[0:10] Let's call the regular city council meeting. I have an November 12, 2025 to order. If you have not silenced your cell phones, please do so at this time.

[0:21] Tonight's invocation will be given by Pastor Danny Kureme, Orange Police Department chaplain, to be followed by the pledge of allegiance, which I will lead. Please stand.

[0:36] Thank you.

[0:37] Did you join me in a word of prayer?

[0:40] God, we just want to pause from the busyness of our days.

[0:43] Lord, we've all come from something and we want to take you out your word that calls us

[0:48] to be still and know that you're God.

[0:51] When we honor you and we recognize you, we recognize or you're character in nature, that

[0:56] you're good and you're mercy and doors forever, and whether you're righteous and true and

[1:00] that you call us to a place of worship and so Lord, we do honor you.

[1:04] God, we remember the great example that you call us to, that Jesus called us to, that if we

[1:12] want to be great in God's kingdom, we've got to learn to be servants of all, and I pray

[1:16] Lord today that heart would be in us, Lord as a community, Lord as a leadership here, God

[1:21] that there would be a desire to first and foremost serve you, and as a result of our service

[1:26] to you, that a community would be blessed, Lord that people's lives would prosper, Lord that

[1:30] there would be justice and truth and hope, Lord,

[1:33] in a time where so many are faltering

[1:36] and hopeless and in despair.

[1:37] And so we remember who you are and what you promise,

[1:40] your goodness and your mercy.

[1:43] And Lord, we thank you.

[1:44] That today, you are an ever-present help for us

[1:47] or that you're wisdom when we ask for it.

[1:50] And so Lord, we come to you humbly,

[1:52] and we come to you boldly because of what you've done for us.

[1:57] And we ask you, Lord, to give wisdom

[1:59] to this body, Lord to strengthen them in every way, Lord I pray blessing over their families

[2:05] and their loved ones. God, I ask that you would continue, Lord, to bless the city of

[2:09] Orange Lord. And we so desire that you would be put first in all things. So we thank you

[2:15] and we honor you. It's in the name of Jesus. Amen. Amen. Please join me in a promise of loyalty to

[2:23] flag into our country. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and

[2:31] to the Republic for wishes and one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for

[2:39] all.

[2:42] Thank you, Pastor Kermaine. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

[2:58] Mayor,

[2:58] our table are here. Council member Guterres here, near Slater.

[3:04] A qualms present with Council member Gillian Hammer excuse.

[3:08] Thank you. Tonight we have two presentations from our high school

[3:13] liaison.

[3:15] First one is Dylan Plattford from Elmadiah High School.

[3:29] Hello.

[3:31] So I decided to share some of the Barbara events happening at Elmadiah High School.

[3:35] So on Halloween, we celebrated with a costume contest judge by our teachers alongside a beautiful

[3:40] tribute to Hispanic culture, more specifically Dia de los Marcos. This included a friend thus,

[3:47] face-peaning and memorable performances by our students Mariachi class, choir, and even Mrs.

[3:54] Gudino from our faculty. Then on November 3rd, we held midnight madness,

[3:59] a lively event honoring our winter sports teams with interactive games and performances.

[4:05] November 6, dancing with the teachers, where we enjoyed watching our teachers show off their

[4:10] dance moves with Miss Moll and Mr. Henderson taking home the win.

[4:14] The following day, November 7, we recognize outstanding students at our Vanguard of the first quarter event,

[4:20] which teachers select students who stood out so that I'm rewarding them with pancakes and certificates.

[4:27] Today, the 12th, we celebrated five students committing the college, committing two college

[4:34] sports teams at our signing day event.

[4:36] It was inspiring to see them all take the next step into their academic and athletic

[4:40] careers.

[4:42] Tomorrow, the class of 2026 will enjoy a movie night, watching Pride and Prejudice, this event

[4:49] promises a fun and relaxing evening for our seniors as they unwind and bond over a classic

[4:54] film.

[4:54] In sports, our girls tennis team reached the CIF quarter finals in a close match with Sagazhai,

[5:02] ending with a score of 8 to 10.

[5:04] With fall sports concluding, we're eagerly anticipating the start of winter sports next week,

[5:10] with the first basketball game scheduled for next Monday.

[5:14] We're wishing our basketball team the best of luck as they tip off their next season.

[5:19] Also, our marching band and color guard have a competition this Saturday,

[5:23] And we're wishing them our support as they showcase their hard work in telling.

[5:27] That's all I have to say about our Vanguard's for now.

[5:29] Thank you so much for your time.

[5:31] Thank you, Mr. Plathford.

[5:34] Yeah, for more high school, Jacob Gonzalez.

[5:41] Good evening.

[5:43] We can raise that if you can raise that up if you want to help you.

[5:47] Thank you.

[5:50] We are very proud of our own high school football team, but both of the flag and tackle team

[5:54] seasons have unfortunately come to an end and want to highlight their hard work and dedication.

[5:59] Additionally, once recognized all of our fall sports teams for their great seasons and achievements.

[6:03] As a rep of fall athletics, we're excited to see our winter sports teams come together and begin

[6:07] this season next week. Thank you for everyone in a large orange community who came out of the

[6:11] sporadical teams. Orange high school is currently hosting like annual Ken Food Drive.

[6:16] Our goal is to collect at least three tons of non-perjable food and personal hygiene products

[6:20] for our local, friendly center,

[6:22] as well as our families within our own high school community.

[6:25] We're dedicated to helping our Panthers family

[6:27] at this difficult time.

[6:28] If anyone is interested in donating,

[6:30] it would be more than happy to help organize that.

[6:32] We're currently excited to nation's in our front office.

[6:35] And finally, last week our seniors

[6:36] participated in our annual college application week.

[6:39] Our advisors, they have a fantastic job at creating a fun

[6:41] and a feminine, college, and career fair.

[6:44] They're also supposed to two full days of support

[6:45] for every senior student to apply to colleges,

[6:48] a trade school or other opportunities.

[6:51] It was a wonderful moment to make great progress towards our future goals.

[6:54] And thank you for our time and consideration.

[6:55] If you have any opportunities for our students to leadership,

[6:57] to volunteer or support this our city, please reach out.

[7:00] We are always happy to help.

[7:01] Thank you.

[7:02] Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez.

[7:06] Okay, that ends our presentations in announcements.

[7:10] Nalasar City Attorney, if there's anything from closed session

[7:12] that needs to be reported out.

[7:14] No, Mr. Mayor.

[7:15] Thank you.

[7:16] This time, as is now time for public comments, at this time members of the public may address the council on matters not listed on the agenda,

[7:26] then the subject matter jurisdiction of the city council provided that no action may be taken on off agenda items unless authorized by law.

[7:36] Public comments are limited to three minutes per speaker.

[7:40] First speaker this evening is Greg Arrowsmith, followed by Mel Vernon.

[7:49] First of all, I'd like to start off by saying thank you not only for meeting up with me,

[7:53] great we appreciate it, thank you for keeping the door open, Jared, I tried reaching out to you

[7:57] just to follow I there and I'm here back, trying to meet up with you as well.

[8:02] California Brown Act in 1953 in person local government agencies to be transparent with the

[8:06] tax being in citizens. Also, by the way, I want to thank the Lincoln Club met up with them yesterday,

[8:14] a great, great bunch of people.

[8:17] Okay, by the way, I have not received my grandfather's World War II artifacts from the American

[8:21] Legion at this time from the last presentation of YI.

[8:26] This is a file of presentation from my 401k Millionaire presentation.

[8:29] I presented this to the O.C. Board now and presented to you.

[8:33] Have a homework assignment for our public and civil servants and taxpayers.

[8:38] This is a YouTube video to review.

[8:40] California's pension system is collapsing millions could lose everything.

[8:43] The focus, California's unfunded pension and liabilities, are ballooning out of control.

[8:48] Here's the fixed San Francisco Chronicle by Frank Hoyman, Lisa May 10, 2024.

[8:54] The California Public Employee and Retirement System CalPERS has a pension debt of nearly

[8:58] half a trillion and is only 72% funded.

[9:03] CalPERS is the nation's largest pension fund organization, manages approximately 75% of California

[9:09] cities assets. California's total unfunned pension liabilities is 250 billion. Unlike social security

[9:15] where employer contribute 6.2, a wages, cities deposit an average of over 25% of their

[9:23] payrolls into California's public pension funds. The average retirement benefit distributed

[9:27] by California's public pension funds is nearly five times greater than comparable to social

[9:32] security benefits. California rule and law gives retirees a legal right to the public pension

[9:37] benefits, even if a city can no longer afford them, makes sense, they contribute it throughout

[9:42] the years.

[9:44] Higher pension costs are a priority obligation, forcing cities to increase taxes or sacrifice

[9:48] funding for infrastructure, maintenance, and public safety taxpayers, that's what's going on

[9:53] nowadays.

[9:55] City services suffer and the tax payers are left with the financial response building mess

[10:00] as usual.

[10:02] I will add the depreciation value of the taxpayers' real estate properties due to the lack

[10:06] infrastructure maintenance and public safety. California should follow the lead of the federal

[10:11] government and private sector and ship from defined benefit programs to define contribution

[10:16] or 401k type plants. Capital employees total compensation for 2023, 2024. These are their top 10 executives.

[10:25] Four executives made over 1,6 million executive made between 792 to 997,000 dollars in a fiscal year.

[10:33] First of all, these folks are paid too much, these folks are paid too much for a failing system.

[10:38] What do you guys think?

[10:42] Thank you, Greg.

[10:42] Following Mel Vernon is Craig Ottenosio.

[10:47] Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council.

[10:50] I'm one of the volunteer organizers for Indivisible Orange.

[10:54] On October 18th, over 8 million people gathered throughout the country

[10:58] for no kings day 2.0, and more than 1,700 joined indivisible orange in your will park on

[11:08] Chapman Avenue to protect democracy and our constitution.

[11:13] This morning 15 of us joined Orange County Rapid Response Network to protect hardworking

[11:20] date laborers at Home Depot, on Test and Contella, from racially profiling and kidnapping by

[11:29] ICE in violation of their rights in our Constitution.

[11:34] Eight days ago, we the people used our vote to resist our third authoritarianism and send

[11:42] the message that we will act to save our democracy, one that works for all of us.

[11:48] We, the people, will continue to grow our community of engaged neighbors that practice mutual aid

[11:55] and community care, educating ourselves for civil engagement and committing to hold elected

[12:02] officials accountable from city councils and school boards all the way to Congress.

[12:09] Our non-partisan volunteers fighting for progressive values with non-violent actions,

[12:18] With model inclusion, that model inclusion, respect and fairness, we partner with our community

[12:27] organization to lift up and support a electoral change to realize a government of by and

[12:33] for the people in the visible.

[12:36] We are in the visible orange, join us on Instagram, come to our weekly Tuesday rally,

[12:44] rain or shine at 5 p.m. at the Orange Plaza Circle together we get together we win. Thank you.

[12:53] Thank you, Mel and Las Vegas Craig, Otanasio.

[13:05] Okay, good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members.

[13:08] Thank you for what you do. It's good be back. It's a bit nerve-wracking coming up here to speak.

[13:15] I'm not familiar with the venue. I'm feeling very passionate these days.

[13:20] So, in the past, I said anything that might be harsh or abusive, I hope you might forget.

[13:26] I'm discovering my voice.

[13:28] Last time I came here, and I spoke to you about my wife from 23 years, a love of my life.

[13:34] She's very warmhearted. She's intelligent. She's a hard worker.

[13:38] And best of all, she's a big time sports man.

[13:41] It's the best thing that ever happened to me.

[13:43] She also happens to be an immigrant.

[13:46] She's born in Saigon in 1967 and we all know what happened after that.

[13:51] The Communists took over a totalitarian government, her family was forced to relocate into

[13:57] this slums where they lived on multi-potatoes and grimy rice.

[14:03] Two of her brothers tried to escape the country, got caught and were held in detention camps.

[14:08] Her third brother got out in a boat in 1982, came here, bound work, went to school, supported

[14:14] family until they can come here in 1992 when she was 25 years old. She had spent the

[14:21] formative years of her life living under an oppressive government. She had actually seen people,

[14:28] being dragged from their homes by the authorities that night from merely speaking up as I am

[14:34] doing here tonight. Now I would ask, in the present direction of our current government,

[14:43] Do we discern any departure from the behavior of totalitarian governments that we've seen in the past?

[14:52] I don't care if they're communist or fascist, they are cut from the same cloth.

[15:00] And I'm sad to see that our country whose history is built upon the feeding this type of government.

[15:12] It's going on where it is going now. Now, so my wife, she came here, she took an E.S.L. class, got a job doing assembly work, went to the community college, graduated from Cal State,

[15:26] forward to in 2001 where she met who I like to think of good man and she got married and

[15:33] today she's working under the controller of the large hospital that she started at 23 years

[15:40] ago as a staff accountant. I'm very proud of this one. And that my friends is what makes America

[15:50] attention to this matter. Thank you, Craig. That is the public comments. Next is the consent calendar.

[16:00] We have a speaker for item 3.5. Are there any other items that my colleagues would like to pull for discussion or questions?

[16:10] Mayor, I wanted to pull 3.5 in as well. I have 3.8.

[16:15] Okay,

[16:22] that's fine.

[16:23] And I need to register a no vote on 3.1 or 3.12 to be consistent with my previous vote.

[16:35] Very well.

[16:39] Okay, I will entertain this man.

[16:58] Yes, ma'am.

[16:59] Yes, Council Member Gutierrez just did to reiterate her previous vote.

[17:13] Do you want it pulled?

[17:21] Anyone else?

[17:22] Motion to approve the balance by Councilmember Dmitriu. Is there a second?

[17:28] Councilmember Tavalleras, any further discussion?

[17:31] Seeing none, please vote.

[17:39] It's approved with six votes and one absent.

[17:44] Okay, item 3.5.

[17:47] The agreements with C3 office solutions, LLCDBA, C3 tech,

[17:54] to copy your lease and manage the printer services, start with Councilmember Dmitriu.

[18:01] Thanks, Mayor. Really on this one, there are a number of items popped up in the contract that

[18:08] are concerning that I think having this continued for staff to go back and really evaluate.

[18:16] It looks like it's kind of turning into an evergreen contract, which we really shouldn't have

[18:24] The contingency, the savings that are listed disappear pretty quickly over the turn of the contract.

[18:30] So they're really, I don't really think the savings are really accurate.

[18:34] On top of that is we're being charged on a base fee for a certain number of copies that come through this machine, but we're always under.

[18:45] So we're actually overpaying on that as well and then we're there's also other charges that are associated with

[18:52] higher

[18:53] larger

[18:54] size copies and such

[18:56] and as well towards the cyberside

[18:59] a lot of the equipment that we are paying for lease

[19:03] is significantly older and I want to make sure that our staff has time to

[19:08] evaluate the cybersecurity of those items and making sure that we don't have a vulnerability there

[19:13] there as well. So after our public speaker, I'm going to ask staff, I'm going to ask for a

[19:21] continuance for a date certain to December 9th meeting for staff to go back, reevaluate

[19:28] and on top of that is again making sure we're getting the best thing this hasn't been

[19:32] bit out. It's been for a number of years now as a regular contract and that's concerning

[19:38] to me.

[19:39] Thank you. Thank you. We do have a speaker for this item.

[19:44] I'll call Mark Leadsma.

[19:57] Thank you, Mayor Slayer.

[19:58] Slater in Council for meeting.

[20:00] Get up here and speak with you.

[20:03] In mind of what Councilman Demutri was saying.

[20:07] I look just five minutes away from here.

[20:09] I support the community and the city as a volunteer, as a part of the Orange Community Master

[20:14] grow in the choir there and participate in many city events.

[20:18] We have the upcoming tree lighting.

[20:21] I also volunteered my services as the narrator for the July 3rd program over the years.

[20:25] So I'm concerned for the well-being of Orange and hope the city can overcome the budget challenges.

[20:32] Regarding 3.5 from analyzing the existing contracts, I found many costly red flags.

[20:38] The corporation I work for also offers the products and services related to this item and we

[20:44] can help the city of Orange reduce operating costs by avoiding increasing costs over term and

[20:50] eliminating overpayment, improving efficiencies in how the city prints and reduce the

[20:56] vulnerability and risk of cyber threats and attacks.

[21:00] You see the $50,000 savings in there and I believe that is artificial and does go away.

[21:08] If you look at the new contract, there's two cost structures, all the equipment and new equipment.

[21:14] But on the new contract, only 20% of the equipment will be new.

[21:18] And the current equipment is going on at 7th year.

[21:21] No new printers, the average age of your printer fleet, which is 199 units, is 13 years.

[21:28] So that cyber risk becomes greater with the older technology.

[21:33] I'm here because the past couple of years I've been trying to show my findings with the

[21:37] city from finance to purchasing to IT with virtually no response, no callbacks, no questions,

[21:44] no RFP, no opportunity to compete or compare.

[21:48] And there's a bigger issue is how the city prints.

[21:52] Referring to the cost analysis, your base charges and overages will increase annually, probably

[21:59] a minimum of 10%.

[22:01] additional charges and fees pop up shipping charges for supplies, staples,

[22:05] dock fees, late fees and so on.

[22:08] The current maintenance rates on your 80% of the equipment you're going to keep is

[22:11] 66% higher than what the 20% new equipment will be, and that's going to cost the city

[22:17] more than $18,000 a year.

[22:21] On a bigger note, the current contract for printers has a print volume that is 85% higher

[22:28] than the actual volume that this city is putting,

[22:31] that comes out to $61,200 a year paying for nothing.

[22:37] Hearing that many departments are understaffed,

[22:39] this could have paid for somebody's job.

[22:44] On the current invoice that I just received has no volume commitment,

[22:48] which is ideal for the city.

[22:50] However, the new contract that being as being proposed

[22:53] has a new base fee of $6,609 a month,

[22:57] which is over $80,000 a year.

[23:00] The new volume commitments are up to 40% higher than the actual.

[23:05] Thank you, Mr. Leedsman.

[23:08] Thank you very much for volunteering with the city.

[23:10] Yes, thank you.

[23:11] So imagine any issues with postponing this a month?

[23:17] All right.

[23:17] With that, I'll make a motion to continue the item to date certain of December 90.

[23:23] Motion by Council Member Dimitri.

[23:25] Second by Council Member Tavala.

[23:26] the further discussion?

[23:30] I'd say notably, oh yes.

[23:32] I'd said a quick question, and I don't know Mr. City Manager, if you know this,

[23:36] when was the last time this was bid out, and I asked specifically because I noticed

[23:40] on the contact information for the contract that it's listed as Mr.

[23:47] Kilbo, who hasn't been here for four years.

[23:51] One full question that deferred to our Information Technology Manager, Mr. Steven Skardina.

[23:58] Good evening.

[23:59] The RFP for this contract was originally led in 2019, and it was approved by this

[24:05] Council in October of 2019.

[24:10] Thank you.

[24:16] Okay, it is a motion and a second.

[24:18] Any further discussion or questions?

[24:20] Seeing none.

[24:21] motion that you continue to sign until December 9.

[24:32] That has approved unanimously.

[24:35] One absence.

[24:36] Next item is I have 3.6.

[24:39] The agreement with Chattel Incorporated for preparation of a historic preservation ordinance.

[24:45] Councilmember Barrio said a question on this.

[24:50] I did.

[24:51] I'm looking at the agreement.

[24:53] I just don't know if there's anyone here to speak on it.

[24:56] But when we had originally discussed this with or I had discussed it,

[25:00] want to speak for anyone else. With the city manager, we were looking at something closer to

[25:06] $50,000, so that seems to have gone up a little bit. Unfortunately, I can't open my notes

[25:13] that were on my iPad, so to talk about what all the scope of work was. I was just a little

[25:21] concerned considering all the work that has gone on to date that this is basically look like

[25:28] we were just kind of starting from scratch.

[25:30] And is that kind of how you're looking at it

[25:32] because that bothers me quite a bit.

[25:36] Yeah, good evening, Mayor.

[25:38] And Council members, initially, the estimated cost was lower

[25:43] but after the last city council meeting

[25:44] and the additional outreach that Council was discussing

[25:48] with the community, we went back to our consultant team

[25:51] and we beefed up the scope of work in the task

[25:54] to include some of that outreach

[25:55] and the cost associated with that is going to go up.

[26:00] And that's not to exceed 66, not a minimum.

[26:04] So the outreach was just to have a minimum one meeting with either the working group

[26:11] or to allow for a TPA and a lot to come in and have a look and provide comments on it.

[26:19] So that triggered that much more.

[26:22] It's not too exceed, so depending on what comes out of the initial meetings, we'd be able

[26:29] to use as much as we can of the work that's been done, but it also allows them that if

[26:33] we need to do more than that, it's in the contract for him to do it.

[26:37] We wouldn't have to come back to Council to finish it.

[26:40] So I don't know if anyone else is interested, but one thing I would like is if I could just

[26:45] for an update as soon as the initial review is done and that can just go only to me if nobody

[26:53] else is interested but I would like to know after the initial pass is taken of what we have

[26:57] today where they think we stand in terms of timing and relative to this contract. Would that be

[27:05] all right to ask for? Yes. I would like an update to that at that point. So thank you very much

[27:11] And then my second ask is for my council colleagues,

[27:18] which actually I'm thinking about the one

[27:19] that's coming later, so I apologize.

[27:21] I'm those from my questions Mr. Mayor.

[27:23] Great, thank you.

[27:24] I'd like to of course be looped in on that information as well as probably the rest of the

[27:30] council, might as well.

[27:33] Calcimer Gutiers.

[27:39] Thank you.

[27:40] And 15 is development of innovative or best preservation incentives in refining Mills Act program

[27:49] requirements.

[27:50] I don't remember us discussing that last time.

[27:53] I'm glad that that's here.

[27:55] But my question to staff is, over a month ago, I asked for an update on where we were at

[28:02] the Mills Act as I thought was something you were working with the working group as well.

[28:06] And to date, I have not heard a thing as to what the outcome of that work was with that group.

[28:13] And I would say that whatever they created, that should be also offered to shut up cattle so that they can also have something to start working with.

[28:23] But I really wouldn't like that update since I asked for it over a month ago and I never received it.

[28:29] We all didn't receive it.

[28:31] And I also noticed that in a very thankful that the working group is going to have a meeting with them and a meeting with city staff as well, I read that and then they will go through and do their draft.

[28:45] And it seems like and correct me if I'm wrong, the draft will come to city staff, but will it go to the back to the working group so that they could also have input as well.

[28:55] besides city staff having input?

[29:01] Yes, sir.

[29:02] Yes, sir.

[29:03] Yes, sir.

[29:06] That's why I needed my notes.

[29:08] I was really concerned that the Mills Act was in here, and I needed to be pulled and separated

[29:13] because both myself and the mayor have conflicts of interest where the Mills Act is concerned.

[29:18] So we can't, this immediately makes it something that we cannot vote on if that is included.

[29:24] So those need to be separated out.

[29:28] Thank you for bringing it out.

[29:29] I just Councilmember Barrios, you are correct that if the mayor and you wear to recuse yourselves

[29:35] because of the conflict of the Mills Act, my recommendation can be that the scope of services

[29:41] can be amended by the City Council if you choose to tonight and we consider coming back

[29:47] for a separate vote without the both of you if that's also an option.

[29:53] Thank you very much.

[29:54] Well can I jump in and say again that is why we need to know what is the outcome of the working

[29:59] great work.

[30:00] Work with the Mills Act, and we can decide whether or not we even need chattled to do to help us with what we're

[30:08] going with the Mills Act. I don't know. So this is why we need this Sunday.

[30:12] Great, but we can't discuss it.

[30:14] I agree.

[30:15] So Mr. Mayor, with that being said, what I would like to do is to move this item with the removal, and

[30:24] I don't know what that does to the overall budget with the removal of anything related to the Mills Act

[30:27] to be brought back at that time certain when it can be loaded on separately.

[30:35] I,

[30:37] as a motion, is there a set?

[30:39] Great. Thank you.

[30:42] Yes, sir.

[30:43] I might just add to this.

[30:45] Maybe before we have a separation of all the things, this was just a scope of work.

[30:49] There's no content yet proposed.

[30:52] Typically historic preservation ordinance would include provisions of a

[30:57] program, the city has meals, that program there's no real process or anything and document to

[31:03] did our current municipal code. So this is the scope of work to include that into the municipal

[31:10] code. There's no details about it specifically. And I'll just ask the city attorney at the way it

[31:18] As a gendize, if that can move forward, or thank

[31:28] you if I may.

[31:31] The ordinance may reference sections of the ordinance may reference a Mills Act program.

[31:37] I would defer to the consultant who's sitting in the audience and can answer some questions,

[31:42] but specifics with regards to the Mills Act program can certainly be brought at a later

[31:48] date.

[31:49] but I would defer to the consultant in the audience

[31:51] if a historic preservation ordinance should

[31:54] or should not have references to Mills Act in it, right?

[31:58] I understand what you're saying.

[32:00] I don't think it's a conflict tonight to approve the scope of work,

[32:05] but any time we bring back an update specifically

[32:09] for Mills Act and program refinement,

[32:11] we will certainly notify the city council,

[32:13] so the mayor and Council Member Barrios, oral chooses us.

[32:17] So, it might be more about connectivity to the ordinance versus the actual specificity, okay?

[32:26] Did you want to withdraw your motion then, or?

[32:34] I will motion to approve it as it stands.

[32:37] On the second, or is fine with that?

[32:41] Yes.

[32:44] Any further discussion or questions on behalf of Council?

[32:49] Seeing none, please vote.

[32:56] That has approved six votes and one absent.

[33:02] Okay, item 3.8, which is, acceptance and appropriation of 853,000 in Orange County Transportation

[33:12] Authority, Congestion, Mitigation, Air Quality Improvement Program, Grant Funds, and

[33:17] Appropriation of 16,000 in Match Funds, and Sandy Out Creek, Bike, Trail Extension, Project,

[33:22] Council Member, to meet you.

[33:24] Real quickly, I'm not against this obviously, this is a good project, I just wanted to

[33:29] now that it's nice to see us work so diligently on a project where we're funded and we're

[33:35] able to get across the finish line on another portion.

[33:39] I also want to bring up that one of the initial extensions of this project was actually

[33:44] through Mayor Pro Tempillado really started the whole thing off back in the, back a number

[33:51] of years ago with another board that he sits on with a contribution from that agency

[33:57] of Land Two make this original start around the Bond Pits available.

[34:05] So, with that, I will move this item.

[34:09] Motion by Councilor Vardomichre looking for a second,

[34:15] council member of Good Tierers.

[34:16] Just a quick point.

[34:18] I know I'm gonna drive the public works direct to CREISE, but it has Seves have been taken

[34:25] to reach out to the Mainbury Ranch folks yet.

[34:30] member of the Council. In fact, we met with Mayberry Ranch this afternoon. We have another meeting coming up with OPA and we will continue to probably have some additional dialogue after those meetings.

[34:43] Fantastic. Thank you very much. Any other questions or discussion? Please vote.

[34:55] Approved with six votes. One absent. Okay, the last consent calendar item is I am 3.12.

[35:06] Second reading and adoption of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange and ending title 12.

[35:11] Title 16 and Title 17 of the Orange and Municipal Code to update duties and responsibility of a designer view committee ordinance number 18-25.

[35:21] of Council Member Barrios.

[35:28] Yes, Mr. Mayor, thank you for.

[35:29] While I realized this is the second reading,

[35:32] I would ask again if my colleagues would consider

[35:36] putting in a sunset into this particular action.

[35:42] Again, as a show, good faith to our community,

[35:45] to those who had worked so hard to get us

[35:47] to honor our promises from the past

[35:49] and our current promises, and so I'm throwing that out there

[35:53] One more, seeing if my colleagues would agree to adding

[35:56] not as a show of good faith.

[36:07] Do you have it, do you have one?

[36:08] I think when we did it last time, we did it as June.

[36:15] So would kind of coincide with the fiscal year?

[36:20] The only, I'll speak for myself, obviously,

[36:23] but the only sense that I'd look at is greater than five years.

[36:27] I think there's, I mean, the change needs to happen,

[36:31] But I can see your point that may be revisiting an item is valid, but it has to have some time to actually cook.

[36:40] Well, the idea was that both of these things, whether it's this change or the change with the historic preservation ordinance that we're looking at shadow, which we just approved tonight.

[36:51] That timeline in there was about four to six months, somewhere in theirs, what they were anticipating that work would take, so that would come back to us.

[37:02] So again, just as they show a faith that we were aligning to that, that we are really kind of committed to it in such a way that if we do not get that done,

[37:12] that for any reason stalls or doesn't get finished, that we would put pressure on ourselves

[37:19] as we promise the community we would that the DRC ordinance as we are looking to change its

[37:25] night in the second reading would fall back to the way it was. So again, I think we're going to

[37:31] get there. I have everything we're going to get there, but this is a way to show the community that

[37:36] we are serious and intentional about what we're trying to do.

[37:40] So maybe rather than a sunset, timeline is perhaps benchmarking that if certain goals aren't met by either staff,

[37:52] chat um, chat um, or what have you at that point then we revisit the item as a discussion,

[37:59] an agenda discussion with that.

[38:01] I think this point I would be equally happy to do that.

[38:04] that that comes back for discussion, you know, at the beginning of June to see where we are.

[38:08] We're ready to do both things together.

[38:10] I think maybe there's a win there because obviously to keep the pressure on staff to

[38:17] make sure the process flows, make sure the change is complete, however, and whichever

[38:23] direction because there may be something that does pop out between now and then.

[38:29] It says, you know, pump the brakes, maybe that would be doable and I don't mind benchmarking

[38:36] something and making sure that we reach a conclusion that that works.

[38:41] I just want to, you know, kind of move forward in good faith.

[38:46] And that's to me the most important thing.

[38:47] This has been something sitting in our plans for over 15 years.

[38:53] There's never been, this is as close as we've ever gotten that I've ever seen in that 15 years.

[38:58] and I just don't want to let the community down where we have given our word, we have made promises,

[39:04] we have had people come and work on our behalf and all of that right now or at our last meeting

[39:09] seemed in real jeopardy. So I can compromise to a benchmark at the beginning of June.

[39:18] So that's for. And Mr. City Attorney, how would we, would that change anything or is that just

[39:24] direction of staff that we want, but how does it work?

[39:27] Council member Barrios, procedurally if a Sunset provision is added to the draft ordinance

[39:32] tonight, staff would need to come back for a free feeding.

[39:35] No, not a free training.

[39:36] It's not a Sunset.

[39:37] No, I know.

[39:38] But I sort of just explain the procedural difference.

[39:40] So if that were the case, but since we are discussing the benchmark aspect of it, then

[39:45] that would, the second reading could proceed tonight as agenda is and that would be a,

[39:53] that would not change the ordinance and therefore the staff can come back at the date and come back with a benchmark report.

[40:03] We can certainly provide a status update.

[40:05] I'm looking at the 2026 calendar in the meeting would be June 9th.

[40:09] The city clerk can add it to the agenda and we'll just provide a status update at that time.

[40:14] If that works.

[40:17] Yes, thank you.

[40:19] Okay, for a motion

[40:27] your motion is

[40:29] Council Mayor to meet your

[40:33] It was the second reading so I'll move to approve with the caveat that

[40:39] That would be a paradise for review

[40:44] To nine. Thank you June 9

[40:48] That's as five city attorney

[40:51] Yes, Mr. Mayor. Sir second

[41:01] No second

[41:06] Then I have side of the motion to fails

[41:11] Looking for I'll I'll move to have have the second reading I'll second that motion

[41:22] be to there we go

[41:29] right I would I appreciate your tenacity customer

[41:38] barrios I am very very confident that we're going to get this across the finish line

[41:47] please vote

[41:57] council member Guteris, but I have to even know I already registered a new vote.

[42:05] I need a vote. Yeah, okay.

[42:13] The motion fails council members borrow some each of your Guteris.

[42:18] Traveler is voting no.

[42:21] Do you want to try again council member Guteris?

[42:24] I want to try again Mr. Guteris.

[42:26] I can't.

[42:27] Okay. I, I, I, I move that we move this ordinance forward on this second reading with the caveat that we have a review on June the ninth time certain to I don't know to review to discuss where we're aligned with that and our other projects.

[42:47] And I will second that.

[42:52] Any further discussion? Please vote. Let's see if we can get this done here.

[43:17] This motion is approved to five to one Council Member Gutierrez voting no and one abstention.

[43:26] So we get it done. Folks. Thank you.

[43:30] Okay, reports from nurse later, I don't have anything.

[43:36] I know that we have a local business highlight from Councilmember Goodsieras.

[43:41] Before that, I wanted to ask Councilmember Barrios if she'd like to report on the treason

[43:49] of streets.

[43:51] I would.

[43:52] I almost wish I had taken some time to talk to Chief Javak before, because I know how it

[43:59] on the street in terms of the crowds and and this is my favorite event of the year. I love it.

[44:05] I'm so proud that Randy Romero and I got together last year to save it at this year. We had the

[44:11] added bonus of being entered the umbrella of the Orange International Street Fair. So everything ran so smoothly.

[44:19] Fire, our public works, our community services group and particularly PD and did a great job of

[44:28] making sure everyone was safe everybody had a good time. I think we actually didn't run out

[44:34] of candy this time. I'm not 100% sure, but I think we didn't run out of candy, but it felt

[44:40] like street fair packed, and I've never seen so many cute kids and family costumes, and you

[44:45] could just see all the joy and all the people who were there. So many great sponsors and last

[44:51] minute sponsors who came in with candy, which was amazing. So the whole thing was completely

[44:56] covered by donations, including the money we started out.

[45:00] With, because we made money last year, so I think not going to win. And I did have one special shout out. I had personally sent thank yous to so many of our city staff, but two people who I did not call out, but I had texted myself their names. And this is Carlos and Ben with public works. And they were rock stars. Helping cleanup get set up in the, before we started the event and being there afterwards.

[45:28] Just, you know, I know there are hourly employees who don't get a lot of love and attention.

[45:33] I know we have talked about bringing people to give great service to recognize them at our

[45:40] council meetings, but they gave absolutely phenomenal rock star service.

[45:45] And they were just everybody's hero and I know that that was the same last year.

[45:50] So please convey our thanks for everything they did.

[45:53] Yeah, and lots and lots of participation from other organizations, you know, everybody loves to pet the goats.

[46:01] So this is very fun. And I think it was our city manager's first time attending as well with his family, so thank you Mr. Mayor.

[46:09] Thanks for that great report, and Kathy, I'm sorry, Council Mayor Toddlers.

[46:16] I just wanted to much like on a so beautifully does Councilman Gutierrez, the business of the month.

[46:25] I wanted to put a highlight on UCI Medical Center, UCI Hospital.

[46:31] You guys have probably heard about an accident that was in the paper today after two soccer players in Cal State.

[46:36] Fullerton, who were hit by a box truck while they were on an electric scooter.

[46:41] One of those girls is a family friend of ours.

[46:45] She passed away this week.

[46:46] Her team is Lauren Turner.

[46:47] Noter since she was a baby.

[46:49] But I want to thank UCI and Chad Lyftaris,

[46:52] who's the president there, for taking such good care

[46:54] of the girls for six weeks.

[46:57] They weren't in Duzcoma for brain injury,

[47:00] because they weren't wearing helmets.

[47:01] The school had given them the scooters.

[47:06] But they were hit in Fullerton on an associated road.

[47:09] And they took them straight to UCI Medical Center because UCI is the number one trauma center.

[47:15] And that is something that we can all be very proud of.

[47:18] And so I got the call and I called Chad and they took really good care of the girls.

[47:27] Ashlyn who survived is getting checked out this weekend.

[47:30] She's going to be going to a brain facility.

[47:32] And she used it for two weeks and then she has two years of rehab at her home in Utah.

[47:37] Unfortunately, Lauren didn't make it, so with that, I know it's sad news, but I also want

[47:42] to be very grateful to our city and to our doctors and nurses who take care, because

[47:47] there are people coming from Fullerton and all over the county to be treated at UCI, and

[47:50] we are so lucky and so blessed to have them here.

[47:53] So, thank you again to UCI and all the doctors and the nurses who took care of such a good

[47:57] care for.

[47:59] Thank you.

[48:01] Thank you for that report, Councilmember, and please wear helmets and make a difference.

[48:06] How many can you do?

[48:10] Councilmember Gutiers.

[48:16] Mine is not a business highlight this week or this meeting.

[48:21] It is a community event announcement and I am very happy to announce and proud to announce

[48:29] that our own orange community historical society is sponsoring this free event at our main branch library

[48:37] next Tuesday, November 18th from 530 to 7 p.m. And it is highlighting the most impactful

[48:48] educational law that occurred here in the city of Orange and California. And it is going

[48:55] to be paneling the Marist family of El Medina, the Guzman family from Santana, the Palamino

[49:02] family from garden grove and the strata family from West

[49:08] Minister because they are the unknown families that people forget about the

[49:14] Mendus-Werswerswers Minister lawsuit so it's separate but not equal in placing the

[49:20] at all back into the Mendus-Werswerswers Minister.

[49:22] Again, this was at 1947, Landmark decision that helped desegregate our schools

[49:31] throughout all California.

[49:33] So this is very historical.

[49:35] This is the second time.

[49:35] The main library has sponsored something like this,

[49:39] but this is being sponsored, like I said,

[49:41] by our own Orange Community Historical Society.

[49:45] I invite everybody in the community who would like to listen

[49:48] to this panel, who would like to learn more about this,

[49:51] and featured in this photograph is actually Mr. Ramirez

[49:53] and his wife, Josefina, and there are two oldest sons

[49:57] that were those two boys that weren't being allowed

[50:00] to go to school back in 1946, 45, sorry.

[50:07] So I'm welcoming the community at large to come next Tuesday

[50:11] to our main library and learn and be witnesses to what

[50:16] happened in history.

[50:18] And again, this important, the most important educational

[50:22] thing that has occurred here in our city limits

[50:25] in the Almanina area is something that we should all know about.

[50:28] So I'm inviting everybody to come on out.

[50:31] Excuse me, and thank you to the Orange Community Historical Society for putting this on.

[50:36] And that's it.

[50:37] Thank you.

[50:38] Council members for bringing that up and mentioning it.

[50:43] All right.

[50:44] Any other council members?

[50:46] All right.

[50:47] Item six, AB 1, 2, 3, 4 reports.

[50:50] Any council members have anything?

[50:53] Seeing none.

[50:54] Item seven reports from city manager?

[50:57] Nothing tonight, sir.

[50:58] All right. Moving on to public hearings. First one is item 8.1. A public hearing to consider

[51:06] the second reading and adoption of an ordinance. The City Council of the City of Orange

[51:10] in many Title 15 of the Orange Municipal Code, adopting and amending the 2025 editions of

[51:16] the California Building Standards Codes, 20525 California Building, 2025 California Residential

[51:24] the 2025 California Plumbing Code, the 2025 California Green Building Code, and the 2025 California

[51:32] Electrical Code, ordinance number 16-25. Again, this is the second reading. Is anyone want

[51:39] to staff report? Questions of staff?

[51:45] This is a public hearing. I'm now opening the public hearing.

[51:50] Seeing no speakers, the public hearing is now closed and we have a motion from Council Member

[51:55] Good to hear us at a second from Councilmember Barrios to approve the second reading.

[52:02] Does the ordinance need to be read?

[52:04] Not for the second reading, Mayor.

[52:06] Great.

[52:06] Thank you so much.

[52:08] Please vote.

[52:15] As approved of six with one absent item eight point two is a public hearing to consider second

[52:23] reading and adoption of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange adopting

[52:27] the 2025 California Wildland Urban Interface Code and the 2025 California Fire Code adding

[52:34] chapter of 15.31 and the Mending Chapter 15.32 of the Orange Municipal Code or this number

[52:42] 17-25 with anyone like a staff report on this, any questions of staff?

[52:51] This is a public hearing.

[52:52] I'm now opening the public hearing, are there any speakers?

[52:58] Seeing none, the public hearing is now closed.

[53:01] We have a motion from Council Member Barrios,

[53:03] and a second from Council Member Gutierrez.

[53:06] Any further discussion?

[53:08] Seeing none, please vote.

[53:15] Approved six votes in one absent.

[53:20] Administrative reports.

[53:22] First, one is out of 9.1.

[53:25] Executive Management and Senior Management

[53:27] Employees Classification, Compensation and Term of Employment, Resolution Number 11644, anyone

[53:36] like a staff report? Any questions of staff?

[53:43] Any council discussion? We have a motion

[53:46] room council member, Goochias to approve. There are second,

[53:56] second from council member

[53:57] to meet you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote.

[54:07] As approved with six votes

[54:08] in one absent, item 9.2, consider changes to resolution number 11597, regained the city's

[54:17] safe and sane fireworks program. And I think we may have questions for staff here, Jack's

[54:26] ready to go. I have some questions, but I will first ask my colleagues if they have any.

[54:41] Okay, so we are good. I was okay. Go ahead, Jack.

[54:44] Thank you, Mayor and Council members. So on February 11th, 2025, the Council adopted resolution

[54:50] number 11 at 597. And this adopted the procedures and policies for staff to take applications

[54:57] from non-profit organizations and really start issuing

[55:00] safe and safe fireworks permits.

[55:03] So on top of that, it also included our fee process.

[55:05] And like I said, the application and lottery process,

[55:07] the criteria for non-profit organizations,

[55:10] those who can really participate

[55:12] typically orange based on profits.

[55:15] Material that must be submitted to the Orange Fire

[55:16] Department as well as insurance and indemnity requirements.

[55:20] With the safe and safe fireworks program,

[55:22] now completed, our first year doing it,

[55:24] We received feedback from some of the wholesalers as well as nonprofits and then also just based on staff experience and implementing this program for the first year.

[55:34] And so we developed a series of five potential recommendations that can be incorporated into a new resolution to possibly help streamline the process.

[55:43] So as you shown on the slide here, one is to reduce the number of maximum permits from 12 to 8.

[55:51] As a reminder, we are already giving four to our local high schools.

[55:56] So the council decides to move it down to 8.

[55:59] That would mean that we would only lottery up four permits to qualify organizations.

[56:05] That we move the application process back to January.

[56:08] It's currently in March, and that a lottery would be held in February or March.

[56:12] extending the permit to two years or prohibiting or and or prohibiting qualified organizations

[56:18] from participating in the lottery for one year after having received the safe and safe

[56:22] fireworks permit and then also removing the prohibition on affiliated non-profit or educational

[56:27] organizations from participating. Overall the purpose of this item is for council to discuss,

[56:32] provide any feedback on any of these changes, if you'd like to see this incorporated,

[56:37] a staff will go back to the developer resolution so these can be applied for the upcoming year.

[56:41] That concludes my overview.

[56:43] Be happy to answer any questions.

[56:45] Great.

[56:47] Gauzeburg, good to hear us.

[56:48] Good job, questions.

[56:50] It did.

[56:51] So I was curious and you answered some of my questions and regards to where do these recommendations

[56:57] come from.

[56:58] So thank you for sharing that.

[57:00] And so reducing it from 12 to 8 was the experience of the wholesalers and the nonprofit

[57:07] saying we didn't sell as much because there were too many or what's the reasoning for

[57:11] or reducing the amount?

[57:13] That particular one was really been driven by one of the whole

[57:16] sailors because the city has really divided the community in half

[57:22] because of East Orange we wanted to avoid not only using same

[57:25] same fireworks but also selling them there.

[57:27] So when we have 12, their thought was that kind of oversaturates

[57:32] the area and we had some nonprofits who performed really well

[57:35] and then there's others that there was a big disparity.

[57:38] You have from like 80,000 in gross sales down to 13,000 in gross sales.

[57:43] But so there thought was that by limiting the number of non-profits that are participating

[57:48] that they all collectively can do better.

[57:53] And then my other question was, in regards to the elimination of Section E, can you just walk

[58:03] through that as like the reasoning, I think I know the reason because I recall hearing some issues

[58:08] with that last year in the emails that we were receiving, but can you walk us through as

[58:13] why we would want to remove all of that section? So we have currently it's written that

[58:18] nonprofits or educational based groups located in Orange, I cannot submit multiple applications and

[58:25] include from their affiliated organizations as we were going through this we've noticed that a lot of

[58:29] on-profits are interconnected.

[58:32] And so even though they may be a standalone 501, C3,

[58:35] they still are connected to a larger or non-profit.

[58:39] And so this would help make it a little bit more streamlined.

[58:42] Staff wouldn't have to do a certain level of digging

[58:45] and finding if there is a necessary between one group

[58:48] to another.

[58:49] And so really, if that's removed,

[58:51] it would just be a specific non-profit

[58:54] cancement to applications to the city.

[58:57] So, this would help make it a little bit easier as we're receiving these applications and then as we're advancing them on to the lottery process, so long as they meet all the other qualifications that are listed.

[59:09] Okay, and then in regards to either allowing them to have it for two years or not or the next year whoever got it, doesn't get it again, is that a suggestion that came from the non-profits or the wholesale?

[59:23] That came from a nonprofit, because this was the first year, I think they were rallying

[59:29] to get different volunteers, kind of figure all this out.

[59:32] So that first year for any nonprofit, it's going to be a learning curve, and then they

[59:37] will go through that year, and then they'll have everything lined up for a second year.

[59:41] They do it out there as an option that they wanted the city to consider.

[59:46] That's why it's before the council tonight.

[59:49] I believe one of the council members brought previous to this is back in May, the option of a qualified organization if they receive a permit after going to the lottery process.

[1:00:00] That's that they would be removed for one year, just to ensure that they don't get it for a second year and that you're kind of providing a more equal playing field.

[1:00:10] And so, those ones, I mean, if the council would like, we can take both of those or one or the other or how really council sees fit.

[1:00:19] Okay. All right.

[1:00:22] I was going to ask something else, and I can leave for that, but I'll come back to me. All right. Thank you.

[1:00:27] For a go-to-to-consumer to meet you, I'm going to suggest probably to simplify this

[1:00:34] is that we go item by item and vote on each one individually, because I think trying to get

[1:00:44] to a resolution that includes everything might be a little more difficult, so that was

[1:00:51] my thought.

[1:00:52] Mr. Mayor, if I may?

[1:00:53] Tonight's item staff is only asking for direction tonight, so legally speaking, the motions are not technically required.

[1:01:01] However, my recommendation would be, since the former resolution will come back incorporating your direction tonight,

[1:01:07] the council will have an opportunity to vote on it at a separate time.

[1:01:11] For the sake of the conversation, my recommendation would be, if you go item by item and the direction is clear to staff, then I think they'll be able to take their notes and then go back.

[1:01:21] So if we go 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, that would be my recommendation.

[1:01:25] Thank you.

[1:01:27] Council member Dimitri.

[1:01:28] Thank you, Jack.

[1:01:29] Can you put that slide back up?

[1:01:32] Or, somebody, thanks.

[1:01:35] So starting with the 12 to 8 for the permits.

[1:01:42] So the question that the Councilwoman Gutierrez asked was, was this wholesale driven or from

[1:01:48] the non-profits?

[1:01:49] And I understand there was a sliding scale on some made more than the others, which is kind of expected.

[1:01:55] But in the entire West End of Orange there was one boot that I saw, which was at the block.

[1:02:01] Everything else was a long custom avenue.

[1:02:03] So I'm not really sure specifically towards kind of spreading that out if it wouldn't have generated or had a different outcome.

[1:02:12] Now, that's near their, near their hair, they're there, but it is a learning opportunity on locations and dispersals.

[1:02:22] I understand the, the want to reduce, we're now competition to our neighboring cities to keep that revenue with our nonprofits in orange, rather than,

[1:02:33] I'm going to Garden Grove, Sanana, or Anaheim to purchase,

[1:02:37] safe and sane fireworks.

[1:02:40] So I'm still kind of up in the air on the number of permatees.

[1:02:46] I love the idea of rolling it back to January

[1:02:50] for the lottery process itself.

[1:02:53] I think that does give enough ramp up time.

[1:02:56] Something I think I would be in favor of is every two years.

[1:03:02] is just you permit them you do the lottery once every two years you permit them for two years

[1:03:08] but then after that two years they do have a cool down they have a one-year

[1:03:14] prohibition that they can't reapply everything else I'm good with but that's kind of just

[1:03:21] my thoughts on that and again I would like to see us stay at 12 if it changes I mean it's okay but

[1:03:31] I want to see the opportunities go for as many nonprofits as we can, and I think if we're

[1:03:37] if the whole sailor is able to secure locations with the nonprofits throughout the city,

[1:03:42] rather than on Tuston Avenue, I think we'll see a different outcome, so we'll leave it at

[1:03:47] that.

[1:03:47] Thank you.

[1:03:49] Thank you.

[1:03:51] Let's see who is

[1:03:58] next.

[1:04:00] Thank you.

[1:04:01] Councillor Mervio.

[1:04:03] Yes, Councillor Mervio.

[1:04:04] of Dimitra, kind of looked at this similarly, and also have

[1:04:09] spent many, many, many years being in the

[1:04:11] lotteries for beer booths, for the street fair, and then many, many years listening

[1:04:15] to people bitch about the beer booths at the street fair, I had several questions

[1:04:20] about that reducing after the first year just seems like way too soon to do that,

[1:04:27] that so much more has to do with location and creating a rotation.

[1:04:33] If you know that a certain booth is a high traffic booth, you know, that that's constantly in rotation for people to get to that one.

[1:04:42] And to your point, to some organizations, certain Iran is a good, that's a good number.

[1:04:47] You know, that's, and there are years when that's, you make less than that at the street fair, after working for three days,

[1:04:53] in the burning heat over a fire, I can't even tell you how awful that is.

[1:04:59] So yeah, and sometimes that's just the way it rolls.

[1:05:04] I also, you know, it might be something too that we looked at that maybe you get it for two years

[1:05:09] and then you're out of the rotation for two years because there are just so many variables.

[1:05:13] So I think some of these changes are a little too soon to know and breaking up as Council Member

[1:05:20] Dmitry said maybe locations and more and more about those locations is going to make a huge difference.

[1:05:26] or maybe then we're spreading it around enough that instead of one person getting 80 and one

[1:05:31] person getting 13, maybe everyone makes 25, and that would be fantastic.

[1:05:35] So I just would be really hesitant to cut the number right after the first year.

[1:05:43] Other than that, there was one other thing that was kind of bothering me about this.

[1:05:47] I think you answered it previously with the affiliated groups.

[1:05:52] And for the ones that did less, was that mostly just all the people who were, as Councilman

[1:05:59] Brigadier said, kind of a long-testin?

[1:06:01] It was the highest performing booth.

[1:06:04] Let me check them.

[1:06:05] Location wise.

[1:06:08] Right.

[1:06:08] The door.

[1:06:12] It was a long East Chapman.

[1:06:14] I think it was the shopping center to cross from Selman by the 55th for you.

[1:06:18] Yes, sure.

[1:06:19] I think.

[1:06:19] She's very excited.

[1:06:20] She knew the location.

[1:06:21] Okay.

[1:06:22] Alright.

[1:06:22] Um, are you about that's very interesting to know so are I thank you?

[1:06:28] That's my ability.

[1:06:31] Uh, thank you.

[1:06:31] Can you put this slide back up please?

[1:06:35] I'll just roll through it quickly.

[1:06:37] Uh, so in terms of reducing the maximum, I know one booth actually shut down sort of midway

[1:06:43] because it was performing so poorly, but it was obviously a location thing.

[1:06:48] Um, in terms of the feedback, is this direct feedback you got from, you know, TNT and

[1:06:54] Yeah, so some of it is a, some of it came from both TNT, TNT, really, Phantom, we asked for any feedback, we didn't receive anything.

[1:07:03] One was from non-profit and one was during council discussion and then number five that came just from the experience staff had in trying to process the application.

[1:07:14] Yeah, I think the first year it's going to be tough because everybody was scrambling.

[1:07:22] It wouldn't offend me to move again to 10 from 12 but we'll see how that goes.

[1:07:27] I think number two, I agree with, number three, I actually agree with, I think a two-year permit is good because you have to ramp up and you get to get the volunteers to come and work the shifts.

[1:07:40] I've worked shifts at Villa Park High School in over the years and it's tough to get all of the volunteers together.

[1:07:49] In terms of

[1:07:53] the qualified organizations, yeah, I think that once you get a permit,

[1:07:58] I think you should cycle out and have to sit on the sidelines.

[1:08:01] So I agree with that.

[1:08:03] And then in the last one, I know there was a lot of, we'd receive a lot of feedback from people that are upset that,

[1:08:09] You know, like the high school got the permit because that's in our ordinance.

[1:08:16] So the booster club and the high school can also get a permit.

[1:08:19] I know that would cause a lot of heartache.

[1:08:22] So

[1:08:26] I think it cause a lot of confusion with stack as it's hard.

[1:08:29] It's hard to determine if they're actually affiliated or not or if they're sort of separate.

[1:08:35] And maybe that should be removed because I don't think we're really qualified to make those decisions.

[1:08:40] how just how integrated these 501C3s are.

[1:08:46] So the way this was intended, at least what is presented tonight, is that the high schools

[1:08:50] would continue to receive the permit automatically in any booster club associated with the high school

[1:08:56] would fall under that permit.

[1:08:58] So it's affiliated requirement, really would pertain to anyone outside of the high schools

[1:09:04] that are applying to be a part of the lottery.

[1:09:07] but not necessarily the booster clubs that are associated with eye school.

[1:09:11] Okay, and I know that Richland had declined participating.

[1:09:15] Maybe we could take them out permanently if that's their desire

[1:09:19] because it doesn't sound like they had much interest.

[1:09:23] Maybe they would free up one additional permit.

[1:09:25] All right.

[1:09:27] So, okay, just about to throw it out there.

[1:09:30] All right, that's my comment, thank you.

[1:09:33] So, I have some questions out. We'll start with that one. So, to clarify, there's some more

[1:09:41] days that high schools, let's say Orange High, for all of their groups under them,

[1:09:48] for all of that high school, they would only get one permit.

[1:09:52] Correct. Yeah. The little bit of resolution is written that, let's say, Orange High School

[1:09:56] receive one in and grew up whether it's athletic or booster clouds or any sort of other

[1:10:02] school organization that fall underneath that particular permit. So when it comes to

[1:10:06] number five about removing this prohibition on affiliated non-profit or educational organizations

[1:10:11] that would be for those who are applying to be a part of the lottery.

[1:10:15] Okay, thank you. I personally didn't support having the high schools have a standing permit every

[1:10:26] but the council wants to still go along with that I think that they're going to have to have one

[1:10:32] per high school so that to be fair to the others. I would like to ask the representative

[1:10:39] of TNT to come forward, George.

[1:10:56] The question is, Theresa Wake representing TNT. Thank you for coming.

[1:11:03] So I know initially you said, I think it suggested eight permits to start with that we did 12 as a compromise.

[1:11:14] Can you speak to perhaps maybe what went wrong in terms of several locations or how that might be addressed next year?

[1:11:26] So we can kind of a better feel of what we should do here, and personally I'm thinking maybe pull it back to ten, but I'd love to have your

[1:11:39] Be surprised the size of the city of Orange

[1:11:44] Based upon the size of the city of Orange

[1:11:47] Our folks who do this in many cities had the suggestion they thought that it would be a good number to start with and then decide after the first couple

[1:11:56] if you wanted to adjust up or down.

[1:11:59] You want to not to water down too much,

[1:12:01] the amount of money that the nonprofits could make.

[1:12:04] If you have too many permits,

[1:12:06] great politically, but not so good for the nonprofits

[1:12:08] is everything spread thin.

[1:12:10] But on the other hand, we're starting out with new locations.

[1:12:13] I'd sure which locations work real well

[1:12:15] and others that some do, some don't.

[1:12:17] And so you're going through that experiment process.

[1:12:20] So it might take you a couple years

[1:12:21] to actually figure out that magic number,

[1:12:23] whether it's 12, 10, 8 more or less.

[1:12:28] But that's based on cities your size

[1:12:30] and based on knowledge that our folks

[1:12:32] were pretty good at this.

[1:12:34] We thought the sweet spot would be most like we'd be.

[1:12:37] OK, and is it difficult to find locations?

[1:12:40] OK, let me, let me, if I can just follow up to that.

[1:12:42] As well, good evening.

[1:12:44] Teresa with TNT.

[1:12:45] I know that one of the questions that was posed

[1:12:48] was which one was the lowest performing site.

[1:12:52] you know, everyone's thinking everything's compacted

[1:12:55] in a long-tested avenue, and that's why maybe there was

[1:12:58] some performers.

[1:12:59] Actually, those were the better performers, the ones that were

[1:13:02] out alone that you would think would have been the ones

[1:13:05] that would have taken, you know, a lot of the sales,

[1:13:09] because they were kind of a lone man.

[1:13:12] We're actually the lower performers.

[1:13:14] And so I know that you guys are asking as far as,

[1:13:17] like, well, maybe it's the location.

[1:13:19] Yeah, location has a lot to do with it.

[1:13:21] We talked about the limits that we have placed as far as the sales area and the use area within the city

[1:13:30] But one of the things that Council should take into account is that when we're going out and actually

[1:13:36] vetting the different sites for sales with the non-profits the different selling sites

[1:13:42] One of the things that we as a vendor have to keep in mind and comply with are the restrictions that are placed on that site

[1:13:50] by fire in order for us to be able to make the requirements, the setbacks, the

[1:13:56] clearances.

[1:13:57] And so that does take a lot of the selling sites that, you know, to the general public,

[1:14:03] you see the site you're thinking, oh, that's a really busy shopping center would be a great

[1:14:07] selling site, but maybe that particular site does not meet the necessary requirements

[1:14:12] in order for us to operate under the guidelines that have been set forth.

[1:14:17] So, that's one of the things that's at play as well.

[1:14:21] So, what I'm hearing you say is it's difficult to find good sites?

[1:14:26] Yes, because it's not just like, oh, let's look at that particular shopping center.

[1:14:32] I mean, we have to take into account, you know, the traffic flow.

[1:14:37] We have to be able to meet the requirements that are part of the fire code in order to safely operate on that site.

[1:14:44] So just because there's a lot of shopping centers in other areas, if you don't necessarily meet all the requirements all the time.

[1:14:54] Okay, thank you very very much.

[1:14:57] Maybe sit close by.

[1:15:00] That would be my other questions for you. Thank you. So, yeah, maybe we should not get back to to ten. I would support that. Number two, definitely move up the application process.

[1:15:18] Number three, I'm having some difficulty with if there is the mood of the council to issue

[1:15:26] the permits for two years in a row, then I would want them to sit out for two years and

[1:15:32] I'll fairness to give the others more of an opportunity.

[1:15:40] Let's see, my preference though would be just to open it up every year and if you did get

[1:15:47] for this page set out for one year.

[1:15:50] And then for removing Section E,

[1:15:54] I got several calls on this subject as well.

[1:15:58] And it's hard on staff to determine which organizations

[1:16:03] and applications are, you know, as I said,

[1:16:09] it's a work I'm looking for, anyway,

[1:16:12] that they're affiliated, I guess.

[1:16:14] Like Francis, I got a call from McPherson saying I think maybe they got one, but there was

[1:16:22] a PTA or a booster club at the school that said we're told no, you can't participate

[1:16:28] and they were really put off about that night and I'd get it.

[1:16:33] So I think that that would be a very good move.

[1:16:36] So, anyway, that's all I have input for Cosmoura Biles.

[1:16:44] Well, I'm sorry to say I mostly disagree with all of that.

[1:16:48] So, I just think after the first year dropping down from the 12 to the 8, I understand that that seems like it's a good fix,

[1:16:57] but I just don't think we have enough data based on the short, we've only done it one year.

[1:17:02] I really, and just to reiterate, Jack, the three high schools, or the three permanent permits that we have,

[1:17:09] are Almadina, Olu, and Orange High School, and Richland, but they have declined.

[1:17:15] They declined. So, technically, that could go back into the pool.

[1:17:19] If you, yeah, and that's what we did this past year, Richland has written into the resolution.

[1:17:23] So, if the council would like to have them removed, we could do that.

[1:17:26] Yeah, I would say no. Just in case that ever changes, you never know with that.

[1:17:30] And while I understand the concern about the affiliation,

[1:17:34] this is again something having so many years history

[1:17:37] with the street fair, this comes up all the time

[1:17:39] with the street fair as well, because we have the high schools,

[1:17:44] it's then up, it's beholden upon the high schools themselves

[1:17:47] to one their own wateries, who gets it amongst all their,

[1:17:51] but conceivably, when you look at really heavily populated schools

[1:17:56] like in Albany, not orange, maybe orange high to some extent,

[1:18:00] but certainly a Lou that has seven or eight booster clubs,

[1:18:03] there is a conceivable chance that every single booth

[1:18:06] is somehow affiliated to a booster club with that school.

[1:18:10] And we just can't allow that to happen.

[1:18:12] And it's up to the school to figure out

[1:18:14] how those boosters are fairly treated within them.

[1:18:18] In terms of school to school, for the lesser schools

[1:18:21] that don't have the permanent permits.

[1:18:23] You know, I think the staff doesn't understand that.

[1:18:27] If McPherson comes and they have three different

[1:18:29] organizations within the school that wants to get together, you know, the, sorry, we can't

[1:18:35] do that. You're all affiliated under one, under one school heading. And the other part

[1:18:40] of it is that orange, as we all know who set up here is probably one of the biggest volunteer

[1:18:46] cities at heart with so many organizations. By cutting it back, even if someone doesn't do as

[1:18:52] well as somebody else. And not offering those opportunities, we are really shooting ourselves in

[1:18:57] But, you know, yes, we'd like everybody to do

[1:18:59] excessively well, but, you know, a little good

[1:19:02] goes a long way.

[1:19:04] And I think that some of these things that we're talking about

[1:19:06] can be balanced by location and really looking at some data.

[1:19:10] I understand what you're saying in terms of your constraints.

[1:19:13] But I've just seen it happen so many times

[1:19:16] where when we cut things back,

[1:19:18] so that people are fighting out for these things,

[1:19:20] these permits like the Hunger Games,

[1:19:22] that is 10,000 times worse.

[1:19:24] So I just I think give it another year and see how we go and then we'll have a little bit more data

[1:19:30] So that would be my recommendation on the only other one is the

[1:19:36] Well, it was the room it was the room of section E which I'm saying I don't think it's time for that

[1:19:42] I'm sorry. What was that

[1:19:45] Do not room is actually at this point

[1:19:48] Okay, I've caused very good years

[1:19:51] Thank you

[1:19:53] And reducing the number of permits from 12 to 8 again is going to only really allow for four or possibly five, right, for the other non-profits.

[1:20:07] And again, it's only a first year out. So the reducing I'm not too sold on. I could maybe be persuaded to 10, but I was good at the 12.

[1:20:17] But I will tell you an East Orange, there was none.

[1:20:21] So that's why the chatman wanted so well.

[1:20:24] And I thought you could see it, right?

[1:20:26] I were right, I used to be.

[1:20:27] But there was none on the opposite side.

[1:20:29] I don't know if you can find one at state or brothers

[1:20:31] or over where the international house of pancakes

[1:20:35] at or whatever.

[1:20:37] But there was none there.

[1:20:38] So they had to really go out to seek to find them.

[1:20:43] And so I know you're saying locations in those halls,

[1:20:46] other things to go with locations which thank you for letting us know that but just keep that in

[1:20:52] mind for locations for this next year. Completely happy with moving it back to January because

[1:20:58] that gives them more time. But I'm not sold on giving them two years for that permit. I think every

[1:21:06] year and you put your name for the lottery but if you did get it one year you're out for the one

[1:21:11] so I agree with you in that mayor. But, Jack, again, in that section E, for that removal, I remember

[1:21:20] McPherson, the emails from Ferson, how they were told they needed to be running out of the same booth,

[1:21:27] yet I believe it was the else club and an affiliate of the else club, they were able to put into the lottery

[1:21:34] and they didn't have to be in the same booth, something to that nature or some kind of organization

[1:21:39] was at the blossoms, so that weren't something like that.

[1:21:42] Could you speak to that a little bit?

[1:21:44] And how was that so difficult for you to discern?

[1:21:47] So I think the staff was looking at it.

[1:21:48] They saw that clearly those two nonprofits were falling

[1:21:51] under the umbrella as being a part of McPherson.

[1:21:54] And so it's not only nonprofits, but it's educational institution.

[1:21:58] So it was pretty evident to staff and they initially got

[1:22:00] those applications.

[1:22:01] Oh, these are under the same umbrella.

[1:22:04] If there's one, I believe that one they had to do with the else.

[1:22:07] I don't think that became apparent to staff until after the fact, and I don't believe any of

[1:22:12] those ended up receiving a permit anyway, but I think that's where then staff was

[1:22:17] to have a conversation, do we want to get into this when we're finding out later that they're

[1:22:21] actually affiliated or maybe affiliated with another group?

[1:22:26] Yeah, but that when you found out later, they were able to put themselves in the lottery, right?

[1:22:33] separately, and I believe that was the point of contention that the McPherson people were having

[1:22:38] is that they weren't even being allowed to put themselves in separately.

[1:22:41] They had to go under one where these other ones, it was hard for you to discerning it to find

[1:22:46] out to later.

[1:22:47] Correct.

[1:22:48] Yeah.

[1:22:48] I think we're also making, I remember we were having a conversation that we'll can this non-profit

[1:22:52] stand alone on its own, and that almost became the tipping point of whether or not they

[1:22:56] could be included in the lottery.

[1:22:58] You can't really be a non-profit for a school of the school doesn't exist, so that's

[1:23:02] to kind of use as being the part of the affiliated organization.

[1:23:05] But for the general nonprofits, it was harder for you to use.

[1:23:07] Yeah, because they could potentially

[1:23:08] stand be a stand alone, but not necessarily need to have the orange

[1:23:12] elx in order to exist.

[1:23:14] Is there any way we could change the application

[1:23:16] where that could be reflected that could be easily discerned

[1:23:20] by staff, and that way we could keep section E by any child.

[1:23:23] We have a number of relevant organizations.

[1:23:25] We can ask, yeah, that's one thing that's

[1:23:26] included in the application now.

[1:23:27] We can put in there are what are your affiliated organizations.

[1:23:33] And then if there's any duplicates that come in,

[1:23:36] we can, that would flag us.

[1:23:38] That, okay, either we can offer the opportunity for them to combine

[1:23:41] or they are removed from the process altogether.

[1:23:45] Because I definitely see the unfairness that these affiliates

[1:23:48] or whatever, there's going to be multiple entries.

[1:23:51] And, or McPherson is going to be one, make sense,

[1:23:54] or vice versa now, everybody's going to be in there, right?

[1:23:59] So I'm still having a hard time with it.

[1:24:01] We're moving to Section E, but I understood the difficulty you

[1:24:04] guys were all under it last year and the frustration is also

[1:24:09] of these nonprofits too, of it not being very clear.

[1:24:12] But maybe if we can add that into the application or something,

[1:24:15] I don't know what you all think colleagues, I don't know.

[1:24:19] But those are my thoughts for right now.

[1:24:21] Thank you.

[1:24:22] So I predicted a lot of different opinions, Council Member Tavalaris.

[1:24:27] Thank you, Jack.

[1:24:28] What was the delta from the group that made the most to the group that made the last?

[1:24:32] What are we looking at here?

[1:24:43] Oh, it was about $67,000 difference?

[1:24:47] Oh.

[1:24:48] Okay, that was more than I anticipated.

[1:24:51] So the folks that made the last, did they let you know how they felt about that?

[1:24:58] No, we didn't hear from them.

[1:25:00] I think most of the communication with the non-profits

[1:25:02] was either with the fire department or the whole cell

[1:25:05] or the whole thing.

[1:25:05] OK, that's the end of my question.

[1:25:07] Thank you.

[1:25:10] All right.

[1:25:12] So again, this will just be advisory.

[1:25:15] This is not and stone.

[1:25:17] But I think we should go through each item one by one

[1:25:21] and give staff some clear direction

[1:25:24] on where we're heading.

[1:25:26] So starting with the recommendation to reduce the number

[1:25:43] I think they're going to leave it blank and we're going to actually vote on the issue when they bring the ordinance forward.

[1:25:50] Yes, so if I may, right, we received election tonight. It sounds like there's consensus at least to keep it to 12.

[1:25:57] So when we bring a resolution forward, I believe at the next city council meeting, December 9th, it will reflect 12, no change air.

[1:26:06] It sounds like there's consensus to move the timeline earlier as well, point number two.

[1:26:12] It sounds like we don't have clear direction or consensus for point number three, right, a two year rule or a skip year rule.

[1:26:21] So what I propose doing there would be drafting resolution and let me see what each language might look like, right?

[1:26:30] So as we're proposing this, you can read what it exists today and maybe an option to.

[1:26:37] With that, I've heard skip one year skip two years.

[1:26:41] That's an easy change at the next meeting.

[1:26:45] And then to me, based on discussion tonight, it doesn't really seem like there's consensus to remove section E.

[1:26:51] the affiliated organization, but it's a very valid point.

[1:26:55] We can do is amend the application.

[1:26:57] Are you part of a high school, or are you part of a parent organization?

[1:27:01] So I think that one is easy administrative fix on our end.

[1:27:06] Summarize, I'll bring the resolution back at the December 9th meeting,

[1:27:10] keeping it at 12, moving the timeline earlier.

[1:27:14] So the decision, I guess, for council next meeting,

[1:27:17] would be more focused around bullet point number three.

[1:27:20] You want to sit a year, sit two years, or have a two year permit, but we'll propose language for counted to consider at that time

[1:27:26] I think we've received enough direction tonight to to move the item along

[1:27:31] All right. Well, thank you. That sounds like a good summary. I appreciate that and the other council discussion and questions

[1:27:43] all right

[1:27:44] then

[1:27:49] see

[1:27:51] legal affairs

[1:27:52] Item 10, 10.1 introduction, 1st reading of ordinance number 19-25,

[1:28:00] amending chapter 2.10, title 2 of the Arts of Municipal Code,

[1:28:04] related to controlled committee contributions, as well as the process

[1:28:09] to incorporate amendments and additional requirements to chapter 2.10.

[1:28:15] There was a hot file distributed on this item,

[1:28:19] Would anyone like a staff report I think the questions of staff and the update from the city attorney on the hot file for public

[1:28:28] Knowledge again since this is dealing with transparency

[1:28:32] Okay

[1:28:34] Again any questions of staff

[1:28:38] Councilman to meet you. Thank you for your question and the hot file

[1:28:43] Upon further review aligns with the city status as a general law city

[1:28:47] We operate under state law and we don't have the same flexibility as a charter city to submit future amendments to voters.

[1:28:53] So that is the distinction as a technical legal clarification.

[1:28:57] The new language maintains the ordinances intent by allowing the council to make future amendments by ordinance.

[1:29:06] Right. Well, council.

[1:29:07] Mayor.

[1:29:07] Do you agree?

[1:29:08] Yeah.

[1:29:09] Thank you.

[1:29:11] Yes. Thank you.

[1:29:12] Can I go in?

[1:29:12] Please.

[1:29:13] Fantastic.

[1:29:14] So this is something I asked our last council meeting to work with the city attorney about.

[1:29:20] with re-institution of prohibition and thank you to Councilwoman Barrios for also stepping

[1:29:29] forward to review language and to also give input to the city attorney, it comes back

[1:29:35] down to this item really goes into making sure that when you have campaigns here in the

[1:29:44] city for transparency, preventing corruption and really keep the public informed potentially

[1:29:54] of who's trying to influence Council via the contributions.

[1:30:00] And by re-instituting. And again, I think all our policies, all our ordinances, should always be revisited at some point. And changes are okay. They don't have to be, they don't have to be drug through mud or upset or tantrums or what have you changes happen. So, I've been on the phone number of times this week, over the last two weeks, actually, with the FPPC, getting some guidance, making sure that everything

[1:30:29] is correct. I've talked with the State Attorney General's office as well. And he, they walked

[1:30:38] me through some of the schemes that are run that prohibit transfers to take place, specifically

[1:30:46] things that call out in California, Dakota Regulations Title II, 18536. But a prohibition

[1:30:54] towards transfers from one committee campaign to another is

[1:31:00] constitutionally sound and defensible.

[1:31:04] Since specifically, it is narrow, and I'm going to read it

[1:31:09] just as they gave it to me.

[1:31:12] It is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling and substantial

[1:31:16] governmental interest.

[1:31:18] And in this case, it is preventing the circumvention of

[1:31:21] of contribution limits and transparency to the public as a whole.

[1:31:28] It is not overly broad and does not chill protected free speech.

[1:31:35] So as with that, this ordinance does just that.

[1:31:42] And I have a long drawn out thing, but basically,

[1:31:45] be everybody is on board, basically it's states that it's just fine to do.

[1:31:53] The question may come up of other cities, just a handful quickly, that also have now taken

[1:32:00] action and have this.

[1:32:01] The city of Santa Clara in chapter 2.1030 has this same language, the city of Sacramento

[1:32:10] under chapter 2, 13, 070 as the same language, the city of Anaheim has similar language,

[1:32:19] but basically the same thing. The city of Highton Beach, in their section 2, 070, 090,

[1:32:28] actually is stronger than our proposed language, and Laguna Beach also has stronger language in

[1:32:37] their ordinance 1.14032A. And of course, the county of orange also has, we have the

[1:32:47] exactly, basically the exact same language. So with that, I know we have some public speakers

[1:32:52] and I have a very long drawn out arguments, but I'll leave it at that. And just ask for a

[1:33:03] folks know who's participating and we're not circumventing contribution limits and our campaigns

[1:33:10] are completely transparent to the public.

[1:33:13] Thank you, Councillor Mayer, to make sure we do have three speakers but are there any other

[1:33:17] council questions or comments before we do that?

[1:33:21] All right, first speaker is Shirley Grendel followed by Sharon Gelloso.

[1:33:33] We're back again.

[1:33:37] You guys probably don't remember that back in June of 2022, the Orange County Register

[1:33:45] published a survey of the 34 cities in Orange County campaign finance laws.

[1:33:54] You might be surprised to know that the city of Orange was one of seven cities that got

[1:34:00] a great, just want to remind you in case you didn't remember that.

[1:34:07] What you did last year was to consider what you needed the orange ordinance because you

[1:34:14] provided a new poll to evade the contribution amendment and it also allowed other elected

[1:34:22] officials from other jurisdictions to unfairly influence orange elections. Furthermore, you guys

[1:34:32] really have a financial conflict of interest when it comes to the campaign, because you're

[1:34:39] the ones that really benefit, because you get the contributions, the general public doesn't.

[1:34:46] So,

[1:34:50] it's made it difficult for you to make clear decisions because you do have such a financial

[1:35:01] conflict.

[1:35:02] So, the way around this is to take that out of your hands, just like in the Orange County

[1:35:09] ordinance, only the voters can repeal or weaken the campaign wall. So the change you

[1:35:18] made last year regarding enter candidate transfers is being reconsidered tonight thanks to

[1:35:27] the council and the nature who found out first time the devastating results of permitting

[1:35:35] inter-Canada transfers. I commend you, John, for having the integrity to write this wrong.

[1:35:44] I thank you very much for bringing this back to the council for reconsideration.

[1:35:52] I hope all of you will support the recommended changes. I'm embarrassed and the shame of those of you

[1:36:02] made this last year. It was the wrong thing to do tonight. You have the right to

[1:36:10] correct that. Thank you.

[1:36:13] Thank you.

[1:36:13] You're surely a paper article.

[1:36:15] I'm sorry. What was that?

[1:36:18] What?

[1:36:18] I'm sorry. What did you say?

[1:36:19] She was showing you the register article.

[1:36:21] Oh, good. Okay. Thank you.

[1:36:25] Sharing the last so.

[1:36:27] And then next is Regimenicus.

[1:36:30] Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

[1:36:33] Last year, this council week did our campaign finance

[1:36:36] ordinance by creating a loophole that allowed campaign

[1:36:39] contributions to be passed between candidate committees.

[1:36:43] That change opened the door to what's essentially

[1:36:46] money laundering and it needs to be fixed.

[1:36:50] By banning inter candidate transfers, we restore fairness,

[1:36:55] transparency, and integrity to our election.

[1:36:58] Here's why the current step is harmful.

[1:37:01] First, it gives elected officials and candidates unfair advantage.

[1:37:06] They can now donate not only personally, but also through their campaign committees,

[1:37:11] effectively, effectively doubling their influence in ways ordinary residents can't.

[1:37:17] Second, it undermines donor intent, voters who contribute to one candidate may unknowingly

[1:37:23] have their money redirected to support someone they don't agree with.

[1:37:26] And third, it invites abuse.

[1:37:29] Legal experts, including the Alaska Supreme Court

[1:37:32] and two attorney general opinions, have already

[1:37:35] ruled that similar systems are unconstitutional

[1:37:38] because they enable contribution laundering.

[1:37:44] As city manager, Jared Hillbren, has said,

[1:37:47] our city should prioritize responsiveness,

[1:37:50] transparency, and long-term sustainability.

[1:37:52] This loophole undermines all three.

[1:37:54] To fix that, I'm asking the Council to take two steps by voting one to restore the original language of Section 2.101.090A in reinstating the ban on contributions from other candidates, controlled committees, and number two to add voter protection and Section 2.10.040BNC, allowing only technical changes by the Council and requiring voter approval for future amendments that we can arm our ordinance.

[1:38:24] I urge you to vote yes on these amendments and do the right thing for our community, restore integrity,

[1:38:30] close the little Paul, and give the power back to the voters. Thank you.

[1:38:34] Thank you, Sharon, Regimandicus.

[1:38:44] I am Regimandicus. I believe I was at the meeting when this item was changed and the argument

[1:38:50] was that it had to be changed to allow contributions between committees because it was better

[1:38:54] of the first amendment and that when you did that, you were respecting the first amendment.

[1:38:59] So, it struck me with great curiosity, why we're putting it back and saying you can't give money

[1:39:06] between candidate committees.

[1:39:10] I don't have a problem with getting money between candidate committees.

[1:39:14] Many people do it.

[1:39:15] Some people don't.

[1:39:17] What happens in, I've seen in many cases, you have a candidate who decides, I've done

[1:39:25] running for office and then they divide up their campaign account among various people running

[1:39:31] for office or they give part of it to charity or some of the other ways that you're allowed

[1:39:37] to clear out a campaign account. And regarding transparency, we do have transparency. It's

[1:39:43] called read the campaign reports. I don't know how many times I've had people come running to me

[1:39:48] and saying, oh, did you know about this? You don't know about that? I go, yeah, did you? We did

[1:39:51] the campaign report when it came out, and I really don't understand why people think that

[1:40:01] you can tell the voter can put in a clause saying that the voter only the voters can

[1:40:05] change this ordinance when it was an ordinance passed by the City Council. I don't know

[1:40:10] why that got into our staff into this ordinance, because that's not the way it worked, and

[1:40:16] that's not the way it ever works. The ordinances enacted by the City Council could be changed

[1:40:20] by the city council.

[1:40:23] If you limit change by the voters,

[1:40:24] half of the pass by the voters in the first place.

[1:40:27] So I do not support this item.

[1:40:30] I am having a hope on just what's fine campaign finance laws,

[1:40:37] back and forth on the whims of people to bang on,

[1:40:39] who talked to them last time and I'm really questioning

[1:40:44] why this is even being brought up.

[1:40:47] Thank you.

[1:40:49] Thank you, Reggie.

[1:40:50] I'm going to bring it back to Council for further discussion and vote.

[1:40:55] Then when we do have a motion on the Florida Prove by Councilmember Dimitri and a second

[1:40:59] by Councilmember Orios and to continue discussion, Councilmember Bilito.

[1:41:06] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:41:07] I did want to hear from the public first and I'll speak up.

[1:41:12] First of all, I wanted to say Ms. Grindel, you know that you and I have been a

[1:41:18] According to this, for about 30 years, and you know I have the utmost respect for you as this has been your passion throughout your life and you did a tremendous job in cleaning up corruption at the county of Orange by getting a tin cup adopted.

[1:41:35] It's just like in May of 2024, I can't support putting this back in our municipal code.

[1:41:44] And it's because I believe that it would not withstand judicial scrutiny.

[1:41:49] I believe it is an overreach.

[1:41:53] And I know that the Supreme Court has ruled consistently that spending money to communicate political messages

[1:41:59] is a former protected speech into the first amendment to the Constitution, and it all goes

[1:42:05] back to a landmark case in 1976, Buckley vs. Baleo, because the government had overreached

[1:42:14] in restricting the expenditure of money on campaigns. And I believe that what will happen

[1:42:22] And if we enact this, is it a result of an anti-transparency?

[1:42:28] Currently, the council has made it so that for all campaign accounts, everything is online

[1:42:35] now.

[1:42:35] You can go right on the city website and you can see what activities taking place.

[1:42:40] I don't think everybody's the dime since I got elected three years ago and I hate raising

[1:42:44] money.

[1:42:45] Having to ask people to support you and give right a check, it's not fun.

[1:42:50] And I don't want to create barriers for people of limited means to run for these offices.

[1:43:00] And I think if another candidate wants to support me or another candidate,

[1:43:05] that they should be able to write a check, and it's limited by our campaign finance ordinance.

[1:43:10] The Supreme Court has said that you cannot limit, that you can limit campaign contributions

[1:43:19] to a certain extent to avoid any corruption, and that's what we've done here.

[1:43:25] And the reality of the situation is that let's say candidate A wants to support candidate

[1:43:32] B, but candidate A is not a wealthy person, but they have a campaign account and they want

[1:43:38] have a hundred bucks to candidate be. This ordinance would prohibit that, but there's several

[1:43:47] legal workarounds which are anti-transparent. They can give it to a political party. They

[1:43:52] can give it to a pack which is of a political organization. And then that entity can support

[1:43:57] that candidate. And then there's no transparency whatsoever because nobody knows who gave money

[1:44:03] And that's the point, is I think that we need to have more frequently reporting of campaign

[1:44:13] contributions right now.

[1:44:15] It's only every six months.

[1:44:17] I was certainly support that.

[1:44:20] But I think that the most transparent way to handle this is to have everything report online,

[1:44:26] which we already do.

[1:44:27] And so that way everybody knows who's supporting you.

[1:44:30] And the other thing I'll say is that back in 1974, the voters of California voted to create

[1:44:39] the Fair Political Praxis Act in the Fair Political Praxis Commission.

[1:44:43] And since that time, the Commission has enacted many, many, many rules, and that is

[1:44:50] morph into a 320-page manual, the local candidate manual, that is 12 chapters.

[1:44:56] If you want one for political lovers, you better read that book.

[1:45:00] Look, because you're going to be in a lot of trouble. You're going to be sitting in a, before a hearing officer in Sacramento,

[1:45:09] levied with fines. And I just think those already exist.

[1:45:17] And I've read that book many times. Thanks to Ms. Grindel actually. I've actually read it a few times.

[1:45:23] And it debated on a few of the finer points, but I don't think that creating a situation

[1:45:33] where a candidate has to hire a lawyer, just to run for political office, to make sure

[1:45:39] they don't run a foul of a law.

[1:45:41] I don't think that's right, and that's what we're creating here because there are hundreds

[1:45:47] of laws that you have to abide by, and this is just one more that I don't think is necessary

[1:45:57] because I don't think that there's any corruption that's been identified.

[1:46:01] I haven't even seen this type of contribution take place, but I think it's a solution

[1:46:08] looking for a problem, and I'll stop right there, thank you.

[1:46:14] Thank you, Mayor Protem, Council Mayor Dimitru.

[1:46:18] Thank you.

[1:46:19] And I appreciate your passion for your point of view.

[1:46:24] I will respectfully disagree.

[1:46:26] I do think, first, again, it doesn't dilute or chill free speech at all.

[1:46:32] It's bookkeeping.

[1:46:34] And I think it's important, again, while we talk about transparency.

[1:46:38] Yeah, you can go online and look.

[1:46:39] But if candidate, as you said, candidate A is running, and receives a max out contribution from a donor.

[1:46:50] And then that donor donates to another council member or a three or four or five.

[1:46:56] And then that money is funneled. You've now violated our campaign contributions.

[1:47:01] You certainly ended the system. And that's the idea is really it's preventing that.

[1:47:05] I don't want to see undue influence.

[1:47:08] I don't want to see people diving into corruption by circumventing that.

[1:47:14] It needs to be transparent.

[1:47:16] And yes, they are online.

[1:47:18] It is hard sometimes to look into figure out who's contributing to who I get that.

[1:47:26] Tour, miscommunicists, just something and miscalacill, the city attorney brought up just

[1:47:33] So you know, voting by the public is not going to occur.

[1:47:37] It is a counsel thing that was removed because I wanted that, but apparently that is

[1:47:43] not allowed or should not be allowed so that was actually removed in order to be more correct.

[1:47:51] But when you talk about Mayor Protem when you brought up that, you know, you're belief in

[1:47:57] it is 100 percent, you know, the first amendment, we violate the first amendment

[1:48:03] by having, you know, in theory, a registry for lobbyists, you're telling people in order to

[1:48:10] talk to the council to lobby on an item which is fundamental to the United States. Every item

[1:48:17] has always been lobbied at some level that you have to pay money to the city and be on

[1:48:22] a register. Wouldn't that also, for the sake of discussion, would that violate the First Amendment?

[1:48:28] I think it might. I've voted against it. Well, there we go. So again, I'll I'll in my conversation at that, but I do appreciate your point and like I said after witnessing

[1:48:41] in another race that this exact scenario occurring where you had a candidate running and then watching

[1:48:50] multiple council members receive $482 and then $482 being transferred from each one of those

[1:48:59] elected into that other candidates thing. It raised the exact reason why we need to put

[1:49:07] this back into place and I know that it's disheartening and I appreciate those that went forward

[1:49:13] last, but for me, I revisited it and I wanted to make the change and so it's before us now.

[1:49:21] Thank you, Councillor Dmitri, Council Member Barrios.

[1:49:26] Yes, we made voted on this previously.

[1:49:29] I was for it at the time, so and I was against it when we voted to change these rules.

[1:49:35] and I actually take great on bridge with, you know, the comments that Councilmember Bilodo brought

[1:49:42] forward because I look at it exactly the opposite. If you are a true blue grass roots, you know,

[1:49:50] just something just ticked you off and you decided to run for council that this ordinance as it is

[1:49:56] written now actually helps you because then you don't have people who are part of the insider game,

[1:50:02] of tons of connections who can easily go and you do see this all the time at the state level

[1:50:08] and at the congressional level of people transferring in and out of campaign committees that

[1:50:13] already exist. There's nothing wrong with that. But what we're saying is orange is that we would

[1:50:18] like to see it be a lot more transparent that if you're knocking on doors and asking for money

[1:50:23] and you're getting people behind you that we know exactly who they are and that they're from,

[1:50:29] hopefully from here maybe they're from other places I mean I have relatives who donate from outside of the area and that's going to happen too

[1:50:36] but I think it's actually a much more fair playing field for the for the person who's trying to run for the very first time or does not have all of that long history in terms of politics

[1:50:48] So I think it is a much more fair thing and personally since I never got an A plus in high school

[1:50:52] Can we can attest to that? I am very excited to get back to my A-plus with Register in terms of how the City of Orange looks on our campaign campaign

[1:51:00] Fineprint. This is where we were before and this is what we agreed to before.

[1:51:05] I was really disappointed when we changed it last year.

[1:51:09] And so I was working with Councilmember Dmitry.

[1:51:13] I really wanted to see it go back to where it was before.

[1:51:16] And so that is why I'm supporting this consistent with my previous vote on the item.

[1:51:21] Thank you, Council Mayor Barrios, Council Member Tavaleros.

[1:51:24] Thank you.

[1:51:26] I hate going back to anything, backward on anything.

[1:51:29] And I think orange is really bad at that.

[1:51:31] But I think this is politically motivated and disingenuous.

[1:51:36] I really don't care what one or the other, whether we take it or not.

[1:51:38] If you look at 2024, none of the candidates running took any campaign committee money from any other campaign.

[1:51:44] So there's an example for you.

[1:51:46] I think we're going a little bit too far on this, but I can see where the votes are.

[1:51:53] But as Mayor Pro Tem said, I think we are creating a solution for something that is not

[1:51:58] a problem.

[1:52:01] That's for all of it.

[1:52:03] Thank you.

[1:52:03] Council Member Teller.

[1:52:04] I would like to ask how many meetings were held by the ad hoc committee.

[1:52:10] I submitted my paperwork ideas to the city attorney and to Councilwoman Barrios.

[1:52:18] She sent her information to the city attorney, and then the information was sent back out to confirm it, and that's where we ended up.

[1:52:28] That is correct.

[1:52:29] And may I ask who wrote the ordinance?

[1:52:31] We are nothing.

[1:52:33] I hope we see if they draft from councilmember Dimitriu.

[1:52:39] Hence the reason why she's removed part of it with that I liked, but because it didn't follow it, follow within what could be allowed.

[1:52:49] Thank you.

[1:52:50] Thank you.

[1:52:51] Council Member Gutierrez.

[1:52:52] Mr. Mayor, if I might just answer to the question too, I did speak with Ms. Grindel about

[1:52:58] the original language we had in before, just to be transparent about that.

[1:53:03] And that this adhered to that original information that we'd had before prior.

[1:53:10] So I just want to be open about that.

[1:53:12] Council Member Tvelars, I also met with Ms. Grindel regarding the content of the draft order.

[1:53:21] Everybody's clear, Council Mayor of Gautjira's.

[1:53:24] Thank you.

[1:53:25] I'm happy to see this come back because at our previous time we had this in front of us.

[1:53:32] I bowed no, so I'm very happy that this is back.

[1:53:35] to your point, Mayor Pro Tem about a person that is not savvy who doesn't have enough money.

[1:53:44] I'm the perfect example. When I first ran, I had no knowledge. I didn't have anybody

[1:53:51] that could contribute to me. It was all family and friends $25.50. I raised $8,000 and here I

[1:53:59] perfect example of why we did not need to approve this when we did. And so I'm happy to see

[1:54:06] this back. So thank you. Alright. Press the power of grassroots campaign.

[1:54:18] Okay.

[1:54:21] We flush this out.

[1:54:22] And if I believe any last questions, suggestions, comments,

[1:54:28] see none, the motion is to,

[1:54:31] upside you are required to read the ordinance.

[1:54:36] So I brought my specs.

[1:54:38] Council Member Dimitru, can you also please

[1:54:40] submit the specified which version of the ordinance draft?

[1:54:45] Thank you.

[1:54:47] Sure, it's a 10.1, it's an introduction

[1:54:49] in 1st reading of ordinance number 19-25, a Mending Chapter 2.1022 of the Orange Municipal Code

[1:54:58] relating to controlled committee contributions, the hot file version provided by the city attorney.

[1:55:07] Good enough.

[1:55:10] All right. Well, we have a motion for Councilor Mayor Dimitris,

[1:55:13] saying from Councilor Barrios. I just wanted to thank Council members, Dimitri and Barrios,

[1:55:17] for stepping up and offering help as a subcommittee

[1:55:23] to bring this back.

[1:55:25] So thank you, please vote.

[1:55:35] There's a approved four to two with Mayor Pro Tempillado

[1:55:39] and Council Member Tauveleris voting no

[1:55:41] and one absence, motions approved.

[1:55:46] The next regular city council meeting

[1:55:48] will be held on Tuesday, November 25th, 2025.

[1:55:53] Wait a minute, are we having the next meeting

[1:55:55] is actually December 9th, correct?

[1:56:00] Next to me, we'll be next regular City Council

[1:56:02] may will be held on Tuesday, December 9th, 2025

[1:56:07] at 6 p.m. in the Council chamber,

[1:56:10] with closed session beginning at 5 p.m.

[1:56:13] This meeting is now adjourned.

[1:56:16] Happy Thanksgiving.

Orange City Council

Agenda

Transcript