.

[1:11:15] Now, this is one particular question

[1:11:16] that I think is is very warranted. How

[1:11:19] does the city ensure the homeowners who

[1:11:20] pay this assessment receive the direct

[1:11:22] benefit of those funds?

[1:11:26] So the the the citizens so we have a

[1:11:29] separate fund for for one and we've had

[1:11:31] it for a few years um that this money

[1:11:34] goes into and that's where this money

[1:11:37] comes out of. Um so we we do want to

[1:11:40] make sure that we are um acting on the

[1:11:43] behalf of citizens per the report. Um

[1:11:46] you know and that that we are servicing

[1:11:49] those areas with those specific funds.

[1:11:52] Um they shouldn't be intertwined. Um, if

[1:11:55] there's a general fund supplement that can be put in there also, but we do

[1:12:00] keep this money in a separate fund so

[1:12:02] that we know that we are spending money

[1:12:04] per the landscape and lighting district

[1:12:06] act within those district areas.

[1:12:08] >> Thank you very much. Although most of

[1:12:10] these questions, the answers were in the

[1:12:12] agenda, I believe that it's very

[1:12:15] important for the public to hear it from

[1:12:17] your staff and your team of what you

[1:12:19] guys are trying to do to make sure that

[1:12:20] these citizens are getting exactly what

[1:12:22] they're paying for. These are taxpayers

[1:12:24] and I believe that you're going to

[1:12:26] figure out a way and I do appreciate

[1:12:27] that. Those are all my questions for

[1:12:29] now. I believe I have Councilwoman Otto

[1:12:31] has pressed her button.

[1:12:38] » Go ahead.

[1:12:40] >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, for engineer, I

[1:12:42] just want to get clarification. You

[1:12:44] mentioned there will be an increase from

[1:12:47] last year.

[1:12:50] >> Yes, that is correct. So when we do the

[1:12:53] uh LLD assessments, uh they are

[1:12:55] increased by the inflation rate um every

[1:12:58] year. Um

[1:13:02] council can forego that increase uh if

[1:13:05] that is if that is the council's desire.

[1:13:08] Um it's definitely not recommended

[1:13:10] simply because it we need to keep pace

[1:13:13] with contracts um you know increases on

[1:13:17] those contracts, increases in staff

[1:13:19] wages, increases in electricity. Um so

[1:13:22] but it is something that is within the

[1:13:25] act and we can increase by up to 5%. So

[1:13:28] if inflation was actually at 6 or 7% we

[1:13:31] still can only increase by 5%. Um, and

[1:13:34] in this case, I believe it was about

[1:13:35] 3.121%

[1:13:38] this year.

[1:13:40] >> Thank you. Um, so I do understand the

[1:13:43] need to, you know, levy and collect the

[1:13:46] assessments. Um, it's something that's

[1:13:48] been happening for years, but with the collection of the levies, we have to

[1:13:54] ensure that our city is maintained

[1:13:55] effectively and uh or efficiently. And

[1:13:58] currently, I don't feel that that has

[1:14:01] taken place. Um, I've had a lot of

[1:14:03] concerns about, you know, the landscape

[1:14:05] in general. Um, with current budget

[1:14:08] concerns, I know, you know, the city's

[1:14:10] looking to make sure that we keep up,

[1:14:12] like you said, with the costs and all of

[1:14:14] that, but for me, I think we need to

[1:14:18] evaluate um the workload within the

[1:14:22] department right now and uh figure out,

[1:14:26] you know, accountability, oversight of

[1:14:28] the tasks that are being done um before

[1:14:30] we put it back on the residents to um to

[1:14:34] increase, you know, the the fees on this

[1:14:36] or the levies. Um I know last year the

[1:14:39] contract for the landscape there was a

[1:14:42] missing page. Things like that can't

[1:14:44] happen especially when we're using

[1:14:46] taxpayer dollars. So um with this I

[1:14:49] can't support um an increase in this.

[1:14:53] >> Thank you very much Councilwoman Vieier.

[1:15:00] » Thank you. And I know I emailed you a

[1:15:01] couple questions. I appreciate you

[1:15:02] getting back to me on those questions.

[1:15:04] Um, I guess one of the main concerns I

[1:15:07] had, which you kind of addressed, was it

[1:15:10] sounds like they're separate accounts,

[1:15:11] so money from one district isn't being

[1:15:13] used in a different district. And I

[1:15:15] think that's one of the concerns we had.

[1:15:17] And then the other concern was

[1:15:21] during the budget discussions, it was

[1:15:23] discussed that the medians people may

[1:15:24] not just get them cut while or the

[1:15:26] medians wouldn't be done. Well, our

[1:15:28] district has there's three separate

[1:15:29] funds specifically that I'm I contribute

[1:15:32] to. And so my neighbors are asking me,

[1:15:36] well, why am I contributing to something

[1:15:37] that I'm not receiving? And so that was

[1:15:39] my concern. Um, and then also, what are

[1:15:42] our long-term plan when it comes to

[1:15:45] addressing this since we don't have it

[1:15:47] in the general fund? we don't have money

[1:15:48] to make up the differences and the

[1:15:51] market is softening as you know that

[1:15:52] we're looking at a decline in sales tax

[1:15:55] I guess is the best way of putting that.

[1:15:57] Um and then have we considered going to

[1:15:59] solar or something that could reduce our

[1:16:01] long-term electrical uses especially in

[1:16:04] our parks and our median areas. Um and I

[1:16:07] will leave it at that for now. Um I know

[1:16:10] I emailed you a few more questions I

[1:16:12] think that you guys were going to get

[1:16:13] back to me on.

[1:16:14] >> So thank you for your questions. Um to

[1:16:18] address the the solar uh issue, um we

[1:16:22] have looked at uh citywide solar. Um it

[1:16:25] is a rather large investment uh to go

[1:16:29] with any type of citywide solar that

[1:16:31] would help reduce our costs at this

[1:16:34] point. Um and so right now that is we we

[1:16:38] have not brought that forward. Um I I

[1:16:41] believe council did hear presentations

[1:16:43] on it uh last year. Uh but at this point

[1:16:47] in time I don't know I that's probably

[1:16:50] not a feasible option for us to to do

[1:16:53] that. One clarification I do want to

[1:16:54] make is that the landscape and lighting

[1:16:57] districts in the report it breaks out

[1:16:59] how the money is is broken down into the

[1:17:02] different districts. All the money is in

[1:17:04] I believe fund 292 if I'm not mistaken.

[1:17:07] Um, and I can let Vanessa, you know,

[1:17:11] jump in there on on how it's allocated

[1:17:13] throughout uh, and goes to each

[1:17:16] district. Um, but that is something that

[1:17:18] has to be tracked because

[1:17:21] the the money that is given by a

[1:17:23] district has to be used within that

[1:17:26] district. And so that is something that,

[1:17:28] um, that I can let Vanessa and Josh on

[1:17:31] their allocation for contracts and stuff

[1:17:34] uh, elaborate a little bit on that.

[1:17:38] Okay. And then um

[1:17:41] what is our long-term

[1:17:44] strategy? I guess because right now it

[1:17:46] sounds like it's I I right now I guess

[1:17:47] the confusion is up until the RFP is

[1:17:49] done, received, and the contract

[1:17:51] presented to council. What is our goal

[1:17:54] or what is our plan in place until that

[1:17:56] process is completed, which I'm

[1:17:58] estimating is probably going to be four

[1:18:00] to 6 months. What are we doing in the

[1:18:02] term? because again we're asking the

[1:18:03] taxpayers to pay but it sounds like

[1:18:06] there's nothing in place as of today. So

[1:18:08] I want to make sure we have something

[1:18:10] that we can tell especially the ones

[1:18:12] here on the crowd and on Zoom or the

[1:18:14] ones that have emailed and text and

[1:18:16] called me I can say this is what our

[1:18:18] plan is. Um especially long term

[1:18:20] especially if we're asking for to try to

[1:18:23] I know right now we're paying out more

[1:18:25] than we're receiving. So I do understand

[1:18:27] that we still we don't have the general

[1:18:29] fund to absorb the differences and so I

[1:18:31] just want to see what our plan is in

[1:18:33] place.

[1:18:34] >> Uh so thank you for your question. Um

[1:18:37] and Mr. City Manager if if you could

[1:18:39] correct me are is the meeting tomorrow

[1:18:42] also about how we're going to provide

[1:18:44] services in the landscape and lighting

[1:18:46] districts.

[1:18:48] It is it is the streets department, the

[1:18:52] facilities department, and the parks

[1:18:54] department all coming together to talk

[1:18:56] about parks, ride ofways, landscape and

[1:19:00] lighting districts, community facilities

[1:19:02] districts, all of that tomorrow at 8 in

[1:19:04] the morning. Yes. So, the long-term

[1:19:08] plan, uh, Council Member Vieiraa, is to

[1:19:10] engage with a third-party contractor for

[1:19:13] landscaping services. That's the

[1:19:15] long-term plan. The short-term plan

[1:19:17] until we get that contract with the

[1:19:19] third party is that staff will have be

[1:19:22] responsible for maintaining these areas

[1:19:24] until that uh third party contract is um

[1:19:28] executed

[1:19:32] » and is that even with the delay is that

[1:19:35] going to affect the amount I just want

[1:19:37] to make sure we're not overt taxing

[1:19:39] especially if they're not getting the

[1:19:40] services they're paying for and I guess

[1:19:41] that's the biggest thing or concern that

[1:19:43] I have right now. So, I mean, we we

[1:19:46] obviously haven't sent out the the

[1:19:48] request for proposals yet. Um, my guess

[1:19:51] is the amount that is allocated for

[1:19:53] contracts. Um, will not serve for the

[1:19:57] entire contract. So, we will have to

[1:19:59] look at how much is allocated to the

[1:20:01] contracts uh within the LLDS and make

[1:20:04] adjustments from there. But until we get

[1:20:06] that final number, we won't have that

[1:20:09] exact answer until until we have those

[1:20:11] numbers so that we can figure out how

[1:20:13] we're going to allocate. Is there

[1:20:15] supplement needed by the city? Not

[1:20:17] general fund supplement, just supplement

[1:20:19] in staff that there is things that staff

[1:20:22] may have to continue keeping up as

[1:20:25] opposed to actually putting in a

[1:20:26] contract because we don't have the

[1:20:28] funding for that contract in full. Um,

[1:20:31] so that's that's going to be something

[1:20:33] as we receive those bids, we are going

[1:20:35] to need to uh figure out how that works

[1:20:39] in the end. Um, and that's something as

[1:20:41] soon as we get those numbers, we will we

[1:20:43] will look at.

[1:20:45] >> Thank you.

[1:20:47] >> Any other questions?

[1:20:52] » Go ahead.

[1:20:53] >> I just want clarification for this item.

[1:20:54] We're not approving the levy right now.

[1:20:57] We're just um declaring the intention.

[1:21:00] You're going your your report we're

[1:21:02] approving and then you'll bring it back

[1:21:04] for a public hearing and that's when

[1:21:05] we'll um either approve or deny the the

[1:21:10] levy.

[1:21:10] >> That is correct. This is declaring our

[1:21:13] intention to levy the tax and this is

[1:21:16] also approving the engineers report for

[1:21:19] the landscape and lighting districts.

[1:21:21] >> Thank you.

[1:21:23] >> There are no questions. I'll go out to

[1:21:24] the public. Any members of the public

[1:21:25] would like to make a comment on this

[1:21:26] item?

[1:21:29] Step up to the podium.

[1:21:31] >> Uh, Galan Guzman. All right. The first

[1:21:34] one was the typo. Uh,

[1:21:38] the city of series notice of public

[1:21:40] hearing. Uh, midpage. It should read

[1:21:43] 1987. It reads 1972 currently. Um, then

[1:21:49] I was looking at the contract or like

[1:21:51] the publication that MBS put out and it

[1:21:55] seems like they they gathered the

[1:21:56] information from they use numbers from

[1:21:58] March 2026, the CPI which is the

[1:22:01] inflation um factor or rate whatever and

[1:22:04] I checked online and then it seems like

[1:22:07] back in March of 2026 that's the highest

[1:22:10] it's been since 2005. So we're looking

[1:22:13] at we're using data that's a little bit

[1:22:15] outdated which doesn't reflect our

[1:22:17] current like economy. Um if you take a

[1:22:19] look here it says

[1:22:23] um yeah so one I guess first question is

[1:22:27] when was this uh MBS with this company

[1:22:31] uh this contract approved and then when

[1:22:34] did they start working on this and then

[1:22:36] why did they select March 2026 numbers

[1:22:40] instead of like let's say April or June

[1:22:43] numbers um before putting it out in

[1:22:45] August for uh the public hearing.

[1:22:48] notice. Uh so that's one of the things.

[1:22:50] And then secondly, um yeah, again, like

[1:22:53] the services aren't there. You know, you

[1:22:55] can't be just like increasing taxes when

[1:22:58] we're the residents aren't receiving the

[1:23:00] services. You know, there it passed last

[1:23:03] year and then again, you know, the city

[1:23:05] council is being asked to do this again,

[1:23:08] but the services weren't there last year

[1:23:10] nor the the year prior. So, it's just

[1:23:12] it's kind of mindboggling that we keep

[1:23:14] doing this and contracting out when I

[1:23:16] think we should be investing in public

[1:23:18] workers, you know, not removing them,

[1:23:21] you know, we should be allocated more we

[1:23:23] should be allocating more money to parks

[1:23:25] and wreck, you know, uh to take care of

[1:23:28] our city streets, our city parks, you

[1:23:30] know, but instead we're contracting out

[1:23:32] with like multiple landscaping companies

[1:23:34] that are not providing the services that

[1:23:36] we need and to our satisfaction. So, at

[1:23:39] what point will this council decide to

[1:23:43] invest in our workers instead? Because,

[1:23:47] you know, before like I had, you know,

[1:23:50] I'm just going to say that before, you

[1:23:52] know, if you were like a city employee,

[1:23:54] you got great benefits, you know, but

[1:23:56] that also trickled down, you know, to

[1:23:59] your family. It provided a safe um, you

[1:24:01] know, income, you know, benefits for

[1:24:03] your family. But now we're contracting

[1:24:05] out, you know, and we're asking our park

[1:24:08] crew to do more with less, you know, and

[1:24:11] I the point is like if you contract out,

[1:24:14] you lose that accountability aspect.

[1:24:17] Like if you were to have city workers,

[1:24:19] you have that immediate oversight. You

[1:24:21] know, if someone's not doing their job,

[1:24:23] okay, like we got to replace you. Like,

[1:24:26] you know, go figure. But yeah, we're cancelling contracts and then

[1:24:29] we're still losing the service and we're

[1:24:31] asking taxpayers to to you know, you

[1:24:34] know, increase $40, you know, um for the

[1:24:38] next year or 122, you know, but yet like

[1:24:41] the services aren't being given. So,

[1:24:43] it's just it's just mindboggling to me

[1:24:45] that this keeps happening and yeah, when

[1:24:48] the services aren't there like obviously

[1:24:50] public works like needs work and it

[1:24:52] needs it now like not not tomorrow or I

[1:24:55] mean it needs it now not like in a year

[1:24:57] or two you know so uh that's one thing

[1:25:01] um also I I submitted an application for

[1:25:04] adopt a park and I was looking to

[1:25:07] service the three parks where of where I

[1:25:10] live which is district two you know and

[1:25:12] I selected these parks because they're

[1:25:14] in 5 minutes from my house, you know. I

[1:25:16] have the resources and I have the time

[1:25:18] and I'm willing to volunteer and give

[1:25:21] back, you know, and I'm not seeking any

[1:25:23] compensation or any recognition.

[1:25:26] The application states that it'll go to

[1:25:28] city council and then I'll be like like

[1:25:31] uh recognized. I don't want that, you

[1:25:33] know. I'm just here to donate my time

[1:25:34] and give back to the community, you

[1:25:36] know. And I had uh I talked to I talked

[1:25:39] to Joey and they uh he said that I can't

[1:25:43] uh use the riding lawnmower to service

[1:25:45] the parks because it's a liability. You

[1:25:48] know, right now, like I said, I have the

[1:25:49] resources. I have the riding lawnmower.

[1:25:51] I know how to use it. You know, I'm

[1:25:53] willing to go out there at 6:00 a.m. 7

[1:25:54] a.m. and take care of these parks, but

[1:25:56] instead I'm being offered to pick up

[1:25:58] garbage with uh you know, the garbage

[1:26:00] holder and bags will be provided. I'm

[1:26:03] looking to do a little bit more of that

[1:26:04] more. I'm looking to do a little more

[1:26:07] than that, you know. So, that was a

[1:26:09] little bit upsetting to me. Um, yeah.

[1:26:12] Again, like the we have contracts with

[1:26:14] well, Elite Maintenance, West Coast

[1:26:16] Arborist, Grover, Bride View, we had,

[1:26:20] you know, it's just, uh, you know, why

[1:26:22] not consolidate, you know, or like I

[1:26:25] said, invest in people. So, yeah. Um,

[1:26:33] yeah. Let's see.

[1:26:39] Is that Jurassic Park? What is that?

[1:26:44] >> Your time.

[1:26:44] >> Yeah, that's it. Thanks.

[1:26:45] >> Time is up. Thank you, sir. Very valid

[1:26:47] points and thank you very much. I

[1:26:48] appreciate that. Is there anybody else

[1:26:50] in the public that would like to make a

[1:26:52] comment?

[1:26:55] » Hey, good evening. My name is Andres

[1:26:57] Ree. I've been a member of this

[1:26:58] community now for over 20 years and I

[1:27:03] want to echo some some of the sentiments

[1:27:05] that he he made. Um I live in the

[1:27:08] Eastgate community. I've been there

[1:27:10] since day one since it started and I've

[1:27:14] seen it just go downhill. Uh, I agree

[1:27:18] that we should take some of these funds

[1:27:20] and if you guys have them allocated for

[1:27:23] a certain pot, create a department that

[1:27:26] can hire some people to work with that

[1:27:29] pot. Because over the years, over the

[1:27:32] last 20 years that I've been there,

[1:27:34] we've probably got about half of the

[1:27:36] foliage

[1:27:38] that was there initially. I've seen

[1:27:40] these workers with my own eyes uh doing

[1:27:44] their job. Instead of nurturing the

[1:27:47] plants and the foliage, they'd rather

[1:27:49] weed whack them down to nothing so they

[1:27:51] don't have to worry about it the next

[1:27:52] time. So, there's lots of areas there

[1:27:54] that are just barren.

[1:27:57] There is water that runs to those areas,

[1:27:59] but they're not watering anything. So, I

[1:28:02] would just like you guys to take that

[1:28:04] into consideration.

[1:28:06] I do agree that there needs to be some

[1:28:07] oversight

[1:28:09] that when these guys go out there and do

[1:28:11] their jobs, whoever it is, I really

[1:28:13] implore you to not think about a third

[1:28:15] party. Reinvest that money into somebody

[1:28:17] that's willing to take pride in their

[1:28:19] work because a lot of these workers may

[1:28:20] not even live in our community. So, they

[1:28:23] go in there, do their eight eight hours,

[1:28:25] and they're out. They really don't care

[1:28:26] what the job looks like. I want somebody

[1:28:29] there that's actually going to care

[1:28:30] about the community that we live in.

[1:28:33] It's really gone downhill. I'm almost

[1:28:35] embarrassed to say I live here and it's

[1:28:38] really hard for me to say that. Like

[1:28:41] I've had people that live in other areas

[1:28:43] that are like, "Wow, it's really gone

[1:28:44] downhill." It has. And I really think we

[1:28:48] can make a change. I really think this

[1:28:50] city could be great.

[1:28:52] But at the same time, I have thought

[1:28:54] about leaving. And like I said, I've

[1:28:56] been here since 2002.

[1:28:59] So I have invested in this a lot of

[1:29:02] investment in this community. I'm an

[1:29:04] educator. I worked for the for series

[1:29:07] for a few years. I work in Modesto now,

[1:29:09] Modesto City Schools. My children have

[1:29:11] gone through elementary, junior high, school. They've graduated from

[1:29:16] series schools and I really feel a part

[1:29:19] of this community and I just really want

[1:29:21] to see it make a change for the better.

[1:29:23] Thank you.

[1:29:25] >> Thank you very much. Anyone else would

[1:29:27] like to make a comment?

[1:29:31] Seeing none, anybody on Zoom.

[1:29:34] >> There are no hands raised on Zoom.

[1:29:36] >> Bring this item back for a motion.

[1:29:38] >> Make a motion to approve item number

[1:29:40] nine.

[1:29:44] I'll second

[1:29:46] a roll call, please.

[1:29:48] >> Council member Casey,

[1:29:49] >> yes.

[1:29:50] >> Council member Vieiraa,

[1:29:51] >> yes.

[1:29:52] >> Council member Otto,

[1:29:53] >> yes.

[1:29:54] >> Vice Mayor Martinez. Hi.

[1:29:55] >> Mayor Lopez,

[1:29:56] >> yes. Motion carries 5-0.

[1:30:04] » We'll now take a fiveminut recess. Thank

[1:30:07] you everyone.

[1:40:49] If everyone can please have a seat.

[1:40:50] We're getting ready to start again.

[1:41:06] Welcome back everyone. We're going to go

[1:41:07] ahead and start off with new business.

[1:41:09] Item number 10, ratifying the measure H

[1:41:11] expenditure plan for fiscal year 2027

[1:41:14] beginning July 1st, 2026 and ending June

[1:41:17] 30th, 2026.

[1:41:22] » Thank you. Good evening, mayor, council

[1:41:25] members. Tonight, tonight's step is

[1:41:27] requesting approval of the resolution

[1:41:29] ratifying the fiscal year 27 measure H

[1:41:33] expenditure plan. Measure H is the

[1:41:36] city's voter approved 1/2 cent public

[1:41:39] sales tax that was approved back in

[1:41:41] 2007. By ordinance, this revenues may

[1:41:45] only be used for allegible police, fire,

[1:41:48] and emergency response services

[1:41:50] identified in the measure H expenditure

[1:41:52] plan.

[1:41:54] Um, just a little bit of background. The

[1:41:57] initial measure H expenditure plan was

[1:41:59] adopted by the city council back in

[1:42:02] April of 2008 as a 10-year expenditure

[1:42:06] plan. And the expenditure plan was then

[1:42:08] amended in 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2016 to

[1:42:15] address evolving public safety needs,

[1:42:17] including additional fire personnel,

[1:42:20] narcotics, K9 [snorts] program, crime

[1:42:23] analysis capabilities, and public safety

[1:42:26] technology. In 2017, the council

[1:42:29] approved the most recent expenditure

[1:42:31] plan, which reorganized and updated the

[1:42:33] plan's presentation and formatting.

[1:42:37] The expenditure plan before you does not

[1:42:40] authorize any new spending. It was

[1:42:43] already reviewed and incorporated into

[1:42:45] the fiscal year 27 budget adopted by the

[1:42:47] city council on June 8. And as

[1:42:50] presented, the expenditure expenditure

[1:42:52] for plan continues to fund eligible

[1:42:54] publica safety services consistent with

[1:42:57] the measure H ordinance for fiscal year

[1:43:00] 27. Measure H is funding u measure H

[1:43:03] funding supports 10 police officer

[1:43:06] positions. Um roughly 21% of the fire

[1:43:10] services contract and about 35% of the

[1:43:14] agreement for Axon for the uh the body

[1:43:17] cameras.

[1:43:18] There is no additional funding or fiscal

[1:43:21] impact beyond what has already been

[1:43:24] approved in the fiscal year 27 budget.

[1:43:27] Moving forward, this the measure H

[1:43:29] expenditure plan will be incorporated

[1:43:31] into the annual budget process to ensure

[1:43:34] that the city um has ongoing compliance

[1:43:39] with the measure H ordinance. And

[1:43:41] tonight's action formally ratifies the

[1:43:44] fiscal year 27 expenditure plan in

[1:43:47] accordance with the city's ordinance for

[1:43:50] the measure. Um staff is recommending

[1:43:54] tonight that the city council adopt the

[1:43:57] resolution ratifying the fiscal year

[1:44:00] 2027 measure H expenditure plan. And

[1:44:03] with this action, it will bring us into

[1:44:05] compliance with the measure H ordinance

[1:44:09] um with the last item, the last

[1:44:11] expenditure plan having been approved by

[1:44:14] the council in 2017.

[1:44:17] >> Thank you very much. We'll go ahead and

[1:44:20] open this up to the public and then any

[1:44:21] members of the public that would like to

[1:44:23] make a comment on this item.

[1:44:27] » Seeing none, any hands raised.

[1:44:29] >> There are no hands raised on Zoom. And I

[1:44:31] bring this item back to the council for

[1:44:33] any comments, questions.

[1:44:35] Councilwoman Otto.

[1:44:37] >> Thank you, Mayor. Um,

[1:44:40] so Measure H has been one of my

[1:44:42] concerns. Um, and for me, you know, we

[1:44:45] have a responsibility to be good

[1:44:47] stewards of the taxpayer dollars. Uh,

[1:44:49] Measure H belongs to every rep, every

[1:44:52] resident that we represent, and it

[1:44:54] affects our public safety.

[1:44:57] I'm not sure why there hasn't been a

[1:44:59] public safety expenditure plan um in the

[1:45:01] past several years or why the city

[1:45:04] hadn't been following what was stated in

[1:45:05] the ordinance, but I do want to thank

[1:45:07] our finance director and city manager um

[1:45:10] who quickly took the time to address the

[1:45:12] issue um our once I brought it to our

[1:45:16] city manager, he uh he worked right away

[1:45:18] with our finance director. So, I apprec

[1:45:20] I appreciate that. Um, but we shouldn't

[1:45:22] be out of compliance with our own city

[1:45:24] ordinance and we certainly don't want to

[1:45:27] be out of compliance with uh these

[1:45:29] requirements that governor how that

[1:45:31] govern how tax dollars are supposed to

[1:45:32] be and spent. Um, the intent of these

[1:45:35] public safety tax dollars was to

[1:45:37] supplement existing public safety

[1:45:39] funding. Um, it was supposed to provide

[1:45:42] additional resource but never uh replace

[1:45:44] the general fund um funding that was

[1:45:48] given to public safety. So, for example,

[1:45:51] through my research, um my understanding

[1:45:54] is that's probably how the street crimes

[1:45:56] unit at one point was uh maintained. So,

[1:45:59] it makes me wonder, um if we would have

[1:46:02] completed a forensic audit at the time

[1:46:05] that a measure H committee member had

[1:46:07] requested it, um would the issue have

[1:46:09] been found months ago? But again, I'm

[1:46:12] glad that we did find this and we're

[1:46:15] correcting it. Uh we must continue to

[1:46:17] evaluate our policies when it comes to

[1:46:19] our finances. We need to closely review

[1:46:21] how the funding is allocated

[1:46:24] uh and ensure our taxpayer dollars are

[1:46:26] spent as they're intended to um with the

[1:46:28] accountability and transparency in

[1:46:30] place. So with that, I know uh

[1:46:35] finance director you did mention the

[1:46:38] breakdown of positions and then the body

[1:46:40] worn camera and then some fire. Is there

[1:46:43] a way to I know it might have been too

[1:46:45] late to put in the staff report um but

[1:46:47] either in the minutes or maybe an

[1:46:49] amendment to the staff report to add the

[1:46:52] specific uh positions that are going to

[1:46:54] be

[1:46:56] uh used in this safety plan.

[1:47:03] » I'll defer to the city clerk, but I

[1:47:05] believe uh the comments from the finance

[1:47:07] director as part of the report can be

[1:47:08] included in the minutes.

[1:47:11] >> I'm sorry. Can you repeat what you're

[1:47:12] wanting uh amended or included?

[1:47:15] >> So, what I would like is I know there is

[1:47:17] a plan for the funding itself and she

[1:47:19] went over the specific positions um the

[1:47:23] body warn camera being covered by this

[1:47:25] and some of the fire cost. I would like

[1:47:28] that to be in place either in the

[1:47:30] minutes or amended on the staff report.

[1:47:32] So that way, you know, a year from now,

[1:47:34] two years from now, we're able to go

[1:47:35] back and say this is what we previously

[1:47:38] allocated the funding to. I think in

[1:47:40] that case it would be most appropriate

[1:47:42] to um have that included in the minutes

[1:47:45] as opposed to amending the staff report.

[1:47:48] Um

[1:47:50] I don't know if it's something that we

[1:47:52] would need to have included as the

[1:47:53] motion.

[1:47:55] I think I think that would be a good

[1:47:57] idea is to include as part of the motion

[1:47:59] in adopting the resolution specific

[1:48:02] language mentioned by the finance

[1:48:04] director to be included as part of the

[1:48:06] action.

[1:48:07] >> Thank you. And then just to clarify, we

[1:48:09] would um uh correct me if I'm wrong,

[1:48:12] Nubia, we would amend the resolution to

[1:48:14] include that language as well.

[1:48:16] >> Yes,

[1:48:17] >> that would be great. Thank you.

[1:48:20] >> Anything else, Councilwoman?

[1:48:21] >> No, thank you.

[1:48:22] >> City manager, could you do me a favor

[1:48:24] and please give a little bit of a

[1:48:26] background on how this happened based on

[1:48:27] this research and the conversation that

[1:48:29] we had dating back to the previous

[1:48:31] council?

[1:48:33] >> Yes. Thank you, mayor.

[1:48:35] So when I was researching this item, I

[1:48:37] recognized that the ordinance calls for

[1:48:39] an annual approved expenditure plan.

[1:48:43] An expenditure plan, as uh the finance

[1:48:46] director mentioned, was initially

[1:48:48] adopted. It was a 10-year plan beginning

[1:48:51] in 2008 and concluding in 2018. And over

[1:48:55] the course of those 10 years, that plan

[1:48:58] was amended, I believe, three times. But

[1:49:01] even though it was amended three times,

[1:49:04] the report concluded in 2018. In

[1:49:08] subsequent years,

[1:49:10] expenditure plans were not brought

[1:49:13] before the council were not approved. So

[1:49:16] when we recognized that this was a

[1:49:17] deficiency, credit to the finance

[1:49:20] director, she worked very hard to create

[1:49:22] an expenditure plan.

[1:49:25] While the measure H funds, even in those

[1:49:29] years where a plan was not formally

[1:49:32] adopted by the city council, while those

[1:49:34] measure 8 funds were technically

[1:49:37] approved as a as a part of the budget

[1:49:39] adoption process because the measure H

[1:49:42] money is included in the annual budget

[1:49:44] that the city of council approves every

[1:49:46] year, there is not a page in the budget

[1:49:49] that you can flip to to see this is how

[1:49:52] all of the measure H money is um

[1:49:54] allocated.

[1:49:55] It's spread throughout the fiscal year

[1:49:57] budget throughout the general fund uh

[1:49:59] budget.

[1:50:01] Sorry, not throughout the general fund

[1:50:02] budget because it's specific to measure

[1:50:04] H. It's just spread throughout the

[1:50:08] formalized

[1:50:09] budget that's adopted. So what this

[1:50:11] action is doing is in addition to it

[1:50:14] being within the entire budget that is

[1:50:16] approved by the city council, there is

[1:50:18] actually a document that you can turn to say this is how we're spending

[1:50:22] measure H money without having to know

[1:50:24] where it is within the adopted budget

[1:50:27] throughout all the different funds and

[1:50:29] departments.

[1:50:31] So I I do want to say thank you very

[1:50:33] much Councilwoman Otto for bringing this

[1:50:35] to the city manager's attention. He

[1:50:36] explained to me how it all unfolded. And

[1:50:39] my question is if we want to amend the

[1:50:42] minutes, could we not just amend the

[1:50:44] budget to place this item in that budget

[1:50:47] as a separate page which your hope is

[1:50:49] that in future budgets we'll provide

[1:50:51] this expenditure plan in the budget as

[1:50:53] it's supposed to be placed. Correct.

[1:50:58] If I understand you correctly that is

[1:50:59] correct. So in future years as part of

[1:51:02] the budget adoption process and again

[1:51:05] you have technically approved measure H

[1:51:07] money as part of the budget adoption

[1:51:09] process from 2018 through now. There

[1:51:12] wasn't just called out in the budget a

[1:51:15] specific this is the plan for how we use

[1:51:18] that money. It was sprinkled throughout

[1:51:20] all the different departments that are

[1:51:21] affected by measure h moving forward as

[1:51:25] part of the regular fiscy year budget

[1:51:28] adoption process. what the finance

[1:51:30] director is doing this meeting that will

[1:51:32] be a part of the regular budget

[1:51:34] adoption. So we won't have to have after

[1:51:37] the budget is adopted this item come

[1:51:40] forward. So it will be a part of the

[1:51:42] formal budget adoption process moving

[1:51:44] forward. Okay. Cuz I just want to get

[1:51:46] clarification councilomano in regards to

[1:51:48] the amendment of the minutes. You want

[1:51:50] it to be specific. Now my question is

[1:51:53] and I just want to make sure I'm I'm

[1:51:55] supportive of it. is the amendment that

[1:51:57] she's requesting. Are those specific

[1:52:00] items already included in the budget

[1:52:03] so that we don't have to necessarily do

[1:52:05] it again? I just I'm just clarifying for

[1:52:08] you.

[1:52:09] >> Those items are included in the budget,

[1:52:11] but they're not specified as an

[1:52:13] expenditure plan. So, one way to I mean,

[1:52:17] they're like city manager said, they're

[1:52:19] sprinkle or stretch throughout the

[1:52:21] different departments. That's how we

[1:52:24] section the budget book in the city. So

[1:52:28] there is partial monies um in the police

[1:52:32] sworn and partial monies in in the fire

[1:52:35] department. So there isn't one document

[1:52:37] that it compiles all of the measure age

[1:52:40] uh funding in in one one place. So this

[1:52:44] would be that this would be the page or

[1:52:46] the expenditure plan that will be

[1:52:49] incorporated in our budget. Um, one

[1:52:51] thing I know that we can amend the

[1:52:53] minutes but but my expenditure plan here

[1:52:56] it's a separate attachment so we can

[1:53:00] also incorporate the language of what is

[1:53:03] being funded on the attachment. I can

[1:53:05] update the attachment if that is pos a

[1:53:08] possibility.

[1:53:09] >> Okay. I'm in support of what

[1:53:11] councilwoman is saying, but I would also

[1:53:13] if you can maybe come back to us at a

[1:53:15] later city council meeting to clarify

[1:53:17] that that has been done and that way in

[1:53:20] the future folks can refer back to the

[1:53:22] agenda and also refer back to the budget

[1:53:25] that you have the expenditure plan

[1:53:26] placed in it. Does that make sense? City

[1:53:28] manager,

[1:53:30] >> I just want to make sure I understand. I

[1:53:32] believe what council member is asking in

[1:53:35] addition to the document that's in front

[1:53:37] of you today, the resolution approving

[1:53:39] the expenditure plan, I believe she

[1:53:42] wants

[1:53:43] included in the motion to approve this

[1:53:46] resolution

[1:53:48] an additional item that clarifies that

[1:53:51] the current year's expenditure plan is

[1:53:54] paying for 10 police officers, 21% of

[1:53:58] the fire agreement, and X% of the bodywn

[1:54:03] cameras. Is that what you're requesting?

[1:54:05] >> That's correct.

[1:54:07] >> Thank you. And those funds are already

[1:54:10] allocated. We don't need to amend any

[1:54:12] previous meeting minutes. This will just

[1:54:14] be included in that motion if that's the

[1:54:16] will of the council. If that's the

[1:54:18] easiest way to go about it, and I'm okay

[1:54:20] with that.

[1:54:21] >> Okay. Any other comments or questions

[1:54:23] from the council?

[1:54:26] >> Then we are looking for a motion.

[1:54:30] >> Um

[1:54:31] I'll make a motion uh to approve item

[1:54:34] number 10, ratifying the measure H

[1:54:37] expenditure plan for fiscal year 2027

[1:54:40] beginning July 1st, 2026 and ending June

[1:54:43] 30th, 2027

[1:54:45] with the addition of a breakdown for the

[1:54:50] 10 police officer positions, 21% of fire

[1:54:56] costs, and then a portion of the bodywn

[1:54:58] camera axon program.

[1:55:02] >> I'll second.

[1:55:02] >> Get a roll call, please.

[1:55:05] >> Council member Casey,

[1:55:07] >> yes.

[1:55:08] >> Council member Vieiraa,

[1:55:09] >> yes.

[1:55:10] >> Council member Otero,

[1:55:11] >> yes.

[1:55:12] >> Vice Mayor Martinez,

[1:55:14] >> I.

[1:55:14] >> Mayor Lopez,

[1:55:15] >> yes.

[1:55:15] >> Motion carries 5-0.

[1:55:17] >> Thank you very much. Moving on to

[1:55:19] discussion items. discussion regarding

[1:55:21] the planning commission's request for

[1:55:22] city council to adopt an interim urgency

[1:55:25] ordinance establishing a temporary

[1:55:28] excuse me morandum on a new gas station

[1:55:30] and car wash facility within the city of

[1:55:32] series.

[1:55:35] Good evening, mayor and council. This

[1:55:37] evening, um before you today, we are

[1:55:40] asking for direction uh regarding

[1:55:43] additional staff time and resources

[1:55:45] should be uh committed toward evaluating

[1:55:48] and pursuing a potential mortorium on

[1:55:51] new gas stations and car washes within

[1:55:53] the city. Um discussion has been

[1:55:55] presented both in planning commission

[1:55:57] and in hearing council and so therefore

[1:56:01] staff is bringing the matter forward to

[1:56:03] avoid any duplication efforts and asking

[1:56:06] for direction for any future work if um

[1:56:10] so desired by the council. Um the work

[1:56:14] would include

[1:56:16] under government code section 65858

[1:56:19] for the findings of immediate threat to

[1:56:23] public health and safety for a momentum

[1:56:26] which would include significant research

[1:56:28] findings evaluating existing land use

[1:56:32] pertaining to the mtorium. Um so we are

[1:56:36] asking for some direction depending on

[1:56:39] the scope of analysis required will

[1:56:41] require outside planning and legal

[1:56:43] consultant services. So this evening

[1:56:46] we're just asking for some guidance

[1:56:48] either direct staff to continue

[1:56:49] discussion with the planning commission

[1:56:52] direct staff to prepare a future agenda

[1:56:54] item evaluating the feasibility

[1:56:57] um and looking at the um impact or take

[1:57:01] no further action and allow existing

[1:57:03] zoning regulations and development

[1:57:05] review process to continue as is.

[1:57:09] >> Thank you very much. I'll go ahead and

[1:57:10] open this up to the public. Any members

[1:57:12] of the public would like to make a

[1:57:13] comment on this item?

[1:57:20] » Uh Dave Pratt of Series, I want to know

[1:57:23] at what point do you consider you have

[1:57:26] too many car washes and too many gas

[1:57:29] stations?

[1:57:31] Well, in the middle of town, you allow

[1:57:34] these super gas stations build next to a

[1:57:36] mom and pop stations and many stores

[1:57:39] been there for years

[1:57:42] have to compete with these super

[1:57:44] centers.

[1:57:45] And you allow a gas station, bigger gas,

[1:57:49] I mean car washes, uh when you got one

[1:57:52] car wash in one corner, you got now you

[1:57:55] got a another car wash on another

[1:57:58] corner. Then all the a lot of these gas

[1:58:00] stations have these drive-thru car

[1:58:03] washes. At what point

[1:58:07] you say you have enough? It's that same

[1:58:10] thing with the with the food trucks.

[1:58:14] Well, in the beginning you had had a

[1:58:17] limit on that. Now all of a sudden there

[1:58:19] was an explosion on food trucks.

[1:58:23] You're going to have to decide, you

[1:58:25] know, that

[1:58:27] are we going to have gas stations and and car washes on every corner?

[1:58:34] Is that the way it's going to be for

[1:58:37] this small town?

[1:58:40] I still call it town. You can call it

[1:58:43] whatever you want to. I've lived here 74

[1:58:46] years. I

[1:58:50] grew up here

[1:58:52] all of a sudden all of a sudden

[1:58:57] can't

[1:59:01] even the a lot of the restaurants and

[1:59:04] stuff's got to compete with the food

[1:59:06] trucks now.

[1:59:10] Are you know I'm getting I'm getting uh ice

[1:59:15] cream trucks and and and the they're

[1:59:18] coming from other cities coming through.

[1:59:21] Are you even getting taxes from those

[1:59:23] stuff? I think on I think on the food

[1:59:26] trucks I think every six months we ought

[1:59:28] to have an audit on that and find out

[1:59:30] are you actually collecting taxes on on

[1:59:33] the food trucks.

[1:59:37] I know that's getting off of hand

[1:59:38] because we're talking about the gas

[1:59:40] stations and the car washes and it's

[1:59:43] just like just like they want and want

[1:59:46] in the middle of town want to put a a a

[1:59:49] super super electric chargers in in when

[1:59:54] actually they need to be closer to the

[1:59:56] freeways because every house

[1:59:59] why do they want to go to a gas station

[2:00:01] get their vehicle charged when

[2:00:03] everybody's got chargers in their

[2:00:05] houses.

[2:00:08] That's another thing you got to realize

[2:00:10] where you're actually putting these

[2:00:11] things.

[2:00:13] Really, you need to do a lot more than

[2:00:15] just a temporary more for moratorum on

[2:00:19] this on on these. I think we're already

[2:00:22] overextended on some of these.

[2:00:27] » Thank you very much. Next person,

[2:00:29] please.

[2:00:38] Uh Gullen Guzman again. I'm in support

[2:00:41] of this discussion item. Uh I did attend

[2:00:44] the planning commission meeting when the

[2:00:47] uh six cycle housing element um

[2:00:52] took meeting took place and one of the

[2:00:54] questions that was asked to the economic

[2:00:58] development

[2:01:00] um Mr. Dragular Aar agira um was how

[2:01:05] many gas stations are pending and he

[2:01:08] stated four if I'm not mistaken and I

[2:01:11] was like you've got to be kidding me

[2:01:12] like that's too much like we already

[2:01:15] have an excessive amount of gas stations

[2:01:17] we do not need four more like so I'm

[2:01:19] into support of this um moratorum of

[2:01:23] limiting uh gas stations and car wash

[2:01:26] facilities so like I went to the Mr. car

[2:01:29] wash the new one and it scratched my

[2:01:32] car. So, I'm going to hand wash it at

[2:01:36] home. So, yeah. Um I'm in support of

[2:01:41] this cuz it's ridiculous that the amount

[2:01:43] of gas stations that we have. Thanks.

[2:01:46] >> Thank you very much. Next person,

[2:01:48] please.

[2:01:59] Good evening, council members and

[2:02:01] previous council members. John Warren,

[2:02:04] city of Sirius.

[2:02:06] Um,

[2:02:08] I don't believe the planning commission

[2:02:11] has voted

[2:02:14] yes or no on this particular item to

[2:02:18] bring it to the council for their

[2:02:21] guidance and suggestions.

[2:02:23] So, I think the cart's kind of in front

[2:02:25] of the horse. There's a process that the

[2:02:28] city has and that's not being used.

[2:02:31] That's part of the problem with our way

[2:02:34] of doing business. There's a proper

[2:02:37] order of things and it never seems to be

[2:02:39] followed.

[2:02:41] Uh, [clears throat] in talking about the

[2:02:43] planning commission, I don't think the

[2:02:45] city really needs one.

[2:02:48] they only have six or seven, possibly

[2:02:51] eight meetings out of 24 during the

[2:02:54] year. And so things should just come

[2:02:57] directly to the council and be cited

[2:03:00] upon uh at a regular council meeting. it

[2:03:03] wouldn't take that much extra time to do

[2:03:06] that and you eliminate a whole process

[2:03:10] which includes funding and people making

[2:03:13] applications and if they don't like the

[2:03:15] decision of the planning commission they

[2:03:17] bring it back to the council anyway and

[2:03:19] it cost a lot of money for them to do

[2:03:21] that. So consider when you're doing this

[2:03:25] just eliminating the planning commission

[2:03:27] altogether and having the city council

[2:03:30] take care of business. Thank you very

[2:03:32] much.

[2:03:33] Thank you, Mr. Horn. Anyone else

[2:03:39] » for a temporary moratorum on gas

[2:03:42] stations, but leave it open for them to

[2:03:45] add the electrical charges that the gas

[2:03:48] stations that are here might need

[2:03:50] because there's going to be more

[2:03:51] electric cars with time. Thank you.

[2:03:55] >> Thank you very much. Anyone else?

[2:04:01] Seeing none, any hands raised.

[2:04:04] >> There are no hands raised on Zoom.

[2:04:05] >> I'll bring this item back for council

[2:04:07] for discussion.

[2:04:08] I had Vice Mayor Martinez press his

[2:04:10] button. Go ahead, sir.

[2:04:11] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh Julian, could

[2:04:13] you answer that? Has this gone to

[2:04:15] planning and and have they voted on it

[2:04:17] to bring it to us? Can you answer Mr.

[2:04:19] Warren's statement? So this evening that

[2:04:22] is the discussion to have is if you're

[2:04:24] going to approve staff time for the

[2:04:26] research that needs to be done to bring

[2:04:29] this back to planning commission in

[2:04:31] order for us to bring it back as a staff

[2:04:33] report. There is significant research

[2:04:36] that needs to be done. And so we're here

[2:04:37] to to ask the council if that if you

[2:04:40] will your decision tonight will

[2:04:43] determine if that gets moved forward for

[2:04:47] a staff.

[2:04:49] >> Thank you.

[2:04:51] Councilwoman Otter,

[2:04:53] >> thank you. Um, I did have the same

[2:04:55] question was, you know, planning

[2:04:57] commission, did they make the official

[2:04:58] recommendation? Because when I watched

[2:05:00] the planning commission meeting, uh, my

[2:05:02] understanding is that a report would be

[2:05:04] presented to the planning commission to

[2:05:06] then further review um, what was stated,

[2:05:09] you know, in the report and then they

[2:05:12] would discuss if, um, that would move

[2:05:14] forward to the city council. Um so I'm

[2:05:17] just concerned why we would discuss this

[2:05:20] today if planning commission hasn't I

[2:05:22] guess made the official recommendation.

[2:05:25] Um my understanding is based on this

[2:05:27] series municipal code the 2.05.040

[2:05:32] planning uh commission does have the

[2:05:34] authority to make recommendations as

[2:05:36] this. So I just want to make sure that

[2:05:38] we're giving them the opportunity to do

[2:05:40] that. Um but I do have a few questions.

[2:05:44] Is there a state guidance for the number

[2:05:46] of car washes and gas stations that are

[2:05:48] sufficient for a city based on like a

[2:05:51] population?

[2:05:55] » So like a state matrix

[2:05:58] there is not so for every I believe it's

[2:06:03] 10 4,000 10,000

[2:06:07] um

[2:06:23] So the state estimates that

[2:06:25] approximately three to four gas stations

[2:06:28] per 10,000

[2:06:30] is a rough estimate is what I did a

[2:06:32] brief research on. Um but without

[2:06:36] getting too much time into it because it

[2:06:38] does take a lot of time in order for us

[2:06:40] to bring it because if we're looking at

[2:06:42] a mtorium we have to find the findings

[2:06:45] for the mtorium and to bring that in. So

[2:06:48] tonight we're just discussing that if

[2:06:50] council wants

[2:06:53] for us to continue to do the research

[2:06:56] and continue to bring it back then we

[2:06:58] just need approval for staff time to do

[2:07:00] it. Um and so the recommendation for to

[2:07:05] go back to to the planning commission is

[2:07:07] going to take staff time to bring back

[2:07:09] the research to bring back all the

[2:07:11] evaluations and stuff. And so tonight's

[2:07:13] discussion is basically on a mon is on a

[2:07:16] financial side of it to move forward

[2:07:19] then we would need the blessing from the

[2:07:22] council in order for us to do that.

[2:07:25] >> Thank you. How many um car washes do we

[2:07:28] currently have and how many gas stations

[2:07:29] do we have?

[2:07:32] Currently, we have eight car washes and

[2:07:35] 17 gas stations. The 17 gas stations,

[2:07:39] majority of them are in locations that

[2:07:42] are right off the freeway, both

[2:07:44] northbound and southbound. Easy access

[2:07:46] on, easy access off. That's where you

[2:07:48] want your clusters of gas stations to

[2:07:50] be.

[2:07:51] >> Okay. So, I understand that it's going

[2:07:54] to take staff time. I know there's

[2:07:55] research involved. Um, I've done a

[2:07:58] little bit of my own research. There are

[2:07:59] cities throughout the state who have

[2:08:01] done these moratoriums whether temporary

[2:08:04] or permanent. Um and I feel like we

[2:08:07] should reach out to those cities, look

[2:08:10] at their staff reports. Um they might

[2:08:13] have, you know, government code cited or

[2:08:16] zoning code, whatever it is. Um that

[2:08:18] might save staff some time. But for me,

[2:08:22] I I don't know that I can discuss this

[2:08:24] further without it having come from the

[2:08:27] planning commission officially. So, I

[2:08:29] would like to see go back to planning

[2:08:30] commission, let them have some

[2:08:32] discussions because ultimately right now

[2:08:34] we don't know exactly what um what their

[2:08:36] thoughts and ideas are either.

[2:08:40] >> Thank you, council members.

[2:08:43] Mr. Casey, go ahead.

[2:08:48] » Follow up on Serena's, you know, uh I

[2:08:51] think Loi I mean I'm saving money here.

[2:08:55] Loi uh and and Mantika both have

[2:08:59] proposed

[2:09:01] the

[2:09:03] no more gas stations. I'm not sure about

[2:09:06] the car washes

[2:09:08] and I'm not sure where that went, but

[2:09:11] certainly as far as staff time. Uh

[2:09:17] not that we should

[2:09:19] do things that other cities do, but you

[2:09:22] know, part of the city league meeting

[2:09:24] that our council members are going to go

[2:09:27] to, you know, you get you share ideas.

[2:09:30] So, uh, it wouldn't, you know, I'm not

[2:09:32] sure. I'm getting the impression from

[2:09:35] you that it's going to cost a lot of

[2:09:37] money and when we do this, it's going

[2:09:40] to, you know, affect our budget. I'm

[2:09:43] just suggesting that make a few phone

[2:09:46] calls, find out what, you know, we don't

[2:09:48] have to follow up on it. And I also

[2:09:50] agree with Serena because I'm confused.

[2:09:53] I thought the planning commission

[2:09:54] already had voted 50 to bring this to

[2:09:59] us.

[2:10:01] Then we Thanks,

[2:10:04] >> Councilwoman Vier.

[2:10:06] >> Thank you. Um I do agree to should go to

[2:10:08] planning first. Um and if we do, I would

[2:10:11] think that we would want to limit staff

[2:10:12] time because I know they are busy and

[2:10:14] there's a lot of other things going on

[2:10:16] right now and several businesses and and

[2:10:18] even new developments that they're

[2:10:21] currently working on. I know there's two

[2:10:22] on Mitchell Road and I know we have the

[2:10:24] G3. I don't know if they have a name yet

[2:10:26] for that shopping center in my district

[2:10:29] um as well as one um on Morgan and

[2:10:33] Whitmore that's also looking at

[2:10:34] expanding. So I guess my concern is just

[2:10:38] looking at my district alone, not the

[2:10:40] rest of the city. I only have one car

[2:10:42] wash. There's always a line there. Um

[2:10:45] we're looking at developing. We're

[2:10:46] looking at addition adding additional

[2:10:48] homes, apartments, and other stuff in my

[2:10:51] district that's already in the process

[2:10:53] or in development in a discussion. Um,

[2:10:55] we also have, um, there is no gas

[2:10:58] stations for the most part on the Crows

[2:11:00] Landing aspect where these new

[2:11:01] developments are going. And so those are

[2:11:04] my concerns because then we're not

[2:11:06] servicing my district, which is a

[2:11:08] concern for me by putting these

[2:11:09] limitations in while these developments

[2:11:11] are in the process. And while Gallow is

[2:11:14] working on adding this new shopping

[2:11:16] center with two major anchor stores, I

[2:11:19] want to make sure we're not limiting the

[2:11:21] anchor stores in their ideas and their

[2:11:24] visions of what they have for the

[2:11:25] development there, especially on Crows

[2:11:28] Landing and Whitmore, which is key, as

[2:11:30] well as what Stan RTA had mentioned that

[2:11:33] they want to do there as well. I want to

[2:11:34] make sure they'll work cuz they're going

[2:11:36] to need to do something with their buses

[2:11:39] and I want to make sure that they have

[2:11:40] the resources that they need so that way

[2:11:42] they can be sustainable and successful

[2:11:44] here in series. And I guess those are

[2:11:46] going to be my concerns right now when

[2:11:48] it comes to this. And then um gas tax

[2:11:50] does play a significant amount which is

[2:11:52] why I think we rely on gas stations when

[2:11:55] it comes to our budget and um looking at

[2:11:57] what this would affect our budget long

[2:11:59] term especially with growth and our

[2:12:01] dependence on the gas tax here in

[2:12:03] series.

[2:12:04] Thank you, Vice Mayor. Before I go to

[2:12:06] you, I do have a couple comments. You

[2:12:08] know, series cannot claim to be open for

[2:12:10] business while you're telling a lawful

[2:12:12] business we're open, but just not for

[2:12:14] you. If a project complies with our

[2:12:17] general plan, zoning code, safety

[2:12:19] standards, and required findings, it

[2:12:21] deserves a fair opportunity to compete.

[2:12:24] These projects create jobs, construction

[2:12:26] activity, property tax, growth, site

[2:12:29] improvements, ongoing revenue for the

[2:12:31] city of Siri. The Quick Quack project

[2:12:33] alone represents more than 15 potential

[2:12:36] jobs along with construction investments

[2:12:38] and additional property tax revenue. The

[2:12:40] Maverick is another example where

[2:12:42] projecting annual sales could be up to

[2:12:44] $600,000.

[2:12:46] That revenue can help relieve pressure

[2:12:48] on our city budget. This would not

[2:12:51] create an economic diversity. It would

[2:12:53] limit competition and give existing

[2:12:54] businesses a government created

[2:12:56] advantage. I am pro business and I will

[2:12:59] not participate in creating a protected

[2:13:01] market or a monopoly that benefits one

[2:13:04] business or a select group. My direction

[2:13:06] is not to take any further action.

[2:13:10] Vice Mayor,

[2:13:12] thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just have one

[2:13:13] more question for Julian. Julian, how

[2:13:15] many uh gas stations in the city

[2:13:16] currently offer electrical charging

[2:13:18] stations?

[2:13:20] And then of the eight car washes you had

[2:13:22] mentioned, how many are standalone, not

[2:13:25] attached to gas stations?

[2:13:32] So on electric

[2:13:38] is

[2:13:43] two

[2:13:45] in the city. Um and then I'm sorry, what

[2:13:49] was the next question? I apologize.

[2:13:50] >> You had mentioned that there's eight car

[2:13:52] washes currently in the city. How many

[2:13:53] of those are standalone only car washes

[2:13:56] like Quack and the quick car wash on

[2:13:58] service.

[2:14:14] » There's five.

[2:14:16] Thank you,

[2:14:19] >> council. We're looking for consensus.

[2:14:21] Today is an opportunity for us to either

[2:14:24] give direction for staff to work on this

[2:14:27] or to pass on the idea. So, I will go

[2:14:31] ahead and start from my left from

[2:14:33] consensus. No, Vice Mayor, Councilwoman,

[2:14:37] >> I would like to pass it back to the

[2:14:39] planning commission and they're provided

[2:14:41] with the report.

[2:14:42] >> Okay, that's not what I'm asking, but I

[2:14:44] understand what you're asking. Is it a

[2:14:46] consensus? No or yes?

[2:14:50] >> Yes.

[2:14:51] That's no for me. Councilwoman Vera

[2:14:54] >> mean no for me

[2:14:55] >> and council member Casey. Yes, you got

[2:14:58] the consensus.

[2:15:00] >> Okay. Thank you very much.

[2:15:03] Moving on to council member referrals.

[2:15:09] We have one, two, three

[2:15:16] roughly 13 referrals. So, please be

[2:15:18] patient with us. And we're going to

[2:15:20] start off with number 12.

[2:15:23] And this one is creation of a citizens

[2:15:26] financial oversight and audit committee.

[2:15:28] And this was requested by council member

[2:15:30] Otero on March 24th, 2026. And she will

[2:15:33] now present the item.

[2:15:36] >> Thank you, mayor. Um, so as you know, we

[2:15:39] heard tonight with measure H committee,

[2:15:41] um, we've had, uh, myself and council

[2:15:44] member Casey ask for forensic audits.

[2:15:46] Um, our city I think lacks in some of

[2:15:50] the financial over oversight. There's a

[2:15:52] lot of improvements that need to be made

[2:15:53] and I think it's best that we allow the

[2:15:56] citizens to get involved and I would

[2:15:59] request that we create a financial

[2:16:01] oversight and audit committee. We're

[2:16:02] currently lacking in committees so it

[2:16:04] doesn't give the citizens opportunities

[2:16:06] to um participate in some of these

[2:16:08] things. There may be ideas that they

[2:16:10] have that the council may not have. So,

[2:16:13] I would like to create this committee.

[2:16:16] >> Thank you, council member. We'll open

[2:16:17] this up to the public. Any members of

[2:16:19] the public would like to make a comment

[2:16:20] on this item.

[2:16:22] >> Seeing none, hands raised.

[2:16:25] >> There are no hands raised on Zoom.

[2:16:26] >> And bring this item back for comments,

[2:16:28] questions, or consensus?

[2:16:31] No comments, consensus. You're okay with

[2:16:33] it, Vice Mayor? I'm a no.

[2:16:37] Rosinda. Okay, you got your consensus.

[2:16:42] Item number 13,

[2:16:44] installing K rails at the series

[2:16:47] cemetery. This was requested by council

[2:16:49] member Casey at the April 6, 2026

[2:16:51] regular city council meeting. Council

[2:16:53] member Casey.

[2:16:56] » Yes, this U K rails is

[2:17:02] the term that I use, but actually the the situation is simple. uh because

[2:17:08] of the highways design that was approved

[2:17:10] by CALR or the city occasionally and I

[2:17:16] don't know how often but often enough uh

[2:17:19] we have cars that come over the overpass

[2:17:24] uh and then run into the fence and into

[2:17:27] the cemetery. As the cemetery grows,

[2:17:31] they're going to have

[2:17:34] our loved ones right there. And so, uh,

[2:17:38] I think that we we the city's obligated

[2:17:41] to protect the

[2:17:46] safety of the cemetery. [clears throat]

[2:17:51] >> Pretty simple.

[2:17:52] >> Thank you, Mr. Casey. Go out to the

[2:17:54] public. Any members of the public would

[2:17:55] like to make a comment or question on

[2:17:56] this item?

[2:18:00] » Who would pay for the the K rails?

[2:18:06] Who would pay for the crib rails?

[2:18:08] >> We'll get that answered for you in a

[2:18:09] second.

[2:18:10] >> In other words, are you asking the city

[2:18:12] owns the cemetery, but the cemetery has

[2:18:15] money? Would the cemetery be paying for

[2:18:18] the K rails and you only given

[2:18:20] permission or are you going to pay for

[2:18:23] them being put in? the the situation is

[2:18:26] that the the property that we're talking

[2:18:28] about belongs to the city, not to the

[2:18:32] >> the city cannot afford to keep doing all

[2:18:34] these little things. If the cemetery has

[2:18:36] the money and the cemetery is a

[2:18:38] business, then the cemetery should take

[2:18:40] care of it. That's my opinion. Thank

[2:18:42] you.

[2:18:43] >> Thank you. And and actually the the uh

[2:18:47] recommendation was for the city and the

[2:18:49] cemetery staff to get together to see if

[2:18:52] they could resolve it. Thank you. Any

[2:18:55] additional comments or questions from

[2:18:56] the audience?

[2:19:01] » John Warren, city of Siri.

[2:19:04] Um,

[2:19:08] the city of Modesto has a similar

[2:19:10] problem along Scenic Drive where the

[2:19:14] cemeteries are there, the brick wall,

[2:19:16] and they quite often have to make

[2:19:19] repairs because of some errant driver

[2:19:22] going down the street.

[2:19:24] The city of series can't control the

[2:19:26] motoring public out there as they come

[2:19:28] over the overpass and come down the

[2:19:30] highway. Accidents are going to happen.

[2:19:33] They're called accidents. Um, very

[2:19:36] seldom I don't think someone will

[2:19:38] intentionally run into the fence at the

[2:19:41] Siri cemetery.

[2:19:43] Um, if the cemetery association feels

[2:19:46] they need some sort of protection along

[2:19:49] the ride ofway between the sidewalk and

[2:19:51] the fence line, they need to install

[2:19:54] that themselves.

[2:19:56] That's my feeling. I don't think it's

[2:19:58] the city's obligation to try to

[2:20:02] determine whether someone's going to

[2:20:04] have an accident there or not and try to

[2:20:06] prevent it with a K rail so they won't

[2:20:09] run into that property. Hay rails are

[2:20:11] going to need to be maintained. Pretty

[2:20:13] soon you're going to have homeless

[2:20:14] people sleeping behind them, people

[2:20:16] riding all over the front of them with

[2:20:18] spray paint. So, there's things to

[2:20:21] consider when when that happens. If you

[2:20:24] put a wall down through there, a sound

[2:20:26] wall of sorts to protect the cemetery,

[2:20:29] which the cemetery should do themselves,

[2:20:32] they're going to have to maintain the

[2:20:33] writing on it because people are going

[2:20:35] to come along with spray paint and and

[2:20:37] do their graffiti thing. So, those are

[2:20:39] things to consider. I don't think the

[2:20:42] city has an obligation to provide um

[2:20:45] traffic safety for the cemetery. Thank

[2:20:47] you.

[2:20:48] >> Thank you, Mr. Warren. Anybody else has

[2:20:50] a comment or question?

[2:20:53] >> Mr. Mayor?

[2:20:54] >> Yes.

[2:20:55] >> Just uh for council's awareness, I know

[2:20:57] that this referral item was requested by

[2:20:59] council member Casey back on April 6th

[2:21:02] of this year.

[2:21:05] About a month ago,

[2:21:07] uh the police chief, economic

[2:21:10] development director, the city engineer,

[2:21:13] and myself went out and met with board

[2:21:15] members of the uh cemetery district

[2:21:18] along with, I believe it was the general

[2:21:21] manager, and we discussed a recent event

[2:21:24] that had occurred out there where I

[2:21:27] believe a a vehicle went through the

[2:21:29] fence that sparked uh this conversation.

[2:21:32] Uh the police chief was very good about

[2:21:34] giving some suggestions about what they

[2:21:36] can do on their own property. Um the

[2:21:38] engineer talked about right-of-way

[2:21:40] access and some different things that

[2:21:42] they can do. Um so while there is an

[2:21:45] opportunity for the city to do something

[2:21:47] on the city property, my impression is

[2:21:50] that the cemetery uh board of directors

[2:21:53] that were represented there along with

[2:21:54] the general manager were satisfied with

[2:21:57] the recommendations made by staff on

[2:21:59] what they can do on their own property.

[2:22:01] And this is not to sway the decision one

[2:22:03] way or the other. It's just to make the

[2:22:05] council aware that four of your top

[2:22:07] staff members did meet with the cemetery

[2:22:10] uh staff about a month ago regarding

[2:22:12] this issue.

[2:22:14] Thank you very much. If there's no

[2:22:16] additional comments, I'll bring this

[2:22:17] item back for the council. Additional

[2:22:20] comments or questions? I do see every

[2:22:23] button was pressed. I believe

[2:22:24] Councilwoman Vieira, your button was

[2:22:25] pressed first. Go ahead. Thank you um

[2:22:28] mayor and thank you city manager because

[2:22:31] I was going to ask because I remember

[2:22:32] having this discussion with you when

[2:22:34] that occurred. Um again I would like to

[2:22:37] concur with several of the other

[2:22:38] residents that have already spoke

[2:22:39] regarding the budget. I don't think we

[2:22:41] have a budget to be paying for it and I

[2:22:44] think with the recommendations you made

[2:22:46] um from what I had heard the feedback I

[2:22:48] heard back from the board members is

[2:22:49] that they were satisfied with the

[2:22:51] discussion and the steps that were

[2:22:52] taken. I guess my only concern are are

[2:22:55] the steps being taken so we can recoup

[2:22:57] the costs or are they recouping the cost

[2:23:00] from the drivers that are damaging the

[2:23:02] fence because ultimately it's the

[2:23:03] drivers that are damaging the fence and

[2:23:07] I think at this point in time I'm

[2:23:09] satisfied with the meeting that occurred

[2:23:11] and the board members seem to be happy

[2:23:12] that had talked to me. Again, not all of

[2:23:14] them. I only talked to a few. Um and so

[2:23:16] I'm happy with what the discussion that

[2:23:18] occurred and [snorts] the steps that you

[2:23:20] laid out moving forward.

[2:23:22] Thank you, uh, Vice Mayor.

[2:23:25] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, my issue with this is it just goes back to what

[2:23:29] I've kind of been harping on is is how

[2:23:31] quickly things are are expedited.

[2:23:33] There's 11 is it 11 council member

[2:23:36] referrals on here tonight. Uh, Mr.

[2:23:38] Casey's referral was 98 days ago, almost

[2:23:40] 100 days ago. A month ago, you're

[2:23:42] telling me that you already went ahead

[2:23:43] and did Mr. Casey's referral. And now,

[2:23:46] why are we discussing this if you guys

[2:23:47] already went ahead and did it? That's my

[2:23:49] problem. We we make a referral and then

[2:23:51] we sit around and we wait months for

[2:23:53] them to come to us. So we've got 11

[2:23:54] here, two before Mr. Casey's or one

[2:23:57] before Mr. Casey's was further along. So

[2:24:00] uh beforehand I would have said yes, I

[2:24:01] would like to sit down and see what the

[2:24:02] discussion would look like since that

[2:24:04] was Mr. Casey's initial request, but

[2:24:07] seeing as how you guys have already done

[2:24:08] it, uh I would be a no for this as it

[2:24:10] doesn't seem like it would be necessary

[2:24:11] now.

[2:24:14] >> Councilwoman,

[2:24:15] >> thank you, Mayor. Um,

[2:24:18] I know this is, you know, part of the

[2:24:21] cemetery's responsibility, but I'm just

[2:24:24] curious if there is any potential

[2:24:27] liability on the city side. Um, that

[2:24:30] overpass, I I don't know how many years

[2:24:32] that, you know, it's been a long time

[2:24:34] since it was redone, right, and it was

[2:24:35] widened. Um, is there a possibility that

[2:24:38] something with the design at one point

[2:24:40] is, you know, part of this issue? And I

[2:24:44] know people are going to speed, there's

[2:24:45] going to be accidents, but um that's

[2:24:47] what I think about when it comes to

[2:24:49] liability for the city. I would be

[2:24:51] interested in still getting a staff

[2:24:53] report um to cover like some of the

[2:24:56] things that the city manager just

[2:24:57] discussed and what was um what occurred

[2:24:59] in the meeting that they had at the

[2:25:00] cemetery. I think it's great to, you

[2:25:03] know, they did that beforehand so we

[2:25:04] have an idea. Um, but I do support uh

[2:25:07] council member Casey's referral because

[2:25:10] we should look at all options even if we

[2:25:13] don't move forward with it. Thank you.

[2:25:17] >> Okay. So, city manager, I do appreciate

[2:25:19] you going out and communicating with

[2:25:22] this the the board. Uh but I would say

[2:25:26] that I think that it's still warrant

[2:25:28] that we at least get some information

[2:25:30] back even if uh the council may not move

[2:25:33] forward with funding from our side but

[2:25:35] at least understand what you guys spoke

[2:25:38] about what the plan is and if there is

[2:25:41] liability uh city attorney what that

[2:25:44] would look like. I think that's that's

[2:25:46] fair to ask and then we can take action.

[2:25:48] I mean today is is more about consensus

[2:25:51] but at least that's I'm supportive of

[2:25:53] that. Mr. Casey, would that satisfy your

[2:25:56] request, sir?

[2:25:57] >> Sure. And you know, this is this is no

[2:26:01] fault of the staff or the council that's

[2:26:04] sitting here, but uh my understanding

[2:26:07] is that the the board and the the

[2:26:10] cemeteries come before the city uh and

[2:26:14] ask if there's [clears throat] anything

[2:26:16] we can do. And like other issues,

[2:26:21] uh they never got an answer. they no one

[2:26:23] took the time to talk to them. So, uh

[2:26:27] I'm pleased that the uh city manager and

[2:26:32] staff was able to get together and kind

[2:26:36] of agree with council vice mayor rather

[2:26:40] vice mayor Daniel Martinez that maybe we

[2:26:45] should have pulled this because it's

[2:26:46] already in the work and that was the

[2:26:48] point of it. Uh but again, the reason it

[2:26:52] was even brought up is because

[2:26:55] they they I I secondhand information I

[2:26:59] was told that uh they came before the

[2:27:03] city tried to get a hold of somebody to

[2:27:06] see if they could we could work together

[2:27:08] and they never neighbor got an answer

[2:27:10] back and so they asked me to do this and

[2:27:14] um I did it. [clears throat] Thank you.

[2:27:17] >> Sounds good, Mr. Casey,

[2:27:19] >> one more clarification, Mr. Mayor. Um,

[2:27:22] so this was a pending referral item

[2:27:24] specifically for K rails and until we

[2:27:27] got to this referral item at the council

[2:27:29] meeting, there was a request by the

[2:27:32] cemetery staff to meet with city staff.

[2:27:35] So the discussion between city staff and

[2:27:37] the cemetery staff was not part of this

[2:27:40] referral. It wasn't specifically for

[2:27:42] krolls. It was the city staff responding

[2:27:45] to the cemetery staff's request for what

[2:27:48] can they do? Can they do can they put

[2:27:50] krails on their property? Can they grow

[2:27:53] specific type of trees that if it does

[2:27:56] crash into the fence, it hits the tree

[2:27:58] instead of the the railing. So while the

[2:28:01] meeting was at the request of the the

[2:28:06] cemetery staff separate from is the city

[2:28:09] going to put kilos here. So just to

[2:28:12] clarify that that's why that meeting

[2:28:14] happened.

[2:28:15] >> Thank you. I'll go ahead and do a

[2:28:17] consensus from left to right. Vice

[2:28:18] Mayor. No. Councilwoman. Yes. Yes. For

[2:28:21] me. No for Ros Linda and Mr. Casey. Yes.

[2:28:26] Okay. Thank you very much. Moving on to

[2:28:29] item number 14. This is a joint city

[2:28:31] council and planning commission meeting.

[2:28:33] This is requested by Vice Mayor Martinez

[2:28:35] on April 13, 2026. Vice Mayor.

[2:28:38] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I know we've had

[2:28:39] them in the past. Uh before they weren't

[2:28:41] referrals, they were just held. Uh but I

[2:28:44] was told this time around by the city

[2:28:45] manager need to be a referral from a

[2:28:46] council member. So that's what this is

[2:28:48] just requesting us to sit down and have

[2:28:50] our joint meeting.

[2:28:52] >> Thank you very much. Can the me any

[2:28:54] comments from the audience?

[2:28:58] Seeing none, nobody online. I bring this

[2:29:01] item back for comments, questions, or

[2:29:02] consensus.

[2:29:04] I'll go ahead and do consensus left

[2:29:06] right. Vice Mayor. Yes. Yes. for me.

[2:29:10] Okay, you got your consensus, city

[2:29:12] clerk.

[2:29:18] Moving on to item number 15. This is

[2:29:19] amending the s excuse me, amending the

[2:29:21] series municipal code to eliminate city

[2:29:23] council healthcare benefits and reduce

[2:29:25] the city's council stipen by 50%. And

[2:29:28] this was requested by council member

[2:29:29] Otter on the May 11, 2026 regular city

[2:29:32] council meeting.

[2:29:34] >> Thank you, mayor. Um, I've mentioned

[2:29:36] this a few times and the council is

[2:29:38] aware of my suggestion. Um, but I do

[2:29:42] want to put this on the record uh that

[2:29:44] we that I'm requesting to amend the

[2:29:47] municipal code to eliminate the city

[2:29:50] council's healthcare benefits um

[2:29:52] currently because of the budget crisis

[2:29:54] that we are in. Uh that's not to say,

[2:29:57] you know, later on in the future a

[2:29:59] council could come back and re-evaluate

[2:30:01] it. I also would recommend that we do

[2:30:04] our part as well in in this budget in

[2:30:08] these budget cuts and cut the stipen in

[2:30:10] half for the council members.

[2:30:13] >> Thank you very much, council member. Any

[2:30:14] members of the public would like to make

[2:30:15] a comment on this item?

[2:30:27] » Welcome to Reynolds from series

[2:30:32] I strongly agree with this and I think

[2:30:36] it should have been done prior to right

[2:30:39] now. It should have been discussed and

[2:30:41] handled when we were doing the budget

[2:30:44] cuts, but I think this is an excellent

[2:30:48] recommendation.

[2:30:51] >> Thank you very much. Is there anyone

[2:30:52] else?

[2:30:54] Seeing none, anybody on Zoom?

[2:30:57] >> There are no hands raised on Zoom. bring

[2:30:58] this item back for comments, questions,

[2:31:00] or consensus.

[2:31:03] from left to right, Vice

[2:31:04] Mayor. No. Councilwoman. Yes. No for me.

[2:31:08] Oh, I'm sorry. My apologies. I did not

[2:31:09] see your your button. Let's hold that

[2:31:11] thought for a second. Council member

[2:31:13] Vieira,

[2:31:14] >> sorry, a little fast. Um

[2:31:17] although just looking at past history,

[2:31:20] this has been we haven't adjusted the

[2:31:22] pay or the benefits in years. I saw

[2:31:23] prior council members and mayors have

[2:31:25] used this. I think um cutting the pay

[2:31:28] actually hurts not the current council

[2:31:30] members but future generations and

[2:31:32] future leaders those that are looking at

[2:31:34] coming to council working mothers I know

[2:31:36] there was one that was considering

[2:31:37] running but she's like what about

[2:31:38] daycare? What about you how do I take

[2:31:40] care of single mothers um young

[2:31:43] professionals and even um different

[2:31:45] people that are considering running

[2:31:47] because again there's a lot of cost. My

[2:31:49] um my contribution is not just coming to

[2:31:51] the council meetings. I work with our

[2:31:54] city staff. I know all of them have met

[2:31:56] with a lot of us here on the dis almost

[2:31:59] daily. I think they some of us see me

[2:32:01] daily or multiple times including I know

[2:32:03] the mayor and Martinez I know we're in

[2:32:05] almost daily. Um the cost of doing

[2:32:07] business because again we're going to

[2:32:09] these dinners and handing out

[2:32:10] certificates. We're not getting in there

[2:32:12] free. We're not eating the meals. We're

[2:32:14] usually handing out certificates while

[2:32:16] everyone else is eating and having

[2:32:18] dinner. Um we're also I sending welcome

[2:32:20] letters to new residents that bought the

[2:32:22] homes in my district. those stamps came

[2:32:24] out of my pocket. That was part of my

[2:32:26] contribution back to the community. I'm

[2:32:28] engaging with businesses. Um I'm

[2:32:30] engaging working a lot with Julian,

[2:32:32] what's open, what's available, what can

[2:32:33] I promote so I can bring businesses in

[2:32:35] because that's key. We need diversity.

[2:32:37] We need to engage in businesses so they

[2:32:40] want to come to series. But that takes

[2:32:42] time. That takes money. That takes

[2:32:44] strategy. And that's not money that I

[2:32:45] get reimbursed from the city. That comes

[2:32:47] directly out of my pocket. Um I also

[2:32:49] look at state law. um heavily lean on

[2:32:51] California's SP 329. It's a state

[2:32:54] legislator bill that actually changed

[2:32:56] the caps and then that because our pay

[2:32:58] cap hasn't been adjusted since I believe

[2:33:00] it was 1984. We're still making the same

[2:33:02] stipen that they were making in 1984 and

[2:33:05] $500 there in 1984 significantly

[2:33:07] different than what $500 is today and

[2:33:10] how far that goes when it comes to a lot

[2:33:12] of what we contribute not counting um

[2:33:15] inflation and representation. A lot of

[2:33:17] my district live in multi-generational

[2:33:20] households. So there's three or four

[2:33:22] generations living in one household

[2:33:23] because they can't afford to live in a

[2:33:25] large home or have multiple large

[2:33:28] bedrooms individually to themselves. So

[2:33:30] when I look at what the state was doing

[2:33:32] when they passed this law, I think it's

[2:33:34] important that uh we make sure that it's

[2:33:36] set up so that way those single moms

[2:33:38] that do have to pay for daycare, those

[2:33:40] that need um other reasons and the re

[2:33:43] still want to contribute to Siri still

[2:33:44] have that opportunity. and that is why

[2:33:47] I'm not supportive of it at this time.

[2:33:50] >> Okay. So, we got your consensus. Council

[2:33:52] member Casey, did you have a couple

[2:33:53] comments, sir?

[2:33:56] » Thank you.

[2:33:58] know, um

[2:34:02] those of us who are responsible for the

[2:34:04] situation that we're in, um

[2:34:09] we we should be the first ones to take

[2:34:12] the hit. So, I uh think that you think

[2:34:17] about this in the budget cut. We did

[2:34:20] away with uh the Christmas tree thing,

[2:34:23] the Easter thing, the Halloween thing,

[2:34:26] the swimming thing.

[2:34:30] So, we're we didn't do such a good job.

[2:34:33] Uh, and if you ran for this office

[2:34:38] because of the the benefits,

[2:34:42] um, maybe you should rethink it. We

[2:34:45] should be running and serving the people

[2:34:48] for their benefit, not for our benefit.

[2:34:51] So that's the way I feel. Thank you very

[2:34:54] much.

[2:34:56] >> Thank you, council member. Did you get

[2:34:57] the consensus from all? Thank you very

[2:34:59] much.

[2:35:01] Item number 16.

[2:35:06] This one is evaluating strategies of

[2:35:08] amending the zoning code to diversify

[2:35:11] business types. This was requested by

[2:35:13] council member Otero at the May 11, 2026

[2:35:16] regular city council meeting.

[2:35:20] >> Thank you, mayor. Um,

[2:35:23] when it comes to the speed limits on the streets that are listed on this

[2:35:28] agenda here, Eastgate Booth, um, I did

[2:35:30] mention Moffett Road to the

[2:35:33] >> I think Oh, you know, number 16.

[2:35:36] >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm ahead here. Um,

[2:35:38] backing up to evaluate strategies of

[2:35:40] amending the zoning code. Um, so tonight

[2:35:42] we talked about, you know, potential

[2:35:44] temporary moratorum on uh the gas

[2:35:47] stations and car washes. Um, there's got

[2:35:49] to be a better way to

[2:35:52] diversify. Like it says the business

[2:35:54] types that we have here. There's got to

[2:35:56] be a way to bring in some different

[2:35:57] types of businesses. Um, I feel other

[2:36:01] cities do it and uh that's why I brought

[2:36:05] this referral forward because I'd like

[2:36:07] to see us amend the zoning code. Um,

[2:36:09] we're going to be growing with more

[2:36:11] housing and all of that, but I don't

[2:36:14] want I want people to come here and stay

[2:36:15] here. I don't want them to leave. I

[2:36:17] don't want businesses to leave. So, um I

[2:36:20] would like us to, you know, have an

[2:36:23] option to amend the current zoning code.

[2:36:27] >> Thank you very much. Open this up to the

[2:36:28] public. Any members of the public would

[2:36:30] like to make a comment on this item.

[2:36:36] I just want to say that was quite a

[2:36:38] speech that the mayor give about the gas

[2:36:40] stations, about the diversity, and not

[2:36:43] telling anybody we couldn't have another

[2:36:45] gas station. Where were you when you

[2:36:48] budded into the Guatemala chicken deal?

[2:36:54] » Thank you very much for your comment.

[2:36:56] Anybody else have any additional

[2:36:58] comments?

[2:37:01] Seeing none, bring this item back to

[2:37:02] council. Anything on Zoom?

[2:37:05] >> There. No hands raised on Zoom.

[2:37:06] >> All right. Thank you very much. Looking

[2:37:08] for cons. Ros Linda, you're quick.

[2:37:11] Councilwoman Vieira.

[2:37:13] >> All right. I I don't exactly know what

[2:37:15] you want to change. Um, now when it

[2:37:18] comes to diversifi, I guess it comes

[2:37:19] down to Julian. Are you still attending

[2:37:21] the ICSC conferences which is where you

[2:37:24] connect with the businesses to try to

[2:37:26] convince them that series is where they

[2:37:28] want to build and live and reside and be

[2:37:32] okay and that's still part of the budget

[2:37:34] cuz I think that's going to be the

[2:37:35] biggest key is having you connect with

[2:37:37] those businesses and trying to get them

[2:37:39] in here and sitting down and having

[2:37:41] those continued meetings is I know I've

[2:37:43] been on a few of them not all of them.

[2:37:45] Um but I think that's key and making

[2:37:46] sure that you still have those

[2:37:48] opportunities. um and if that's going to

[2:37:50] be part of the strategy.

[2:37:52] >> That is correct. And we do have several

[2:37:55] items in the pipeline. I just can't

[2:37:56] share at this meeting, but we do have a

[2:37:59] lot coming through. Um and so if there

[2:38:02] is a point where the zoning is does not

[2:38:05] match, then that is the discussion that

[2:38:08] we have with those businesses for an

[2:38:10] amendment um that they're if they're

[2:38:13] willing to do that, then that is an

[2:38:15] option for them to do. Now, do we have a

[2:38:18] lot of businesses that are requesting

[2:38:20] amendments or for the most part they're

[2:38:22] going directly kind of where it's

[2:38:23] already zoned for commercial?

[2:38:24] >> For the most part, they're going to

[2:38:26] where they are permitted by right for

[2:38:28] the zoning. That's what they look for

[2:38:30] first and foremost in those areas. And

[2:38:32] so, um, a lot of them have reached out

[2:38:35] because they do their due diligence. And

[2:38:37] so, when they usually knock on our door,

[2:38:38] it's because they've done their homework

[2:38:40] and we've engaged with them over a

[2:38:43] period of time.

[2:38:45] And you're not specifically telling

[2:38:47] anyone no don't come to seriesiries.

[2:38:49] Correct.

[2:38:49] >> I would never tell anyone no not to come

[2:38:51] to series.

[2:38:52] >> Okay. And you are scheduled. I just want

[2:38:54] to make sure with the budget exped ICSC

[2:38:56] in Monterey. Yes, that is correct.

[2:38:58] >> Okay. That answers my question. Thank

[2:38:59] you,

[2:39:01] >> Vice Mayor.

[2:39:02] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Julian, it sounds

[2:39:03] like you already answered. I just wanted

[2:39:04] to have you reiterate. We already do uh

[2:39:06] the process of going and networking,

[2:39:08] finding businesses, and when you have

[2:39:09] somebody that applies for a location

[2:39:11] that doesn't fit where they should be,

[2:39:12] you work with them to move or find

[2:39:14] different site maps that they could

[2:39:15] possibly apply to. Correct.

[2:39:16] >> Yes, that is correct. So, we do pre

[2:39:18] pre-development meetings with them. So,

[2:39:20] they'll give us a site plan, a

[2:39:21] description of what they want, the

[2:39:23] zoning area, the location. We verify

[2:39:25] everything and then if it is not a

[2:39:27] permitted by right, we'll look to see if

[2:39:29] there's a conditional use permit that

[2:39:31] can be done. If not, then we ask then

[2:39:33] we'll go into possible general plan

[2:39:35] amendment or zoning amendment for them.

[2:39:37] Yeah.

[2:39:37] >> Awesome. Thank you. So, it sounds like

[2:39:39] essentially you're already doing what

[2:39:40] referral is requesting.

[2:39:41] >> Yes.

[2:39:41] >> Thank you, sir.

[2:39:42] >> And Julian, could you name an instance

[2:39:45] recently where you brought a business

[2:39:47] owner to the planning commission and

[2:39:49] gave them a conditional use permit and

[2:39:52] they were allowed to continue to run

[2:39:53] their business.

[2:39:55] So, we have the um in our industrial

[2:39:58] park area, we have a

[2:40:01] jiu-jitsu, I believe, um organization

[2:40:04] that it is not permitted by right. Um

[2:40:07] they needed a conditional use permit to

[2:40:09] establish the business there. So, we

[2:40:11] made sure that they provided all the

[2:40:14] information, documentation, site plan

[2:40:16] that they needed so that we can present

[2:40:18] that to planning commission to get it

[2:40:19] approved. Um parking was one of the

[2:40:22] things that we had discussed back and

[2:40:23] forth. So they adjusted their times and made it so that So yes, so we will

[2:40:28] work with them and we'll do our due

[2:40:29] diligence to try to bring the business

[2:40:32] to the location that they're at. We are

[2:40:34] also working on another one that's

[2:40:36] coming that is not permitted by right um

[2:40:38] but that needs a conditional use permit

[2:40:40] and so those are the options. So when

[2:40:43] they come through um we will have those

[2:40:45] discussions with them and give them the

[2:40:47] options that are available.

[2:40:49] >> Thank you very much Julian. Do

[2:40:50] appreciate that. Any additional comments

[2:40:52] or questions?

[2:40:54] We get consensus, please, vice mayor,

[2:40:57] councilwoman. No for me.

[2:41:00] >> No.

[2:41:03] >> Vice Mayor, can I get what your

[2:41:04] consensus was?

[2:41:05] >> No. So, no. Uh, for Vice Mayor, mayor,

[2:41:09] and Rosalinda, Council Member Vieiraa.

[2:41:12] >> Thank you.

[2:41:17] Item number 17, form a budget committee

[2:41:20] with a member from each council district

[2:41:22] requested by council member Casey on the

[2:41:24] May 11, 2026 regular city council

[2:41:26] meeting.

[2:41:30] » Yes. You know, I since I've been on the

[2:41:33] council, we have uh

[2:41:38] this year was probably one of the better

[2:41:40] years, but typically we we as council

[2:41:43] people, at least this council person, uh

[2:41:47] get information about the budget,

[2:41:52] the last meeting in May, if we have one,

[2:41:56] and then we have,

[2:41:58] you know, a meet first meeting in June.

[2:42:00] soon

[2:42:02] we're going to decide on an 800page

[2:42:04] thing. I think that um we should form

[2:42:09] this committee. It should be partially

[2:42:13] from the community.

[2:42:15] uh how how we select those members

[2:42:19] I don't I'm not certain but uh we need

[2:42:21] to get started on our 200

[2:42:26] 26

[2:42:28] 27

[2:42:30] uh 2728 I guess uh budget sooner than

[2:42:35] not and I I think it's important to have

[2:42:39] input on that. Thank you.

[2:42:41] >> Thank you Mr. Casey. We'll open this up

[2:42:43] to the public. Any members of the public

[2:42:44] would like to make a comment on this

[2:42:46] item.

[2:42:48] Yes.

[2:42:54] Galan Guzman for the record. Uh so yeah,

[2:42:56] I'm in support of this. Uh this

[2:42:59] uh I'm in support of this. Uh yeah, the

[2:43:02] city of series does a poor job of

[2:43:04] engaging uh its citizens in like

[2:43:07] day-to-day uh daily activities. Um but

[2:43:10] the budget it's like one of the main

[2:43:13] vital documents to a city in including

[2:43:15] the strategic plan. Um so how do you

[2:43:21] like I think it does also a poor um

[2:43:25] assessment of community needs you know

[2:43:27] from one district to another the the

[2:43:29] needs of the community are slightly

[2:43:31] different. So including a member of each

[2:43:34] district um I think is vital. Uh there's

[2:43:38] other cities that

[2:43:40] um actually engage more um more of their

[2:43:45] residents in the budget uh you know

[2:43:48] process. The city is series. Yeah, it's

[2:43:50] bad. Like if I'd give you guys a grade,

[2:43:52] I'd do like D. Like it's not passing. Um

[2:43:57] so yeah uh like I do agree with council

[2:44:00] member Casey and saying that you know

[2:44:02] for fiscal year 20 um you know 26 27

[2:44:06] budget it was a little bit better but

[2:44:09] only holding like one or two meetings a

[2:44:12] year um as far as like community and

[2:44:15] public engagement is not sufficient like

[2:44:19] and then only holding like these budget

[2:44:22] like workshops at a certain time you

[2:44:25] know It doesn't work with everyone, you

[2:44:27] know, everyone works a different

[2:44:28] schedule. Uh, you know, and creating

[2:44:31] this budget committee, it would allow

[2:44:34] more public feedback and then actually

[2:44:36] going door todoor perhaps like to get

[2:44:39] like, hey, like what do you think this

[2:44:40] district needs, you know? Um, so just

[2:44:44] stuff like that. Like obviously I live

[2:44:46] in district 2 and like the landscaping

[2:44:48] is really bad. You got plots of along

[2:44:50] like St. Clara Morgan, you know, you got

[2:44:52] a tree a a dead tree, you know, like if

[2:44:56] perhaps like allocating more money to

[2:44:58] actually beautify series would be

[2:45:00] beneficial and like it's an eyesore

[2:45:03] right now and it's been an eyesore for a

[2:45:05] long time, you know, this didn't happen

[2:45:06] overnight, you know, and the whole like

[2:45:09] financial audit that wasn't done for

[2:45:10] fiscal year 24 to uh 25, you know, it's

[2:45:14] like a year later or two years later,

[2:45:16] you know what I mean? like this if this

[2:45:18] was implemented it would be it would

[2:45:20] have been caught on time you know uh

[2:45:22] budget like turnaround time is average 6

[2:45:25] years I mean 6 months after the end of

[2:45:27] the fiscal year here we are in July we

[2:45:31] don't have it completed yet you know

[2:45:33] it's already it should have already been

[2:45:34] back you know and like for fiscal year

[2:45:37] uh 25 to 26 it we should already have

[2:45:40] submitted it so we're like behind the

[2:45:42] ball you know and it's your guys's um

[2:45:46] you guys are the checks and balances and

[2:45:48] you guys are I feel like it's you guys

[2:45:49] are doing like a great job. So honestly

[2:45:52] I think this is very needed.

[2:45:55] Thank you very much. Anyone else would

[2:45:57] like to make a comment?

[2:46:04] John Warren, City of Series.

[2:46:06] Um,

[2:46:12] forming a budget committee with a member

[2:46:15] from each district.

[2:46:18] um would be an ideal thing

[2:46:22] um for our members of the uh community

[2:46:27] to become involved in and looking at

[2:46:30] what the budget process actually takes

[2:46:32] place um starting in January or December

[2:46:38] u coming up for the next budget year. So

[2:46:43] each department's budget could be

[2:46:45] analyzed and discussed and gone over

[2:46:48] with your with your budget committee and

[2:46:50] then a report back to the to the city

[2:46:52] council or in addition to the

[2:46:57] uh five members of the community. Um,

[2:47:01] there should be someone from the city

[2:47:03] council sitting on that committee as

[2:47:05] well who's familiar with the budget

[2:47:07] process and maybe somebody from staff

[2:47:10] that could sit in occasionally as the

[2:47:13] meetings progress

[2:47:16] through the process. one or two meetings

[2:47:18] probably not enough um because it will

[2:47:22] take a while to go through line by line

[2:47:25] each department's budget and ask

[2:47:28] questions about what this expenditure is

[2:47:30] for and why this expenditure is there.

[2:47:33] And by doing that um all the things that

[2:47:37] you talked about during the regular

[2:47:38] budget process

[2:47:40] >> [snorts]

[2:47:40] >> um will be brought forward and the uh

[2:47:44] public will understand how that goes.

[2:47:47] Um, I know some of this the city manager

[2:47:50] does these things um privately or in

[2:47:54] meetings with each group as a budget

[2:47:57] year goes along and are preparing for

[2:47:58] the next budget, but citizens don't have

[2:48:01] any opportunity to see what's going on

[2:48:04] here. So maybe it's something they could

[2:48:06] do together or be involved with

[2:48:09] simultaneously.

[2:48:11] And so I think this is a good thing to

[2:48:13] consider and I hope you do so. Thank

[2:48:15] you.

[2:48:17] very much. Anyone else?

[2:48:21] Bring this item back to council for

[2:48:23] comments, questions. Councilwomano,

[2:48:27] um I just want to get clarification from

[2:48:30] council member Casey.

[2:48:32] Is your request for a budget committee

[2:48:34] only during the budget season during

[2:48:37] those couple months or could we

[2:48:39] incorporate this into the forensic I'm

[2:48:41] sorry, the financial oversight audit

[2:48:43] committee? Maybe we can call it a budget

[2:48:45] oversight and audit committee. I do. Um,

[2:48:48] and additionally, I do like the idea of

[2:48:50] having one representative from each

[2:48:52] district.

[2:48:54] >> Yeah,

[2:48:56] it's a good question. And for

[2:48:57] clarification, it would be an ongoing

[2:48:59] thing. We're scheduled to have a review

[2:49:04] this September of where we are with the

[2:49:06] budget. So, that committee would be part

[2:49:09] of that review prior to

[2:49:14] coming out to the public.

[2:49:17] Somehow we need to work on that. Yeah,

[2:49:20] thank you for the clarification.

[2:49:22] >> You're welcome. And um so

[2:49:25] just for uh confirmation, could city

[2:49:28] staff combine your referral and my

[2:49:30] referral to bring back a staff report on

[2:49:34] what this committee would look like?

[2:49:37] >> Yes. Thank you.

[2:49:38] >> Thank you.

[2:49:44] Mr. Mayor, can I just make one

[2:49:45] clarification real quick? The um

[2:49:49] the quarterly audit that we have

[2:49:52] committed to do the first one will be

[2:49:54] for the month of July, August and

[2:49:56] September. But that report will not be

[2:49:59] made in September. We have to get

[2:50:01] through the month, reconcile the books.

[2:50:03] So that first report will be in October,

[2:50:06] but it will be for the months of July,

[2:50:08] August, and September. Councilwoman

[2:50:12] Vier,

[2:50:15] >> thank you. Um I think my question was

[2:50:17] pretty well answered by um Council

[2:50:19] Member Otto because it sound like it was

[2:50:21] similar. Um and it just sounds like the

[2:50:23] only difference was since it's a

[2:50:25] financial one, it was incorporating the

[2:50:27] budget and one from each district which

[2:50:30] I think are if you were okay with those

[2:50:32] reasonable adjustments to your

[2:50:33] recommendation, I would be supportive of

[2:50:35] that. But I don't think we necessarily

[2:50:36] need two groups overseeing the same

[2:50:39] thing unless it leads to that and then

[2:50:40] maybe we make that change at that point

[2:50:42] once we get the foundations of whatever

[2:50:45] we're doing here together. But if you're

[2:50:47] supportive of that, I'm supportive of

[2:50:48] that as well.

[2:50:53] » [clears throat and cough]

[2:50:54] >> City Manager, you know, in in regards to

[2:50:56] the quarterly review, you know, if this

[2:50:58] committee were to if you guys were to

[2:51:00] bring a staff report back, you would

[2:51:02] give us in detail exactly what this

[2:51:05] committee is out to do. They're going to

[2:51:08] be an advisory committee. They would be

[2:51:10] provided with the quarterly reviews.

[2:51:12] They they would provide that oversight

[2:51:15] throughout the entire year. And then

[2:51:18] what I was wanted to clarify is that

[2:51:20] before that advisory committee received

[2:51:23] the final budget which would be the

[2:51:25] budget that that we would present next f

[2:51:28] fiscal year that budget in particular

[2:51:31] would would have to go through the

[2:51:32] process of the city manager and all the

[2:51:34] departments before it was given to the

[2:51:36] advisory committee. Correct. Not the

[2:51:38] other way around.

[2:51:41] >> That is correct. My recommendation is

[2:51:43] staff have the discussion first,

[2:51:47] decide amongst ourselves what

[2:51:48] recommendations we want to make. We

[2:51:50] would then present that to this budget

[2:51:52] oversight committee, make sure that

[2:51:54] they're fully on board, see if they have

[2:51:56] any additional recommendations that

[2:51:58] perhaps we have not considered, but

[2:52:00] ultimately anything would still come

[2:52:02] back to the city council for final

[2:52:04] approval.

[2:52:05] >> Okay. First to the staff, then to the

[2:52:08] committee, then to the council. So that

[2:52:10] so this would be established. You would

[2:52:12] bring this item back if we got consensus

[2:52:14] and outline what those jobs and tasks

[2:52:17] will be for this committee. Correct.

[2:52:20] >> Correct. And the appointment process

[2:52:22] much like your other committees. There

[2:52:24] would be established expectations for

[2:52:26] committee members. There would be a

[2:52:28] selection process. There would be a term

[2:52:31] and all of that would be brought back in

[2:52:32] a staff report before the committee is

[2:52:34] established.

[2:52:35] >> Okay. I like that idea. I'm on board

[2:52:38] with this. Any additional comments or

[2:52:40] questions,

[2:52:43] Vice Mayor?

[2:52:45] Apologize, Mr. Mayor. I thought I pushed

[2:52:46] my button. No, I'm just going to agree

[2:52:48] with uh pretty much everything everyone

[2:52:50] else has stated that uh item what is

[2:52:52] this 17 sounds a lot like item 12. So,

[2:52:55] combining them ultimately makes sense.

[2:52:57] Having each individual uh council person

[2:53:00] make a recommendation as to who they'd

[2:53:01] like to have their representative be,

[2:53:03] but still have that go through the

[2:53:04] process of council approval. uh making

[2:53:06] guidelines for expectations, meeting

[2:53:08] attendance, and how to replace those

[2:53:10] people should they uh no longer attend

[2:53:12] or move out of the district or longer

[2:53:14] live in the area. Uh so I definitely

[2:53:16] support combining those like uh council

[2:53:17] members and Vieira discussed and I

[2:53:19] support it.

[2:53:21] >> Could we possibly bring those both those

[2:53:23] staff reports back even if they're

[2:53:25] separate or the same and then we decide

[2:53:26] and we would have to motion at that time

[2:53:28] when this report is brought back so that

[2:53:31] way to avoid any confusion. And just to

[2:53:34] clarify, you're asking each council

[2:53:36] member to pick a individual from their

[2:53:38] district and the mayor would be in the

[2:53:40] city at large.

[2:53:42] >> What I would recommend is we take item

[2:53:45] 12 and item 17 if it's approved by you.

[2:53:49] We will bring one staff report back to

[2:53:52] the city council that incorporates both

[2:53:55] referral item 12 and referral item 17

[2:53:58] into one action that the council would

[2:54:00] take to establish the committee. the

[2:54:03] fact that one member from each district

[2:54:05] will serve on the committee as well as a

[2:54:07] fifth member that's chosen by the mayor.

[2:54:10] >> Yeah, sounds good. And then obviously

[2:54:12] when you bring that item back, you'll

[2:54:13] also ask us how we want to do the

[2:54:15] interview process, whether we want to do

[2:54:17] it in person or have we done it in the

[2:54:19] past. It looks like we're starting to do

[2:54:22] that, which is fine with me. That is

[2:54:23] correct. Okay, thank you. You're okay.

[2:54:26] >> Okay, sounds good. I'll go ahead and ask

[2:54:28] for consensus from left to right.

[2:54:32] Yes.

[2:54:35] Okay, Mr. Casey, I didn't see you, but

[2:54:37] you probably said yes, right? Okay,

[2:54:39] thank you. Moving on to item number 18.

[2:54:42] This is the reduce the speed limits by 5

[2:54:44] miles per hour, and this is requested by

[2:54:47] council member on May 13, 2026.

[2:54:52] » Thank you, Mayor. Um, I was so eager to

[2:54:55] get to this one earlier. So, the speed

[2:54:58] limits survey came back. Um there's

[2:55:01] speed limits that have been set or

[2:55:03] actually will remain the same, but there

[2:55:06] are streets that I want to lower the

[2:55:08] speed by 5 mph. My main uh goal is to

[2:55:12] lower the speed on Eastgate and Booth.

[2:55:15] Um and then I did incorporate Moffett

[2:55:18] Road. Um I've talked to staff a little

[2:55:20] bit about Moffett Road and we're going

[2:55:23] to look at the options. Um but

[2:55:25] specifically Eastgate and Booth do need

[2:55:27] to be done. Um, I've also done some

[2:55:29] research myself and I feel that there

[2:55:32] are ways for the city to allow these

[2:55:35] speed adjustments um, especially maybe

[2:55:39] at by our parks citywide. And I did send

[2:55:41] that information over to um, the city

[2:55:44] manager

[2:55:45] to I think yesterday or today um, in an

[2:55:48] email, but I I'd like to see this move

[2:55:51] forward and um, get those speeds uh,

[2:55:54] reduced. I don't know what the uh I know

[2:55:56] this probably not the time, but

[2:55:58] hopefully the police department um is

[2:56:00] also supportive of this. They're the

[2:56:02] ones that along with fire have to

[2:56:04] respond to some of these calls or some

[2:56:06] of these um give these speeding

[2:56:07] citations.

[2:56:09] So that is my referral for number 18.

[2:56:12] >> Thank you. Going now to the public. Any

[2:56:13] members of the public would like to make

[2:56:14] a comment on this item?

[2:56:25] they predecessors.

[2:56:28] Yeah,

[2:56:29] it's tough getting old. Uh I'm glad at

[2:56:32] least you're not raising the speed

[2:56:34] limits. All All these are main thorough

[2:56:36] affairs through those neighborhoods.

[2:56:40] And no matter what what speed you set

[2:56:42] them at, you're still going to get the

[2:56:44] speeders going through these.

[2:56:47] Uh when I'm going going through, I see

[2:56:50] most of them drive at a it it may be

[2:56:53] above a speed limit, but they're not

[2:56:56] actually

[2:56:58] speeding speeding.

[2:57:01] And I know when I got a lot of cars

[2:57:04] parked along the park or the schools, I

[2:57:08] probably even drive even slower because

[2:57:10] I worry about something jumping out

[2:57:13] between the cars.

[2:57:16] Uh

[2:57:20] yeah. Yeah. So

[2:57:23] I'm okay with uh what the speed limit is

[2:57:26] now or lowering it five speed five 5

[2:57:29] miles an hour. Thank you.

[2:57:33] >> Thank you very much. Anybody else would

[2:57:34] like to make a comment?

[2:57:41] » John Warren, city of Series. I want to

[2:57:45] say that this is a good idea. I would

[2:57:48] support [snorts] this. I think the city

[2:57:50] engineer has some leeway in lowering the

[2:57:54] speed limits by 5 miles an hour or

[2:57:56] raising them in in some instances um

[2:58:00] based upon the 85th percentile and the

[2:58:03] traffic surveys and so forth and so on.

[2:58:06] But I think all these um especially

[2:58:09] Moffer Road which I am on more than I am

[2:58:12] on the Eastgate side where um council

[2:58:16] person is. But um yes, I would be in

[2:58:19] favor that the traffic uh

[2:58:23] speed limits be reduced by 5 miles an

[2:58:26] hour and that should take care of the

[2:58:29] problem. Mike,

[2:58:32] >> thank you. Thank you. Next person,

[2:58:33] please.

[2:58:36] Okay, think about what it's going to

[2:58:38] cost to change all those signs. Again,

[2:58:42] money. You just keep nickel and dime us

[2:58:44] to death. If you have to change all the

[2:58:47] signs on all those streets, in all those

[2:58:49] areas by five miles,

[2:58:53] it's just going to cost more money.

[2:58:55] Please stop and consider how you're

[2:58:58] spending our money.

[2:59:02] » Thank you very much. Next person.

[2:59:06] Anybody on Zoom?

[2:59:08] >> There are no hands raised on Zoom.

[2:59:09] >> Bring this item back for comments and

[2:59:11] questions. Councilwoman Vieira.

[2:59:20] » Okay. Um, again, I don't know if speed

[2:59:23] limits necessarily change behavior. At

[2:59:25] least that's what I'm kind of hearing

[2:59:27] from the police department is even

[2:59:29] changing it doesn't necessarily mean

[2:59:30] someone's going to drive slower. My

[2:59:33] concerns, one is I thought this

[2:59:35] something was going to be allowed for

[2:59:37] all of us because I had specifically I

[2:59:39] had already emailed and asked about the

[2:59:41] streets in my district and I see I was

[2:59:44] told that that was going to be

[2:59:45] incorporated cuz I was but then I was

[2:59:47] also told if I was to bring dis the

[2:59:49] streets in front of the schools in my

[2:59:51] district that there was going to be a

[2:59:52] cost. So, I'm just kind of curious on

[2:59:55] what the costs are, why other council

[2:59:57] members were not given the same

[2:59:59] opportunity because I did email I did

[3:00:01] ask um immediately why I wasn't part of

[3:00:05] this because I had asked as well cuz I

[3:00:07] want to know what the cost. I believe

[3:00:08] Martinez had also brought it forward. If

[3:00:11] we all had asked for three streets, what

[3:00:13] are the costs? And I'm hearing now if

[3:00:15] anyone else asks, there are costs

[3:00:17] involved. And so I think that is key for

[3:00:20] me before I consider making this cuz

[3:00:22] unless we can find a way the police can

[3:00:24] enforce the changing speed limits. Um I

[3:00:27] don't know if it's going to change

[3:00:28] behavior and I think each district

[3:00:30] should be given the same opportunity as

[3:00:32] well as discover how we're going to pay

[3:00:34] for this cuz that's also key. And I

[3:00:36] believe at the council meeting when this

[3:00:38] was discussed I was told it was about

[3:00:39] $1,700 a sign. And when you look at four

[3:00:43] what three signs each street right here

[3:00:44] we're already at four signs. And if each

[3:00:47] one of us each have three

[3:00:48] recommendations, we're talking about a

[3:00:50] significant amount of money. And so

[3:00:51] that's my biggest concern right now. And

[3:00:53] I think that needs to be I'm not in

[3:00:56] favor at this point in time based on how

[3:00:58] it's being presented.

[3:01:01] >> Vice Mayor,

[3:01:03] >> thank you, Mr. Mayor. I kind of agree

[3:01:04] with what council member VR is saying.

[3:01:06] We can lower speed limits, but that

[3:01:07] doesn't necessarily stop bad drivers

[3:01:09] from driving dangerously. Uh I am

[3:01:12] concerned that this only seems to you

[3:01:14] know impact u one area of the city when

[3:01:17] there are other areas that have you know

[3:01:18] like my item coming up around Smeirna

[3:01:21] Park has streets that have speed limits

[3:01:22] that could be reduced to potentially

[3:01:24] reduce accidents. Um so just that alone

[3:01:27] with the fact that yes there would be

[3:01:29] signs that would need to be ordered. Uh

[3:01:30] there would be crews that need to

[3:01:32] replace them uh would be a no for this.

[3:01:36] >> Thank you. You know, I I would like to

[3:01:39] see if Bill TR could give us a little

[3:01:41] backstory. I know that you you actually

[3:01:43] brought us a report and gave us

[3:01:45] statistics on whether or not we decided

[3:01:48] to move forward with lowering um speed

[3:01:51] limits in certain areas. Could you

[3:01:53] please rephrase or just explain to us

[3:01:56] again with that process and what it took

[3:01:58] to get to the the findings that you

[3:02:00] found?

[3:02:01] >> So, we uh Thank you, mayor. We we we did

[3:02:04] come with an engineering and traffic

[3:02:06] survey um that that set the speed

[3:02:10] limits. It did not raise any speed

[3:02:11] limits at the time. Um I think it's

[3:02:15] important to note that if we if we want

[3:02:18] to look at different roads, we can do

[3:02:20] that. Um the the big thing is is that I

[3:02:25] will look at a cost. I'm not going to

[3:02:28] move forward without as a matter of fact

[3:02:31] if there is a cost that has to come back

[3:02:34] to council because that contract is

[3:02:36] already over the $25,000 which means I

[3:02:38] need to come back for an amendment in

[3:02:41] order to have that contract amended for

[3:02:44] an additional amount. Uh as far as the

[3:02:47] signs, uh yes, I've I've said it's about

[3:02:50] $1,500 to $2,000 per sign that we need

[3:02:54] to change. Um there could be some

[3:02:56] savings as we move signs around if you

[3:03:00] know if there's one road that's coming

[3:03:02] down to 35 and we're taking signs off of

[3:03:04] a 35 because it's lowering to 30 and we

[3:03:06] can use those signs. We haven't we

[3:03:09] haven't done a deep dive on all of that.

[3:03:11] I think it's important to know which

[3:03:13] roads everybody would want. Uh secondly,

[3:03:16] I think there's another portion to this.

[3:03:19] Um you know, we look at AB43. The AB43

[3:03:24] is actually what they consider a safety

[3:03:26] corridor bill um that was passed by the

[3:03:29] state legislature. It includes parks, uh

[3:03:32] schools where children are present,

[3:03:34] those types of things um that allow for

[3:03:37] us to lower speed limits by 5 m an hour

[3:03:40] due to it being considered a safety

[3:03:43] corridor. The second item is actually AB

[3:03:46] 382. AB382 will become a mandate in 2031

[3:03:51] and that will mandate the state has

[3:03:53] mandated that by 2031 all school zones

[3:03:56] will need to be down to 20 m an hour. Um

[3:04:00] there is a provision in there to bring

[3:04:01] them down to 15 m an hour. Um but we

[3:04:05] would need to look more into that

[3:04:06] provision if we wanted to bring those

[3:04:09] speed limits down to 15 m an hour. So

[3:04:13] there there there's actually a multitude

[3:04:15] of things that we could look at um as as

[3:04:19] we move through this process if that is

[3:04:21] the council's desire. Um but there are

[3:04:24] provisions uh to lower speed limits by 5

[3:04:28] miles an hour. Um and then it will be

[3:04:31] mandated in 2031 that all school speed

[3:04:35] limits come down to at least 20 m an

[3:04:37] hour. So that that's really what it is

[3:04:41] in a whole. Um, and if it's the

[3:04:43] council's desire for me to bring that

[3:04:44] back, I can uh bring a staff report

[3:04:48] back. Um, I would like to be in contact

[3:04:51] with each one of you to know which roads

[3:04:53] you guys would like me to look at in in

[3:04:55] your districts or within the city. Um,

[3:04:58] and and go from there if that is the

[3:05:00] desire of the council.

[3:05:03] >> Thank you, Milair and Vice Mayor.

[3:05:05] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just had a

[3:05:06] question, sir. So you you had an

[3:05:07] engineering report brought back where

[3:05:09] you know they went through the process

[3:05:10] of reviewing our roads and they said

[3:05:11] everything was fine but now you're

[3:05:13] telling us if we have specific streets

[3:05:14] that we're concerned about then to give

[3:05:16] you that list why have the initial

[3:05:18] engineering report in the first place

[3:05:19] then?

[3:05:20] >> So the initial engineering report uh

[3:05:23] from an engineering traffic study

[3:05:26] standpoint actually only looks at the

[3:05:29] 85th percentile in general. So they go

[3:05:32] um there was a lot of uh public comments

[3:05:35] for instance on social media about the

[3:05:37] cameras that were up around town. Um and

[3:05:41] they're they're recording speeds of

[3:05:42] vehicles that are going by um for the

[3:05:45] purpose of the study. And so in general

[3:05:49] when they do an an engineering traffic

[3:05:51] survey like this they look at the 85th

[3:05:54] percentile. Then there are certain uh

[3:05:57] parameters. The engineers also know that

[3:06:00] changing speed limits takes money. Um it

[3:06:04] takes crew money, it takes sign money.

[3:06:06] There's there's just money that is

[3:06:08] involved when they start to do that. So

[3:06:10] generally speaking, uh if that there is

[3:06:14] an ability to uh keep speed limits the

[3:06:17] same, that's what they that's what they

[3:06:19] try to do because they know the cost

[3:06:21] burden that that it puts on a city. Some

[3:06:24] of those may already be under uh maybe

[3:06:27] the the percentile on um one of the

[3:06:31] roads was showed the 85th percentile was

[3:06:34] at 40 m an hour but the speed limit was

[3:06:36] 35 m an hour. They will use engineering

[3:06:40] judgment at that point in time to

[3:06:42] determine hey can [clears throat] I

[3:06:43] apply AB43 to this as a safety corridor

[3:06:48] to keep that speed limit at 35 m an

[3:06:51] hour. So all of those judgments are made

[3:06:53] while we go through this. Um and and the

[3:06:56] engineers, they don't want to one create

[3:07:00] a cost burden for the city because it

[3:07:02] does get expensive. Uh and two, if they

[3:07:05] can keep speed limits the same, then

[3:07:07] that's what they will try to do under most circumstances. Sometimes

[3:07:11] that's not possible and speed limits do

[3:07:13] go up. And that's why I I kind of

[3:07:16] praised the public when when we

[3:07:18] presented this report that for the most

[3:07:20] part, everybody was good in driving. Um,

[3:07:23] and we were able to keep all of the

[3:07:25] speed limits within the city the the

[3:07:28] same as they were.

[3:07:29] >> Thank you. And with that engineer's

[3:07:31] report, it would make us or it would

[3:07:33] take away the liability. Nubia, if

[3:07:34] there's an accident, we had an

[3:07:36] engineering report done that showed that that street had a safe speed limit

[3:07:39] that there was nothing we could have

[3:07:40] done because ultimately it comes back to

[3:07:42] the driver and their negligence. I

[3:07:44] wouldn't say that it completely

[3:07:44] bulletproofs. Obviously, you want to be

[3:07:46] able to document everything that the

[3:07:48] city can do and steps to take to make it

[3:07:50] safe, but there's a lot of factors that

[3:07:52] would go into ultimate liability, but

[3:07:55] from uh documenting the the the steps

[3:07:59] and the procedures that would got to

[3:08:01] start there.

[3:08:01] >> Thank you. And Mike, you said that the

[3:08:03] school zones are going to be eventually

[3:08:04] reduced down to 15 m hour. Would that be

[3:08:06] a a safe school? I know a few years ago,

[3:08:09] Lieutenant Godfrey uh with worked with

[3:08:12] the school district to do safe paths to

[3:08:14] school. Would that be something that

[3:08:15] goes through the school district in the

[3:08:16] city or would that be something that

[3:08:17] only we would handle?

[3:08:19] >> So, uh the assembly bill actually

[3:08:21] mandates that cities lower the speed

[3:08:23] limit at in a school zone to 20 m an

[3:08:26] hour um starting in 2031. uh that cost

[3:08:30] will be burdened by the city to to

[3:08:32] reduce those or really to change those

[3:08:35] uh signs uh in school zones uh for for that provision within the law.

[3:08:42] >> Thank you, sir.

[3:08:44] >> Councilwoman Otero.

[3:08:46] Okay, Councilwoman Vieira.

[3:08:49] >> Um I think for me it sounds like we are

[3:08:52] going to be red removing most of these

[3:08:54] signs anyways under this new assembly

[3:08:56] bill. I don't remember which one you

[3:08:58] said it was. Um 382. So I think it's

[3:09:02] just a matter of working through those

[3:09:04] and working on financially because I

[3:09:06] don't think I'm okay at 1,500 to 2,000

[3:09:09] per sign for three streets that could

[3:09:12] potentially be $6 to $10,000 per street.

[3:09:15] And I don't think I'm have it in the

[3:09:17] budget currently. And if it's legally

[3:09:20] required under the current requirements

[3:09:22] under your engineering report, it's

[3:09:24] required by the traffic engineer. Um I

[3:09:26] think that's where we're at. and then we

[3:09:27] should save the money or start figuring

[3:09:29] out how we're going to allocate the new

[3:09:31] requirements because ultimately it's

[3:09:33] going to be reduced down by 2031 to 20

[3:09:36] anyways in most of these areas.

[3:09:40] >> Just just for a point of clarification,

[3:09:42] council member, um we we are not

[3:09:45] mandated to do it at this point in time.

[3:09:47] That mandate does not happen until 2031.

[3:09:50] It would be a council decision if they

[3:09:52] would uh prefer to implement that at an

[3:09:55] earlier date. whether that be this year,

[3:09:57] next year, or any year up to 2031. Um,

[3:10:01] that can be done, but it will be

[3:10:03] mandated in 2031. So,

[3:10:10] any additional comments? Okay. If

[3:10:13] there's no additional comments or

[3:10:14] questions, I'm looking for consensus.

[3:10:17] Vice Mayor, no. Councilwoman,

[3:10:20] no for me.

[3:10:25] Mr. Casey says yes.

[3:10:28] Thank you. Item number 19. This is a

[3:10:30] report on watering days and increases to three watering days per week. This

[3:10:35] was requested by Vice Mayor Martinez on

[3:10:38] June 22nd, 2026.

[3:10:41] >> Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I'd like

[3:10:43] the uh request as just reviewing what it

[3:10:45] would look like to change it from two to

[3:10:47] three watering days.

[3:10:49] >> Okay. Going now to the public. Any

[3:10:52] members of the public would like to make

[3:10:53] a comment on this item?

[3:11:02] uh day predator series. Uh I already

[3:11:05] noticed there's a lot lot of people are

[3:11:08] already doing more than two days a week

[3:11:11] if not more than three. Uh but there's

[3:11:14] also I see a quite a few I that's

[3:11:17] surprising they don't complain about

[3:11:19] their water bills. I see when they're

[3:11:21] their front and most of the water is

[3:11:24] going down the gutter.

[3:11:27] And so

[3:11:29] basically I think at least once in a

[3:11:32] while I check my sprinklers to see if

[3:11:34] they're working halfway decent.

[3:11:36] Sometimes they're not. And people ought

[3:11:39] to get out there and look at what theirs

[3:11:41] are doing too that see where most their

[3:11:44] water's going.

[3:11:48] » Thank you. Anyone else would like to

[3:11:50] make a comment?

[3:11:55] » John Warren, city of series. Um, each

[3:11:58] month each residents allowed a certain

[3:12:02] number of gallons of water. Uh, in the

[3:12:05] spring, the summer, the fall, it

[3:12:09] changes. Sometimes it's 27,000 gallons a

[3:12:11] month as a maximum per residence and

[3:12:15] then u it changes down to 12,000 gallons

[3:12:18] per month. So if a person watches that,

[3:12:20] it doesn't make a darn bit of difference

[3:12:22] whether they're wearing five days a week

[3:12:25] or three days a week or two days a week

[3:12:28] as long as they don't go over their

[3:12:30] usage allowed. And that's what I think

[3:12:33] our water reports and things are based

[3:12:35] on is that allowed usage. Now, if a

[3:12:38] person doesn't monitor their usage,

[3:12:40] there's a problem there. I know at one

[3:12:42] time I talked to Jeremy and there was

[3:12:43] people in this community using 75,000

[3:12:46] gallons of water a month in the

[3:12:47] wintertime. It just ran out the door and

[3:12:50] down the street and they had a constant

[3:12:52] battle with those particular property

[3:12:54] owners,

[3:12:56] issuing them notices and fines and

[3:12:58] things like that. But I think for the

[3:12:59] normal person and I use my own usage. My

[3:13:02] usage last month was 17,000 gallons and

[3:13:06] we're getting into the warmer months and

[3:13:07] I haven't changed my sprinkler times at

[3:13:10] all. So anyway, I I' I've never used

[3:13:13] over the amount that's allowed and so

[3:13:17] whether I wither water two days a week

[3:13:19] or four days a week, I'm going to still

[3:13:21] use the same amount of water. I think

[3:13:24] that needs to be considered. Thank you.

[3:13:27] >> Thank you very much. Anybody else?

[3:13:31] Seeing none, anybody on Zoom?

[3:13:33] >> There are no hands raised on Zoom.

[3:13:35] >> Bring this item back for comments,

[3:13:36] questions, or consensus.

[3:13:40] Vice Mayor.

[3:13:43] Yes, for me.

[3:13:46] » Question. How long ago, Joshua, did you

[3:13:49] present this to council? Because I

[3:13:50] thought we just discussed this and we

[3:13:52] were going to exceed the water usage if

[3:13:55] we went to 3 days. Um it was in

[3:13:58] November. Um I believe November because

[3:14:01] um Sam was still on board. Um

[3:14:08] we w we would exceed the the water use

[3:14:11] efficiency

[3:14:14] objective if uh every resident were to

[3:14:18] um use all three days. Um just based on

[3:14:22] the quick calculations that we did. Um

[3:14:25] but just uh objectively speaking um I

[3:14:31] think there is some wiggle room. I I

[3:14:33] know I believe uh at the last when this

[3:14:35] was brought up I there was also talk

[3:14:37] about having it 3 days for the summer

[3:14:40] versus you know or having it change

[3:14:42] during the season having 3 days for the

[3:14:43] summer versus the the winter. So I think

[3:14:46] um we could provide some more

[3:14:47] information if that's what the council

[3:14:49] wants. Um, I know

[3:14:52] we have difficulty sometimes, uh, the water department has difficulty

[3:14:56] sometimes, um, using some water and

[3:15:00] water is being stored that, you know,

[3:15:02] we're not able to take our our full

[3:15:04] aotment from SRWA at some times. There's

[3:15:07] we have wells that are not running at

[3:15:09] sometimes. So, there is some um,

[3:15:12] [clears throat] use for for having the

[3:15:13] water being used um, without going over

[3:15:16] the water use efficiency that's set by

[3:15:18] the state.

[3:15:19] So with this again that we're just

[3:15:22] moving a consensus to research. If we

[3:15:25] approve this, we're looking at

[3:15:26] difficulties accessing water because we

[3:15:28] have limited water accessibility

[3:15:30] currently is what it sounds like you're

[3:15:32] telling me. Um as well as we have the

[3:15:35] possibility of exceeding our state

[3:15:37] required limitations, which those two

[3:15:41] alone make me concerned in moving

[3:15:43] forward. Although I like the idea, I

[3:15:45] don't necessarily feel jeopardizing our

[3:15:49] standing with the state water board and

[3:15:52] the inability to

[3:15:55] access water as well as drain our wells

[3:15:58] further down and getting more

[3:16:00] contaminants into it and sand which I'm

[3:16:02] hearing a lot about. Um I don't think

[3:16:04] I'm comfortable with that. So it I I

[3:16:06] guess without more information it's

[3:16:08] really hard to make a full

[3:16:09] >> okay

[3:16:10] >> form decision. Just point of

[3:16:11] clarification,

[3:16:13] the we've had difficulty getting all of

[3:16:16] the water that we have allotted to us

[3:16:18] from SRWA

[3:16:20] from our our surface water. Sometimes

[3:16:22] we're having difficulty getting it out

[3:16:24] into the system because it's not being

[3:16:26] used. So, we're having to ask SRWA to uh

[3:16:30] decrease our water intake then uh

[3:16:32] compared to what we've ordered. Um so

[3:16:36] there's you know some

[3:16:38] the case could be made that in some

[3:16:40] cases we are not getting the full

[3:16:42] benefit of

[3:16:44] that water that's allotted to us. Um

[3:16:47] that's just at different times. You know

[3:16:48] in the winter we've had difficulty you

[3:16:50] know turning over our reservoirs and

[3:16:52] making sure that the water is being used

[3:16:54] at some times. Um but it is a balance

[3:16:56] because we have to compare that with

[3:16:58] making sure that we stay under our water

[3:17:00] use objective. Um we changed on our

[3:17:02] monthly report. We changed uh the way

[3:17:05] that we were reporting. Um so this

[3:17:07] public works uh monthly report that goes

[3:17:09] to the council every every council um

[3:17:11] meeting.

[3:17:13] U it does show our current usage in

[3:17:15] comparison with our water use objective

[3:17:17] from the previous year. So we can kind

[3:17:19] of see where we're at um as we go. And

[3:17:21] it it is a live document so we can you

[3:17:25] know make changes as we see fit. But uh

[3:17:27] the the initial recommendation was not

[3:17:30] to go to 3 days because um we were near

[3:17:35] the the water use objective. We still

[3:17:37] had a couple million gallons of of

[3:17:39] leeway. Um but I I don't remember the exact number off the top of my head

[3:17:43] from when we gave that report in

[3:17:45] November.

[3:17:47] >> Okay. I'm okay with moving forward with

[3:17:49] the idea during the summer as long as

[3:17:51] we're not moving o or exceeding our

[3:17:53] state requirements. I think that's my

[3:17:55] biggest concern is I don't want to get

[3:17:57] fined or disciplined or any kind of

[3:18:00] penalties coming from the state. So if

[3:18:02] it comes to that point, I'm not

[3:18:04] wanting to move forward with this idea

[3:18:06] if it does put us or jeopardize us with

[3:18:09] the state. So that's kind of where I'm

[3:18:11] at. I don't know how you want to judge

[3:18:12] that because I don't understand

[3:18:14] >> staff can move forward with with you

[3:18:16] know looking at um th those changes just

[3:18:20] based off percentages increase by

[3:18:22] percentages during month the the

[3:18:23] summertime or do a comparison for the

[3:18:26] whole year. Uh I believe when the

[3:18:28] initial report came out it was kind of

[3:18:29] just like hey if if everybody did this

[3:18:32] you know let's multiply

[3:18:34] uh this you know two days by making it 3

[3:18:37] days and that projection put us above

[3:18:40] the the water use objective but um yeah

[3:18:42] we can we can come with a more detailed

[3:18:45] report.

[3:18:46] >> I'm interested in seeing that report.

[3:18:48] Thank you.

[3:18:49] >> Yeah that would be very beneficial for

[3:18:51] us to move forward. Council member

[3:18:53] Casey. Go ahead sir.

[3:18:58] To go back to Mr. Warren's point, does

[3:19:00] it really matter if we do two days, 3

[3:19:04] days, 4 days, 5 days? Because we're only

[3:19:06] allotted so many gallons anyway. We're

[3:19:09] not we're not it's not asking

[3:19:12] we're not asking for more gallons. We're

[3:19:14] just asking for the opportunity to water

[3:19:17] our grass and flowers without being

[3:19:21] fine, whether it's three days or four

[3:19:23] days. Yes,

[3:19:25] >> it doesn't matter really. We only are

[3:19:26] allotted so many gallons and then of

[3:19:29] course this is here this is no part of

[3:19:32] that but what the heck are we going to

[3:19:34] do when we build all these other houses

[3:19:37] where we're going to get the water you

[3:19:38] know?

[3:19:39] >> Yeah. Oh, thank you for your for your

[3:19:41] question.

[3:19:41] >> But isn't I mean isn't I mean the the

[3:19:44] simple qu I mean this is a simple

[3:19:45] question. So if we approve

[3:19:49] to go forward to study the three days a

[3:19:52] week, we're only allowed it so many

[3:19:55] gallons anyway and we're not asking to

[3:19:59] increase that a lotment.

[3:20:01] >> We're just saying now now don't worry

[3:20:04] about it if you want to work water your

[3:20:06] grass on Sunday.

[3:20:08] >> Yeah, I I understand. Uh thank you for

[3:20:10] your question. So the reason that it

[3:20:11] matters is because when drought

[3:20:13] conditions come there are steps that are

[3:20:15] mandated by the state. So you know the

[3:20:18] reason that we initially the city you

[3:20:20] know years back went to two days was

[3:20:22] because a mandate was put out by the

[3:20:24] state. There was a um an order by the

[3:20:26] governor to uh follow certain uh drought

[3:20:29] restrictions and part of those

[3:20:31] restrictions was decreasing your

[3:20:33] watering days by one day. So if if

[3:20:37] something like that were to come out

[3:20:38] again and we're at 2 days, we may have

[3:20:41] to go down to one day or we may be

[3:20:43] considered for that. So it's just there

[3:20:45] are things I understand that we all do

[3:20:47] have allotted amounts and as long you

[3:20:48] know there's people that go over the

[3:20:50] allotted amount with two days, right? So

[3:20:52] it we we uh address those cases with our fines and our fee structure. But um

[3:20:59] having the watering days uh increase

[3:21:02] back to three is or or whatever we

[3:21:06] increase it to it it does matter because

[3:21:08] when drought restrictions happen we have

[3:21:10] to take certain steps. Um yeah and then

[3:21:14] what was there was a second question.

[3:21:17] Oh, when we when we build new homes, uh,

[3:21:19] a lot of those developments come with

[3:21:21] installing or drilling new wells or um

[3:21:24] building new reservoirs. So,

[3:21:31] » all right. So, I think we already we've

[3:21:33] gone through the consensus, right?

[3:21:36] >> I think I have four yeses.

[3:21:39] >> Mr. Casey, Mr.

[3:21:41] >> He said yes.

[3:21:43] >> So, we have five yeses.

[3:21:45] >> Mr. Mr. Casey, are you Yes. Yeah, we're

[3:21:47] good. Thank you for the questions, Mr.

[3:21:49] Casey. Moving on to item number 20,

[3:21:52] which is safety around Suburban Park.

[3:21:54] This was requested by Vice Mayor

[3:21:55] Martinez.

[3:21:56] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We had some

[3:21:58] citizens in here uh what meeting was

[3:21:59] this? June 22nd, so just just last

[3:22:02] month. Uh describing how unsafe it is to

[3:22:04] walk across the street, uh especially

[3:22:06] when there's heavy baseball tournaments.

[3:22:08] Um and we do have two schools there at

[3:22:10] Samra Park, right? It's sandwiched in

[3:22:12] between two. So, I would like to see

[3:22:14] about maybe um updating the crosswalks,

[3:22:18] adding lights, maybe putting a safety

[3:22:20] signal that when someone is crossing, it

[3:22:21] alerts drivers that are coming uh just

[3:22:23] to improve the safety around the park,

[3:22:25] especially since it's such a heavily

[3:22:27] used park. It hasn't been very well

[3:22:28] maintained of recent, but it is still a

[3:22:30] used park. I'd like to see about getting

[3:22:32] those paths a little safer.

[3:22:34] >> Thank [clears throat] you very much. Is

[3:22:35] there any members of the public would

[3:22:36] like to make a comment on this item?

[3:22:46] Thank you. Um, there's also a criminal

[3:22:50] element that needs to be addressed with

[3:22:54] some of our park systems. Most recently,

[3:22:56] a family member of mine

[3:23:00] was uh relieved of her cell phone and

[3:23:03] driver's license and wallet and stuff at

[3:23:06] the at the park during broad daylight. I

[3:23:10] don't know if it was

[3:23:12] all that person's fault, but the young

[3:23:15] man that came over and talked to her

[3:23:17] that did know who she was was very

[3:23:19] interested in u in her belongings and uh

[3:23:24] when she got home she didn't have them.

[3:23:26] So there there's an element there of

[3:23:28] safety too in broad daylight uh on a

[3:23:31] Sunday afternoon at some park. And also

[3:23:34] I think on Facebook today um the party

[3:23:38] at that pavilion that

[3:23:42] she was sitting by left about 1,000

[3:23:46] pounds of trash. I mean the pictures

[3:23:48] that u the ladies that were working in

[3:23:51] the rose garden and weeding and stuff

[3:23:54] because city staff wasn't able to do

[3:23:56] that um took some pictures and posted

[3:24:00] them and it was just terrible. I

[3:24:03] remember Mike Klein did the same thing

[3:24:05] years ago after a Sunday event at the at

[3:24:10] Samra Park and it was just terrible. I

[3:24:12] mean, there's trash everywhere and and

[3:24:15] people would even put it in the trash

[3:24:17] cans and then the trash cans were

[3:24:19] overfilled in some cases and they just

[3:24:21] throw it on the ground rather than take

[3:24:23] it away with them. And that should be a

[3:24:25] requirement I think when these people

[3:24:27] rent or sign up to use a facility there.

[3:24:31] If they leave it in shabby case, they

[3:24:34] should be build for the cleanup. I mean,

[3:24:37] we should be, you know, collecting uh

[3:24:40] from them or have a deposit big enough

[3:24:42] that they will take it away or we just

[3:24:45] won't return the posit. We keep the the

[3:24:48] pictures and show them say, "Hey, this

[3:24:49] is how you left it and so uh we're going

[3:24:52] to have to pay someone to clean it up."

[3:24:54] That's what we should do. Thank you very

[3:24:56] much.

[3:24:57] >> Thank you very much. Is there anybody

[3:24:58] else?

[3:25:05] The trash at Suburba Park is it it's a

[3:25:08] difficult thing. A woman posted a whole

[3:25:12] bunch of pictures of the trash

[3:25:14] everywhere. People were having parties

[3:25:17] and leaving the trash in bags and they

[3:25:19] were attaching the bags to the garbage

[3:25:22] disposal things. But the garbage

[3:25:24] disposal things you have there are real

[3:25:27] pretty and they have these cute little

[3:25:28] tops on them and it's hard to put the

[3:25:30] trash in. If you just go back to plain

[3:25:33] oldfashioned garbage cans, I think you'd

[3:25:36] have a lot better luck. And then keep

[3:25:38] the homeless out of the garbage. That's

[3:25:41] the two things, the wrong garbage cans

[3:25:43] and the homeless. That's your problems.

[3:25:48] » Thank you. Is there anybody else?

[3:25:53] Seeing none. Anyone on Zoom?

[3:25:55] >> There are no hands raised on Zoom.

[3:25:57] >> Bringing this item back for consensus.

[3:26:00] Vice Mayor.

[3:26:02] Councilwoman.

[3:26:04] Yes. For me,

[3:26:07] I if I may, uh, Mayor, I to address uh,

[3:26:12] Councilman Martinez's uh, issue with

[3:26:15] safety around around Smeirna Park um, on

[3:26:18] the roadways. We actually do have two

[3:26:21] projects. One is an ATP, an active

[3:26:24] transportation project. Um the other one

[3:26:27] is uh a CMAC or HSIP project. Both

[3:26:31] grant-f funded projects that are

[3:26:32] actually going to be um repainting

[3:26:36] crosswalks, those types of things.

[3:26:38] Putting in uh a couple of speed tables.

[3:26:41] So those things are in progress. Uh they

[3:26:44] are they are currently being designed uh

[3:26:47] right now. Um, and so I I just wanted to

[3:26:50] at least let the council know that there

[3:26:52] is a project, a couple of projects that

[3:26:54] are going on on Moffett. One that both

[3:26:57] that will include some safety aspect of

[3:27:00] at least the Moffett portion of uh,

[3:27:03] Smeirna Park, but obviously there there

[3:27:06] are other portions to that that are not

[3:27:08] included in those projects. Um, and we'd

[3:27:10] be happy to address those also. But I

[3:27:12] did want to let the council know that

[3:27:13] there are uh two projects currently on

[3:27:15] Moffett that'll address some safety

[3:27:17] aspects uh with regard to the roadway at

[3:27:20] that point.

[3:27:22] >> Council member Vier, do you did you have

[3:27:24] a additional comment?

[3:27:26] >> Did you want to go first?

[3:27:29] >> That was part of my question was I

[3:27:30] thought there was something in the works

[3:27:32] already and I didn't know if police were

[3:27:34] also looking at the safe routes. I don't

[3:27:36] know if that was you were police that

[3:27:37] did the one um on Morgan Road and then

[3:27:39] you also have the one that's on Hackett

[3:27:41] and Central that you're currently

[3:27:43] working on as well and bringing

[3:27:44] sidewalks into my district. Um but

[3:27:46] that's all grant funded because that was

[3:27:48] going to be my concern is the cost um in

[3:27:51] doing these upgrades. What are we

[3:27:52] looking? And then I thought we also had

[3:27:54] cameras at that location that the police

[3:27:56] or dispatch monitor because um I don't

[3:28:00] know if that is maybe another aspect

[3:28:02] that could reduce some of the criminal

[3:28:05] aspects that were being discussed and

[3:28:07] maybe that might be another alternative

[3:28:09] um because ultimately safety is going to

[3:28:11] come down to police and the really

[3:28:14] regardless of what we do I I think

[3:28:16] ultimately it's going to come down to

[3:28:17] the police department.

[3:28:19] >> So there are cameras uh at Smyrna Park.

[3:28:22] However, in the area that uh this

[3:28:24] occurred, there was no uh camera

[3:28:26] coverage.

[3:28:30] Thank you, Max.

[3:28:32] >> No, thank you. Uh Council Member Vier

[3:28:34] asked about the grants.

[3:28:35] >> Okay. Thank you. Let's go ahead. I know

[3:28:38] that we were in the middle of consensus,

[3:28:39] right? It's okay. I believe I had made

[3:28:42] my consensus correct. So, are we going

[3:28:44] to council?

[3:28:45] >> I want to wait until I see what Belran

[3:28:47] has coming forward. I'm not interested

[3:28:48] in using general fund money and stuff

[3:28:50] that we could possibly use with grant

[3:28:52] money.

[3:28:53] >> I take that as a no. Um, council member

[3:28:56] Casey.

[3:28:58] >> Yes.

[3:28:59] >> Thank you. Appreciate that. Moving on to

[3:29:02] item number 21. This is a review of the

[3:29:04] 2021 CARES Act audit and RAD funding

[3:29:09] requested by council member Otero on the

[3:29:11] 22nd of June 2026.

[3:29:14] >> Thank you, mayor. Um so during the

[3:29:16] budget process I had mentioned some

[3:29:19] concerns that I had with the car's act

[3:29:21] funding and through my research um there

[3:29:24] was also some rad funding that the city

[3:29:26] had received. Um there was like a

[3:29:28] partnership with businesses during co.

[3:29:31] So for me I want to ensure that the

[3:29:33] funding during that time was reflected

[3:29:36] uh correctly in our budget and our staff

[3:29:38] reports. Um I know that the single year

[3:29:41] audit for 2021 was not completed timely.

[3:29:44] was completed in um 2023 and at that

[3:29:48] time there wasn't a audit done. It was

[3:29:52] stated in a letter that um basically the

[3:29:55] city would be exempt from it. Um but

[3:29:57] it's important to note that the city was

[3:30:00] a recip a subreient of the CARES

[3:30:02] funding. It came from the county and I

[3:30:04] believe it there's some that came from

[3:30:06] um the state or federal government. So

[3:30:09] there is some reporting that I believe

[3:30:11] should have been done because during

[3:30:12] that year um the car's act funding had

[3:30:15] to be spent by a certain time frame and

[3:30:18] the funding was over our expenditures

[3:30:20] were over 250,000 or 750,000.

[3:30:23] So I would like to go back um and

[3:30:26] evaluate that. I don't want us to run

[3:30:29] into an issue where we get called out by

[3:30:31] the state, you know, after they do their

[3:30:34] own audit and we were supposed to do

[3:30:35] one. Um, when it comes to the RAD

[3:30:38] funding, same thing. Um, that funding

[3:30:40] source was through the car's act. There

[3:30:42] was also some RAD funding that came from

[3:30:44] ARPA. Um, so I'd like to just, you know,

[3:30:47] track that funding and ensure that all

[3:30:49] of it has been documented correctly

[3:30:50] because I would hate for us to be

[3:30:52] audited um by the state or federal

[3:30:54] government.

[3:30:56] >> Thank you. Is there any members of the

[3:30:57] public that would like to make a comment

[3:30:58] on this item?

[3:31:00] Please step up to the podium.

[3:31:08] uh city of series wellman city of series

[3:31:11] for the record. So, I just want to take

[3:31:14] uh take the time to thank uh

[3:31:16] Councilwoman Otto for uh listening first

[3:31:19] of all uh when I spoke at I don't know

[3:31:23] was it the last city council meeting or

[3:31:25] one of the meetings um where I noticed

[3:31:27] that discrepancy

[3:31:28] uh yeah so according to like the

[3:31:31] financial documents online uh the city

[3:31:33] received in revenue from grants and

[3:31:35] contributions 16,51,734,000

[3:31:42] And of that like it's listed under the

[3:31:44] capital as um right up below it it's

[3:31:48] capital money is 2,485,927.

[3:31:54] So that definitely serve s surpasses the

[3:31:56] 750,000

[3:31:58] uh exemption um you know limit that the

[3:32:02] like if a city spends 750,000 in federal

[3:32:05] government by law or like they're

[3:32:07] supposed to do a uh single-year audit

[3:32:11] which wasn't done you know and it's just

[3:32:13] it doesn't make sense because three out

[3:32:16] of the five oh wait one wait one two

[3:32:20] most of the city council sitting on the

[3:32:22] dis right now

[3:32:25] had the obligation to do this and and

[3:32:28] catch this and this was not caught on

[3:32:30] time. So you guys are the like I said

[3:32:33] you guys are the check and balances and

[3:32:34] when stuff like this falls through the

[3:32:36] crack it's not acceptable.

[3:32:39] Okay.

[3:32:41] Um, so yeah, that this yeah, I do

[3:32:44] support this because you guys should

[3:32:46] have been doing this a long time ago and

[3:32:48] this was missed and so I did do a public

[3:32:52] records request and one of it was

[3:32:55] several, you know, and um some of it

[3:32:58] still has to get back to me by July

[3:33:00] 20th, you know, and I don't like

[3:33:02] waiting. Um so but number I the request

[3:33:06] number 11 as out of the 12 was a list of

[3:33:09] ARPA funds and CB uh CBDG

[3:33:13] uh funds received by the city of series

[3:33:16] um from fiscal year ending 2018 to

[3:33:19] present day 2026. Please include list of

[3:33:22] contract bid awardies as well as

[3:33:24] contracts made with the city of series

[3:33:26] for such funds and if city departments

[3:33:28] receive such funds an item itemized list

[3:33:31] of expedentials for each monies uh used

[3:33:34] by departments for each fiscal year from

[3:33:36] 2018 to 2026. Now, we've discussed the

[3:33:41] uh forensic financial audit, which I

[3:33:43] don't understand why you wouldn't you

[3:33:45] would vote no to do it because obviously

[3:33:48] uh something's off, you know, and if you

[3:33:51] guys are not going to listen, this will

[3:33:53] go to the civil grand jury for them to

[3:33:55] investigate because this government is

[3:33:58] inefficient, okay? And there's stuff is

[3:34:01] falling through the cracks, you know,

[3:34:02] there's a high turnover rate, you know,

[3:34:04] and that's not accidental.

[3:34:06] And I think we're we're we're the public

[3:34:09] is left in the dark and that's not

[3:34:11] acceptable. You know, you guys work for

[3:34:13] us and if if citizens present concerns,

[3:34:17] serious concerns, you guys should

[3:34:18] listen.

[3:34:20] And I'm talking to you, Rosalinda

[3:34:23] Vera. Okay? Because I've sat with you

[3:34:26] and you've dismissed these concerns and

[3:34:28] have failed to address them. I spoke

[3:34:31] with you and I had questions about

[3:34:34] measure L the quarterly reports

[3:34:38] and you were dismissive did miss

[3:34:40] dismissed my concerns. So I had I now

[3:34:43] approached council member Otero who

[3:34:44] actually takes the time to listen to my

[3:34:46] concerns and actually address them.

[3:34:48] Okay. for measure measure L quart

[3:34:51] quarterly audits. There's actually a

[3:34:52] civil grand jury report from Stanco that

[3:34:55] says the these need to be done and

[3:34:59] county government, you know, it slipped

[3:35:02] through the cracks and the reports where

[3:35:03] they needed to be done and here I am in

[3:35:05] 2026 and it's still missing. So yeah,

[3:35:08] this government is inefficient and it's

[3:35:10] not okay.

[3:35:13] So yeah, do your job please.

[3:35:15] >> Suzman, real quick, sir. Uh, do you

[3:35:17] receive the document that I provided to

[3:35:18] you on measure L?

[3:35:21] >> Yes, sir. But yeah, it's not still, you

[3:35:25] know, there's a lot missing.

[3:35:26] >> I'm sorry. Your time is up, but I just

[3:35:28] wanted to make sure if there's anything

[3:35:29] else that you need, just please reach

[3:35:31] out to me.

[3:35:32] >> I'm willing to help as as other council

[3:35:33] members can help you. I'm willing

[3:35:34] >> Yeah, I already had requested Measure L,

[3:35:36] like public records request before you

[3:35:38] gave me that packet. So, I appreciate

[3:35:40] you.

[3:35:40] >> No problem. Thank you very much.

[3:35:44] >> Is there anybody else that would like to

[3:35:45] make a comment?

[3:35:48] bringing this item back.

[3:35:52] » Consensus. Yes.

[3:35:54] >> Okay. I'm It's a no for me.

[3:35:57] >> It's a yes for me.

[3:36:01] >> Get your direction.

[3:36:02] >> Clarification. Council member Otto. Was

[3:36:04] that a yes or a no for you? Yes. And

[3:36:07] just and and also just for the record, I

[3:36:09] believe the city manager, you're kind of

[3:36:11] hidden there for a second, but you you

[3:36:13] there is a RAD funding document that was

[3:36:15] provided to the city council, correct?

[3:36:19] >> I believe the city recently received a

[3:36:21] report of RAD funding for the most

[3:36:24] recent year. Yes.

[3:36:25] >> Okay. I was just wondering just make

[3:36:26] sure the public knew that. Okay. Thank

[3:36:28] you. Moving on to item number 22, which

[3:36:32] is the last item.

[3:36:38] locate the resolution on general fund

[3:36:40] reserves percentage. And this was

[3:36:41] requested by myself. The reason why I

[3:36:44] made this request is I am requesting

[3:36:45] that the city council consider adopting

[3:36:47] a formal resolution establishing a

[3:36:49] general fund reserve policy. The reason

[3:36:52] for this referral is simple. If the city

[3:36:54] of Sirius is going to reference a

[3:36:56] reserve percentage, whether it's 18%,

[3:36:59] 20%, or another number, it should be

[3:37:01] clearly adopted by the council through a

[3:37:03] formal resolution. This gives the city a

[3:37:06] clear policy, removes confusion, and

[3:37:09] makes sure future budget decisions are

[3:37:11] based on adopted council direction, not

[3:37:13] just past discussions or

[3:37:15] recommendations.

[3:37:16] as a formal reserve policy would also

[3:37:18] straighten the city's financial

[3:37:20] stability. It would help protect

[3:37:21] essential services, public safety,

[3:37:23] staffing, and emergency response during

[3:37:25] economic downturns, disasters, or

[3:37:27] unexpected revenue losses. As a part of

[3:37:30] this referral, I would like the staff to

[3:37:31] bring back options for a target reserve

[3:37:33] level, including whether the city should

[3:37:36] remain at 18%.

[3:37:38] Or towards 20%. Now, I would also like

[3:37:40] to see a 5-year roadmap to excuse me, a

[3:37:43] road map to gradually rebuild reserves

[3:37:46] and a clear rules for when the city may

[3:37:48] temporarily fall below the adopted

[3:37:50] percentage along with the plan to

[3:37:52] restore those funds. The goal is

[3:37:54] accountability, transparency, and a

[3:37:57] long-term financial discipline for the

[3:37:58] city of Series.

[3:38:01] Is there any members of the public that

[3:38:03] would like to make a comment on this

[3:38:04] item?

[3:38:10] a pride of series at one time series was

[3:38:14] in black and actually the council raised

[3:38:17] the percentage and basically you're not

[3:38:20] supposed to just keep robbing that that

[3:38:24] the problem is brown and co came along

[3:38:29] and all the cities are are hurting

[3:38:33] and everybody all everybody's been

[3:38:35] trying trying to get back at back

[3:38:37] towards the black and it has been

[3:38:39] difficult.

[3:38:41] Everything's getting more expensive.

[3:38:44] People just don't have the funds to go

[3:38:45] to the restaurants and stuff stuff

[3:38:49] to, you know,

[3:38:52] basically that's where a lot of the

[3:38:54] money comes from. The Siri uh for your funds

[3:39:02] you rely

[3:39:06] you keep putting in stuff

[3:39:10] that doesn't really get a high turnover.

[3:39:13] I don't believe that. All these these

[3:39:16] food trucks and stuff that you want to

[3:39:18] bring in here,

[3:39:20] I don't I doubt if you can even prove

[3:39:23] that you're even getting getting a tax

[3:39:25] off of those things.

[3:39:29] I remember Alonszo's.

[3:39:32] There was a time that restaurant was

[3:39:34] full of people all the time.

[3:39:38] Then all the all these drive-thrus came

[3:39:41] in and took the business away and and

[3:39:47] now

[3:39:50] people getting away from the

[3:39:54] prices are getting so expensive.

[3:39:57] business are coming up with ways to do

[3:39:59] without without employees.

[3:40:03] Just because an employee can get now $20

[3:40:06] an hour uh flip hamburgers hamburgers

[3:40:11] doesn't mean he's going to be able to

[3:40:12] they're coming up with machines to do

[3:40:14] that.

[3:40:17] AI they're getting computers to do do

[3:40:20] take your order stuff. Most of the time

[3:40:23] they got little iPads at the tables and

[3:40:26] stuff to take it from the when people

[3:40:29] aren't working.

[3:40:32] The cities aren't going to get money.

[3:40:39] Thank you. Is there anybody else that

[3:40:40] would like to make comment?

[3:40:44] » Okay, I bring this item back for council

[3:40:45] for comments questions. Council member

[3:40:47] Otoro.

[3:40:48] >> Thank you, mayor. Um I'm obviously not

[3:40:51] the finance director and I'm sure she'll

[3:40:54] um she'll do a great job of finding some

[3:40:56] resolution for us. But it looks like

[3:40:59] historically um the reserve percentage was at 25%

[3:41:06] possibly that was prior to 2010 and then

[3:41:08] in 2014 it dropped to 20%. In June of

[3:41:12] 2015 um during a council study it had

[3:41:15] dropped to 18%. So, it's obviously

[3:41:18] reduced. Um, and I know I've I think

[3:41:21] I've heard um our finance director

[3:41:22] mention the government finance officer

[3:41:24] association. They give a recommendation

[3:41:27] as well when it comes to these um

[3:41:30] reserve percentages. So, I think it's

[3:41:32] important to evaluate what their

[3:41:34] recommendation is. Um and it looks like

[3:41:37] in 2014 2015 15 is when the city might

[3:41:40] have possibly set the policy in the

[3:41:42] budget discussion and study sessions

[3:41:44] during that time. So [clears throat]

[3:41:45] I would recommend that we look at um

[3:41:47] what that association recommends. Um

[3:41:50] it's important that we kind of have that

[3:41:53] guidance of um you know along with other

[3:41:56] cities in the state. I would be careful

[3:41:59] with creating a set percentage because

[3:42:03] obviously budgets fluctuate. So we don't

[3:42:05] want to say you know it's going to

[3:42:07] remain at 25% and we run into an issue

[3:42:10] where now it has to be lowered. Um those

[3:42:13] are my thoughts behind this uh referral.

[3:42:16] Thank you.

[3:42:16] >> I think you have a a point on we have to

[3:42:18] use a reference. I know I spoke to the

[3:42:20] city manager and you had also did some

[3:42:22] research and you had found that the

[3:42:25] during the budget discussions they had

[3:42:27] referenced 18% but there was never a

[3:42:29] formal resolution. Correct.

[3:42:31] >> Yes. Thank you mayor. Uh in the limited

[3:42:34] search that we've done so far, we've

[3:42:35] been unable to find an actual formal uh

[3:42:38] council adopted resolution or other

[3:42:40] document establishing a set percentage

[3:42:44] or number of reserve. We did find in a

[3:42:47] staff report, I believe it was in 2018,

[3:42:50] a reference to an 18%, but nothing

[3:42:54] formally adopted by council that we can

[3:42:56] find because as long as I've been here,

[3:42:58] the number has always been 18%, but

[3:43:00] nobody could ever figure out whether

[3:43:02] that was a resolution or if that was

[3:43:04] just the recommendation. I think that if

[3:43:06] we establish that recommendation but

[3:43:08] also provide a plan to bring our

[3:43:11] reserves back to 18% whatever number we

[3:43:14] choose I think that it would be

[3:43:16] beneficial. I think that Serena you're

[3:43:17] absolutely right. We do we do need to

[3:43:19] use a reference and if there's guidance

[3:43:21] and that that would really be great to

[3:43:23] use during this process. Councilwoman

[3:43:25] Vera

[3:43:27] >> thank you. Um I do think we need to have

[3:43:29] an established percentage at least a

[3:43:32] bare minimum and in the event there is a

[3:43:34] town and we also need a plan to get to

[3:43:38] if whether it's 18 or 20 or whatever is

[3:43:40] recommended I do like the recommendation

[3:43:43] based on what a lot of cities our size

[3:43:45] are doing um with our similar

[3:43:48] demographics and income levels and stuff

[3:43:50] cuz I definitely don't want to use you

[3:43:51] know a city down in the you know

[3:43:53] beachfront property down in LA cuz

[3:43:55] they're not very similar to where our

[3:43:57] demographics are, but I would like to

[3:43:59] have a a set number or percentage and

[3:44:02] then when the budget is discussed in the

[3:44:04] event that there is a a reason that they

[3:44:06] have to go into it, maybe they add that

[3:44:08] resolution to the budget and saying,

[3:44:10] "Hey, you know what? We have to have,

[3:44:11] you know, x amount, but because of this

[3:44:14] situation, this one year, we're going to

[3:44:16] do a motion or resolution to change it

[3:44:19] down to, you know, a number a little bit

[3:44:21] less." Um, but I do think we need to

[3:44:23] have a set number. So there's no

[3:44:25] questions whatsoever going forward on

[3:44:27] what the minimum is that we need to have

[3:44:29] and I would like to see what the numbers

[3:44:31] are for similar cities of sim similar

[3:44:34] demographics. So yes, it is yes for me.

[3:44:38] >> Any additional comments before I get

[3:44:39] consensus?

[3:44:41] Vice Mayor? Yes, Councilwoman. Yes for

[3:44:44] me.

[3:44:46] Okay, sounds good. Moving on to reports.

[3:44:51] I don't have a report, but Vice Mayor,

[3:44:53] can you take over for a quick second?

[3:44:54] I'm going to go use the restroom. Moving

[3:44:56] on to city council reports. Vice Mayor,

[3:44:58] >> Absolutely. Yes. I'll start and then

[3:44:59] I'll move along.

[3:45:00] >> Was that

[3:45:03] Oh, you Okay, just take it back. Um,

[3:45:05] Vice Mayor, can you please take over for

[3:45:07] additional referrals? I'm sorry that I

[3:45:08] skipped over that, Serena, but I'll be

[3:45:10] right back.

[3:45:10] >> Sorry. Thank you. I just um Vice Mayor,

[3:45:12] if you don't mind, I just want to make a

[3:45:13] comment. Um,

[3:45:15] >> the referral list has seemed to stack up

[3:45:16] and it sounds like city manager, you

[3:45:19] kind of brought all the referrals

[3:45:20] tonight. Are we now caught up with uh

[3:45:22] our referral list?

[3:45:25] >> So, if you recall, thank you for the

[3:45:26] question. If you recall at the last city

[3:45:28] council meeting, we brought about an

[3:45:30] equal number of referrals uh to that

[3:45:33] council meeting with these 11 referrals

[3:45:37] today. Um and those approximately 11

[3:45:40] last uh meeting, we are caught up.

[3:45:44] However, I received five additional

[3:45:47] referrals in person today. So, as of

[3:45:51] right now, there are five pending

[3:45:53] referrals that I just received today.

[3:45:55] >> Okay. I think as a council, we need to

[3:45:57] evaluate this referral process. I mean,

[3:45:59] I'll admit this uh going through all

[3:46:01] these referrals was pretty painful

[3:46:03] tonight. In my opinion, it's taken a

[3:46:05] long time. Um I don't know if there's a

[3:46:07] way where if we make a referral up here,

[3:46:09] maybe we just get consensus at that

[3:46:11] point. And then now your staff can

[3:46:13] decide if uh you know, or we can decide

[3:46:16] if a staff report is going to be

[3:46:17] presented. Um again I haven't researched

[3:46:20] much from other local cities but it's

[3:46:23] something uh worth exploring. So

[3:46:26] unfortunately yes I would like to make a

[3:46:28] referral to evaluate our referral

[3:46:30] process. Thank you.

[3:46:33] >> Thank you. Now we'll be moving forward

[3:46:34] to council member reports.

[3:46:37] >> Just just a quick point on on that item.

[3:46:40] Um we'll be bringing that referral back

[3:46:43] um at a later meeting. Just a quick

[3:46:45] note, we can't have the council make

[3:46:48] referrals from the dis and not have it

[3:46:51] agendaized and ask for consensus at that

[3:46:53] meeting because it's brown act issue. So

[3:46:56] that's that's why we have this

[3:46:57] multi-step process and we have generally

[3:47:00] advised uh council members that if you

[3:47:03] have a referral item, get it to staff or

[3:47:06] the city manager ahead of the agenda

[3:47:08] posting so that it can actually make its

[3:47:10] way on the agenda. So that way if it is

[3:47:12] on the agenda we can take consensus and

[3:47:14] save a step um as opposed to just taking

[3:47:17] it from the dis. But that's just maybe

[3:47:19] one thing to consider as part of the

[3:47:21] referral evaluation process.

[3:47:23] >> Thank you. Uh with that being said then

[3:47:25] I think we'll just scratch that for now

[3:47:27] and um I'll just do some more research.

[3:47:29] Thank you.

[3:47:31] >> So the mayor had no reports. I have two.

[3:47:34] Um, I'll let Council Member Vieier speak

[3:47:36] more on the last concert in the park

[3:47:38] tomorrow, but I did want to mention uh

[3:47:40] for that event that the firefighters

[3:47:42] will be out there tomorrow night.

[3:47:43] They'll be barbecuing uh and they wanted

[3:47:44] to let you guys know and let the public

[3:47:46] know that they'll be selling uh chips,

[3:47:48] sodas, and hamburgers for $5 a person.

[3:47:50] And uh if you want to stop by and

[3:47:52] support them, my second is is about uh

[3:47:55] the Facebook group that recently had to

[3:47:58] go about and clean the rose garden

[3:48:00] themselves. um like council member Rhyno

[3:48:02] and others that were here this evening

[3:48:03] had mentioned uh they took it upon

[3:48:06] themselves uh to come out and to clean the rose garden and to get it back

[3:48:10] to a more suitable uh than what it had

[3:48:12] been. Um I know that we had just

[3:48:14] recently cut our contracts for our park

[3:48:17] maintenance, but like we've heard all

[3:48:18] evening, I think council member would

[3:48:20] mention it, the the weeds and the

[3:48:21] growth, it's not just a few weeks old. A

[3:48:24] lot of parks have months worth of

[3:48:26] neglect. Um, and so, you know, we need

[3:48:29] to do better as as council, as leaders,

[3:48:31] as department heads, especially with us

[3:48:33] being under staff now and not having

[3:48:34] contracts to to find a way to get these

[3:48:36] parks cleaned, uh, and to take that

[3:48:38] responsibility away from the citizens

[3:48:39] since those parks are our job to

[3:48:41] maintain.

[3:48:48] » Councilwoman,

[3:48:52] » thank you. Um, thank you, Martinez, for

[3:48:55] bringing that up. Um, I have spoke with

[3:48:57] Joey a few times now about the adopt a

[3:49:00] park. Um, he's promised that he's going

[3:49:01] to make it much easier so we can go out

[3:49:04] there and just get it done so it's not

[3:49:07] just a group that's going out there. We

[3:49:09] can do it just as ourselves. You and I

[3:49:12] can go out there tomorrow and do what we

[3:49:13] need to do. Um, as well as local

[3:49:15] businesses and not have to submit the

[3:49:17] paperwork and permission slips and all

[3:49:19] these other things that are required in

[3:49:20] the current process. So, we've had these

[3:49:23] discussions. Um, you're putting him on

[3:49:25] the spot right now. So, I'm sorry, Joey.

[3:49:28] Um, there's also a few other things. Um,

[3:49:30] this, um, last week we started

[3:49:32] discussing the point in time count. It

[3:49:35] was reviewed. It is public now. Um,

[3:49:37] series didn't have significant changes.

[3:49:39] There were 15 that were identified,

[3:49:41] although I'm positive, and I can check

[3:49:44] with the code enforcement. I think

[3:49:46] there's more than 15 homeless in the

[3:49:47] town. But at least on the night of the

[3:49:50] day that we did the point in time count,

[3:49:51] that was what was found by the

[3:49:52] volunteers. Um, again, we still provide

[3:49:55] services that's done through the care

[3:49:57] program. They're handling the resources

[3:49:59] calls. Are are they still going through

[3:50:01] code enforcement chief or can they call

[3:50:03] care directly?

[3:50:05] >> Uh, as far as I know, it's still going

[3:50:07] through code enforcement.

[3:50:08] >> Perfect. So, you can call code

[3:50:09] enforcement to make those referrals um

[3:50:11] regarding those that are unhouse that

[3:50:13] need resources. Um, majority of the

[3:50:15] barriers from the point in town time

[3:50:17] count appeared to be transportation,

[3:50:19] unsure where to go or not qualifying for

[3:50:22] services. Um, Chief, were you going to

[3:50:25] touch on the national night out?

[3:50:27] Awesome. So, I won't touch that one

[3:50:28] then. Um, I am trying to coordinate

[3:50:30] something in my district and I'll let

[3:50:32] him go into details on that. And then,

[3:50:36] um, concerts in the park. The final

[3:50:37] concert is tomorrow. Leavonne will be

[3:50:39] presenting. She is always a blast. Um,

[3:50:42] so I look forward to having her here.

[3:50:44] She's another series local. So I love

[3:50:46] seeing these wonderful, strong, amazing

[3:50:48] women here closing out our series.

[3:50:51] Please come. Come early. I know we had a

[3:50:53] group this time. We had up to 500 people

[3:50:56] at the concerts. So come early. It's

[3:50:58] great to see the community involvement

[3:51:00] in this. Um, and that is all I have.

[3:51:04] I'll let Chief go into the National

[3:51:06] Night Out aspect of what we're doing.

[3:51:08] Councilwoman, I know this might be a

[3:51:10] little bit different than what we

[3:51:11] normally do as far as the council um

[3:51:13] reports, but you mentioned the bid count

[3:51:16] and um my question and I was with you

[3:51:18] that day when we're out there doing the

[3:51:20] count. The the 15 that you the number

[3:51:22] that you got 15 that was from the day

[3:51:24] that we counted. That's what was was

[3:51:26] given to Joey.

[3:51:28] >> No, the 15 from the point in time. Yes,

[3:51:30] that was what was handed to Joey and

[3:51:32] that went into the annual report that

[3:51:34] was submitted to Hut. The only the

[3:51:36] reason why I bring that up is because

[3:51:37] the pit count came out and the county

[3:51:39] put out documents but didn't reference

[3:51:42] any of the nine cities and didn't give

[3:51:44] us an example of what the counts were

[3:51:46] for the nine cities. And I know this is

[3:51:48] a concern. If if you have that, that

[3:51:51] would be great. The reason why I asked

[3:51:52] that is because I I think that this is a great um information for the cities to

[3:51:58] have. There's some cities that go out

[3:52:00] for grants and if we don't have that

[3:52:02] data then they won't be able to go out

[3:52:04] for those specific grants. So if you do

[3:52:06] have that specific number, I was going

[3:52:08] to email the county. I was going to

[3:52:09] email email our supervisor, but if you

[3:52:12] have that information offline, we'll get

[3:52:13] it. But I just wanted to bring that up.

[3:52:16] Mr. Casey, is there anything else?

[3:52:20] Councilwoman, do you think you have it?

[3:52:21] If not offline.

[3:52:29] Oh, you're right. Sister series had 15.

[3:52:32] I think in last year we had 20

[3:52:35] something. Okay. Thank you. I'll please

[3:52:36] forward that to me to my email. Uh with

[3:52:39] that being said, city manager, any

[3:52:41] reports?

[3:52:42] >> I have no report. Thank you.

[3:52:44] >> Okay. City attorney.

[3:52:47] Okay. And now we'll start off with our

[3:52:49] departments and we'll start off with the

[3:52:50] chief of police. I'm going to apologize

[3:52:53] up front. I know this is a late meeting

[3:52:54] and I have more reports than I have all

[3:52:56] year. So, I'll get started. Um, I'm

[3:53:00] going to touch on the tobacco

[3:53:01] enforcement update. I'd like to thank

[3:53:03] the mayor and the council for your guys'

[3:53:05] support on this. Since April of 2025,

[3:53:08] the series Police Department has worked

[3:53:10] closely with the California Department

[3:53:11] of Tax and Fee Administration uh to

[3:53:14] regulate the possession and sale of

[3:53:16] illegal tobacco products within the city

[3:53:18] of Series. In October of 2025, the city

[3:53:21] council approved a local ordinance

[3:53:22] restricting the sale of certain tobacco

[3:53:24] products within the city. Since the

[3:53:26] start of enforcement operations, the

[3:53:28] police department has conducted 84

[3:53:30] retail inspections, issued 29 citations,

[3:53:33] completed eight undercover purchase

[3:53:35] attempts, resulting in four violation of

[3:53:38] flavored tobacos, and during one

[3:53:40] inspection, some illegal weapons, brass

[3:53:42] knuckles were found. In addition to two

[3:53:45] smoke shops uh also received 30-day

[3:53:48] suspensions for repeated violations and

[3:53:51] of just late we have revoke the business

[3:53:54] license of one of the businesses because

[3:53:56] they continue to um uh get violations

[3:54:00] which result in the permanent closure of

[3:54:03] the business. When uh enforcement

[3:54:05] efforts began there were 12 smoke shops

[3:54:08] operating within the city of series.

[3:54:10] Today there is only six remaining. Five

[3:54:12] voluntary um voluntarily shut down and

[3:54:15] one was closed uh due to the repeated

[3:54:18] violations. Uh there has been a

[3:54:20] significant push from the marijuana in

[3:54:23] industry to regulate smoke shops. To

[3:54:25] date, however, we have not located any

[3:54:27] marijuana in those smoke shops uh during

[3:54:30] any of our inspections. Um overall uh

[3:54:34] the success is measured by what the

[3:54:37] school district told us is that is

[3:54:39] they're seeing in the schools a lower

[3:54:42] number of vapes meaning that the

[3:54:44] children are not getting access uh to

[3:54:46] this these tobacco products and I truly

[3:54:50] believe the ordinance has a lot to do

[3:54:52] with that. Any comments or questions

[3:54:54] before I move on?

[3:54:56] You said the school district had let us

[3:54:58] know that vaping has gone down in the

[3:55:00] schools and and that's been their

[3:55:02] thinking that ordinance. You know, I I

[3:55:04] think that this has been a long time

[3:55:06] coming. I know that with the tobacco

[3:55:08] grant and with the enforcement and all

[3:55:10] the great work that code enforcement law

[3:55:11] enforcement has done in our community,

[3:55:13] at the end of the day, we want to be

[3:55:14] supportive of businesses. But if

[3:55:15] businesses are not doing what they're

[3:55:17] supposed to be doing, such as selling

[3:55:18] illegal products, I think that, you

[3:55:20] know, they need to be held accountable.

[3:55:22] And I I'm glad that you guys did. On top

[3:55:24] of that, I know that there's been some

[3:55:25] reference to you said that you did not

[3:55:28] find any marijuana in any of the

[3:55:29] lookings during your inspection, but it

[3:55:31] was brought to our attention by other um

[3:55:35] I would say undercover uh operations,

[3:55:37] but the problem is that it needs to be

[3:55:39] found during the time of your

[3:55:41] inspection. Correct.

[3:55:43] >> Correct. Okay. So, I just want to make

[3:55:44] that clear. I I do want to praise you,

[3:55:46] Chief. At the end of the day, this city

[3:55:48] council and our policy is supportive of

[3:55:50] this ordinance, but is you as a chief

[3:55:53] and the leader by you implementing this

[3:55:55] and your officers on the ground finding

[3:55:58] these things and protecting our children

[3:55:59] is what the utmost importance and I take

[3:56:02] that personally. I do want to say thank

[3:56:04] you and please let everybody else know

[3:56:06] that I thank them as well.

[3:56:08] >> Thank you. And uh we do have the tobacco

[3:56:11] grant and we are going to uh renew that

[3:56:14] and I have to pass all that credit down

[3:56:16] to Lieutenant Greel and Sergeant Blount.

[3:56:18] actually wrote the

[3:56:19] grant. Didn't go through the grant

[3:56:21] writers. Uh they're doing an amazing

[3:56:23] job.

[3:56:24] Um 4th of July report. So this is from

[3:56:28] July 2nd to the 5th. Uh these are the

[3:56:31] statistics. We had uh 12 uniform

[3:56:34] officers working on the 4th. uh three

[3:56:36] 911 dispatchers, a drone operator, extra

[3:56:38] records clerk, and a community service

[3:56:40] officer. Um our stats for uh those days,

[3:56:44] we had 16 DUI arrests, 20 fireworks

[3:56:47] citations, 74 fireworks related calls,

[3:56:51] 28 uh submissions on the nail map, and

[3:56:55] 40 um calls came in on the 538 loud.

[3:56:59] Overall, the oper operation was very

[3:57:02] successful. The combination of uh the

[3:57:04] proactive enforcement, increased uh

[3:57:06] staffing, drone operations, uh community

[3:57:09] reporting tools allowed officers to

[3:57:11] quickly identify and respond to

[3:57:12] violations while maintaining um proper

[3:57:16] staffing on the streets. The 3rd, which

[3:57:18] is Friday, was not as active as I

[3:57:21] thought it was going to be. and the 4th

[3:57:23] of July. Although the fireworks were the

[3:57:25] same uh in the amount uh no critical

[3:57:28] incidents on the police end in series

[3:57:30] which um was really good. Any questions

[3:57:35] on that?

[3:57:37] >> Council member Otero.

[3:57:38] >> Thanks, Mayor. Um Chief, did you have

[3:57:41] any repeat offenders this year?

[3:57:45] >> I don't know yet. We're still kind of

[3:57:46] sorting through some of that.

[3:57:48] >> Thank you. Um, just thank you to your

[3:57:50] team again for all the enforcement for

[3:57:52] the 4th of July and then the continued

[3:57:54] enforcement on these smoke shops. I

[3:57:56] appreciate it.

[3:57:58] >> Thank you, Councilwoman Leo.

[3:58:00] >> I think that's pretty much what I wanted

[3:58:02] to say. I know I was able to talk to

[3:58:03] Sergeant when he was in here and thank

[3:58:04] him and his staff, but I do want to I

[3:58:07] appreciate especially I know we hear a

[3:58:09] lot of DUIs right now in 16. Um, I I saw

[3:58:14] the report when it came through and that

[3:58:16] takes a lot of time and a lot of work on

[3:58:18] top of all the other fireworks and

[3:58:20] everything you did and you're able to do

[3:58:21] this with 12 uniformed officers and I

[3:58:23] appreciate their work cuz it sound like

[3:58:25] they were going one call after another and um I appreciate their

[3:58:29] hard work and coming in and getting all

[3:58:31] of that done and keeping with Siri safe

[3:58:33] without any critical. I know last year

[3:58:35] we had a few responses and a few fire I

[3:58:38] think there was one major fire or kind

[3:58:40] of had a fire of a bush in my district.

[3:58:43] Um but we were sound like it was out

[3:58:45] pretty quickly and so I appreciate them

[3:58:47] responding and all the work that

[3:58:48] everyone put in that night. Thank you.

[3:58:50] Or the whole weekend rather.

[3:58:53] >> Thank you. Uh next one's quick. It's uh

[3:58:55] we had some questions about golf carts

[3:58:57] being used. I have some clarification

[3:58:59] for that. Uh you can't use golf carts uh

[3:59:02] within the city of series unless you're

[3:59:03] a mile within a golf course and it has

[3:59:05] to be approved by an ordinance. Uh now

[3:59:08] low-speed vehicles on the other hand,

[3:59:09] which look like golf carts, they have to

[3:59:11] have all the proper equipment uh that uh

[3:59:14] makes them a motor vehicle. They have to

[3:59:16] be registered. They have to be insured.

[3:59:18] You have to be a licensed driver. They

[3:59:20] can only operate on streets that are 35

[3:59:22] mph. That does not take a ordinance or a

[3:59:26] resolution. it's within their rights if

[3:59:29] they want to register them as a

[3:59:31] low-speed vehicle. And that's I I talked

[3:59:33] to our cso today. That is what they do

[3:59:35] in Houston. Um there's really no more

[3:59:39] debate on that. If somebody wants to get

[3:59:40] a low-speed vehicle, then um they're

[3:59:43] more than welcome to do that. Any

[3:59:45] questions on that one?

[3:59:49] Lazy Wheels update. It looks like Lazy

[3:59:51] Wheels was hit with a hurricane. I

[3:59:53] understand that it's going to get worse

[3:59:54] before it gets better. And that's

[3:59:56] exactly what happened. I am happy to

[3:59:58] report though that um they have almost

[4:00:02] completely gone through every trailer.

[4:00:04] They were dismantling it. Um although it

[4:00:06] was slow, they had to take all the

[4:00:07] recyclable materials out. They should

[4:00:09] have heavy equipment on site by

[4:00:11] Wednesday.

[4:00:13] Don't hold your breath, but that's what

[4:00:14] we were told. They did have a delay for

[4:00:16] a couple weeks. Um I am happy that they

[4:00:19] are moving on it. They are doing work on

[4:00:21] it. Um but hopefully uh Wednesday we'll

[4:00:25] have some heavy equipment to start

[4:00:27] cleaning up some of that mess.

[4:00:30] Uh last one is National Night Out. So

[4:00:32] National Night Out is coming up August

[4:00:34] 4th. Um we are changing it up this year

[4:00:38] after last year. I told the staff I

[4:00:40] wanted to go back to the original plan

[4:00:42] of getting out in the neighborhoods.

[4:00:43] That's what National Night is all about

[4:00:45] is connecting with the communities. I

[4:00:47] think it's very important. We haven't

[4:00:49] done it in a long time. there's going to

[4:00:51] be some hiccups and I'm all for any any

[4:00:54] uh input that the council or the public

[4:00:57] has before definitely afterwards if

[4:00:59] anybody has input on how we could do it

[4:01:01] better. I do feel like we were a little

[4:01:02] bit late getting this information out

[4:01:05] especially that we're changing things

[4:01:07] but anyone that wants to hold an event u

[4:01:10] please contact either Sergeant Blount or

[4:01:12] Lieutenant Godfrey and we will get you

[4:01:14] signed up. Uh

[4:01:17] my goal is to get us back out in the

[4:01:20] communities and getting the communities

[4:01:22] together in their areas of town uh which

[4:01:24] it was intended for. Um but I I think

[4:01:28] there might be a a few hiccups, but

[4:01:30] we'll get through it and definitely next

[4:01:31] year's is going to be uh even better.

[4:01:35] Last thing I'll leave you with um for um

[4:01:39] maybe some interaction with the

[4:01:41] community. I've dedicated an hour of my

[4:01:44] time uh every week on Tuesday from 8:00

[4:01:47] to 9:00 to have coffee with the chief.

[4:01:49] It is limited space, but anyone that has

[4:01:52] any questions whatsoever about anything

[4:01:54] that we do at the police department,

[4:01:56] whether it be budget or enforcement or

[4:01:57] you want to just complain for an hour,

[4:02:00] um please feel free to contact my

[4:02:01] executive assistant, uh Marcy Peterson.

[4:02:04] Email her, let her know. It'd be helpful

[4:02:06] if you tell me what you want to talk

[4:02:07] about so I can be prepared. If you just

[4:02:09] want to come have coffee and talk about

[4:02:11] the weather, that's fine, too. Um, but

[4:02:13] any citizen in series is welcome to do

[4:02:15] that. Um, and I will provide the coffee

[4:02:18] and sorry for the long report.

[4:02:21] >> That's great. Thank you. Anyone else?

[4:02:27] » That don't worry. Um, thank you, Mayor

[4:02:29] Council. Um, so I I want to give a a

[4:02:33] quick shout out to our water department.

[4:02:36] Um last night we were all out there, a

[4:02:38] couple of us from the engineering

[4:02:40] department and a few from the water

[4:02:42] department trying to figure out the

[4:02:44] shutdown on uh Richland Avenue. Uh it

[4:02:48] did take us essentially we started

[4:02:50] turning valves about 9:30. Um and I

[4:02:54] think most of us left somewhere around

[4:02:56] 3:45 4:00 uh this morning. Uh it was a

[4:03:01] fun night if you want to put it that

[4:03:03] way, but we did manage to um figure out

[4:03:06] what we needed to do for the shutdown,

[4:03:08] which we've been trying to figure out.

[4:03:10] Um we actually found two valves that

[4:03:13] were uh bad. And so we will be replacing

[4:03:16] those with the with the Hatch Road main

[4:03:19] project, so that way we can do uh

[4:03:21] shutdowns on the main as as needed. Um

[4:03:24] so that it all went well. uh water was

[4:03:27] back on by about 4:00 4:30 um you know

[4:03:32] to to everybody. So that was that was a

[4:03:35] good thing also. Um another thing uh

[4:03:38] back in September of last year you guys

[4:03:41] authorized the engineering department to

[4:03:43] file grants uh and and apply for grants.

[4:03:47] Uh we applied for uh 23

[4:03:52] million I believe in grants. Um, we

[4:03:55] ended up getting 18.5 million. Um, we

[4:03:59] the only the only city that got more

[4:04:01] grant funding than us was the city of

[4:04:03] Modesto. Um, and that was only by three

[4:04:06] points. Had we gotten three more points

[4:04:08] on our Hatch Road project, we would have

[4:04:10] been the uh we would have gotten the

[4:04:12] most grant money out of any jurisdiction

[4:04:14] in the county. So, just a quick recap on

[4:04:17] that. We got $5 million for the design

[4:04:19] on service and Mitchell interchange. We

[4:04:22] got $5 million for the construction of

[4:04:24] Crows Landing from Whitmore to uh

[4:04:28] service. We got $2 million for the

[4:04:30] Hearnden and Eastgate bike lane project.

[4:04:33] We got $2 million for the Walnut Avenue

[4:04:35] sidewalks project. Got $2 million for

[4:04:38] Mororrow Village phase 4 and $2 million

[4:04:41] for Mororrow Village phase 5. And we did

[4:04:44] end up getting 420,000

[4:04:47] uh for the Hatch Road design uh to widen

[4:04:50] Hatch Road from essentially Mitchell all

[4:04:53] the way out to Faith Home. So um all of

[4:04:56] those grants were written by staff

[4:04:58] within the engineering department. It is

[4:05:00] a huge undertaking for us to do that.

[4:05:04] Um, and you could tell by, you know,

[4:05:08] getting most of our projects funded that

[4:05:10] the staff did an absolute amazing job,

[4:05:13] uh, getting these grants in, um, and

[4:05:16] eventually being awarded all of this

[4:05:19] money. Um, so, lots of construction to

[4:05:23] come. Uh, and we will, uh, keep plugging

[4:05:25] away, but thank you.

[4:05:27] >> I have a quick question for you, sir.

[4:05:28] You say we received $5 million for the

[4:05:30] design of the service road interchange.

[4:05:32] >> Yes, sir. So, how how far along are we

[4:05:35] with the design? I know that you had

[4:05:37] mentioned in a staff report that went to

[4:05:39] the city manager that went to us in

[4:05:41] reference to that we are 80% complete,

[4:05:43] but you also mentioned something about

[4:05:44] CALR reviewing some of our documents.

[4:05:47] Can you please expand on that?

[4:05:49] >> So, we're we're about 80% complete on

[4:05:52] the crow's landing design um for the

[4:05:55] roadway and lift station on service in

[4:05:58] Mitchell. Um we are still we've we've

[4:06:01] gotten a lot of approvals from from

[4:06:03] CALR. Um the biggest one that taking the

[4:06:06] longest time is the revised traffic

[4:06:09] study that we have to do uh for the

[4:06:12] on-ramps, off-ramps, bridges, all of

[4:06:14] that area right there. Um so we we're

[4:06:18] not as far along on service in Mitchell.

[4:06:21] However, this will greatly help us in

[4:06:24] reducing the amount of funding that we

[4:06:26] have to use because obviously we get to

[4:06:28] use an additional $5 million of grant

[4:06:30] funding instead of using our own Measure

[4:06:32] L money for uh for that design. So, it

[4:06:36] is progressing well. We're happy with

[4:06:38] what that with the decisions that

[4:06:40] Calrans has made thus far on uh some

[4:06:43] revalidation of reports, but uh the

[4:06:46] overall project is is progressing and

[4:06:48] progressing well. Now I think I know the

[4:06:50] answer to this next question. What would

[4:06:52] it take to make that project move

[4:06:54] faster?

[4:06:56] Um I I think that our consultant is

[4:07:00] pushing as hard as possible. Um you know

[4:07:04] once we get into CALR, you know, they

[4:07:08] have their review periods, those types

[4:07:10] of things. Um and we we work very well

[4:07:14] with CALR. Our project manager at the

[4:07:16] state level has been great to work with.

[4:07:19] um anytime they've we've requested

[4:07:21] meetings, they are on top of it. Um so I can't say I mean it is the state. It

[4:07:28] does move slower than than I would like.

[4:07:31] Um but I they they've been pretty

[4:07:34] efficient for for us here in the city.

[4:07:36] >> Okay. I'm going to refrain from giving

[4:07:38] any type of direction city manager, but

[4:07:40] as you can tell, that's something I'm

[4:07:42] interested in seeing. Um, next report.

[4:07:49] » Um, good evening, mayor and council

[4:07:52] members. Um, on Tuesday of last week,

[4:07:54] the city manager sent an email to you

[4:07:56] guys regarding a letter that went out to

[4:07:58] the public. Um, I just wanted to touch

[4:08:00] base on that letter, give a little bit

[4:08:02] of information, and uh, provide an

[4:08:04] opportunity for any questions if you

[4:08:05] have them. Um he uh our city manager

[4:08:10] outlined very well the the main topics

[4:08:13] of the letter, but I just wanted to

[4:08:14] clarify for any of the residents because

[4:08:16] I'm still getting calls right now about

[4:08:18] um the letter. Uh basically

[4:08:21] uh the 2024

[4:08:23] um guideline from the EPA was to uh get

[4:08:27] a service line inventory. So they want

[4:08:30] us to verify the the material of the of

[4:08:33] the pipe that is not only going from the

[4:08:36] city main to the meter but from the

[4:08:38] meter to the home of every resident in

[4:08:40] the city. Um the reason it's a 2024

[4:08:43] regulation but we did it in 2026 is

[4:08:46] because we were not previously required

[4:08:47] to do it because we were under the

[4:08:49] 50,000 um mark. And then in 2025,

[4:08:54] the the uh the DWR decided that since we

[4:08:57] were so close to 50,000 population, they

[4:09:00] were going to start considering us

[4:09:01] 50,000 population and we had to meet all

[4:09:03] those requirements. So we had to do it

[4:09:05] in a relatively short amount of time. We did an initial inventory with um 120

[4:09:10] water um who used uh county data to use

[4:09:16] the the building date of a lot of the

[4:09:19] homes um and any other information that

[4:09:22] they can pull from from various sources

[4:09:24] to use uh to eliminate some homes from

[4:09:28] being uh part of the the survey that has

[4:09:30] to be verified. But it did leave us with

[4:09:33] about I believe uh roughly about 5,000

[4:09:36] homes that are unverified. So um our

[4:09:39] staff did in 2025

[4:09:42] and 2026 go through um a few hundred

[4:09:45] homes and verify the the service lines

[4:09:47] manually. They went out, they opened up

[4:09:50] the the boxes, they checked both sides.

[4:09:53] Um so staff did that but until we get

[4:09:56] all the other 5,000 or systematically um

[4:10:00] eliminate some of those homes which you

[4:10:02] know uh starting the process of doing

[4:10:04] now if we can look at developments that

[4:10:06] were put in after a certain year we can

[4:10:08] eliminate all those developments. So

[4:10:09] there's a lot of ways that we can um uh

[4:10:12] continue to update that inventory until

[4:10:14] we get that inventory complete for the

[4:10:16] entire city. Um this letter will go out

[4:10:18] annually. Um, as the city manager stated

[4:10:21] in his uh letter, we haven't violated

[4:10:24] any lead or copper sampling. We we don't

[4:10:27] have we're in compliance with the EPA

[4:10:29] for all of our sampling, all of our

[4:10:31] water constituents. Um, we're in

[4:10:33] compliance with uh all the state

[4:10:35] regulated um sampling. It has nothing to

[4:10:38] do with whether there's uh lead or

[4:10:40] copper in your in the residents um

[4:10:43] water. Uh we do sampling for that and

[4:10:46] we've stayed up to date with that um in

[4:10:47] the past years. So, this is really just

[4:10:49] about physically verifying the type of

[4:10:53] um pipe that is going from their meter

[4:10:56] to their home. Um, and that's going to

[4:10:58] be an ongoing work that goes on for, you

[4:11:00] know, probably the the next few years.

[4:11:02] Um, and we're going to continue to to

[4:11:05] eliminate, you know, whatever sections

[4:11:07] we can using different data that we can

[4:11:09] pull in. Um, yeah. Again, so I just

[4:11:11] wanted to touch on uh letting people

[4:11:13] know that the water's safe to drink.

[4:11:15] There's no there's no kind of um notice

[4:11:17] or anything. I mean, there's no kind of

[4:11:19] a a regulation on that. And um I was

[4:11:22] getting a lot of calls with people just

[4:11:24] concerned about the the letter and that

[4:11:26] it was hard to for them to read and

[4:11:28] understand. Um we can't change this.

[4:11:31] is an EPA template. All we're able

[4:11:33] to change is our city name and our

[4:11:36] specific um data. So what our specific

[4:11:39] results are on our sampling um you know

[4:11:42] and and any specific information to the

[4:11:44] city of series other than that it has to

[4:11:46] say stay the same as what they um they

[4:11:48] provide us with. So I just wanted to

[4:11:50] give you guys that information and any

[4:11:52] of the public that are wondering which

[4:11:54] I'm I'm still returning calls right now

[4:11:55] and just you know uh letting everybody

[4:11:58] know that uh what the what the exact

[4:12:00] issue is. The the next steps for us is

[4:12:02] going to be um sending out a survey

[4:12:05] after getting that approved by um city

[4:12:08] manager, sending out a survey that

[4:12:09] people can if they do know their own,

[4:12:11] they can just let us know what the what

[4:12:14] the service line material is. Um or if

[4:12:17] they know that, you know, it's been

[4:12:18] replaced that they can let us know in

[4:12:20] that in that area. And then uh we have

[4:12:22] different options as far as using staff.

[4:12:25] Um, we have uh, yeah, we have different

[4:12:28] options for for finishing out the the

[4:12:30] rest of the inventory. So, I just wanted

[4:12:32] to make that clear to you guys. Thank

[4:12:34] you very much. Mr. Chavez.

[4:12:38] Okay. Thank you very much. And with that

[4:12:41] being said, we will now go into close

[4:12:42] session for conference regarding public

[4:12:44] employee appointment, California

[4:12:45] government code 549571.

[4:12:48] Title is city manager a conference with

[4:12:50] legal counsel for existing litigation

[4:12:52] California government code 54956.9

[4:12:55] name of case is Ashley

[4:12:59] uh Renuo

[4:13:01] city of seriesir versus city of

[4:13:03] seriesiral superior court case number

[4:13:06] CV25

[4:13:07] 009856

[4:13:10] and lastly a conference with legal

[4:13:11] council for anticipated litigation

[4:13:13] California government code 54956.9D2

[4:13:17] two for a one potential case. Is there

[4:13:20] anyone in the public like to make a

[4:13:22] comment on the close session items? And

[4:13:24] seeing none, and we'll come back after

[4:13:26] close session and I will report out.

[4:13:28] Thank you very much everyone and have a

[4:13:30] good evening and God bless.

[5:42:46] Welcome back everyone. By a 401

[5:42:49] abstension vote, the city council has

[5:42:52] approved a settlement agreement with the

[5:42:54] petitioners in the matter and has

[5:42:55] authorized the city manager to execute

[5:42:57] the agreement. Pursuant to the terms of

[5:42:59] the agreement, the petitioners will

[5:43:01] dismiss the case against the city of

[5:43:02] city city of seriesir and will refund

[5:43:05] petitioner their cup application. Each

[5:43:08] party shall incur its own attorney fees.

[5:43:10] The agreement shall be final upon

[5:43:12] execution of the parties. On the other

[5:43:14] two items, direction has been provided

[5:43:16] to staff. Thank you.

July 13, 2026 Regular City Council Meeting

Transcript