Do this regular, minutes, or two order, roll call, please.
Council Member is Painter here.
Hello, guys.
Here.
Vice Mayor Sejli is absent.
Able, can you please rise for the pledge?
Clerk, are there any changes to the agenda or supplemental reports?
There are no changes to the agenda.
We do have supplemental reports for item 5.
We have a letter received from Ralph D. A.
With NVTA, for item 7A, we have 7A, 8A and 8B.
We have presentations from staff.
Thank you.
All right.
Moving on to special presentations.
We have Lewis and Breeze from the Napa County Animal Shelter.
Who is here today to introduce the PEMP of the month, who is Annie the bunny?
Welcome Annie.
Thank you.
Okay.
No, she wants to invite you.
If any helpers, I can go away.
Okay, everybody.
I took a huge gamble today.
First, I was at the Board of Supervisors with a different bunny.
And luckily, I haven't had any outbreaks with my allergies.
But for some reason, bunnies make me sneeze a lot.
But I couldn't resist.
It was a bunny that we did this morning was really good.
And I saved the best for you guys because we only come here once a month.
So this month, I decided to bring Annie.
Annie is a seven month old English spot rabbit.
That was born at the shelter.
Annie is one of the volunteer favorites currently.
She's the most social, the most friendly, the most outgoing.
Even though when I went to go and grab her today, she would not let me grab her.
But once she's out here, she did really, really good.
One of my favorite things about rabbits is they are a very, very underrated pet.
Often times when people have them, they keep them in small hudges.
Some are two feet, some are four feet long.
But once you give these guys a lot more space to run around, jump, spread the lens.
They show a lot of personality.
I often see videos online of bunnies.
Sometimes if you haven't had a bunny, you're going to have a first one or if you had bunnies in the past.
You can experience bunnies in terms of bunnies.
You can experience similar personalities to dogs, cats.
They're very particular about what they like and what they don't like.
For example, I've changed Annie's food bowl once.
And I organized it where I'd like to do it in my eyes.
It's very neat.
I come back in our later and Annie will pretty much.
Who told you to put my bed there? Who told you to put my blanket there?
Who told you to switch my food bowl?
So I have her tantrums where she picks up the food bowl and just tosses it wherever she wants.
She's like, you need to come back, get this right, or apologize.
But that's Annie for you.
Hopefully you guys can figure out once you adopt there, what she likes and dislikes.
The adoption fee covers the Spaniard Surgery.
Our adoption fees are only $40.
The Spaniard Surgery is for bunnies.
It's actually really expensive.
It is an invasive surgery for them.
It takes a lot of time, more than a dog or a cat.
So when adopters come and meet some of our rabbits, they know a lot more than us.
So we just kind of humble ourselves and listen and try to take any knowledge we can from the adopters.
But they're always making really good comments as far as a, that their microchip,
be their vaccinated and see that they're spated and neutered.
So we're trying to set up the adopters for success.
Thank you so much for writing in the start to our meeting and wish Annie Luck
in finding her forever home.
Moving forward to proclamations.
National Public Works Week.
Council, you have the clear proclamations.
City of Napa proclamation.
National Public Works Week.
May 17, 2023, 2023, 2006.
Whereas this year marks the 66 annual National Public Works Week.
Sponsored by the American Public Works Association.
In this year's theme rooted in service powered by community.
Illustrating how public works professionals provide valuable contributions to in
enhance our communities quality of life and all and.
Whereas the quality and effectiveness of the city of Napa's public works infrastructure,
programs and services are an integral part of our residents everyday lives and our
vital importance to the health safety and well-being of the community.
And we're as such infrastructure programs and services could not be provided
without the dedicated efforts of public works employees who are responsible for and
who plan, design, build and maintain the roadways, sidewalks, streetlights,
traffic signals, drainage systems, pavement, striping, signage, city buildings and
who provide fleet services, stormwater quality programs, engineering,
administrative, real property management, development services, and
construction oversight.
And.
Whereas with an ever increasing demand and infrastructure, the continued dedication,
ingenuity and innovation, public works employees will help
ensure a strong and sustainable city for generations to come.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Kristina Talley,
Vice Mayor on behalf of Scott Sedgley, mayor of the city of Napa, along with
the Napa City Council, do hereby proclaim the week of May 17th through
23rd, 2026 as National Public Works Week, and call upon all residents and
civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the issues involved in providing our
public works and to recognize the contributions which public works employees
make every day to our health, safety, comfort, and quality of life.
We have just below in the public work staff to accept.
On behalf of our outstanding public work staff, thank you, Vice Mayor and Council for the
recognition.
This year's theme rooted in service powered by community, really captures what public
works Napa is all about.
The work that we do every day matters because of the community that we serve and it's
not because of the community's trust input and engagement.
Our work is often behind the scenes, but it does touch nearly every part of daily life,
like you mentioned in the proclamation.
None of this work happens without an incredibly dedicated team, staff who plan,
design, build, maintain, and respond, sometimes at all hours.
What makes Napa special is that it isn't one-sided.
It's a partnership.
Our community helps shape priorities, supports investment, and infrastructure,
and ultimately benefits from the results.
I want to thank our public work staff for their professionalism, commitment, and
pride in their work, and the community for being an active part of what we do.
We're proud to serve our community that truly powers the work in public works.
Thank you for the recognition and have you public works week.
Thank you.
Perfect, I'll have to give my zippy stuff.
Ryan the Meadow.
All right.
You must have a good work, guys.
Next, we have Jewish American Heritage Month.
Okay, I'll begin this as the city of Napa Proclamation for Jewish American Heritage Month.
May 2026, whereas from our nation's earliest days,
Jewish Americans have been an essential part of the American story.
Greatly contributing to the religious, cultural, political, economic, and intellectual
advancement of all people, even while in the face of discrimination and adversity,
and have enriched our country, stirred our conscience, and challenged us to extend the
miracles of freedom and security.
We're asked that federal government proclaimed May as Jewish American Heritage Month
in 2006, and recognition of the over 350-year history of Jewish contributions to American culture.
And?
Whereas, as we celebrate the rich heritage of the Jewish American community in the city of Napa and the nation,
we recognize that American Jews have worked tirelessly to strengthen the promise of religious freedom
and civil rights by joining together with all faiths to reject ignorance and intolerance.
Teach empathy and compassion and root out hatred wherever it exists and are compelled to never forget.
And?
Whereas anti-Semitism has risen in recent years and Jewish communities continue to confront hostility
and bigotry.
The city of Napa shares the obligation to condemn and combat anti-Semitism and hatred wherever they exist.
Whereas, during Jewish American Heritage Month, to see if Napa celebrates the hard-fought progress
one through the struggle and sacrifice of Jewish Americans, and where you redaticate ourselves to building a world
where diversity is cherished and faith is protected.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Christina Talley, Vice Mayor on behalf of Scott Sedgeley,
Mayor of the city of Napa, along with the Napa City Council due hereby,
in the program, May 2026 as Jewish American Heritage Month.
In call upon all residents to celebrate and thank Jewish Americans past and present,
we've contributed, measured to the fabric of American history, culture, science, education and social justice,
and to many aspects of our local Napa community, dated May 19th, 2026.
And we have Niles Goldstein, Senior Rabbi of Congregation, Beth Shalom, to accept.
Thank you very much.
We are honored to receive this proclamation as we have in past years.
And on behalf of Congregation, Beth Shalom and the Jewish community of Napa Valley,
we are very grateful as the proclamation notes.
This is not an easy time to be Jewish in this country or around the world.
The Scourge of Antisemitism is still with us to a very troubling degree.
So, we always, always appreciate the friendship and the allyship of all of our non-Jewish neighbors
were stronger with diversity.
And as we saw yesterday at the mosque shooting in San Diego,
whether you're Jewish or Muslim or part of any faith minority community,
we need to be vigilant.
We need to all look out for one another.
And so I send my thoughts and prayers to the Muslim community of San Diego.
I thank you all again very much for this proclamation.
And we will share it with our congregation and with the Jewish community here in Napa and in the county with great pride.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
All right, public comment on non agenda items.
During the public comment portion of the meeting,
the public is invited to address the council on any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the council.
Please focus your comments on either past actions taken by the council or proposed future actions to be taken by the council.
However, if the subject of public comment is not on the agenda,
state law strictly limits the council's ability to respond to at this meeting.
Have a received card?
I have vice mayor.
Harrow ligands.
Cindy Walters.
And or water?
I think.
And Dalton Percy.
No water.
Good afternoon.
Council.
Harrow ligand 1923 Adrian Street.
Two quick comments.
One is definitely not on the consent calendar.
I just wanted to update you a while back.
I brought up the the subject matter of consideration.
If the I asked a question if the city council had brought up any conversations.
We're guarding property tax.
And I did reach out to John Tudor's office and being the gentleman that he is he gently reminded me that that's primarily a state issue. So I'm in the process of contacting Cecilia Aguilar's office to bring something up to to help facilitate the development of more ADUs as I've mentioned. I'm doing this for our friend in mind.
It's born and raised here in town and is on disability. And so I would I would think that would the promotion that the state would the grant and the county loan that I'm partaking in, it would be nice to see something from a property tax aspect to help lessen the burden on the development of such things.
Last comment which is on the agenda is on regarding street sweepers. I have to chuckle whenever I see the street sweeper go by and my neighborhood in all the cars on the street and street sweepers basically just taking the metal blades and chewing up the the the asphalt.
The concept of a street sweeper is to sweep the curb area to keep items from going down into the storm drain system. So I'm wondering if there's any aspect in the future to address like they do in the cities and so on so forth for a certain days of the week.
You cars have to be removed from one side of the street or the other it might help with the actual cleaning of the curbs and the gutters so anyway that's pretty much all I have to say there. Thank you for listening. Thank you.
Next speaker. Hi Cindy water for 27 even street right over there. It's nice to be here and I just wanted to show up and be a little ray of sunshine and tell you that I really appreciate.
Well first of all I want to say that nap is a wonderful town I've lived here for 36 years when disaster strikes people pitch in and help when I I had cancer twice my my kitchen door was full food offers to take care of my children.
If someone's house burned down if someone's if someone's child is in an accident there are fundraiser school or so it really is a great place to live.
And now I don't know what it is that makes really nice people get all feral when they go on next or an ampa but after I went to the fuller park.
The fuller park playground opening high saw you know all of you and had nice chat I went and looked at this my social media and there were people complaining about it perhaps you saw it and I didn't see any of them there.
And I just wanted you to know that my grandson loves it he's been there four times since it opened it's fun of course the best time for toddlers is early in the morning when it's cool.
I'm worried about trees no trees that well you can't have trees over a playground a lima fall down and heard someone and they're surrounded with trees that is the best tree place in napa so if you get hot you go sit under a tree and guess what you've got a shade structure and picnic tables too you thought of everything so thank you and one more plug.
Thank you to Molly gradigan my husband is very concerned about parking during bottle rock in our neighborhood and he wrote to her and she got back to him fourth with and I really appreciate that sort of service in our wonderful town thank you.
Thank you. Next speaker.
I'm Dalton J. Percy and I don't represent musicians I represent local music culture which is all the musicians combined and I'd like to talk about this.
I'll talk about the second income which I think is really important to discuss you know I see a lot of the complaining you know online about an happens not adjusting to the change the second income with music events is highly important because when you see the amount of service you see the amount of products and produce coming in to the community.
You see them hiring more people to work within the community as music events are going on that is an excellent point of how the second income works.
So I think it's really important that our community keep in mind that when we have bottle rock yes we have a lot of noise we have a lot of people doing things and coming to an app but they don't know now but you know it's still they're bringing that income into this community and then that income is going into our city and then that income is is making a big change for what's happening in the city of Napa.
One of the other things to realize to is music culture we were not above the ground you know you're talking to Dalton I did the first four years of music in part that was my event I created it I did over 86 concerts I brought musicians as from as far southern California on my invitation they came because I invited them.
You know and I think that the music in the park is an important event and I'd like to see the amount of what it cost reduced so that we can have more than just 30 days for concerts in the park that we could have a little bit more during my time like I said I did 86 concerts.
Sometimes with three to four bands at a time that's a lot of work and all the young people came in a volunteer and all members from the community came in a volunteer.
You know and I did carry insurance form but the other thing I wanted to say too you know local music is someone shut out of bottle rock.
Everybody complains about bottle rock but you know what we don't get in the bottle rock and guess what they give free tickets to east nap I'd go to the bottle rock you know what musicians get we get to stand outside in the street.
Thank you.
Any additional speakers.
Thank you moving on to the consent calendar consent calendar items are considered routine and may be approved by a single vote of the council.
However members of the public or city council may request that a consent item be pulled for discussion there are 16 consent items identified on the agenda for the consent calendar items six a through six p.
Is there a request to pull a consent item.
Vice Mayor I have no request to pull I think how gave his comment for street sweeping under public comment but I did want to make one comment for members of the public item six six o the community development block grant program annual action plan amendment was inadvertently.
Notice is a public hearing not a public meeting so I just want to be sure that we do ask if anyone in the audience wishes to speak to item six o the community development block grant program annual action plan amendment that they do so now I want to make sure that they're given an opportunity.
I don't have any cards but wanted to do one last call for the record.
Is there anybody in the audience with like to speak on that item.
Okay, I don't see any so I can figure out.
Seeing none is there a motion to approve.
Move approval of the consent calendar.
All in favor.
I any opposed.
Moving on to administrative reports.
Which we first will hear a staff presentation then we'll open to public comment and then bring it back to the council for any questions and a decision.
I will turn it over to.
Our city attorney Christopher Diaz.
Well, Vice Mayor De Natali honorable council.
Christopher Diaz or interim city attorney here today to present an overview of Senate bill 707.
It does change the brown act and how we do public meetings.
We will also talk about the requirement to adopt a disruption policy and so I want the council as we go through the poll.
The presentation to think about disruption in two ways.
One is obviously the technology disruption because we will have to allow the public to connect in a in comment via zoom.
For future public meetings after July 1st and then also think about disruption of any virtual attendees or even in person attendees disrupting the flow of the meeting or ability to conduct business.
Because the policy also addresses that and also talk about what the brown act includes for in person people who are commenting.
So just in the agenda of what we'll cover today.
What is the general purpose behind Senate bill 707.
Why did the state legislature think in all their wisdom that this was a law that they should pass?
We'll also talk about the updates for what's defined now and in the brown act as eligible legislative bodies.
As you know, the brown act already defines legislative bodies, but we'll talk about that new definition and who it includes.
And then we'll also talk about the disruption policy requirement itself.
I will lightly touch on teleconferencing.
This was another big update with Senate bill 707.
Historically looking at council.
It doesn't seem as if you are are opting to zoom in very often into meetings.
And so we'll lightly touch on this, but if council wants more information on teleconferencing or more than happy to do an additional presentation.
Or provide something and writing that will provide guidance to the council.
And then lastly, we'll talk about miscellaneous updates with Senate bill 707.
Just a hodgepodge of minor updates that were included within the bill.
So what is the big or what is the bill itself?
If you're not aware, Senator DeRazo was the author of this bill and looking at it many, many moons ago.
It was actually a bill that was amending the brown act, but to be a little bit more favorable to bargaining groups at respective cities.
And so it was tying the hands a little bit of public agencies in what we couldn't could not do with regard to bargaining groups and other employment issues.
DeRazo's former labor organizer, so it wasn't surprising she was going that direction.
Ultimately, like most things in Sacramento, the bill got quite gut and amended.
And so I think DeRazo had seen what happened during the pandemic.
How cities had basically allowed technology in the public to attend via zoom.
And so her bill kind of modified and morphed into basically including technology changes that will be imposed on local agencies to basically provide that greater public access.
So people can attend public meetings in a variety of ways.
Now, what is the definition of eligible legislative body? Well, as I indicated, as you know, the brown act includes a definition of legislative body and that includes your city council obviously here at this level.
It also includes all the subsidiary bodies that the council has created and appoints individuals to.
And so those are legislative bodies, but now with SB 707, there's a new definition called eligible legislative bodies.
That includes only the senior body at these respective entities.
And so a city with the population over 30,000.
And that would really be the basis as to why it's subject to SB 707.
Also county board of supervisors with a population over 30,000.
Also any city in a county with a population over 600,000.
And so any any smaller city in a larger county would also be subject to SB 707.
And then finally special districts if you have a website and a special district is quite large either covering all of a county over 600,000 population.
Plus having 200 employees, they would be subject to this new requirement.
A special district with a website plus with a thousand plus employees also subject to this requirement.
And then also special districts with a website and 400 million in annual revenue plus 200 employees.
So just think when you're thinking about eligible legislative bodies, just think of those larger entities.
And again, it's that top-level governing body, not the subsidiary bodies within those organizations.
Now, what is the big requirement that kicks in under Senate Bill 707?
What's the requirement that we connect the public?
We allow them the opportunity to do both attend the meeting and comment either through a two-way telephonic service or two-way audiovisual platform.
Most of the requirements in Senate Bill 707 kicked in July 1, but the heavier lift is really kicking in July 1,
2022.
My best guess is to why the State Legislature Legislature had a delayed implementation as to this heavier lift.
Is some cities went away from Zoom, obviously, as Napa did.
Some cities kept Zoom, but if you did not install Zoom or allow the access once you went back to in person, it's a heavy technology left.
And so I think the State Legislature was smart about this and they said, let's give cities more time to comply with this requirement.
Now, keep in mind that we do not need to connect the public via Zoom and allow them to comment if Zoom is not operational at the meeting location.
There's a big question mark as to what this necessarily means because the brand act doesn't define what it means to not be operational at the meeting location,
but as all things with the law, there will likely be challenges in case law will clarify what that means in the future,
but our best guess is if there's no internet or phone access at that meeting location, then you do not have to connect the public via Zoom.
Keep in mind that for the Zoom option, we do have to post and provide the call in option or the link on our meeting agenda to allow the public to get access via Zoom.
And then also this is a new requirement and most cities have not been doing this who are still using Zoom, but we have to turn on captioning on Zoom to allow the public to see words on the screen.
Now, as I indicated, there are certain meetings where we do not have to connect the public again, where the meeting location doesn't accommodate the Zoom technology.
But then also these laundry list of exceptions, which exist within the brand act for other purposes, but if you were to all want to attend a court hearing of some sort or administrative hearing, you would not need to connect the public via Zoom if you're in spec.
Reading, rule, personal property where the topic of the meeting is limited to that property. Again, don't need to connect the public via Zoom. If you're meeting with your Federal or state legislatures to lobby them, don't need to connect the public via Zoom. And then meeting in or nearer facility owned by the local agency. Again, where it's limited to that facility, the topic of the meeting. Don't need to connect the public via Zoom, and then finally under the emergency meeting provisions of the brown act.
Now, the big reason why we're here tonight is because SB 707 does include a requirement that
not only we connect the public via zoom and allow them to comment, but that we actually have
a disruption policy adopted by the council in open session, not on consent, where we talk about
how we deal with the technology disruption, but then also because SB 707 includes new language
to deal with virtual attendees disruption. We also include that within the policy. So again,
thinking about disruption in two ways, but first I wanted to walk you through the technology
disruption piece. So if we were to have a technology disruption, we need to basically try to
make good faith attempts to restore the service for at least one hour. Now, hopefully we connect
the service sooner than that so we can continue with business, but once we get that disruption,
we'd want our clerk or the mayor to announce the service disruption to the public so they
understand what's going on and why we're taking a break. The council is required to resist the meeting
if we have a closed session on our agenda and it's been agendized for that meeting and let's say
we didn't either get to the closed session in time or we have unfinished business, we can
adjourn to close session to basically take care of that business and so the state legislature was
wise to think, okay, during this recess, what can we realistically do and we can go into closed
session if it is agendized on our agenda. And then again, during that recess, we need to make a
good faith attempt to restore the service. Now, what happens if we can't fix the issue within an hour?
Well, we are required to do one of the following options. Either adjourn the meeting, further extend
the recess to restore the service or we make reconvene an open session but we must adopt the
finding by a roll call vote that one good faith efforts were taken to restore the service and to the
public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.
Now, again, this is a finding that we would need to make and what we see future challenges will
understand exactly what should be included for cities and making this finding that my best guess is
let's say you had a scenario where you had something on your agenda staff was indicating to you as
council. We need to take action on this agreement by the end of the week and so we really need you to
take action tonight on this item because it needs to be approved by the end of the week and let's say
at the city level we had no interest from the public, nobody sending in emails. It just didn't
seem like anybody really cared about the item. Well, in that scenario, you can easily make this finding.
Obviously, we have a need to continue with business. The public hasn't showed a heavy interest in
this item and therefore we're going to go ahead and proceed with the meeting even though we've lost
the public via Zoom. It will be very fact-dependent in making this finding and so we'll want to look at
the facts before us in making that decision. Now, turning more so to virtual attendees disrupting
the meeting and I will tell you that this similar language to this is already included in the Brown Act.
It's included within the policy that's before you tonight but it's also included for in-person attendees
in the Brown Act and so similar process where you give a warning but I'll walk you through what's
included within the policy for virtual attendees if we did have somebody who was disrupting the meeting
and I want to clarify that disruption under the law is quite a heavy, heavy burden to me.
Basically, you would need to show that the public is basically stopping us from proceeding with the meeting,
stopping us from conducting business. There's a recent court decision if I recall correctly where somebody
was complaining about a trash franchise agreement under public comment that came in with a trash bag and
just dumped it next to the podium as they were giving their comments. And the court, that issue was
litigated and the court ultimately said that was disruption because ultimately the local agency
had a clean up the trash, the public that wanted to speak after that speaker didn't want to stand next
to that podium because of the smell. And so yes, that was disruption it caused us to stop the meeting
and have to clean that up and deal with it. And so that's an example of what's disruption under the law.
But if we did have somebody on Zoom who was disrupting the meeting, stopping us from flowing with business,
the options are for the mayor of City Clerk to provide a warning consistent with the Brown Act
which is just a verbal warning. Normally I'd recommend pausing the timer if we have a timer on the
speaker, not taking away their minutes. Obviously giving them that fair warning, indicating to them that
they are disrupting the meeting under the law. And if they fail to cease their behavior, it will result in removal.
For virtual attendees, if that person persists and we give them the warning, we give them their minutes back and they
keep going with the disruption. Our options are to either mute the speaker if that takes care of the issue.
And if it does not, then we can remove them from the Zoom platform. As I indicated, for in-person attendees,
there is a similar requirement in the Brown Act that was enacted within the past, I'd say, three years.
Requires the same thing. Basically, if someone is standing up at the podium, disrupting the meeting,
keeping us from proceeding with business, we give them that warning, stop the timer, given the warning,
see if they can comport their comments consistent with what we're asking for. And if they cannot,
you can't remove them from the meeting. I would say, in that situation with an in-person attendee,
I don't normally like to give the direction to remove someone from the meeting. And so if they are
disrupting the meeting, I normally recommend that the chair or the mayor call a recess, kind of diffuse the
situation, and then come back, and hopefully that doesn't continue. Now, I should note that Tiffany Karanza
and the City Clerk's office is taking a very heavy lift with Senate Bill 707. And so I wanted to turn it over to
Tiffany to walk through the next two slides as to what she's dealing with in the City Clerk world.
So Tiffany? Thanks, Chris. So under under the bill, the City also needs to take action to encourage
residents, including those in underrepresented communities and on English-speaking communities,
participate in the public meetings. This includes a system for electronically accepting and fulfilling
requests for meeting agendas and meeting documents through email or an integrated agenda management platform
and provide information on how to make requests. We will be utilizing a new system
feature from our webpage called Civic Send that will allow for a simple straightforward way to sign up
and subscribe to our agenda notifications. Currently, anyone can request notifications just simply by emailing
but this may be a more straightforward method by just filling out a quick form online. And then we're also
able to send the agenda's out that way as well. We'll also need to make some changes to our webpage
to ensure we're maintaining an accessible webpage dedicated to public meetings that includes
a general explanation of the public meeting process and explanation of the procedures for a member of
the public to provide in-person, remote or written public comment. A calendar of public meeting dates
including time and location of each meeting and the current posted agendas agenda or agendas of the body.
And the page show also be able to be translated into Spanish. So a lot of this was already on our radar.
This was just giving us a hard deadline. We also, this is something new. We also have to provide
physical space near our posted agendas where public can post agendas translations. This is a new
requirement in which a member of the public is allowed to post additional translations in which ever
whichever language they choose. And we have a note as it will say that we're not responsible necessarily
for the content that is being translated but they have the ability to post. We'll be providing an unlocked
like Dropbox next to the current Baltimore in front of City Hall for that purpose.
In addition, we have to make efforts to invite groups that do not usually participate under SB
while SB 707 introduces several new public engagement requirements. I'm happy to report that
consistent with Council's focus areas. The city has already taken a proactive approach toward
implementing many of these measures and we plan on continuing to build on those efforts. Our community
relations team has significantly expanded outreach related to Council meetings through a variety
of communication channels including meeting previews in the city of Napa News, Napa's weekly. E Newsletter
increased social media posts featuring meeting previews, reminders. We've done pre pre radio
promotion and as you are likely aware, our social media communications are provided in both English
and Spanish. In addition, staff is developing a proposed multi-channel outreach strategy
that would further enhance social media engagement and expand direct outreach to community partners
via email. So the goals to create a more formalized community organization contact network using
existing relationships and outreach efforts which would allow the city to more effectively connect
with neighborhood associations, chambers of commerce, service clubs, faith-based organizations,
cultural groups and other community stakeholders. So I will be working closely with our
community relations team, Jane and Katie on that as well. In Napa approach, this approach is focused
on meeting residents where they already receive information and leveraging trusted community partners
and messengers, not solely city communication channels, which will help us broaden awareness and
participation. If you do have any ideas, please feel free to let us know on that. And then next
slide, please, Chris. And then additionally, we are required to accommodate translation interpretation
requests. So this assistance in compliance with the requirement may include, for example,
arranging space for interpreters at the meeting location, allowing extra time during the meeting for
interpretation or ensuring participants may use their own personal equipment. It does not require
the city is not required to provide the interpretation, but make a combination for those who are here and
would like it. We will are required to translate and post the agenda, including remote attendance
info into any language spoken by more than 20% of the jurisdiction utilizing the most recent American
community survey, which is published by the U.S. Census Bureau, which Napa is Spanish. So our
genders are currently translatable via our web page, but will also be posting a translated agenda
online and also posting one outside to meet the requirements. And that requirement, just a note
that the requirement does not apply to the full packet of information that the agenda itself.
Okay, thank you. Thank you, Tiffany. So I will lightly touch on teleconferencing for the council's
benefit, but if you've ever teleconferencing into a meeting in the past, the traditional teleconferencing
rules where you have your location wherever you're calling in from. On the agenda, those rules
still exist. They've been in the Brown Act almost since its inception, but those are not going away
with Senate Bill 707. A new requirement did kick in with Senate Bill 707, and this was actually
generated by attorney general opinions. The first was issued in 2001, if I recall correctly, where the
question before the attorney general's office was, should the Brown Act, which is state law,
essentially, been to federal law, American with Disabilities Act? In other words, should the
Brown Act, even if it doesn't include language as to how council member can come into a meeting remotely,
if they have a disability, should we accommodate, in other words? And in 2001, the attorney general's office
said, the answer is no, the Brown Act doesn't include any language. We don't think it has to
bend to federal law. Therefore, agencies, you don't have to accommodate a council member if they have a
disability. To 2024, the same question was posed before the attorney general's office, and they
came to a very different conclusion. They said, yes, it should bend, and they basically looked at
what occurred during the pandemic, and all the council members essentially teleconferencing in from
their individual homes. And they said, cities have the tools that they can essentially accommodate
a council member if they have a disability, allow them to zoom into a meeting. And so what you're really
seeing here is the state legislature codifying that attorney general opinion from 2024, and basically
saying that, yes, if you have a disability under American with Disabilities Act, we have to accommodate
you. There's specific requirements now included within the Brown Act as to how, as to how we do that.
And so those are all the requirements there on the screen if you're interested in that as an option.
And then lastly, the alternative teleconferencing rules. These are all the other types of teleconferencing
options besides disability, besides the traditional rules. If you recall during the pandemic,
obviously, you were able to go completely remote. And so that still exists within the Brown Act.
Just cause which came out post pandemic where the state legislature built some flexibility into the
Brown Act. If you were sick with COVID, if you were taking care of somebody who had COVID, those rules
continue to exist, but they've been simplified to some extent. Also, eligible subsidiary bodies,
this is an option where as a council, you could decide that we want to allow some of our subsidiary
bodies to go completely remote without in-person attendance or in-person meetings. You can do that,
but you'd have to make findings. You'd have to re-up those findings and then the subsidiary
body itself would have to say yes or no. So it is an option though, if council did want to explore that
in the future. And then also eligible multi-jouristictional bodies. These are your larger bodies where you
are being forced to travel large distances to get to those meetings. There is a mileage of requirement
within this provision. And I want to say it's 250 plus miles. If you're traveling that kind of distance,
this gives you an option to essentially teleconference into a meeting. So keep that in mind. And if you are
on one of those bodies, speak with your agency council. They can help you or I can help as well.
Now, just the miscellaneous updates. If you're not aware, there is an existing law within the Brown Act
that contains social media restrictions. And so you don't want to like comment on or interact
with a post by your fellow council member on social media. The risk there really is that if you were to
like something, let's say one council member post something about city business. You like it. A third
council member sees that and assumes you're all in favor of that. It could lead to a collective concurrence
of the council occurring outside of a public meeting. This used to have an actual a sunset provision,
which I think basically those restrictions were to go away this year. And Senate Senate Bill 707
essentially made those permanent. So they are now in the Brown Act. Also, we must provide you a copy of
the Brown Act. And so I think our clerk has satisfied that requirement. But that has kicked in with Senate
Bill 707. As you are aware into the Brown Act, we cannot discuss local agency compensation at a
special meeting. That includes your city manager, your department heads, your city attorney. And now,
Senate Bill 707 extends that to the legislative body. So if you were to ever discuss salary,
changing the salary for council member compensation or to discuss benefits that would need to occur
at a regular meeting. And then the last one is there was a new provision as I indicated, which is
included within your policy.
As to how to deal with a removal of disruptive virtual attendees.
And with that, that staff's recommendation to receive a report from staff regarding Senate Bill 707, which you've done,
and then second to adopt a resolution adopting a disruption of telephonic or internet service during meeting
policy and accordance with Senate Bill 707. Both Tiffany and I are available to answer any questions the council may have.
Thank you.
Thank you. Any clarifying questions from the council?
I'd see none. I will open up public comment and any comment cards for this item.
I have none.
But I see someone.
You know, I graduate at Sanoma State with the first bachelor's degree in digital media.
I've been chasing ones in zero since 1991.
When you had to wait three days to load up 50 megabytes on a computer.
I could tell you this, one thing that my department chair of computer science told me before I left the school after I graduate.
He said, Dalton, God made the computer.
I said, yes. Okay. He said, Dalton, the devil made technology.
And believe me, I'm I'm pretty free wheeling guy.
The first time I brought up the Brown Act back in 1986 at the planning department they asked me to leave.
Last time I brought it up was two years ago and they called security on me.
So I think it's important that we have the Brown Act, but also I think the overuse of technology is bringing us into
an area where we're going to have a lot more problems.
You know, I mean, I could essentially say to you, I'm not Dalton today.
I'm AI.
So I think I see those problems with this.
And if there is a possible way that this meeting that the council meeting in the city government can avoid using technology to
to to our meetings, I think that's really important because I think if somebody is really interested in their government, they should show up.
They should stand here and they should talk intelligently about what it is that they want our need or they see for the future.
Thank you.
You additional public comment.
All right, I'll close public comment and bring it back to the council.
Councilmember Narveyes.
Thank you.
Okay.
A couple questions and I understand SB 707 something to comply with.
I think that technology can be used for an advantage, but there's also some things that we have to take a look at that kid.
You know, cause some issues.
First question is, I know as soon as mentioned quite a bit, there's other platforms.
Is that are we using zoom generally or is that the platform that we're going to be using or there are others that we consider.
I'll take this, Chris.
Yes, we are we are currently in the process of testing out zoom.
We've secured the webinar license based on our research in with IT's also recommendation more moving forward with that.
A little bit more secure to do the webinar function in the allow for additional.
Security measures across the board, but we will be implementing zoom for the remote participation.
Thank you.
And this SB 707.
I guess this requires to stream in anywhere else or is it just within that platform that we're choosing to have the online meeting.
Yeah, it's a great question.
The requirement is really just to connect the public via the telephonic.
It can call in or two way out of visual platform, which soon would be one of those.
I know that the city does also.
Tiffany, you know the word better than I do it in terms of.
We do have a stream through the local through our agenda management software provider grant a case, which is on our public page.
And then I am in the process of looking at the ability to stream on YouTube.
As well, there's a available connector, but there are some.
There are a lot of applications with that is released to other board and commissions, so it's likely going to happen in the future.
I'm just hoping to get secured and comfortable with the use of our zoom before expanding on on that.
And as well as actually expanding the use of closed captioning on our meeting, the meeting videos that are.
Save on our insight page or what page.
Great. Thank you.
Making comments, typing in the, you know, zoom has the ability for comments and making, you know, typing in.
We want to public.
We will not be enabling chat.
Yeah.
Okay. Thank you.
Now, I do see.
I do remember during COVID how it how the online, you know, assistance specifically zoom was it was the big one.
It did a lot for a lot of, you know, participation, you know, we have a video.
But the notion of being able to say a comment, you know, from home, you know, there's.
There's times there's other means that I like to to watch and I was able to, you know, if I'm making dinner with make it, I can listen and maybe make a comment.
I can't. So there are some advantages to reaching part of our community, but there also also opens the door for, you know, as we spoke some disruption.
So to that note, what I like to know, do they couple things.
Do they have to have the camera on do we collect data on that person.
And the reason I'm asking if there is a disruption and potentially legal issue, how do we follow up with the individual.
That's a great question.
I will say that the brand isn't clear as to whether we need to allow camera on.
I think there's a suggestion and I'm happy to kind of walk the council through that with guidance.
And so yes, I think it's an open question, but yes, and I think when you're dealing with cameras on obviously there is a more ability to show more, which could be problematic.
I think if that was to occur and something was being displayed, that's problematic.
We'd want to look at what that is first to see if it's protected by the first amendment.
It's an absurdity, you know, stuff that is not artistic is not protected by the first amendment, so if it was pornography, if some sort, we could probably shut that down easily.
If it was something that was protected by the first amendment, but we're still disrupting the meeting.
I'd want to invoke the procedures out in the policy, basically giving a fair warning stopping the timer and seeing if that person can change our behavior.
Okay, thank you. And when I do log into zoom, do they, so like, do you have to register with some meetings.
Is there a name and email that has to be, can you just click on it, I'm likely log in or what's the process for that.
We're still working on the exact process there.
I don't want to make it overly burdensome where it's complicated to log.
I want to be able to have somebody jump on jump off without getting confused on how to register.
I believe there are safeguards in place where we can, for example, not allow somebody to change their name.
During a meeting, for example, I've heard from my, my clerk colleagues were, you know, I'll be Tiffany Carranza, then I'll get off, re-raise my hand under Tiffany Reed.
And then so there's, there's a safeguard, I believe, in place for that.
We're, we've got the technology at our fingertips, we were still in the testing phases.
And in our web page and our agenda, we'll very clearly state how someone will, we'll sign up.
And I think we'll be able to use the same link meeting after meetings, so that will also be more convenient.
But there will, we'll use as many safeguards as possible.
And one, one discussion point has been video on video off.
What is the, so it's, it's, there's benefits to not having their faces on and there's, I don't know that we could make somebody.
But I guess we may have to, well, I was, we were kind of aiming to not allow video, but we don't have to.
And I'm not mean one or the other.
Yeah, no, yeah, but just a full disclosure.
Great. Well, you know, intention of this is to make these meetings a lot more accessible, but I am concerned that, you know, some people,
I mean, I take these means the series as we do, even on the light issue, right?
So my, my message to public is, you know, join us in the seriousness of this meeting and, and, you know, you know, you know, so we can continue to do good work for a community.
But, you know, good luck with implementing this and, you know, I'm sure you and your team will do a great job as always.
Thank you.
But it is a very valid concern council member.
I would say that this bill was opposed largely by local agencies, just because of the technology cost,
the zoom bombing that we a lot of agency saw during the pandemic, which was just not fun to deal with.
And create issues for local agencies.
Thank you.
This is a lot.
I mean, you guys been working on this for a long time, and I'm sure the state's paying for us to do this, right?
Yeah.
I'm grateful that we've invested in our staff and our technologies so that we can do this.
But I'm really concerned about smaller cities and how they're going to try and figure this out.
I do have some questions also kind of around the same thing about this issue of total failure versus partial failure.
I think it's easy to describe a total failure of zoom goes down.
Then, okay, it's it's, you know, it's done.
But there are situations of kind of partial failure where I'm not sure if we would still say.
Partition, participation has been meaningfully impacted to the point that we would stop the meeting.
And I think we'll probably figure a lot of this out as we go.
But can you kind of clarify when you say call in, you mean call in through the zoom feature correct, not like a separate phone line.
Okay.
Correct. The two way communication will all be through zoom.
So zoom offers the the link to participate virtually with your with your camera, you know, from yourself on your computer.
And then there is also a dial in phone number that will be published and that members can utilize to for just the audio portion.
But they could also call in if they pushed star six or something.
Okay, but it's all through zoom.
Correct.
Okay.
And then if one person says they can't connect, but there are other people who have been able to, you know, however many other people who've been able to participate.
Is that we consider that a personal technology issue or is that an agency failure?
Is that on us?
Do we have to pause the meeting because one person says they can get on?
No, it's a great question.
And I would say that's a personal technology issue and we would not send somebody their house to help them connect.
And we would not stop the meeting and that's a circumstance because if everyone else is connected, we're conducting business and our technology and the chambers is working.
Okay.
Great.
And then what what if the audio quality is just kind of not great and we can't hear the comments that well is that a situation where we would pause?
I probably would recommend to be safe just because we're not actually hearing the comments and that's a requirement is that we allow them to comment.
We're allowing them to comment, but if you're not hearing them, is that really meaningful?
So I would recommend pausing as best we can and seeing if we can fix that issue and hopefully it's just the speaker issue or some audio issue on our end.
Okay.
Thank you.
And then just some concerns that I would share.
You know, I think we're going to figure out how to fly the plane as we go.
But I'm actually concerned about stricter enforcement against people that are appearing on Zoom because it's really easy to hit the mute button and stop someone from talking.
It's not as easy to stop someone who's yelling at us from the back of the room as they walk out, which has happened.
So just treating people differently is always a concern of lawsuits.
And then of course, trolls and we've talked about this before, but you know, there was a lot of anti-Semitic, for example,
Zoom's earlier during COVID and, you know, can the mayor cut them off just because of that, probably not.
I don't think so.
But if it's outside of subject matter jurisdiction, it gets a little wishy washing.
So, and then also, you know, the good faith effort to fix the technology issue is inherently subjective.
Do we have to keep our IT department here all the time?
Do we have to have somebody here all the time ready to jump in if something happens if a meeting goes until midnight?
Do we have to keep them here?
And then also just finally the kind of political aspect of it.
If Zoom goes out and we do everything we can to fix it and hour goes by, we have a role call vote and we decide we're going to keep going with the meeting.
Anything we vote on after that point is going to become more controversial because it's going to look like we're trying to, you know, hide comments or trying to have less participation.
So that's just something I'd be concerned about.
But thank you for all your work on this unfunded state mandate.
Council member pay.
Yeah. Thank you. Yeah.
You know, I have somewhat similar comments, but I think they're really important.
And I want to sort of touch a little bit on my question about.
Zoom callers coming in when potentially, you know, if someone's from well outside the area, we can't say they're not allowed to call in.
But that certainly has happened, but the notion of a troll or a bot or the way AI is going,
there could be circumstances where we don't know if the caller is even a human being is there.
And I don't know the technology, and I'm not an expert, but that's the kind of thing that I think is potentially a problem.
So you're kind of nodding your head, yes, I don't.
Yeah.
I would say yes, clear acknowledgement that I think those issues are going to be issues.
And I think in the state legislature and acting this law, I'm hoping that in future years they do provide some greater clarity and greater tools to deal with those issues.
Because I do think they will be issues.
I think they're going to be big issues.
And I don't want to take up too much time with that.
I think we've all kind of voiced that concern.
You know, thank you to Tiffany and Chris to everybody who's put time into this unfunded state mandate.
One other question before I leave this, can we limit callers to two minutes rather than three minutes?
You can, if I, excuse me, if I recall correctly, city council policy resolution 19 does include some language where the mayor their chair has discretion to basically reduce that public comment time down.
Based on the volume of business you need to conduct and how many speakers that want to speak on particular issues.
So that's not in the resolution that we're looking at tonight.
So what we did is we looked also obviously this is dealing more so with the virtual platform.
We also looked at city council policy resolution 19 as part of this exercise to make sure you had the tools.
That resolution does include obviously what you indicated.
Beth just the option to reduce that minute time down if we need to do so for the volume of speakers and the amount of business we need to conduct.
It also includes the option for the mayor to essentially do a total amount of time for public testimony on a particular issue.
And so if it wasn't something that would.
We come back to you multiple times. Maybe you limit public comment to an hour. If there's 300 people that want to speak, there will be some people that won't get to speak. But again, if it's one of those issues that keeps coming back to you, maybe it's a study session, you could do that.
And so those options are in.
Well that's something I want to leave on the table and we can all think about whether or not I'm also a fan of just trying to get people to come here and show up so we can have a dialogue and be in person.
And these are members of our community who are talking to us about our community.
Now people from the outside. So I would be in favor of least exploring the notion of a flat reduced time for online callers.
Just to clarify, and Chris can correct me, it would be for, it has to be the same time for each.
You can't provide a different set of time or instructions for teleconferencing members.
Yes, different sort. Okay, I just want to.
Okay.
I put a blue applied. Okay. Thank you for.
Not the direction I was hoping, but I understand.
And then the last thing I'll just say is, you know, we're not in this alone.
Every single community that the way described, obviously very small, maybe not so much.
So we really need to get our comments back to our state representatives as we try to navigate our way through this.
I think we're, you know, reasonably good position to give it a shot.
But I think it's going to be a challenge across the state.
And if we can do our best to provide comments, I think we ought to do that. Thank you.
And my hope is that with all most agencies going this direction, the larger agencies that you see zoom bombing,
they're equitably distributed across the border.
It just doesn't occur because there's so many agencies have gone this direction.
But we shall see. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you so much for the presentation.
Thank you to Tiffany in your office for all your hard work on this.
I did have one additional clarification on a partial disruption.
So we talked about it if it was one, but what if we get 30 calls that are unable to get on.
But we see people are able to get on as their threshold.
We should look at it as we're.
There's nothing within the Brown Act that defines like a threshold of any sort.
And so I would say if we are connected, people can connect in there's 30 that just can't connect.
Maybe it's the internet and that location in the city or something is going awry.
But I would say that circumstance as long as we have other people connected with the technology issue is not here.
In the chambers, it's somewhere else.
And so I would not recommend taking every system that circumstance.
But we do want to look at it and just make sure.
Thank you for that.
With that, do I have a motion to adopt the resolution?
I make a motion to adopt the recommendation.
Number one, receive a report from staff regarding Senate Bill and to adopt the resolution
to adopt the resolution, adopt the disruption of Tephonic or Internet service during meetings,
policy and accordance to SB 707.
I have a second from our bias.
And I have a motion from our bias, a second from Leros, all in favor.
I, in the opposed.
That passes unanimously.
Thank you.
Moving on to public hearings for annual update to speed limits on city streets.
First, we will hear a report from city staff, which may include responses to clarifying questions from members of council.
Next, members of council will ask to disclose any information learned outside of the hearing.
Then members of the public will be provided an opportunity to present testimony regarding the hearing.
Finally, we will close the public testimony.
We will now hear a report from staff.
Vice Mayor.
Vice Mayor, members of city council.
My name is Lauren Clark, and I'm the senior transportation planner for the city of Napa's Public Works Department.
I'm joined today by Jimmy Jessup from Parametrics.
Parametrics is serving as the city's transportation engineer while we're recruiting for our next senior traffic engineer.
Today, we'll be providing a presentation on the annual update to speed limits on city streets and the municipal code section 10.2040 amendment.
The presentation will include background on the setting of speed limits.
Some recent state legislative changes.
The annual speed limit update.
The recommended action.
And then both myself and Jimmy will be available to answer questions at the end of the presentation.
I'll now pass it over to Jimmy to continue with the presentation.
Good afternoon council members.
Jimmy Jessup, transportation engineer with parametrics.
Parametrics is a firm that provides very traffic engineering services to jurisdictions and we consider speed limit establishment one of our core services.
And I would also like to note that we have been following the speed limit reductions of late in Napa.
I presented using Napa as an example for other jurisdictions to follow and others have in adopting similar 20 mile in our zone downtown and the light.
And so we've seen Napa as kind of a guiding light in this area is a pleasure to be here presenting to you for the first time.
I'd like to talk a little bit about speed limits where they come from what their purpose is.
The California vehicle code spells out a lot of the requirements for both motorists and for jurisdictions regarding speed limits.
On the left you'll see motorists are required as per the vehicle code to conduct themselves and operate vehicles at speeds that are considered reasonable and prudent.
Conversely or cooperatively speed limits themselves which are the responsibility of local jurisdictions are meant to advise those motorists of maximum and reasonable safe driving speeds.
Hopefully speed limits also provide a basis for legal adjudication on contests to citations.
So let's talk a little bit about speed limits where they come from what they mean.
There are two general types of speed limits on the left you'll see a description of prima facia speed limits prima facia is a Latin term that means at first glance or in speed limit parlance.
The speed limit parlance prima facia means a presumed speed limit so you'll see a picture of a typical residential street here in Napa.
Many times these streets might not have a posted speed limit but it is presumed that the speed limit on residential or business district streets is 25 miles an hour.
For all other roadways for instance on the right you'll see a picture of a four lane arterial roadway.
This is neither a residential or a business district street and speed limits are established by an engineering study that we have called a engineering and traffic survey.
The California vehicle code is very specific on what constitutes an engineering and traffic survey in NTS and it involves a survey of roadway conditions land use characteristics and namely traffic speed.
So part of the survey is to conduct speed surveys of at least a hundred vehicles a travel on the roadway and the eighty-fifth percentile is a value that largely dictates the resulting established speed limit.
The process of landing at that speed limit looks as such displayed on the screen.
The data collection as mentioned is a survey measured speeds typically with radar that's conducted under various specific conditions to measure the unimpeded or three-flow speed of vehicle traffic.
And from those distribution of collected vehicle speeds we calculate the eighty-fifth percentile which is the speed at which eighty-five percent of the vehicles are traveling at or below.
Now the other way to think of eighty-fifth percentile is the speed at which fifteen percent of vehicles travel above.
And as per the vehicle code that eighty-fifth percentile is a speed which is considered reasonable and prudent.
On the right you'll see that's what dictates the recommendation for an established speed limit.
This is an example, a real world example of collected speeds and you'll see the distribution of speeds on the left from as low as fifteen miles an hour to thirty-four miles an hour.
Collected from a local street so you can imagine your local residential street.
You'll have some vehicles traveling only at fifteen miles an hour.
Some that are going maybe a little over the speed limit.
And from the graph on the left you'll see the bulk of collected speeds distributed between that nineteen and twenty-four mile an hour range.
There's a few outliers.
But in actuality of these one hundred collected vehicle speeds the average speed is twenty-three miles an hour.
But here's where understanding the eighty-fifth percentile is important.
You'll see the eighty-fifth percentile line there at twenty-eight miles an hour.
Again, fifteen percent of vehicles travel above twenty-eight miles an hour.
As per the procedure established in the vehicle code we would round that eighty-fifth percentile to the nearest five mile an hour.
In this case the resulting rounded speed limit would be thirty miles an hour.
So the way that we establish speed limits on our streets as per the vehicle code tends to, especially in the way that we understand speed limits in our modern society,
tends to lead to increased establishment of speed limits higher than what we would typically expect or want.
And this is a trend that over the years has been recognized by cities, by the profession, and further informed with our understanding of crash outcomes.
This is a graph that we have seen displayed in many different ways in our profession, but it relates the potential for pedestrians to survive being hit or struck by a vehicle,
traveling at various speeds. So if a vehicle is traveling at twenty miles an hour, a pedestrian has a 90 percent chance of surviving that collision,
but statistically speaking if a vehicle is traveling as high as forty miles an hour, then a pedestrian succumbs to those injuries eighty percent of the time.
And so it's because of this large inflection point on pedestrians survivability of crash incidents that we take great care in thinking about speed limits.
That are established between twenty and forty miles an hour.
As mentioned, the eighty-fifth percentile approach, the typical traffic engineering approach has led to questioning the methodology that we have used to establish speed limits over the years in California.
And so that's why recently we now have additional ability within the local jurisdiction to adjust speed limits in a couple of different ways.
On this screen on the left, I'll talk about normal established speed limits on the right, recent legislation changes how schools on speed limits are established.
Assembly Bill 43 on the left went fully into effect just a couple of years ago, but now recognizing some of the adverse crash outcomes.
For the first time, the vehicle code requires an engineering and traffic survey to take into account more than just the motorist ability to navigate the roadway.
It requires taking into account the presence of vulnerable roadway users, those that are children, seniors, persons, disabilities in the unhoused.
And then it also allows local jurisdictions to further reduce speed limits by five miles an hour, given certain contexts.
If there is a high preponderance of crashes along the roadway or if roadways are adjacent to land uses that generate high volumes of pedestrians or bicyclists.
And so really, it's hard to understand how revolutionary this is in the state of California for the first time local jurisdictions had this additional ability to reduce the speed limits if the jurisdiction feels that that is most in line with the intended use.
So that's what we'll be talking about tonight. There's also new legislation affected this year that California AB 3482 on the right that can reduce schools on speed limits, you might see those on your drive speed limit 25 when children are present.
That speed limit will be reduced to 20 miles an hour in 2030 in the year 2031.
AB 3802 also permits local jurisdictions to accelerate adoption of reduced speed limit school zones. That's not the basis of tonight's presentation, but it is something that the city is looking to undertake.
And also a note about speed limits because I'm sure it seems that you may have heard about the update of the speed limits before we already have speed limits on our street. Why do we continue talking about it.
The vehicle code does require a regular update of an engineering and traffic survey in order to retain enforcement of speed limits that update cycle is every seven years.
The procedure for this update within the city limits is specified within the municipal code as Lorian mentioned in chapter 10 not 20 and because there are so many roadways within the city limits the way that the city updates of speed limits is on a rolling basis.
This cycle, Napa is looking to updates speed limits on 52 of its roadway segments there's many more, but the way we do this is on a cadence of a few a batch of roadways every year.
So the big reveal this year's 52 roadway segments after conducting an engineering and traffic survey and evaluating the results in the context of new provisions within the vehicle code under Assembly Bill 43.
We've determined that a recommended speed limit to be enacted on 33 other roadways would be equivalent to a reduction of five mile an hour from the current speed limits for 19 roadways we recommend.
And retaining the same speed limit that currently exists. And then on none of the evaluative 52 roadways do we recommend increasing the speed limit.
Similarly, that looks like this on a map of the city. The way that we've depicted this is from cool to warm, slower to faster speed limits.
And again, we take great care and looking at established speed limits between this range of 20 to 40 miles an hour, recognizing its potential effect positively in terms of resulting safety outcomes.
Of the orange existing 40 mile an hour speed limits, you'll see transitioned to a recommended 35 mile an hour.
And again, this is a map that shows the 33 segments that we recommend for a reduction in speed limit.
So that concludes the outcome of our engineering and traffic survey. I'll pass it back to Lorraine.
So for tonight, staff recommends that City Council take the following action.
One, approve the first reading and introduction of an ordinance, a Mending Navim municipal code section 10.20.040,
related to the establishment and enforcement of speed limits. And two, adopt a resolution determining that a declared speed limit is justified based on an engineering and traffic survey for identified street city streets and roadway segments and determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from sequela.
And that concludes our presentation. Both myself and Jimi are available to answer any questions that the council may have.
Thank you so much for the presentation. Any clarifying questions from the council?
Seeing none, I will move on to disclosures. If a council member has received information prior to this hearing, that is important to the decision making process for the hearing.
And if the information is not included in the written materials for this item, please disclose the information at the time. So participants in this hearing have an opportunity to consider that information.
No disclosures.
We'll now open public testimony.
Submit speaker cards to this city clerk.
Time is limited to three minutes. The speaker will sound at 30 seconds to allow speakers to summarize comments.
Any speaker cards?
I have none.
Sorry, we do have one or two.
Hi, everybody.
I live at 4.38.
And I take a bigger interest in lowering speed limits than most people do.
Since the slow down nap, I campaign began in 2020.
We've seen significant reductions in the city.
But there's a disconnect between city procedures and the lived experiences of residents.
So I understand about the street segments being evaluated every seven years.
And that makes sense for staff because it's through the lens of project schedules and being able to present a completed task to council.
But it can be confusing to residents.
We lowered 12 segments in 2021 and then another 28 in 2023.
And now we're doing 33 more.
But the segments don't always connect.
We had had discussions early on about creating a holistic approach to curbing speeding in the city.
And visual aids greatly assist residents in understanding the impact of the changes.
If we can build a narrative around how these 60 reductions contribute to enhancing safety,
we can better illustrate their significance.
A comprehensive map could provide multiple benefits.
So this is an excellent start and I thank you very much.
I think it's helpful for residents to be able to navigate their daily routes.
School drop-offs and neighborhood walks.
A map could also include locations of the enhanced crosswalks and pedestrian beacons.
I think there are 60 of these pedestrian beacons around the city.
And the city can take I mean is the great thing to be able to take credit for its excellent work.
Also outlining the downtown Napa 20 mile an hour zone and those approach streets that are 25 miles an hour is a great thing to be able to point out why we are doing this.
The connecting segments as well now that we have third street from the roundabout California to third.
It was a connection that was missing a year ago and even Coold Street where I live now it's 25 from Amola so the entire complete street is now the same.
A map could also highlight segments that have benefited from Measure G funding.
Capital improvement at paving projects that may include traffic measures could be highlighted.
And a map could show an overlap between neighborhood traffic calming applications and lowered speed limits.
I think we've received 25 of the application somewhere already in process.
But it would be great for neighbors to feel heard and validated that the city is lowering speed limits that align with their application.
A map is also a great way to visualize what's missing.
And a glaring example is oxbow.
We need an explanation for why oxbow isn't a 20 mile an hour zone.
The way downtown is.
I'm going to continue on if that's okay may I.
The chemistry is being lowered to 25 miles an hour from 30 and that's always been a puzzle for me.
How can a speed limit be 25 miles an hour in front of model bakery.
I've mentioned opportunities for speed reduction in schools on several times.
Thank you very much for those comments.
A cohesive strategy could significantly improve public understanding of how the city is working to enhance safety and reduced speeding.
So thanks for considering these points.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Vice Mayor Dana Talley and Council members.
I'm care of her with an app economy bicycle coalition.
And I want to first thank public work for the public works for these proposed speed limit reductions.
And ask that you approve them lower speed limits are needed because on two speeds are the leading factor in injury collisions throughout.
In the morning, according to NVTA's vision zero report.
However, lowering speed limits is just one piece of the vision zero puzzle.
It needs to be paired with traffic calming enforcement education and other strategies.
The University of Berkeley safe trek center found that lowering a speed limit by five miles an hour.
Actually lower speeds by only one to two miles an hour.
The great news though is that the change had a stronger effect on the fast distributors who stand to do the most.
So as a result, the impact of a five mile an hour speed limit reduction is that injuries dropped by eight to 15% and fatalities dropped by 10 to 30% for all road users.
For bicyclists specifically, a drop from 35 miles an hour to 30 miles an hour, which is being proposed in many of these segments.
It needs by 17 to 32% and fatalities by 21 to 45%.
When speeds are actually fully reduced, not just speed limits, but speeds are fully reduced by five miles an hour.
Pedestrian C incredible gains.
Serious injuries dropped 56 to 88% and fatalities dropped 80% to 96%.
So lowering speed limits along with implementing other strategies to fully reduce speeds to by five miles an hour.
Sansa make a huge difference in our road safety and with nap is traffic calming program advances and enforcement and other efforts is absolutely on the right track.
One segment we are hoping will be re-evaluated sooner rather than later is the triangle off freeway drive that includes the block of Laurel Avon and Kilburn.
These blocks are dense with apartments and businesses.
They see a lot of pedestrian activity and a high number of active transportation users.
We would guess like downtown that a 20 mile speed limit would be most appropriate here.
And so we request that the city reconsider this triangle once the road changes are done.
No one's speeding their now because they would destroy their car if they spit on the street right now.
It's the water main project.
We were also a little curious about first street in the Oxford district.
Keeping that at 25 was surprising as tests as well.
Finally I just want to say that in the future those who are in collisions on these street segments and survive will not likely know what to think the city.
Preventing prevention in the first place can go and notice.
Please know that we see the city's leadership on behalf of our 2000 members and supporters.
And we thank you for greatly increasing the likelihood that we will all return home to our loved ones in harm.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Any additional public comment?
All right.
Seeing none.
Is there a motion to close public testimony?
So moved.
Second motion.
Second.
I'm early in the presentation.
I just want to clear something up that I thought was really interesting and the speed limit to background.
When it says reasonable and prudent and I just have to ask, is there any ever reason that is reasonable and prudent to go above this speed limit as posted?
Thanks for the question.
It's a good one.
The basis for the California vehicle code stems from code that was accepted in the 1930s when traffic engineering was a burgeoning new profession and cars themselves are relatively new.
The thought at the time was that individuals by and large are reasonable and prudent and so the expectation was that the speed at which traffic flows will be safe and reasonable speed.
And because it has not necessarily played out to be the case over time, that has spurred some of the rethinking of how we established speed limits.
Okay.
Thank you.
And then the speed limit says advises drivers and maximum reasonable and safe driving speed.
Is it an advice or is it the law to follow that speed limit?
I just want to be clear on that because the warning here is a little different way expected.
As per the vehicle code, it's not lawful to travel faster than the post speed limit.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
Just want to make sure clear by that.
There was a question about the oxbow speed limit at 25 versus 20 to match the rest of downtown.
Can we can submit address that please?
Yes.
In the last update where we did look at lowering the central business district to 20, we were looking at the core downtown area and did not extend it.
The C-O-B-O-B-O-B-on.
So at this E-N-T-F-D-A-R-We did a full E-N-T-Ware looking to lower it five typically.
You want to lower and five mile increments to not cause that additional jar, but in the future looking at potential if there is.
If there is an allowable area beyond the core downtown to lower to 20 that could be something we would maybe look at on the future.
I would say please look at that.
I mean, I've gone there in the weekends.
There's an incredible amount of food traffic.
A food traffic going crossing that street between copia and the markets and the garden out there.
So because of the parking so complicated, people tend to park across the street and cross a lot and there's just so much traffic there.
I appreciate the report and I support the reduction of the speed limits.
It's quite a bit of a road, so I do agree that communication is key.
But at the same time, what I've learned is throughout my years in council is very difficult to ask people to slow down.
And it's actually very uncomfortable for people to slow down when they're used to driving us from a speed limit.
I have to remind myself to slow down, right?
And it's just something you actually have to do.
And what I've seen is when I've traveled and driven in other communities beyond the speed limit,
there's other things, there's objects, there's physical changes on a roadway that really forces you to slow down.
For example, some communities have when you're going downhill, though have a speed bump at the stop sign.
At the end of the stop sign.
So if you accelerate, it's really difficult to accelerate very quickly because there's a speed limit.
There's also other things that you can do to reduce traffic.
So just to staff and public work that would say in addition to reducing the speed limit,
I would really like to see some physical changes on the roadway to really look at areas where we can add.
I'm not sure what the terminology is for the different kinds of objects, but there's another number of them.
But there are areas where I think we can reasonably put them on there.
I know floor traffic is very important for people to get to work for school drop off,
but there are areas where I think we really need to help people slow down.
Specifically, an intersection when people go beyond the stop sign and you're looking at trying to increase the vision.
Try and go, but they're getting really close to that cross traffic.
And I'll be talking about speeds, but speed and safety, it's all together.
So as you look at this, let's also look at other areas where we can some physical objects to slow down traffic.
Thank you.
Councilmember Paine.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you for the presentation.
I was actually really happy to see your summary of the state legislative changes.
Those are really important tools because in past meetings we've talked about.
I'm just really happy that we have those tools and you're beginning to use them as we look at all this, also really impressed that you're using NAPA as a model. You know, we often hear as council members, why don't we do things like other communities, but you're out there saying why don't you do things like NAPA?
You know, we're working at it. It's not something that changes overnight, but it just is really heartwarming to hear that we are a model out there.
I want to piggyback first on the comment from our speaker, more in-trip about the idea of the map and the visuals.
That, to me, really fits in with our focus area of communication, so not that we do it today, but as you build these maps, whatever we can do to deliver that message of not just bead limits, but all the other things that she described, including, you know, what's been repaved, where new bike lanes, where we improve sidewalks.
The flashing beacons are really, really popular, and maybe we kind of call it our vision zero progress map or something to that effect.
We could also put other speed reducing, you know, engineering ideas on that map, but it gives us that way to sort of build on hey look what we've done over all these years, and it's very visual, so I like that. I really like that suggestion.
I also would agree with Councilmember Narayas, looking at the oxbow again, I think particularly in light of what we can do under AB 43, and say this is an important commercial district business district with a lot of people, you know, it's something that I would not take off the list in terms of trying to slow traffic down.
It is difficult. Listen, I live, as many of you know, out in Brown's Valley, so I've seen how drivers have responded to not just the change in speed limit, but also the change, the physical change in what's happened to the road, which really is intended to slow people down.
It was really difficult at first, and if you drove the speed limit when it was reduced to 30 miles an hour, it was very common to have somebody right on your tail because, you know, you must be that old lady driving 30 miles an hour, which I probably am.
But it's changed, and it's normalized, it's becoming more normalized, so I would say even though it's difficult, it's something that becomes the norm in a community, so I'm very much in favor of what you've done tonight.
I want to support that. I want you to know that you know, you have that support and keep up the good work. It's science based, but it's also community based. So those are my comments. Thank you.
Thank you so much for the report. I will agree with my colleagues that digging in deeper to Oxford. I think it's very important.
Also that outreach changes very hard, so the more we can put it out there and the more we can tell people. I think that's important and also continuing to focus on other traffic calming measures that add to it.
Lastly, I would like to encourage this body to look at lowering the school speed limits earlier than 2031. I think that would make a big difference in our neighborhood.
Back to Councilmember Narveyes for what we're talking about. I forgot to ask about big ranch road, because I know part of that. I just don't know that the length of how much it's part of seeing that but I know that was pretty we get love speeding complaints there and I believe it's one of the higher speed limits in the city. Have you looked at that yet.
I want to clarify a question. Did you want to know which section was the cities or when it was.
Well, I believe part of it's the city. So correct. Okay. And then I do.
In that might be a partnership with the county, but if we looked at that road on where we on it and if we've looked at lowering the speed limit there.
I'll have to double check when it's coming up on the list, but it's happy to get back to you on that.
Thank you very much and thank you for the work.
All right. Well, thank you with that. I will look for a motion.
I'll go ahead and move the staff recommendations. That includes two items approving the first reading and introduction of the ordinance.
I'm sending the municipal code 102040 related to the establishment and enforcement of speed limits and secondly adopting a resolution determining that it declared speed limit is justified based on an engineering and traffic survey for the identified city streets and roadway segments.
And determining that the actions authorized by this resolution are exempt from sequela second.
The resolution from painter second from Leros all in favor. Hi. Any opposed passes unanimously. Thank you.
All right. Moving forward to update of citywide user fees.
First we'll hear report from city staff, which may include responses to clarifying questions from member of council next members of council will be asked to disclose any information learned outside of the hearing.
Then members of the public will be provided an opportunity to do percent testimony regarding the hearing. Finally, we will close the public testimony. We will now hear a report from staff.
All right. Good afternoon, vice mayor. Council members. My name is Frank Arreda. I'm the county supervisor on the revenue division. And I'm joined by Don Lee or finance director.
Okay. So.
I'm actually going to be discussing the update of the citywide user fees. So as you may recall, council adopted and amended master fee schedule in February.
With an effective date tied to the required 60 day noticing period under state law or the implementation of the city's new permitting system, whichever occurred later.
Since the 60 day period has now passed staff is recommending removing the connection to the permitting system.
Implementation and establishing July 1st, 2026 as the effective date for the previously adopted fees.
Any additional fee revisions considered tonight would become effective August 1st, 2026 consistent with the minimum 60 day noticing requirement under state law.
Before moving further into the presentation, I also want to clarify that tonight's discussion is focused solely on user fees.
User fees support on going services provide directly at customers while development impact fees are intended to ensure that new growth contributes towards the cost of infrastructure needed to accommodate future demand.
Development impact fees are reviewed and adopted through a separate legal and policy process.
So at the February meeting, council also directed staff to conduct a more comprehensive review of several fee categories to ensure they align with the council's focus areas and broader policy priorities.
Staff evaluated the purpose structure and cost recovery basis of the identified fees and assess whether adjustments were warranted to better support the city's strategic objectives.
Overall, the review confirmed that many of the evaluated fees are appropriately structured consistent with current policy direction and do not create barriers to advancing the council's identified priorities.
Staff found that fees are generally comparable to those charged by similar agencies and reflect reasonable cost recovery practices for the services provided.
As a reminder, the city may only recover the actual cost of providing a service and cannot overcharge one fee to subsidize another.
In many cases, user fees do not fully recover costs and the city already subsidizes certain services.
Based on the review, staff is recommending targeted adjustments to a limited number of fees to improve clarity, better align with neighboring agencies and further support the city's policy objectives.
With that overview in mind, the next few slides highlight the specific fee adjustments staff is recommending and the rationale behind those recommendations.
So first one here, back in February, council adopted a new EV charging fee of 35 cents per kilowatt hour.
That rate was intended to achieve near full cost recovery by covering electricity, maintenance, and vendor-related costs with only a minimal city subsidy of approximately one cent per kilowatt hour.
The following additional review, staff is not recommending reducing the rate to 25 cents per kilowatt hour.
This proposed rate aligns with the rate currently charged by the NAPAVALY transportation authority.
At its 46 public charging ports, helping provide greater consistency for residents using public charging infrastructure throughout the area.
Now, at the 25% rate, the city would no longer fully recover all service-related costs.
While the fee would continue to largely offset electricity costs, the city would absorb maintenance and vendor expenses.
Staff believes this is an appropriate policy choice that supports the council's broader sustainability and community access priorities.
The next item relates to appeal fees for the planning commission and cultural heritage commission.
As part of the February fee schedule adoption, those appeal fees were established at full cost recovery in the amount of $4,558.
After further review, staff is recommending reducing the fee to $911, which would align it with the existing council appeal fee already included in the fee schedule.
While this represents a significant reduction from the previously adopted amount, it creates consistency in the cost of filing an appeal regardless of the hearing body involved.
Under the proposed approach, the fee would then continue to increase annually in the same manner as other appeal-related fees within the schedule.
For card room dealer permits, the recommended change is administrative in nature.
We are proposing to move the renewals cycle from every six months to an annual renewal.
This adjustment aligns the city with how neighboring jurisdictions administer similar, administer similar permits and reduce administrative workload for both staff and permit holders without changing the overall regulatory intent.
For dealer response costs recovery, staff is recommending adding clarifying language to the fee schedule to reflect the recoverable costs for these incidents may not exceed $12,000 per occurrence.
This consistent with government code section 53555.
This cap has always governed the program. The update simply insurance the limitations clearly stated in the fee schedule for transparency and consistency.
So tonight, we ask the adoptor resolution.
Mending resolution are at 2026-014, which is adopting the city's master fee schedule to revise select fees and charges and to clarify updated effective dates for implementation.
And with that, we conclude the presentation and we've opened for questions.
Thank you for the presentation. Any clarifying questions from the council?
Right. Seeing none, we will go to disclosures.
If a council member has received an information prior to the Syrian that is important to the decision making process for this hearing.
And if the information is not included in the written materials for this item, please disclose the information at this time.
So participants in the Syrian have an opportunity to consider that information.
No disclosures.
That I will open public testimony any speaker cards for this item.
I have done anybody in the audience would like to speak.
All right.
Seeing none, I will look for a motion to close public testimony.
So moved.
Motion from Leros, second from Narveyes.
All in favor?
Aye.
Any post?
All right.
We'll bring it back to council for deliberation.
We'll start with council member Leros.
Thank you for the presentation and the updates.
Appreciate you guys bringing it back to us.
I appreciate that we were able to come down on the EV charging fee.
Although now it seems silly with the price of gas.
It's just so not comparable.
Hopefully that will help move people over to electric cars.
And just wanted to add.
I also appreciate that we were able to move the appeal fees down quite a bit.
Thank you.
Council member.
Patre.
Yeah.
I am also really happy to see the EV charging fees.
I want to just dig in a little bit as to, you know, our thought process.
And moving to full recourse recovery back in February on the appeal fees.
And now dropping back.
I don't think we have what I would call, you know, sort of an abuse of the appeal process.
But it has happened in other locations.
And so.
I just want to maybe maybe you can explain, you know, what I thought process wasn't February and moving to a full recovery cost.
And now backing and now moving back.
Sorry.
Donna Lee finance director.
Back in February, I actually think it was probably it was likely an oversight that it was put on there at full cost recovery.
I don't think the intent was ever to achieve full cost recovery.
And then when it was noticed, we moved it back to be in alignment with the other appeal for to the commission.
And so that they're aligned.
Okay.
Yeah.
I'm okay with it at this time, but I'm just sensitive to it because I have seen in some other places where the appeal process can get.
Some of it overused in ways that, you know, we may want to rethink this at some point, but we always have that option.
All right.
Well, thank you so much for doing a deep dive.
I appreciate what you came back to with it.
I think it really addressed our questions last time. So thank you for that. And with that, I will look for a motion.
I move staff, I'm a recommended action on this item.
On motion from Leros, second from Narvaya, it's all in favor.
Any opposed? Passage unanimously. Thank you.
Moving on, we now are at comments by council or city manager. I'll start with the city manager.
Any comments from council?
All right. Seeing none, we will then move to a close session. We are now at agenda item 10, close session.
I asked the city attorney to provide the required announcements for closed session.
Thank you, Vice Mayor De Natali. So council will convene a close session and consider one item.
Conference with Labor Negotiators, pursuant to government code section 5495726, with city designated representatives in the room.
Steve Potter, Liz Hapkirk, MJ Turos, Donna Lee, Zach Kern and Jesse Ladd.
And finally, the Employee Organizations for Discussion or the NAPACITY Employees Association and the NAPACITY Firefighters Association.
Thank you.
Thank you. We will now recess to close session.
We'll return for evening public session at 630 p.m.
Thank you.
For items 158 and 15, I'm sorry, for items 14A and 15A PowerPoint presentations from staff.
Thank you.
I'll now move to public comment on non agenda items.
During the public comment portion of the meeting, the public is invited to address the council on any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the council.
Please focus your comments on either past actions taken by the council or proposed future actions to be taken by the council.
However, the subject of the public comment is not on the agenda state law strictly limits the council's ability to respond at this meeting.
Have we received any speaker cards?
I have Vice Mayor Azander and Aldo Solano.
I'm here pushing for a sanctuary city ordinance as we've come before.
With each week the passes, we reminded that immigration enforcement entities continue to terrorize NAPA and surrounding communities.
The people we spoke to are most recent bodywalk.
Don't want to hear that it's only criminals are being detained.
They just hear of their neighbors being literally chased through the garden apartments and West Napa.
Or I see using city parking garages to stage their terror.
They're hearing a surveillance cameras flock that stores everyone's data.
And with no civilian oversight or audit, there's no trust the way of knowing where that data is going.
The state state security city ordinance is symbolic.
Well, symbolism is strong and sends a message.
But clearly there are real material actions we can take here.
No use of city property by immigration enforcement.
Council of the flood contracts.
With that very leechly civilian oversight of the flood contract, the systems that they restored.
And local operation at all.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Hello council members.
City clerk.
Thank you for hearing us today.
My name is Zander.
I'm a resident of district three.
A member of North Bay Community Service Organizing.
CSO and a legal observer with the North Bay Rapid Response Network.
I want to ask you to pass real sanctuary city ordinance, banning the use of city property for immigration
enforcement, prohibiting the cooperation between local law enforcement and ice and ending the handovers at the jail
for people who have only been charged but not convicted of a crime.
Now I want to talk about flock.
The other day I was running an errand in the neighborhood.
I'm very familiar with and noticed a new flock camera had been installed.
I was surprised.
And so I tried to access the Napa flock transparency portal to see if the city revealed how many new cameras were in place.
Or if this was just the old camera that had been moved.
Only to find though that they had the transparency portal had been completely taken down without a trace.
It was active just a few weeks ago and now it's gone.
I find it concerning that at a time when a civilian grand jury says that Napa needs to be more communicative and more transparent.
This simple feature has been removed, hiding from the public how many cameras we are paying for.
So I'd like to ask that the transparency portal be re-reactivated at the bare minimum.
I also want to ask to cancel the contract with flock.
This kind of drag net surveillance does more harm than good.
Recording everyone that crosses the path of their cameras not just people who break the law like running a red light.
Multiple cities in the Bay Area have canceled their flock contracts after third party audits revealed that they had illegally been sharing their data with ice.
That's why I want Napa to allow a third party public audits so we can see who is being recorded and who we are sharing our data with.
When the transparency portal was up, it showed that we were sharing data with cities that shared their data with ice.
And I am very concerned that our cameras are part of that security breach.
For any of you or anyone in the audience who wants to know more about how these cameras work, where they are and how weak their security is, how easy they are to be accessed by bad actors.
Please visit deflock.org.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Any additional speaker cards?
Any additional speakers in the audience?
All right. Thank you.
I will close public comment and move to administrative reports 14A.
We will now hear a report from staff.
Good evening mayor and council.
I'm Donna Lee, the finance director and tonight I'll be providing a brief overview of the city's retiree benefit obligations.
With a focus on CalPERS and OPEB and funded liabilities.
As you may recall, council previously directed staff to evaluate options to accelerate funding of these liabilities to reduce long-term costs.
And tonight we're here to walk you through those options.
So I'll start with a quick refresher on a few key terms.
CalPERS is the city's defined benefit retirement plan and other post employment benefits are OPEB.
Refers to our retiree health plan.
Tonight we'll be discussing the unfended actuarial liabilities or UAL for both of these plans.
The UAL represents the gap between the value of benefits already earned by employees and retirees and the assets currently set aside to pay for those benefits.
In addition to the UAL, our annual contributions also include the normal cost, which is the cost of benefits employees earn each year while they're actively working.
However, tonight's discussion is focused specifically on the unfended liability.
Historically, both CalPERS and OPEB have not been fully funded, which is why these unfended liabilities exist.
However, due to council's continued focus on fiscal sustainability, the city's OPEB is now fully funded.
So looking ahead, contributions will be limited to the minimum needed to maintain that fully funded status also known as the actuariali-determined contribution or ADC.
As a result, we can reduce our annual general fund contributions by approximately $650,000 beginning next fiscal year.
And those savings are already incorporated into this mid-cycle budget update to help balance next year's budget, as you'll hear more from Seth in a little bit.
As we develop the next biennial budget, staff recommends gradually redirecting those savings to our section 115 trust to support long-term pension cost stability, and I'll have more on that in just a moment.
So while the city has made strong progress on OPEB, pension obligations through CalPERS remain a significant long-term financial challenge.
The city is currently just under 70% funded for both the miscellaneous and safety plans, which is somewhat below the broader CalPERS average.
The city's combined UAL is approximately $215 million with this year's required UAL payment totaling nearly $20 million.
As I previously mentioned, the city does have a section 115 trust.
These funds are set aside to help manage future pension cost increases and reduce volatility and CalPERS contribution rates.
The trust currently totals approximately $13.5 million, including the mid-year contribution of $3.5 million.
This trust serves as an important tool to help the city manage long-term pension obligations and maintain greater budget stability.
At Council's direction, staff evaluated a range of potential approaches to accelerate funding the city's pension liabilities, and these are the primary options available.
The city has the option to make additional contributions either to the section 115 trust as we did at mid-year or directly two CalPERS.
These contributions can be built into the annual budget as ongoing funding or made on a one-time basis using your and budget residual or other unanticipated savings.
Currently, the projected payoff of the UAL is 2042, paying the UAL down sooner reduces long-term interest costs in ongoing budget pressure.
To illustrate this, we modeled three contributions scenarios, an additional $2 million per year contribution for 12 years, which shortened the payoff by two years,
and generate approximately $27 million in savings, and additional $6 million a year for 10 years would shorten the payoff by five years, and generate approximately $42 million in savings,
and an additional $10 million per year for eight years would shorten the payoff by eight years and generate approximately $55 million in savings.
As these scenarios show meaningfully accelerating the payoff of the city's $215 million UAL would require substantial additional annual contributions.
While those accelerated contributions would generate long-term savings, they would also require the city to dedicate significant ongoing resources that could otherwise support operations,
capital needs service levels, or provide flexibility during periods of economic uncertainty.
Although fully accelerating the payoff may not be financially feasible in the near term, continuing to build a section 115 trust allows the city to proactively set aside funds,
improve long-term cost management and help offset future rate volatility. This approach provides a more measured and sustainable path forward.
Based on this, staff recommends continuing to build the section 115 trust using one-time funds when available, such as budget residual or savings like the OPEB reductions that I discussed earlier, to help manage future pension cost increases.
As opportunities arise, staff would return to Council with recommendations for additional contributions consistent with the approach taken in prior years.
That concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you for the presentation. I will open up public comment.
City Clerk, do we have any speaker cards on your side?
We do not.
Do we have anybody in the audience who would like to speak?
Seeing none, I will close it and bring it back to Council.
For discussion, we have no action on this, but discussion questions.
Council Member Leros.
Thank you for the presentation. I think what we're doing now is fine.
That is adding contributions when we can, using the one-time funding sources.
I think that the total liability amount is...
Maybe not the biggest issue. I think the real danger is what if we have a recession? What if payroll grows significantly? What if the cost of public safety goes up?
There are all these other factors that play into it. I think at some point you're right, we're going to need a more solid plan. Be it a budgeted amount or, you know, some percentage of the surplus if we have one. I think some other cities do that. The 115 trust has been a good decision. We just haven't been able to grow it as much as we need to.
I appreciate it seeing kind of the breakdown of what it could look like. I don't think it's $10 million a year because we need to do other things.
But it's helpful to see, you know, even making a little payment how much more that can help.
So thank you for the presentation.
All right. No comments. So thank you very much for the presentation. I really appreciate you bringing this back to us.
Now, we'll move on to 15A public hearings. First, we will hear a report from city staff, which may include responses to clarifying questions from members of council.
Next, members of council will ask to disclose any information learned outside of the hearing.
Then members of the public will be provided an opportunity to present testimony regarding the hearing. Finally, we will close the public testimony.
We will now hear a report from staff.
Okay. Good evening. Vice Mayor Dina Tele and council members. I'm Seth Anderson, the city's budget officer.
I'm pleased to present to you today the city of Napa's FY2627 mid cycle budget adopted on June 17th, 2025.
Though under a year ago, the biennial budget established our foundation, the purpose of the mid cycle budget is to provide an update to council regarding revenue and expenditure trends and to propose appropriate revisions to the fiscal year 2627 budget prior to the start of the second year of our two year cycle.
We look forward to the feedback you'll provide today in the direction as we prepare to adopt on June 2nd, 2026.
The agenda for today covers proposed adjustments for fiscal year 2627.
We will begin with the general fund which does include measure G and then we'll look at the non-recurring general fund, other funds, CIP changes proposed staffing plan adjustments and end with our recommended action.
All of today's topics are within the proposed mid cycle budget report that's attached to the council item today.
That's where you'll find all the proposed adjustments in greater detail.
First we'll look at the general fund with measure G transaction and use tax included as a reminder of the general fund accounts for the general revenue we receive that is not related to special purpose funds.
It also accounts for general service expenditures for the city, including city administration, public safety and operating departments.
The general fund is equivalent to 41% of all city expenditures.
So first we begin with the current fiscal year and projecting that out, the fiscal year 2526 adjusted budget shows general fund revenues at 165.91 million and expenditures at 182.77 million.
11.86 million of the previous years on assigned available fund balance will be brought in to balance the budget and additional 5 million in measure G fund balance was also brought forward to cover its commitments to measure G capital project contributions.
And then due to the adjustments from the mid year so adjusting the current year revenues are projected to come in right on target expenditure projections provided by departments project a $400,000 budget residual and that does include all reserve contributions required by fiscal policy.
So zeroing in on measure G specifically within the general fund revenues are projected to come in at 22.57 million with expenditures at 27.25 million which again includes caring forward that $5 million for the commitments to capital projects.
Now we look ahead the fiscal year 2627 budget as originally adopted estimated general fund revenues of 168.43 million and expenditures of 168.21 million for resulting in a balanced general fund budget this also included funding our reserves per fiscal policy.
Within the adopted budget the general fund budget for 2627 is 23.05 million and measure G revenue with 23.13 million and planned expenditures.
Next we will review the proposed adjustments to the fiscal year 2627 adopted general fund budget including measure G these revisions reflect updated revenue trends in evolving operating needs that have emerged since budget adoption.
General fund and measure G revenue adjustments are recommended based on the current year's projections economic indicators in historical growth rates and in collaboration with city staff and professionals overall proposed adjustments would increase city revenue by $1.1 million.
We'll start with property tax which is relatively in line with our adopted budget just some updated projections from our consultants yields a $330,000 increase.
For a normal 1% Bradley burn sales tax revised projections provided to us from our consultants are projecting a lower growth rate in 2627 then originally provided prior to budget adoption this results in a $1.01 million recommended reduction.
The current fiscal year was adjusted down by $640,000 during mid years so this adjustment reflects two years of lower growth.
Measure G sales tax or transaction and use tax however is projected to receive $1.44 million more than originally projected.
This adjustment also reflects how measure G is bringing in more revenue than our normal 1% sales tax which was initially predicted to be equivalent to about 95% of our base sales tax.
Transy at occupancy tax or TOT for 27 it was originally projected to have minimal growth in the adopted buying old budget.
The projections at that time were based on gross receipts received through April of 2025 which indicated that FY25 would remain flat to the previous fiscal year FY24 however a strong fourth quarter in fiscal year 25 yielded actual $1.5 million higher than the projected budget.
Our current year's projection was adjusted at mid year by $1.8 million which equated to 2% growth over fiscal year 25 actual receipts.
Our current analysis of fiscal year 26 so the current fiscal year is still very much in line with those projections.
This puts FY27's adopted projection behind fiscal year 25 and 26 actuals.
So though this number appears large $1.15 million it really equates to 1% growth over the current fiscal year's projection or $315,000.
We have a significant reduction of $1.16 million to business license tax.
This mostly accounts for reversing two years of projected growth when we adopted the budget on discovery and collection revenue so one time revenue that was included in our base amount that should have been seen as one time revenues.
We have been working with our consultants ACL on better identifying this discovery and collection revenue so that we can protect better going forward on ongoing revenues only.
License and permits and charges for services are both tracking ahead of current year projections and these increases here have recommended to bring our budget in line with the trends.
Another decreases recommended for investment earnings so at the time of budget development investment earnings were higher than ever before fiscal year 25 yielded nearly $4 million in actual earnings in the general fund.
fiscal year 27 is adopted at 3.2 million so still we're pretty conservative when we adopted the budget.
The city investments do remain strong however we recently utilized some of our cash reserves for the acquisition of harvest recreational site which reduces the investable cash base used to generate returns so that's really where the lower than budget of returns are stemming from.
Moving to transfers in so this is a revenue source transfers in from other funds.
So given the new measure g revenue projections creating capacity for additional core service support staff is proposing directing additional measure g dollars towards supporting and enhancing our 911 and dispatch services.
These services are essential for providing pre arrival medical instruction maintaining emergency response times and coordinating police and fire responses.
Measure g support ensures that these critical services have stable funding.
While maximizing community benefits.
Another transfer in from measure g into the general fund is proposed it's $560,000.
This indicates the amount of measure g program expenditures that are over the projected revenue for next year so this really is a budgeting mechanism.
Measure g revenue in fiscal year 2425 so that first quarter of receiving measure g.
Broad in 600,000 dollars over our projected revenue so this FY 2627 budget would utilize this additional revenue.
Earlier this year the city completed an update to the city's cost allocation plan.
Cost allocation plans are the mechanism for distributing the cost of our centralized support services such as finance, HR, IT and legal.
Fundments who benefit from the services.
So this updated model the cost recovery process showed us that a larger amount of the general fund departments were utilizing the city services.
So since we do not charge general fund to general fund departments for the cost allocation this resulted in a 2.73 million dollar rejection and transfers in from other funds.
Okay so now we'll move to the expenditure side.
Oops excuse me.
Post expenditure adjustments to the general fund and measure g would increase the budget by 1.07 million dollars.
First our salary and benefits budget was recalculated to better reflect our current census and include post adoption council approved reclassifications and cost increase assumptions.
This resulted in a 1.24 million dollar increase.
This cost was then offset by a $650,000 reduction in the general fund for other post employment benefits.
And that's the result of the city's obligation being fully funded.
We have a $1 million rejection to general government, which is just a correction to a budget administration air at the time of adoption.
We have a $212,000 increase for the city share of the animal shelter obligation.
This is the amount over what we adopted in the budget.
There are two budget package requests for the general fund totaling $266,000 dollars, which I'll show you those on the next slide.
Next we have a reduction in general liability insurance costs so after a thorough analysis of our lost history.
The city identified cost savings by switching to a higher single incident report threshold with a lower premium amount.
Our general liability cost recovery calculation was then able to be recalculated resulting in a 1.13 million dollar savings to the general fund.
Then we have the 2.11 million dollar transfer out of measure G into the general fund that corresponds to measure G support of the 911 and dispatch services.
And then finally given the recommended expenditure adjustments and due to the contributions budgeted in the current fiscal year after mid year.
Our required general fund reserve contribution for FY2627 will decrease by $700,000.
Given this staff proposes utilizing this budget savings to increase the budgeted contribution to our capital improvement funds general reserve.
Increasing it from 0.5% to 1% the policy has a range of 0.5% to 3% and this will allow us to make sure that the five year CIP budget as adopted can be fully executed.
The budget packages are submitted by departments for review by the.
The city management department for any new programs or activities and things that go beyond minor operating adjustments.
In the general fund, we have two proposed budget packages, the first is for the city clerk's office. So just as they spoke about earlier today, this is SB 707 compliance, public meeting compliance, zoom and captioning services.
It's an ongoing $10,000 request. In the human resources department training and organizational development staffing and ongoing costs of $256,000.
This request has a revision to the budget package from the adopted budget that requested a limited term human resources manager dedicated to organizational development.
It was budgeted in the non-recurring general fund. Staff is proposing amending the staffing plan to make this position ongoing, which also includes budgeting the position in the general fund rather than the non-recurring.
Proposed revenue adjustments would bring the FY2627 revenue budget to 169.53 million proposed expenditure adjustments and the budget packages would bring FY2627 expenditures to 169.28.
This would yield a general fund budget residual of $257,000.
Again, zeroing in on measure G. Measure G revenues would be revised to $25.24 million, which includes the transferring in of the $560,000 and unassigned fund balance and proposed expenditures in measure G would be $25.24.
So utilizing every dollar there.
To recap, the general fund as originally adopted had a budget residual of $220,000 with proposed revenue and expenditure adjustments to the adopted budget being nearly equal.
Projected year-end residual of $250,000 is projected. The slide also shows that $4.25 million in one time non-operating revenue excess e-raft has been used to balance the general fund budget.
No additional usage of one time revenue is proposed.
Okay, to the non-recurring.
For fiscal year 2526, the non-recurring general fund, which is used for reimbursements, one time expenditures, and non-capital projects, and all funded by one time general fund revenues, or transfers in from other funds.
We have $34.3 million in adjusted revenues, and this comes primarily from $29.58 million in transfers in from other funds for the harvest recreational site acquisition, demolition and project planning.
Other revenues include grants and donations, one time revenues, and reimbursable charges for services.
The $40.3 million adjusted expenditure budget also contains the same $29.58 million for the harvest recreational site, along with grant funded projects, reimbursable services, and other projects funded by this one time revenue.
So many projects within the non-recurring general fund span multiple fiscal years. At the end of each fiscal year, all revenues and expenditures are analyzed, validated, and then re-budgeted, re-budgeted when appropriate through the annual carry forward process.
Fiscal year 2526 projections showed the non-recurring general fund with a $4.9 million available fund balance at the end of the fiscal year.
The fiscal year 2627 adopted budget for the non-recurring general fund brings in another $6.3 million of revenue with $7.7 million in related and one time expenditures, requiring the use of $1.4 million in fund balance.
We have three budget packages requested from the non-recurring general fund. The first is for the community resources department, and this request is $150,000 in funding towards the downtown specific plan update, ensuring downtown stays aligned with current conditions and future opportunities.
This adds to the $100,000 appropriated in fiscal year 24.
For Parks and Rec, I request for $200,000 for open space and conservation park planning in order to develop a long-term strategy for conserving the city's natural open spaces open space parks.
This is also an addition to the $85,000 that's budgeted in fiscal year 2627 from a budget package for south Jefferson feasibility study.
For the police department, we have a request for $42,200 for part-time staffing that would facilitate the migrating of digital evidence.
And then also shown in the non-recurring general fund is the reduction to the non-recurring for moving the HR manager from the limited term to a full-time equivalent and into the general fund.
The proposed revenue and expenditure adjustments, inclusive of the previously mentioned budget package request, would require the usage of $752,000 in available fund balance.
The non-recurring general fund would end fiscal year 2627 with an estimated $4.18 million in projected fund balance.
Moving on to other funds.
We'll take a look at solid waste and recycling.
$12.3 million in revenue adjustments and $6.7 million in expenditures, adjustments are proposed.
Operating revenue adjustments include 8.72 million of refuse collection charges that reflect council adopted rating creases that took effect January 1st, 2026.
Additionally, we have a proposed increase for projected material sales revenue $3.4 million, which is the result of higher global commodity pricing improved optical sorting and an expanded customer base.
Expenditure adjustments include $3.85 million in contract services and $1.2 million in payments for materials, which are offset by reductions related to the city's cost allocation plan update and other minor adjustments.
Additionally, solid waste and recycling has proposed $3 million in capital project expenditures related to critical facility needs.
Next, we'll look at water.
Proposed revenue adjustments total $3.47 million within water's capital project fund proposed expenditure adjustments total $7.91 million, which includes an operating expenditure adjustment of $1.12 million for chemical purchases and electricity cost for treatment operations and pump stations.
Water has also proposed two budget packages related to staffing that total $186,000.
These increases are offset by salary and benefit adjustments, general liability costs and a $1.26 million reduction from the city's cost allocation plan update.
For water's capital project fund, $8.15 million in adjustments are proposed for new projects and adjustments to existing projects.
Looking at the two budget packages for water utilities, the first is water control systems analyst, so one FTE physician estimated at $178,000 would add the needed in-house resources to move forward several critical treatment plan projects as well as control and cyber security plan implementations.
Second, we have a proposed position reallocation which would create an advanced water treatment operator position that would possess instrumental skills that could document equipment conditions and perform analytical studies that support of coming improvements at the HANAC treatment plan and this estimated ongoing cost is $8,000 annually.
Looking at our special revenue funds, we have a handful of them with significant changes, again the details for all special revenue funds are within the report attached to the council item.
Most notably is the red light camera fund which is the result of operations taking longer to come online than originally projected.
This leads to a $1 million proposed reduction on the revenue side as well as a $330,000 adjustment on the expenditure side since only the contract expenditures are expected.
For measure you, this is the county-wide tax that replace measure T for local streets and roads.
It's projected to receive $370,000 less than the adopted budget. There's also a million-dollar decrease in capital project funding.
I'll show you that on the capital improvements slides.
Also stemming from capital projects, $540,000 in expenditure adjustments to the public art fund, this includes $555,000 in proposed usage of public art funding for seven newly proposed capital projects.
Our capital project funds, so a few changes to our capital project funds.
Here you see a revenue adjustment of $690,000, which is the proposed increase contribution to the CIP's general reserve from the general fund.
We also see both on the revenue and expenditure side, the net effect of the proposed capital improvement project additions and adjustments.
Looking at our internal service funds, minor revenue changes to our fleet fund, proposed expenditure adjustments here are the result of salary and benefit updates along with a $300,000 reduction to fleet upfit expenditures.
In fiscal year 2627, the risk fund has a decrease to service charges revenue, which is the result of the revised premium structure for general liability insurance.
Revenue here is the cost recovery mechanism that has charged the departments to fund the program, and with the program decreasing in expenditures due to the revised premium structure, this lessons the amounts charged to departments.
So on the expenditure side, a $320,000 reduction stems from the insurance premiums, again reflecting the revised premium structure along with some minor updates to salary and benefit cost.
Proposed reductions to our post employment benefits funds show both on the revenue and expenditure side, so $820,000 in payroll charges.
That show up in this fund as a revenue, which is then passed through as a contribution on the expenditure side, this will no longer be required due to the city being fully funded, so $820 also shows up in the departments as savings, $615 in the general fund.
All right, for the CIP changes. So we have several proposed CIP changes within the proposed midcycle budget report, we have tables that show these changes reports and individual project sheets for all the all that's changed in fiscal year 2627.
Here we show them broken out by funding source and I'll touch on them briefly.
For measure you, $1 million reduction to the FY2627 street preventative maintenance project is proposed, which would reduce that project's budget to a million dollars.
In public art, we have the seven newly proposed projects, which includes sculpture relocation city hall commissions arts and parks, pavement art and a master plan update.
For solid waste and recycling, we have the addition of two new projects, the MDF's southern parcel site improvement project, along with organics receiving building partial floor replacement.
For water utilities, three new projects are proposed along with several adjustments to existing projects within the five year capital plan.
Newly proposed projects include Atlas Peak Water Main Replacement project from Monticello to Hillcrest, the Pueblo Avenue Water Main Replacement Project from California Boulevard to Railroad and the South School Water Main Replacement Project from Lincoln to La Homa.
Okay moving into proposed staffing plan changes city staff and coordination with our human resource department proposes three staffing plan adjustments for fiscal year 2627 as I mentioned earlier.
Earlier, budget packages were submit for these changes, or they are within the mid-cycle report.
These proposed adjustments were increased, budgeted full-time equivalent positions by one.
Water utilities has proposed adding one water control system's analyst, and the reallocation
of the water treatment operator position for an advanced water treatment operator.
Human resource department has also proposed making their limited term human resources manager into a full-time.
Flat takes us to the recommended action for tonight.
So the recommended action for tonight is to provide direction to staff to amend and finalize the proposed fiscal year 2627,
mid-cycle budget, and the city-wide position staffing plan, and to present those documents for final review in approval at the
regularly scheduled meeting on June 2, 2026.
Thank you so much for the presentation.
Move to disclosures.
If a council member has received information prior to this hearing that is important to the decision-making process for this hearing,
and if the information is not included in the written materials for this item, please disclose the information at this time.
So participants in this hearing have an opportunity to consider that information.
No disclosures.
Thank you.
And now I will open public testimony.
Please submit speaker cards for the city clerk.
Time is limited to three minutes.
The speaker will sound at 30 seconds to allow the speaker to summarize comments.
Any speaker cards for this item?
I do not have any.
Anybody in the audience would like to speak?
I will look for a motion to close public testimony.
So moved.
Second.
Motion low.
Second.
the next year as this moves forward and I'm ready to kind of move this the way it's going.
The two that come to mind to me are the number we have in for adjustments to budgets and salaries.
I just think it's something we want to keep an eye on.
And then the second is whether or not we're going to need additional money for that public meeting compliance amount.
I thought $10,000 seemed kind of low.
I don't know that we need to adjust it right now, maybe it's a placeholder, but I'm just thinking that as the year moves on those are two places where we may need to look at some budget adjustments.
But I just want to say, you know, not only thank you to you, but thank you to everybody who looks so carefully at their departments budgets to keep us not only doing all the great work we do, but within a really good revenue and expenditure plan.
Thanks.
Council Member Leros.
Thank you, I just want to also echo the same comments. Thank you for all your work on this by the time you know it gets here all the heavy lifting has been done.
And it makes me so sad that we don't have more people in our audience for this because this is really the most important thing that we do.
But thank you for all your work on this and I agree with Council Member painters comments.
I'm not feeling super optimistic about the future economy, so you know for me it's hard.
It's hard to really know if it's prudent for us to rely on the economy.
Being favorable for much longer, but I know that we have levers we can pull if and when that day comes.
So thank you for all your work.
Thank you.
Council Member Leros.
Thank you.
I can see the level work that takes, so I appreciate your team and the departments point this together.
You know we continue to see, you know, a lot of good in what the work that we've done in the last several years to really be in and get position.
I do agree that outside of here the economy doesn't look good for a lot of industries.
But we're seeing the TOT.
Higher the measures use higher even though sales taxes low low.
So that's one that we really have to to watch and help our economic development team.
Really reach out to business community and support them how they can because all comes back to us.
I appreciate you know listening to that.
Plan commission and council meeting.
Join meeting regarding the discussion downtown because that's there's economic engine, you know, the heart of a lot of the revenue.
So supporting that that area for growth is really important as well as the open space and park planning.
You know we have a lot of parks and continue to plan and improve the quality of our residents is really important.
And when they see you know that way back to the community the the continued to support what we're doing.
So great work and you know have anything else to say thank you.
I just want to thank you.
I'm always so impressed how much information you could get through such a short time and be clear.
And understandable so thank you for that and thank you for the whole finance team and in the whole city staff for putting us together.
I agree I think we just have to keep being vigilant.
We can control the outside economies so keep looking at that but appreciate all your work.
So with that I will look for a motion.
I'll make a motion.
Has recommended.
Motion in our by a second.
Leros all in favor.
I any opposed passes unanimously.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
All right moving to item 16 report action taken in close session.
Thank you.
Thank you very dear.
I just wanted to note that the council did have one item to discuss in close session.
They provided direction to staff but otherwise there was no reportable action under the brown act.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Moving to comments by councilor city manager started with some manager.
No comments.
Can we comment from the council council member nervous.
So Monday's Memorial Day so I'd like to invite everybody to join us at.
Veterans Park for Memorial Day service at 11.30 a.m.
We'll have some guest speakers and waiting everybody family friendly.
Friendly event to join us to remember those are falling.
Thank you.
Veterans Park at 11.30 a.m.
Any additional comments.
I did just want to thank our recreation team for the opening of the park.
Fuller Park.
I thought it was a great minute.
It was my great honor to to get to lead that.
Such a great project and again it's great to have an app is front yard back open.
So thank you for that.
And with that I will adjourn this meeting to our next regularly scheduled meeting on June 2nd,
2026.
Thank you.